Free Web Site - Free Web Space and Site Hosting - Web Hosting - Internet Store and Ecommerce Solution Provider - High Speed Internet

[HOME]

This is the closed cationing from CourtTV coverage.
It is transcribed in real time and errors exist.
It is not complete coverage as they break away for commentary and commercials

Friday, June 13. BANFIELD&FORD

>>> FIRST WE REMOVED THE COMFORTER. WE BROUGHT IT DOWN TO THE FOOT OF THE BED. WE OBSERVED BOTH VICTIMS, THE MOTHER, RACHEL, WAS LYING ON THE -- SHE WAS ON HER LEFT SIDE, ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BED. FACING THE RIGHT SIDE. HER ARM WAS ACROSS THE SECOND VICTIM, LILLIAN, THE BABY. HER ARM -- HER RIGHT ARM WAS COVERING -- COVERING ACROSS THE INFANT'S CHEST.

>> A GRUESOME DISCOVERY, 27-YEAR-OLD RACHEL ENTWISTLE, HER 9-MONTH-OLD BABY FOUND SHOT TO DEATH IN THE BEDROOM OF THEIR OWN HOME. THIS MAN, HUSBAND, FATHER, NEIL PL, PROSECUTORS SAY HE IS THE KILLER BUT THE DEFENSE HAS SAID THAT THE WRONG MAN IS ON TRIAL. WE TAKE YOU LIVE INSIDE THE COURTROOM TODAY AS "BANFIELD & FORD" TAKE YOU COURT SIDE. GOOD FRIDAY AFTERNOON, ALL OF YOU. I'M JACK FORD.

>> I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. WE HAVE BEEN ON THE STORY, ON THE CASE SINCE THE FIRST TIME YESTERDAY, WE SAW SOME KIND OF COMMUNICATION FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE AND I THINK IT SAID OFF A BIT OF A FIRESTORM.

>> YEAH, WATCHING IN THAT COURTROOM, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT LATER AND SHOW YOU, LISTENING AND THE EMOTIONAL RESPONSES THAT YOU SAW FROM A VARIETY OF PEOPLE INSIDE THAT COURTROOM, THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE BOTD IS BEING FOUND, YOU JUST HEARD AND THEN A VIDEO OF THE CRIME SCENE, AND A VIDEO SHOWING THE BODIES. WE'LL TALK ABOUT ALL OF THAT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, PROSECUTION MOVING ALONG WITH ITS WITNESSES, VERY DELIBERATE, AS PROSECUTORS DO. AND GETTING INTO NOW THE SORT OF FINANCIAL ENDS OF WHAT THEY CLAIM ARE THE MOTIVE.

>> YEAH, THIS WILL BE IMPORTANT, FOLKS. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR SOMEONE WHO'S KIND OF LIKE A FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT OR IN THIS CASE AN EBAY FRAUD ANALYST, I THINK HE IS, OR FRAUD EXPERT IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE LINE BY LINE, PROSECUTION IS ESSENTIALLY, WELL, LAYING OUT THE CASE AS TO WHY SOMEONE WHO IS SO LOVELY PERHAPS COULD HAVE A DIFFERENT SIDE.

>> AND THE WHY IS THE ENORMOUS QUESTION IN THIS COURTROOM, BECAUSE FOR THE PROSECUTORS TO WIN, JURORS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S NOT APPARENT WHEN YOU LOOK INSIDE.

>> I THINK ONE OF OUR FIRST SHOWS WE WORKED TOGETHER, IF NOT THE FIRST FEW WEEKS YOU SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE MOTIVE BUT THERE'S NOTHING WORSE LIKE WHEN YOU'RE KIDS AND YOUR MOM SAYS YOU STOLE THOSE COOKIES OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR. YOU DON'T LOOK AT YOUR MOM AND SAY, PROVE IT.

>> RIGHT. SO GETTING THAT --

>> IT'S TRUE.

>> AS A PROSECUTOR YOU LIVE IN MORTAL FEAR OF THE JURY GOES IN TO DELIBERATE AND THEY SIT DOWN AND ONE OF THEM SAYS, I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY THIS HAPPENED. IF YOU'RE A PROSECUTOR THAT'S THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO HEAR.

>> RIGHT, RIGHT.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHY THIS HAPPENED WE ALSO HAVE TO FOCUS ON HOW ALL OF THIS GOT HERE INTO THIS COURTROOM. OUR OWN BETH KARAS TAKES A CLOSER LOOK FOR US.

>> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE MURDER WAS EFFECTED. THE SUICIDE WAS NOT.

>> Reporter: ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT IN A SUBURB OUTSIDE BOSTON, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. GUESTS HAD ARRIVED FOR A DINNER PARTY BUT THE FAMILY WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. POLICE DID A CURSORY SEARCH OF THE HOUSE 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 EXTRADITION AND RETURNED TO UNITED STATES TO FACE CHARGES. SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS.

>> BE HELD ON BAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME.

>> Reporter: THE ARRAIGNMENT 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 ARRAIGN MANY MANY, A GRAND JURY INDICTED ENTWISTLE FOR THE MURDERS.

>> I AM 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.

>> WE SAID THIS BEFORE, THEY ARE IN THE COURTROOM NOW. THEY'VE BEEN IN THE COURTROOM FOR JUST ABOUT TWO WEEKS, AS THEY HAVE PROCEEDED WITH THIS TRIAL, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THEY'RE TAKING A BREAK RIGHT NOW INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM. SO, GIVES US A CHANCE TO CHECK IN TO BEGIN THE PROGRAM AS WE LIKE TO DO WITH OUR OWN BETH KARAS WHO IS OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE NOW. I CAN SEE ON MY MONITOR THEY'RE TAKING A BREAK INSIDE. LET ME ASK YOU TO FILL US IN THEN, FOR VIEWERS JOINING US HERE. WHAT'S BEEN TAKING PLACE IN THE COURTROOM SO FAR THIS MORNING?

>> Reporter: WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE, JACK, AND THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN PUTTING ON EVIDENCE -- TESTIMONY OF EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT THE HOUSE, REALLY TWO CRIME SCENES, THE HOUSE AND THE CAR. THE CAR THAT WAS FOUND AT LOGAN AIRPORT, THE LEASED BMW SUV. AN OFFICER -- NOT OFFICER, A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE WHO PROCESSED THE SCENE, COLLECTED EVIDENCE, WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOOD EVIDENCE, SOME -- A BOTTLE, WATER BOTTLE, A FEW OTHER OBJECTS FROM THE CAR, THE WATER BOTTLE WAS USED TO GET DNA PROFILE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE SO THEY COULD COMPARE IT TO WHAT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE GUN AND IT WAS THAT MATCH THAT GAVE THEM THE PROBABLE CAUSE ULTIMATELY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THEY HAD TO GET THE ARREST WARRANT ON FEBRUARY 7th, SEND IT TO ENGLAND AND HE WAS ARRESTED IN THE MORNING ON FEBRUARY 9th. THE SAME EMPLOYEE COLLECTED KEYS FROM THE BMW, SOME BLOOD SPOTS FROM THE WALL IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AT 6 CUBS PATH IN HOPKINTON, THE BEDDING, OTHER ITEMS LIKE THAT. HE DID ALSO GUNSHOT RESIDUE KIT ON THE HANDS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, ON THE STEERING WHEEL OF THE CAR. WE DON'T KNOW RESULTS OF ANYTHING THAT HE COLLECTED. HE IS NOT THE PERSON WHO DID THE RESULTS. HE COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE SO IT'S PART OF SOME OF THE CHAIN THAT THE PROSECUTOR WILL SHOW AND WE WILL LATER, PROBABLY NEXT WEEK, HEAR ABOUT THE RESULTS OF ALL THESE TESTS. NOW, ON THE STAND RIGHT NOW, STILL ON DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE OTHER PROSECUTOR IN THE COURTROOM WHO'S GOING TO BE DOING THE COMPUTER FORENSIC AND SCIENCE STUFF IS -- DAN BEN IT IN HAD IS HIS NAME IS A WITNESS NAMED JEREMY ROYBAL. HE'S A FRAUD INVESTIGATOR OF EBAY, BEEN WORKING THERE FOR TWO YEARS. FIRST WITH PAY PAL. HE'S TALKING ABOUT ACCOUNTS, FIVE DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS THAT APPARENTLY NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD, ALTHOUGH ONE WAS IN RACHEL'S NAME, AND HE ESTABLISHED THAT THE ACCOUNTS FROM WHEN THEY WERE OPENED IN 2003, IN 2004. ONE OF THEM, I THINK, WAS IN 2005. BUT NOW, JUST BEFORE THE BREAK, HE WAS GOING THROUGH A NUMBER OF BUYER COMPLAINTS, ENTWISTLE, THE SELLER, BUYERS WERE COMPLAINING. AND THE MATTERS WERE BEING RESOLVED AND MONEY REFUNDED BUT NOT ENTIRELY, NOT 100% REFUNDED TO BUYERS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRODUCT WAS THAT WAS BEING SOLD, AT LEAST THE JURY DOESN'T KNOW THIS YET. WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S SOFTWARE-RELATED, AT LEAST IN PART, TO ADULT PORNOGRAPHY BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER, YOU KNOW, LESS SAL ASHS THINGS HE WAS SELLING. BUT THERE WERE A SERIES OF COMPLAINTS. IT'S INTERESTING THE TRANSACTIONS WERE LATE DECEMBER 2005. EVERYTHING WAS RESOLVED TO THE BUYERS' ADVANTAGE BY -- WELL, A LOT OF THEM JANUARY 20th, THE DAY OF THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE. ONE OF THEM WAS RESOLVED THE DAY AFTER, WITH A REFUND, LIKE HALF -- APPROXIMATELY HALF REFUND TO THE BUYERS. SO, WE'LL -- THIS IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT WILL BE TIED IN LATER. WE'LL FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY HE GENERATED BECAUSE EBAY KICKED HIM OFF. HE WAS SHUT OUT OF EBAY FOR DOING BUSINESS THERE. WE'LL FIND OUT HOW MUCH MONEY HE DID GENERATE AT ONE POINT AND THEN HE WAS CUT OUT. SOMETHING HAPPENED IN THIS LIFE AND HE STOPPED SENDING WHATEVER THE PRODUCT WAS HE WAS SELLING AND STOPPED GENERATING AT LEAST SOME INCOME.

>> SO, BETH, FOR VIEWERS THAT ARE SITTING THERE SAYING THIS IS SORT OF AN INTERESTING PRIMER IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION OF EBAY AND PAY PAL, BUT THEY MATE BE SAYING HOW IS THIS RELEVANT TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE? WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT?

>> Reporter: WELL, I THINK WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS TRYING TO DO IS SHOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE LIVES OF NEIL ENTWISTLE AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE AT THAT TIME. BECAUSE YOU SEE, THIS IS A SUDDEN CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR. HE HAD BEEN OPERATING THESE BUSINESSES, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH BUSINESS HE GENERATED, PRESUMABLY SUCCESSFULLY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, SOMETHING WENT WRONG IN DECEMBER 05 INTO EARLY JANUARY '06. AND PERHAPS THE PROSECUTION WILL SAY THIS GOES TO MOTIVE, AND THAT HE WAS INCURRING MOUNTING DEBTS. HE COULD NOT SUSTAIN HIS ONLINE BUSINESSES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A CASH FLOW, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. HE WAS LIVING BEYOND HIS MEANS, AND HIS -- HIS LIFE WAS CRASHING AROUND HIM. I THINK THAT MAY BE WHAT -- WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

>> AS YOU SAID, BETH, THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION. WE SAY OFTEN, AND JUDGES TELL JURORS, DESPITE WHAT YOU SEE ON DRAMA SHOWS THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL, AS YOU KNOW, BETH, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT'S A WEAKER CASE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROOF. THAT GETS US TO OUR COURT SIDE DOCKET FOR TODAY. WE'RE CALLING IT AFTER THE FACT. WE'RE PLEASED TO HAVE ONE OF OUR BEST FRIENDS HERE WITH US SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF COURT TV AND NOW IN SESSION, BRIAN WIVES, A PROMINENT ATTORNEY BASED IN HOUSTON, TEXAS. HIGH PROFILE CLIENTS HAVE INCLUDED JIM BAKER AND I'M PLEASED TO SAY BACK IN OUR OLD DAYS BRIAN USED TO VISIT US. YOU'VE AGED NICELY.

>> THANK YOU, JACK.

>> HOLD ON FOR A SECOND BECAUSE I WANT TO GET US INTO THIS BEFORE WE START OUR CONVERSATION. WE'RE FOCUSING HERE, WHEN WE LOOK AT AFTER THE FACT, ON THE TESTIMONY ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE NOT SHOWING UP AT THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD AND HOW THAT PLAYS IN TO THIS TRIAL. THE PROSECUTION SAYS, AND THEY'VE ARGUED THIS IN COURT, THAT'S EVIDENCE OF WHAT THEY SAY IS HIS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. LISTEN TO SOME OF THE TESTIMONY HERE, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, RACHEL'S MOTHER.

>> DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT THERE AT ANY POINT IN TIME DURING THE WAKE?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> DID YOU SEE THE DEFENDANT THERE AT ANY POINT IN TIME DURING THE FUNERAL ON FEBRUARY 1st?

>> NO.

>> ANY POINT IN TIME FROM THE EVENING OF JANUARY 22nd, 2006, SUNDAY, UP UNTIL THE FUNERAL SERVICES, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT AT ALL?

>> NO, I DIDN'T.

>> SO, BRIAN, INSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM I'M SURE THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO ARGUE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS AFTERWARDS, IT MEANS NOTHING HERE IN TERMS OF WHETHER HE IS THE KILLER OR NOT. BUT AS YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES JURORS CAN LATCH ONTO SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT, CONDUCT AFTER THE FACT HERE, AND INVEST IT WITH GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. GIVE ME YOUR SENSE OF HOW THIS COULD PLAY FOR THE PROSECUTION, HOW SIGNIFICANT IT CAN BE AND WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS TO DO ABOUT IT.

>> WELL, JACK, I THINK WE ALL LEARNED IN SUNDAY SCHOOL THAT THE GUILTY FLEE WHEN NONE PURSUE IT. FOR GENERATION OF JURORS WHO HAVE GROWN UP WATCHING THIS NETWORK AND LAW & ORDER THEY LOVE TO HEAR MY FAVORITE PROSECUTOR, JACK McCOY, TALK ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, WHAT ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN NEEDS TO SAY IS, LOOK, THE TEST OF RELEVANCE IN THIS FACT IS, IS MY CLIENT GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? WHAT ELLIOT WINESTEIN CAN AND WILL SAY IS YOU MAY THIS IN IS RELEVANT BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S NOT.

>> LET ME JUMP IN. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING AND COME BACK TO THE DEFENSE HERE AND ELLIOT WINESTEIN AND WHAT WE MIGHT HEAR FROM THEM. I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER ON IN THE CASE. AND YOU TELL ME YOUR REACTION TO IT. THE PROSECUTION IS ASKING, OBVIOUSLY, FOR THIS EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED AS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT EVIDENCE. THERE'S A JURY INSTRUCTION THAT, AS YOU KNOW, GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THAT, AND HOW IMPORTANT CAN IT BE FOR A PROSECUTOR TO GET A JUDGE TO SAY TO JURORS, YOU CAN, INDEED, CONSIDER THIS AS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT YSHG.

>> JACK, YOU PROSECUTED, YOU DEFENDED FOR A VERY LONG TIME, YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. I THINK THE VIEWERS DO, THAT THE TRIAL COURT'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS, FRANKLY, IS A ROAD MAP TO EITHER CONVICTION ON THE ONE HAND OR ACQUITTAL ON THE OTHER. WE ALL KNOW THAT THE JUDGE IS SOMETHING MORE THAN AN UMPIRE. HIS WORDS CARRY WITH IT GREAT WEIGHT, GREAT AUTHORITY. SO IF THE PROSECUTION FOR THE COMMON WEALTH IN THIS CASE GETS THAT INSTRUCTION IT IS POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT TELLS THIS JURY YOU CAN CONSIDER THIS AT THE END OF THE DAY AS EVIDENCE THAT THIS MAN'S GUILTY.

>> YEAH, I REMEMBER OFTENTIMES ARGUING ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, FINE, PROSECUTOR WANTS TO ARGUE IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT I DON'T WANT IT TO COME FROM THE MOUTH OF THE JUDGE BECAUSE THAT'S THE VOICE OF AUTHORITY THERE. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FLIP SIDE. YOU STARTED TO TOUCH ON THIS HERE, AND THE DEFENSE CLEARLY IS GOING TO ARGUE, LOOK, HE IS GRIEVING IN HIS OWN WAY AND YOU SHOULDN'T INVEST ALL OF THIS, AS WE SAID BEFORE, WITH MORE SIGNIFICANCE THAN IT DESERVES. LISTEN TO SOME OF WHAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WINESTEIN HAD TO SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT THE CONDUCT HERE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE.

>> NEIL LOVED HIS WIFE AND NEIL LOVED HIS DAUGHTER. ON JANUARY 20th, HE LOST THEM BOTH. EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID AND EVERYTHING THAT HE DID THEREAFTER HE DID BECAUSE HE LOVED THEM.

>> SO, BRIAN, AS YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES WE SAY TO JURORS, WE WANT THEM TO ACT COUNTERINTUITIVELY. FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE SAY IN A COURTROOM WE'RE NOT GOING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY A DEFENDANT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE JURORS TO THINK, HE WAS A BAD GUY THEN, PROBABLY A BAD GUY NOW. HOW DO YOU THEN, IF YOU'RE THE DEFENSE LAWYER, HOW DO YOU GET THESE JURORS PAST WHAT IS PROBABLY A NORMAL REACTION ON THEIR PART SAYING, HOW CAN THE MAN NOT HAVE GONE TO THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD UNLESS HE WAS THE KILLER?

>> WELL, THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO AT SOME LEVEL IS GET THESE 12 FOLKS TO WALK A MILE IN THE DEFENDANT'S SHOES. YOU HAVE TO TELL THESE FOLKS, THERE IS NO PLAYBOOK FOR GRIEF AND EVERYBODY DOES GRIEVE IN THEIR OWN WAY, AND, YOU KNOW, JACK, I'VE HAD HOMICIDE DETECTIVES TAKE CONFESSIONS FROM SUSPECTS. THEY'LL TELL YOU IF A DEFENDANT IS REMORSEFUL, THAT'S BAD. IF HE'S NOT, THAT'S BAD. REALLY A DEFENDANT IS DAMNED IF HE DOES, DAMNED IF HE DOESN'T. IF YOU'RE DEFENSE COUNSEL, YOU NEED TO TELL THESE FOLKS NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THIS MAN FELT. PERHAPS HE THOUGHT HE JUST COULDN'T COME BACK TO FACE THIS EXQUISITE GRIEF THAT THE DEFENSE WANTS THIS JURY TO THINK HE FELT.

>> YEAH, THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THEY NEED TO MAKE. LET ME GO BACK OUT TO BETH FOR A MINUTE. YOU WERE A PROSECUTOR, YOU KNOW HOW IMPORTANT AGAIN THIS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT EVIDENCE CAN BE FOR A PROSECUTION. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE, RIGHT, THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO FOCUS ON, THAT THEY BELIEVE SHOWS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT ON THE PART OF NEIL ENTWISTLE?

>> NEIL ENTWISTLE TALKED, I'M SURE, FAR TOO MUCH AS FAR AS HIS ATTORNEYS ARE CONCERNED, AND HE ADMITTED TO THE POLICE THAT HE DIDN'T CALL 911. IT'S NOT LIKE I TRIED TO CALL, I COULDN'T FIND THE PHONE OR THE CALLS DIDN'T GO THROUGH. YOU KNOW, HE NEVER CALLED. HE ADMITS HE DIDN'T CALL 911. NOT GOOD. HE GOES TO ENGLAND ON A ONE WILL HAVE WAY TICKET WITHOUT CHECKING LUGGA LUGGAGE, ABANDONS HIS CAR. IN THE STATEMENTS TO POLICE, HE SAYS THAT HE ACTUALLY WENT TO CARVER, 50 MILES AWAY, TO TRY TO FIND HIS IN LAWS AND CONSIDERED GETTING INTO THEIR HOUSE, USING ONE OF THEIR GUNS TO KILL HEM SEF, COULDN'T GET IN. KEYS TO THEIR HOME WERE RIGHT THERE ON THE DASH, TESTIFIED TO TODAY, ALTHOUGH HAVEN'T BEEN LINKED TO THAT HOME. BUT THOSE KEYS BELONG TO THE MATTERAZZO HOME WHERE HE HAD LIVED FOR THREE MONTHS. SO HIS FLIGHT, CHECKING NO LUGGAGE, NOT CALLING THE POLICE IS CRITICAL. TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE.

>> LAST QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, BETH, BEFORE WE HIT A BREAK. DOES THE CASE SEEM TO BE MOVING ALONG AT THE PACE THAT THE JUDGE HAD PREDICTED FOR THE JURORS?

>> ACTUALLY, JACK, IT'S A LITTLE FASTER. ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, MIGHT HAVE SLOWED DOWN NOW. WE LOST A COUPLE HOURS YESTERDAY WHEN A JUROR WAS ILL AND CAME IN A COUPLE HOURS LATE. AND TODAY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SOREZ BY ELLIOT WINESTEIN WAS LONGER THAN ANY OTHER CROSS. IF HE'S GOING TO DO THAT WITH A FEW MORE WITNESSES IT MAY BE BACK ON TRACK. AT THIS POINT, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH IT WILL BE AT LEAST THROUGH NEXT WEEK, THE TRIAL.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL, BETH, YOU'RE GOING TO STAY WITH US, OBVIOUSLY, WHILE THEY'RE THERE DURING THE BREAK. BRIAN IS GOING TO STAY WITH US. REMINDER, YOU ARE NOT MISSING ANY TESTIMONY NOW. AS SOON AS THEY'RE READY TO GO LIVE AFTER THE BREAK, WE WILL TAKE YOU IN LIVE.

>>> QUICK BREAK OF OUR OWN.

>>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE IN SESSION. THIS IS "BANFIELD & FORD." THEY, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE ON A QUICK BREAK. WE HAVE A GOOD CHANCE TO SHOW YOU SOME TESTIMONY YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TESTIMONY TO THIS CASE. WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF BOILING IT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW THE DEAL. YOU KNOW NEIL ENTWISTLE'S STORY ESSENTIALLY IS THIS. I CAME HOME FROM DOING ERRANDS IN THE MORNING, SAW MY WIFE AND BABY SHOT DEAD IN THE BED, FLIPPED OUT, MY WORDS, AND TOOK OFF TO ENGLAND TO BE WITH MY FAMILY. NOW, HOW CAN YOU SEE YOUR WIFE AND BABY SHOT DEAD IN THE BED WHEN FORENSIC INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE FAR BETTER TRAINED THAN YOU AND THAN ME COULDN'T TELL THAT THE BABY HAD BEEN SHOT? COULDN'T TELL THAT THE MOMMY HAD BEEN SHOT. COULDN'T TELL ANYBODY HAD BEEN SHOT UNTIL THEY DID A LOT MORE EXAMINATION. HOW COULD NEIL HAVE KNOWN THEY WERE SHOT? GOOD QUESTION. YOU WANT TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY? I THOUGHT YOU WOULD. JOHN SOREZ IS A FORENSIC SCIENTIST PROSECUTORS CALLED TO OUTLINE EXACTLY HOW HE FOUND THOSE BODIES. LISTEN CAREFULLY TO HOW HE DETERMINES WHAT THE BULLET WOUND IN THE BABY LOOKED LIKE. HAVE A LOOK.

>> SIR, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THE BED ITSELF AS YOU SAW IT WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED THAT BEDROOM?

>> YES. THE BED CONTAINED WHITE SHEETING AND ALSO HAD A LARGE WHITE COMFORTER ON TOP.

>> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WAS THAT COMFORTER REMOVED?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> YOU WERE PRESENT WHEN IT WAS REMOVED?

>> YES, SIR, I WAS.

>> DID YOU AS SAYS NOT THE REMOVAL OF IT?

>> I DID.

>> DESCRIBE IF YOU COULD HOW IT WAS REMOVED AND WHAT OBSERVATIONS YOU MADE WHEN THE COMFORTER WAS FIRST PULLED BACK FROM THAT BED.

>> WHEN THE COMFORTER WAS FIRST PULLED BACK, I NOTICED RED/BROWN STAINING ON THE UNDERSIDE OF IT WHICH WASN'T VISIBLE ON ENTERING THE ROOM.

>> AT WHAT END OF THE COMFORTER WAS THAT RED/BROWN STAIN? WAS IT ON THE FOOT OF THE BED OR THE HEAD OF THE BED?

>> TOWARD THE HEAD OF THE BED.

>> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THAT RED/BROWN STAINED AREA?

>> PERFORMED A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND A POSITIVE RESULT WAS PRESENT.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT, IF ANYTHING, WITH IT?

>> WE THEN -- I THEN BEGAN TO EXAMINE THE REST OF THE BEDDING.

>> DID YOU TAKE ANY SAMPLE FROM THAT -- FROM THE COMFORTER, THAT STAINED AREA?

>> YES, I EXCISED IT WITH A SCALPEL BLADE AND REMOVED THOSE STAINS.

