|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY ON "BEST DEFENSE". PROSECUTORS ARE BUILDING THEIR CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. CAN THEY PROVE HE MURDERED HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER? WE'RE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. BEST DEFENSE THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE". AS YOU KNOW, IT IS SUCH A PLEASURE AS ALWAYS TO BE BACK WITH YOU. NEIL ENTWISTLE FIRST MADE HEADLINES WHEN THE BODIES OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER WERE DISCOVERED INSIDE THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. AND HE WAS DISCOVERED IN ENGLAND. NOW ENTWISTLE IS BACK IN THE UNITED STATES, HE'S BACK IN THE NEWS AS HIS MURDER TRIAL UNFOLDS INSIDE A MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURTROOM. POLLUTE -- PROSECUTORS SAY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES DROVE THE NOW -- BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS INSIST THEIR CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY. OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US. IT'S THE MORNING RECESS, BETH, WITH THE LATEST. WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT COURTROOM JUST BEFORE WE BROKE? >> Reporter: WELL IT WAS QUITE AN EMOTIONAL MORNING JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE TESTIMONY. SERGEANT MICHAEL SUTTON WHO WENT TO THE HOME IN HOPKINTON ON SATURDAY JANUARY 21st AND SUNDAY JANUARY 22nd, DETAILS HIS TWO VISITS TO THE HOME. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, HE TALKED ABOUT FINDING THE BODIES OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. JURORS SAW AND THE REST OF US SAW PHOTOS OF THE BED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM WITH A BIG PUFFY COMFORTER COVERING MOST OF THE BED, WHICH PEOPLE WHO SAW IT, GIRLFRIEND JOANNA GATELY, A COUPLE OF POLICE OFFICERS, SUTTON THE DAY BEFORE, O'NEILL THOUGHT IT WAS JUST AN UNMADE BED, DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THERE WERE TWO BODIES IN THERE, A 9-MONTH-OLD INFANT AND ABOUT A FIVE-FOOT TALL, 27-YEAR-OLD WOMAN. HE DESCRIBED GOING INTO THE HOME THE SECOND TIME AROUND 5:00, A LITTLE LATER, 6:00 OR SO ON SUNDAY THE 22nd AND NOTICING AN ODOR IN THE HOUSE FROM THE MOMENT HE STEPS IN. AT THE GARAGE LEVEL, THE BASEMENT LEVEL, HE GOES UPSTAIRS AND THE ODOR IS STRONGER. FOLLOWS THE ODOR UPSTAIRS TO THE MASTER BEDROOM, DISCOVERS THE BODIES. VIDEO AND MORE GRAPHIC PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STILL TO BE SHOWN TO THE JURORS, PRESUMABLY FROM THE TECHNICIAN WHO ACTUALLY TOOK THESE VIDEO OR PHOTOS. BUT THE MONITOR IS GOING TO BE PLACED IN FRONT OF THE JURY SO THAT THE PUBLIC GALLERY CANNOT SEE IT. WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THE JURORS FACES LOOKING AT IT, BUT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE MOST GRAPHIC PHOTOS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO COME UP AFTER THIS BREAK. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SURPRISED ME WAS WHEN I WAS THINKING OF YESTERDAY'S TESTIMONY AND TODAY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE HOUSE. WE LEARNED YESTERDAY THAT IT LOOKED LIKE DINNER HAD BEEN ON THE TABLE, AS IF THAT WAS THE LAST MEAL, NOT BREAKFAST BUT DINNER. AND TODAY WE LEARNED SOMETHING ABOUT BATH WATER, ALSO ABOUT MUSIC AND OF COURSE WE KNOW ABOUT THE DOG. TELL US ABOUT SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT BEER NOT GOING TO SEE, UNLESS WE SEE THEM IN PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE FILM. BUT WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE STATE OF OF HOUSE? >> Reporter: THE TV WAS ON IN THE LIVING ROOM, THE FORM OLIVING ROOM. NOT THE FAMILY ROOM BUT THE FORMAL LIVING ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THERE WAS CLASSAL MUSIC ON A RADIO, I BELIEVE IT WAS A RADIO COMING OUT OF THE BABY'S ROOM, AN UNOCCUPIED ROOM. I BELIEVE AFTER THIS VIDEO IS PLAYED AFTER THE BREAK, THE JURY WILL HEAR THAT MUSIC FIRST BEFORE THEY SEE OTHER THINGS. THEN THERE'S A BATHROOM, NOT THE MASTER BATHROOM, ANOTHER BATHROOM OFF THE HALLWAY THAT HAD BATH WATER IN THE TUB. NOW BABY TOYS WERE NOT DESCRIBED TODAY, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I HAVE READ THAT DESCRIPTION, LIKE BATH WATER AND TOYS, LIKE THE BABY WAS TO BE GIVEN OR HAD BEEN GIVEN A BATH. >> IT'S STRANGE FOR ME, BETH, BECAUSE I ALWAYS HAD THIS PICTURE WHEN I READ THE MATERIAL THAT RACHEL AND BABY LILLIAN ARE IN BED SLEEPING. I MEAN BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF THE IMAGE THAT YOU GET. SO MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THEREFORE THEY WERE SHOT IN THE BED. BUT WITH ALL OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AROUND, IT MAKES YOU REALLY WONDER, NUMBER ONE, WHEN THEY WERE SHOT, AND NUMBER TWO, WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON IN THAT HOUSE. AND WE MAY NEVER HAVE ANSWERS TO THOSE ISSUES, RIGHT? >> YES. THAT IS TRUE. THE LAST PERSON WHO TALKED TO RACHEL THE NIGHT BEFORE ABOUT 10:00, 10:30, WAS JOANNA GATELY. ALL SEEMED TO BE FINE. SHE SEEMED TO BE A FASTIDIOUS HOUSEKEEPER SO YOU WOULD THINK THAT DINNER ON THURSDAY NIGHT WOULD BE CLEANED UP. THE FOOD WAS DESCRIBED AS THOUGH IT WAS DINNER NOT BREAKFAST. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE CELL CEREAL BOXES OUT. NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID HE FED THE BABY AT 7:00ISH. YOU WOULD THINK IF SHE HAD JUST BATHED THE BABY AND THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE A MID MORNING NAP SHE WOULD HAVE DRAINED THE WATER. SO MAYBE SHE WAS GOING TO BATHE THE BABY. IT DOES SEEM LIKE WHOEVER LEFT, PERHAPS IN A HURRY BECAUSE THE TV'S ON, THE MUSIC IS STILL ON, MAYBE THAT WAS INTENTIONAL. WE DON'T KNOW YET, WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IF THERE WERE ANY SORT OF DEFENSIVE WOUNDS, BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR AS THOUGH IT WAS A STRUGGLE. IT APPEARS TO BE VERY PEACEFUL. SHE'S CURLED UP IN THE BED WITH THE BABY -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PHOTOS, BUT THE DESCRIPTIONS I HAVE READ, KIND OF SPOONING WITH THE BABY. YOU WOULD THINK THAT SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN KILLED FIRST AND THEN THE BABY, BECAUSE IF SHE SAW HER BABY THREATENED SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING. BUT SHE SEEMS TO BE IN A PEACEFUL POSITION, FROM THE DESCRIPTIONS I HAVE READ. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION YET. BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ORDER. SHE IS KILLED AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW UNTIL THE AUTOPSY BECAUSE THE BULLET DIDN'T EXIT. IT WAS AT THE SHARE LINE IN THE CENTER OF HER FOREHEAD. >> IT'S REALLY A CHILLING IMAGE AND WHEN YOU SEE THAT COMFORTER, WHEN I SAW THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THAT COMFORTER, I ACTUALLY COULD FIND MYSELF TAKING A DEEP BREATH, IT'S VERY CHILLING. I'M GOING TO BRING ANY GUESTS IN TO JOIN US. SITTING WITH US IN THIS STUDIO. JIM, A FORMER PROSECUTOR AS WELL AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER. AND I'M LOOKING OUT THERE AND I HAVE BILL. HOW ARE YOU, BILL? >> HOW ARE YOU? IT'S BEEN A WHILE. >> IT CERTAINLY HAS. I'M GOING TO GO JUST TO YOU IN A MINUTE, BILL. LET ME START HERE WITH JOE. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE THE PROSECUTOR, I'M GOING TO MAKE YOU BE THE PERSON THAT YOU ARE ON "BEST DEFENSE". BUT SINCE YOU HAVE PROSECUTED IN THE PAST, DOES IT MATTER IN THIS CASE IF YOU'RE PROSECUTING THAT WE DON'T KNOW A TIME OF DEATH AND WE REALLY, REALLY DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT WENT ON IN THAT HOUSE? DOES THAT BOTHER YOU IF YOU'RE PROSECUTING? >> NOT THAT MUCH. WE CAN'T NAIL DOWN THE SPECIFIC TIME OF DEATH. BUT FROM THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT AND THE POLICE INVESTIGATION GOING TO THE SCENE, WE'RE ABLE TO NAIL DOWN A TIME FRAME OF ABOUT A 24-HOUR PERIOD. >> RIGHT. >> WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT. I MEAN IT DOES GIVE THE POLICE OBVIOUSLY THE TOOLS THAT THEY NEED TO GO OUT AND NAIL DOWN THE SUSPECT THAT THEY HAVE AND TO CONFIRM THE INFORMATION THAT THEY V AND ALSO TO LOOK AT THE STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANT THAT HE'S MADE AND FIND THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THOSE STATEMENTS. THAT TO ME, IN THIS CASE, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE AND THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS AND HIS ACTIONS CERTAINLY ARE QUESTIONABLE AND MAKE HIM OBVIOUSLY THE MAIN SUSPECT IN THE CASE AND THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE. >> WITHOUT A DOUBT. AND BILL, AS I GO TO YOU, IF WE LOOK AT THIS FROM THE DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S GREATEST PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IN DEFENDING THIS CASE IS HIS OWN MOUTH, WHICH IS OF COURSE OFTEN THE DEFENDANT'S GREATEST PROBLEM. BUT NEIL HIMSELF HAS PUT HIMSELF AT THAT CRIME SCENE BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, I DISCOVERED THE BODIES AND THEN ALL OF HIS ACTIONS AFTERWARDS SEEMS TO ME ARE QUITE DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO OVERCOME. WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT IF YOU'RE DEFENDING THIS CASE? >> THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, RICKY, THAT IS AN ENORMOUS PROBLEM THAT NEIL WINESTEIN FACES. THIS IS MORE THAN JUST A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE. NEIL WINESTEIN HAS HIS WORK CUT OUT FOR HIM, THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. I DON'T ENVY HIS POSITION. HE MAY HAVE SOME UNEXPLODED EVIDENTIARY BOMBSHELL IN HIS BRIEFCASE, THAT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND THE VERY QUESTION THAT YOU POSE. HE HAS PUT HIMSELF AT THE SCENE, NEIL ENTWISTLE, THAT IS, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF EVIDENTIARY PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT HAVE COME IN SO FAR THAT ARE VERY, VERY DAMMING. HE TOLD POLICE HE COULDN'T GET INTO THE CARVER HOME. HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE HAD KEYS