Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Brian Walshe Found Guilty of Murder; Officials Announce Arrests in Alleged Bomb Plot; Rise of Antisemitism. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired December 15, 2025 - 11:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:32:33]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Happening now: heightened security at synagogues around the world after that mass shooting at a Hanukkah event in Sydney, Australia, that killed 15 people.

There was also increased security here in Washington last night for the lighting of the National Menorah on the Ellipse right outside of the White House. The rabbi who led that event said his great nephew was among the dozens injured in Sydney.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And, in Israel, the Knesset, the Parliament there was lit in the colors of the Australian flag. It was a sign of solidarity with the Jewish community in Australia.

And this weekend's mass shooting in Australia put new emphasis on rising antisemitism in that country and also right here in the United States.

BLITZER: The Anti-Defamation League says more than half of American Jews now say they have experienced antisemitism in the past year alone; 18 percent say they have been the victim of assaults or threats because of their Jewish identity. And half say they're worried about their personal safety.

BROWN: Joining us now is Ted Deutch. He is a former Democratic congressman from Florida and is now CEO of the American Jewish Committee.

Thank you for joining us.

First of all, I just want to get your reaction to this horrific attack that took place in Australia.

FMR. REP. TED DEUTCH (D-FL): It was an awful, awful day for the Jews of Australia, for the country of Australia, and for the global Jewish community.

This is another attack in a series of ongoing, murderous attacks against the Jewish community because we are Jews. And, as a community, all of us feel it. All of us feel connected to the Jews in Australia. We're such a small community around the world, when something like this happens, it makes all of us hurt. That's what we're dealing with today.

But we're also coming through this with greater resolve, greater resolve to stand up to make sure that changes are made, greater resolve to be proud Jews.

BLITZER: As you heard those latest statistics coming from the ADL about how nervous Jews in the United States are right now about their security.

DEUTCH: Yes.

Wolf, statistics are important, but every statistic comes from a real person. It's people who are making decisions about where they go or what they wear or how they speak or what they post online thinking to themselves whether perhaps they shouldn't identify themselves as Jews because it will put them at risk.

That's the moment that we're in. That's what we have to come together to fight against.

BROWN: And after this weekend's mass shooting in Australia, are you worried about the potential for more violence against Jewish Americans, especially during Hanukkah right now?

[11:35:09]

DEUTCH: Look, the attacks in Bondi Beach were at a Hanukkah menorah lighting. The attacks in Manchester were at Yom Kippur. The attacks in Colorado, the murders in Colorado, that was an attack against people supporting the release of the hostages in Gaza.

And at our own event, AJC's event in Washington, D.C., last May, that was just another attack against us because we're Jews. We're always worried about that. That's the problem that we face, is that we just -- in too many ways, our society has said, it's somehow acceptable. This is just normal.

We need to provide more security, but these things will happen to this community. We're a small community, 16 million people in the world. If two billion of the two billion Christians, the two billion Muslims, the billion Hindus, if we saw ongoing attacks, murderous attacks, there'd be outrage.

We don't want more outrage. We don't want anything more than anyone else. We just want everyone to stand up and say, this can no longer be tolerated.

BLITZER: And that Tree of Life Synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh occurred on Shabbat on a Saturday morning as services were just getting under way.

DEUTCH: Right.

And no one -- and that's the point, right? Nobody in America, no one in the world should feel afraid coming together as a community, as Jews. We're going to go -- on a Saturday morning or Friday night, we're going to go to synagogue, and we're going to go through a checkpoint. Then we're going to go through a metal detector, and there are going to be armed guards, depending on where you are in the country.

On Sunday morning, the next day, people are free to go to church everywhere with the doors wide open. That's all we want. Just leave the Jewish community alone, and let's come together as a country, as a nation, as a world, and say the Jews don't deserve to be targeted. There's a history of antisemitism.

We all have a stake in stopping it.

BLITZER: So what can we do about this?

DEUTCH: Well, first of all, we can demand action.

In Australia -- and we were in Australia in September. We said in Australia, as we have said here in Washington and as we have said around the country, that what we saw happening, the kind of language, the dangerous language and rhetoric that we have seen in the streets could and would lead to violence and deadly violence.