>> THEN WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR?

>> WE THEN REMOVED TWO BODIES WERE IDENTIFIED UNDERNEATH THE COVERING, THAT OF AN ADULT I FEMALE AND AN INFANT.

>> DESCRIBE IF YOU COULD THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT AS YOU FIRST OBSERVED THEM AFTER THE COMFORTER ITSELF HAD BEEN PULLED BACK.

>> THE ADULT FEMALE WAS LYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. THE INFANT WAS LYING ON ITS BACK AND ITS FACIAL AREA AND LOWER HALF WAS COVERED BY A PILLOW.

>> WHAT DID YOU AND THE CHEMIST DO NEXT?

>> THEN REMOVED A PILLOW AND FOUND A LARGE RED/BROWN STAIN ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THAT PILLOW. I THEN PERFORMED A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD WHICH WAS ALSO POSITIVE.

>> AND WHAT AREA ON THAT PILLOW WAS THAT RED/BROWN STAIN?

>> THE UNDERSIDE OF IT, WHICH WAS FACING DOWN ON THE INFANT.

>> AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THAT PILLOW OR THE PILLOWCASE?

>> I SEIZED IT.

>> TOOK IT AS PART OF EVIDENCE FROM THE SCENE THAT EVENING?

>> YES, SIR, I DID.

>> WAS THAT GIVEN A CERTAIN NUMBER?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT NUMBER?

>> YOUR HONOR, MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES? ITEM NUMBER 5-6.

>> AND THAT WAS TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE AT SOME POINT LATER THAT MORNING?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW THE ADULT FEMALE WAS DRESSED?

>> THE ADULT FEMALE WAS DRESSED IN A LONG-SLEEVED GREEN TEE SHIRT AND WHITE FLORAL UNDERPANTS.

>> AND WHAT ABOUT THE INFANT?

>> THE INFANT WAS DRESSED IN A ZIP-UP JUMPER OR PAJAMAS AND HAD PINK AND GREEN POLKA DOTS ON IT.

>> TELL US THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE BODIES OF THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT AFTER THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED FROM ON TOP OF THE INFANT.

>> THE ADULT FEMALE WAS LYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. THE INFANT WAS ON HER BACK SIDE. THE RIGHT ARM OF THE ADULT FEMALE WAS COVERING OR LYING ACROSS THE CHEST OF THE CHILD.

>> WHAT DID YOU AND THE OTHER SCENE INVESTIGATORS DO NEXT, SIR?

>> THE RED/BROWN STAINING ON THE FEMALE'S HEAD. A FLOW PATTERN WAS NOTICED FROM THE INFANT'S NOSE AND MOUTH AREA.

>> DID YOU MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS OF THE -- STRIKE THAT. WAS THE ADULT FEMALE'S HEAD RESTING ON ANYTHING?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT WAS IT RESTING ON?

>> ON ANOTHER PILLOW.

>> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THAT PILLOW AND THE PILLOWCASE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW.

>> THERE WERE RED/BROWN STAINS ON THE ASSOCIATED PILLOW AS WELL.

>> WHERE WERE THEY? FROM WHAT YOU COULD SEE ONCE THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED, THE PILLOW OFF THE INFANT WAS REMOVED?

>> ON WHICH PILLOW, SIR?

>> THE PILLOW ON WHICH THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT CHILD WERE RESTING, THE ONE UNDERNEATH THEM.

>> THERE WAS RED/BROWN SPATTER ON IT, SMALL BLOODSTAINS.

>> IN WHAT AREA IN RELATION TO THE HEAD OF THE FEMALE AND THE HEAD OF THE INFANT?

>> JUST TO THE SIDE OF THE HEAD AND ABOVE THE HEAD OF THE INFANT.

>> SO THE SIDE OF THE HEAD OF THE FEMALE AND ABOVE THE HEAD OF THE INFANT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

>> WE NOTICED THAT THE ADULT FEMALE'S HEAD WAS RED/BROWN STAINED, SATURATED SO WE BEGAN TO EXAMINE THE HEAD TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY KRIN Y'ALL DAMAGE.

>> DID YOU FIND ANY?

>> NO, SIR, WE DID NOT.

>> WHAT DID YOU EXAMINE NEXT, SIR?

>> WE THEN SEPARATED THE BODIES AND MOVED THE INFANT TOWARDS THE LOWER HALF OF THE BED AND BEGAN TO EXAMINE THE CHILD.

>> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU OBSERVE OR SEE ON THE CHILD'S FRONT PORTION, THE CHEST, ON THE CLOTHING?

>> ONCE THE TWO WERE SEPARATED, WE NOTICED HEAVY BLACK RESIDUE AND A HOLE OF THE LEFT CHEST AREA OF THE INFANT.

>> DID YOU EXAMINE THAT FURTHER?

>> YES, WE DID.

>> HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

>> WE THEN, AFTER PHOTOGRAPHY AND NOTES WERE TAKEN, WE THEN UNZIPPED THE PAJAMAS AND LOOKED AT THE ONESY UNDERNEATH AND FOUND A SIMILAR HOLE.

>> SO THE ONESY WAS A SECOND LAYER OF CLOTHING?

>> YES, SIR.

>> DESCRIBE THAT HOLE ON THE ONESY.

>> AGAIN, BLACK RESIDUE, ABOUT A 1/4 INCH IN DIAMETER.

>> DID YOU FURTHER EXAMINE THAT -- THE INFANT?

>> YES, SIR, WE DID. WE THEN MOVED OR PULLED DOWN THE ONESY AND NOTICED THE BLACK MARK ON THE LEFT CHEST AREA OF THE INFANT, AGAIN, ABOUT A 1/4 OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER.

>> AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT MARK ON THE CHEST WITH MORE PARTICULARITY?

>> IT APPEARED TO BE JUST A BLACK MARK.

>> WAS THERE ANY SORT OF PENETRATING WOUND THAT YOU COULD OBSERVE AT THAT TIME?

>> NO, SIR.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING, SIR, STEPPING BACK IN TERMS OF THE FEMALE AFTER UNCOVERING, REMOVING THE PILLOW, THE ONE THAT WAS ON TOP OF THE INFANT, WAS THERE ANOTHER ITEM THAT YOU WOULD HAVE OBSERVED ON TOP OF THE FEMALE?

>> YES, I NOTICED THE HEAVY RED/BROWN STAINING ON THE GREEN SHIRT SHE WAS WEARING.

>> AND ANY OTHER BEDDING MATERIAL IN THAT AREA?

>> YES, SHE WAS PARTIALLY COVERED BY A TOP SHEET AND THEN UNDERNEATH THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT WAS THE FITTED SHEET.

>> NOW, THAT TOP SHEET, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THAT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> GENERALLY TELL US WHAT, IF ANYTHING, OF FORENSIC SIGNIFICANCE THAT YOU FOUND.

>> NO RED/BROWN STAINING WAS NOTED.

>> ANY HOLES OR DEFECTS OR TEARS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER DONE IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE INFANT?

>> WE THEN ROLLED HER ONTO HER SIDE AND THEN TOOK A LOOK AT THE BACK SIDE OF THE INFANT, SAW THAT THERE WAS HEAVY RED/BROWN STAINING ON HER BACK SIDE WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE SATURATED THROUGH THE SLEEPER.

>> WHAT ABOUT ON THE BED DIRECTLY BELOW WHERE THE INFANT HAD BEEN LYING ON HER BACK? DID YOU MAKE OBSERVATION OF THAT AREA?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT DID YOU SEE?

>> THERE WAS ALSO RED/BROWN STAINING PRESENT.

>> WAS THAT ON THE FITTED SHEET THAT YOU DESCRIBED?

>> YES.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO ONCE THE INFANT CHILD WAS MOVED AWAY FROM THE ADULT FEMALE, WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE OBSERVATION OF THE CLOTHING ON THE UPPER PORTION OF THE FEMALE?

>> YES, SIR, I WAS.

>> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW.

>> HEAVY RED/BROWN STAINING IN THE UPPER CHEST AREA AS WELL AS TWO DIFFERENT HOLES WERE NOTED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE GARMENT.

>> DID YOU DO ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE CHEST AREA OF THE FEMALE HERSELF?

>> YES, I DID.

>> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SEE?

>> SAW BLACK MARK ON THE LEFT BREAST, ABOUT A 1/4 INCH IN DIAMETER.

>> AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT ANY FURTHER?

>> IT WAS A NON-PENETRATING INJURY.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT, SIR?

>> WE THEN WERE UNSURE OF THE TYPE OF INJURY THAT WAS TO THE INFANT, BUT DUE TO THE HEAVY BLACK RESIDUES, IT LOOKED CONSISTENT WITH A GUNSHOT. SO WE THEN PERFORMED -- THE CHEM ILS T PERFORMED A TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF LEAD WHICH IS A COMPONENT OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE.

>> WHAT TEST DID SHE PERFORM?

>> A SODIUM TEST.

>> HOW WAS THAT PERFORMED?

>> AGAIN, WE TAKE A CLEAN PIECE OF FILTER PAPER, WE APPLY ONE CHEMICAL TO IT, AND THEN TRANSFER SOME OF THAT BLACK MATERIAL BACK TO THE FILTER PAPER. WE THEN APPLY A SECOND AND THIRD THEM CAL TO IT. THE PRESENCE OF LEAD CONFIRMED THE ANALYSIS AS A DARK BLUE COLOR CHANGE.

>> DID YOU OBSERVE THAT TEST?

>> YES.

>> WHERE WAS THAT LEAD TEST PERFORMED?

>> ON THE SCENE, ON THE INFANT'S OUTER PAJAMAS.

>> WHERE IN PARTICULAR ON THE INFANT'S OUTER PAJAMAS?

>> WHERE THE HOLE WAS PRESENT.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBSERVE THE RESULT THAT THE CHEMIST GOT WHEN SHE PERFORMED THAT TEST?

>> YES, I DID.

>> WHAT RESULT DID SHE GET?

>> IT WAS POSITIVE FOR LEAD.

>> POSITIVE FOR WHAT? I'M SORRY.

>> LEAD.

>> DO YOU RECALL OTHER CRIME SCENE SERVICES, INVESTIGATORS PRESENT ON THE SCENE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHO ELSE WAS PRESENT?

>> LIEUTENANT PAUL LITTLEING WAS THE SCENE COMMANDER, A SERGEANT, A TROOPER.

>> AT SOME POINT IN TIME WAS A DETERMINATION MADE, SIR, TO REMOVE THE BODIES OF THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT FROM THE SCENE?

>> YES, SIR, IT WAS.

>> WERE YOU THERE WHEN THAT WAS DONE?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THAT OCCUR?

>> EARLY HOURS OF THE MORNING.

>> YOU MADE REFERENCE, SIR, TO THE SECOND PILLOW, THE PILLOW UNDER THE HEADS OF THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE CHILD. WAS THAT EVENTUALLY OR AT LEAST THE PILLOWCASE GATHERED AS EVIDENCE?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WAS THAT GIVEN A NUMBER?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT?

>> ITEM 5-4.

>> AND IN TERMS OF THE -- YOU HAD MENTIONED THE TOP SHEET, WAS THAT -- THAT WAS TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE FITTED SHEET THAT YOU MADE REFERENCE TO? GENERALLY DESCRIBE HOW IT APPEARED AFTER THE BODIES WERE REMOVED.

>> THERE WERE SEVERAL BLOODSTAIN PATTERN PRESENT ON THE TOP SHEET, LARGE BLOODSTAINS WHERE THE ADULT FEMALE AND INFANT CHILD WERE AND SMALLER BLOODSTAINING IN THE GENERAL VICINITY.

>> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE IN A FITTED SHEET WHILE IT WAS ON THE BED?

>> YES, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER OBSERVATIONS YOU MADE IN TERMS OF HOLES OR TEARING OR DEFECTS?

>> NO DEFECTS WERE NOTED TO IT.

>> WAS THAT GATHERED AS EVIDENCE?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>>> WE APPLIED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN WASHINGTON FOR A PROVISIONAL EXTRADITION ARREST WARRANT FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. THAT WAS SENT TO BRITISH AUTHORITIES. ONCE SCOTLAND YARD HAD THAT, THEY APPLIED FOR A WARRANT, AND HAVING THAT WARRANT IN HAND TODAY THEY AFFECTED THE ARREST OF NEIL ENTWISTLE.

