|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TO THE ON "BEST DEFENSE," A MOTHER AND BABY MURDERED INSIDE THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. WHAT DOES A CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE SAY? OR NOT SAY ABOUT THEIR KILLER? PLUS, A MAJOR RULING FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT ON GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEES. THE BEST DEFENSE NOW. >>> THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." WE'RE TAKING YOU LIVE TO MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE NEIL E ENTWISTLE TRIAL IN A FEW MOMENTS. FIRST, BREAKING NEWS FROM OUR NATION'S CAPITAL. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULED ON THE HOTBED ISSUE CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES. FOREIGN TERRORISM SUSPECTS HELD AT GUANTANAMO BAY DO HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION IN UNITED STATES CIVILIAN COURTS. JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY WROTE THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION ARE DESIGNED TO SURVIVE AND REMAIN IN FORCE, IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES." CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS CRITICIZED COLLEAGUES FOR STRIKING DOWN WHAT HE CALLED "THE MOST GENEROUS SET OF PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS EVER AFFORDED ALIENS DETAINED BY THIS COUNTRY AS ENEMY COMBATANTS." JOINING US LIVE FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. IS OUR SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM. AND, FRED, I KNEW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, JUST FOR YOU AND ME, TODAY, BECAUSE YOU AND I ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THESE ISSUES. I ACTUALLY WAS SURPRISED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY EVEN DECIDED THAT GUANTANAMO BAY, YOU COULD HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. WHAT HAPPENED? >> WELL, THIS WILL BE A HISTORIC DECISION. THIS IS ONE THEY'LL PUT IN THE LAW BOOKS, STUDENTS HAVE TO STUDY TO LEARN TO BECOME LAWYERS. AND THE REASON IS THAT IT IS JUST A FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE AND THAT IS, THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE HELD BY THE POWER OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, STATE OR FEDERAL, TO GO INTO CIVILIAN COURT IN WHAT WE CALL HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS AND THAT'S SIMPLY A LATIN WAY OF SAYING IT'S A PROCEDURE BY WHICH YOU CHALLENGE YOUR DETENTION. AND WHAT HAD HAPPENED HERE WAS THAT CONGRESS AND WHEN IT WAS PREDOMINANTLY REPUBLICAN AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD GONE TOGETHER AND HAD SET OUT A GROUP OF PROCEDURES WHICH THEY SAID WERE -- WERE ADEQUATE, THAT THEY WERE -- THAT THEY WERE GOOD -- A SUITABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR HABEAS CORPUS. AND THAT WENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND IN A 5-4 DECISION, A FAMILIAR BREAKDOWN, THE FIVE LIBERALS JOINED BY ANTHONY KENNEDY IN THIS INSTANCE TO STRIKE IT DOWN. THE DISSENTERS AS YOU NOTED, PARTICULARLY THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER CONSERVATIVES, THE CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT, SAID NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD GIVES COMBATANTS IN TIME OF WAR THE RIGHT TO GO INTO CIVILIAN COURTS AND CHALLENGE THEIR INCARCERATION. AND JUSTICE KENNEDY SAID, WELL, IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY THING WE'RE DOING HERE, BUT THE CONSTITUTION WAS CREATED TO FUNCTION IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES. >> FRED, DO YOU THINK IT IS INTERESTING, IF I CAN USE THAT WORD THAT IT WAS JUSTICE KENNEDY WHO WROTE THE OPINION? THAT WAS THE PERSON EVERYONE WAS LOOKING TO DO SAY WHICH WAY IS HE GOING TO GO. >> HE'S BEEN THE SWING VOTE ON THESE CASES. AND THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME CRITICISM IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AND THE CONSERVATIVE COMMUNITY. AND THE PENTAGON AND ELSEWHERE ABOUT THESE 5-4 DECISIONS. THESE ARE SWEEPING DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT, SOME WILL SAY THE RIGHT OF THE COUNTRY TO EFFECTIVELY DEFEND ITSELF FROM PEOPLE WHO WOULD KILL US AND WHO TERRORIZE US. AND ATTACK US. AND THE FACT THAT IT IS 5-4, IT CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER THAN THAT, THE CASE WAS ARGUED VERY MUCH TO JUSTICE KENNEDY AND THIS TIME HE CAME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE LIBERALS. IT IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT CAN HAPPEN. NOW, CONGRESS HAD COOPERATED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION IN STRUCTURING A SENSE OF -- A SERIES OF PROCEDURES THAT THEY SAID WAS A SUITABLE SUBSTITUTE FOR REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS ON HABEAS CORPUS. BUT NOW THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES IN CONGRESS, BOTH HOUSES, ARE GONE. THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CHARGE AND YOU JUST HAVE TO WONDER WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS PROBABLY WILL NOT COOPERATE IN REWRITING THESE RULES AGAIN, SHORT OF GRANTING RIGHTS OF HABEAS CORPUS. >> FRED, ONE OF THE SITUATIONS THAT I THINK NOT ONLY LAWYERS LOOK TO AND LAW STUDENTS BUT CERTAINLY AMERICA LOOKS TO IS WE KNOW THERE ARE THREE BRANCHES IN GOVERNMENT. AND THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THAT IS THE PRESIDENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION AS WELL AS THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THE CONGRESS, HAVE BEEN VERY FIRM ONE WAY AND NOW WE HAVE THE COURTS SAYING, WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH BY THIS 5-4 DECISION RULES THE DAY. >> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS HAS INDULGED IN A GOOD BIT OF SELF-RESTRAINT IN NOT PUTTING ITSELF AT LAS VEGASER HEADS WITH THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT HAS IN THIS CASE, BUT I THINK IT IS A REALITY THOSE JUSTICES READ THE NEWSPAPERS. THEY KNOW THAT GEORGE BUSH LOST HIS MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE IN THE SENATE. THE REPUBLICANS LOST THE MAJORITY. THE MAJORITY NOW PROBABLY IS PRETTY FAVORABLE TO WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE TODAY. SO THE FACT THAT THEY COUNTERMANDED ACTIONS BY BOTH OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT IS -- IS WATERED DOWN A BIT BY THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOW IN CHARGE AND WHO KNOWS WE MAY HAVE A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT SOON. AND THEY MAY QUITE WELL AGREE WITH WHAT THE COURT HAS DONE. >> FRED, AND FINALLY, WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT THIS DECISION MEANS IN PRACTICALITY, SHOULD WE EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE A GREAT MANY WRITS THAT ARE FILED AND THAT THEREFORE THE COURTS WILL BE BUSY WITH THESE CASES. >> A NUMBER OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN FILED. THEY WERE JUST WAITING FOR THIS DECISION. THERE ARE ABOUT 270 DETAINEES. A LARGE NUMBER OF THEM NOW ARE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IT IS GOING TO BE A REAL SCRAMBLE. I GUESS CONGRESS IS GOING TO HAVE TO ACT IN SOME WAY TO SET UP OR PERHAPS A JUDICIARY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'LL DO THIS BECAUSE THAT'S -- THEY'RE DOWN IN GUANTANAMO. THERE IS NO FEDERAL JUDGE DOWN THERE TO HEAR THE CASES. I GUESS THEY HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP HERE TO THE UNITED STATES. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ANSWERED BECAUSE OF THIS DECISION TODAY. >> WELL, FRED, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT NEWS AND LUCKY ME TO BE WITH YOU TO GET TO THAT NEWS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU AND I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THESE ISSUES AS DO SO MANY OF OUR VIEWERS. GOOD TO SEE YOU ON THE AIR. >>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. AS WE DO, WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK LIVE TO ENTWISTLE. DON'T WORRY. RIGHT NOW, GO TO THE COMPUTERS, SEND ME AN E-MAIL. I LOVE HEARING FROM YOU ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S ON YOUR MIND. GO TO CNN.COM/CRIME. E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY AT BESTDEFENSE@CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH LIVE TESTIMONY. >>> NOW TO MASSACHUSETTS FOR A MURDER MYSTERY THAT PROSECUTORS SAY THEY HAVE SOLVED. THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THEY SAY IT WAS THE PERSON CLOSEST TO THEM, RACHEL'S HUSBAND AND LILLIAN'S FATHER, NEIL ENTWISTLE. NOW HE'S ON TRIAL FOR DOUBLE MURDER. BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY THEIR CLIENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME. THEY SAY ENTWISTLE DISCOVERED HIS 27-YEAR-OLD WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER'S BODIES AND IN A PANIC HE HOPPED A PLANE HOME TO HIS NATIVE ENGLAND. TODAY'S TESTIMONY CONTINUES. BETH KARAS JOINS WITH US THE LATEST. NY DOUBLE QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY ARE WE STARTING SO LATE AND WHAT SHOULD WE EXPECT THIS MORNING? >> WELL, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, RIKKI, GOOD MORNING, THAT THE TRIAL HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR TWO HOURS. AND THAT'S BECAUSE ONE OF THE JURORS DID NOT FEEL WELL THAT JUROR IS NOW HERE. THE FULL PANEL OF 16 IS IN THE COURTROOM. THE WITNESS ON THE STAND WHEN COURT BROKE YESTERDAY, WITNESS NUMBER 26, SERGEANT WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, MARY RICHEY, WHO PROCESSED THE CRIME SCENE OR ONE OF THE TROOPERS WHO PROCESSED THE CRIME SCENE BACK ON THE STAND FOR EXAMINATION. DURING, I THINK THIS WITNESS' EXAMINATION, THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO BE SHOWING A CRIME SCENE VIDEO AND IT WILL BE GRAPHIC, SHOWING THE BODIES IN THE BED. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEAT MONITOR BECAUSE THE COURT POSITIONED THEM SO THAT THE PUBLIC GALLERY CANNOT SEE, ONLY THE PEOPLE IN THE WELL AND THE JURY AND THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE WELL. >> OKAY, BETH. WE'RE GOING TO SEE YOU AGAIN LATER ON IN THE SHOW. I KNOW YOU'RE ALSO GOING INTO THE COURTROOM. WELL, WATCHING WITH US TODAY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MY DEAR FRIEND, ROBERT SIMPLE IN NEW YORK AND PETER ETTENBURG. I'LL ASK YOU TO STAND BY. WE'RE GOING TO GO IN LIVE. WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SEEING THIS MORNING AS WE GO IN LIVE IS THE PROSECUTOR AS YESTERDAY HAS BEEN INTRODUCING A SERIES OF EXHIBITS OR VISUAL AIDS TO HELP THE JURY AND AS WELL AS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ITSELF. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE PROSECUTOR AS HE GOES TO AND FROM THE DEFENSE TABLE WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, THEN UP TO THE WITNESS AND NOW AS I'M WATCHING HIM, HE'S GOING BACK THOIZ PODIUM AND WE'LL HERE A QUESTION. >> LOOK AT EACH OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS AS A GROUP. >> THIS IS A WITNESS LOOKING OVER A SERIE OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE PROSECUTOR HAS GIVEN TO HER. SHE'S VERY THOROUGH AND PRECISE. >> WHAT DO THEY DEPICT IN A GENERAL SENSE? >> THE AREA PHOTOGRAPHED OF THE HOUSE AND SURROUNDING AREA. >> WHEN WERE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN? >> THEY WERE TAKEN ON THE NEXT MORNING, ON THE DAYLIGHT HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd. >> DO THOSE FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE AREAS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PREMISES AT 6 CUBS PATH AS IT APPEARED TO YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES ON THAT DAY? >> YES, IT DOES. >> ARE YOU GOING TO BE REFERRING TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY? >> NO, I WILL NOT. >> THEN THEY MAY BE MARKED COLLECTIVELY AS ONE EXHIBIT. >> THANK YOU. >> SERGEANT, AS YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES WERE PHOTOGRAPHING AND VIDEOTAPING THE EXTERIOR OF THE PREMISES AS WELL AS THE INTERIOR OF THE PREMISES, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE WINDOWS AND DOORS AND OTHER AREAS OF EGRESS TO THE PREMISES? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF DOING THAT? >> TO COLLECT FOR FORCED ENTRY, ANY SIGNS OF FORCED ENTRY. >> IN WHAT CONDITIONS DID YOU FIND THE DOORS AND WIN ZBLOEZ WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF FORCED ENTRIZ ON ANY DOORS AND/OR WIN ZBLOEZ AND WHETHER OR NOT THE WINDOWS, DOORS APPEAR TO BE SECURE AND IN TACT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> SERGEANT, YOU INDICATED THAT EVENTUALLY A VIDEOTAPE WAS TAKEN OF THE INTERIOR OF THE PREMISES AT 6 CUBS PATH IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd, 2006. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> IF YOU COULD, USING THATGR DIAGRAM AND THE POINTER FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL IN THE COURTROOM, DESCRIBE THE ROUTE AND THE VARIOUS ROOMS, ROOM BY ROOM, THAT THE VIDEOTAPE PROCEEDS. THE ORDER IN WHICH IT PROCEEDS. >> THIS IS ON THE -- THIS IS A DIAGRAM OF THE SECOND FLOOR. THE ENTIRE SECOND FLOOR. AS I TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY, WE STARTED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM WITH THE VIDEO AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS. AFTER WE SECURED THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE VIDEO AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM WHEN IT WAS TIME TO CONTINUE WITH THE VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHS, WE COMPLETED THE ENTIRE SECOND FLOOR INCLUDING THE FOYER, THE BATHROOM, THE TWO BEDROOMS, AND THE NURSERY. WE DOCUMENTED THAT WITH VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHY. AND THEN WE PROCEEDED DOWN TO THE FIRST LEVEL. >> TAKE US THROUGH THE ROUTE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. >> THIS IS THE FIRST LEVEL AS WE CAME DOWN THE STEPS. THE FIRST FLOOR WAS DOCUMENTED WITH PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO. MY RECOLLECTION IS IT WAS IN A -- GOING RIGHT TOWARDS THE DINING ROOM, THEN INTO THE KITCHEN AREA, THE FAMILY ROOM, THE ENTIRE KITCHEN, THE BATHROOM OVER HERE AND THEN THE LIVING ROOM. >> WHETHER OR NOT THAT VIDEOTAPE THEN CONTINUED TO THE BASEMENT AREA? >> YES. THEN WE WENT DOWN TO THE STEPS, LEADING TO THE BASEMENT LEVEL. >> SEE FOR IDENTIFICATION, YOUR HONOR. SAME THING, SERGEANT. PLEASE TAKE US THROUGH THE ROOM OR ROOMS ON THAT LOWER LEVEL, THE BASEMENT LEVEL THAT YOU VIDEOTAPED. >> YES, AS YOU COME DOWN TO THE STEPS TO THE LOWER LEVEL, THE FOYER AREA, CLOSET, AND THEN ALSO A DOOR THAT LEADS OUT TO THE GARAGE AREA THAT WAS ALL VIDEOTAPED. AND THEN ENTERING INTO THIS ROOM HERE, THERE WAS A CLOSET IN THAT ROOM. ALSO OFF OF THAT ROOM WAS A BATHROOM AND AN OFFICE AREA WITH A COUNTERTOP AND A CLOSET. ALL OF THIS WAS PHOTO DOCUMENTED AND VIDEO DOCUMENTED. >> YOU MAY RESUME THE STAND. >> SERGEANT, I PLACE AN ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU. I SEE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. YOU RECOGNIZE THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> THIS IS A DVD THAT WAS CONVERTED FROM THE VIDEO CASSETTE ON TO DVD OF THE VIDEO DOCUMENTATION OF 6 CUBS PATH. >> HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE PRIOR TO TODAY TO VIEW THAT DVD? >> YES. >> AND HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO COMPARE IT TO THE ORIGINAL VIDEO CASSETTE THAT WAS TAKEN OF THE INTERIOR OF THE PREMISES AT 6 CUBS PATH ON JANUARY 23 rd, 2006? >> YES. THIS WAS A COPY MADE OFF THE ORIGINAL. >> AND MY NEXT QUESTION, THE CONTENTS IDENTICAL TO THE CONTENTS OF THE ORIGINAL VHS TAPE? >> YES. OUR POLICY IS TO MAKE AN ORIGINAL, A WORKING COPY, AND THEN COPIES ARE MADE FROM THERE. SO, YES, IT IS IDENTICAL. >> DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT THE INSIDE OF THAT PREMISES DURING THE VIDEOTAPING IN QUESTION? >> YES, IT DOES. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT AT THE BEGINNING PORTION OF THAT TAPE, THAT CD, EXCUSE ME, IS THERE SOUND ON THERE? >> YES. THERE WAS SOUND ON HERE. >> AND I BELIEVE YOU HAD TESTIFIED THAT HAD YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUED HAD INITIALLY ENTERED THE HOME, THERE WAS SOUND COMING FROM THE UPSTAIRS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WAS THAT SOUND RECORDED ON THAT CD/DVD AS WELL? >> YES, IT IS. >> NEXT EXHIBIT YOUR HONOR. >> IT MAY BE MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT. >> EXHIBIT 35 MARKED. >> YOUR HONOR WE ASK THAT -- PLAY IT FOR THE JURY AND BE DISCUSSED. >> IT MAY BE PLAYED FOR THE JURORS. AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FIRST, LET ME GIVE YOU AN INSTRUCTION. YOU HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT, AND I ANTICIPATE YOU WILL SEE A VIDEOTAPE AND PHOTOGRAPHS THAT DEPICT THE BODIES OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. IT WOULD BE NATURAL FOR YOU TO FIND THIS EVIDENCE UPSETTING AND DISTURBING. AS I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE, YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT WILL BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REACH A VERDICT BY FINDING THE FACTS AND APPLYING THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU. TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, IT WILL BE YOUR DUTY TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE, TO DETERMINE WHAT IF ANY WEIGHT TO GIVE TO IT. IN DOING SO, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PUT ASIDE ANY FEELINGS OF SYMPATHY OR ANY OTHER EMOTIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPERIENCE AS A RESULT OF HEARING AND SEEING THIS EVIDENCE AND TO BE OBJECTIVE IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR EVALUATION OF THIS EVIDENCE AND YOUR VERDICTS MUST BE BASED ON REASON AND JUDGMENT AND NOT ON EMOTIONS. >> FIRST CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT MONITOR IS WORKING. >> MAY I SEE COUNSEL FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE? >> WHILE THEY'RE AT THE SIDE BAR, GIVES ME A MOMENT TO INTRODUCE MY GUESTS AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS. ROBERT SIMPLE IS WITH ME IN THE STUDIO. YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THE JUDGES INSTRUCTION. YOU LIKE THIS INSTRUCTION. >> I LOVE THIS INSTRUCTION. YOU RARELY GET JUDGES WHO TELL THE JURY BY THE BOOK WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN TERMS OF EVALUATING EVIDENCE. THIS JUDGE DID THIS EXPLICITLY. AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A JUDGE WHO DOES THAT AND IN 30 SOMETHING YEARS NOW I HAVEN'T HAD ONE. >> SHE'S VERY ARE VERY GOOD. I'VE KNOWN HER FOR MANY YEARS. AT SOME POINT WE'LL GET TO TALK ABOUT HER AND MAYBE I'LL TALK ABOUT HER A LITTLE BIT FOR A SECOND NOW. PETER ETTENBURG, DIANE COP MIRE, I'VE KNOWN SINCE WE WERE BOTH FEDERAL LAW CLERKS, TOO MANY YEARS AGO TO SPEAK. SHE WAS A PROSECUTOR AND NOW ON THIS CASE, SHE IS BY THE BOOK ALL BY THE BOOK AND IF YOU WERE DEFENDING IN FRONT OF HER, I BET YOU WOULD THINK SHE WOULD GIVE YOU A PRETTY FAIR SHAKE. >> I AGREE SHE IS BY THE BOOK, RIKKI. SHE WILL TRY TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS BEST AS SHE KCHL SHE'S VERY SMART, SHE'S BEEN A TRIAL JUDGE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. SHE ALSO KNOWS HOW TRIALS GO, HOW FLUID TRIALS CAN BE. SHE KNOWS HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO EXPRESS CORRECTLY WHAT THE JURY SHOULD CONSIDER AND THEY SHOULDN'T CONSIDER. AND SO I THINK THAT I AGREE WITH BOB THAT HAVING THE JUDGE TELL THE JURY WHAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER AND HOW THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THIS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS WONDERFUL FOR THE DEFENSE. I CAN'T DISAGREE AND I CAN'T FIND FAULT WITH AN INSTRUCTION BY A JUDGE INSTRUCTING THE JURY HOW THEY ARE TO ASSESS CERTAIN EVIDENCE. >> AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT HAVING HEARD THE PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION FROM ONE OF THE POLICE PERSONNEL, YESTERDAY, ABOUT WHAT THOSE BODIES LOOKED LIKE, WHEN THAT COVER WAS LIFTED BACK, IT ACTUALLY MADE ME TAKE A BREATH IN. IT IS JUST THE FRIGHTENING NATURE OF UNCOVERING THEM AND SO THE IDEA THAT THE GALLERY IS NOT GOING TO SEE THIS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THIS, THIS IS GOING TO BE A POWERFUL TAPE INDEED. PETER, I'LL HAVE YOU STAND BY AND ROBERT STAND BY. NOW IT IS TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. FIRST, WOW, I KNOW WHAT DAY IT IS. A BEST DEFENSE LEGAL FLASHBACK. THIS ONE, AN EVENT THAT EVENTUALLY LED TO ONE OF THE MOST NOTORIOUS TRIALS IN THIS COUNTRY'S MODERN DAY HISTORY. 