And we told the Australians that. And then this happened. We have to speak out against the kind of language that puts Jews at risk. We have to have -- we have to adopt policies that recognize that fighting antisemitism needs to be a priority. And we have to do more to make sure that, on social media, what would never be tolerated on Main Street isn't tolerated online, the kind of language, the kind of calls for violence that put Jews at risk, and that lead to the kinds of atrocities like we just saw in Bondi Beach.

BLITZER: Yes, it's a horrible situation indeed.

BROWN: Yes.

Ted Deutch, thank you so much for coming on. Really important message.

We will be right back.

DEUTCH: Thank you for having me. Thanks.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: All right, want to go to Los Angeles right now. An FBI news conference has just begun detailing an alleged failed terror plot for this coming New Year's Eve. Let's listen in.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

BILL ESSAYLI, FIRST ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY: ... of California.

Over the weekend, my office, along with the FBI, arrested members of a far left anti-government domestic terror cell who self-identify as the Turtle Island Liberation Front.

The individuals were arrested on Friday, December 12, when the group attempted to construct and detonate IEDs out in the desert. In addition to the arrests, we executed several search warrants throughout the nation.

I want to thank our partners at the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of Louisiana, U.S. attorney Zach Keller, and the U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts Leah Foley for providing valuable assistance over the weekend with a very complex and coordinated search warrants that were done.

[11:40:00]

The charges we are announcing today stem from the defendants and their co-conspirators' detailed, coordinated plot to bomb multiple U.S. companies on New Year's Eve. Thankfully, that plot has now been foiled, thanks to the hard work of the FBI and the Department of Justice.

This investigation was initiated in part due to the September 2025 executive order signed by President Trump to root out left-wing domestic terror organizations in our country, such as Antifa and other radical groups like the Turtle Island Liberation Front.

As the president made clear, recent attacks across the country have highlighted the grave threats posed by these far left domestic terror groups. These threats are sophisticated, organized campaigns of targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, and direct policy outcomes and prevent the proper functioning of a democratic society.

In direct response to the president's order, the attorney general issued a memo to our offices implementing and mobilizing federal law enforcement to prioritize counter-domestic terrorism and political violence investigations. As a result of those directives, we built this case.

Both my office and the FBI have invested substantial resources into investigating and charging these organizations. And if anyone does not believe that members of these groups are organized, sophisticated, and extremely violent, let me tell you about the plot in this case.

The four defendants are Audrey Carroll, 30 years old. The pictures, I think we have them somewhere. We will put them up here. Audrey Carroll, 30 years old, Zachary Aaron Page, 32, Dante Gaffield, 24, and Tina Lai, 41. Each from the Los Angeles area.

Each is charged with conspiracy and possession of an unregistered destructive device, in violation of Title 26, United States Code Section 5861D. We intend to file additional charges in the coming weeks as we finish reviewing the evidence.

The defendants are all radical anti-government members of the Turtle Island Liberation Front, which, according to their own social media, is an anti-capitalist, anti-government movement that calls for their associates to rise up and fight back against capitalism.

One of the leaders of the organization, defendant Audrey Carroll, helped organize an even more radical faction of the group called the Order of the Black Lotus. Each of the defendants charged today was also a member of the Order of the Black Lotus.

Carroll described this group to her co-conspirators as everything radical. As detailed in the federal complaint, which we will now make public, in November 2025, defendant Carroll created a detailed bombing plot to use explosive devices to attack five or more locations across Southern California on this upcoming New Year's Eve.

Carroll and her co-defendant, Zachary Page, led the effort to obtain and build the bombs and to recruit others to join in their plot. Carroll's bomb plot was explicit. It included step-by-step instructions to build IEDs or improvised explosive devices and listed multiple targets across Orange County and Los Angeles.

Carroll also made clear her desires. She said -- quote -- "What we are doing will be considered a terrorist act." Carroll and Page also discussed plans for follow-up attacks after their bombings, which included plans...

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BROWN: Breaking news just into CNN: The jury has reached a verdict in the Brian Walshe murder trial. He has been charged with first-degree murder of his wife, Ana.

Let's listen in.

JUDGE DIANE FRENIERE, NORFOLK COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: ... reached a unanimous verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have.