TO THE CARVER HOME. HE TOLD POLICE HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GET TO PRISCILLA'S WORKPLACE AFTER HE FOUND THE BODY. WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY HE WAS AT THAT PLACE OF WORK BEFORE. RACHEL'S DNA ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN AND NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PRINT ON THE GRIP OF THE GUN. HE'S AT THE SCENE. THESE ARE ALMOST INSURMOUNTABLE, RICKY. UNLESS THERE IS SOME, AS I SAID, UNEXPLODED EVIDENTIARY BOMBSHELL IN NEIL WINESTEIN'S BRIEFCASE, WHICH IS POSSIBLE. IT'S VERY HARD TO OVERCOME THAT PROBLEM. >> HARD INDEED. AND I'M JUST GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MOMENT AND THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I GET ALL THESE NAMES PUT TOGETHER, BUT IT IS ELLIOT WINESTEIN. AND NEIL ENTWISTLE AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT BILL, BECAUSE AS I SAY, THIS WON'T BE THE FIRST OR THE LAST TIME I WILL ALSO DO THAT. I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT ELLIOT WINESTEIN'S WORK AND STEPHANIE PAGE'S WORK, THESE ARE BOTH TWO GREAT CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS. >> NO QUESTION. >> ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES THAT THEY HAVE IS THEY HAVE GOT TO FIND ANOTHER SUSPECT AND WITHOUT -- THERE'S NOBODY ELSE WHO HAS A MOTIVE, THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THIS CASE, RIGHT? >> NOT ONLY IS THERE NO ONE ELSE THAT HAS NO MOTIVE, THERE'S VERY FEW PEOPLE IF ANYONE ELSE THAT HAD ACCESS TO THOSE GUNS. THERE'S ALMOST NO ONE ON THE PLANET THAT WOULD HAVE EITHER MOTIVE, SO TO SPEAK OR ACCESS TO THE MURDER WEAPON. >> AND ACCESS TO THE MURDER WEAPON OF COURSE AS WE KNOW WINDS UP WITH NOT ONLY THE DEFENDANT, BUT OF COURSE WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S STEPFATHER AND STEPBROTHERS AND THEN -- AND SO THEY GET EXCLUDED AS POSSIBLE SUSPECTS BY THE PROSECUTION. SO RIGHT NOW I HAVE TO JUST STOP YOU AND I'M SORRY BECAUSE IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. AND FIRST I WANT TO REMIND YOU TO KEEP SENDING ME ALL OF YOUR E-MAILS. PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE, ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR MIND. I'M HAPPY IF YOU SEND ME SAN E-MAIL JUST TO SAY HELLO. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME, CLICK ON BEST DEFENSE OR E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY AT BESTDEFENSE AT CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE WERE A HAPPY AND LOVING COUPLE AND THAT NEIL WAS A GOOD FATHER TO HIS NINE-MONTH-OLD BABY DAUGHTER. YESTERDAY DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEPHANIE PAGE WAS ABLE TO DRIVE HOME THAT POINT WHEN SHE CROSS-EXAMINED THE LOCAL WELCOME WOMAN, PAMELA JACKSON. AND THAT'S WHERE THE DEFENSE TOOK ITS BEST SHOT. >> EVERY TIME THE BABY GURGLED OR COOED OR GIGGLED OR ANYTHING, HE WOULD ACTUALLY AVERT HIS EYES AND REALLY JUST CONCENTRATE ON THE BABY. AND AT THE TIME I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST ADORABLE. HE JUST DOTED ON THE BABY. >> AND HE WOULD BEAM, HIS FACE WOULD LIGHT UP? >> ABSOLUTELY BEAMED. >> WHEN HE WAS INTERACTING WITH THE BABY? >> AND YOU SAID YOU NEVER SAW A FATHER SHOW SO MUCH AFFECTION TOWARD A CHILD BEFORE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I ABSOLUTELY SAID THAT. >> THAT'S AN AMAZING STATEMENT, THAT SHE NEVER SAW A FATHER SHOW SO MUCH AFFECTION TOWARDS A CHILD. SO, JIM, WHEN WE HEAR THIS AND THIS IS NOT THE ONLY WITNESS THAT WE HAVE HEARD THIS FROM, HOW -- HOW POSSIBLY COULD THIS FATHER KILL THIS BABY? I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO GUESS ABOUT THE WIFE. IT JUST DOES NOT COMPUTE. >> THAT QUESTION IS ALWAYS ASKED, ISN'T IT? WE HAVE SO MANY SITUATION WHERE IS THAT HAPPENS, THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE. NO ONE BELIEVES AN INDIVIDUAL'S CAPABLE OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AND THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE SAID ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE, THAT SHE WAS NOT SOMEBODY CAPABLE OF COMMITTING SUCH A HEINOUS ACT. THAT HE WAS NOT CAPABLE OF KILLING HIS WIFE AND CHILD. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE DEMONS THAT LIE WITHIN AND UNFORTUNATELY THERE WERE DEMONS AND IT SEEMS LIKE HE WAS ANOTHER PERSON, HE HAD AN ALLER EGO. HE WAS SUFFERING THE INTERNET, HE WAS LOOKING FOREST ACCORDING TO SERVICES, HE HAD PROBLEMS FINANCIALLY, HE SET UP FICTITIOUS EBAY ACCOUNTS AND HE WAS DOING THINGS BECAUSE HE WAS IN FINANCIAL DISTRESS AND WE CAN'T GET INTO THE MIND OF THE DEFENDANT AND THAT'S OFTEN WHAT WE'RE ASKED TO DO AND CERTAINLY THE JURY IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO DO IT AT SOME POINT, TO SAY, IS THIS THE PERSON THAT DID SUCH A TERRIBLE THING, HORRIBLE THING AND DOES THE EVIDENCE SUPPORT THAT? >> FAIR ENOUGH AND VERY VERY WELL SAID. BILL, IT STILL IS, THOUGH, FOR YOU, IF YOU'RE DEFENDING NEIL ENTWISTLE, IT IS A FAR CRY, ISN'T IT, FROM HAVING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES EVEN IN EXTRAORDINARY TURMOIL ABOUT MONEY TO KILLING YOUR BABY? >> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. I WAS JUST SAYING TO BETH, WHO KNOWS WHAT GOES THROUGH THE HUMAN BEINGS' MIND AND ISN'T THE HUMAN CONDITION -- ELLIOT WINESTEIN'S CASE IS SO DIFFICULT. HE'S GOT A VERY DIFFICULT JOB AHEAD OF HIM. IT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS AND ACTUALLY WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS AND I WROTE IN MY BLOG LAST NIGHT, ELLIOT IS A SUPERIOR ATTORNEY AND SO IS STEPHANIE PAGE, ZERO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. AND WHAT I HAVE TO SAY HERE, REALLY HAS TO BE QUALIFIED BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO QUESTION THEIR STRATEGY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY KNOW AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THEIR FILES AND THEY MAY HAVE A BOMBSHELL YET TO COME OUT. BUT IF IT WERE ME, AND I WERE PREPARING THIS CASE FOR TRIAL, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GONE WITH AN INSANITY DEFENSE RATHER THAN A STRATEGY OF JUST GOING REASONABLE DOUBT STRAIGHT TO THE JURY. >> I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, IF NEIL ENTWISTLE IS YOUR CLIENT AND HE WILL ADMIT TO YOU THAT HE DID IT. AND WE'RE ALL ABOUT CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T FORCE THAT ONE ON HIM. BUT I WANT TO LOOK WITH ALL OF YOU, THAT IS WITH ALL OF YOU, HOW MANY PEOPLE SAID DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE JURY THAT THIS WAS A REALLY HAPPY FAMILY? >> FROM ALL YOU COULD SEE, RACHEL AND NEIL WERE VERY HAPPY TOGETHER? >> THEY WERE. >> FAIR TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS YOU HAVE EXPERIENCED THEM, THEY WERE A HAPPY AND LOVING COUPLE? >> YES. >> AND EVERY VISIT THAT YOU HAD WHEN RACHEL HAD BROUGHT NEIL HOME, THEY WERE ALWAYS PLEASANT VISITS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THEY SEEM TO GENUINELY LOVE EACH OTHER, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> UH-HUH. >> YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DESCRIBED NEIL AND RACHEL AS A LOVING COUPLE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT -- WOULD YOU -- WOULD IT ALSO BE FAIR TO SAY THAT NEIL IS A DEVOTED HUSBAND, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND A DEVOTED FATHER? >> YES. >> I WANT TO COME OUT OF THAT THOUGHT, THIS LOVING COUPLE, THIS HAPPY MARRIAGE SITUATION AND GO BACK TO BETH KARAS. BETH, THERE IS A LITANY OF FACTS HERE THAT ARE GOING TO COME BEFORE THIS JURY, SOME OF WHICH ALREADY HAVE, OTHERS WHICH WILL FOLLOW, A LITANY OF FACTS THAT SHOW THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S LIFE WAS UNRAVELING AND PERHAPS YOU COULD JUST ENUMERATE A FEW OF THOSE. >> WELL, THE PROSECUTION SAYS THAT THERE WAS A FINANCIAL MOTIVE HERE, NOT THAT HIS MOUNTING DEBT CAUSED HIM TO KILL HIS WIFE SO HE COULD CASH IN ON INSURANCE PROCEEDS AND BLAME THE DEATH ON SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANY INSURANCE, LIFE INSURANCE ON HER. BUT MAYBE, AT LEAST THIS IS INITIALLY, IT WAS A MURDER-SUICIDE PLAN. NOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT OPEN ON A MURDER SUICIDE PLAN, HE OPENED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE THAT POINTS TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. BUT HE HAD MOUNTING DEBT, HE WAS DOING SEARCHES ON HIS COMPUTER, AT LEAST THE DA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THE USER WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE, THERE WERE UNLIMITED NUMBER OF USERS BUT WE'LL HEAR FROM THE COMPUTER FORENSIC TECHNICIAN LATER IN THE CASE. HOW TO KILL SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE, EUTHANASIA, BANKRUPTCY. SO FINANCES AND DEATH AND MURDER AND SUICIDE ARE WERE SOMETHING THAT HE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATING, ASSUMING HE WAS USER IN THE FEW DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS. IN ADDITION HE'S ALSO LOOKING FOREST ACCORDING TO SERVICES IN THE BOTTOM AREA. SO HE MAY HAVE BEEN TROLLING FOR SEX AS WELL. WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY SEXUAL LIAISON. HIS INTERNET BUSINESS, ONE OF WHICH INVOLVED SELLING SOFTWARE SO PEOPLE COULD CREATE THEIR OWN ADULT PORNOGRAPHY BUSINESS WAS APPARENTLY HITTING THE SKIDS. HE WAS KICKED OFF OF EBAY BECAUSE OF MOUNTING CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS AND THAT WAS A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THE MURDERS. SO I MEAN THOSE ARE SOME OF THE -- AND OF COURSE HIS FLIGHT TO ENGLAND, CHECKING NO LUGGAGE, NOT CALLING THE POLICE AFTER HE FINDS THE BODIES, THE MURDER WEAPON COMING FROM HER STEP FRACTURE'S HOME WHERE AS BILL WAS JUST SAYING, VERY FEW PEOPLE HAD ACCESS TO IT AND HE HAD BEEN LIVING THERE FOR THREE MOVES AND KEYS TO THE MATTERAZZO HOME WERE FOUND IN THE CAR THAT HE HAD ABANDONED AT LOGAN AIRPORT AND HE KNEW WHERE THE KEYS WERE AND THERE WERE MULTIPLE SETS OF KEYS TO THE LOCKED GUN SAFE IN THE MATTERAZZO BEDROOM. HE HAD A MOTIVE, HE CERTAINLY HAD MEANS AND HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. YOU'RE REALLY CORRECT AND THIS IS WHAT THE PROSECUTION CASE IS. SO JIM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS FROM THE DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW, I SAY, JUST I SAY, HE HAS TO SOMEHOW CONVINCE THIS JURY, ELLIOT WINESTEIN AND STEPHANIE PAGE, LET'S GET THEM TOGETHER. THEY MUST CONVINCE THIS JURY THAT SOMEONE ELSE WOULD HAVE COME INTO THAT HOUSE WHERE THIS COUPLE HAD BEEN LIVING FOR BASICALLY TEN DAYS, WHO SOMEHOW WOULD WANT TO MURDER THIS WOMAN AND HER CHILD. I TEND TO AGREE WITH BILL. AND HE SPOKE TO THE ISSUE THAT YOU HAD A CLIENT WHO'S WILLING TO ADMIT TO YOU THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE MURDER. >> I'M NEIL ENTWISTLE AND I COME IN TO YOU AND SAY I DIDN'T DO THIS. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, IT'S MY WIFE AND CHILD, I DIDN'T DO THIS. IN THIS CASE, THE DEFENSE HAS A FEW ISSUES, NOT MANY, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE BALLISTICS, IT'S A .22 CALIBER PISTOL. IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, THAT'S NOT A GUN OF CHOICE IN CRIME, IT'S NOT A GUN OF CHOICE -- A .22 CALIBER IS A VERY SMALL BULLET. IT'S THE SAME BULLET THAT SHOT PRESIDENT REAGAN AND JAMES BRADY. IT'S A LITTLE TINY BULLET. IT TAKES PRECISION. YOU HAVE TO GET THAT BULLET IN THE RIGHT SPOT TO KILL SOMEBODY. >> AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU HAVE TO LITERALLY POINT IT RIGHT AT HER HEAD AND POINT IT RIGHT AT THE BABY'S SIDE. AND IT'S REALLY, REALLY CREEPY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT LIKE THAT. >> WHEN I LOOK OVER HERE, WHEN I'M LOOKING OVER HERE, I'M LOOKING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COURTROOM. SO RIGHT NOW, IT APPEARS THAT SOMETHING IS GOING ON, BUT NOT IN FRONT OF THE JURY. SO WE STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. SO THERE YOU GO. NOW YOU CAN SEE IT, THEY'RE AT THE SIDEBAR. YOU CAN SEE THE COURT OFFICERS. INTERESTINGINGLY ENOUGH. ONE OF THE VIEWERS, ONE OF YOU POINTED OUT TO ME THAT YOU WERE SURPRISED TO SEE THE DEFENDANT GO UP TO THE SIDEBAR IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. LET ME GO OUT TO BILL. BECAUSE SINCE I PRACTICED IN MASSACHUSETTS ALONG WITH YOU, BILL, THAT YOU COULD FILE A MOTION, WHICH I AM ASSUMING IS HOW THIS HAPPENED, THAT ELLIOT WINESTEIN FILED A MOTION TO HAVE HIS CLIENT ATTEND THE SIDEBAR CONFERENCES WHICH THE JUDGE MUST HAVE GRANTED. HAVE YOU EVER ASKED FOR THAT BEFORE? >> I NEVER HAVE AND I NOTICED IT AND I SUSPECTED THAT ELLIOT MAY HAVE DONE THAT. IT'S AN UNUSUAL MOVE, BUT I THINK HE MAY HAVE FILED THAT MOTION AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE A SMART MOVE IN THIS CASE GIVEN THAT THERE ARE SO MANY UNKNOWNS AND SO MANY UNPREDICTABLES AND IT'S A DEFINITE POSSIBILITY. IT'S NOT THAT COMMON, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY POSSIBLE. >> I KNOW SOMETIMES THERE'S THIS LITTLE DELAY, SO I DON'T MEAN TO STEP ON YOU, IT SOMETIMES HAPPENS THAT WAY. BUT SINCE THE JURY IS NOT YET HEARING TESTIMONY OR NOT YET SEEING THAT VIDEO AND SINCE WE'RE COMING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUR, LET ME SQUEEZE IN THIS BREAK SO THAT WHEN THEY ARE LIVE, WE CAN GO THERE LIVE. >>> THEY ARE LIVE IN THE COURTROOM, WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT IN. THIS IS SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO LEAD US INTO THAT CRIME SCENE VIDEO. >> I WOULD JUST ASK QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT TYPE OF SCENE IT IS, INDOOR, OUTDOOR, SEARCH WARRANT ISSUES AND THEN WE'LL SET UP A TEAM OF RESPONDING PARTIES FROM CRIME SCENE SERVICES ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IF WE NEED TO USE THE CRIMINALIST SECTION, ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION SECTION. SO I'M ON CALL SO IF I GET CALLED TO ANY OF THOSE SCENES, IF I NEED A TEAM OF MEMBERS I WOULD ACTIVATE SOME OF THOSE MEMBERS. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIALTY YOURSELF? >> I'M A LATE TENT PRINCE EXAMINER. I'M ALSO PROFICIENT IN FOOTWEAR ANALYSIS AND CRIME SCENE. >> AND TELL US ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE IN LATENT FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION AND COLLECTION. >> YES, SINCE 1992, PARTICIPATING IN A TEN-WEEK IN HOUSE TRAINING AND THEN CONTINUING WITH THOSE COURSES I SPOKE OF EARLIER. THERE'S NOT A DAY THAT GOES BY THAT I AM NOT LOOKING AT FINGERPRINTS. >> AND IN GENERAL, THE EXAMINATION OF FINGERPRINTS, DOES THAT INVOLVE ONE PERSON AT A TIME? DOES MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN THE UNIT GET INVOLVED IN THE EXAMINATION OF A SET OF FINGERPRINTS? >> IF WE HAVE ANY LATENT FINGERPRINTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO COMPARE, USUALLY THE CASE OFFICER WILL WORK ON THAT. IF THEY REACH THE POINT WHERE THEY HAVE AN INDIVIDUALIZATION, WHERE THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING THAT THAT LATE EBT AND UNKNOWN PRINT HAS BEEN INDIVIDUALIZED AND MATCHES TO A KNOWN PERSON, THEN WE INVOLVE TWO OTHER PEOPLE IN OUR UNIT FOR VERIFICATION OF THAT. >> HAVE YOU TESTIFIED ON ONE OR MORE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST IN THE COURSE OF THE COMMONWEALTH? >> YES. >> AND IN WHAT FIELD OR AREAS HAVE YOU TESTIFIED? >> CRIME SCENE, FOOTWEAR. >> HAVE YOU BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN THE AREA OF FINGERPRINTING? >> YES, I HAVE. >> AND WHAT COURTS HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN? >> MIDDLESEX SPEAR YORKS--SUPERIOR, SEVERAL DISTRICT COURTS. >> HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE PAST? >> 25 TIMES. >> WERE ALL THOSE OCCASIONS OR SOME OF THOSE OCCASIONS IN THE AREA OF FINGERPRINTS, FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION AND COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE? >> YES, MOST OF THEM WERE. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, SERGEANT TO JANUARY 22, 2006. WERE YOU ON DUTY OR ON CALL THAT PARTICULAR DAY? >> YES. >> AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE LATE EVENING OF JANUARY 22, WERE YOU DISPATCHED OR DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL ABOUT GOING TO A PARTICULAR LOCATION? >> YES, I WAS. >> WHERE WERE YOU DISPATCHED? >> I WAS DISPATCHED TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> DID YOU GO THERE ON THAT EVENING? >> YES. >> WHAT TIME DO YOU RECALL ARRIVING THERE? >> I BELIEVE I GOT CALLED SOMEWHERE AFTER 7:00 P.M.. SO APPROXIMATELY WITHIN THE HOUR LATER. >> WHEN YOU ARRIVED THERE, DID YOU MEET WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? >> YES. >> WHO DO YOU RECALL WAS ASSEMBLED THERE AT THE TIME? >> WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM MY OFFICE. I CALLED SEVERAL PEOPLE, TROOPERS HEIFERNAN AND TROOPER LABREAK. I ALSO MET WITH SEVERAL TROOPERS, MIKE BANKS, TROOPER BOB MANNING. I BELIEVE LIEUTENANT CALLY I BELIEVE WAS RANKED AT THE TIME I WAS A LIEUTENANT. I ALSO MET WITH LOU LATER THAT EVENING. AND SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME OF TIME AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, DISCUSSING THE REASON FOR YOUR BEING DISPATCHED TO THAT LOCATION? >> YES. >> AND AFTER SPENDING THAT TIME CONVERSING AT THE STATION WITH YOUR OTHER FELLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT? >> WE WAITED, WE DEVISED A PLAN, ACTUALLY ON WAITING AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE TOOK MAJOR CASE PRINTS OF ONE PARTY LAST NAME GAITLY. AND THEN WE DISCUSSED OUR PLAN OF WHEN WE WERE GOING TO GO TO SIX CUBS PATH AND PROCESS THE SCENE. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU AND THE OTHER OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATORS GO TO 6 CUBS PATH? >> YES. >> AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE THE STATION TO GO TO 6 CUBS PATH? >> IT WAS AFTER 1:00 IN THE MORNING. >> AND WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR GOING THERE? >> THERE WERE TWO PARTIES DECEASED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT PRIOR TO YOUR ENTRY INTO THE HOME, THERE WAS A SEARCH WARRANT THAT HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WAS THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSE -- THE PURPOSE OF YOU BEING THERE WAS TO EXECUTE THAT WARRANT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DESCRIBE IF YOU COULD THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOME WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT. >> YES, IT WAS ON A CUL-DE-SAC. IT WAS TWO STORIES, GARAGE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THERE WAS ONE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY. I THINK IT WAS GRAY IN COLOR, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY. SINGLE FAMILY, LARGE HOME. SURROUNDED WOODED AREA. >> WHERE DID YOU AND THE OTHER OFFICERS GO FIRST AFTER ARRIVAL AT 6 CUBS PATH? >> WE ENTERED THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR. >> AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO? >> THEN WE WENT UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR, THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU ENTERED THE FIRST FLOOR. >> YES, WHEN WE ENTERED THE FIRST FLOOR, WE TOOK A LOOK AROUND, NOTHING APPEARED TO HAVE BEEN A STRUGGLE. OR ANY FORCED ENTRY ON THE FRONT DOOR. WE THEN DECIDED TO PROCEED TO THE SECOND FLOOR KNOWING THAT THE VICTIMS WERE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, WE KNEW WE WERE GOING TO BE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, WE DECIDED TO START THERE. ON GOING UP THE STEPS, WE OBSERVED, WE HEARD VERY LOUD CLASSICAL MUSIC, WHICH APPEARED TO BE COMING FROM THE SECOND FLOOR. WHEN WE GOT UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR, WE LOCATED WHERE THE MUSIC WAS COMING FROM AND IT WAS COMING FROM THE NURSERY WHICH WAS THE FIRST BEDROOM ON THE RIGHT AS YOU GO UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR. THE MUSIC WAS VERY LOUD. AT SOME POINT WE DETERMINED THAT WE WERE GOING TO TURN THE MUSIC OFF AND WE LOCATED THE MUSIC PLAYER IN THE NURSERY AND WE TURNED THE MUSIC OFF. >> WAS THAT INITIALLY UPON YOUR ENTRY AT A LATER POINT? >> WHEN WE FIRST ENTERED WE COULD HEAR THE MUSIC ON THE FIRST FLOOR. >> IT WAS PROBABLY