>> THAT WAS MARTHA COAKLEY, AT THE TIME SHE WAS THE D.A. AND ANNOUNCED TO THE PRESS IT WAS EXTRADITION TIME. NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS COMING BACK TO FACE THE CRIMES, THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY. BY THE WAY, DID YOU KNOW THAT MS. COAKLEY WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN THE PROSECUTION OF LEWIS WOODWARD, THE BRITISH NANNY? SHE WAS ACCUSED OF SHAKING A BABY TO DEATH. SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THAT VERY FAMOUS CASE AS WELL. SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRITAIN, GOOD TIME TO TALK TO SOMEONE FROM BRITAIN. JOINING US IS PAUL THOMPSON, A FREELANCE REPORTER COVERING THE NEIL ENTWISTLE TRIAL FOR SEVERAL BRITISH NEWSPAPERS, INCLUDING THE SUN. HE'S BEST KNOWN FOR DOING COVERAGE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. I'M SO GLAD TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO YOU BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WONDERING THROUGH WHAT SORT OF PRISM YOU ARE WATCHING THIS TRIAL AND WHAT KIND OF INTEREST YOUR READERS HAVE IN ENGLAND OF ONE OF THEIR OWN WHO'S BEEN BROUGHT BACK TO THIS COUNTRY TO FACE SOME EXTRAORDINARILY SERIOUS CHARGES.

>> WELL, AFTERNOON. I THINK THERE HASN'T BEEN THAT MUCH INTEREST IN ENGLAND AT THE MOMENT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE TRIAL HAD BEEN VERY DRY AND FACTUAL. PROBABLY THE BEST DAY WAS YESTERDAY WHEN NEIL ENTWISTLE BROKE DOWN IN TEARS AS HE WAS WATCHING THE CRIME SCENE FOOTAGE ON THE VIDEO. ALSO WHAT IT HAS TO CONTEND WITH IS SEVERAL MAJOR TRIALS, CRIMINAL TRIALS GOING ON IN ENGLAND AT THE MOMENT. THERE'S A RETRIAL OF A BRITISH TV PRESENTER WHO WAS ACTUALLY SHOT DEAD ON HER DOORSTEP. AND THAT'S GOING ON. SO THAT WAS KIND OF DOMINATING THE HEADLINES BACK IN THE U.K.

>> SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT, I WASN'T GOING TO BRING IT UP RIGHT AWAY, BUT I MIGHT AS WELL. THE MOMENT WHERE HE BROKE DOWN IN THE COURTROOM YESTERDAY, A 25-MINUTE TAPE OF THE CRIME SCENE, NONE OF WHICH WE WERE ALLOWED TO SEE, YOU AND ME.

>> NO.

>> THERE WAS MUCH ADO MADE ALL OVER THE NEWS ABOUT THIS REACTION. AT CERTAIN POINTS CLEARLY THIS IS A DISTRAUGHT MAN WHO IS REACTING VISCERALLY TO WHAT HE'S SEEING, BUT THEN AT OTHER TIMES IT ALMOST APPEARED HE WAS SMILING. IT WASN'T JUST ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO THOUGHT THAT. THIS BECAME A BIG STORY ALL OVER CABLE NEWS LAST NIGHT. THE REACTIONS WERE PERPLEXING TO MANY. IT LED TO, TO THE DUO WHO REPRESENTS HIM ADMONISHING THE MEDIA ABOUT 6:00 EASTERN TIME WHEN COURT WRAPPED UP FOR ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THAT HE COULD HAVE BEEN SMILING. BUT, LOOK, PICTURES DON'T LIE. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PICTURES NOW. IT WAS VERY STRANGE OCCURRENCE. WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF IT?

>> I WAS ACTUALLY IN COURT FOR THAT, LOOKING DIRECTLY AT NEIL ENTWISTLE. I THINK HE'S GOT AN UNFORTUNATE FACIAL EXPRESSION THAT HE LOONS LIKE HE'S HALF SMILING. BUT CERTAINLY WHEN THE VIDEO STARTED, HE WAS VERY COMPOSED, LOOKING AT IT. OBVIOUSLY WHEN THE FOOTAGE SHOWED THE TWO BEING REMOVED AND THE BODIES BEING REVEALED HIS FACE CRUMPLED. HE WAS CRYING. I THINK IT WAS POSSIBLE IF YOU WERE SITTING VERY MUCH IN THE BACK OF THE COURT THAT IT LOOKED LIKE HE WAS HALF SMILING. BUT AS THE FILM WENT ON, HE COULD BARELY LOOK TO WATCH. COVERING HIS EYES. COVERING HIS MOUTH. TO STIFLE HIS SOBS. BUT I THINK INITIALLY SOME PEOPLE DID ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A HALF SMILE THERE. YOU'RE QUITE CORRECT IN THAT HIS DEFENSE LAWYER, ELLIOT WINESTEIN, CAME OUT AND ADMONISHED THE PRESS.

>> LOOK, THIS WENT ON FOR 25 MINUTES. WE'VE KEPT THE PICTURE UP FOR A FAIRLY LONG TIME. WE'LL KEEP IT UP AS LONG AS WE CAN BECAUSE THOSE IMAGES DID CHANGE. I AGREE WITH YOU. I WATCHED VERY CAREFULLY. THERE WERE TEARS STREAMING OUT OF HIS EYES. THERE WAS THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE OF HIM NEEDING TO BLOW HIS NOSE AND THAT -- HE DIDN'T HAVE A TISSUE AVAILABLE. IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS THIS MAN WAS CRYING. BUT I DO HAVE TO SAY I DID WITNESS MOMENTS WHERE IT WAS ODD AND VERY -- YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD TO SAY IT WAS A VERY PERPLEXING REACTION. AGAIN, WE HAD TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THIS MAN BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS SEEING, PAUL. HE COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN SEEING THE INVESTIGATORS SWEEPING THE VIDEO CAMERA AROUND THE ROOM, PICKING UP FABULOUS PICTURES OF HIS WIFE AND BABY IN BETTER TIMES AND HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN REACTING AT CERTAIN POINTS TO THAT. LET ME SWITCH GEARS JUST FOR A MOMENT, AND I KNOW, MY FRIEND, BECAUSE I DID WORK IN THE NEWSPAPER BUSINESS VERY BRIEFLY THAT YOU DON'T WRITE HEADLINES, CORRECT?

>> SORRY, I MISSED THAT.

>> YOU WRITE THE STORY BUT YOU DON'T WRITE THE HEADLINE TO THE STORY.

>> NO, THAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST A REPORTER. I DO A STRAIGHT COURT REPORT AND THEN THE -- SUBMIT IT TO THE EDITORS BACK IN LONDON.

>> I WOULD NEVER SAY THE WORD JUST WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE A REPORTER, MY FRIEND. LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING FROM THE MAIL, "THE DAILY MAIL." I READ A BUNCH OF YOUR STORIES BECAUSE I WAS FASCINATED TO SEE IF THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN COVERAGE. SOMETHING REALLY STRUCK ME. THE HEADLINE ON THIS STORY FROM THE "DAILY MAIL" WAS THIS, ULTIMATE BETRAYAL OF BRITAIN WHO KILLED WIFE AND BABY. GOOD GOD, THAT IS A CONVICTION IN A HEADLINE. I WAS SO CURIOUS AS TO HOW A BRITISH NEWSPAPER COULD GET AWAY WITH A HEADLINE LIKE THAT. THE REPORTING SAYS NOTHING LIKE THAT, BY THE WAY. YOUR WORK SAYS NOTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT HEADLINE IS, IS A CONVICTION BEFORE WE'VE EVEN HEARD THE DEFENSE'S CASE.

>> WELL, I THINK THE BRITISH PAPERS CAN GET AWAY WITH THAT. WHEN THEY SAY KILLED IT WAS PROBABLY IN INVERTED COMMAS. THAT IS WHAT THE PROSECUTION ARE ALLEGING. THEY ALLEGE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE MURDERED HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. IF THE HEADLINE, ONCE IT'S TAKEN WITH THE COPY, IT'S EFFECTIVELY PRIVILEGED BECAUSE IT'S COURT COPY. THAT IS WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAID, THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE MURDERED HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER.

>> YOU MAY -- YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE WERE THE INVERTED COMMAS. BOY, IT SURE STRUCK ME. LISTEN, I CAME FROM CANADA AND IT IS VERY STRICT IN CANADA, WE FOLLOW BRITISH LAW. I WAS ASTOUNDED AT THE LATITUDE THAT, THAT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN, BUT YOU'VE MADE ABSOLUTE SENSE IN THE FACT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A QUOTE. LET ME SCOOT TO SOME OTHER AREA OF THE COVERAGE AND THAT IS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT REMEMBER IN BRITAIN THE CASE OF LOUISE WOOD WORD, WHO MARTHA COAKLEY PROSECUTED, THERE IS THE YOUNG NANNY WHO CAME TO NOTORIOUS FAME HERE IN THE U.S. AS THE SHAKEN BABY NANNY. AND SHE WENT THROUGH A LONG PROCESS THAT PLAYED OUT ON CABLE NEWS. I WONDERED IF AT ANY POINT THE BRITISH FELT AS THOUGH PERHAPS SHE DIDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL AND MAYBE THE SAME MIGHT HAPPEN FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> WELL, I THINK CERTAINLY HERE THE BRITISH WILL FAIRLY GET A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS VERY COMPLICATED AND VERY LENGTHY JURY SELECTION PROCESS WHERE SOMETHING LIKE ALMOST 200 PEOPLE WERE SCENE AND CANVASED AS TO WHETHER THEY ACTUALLY HAD AN OPINION ON NEIL ENTWISTLE SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A VERY IMPARTIAL 16-MEMBER JURY. IN ENGLAND, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING LIKE THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS THAT'S HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. IF YOU'RE SELECTED FOR JURY YOU'RE BASICALLY ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS, ONE BEING DO YOU HAVE A HOLIDAY THAT'S PREBOOKED THAT PRECLUDES YOU FROM SITTING ON THE TRIAL. IF YOU DON'T, YOU SIT ON THE TRIAL. YOU'RE NOT ASKED IF YOU'VE READ ANY PRESS ABOUT THE CASE. YOU'RE NOT ASKED ABOUT YOUR OPINION. THE JURORS HERE ARE ASKED WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY OPINION ABOUT POLICE AND VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE GIVING EVIDENCE. SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT. I THINK BACK IN ENGLAND HE WILL BE PERCEIVED TO GET A VERY FAIR TRIAL.

>> MAYBE BECAUSE OF ONE OF YOUR STORIES, IN FACT, YOU ACTUALLY ANSWERED MY NEXT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU HAD A HEADLINE STORY IN THE "SUN" THAT WAS AFTER A POTENTIAL JUROR HAD OVERHEARD SOMEONE SAY THAT. THAT JUROR WAS DISMISSED. PERHAPS THE BRITS ARE FEELING THAT WAY BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO REPORT TO THEM THAT THERE HAS BEEN THIS EXTRAORDINARY PROCESS BECAUSE OF THAT VERY ISSUE. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE READERS THERE. DO THEY FEEL AS THOUGH NEIL AT ONE POINT MAY HAVE BEEN GUILTY OR INNOCENT IN THIS CASE? HAVE THEY CHANGED ANY OPINIONS NOW THAT THE CASE HAS BEEN LAID OUT? HAS HE GOT SUPPORT BACK HOME?

>> I THINK HE'S GOT SUPPORT BACK HOME, CERTAIN ANY HIS HOMETOWN. BUT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT PEOPLE HERE ARE ASKING. HIS ACTIONS DON'T REALLY ALL ADD UP. AND THERE ARE GAPING HOLES IN HIS STORY. BUT HE IS GETTING A FAIR TRIAL. THE FACTS ARE COMING OUT IN THE CASE. I THINK EVERYONE IS EXCITEDLY WAITING TO SEE WHAT HIS DEFENSE IS AND IF, IN FACT, HE'LL TAKE THE STAND.

>> YEAH, I'M NOT SO SURE. I THINK A LOT OF US HAVE FELT AS THOUGH HE HAS SAID A LOT ALREADY. DO YOU THINK HE WILL?

>> I DON'T THINK HE'LL GET ON THE STAND, NO. I THINK HE'LL BE TORN TO SHREDS BY THE PROSECUTION. BE INTEREST TGT SEE WHAT MR. WINESTEIN HAS FOR HIS DEFENSE, BUT IF HE CHOOSES TO PUT HIM INTO THE BOX, INTO THE WITNESS BOX THEN HE'S GOT TO START EXPLAINING HIS ACTIONS FROM THE MOMENT HE DISCOVERED THE BODIES TO FAILING TO CALL THE POLICE, FLY TO BOSTON, STILL FAILING THE CALL THE POLICE, AND ARRIVING BACK IN THE U.K.

>> YEAH, AND UPON ARRIVAL AT THE U.K., IF HIS STORY IS TRUE AND IF HE JUST -- YOU KNOW, WE ALL GRIEVE IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND WE HAVE TO RESPECT THAT. BUT IF HE JUST NEEDED TO BE WITH FAMILY AND THIS WAS THE REASON FOR FLEEING A MURDER SCENE WITHOUT CALLING THE POLICE OR SUMMONSING HELP, WHY THEN -- I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH OF THIS COVERAGE YOU WILL BE WORKING ON -- WOULD HE DRIVE RIGHT PAST HIS PARENTS' HOME, GET A HOTEL, LOOK UP IN THE NEWSPAPER FOR ESCORTS AND NOT SEEK THE COMFORT OF HIS FAMILY RIGHT AWAY?

>> WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALL WAITING TO SEE. THAT EVIDENCE WILL COME OUT W N WHEN -- PROBABLY NEXT WEEK FROM MR. FABULOBRI, BUT BE INTERESTI THE SEAT WHAT HE SAYS LIKE THAT. HE DROVE SOME 800 MILES AFTER DRIVING BACK FROM THE U.K. HIS HOME WAS ABOUT 150 MILES FROM HEATHROW AIRPORT. HE DID SOMETHING FOR A DAY. YOU'RE RIGHT. WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED ON THE LONDON UNDERGROUND, HE HAD A PAGE TORN FROM A NEWSPAPER WITH THE -- THE ESCORT SERVICES AND ADDRESS.

>> IT'S A LITTLE TROUBLING, I HAVE TO SAY. I AM LIKE YOU. I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE DEFENSE TO OPEN ITS CASE BECAUSE THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING. I'M LOOKING FOR THE RABBIT TO COME OUT OF THE HAT. PAUL, I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GET BACK INTO COURT.

>> YOU AND I.

>> WILL YOU JOIN US AGAIN AT SOME POINT?

>> YES, I'D LOVE TO.

>> TERRIFIC. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TALKING TO YOU. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE OF YOUR BYLINES AS WELL. PAUL THOMPSON JOINING US WHO HAS BEEN WRITING FOR THE "SUN," AND ALSO DOES A LOT OF THE ROYAL COVERAGE. WE DIDN'T GET TO THAT. I APOLOGIZE.

>>> WE WILL TAKE A QUICK BREAK. WHEN WE COME BACK, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THEY ARE JUST IN A BREAK SO YOU ARE NOT MISSING ANY TESTIMONY. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID MISS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MISSED THIS PART YESTERDAY, THE REACTION OF NEIL ENTWISTLE IN COURT UPON THE VIEWING OF THE MURDER SCENE. REALLY DISTURBING. REALLY DISTURBING IN SO MANY WAYS AND FOR SO MANY PEOPLE IN THAT COURTROOM. WE'RE GOING TO BE BACK.

>>> WELCOME BACK TO "COURTSIDE." WE'RE SHOWING YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE JURY HAS SEEN BUT PERHAPS YOU HAVEN'T, ESPECIALLY TESTIMONY OF A FORENSIC SCIENTIST. JOON SOARES WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE. AS WE PICK UP WITH HIS TESTIMONY NOW HE'S DESCRIBING FOR THE JURORS MORE TESTS THAT WERE DONE, EXAMINATIONS THAT WERE DONE OF THE TWO BODIES THAT WERE FOUND IN THE BED, THE BODY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND THE 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN.

>> SIR, WHICH OF THE TWO PILLOWS WAS PILLOW NUMBER ONE? I BELIEVE YOU HAD REFERENCED PILLOW NUMBER ONE AND PILLOW NUMBER FOUR.

>> PILLOW NUMBER FOUR WAS FOUND COVERING THE FACE OF THE INFANT AND PILLOW NUMBER JUAN ONE WAS FOUND UNDER THE HEAD OF THE ADULT.

>> WERE THERE OTHER PILLOWS IN THE ROOM THAT YOU OBSERVED?

>> YES, SIR.

>> HOW MANY OTHERS?

>> TWO OTHERS.

>> WHERE WAS THAT FIRST OF THE TWO OTHER PILLOWS?

>> PILLOW NUMBER THREE WAS FOUND ON THE FLOOR AND PILLOW NUMBER TWO WAS FOUND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED.

>> BEHIND THE ADULT FEMALE VICTIM?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WERE THOSE PILLOWS EXAMINED AT SOME POINT IN TIME?

>> YES, THEY WERE.

>> DID YOU FIND ANY DEFECTS, TEARS OR HOLES IN EITHER OF THOSE?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> TAKEN INTO EVIDENCE AS WELL?

>> YES, THEY WERE.

>> WHAT IS THAT, SIR?

>> PILLOWCASE NUMBER FOUR. [INAUDIBLE QUESTION]

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MAY BE MARKED WITHOUT OBJECTION.

>> EXHIBIT 53 MARKED.

>> BY THE WAY, SIR, THESE PILLOW NUMBERS, I TAKE IT THEY'RE RECHBS NUMBERS THAT YOU AND THE CHEMIST ASSIGNED TO THESE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT MORNING AS YOU WERE EXAMINING THE SCENE?

>> YES, I DID.

>> SIR, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO PERFORM ANY OTHER TESTS AT THAT TIME OTHER THAN THE TEST THAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED, THE SCREEN TEST FOR BLOOD AND THE TEST FOR LEAD ON THAT HOLE?

>> YES, I DID.

>> WHAT OTHER TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM?

>> AFTER THE POSITIVE RESULT FOR THE PRESENCE OF LEAD WHICH WAS FOUND ON THE PAJAMAS, I THEN USED A GUNSHOT RESIDUE EVIDENCE COLLECTION KIT. I PERFORMED THAT ON THE HANDS OF THE ADULT FEMALE.

>> DESCRIBE IF YOU COULD HOW THAT IS PERFORMED.

>> THROUGH A SERIES OF STUBS WITH AN ADHESIVE SURFACE WHICH ARE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO THE SKIN. IF THERE'S ANY GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE FOUND, IT WILL COLLECT THAT AND PRESERVE IT.

>> DID YOU PERFORM THAT COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ITEMS OR THOSE GUNSHOT RESIDUE KITS?

>> DOCUMENTED THEM, TOOK THEM INTO MY CUSTODY AND TRANSPORTED THEM TO THE CRIME LABORATORY.

>> DID YOU DO ANY FURTHER TESTS ON IT AT THAT TIME?

>> NO, SIR.

>> THESE WERE FROM THE HANDS OF THE ADULT FEMALE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BOTH HANDS, THE LEFT HAND AND THE RIGHT HAND.

>> BOTH.

>> ANY OTHER TESTS THAT YOU PERFORMED NEXT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> DID YOU PERFORM AN EXAMINATION OF ANY OTHER AREAS APART FROM THE BED?

>> YES, SIR, I DID.

>> WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED AS VIEWED FROM THE FOOT OF THE BED. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU EXAMINE IN THAT AREA?

>> THERE WAS RED/BROWN STAINS PRESENT ON THE WALL BEHIND THE BED OFF TO THE RIGHT SIDE.

>> NOW IF YOU COULD ONCE AGAIN STAND DOWN, USING THAT POINTER.

>> MAY I RISE?

>> SHOW US THE AREA OR AREAS THAT YOU OBSERVED RED/BROWN STAINING.

>> RED/BROWN STAINS WERE PRESENT ON THIS WALL HERE AND EXTENDED OVER TO THIS WALL HERE.

>> AND IF YOU COULD, FOR THE RECORD, PUT A 1 ON THE FIRST WALL USING THE MARKER. SMALL 1, CIRCLE IT. A SMALL 2 AND CIRCLE IT FOR THE SECOND WALL THAT YOU OBSERVED.

>> APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY STAINS DID YOU OBSERVE ON THOSE TWO WALLS?

>> FOUR.

>> AND CAN YOU TELL US THE SIZE OF EACH OF THOSE STAINS?

>> MAY I REFER TO MY NOTES?

>> YOUR HONOR, MAY HE REFER TO HIS NOTES?

>> THAT THEN SOME OF THE TESTIMONY OF A FORENSIC SCIENTIST DESCRIBING FOR THE JURORS, FIRST OF ALL, THE WOUNDS AND MARKS THEY FOUND ON THE BODY AND THEN DESCRIBING THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION THAT THEY DID INSIDE OF THE BEDROOM. WE'RE KEEPING OUR EYE ON THAT COURTROOM. WE EXPECT ANY MINUTE NOW THEY WILL BE LIVE WITH THE TESTIMONY. DOES GIVE US A CHANCE TO CHECK WITH BETH KARAS OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. HERE'S A QUESTION FOR YOU AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. HAVE WE HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT ANY OFFERS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROSECUTION, TO THE DEFENSE HERE THAT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE NECESSITY OF A TRIAL IF NEIL ENTWISTLE, AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND HE SAYS HE'S NOT GUILTY, BUT IF NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS AT LEAST INTERESTED IN CONSIDERING SOME SORT OF DEAL?

>> Reporter: I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLEA NEGOTIATIONS, DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T HAPPEN BUT WE OFTEN DON'T HEAR ABOUT THESE THINGS IN ADVANCE, AND I SNOOP AROUND AFTER A TRIAL IS OVER AND OFTEN FIND OUT THAT THERE -- THERE WAS AN OFFER ON THE TABLE, REJECTED OR THEY GOT SO FAR. BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING HERE.

>> BRIAN WIVES, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE FACT -- PAUL THOMPSON JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT A CHANCE TO HEAR THE BRITISH JOURNALIST WE WERE TALKING TO. HE MADE THE COMMENT SO MANY HAVE MADE WHICH IS I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE HERE. MIGHT THIS BE ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE PERHAPS THERE WERE NO PLEA OFFERS MADE? PROSECUTORS BASICALLY SAYING, LOOK, WE GOT TWO DEAD BODIES HERE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. THAT'S ALL WE'RE PUTTING ON THE TABLE HERE. IS THIS A SITUATION PERHAPS WHERE THE DEFENSE WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE THAN TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, LET'S TRY THE CASE. WE DON'T HAVE A PRESKIES DEFENSE HERE ON THEN HE DIDN'T DO IT, AND WE'LL JUST SEE WHAT SORT OF HOLES WE CAN KICK IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE AS WE GO ALONG?

>> YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, JACK. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE PROSECUTION WAS WILLING, AS THEY SAY IN WEST TEXAS, TO PONY UP THE COURTHOUSE. I THINK THERE'S A PERCEPTION ON THE PART OF SOME PEOPLE FOLLOWING THIS TRIAL, AT LEAST SO FAR, THAT THIS IS IN ESSENCE A SLOW PLEA OF GUILTY. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE WHAT THE DEFENSE IS. HOW COULD THIS GUY WHO FROM ALL APPEARANCES SEEMED TO BE A NORMAL GUY AND A LOVING AND CARING HUSBAND AND FATHER COULD HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS CONDUCT. IF THAT ULTIMATELY TRANSLATES OR MORPHS INTO REASONABLE DOUBT, THE DEFENSE HAS A SHOT, JACK.

>> BRIAN IS STAYING ON WITH US. OBVIOUSLY, BETH IS ALSO AS SHE CONTINUES OUR COVERAGE OUT THERE. WE'LL FIT IN A QUICK BREAK HERE. WE EXPECT THEY'LL BE READY TO GO LIVE ANY MINUTE.

>>> WE'VE BEEN LOOK INSIDE THE COURTROOM THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE DAY TODAY. NOW WE WANT TO LOOK INSIDE THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. THAT'S YOU FOLKS OUT THERE AND YOUR MINDS, YOUR THOUGHTS. E-MAIL US WITH SOME OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS. YOUR VIEWS ON THIS. EVEN QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. CLICK ON COURTSIDE OR THEN E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT COURTSIDE@CNN.COM. LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS OR IF YOU HAVE A GOOD QUESTION. LET US KNOW ABOUT THAT.

>>> WELCOME BACK TO BANFIELD & FORD. I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD.

>> I'M JACK FORD. WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO GET IN SESSION IN THE COURTROOM IN MASSACHUSETTS. THE PROSECUTION MOVING ALONG. AS BETH SAID, THEY SEEM TO BE MOVING QUICKER THAN EVERYONE THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE MOVING. THAT'S ESPECIALLY UNUSUAL WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE DETAILED CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASES.

>> AND YOU ARE ALL OFFICIAL AND I'M ALL IMPATIENT. I CAN'T WAIT FOR ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN'S CASE. I FEEL LIKE I ALREADY KNOW THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. GLAD THEY ARE MAKING IT AIR TIGHT AND DOTTING THEIR Is AND CROSSING THEIR Ts. LET'S GET OVER TO BETH KARAS AND GET AN UPDATE SINCE WE'VE BEEN IN A BIT OF A BREAK. THEY ARE GETTING BACK UNDER WAY VERY SHORTLY. BETH KARAS IS COVERING THE STORY LIVE OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. NEW HOUR. QUICKLY GET ME UP TO SPEED ON WHAT'S TRANSPIRED TODAY.