FRENIERE: Thank you, sir. If you could hand that to the court officer, please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, may the verdict be recorded?

FRENIERE: It may.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Foreperson, in the matter of the Commonwealth v. Brian Walshe, Norfolk Superior Court Criminal Indictment No. 2023- 0091, as to count one, wherein the defendant, Brian Walshe, is charged with murder in the first degree, what say the jury? Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

[11:45:05]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Guilty of what, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Murder in the first degree. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Murder in the first degree.

So say you, Mr. Foreperson?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do.

Guilty of murder in the first degree. So say all deliberating jurors.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. If you could hand that back to the court office, please.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this time, we would move to poll the jurors.

FRENIERE: The jury may be polled.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

Juror number one, juror in seat number one, as to the verdict of murder in the first degree, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror number two, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror number three, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror number four, as to the charge of murder in the first degree, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. Foreperson, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror in seat number eight, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror in seat number nine, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror in seat number ten, is that your verdict? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror in seat number thirteen...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Juror in seat number fourteen, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And last juror, is that your verdict?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Your Honor, all jurors answer affirmatively that the guilty in first degree is their verdict.

FRENIERE: The verdict may be recorded.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

FRENIERE: Please be seated.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please be seated.

FRENIERE: So, jurors, I want to thank you for your service on this case.

BLITZER: All right so there you have it, guilty, murder in the first degree. You heard the unanimous decision of the jury there.

Jean Casarez has been covering the story for us from the very beginning.

Give us your reaction, Jean.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Brian Walshe is now having to comprehend that he has been convicted of first-degree premeditated murder.

So he will be sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole. Now, the elements to first-degree premeditated murder in Massachusetts are that Brian Walshe caused the death, that he intended to cause the death of Ana Walshe, his wife, the mother of his three children, with deliberate premeditation.

And that can come in a matter of days, hours, or even seconds, the judge instructed the jury.

Now, if you look at the facts for a second, I think what this jury looked at, number one, first and foremost, I think, when he disposed of the trash bags of so many different things that were in that house, it included her slippers, her bathrobe, and her personal effects, meaning her purse, her boots, her jacket, part of her necklace, so many different things.

And if we look at what he told law enforcement several days later, he said that she had to go for a work emergency and she had on her hunter boots and she had on her jacket and she had all the clothes that were found in the trash bag. So, if you take that back to those hours after midnight, why throw them away?

Well, you can determine that he was premeditating that plan for murder and he had to get rid of the items he was going to tell law enforcement that she was wearing when she went home, when she went to that work emergency.

Also, there were Google searches six hours after the first search of how to dispose of a body. The searches started to go into the realm of murder. Also, the premeditation started potentially on December 25, when he started searching William Fastow, the man she was having the affair with.

I'm not sure, Wolf, if you want to listen to the court right now or if you want me to go ahead.

BLITZER: No, go ahead. Keep talking.

CASAREZ: But listening to the Google search of William Fastow on December 25, of who she was having the affair with, researching him again, researching work emergencies at her work, and then having the reason be that she's not here and she's gone and she's missing is because of a work emergency.

It just sort of all fits together. Now, here's the thing. We may never know exactly what the jurors relied upon because this was a two-week trial, but it was an intensive two week trial. But if they choose to talk to the media, we may learn exactly what their theory was, because this was a circumstantial case.

It was not cut and dry. You had to put the pieces together in this case to determine if this was premeditated murder or was it the lesser included of second-degree murder, which could be an act that a reasonable person would have believed could have caused death?

And they did not choose that lesser included, and they definitely did not choose that acquittal. So, as you can see, he is now going to be transported out. He has yet to be sentenced on today's verdict, but also the verdict that he made shortly before trial, the conviction of -- that he disposed of Ana Walshe's body parts and that he misled law enforcement.

[11:50:15]

So he's waiting now for punishment. But, as soon as that happens, that sentencing, he will be in the Department of Corrections.

BLITZER: All right, Jean Casarez reporting for us, as she has been throughout this entire ordeal.

They found guilty on these counts, guilty in the first degree for murdering his wife.

BROWN: And now you just saw him walk outside of the courthouse. He is facing life in prison without the possibility of parole due to that finding from the jury, the unanimous finding that he is in fact guilty of first degree murder.