A HALF HOUR, 40 MINUTES. >> WHAT OTHER OBSERVATIONS DID YOU MAKE AS YOU WERE GOING UP THOSE STAIRS TO THE SECOND FLOOR? >> WE NOTICED AS I SAID, THE NURSERY WAS ON THE RIGHT, THERE WERE TWO OTHER BEDROOMS BOTH ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THERE WAS A BATHROOM STRAIGHT AHEAD AND THE MASTER BEDROOM WAS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. >> DID YOU AND THE OTHER INVESTIGATORS ENTER THAT MASTER BEDROOM? >> YES, WE DID. >> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW AS YOU ENTERED THE BEDROOM. >> FIRST WE JUST -- WE TOOK A LOOK INSIDE THE ROOM. AT THAT POINT WE DETERMINED THAT WE WERE GOING TO DOCUMENT THE SCENE WITH PHOTOGRAPHS. BEFORE DOING ANYTHING FURTHER. SO AT THAT POINT, WE HAD EVERYBODY JUST STEP DOWN THE STEPS AND WE DOCUMENTED THE SECOND LEVEL. WE MADE SOME DIGITAL VIDEO. >> TELL US WHAT YOU COULD OBSERVE FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE DOORWAY INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> WHEN I LOOKED INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM, YOU COULD SEE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A QUEEN SIZED BED IN THE CENTER OF THE BEDROOM. WHEN I LOOKED STRAIGHT AHEAD, THERE WAS A LAMP TO THE RIGHT OF THE BED, THERE WAS A CHAIR TO THE LEFT IN THE CORNER AND I BELIEVE A BASSINET ON THE OTHER CORNER AND A SMALL STOOL ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BED. LOOKING AT THE BED, IT APPEARED THAT THE BED WAS UNMADE, THERE WAS A VERY LARGE FLUFFY WHITE COMFORTER IN AN UNMADE FASHION ON THE BED. >> SERGEANT, CAN YOU SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH ON THAT SCREEN? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? >> THAT SHOWS THE BED THAT I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT. >> AND DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY SHOW HOW YOU CAN SEE IT ROUGHLY FROM THE ENTRYWAY INTO THAT BEDROOM WHEN YOU FIRST WENT UP THERE THAT EVENING, THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23? >> YES, IT DOES. >> TAKE A LOOK AT THAT IF YOU COULD, SERGEANT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO EXAMINE THAT? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? >> THIS IS THE DOORWAY LEADING INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY SHOW THE DOORWAY AS YOU FIRST APPROACHED IT IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23, 2006? >> YES. >> WHAT HAPPENS THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING AND JUST SO YOU DON'T WONDER IS WHEN THE PROSECUTOR GOES OVER, HE POPS UP A PHOTOGRAPH. THIS PHOTOGRAPH YOU CAN SEE. BUT THERE IS SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE. SO DON'T WONDERER IF THERE'S A MOMENT OF SILENCE. >> THERE'S A LAMP HERE. AND FROM THE PHOTO, I CAN'T REALLY TELL WHAT THIS IS LOOKING AT THE SCREEN. I JUST SEE THAT PHOTO OF THE BED. >> HAVE YOU LOOKED AT IT CLOSELY? >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL NOW WHAT THAT ITEM WAS ON THE FLOOR? >> YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS SOME SORT OF LIKE A CLOCK RADIO. >> AND DO THOSE ITEMS APPEAR IN THE POSITION THAT THEY WERE IN WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED -- AS YOU WERE ENTERING THAT ROOM WITH YOUR FELLOW INVESTIGATORS? >> YES. >> SERGEANT WHEN YOU WENT INTO THE ROOM, DID YOU MAKE NOTE OF THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM? DO YOU RECOLLECT? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> AND WHO ELSE WENT INTO THAT ROOM WITH YOU? >> YES, AFTER DOCUMENTATION, WE ENTERED THE ROOM WITH TROOPERS HEIFERNAN AND ALSO TWO CHEMISTS, AND LIEUTENANT PAUL LITTLELEAN FROM CRIME SCENE SERVICES AND I BELIEVE SERGEANT BOB MANNING WAS IN THE VICINITY. I'M NOT SURE IF HE ENTERED AT THAT POINT WITH US. >> SERGEANT AT SOME POINT IN TIME I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT AN EXAMINATION OF THE VARIOUS FLOORS OF THE DWELLING WERE MADE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE CONDITION OF THE DOORWAYS AND WINDOWS IN THE GENERAL CONDITION OF THE ITEMS IN THE HOME. DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT? >> YES, AT SOME POINT LATER, WE ACTUALLY SPLIT UP INTO TEAMS, WE HAD ONE OF OUR MEMBERS DOCUMENT THE DOWNSTAIRS AND TAKE NOTE OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS AND LATER THAT EVENING, I VIDEOTAPED THE FIRST FLOOR AND ALSO THE BASEMENT FLOOR AND DOORS, WINDOWS, VARIOUS ROOMS WERE ALL DOCUMENTED WITH BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO. >> DID YOU DESCRIBE -- LET'S START WITH THE BASEMENT, DESCRIBE THE OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU MADE IN THE BASEMENT AREA AS YOU WERE DOCUMENTING THE SCENE WITH VIDEO, AND IN PARTICULAR FOCUSING ON THE CONDITION OF THE DOORS AND WINDOWS IN THE BASEMENT FLOOR. >> ALL OF THE DOORS AND WINDOWS, NONE WERE FORCED -- NONE SHOWED FORCED ENTRY. WE DID NOT OBSERVE ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT OF STRUGGLE. MANY OF THE ROOMS APPEARED AS THOUGH T W AS AND SOME ITEMS TH APPEARED TO BE JUST PLACED IN THE CENTER OF THE ROOM. I WAS LATER TOLD THAT IT WAS -- THEY HAD JUST MOVED IN RECENTLY, SO THAT APPEARED ALL TO MAKE SENSE TO US AFTER. >> WHAT ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE WINDOWS ON THAT BASEMENT LEVEL? HOW DID YOU FIND THAT? >> THE WINDOWS WERE SHUT AND LOCKED. >> AND HE'S GOING BACK FOR MORE PICTURES, THIS TIME HE WENT BACK FOR A CHART. THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF VISUAL AIDES THAT COME ON DURING THIS TESTIMONY AND EVENTUALLY OF COURSE, WE EXPECT A VIDEO THAT THE JURY AND ONLY THE JURY WILL SEE, THAT IS WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE IT. THE GALLERY ISN'T GOING TO SEE IT. JUST THE JURY WILL SEE IT. >> WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? >> THIS IS THE LOWER LEVEL, THE BASEMENT LEVEL. >> DOES THAT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE VARIOUS ROOMS AND ENTRYWAYS, CLOSETS, DOORWAYS, WINDOWS AND STAIRWAYS AS THEY APPEARED TO YOU IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23, 2006? >> YES. >> AND IF YOU COULD, USING THE POINT ORE, JUST GENERALLY SHOW US THE VARIOUS AREAS AND ENTRYWAYS THAT YOU AND YOUR FELLOW OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATORS EXAMINED ON THAT LEVEL. >> YES, COMING DOWN FROM THE FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN AREA, HALL, FOYER AREA, THERE WAS STEPS GOING DOWN TO THE BASEMENT LEVEL, THE LOWER LEVEL. THERE WAS A KIND OF LIKE A FOYER HERE. COMING IN FROM THE GARAGE. THERE WAS SEVERAL ROOMS OFF OF THAT. THERE WAS A ROOM HERE THAT EXITED TO THE OUTSIDE. THERE WAS ALSO A ROOM OFF OF HERE WITH SOME SUPPLIES ON THE FLOOR. THERE WAS A SMALL COUNTER IN THIS ROOM HERE. YOU CAN SEE THE COUNTER. BATHROOM. COUPLE OF CLOSETS. AND ANOTHER CLOSET HERE AND THEN THERE'S A DOORWAY HERE LEADING OUT INTO THE GARAGE. >> ANY SIGNS OF FORCED ENTRY OR DAMAGE TO ANY OF THE WINDOWS OR DOORS ON THAT FLOOR BASED UPON YOUR EXAMINATION? >> NONE THAT WE OBSERVED. >> YOUR HONOR, I WANT TO OFFER THIS NEXT EXHIBIT. >> ANY OBJECTION? ALL RIGHT, I'LL HEAR YOU AT THE BREAK. IT REMAINS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AS C FOR IDENTIFICATION. THANK YOU. >> WELL, THIS LOOKS LIKE A GOOD TIME FOR A BREAK AND A LOOK AT OUR 13th JUROR QUESTION. TODAY WE WANT TO KNOW. DID THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO OF NEIL ENTWISTLE HELP THE PROSECUTION? SO FAR A VERY LARGE 88% OF VIEWERS SAYING YES, 12% OF YOU VOTING NO. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME, CAST YOUR VOTE. THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> THE PROSECUTOR CONTINUING TO ASK QUESTIONS AND USE VAZ WALL AIDES FOR THE JURY TO DESCRIBE THE CRIME SCENE. EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT CRIME SCENE VIDEO. >> BATHROOM AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE ITEMS ON THERE, THE BED, THE CHAIR T LAMP, AS YOU OBSERVED THEM IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23, 2006. >> YES. >> I WILL BE OFFERING THIS AS WELL. >> SAME OBJECTION. >> SERGEANT, IF YOU COULD, AGAIN USING THAT POINTER JUST A FEW MORE MOMENTS UP THERE. POINT OUT THE VARIOUS VANTAGE POINTS FROM WHICH YOU AND YOUR TEAM PHOTO DOCUMENTED THAT BED AND THE AREAS AROUND THE BED. >> YES, FROM THE DOORWAY, PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO WERE TAKEN PRIOR TO ENTERING, DOCUMENTS ALL THE VANTAGE POINTS THAT WERE OBSERVED FROM THE DOORWAY ENTRANCE RIGHT HERE. AND THEN WE WOULD GO IN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND TAKE VANTAGE POINTS FROM THAT LOCATION, THE DOOR WAS TO THE SIDE HERE, TAKE VANTAGE POINTS FROM EACH LOCATION AND WE WORKED THE ROOM IN SUCH A MANNER TO DOCUMENT ALL OF THE ITEMS IN THE ROOM. >> AND YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A COMFORTER PLACED ON THAT BED WHEN YOU INITIALLY ENTERED THE ROOM AND WERE CONDUCTING THE FIRST PHASE OF YOUR PHOTO DOCUMENTATION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND POINT OUT THE BEST YOU CAN WITH THAT POINTER USING THE DIAGRAM, WHERE YOU SAW THE COMFORTER, HOW IT WAS SITUATED. >> YES, THE COMFORTER WAS ON THE BED APPEARING IN AN UNMADE FASHION ON VERY LARGE FLUFFY WHITE COMFORTER. COVERING MOST OF THE BED, BUNCHED UP. >> THE PROSECUTOR IS PUTTING UP ANOTHER PICTURE FOR DISPLAY AND THAT'S WHY YOU KIND OF SEE HIM WALK BY NOW AND AGAIN. >> WHAT VANTAGE POINT IS THAT FROM? >> YES, THIS IS FROM THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH ACROSS THE BED. >> AND HAD ANYTHING BEEN DONE TO THE COMFORTER AT THAT POINT IN TIME? >> NO, EVERYTHING WAS PHOTOGRAPHED AND INVOLVED BEFORE WE TOUCHED ANYTHING. >> CAN YOU SEE THAT FROM WHERE YOU ARE, SERGEANT? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? WHAT VANTAGE POINT WOULD THAT BE? >> THAT IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BED, THE DISTAL PORTION OF THE BED, TOWARD THE FOOT OF THE BED TAKING KIND OF AN ANGLE SHOT SHOWING THE BED, THE COMFORTER AND THREE OF THE POSTS. >> SAME CIRCUMSTANCE BEFORE ANYTHING HAD BEEN DISTURBED OR MOVED FROM THE BED OR AROUND THE BED? >> YES. >> AFTER PERFORMING THE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION, THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE VIDEO, ET CETERA, WHAT DID YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM BEGIN TO DO, IF YOU COULD, STARTING WITH THE BEDROOM? >> AT THAT POINT, WE KNEW THAT THE VICTIMS WERE UNDER THE COMFORTER BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT VISIBLE IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TAKEN. WE DECIDED TO METHODICALLY REMOVE EACH LAYER AS WE FOUND THEM AND THEN DOCUMENT WITH PHOTOGRAPHS AS EACH LAYER OF THE COMFORTER WAS TAKEN OFF, IT WAS DOCUMENTED PRIOR AND AFTER REMOVAL. SECONDLY IT WAS DOCUMENTED PRIOR AND AFTER REMOVAL. >> DESCRIBE THE REMOVAL OF THE FIRST LAYER AND YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE BED UPON REMOVAL. >> YES. FIRST WE REMOVED THE COMFORTER. WE BROUGHT IT DOWN TO THE FOOT OF THE BED. WE OBSERVED BOTH VICTIMS, THE MOTHER, RACHEL WAS LYING ON THE -- SHE WAS ON HER LEFT SIDE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BED FACING THE RIGHT SIDE. HER ARM WAS ACROSS THE SECOND VICTIM, LILLIAN, THE BABY. HER ARM, HER RIGHT ARM WAS COVERING ACROSS THE INFANT'S CHEST. >> NOW, DID YOU INITIALLY SEE THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE -- OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN UPON REMOVAL OF THE COMFORTER OR WAS SOMETHING ELSE -- WAS THERE ANOTHER REMOVAL STEP, A LATER STEP? >> THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FOUR REMOVAL STEPS. I'M SORRY. THE FIRST ONE WAS THE COMFORTER, AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A WHITE SHEET COVERING THE RACHEL, THE MOTHER. AND A PILLOW WAS ALSO ACROSS THE INFANT LILLIAN'S FACE AND PARTIALLY ON THE ADULT VICTIM, RACHEL'S FACE ALSO. >> SO TELL US JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, TELL US WHAT YOU COULD SEE FIRST UPON REMOVAL OF THE COMFORTER. >> YES, UPON REMOVAL OF THE COMFORTER, WE COULD SEE THE INFACT'S BODY FROM THE NECK DOWN BUT THE FACE WAS COVERED WITH THE PILLOW. >> YOU COULD OR COULD NOT SEE THE BODY? >> I BELIEVE THAT THE SECOND LAYER, THE SHEET WAS COVERING MOSTLY THE ADULT VICTIM. BUT THE PILLOW WAS COVERING MOST OF THE INFANT'S SHOULDERS AND HEAD AREA. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY THAT WAS THE SECOND LAYER OR WAS THAT THE THIRD LAYER. >> I BELIEVE THE PILLOW WAS THE SECOND LAYER. AND THE SHEET WAS THE THIRD LAYER. >> TELL US WHAT YOU COULD SEE WHEN YOU REMOVED THE SECOND LAYER, THE PILLOW. >> YES, THEN WE COULD SEE THE INFANT VICTIM, HER FACE AND ALSO THE MOTHER'S FACE WHICH WAS ON HER LEFT SIDE, FACING TOWARDS THE INFANT. >> AND WHAT PORTION OF THE BED WAS RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HEAD? WAS IT TOWARD THE HEAD OF THE BED? THE FOOT OF THE BED? HOW WAS IT SWATED? >> HER WED WAS ADDRESS O' -- HER HEAD WAS TOWARDS THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BED ON HER RIGHT SIDE. >> AND THE BABY? >> LILLIAN WAS ON HER BACK. HER HEAD WAS SLIGHTLY ELEVATED FROM THE BODY. I CAN'T REMEMBER, I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PILLOW UNDERNEATH, BUT SHE WAS SORT OF ON AN INCLINE. >> AS THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED FROM ON TOP OF THE BABY, DID YOU MAKE OBSERVATIONS OF THE UNDERSIDE OF THE PILLOW? >> YES. WHEN WE REMOVED THE PILLOW FROM THE FACE AREA OF THE INFANT VICTIM, THERE WAS REDDISH BROWN STAINS COVERING THE SIDE OF THE PILLOW THAT WAS UP AGAINST THE FACE OF THE INFANT. >> AND COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER REDDISH BROWN TYPE OF STAINS ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE BED AT THAT TIME? >> NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. >> SHE WAS LAYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. I BELIEVE HER FEET WERE CURLED UP A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE BODY. SHE HAD ON WHAT APPEARED TO BE PAJAMAS, OR SHORTS AND A TOP. APPEARED TO BE PAJAMAS. AGAIN, SHE WAS LAYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. HER FACE WAS SOMEWHAT DOWNWARD. AND HER RIGHT ARM WAS OVER ACROSS THE INFANT VICTIM, LILLIAN. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU OBSERVE ON THE HEAD OR FACIAL AREA OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AT THIS TIME? >> ON THE -- THE ONLY THING THAT I NOTED, BUT THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT AFTER WHEN WE TURNED HER ON HER BACK, THERE WAS A SLIGHT DISCOLORATION AROUND HER MOUTH AREA. >> AND WHAT ABOUT ON THE BABY? WHAT, IF ANYTHING, COULD YOU OBSERVE ON THE BABY AT THIS MOMENT, BEFORE YOU WENT -- BEFORE ANY FURTHER MOVEMENT IS DONE? >> YES. ON THE BABY, WE NOTICED DISCOLORATION AND WHAT APPEARED TO BE BRUISING BILATERALLY ON THE EYES. SOME FLUIDS WERE PURGING, OR BEING EXCRETED FROM THE FACE AREA. IT WAS DISCOLORED, RED ISSUE-BROWN. >> WHAT, IF ANY CLOTHING, DID THE BABY HAD ON? >> THE BABY HAD ON AN INFANT SLEEPER. PAJAMAS. >> WHAT DID YOU AND YOUR TEAM MEMBERS DO NEXT? >> AFTER PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN, BOTH 35 AND DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN OF ALL OF THE REMOVAL OF ALL OF THE ITEMS, WE NEEDED TO MOVE THE VICTIMS. SO MYSELF AND LIEUTENANT PAUL LITTLINE WERE ON EACH END, AND THE LIEUTENANT ROLLED RACHEL ONTO HER BACK, SO THAT WE COULD DOCUMENT THE ENTIRE BODY. AND WE PHOTO DOCUMENTED THAT, TAKING OBSERVATIONS OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PUNCTURE TO THE LEFT CHEST, ABOVE THE LEFT BREAST AREA, AND ALSO SOME PUNCTURE -- I BELIEVE TWO PUNCTURES TO THE TOP, THE SHIRT THAT SHE WAS WEARING RIGHT IN THAT SAME VICINITY. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU -- >> IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. BUT PLEASE STAY WITH US. AS YOU CAN SEE WE ARE LIVE IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE THE PROSECUTION'S CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOW IN FULL SWING. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> PROSECUTORS ARE BUILDING THEIR CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. WE'RE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. A NEW HOUR OF "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE." ON JANUARY 22nd, 2006, POLICE DISCOVERED THE WOEDS OF 27-YEAR-OLD RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN INSIDE THE BEDROOM OF THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. RACHEL'S HUSBAND NEIL WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. HE SURFACED THE FOLLOWING DAY IN HIS NATIVE ENGLAND. NOW HIS DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL IS WELL UNDER WAY INSIDE A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY NEIL ENTWISTLE DID NOT KILL ANYONE. THEY SAY HE MERELY FOUND THOSE BODIES AND HE FLED TO ENGLAND IN A PANIC. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE COURTHOUSE WITH THE LATEST. BETH, WE HEARD WHAT I FOUND TO BE REALLY CHILLING TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THOSE BODIES APPEARED. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. >> Reporter: YES. RIKKI, THE VIDEOS HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN TO THE JURY YET OF THE BODIES, BUT A VERY DETAILED DESCRIPTION FROM ONE OF THE TROOPERS WHO WAS THERE AND PROCESSING THE SCENE, TAKING THE FIRST, THE COMFORTER OFF AND THEN A PILLOW AND THEN THE SHEET, DESCRIBING THE POSITIONS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS LYING IN BED ON HER LEFT SIDE. SO SHE -- AND HER FEET WERE A LITTLE BIT CURLED AND IT APPEARED SHE WAS WEARING WHAT AIL PEERED TO BE PAJAMAS, AND HER BABY WAS CRADLED NEXT TO HER. THE BABY HAD A PILLOW OVER HER HEAD. AND THAT PILLOW PARTIALLY COVERED THE TOP OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. SO WHEN THEY HAD TO REMOVE LAYERS, IT WAS FIRST THE COMFORTER, WHICH EXPOSED THE BABY, BUT FOR THE PILLOW COVERING THE BABY, THE TOP HALF OF THE BABY, AND MOST OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS COVERED BY A SHEET. THEN THEY REMOVED THE PILLOW, THEN THEY REMOVED THE SHEET. THEY FIND A PUNCTURE WOUND IN THE LEFT -- IN THE CHEST OF THE BABY. ANOTHER WOUND IN THE BACK THAT EXITS. AND THEN A PUNCTURE WOUND ABOVE THE LEFT BREAST OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. SO THAT BULLET HAD GONE THROUGH THE BABY AND INTO HER. NOW, THAT'S THE -- I BELIEVE THAT ONE WAS THE INTACT BULLET, THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO USE TO COMPARE TO THE FIREARM EXPERT'S HOUSE. THE BULLET IN HER HEAD, SHE DIDN'T DESCRIBE THAT WOUND, VIRTUALLY NO BLOOD DID NOT EXIT. THAT WAS DISCOVERED AT AUTOPSY. THERE APPEARS TO BE BRUISING AROUND THE BABY'S EYES. NOW, THAT MAY BE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ALMOST THREE DAYS SINCE THE D.A. SAYS THE MURDER OCCURRED, AND DECOMPOSITION HAD SET IN, BUT WE DON'T KNOW. ALL THE THINGS I'VE READ AND WHAT WE'VE HEARD, IT APPEARS TO BE BRUISING ON THE BABY'S FACE. NO SIGNS OF STRUGGLE. NO DEFENSIVE WOUNDS ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE BABY'S FACE IS A RESULT OF THE GUNSHOT WOUND AND DECOMPOSITION. THIS WITNESS WAS ASKED IF SHE KNEW THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM. AND SHE DIDN'T MAKE NOTE OF THE TEMPERATURE IN THE ROOM. THAT ALSO AFFECTS THE RATE OF DECOMPOSITION. THE COLDER, THE SLOWER THE RATE. IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S BASICALLY BEEN HER DESCRIPTION OF THE BODIES. WHEN YOU CAME TO ME JUST NOW, SHE WAS ABOUT TO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY DID NEXT. AFTER PHOTOGRAPHING AND VIDEOTAPING. I ASSUME IT WILL BE THE REMOVAL OF THE BODIES. >> BETH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. AND WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO HEAD RIGHT BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. AND STILL WATCHING WITH US, JIM AND BILL. I'M GOING TO ASK BOTH OF YOU ALSO TO STAND BY AS WE GO BACK LIVE. >> I'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION. >> YOU MAY HAVE. >> SERGEANT, IF YOU COULD STEP DOWN TO THAT BLANK BOARD. YOU USED SOME TERMS LOW BORLAND AND ARCH. IF YOU CAN USE THE MARKER ON THE CORE BOARD, DRAW THEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE JURY SO THEY SEE THE VARIOUS RIDGES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT YOU WOULD LOOK FOR. >> VERY CRUDE DRAWING HERE, REPRESENTING LOOPS, WHIRLS, ARCHES. OBVIOUSLY SIMPLIFYING THE RIDGE FLOW HERE. RIDGES DON'T ALWAYS COME IN FROM ONE SIDE AND EXIT THE SAME WAY WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING IN BETWEEN. ABOUT BUT THESE ARE THE THREE DISTINCT PATTERN TYPES THAT YOU CAN HAVE. WHORL, AND RIGHT FLOW LOOPS, THOSE ARE THE MOST COMMON OCCURRING BECAUSE WE HAVE RIGHT SLOPE -- >> COULD YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP? >> I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. YOU HAVE RIGHT SLOPE LOOPS AND LEFT SLOPE LOOPS. WHURLS ARE THE SECOND MOST COMMON OCCURRING. YOU HAVE ABOUT 65% OF THE POPULATION HAVE LOOPS, APPROXIMATELY 30% HAVE WHORLS, AND ROUGHLY 5% HAVE ARCHES. >> I THINK YOU SAID THEY WERE LEVEL ONE TYPE OF DETAILS THAT YOU LOOK FOR? >> LEVEL ONE IS JUST THE RIDGE FLOW. SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE IT DELINEATED AS ACTUALLY SEEING ALL THE PATTERNS. BUT WE DO LOOK FOR THAT FLOW. AND THE FOOT PRINTS ARE GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. BUT THE FINGERS AND TOES WOULD APPEAR IN THIS FASHION. >> YOU MENTIONED PALM PRINTS. THE SAME TYPE OF CHARACTERISTICS AND ANALYSIS TAKE PLACE WITH PALM PRINTS ALWAYS THEY DO WITH FINGERPRINTS? >> YES. THE ANALYSIS PHASE, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR RIDGE FLOW. YOU HAVE DISTINCT AREAS ON PALMS. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR LOOPS, WHORLS AND ARCHES. WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT AREAS. THE AREA RIGHT UNDER THE FINGERS, THE HYPO THEN AR AREA, WHICH IS TOWARD THE ULNAR SIDE, OR THE LITTLE FINGER SIDE. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE THEN AR SIDE. >> IS THERE ANOTHER LEVEL OF DETAIL, SERGEANT, THAT YOU LOOK FOR WHEN EXAMINING AND COMPARING FINGERPRINTS? >> WE HAVE THREE LEVELS THAT WE LOOK FOR. THIS IS LEVEL ONE, THE RIDGE FLOW. CAN WE MAKE A DETERMINATION, IF IT IS A LATENT FINGERPRINT, CAN WE MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT TYPE OF PATTERN TYPE WE HAVE. THE SECOND LEVEL WOULD BE LEVEL TWO DETAILS, THE GOLFING DETAILS AS THEY'RE CALLED. THAT WOULD BE ALL OF -- WHEN I SPOKE OF THE RIDGES, ACTUALLY HAVING NOTHING HAPPEN BETWEEN THEM. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS IN THE FINGERPRINT WORLD. FOR INSTANCE, ON A LOOP PATTERN HERE, YOU MIGHT HAVE A RIDGE THAT COMES -- THIS COMES AROUND. YOU MIGHT HAVE ANOTHER RIDGE THAT FORKS, BIFURCATE AND GO INTO TWO RIDGES. YOU COULD HAVE AN ENCLOSURE. WITH A LONG ENDING RIDGE. THOSE ARE WHAT'S CALLED LEVEL TWO DETAILS OR GAULDEN DETAILS. >> COULD YOU SPELL THAT WORD? >> G-A-L-T-O-N. >> THANK YOU. >> MINUTIA CHARACTERISTICS. THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS ALL UNIQUE. THOSE CHARACTERISTICS ARE DIFFERENT ON YOUR FINGERS AND TOES, INDIVIDUAL TO INDIVIDUAL. >> THE LEVEL THREE THAT YOU MENTIONED, WHAT IS THAT? >> LEVEL THREE WOULD BE IF WE CAN BLOW UP THE IMAGE, WE CAN SEE LEVEL THREE A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE'RE ACTUALLY EXAMINING ONE RIDGE AT A TIME. AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ON THAT RIDGE IS THE PORE STRUCTURE. FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD HAVE ONE RIDGE, AND YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THE PORES. THOSE PORES ARE CLOSE TOGETHER. SOME PORES ARE SEPARATE. AND WE ALSO LOOK FOR THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE RIDGE, WHAT THE RIDGE ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE. ARE THEY FAT AT ONE END, ARE THERE CUT-OUTS ON IT. IT'S NOT JUST ONE RIDGE AFTER ANOTHER. IN THE END IT MIGHT COME TO A NICE POINT OR IT MIGHT COME TO A BULBOUS END. THAT'S THE LEVEL THREE DETAIL WE SOMETIMES LOOK FOR. >> I HAVE THIS MEMORY THAT I JUST HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU. AS I'M LISTENING TO THIS TESTIMONY. MY VERY FIRST FEDERAL CASE AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, AFTER I HAD PROSECUTED, MY VERY FIRST TASK WAS TO CROSS-EXAMINE A FINGERPRINT EXPERT. I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT. HOW DO YOU CROSS-EXAMINE A FINGERPRINT EXPERT? WITH THAT THOUGHT IT'S TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. BUT FIRST, HERE'S A LOOK AT WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS CASE. ELIZABETH FROM PENNSYLVANIA WRITES, HAD THIS YOUNG FAMILY STAYED IN ENGLAND, THIS HORRIBLE TRAGEDY WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. NEIL ENTWISTLE WOULD MOST LIKELY NOT HAVE HAD READY ACCESS TO A GUN. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE CASE IS THAT ENTWISTLE HAD NO MOTIVE TO KILL HIS WIFE AND BABY. YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHO DID? THANKS TO THOSE COMMENTS. KEEP THEM COMING. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THOSE E-MAILS. KEEP THEM COMING. SECOND, WE'LL GO BACK IN AND TALK ABOUT FINGERPRINTS. >> I BELIEVE IT'S 1 MILLION FINGERPRINT CARDS THAT WE CAN USE AS A SEARCH ENGINE, INSTEAD OF MANUALLY GOING THROUGH FILES LOOKING FOR THEM. >> THOSE PRINTS THEMSELVES, IS THAT WHAT'S KNOWN AS AN INKED PRINT? >> YES. >> IN THE PROCESS OF COMPARISON, I THINK YOU USED THE TERM HV? CAN YOU VI THAT? >> THAT PROCESS, THE ANALYSIS PHASE, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR LATENT FINGERPRINT, WE DETERMINE IS IT WORTH GOING ON TO THE C PART, WHICH IS THE COME PAR I TIFF STAGE. IN DESCRIBING ALL OF THOSE THINGS I DID, LEVELS ONE, TWO, THREE IN THE ANALYSIS PHASE, WHEN WE DETERMINE THAT, AND PRINT THAT, WE CONSIDER THAT SUFFICIENT QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO DO A COMPARISON, WE CAN THEN GO TO THE COMPARISON PHASE. >> IN THE AREAS THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED TO THE JURY AND THE COURT THAT YOU PROCESSED IN THE EARLY-MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd, 2006, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND, LIFT, REMOVE ANY LATENT PRINTS, OR PORTIONS OF LATENT PRINTS? >> YES. >> TELL US WHAT YOU FOUND AND WHERE YOU FOUND THEM. >> WE FOUND TWO AREAS DETAILED THAT WERE PHOTO DOCUMENTED AND REMOVED. ONE WAS ON THE OUTSIDE. IN LOOKING AT THE MASTER BEDROOM DOORJAMB, THE EXTERIOR PART OF THAT. THE PART THAT'S ON THE FOYER, ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE, WE FOUND A PALM PRINT. AND -- >> THAT'S FINE. >> THEY GO TO THE SIDE BAR. GIVES US A QUICK OPPORTUNITY TO TALK. WHEN THEY LEAVE THE SIDE BAR WE'LL OF COURSE BREAK OUT OF THAT. I'M HERE WITH YOU, JIM, AS WE LISTEN TO THIS. SOMETIMES TRIALS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TEACHING TOOLS. I'M GOING TO SAY THESE TOOLS WHERE WE HAVE TO LEARN ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF FINGERPRINTS AND SCIENCE OF DNA. ULTIMATELY WHAT THIS PROSECUTOR IS DOING IS MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NO INROAD FOR THIS DEFENSE, RIGHT? >> THAERMT. THEY'RE TRYING TO BUTTON DOWN ALL OF THE ISSUES IN THE STATE'S CASE. THERE ARE FINGERPRINTS ON T THE .22 CALIBER PISTOL THAT BELONGED TO RACHEL'S FATHER. AND -- >> AND TO NEIL. >> AND TO NEIL, THAT HE HAD FIRED. THAT IS THE MURDER WEAPON. SO THE STATE IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH THAT IS ONLY HIS FINGERPRINTS ON THAT WEAPON AND HOW DID THEY GET THERE. >> OR ELSE ALSO RULING OUT OTHER POTENTIAL SUSPECTS AROUND, OR PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE. THEY'VE LEFT THE SIDE BAR AS YOU CAN SEE, SO LET'S GO BACK LIVE. >> IN THE AREAS YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING, WHAT THEY DID, WHAT WAS COLLECTED. >> PERTAINING TO THAT AREA? >> YES. >> YES. ON THE DOORJAMB, ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE DOORJAMB ON THE FOYER SIDE OF THE MASTER BEDROOM, WE FOUND THE PALM PRINT. AND ON THE DOOR -- >> NOW, WHEN YOU SAY -- >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO YOURSELF? >> MYSELF AND THE -- MY PARTNER, WE PROCESSED THE BEDROOM. >> WHAT DID YOU FIND, AND/OR WHAT DID YOU SEE, DID HUGH FIND IN PROCESSING THE DOORJAMB? >> WE FOUND THE DETAIL. >> IF YOU COULD SPECIFY WHETHER YOU FOUND IT OR TROOPER HEFFERNEN FOUND IT, IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION, OR IF YOU DID IT TOGETHER. THAT SPECIFIC TASK TOGETHER, INDICATE THAT YOU DID IT TOGETHER. >> YES. WE BOTH PROCESSED THAT. THE MASTER BEDROOM DOORJAMB AREA DOOR TOGETHER. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU FIND? >> YES. THE PALM PRINT ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND WE ALSO FOUND A LATENT FINGERPRINT ON THE DOOR ON THE FOYER SIDE. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO LIFT OR REMOVE THOSE PRINTS? >> YES. THEY WERE PHOTO DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO, AND THEN YES, THEY WERE BOTH LIFTED. >> AT SOME LATER POINT IN TIME, WAS A COMPARISON MADE TO ONE OR MORE KNOWN SETS OF PRINTS? >> YES. >> AND WHEN WAS THAT DONE? >> IN THE WEEKS AFTER THE DATE, AS WE RECEIVED EITHER MAJOR CASE PRINTS, WHICH INCLUDED PALM PRINTS, AND/OR INK FINGERPRINTS, KNOWN EXEMPLARS, WE BEGAN THE COMPARISON PHASE. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE TO WHOM THAT PALM PRINT AND/OR THE LATENT FINGERPRINT WAS ASSOCIATED? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WERE YOUR RESULTS? >> THE PALM PRINT WAS INDIVIDUALIZED TO NEIL ENTWISTLE, AND THE LATENT FINGERPRINT WAS INDIVIDUALIZED TO ONE OF THE FINGERS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> AND WHO DID THAT COMPARISON OF THE PALM PRINT AND THE FINGERPRINT? >> I WAS INVOLVED IN BOTH OF THOSE. >> SO YOU EXAMINED THE LATENT PRINT AND THE INK PRINTS AND MADE A DETERMINATION OF THE ASSOCIATION? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> BY THE WAY, IN YOUR PROCESSING THE PHOTO DOCUMENTING OF THE SCENE, SERGEANT, DID YOU SEE AND/OR PHOTOGRAPH ANY BALLISTIC EVIDENCE? >> THE ONLY THING THAT WAS DOCUMENTED WERE THE PUNCTURES TO THE VICTIMS. >> ANY SHELL CASINGS OR BULLET HOLES THAT WERE OBSERVED, DOCUMENTED ON THE SCENE WHILE YOU WERE THERE, WITHIN YOUR AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY? >> NOTHING OTHER THAN ON THE VICTIMS. >> WAS THERE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR IN THIS CASE IN EXAMINING FOR LATENT FINGERPRINTS? >> YES. IN THE OTHER AREAS, WE ALSO PROCESSED THE AREAS I SPOKE OF EARLIER. BUT ALSO TROOPER FENEFF AND ON THE FIRST LEVEL AND BASEMENT LEVEL. >> AND AT SOME LATER POINT IN TIME, DID YOU PERFORM AN ADDITIONAL EXAMINATION OF ONE OR MORE PRINTS THAT WERE -- AS YOUR UNDERSTANDING WERE FOUND ELSEWHERE IN THE HOME? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DID YOU PROCESS? >> PROCESS OR COMPARE? >> COMPARE, I'M SORRY. >> I -- THE TROOPER PROCESSED THE DOOR LEADING FROM THE DOWNSTAIRS BASEMENT FOYER AREA INTO THE GARAGE. AND THERE WAS A LATENT FINGERPRINT ON THAT DOOR, ON THE GARAGE SIDE JUST ABOVE THE DOORKNOB, I BELIEVE. >> DID YOU DO THE PROCESSING OF THAT PARTICULAR PRINT? >> I DID NOT PROCESS THAT FINGERPRINT. >> I'M PROBABLY USING THE WRONG TERM. THE PROCESSING AT THE SCENE? >> YES. >> THE COMPARISON, I APOLOGIZE -- >> YES, I DID THE COMPARISON. >> WHEN DID YOU DO THAT COMPARISON? >> THAT WAS IN THE WEEKS AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER AS NEW FINGERPRINT CARDS BECAME AVAILABLE. I DID ALL OF ANY LATENTS THAT WE HAD THAT COULD REACH THE COMPARATIVE STAGE. I WAS COMPARING THEM TO THE KNOWN EXEMPLARS AS THEY BECAME AVAILABLE. >> IN THE COURSE OF YOUR COMPARISON OF THE LATE EPT FINGERPRINTS THAT YOU AND TROOPER HERNEN RECOVERED AND LATER PRINTS GIVEN FOR COMPARISON, HOW MANY KNOWN PRINTS DID YOU HAVE? >> I THINK IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 25. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> THIS IS A CHART THAT I PREPARED OF THE LATENT FINGERPRINT TO THE KNOWN EXEMPLAR. >> AND YOU'RE REFERRING TO A LATENT FINGERPRINT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY TROOPER LABRECT TO YOU? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO, UPON EXAMINATION OF THAT PRINT, DETERMINE A PERSON TO WHICH IT WAS ASSOCIATED? >> YES. >> AND WHO WAS THAT? >> KIMBERLY PUIGE. >> I TAKE IT YOU HAD A SET OF HER INKED FINGERPRINTS? >> YES. >> DID YOU FOLLOW THAT HV PROCESS IN CONDUCTING YOUR COMPARISON OF THAT LATENT TO THE KNOWN PRINT CARD OF KIMBERLY? >> YES. >> AND DOES THAT DIAGRAM THERE CONTAIN ENLARGED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THOSE LATENT PRINTS AND A FINGERPRINT, AN INK FINGERPRINT OF KIMBERLY? >> YES, IT DOES. >> CAN THIS BE MARKED AS THE NEXT EXHIBIT? >> ANY OBJECTION? WITH NO OBJECTION, IT MAY BE MARKED. >> NOW, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE, AGAIN, THE PROSECUTOR IS REALLY PAINSTAKING, REAL DETAIL, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE LIVES IN THAT HOUSE. SO WE WOULD EXPECT HIS PRINTS EVERYWHERE. AND HE USED THAT GUN, LEGITIMATELY USED THAT GUN WHEN HE WENT SHOOTING WITH RACHEL'S STEPFATHER. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME THAT THEY SEIZED THE GUN, THAT THAT PRINT BECOMES SIGNIFICANT. THE MORE SIGNIFICANT PART IS GOING TO BE THE DNA OF RACHEL. >>> WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT BACK IN LIVE. WE ARE DEALING WITH A FINGERPRINT EXPERT. >> MOST OF IT, BALLISTIC TYPE ITEMS WITHIN THOSE 25, HOWEVER, ALL OF THE ITEMS CONTAINED WITHIN EACH ITEM WERE ITEMIZED LATER. FOR INSTANCE, ONE ITEM MIGHT HAVE COME IN AS A BOX OF AMMUNITION, BUT WHEN IT WAS OPENED, IT HAD MAYBE EIGHT BOXES OF AMMUNITION IN IT. SO THE NUMBERS OF ITEMS ARE PROBABLY FOUR TIMES AS MANY AS WERE ITEMIZED. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE ITEMS THAT YOU RECALL PROCESSING, EXAMINING? >> YES. THERE WERE SEVERAL WEAPONS, HANDGUNS, AND LONG WEAPONS, RIFLE TYPE WEAPONS, SHOTGUNS. ALSO AMMUNITION. BOXES THAT CONTAINED AMMUNITION. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS THAT WERE USED TO HOLD DIFFERENT -- SEVERAL ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION. TRIGGER LOCKS. GUN CASE BOXES. THE EXTERIOR BOXES OF THE AMMUNITION. AGAIN, ALL OF THE ITEMS WERE PERTAINING TO BALLISTIC TYPE EVIDENCE. >> DO YOU RECALL PROCESSING A JAR CONTAINING SOME AMMUNITION? >> YES. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DISCOVER AND WHAT IF ANY COMPARISON DID YOU MAKE IN RESULT ACHIEVE? >> YES. THERE WERE TWO LATENT FINGERPRINTS ON A JAR, THE GLASS JAR -- I FORGET, MAYBE A 4-OUNCE OR 6-OUNCE JAR, A GLASS JAR. AND THERE WERE TWO FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS FOUND ON THAT GLASS JAR. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO CONDUCT A COMPARISON OF THOSE AREAS OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL? >> YES. >> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO ASSOCIATE THAT FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL WITH ONE OR MORE PERSONS? >> YES. >> AND WHO WAS THAT? >> OBJECTION. >> DID YOU HAVE A SET OF FINGERPRINT CARDS -- OR TELL US THE FINGERPRINT CARDS THAT YOU HAD IN PROCESSING THE -- THAT JAR, IN DOING THE COMPARISON. >> THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 25 PEOPLE THAT I HAD FINGERPRINT CARDS TO. IF I COULD REFER TO MY REPORT, I COULD LIST THE NAMES. >> MAY SHE, YOUR HONOR? >> MAY I SEE COUNSEL FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE? >> SINCE MY GUESTS HAVE BEEN SO KIND AS TO BE WATCHING WITH ME, LET ME GO OUT TO MASSACHUSETTS FIRST TO BILL KICKHAM. BILL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS HERE, IS I ASSUME WHAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO DO IS ELIMINATE OTHER PEOPLE AS SUSPECTS WHOSE FINGERPRINTS MIGHT BE THERE, THAT THE PROSECUTOR WANTS TO SHOW THEY HAD ACCESS TO THE HOUSE. THERE WAS REASONS FOR THEM TO BE IN THE HOUSE. CERTAINLY WE KNOW NEIL ENTWISTLE LIVED IN THE HOUSE. >> ABSOLUTELY, RIKKI. THE PROSECUTOR IS TRYING TO SHOW HERE THROUGH THIS PAINSTAKING, METHODICAL EXAMINATION THAT THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE THAT HAD ACCESS TO EITHER OF THESE WEAPONS OR THIS AMMUNITION THAN NEIL ENTWISTLE. AND THERE WERE NO OTHER FINGERPRINTS FOUND. THEY'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE ANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES, OR EVEN REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD ACCESS TO THIS WEAPONRY, THAT SOMEONE ELSE PUT THEIR HANDS ON THEM, THAT THERE WAS REALLY ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY HERE, AND THAT'S THE ONE SITTING BEFORE THE COURT. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SHOW. >> I AGREE THAT'S WHAT HE'S TRYING TO SHOW. AND JIM, WHEN WE ARE LISTENING TO THIS, YOU'VE BEEN A PROSECUTOR FOR A LONG TIME. YOU'VE BEEN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR A LONG TIME. WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE DEFENDING THIS CASE? HAVING ALL OF THIS TESTIMONY COME IN, BIT BY BIT, PIECE BY PIECE, WOULD YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE? >> IT'S PAINFUL TO LISTEN TO THIS, METHODICAL, AND PAINFUL FOR A JURY TO SIT AND LISTEN THROUGH ALL THIS TESTIMONY. THE DEFENSE COULD HAVE STIPULATED VERY EASILY TO THE STATE'S PROFFER OF EVIDENCE. THEY COULD HAVE SAID, WE DON'T CONTEST THIS. WE DON'T CHALLENGE IT. IT'S HIS HOUSE. HIS FINGERPRINTS WERE LIKELY TO BE FOUND ALL ABOUT THE HOUSE. AND THE DEFENSE CASE IS REALLY, IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE. IT'S ANOTHER SUSPECT. SO THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THAT IN SOME OTHER WAY. THE STATE'S MAIN EVIDENCE IN THE CASE IS THE FINGERPRINTS ON THE GUN. >> RIGHT. >> AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DNA WITH RESPECT TO THE VICTIM IN THE CASE. BUT THE DEFENSE CAN GO ABOUT THAT IN ANOTHER WAY. THEY DON'T NEED TO ALLOW -- AND I TRY TO VIEW THIS AS BEING A JUROR IN THE CASE, AND IF I'M THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THE PROSECUTOR, I'M THINKING ABOUT THE JURY. I WANT TO KNOW THAT THE JURY IS INTERESTED IN THE CASE. I WANT TO KNOW THAT I'M NOT LOSING THEM. AND IT TENDS TO -- YOU TEND TO LOSE THE JURY WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS TYPE OF EXPERT TESTIMONY, WHEN YOU COULD EASILY HAVE STIPULATED TO WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS WERE. AND YOU CAN ALWAYS GO ABOUT CROSS-EXAMINING OR ATTACKING IT IN ANOTHER WAY. >> IT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT. LET ME GO BACK TO BILL KICKHAM FOR A MOMENT AND LET ME TELL THE VIEWERS, THEY'RE STILL AT THE SIDE BAR, AS I LOOK DOWN, THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING ANY LIVE TESTIMONY. BILL, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT THIS GUN, IT'S NOT SO MUCH TO ME THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PRINT IS ON THE GUN. WHAT REALLY IS THE FACT IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PRINT IS ON THE GUN, AND RACHEL'S DNA FROM BLOOD OR BRAIN MATTER IS AT THE MUZZLE. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IT'S BOTH. >> ABSOLUTELY. THAT IS A DOUBLE COMBINATION THAT IS NEARLY FATAL TO THE DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER. IT'S ONE THING TO SAY NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PRINTS ARE ON THIS GUN, BECAUSE HIS FATHER-IN-LAW AND LLOYD COOK TOOK HIM OUT AND TAUGHT HIM PRACTICE SHOOTING. THAT'S ONE THING. BUT WITH THE VICTIM'S BRAIN MATTER AND DNA ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN, THAT IS A NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE COMBINATION OF EVIDENCE TO GET AROUND. AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE PROSECUTOR DID HERE VERY CAREFULLY AND VERY EFFECTIVELY, I THOUGHT, WAS IN HIS METHODICAL DISCUSSION AND BRINGING OUT IN DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SERGEANT RITCHIE, I BELIEVE, THE DETAILED NATURE OF THE BODIES AS THEY WERE FOUND, IN OTHER WORDS, RACHEL WAS FOUND ON HER LEFT SIDE, WITH HER RIGHT ARM OVER THE BABY. IN OTHER WORDS, WHOEVER CAME INTO THAT ROOM DID NOT THREATEN, OR WAS NOT A THREAT PERCEIVED BY RACHEL. IN OTHER WORDS, WHOEVER DID THIS WAS EITHER KNOWN TO RACHEL AND DID NOT -- WAS NOT PERCEIVED AS A THREAT BY HER. OR IT WAS A COMPLETE STRANGER WHO TIP TOED IN THE ROOM AND BEFORE RACHEL COULD EVEN OPEN HER EYES, FIRED A BULLET INTO HER HEAD. UNLIKELY NATURE OF THAT. >> INDEED. AND THE PICTURE IS ABSOLUTELY CHILLING. THEY ARE BACK LIVE, SO LET'S US RETURN TO THE COURTROOM, TOO. >> I THINK IT WAS -- >> MAY THE HONOR DO SO, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> DO YOU HAVE YOUR REPORT WITH YOU? >> NO, I DON'T. >> COULD I HAVE A MOMENT, JUDGE? >> YES. >> WELL, SINCE THEY DID TAKE A MOMENT, IT'S TIME FOR THAT BREAK THAT I NEED TO SQUEEZE IN. SO LET'S TAKE IT AND WE'LL BE BACK LIVE. THE COURTROOM. IT SEEMS THERE'S A BIT OF A PAULS. AS I CAN SEE, ON MY MONITOR, AND NOW YOU CAN SEE, THE PROSECUTOR IS DEALING WITH SOME MORE EXHIBITS. WE KEPT HOPING FOR THE CRIME SCENE VIDEO, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. >> SERGEANT, IF YOU COULD OPEN THAT BOX, EXAMINE THE CONTENTS AND TELL US WHETHER YOU RECOGNIZE IT. >> YES, I RECOGNIZE THIS. >> WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT TO BE? >> THIS IS THE .22 -- ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS PROCESSED BY MYSELF AND SEVERAL OTHER TROOPERS AT THE LAB IN SUDBURY. >> IS THERE AN ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTENT OF THAT BOX? >> YES. >> WITH RESPECT TO THE IDENTITY OF ANYONE ELSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESSING OF THE ITEM. >> ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS GOING TO GET TO THAT. DID YOU PROCESS THAT ITEM THERE? >> YES, I PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESSING OF THIS ITEM. >> WHO ELSE PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESSING OF THAT ITEM? >> TROOPER FENIN, LE BREK, TROOPER HEFFERNEN AND TROOPER ACCOSTA. >> WAS THAT PARTICULAR ITEM PROCESSED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES. ALL OF THE BALLISTIC EVIDENCE WAS PROCESSED OVER A COUPLE OF DAYS. >> AND IN THE COURSE OF THAT PROCESSING, DID YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE DURING THOSE DAYS THAT THAT ITEM WAS PROCESSED? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WAS THERE AN ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PARTICULAR FIREARM, OR THE CONTENTS OF THAT BOX? >> YES. >> WHAT ITEM NUMBER OR ITEM NUMBERS ARE RELATED TO THE ITEMS IN THAT BOX? >> 17-4. >> AND IS THERE AN ENVELOPE IN THERE? >> YES, THERE IS. >> AND IS THERE AN ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ENVELOPE? >> IF I COULD REFER TO MY REPORT, I COULD GIVE YOU THE ITEM NUMBER ON THAT. >> MAY SHE, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> THAT'S 17-13. >> AND HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT ITEM? >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO -- >> PLEASE, OPEN IT. >> WOULD THERE BE A PAIR OF SCISSORS? THANK YOU. YES, I RECOGNIZE THIS. >> WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT AS? >> THIS IS THE TRADER LOCK THAT WAS WITH THIS ITEM. WITH THIS WEAPON. >> DID YOU PROCESS THAT ITEM AS WELL? >> YES. >> AND IN PROCESSING THAT ITEM -- YOU MAY PUT IT BACK IN THE ENVELOPE. IN PROCESSING THAT ITEM AS WELL AS THE FIREARM, WHAT, IF ANY, LATENT, OR FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL AREA, OR AREAS DID YOU FIND? >> AGAIN, COULD I REFER TO MY REPORT? >> IF NECESSARY. YOUR HONOR? >> THE QUESTION RELATED TO THE -- >> LET'S START WITH THE LOCK ITSELF. >> YES, THERE WERE TWO AREAS OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL WHICH WERE LABELED 17-13.2, AND 17-13.3. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT IN EXAMINING THOSE FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL AREAS YOU WERE ABLE TO CONDUCT A COMPARISON? >> NO, THOSE LATENT AND FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS WERE NOT ABLE TO REACH THE COME PAR I TIFF STATES. >> WHY IS THAT? >> THEY LACKED QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL TO GO TO THE SECOND LEVEL AFTER THE ANALYSIS PHASE. >> AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LACKING QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL? >> IT CAN DEPEND ON SEVERAL FACTORS, EITHER THE QUANTITY OF RIDGE DETAIL IS NOT THERE. IT'S OF SUCH AN IMPRESSION THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL SMUDGES OR OVERLAPS, OR THERE IS SUCH DISTORTIONS THAT YOU CAN'T PASS THAT "A" STAGE, THE ANALYSIS STAGE TO COME UP WITH A RIDGE FLOW. >> NOW, THE OTHER ITEM IN THAT BOX, THE FIREARM, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND ONE OR MORE FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL, OR LATENT FINGERPRINT AREAS ON THAT? >> YES. >> AND HOW MANY WERE FOUND? >> I BELIEVE THERE WERE NINE OR TEN. >> AND DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN LOCATING THOSE FRICTION RIDGE AREAS? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ABOUT IN REMOVING THEM OR DOCUMENTING THEM FOR COMPARISON? DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN THAT? >> IN THE PHOTOGRAPHING OF THEM, YES. >> DID YOU PHOTOGRAPH EACH OF THOSE AREAS? >> WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF TROOPER COSTER AND TROOPER HEFFERNEN. >> THAT WAS DONE OVER THE SAME PERIOD OF DAYS? >> YES. >> GO OR THREE DAYS APART? >> YES. TELL US IF YOU COULD, SERGEANT, IS IT STANDARD TO INVOLVE OTHER PEOPLE IN PROCESSING ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE? >> IN THIS CASE HERE, THERE WAS SUCH AN ABUNDANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT CAME IN AT THE SAME TIME, AND IT WAS OF A TIMELY NATURE TO GET THE EVIDENCE PROCESSED, WE UTILIZED THE TEAM EFFORT IN A TEAM APPROACH TO PROCESSING THE EVIDENCE. >> AND AS PART OF THE ACB PROCESS, DOES THAT ITSELF ROUTINELY INVOLVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS? >> IT COULD ON OCCASION. >> WHAT, IF ANY, RESULTS DID YOU GET IN LOOKING FOR FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL, LATENT PRINT AREAS ON THAT REVOLVER? >> YES, WE FOUND NINE OR TEN THAT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE COMPARATIVE STAGE. IN THIS CASE HERE, WE DID USE A TEAM APPROACH. I WANTED OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREED WITH ME IN DETERMINING THAT IT LACKED QUANTITY AND QUALITY, EVEN THOUGH IT DID LACK QUANTITY AND QUALITY WE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING COMPARISON. BUT THE ANALYSIS PART OF IT WAS SO DIFFICULT, WE COULDN'T REALLY DETERMINE THEY WERE OF SUCH PARTIAL NATURE, WE COULDN'T DETERMINE REALLY WHERE THE FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL CAME FROM. >> WHAT ABOUT THE NATURE OR SURFACE OF THE REVOLVER, THE FIREARM ITSELF? HOW DID THAT PLAY INTO YOUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF A FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL TO DO A COMPARISON? >> YES. ON SOME WEAPONS, YOU DO HAVE SMOOTH SURFACES. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE A LOT OF CURVED SURFACES OR SURFACES THAT HAVE CREVICES AROUND A CERTAIN AREA. THE HANDLES OF MANY WEAPONS ARE ALSO OF A TEXTURED NATURE, NOT CONDUCIVE FOR LEAVING FINGERPRINTS. SEVERAL OF THE AREAS ARE SUCH SMALL AREAS, WE JUST COULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO GET TO THE COMPARATIVE STATE. THE RIDGES MIGHT HAVE BEEN CROSSED. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A BIG SMUDGE ACROSS ONE AREA. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DOUBLE TAP WHERE ONE PART OF THE HAND WAS TOUCHED. AND I CAN'T EXCLUDE FEET HERE, IT'S HAND OR FOOT. IT IS FRICTION RIDGE SKIN BEING LEFT BEHIND HERE. ONE PART OF THE FRICTION RIDGE MAY HAVE TOUCHED IN ONE FASHION AND THERE WAS AN OVERLAP OR DOUBLE TAP OVER THE TOP OF THAT SO WE COULD NOT GO TO THE COMPARATIVE STAGE. >> YOU SAID NINE OR TEN. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IT WAS NINE OR TEN AREAS THAT YOU FOUND? >> AGAIN, IF I COULD LOOK AT MY REPORT. >> MAY SHE, YOUR HONOR? >> IT WAS TEN. >> AND DID YOU YOURSELF HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE EACH OF THOSE TEN AREAS AND ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO DO A COMPARISON, TO GO TO THE NEXT LEVEL? >> YES. >> AND WHAT RESULTS DID YOU GET? >> THEY ALL WERE DETERMINED TO LACK QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO REACH THE COMPARATIVE STAGE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE INDIVIDUAL -- >> I JUST HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT. BUT LET ME JUST GET TO MY GUESTS ONE MORE TIME. BILL KICKHAM, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT IN TIME? >> YOU KNOW, AS I SAID IN MY BLOG LAST NIGHT ON THIS SUBJECT, NEIL ENTWISTLE IS IN A TOUGH, TOUGH SITUATION. AND ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN AND STEPHANIE PAIGE, WHO ARE SUPERIOR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, HAVE THEIR WORK CUT OUT FOR THEM. YOU MADE A VERY GOOD POINT EARLIER, RIKKI, THAT THE CLIENT CALLS THE SHOTS WHEN IT COMES TO DECIDING WHAT KIND OF A DEFENSE HE WANTS TO ADVANCE. NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. >> INDEED. I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT YOU AND LET YOU HIT IT ON THE BLOG AND LET ME HAVE ABOUT TEN SECONDS. WHAT'S YOUR -- >> WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY, WHAT DID HE DO. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE HERE AND THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE THE STATE HAS. >> VERY GOOD. TEN SECONDS IN, I LIKE THAT. >>> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, THE "BEST DEFENSE" WILL REST FOR THE DAY. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH JACK FOERD FOR A LOOK WHAT'S COMING UP ON BANFIELD AND FORD. I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU. >> ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE. CONTINUE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SO FAR TODAY. LOOKING AT THAT COURTROOM, MOVING INTO THE INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES, THE FINDINGS, SOME OF THAT FORENSICS THAT JURORS ARE SO INTERESTED IN. ALL THIS AROUND THAT QUESTION OF, IS THAT ENOUGH. FOR A JURY TO SAY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS A KILLER. WE'LL LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED SO FAR IN THE COURTROOM. >> ALL RIGHT, JACK, THANKS SO MUCH. WE'LL SEE YOU AND ASHLEIGH IN A FEW MINUTES. A BIG THANKS TO MY GUESTS, BOTH AND WILLIAM FOR JOINING ME TODAY. I HOPE TO SEE YOU BOTH AGAIN REALLY SOON. AND FOR YOU, I'M RIKKI KLIEMAN ON ANOTHER EDITION OF THE "BEST DEFENSE" |