>> Reporter: WELL, RIGHT NOW ON THE STAND IS JEREMY ROYBAL, A FRAUD INVESTIGATOR WITH EBAY. AND HE IS GOING THROUGH ACCOUNTS THAT NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE HAD AND SOME PROBLEMS THEY HAD AT THE END OF 2005 AND EARLY 2006 SATISFYING BUYERS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS BEING SOLD. I BELIEVE IT WAS SOFTWARE. BUT HE'S GOING THROUGH SOME PROBLEMS AND THIS IS PART OF THE MOTIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THERE WERE MOUNTING FINANCIAL PROBLEMS BECAUSE THIS ONLINE BUSINESS DID GENERATE SOME INCOME FOR THE ENTWISTLES. BEFORE HIM, ANOTHER WITNESS TESTIFIED, COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY BEGUN YESTERDAY, JOHN SORENS. HE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF EVIDENCE GATHERED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND IN THE BMW SUV WHICH WAS LEASED TO THE ENTWISTLES AND ABANDONED AT LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. HE TALKED ABOUT EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTING THEM FOR TESTING. HE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT TEST RESULTS. WE STILL HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT STATEMENTS ENTWISTLE MADE TO TROOPER MANNING. BUT I THINK THEY'LL PROBABLY HAVE THEIR CASE IN SOMETIME NEXT WEEK.

>> AGAIN, BETH, I ONLY FEEL LIKE I KNOW THE CASE BECAUSE IF YOU READ ALL THE PRETRIAL FILINGS, THE STATEMENTS MADE TO THE TROOPERS INVOLVED, HAVE ALL BEEN WRITTEN OUT IN THESE AFFIDAVITS. AND THEY'RE JUST -- IT'S REMARKABLE READING. I AM HOPING TO LEARN MORE FROM THE TRIAL. STAND BY FOR A MINUTE, BETH BECAUSE JACK FORD AND I HAVE BEEN CHATTING ABOUT SOMETHING. YESTERDAY YOU AND I WERE TRYING TO SORT OF MAKE SENSE OF THE PICTURES THAT WE WERE SEEING COMING OUT OF THE COURTROOM. IT WAS A SILENT COURTROOM. BY THE WAY, WASN'T JUST BECAUSE THE MIKES WERE OFF. IT WAS A SILENT COURTROOM WHEN THE CRIME SCENE VIDEO PLAYED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE JURORS, THE DEFENDANT, HIS ATTORNEYS AND, I DON'T THINK, MANY OTHER PEOPLE.

>> THE WAY THEY WERE SITUATED. NEIL ENTWISTLE AND HIS LAWYERS HAD TO GET UP AND MOVE OVER AGAINST THE WALL SO THEY COULD SEE THIS VIDEO HERE THAT THE -- DESIGNED OBVIOUSLY JUST FOR THE JURORS TO SEE. CLEARLY, THE DEFENSE NEEDS TO SEE IT AND THE PROSECUTION NEEDS TO SEE IT. AS WE WERE WATCHING IT, I KNOW THERE WERE DIFFERENT REACTIONS. YOU HAD HEARD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAY YOU THOUGHT HE WAS SMILING, EVEN LAUGHING THROUGH IT. WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT IT I SAID IN MY WATCHING OF IT I DIDN'T GET THAT SENSE. BUT THEN AS YOU LOOK AT IT, IT BECOMES AS YOU SAID, PERPLEXING. PAUL THOMPSON WHO WE TALKED TO A FEW MOMENTS AGO SAID HE CHARACTERIZED IT AS SORT OF UNUSUAL FACIAL GESTURES. ALTHOUGH HE SAID HE WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT HE DIDN'T THINK HE WAS REALLY SMILING OR LAUGHING. BUT IT WAS PUZZLING.

>> CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER THAN WHAT THE CAMERA ANGLE SHOWED. A FRONT VIEW. THE CAMERA IS BEHIND HIM. THE FRONT VIEW SHOWED NOT ONLY A WEEPING AND CLEARLY DISTRAUGHT MAN BUT AT TIMES SOMEONE WHO HAD A VERY DIFFERENT REACTION TO SOME IT APPEARED AS THOUGH IT COULD BE SMILING OR LAUGHING. THAT DIDN'T GO WELL WHEN PEOPLE ALL OVER THE CABLE NEWS CHANNELS HAD EVEN SUGGESTED THE POSSIBILITY THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SMILE OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN WEEPING OR GRIEVING. ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN FOUND OUT ABOUT IT. HE MAY HAVE BEEN IN COURT NOT WATCHING TV BUT SOMEBODY CALLED HIM AND TOLD HIM AND HE HAD THIS TO SAY TO ALL OF US AFTER COURT WRAPPED UP YESTERDAY. HAVE A LOOK.

>> WE'VE COME OUT BEFORE ALL OF YOU MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES NOT WITHSTANDING OUR DESIRE AND OUR INTENTION TO NOT COMMENT ON IN-COURT PROCEEDINGS. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO US THAT SOME OF YOU ARE REPORTING THAT OUR CLIENT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS LAUGHING OR SMILING DURING THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEO SHOWING HIS DEAD WIFE AND DEAD CHILD. WE ARE OFFENDED BY THAT KIND OF REPORTING. AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT WE DID. WE ARE SERIOUSLY AND VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW NEIL WOULD REACT UPON SEEING THE IMAGES OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN. WE WERE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THAT WE DIVIDED OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COURTROOM. AND MY PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO WATCH THE VIDEO, TO VIEW THE EVIDENCE AS IT WAS BEING PLAYED. AND STEPHANIE'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO WATCH NEIL, TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WOULD BE OKAY IN SEEING THIS HORROR THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT. AND ANYBODY WHO INTERPRETED HIS REACTIONS IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT OF A MAN WHO WAS SERIOUSLY GRIEVING AND DISTURBED BY WHAT HE SAW, BY WHAT HE'S BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING AND ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO.

>> YOU ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. YOU HAVE BEEN THERE. I WAS SITTING NEXT TO HIM. ELLIOTT WAS SITTING NEXT TO HIM. SOME OF YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE HIM. THERE IS NO WAY THAT NEIL WOULD BE LAUGHING OR NOT -- HE IS GRIEVING. HE'S LOST HIS WIFE. HE'S LOST HIS BABY. YOU HAVE HEARD WHAT A LOVING FATHER HE WAS, WHAT A LOVING HUSBAND HE IS. YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. YOU KNOW HE WASN'T LAUGHING. IT'S NOT WORTH A CHEAP HEADLINE OR A CHEAP SOUND BITE ON ONE OF YOUR CABLE SHOWS. IT IS SO OFFENSIVE.

>> QUITE SOMETHING. YOU HEARD IT. THAT'S THE RESPONSE FROM THE ATTORNEYS. YOU GOT TO SEE THE PICTURES. NOW THERE WERE 25 MINUTES WORTH OF TAPE. WE PICKED OUT AS MUCH AS WE COULD FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE UNEDITED OF THE REACTION OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. WE ARE BACK. BEFORE WE WENT TO BREAK, THIS WITNESS HAS BEEN UP ON THE STAND FOR THE BETTER PART OF A COUPLE OF HOURS. JEREMY ROYBAL HE'S AN EBAY FRAUD INVESTIGATOR. NEIL ENTWISTLE, BEFORE ALL OF THIS TRANSPIRED WAS DOING A LITTLE BUSINESS ON EBAY. SOME SEX ESOME NOT SO SEXY. THAT MAN HAS A RECORD OF JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING AND HE'S GOING OVER EVERY LITTLE DETAIL, WHETHER THERE WAS FRAUD, WHETHER THERE WAS CHEATING, WHETHER THERE WAS MONEY RETURNED OR WHETHER THERE WAS NONE OF THE ABOVE.

>> 35B258129Y0698307 ORIGINAL TRANSACTION WAS FOR 3249 ON DECEMBER 25th, 2005. MAXIMUM REFUND AVAILABLE IS $17.49. EBSPPP, PP 133012466 HAS BEEN CLOSED.

>> WHICH IS 314 SAY?

>> IT SAYS ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-134-722-484 E-MAILED TO SELLER SECOND TIME TO RESPOND.

>> WHICH IS 315 SAY, SIR?

>> BUYER COMPLAINT RECEIVED ON TRAN I.D. 818 XT 833927 R 259093F. WHICH OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 29th, 2005 FOR $32.49. CASE PP 135-548891 HAS BEEN CREATED. DISPUTE REASON IS NONRECEIPT AND PROTECTION TIME IS EBAY SPPP.

>> WHAT DOES 315 SAY.

>> I JUST READ --

>> OH, I'M SORRY. 316.

>> 316 SAYS ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-003-878 SENT E-MAIL IN OUR TIME OUT TEN DAYS AUTO REFUND.

>> WHAT DOES THE NEXT LINE?

>> 317 IS THE NEXT LINE. SHALL I READ IT?

>> YES, PLEASE.

>> ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-003-507. SENT E-MAIL NR TIME-OUT 10 DAYS AUTO REFUND.

>> NEXT LINE PLEASE, SIR.

>> AUTO REFUND INITIATED BECAUSE SELLER NEVER RESPONDED TO BUYER COMPLAINT FOR BUYER TRAN 84 S 99999C6517743B. ORIGINAL TRANSACTION WAS $22.49 ON DECEMBER 28th, 2005. MAXIMUM REFUND AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME IS 7.49. THE COVERAGE OF TYPE IS EBAY SPPP ATTACK CASE PP 133003878 HAS BEEN CLOSED.

>> OKAY. NOW, SIR, COULD YOU GO INTO THE DATE ON THAT? AND WHAT'S THE DATE ON THAT, SIR?

>> JANUARY 19th, 2006, AT 5:1206 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME.

>> NOW, SIR, COULD YOU GO DOWN TO LINE 408, PLEASE.

>> OKAY.

>> AND WHAT'S THE DATE ON THAT, SIR?

>> JANUARY 17th, 2 THOUSAND 6. AT 1:14:09 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME.

>> AND COULD YOU GO BACK OVER TO COLUMN "E" PLEASE? WHAT DOES COLUMN "E" SAY?

>> BUYER COMPLAINT SUBMITTED.

>> WHAT DOES COLUMN "F" SAY, PLEASE, SIR?

>> BUYER COMPLAINT RECEIVED ON TRANSACTION -- TRAN ID 48P85626 BT 5524062T, WHICH OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 29th, 2005 FOR 32.49. ATTACK CASE PP 134956041 HAS BEEN CREATED. DISPUTE REASON IS NONRECEIPT AND PROTECTION TYPE IS EBAY SPPP.

>> SIR, CAN YOU EXPAND THE SCREEN OVER SO THAT THE JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNSEL CAN SEE? WHAT IS THE NEXT LINE, SIR?

>> 409. COULD YOU READ IT PLEASE, SIR?

>> YES. ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-134-358-726 E-MAIL SELLER, SECOND TIME TO RESPOND.

>> COULD YOU READ 410, PLEASE, SIR.

>> ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP 133210334 E-MAILED SELLER THIRD TIME TO RESPOND.

>> COULD YOU READ THE NEXT LINE, PLEASE, SIR.

>> YES SIRKS. ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-210-334 E-MAILED SELLER THIRD TIME TO RESPOND.

>> OKAY. WHAT LINE IS THAT, SIR?

>> 410.

>> COULD YOU READ 411, PLEASE?

>> GLADLY. ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP 133171007 E-MAIL SELLER THIRD TIME TO RESPOND.

>> COULD YOU READ 412.

>> BUYER COMPLAINT RECEIVED ON TRANSACTION I.D. 3'F 868020DE867653Y WHICH OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 29th, 2005, FOR 2249. ATTACK CASE PP 134837526 HAS BEEN CREATED. DISPUTE REASON IS NONRECEIPT AND PROTECTION TYPE IS EBAY SPPP.

>> COULD YOU READ 413, SIR?

>> BUYER COMPLAINT RECEIVED ON TRAN I.D. 5FM93180J6564394B WHICH OCCURRED ON DECEMBER 28th, 2005 FOR 22.49. ATTACK CASE PP 134870853 HAS BEEN CREATED. DISPUTE VANE NONRECEIPT AND PROTECTION TYPE IS EBAY SPPP. COULD YOU READ LINE 415 FOR US, SIR.

>> ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-141-182 E-MAILED SELLER THIRD TIME TO RESPOND.

>> COULD YOU READ 416, PLEASE, SIR.

>> ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-131-068. E-MAILED SELLER THIRD TIME TO RESPOND.

>> COULD YOU READ 417, PLEASE, SIR.

>> ATTACK CASE NUMBER PP-133-121-481.