I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams and former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.

Elliot, this was a hard case to prosecute because they didn't have Ana's body. What is your reaction to this?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Not only, Pam, did it not have Ana's body, but it didn't have direct evidence of premeditation. There were two big things that were simply not present.

But to step back, it really came down to the common sense of jurors, I think. It's hard -- even in the absence of having a body that forensic analysts could look at or statements from him for premeditation, it's just simply hard to deny or not believe that an individual who -- there was the rug with the blood on it, the Google searches, which, my God, is more damning than virtually any piece of evidence one could have, that those things together did not lead to the inescapable conclusion that this individual was responsible for the death of the victim.

So, sure, no body, no direct evidence for premeditation, but this was kind of as open -- we have talked about the law for years on air, Pam. And there are no such thing as open-and-shut cases. But this was as open and shut as a prosecution could have been.

BLITZER: And, Neama, Walshe's -- Brian Walshe's defense attorneys didn't call any witnesses. He refused to testify as well. How much you think that impacted the jury?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it was huge. And this is why obviously Walshe has, like any criminal defendant, a constitutional right not to testify.

But this is why I think it was an open-and-shut case. Obviously, there's overwhelming evidence of his guilt, but it was the defense strategy to go for the home run. They didn't argue that this was second-degree murder. They didn't argue that this was not premeditated.

They argued that Ana died of natural causes suddenly in her sleep, and then Brian Walshe for some reason decided to dismember and dispose of her body. By going for that home run and swinging for the fences, the defense gave itself no chance.

Really, the only surprise here, Wolf -- I was talking to Laura Coates about this Friday evening -- was that the jurors didn't return within an hour or two when they started deliberating Friday afternoon. It was a very strong case. There's no reason why an innocent man would lie to the police about his wife's whereabouts, why an innocent man would dismember and dispose of his wife's body.

It is very hard to saw through human bone. It is not easy. So this result, in my opinion, was inevitable. The only surprise is that the jurors decided to come back this week to return that guilty verdict.

BROWN: Yes.

And, Elliot, he had pleaded guilty to misleading police. He had pleaded guilty to the improper conveyance of a body. So he'd pleaded guilty to some components of the case. But the jury wasn't aware of that? Why would that be?

WILLIAMS: Right.

It's -- oddly enough, those convictions would be seen as prejudicial to the defendant. Providing more information about convictions that he would have had might have tainted the jury's minds about his guilt. It's sort of an odd circular bit of reasoning, but really juries are only allowed to consider evidence of what's relevant to the thing that they're evaluating.

What they were evaluating was, did he kill her or not? Not did he lie to the police and not did he even dismember the body. It's, did he kill this individual with premeditation? And it can be said, and this was the judge's finding, that that other -- that those other convictions would have actually muddied the water a little bit.

Now, you could make an argument that they're quite compelling evidence. But, again, most laws in the criminal justice system exist for the protection of defendants. And you don't want too much other evidence that's really going to make the jury mad or enraged about a person's conduct. So that's really why it didn't come in.

BLITZER: And his lawyers, Neama, were arguing that she died of natural causes, and he went up to the bedroom in the middle of the night and saw her just lying there. And so what did he do? He didn't call 911 immediately, which you would think a loving husband would immediately do if you see your wife lying in bed not moving, not talking, and not waking up, and you immediately call 911.

[11:55:08]

He didn't do that. Instead, he took the body and threw it away, basically. That was what the prosecution was making the case. How strong was that?

RAHMANI: Wolf, that's absolutely right. It's reasonable doubt, right? What a reasonable person do.

And when the defense cross-examined the commonwealth's witness and the doctor said, it's possible that she died of natural causes, but it's unlikely, that is not enough for reasonable doubt. So I think the jurors completely agreed with you, what would a reasonable husband, a loving husband, like the defense argued it in closing, would do. And that is not Brian Walshe.

BLITZER: Yes. We will continue to monitor the fallout from this verdict.

Neama and Elliot, to both of you, thanks very much for joining us.

And, to our viewers, thanks for joining us as well.

BROWN: "INSIDE POLITICS" with our friend and colleague Dana Bash starts after this.