|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
COURTROOM WEEPS AS THE JURY
FINALLY SEES THE CRIME SCENE.
AT TIMES, HOWEVER, IT APPEARED
HE MAY HAVE BEEN SMILING.
FOR THE MOST PART, THOUGH, HIS
FAMILY BEHIND HIM SOBD THROUGH
THE ENTIRE VIDEO.
WE COULD NOT SEE THAT VIDEO.
IT WAS ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE JURY.
BUT WHAT WILL THE JURY THINK
ABOUT HIS REACTION?
IT IS COMPLEX AND BIZARRE.
TODAY WE'RE TAKING YOU
COURTSIDE
FORD.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. WELCOME TO BANFIELD AND COURT. I'M ASHLEY BANFIELD. >> I'M JACK FORD. YOU SAW NEIL ENTWISTLE JUST MOMENTS AGO, TEARS, ALL SORTS OF FACIAL EXPRESSIONS TAKING PLACE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT ALSO TALKING ABOUT HEADLINE-MAKING MURDER CASES. YOU REMEMBER 14 YEARS AGO TODAY? >> I WAS IN PRESCHOOL. >> THE BABY THAT YOU ARE. >> I DO REMEMBER. THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE GOT STARTED. THE DATE OF THE MURDERS, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RON GOLDMAN. THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED THE ODYSSEY THROUGHOUT THE COURT SYSTEM OUT IN CALIFORNIA. FIRST THE NOT GUILTY VERDICT IN THE CRIMINAL CASE AND THEN THE RESPONSIBLE VERDICT, THE LIABLE VERDICT IN THE CIVIL TRIAL. >> HOW FAR HAVE WE COME, JACK, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SEE IN COURTROOMS NOW WHEN THEY PROCESSES THESE SCENES? WE'VE GOT THE PERSON PROCESSING THE SCENE IN ENTWISTLE RIGHT NOW BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT EVERYTHING. IN THIS CASE, DNA WAS KIND OF CONFUSING. >> TRIAL LAWYERS WILL TELL YOU THAT THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL, NOT SUB STAN LIVE IN TERMS OF THE LAW OR SCIENCE, BUT PROCEDURALLY CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE FOR CRIMINAL TRIALS. JURORS NOW HAVE EXPECTATIONS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT. THEY HOLD LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE TO A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD. MAYBE THAT'S NOT A BAD THING, BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL. >> I LIKE TO CALL IT THE MOLECULAR SMOKING GUN. JURORS WANT THE MOLECULAR SMOKING GUN. AT THE SAME TIME THE BAR HAS BEEN RAISED FOR EVERYBODY, IN TERMS OF THE JURY REPORTS AND REASONABLE DOUBT. IT RAISED THE BAR FOR INVESTIGATORS. >> IN MANY WAYS YOU CAN ARGUE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE O.J. VESHLTH, YOU CAN ARGUE IT'S GOOD THING, THAT YOU'VE GOT TO BE BETTER WITH THE WORK YOU DID. AT ANY EVENT, WE STARTED THE START OF THE JOE, NEIL ENTWISTLE, AN EMOTIONAL ROLLER COASTER. >> EVERYBODY COULD BE SEEING THIS DIFFERENTLY. I KNOW RICKY CLEEM MEN HAD LOADS OF E-MAIL. HALF THE PEOPLE E MAILING HER, THOUGHT HE WAS LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THIS BUT OBVIOUSLY AT TIMES BREAKING DOWN AND CRYING. I COULDN'T FIGURE IT IT OUT, JACK. CLEARLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW AS A PORTION IS HIM CRYING. THERE WERE OTHER MOMENTS, JACK, WHERE HE PULLED HIS HAND AWAY AND HAD A GIANT SMILE ON HIS FACE. LOOK AT HIS ATTORNEY ON THE LEFT, ABSOLUTELY STOIC. WHAT YOU DON'T SEE IN THIS PICTURE, HIS MOTHER BEHIND HIM SLUMPED OVER INTO THE ARMS OF HIS FATHER, VISIBLY SOBBING AND WEEPING, SHAKING. HIS BROTHER SOBBING. IT WAS AN INCREDIBLE DISPLAY OF EMOTION. >> BECAUSE OF THE CAMERA PLACEMENT, WE COULDN'T SEE RACHEL'S FAMILY. I UNDERSTAND HER MOTHER WAS IN THE COURTROOM. CAN YOU IMAGINE SITTING IN THE COURTROOM AND WATCHING THAT? >> NO. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE JURY WOULD HAVE BEEN -- I DON'T KNOW. IF THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A MOMENT TO TAKE THEIR GAZE AND AVERT IT OR LOOK AT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S REACTION. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. THE JURORS SEE EVERYTHING. >> WHILE THEY'RE WATCHING THE VIDEO PLACED IN FRONT OF THEM -- >> THE QUESTION IS HOW WILL IT ENTER INTO THEIR CALCULUS IF AT ALL. >> LET ME GET YOU CAUGHT UP ON WHERE WE ARE, THE MOMENT WHERE WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THAT CRIME SCENE VIDEO TO BE PLAYED. DON'T FORGET, THE CRIME SCENE VIDEO HAD THE PICTURES OF THE BODIES, BODIES OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER BABY LILLIAN SHOT AND DEAD IN THE BED. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHAT MAY HAVE TRIGGER ED THE RESPONSE YOU JUS SAW. LEADING UP TO ALL OF THIS, THOUGH, WAS THE WHOLE STORY THAT REALLY GRIPPED THIS NATION, TWO PEOPLE DEAD, A YOUNG BABY AND A MOM IN THEIR BED, THEIR FATHER, THE HUSBAND ON A PLANE OFF TO ENGLAND. NOW HE'S BEING BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. HERE IS "IN SESSION'S" BETH KARAT TO GET YOU CAUGHT UP ON ALL THE DETAILS OF THE CASE. >> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER-SUICIDE, BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE MURDER WAS AFFECTED -- THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> Reporter: ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT IN A SUBURB OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, THE INVESTIGATORS WERE CALLED TO THE HOME OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. THE FAMILY WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. POLICE DID A CURSORY SEARCH TWICE BEFORE MAKING A GRUESOME DISCOVERY. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE WITH A FIREARM WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT SHOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN THE HEAD, THEN PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> Reporter: THE ONE THING THEY COULD NOT FIND WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATORS LEARNED HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS' HOME OUTSIDE OF LONDON. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING, JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER, THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> Reporter: ENTWISTLE WAIVED EXTRA DECISION AND RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO FACE THE CHARGES. SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS. >> HELD WITHOUT BAIL. >> Reporter: THE RAINMENT IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM ATTRACTED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT MR. ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BY HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS IS UNDER WAY. >> Reporter: DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTED ENTWISTLE FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I'M GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISTLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> JOINING US FROM LIVE OUTSIDE OF THAT COURTHOUSE IS BETH KARAS, AND ALSO IN STUDIO WITH US IS JILL DAVIS WHO IS A VETERAN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY BASED IN FT. WORTH, TEXAS. SHE'S A GOOD FRIEND AND GUEST OF YOURS. IF YOU CAN HOLD ON, I'VE GOT TO GET REPORTING IN FROM BETH WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THIS ALL DAY. BETH, EVERYBODY HERE WAS WATCHING ALL OF THE MONITORS THEY COULD POSSIBLY WATCH AS THAT VIDEO WAS PLAYING OUT SILENTLY IN COURT. WE COULDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO, WE COULD WATCH THE REACTIONS. CAN YOU GIVE SOME COLOR? >> NEIL ENTWISTLE, I WAS LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTARY, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. HE'S DEFINITELY CRYING THROUGH PARTS OF THAT VIDEO, ABOUT 20-MINUTE VIDEO, AND THE MONITOR IS FACING HIM AND HIS LAWYERS. BUT HE SOMETIMES APPEARS TO BE SMILING. NOW, IT'S POSSIBLE HE SMILED AT PARTS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS BEING SHOWN, BABY TOYS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HE CRIES PERIODICALLY, TOO. THERE'S NO QUESTION HE WAS CRYING. HE PULLED HIS HAND AWAY FROM HIS FACE AT ONE POINT AND HIS NOSE WAS RUNNING AND IT WAS KIND OF GROSS. NO ONE HANDED HIM A TISSUE. HE CLEARLY WAS CRYING. IT MAY BE THAT THAT'S JUST THE EXPRESSION ON HIS FACE THAT LOOKS LIKE A SMILE. HE WAS SORT OF -- HIS MOUTH WAS KIND OF CONTORTED AND IN TEARS AND IT JUST LOOKS LIKE A SMILE. HIS MOTHER CLEARLY UPSET. SHE MIGHT -- I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF SHE'S CRYING BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING AND SHE SAW HIS REACTION OR IF SHE COULD SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE MONITOR. IT WAS PERPENDICULAR TO THE PUBLIC GALLERY AND POSITIONED REALLY TO MINIMIZE OR MAKE IMPOSSIBLE ANY VIEWING BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. ALTHOUGH IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT MOST OF THAT 20-MINUTE VIDEO COULDN'T HAVE BEEN VIEWED BY THE PUBLIC. THE JUDGE DIDN'T WANT THE BODIES IN THE BED TO BE SHOWN. BUT CRIME SCENE VIDEO USUALLY IS THE WHOLE PLAY. I ASSUME THAT A LOT OF THE HOUSE WAS SHOWN, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THAT AT SOME POINT MAY BE MADE PUBLIC TO US. IN ANY EVENT, HE WAS VERY EMOTIONAL. ONE HAS TO WONDER IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HE SAW THAT VIDEO. >> I CAN ONLY IMAGINE YES. LOOK, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS IN DISCOVERY OR WHAT PEOPLE WHO ARE AWAITING TRIAL AND ARE INCARCERATED ARE PRIVY TO SEE THE EVIDENCE. BUT THIS IS SO PERPLEXING. I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE FAMILY OF NEIL ENTWISTLE BEHIND HIM, HIS FATHER, MOTH EARL AND BROTHDER, ALL SEEM TO BE DEEPLY AFFECTED BY THIS. I DID SEE SOME PICTURES BEFORE THE ONES WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW OF MRS. ENTWISTLE NOT ONLY BEING HELD BY HER SON TO HER RIGHT AND SHAKING IN HER SOBS, BUT ALSO BEING CRADLED BY HER HUSBAND, NEETH'S FATHER, TO HEFT LEFT AS WELL. THIS WENT ON FOR, AS YOU SAID, 25, 30 MINUTES. WHAT I DIDN'T SEE, BOTH, AND I'M ASSUMING IT'S BECAUSE WE JUST CAN'T SHOW CERTAIN THINGS IN THE COURTROOM, WERE RACHEL'S PARENTS. I THINK, AS YOU MENTIONED, THEY PERHAPS WEREN'T IN THE DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT TO A MONITOR. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHO WAS ALLOWED TO SEE THE VIDEO AND WHO WAS NOT? >> THE PEOPLE ALLOWED TO SEE THE VIDEO ARE BASICALLY IN THE WELL OF THE COURTROOM, THAT LITTLE BAR THAT SEPARATES THE PUBLIC GALLERY FROM THE WELL. SO THERE WERE MONITORS POSITIONED FOR THE JURORS AND FOR THE LAWYERS AND THE JUDGE IN THE COURTROOM. ANYONE ELSE IN THE WELL. BUT THOSE OF US IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY COULD NOT. THE MATTERAZZOS HAVE BEEN IN COURT FOR ALMOST ALL THE TESTIMONY. SOME OF IT IS PRETTY GRAPHIC. THEY SIT THERE STOICALLY. THEY HAVE NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE SEEN ANY PHOTOS IN THE COURTROOM. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LOOKED AT ANYTHING OUTSIDE. I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THEY WERE IN THE COURTROOM WHEN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TESTIFIES. TYPICALLY VICTIM FAMILIES ARE OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM FOR THAT. OVER MY YEARS, I HAVE SEEN A FEW PARENTS STAY IN THE COURTROOM FOR THESE PHOTOS AND LOOK AT PHOTOS AND LISTEN TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN. >> I KNOW GENERALLY SPEAKING IT WAS A VERY OVERWHELM IING MOMEN IN THE COURTROOM TODAY WHEN THIS TRANSPIRED. I KNOW OTHER EVIDENCE HAS ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED. MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US SOME HIGHLIGHTS OUTSIDE OF WHAT ENDED UP BEING SO FAR AN ENORMOUS HIGHLIGHT IN THIS CASE, AND THAT'S THE VIDEO BEING PLAYED AND THE REACTIONS TO IT. WHAT ELSE HAS TRANSPIRED TODAY, BETH? >> CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN FRS THE MASSACHUSETTS STATES POLICE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PROCESSING THIS SCENE. IT CAME IN AT THE END OF SERGEANT MARY RITCHIE, THE END OF HER DIRECT. SHE WAS CROSS EXAMINED. SHE ALSO TESTIFIED ABOUT LATENT PRINTS RECOVERED FROM THE HOUSE AND IT WASN'T SURPRISING THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S AND RACHEL'S PRINTS WERE FOUND IN THE HOUSE AND KIM PEWIC WHO WAS THE OWNER WHO LIVED THERE PREVIOUSLY. ONE THING WE HEARD YESTERDAY THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED TODAY, AND I'M STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED, I HAVE TO TALK TO THE LAWYERS ABOUT IT, BABY FOOD JAR, A GLASS BABY FOOD JAR THAT WAS RECOVERED THAT HAD AMMUNITION IN IT AND HAD ANTHONY MAZ RAH TOE, A STEP BROTHER, HIS FINGERPRINTS ON IT. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BABY FOOD JAR WAS RECOVERED FROM A BOSS IN 6 COMES PATH, THE HOPKINTON HOME. ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF MARY RICHIE TODAY, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN FOCUSED ON ITEMS ANALYZED FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES, FINGERPRINTS, IN PART. AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO ITEM 17 DIDN'T COME FROM 6 COBBS PATH. IT CAME FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOME. IT IS BROKEN DOWN IN A LOT OF SUB ITEMS, 17-12, 17-13. A COUPLE TRIGGER LOCKS, A RESOLVER, A RIVAL, A SECOND RIFLE, A LEATHER GUN CASE. HE DIDN'T SPECIFY 17-1.6, A GLASS JAR WITH THE AMMUNITION. BUT SHE SAID ALL -- ITEM 17 ALL COMES FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOUSE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT AMMUNITION WHICH I THOUGHT WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGE, POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION AND WAS IN THE 6 CUBS PATH HOUSE IN HOPKINTON DIDN'T COME FROM THERE. THAT WAS NEWS. >> INTERESTING. HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL. BETH STAND BY FOR A MOMENT. I WANT TO GET JILL DAVIS'S HOUSE IN HEREMENT AS WE WERE CHATTING BEFORE WE CAME ON THE AIR, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE CASE YOU WOULD WANT TO DEFEND, I'M JUST GUESSING. >> NO, NO. I'M SO GLAD IT'S NOT ME. >> THANK GOD YOU JUST GET TO DO THE COMMENTARY. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE REACTION TOSS THE VIDEOS BEING PLAYED IN COURT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, THOSE ARE THE HARDEST MOMENTS WHEN THEY'RE SHOWING VIDEOS OR CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND THE BODIES ARE PRESENT. YOU CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TESTIMONY ABOUT BLOOD ON THE BABY AND THE BULLET WOUNDS ON RACHEL. AND YOU COMMENTED EARLIER THAT DEFENSE LAWYER WAS STOIC. THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY WAY A LAWYER CAN BE WHEN YOU'RE SITTING THERE LOOKING. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REACTION, YOU RUN THE RISK OF OFFENDING THE JURY. THERE REALLY IS NO APPROPRIATE WAY FOR A DEFENSE LAWYER TO RESPOND. AND THEN IN REFERENCE TO THE CLIENT AND THE DEFENDANT SITTING THERE, AGAIN, I'D HAVE HIM CRYING, TOO. I WOULD HOPE HE'D DO IT NATURALLY AND ON HIS OWN. A GOOD LAWYER WOULD MAKE SURE THE DEFENDANT ISN'T AT LOOKING FUNNY, SMILING. I THINK I AGREE WITH BETH THAT PERHAPS HIS NATURAL FACIAL EXPRESSION WHEN HE'S CRYING APPEARS TO SHOW TEETH. >> I WANTED TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, JILL, I HONESTLY DID. IN THE ALL FAIRNESS TO THIS DISCUSSION, WE HAVE NOT SHOWN ALL OF HIS REACTION. THERE WAS A GOOD 30 MINUTES OF IT. AND WITHOUT QUESTION, THERE WERE MOMENTS WHERE BROAD SMILES. HERE IS WHY I THOUGHT HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SMILING -- AGAIN, BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT HERE. THEY'RE DOING A CRIME SCENE VIDEO WHICH MEANS THEY ARE DOING THE WALK-ABOUT. >> SUCH AS TOYS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT MIGHT REMIND HIM OF FOND MEMORIES. >> EXACTLY. ONE OF THE INVESTIGATORS SAID IN AN AFFIDAVIT PRIOR TO TRIAL THAT THEY LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS ALL AROUND THE HOME TO DETERMINE WHAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN AND OBVIOUSLY NEIL LOOKED LIKE. MY GUESS IS THAT IN THE VIDEO, AS WELL, THEY WOULD BE SHOWING PICTURES LIKE THIS. >> RIGHT. YOU'D SMILE AT THAT. THAT WOULD BE A NATURAL REACTION, AND THAT ONE AS WELL. IF NEIL WAS SMILING DURING THOSE, THE JURY WILL KNOW THAT. >> THE HAPPY MEMORIES. MAYBE THERE WAS A GOOFY PICTURE IN HAPPIER DAYS THAT PERHAPS BROUGHT BACK MEMORIES FOR HIM. AT ONE POINT IT DID LOOK LIKE HE WAS ACTUALLY LAUGHING AND SMILING. I'M JUST THINKING THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. BUT BECAUSE THE PRESS HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF SEEING THAT VIDEO, WE COULD NOT DO THE MATCHING FRAMES, SEEING WHAT HE WAS REACTING TO AT THE VERY MOMENT HE WAS. SO LET'S AT LEAST GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THERE. LISTEN, AS JACK SAID OFF THE TOP OF THE SHOW, AND JILL CUE KNOW THIS, THE JURY MISSES NOTHING. >> AND AS A LAWYER YOU KNOW THAT. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD THAT THERE ARE TWO DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THIS CASE, ONE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WITNESS WHO IS TESTIFYING, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE ONE TAKING THAT PERSON ON CROSS, AND THE OTHER LAWYER IS THERE FOR CLIENT CONTROL, TO SEE HOW AND MONITOR THE DEFENDANT'S REACTION. AND IF IT IS INAPPROPRIATE AT ALL, THEN YOU SLIP A NEGOTIATOR YOU GIVE AN ELBOW, AND THAT IS NOT GOOD. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? THE JURY WOULD CATCH THAT ELBOW, TOO. STEPHANIE PAGE WAS SITTING TO THE LEFT. TALK ABOUT STOICISM. SHE DID CAST A GLANCE OVER TO HER CLIENT. I HAVE TO SQUEEZE IN A QUICK BREAK. WE'RE WAITING FOR TESTIMONY. THE VIEWERS ARE NOT MISSING ANYTHING. THEY'RE IN A BIT OF A BREAK. WE'LL SQUEEZE IN OUR BREAK. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WON'T ONLY ASSESS MORE OF THE VIDEO, THE IMPACT OF IT IN COURT, LOOK AT THAT ATTORNEY, HOW SHE IS REACTING? LOOK AT THAT MOTHER. DON'T FORGET. THAT MAY BE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOM AND HIS BROTHER ON THE RIGHT AND HIS DAD ON THE LEFT, BUT THAT'S THEIR GRAND BABY AND THAT WAS THEIR DAUGHTER IN LAW. AND THEY PROBABLY JUST SAW THEM SHOT DEAD ON A BED. MORE COMING UP IN JUST A MOMENT. >>> I THEN LIFTED THE COMFORTER AT THAT CORNER IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS I HAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU LIFTED THAT? >> I FIRST OBSERVED A SMALL BABY'S FACE. >> WHAT PORTION OF THE FACE COULD YOU SEE? >> I WAS LOOKING DOWN AT THE TOP OF THE HEAD, THE FOREHEAD, EYES, NOSE. >> AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO? >> AS I CONTINUED TO RAISE THE COMFORTER SLIGHTLY MORE, I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT OF THE BABY'S FACE AND SAW A WOMAN'S FACE. >> THAT TESTIMONY OF SERGEANT MICHAEL SUTTON TALKING ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES IN THAT HOME IN HOPKINTON, MASSACHUSETTS. HE'S TESTIFIED HE SPENT A FEW MOMENTS, MORE THAN A FEW MOMENTS, BUT A FEW EMOTIONAL MOMENTS ON THE STAND YESTERDAY. SPEAKING OF EMOTIONAL MOMENTS, WE'VE BEEN WATCHING DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY TO FAR TODAY WHEN THE JURORS AND SOME OF THE OTHERS IN THE COURTROOM WATCHED THAT VIDEO OF THAT CRIME SCENE, AND YOU SAW NEIL ENTWISTLE'S REACTION, A VARIETY, AS WE SAID BEFORE, SORT OF AN EMOTIONAL ROLLER COASTER INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE ABOUT ALL THAT AND HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT. THEY'RE IN THE MIDST OF THEIR BREAK IN THE COURTROOM. THEY'LL BE READY TO RESUME SHORTLY. WE'LL GET YOU IN AS SOON AS THEY ARE. WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE WITH US JORDAN LEVY, THE HOST OF HIS OWN RADIO SHOW ON WTAG ORIGINATING UP IN MASSACHUSETTS, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 3:00 P.M. AND ALSO THE FORMER CITY OF THE SIT -- MAYOR FROM THE CITY OF WORCESTER. I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT SORT OF INTEREST ARE YOU SEEING THAT YOUR LISTENERS HAVE IN THIS TRIAL RIGHT NOW? >> AT THIS POINT THE INTEREST IS REALLY NOT VERY HIGH. IT WAS VERY HIGH WHEN IT FIRST HAPPENED. WE HAD ON GOING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, SPECULATION, REACTIONS. NOW IT'S -- I THINK IT'S A FORGONE CONCLUSION IN A LOT OF PEOPLE'S MINDS THAT THIS GUY IS A BAD DUDE THAT DID SOME BAD THINGS, THASHL, AWFUL THINGS AND IT'S ALMOST ANTI CLIMATIC AT THIS POINT. >> LET'S GO BACK TO WHEN THE STORY FIRST BROKE. WE MENTIONED IT GARNERED NOT ONLY LOCAL ATTENTION, NATIONAL ATTENTION, EVEN INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION. WHAT WERE YOU HEARING FROM YOUR LISTENERS, WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN THE STORY FIRST BROKE? >> I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IS YOU PERSONAL LIES IT RIGHT AWAY AND TRY TO PUT YOURSELF IN THE FIRST PERSON. NOBODY, MALE, FEMALE, YOUNG AND OLD THAT CALLED THE SHOW WE TALKED ABOUT, COULD BELIEVE THE FACT THAT A GUY COULD WALK INTO A ROOM, WALK INTO A ROOM AND FIND HIS WIFE AND CHILD SHOT TO DEATH AND COVER THEM WITH A BLANKET OR COMFORTER, TAKE OFF OUT THE ROOM, GET A ONE-WAY TICKET TO ENGLAND AND CALL UP AND SAY BRING FLOWERS TO THE FUNERAL. IT JUST WAS THE MOST BIZARRE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCESES I THINK MOST OF US HAVE EVER BEEN EXPOSED TO. WHEN YOU LOOK AS YOU SAID, THE EXTRAORDINARY ATTENTION DEVOTEED TO THIS EARLY ON, WERE YOU THEN SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT WHEN THEY CHOSE THE JURY OF THE 16 PANELISTS WHO ARE NOW SITTING AS ULTIMATELY THE 12 THAT WILL DECIDE AND FOUR ALTERNATES, THAT EIGHT OF THOSE 16 INDICATED OOVPS THAT THEY REALLY HAD NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT THIS CASE WAS ABOUT? DID THAT SURPRISE YOU? >> IT DOES SURPRISE YOU. IT DOES AND IT DOESN'T BECAUSE I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO WATCH PEOPLE. SOME PEOPLE, I SWEAR, LIVE ON MARS AND THEY COME BACK ON THE ORBITER EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE AND LAND AND GO BACK AGAIN. THEY'RE INCONGRUOUS TO EVERYTHING AROUND THEM. I SHOULDN'T BE SHOCKED BY IT. CERTAINLY WITHIN THE REALM OF PEOPLE I TALK TO EVERY DAY, EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE'S A HOUSEHOLD NAME. AND I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO FIND AN IMPARTIAL JURY. >> DO YOU THINK -- OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE VAST EXPERIENCE HERE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA AND THE MEDIA ARENA, BUT LOOKING AT THE CHARGES, LOOKING AT THE FACTS THAT EVERYBODY SEEMED TO BE FOCUSING ON EARLY ON AND SOME OF THE THINGS YOU JUST MENTIONED TO US, THE FACT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES, DO YOU THINK THAT HE, IN FACT, CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL HERE? >> YES. IT'S AN AMAZING THING AS YOU WATCH THIS, AND AS I'VE WATCHED MANY TRIALS OVER THE YEARS. IT SEEMS THAT OUR SYSTEM REALLY RISES TO THE OCCASION, WHICH IS AN AMAZING THING. IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL STORY FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO STEP BACK AND DO A WHOLE ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF THE JURY SYSTEM. FOR WHATEVER REASON, PEOPLE RISE TO THE OCCASION. ONCE THEY'RE APPOINTED AS A JUROR OR SELECTED AS A JUROR, IT SEEMS THEY GET A DIFFERENT PSYCHE. I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL GET A MUCH FAIRER TRIAL THAN I WOULD HAVE PROBABLY GIVEN HIM MYSELF. AND I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS JURY WILL DO ITS DUE DELIBERATIONS, AND ONCE AGAIN PROVE OUR SYSTEM WORKS AND WORKS VERY WELL. >> I SHARE THAT THOUGHT. I SPENT NEARLY 20 YEARS IN A COURTROOM AS A PROSECUTOR AND A DEFENSE LAWYER, AND I AGREE WITH YOU. PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO SOMETIMES RISE ABOVE WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND THEM, ESPECIALLY THOSE JURORS WE ASK TO WORK ON THESE TYPES OF CASES. WHY DO YOU THINK -- AND JUST SORT OF -- THIS IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS SOMEBODY WHO SUPP THERE AND AGAIN WITH THE EXPERIENCE YOU'VE HAD WHY DO YOU THINK THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A COMPELLING STORY? >> A BABY, A MOTHER, A FATHER, ALL THE COMPONENTS OF GUT WRENCHING DISBELIEF IN SOCIETY OF WHAT A NATURAL PERSON WOULD RESPOND TO. HOW COULD A FATHER SHOOT HIS OWN BABY? I COULD UNDERSTAND SOMEONE LEAVING THEIR WIFE OR THEIR CHILD, BUT NOT ONLY DID HE SHOOT THOSE -- AT LEAST ACCUSED OF SHOOTING, HE SHOT THE BABY. HE SHOT HIS WIFE, COVERED THEM OVER, WENT WITH ALL OF THE MENTALITY THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO GO BUY A ONE-WAY TICKET TO ENGLAND, CALLED UP AND TALKED ABOUT BURYING THEM TOGETHER. WHEN YOU PUT A CHILD IN A PHOTOGRAPH WITH A MOTHER AND THEN YOU KIND OF PUT IT IN FIRST PERSON, YOU CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN. IT'S BEYOND ANIMAL. WITHIN THE ANIMAL WORLD THEY DON'T DO THIS. >> YOU KNOW, WE TALKED YESTERDAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OTHER SIMILAR CASES HERE. OBVIOUSLY THE ONE THAT JUMPS TO MIND FOR EVERYBODY IS SCOTT PETERSON, WHO ALSO RECEIVED ENORMOUS ATTENTION, VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF THE OUTLINES OF THE CASE HERE. DID ANY OF YOUR LISTENERS WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS INITIALLY, DID ANY OF THEM SORT OF THROW OUT, HERE'S ANOTHER SCOTT PETERSON CASE? FIRST SCOTT PETERSON LOOKED THE PART OF A SYMPATHETIC AND GRIEVING HUSBAND, SOON-TO BE FATHER, BUT THEN WE KNOW THE JURY FOUND HIM GUILTY. DID ANY OF YOUR LISTENERS DRAW THE PARALLEL? >> THEY COULDN'T DRAW THE PARALLEL BECAUSE PETERSON NEVER HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND TIME WITH HIS CHILD. THE CHILD WAS UNBORN. THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR HIM TO DEVELOP THAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP. ENTWISTLE EVIDENTLY HAD A RELATIONSHIP. ACCORDING TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED, FRIENDS, ASSOCIATIONS, FAMILY, HE WAS A LOVING, DOETING FATHER. HOW CAN A LOVING, DOETING FATHER KILL HIS CHILD AND KILL HIS WIFE AND THEN COVER OVER THE BODIES AND THEN LEAVE THE HOUSE AND NEVER CALL 911? HOW CAN YOU HAVE THAT ALL PUT TOGETHER IN YOUR BRAIN FROM THE LEFT AND RIGHT LOBE OF YOUR BRAIN AND BE ABLE TO FUNCTION LIKE THAT, GET ON A PLANE AND FLY TO ENGLAND AND SAY I NEED SUPPORT. MY LISTENERS JUST COULDN'T CORRELATE TO THIS THING AT ALL. THERE WAS NO COMPARISONS IN THE DEBATE EXCEPT THAT THIS GUY JUST WAS AN UNBELIEVABLE ANIMAL. >> IF THERE WAS -- WE'RE SORT OF JUST TALKING HYPOTHETICALS HERE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GOING TO BE CONVICTED OR NOT AND WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT LET'S SAY AT THE END OF THE TRIAL, JURORS SAY WE'RE TROUBLED BY SO MUCH OF HIS CONDUCT BUT ALSO TROUBLED BY THE, WHAT THEY MIGHT SAY HARD FORENSIC EVIDENCE OR A CONFESSION, AND THE JURY COMES BACK -- JURORS COME BACK AND SAY NOT GUILTY, HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO US BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE REACTION WOULD BE OUT THERE? >> I THINK PEOPLE WOULD BE OUTRAGED. I THINK THAT'S WHEN THE SECOND WAVE OF OUTRAGE IS GOING TO HIT. IF HE WALKS OUT OF THAT COURTROOM AND FOUND NOT GUILTY, I REALLY THINK PEOPLE WILL BE NOT ONLY OUTRAGED, BUT WILL CHALLENGE THIS SYSTEM ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THAT PICTURE IS INDELIBLY IN PEOPLE'S MINDS OF THAT LITTLE BABY, OF THE MOTHER, OF ENTWISTLE, OF HIS FLIGHT, HIS RET SINCE TO COME BACK AND FACE REALITY, NOT EVEN TO COME TO THE FUNERAL OF HIS BABY AND HIS WIFE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ADD UP TO AN IN -- TO HUMAN TYPE RELATIONSHIPS AND REACTIONS, I THINK THEY WOULD BE OUTRAGED. >> JORDAN, WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO COME TALK WITH US. IT'S ALWAYS HELPFUL FOR US TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE FOLKS IN THE VICINITY ARE THINKING ABOUT, HOW THEY'RE LOOKING AT THESE TYPES OF TRIALS. WE HOPE WE CAN CALL ON YOU AGAIN AS THE TRIAL PROCEEDS TO TALK A LITTLE MORE, WILL YOU COME BACK AND VIFS IT US? >> HAPPY TO DO SO, THANKS. >> THE HOST OF THE JORDAN LEVY SHOW ON WTAG MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 3:00 P.M. TO 6:00 P.M. THEY SHOULD BE GETTING BACK IN THE COURTROOM IN JUST A LITTLE WHILE. QUICK BREAK RIGHT NOW. MORE ON THE OTHER SIDE. >>> WE ARE BACK IN SESSION HERE. WE ARE AWAITING THEIR RESUMING TESTIMONY. AS SOON AS THEY'RE BACK IN SESSION IN THE COURTROOM IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS. WE WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME TESTIMONY. IN THE LAST COUPLE DAYS THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN OUTLINING THE DETAILS OF THE CASE, THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES. AS YOU KNOW EARLIER TODAY THE JURORS GOT A CHANCE TO SEE THE VIDEO OF ALL OF THAT, THE CRIME SCENE. I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME MORE TESTIMONY. SERGEANT MARY RICHIE FROM MASSACHUSETTS STATE CRIME SERVICES UNIT WAS INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THE DETAILED EXAMINATION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE SCENE. AS WE PICK UP WITH HER TESTIMONY, SHE'S DESCRIBING FOR THE JURORS NOW THE BED WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED AND HOW THEY WENT ABOUT DISCOVERING THE BODIES AND THEN PHOTOGRAPHING ALL ASPECTS OF THAT AND WHERE THE BODIES WERE LOCATED. LET'S LISTEN AS SHE TALKED ABOUT THESE VERY DIFFICULT DETAILS. >> 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 DOCUMENT WITH PHOTOGRAPHS AS EACH LAYER, THE COMFORTER WAS TAKEN OFF, WAS DOCUMENTED PRIOR AND AFTER REMOVAL. THE SECOND LAYER WAS DOCUMENTED PRIOR TO 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 -- 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? >> YES. THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FOUR REMOVAL STEPS. I'M SORRY FOR THAT. THE FIRST ONE WAS THE COMFORTER. AT THAT POINT THERE WAS A WHITE SHEET COVERING 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. >> YESES. UPON REMOVAL OF THE COMFORTER, WE COULD SEE THE INFANT'S BODY FROM THE NECK DOWN, BUT THE FACE WAS COVERED WITH THE PILLOW. >> YOU COULD OR COULD NOT SEE THE BODY? >> WE COULD -- I BELIEVE 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 IT FAIR TO SAY THAT WAS THE SECOND LAYER, OR WAS THAT THE THIRD LAYER? >> I BELIEVE THE PILLOW WAS THE SECOND LAYER. >> DESCRIBE -- >> 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, FOOT OF THE BED? >> HER HEAD WAS TOWARDS THE HEAD OF THE BED ON HER LEFT SIDE FACING THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED. >> AND THE BABY -- >> AND THE BABY -- LILLIAN WAS ON HER BACK. HER HEAD WAS SLIGHTLY ELEVATED FROM THE BODY -- I CAN'T REMEMBER -- THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PILLOW UNDERNEATH. 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. >> COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER REDDISH-BROWN TYPE OF STAINS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE BED AT THAT TIME? >> NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. >> AND WHAT PORTION OF THE -- WHEN THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED, WHAT PORTION OR PORTIONS OF THE BABY AND THE MOTHER COULD BE SEEN? >> AFTER THE REMOVAL OF THE PILLOW, WE COULD SEE THE ENTIRE -- THE INFANT VICTIM, LILLIAN, AND WE COULD ALSO SEE THE MOTHER'S -- RACHEL'S HEAD. AGAIN, IT WAS ON HER LEFT SIDE, SO WE COULD SEE PART OF HER FACE AND HEAD. >> YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS A THIRD LAYER, A SHEET. WAS THAT EVENTUALLY REMOVED, PULLED BACK? >> YES. THE SHEET WAS COVERING RACHEL, THE ADULT VICTIM, AND THAT WAS REMOVED. >> DESCRIBE YOUR OBSERVATIONS OF RACHEL WHEN YOU PULLED THAT SHEET BACK. >> YES. 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, 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 -- WHEN ALL THE LAYERS ARE UP, BEFORE ANY FURTHER MOVEMENT IS DONE? >> 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, REDDISH-BROWN. >> WHAT, IF ANY, CLOTHING DID THE BABY HAVE ON? >> THE BABY HAD ON AN INFANT SLEEPER. , PAJAMAS. >> DIFFICULT DETAILS, AS WE SAID, THE DISCOVERY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND 9-MONTH-OLD LILLIAN. LET'S CHECK IN WITH BETH KARAS WHO IS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. BETH, HAS THE DEFENSE AT ANY POINT, WE KNOW THEY DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS, BUT THROUGH THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESSES, HAS THE DEFENSE ATTEMPT ED TO EVEN VAGUELY SUGGEST THE IDENTITY OF SOMEBODY ELSE WHO WOULD BE THE MURDERER HERE, OTHER THAN NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> NOT EVEN VAGUELY, JACK. THEY HAVE BROUGHT OUT THROUGH WITNESSES WHO HAD CONTACT WITH THE COUPLE, WHAT THAT WITNESS'S OBSERVATIONS WERE, WHETHER IT'S RACHEL'S FAMILY OR FRIENDS, THE NEIGHBOR, WELCOME WAGON, THAT THEY WERE A LOVING, CLOSE, DOTING COUPLE, AND HE WAS -- HE SEEMED TO BE A VERY HAPPY FATHER. SO THEY'VE BEEN BRINGING THAT OUT. ELLIOT WINE STEIN SAID IN HIS OPENING AND HE HAS EMPHASIZED IT AT LEAST THROUGH OFFICER AARON O'NEILL WHO DID THE FIRST WALK THROUGH OF THE HOUSE THE DAY THE BODIES WERE FOUND AND DIDN'T SEE THE BODIES, THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS AS IT APPEARS TO BE. BUT THEY HAVE NOT INDICATED WHO ELSE MAY HAVE HAD A MOTIVE TO DO THIS. >> JILL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. MANY TERMS OF DEFENDING THIS CASE, CAN YOU GET JURORS TO SAY NOT GUILTY BASED UPON THEM HAVING A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO THE IDENTITY OF THE KILLER HERE WITHOUT OFFERING UP TO THEM SOME ALTERNATIVE AS TO WHO THE KILLER MIGHT HAVE BEEN? >> I WOULD SAY NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT OFFERING SOME KIND OF PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE PERSON OR THEORY. I'M STILL WAITING. I'M WAITING TO HEAR IT IN HIS OPENING. IT'S NOT BEEN REVEALED THROUGH HIS CROSS EXAMINATION OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES OR THE OTHER LAWYER'S CROSS, AS TO WHAT THE THEORY OF DEFENSE IS IN THIS CASE. IF THERE IS ISN'T ONE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT FORWARD SOMEONE ELSE THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY DONE IT, THEN THIS -- AGAIN, I SAID ALL THIS BEFORE, I'M GLAD I'M NOT TRYING THIS CASE AND I'M JUST COMMENT STATING ON IT. BUT WHAT I BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD, THAT YOUR VIEWERS MAY NOT HAVE HEARD ARE THAT THEY THREW A LOT OUT AT THE COURT, THE DEFENSE DID, BEFORE TRIAL. THEY TRIED TO THROW OUT A LOT OF EVIDENCE. THEY FILED A LOT OF MOTIONS, MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS, MOTIONS REGARDING DISMISSAL OF CHARGES. SO PERHAPS THAT WAS THEIR THEORY OF DEFENSE, IS THAT THEY JUST THREW IT ALL OUT IN PRETRIAL. AND IF THE STATE DOESN'T OFFER YOU ANYTHING BUT LIFE, THEN WHY WOULD YOU TAKE IT? THIS MAY BE ONE WHERE THEY TRIED IT ALL IN THE BEGINNING BEFORE IF JURY WAS SELECTED AND NOW THEY'RE JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF A TRIAL BECAUSE THEY JUST COULDN'T PLEAD HIM TO LIFE. >> WE'VE ALL BEEN THERE WHERE AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, NO CHOICE, NO THE OTHER OPTIONS, TRY THE CASE AND WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS AS WE GO. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> WE HAVE ALL BEEN THERE, JILL. BACK TO BETH FOR A SECOND HERE. BETH, WHAT HAS THE JURY HEARD SO FAR IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO CHARACTERIZE AS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FLIGHT? HAVE THEY HEARD MUCH IN THE WAY OF DETAILS? >> YES. YESTERDAY THEY HEARD -- TWO DAYS AGO THEY HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF EMPLOYEE OF BRITISH AIRWAYS WHO ESTABLISHED THAT HE LEFT AT 8:15 IN THE MORNING ON JANUARY 21st, THE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS, ONE-WAY TICKET HE PURCHASED ON A VISA CARD AND HE CHECKED NO LUGGAGE. THEY NOW KNOW THAT HE LEFT AND HE ABANDONED THEIR LEASED BMW SUV AT LOGAN AIRPORT, LOCKED IT WITH THE KEY INSIDE. INSIDE ALSO WERE KEYS TO THE MATTERAZZO HOME. THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ABOUT THE SEARCH OF THAT CAR YET. THEY HAVEN'T HEARD THE KEYS WERE INSIDE EXCEPT IN OPENING STATEMENTS. THEY HAVE ALSO SEEN AND HEARD ABOUT HIS EFFORTS TO WITHDRAW MONEY AT ATM MACHINES AT LOGAN AIRPORT. HE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL. HE LEFT THE AIRPORT FOR A LITTLE OVER AN HOUR, DID GET SOME MONEY. AND THEY SAW BANK SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, SECURITY CAMERAS OF HIM AT AN ATM, THE SAME DAY OF THE SHOOTINGS, FRIDAY EVENING. THEY ALSO SAW HIM AT A PAY-BY-FOOT. HE HAD TO PAY TO LEAVE TO GO GET CASH. THEY KNOW HE LEFT ON A ONE-WAY TICKET AND THEY HEARD THROUGH JOE MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, THAT HE CALLED JOE MATTERAZZO ON MONDAY, JANUARY 23rd, AND EVERY DAY AFTER THAT FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS. FOR FOUR CONSECUTIVE DAYS HE TALKED TO HIM IN THE MORNING, ALWAYS DENYING IT. >> JILL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, AND WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THIS IN ALL OF THESE CASES. GIVEN THE FACTS HERE -- AGAIN UNDERSTANDING WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS AND WE DON'T HAVE NEIL ENTWISTLE AS A CLIENT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ALL THE ASSESSMENT S YOU HAVE TO MAKE AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, BUT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, WOULD YOU SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PUTTING HIM ON THE STAND TO TESTIFY? >> ARE YOU KIDDING? IS NOT UNLESS YOU WANT THAT -- IN TEXAS IT WOULD BE AN 1107 WRIT COMING ON YOUR DESK AFTER THE TRIAL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE MALPRACTICE ACTUALLY. >> TELL ME WHY. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY I WOULD THINK OF PUTTING HIM ON. YOU TELL ME WHY YOU WOULDN'T FIRST. >> NOT HAVING INTERVIEWED HIM -- IT IS HARD TO MAKE THE CALL WITHOUT KNOWING HIS PERSONALITY. IF HE IS AN ABSOLUTE GREAT LIAR, THEN MAYBE TO EXPLAIN -- YOU KNOW, EXPLAIN THIS, EXPLAIN T T THAT. IF HE DOESN'T HAVE ANSWERS FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT THE STATE OFFERED IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT AND THE THINGS THEY'RE NOW MARCHING IN FRONT OF THE JURY, HE'S GOT TO BE ABLE TO DO ANSWER, WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THIS, WHY DID YOU TELL YOUR FRIENDS IN ENGLAND A DIFFERENT STORY THAN WHAT YOU TOLD PEOPLE HERE? SO MANY THINGS. AND UNLESS HE WERE JUST TRULY A MERYL STREEP, OSCAR-WINNING ACTOR, THERE'S NO WAY HE COULD PUT HIM UP THERE. >> THERE ARE, INDEED, SOME PROBLEMS HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH. I'VE GOT TO GET A BREAK. WE'LL DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE DOWN THE ROAD. IN THE MEANTIME WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE COURTROOM TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. THEY'RE NOT BACK IN. WHEN THEY'RE READY, WE'LL BRING YOU BACK IN. WE'LL FIT IN A BREAK. THE QUESTION WE ALWAYS ASK OF YOU, IF YOU WERE ON THE JURY BOX SEATS OF THIS TRY, LOGON TO CNN KROOIM. THE QUESTION FOR TODAY IS ARE THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS HELPING THE PROSECUTION. SO FAR AN OVERWHELMING TALLY HERE, 92% VOTING YES THEY ARE, ONLY 8% THINK THEY'RE NOT HELPING THE PROSECUTION. WE'LL LET YOU KNOW HOW THOSE NUMBERS CHANGE. LIVE TESTIMONY COMING UP IN JUST A COUPLE MINUTES. DON'T GO AWAY. >>> THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HAS RULED ON THE HOT BED ISSUE CONCERNING THE RIGHTS OF GUANTANAMO DETAIN'S, FOREIGN TERRORISM SUSPECTS HELD AT GUANTANAMO BAY DO HAVE RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO CHALLENGE THEIR DETENTION IN AMERICAN COURTS. JUST AS ANTHONY KENNEDY WROTE, QUOTE, THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTION ARE DESIGNED TO SURVIVE AND REMAIN IN FORCE IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES. BUT IN DECENT, >>> JOINING US LIVE FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. IS IN SESSION SENIOR HEAD TORE FRED GRAHAM. FRED, IF YOU COULD BREAK THIS DOWN INTO LANGUAGE WE COULD ALL UNDERSTAND, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? >> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT IN EFFECT LINED ITSELF UP AGAINST THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CONGRESS. THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE CONGRESS HAD ACTED TOGETHER, AND HAD PASSED A LAW THAT DECLARED WHICH RIGHTS THESE SO-CALLED ENEMY COMBATANTS HAD. AND IT WAS -- ACCORDING TO THE SOLUTION THAT THE CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION CAME TOGETHER ON, IT WAS NOT THE RIGHT TO GO INTO CIVILIAN COURT. THERE WOULD BE A PANEL OF MILITARY OFFICERS, AND THEY WOULD HAVE CONSIDERABLY LESS RIGHTS THAN YOU GET IN COURT. THE SUPREME COURT 5-4 TODAY SAID THAT'S NOT ADEQUATE UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT, HAVE A RIGHT TO GO INTO COURT ON A WRIT OF HAB YOUS CORPUS THEY CALL IT AND CHALLENGE IN COURT THEIR DETENTION. SO IT WAS '2 TWO AGAINST ONE AND THE ONE PREVAILED TODAY. >> SO HERE IS WHY I GET CONFUSED ABOUT THIS STORY. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS GROUNDHOG DAY. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS TWICE BEFORE. WE'VE HAD RULINGS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FAVORABLE WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES AND WITH REGARD TO THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT. YET IT DOESN'T SEEM MUCH CHANGES. IS THAT BECAUSE EVERY TIME THE COURTS DISAGREE WITH THE GOVERNMENT, THE GOVERNMENT SWITCHES UP ON THE RULES. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FACE THIS TIME, TOO? >> PROBABLY NOT. YOU PRETTY WELL DESCRIBED WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THE SUPREME COURT HAS COME DOWN WITH A DECISION ESSENTIALLY JUST LIKE THIS. BUT THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF SUGGESTED THAT IF CONGRESS AND IF THE PRESIDENT WOULD GET TOGETHER ON A SET OF PROCEDURES, THAT WERE AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE RIGHT OF HAB YUS CORPUS, FOR A HEARING BEFORE A CIVILIAN COURT, THEN IT WOULD APPROVE IT. BASICALLY WHAT THEY SAID TODAY WAS, NO, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR HANDS, YOU, THE PRESIDENT, YOU, THE PENTAGON, YOU THE CONGRESS, AND WE IN THE JUDICIARY ARE GOING TO DECIDE WHAT THE RULES WILL BE IN THE CIVILIAN COURTS SO THESE DETAINEES CAN CHALLENGE IN A CIVILIAN COURT THE LABEL THAT'S BEEN PINNED ON THEM, AND THAT IS ENEMY COMBAT TANT. >> HEY, FRED, I'M MONITORING THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. AND WE'VE GOT AN ALERT IN. I KNOW THE PRESIDENT IS TRAVELING IN ROME AND, THEREFORE, THEY NEEDED SOME TIME APPARENTLY TO ASSESS THIS RULING. THEY SAID THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD HAVE SOME RESPONSE TO THIS. GUESS WHAT? THE PRESIDENT IS NOW SAYING HE PLANS TO ABIDE BY THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THE GUANTANAMO PRISONERS. IS THIS A SURPRISE? IS THIS THE LANGUAGE WE GOT BEFORE? DOES THIS MEAN THIS STANDS AN ALL OF THE SUDDEN FEDERAL JUDGES WILL BE HANDLING A FLURRY OF CHALLENGES AND EVEN RELEASE THESE PEOPLE? >> IT WOULD BE MORE THAN A FLURRY. THERE ARE 270 DETAINEES IN GUANTANAMO BAY. A LOT OF THEM HAVE LAWYERS NOW. SOME OF THEM HAVE ALREADY FILED IN CIVILIAN COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE, THE SUPREME COURT RULED AGAINST HIM. AND THE SUPREME COURT UNDER OUR SYSTEM HAS THE LAST WORD, EVEN IF IT WAS JUST 5-4, THE MARGIN OF THE DECISION. SO THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE. BUT WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER, THERE MAY BE YEARS NOW OF LITIGATION IN THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, MOST OF IT WILL BE HERE IN WASHINGTON. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE JUDGES TO DO IT. THEY'RE BUSY AS IT IS. >> CAN THEY KEEP THOSE PEOPLE STILL HELD IN THAT FACILITY IF IT'S GOING TO BE LITIGATED FOR YEARS? IT MEANS THE STATUS QUO IS THE STATUS QUO, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE LAW SAYS. >> EARLIER TODAY AFTER THIS DECISION CAME DOWN, THE LAWYERS FOR ONE OF THESE DETAINEES WENT INTO COURT HERE IN WASHINGTON AND SAID, HEY, MY CLIENT UNDER THE AMERICAN SYSTEM HAS A RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL. YOU'VE BEEN HOLDING HIM FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS, YOU'VE VIOLATED HIS RIGHTS TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, LET HIM OUT. YOU CAN SEE THAT INGENIOUS LAWYERS ARE GOING TO RAISE A HOST OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE HANDLED OR HOW IT'S BEEN HANDLED. AND THE LITIGATION IS CERTAINLY LIABLE TO GO ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. >> YOU ARE, WITHOUT QUESTION, ONE OF OUR FINEST LEGAL MINDS IN THE COUNTRY AND I'M ALSO SITTING BEHIND ONE OF THOSE FINE LEGAL MINDS, JACK FORD. WE WERE TALKING BEFORE THE BREAK, FRED, ABOUT WHAT THIS COULD MEAN IN TERMS OF ANOTHER STEP. LET ME BRING JACK INTO THE CONVERSATION. IS THIS SOMETHING WHEREBY WE COULD SEE THE COMMISSIONS ACT MAYBE REWORKED TO ADD, SAY, ANOTHER LAYER, ANOTHER CHECK AND BALANCE IN THIS LEGAL PROCESS? >> YEAH. I THINK WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THIS. I'VE SEEN SOME PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT DECISION MEANS THEY ALL HAVE TO BE RELEASED. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT. WHAT IT SAYS IS THOSE DETAINEES ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS THAT YOU AND I WOULD HAVE IF A POLICE OFFICER PULLED US OFF THE STREET AND SAID, YOU'RE UNDER ARREST. HERE IS THE PARALLEL. AT SOME POINT IN TIME FAIRLY SOON, YOU AND I WOULD BE ENTITLED TO EITHER A GRAND JURY TO DESTID -- HEARING SOME OF THE EVIDENCE, NOT ALL THE EVIDENCE, GRAND JURY WOULD DECIDE THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR US TO MOVE ALONG IN THE SYSTEM. >> PROBABLE CAUSE. >> PROBABLE CAUSE, WHERE A JUDGE HEARS SOME EVIDENCE: NOT ALL, BUT SOME. THE JUDGE SAY, YES, THERE'S ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO STAY AND MOVE ALONG THE SYSTEM. IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING HERE IS THESE DETAINEES ARE ENTITLED TO THAT SAME FIRST STEP. SOMEBODY HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, NOT A MILITARY OFFICER, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE, A JUDICIAL OFFICER, A JUDGE, MAKE AN INITIAL DETERMINATION THAT SAYS, YES, THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE HERE TO HOLD YOU ON WHATEVER THESE CHARGES ARE. NOW WE'LL MOVE YOU THROUGH THE SYSTEM. IT SOUNDS AS IF -- YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GATES BEING OPEN AND EVERYBODY WALKING OUT, BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A NEED AS QUICKLY AS PRACTICABLE TO GET ONE OF THOSE DETERMINATIONS MADE. >> I'VE GOT TO BE HONEST. FROM A LAYPERSON'S STANDPOINT HERE, THAT'S ME, IT FEELS AS THOUGH THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE HAS BEEN ROLLING ALONG AT THE GLAS Y'ALL PACE. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS, THE HEADLINES WERE PRETTY BIG WHEN KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED WHEN HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS, THEIR TRIALS ARE ALREADY UNDER WAY. THE BIG HEADLINES WERE THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, ARE THEY HOLDING BACK ON THE REIGNS ON THE CLAIM TO BE EXECUTED RIGHT AWAY, SAYING THAT PERHAPS THEY'VE GOT A SHOT HERE? >> THE FOCUS ON THIS DECISION WAS ON THE PROCEDURES THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE IF A DETAINEE HAS PROPERLY AND ACCURATELY BEEN LABELED AS AN ENEMY COMBAT TANT. THERE'S A WHOLE SEPARATE BUT SMALLER GROUP. THAT'S THE GROUP THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT HAS BEEN INDICTED AND ARRAIGNED BEFORE ONE OF THESE MILITARY TRIBUNALS. AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRIED -- THE QUESTION THAT'S UNCERTAIN TODAY IS, WE KNOW TODAY'S DECISION PERTAINED TO THE PANEL'S -- PANELS OF ENEMY COMBATANTS. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT TO CALL THEM HEATHER. I'M GLAD YOU PAUSED ON THAT. I HAD TO PAUSE ON WHETHER WE'RE ALLOWED TO CALL THEM ENEMY COMBATANTS ANYMORE. IN USING THE TRADITIONAL HEARINGS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE PROTECTED. >> RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WHAT, I HAVE THIS HUGE LIST OF QUESTIONS HERE THAT I BARELY EVEN GOT TO. I DIDN'T EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE, BUT YOU'RE THE GUY TO ASK, AND WE'RE FLAT OUT OF TIME. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN AND I APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING INTO THIS. GOOD LUCK IN SORTING THE REST OF IT OUT. >> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. >> I THINK SO. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE IN WASHINGTON, MY FRIEND. FRED GRAHAM, OUR SENIOR EDITOR, TRYING TO EXPLAIN ALL THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS EXTRAORDINARILY UNIQUE CASE. I THINK WE CAN CALL IT THAT. I THINK THAT'S A BIT OF AN UNDERSTATEMENT, EVEN WITH EXTRAORDINARY. WE HAVE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK, BUT WE WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ON WHAT YOU JUST HEARD AS WELL AS THE COVERAGE IN BOSTON, THE ENTWISLE CASE. WE'RE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY IN THE COURTS OF PUBLIC OPINION. IF YOU E-MAIL US YOUR NOTES AND OPINIONS. GO TO CNN.COM/COURTSIDE. KEEP IT SHORT, HARD, SWEET, IT'S HARD TO SAY THOSE TOGETHER, SHORT, SMART, SWEET. DO IT AND YOU MIGHT SEE YOUR WORDS FLASH ON AIR. WE'RE BACK AFTER THIS. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE." I'M JACK FORD. >> AND I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. WE'RE FOLLOWING A NUMBER OF THINGS TODAY. WE'RE BACK UP IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISLE, FOREIGN THE FIRST TIME IN THIS ENTIRE CASE REACTION FROM NEIL ENTWISLE. >> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE DURING THE ARRAIGNMENT AND ANYTIME YOU SAW HIM BEFORE, NO RESPONSE AT ALL. BASICALLY AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, INSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM WHILE THE JURORS WERE WATCHING THE VIDEO OF THAT CRIME SCENE, WHICH INCLUDED THE BODIES LOCATED ON THE BED AND HOW THE BLANKETS WERE TAKEN OFF OF THE BODIES, WE COULD SEE ALL SORTS OF EMOTIONS ON THE FACE OF NEIL ENTWISLE, CRYING, OBVIOUSLY CRYING. YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN -- WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THIS AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT HERE. IT'S THE VIDEO THAT WE HAVE RIGHT THERE, AND IT IS INTERESTING, BECAUSE HE'S GOT HIS HANDS OVER HIS FACE, OVER HIS EYES, TEARS COMING DOWN. AND YET IT ALMOST SEEMS AS IF HE GOES FROM -- WHAT DO YOU THINK -- >> LAUGHING TO SMILING, I'M NOT SURE. THIS IS A BIG DEBATE IN THE NEWSROOM TODAY. WHEN THIS TRANSSPIRED, I COULD HEAR SOME AUDIBLE GASPS AROUND THE NEWSROOM, HE'S LAUGHING, PEOPLE SAY. OH, WAIT A MINUTE, HE'S CRYING. >> BUT I THINK YOUR THEORY IS PROBABLY TRUE. GO AHEAD. >> I ONLY DO THIS FROM THE PRETRIAL FILINGS SUGGESTED THAT THE INVESTIGATION WENT THROUGH THE HOUSE, THE INVESTIGATORS USED PHOTOGRAPHS THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE TO DETERMINE WHAT THESE PEOPLE LOOKED LIKE THIS. THEY, LOOKING FOR MISSING PEOPLE ORIGINALLY AND WHO THESE BODIES WERE AND THEY DETERMINED THATTED BODIES ON THE BED WERE RACHEL AND THE BABY WHICH MATCHED THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY SAW ALL AROUND THE HOUSE. SO, WHEN WENT TO DO THE INVESTIGATIVE VIDEO, MY ASSUMPTION IS THEY PROBABLY PHOTOGRAPHED THE PHOTOS AROUND THE HOUSE. >> PROBABLY EVEN THE CHILD'S BEDROOM AND TOYS. >> AND HE'S SEEN THIS AND I WOULD GUESS, AGAIN, I'M THINKING HE'S SEEING THIS FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS WIFE. PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIS BABY. IN BETTER TIMES. MAYBE LAUGHING. MAKING FACES, WHO KNOWS. I'M GIVING HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT HERE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF SEEING WHAT WAS ON THAT VIDEO. >> I THINK THAT'S A PRETTY BIG ASSUMPTION AS TO WHAT THEY WERE WATCHING THERE AND WHAT HIS REACTIONS WERE. LET'S JUMP OUT TO BETH KARAS WHO IS OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE FOR US AND SET THE STAGE FOR US HERE. BETH, THEY'RE JUST COMING BACK AFTER THEIR LUNCHEON BREAK. WHO IS ON THE WITNESS STAND, AND WHAT HAS THIS WITNESS BEEN TALKING ABOUT? >> WELL, THE DIRECT EXAMINATION HAS NOW RESUMED OF ANOTHER MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE CRIME SCENE TECHNICIAN. SHE PROCESSED THE SCENE ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUS WITNESS, AND OTHERS, WHO MAY OR MAY NOT TESTIFY. HER NAME IS EMILY -- I WANT TO SAY PHANOS, I'M NOT SURE OF THE PRONUNCIATION. THAT'S HER MARRIED NAME. AND SHE'S TALKING ABOUT TAKING 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOS IN THE HOUSE, WHEN SHE WAS DISPATCHED THERE. SHE ARRIVED AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION AT 10:00 P.M. THAT NIGHT. AND SHE ALSO WAS DUSTED FOR FINGERPRINTS. SO, SHE'S DESCRIBING THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT, TOO. >> SO, THE PROSECUTION, BETH, SEEMS TO BE MOVING ALONG FAIRLY RAPIDLY, DO YOU THINK? >> YES. THEY WERE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AS OF YESTERDAY. BUT THERE WAS A TWO-HOUR DELAY STARTING TODAY'S TESTIMONY BECAUSE A JUROR WAS LATE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE LOSING THE TIME THAT THEY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, MAYBE THEY'RE ON SCHEDULE NOW. BUT I WAS TOLD I THINK THE BULK OF THE EVIDENCE WILL BE IN BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL FINISH NEXT WEEK. >> ALL RIGHT, BETH, THANK YOU. WE'LL LET YOU BACK IN SO YOU CAN CONTINUE YOUR COVERAGE RIGHT THERE. WE WANT TO TAKE YOU FOLKS BACK IN. ON THE WITNESS STAND IS A TROOPER, EMILY LEBRECK FROM MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE INVESTIGATION DONE AT THE CRIME SCENE. LET'S LISTEN. >> -- PHOTOGRAPH, DISTANT VERSION OF THE PREVIOUS PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU SEE -- >> IT IS. >> AND YOU HAD MENTIONED, TROOPER, ONE FURTHER AREA OF RIDGE DETAIL. DO YOU SEE THAT ON THERE? IS THERE AN AREA ABOVE THE TAPE THAT YOU HAD EXAMINED? >> IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM HERE BUT -- YES. >> AND WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT -- >> KEEPING YOUR VOICE UP. >> OKAY. RIGHT HERE, THAT IS ANOTHER AREA. HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, PORTION WAS DEPOSITED, WAS SMUDGED, AND IT DIDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL FOR COMPARISON. >> AND FOR THE RECORD, YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA ABOVE THE L >> CORRECT. >> -- WITH THE NUMBERS OR CENTIMETERS ON IT. >> CORRECT. >> BY THE WAY, TROOPER, CAN YOU TELL WHEN A LATENT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED OR EVEN ANY AREA OF FRICTION RIDGE DETAIL WHEN IT HAD BEEN DEPOSITED OR PLACED ON AN ITEM OR ITEMS? >> NO. >> AND WHY IS THAT? >> A LATENT COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED, TOUCHED, THERE AND DEPENDING ON VARIOUS FACTORS, IF IT HAD REMAINED UNTOUCHED OR HAD NOT EVAPORATED, AND IT COULD STAY THERE FOR AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. >> DID YOU PERFORM FURTHER WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE? >> I DID, SIR. >> WHEN WAS THAT? >> SEVERAL -- WEDNESDAY THE 25th, I BELIEVE THERE WERE SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED FOR PROCESSING. >> WHAT ITEM OR ITEMS DID YOU EXAMINE AND PROCESS? >> THERE WERE -- AS PART OF A TEAM EFFORT, THERE WERE SEVERAL FIREARMS, BOXES OF AMMUNITION, A JAR WITH AMMUNITION, SOME TRIGGER LOCKS. >> AND YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESSING OF ALL THAT? >> I DID, SIR. >> DID THAT TAKE PLACE OVER THE COURSE OF A DAY OR SEVERAL DAYS? >> SEVERAL DAYS, SIR. >> ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION, DID YOU EVER RECEIVE AND PROCESS FOR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS A LAPTOP COMPUTER? >> NO, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. >> BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. >> SO, JUST A BRIEF SERIES OF QUESTIONS POSED TO THE TROOPER. AGAIN, AT THIS JUNCTURE IN THE CASE WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE AND NOT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EVIDENCE, IF YOUR DEFENSE IS WE DIDN'T DO IT, THEN CLEARLY WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE -- AND THESE ARE GOOD AND WELL-EXPERIENCED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, THEY'RE FIGURING, OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE A QUESTION THAT WE HAVE TO ASK. LET ME BRING JILL DAVIS INTO OUR CONVERSATION HERE, WHO IS JOINING US FROM THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS, SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US. >> ON YOUR BIRTHDAY, NO LESS. >> INDEED. THANK YOU. A SPECIAL TREAT TO HAVE YOU COME UP AND VISIT WITH US. >> THANK YOU. HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> LET'S GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION YOU AND I WERE HAVING, ALL RIGHT, ABOUT NEIL ENTWISLE, DO YOU PUT HIM ON THE STAND. AND LET ME TOSS THIS OUT TO YOU. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID SO FAR ABOUT THERE ARE SO MANY INCONSISTENCIES AND CONDUCT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN, I GUESS THE DANGER IS -- I MIGHT HAVE TO HOLD THIS, BUT LET ME THROW IT OUT THERE FOR YOU TO CONTEMPLATE, IF JURORS ARE SAYING HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER, WHY WOULDN'T HE JUST TELL US THAT? PONDER THAT FOR A FEW MINUTES HERE, JILL, AS WE GET BACK IN THE COURTROOM. AND JUST A REMINDER FOR YOU FOLKS, YOU SAW NEIL ENTWISLE ATTENDING THE SIDEBAR CONFERENCE WITH HIS LAWYERS. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY. MASSACHUSETTS IS A STATE WHERE THE DEFENSE IS ENCOURAGED AT LEAST TO IF THEY WANT TO, THEY CAN PARTICIPATE TO EVERY LEVEL OF THE TRIAL INCLUDING LIST KNOWLEDGE ON THE SIDEBAR CONFERENCES HERE. A NEW WITNESS BEING SWORN IN TO TAKE THE STAND. SO PERFECT TIMING FOR US TO JUMP IN ALSO, FIND OUT WHO THIS WITNESS IS AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. LET'S LISTEN. >> WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> YES. LISA SCOUTLESS, S-C-O-U-T-E-L-A-S. FIRST NAME, L-I-S-A. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MA'AM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING? >> I'M THE MANAGER OF STOPPING FOR INSURANCE CORP. >> HOW LONG REMEMBER DOING THAT? >> A LITTLE OVER 11 YEARS. >> WHERE IS THAT LOCATED? >> IT'S LOCATED IN MARLBORO, MASSACHUSETTS. >> WHAT SORT OF BUSINESS IS IT? >> ENGINEERING SERVICES. >> BACK IN 2005 AND 2006 WAS IT LOCATED -- >> IT WAS LOCATED IN WESTBORO UNTIL DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. >> AND WHAT DUTIES DID YOU PERFORM FOR INTRINSICS BACK IN 2005 AND 2006? >> THE SAME FUNCTION THAT I'M IN NOW. >> IF YOU COULD OUTLINE YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES? >> YES, I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR RECRUITING, TRAINING, RESUMES, TALKING WITH CANDIDATES, ARRANGING FOR INTERVIEWS. I PUT THE OFFER LETTERS TOGETHER. I PRESENT OFFERS. KEEP TRACK OF, YOU KNOW -- STAY IN TOUCH WITH PEOPLE. JUST A GENERAL, NORMAL RECRUITING PROCESS. >> IS PART OF THAT PROCESS A CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE AND RESUMES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE KEPT AND MAINTAINED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF YOUR BUSINESS AND IS IT THE ORDINARY COURSE OF -- OR WAS IT BACK THEN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF INTRINICES' BUSINESS TO KEEP THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES IN GOOD FAITH? >> YES. >> WAS IT THE PRACTICE TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN AND MAKE THOSE RECORDS AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS REFLECTED IN THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE DOCUMENTS? >> CUES ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> WAS IT THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS TO MAKE AND KEEP THOSE RECORDS AT AND ABOUT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THOSE DOCUMENT? >> YES, YES. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES IS TO MAINTAIN THOSE DOCUMENTS. >> YES, SIR. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION, IF I COULD, TO BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2005 AND IS YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE AND/OR RESUMES FROM A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF NEIL ENTWISLE? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WHAT DID YOU RECEIVE? >> I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL WITH A COVER LETTER AND A RESUME. AND HE SUBSEQUENTLY CALLED ME TO FOLLOW-UP TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD RECEIVED THAT. >> AND WHEN DID YOU HAVE -- HAVE THAT PHONE CALL? >> IT WAS SEVERAL DAYS WE HAD PLAYED PHONE TAG A LITTLE BIT. IT WAS SEVERAL -- NOT LONG AFTER RECEIPT OF THE RESUME, A FEW DAYS MAYBE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH NEIL ENTWISLE? >> YES. WE DID FINALLY CONNECT, YES. >> AND THAT WAS BY TELEPHONE? >> YES, THAT WAS BY TELEPHONE. >> AND DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THAT CONVERSATION? >> YES. >> CAN YOU TELL US WHAT HE SAID, WHAT YOU SAID DURING THAT CONVERSATION? >> HE MENTIONED THAT HE AND HIS WIFE WERE GOING TO BE RELOCATING BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS. AND THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR EMPLOYMENT IN THE LOCAL AREA. AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD RECEIVED HIS RESUME AND APPLICATION. DURING OUR E-MAIL EXCHANGES BEFORE WE DID FINALLY CONNECT BY PHONE, I DID INDICATE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE OPENINGS AT THAT TIME. >> SO, PROSECUTION NOW SHIFTING GEARS A LITTLE BIT, GETTING AWAY FROM THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, THIS WITNESS ON THE STAND TALKING ABOUT SOME CONTACT SHE HAD WITH NEIL ENTWISLE ABOUT A POSSIBLE JOB WHEN THEY WERE COMING BACK TO THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. WE'VE GOT TO FIT IN A QUICK BREAK. WHEN WE COME BACK, MORE LIVE TESTIMONY. DON'T GO AWAY. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD." WE ARE IN SESSION. AND UP ON THE STAND RIGHT NOW AT THE FRONT OF YOUR SCREEN IS LISA SCOUTELAS WHO WORKS FOR AN ENGINEERING FIRM IN MASSACHUSETTS AND WE WEREN'T EXACTLY SURE WHETHER SHE WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING AND WE LEARNED VERY QUICKLY THAT HER ROLE IN ALL OF THIS IS THAT SHE HAD ACTUALLY HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH NEIL ENTWISLE, MOSTLY VIA E-MAIL, REGARDING EMPLOYMENT. NEIL HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR A JOB. DON'T FORGET NEIL AND RACHEL AND THE BABY HAD ONLY JUST ARRIVED IN THE UNITED STATES FROM ENGLAND. RACHEL'S AMERICAN. SHE HAD LIVED RECENTLY IN ENGLAND, AND IT HAD ONLY BEEN FOUR MONTHS THAT THEY'D BEEN HERE BEFORE LILLIAN AND THE BABY WERE SHOT DEAD. THERE HAD BEEN EMPLOYMENT DISCUSSIONS BEFOREHAND. LET'S LISTEN. >> IT MAY BE MARKED COLLECTIVELY AS ONE EXHIBIT. >> YES, YOUR HONOR. >> EXHIBIT 37 WAS MARKED. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> I TAKE IT, IN YOUR JOB AS A RECRUITER, AS YOU TOLD US, YOUR JOB IS TO RECRUIT NEW PERSONNEL INTO YOUR COMPANY. >> CORRECT. >> AND IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR YOU TO FOLLOW-UP AN E-MAIL WITH TIME WITH A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S VERY COMMON. >> AND AS YOU -- OR TO RESPOND IN E-MAIL TO TRY TO FIND OUT THE BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON WHO'S APPLYING, RIGHT? >> THE BACKGROUND MEANING? >> YOU REVIEW THE RESUMES? >> YES. >> AND YOU REVIEW THEIR QUALIFICATIONS? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU -- YOU CONTACT PEOPLE THAT YOU THINK MIGHT EVENTUALLY HAVE A PLACE IN YOUR COMPANY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. NOW, I TAKE IT THAT NEIL ENTWISLE HAD CONTACTED YOU AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY 2005, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND HE WAS STILL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AT THAT POINT? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AND THAT'S WHEN YOU LEARNED OR HE TOLD YOU THAT HE AND HIS WIFE AND NEW BABY WERE GOING TO BE MOVING OVER TO THE UNITED STATES, RIGHT? >> I DON'T RECALL IF THEY HAD THE BABY YET OR NOT. >> WELL, I GUESS THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE BABY YET. I MISSPOKE. >> I DON'T THINK THAT HAPPENED UNTIL LATER. >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND HE HAD FOUND OUT ABOUT YOUR COMPANY THROUGH A WEBSITE CALLED MONSTER.COM, IS THAT RIGHT? >> ONE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS WE HAD, HE HAD SEEN SOME POSTINGS ON MONSTER. I DON'T RECALL THE VERY FIRST CONTACT. IF THAT WAS THROUGH OUR OWN POSTINGS ON OUR WEBSITE OR IF THAT WAS A DIFFERENT JOB BOARD. I DON'T RECALL. >> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US HOW YOU USE MONSTER.COM TO POST YOUR JOB LISTINGS. >> IT'S A VERY COMMON INTERNET BOARD. IT'S VERY WIDELY USED. WE DON'T PRESENTLY HAVE POSTINGS ON THERE. BUT OCCASIONALLY WE DO PURCHASE RESUME DATABASE ACCESS AND ALSO IF WE CHOOSE TO POST A JOB ON THERE, WE PURCHASE POSTINGS AND SUBMIT OUR -- I PUT THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS IN, AND PRETTY NORMAL PROCESS. >> IT'S AN -- IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR SOMEONE TO GO OUT TO MONSTER.COM TO SEE IF THERE'S A JOB POSTING AND GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU? >> IT'S VERY TYPICAL, UH-HUH. >> ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU FIRST HEARD FROM NEIL ENTWISLE HE, AS YOU TOLD US, SENT A LETTER AND RESUME TO YOU -- >> YES. >> -- OR TO YOUR COMPANY. >> YES. >> AND IT WAS A LETTER AND A RESUME THAT DESCRIBED HIS -- HIS EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION. >> CORRECT. >> AND VARIOUS DIFFERENT ABILITIES THAT HE HAD IN THE FIELD THAT HE WAS APPLYING FOR. >> YES. >> AND AT THAT TIME HE APPLIED TO YOU INITIALLY, IT WAS FOR A SENIOR DESIGN ENGINEER. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT POSITION ENTAILED. >> I'M NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON, BUT I CAN GIVE YOU THE MAIN REQUIREMENTS. IT'S FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE. WHAT INTRINSICS DOES IS SPECIALIZE IN CUSTOM INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGN. IT'S A NICHE IN OUR INDUSTRY. AND IT REQUIRES DESIGN SKILLS FOR CUSTOM INTEGRATED CIRCUITS. THEY ARE CALLED ASICSS, APPLICATION-SPECIFIC INTEGRATE CIRCUITS. ALSO SGAs, WHICH ARE FIELD-PROGRAMMABLE GATE ARRAYS. IT REQUIRES A FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE WITH ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FOR SOME OF US. NOW, WHEN YOU FINALLY SPOKE WITH NEIL ENTWISLE, THAT WAS AT SOME POINT OBVIOUSLY AFTER FEBRUARY OF 2005. >> YES. AS I SAID A FEW DAYS, I THINK. >> AND YOU ALSO SPOKE WITH HIM SOMETIME AFTER THE BABY WAS BORN. >> RIGHT. >> AND YOU HAD A VERY NICE CONVERSATION WITH NEIL ENTWISLE AT THAT TIME? >> YES. >> IT WAS VERY PLEASANT CONVERSATION? >> RIGHT. >> IT WAS A PROFESSIONAL CONVERSATION. >> YES. >> HE TALKED ABOUT THE BABY. >> HE TALKED ABOUT THE BABY. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS WHEN HE TOLD ME THEY WERE MOVING TO HOPKINTON OR HAD MOVED TO HOPKINTON. >> AND YOU DESCRIBED THE CONVERSATION AS BEING LIGHT AND AIRY. >> CORRECT. >> AND NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH NEIL. >> NO, MA'AM. >> WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT HOPEFULLY GETTING A JOB AT YOUR COMPANY. >> NO, NOTHING. >> NOW, WHEN HE INITIALLY CONTACTED YOU IN FEBRUARY OF 2005, WHILE HE WAS STILL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, OBVIOUSLY HE DIDN'T GET ANY JOB AT THAT POINT FROM YOU, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND YOU DID TELL HIM TO KEEP IN TOUCH, THOUGH. >> I BELIEVE SO, SURE. >> AND THAT'S, AGAIN, NOT UNUSUAL FOR YOU TO DO IF YOU SEE SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE QUALIFIED FOR A POSITION. >> EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ALSO REFERRED HIM TO OTHERS IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL JOBS. >> THERE WAS A RECRUITER THAT I REFERRED HIM TO THAT I HAD WORKED FOR A LONG TIME. >> AND THAT WAS PRO-TECH CAREERS. >> CORRECT. >> THAT WAS AROUND JUNE OF 2005, DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? >> I DON'T RECALL THE TIME FRAME, BUT IT'S PROBABLY -- YEAH. >> OKAY. AND, IN FACT, YOU HAD GIVEN HIM A NAME OF BARRY ROSS -- >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> -- TO CONTACT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT'S SOMEBODY, AGAIN, THAT YOU KNEW OF. >> YES. >> AND FELT COMFORTABLE REFERRING NEIL OVER TO -- >> YES. >> -- HIS COMPANY. >> UH-HUH. >> AND YOU LEARNED AT SOME POINT THAT NEIL HAD TURNED DOWN A JOB FROM BARRY ROSS BECAUSE HE HAD WANTED TO BE IN THE BOSTON AREA. >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. >> AT ANY POINT DID YOU KNOW THAT HE HAD BEEN OFFERED A JOB, BUT IT WASN'T IN THE BOSTON AREA FROM BARRY ROSS? >> NO. >> OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH. NOW, IN SEPTEMBER OR SO, NEIL DID SEND YOU AN UPDATED RESUME WITH AN UPDATED LETTER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE -- IN SEPTEMBER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. >> YES. >> YES. I BELIEVE SO, YES. UH-HUH. >> AND, AGAIN, HE WAS KEEPING IN TOUCH -- >> YES. >> -- LIKE YOU HAD ASKED HIM TO DO, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND HE CHECKED WITH YOU AFTER SEPTEMBER, AND THAT WAS -- OR IN SEPTEMBER -- IN DECEMBER OF SOMETIME. >> THAT WAS -- YES. THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THAT I HEARD FROM HIM. >> AND HE HAD TOLD YOU THAT HE WAS RESPONDING TO A POSITION THAT YOU HAD POSTED. >> HE SAID IN THE E-MAIL, I BELIEVE, THAT HE FOUND THE POSTINGS ON MONSTER.COM AND HE DIDN'T BELIEVE HE WAS QUALIFIED OR SOMETHING TO THAT -- QUALIFIED FOR THAT POSITION, BUT WANTED TO CHECK IN. >> IF I COULD ASK YOU TO JUST READ THAT TO YOURSELF, JUST FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THAT. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH. >> NOW, I'M REFERRING TO THE LAST PAGE OF EXHIBIT 37, YOUR HONOR. >> ALL RIGHT, WHILE IT'S A LITTLE QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, THIS GIVES ME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO ASK JILL DAVIS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION, AT LEAST IN MY OWN MIND, AND THAT IS THIS, JILL. ON A DAY WHEN THE JURY HAS SEEN SOME OF THE MOST GRIPPING EVIDENCE THUS FAR AND PERHAPS I THINK MAYBE THE MOST GRIPPING OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL, THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT EVIDENCE. THIS IS EVIDENCE ABOUT WHAT THEIR LIFE WAS LIKE BEFORE THE KILLING. DOES THIS REGISTER AS MUCH ON A DAY WHEN YOU'VE BEEN SLAMMED? >> WELL, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THE STATE IS GOING WITH THIS WITNESS. MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE IS THAT THEY WANT TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE HAVING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, THAT HE HAD MANY, MANY MONTHS THERE WHERE HE WAS STILL UNEMPLOYED. BUT THEY'VE NEVER ASKED THAT QUESTION TO HER. GRANTED, SHE'S NOT -- THEY'VE ALREADY CROSSED HER. I MEAN, PASSED THE WITNESS, AND NOW SHE'S ON CROSS. BUT AS A PROSECUTOR, I WOULD WANT TO SAY, SO YOU WERE AWARE THAT BETWEEN THESE MONTHS AND THESE MONTHS AND CLOSE IN TIME TO THE ACTUAL KILLINGS, THAT HE WAS STILL LOOKING FOR A JOB, WHICH WOULD FIT NICELY INTO THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY THAT ONE OF THE MOTIVES FOR THE KILLINGS WAS FINANCIAL. AND YET THAT QUESTION NEVER GOT ASKED CLEARLY, AND EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN STYLE. I MEAN, EVERYBODY DOES. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M WATCHING THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM -- I MEAN MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING, BUT WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE, IF ANY, OF THE PERFORMANCE OF -- INSTEAD OF SAYING WHAT DID YOU SEE. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WENT IN THERE. >> YOU'RE MY KIND OF GIRL! >> AND I THINK THAT IF THEY REALLY WANTED THE JURY TO KIND OF LIGHTEN UP AFTER THOSE HORRENDOUS PHOTOGRAPHS OR VIDEO -- >> YEAH. >> -- THIS WOMAN ISN'T FOR IT. BECAUSE SHE'S SPEAKING IN TECHNICAL TERMS ALSO. >> RIGHT. >> AND THEY THEMSELVES ARE SPEAKING SO FORMALLY. AND DID YOU OBSERVE -- YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE ANYTHING, INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, WHERE YOU GO, WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT? >> AND DID YOU HIRE HIM OR NOT. >> WHAT WERE THEY WEARING? WHAT POSITION WAS THE INFANT IN, WHAT, IF ANY, CLOTHING WAS PLACED ON THE INFANT. INSTEAD OF WHAT WAS THE BABY WEARING. >> EXACTLY. >> I'M GRASPING HERE FOR ANYTHING FOR THE DEFENSE AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CRITICIZE THE PROSECUTION FOR. >> AND HERE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF PERHAPS THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION -- AND BY THE WAY, STEPHANIE PAGE IS A GREAT LAWYER AND I'VE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH HER THROUGHOUT, BUT WHETHER SHE'S JUST TRYING TO SUGGEST YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING TO THIS GUY TO COMPLETELY SEND HIM INTO AN EMOTIONAL TAILSPIN, DID YOU? THAT'S JUST MY GUESS. LISTEN, I GOT TO SQUEEZE IN A QUICK BREAK. WHILE THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT TECHNICAL IN THEIR SPEAK. WE'LL COME BACK AND JOIN IT LIVE. >>> LISA SCOUTELAS ON THE WITNESS STAND STILL BEING QUESTIONED BY STEPHANIE PAGE WHO IS ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOR NEIL ENTWISLE. SOMETHING THEY ARE FOCUSING ON THE CREDENTIALS, THE BACKGROUND, THE QUALIFYINGS THAT NEIL ENTWISLE HAD. PROSECUTION APPARENTLY PUT THIS WITNESS ON THE STAND TO SHOW THAT NEIL ENTWISLE WAS NOT FINDING JOBS AND CREATING THAT LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION THAT THE PROSECUTION SAID RESULTED EVENTUALLY IN THAT EXPLOSION THAT TOOK THE LIFE OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD. THE DEFENSE SAYING NOT AT ALL THE CASE. HE HAD GOOD EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND HAD GOOD PROSPECTS FOR JOBS HERE. SO BOTH SIDES GETTING SOMETHING FROM THIS WITNESS. LET'S LISTEN. >> THE NEXT EXPERIENCE THAT HE LISTED? >> IMPLEMENTATION OF SIGNAL ALGORITHM AND CUSTOM PROCESSORS IN SGAs INCLUDING FFT, FUUR, ETHERNET, TCP/IP AND UDP AND IEEE 754 COMPLIANT FLOATING POINT SUITE, DDR AND QDR CONTROLLER AND MOST RECENTLY A USBUART WITH SOFTWARE DRIVER SUPPORT. >> ALL RIGHT. AND THOSE ARE ALL TERMS THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IN TERMS OF RECRUITING FOR YOUR COMPANY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE NEXT EXPERIENCE THAT MR. ENTWISLE LISTS. >> THE USE OF MICROCHIPS PICs FOR SMALL SCALE SUPPORT APPLICATIONS. >> AND THE EX? >> EXTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF CHIP ON A CHIP ARCTECTURE FOR DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSORS. >> NEXT. >> USE OF GCC AND ASSEMBLER FOR SOFT-CORE AND HARDCORE EMBEDDED PROCESSORS. >> NEXT. >> LAB FOR NUMERICAL ALGORITHM DEVELOPMENT AND SYSTEM MODDING. >> NEXT. >> VISUAL "C" PLUS PLUS FOR DRIVER DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION PLATFORMS AND MODELING OF SYSTEMS AND CORES. >> AND LASTLY? >> PCB DESIGN USED OR/CAD. >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT INTRINSIC DOES AS A COMPANY TO HELP US UNDER THIS. >> INTRINSIC IS AN IP-ENABLED ELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS COMPANY, AND THAT MEANS IS WE EMPLOY A STAFF OF FULL-TIME ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS WHO SPECIALIZE AS I SAID EARLIER IN CUSTOM INTEGRATED SIR RUT DESIGN. EVERYTHING SURROUNDING THAT PARTICULAR KIND OF DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE CALLED ASICSs, SGAs, SYSTEMS ON A CHIP. SO, IT'S VERY SPECIALIZED WHAT WE DO. >> OKAY. ENTHUSIASTIC. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> NOW, HE DID LIST OTHER SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE ON HIS RESUME, DIDN'T HE? >> WERE, HE DID. >> AND WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY WHAT THOSE ARE. >> EXCELLENT ALL-AROUND I.T. AND PROGRAMMING SKILLS. OH, THIS IS PART OF HIS -- THIS IS THE SECOND PAGE OF HIS RESUME. SORRY. THAT WAS IT. >> AND -- OKAY. AND DID HE ALSO LIST BEING A MEMBER OF IEEE -- OR IEE AND IEEE ON THAT RESUME? >> YES. IT SAYS NOVICE AND SENIOR MEN'S UNIVERSITY ROWING CLUB CAPTAIN AND MEMBER OF IEE AND IEEE INCLUDING THE IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY? >> NOT PERSONALLY, NO. >> ALL RIGHT. BUT THAT'S A SOCIETY THAT DEALS WITH COMPUTERS AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? YOU DON'T -- >> I'VE NEVER HEARD IT REFERRED TO BEFORE AS COMPUTER SOCIETY. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN TERMS OF THE JOBS THAT NEIL ENTWISLE REFERRED TO WHEN HE SAID HE KNEW THAT HE WASN'T QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION -- >> YES, MA'AM. >> -- ONE OF THOSE INVOLVED A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAD TO BE A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THE OTHER ONE INVOLVED A JOB THAT REQUIRED MORE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAN NEIL ENTWISLE HAD AT THE TIME, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE OTHER POSITION IS, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> IT WASN'T -- PERHAPS I MISHEARD YOU. THERE WAS A JOB THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH -- >> YES. >> -- EXPERIENCE FOR. >> YES, CORRECT. >> NOW, IN TERMS OF MR. ENTWISLE'S CORNS WITH YOU, HE ALSO HAD SENT YOU A COVER LETTER. >> YES, MA'AM. >> AND DO YOU HAVE THAT UP THERE IN FRONT OF YOU? >> NO. OH, WAIT A MINUTE. I HAVE ONE OF THEM, YES. >> AND, AGAIN, THIS IS A LETTER THAT'S ADDRESSED, DESCRIBING HIS EXPERIENCE IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT'S ON THE RESUME, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT'S GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND, HIS EDUCATION, HIS CHOSEN DEGREE. >> AND IT'S DATED SEPTEMBER 26 OF 2005? >> NO. >> NO. WHAT DATE DO YOU HAVE? >> MONDAY THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2005 >> IF I CAN SHOW YOU THIS. I TAKE IT THAT MR. ENTWISLE HAD SUBMITTED A LETTER WITH HIS RESUME BACK IN JANUARY OF 2005, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, CORRECT. I THINK IT WAS FEBRUARY, WASN'T IT? >> WHAT WAS THE DATE ON THAT FIRST LETTER THAT YOU HAD? >> IT SAYS JANUARY 31st, BUT I THOUGHT THAT HIS INITIAL -- I'M PRETTY SURE HIS INITIAL CONTACT WITH ME WAS NOT UNTIL FEBRUARY. BUT IT'S A GENERAL COVER LETTER, SO I DON'T KNOW. >> IN ANY EVENT YOU HAVE TWO COVER LETTERS THERE. >> YES, UH-HUH. >> ONE IS DATED IN JANUARY. >> YES. >> AND THE OTHER'S DATES IN SEPTEMBER. >> CORRECT. >> IF WE CAN REFER TO THE SEPTEMBER 26th LETTER, HE HAD CLEARLY ALREADY MOVED BACK TO THE UNITED STATES WITH HIS WIFE RACHEL AND HIS DAUGHTER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. >> THERE'S A MASSACHUSETTS ADDRESS ON HERE -- >> THERE WAS AN OBJECTION. >> I'M SORRY. >> THE WITNESS MAY READ FROM THE LETTER. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. POINT YOU TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS, IT STARTS WITH "AS YOU WILL GATHER." DO YOU SEE THAT? >> YES. >> COULD YOU READ THAT TO THE JURY. >> IT SAYS, "AS YOU WILL GATHER FROM MY RESUME I AM A BRITISH CITIZEN WITH A BRITISH EDUCATION. MY WIFE IS ORIGINALLY FROM PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS. FOLLOWING THE BIRTH OF OUR DAUGHTER IN APRIL, WE MOVED BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS IN SEPTEMBER. I HAVE A FULL RESIDENCY VISA AND GREEN CARD." >> NOW, HE ALSO TOLD YOU THAT HE HAD A DEGREE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? THE FIRST LINE OF THE NEXT PARAGRAPH? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF YORK. >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LETTER, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. AND THAT HE HAD TAKEN THE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT COURSES TO HELP HIM IN HIS CAREER. IS THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. >> THE LETTER IS IN EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESS MAY READ FROM THE LETTER. >> WOULD YOU READ THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THAT THIRD PARAGRAPH TO THE JURY. >> "I HAVE DEVELOPED MY CAREER." THAT ONE? >> YES. >> "I HAVE DEVELOPED MY CAREER OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS TO BECOME AN EXPERT IN SYSTEMS DESIGN SPECIFICALLY WITH EMBEDDED SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC TARGETING DSP AND CUSTOM PROCESSING APPLICATIONS WITH HIGH-SPEED COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT." >> THANK YOU. AND IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, THE LAST SENTENCE THAT STARTS WITH "I CHOSE." >> "I CHOSE THE BUSINESS MANAGEMENT OPTIONS TO PROVIDE A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR CAREER DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS MORE MANAGERIAL POSITIONS IN THE LONGER TERM, PARTICULARLY PROJECT MANAGEMENT." >> NOW, HE ALSO DESCRIBED OTHER INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT HE HAD DONE IN A GAP YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE NEXT -- FIRST SENTENCE OF THE NEXT PARAGRAPH. >> YES. >> AND COULD YOU READ THAT. >> "BETWEEN COMPLETION OF HIGH SCHOOL AND STARTING UNIVERSITY I COMPLETED, IN QUOTES, GAP YEAR ON IBM ON THE PRESTIGIOUS UNIVERSITY SCHEME. I COMPLETED" -- OH, SORRY. >> THAT'S OKAY. YOU CAN READ THE NEXT. >> I COMPLETED MY MASTER'S PROJECT AT THE REAL-TIME SYSTEMS GROUP AT KINETIC. >> YES. >> FORMERLY DERA OF THE M.O.D. AND HAVE COMPLETED MY EMPLOYMENT THERE TO SEE MY VERY SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS THROUGH TO COMMERCIAL REALIZATION. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, I TAKE IT THAT AFTER MR. ENTWISLE'S RECONNECTING WITH YOU, YOU ALSO CONTINUED TO SAY, JUST KEEP IN TOUCH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> I SAID FEEL FREE TO KEEP IN TOUCH WITH ME. SOMETHING MAY COME UP. >> AND SOMETHING COULD COME UP BY BEING POSTED ON MONSTER.COM -- OR DO YOU ALSO ADVERTISE IN THE NEWSPAPERS OR -- >> NO. >> SO HOW OTHER THAN MONSTER.COM, HOW DO YOU REACH OUT AND LET PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S A JOB POSTING? >> WE HAVE OUR OWN POSTING ON OUR WEBSITE. WE WORK WITH RECRUITING AGENCIES. THERE'S VARIOUS OTHER JOB SITES THAT WE USE FOR POSTINGS. NETWORKING. >> SOMEONE CAN GO TO YOUR SITE AND FIND OUT IF THERE'S A POSITION AND THEN APPLY AND RESPOND TO YOU FROM THAT. >> OF COURSE. >> AND OBVIOUSLY THESE KINDS OF JOBS, AS YOU HAVE TOLD US, REQUIRE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS? >> YES. >>> WELCOME BACK. BRAND NEW WITNESS JUST SAT DOWN, STATED HIS NAME, JOHN SOROS AND SAID HE IS WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE. LET'S LISTEN IN. >>-- TRAINED IN THE AREAS OF CRIMINALISTICS AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. I'M DEPUTY TECHNICAL LEADER FOR FORENSIC BIOLOGY. >> DID YOU GET EDUCATION IN ORDER TO HAVE THE ASSIGN THE THAT YOU HAVE? >> YES, SIR. >> IF YOU COULD OUTLINE YOUR EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE. >> I HOLD A BACHELOR'S IN SCIENCE FROM AMHERST AND I HOLD A MASTER'S IN CRIMINAL SCIENCE FROM WESTFIELD STATE COLLEGE. >> HAVE YOU HAD THEY ADDITIONAL TRAINING SINCE YOU ARRIVED OR BEGAN WORKING FOR THE STATE POLICE CRIME LAB? >> YES, I DO. >> DESCRIBE THAT. >> I HAVE APPROXIMATELY 11 MONTHS IN-HOUSE TRAINING AND IT BEGAN WITH READING SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND ANALYSIS WITH SENIOR SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD AND IN THE LAB. IT WAS FOLLOWED UP WITH DIFFERENT TRAINING MOD DUES TO BE FOLLOWED UP WITH FORENSIC DISCIPLINES. IT HAD A WRITTEN COMPONENT AND ORAL BOARD. THAT TRAINING WAS COMPLETED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND A MOCK TRIAL. >> DO YOU SPECIALIZE IN ANY PARTICULAR AREA WITHIN YOUR FIELDS OR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY? >> YES, SIR, I DO. >> TELL US ABOUT THAT OR THOSE, PLEASE. >> TRAINED IN THE AREAS OF BIOLOGICAL RECOVERY SUCH AS BLOOD, SEMEN, OR SALIVA. IFFLES AND DISCOVERY OF TRACE MATERIALS, SUCH AS HAIRS, FIBERS OR GLASS AND SOIL. CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS AND BLOODSTAIN PATTERN ANALYSIS. >> DO YOU BELONG TO ANY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS? >> YES, I DO. >> DESCRIBE. TELL US ABOUT THOSE, PLEASE. >> FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLOODSTAIN PATTERN ANALYSTS. >> HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE IN THE COSTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH? >> YES, SIR, I HAVE. >> AND HAS IT BEEN AS AN EXPERT IN A FIELD OR FIELD? >> ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED FIELDS, YES. >> AND HOW MANY TIMES APPROXIMATELY HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT? >> THIS WILL BE MY 25th. >> WERE YOU WORKING BACK IN THE LAB BACK IN JANUARY OF 2006? >> YES, SIR, I WAS. [ INAUDIBLE ] >> JANUARY 22nd, 2006, WERE YOU CALLED IN TO DUTY? >> YES, I WAS. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I WAS REQUESTED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE DETECTIVE UNIT TO ASSIST IN A FATAL INVESTIGATION AT 6 CUBS WAY IN THE TOWN OF HOPKINTON. >> AND WHERE DID YOU GO INITIALLY? >> AT APPROXIMATELY 10:00 I WENT TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THE STATE AND LOCAL INVESTIGATORS. >> THAT WOULD BE IN THE EVENING? >> YES, IT WAS. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, SIR, I DID. >> AND AFTER THAT DID YOU GO TO THE PREMISES KNOWN AS 6 CUBS PATH IN HOPKINTON? >> YES, I DID, AT APPROXIMATELY 1:30 IN THE MORNING. >> WHO DID YOU GO WITH? >> WITH ANOTHER CRIMES SCENE ANALYSTS DIANA, AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS. >> WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE? >> TO DOCUMENT AND INVESTIGATE TWO FATALITIES. >> WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE PREMISES, DID YOU MAKE OBSERVATION OF THE OUTSIDE? >> YES, WE DID. >> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW? >> ON ARRIVAL I NOTICED THE EXTERIOR LIGHTS WERE ON. IT WAS AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC. IT WAS A GRAY HOUSE AND THAT THE INTERIOR LIGHTS WERE ON AS WELL. >> ANY VEHICLES IN AND ABOUT THE AREA? >> YES, THERE WAS A SILVER FORD IN THE DRIVEWAY. >> WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT? >> WE THEN ENTERED THE PREMISES. >> HOW DID YOU GET INTO THE PREMISES? >> THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR. >> WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU ENTERED THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR? WHERE DID YOU GO FIRST? >> WE ASCENDED UP THE STAIRWELL WHICH IS LOCATED JUST EXTERIOR TO THAT AND PROCEEDED UP THE SECOND FLOOR AREA AND TURNED LEFT AND WENT INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> AS YOU WERE GOING UP THOSE STAIRS, DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS OF THE INSIDE? >> YES. THE HALLWAY LIGHT WAS ON, AND THERE WAS LOUD CLASSICAL MUSIC PLAYING. >> DID YOU LEARN WHERE THAT MUSIC WAS COMING FROM? >> YES, SIR, I DID. >> DID YOU EVENTUALLY ENTER THAT MASTER BEDROOM? >> YES, I DID. >> TELL US WHAT YOU SAW UPON YOUR INITIAL ENTRY TO THAT ROOM. >> I ENTERING THE MASTER BEDROOM, I NOTICED THE FOUR-POST WOODEN BED WITH A WAIT COMFORTER AND SEVERAL ITEMS STREWN ABOUT THE FLOOR. >> WHAT DID YOU DO INITIALLY WHEN YOU GOT IN THERE? >> PHOTO DOCUMENTATION WAS DONE IN TERMS OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY, 35 MILLIMETER PHOTOGRAPHY, A VIDEO WAS TAKEN, AND THEN WE BEGAN OUR DIAGRAM OR CRIME SCENE SKETCH. >> DID YOU WORK ALONE OR WITH SOMEBODY ELSE THAT EVENING, EARLY MORNING HOURS? >> I PARTNERED WITH DEANNA DEIGAN, ANOTHER FORENSIC SCIENTIST. >> DID YOU MAKE NOTE OF -- >> WOULD YOU PLEASE HER NAME, PLEASE. >> YES, YOUR HONOR. D-Y-G-A-N. >> AND THE FIRST NAME, HOW DO YOU SPELL THAT? >> D-E-A-N-N-A. >> UPON INITIAL ENTRY INTO THE ROOM, DID YOU MAKE NOTE OF THE CONDITION OF THE ROOM, INCLUDING THE TEMPERATURE AND THE LIKE? >> YES, SIR, WE DID. >> AND WHAT DID YOU NOTICE ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE? >> IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 64 DEGREES ON THE THERMOSTAT ON WHAT IDENTIFY AS WALL NUMBER FOUR. THE TIMING OF WAS ABOUT 50 MINUTES OFF FROM THE HOUR AND THE LIGHTS WERE ON. >> WHICH LIGHT OR LIGHTS WERE ON, IF YOU RECALL? >> THERE WAS A STANDALONE LAMP TO THE RIGHT OF THE BED UPON ENTERING. >> AND I TAKE IT YOU THEN BEGAN PROCESSING AFTER THE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION, YOU BEGAN PROCESSING ITEMS IN THE ROOM? >> YES, SIR, WE DID. >> TELL US WHAT DID YOU FIRST? >> WE FIRST NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A YELLOW RAG JUST AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE MASTER BEDROOM WHICH HAD A STAIN. WE THEN SCREENED IT FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. >> I OBJECT. [ INAUDIBLE ]. >> YES. IF YOU WOULD DIFFERENTIATE IN YOUR QUESTION BETWEEN WHAT THE WITNESS DID PERSONALLY AND WHAT HE MAY HAVE SEEN OTHERS DO. >> I CERTAINLY WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. >> NOW, IF WE COULD START, THEN, AGAIN WITH WHAT YOU DID INITIALLY WHEN YOU ENTERED THE ROOM. >> AGAIN, WERE A VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE PREMISES AND DEANNA DYGAN DIAGRAMMED WHAT I HAD DONE. >> AS YOU AND CHEMIST DYGAN WORKED TOGETHER, WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERFORMING THE ACTS OR ACTS -- THE ACT OR ACTS THAT FOLLOWED AS YOU WENT THROUGH THAT BEDROOM OVER THE COURSE OF THE MORNING? >> SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DIAGRAMMING AND NOTE TAKING. I WAS DOING THE SEARCH AND THE SCREENING TESTS FOR ANY BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS >> AND TO THE EXTENT THAT I ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ACTS OR ACTIVITIES THAT WERE PERFORMED, IF IT IS NOT YOU PERFORMING IT, IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW. >> YES, SIR. >> NOW, YOU ENTERED THE BEDROOM. YOU SAW THAT YELLOW RAG OR ITEM ON THE FLOOR AND YOU PERFORMED SOME SORT OF TEST ON IT? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT TEST WAS THAT? >> THE SCREENING TEST WITH THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. >> TELL US HOW THAT TEST WORKS. >> TWO-STEP TEST. >> I KNEW THAT WAS COMING EVENTUALLY. THE BLOOD TESTS. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT MORE OF THAT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME I GOT TO SAY GOOD-BYE TO JILL DAVIS WHO CAME ALL THE WAY UP HERE TO NEW YORK! >> GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS. >> GREAT TO YOU FROM TEXAS. MY GOOD OLD STOMPING GROUNDS. WILL YOU COME BACK? >> OF COURSE. BEFORE JACK'S NEXT BIRTHDAY. >> THANKS, JILL DAVIS. NICE TO SEE YOU. I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WATCH THE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE, IT BEGINS IN ABOUT, OH, 20 SECONDS AND 4 MINUTES. THAT WILL BE 4 MINUTES AND 20 SECONDS FOR THE REST OF YOU. BUT THAT'S IT FOR US. >> THE PROSECUTION IS GETTING TO THE WHOLE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE DEFENSE GO TO DO. PUTTING WITNESSES ON THE STAND. WILL WE SEE AND HEAR FROM NEIL ENTWISLE. >> IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD. I SURE HOPE WE WILL. >> THAT WILL DO IT FOR US. SEE YOU TOMORROW, EVERYBODY. >> TAKE CARE, EVERYBODY. |