>>> SO JEREMY ROYBAL STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. IF YOU ARE JOINING UYOU MAY BE PUZZLED AS TO THE CONTENT. HE'S TALKING ABOUT ENTRIES. HE'S LOOKING AT A LAPTOP, GIVING OFF A STRING OF NUMBERS AND WHAT HAPPENED. HERE'S SOME CONTEXT. PROSECUTION SAYS MOTIVE FOR THE KILLINGS, ACCORDING TO THEM, NEIL ENTWISTLE AMONG OTHER THINGS, ENORMOUS FINANCIAL FRUSTRATION. COULDN'T GET A JOB. COULDN'T GET WORK. STRUGGLE WITH HIS INTERNET BUSINESSES. PART OF WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING IS THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN THINGS THAT MAY WELL -- MAY WELL, ACCORDING TO THEM, HAVE BEEN FRAUDULENT PRACTICES ON THE INTERNET. THIS BUILDING TO HIS LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION, ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION, CAUSED HIM TO TAKE THE LIFE OF HIS WIFE AND HIS DAUGHTER. REMEMBER, THE DEFENSE SAYS IT'S THE WRONG MAN ON TRIAL HERE. THIS WITNESS IS PROVIDING SOME OF THOSE DETAILS FOR THE PROSECUTION. LET'S LISTEN.

>> -- TO EXIT THIS PARTICULAR FILE. AND TAB BACK TO THE OVERALL. NOW I WOULD ASK YOU TO CLICK DOUBLE TWICE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AND AT THIS POINT GO INTO THE ACTIVITY REPORT. AND ON TO THE XCEL SPREADSHEET, PLEASE. GO TO LINE 247.

>> 247, YES?

>> SIR, YOU'LL HAVE TO TAB IT BACK TO 14 SO THE JURORS AND DEFENSE COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO SEE.

>> JUST NEED TO LOCATE THE ITEM. READY?

>> YES.

>> LINE 647 -- I'M SORRY, 247. WHAT DATE IS LINE 247?

>> JANUARY 5th, 2006 AT 8:27:33 PACIFIC STANDARD.

>> AND IN COLUMN "D," WHO IS THE ACTOR? WHAT DOES THE ACTOR INDICATE?

>> EBAY@ENTWISTLE.US.

>> AND ON COLUMN "E," WHAT IS THE ACTION?

>> WEB ACCOUNTS CREATED AND USER AGREEMENT ACCEPTED.

>> NOW, SIRKS I'D ASK YOU TO GO UP TO LINE 94, PLEASE.

>> READY?

>> SIR, WHAT DATE IS LINE 94 ON?

>> JANUARY 16th, 2006, AT 8:49:29 PACIFIC STANDARD TIME.

>> WHAT TIME IS THAT, IF YOU KNOW, EAST COAST TIME?

>> ADDING THREE WOULD MAKE IT 11:49.

>> OKAY.

>> AND WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE ON LINE 94?

>> LINE 94? LOGIN. WEB LOGIN.

>> OKAY. WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE ON LINE 88?

>> JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE. LINE 88, WEB LOGIN.

>> WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE ON LINE 85?

>> 85 SHOWS WEB LOGIN.

>> WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE AT LINE 83?

>> ALSO WEB LOGIN?

>> WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE AT LINE 79?

>> ALSO WEB LOGIN?

>> WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE AT LINE 76?

>> AGAIN WEB SITE USER ERROR.

>> AND WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE AT LINE 75?

>> WEB LOGIN.

>> AND WHAT ACTION TOOK PLACE AT LINE 74.

>> ADMIN ACCOUNT OPENED, MEANING SOMEONE -- YES, ADMIN ACCOUNT OPEN.

>> AT LINE 75?

>> WEB LOGIN.

>> AND WHAT -- DATE AND TIME FOR THAT, SIR?

>> JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE. JANUARY 16th, 2006, THE FIRST ONE, 75 IS 13:27:43 FOLLOWED BY -- OR PRECEDED BY 13:20:47.

>> SO AGAIN, THE TESTIMONY VERY DETAILED. VERY NECESSARY, ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY OF THINGS. BUT WHAT YOU ARE GETTING IS A SERIES OF NUMBERS, AS YOU SAID, DESCRIPTIVE NUMBERS REFLECTING ITEMS AND THE COMPUTER THAT THE WITNESS IS TALKING ABOUT HERE. WE WANT TO SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT OF SORT OF A SMOGAS BORG OF SOME TESTIMONY DURING THE COURSE OF THE DAY. SOMETHING YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN EARLIER, BUT IMPORTANT TESTIMONY ALSO. WE SAW SOME OF WHAT JOHN SOREZ, THE CRIME SCENES LAB SAID ON HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION. HE DESCRIBED IN VERY DETAIL THE BODIES, WHERE THEY WERE LOCATED, THE MARKS ON EACH OF THE BODIES, THE SUBSEQUENT TEST AND INVESTIGATION THEY DID AT THE CRIME SCENE. WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS AS DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN PROBES INTO WHAT WAS DONE AND ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE WHAT PERHAPS WASN'T DONE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. LISTENING TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONING HERE. HOW IT WAS JOHN SOREZ GOT INVOLVED IN THIS AND WHAT IT WAS HE WAS LOOKING FOR.

>> DID YOU TAKE CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE DOING AT THE HOME?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND ONE OF YOUR COLLEAGUES, MS. DYGAN, ALSO WAS TAKING NOTES OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT SHE WAS DOING?

>> YES, SHE WAS.

>> AND WAS SHE ALSO RECORDING SOME OF THE ACTIVITY THAT YOU WERE DOING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU, IN TURN, RECORDING SOME OF THE ACTIVITY THAT SHE WAS DOING?

>> SHE HANDLED THE BULK OF THE DOCUMENTATION, BUT, YES, THAT'S RIGHT.

>> IN MORE OR LESS, YOU WERE WORKING AS A PARTNERSHIP OR A TEAM, THE TWO OF YOU?

>> YES, SIR.

>> IN TERMS OF THE COLLECTION OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND TOGETHER YOU MADE DECISIONS, DID YOU NOT, ABOUT WHAT IT WAS THAT YOU MIGHT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE ANALYZE AT THE HOME?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND SOME OF THE ANALYSIS YOU ACTUALLY DID YOURSELF.

>> YES, SIR.

>> FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT EARLIER?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND WERE THERE ANALYSIS ON THE SPOT OR PRESUMPTIVE TESTING THAT YOU OBSERVED OR WATCHED MS. DYGAN DO?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THAT WAS GOOD TECHNIQUE, WAS IT NOT, FOR EACH OF YOU TO BE TOGETHER DURING THIS EFFORT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> SO THAT ONE MIGHT NOT OVERLOOK SOMETHING?

>> YES, SIR.

>> TO BE CERTAIN THAT EACH OR THE OTHER OF YOU FOLLOWED PROCEDURES IN THE WAY THAT THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THERE WERE ANY NUMBER, OR ACTUALLY A VERY SPECIFIC NUMBER, OF ITEMS THAT YOU ACTUALLY COLLECTED FROM SIX CUPS PATH, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> DO YOU HAVE, WITHOUT LOOKING AT YOUR REPORTS, A KNOWLEDGE RIGHT NOW OF HOW MANY ITEMS IN TOTAL YOU COLLECTED OUT OF THAT HOME?

>> I DON'T THINK I GAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER. I BELIEVE IT WAS 11.

>> RIGHT NOW YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE COLLECTED A TOTAL OF 11 ITEMS FROM INSIDE THAT HOME?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WHO WAS THE FIRST ONE, IF YOU NOW REMEMBER, THAT WENT INTO THAT MASTER BEDROOM?

>> WHEN I ARRIVED?

>> YES.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS A MEMBER OF THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION.

>> AND DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD BEEN INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM FROM THE TIME THAT OFFICER SUTTON AND VAN WALTON FROM THE HOPKINTON POLICE FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO BODIES IN THAT BEDROOM?

>> NO, I DO NOT.

>> DO YOU KNOW AT ALL WHETHER OR NOT STATE POLICE OFFICERS HAD ENTERED THAT HOME BEFORE YOU DID?

>> NO, I DO NOT.

>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY STATE POLICE OFFICERS WERE PRESENT AT THE HOME WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

>> NO, I DO NOT.

>> THERE WERE PEOPLE THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU HAVE NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY WAS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM OTHER THAN SUTTON AND VAN WALTON WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

>> I DO NOT KNOW.

>>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE IN SESSION. SOME OF THE TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN TERRIFIC SO FAR, AND YOU DON'T ALWAYS EXPECT THAT A FORENSIC GUY IS GOING TO PROVIDE FIREWORKS IN A COURTROOM. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? ON OCCASION, ESPECIALLY CROSS-EXAMINATION, THINGS CAN GET A LITTLE TESTY. THAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING WITH JOHN SOARES, THE FORENSIC SCIENTIST OF THE MAIN CRIME LAB. ONE OF THE GUYS WHO PROCESSED THE CRIME SCENE. IT'S NOT A PRETTY THING TO HAVE TO PROCESS A CRIME SCENE. WHEN YOU ARE A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, OFTEN THE STRATEGY IS TO POINT OUT EVERYTHING YOU DID WRONG. HAVE A LOOK AT HOW THAT WENT.

>> IS THAT YOU DIDN'T -- THAT'S IT? I'VE GOT THE WHOLE LIST OR THERE MIGHT BE MORE?

>> I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU, YES.

>> YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH ME THAT THERE WERE ANY NUMBER OF ITEMS FROM WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE COLLECTED GUNSHOT RESIDUE EVIDENCE IF YOU CHOSE TO.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE NEXT DAY YOU WERE BACK AT THE LABORATORY, WERE YOU NOT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THEN THE NEXT DAY, THE 24th OF JANUARY, YOU WERE TASKED OUT TO LOGAN AIRPORT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THAT'S WHEN YOU SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THE WHITE BMW?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND YOU AGAIN WERE PART OF A TEAM, WERE YOU NOT?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> WERE YOU THE ONLY PERSON FROM THE LABORATORY, THE ONLY CIVILIAN INVOLVED, IN GOING OVER THE BMW WHEN IT WAS AT LOGAN AIRPORT?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN THE BMW?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> YOU WERE CERTAINLY NOW LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU COULD FIND ANYTHING THAT WAS OF EVIDENTIARY IMPORTANCE IN THE INVESTIGATION.

>> YES, SIR.

>> THERE WERE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH YOU OR PRESENT WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

>> YES, THERE WAS.

>> STATE POLICE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ANY HOPKINTON POLICE?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>> AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY OTHER PROSECUTORS PRESENT THAT PARTICULAR TIME AT LOGAN.

>> I DON'T RECALL ANY PROSECUTORS THERE, NO.

>> YOUR MISSION WAS TO LEARN WHAT YOU COULD OR MIGHT BE ABLE TO LEARN BY GOING THROUGH THE BMW?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CERTAINLY YOU WERE INTERESTED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY INDICATION OF BLOOD STAINING IN THE BMW.

>> YES.

>> AND THAT WAS A NO-BRAINER FOR YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT TO LOOK FOR.

>> YES, SIR.

>> PROBABLY ITEM ONE IN WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING TO SEE.

>> THAT'S FAIR TO SAY.

>> AND YOU WERE THOROUGH IN YOUR WORK AT LOGAN THAT DAY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU EXAMINED EACH COMPARTMENT OF THE BMW?

>> YES, I DID.

>> DID YOU EXAMINE IT FIRST VISUALLY, THE SAME PROCESS THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DID AT THE HOME IN HOPKINTON?

>> YES, I DID.

>> SO FIRST YOU LOOK AT EVERYTHING. NEXT, IT WAS PHOTOGRAPHED. THE VEHICLE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED.

>> THE VEHICLE WAS PHOTOGRAPHED FIRST. BEFORE I EXAMINED IT.

>> BEFORE YOU DID ANYTHING, YOU MADE SURE THAT -- WAS IT YOU TAKING THE PICTURES OR SOMEONE ELSE?

>> SOMEONE ELSE.

>> ONE OF THE STATE POLICE PHOTOGRAPHERS?

>> YES, SIR.

>> SO THE BMW IS PHOTOGRAPHED. AND NOW YOU GO INTO IT AND START YOUR VISUAL EXAMINATION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU LOOK FOR BLOOD STAINS.

>> YES.

>> IF YOU WERE WRITING A REPORT AND YOU SAW SOMETHING YOU MIGHT CALL IT A DARK BROWN STAIN THAT YOU THEN TEST AND IF IT COMES UP POSITIVE, IT'S BLOOD?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU LOOKED CAREFULLY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> YOU LOOKED AT THE STEERING WHEEL?

>> I DID.

