Tipton created a straw man that there should be some signs of preplanning that would be discoverable by MSP, whereas in my opinion there is no reason to believe such indicators would exist in the form of documents, data, texts etc - why on earth would that exist?
What we do see is a building of motive, a building of tension, and a deterioration of their relationship to a crisis point. I believe Walshe only finally decided to act that night, because it was his last opportunity. Maybe only after the dinner guest left. We don't know what was said between them but IMO whatever was said, doomed Ana. I suspect Walshe was not in fact ready to act but had thought about it.
My sympathy for MSP's investigation, is that contrary to Tipton's claims, Walshe was very successful in disposing of the body and cleaning up the crime scene, to the point where it became difficult to prosecute him. Indeed he cleaned up almost all traces, and vanished the body before MSP ever came to his house. It's only by chance that one of the dumpsters was not emptied, otherwise he might have got clean away with this.
And it's thanks to the slip up by Walshe and Attorney Miner that MSP broke the case. Miner was negligent in her consent to the iPad search, but that is because Walshe told her it was clean - Miner then misled Judge Freniere about that, but Freniere did not come down in the last shower. Why was the iPad ever shared if not to try to throw MSP off the scent by pretending to cooperate. Walshe thought they wouldn't find anything on it.
IMO it was established that a knife was used in the commission of this crime (search and cut finger). It's my speculation that Walshe incapacitated Ana somehow, and then the final murder was in the basement on the rug - MSP need not prove that.
I maintain that this is clear M1 if you make the logical and obvious inferences. Tipton invites us to speculate about things that are not in evidence. There is no evidence that Walshe panicked, nor that he murdered Ana in the heat of the moment without forethought. Tipton invents a rationale unsupported by any statement by Walshe, and contrary to his observed demeanour. Were I a juror, I would not give him the benefit of that doubt when he is the only witness who could bring that testimony. Walshe has in fact offered no explanation for why he dismembered the victim. Especially as a matter of public policy, I do not believe the defendant ought to be able to destroy all the evidence of his murder, then claim you can't prove intent because all the evidence destruction was after the fact.
Hopefully the jurors take a robust approach.
My 02c.