14 YEARS AGO TODAY, O.J. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND HER FRIEND RONALD GOLDMAN WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED IN BRENTWOOD, CALIFORNIA. THE FOOTBALL LEGEND WAS EVENTUALLY CHARGED AND NEARLY NINE MONTH TRIAL TOOK ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN WITH A NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION SURROUNDING IT. I WAS HIRED AS AN ANCHOR HERE TO COVER THIS CASE IN LOS ANGELES. SIMPSON WAS, OF COURSE, FAMOUSLY ACQUITTED BUT EVENTUALLY FOUND LIABLE FOR THE DEATHS IN CIVIL COURT. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> HARD TO BELIEVE BUT THE VIDEO EQUIPMENT WASN'T WORKING TO SHOW THE DVD TO THE JURORS. SO THEY'RE TAKING A BRIEF RECESS TO GET IT RIGHT. AND THAT GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS WITH YOU. PROSECUTORS HAVE BEEN METICULOUSLY LAYING OUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY SAY PROVES THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE FATALLY SHOT HIS WIFE AND INFANT DAUGHTER IN THEIR HOME. BUT ENTWISTLE'S DEFENSE TEAM HAS BEEN FIGHTING BACK, BEGINNING WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN'S OPENING STATEMENT, INTRODUCING THE IDEA THAT THERE IS MORE TO THIS CASE THAN MEETS THE EYE. >> THE PROSECUTION SPENT MAYBE 40, 45 MINUTES OUTLINING THE EVIDENCE THAT IT BELIEVES PROVES THAT NEIL WAS A MURDERER. IF IT WAS THAT CLEAR, AND IF IT WAS THAT EASY, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. BUT IT IS NOT THAT CLEAR. AND IT IS NOT THAT EASY. >> THE OTHER HALF OF THE DEFENSE TEAM IS ATTORNEY STEPHANIE PAGE. SO WHAT ELSE DO WE KNOW ABOUT THESE TWO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS? THAT'S TODAY'S SIDE BAR FOR THE DEFENSE. LET'S FIRST TAKE A LOOK AT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN'S BIO. BORN IN BROOKLINE, MASSACHUSETTS IN 1948. IN 1974 WEINSTEIN GRADUATED FROM BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL. HE WENT ON TO BECOME A TRIAL ATTORNEY IN THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. FROM 1979 TO 1981 HE WAS A PARTNER IN A SMALL LAW FIRM, HE CONCENTRATED ON CRIMINAL DEFENSE IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE COURT. AND SINCE 1981, HE'S BEEN HIS OWN PRACTITIONER. HE WAS ALSO THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. HIS PARTNER IN THIS CASE IS STEPHANIE PAGE. SHE WAS ALSO BORN IN 1948 IN EXETER, NEW HAMPSHIRE. SHE GRADUATED FROM BOSTON'S NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW. SHE'S BEEN A PUBLIC DEFENDER EVER SINCE. SHE'S ALSO BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC COUNSEL SERVICES SINCE 1979. SHE RECENTLY SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED BARBARA ASHER IN THE DOMINATRIX MANSLAUGHTER CASE. ASHER WAS ACCUSED OF WATCHING HER CLIENT DIE ON A BONDAGE RACK BEFORE CHOPPING UP AND DISPOSING OF HIS BODY. REPRESENTED BY STEPHANIE PAGE SHE WAS ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES. WHEN I LOOK AT THESE TWO LAWYERS, I REALLY AM CONSCIOUS OF HOW LONG I'VE KNOWN THEM. I HAVE PRACTICED IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. SO, FIRST LET ME GO BACK TO YOU, PETER ETTENBERG. THESE ARE GREAT LAWYERS. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT THEIR REPUTATIONS ARE SUPERB. TELL US ANYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT THEM. >> WELL, RIKKI, I KNOW BOTH ELLIOT AND STEPHANIE FOR CLOSE TO 30, 35 YEARS. THEY ARE EXTREMELY SMART LAWYERS. THEY ARE VERY SEASONED TRIAL LAWYERS. THEY TRIED HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CASES OVER THE YEARS. THEY ARE METICULOUS. ELLIOT IN PARTICULAR IS METHODICAL. AS MUCH AS CAN BE MADE ABOUT MICHAEL FABBRI BEING -- PRESENTING A METHODICAL PROSECUTION, ELLIOT MATCHES HIM STEP FOR STEP IN METHODOLOGY. HE IS VERY SMART, HE'S PLAYING THIS VERY CLOSE TO THE VEST THE WAY I THINK A DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD PLAY IT IN THIS TYPE OF A CASE. STEPHANIE HAS TAKEN ON THE MOST DIFFICULT CASES. SHE IS ALSO AN EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCE. THERE IS A LIST SERVE ON THE INTERNET WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND SHE CONTRIBUTES TO THAT LIST SERVE. ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS. IN FACT, SHE HAS BEEN POSTING INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THIS TRIAL, HELPING OUT COLLEAGUES AND HELPING OUT OTHER DEFENSE LAWYERS WITH QUESTIONS THAT THEY'RE FACING IN THEIR OWN TRIALS. SO HER ABILITY TO XARTALLIZE HER OWN TRIAL HERE AND ALSO HELP OUT HER COLLEAGUES IS EXTRAORDINARY. SHE'S A PHENOMENAL, VERY, VERY GOOD LAWYER. >> WERE YOU THE RIGHT PERSON FOR ME TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO, YOU KNOW? YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A PERSON WHO DIDN'T KNOW THEM. THAT WAS JUST GREAT. WE'RE LOOKING HERE, ROBERT, OF THIS TAPE. MACHINE WAS NOT WORKING. I SAID FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, THEY WERE THERE FOR TWO HOURS THIS MORNING, WHY DIDN'T THEY TEST IT? WHY ISN'T IT WORKING? YOUR RESPONSE HAS TO BE REPEATED. USUALLY I WON'T DO THAT. BUT YOUR HUMOR IS PERFECT. WHAT DID YOU SAY? >> I SAID THEY NEVER WORK. AND IT IS TRUE. EVEN IF THEY TEST IT BEFORE HAND AND THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T IN THE TWO HOURS, THEY NEVER DO, THEY ALWAYS THINK IT IS GOING TO WORK, SOMETHING GOES WRONG WITH EQUIPMENT AS TECHNOLOGY IMPROVE, WE STILL HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. JUROR EAR PHONES DON'T WORK, THE TAPE RECORDER DOESN'T WORK, THEY CAN'T FIND THE PLACE ON THE TAPE. ALWAYS SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> IT IS HILARIOUS. I'M LOOKING, BY THE WAY, YOU KNOW BY NOW, WHEN I LOOK DOWN, I'M LOOKING AT MY MONITOR FOR THE COURTROOM AND I CAN SEE WE'RE ON THE CEILING SO THE JURY IS COMING IN. WHEN THEY DO START LIVE I'LL GO RIGHT BACK IN. AS I'M SITTING WITH YOU, ROBERT, WE EXPECT IN A TECHNOLOGICAL WORLD, WE EXPECT IN THE YEAR 2008 THAT EVERYTHING WORKS ALL THE TIME. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE OUR VIEWERS CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW IS EXACTLY PRECISELY WHAT YOU SAID. THINGS GO AWRY IN THE COURTROOM ALL THE TIME. ELECTRONICALLY. >> EVERY DAY. IT NEVER WORKS. YOU -- THE GOVERNMENT CAN PREPARE FOR THE DEFENSE TO HAVE THEIR TAPE RECORDING PLAYED AT A CERTAIN TIME AND IT JUST SEEMS TO HAVE A MAL FUNCTION. >> AND THAT'S VERY DISHEARTENING FOR A JURY, I WOULD THINK. >> THE WORST. >> BECAUSE THEY JUST HAVE BEEN SITTING AND WAITING. A JUROR WAS DELAYED, A JUROR WASN'T FEELING WELL AND NOW THEY SIT DOWN, GET UP AND THEY WALK OUT. AND AT ONE TIME I REMEMBER IN THE SIMPSON CASE WE HAD TWO CLOCKS ON OUR SCREEN POSTED. THAT IS THE CLOCK FOR THE TRIAL DAY AND THEN THE CLOCK FOR THE JURY DAYS. THERE WERE DAYS -- THERE WERE DAYS THE JURORS HEARD NOTHING. >> THAT'S TRUE. IT IS A TERRIBLE THING TO BE A JUROR AND A GREAT THING TO BE A JUROR. JURY SERVICE IS A WONDERFUL CIVIC SERVICE. AND YET THE DELAYS IN A CASE, WHETHER A JUROR BEING LATE OR A JUDGE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH LAWYERS OR EQUIPMENT BREAKING DOWN, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THEY JUST SIT THERE AND SAY, ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER -- WHATEVER DELAY IT IS, IT IS WEARING ON THEM. >> INDEED IT IS. I'M GOING TO BRING YOU INTO THAT COURTROOM NOW BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE WE ARE IN THE COURTROOM. AND HEAR WHAT WE COULD HEAR IF THERE IS ANYTHING. THERE WAS SOME MUSIC PLAYING. I DON'T KNOW IF -- LET ME ASK MY PRODUCER. NO MORE MUSIC. WHAT HAD HAPPENED, OUR CAMERA, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS NOW FACING FULLY FRONT WHICH YOU NEVER SEE IN THIS CASE OR I WON'T SAY FULLY FRONT, FROM THE SIDE TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE DEFENSE TABLE. AND YOU SEE ELLIOT WEINSTEIN NEXT TO HIS CLIENT NEIL ENTWISTLE, NEXT TO STEPHANIE PAGE. AND THE PROSECUTOR NOW RESUMED HIS SEAT. THE MUSIC THAT WAS ON THIS RECORDING, IT WAS THERE FOR THE JURORS BECAUSE IT WAS -- MUST HAVE BEEN VERY, VERY HAUNTING AND BIZARRE. WHEN PEOPLE ENTERED THAT HOUSE, BOTH POLICE AND CIVILIANS, THE TV WAS ON, AND THERE WAS A RADIO ON. AND SO THAT WAS WHY THEY CAPTURED THE MUSIC THAT WAS PLAYING. AND NOW WHAT THE JURORS ARE SEEING WILL BE THIS GRISLY LOOK, THIS BREATHLESS AS I CALL IT LOOK OF A MOTHER WHOSE ARM IS WRAPPED AROUND HER BABY AS THEY WERE IN BED UNDERNEATH THIS COVER. LET ME GO BACK OUT TO PETER ETTENBERG. OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T SEE WHAT THE JURORS ARE SEEING, BUT BETH KARAS IS IN THE COURTROOM TO TRAY TO GET A LOOK AT THE JURORS' REACTIONS. I ALWAYS BELIEVED, PETER, THAT THE OLD ADAGE IS TRUE IF PICTURES IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS BUT IT IS THE IDEA, I THINK, HERE THAT IT MAY BE WORTH A MILLION WORDS BECAUSE MY IMAGE, I CAN'T SEE IT, HAVEN'T SEEN IT, MY IMAGE OF THIS MOTHER WITH HER ARMS AROUND THIS CHILD IN ALMOST THIS SLEEPING REPOSE IS OF THE INNOCENCE OF THAT POSITION. AND WHOEVER IS THE KILLER HAD TO TAKE THAT .22, PETER, AND GO, REALLY RIGHT NEXT TO THEM AND PUT THAT BULLET THROUGH THAT BABY THAT WENT THROUGH TO THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD AND THEN, PROBABLY, OR PERHAPS -- I SHOULDN'T SAY AND THEN, PERHAPS FIRST PUT A BULLET THROUGH THE MOTHER'S HEAD. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, PETER, HOW DOES THE DEFENSE EVER, EVER OVERCOME THAT? >> WELL, RIKKI, IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. JURORS ARE HUMAN. THEY BRING THEIR HUMAN EMOTIONS, THEY BRING THEIR EVERYDAY LIFE'S EXPERIENCES INTO A COURTROOM AND EVEN THOUGH A JUDGE WILL INSTRUCT THEM AND IN THE CLEAREST WAY POSSIBLE TO TRY TO PUT ASIDE THEIR EMOTIONS AND THEIR FEELINGS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THAT AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A GUT REACTION BY THE JURORS TO THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, PARTICULARLY IF THERE ARE JURORS WHO ARE PARENTS, AND THEY HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN. IT IS GOING TO BE A DEVASTATING THING FOR THE DEFENSE. YOU CAN'T IGNORE IT. IT IS A HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE COURTROOM. THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO INSTANT TAKENIOUSLY IF A DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW TO MITIGATE IT OR TO TRY AND MAKE IT LESS THAN IT IS. AND THE JURORS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LISTENING TO WHAT THE JUDGE TOLD THEM IN THE BACK OF THEIR HEAD, BUT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE STUCK LOOKING AT THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE VIDEO. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VIDEO ACTUALLY SHOWS, WHETHER IT IS A CLOSE-UP, OR IT IS JUST SHOWING THE BODIES ON THE BED. AND THAT, ITSELF, MAY HAVE AN EFFECT. IF IT IS A CLOSE-UP OF THE BODIES ON THE BED, AND ALSO -- >> GO AHEAD. INDEED. WHAT WE CAN SEE ALSO HERE, AND, ROBERT, IF YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MONITOR AS I'M LOOKING AT MINE, FORGIVE ME TO YOU AS I LOOK OVER HERE, NEIL ENTWISTLE, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE ALSO ABLE TO VIEW THIS ON A SCREEN. AND NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN CRYING. WE CAN SEE THAT HE TOO IS -- I WOULD THINK WOULD BE IN SHOCK WHETHER HE DID IT OR NOT. BECAUSE HE'S SOMEONE WHO HAS TO EITHER HAVE SEEN SOMETHING HE DIDN'T DO WHICH IS HORRIFIC, LOSING HIS LOVED ONES. OR IF HE DID DO IT, HE HAS TO SEE SOMETHING HORRIFIC THAT HE DID. WE ALSO SEE JUST BELOW HIM, THE MOTHER AND BROTHER. I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE. THERE ARE A LOT OF FAMILIAR WLOIZ WOULD HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM COMPLETELY. I CAN THINK OF TIMES WHERE I'M SURE YOU HAD THEM WHEN YOU PROSECUTED CASES LONG, LONG, LONG TIME AGO, AND YOU, YOU KNOW, WENT TO LOOK AT CRIME SCENE PHOTOS, PHOTOS OF A BODY, WHERE YOU ALMOST HAVE TO JUST LOOK AWAY. AND HERE TO HAVE THIS LIVE ACTION VIDEOTAPE, THIS HAS TO BE PAINFUL FROM EITHER SIDE. >> PAINFUL FOR EITHER SIDE. I WAS LOOKING AT HIM, WATCHING THIS, AND ACTUALLY WAS STRUCK BY WHAT I THOUGHT WAS STRANGE BEHAVIOR. ALTHOUGH HE APPEARED -- >> ALMOST LOOK A SMILE. >> THOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE A SMILE A LITTLE BIT, LOOKS LIKE HE'S CRYING BUT KEEPS BRINGING HIS EYES BACK TO THE SCREEN. IF YOU SEE -- WHEN HE LOOKS DOWN, HE LOOKS BACK. IF I'M THE FATHER OF THIS CHILD AND THE HUSBAND OF THIS WOMAN, AFTER THE FIRST FEW MOMENTS, IF YOU'RE PRETENDING OR ACTUALLY DIDN'T DO IT, YOU COULDN'T LOOK AT THAT SCREEN AGAIN. IT IS A LITTLE TOO -- I THINK HIS VIEW OF THIS THING IS AS THOUGH HE'S RELISHING LOOKING AT THIS. >> IT IS VERY STRANGE. THAT COULD BE AN INTERPRETATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHY YOU LOOK AT THE MOTHER AND BROTHER HERE WHAT YOU HAVE IS A MOTHER WHO WILL NOT LOOK AT ALL AT ANYTHING. AND A BROTHER WHO IS DEVASTATED. CLEARLY BY LOOKING AT THAT. PETER ETTENBERG, ONE PROBLEM FOR A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER IS I DON'T CARE HOW YOU INSTRUCT YOUR CLIENT TO BEHAVE, THIS VIDEO IS 18 MINUTES LONG. THAT THE DEFENDANT IS ACTUALLY -- LET'S ASSUME HE DID NOT DO IT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. LET'S ASSUME THAT. IF HE DIDN'T DO IT, HE IS DAMMED IF HE DID, DAMMED IF HE DIDN'T IN THE SENSE THAT HE -- IF HE CRIES, DO THEY SAY IT IS FAKE. IF WHEN HE CRIES THE LINES ON HIS FACE GO UP AS ROBERT SAID THEY ALMOST LOOK LIKE A STRANGE SMILE BUT HE'S CRYING, IF HE LOOKS AT IT AND CONTINUES TO LOOK AT IT, IF HE LOOKS AWAY AND DOESN'T LOOK AT IT, THERE IS NO CORRECT BEHAVIOR HERE, RIGHT? >> THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CORRECT BEHAVIOR. AND YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE IS NO GOOD WAY FOR A DEFENDANT TO ACT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG. AND YOU NEVER KNOW HOW A JURY IS GOING TO INTERPRET IT. THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE AS A DEFENSE LAWYER WE TRY TO HUMANIZE OUR CLIENTS. AND WE DO THAT IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT I WAS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF A TRIAL. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS GOING ON HERE IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GOING UP TO THE SIDE BAR, SIDE BAR CONFERENCES. THAT DOES SEND A SUBTLE MESSAGE TO THE JURY THIS IS NOT A TERRIBLE MONSTER BECAUSE THE JUDGE ISN'T AFRAID OF HIM. SO HE MUST BE OKAY. BUT WHEN YOU'RE STARTING TO DEAL WITH EMOTIONS, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN SOMEBODY'S HEAD. WE'RE -- FROM THE DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW, ELLIOT AND STEPHANIE ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE JURORS ARE GOING TO BE QUESTIONING WHY NEIL ENTWISTLE LEFT THE COUNTRY AND LEFT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE LEFT. THE JURORS WILL TRY TO GET -- GLE LEFT THE COUNTRY AND DID NOT CALL 911, ANOTHER FACTOR. THE PICTURE YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THE MOTHER AND BROTHER, JUST SO WE CAN IDENTIFY THEM BY NAME, THEY ARE SITTING BEHIND THE DEFENSE TABLE SO ONE WOULD BELIEVE, OF COURSE, THEY ARE ON THE SIDE OF THE DEFENSE. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO DO. THE DEFENSE PEOPLE GO BEHIND THE DEFENDANT AND THE PROSECUTION PEOPLE GO BEHIND THE PROSECUTOR. THERE IS NO RULE OF THAT. IT JUST SEEMS THAT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. THIS IS YVONNE AND RUSSELL ENTWISTLE. THIS IS NEIL'S MOTHER. THIS IS NEIL'S BROTHER. AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, OF COURSE, NOT ONLY DO THEY LOVE NEIL ENTWISTLE BUT, OF COURSE, THEY LOVED RACHEL. NOW YOU SEE THE WHOLE FAMILY THERE. THIS IS -- THIS HAS TO BE DEVASTATING FOR THEM. ROBERT, AS YOU TALKED TO ME, AS WE WERE GETTING READY TO GO ON AIR ABOUT THE -- WHAT IS THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE OBVIOUSLY WHAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK OF IMMEDIATELY, WAS IT -- IT SHOULD BE INSANITY DEFENSE, SHOULD BE SOME KIND OF DIMINISHED CAPACITY DEFENSE. WHAT WE HAVE IS AND I DIDN'T DO IT DEFENSE. AND I ASSUME THE REASON WE HAVE AND I DIDN'T DO IT DEFENSE IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN OR STEPHANIE PAGE WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED TO NEIL ENTWISTLE, HE HAS SAID HE DIDN'T DO IT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AND I DIDN'T DO IT DEFENSE. >> THAT'S TRUE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CLIENT CONSENT TO BE ABLE TO RAISE THOSE KIND OF DEFENSES. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DEFEND THIS CASE. THEY'LL HAVE TO BE MAGICIANS TO PULL THIS ONE OUT. >> UNLESS THEY HAVE SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT. AND ULTIMATELY, OF COURSE, IN THIS SITUATION, LOOKING AS WE HAVE BEEN AT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILY, THERE HAS OFTEN BEEN A FEELING AS WE HAVE WATCHED SOME OF THESE HORRENDOUS CASES WHERE LOVED ONE KILLS LOVED ONE WHERE IN THINKING IN MASSACHUSETTS, THE DIRK GREINEDER CASE COMES TO MIND SO EASILY, DR. DIRK GREINEDER, WHO WAS ACCUSED AND CONVICTED OF KILLING HIS WIFE WHILE HIS CHILDREN STOOD BY HIM. HIS CHILDREN WERE THERE FOR HIM AND EVEN TESTIFIED THAT -- AND THEY'RE THERE ON HIS BEHALF. AND SOMETIMES IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE A NEIL ENTWISTLE, HE EITHER DIDN'T DO IT OR HE CANNOT FACE HIS FAMILY TO SAY HE DID IT. THIS IS HIGH EMOTION. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AND BE BACK WITH MUCH MORE. >>> THEY APPEAR TOB A HAPPY, LOVING FAMILY. WAS THAT JUST A LIE? WE'LL HAVE MORE FROM THE DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE WHEN "BEST DEFENSE" RETURNS. >>> WE ARE LOOKING INSIDE THE COURTROOM IN MASSACHUSETTS OF THE NEIL ENTWISTLE DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL. AND THE -- WHAT IS GOING ON AS YOU LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN, AT THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN IS NEIL ENTWISTLE THE DEFENDANT AND HIS ATTORNEY STEPHANIE PAGE. AT THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SCREEN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY WHO ARE SITTING BEHIND THEIR SON AND THE FATHER IS CLIFFORD, THE MOTHER IS YVONNE, THE BROTHER IS RUSSELL. WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE COURTROOM IS THERE IS AN 18-MINUTE VIDEOTAPING SHOWN ONLY TO THE JURORS, NOT TO THE GALLERY. BUT IT IS BEING SHOWN TO THE DEFENDANT AND TO HIS DEFENSE TABLE. THAT'S WHY THE ENTWISTLES ARE SITTING RIGHT BEHIND THEM. ONE OF THE THICKS, ROBERT SIM ELS, WE'RE CURIOUS ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S REACTION. AS A JUROR WHAT ARE YOU DOING? >> EVERY JUROR WATCHES A DEFENDANT. YOU ALWAYS COACH YOUR CLIENT ON HOW TO ACT THE BEST THEY CAN IN FRONT OF THE JURY. IF HE WERE ACTING MORE LIKE HIS MOTHER, IT WOULD BE MORE SYMPATHETIC. A JURY WOULD SAY HE'S OVERWHELMED BY WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. THE FACT HE KEEPS LOOKING UP, HOW AS A FATHER COULD YOU LOOK AT YOUR DEAD 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD? HOW COULD YOU LOOK? HE KEEPS LOOKING BACK AT THE SCREEN. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE UNLESS HE'S PSYCHOTIC. THAT'S A JUROR'S REACTION. >> A JUROR'S REACTION. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE, PETER ETTENBERG, IS I SAY, JUST MY OPINION, NOT THE TRUTH, I SAY THAT IF THEY CANNOT, IF THE DEFENSE TEAM CANNOT FULLY POINT TO ANOTHER LOGICAL SUSPECT, THEY CANNOT WIN THIS CASE. WHAT DO YOU SAY? >> IF THEY CAN'T POINT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, THEY CAN'T WIN THE CASE. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT MIKE FABBRI IS DOING. HE'S TRYING TO CLOSE OFF ANY AVENUES THAT THERE MIGHT BE TO POINT TO SOMEONE ELSE. HOWEVER, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT WAS VERY CLEAR TO THE JURORS, HE SAID THAT THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY ALWAYS FIRST APPEAR. AND HE WAS ABLE TO BRING THAT OUT TO DETECTIVE SUTTON WHEN HE WAS CROSS-EXAMINING HIM THE OTHER DAY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO TRY TO DO HERE, TO SHOW THAT THINGS ARE NOT THE WAY THEY FIRST APPEAR TO BE. AND THAT THE JURY SHOULDN'T JUMP TO A CONCLUSION, SHOULDN'T REACH ANY KIND OF AN END RESULT UNTIL THEY HEARD THE WHOLE CASE AND HEARD WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO DO. >> OKAY. ROBERT SIMELS, WOULD YOU PUT NEIL ENTWISTLE ON? >> NO. >> HERE IS SOMEONE WHO LIKES TO PUT DEFENDANTS ON, RIGHT? >> I DO. >> I ALWAYS THINK THAT FROM PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS, YOU AND I HAVE HAD. I'M THE PERSON WHO NEVER WANTED TO PUT A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT ON THE WITNESS STAND. IN A SELF-DEFENSE CASE YOU TO DO THAT BUT I NEVER WANT THEM ON. ROBERT SIMELS IS SOMEONE WHO AS I RECALL ALWAYS WANTED TO PUT THEM ON. AND YOU SAY WHY NOT? >> IF YOU CAN, AND ANY CRIMINAL CASE, PUTTING ON A DEFENSE IS IMPORTANT. PUTTING THE DEFENDANT ON IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT IF YOU CAN. I DON'T THINK THIS FELLOW FROM MY OBSERVATION OF HIM IS IN A POSITION TO TESTIFY. FORGETTING THE FACTS HERE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE INEXPLICABLE FOR HIM. WHY ARE YOU LOOK ON THIS WEBSITE OF HOW TO KILL PEOPLE? HE SAID I DIDN'T LOOK ON THE WEBSITE SOMEBODY ELSE LOOKED AT IT. WHY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SEX ON THE WEBSITE. WHY DID YOU RUN AWAY. WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE CAR THERE, WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE KEYES INSIDE. WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL 911? WHY DIDN'T YOU COME BACK TO THE FUNERAL? IT IS A DISASTER. IF THE JURORS HAD ANY QUESTION IN OUR MIND, IF HE TOOK THE STAND AND COULDN'T ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, AND HE CAN'T, HE'LL BE CONVICTED. >> IS THERE -- PETER, I'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BEFORE. SO I'M GOING TO RUN THIS ONE BY YOU AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOUR RESPONSE IS. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE A PSYCHIATRIST EXAMINE YOUR CLIENT, EVEN THOUGH HE STILL IS INSISTING HE DIDN'T DO IT, TO GET AN OPINION FROM THAT PSYCHIATRIST THAT STILL SHOWS SOME KIND OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT? >> I THINK YOU CAN. AND WHETHER YOU ULTIMATELY USE THAT INFORMATION IS OBVIOUSLY DEPENDENT UPON WHAT THE RESULT OF THE EVALUATION IS. BUT IF THE DEFENSE THOUGHT THAT THEY NEEDED TO SORT OF GET INSIDE NEIL'S HEAD, AND FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ALL HIS MARBLES OR HAD HIS FULL FACUL FACULTIES, IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE DO THAT. AND THEY CAN USE THE INFORMATION OR NOT. I THINK THAT IF THEY DID IT, AND THE INFORMATION CAME BACK THAT SAID HE DOES HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO RAISE AN INSANITY DEFENSE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIFFICULT DEFENSE TO BRING IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN I THINK THAT YOU THEN GO TO THE CLIENT AND SAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT THIS INFORMATION. THIS IS FAIRLY SOLID. MAYBE THIS IS THE ROUTE WE NEED TO GO. WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US. BUT LET'S LOOK AT ANOTHER POSSIBILITY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT FROM A DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW IS YOU GOT TO START WITH A DEFENSE AND STICK WITH IT. YOU CAN'T SHIFT GEARS IN THE MIDDLE AND START PRESENTING ANOTHER TYPE OF A DEFENSE. AND SO YOU GOT TO GET ALL THIS DONE AT THE VERY BEGINNING. OTHERWISE, IT IS NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. >> OKAY. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS MOVEMENT IN THE COURTROOM. AND THAT MEANS THAT THAT VIDEOTAPE IS OVER. LET'S SQUEEZE IN A BREAK AND THEN GO BACK LIVE. >>> UP NEXT ON "THE BEST DEFENSE," A MOTHER AND HER BABY MURDERED INSIDE THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. WHAT DOES THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE SAY? OR NOT SAY ABOUT THEIR KILLER? A NEW HOUR OF "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." I'M RIKKI KLIEMAN IN FOR JAMI FLOYD. KNEEL ENTWISLE SAYS THAT WHEN HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER DEAD, HE PANICKED. HE WENT TO THE AIRPORT, HE FLEW HOME TO HIS NATIVE ENGLAND WITHOUT A WORD TO ANYONE. BUT PROSECUTORS ARE CALLING THAT OVERSEAS TRIP A FLIGHT FROM JUSTICE. THAT'S BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE ENTWISLE MURDERED HIS WIFE RACHEL AND DAUGHTER LILLIAN. THE COMMONWEALTH'S CASE IS NOW WELL UNDER WAY INSIDE A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE COURTHOUSE WITH THE LATEST. BETH, THE JURY WAS ABLE TO SEE VIDEOTAPE, SOME 18 MINUTES OR SO, AND I WANT TO KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU KNOW HOW AND WHEN THAT TAPE WAS MADE. >> Reporter: WELL, THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED ABOUT 7:00-ISH OR SO ON SUNDAY, JANUARY 22nd, 2006. ABOUT THREE DAYS, ALMOST, AFTER WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS WAS THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING. THE SEARCH WARRANT WASN'T OBT N OBTAINED AND THE EXECUTION OF IT BEGUN UNTIL 1:00 A.M. ON JANUARY 23rd. SO THE VIDEO HAD TO HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER 1:00 IN THE MORNING. THE JUDGE DID WARN THE JURORS AND INSTRUCT THEM THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SEE VIDEO AND PHOTOS DEPICTING THE BODIES. SO, ASSUMING THAT THE VIDEO HAD THE BODIES AND THE BODIES WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY WERE REMOVED AT 4:00 IN THE MORNING, THE VIDEO WAS MADE BETWEEN 1:00 AND 4:00 IN THE MORNING ON MONDAY, JANUARY 23rd. AND IT WAS LATER THAT MORNING WHEN ENTWISLE CALLED JOE MATTERAZZO, RACHEL ENTWISLE'S STEPFATHER, FROM ENGLAND AND HAD, YOU KNOW, A CONVERSATION WITH HIM, ONE OF FOUR. HE CALLED HIM FOUR CONSECUTIVE DAYS, AND THE STATE POLICE ALSO SPOKE TO HIM THAT DAY, THE SAME DAY THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED. >> BETH, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A LOT OF REACTION GOING ON IN THAT COURTROOM, PARTICULARLY AT THE DEFENSE TABLE. TELL US ABOUT THAT. >> Reporter: YES. THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISLE, AND HIS TWO ATTORNEYS MOVED TO THE WALL, PERPENDICULAR TO THE DEFENSE TABLE, AND THEY HAD A MONITOR IN FRONT OF THEM. THE JURORS HAD A MONITOR IN FRONT OF THEM AS WELL. THE VIDEO WAS LARGELY -- TO THE PUBLIC GALLERY. ALTHOUGH ENTWISLE'S MOTHER ARE YVONNE, FROM WHERE SHE SITS CLOSE TO THE WALL INSIDE THE COURTROOM MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT. SHE WAS CLEARLY EMOTIONAL AND ON HER OTHER SON RUSSELL HAD HIS ARM AROUND HER DURING THAT. NEIL ENTWISLE, OF COURSE, WE SAW CRYING PERIODICALLY DURING SHOWING OF THE VIDEO AND WE CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT HE WAS TRY CRYING AT TIMES WHEN THE BODIES WERE SHOWN AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IN THE HOUSE. THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS DURING THE 20 MINUTES OR SO DURING THE VIDEO THAT BROUGHT HIM TO TEARS. WE COULD HEAR FAINTLY IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE VIDEO A LITTLE BIT OF MUSIC. PRESUMABLY THAT'S THE MUSIC THAT WAS PLAYING IN THE BABY'S ROOM. I ONLY HEARD IT VERY BRIEFLY, BUT IT SOUNDING LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN VIVALDI'S FOUR SEASONS. ONE OF THE FOUR SEASONS. >> THANK YOU, BETH, VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT BACK IN THE COURTROOM, AND STILL WATCHING WITH US IS ROBERT SIMPLES AND PETER ETTENBERG. I'LL ASK YOU TO STAND BY WITH US. WE'RE GOING IN LIVE TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. >> -- THE CORRECTION OF EVIDENCE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT WHEN YOU SHOWED UP AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION, NOBODY KNEW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF RACHEL OR LILLIAN? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND SO YOU REALLY HAD TO BEGIN AT THE BEGINNING AND TRY AND TAKE THE STEPS THAT MIGHT LEAD YOU TO IDENTIFYING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU HAD A GROUP DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD DO WHEN YOU WENT FROM THE POLICE STATION TO THE HOME? >> YES. >> AND YOU TOOK OFF FROM THE STATION, WENT TO THE HOME ITSELF. AND WENT IN. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU LOOKED -- YOU LOOKED AROUND. >> I BELIEVE WE FIRST -- WE DECIDED TO START IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> BUT MY QUESTION TO YOU WAS -- YOU LOOKED AROUND. >> OH, SURE. SURE. >> AND YOU MADE A DECISION WHERE YOU WOULD BEGIN TO FOCUS YOUR WORK THAT EVENING OR EARLY MORNING. >> YES. A DECISION I THINK -- >> OKAY, SO THAT'S WHAT YOU DID. >> YES. >> AND BEFORE YOU TOUCHED ANYTHING, YOU WANTED TO DOCUMENT THE WAY THE PLACE LOOKED WHEN YOU FIRST APPEARED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT'S WHY YOU TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS? >> YES. >> AND THAT'S WHY YOU TOOK THE VIDEO? >> YES. >> SO THAT YOU COULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT DID THE PLACE LOOK LIKE WHEN WE FIRST GOT THERE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND ONE OF THE AREAS OF EXPERTISE THAT YOU'VE DEVELOPED IS IN FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH NUMBERS OF STEPS BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE THE FINAL STEP OF MAKING A COMPARISON OF KNOWN AND AN UNKNOWN IN A FINGERPRINT INVESTIGATION. >> YES. >> AND IT WAS YOUR DECISION, WAS IT NOT, THAT BEFORE -- WELL, AFTER THE INITIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WAS COMPLETED, THAT YOU WOULD BEGIN THE STEP FOR POTENTIAL FINGER PRINT COMPARISON ANALYSIS. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND CERTAINLY YOU DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY TOUCHING OBJECTS BEFORE YOU IDENTIFIED WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU WERE GOING TO EVALUATE OR ANALYZE. >> YES. >> THAT MIGHT CONTAMINATE IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU WENT AND YOU STARTED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. YES? >> YES. >> AND YOU MADE A DECISION TO LOOK FOR POTENTIAL LATENTS ON SURFACES. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU DID THAT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS A METICULOUS PROCESS AT YOUR END, WASN'T IT? >> YES. >> CAREFUL? >> YES. >> BECAUSE YOU HAD NO IDEA AT THAT TIME WHETHER AN ITEM INSIDE THE MASTER BEDROOM MIGHT BE OF EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE IN THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER AN ITEM INSIDE THE MASTER BEDROOM MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEBODY DID OR DID NOT TOUCH THE ITEM. ? THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT MIGHT HELP YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERSON WAS OR WAS NOT HANDLING A PARTICULAR ITEM. >> YES. >> AND IN PART TO HELP ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER A PERSON WAS PRESENT OR NOT PRESENT IN THE LOCATION WHERE THE ITEM WAS LOCATED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS A CUP ON A COUNTER INSIDE OF A ROOM AND YOU IDENTIFIED A PRINT, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY TOUCHED THE CUP. >> AT SOME POINT, YES. >> AND IF SOMEBODY -- AND IF YOU COULD LINK THE POINT IN TIME WHEN THE CUP WAS TOUCHED, AND IN THE HOME, YOU COULD SAY WHOEVER THE PERSON WAS IN THE HOME. >> WITH THE CUP, IT COULD HAVE BEEN OUTSIDE OF THE HOME AND BROUGHT INTO THE HOME AFTER THE FACT. >> BUT DIDN'T I SAY IF YOU PUT IT POINT OF TIME IN? >> SURE, OF COURSE. >> SURE. IF THE CUP WAS TOUCHED FOUR TOWNS OVER AND TRAVELED INTO THE LOCATION, YOU COULDN'T SAY WHEN THE PERSON TOUCHED THE CUP. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT IF YOU COULD BRING TOGETHER THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE OBJECT, AND YOU COULD IDENTIFY THE PRINT ON THE OBJECT, YOU'D BE IN A GOOD POSITION TO OPINE THAT SOMEBODY TOUCHED THE OBJECT IN THE PLACE THAT YOU WERE LOOKING. >> SURE. >> AND WHEN YOU DO THE FINAL ANALYSIS IN YOUR FINGERPRINT WORK, YOU HAVE TO COMPARE AN UNKNOWN ITEM -- AND THAT I THINK YOU CALLED THE LATENT? >> YES. >> AND YOU COMPARE THAT AGAINST A KNOWN ITEM, WHICH WOULD BE, IN FINGERPRINT WORK, THE PRINTS OF A PERSON WHO YOU KNOW GAVE THE PRINTS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND SOMETIMES THAT'S CALLED THE EXEMPLAR? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IN AN INVESTIGATION ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU DO -- IF IT'S A FINGERPRINT FOCUS -- IS TO IDENTIFY NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO YOU WANT TO FIND OUT IF THEY TOUCHED THE OBJECT. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHENEVER POSSIBLE, TO GET AN EXEMPLAR OR A KNOWN FINGERPRINT OR PRINTS FROM THE PERSON? >> YES. >> AND IN A -- THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE. >> YES. >> AND WHEN I SAY "YOU," I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU'RE THE ONE THAT DEVELOPED THE LIST OF NAMES OF PEOPLE FROM WHOM TO GET EXEMPLARS. BUT YOU, THE ROYAL "YOU" OF THE STATE POLICE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FROM INSIDE THE HOME AT 6 CUBS PASS, YOU DID, IN FACT, GIVE THE PLACE A CAREFUL LOOKOVER. >> YES. >> AND YOU TOOK VARIOUS LATENTS FROM INSIDE OF 6 CUBS PASS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND AS TO EACH AND EVERY ITEM THAT YOU LIFTED OR LATENT THAT YOU COLLECTED FROM INSIDE OF 6 CUBS PASS, IT WAS DONE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF TRYING TO DETERM E DETERMINE, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY WHO IT WAS THAT HANDLED THE OBJECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND -- >> AND WITH THAT, MUCH MORE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM, AFTER THIS BREAK. >>> AND A LOOK AT WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVING SAYING ABOUT THIS CASE. JAMIE IN CALIFORNIA WRITES, AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S PROBABLY IS A DUCK. THIS CASE IS PROBABLY JUST AS IT SEEMS. >>> AFTER THAT EMOTIONAL 18-MINUTE VIDEOTAPE OF THE BODIES OF THE MOTHER AND CHILD, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE SHOULD, WHICH IS TO CROSS-EXAMINE, TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THE EMOTION OF THAT TAPE. >> BED RAIL. >> THREE. ANOTHER? >> WALLS. >> FOUR. >> DOOR. >> FIVE. >> DOORJAMB. >> SIX. >> THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IT IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> YOU WANT TO DOUBLE-CHECK? >> SURE. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE I TOUCHED ON EACH ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO SIX. >> YES. >> KEEP GOING. FROM ITEMS INSIDE OF 6 CUBS PASS. >> ALL RIGHT, SURE, THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DOORS OF THE RESIDENCE WERE PROCESSED. >> SEVEN AND EIGHT? >> AND SEVERAL WINDOWS IN THE KITCHEN. >> HOW MANY? >> I DON'T RECALL AT THE TIME. >> BEST -- BEST APPROXIMATION. >> MAYBE THREE. >> NINE, 10, AND 11. >> AND THE DOOR DOWNSTAIRS, BUT I WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT ALREADY IN THE FIRST -- FIRST FLOOR AND THE BASEMENT, LOWER LEVEL WE ALREADY SPOKE OF. >> SO, I SHOULDN'T ADD ANYTHING AFTER 11 YET? >> I BELIEVE WE -- I BELIEVE THAT'S IT. >> OKAY. AND THAT IS THE COMPLETE NUMBER OF ITEMS FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED WITH AT 6 CUBS PASS. >> AT THE SCENE, YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, DID YOU RECEIVE, AFTER YOU WERE AT THE SCENE, ANY ITEMS FROM 6 CUBS PASS FOR FURTHER FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION? >> YES. THERE WERE ITEMS UNDER SUBMISSION 17. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, THOSE ARE ITEMS FROM 6 CUBS PATH. >> THOSE WERE THE LIST. >> OKAY, SO LET'S BE -- LET'S BE FOCUSED NOW. >> 6 CUBS PATH. >> OKAY. I BELIEVE -- IF I CAN JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO -- >> YES. LET ME SUGGEST THAT ITEM 17 IS NOT FROM 6 CUBS PATH IF YOU'D AGREE WITH ME. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE WILL COME TO THAT. >> I BELIEVE THAT'S IT. >> SO, IS IT NOW ACCURATE THAT OTHER THAN THE 11 ITEMS YOU'VE IDENTIFIED THUS FAR, WITH MY QUESTIONING, YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM WITHIN 6 CUBS PATH FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU DID RECEIVE OTHER ITEMS. >> YES. >> AND YOU RECEIVED, FOR EXAMPLE, A DUNKIN' DONUTS' COFFEE CUP. >> I DON'T HAVE -- >> DID YOU NOT -- >> I DON'T HAVE THAT IN MY REPORT. UNLESS IT WAS UNDER THE SUBMISSION -- >> WELL, HOW ABOUT ITEM -- HOW ABOUT ITEM 12? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? >> I DO NOT HAVE AN ITEM 12 THAT I PROCESSED OR EXAMINED. IF YOU COULD -- IS THAT THE DUNKIN' DONUTS COFFEE CUP YOU'RE REFERRING TO? >> DO YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT WAS LABELED BY YOUR CRIME SCENE LABORATORY AS ITEM 12 -3? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT ON MY REPORT. >> DID YOU RECEIVE AN ITEM 12-3 FOR FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION? >> I DID NOT. >> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS RECEIVED INTO THE LABORATORY? >> IT MAY HAVE BEEN. IF IT'S -- IF IT'S ON YOUR PAPERWORK, IT PROBABLY WAS. >> WELL, MY PAPERWORK IS THE FORENSIC SERVICES INDEX. LET ME SHOW YOU, IF I MAY. >> SURE. >> SO, WE'LL TAKE THIS IN STEPS. >> SURE. >> YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ITEM 12-3. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU NOW KNOW, DO YOU NOT, THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER ITEM THAT HAD THE EVIDENCE NUMBER OR COLLECTION NUMBER 12-3 THAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE STATE POLICE CRIME SCENE UNIT. >> OUR CRIME SCENE SERVICES UNIT IN BOSTON, YES. >> AND SO THERE WAS, IN FACT, AN ITEM FOR FINGERPRINT EXAMINAT N EXAMINATION, A DUNKIN' DONUTS COFFEE CUP IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION? >> YES? >> THERE WAS ALSO AN ITEM, A DASANI WATER BOTTLE FOR FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION? >> UNDER THAT SAME SUBMISSION. DOES IT HAVE THE HEADING AS 12 DASH SOMETHING? >> YES. >> YES. >> THERE WAS ALSO AN ITEM A STARBUCKS COFFEE CUP RECEIVED BY THE STATE POLICE FOR FINGERPRINT EXAMINATION. >> YOUR -- MY RECOLLECTION, BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVEN LABS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION, EVIDENCE IS COMING IN TO DIFFERENT LABS SO -- >> SO, I'M SHOWING YOU THIS. WE JUST WENT THROUGH ONE, TWO, THREE. STAHR STARBUCKS COFFEE CUP. >> YES. >> AND AN ACQUA FEEN NA WATER BOTTLE. >> YES. >> ALL OF THOSE ITEMS ARE FROM THE SAME SUBMISSION 12. CRIME SCENE SERVICES, BOSTON. >> SO, FOUR MORE ITEMS WERE RECEIVED BY THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES OF THE STATE POLICE? >> YES. >> FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS? >> YES. >> IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION. >> YES. >> 6 CUBS PATH WAS NOT THE ONLY HOME THAT WAS RELEVANT FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS IN THIS INVESTIGATION, WAS IT? >> IT WAS NOT THE ONLY HOME? >> HOME. >> I DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER HOME THAT WAS RELEVANT. >> A HOME IN CARVER, MASSACHUSETTS? >> OKAY. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANYTHING WITH THAT, THAT RESIDENCE. >> WELL, LET'S FIND OUT. >> OKAY. >> YOU DIDN'T GO TO A HOME IN CARVER, MASS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED TO VARIOUS THINGS WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS THAT ARE NOW THERE FOR IDENTIFICATION THAT YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER. AMMO BOX, GUN BOX, FIREARM, CORRECT? >> YES. ALL ITEMS UNDER 17 WERE SUBMITTED. >> AND -- AND ITEM 17, DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE ITEMS THAT HAD THE CATEGORY NUMBER 17 CAME FROM? >> YES. THE MATTERAZZOS' HOME, YES. >> WHERE? >> RECOLLECTING, IF YOU SAID IT WAS CARVER, IT'S BEEN 2 1/2 YEARS, I MEAN, I FORGOT THE TOWN. >> IT'S CARVER. >> THANK YOU. >> NO BIG DEAL. BUT YOU KNOW YOU RECEIVED ITEMS THAT CAME FROM THE HOME IN CARVER, THE MATTERAZZO HOME, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KNEW IT TO BE. >> YES. >> IF I UNDERSTAND -- >> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. WE ARE GOING TO BE BACK WITH MUCH MORE LIVE TESTIMONY. PLEASE DON'T GO AWAY. >>> WE'RE GOING LIVE INTO THE COURTROOM IN THE NEIL ENTWISLE CASE, NOW BEING HELD IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, THE DOUBLE MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND HIS 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD. THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN -- AND I WILL SAY THIS TO YOU, THAT THERE ARE COURSES AROUND THIS COUNTRY IN TRIAL ADVOCACY, AND IN EACH OF THEM, OF COURSE, THEY'RE GOING TO TEACH THE ART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, AND ELLIOT WEINSTEIN CROSSES WITH THE METHOD THAT IS TAUGHT BY SOME OF THE GREAT JURISTS IN AMERICA. HE DOES SHORT QUESTIONS THAT DON'T EVEN HAVE A QUESTION. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SAY, RIGHT, IS IT FAIR TO SAY, YES, NO. JUST LISTEN. WATCH THIS. >> FROM A .22 REVOLVER? >> YES. >> SO THAT'S FIVE OBJECTS NOW, RIGHT? REVOLVER, RIFLE, RIFLE, TRIGGER LOCK, TRIGGER LOCK. >> YES. >> 17-12, THE TRIGGER LOCK CAME OUT OF A 9 MILLIMETER. >> YES. >> AND THE SECOND TRIGGER LOCK CAME OFF OF A .22 REVOLVER. >> WHICH ITEM NUMBER IS THAT? >> 17-13. >> OH, YES. >> AND THOSE TWO TRIGGER LOCKS CAME FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOME. >> YES. >> THEN THERE'S ITEM 17-20, A LEATHER GUN CASE. >> YES. >> 17-23. A MAGAZINE FROM A .22 RIFLE. >> YES. >> THAT'S SEVEN ITEMS COMING FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOME IN CARVER. >> YES. >> 17-24. A TRIGGER LOCK. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> EIGHT ITEMS COMING FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOME IN CARVER THAT SOMEBODY DEEMED RELEVANT AND SIGNIFICANT FOR POTENTIAL FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THIS IS THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU TOLD US BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL AND SO ON REALLY DIDN'T ALLOW YOU TO COME UP WITH A MATCH. >> WITH AN INDIVIDUALIZATION, THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IF I USED THE WORD MATCH INDIVIDUALIZATION OF TALKING THE SAME THING, AREN'T WE? >> SURE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, TO INDIVIDUALIZE IN THIS CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION, YOU HAD THE EXEMPLARS FROM KNOWN PERSONS OR PEOPLE, RIGHT? TELL ME, PLEASE, THE NAMES OF EACH PERSON -- LET'S GO THROUGH THEM SLOWLY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR REPORT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU HAVE THE NAMES. TO DO THIS WORK, TO GET THE KNOWN EXEMPLAR FROM A PERSON, IT EITHER HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S ON FILE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN YOU BEGIN THE WORK -- >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> -- OR IF THE PERSON'S PRINTS, FOR WHATEVER REASON, HAVE NOT BEEN ON FILE -- PLEASE GO AND GET AN EXEMPLAR. THEY DO A CARD OF SOME KIND. THEY INK AND GET A SET OF PRINTS FROM THE PERSON. >> YES. >> AND THAT'S ALSO THE NORMAL METHOD THAT YOU USE OR YOU AND OTHER STATE POLICE INVESTIGATORS WOULD USE TO DO A FINGERPRINT COMPARISON IN ANY GIVEN CASE. >> YES. >> SO, IN THIS CASE, YOU WERE WORKING FROM A FINITE GROUP OF EXEMPLARS. >> YES. >> BY THAT I MEAN A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF PEOPLE? >> YES. >> AND EACH OF THOSE HAD A NAME, LIKE BY THAT I MEAN THE PRINT EXEMPLARS HAD A NAMED MATCHING TO IT. >> YES. >> AND SO YOU WERE COMPARING THE UNKNOWNS IN THIS CASE, THE LATENTS, TO SEE IF THEY MATCHED UP WITH JOANNA GATELY. YES? >> YES. >> MAUREEN GATELY? >> YES. >> RACHEL ENTWISLE? >> YES. >> JOSEPH MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> ANTHONY MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> MICHAEL MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> CHRISTOPHER O'NEIL? >> YES. >> MICHAEL SUTTON? >> YES. >> SCOTT VAN ROLLTON? >> YES. >> NOW, A COUPLE OF THOSE NAMES ARE LAW ENFORCEMENT, AREN'T THEY? >> YES. >> AND IT'S PROPER AND NECESSARY TO KNOW IF YOU CAN RULE OUT A MATCH THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER DOING THE INVESTIGATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR EXAMPLE, SUTTON, HE WAS A HOPKINTON OFFICER? >> YES. >> AND SO IF -- LET'S USE MY CUP, FOR EXAMPLE. IF YOU TOOK A CUP OUT OF THE SIX CUBS PATH AND YOU TOOK A LATENT AND IT MATCHED UP WITH SUTTON, YOU MIGHT SAY SUTTON HAD A DRINK OF WATER WHILE HE WAS IN THE HOUSE. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> YOU ALSO WERE WORKING FROM EXEMPLARS OF NEIL ENTWISLE? >> YES. >> LLOYD COOK? >> YES. >> JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR.? >> YES. >> ZACHARY MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> NANCY RAMSEY? >> YES. >> MICHAEL VINO. >> YES. MISELL WOMSLY? >> YES. >> YES. >> KENDRA BAREN? >> YES. >> ROBERT MANNING? >> YES. >> STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR, RIGHT? >> YES. >> JAMES CONLEY. >> YES. >> THE LIEUTENANT YOU MENTIONED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> MICHAEL BANKS, STATE POLICE INVESTIGATOR. >> YES. >> KIMBERLY PUWIG? >> YES. >> DAVID PUWIG? >> YES. >> DID YOU COUNT THOSE UP, OR SHOULD I DO IT RIGHT NOW? >> I BELIEVE IT'S 24, BUT LET ME COUNT AGAIN. >> SURE. >> 24. >> DID YOU EVER EXAMINE A LAPTOP COMPUTER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERSON DID OR DID NOT HANDLE THAT LAPTOP COMPUTER? >> NO. >> NOBODY EVER PRESENTED A LAPTOP COMPUTER TO YOU FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS? >> NOT TO ME, NO. >> CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER A LAPTOP COMPUTER WAS EVER PRESENTED TO ANYBODY IN THE CRIME SERVICES SECTIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS? [ INAUDIBLE ] >> WHILE THEY'RE IN THIS PAUSE, IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A BREAK. WE'LL BE BACK WITH MUCH MORE. >>> WE ARE LIVE, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE WHEN ARE JUST WHERE WE WERE WHEN WE LEFT OFF WITH THEM REVIEWING THESE PAPERS SILENTLY. IT GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY, FIRST YOU TO ROBERT SIMPLES, WHAT IS ELLIOT WEINSTEIN TRYING TO DO HERE? >> THIS IS HIS CHANCE TO SAY SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT. BECAUSE YOU NEVER LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE PROPERLY. THIS IS A WOMAN IN CHARGE. SHE DOESN'T SUPERVISOR THE SEARCH AT THE OTHER RESIDENCE, THAT IS, THE FAMILY'S RESIDENCE. SHE DOESN'T LOOK AT THE LAPTOP WHICH IS SO SIGNIFICANT. SHE DOESN'T LOOK AT THE GUN LOCK. SHE DOESN'T LOOK AT ANY OF THE THINGS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT FROM THAT HOUSE, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY HAD COME UP WITH A SUSPECT IN THEIR MIND, HIM, AND ELIMINATED EVERYBODY ELSE. SO, ELLIOT'S GOING TO MAKE HIS PITCH HERE, HAD THEY DONE THE RIGHT FORENSICS HAD SHE SUPERVISED THIS LIKE SHE DID THE HOUSE WHERE THE MOTHER AND THE DAUGHTER WERE FOUND, THEN THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH WHO DID THIS. >> GOOD ENOUGH. SPOKEN LIKE A LAWYER FOR "THE BEST DEFENSE." >> NO. >> I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. >> SERGEANT, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES LOCATED -- EXCUSE ME. FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL ON A NUMBER OF FIREARMS OTHER THAN THE .22 CALIBER COLT FIREARM THAT YOU HAD EXAMINED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HOW MANY OTHER SEGMENTS OR AREAS OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL IN ALL WERE YOU ABLE TO LOCATE ON THOSE OTHER FIREARMS? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS SOMEWHERE AROUND 24 AREAS OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL. >> WERE ANY OF THOSE AREAS OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL SUFFICIENT IN SIZE, QUANTITY, AND QUALITY TO MAKE A FURTHER ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON? >> NO, THEY WERE NOT. >> SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS JUST NOT ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING WITH THEM. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND HAVE YOU HAD TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF FIREARMS? >> NO, I HAVE NOT. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. >> THANK YOU. >> SO, LET ME GO OUT TO PETER ETTENBERG WHILE THEY ARE EITHER CHANGING WITNESSES OR GOING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. PETER, DID ELLIOT SCORE POINTS HERE IN THIS CROSS AFTER THAT EMOTIONAL CRIME SCENE VIDEO? >> OH, I THINK HE DID. THIS GOES RIGHT ALONG WITH HIS THEORY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THAT THINGS DON'T ALWAYS APPEAR THE WAY THEY FIRST APPEAR TO BE. HE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE WITH THE JURY, THAT POTENTIALLY OTHER PEOPLE WERE NOT EXAMINED, THAT THERE WAS NOT INFORMATION THAT THEY COULD HAVE GATHERED THAT THEY DIDN'T GATHER. THE LAPTOP IS VERY SIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME FORENSIC INFORMATION ABOUT THAT. AND, SO, I THINK THAT ELLIOT DID EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DO. NUMBER ONE, HE GOT AWAY FROM THE EMOTION OF THE VIDEO. HE WENT RIGHT INTO THE DRY FINGERPRINT INFORMATION. AND ONE THING THAT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE AGE OF THE FINGERPRINT, WHEN IT WAS MADE AND HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE. AND ALSO HE BROUGHT OUT THE FACT THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT THEY COULDN'T EXAMINE, THE QUALITY AND THE QUANTITY OF THE FINGERPRINT WASN'T ENOUGH TO MAKE A MATCH. AND SO I THINK HE JUST RAISED, WITH A LOT OF NAMES AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T EXAMINE AND DIDN'T FOLLOWTHROUGH ON. >> FAIR ENOUGH. LET'S GO IN. THERE IS A NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND, AND I BELIEVE THAT SHE IS A TROOPER LABRECK. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A STATE TERRORISMER? >> FOR 7 1/2 YEARS, SIR. >> WHERE ARE YOU PRESENTLY ASSIGNED? >> TO THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION. >> IF YOU COULD OUTLINE YOUR PRESENT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. >> AS A CRIME SCENE SERVICE TECHNICIAN, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR DOCUMENTING HOMICIDES, SEXUAL ASSAULTS, BREAKING AN ENTERING, STOLEN VEHICLES, CRIMES OF THAT NATURE WITH DIGITAL VIDEO, DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY, 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPHY, CRIME SCENE DIAGRAMS, SKETCHING. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, PROCESSING CRIME SCENES AND EVIDENCE FOR LATENT FINGERPRINT IMPRESSIONS AS WELL AS FOOTWEAR IMPRESSIONS. >> AND YOU'VE HAD TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN THE AREA OF FINGERPRINT PROCESSING, COLLECTION, ANALYSIS? >> I HAVE, SIR. >> OUTLINE THAT FOR US, PLEASE. >> UPON BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE UNIT, I RECEIVED FOUR MONTHS OF INTENSE, IN-HOUSE TRAINING ON PHOTOGRAPHY, PROCESSING, AND DEVELOPING LATENT FINGERPRINTS AND FOOTWEAR IMPRESSIONS. IN ADDITION, TO DOCUMENTING CRIME SCENES WITH VARIOUS TECHNIQUES THAT WE USE, 35 MILLIMETER DIGITAL CAMERAS. AFTER I WAS COMPLETE WITH MY FOUR MONTHS OF TRAINING, I UNDERWENT SUPERVISED CASE WORK UNTIL I WAS FOUND TO BE PROFICIENT TO PERFORM CASE WORK ON MY OWN. I UNDERGO ANNUAL PROFICIENCY TESTING. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, I'VE RECEIVED OVER 500 HOURS OF FORMAL AND CONTINUING EDUCATION IN AREAS OF CRIME SCENE DIAGRAMS, DIAGRAMMING, LATENT FINGERPRINT DEVELOPMENT USING VARIOUS TECHNIQUES, COMPARISON, AND EVALUATION AS WELL AS FOOTWEAR IMPRESSIONS. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN DOING CASE WORK ON YOUR OWN? >> FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS. >> HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH BEFORE? >> I HAVE, SIR. >> IN WHAT FIELD OR FIELD OF EXPERTISE? >> IN CRIME SCENE SERVICES AS A LATENT FINGERPRINT EXPERT. >> EXCUSE ME. I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO JANUARY 22nd, 2006. WERE YOU ASSIGNED TO ASSIST IN AN INVESTIGATION? >> I WAS, SIR. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I RESPONDED TO HOPKINTON, THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE? >> IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 10:00, 10:00 IN THE EVENING. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME AT THAT STATION? >> I DID, SIR. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THERE WERE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, BOTH STATE AND LOCAL, OFFICIALS GATHERED AT THAT POINT? >> THERE WAS, SIR. >> SOMETIME AFTER MIDNIGHT ON JANUARY 23rd, 2006, DID YOU AND YOUR FELLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS GO SOMEPLACE? >> WE DID, SIR. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? WE RESPONDED TO 6 CUBS WAY IN HOPKINTON. >> AND THE PURPOSE IN GOING THERE? >> WAS TO PROCESS THE RESIDENCE FOR EVIDENCE REGARDING A DOUBLE HOMICIDE. >> DID YOU ENTER THAT PREMISES? >> I DID, SIR. >> GENERALLY DESCRIBE YOUR OBSERVATIONS UPON FIRST ENTERING THAT HOME. >> UPON FIRST ENTERING THE HOME, WE PROCEEDED TO THE SECOND FLOOR, A SET OF STAIRCASE, A SET OF STAIRS. THERE WAS A BEDROOM TO THE LEFT AND A BEDROOM TO THE RIGHT. THERE WAS CLASSICAL MUSIC PLAYING. UPON REACHING THE TOP OF THE STAIRCASE, COULD DETECT A FAINT ODOR. TO THE LEFT THERE WAS A BEDROOM. AND UPON LOOKING IN, YOU COULD SEE A LARGE BED. IT HAD A LARGE, WHITE FLUFFY COMFORTABLE ON TOP OF THE BED. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME ON THAT SECOND FLOOR IN THAT MASTER BEDROOM? >> YES, SIR. >> AND WHAT, IF ANY, TASK OR TASKS DID YOU PERFORM WHILE YOU WERE UP THERE? >> AT THE TIME I TOOK 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPHS. >> DID YOU TAKE 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPHS ELSEWHERE ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> I DID. >> AND WHAT ABOUT ELSEWHERE IN THE PREMISES, BOTH ON THE FIRST FLOOR, BOTTOM FLOOR, AND OUTSIDE? >> I DOCUMENTED THE BOTTOM FLOOR, FIRST FLOOR, AND THIRD FLOOR WITH 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPHS. >> DID YOU HAVE OTHER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OVER THE COURSE OF THE HOURS THAT YOU SPENT AT 6 CUBS PASS IN HOPKINTON ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd? >> I DID, SIR. >> WHAT ELSE DID YOU DO? >> I PROCESSED THE FIRST FLOOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DOORS FOR LATENT FINGERPRINTS. >> AND DESCRIBE WHAT YOU MEAN BY PROCESSED. >> I USED THE TECHNIQUE CALLED FINGERPRINT POWDER, IN WHICH YOU TAKE A BRUSH AND APPLY THE POWDER TO THE BRUSH, AND THEN GENTLY APPLY THE POWDER TO THE SURFACES IN WHICH YOU INTEND TO PROCESS FOR LATENT FINGERPRINTS. THE POWDER ADHERES TO THE MOISTURE THAT IS LEFT BEHIND ON THE FINGERPRINTS. THUS, MAKING THEM VISIBLE. >> WHAT AREA? YOU MENTIONED INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DOORS. ANY AREAS ON THE FIRST FLOOR, OTHER THAN THE -- THAT YOU EXAMINED AND PROCESSED FOR FINGERPRINTS? >> THERE WERE TWO SMALL WINDOWS ADJACENT TO A SLIDER DOOR AND A KITCHEN OR DINETTE AREA THAT WERE ALSO PROCESSED. >> AND YOU MENTIONED INTERIOR DOORS. WHAT INTERIOR DOORS ON THE FIRST FLOOR DID YOU PROCESS? >> THERE WAS A CELLAR DOOR LEADING DOWN THE BASEMENT AREA THAT WAS PROCESSED. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY OCCASION TO EXAMINE OTHER AREAS OF THE FIRST FLOOR THAT YOU DID NOT PROCESS THAT EVENING? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN EXAMINING THOSE AREAS? >> THE PURPOSE OF EXAMINING THE AREAS WAS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN ANY SIGNS OF FORCED ENTRY THROUGH ANY OF THE WINDOWS. >> AND DID YOU FIND ANY? >> THERE WERE NONE, SIR. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO PROCESS THE BASEMENT AREA OR OTHER AREAS IN THE HOME? >> I DID, SIR. >> AND WHEN WAS THAT DONE? >> THAT WAS DONE LATER THAT EVENING AT APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. >> DESCRIBE THE AREA OR AREAS ON THE BASEMENT LEVEL THAT YOU PROCESSED. >> ON THE BASEMENT FLOOR THERE WERE A -- THERE WAS A DOOR LEADING OUT TO THE GARAGE. THAT WAS PROCESSED USING THE SAME FINGERPRINT POWDER TECHNIQUE. AND THERE WAS A ROOM ADJACENT TO A HALLWAY THAT LED DOWN TO THE DOOR, IN WHICH THERE WAS A SLIDER DOOR AND TWO WINDOWS, WHICH WERE ALSO PROCESSED USING THE FINGERPRINT POWDER TECHNIQUE. >> WERE THERE OTHER AREAS ON THAT BASEMENT LEVEL THAT YOU EXAMINED THAT YOU DID NOT PROCESS? >> YES, THERE WERE. >> DESCRIBE THOSE AREAS, PLEASE. >> THERE WAS A SET OF GARAGE DOORS BEYOND THE DOORWAY THAT I PROCESSED. >> WITH THAT, "THE BEST DEFENSE" WILL REST FOR THE DAY. TIME NOW TO CHECK IN WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD FOR A LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT ON BANFIELD & FORD COURTSIDE. >> I THINK THE JOB OF DEFENDING NEIL ENTWISLE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN A WHOLE LOT MORE DIFFICULT WITH HIS REACTIONS IN COURT OR NOT. I REALLY CAN'T TELL, RIKKI. I CAN'T TELL IF HE WAS LAUGHING OR CRYING OR BOTH. WHAT DO YOU KNOW? >> ALL I KNOW, ASHLEIGH, I'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF E-MAILS AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO E-MAILED SAID HE WAS LAUGHING. OTHERS SAID HE WAS CRYING. >> AND YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S THE SAME IN OUR OFFICE. EVERYONE'S SPLIT. EVERYONE THINKS IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. MAYBE IT'S REACTION FROM SOMEONE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND. WE'RE GOING TO DIG INTO IT WHEN WE COME UP. >> ALL RIGHT, ASHLEIGH, THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN A FEW MINUTES. FIRST A BIG THANK YOU TO OUR GUESTS HERE, THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME TODAY. AND I'D LOVE TO SEE YOU BOTH AGAIN REALLY SOON. I'M RIKKI KLIEMAN. THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR WATCHING TODAY. I'M SO HAPPY I WILL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER EDITION OF "THE BEST DEFENSE." I HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME THEN. |