>> DID YOU SEE ANY INDICATION OF BLOOD STAINING ON THE STEERING WHEEL?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> BUT THEN THERE WAS THE QUESTION IN YOUR MIND OF -- BLOOD.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BLOOD STAINING THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE BUT THAT STILL MIGHT BE THERE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND DID YOU USE ANY OF THE SPECIALIZED LIGHTING TO DETECT THE PRESENT OF ACUL BLOOD?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU GET A POSITIVE RESULT WHEN YOU TESTED FOR OCULT BLOOD ON THAT STEERING WHEEL?

>> NO IDID NOT.

>> AND THAT MEANS THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE TO YOU THE SCIENTIST THAT THERE WAS BLOOD STAINING ON THE STEERING WHEEL OF THE BMW?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU SEARCHED CAREFULLY AND EXAMINED THE SEAT, THE DRIVER'S SEAT OF THE BMW?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES, YOUR NAKED EYES ANYTHING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THERE WAS BLOOD STAIN ON THE SEAT? THE DRIVER'S SEAT?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> BUT THAT WOULDN'T COMPLETE THE INQUIRY, DID IT?

>> I'M SORRY?

>> THAT DIDN'T COMPLETE YOUR INQUIRY? YOU WERE LOOKING FOR OCCULT BLOOD AS WELL?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU TESTED THE DRIVER'S SEAT?

>> WHY SIR.

>> AND THE RESULTS WERE NEGATIVE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MEANING THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD STAINING ON THE DRIVER'S SEAT OF THE BMW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU EXAMINED THE DRIVER'S DOOR ON THE INTERIOR SIDE?

>> YES, I DID.

>> SAME INQUIRIES WERE IN YOUR MIND, WEREN'T THEY?

>> YES.

>> YOU LOOKED TO SEE IF YOU SAW ANY STAINING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU DIDN'T.

>> NO.

>> YOU CHECKED FOR THE PRESENCE OF OCCULT BLOOD? THE KIND THAT YOU CAN'T SEE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DIDN'T FIND ANY?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> NOTHING TO INDICATE ANY BLOOD STAINING ON THE SDRIFR'S DOOR OF THE BMW?

>> NO.

>> YOU CHECKED THE SIDE BETWEEN WHERE THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS WHERE THE SEAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE, DIDN'T YOU?

>> YES.

>> BECAUSE WHEN YOU FOUND THE SEAT, IT WASN'T IN A FULLY UPRIGHT POSITION.

>> NO IT WAS NOT.

>> CERTAINLY SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT SOMEBODY DROVE IN AND IN AN ORDINARY DRIVER'S POSITION AND MOVED THE SEAT BACK THERE WAS A STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT SOMEONE WOULD TOUCH ONE OF THOSE SEAT POSITIONING BUTTONS?

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SO YOU EXAMINED THOSE BUTTONS?

>> YES.

>> YOU LOOKED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY STAINING.

>> YES, I DID.

>> DIDN'T SEE ANY?

>> NO.

>> THEN YOU WENT TO THE NEXT STEP TO SEE IF YOU COULD DETECT OCCULT BLOOD.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DIDN'T FIND ANY?

>> NO.

>> NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD STAINING ON THE LEVERS OF A SEAT ADJUSTMENT, SWITCHES OF THAT BMW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU CONTINUED WITH YOUR EFFORTS AND YOU LOOKED IN THE CONSOLE THAT'S NEXT TO THE DRIVER'S SEAT.

>> YES, I DID.

>> THERE WERE ITEMS THERE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> SOME OF THEM THAT WERE COLLECTED AND PRODUCED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. WATER BOTTLES.

>> YES, SIR.

>> YOU EXAMINED THOSE FOR BLOOD STAINING.

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> HAVE THEY EVER BEEN EXAMINED FOR BLOOD STAINING?

>> NO.

>> THE CONSOLE ITSELF, DID YOU SEE ANY BLOOD STAINING ON THE CONSOLE?

>> NO.

>> BOTH METHODS? VISUAL OCCULT METHOD, NO BLOOD STAINING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> NOTHING TO INDICATE ANY BLOOD ON THE CONSOLE?

>> NO.

>> BMW'S SHIFTER OR AN AUTOMATIC?

>> I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY.

>> WELL, THE LEVER WAS IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S SEAT AND THE PASSENGER'S SEAT, ISN'T IT?

>> YES, IT WAS.

>> AND THAT'S THE THING THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO TOUCH OR HOLD TO MOVE THE CAR FROM PARK TO DRIVE, REVERSE AND SO ON.

>> YES, SIR.

>>Y TO SEW THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WERE VERY CAREFUL TO LOOK AT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>Y TO TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY BLOOD STAINING?

>> YES.

>> BOTH METHODS?

>> BOTH.

>> NEGATIVE TO BOTH?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. NOTHING TO INDICATE ANY BLOOD STAINING ON THE GEAR SHIFTER OF THAT BMW.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND YOU CONTINUED THAT PROCESS THROUGH SECTIONS AND SECTIONS OF THE BMW, DIDN'T YOU?

>> YES, I DID.

>> THE PASSENGER SIDE.

>> YES.

>> THE BACK SEAT PASSENGER SIDE.

>> YES.

>> THE BACK SEAT BEHIND THE DRIVER.

>> YES.

>> THE DOORS ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THE PASSENGER SIDE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THE DOORS IN THE BACK. THE PASSENGER SIDE.

>> THAT'S ALSO CORRECT.

>> AS WELL AS THE DOOR ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE IN THE REAR?

>> YES.

>> AND IN EACH OF THOSE AREAS, YOU WERE LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU COULD FIND BLOOD STAINING.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YOU WERE LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU SAW WITH YOUR OWN EYES OR WHETHER YOU COULD STEE WITH OCCULT BLOOD. ANY OF THE SPECIALIZED TESTING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE IT CAME UP NO BLOOD.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>> BACK LIVE INSIDE THE COURTROOM NOW. JEREMY ROYBAL JUST WRAPPED UP HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION BY THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE. AND NOW ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN, ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS A CHANCE TO ASK HIM SOME QUESTIONS. CONTEXT, HE WORKS FOR EBAY, PAYPAL. HE DESCRIBED PROBLEMS NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD WITH VARIOUS ACCOUNTS AND PEOPLE PURCHASING PRODUCTS FROM HIM ONLINE.

>> WHEN DID EBAY BUY OUT PAYPAL?

>> 2002 SOMETIME.

>> PAYPAL IS, AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, SORT OF A MONEY OR A PAYMENT MECHANISM OR ENTITY?

>> YES, SIR.

>> BY WHICH PEOPLE WHO ARE SELLING THINGS CAN SELL THEM AND HAVE THE MONEY FUNNELED THROUGH PAYPAL BACK TO THE SELLER.

>> IT'S JUST A MEANS TO --

>> YOU DIDN'T HEAR MY QUESTION.

>> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

>> SO JUST TELL ME.

>> CAN YOU REPHRASE YOUR QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> IF A PERSON IS SELLING SOMETHING, PAYPAL IS AN ENTITY WHICH FACILITATES THE SALE.

>> YES.

>> IF A PERSON IS BUYING SOMETHING, PAYPAL IS AN ENTITY WHICH FACILITATES THE PURCHASE?

>> YES.

>> IF A PURCHASER USES PAYPAL, THERE IS A FORM OF SATISFACTION GUARANTEED. A FORM OF PAYMENT PROTECTION.

>> YES.

>> SO THAT IF THE BUYER ISN'T SATISFIED, THE BUYER CAN GET PAYMENT BACK FROM PAYPAL?

>> NO.

>> NO?

>> CAN I EXPLAIN?

>> NO, I'LL ASK YOU QUESTIONS. YOU CAN ANSWER THEM, PLEASE. IF A SELLER SELLS SOMETHING, THE SELLER WANTS TO GET PAYMENT.

>> IS THIS A STATEMENT? I REALLY -- I DIDN'T --

>> I'LL ASK A QUESTION NOW, PLEASE.

>> IF THE SELLER USES PAYPAL AND A BUYER BUYS THROUGH PAYPAL, IS IT NOT CORRECT THAT THE SELLER MIGHT GET PAYMENT FOR THE ITEM THAT WAS SOLD TO THE BUYER THROUGH PAYPAL.

>> YES.

>> THE BUYER PUTS FUNDS INTO THE PAYPAL BANK, CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> AND THE SELLER MIGHT GET IT FROM THE PAYPAL BANK FOR THE ITEM THAT THE BUYER BOUGHT.

>> YES.

>> BUT THE SELLER IS NOT ALWAYS GOING TO GET IT UNLESS THE BUYER IS SATISFIED.

>> NO.

>> THE PAYPAL HAS A SORT OF CHECK AND BALANCE WITHIN ITS BUSINESS OPERATION BEFORE THE SELLER RECEIVES PAYMENT.

>> NO.

>> PAYPAL USES ITS CHECKS AND BALANCES TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF FUNDS DUE TO THE SELLER IF THERE ARE COMPLAINTS FROM BUYERS.

>> SOMETIMES.

>> IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, ONE WAY TO SATISFY THE BUYER IS TO NOT CREDIT THE MONEY TO THE SELLER.

>> IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, YES.

>> AND, YOU KNOW WHAT, MR. ROYBAL, I DON'T THINK I WANT TO ASK YOU ANYMORE QUESTIONS TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.

>> YOU MAY STEP DOWN, SIR.

>> SO LET ME ASK MY LAST QUESTION. WE'RE WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. AND WE'RE TOLD THAT ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN IS A VERY COMPETENT AND EFFECTIVE DEFENSE LAWYER. BUT AS YOU WATCHED THAT, AS YOU WATCHED THE QUESTIONING HE POSED TO THIS WITNESS WHO IS NOT AN INVOLVED PARTY, WOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT JURORS MIGHT BE SAYING, WHY ARE YOU BEING SO RUDE TO THIS GUY AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY?

>> YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BE BECAUSE JURORS DON'T LIKE PEOPLE THAT ARE MEAN OR SHOW UP WITNESSES, OTHER LAWYERS IN PARTICULAR. SO HE'S GOT TO TREAD CAREFULLY BETWEEN CROSS-EXAMINING JACK AND EXAMINING CROSSLY.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT BEFORE WE HAVE TO SAY GOOD-BYE TO EVERYBODY, INCLUDING YOU, BRIAN. HERE'S A QUESTION WE'VE BEEN POSING TO EVERYBODY ON THE AIR. THAT IS, YOU ARE THE DEFENSE LAWYER. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN FRONT OF US. WE HAVEN'T MET WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE. ON THE SURFACE OF IT, IS THIS A CASE WHERE YOU'D SERIOUSLY CONSIDER PUTTING HIM ON THE STAND OR NOT?

>> I LIKE MY LAW LICENSE AN THE WALL WHERE IT IS WHEN I LEFT MY OFFICE. I WOULD THINK THAT ANY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO THINKS OF PUTTING THIS GUY ON THE STAND. THIS GUY'S STORY HAS MORE LEAKS THAN THE IRAQI NAVY. I DON'T THINK HE NEEDS TO BE NEAR THE WITNESS STAND AND I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE DOUBT DEFENSE AND THAT'S THE BEST THEY CAN HOPE FOR.

>> HOW WOULD YOU DEAL THEN, AND I THINK JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY HAS AGREED WITH YOU IN TERMS OF ALL THE DIFFICULTIES AND THE STORIES HE'S TOLD AND WHY DO YOU WANT TO GET THEM OUT THERE IN FRONT OF THE JURORS. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH WHAT YOU KNOW IS PERCOLATING IN JURORS MINDS, WHICH IS IF I WAS ON TRIAL FOR THE MURDER OF MY WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND DIDN'T DO IT, WELL, GOODNESS GRACIOUS, OF COURSE I'D GET ON THE STAND AND WANT TO TELL PEOPLE. I'D WANT TO SHOUT IT OUT AS LOUD AS I COULD THAT I'M INNOCENT. HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH THAT?

>> HE'S ALREADY DEALT WITH IT DURING JURY SELECTION. I MEAN, WE ARE TOLD THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS MOST JURORS HAVE. IF IT WAS ME, I'D BE SCREAMING. I'D TAKE ON AN AD IN "THE NEW YORK POST." I THINK HE GOT COMMITMENTS FROM EVERY ONE OF THESE FOLKS WHO IS SERVING ON THIS JURY THAT THEY WON'T HOLD THE DEFENDANTS' FAILURE TO TESTIFY AGAINST THEM AND THEY WON'T ASK THEMSELVES, GEE, WOULD I HAVE DONE IT IF IT WAS ME.

>> DO YOU SAY THAT TO YOUR JURORS IN YOUR SUMMATION? DO YOU SAY THAT VERY THING? YOU MIGHT BE WONDERING, OR YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IF IT WAS YOU, YOU WOULD TESTIFY. THE DO YOU ADDRESS THAT WITH THEM IN YOUR SUMMATION?

>> I THINK YOU HAVE TO. I KNOW WE'LL LIKELY THINK THAT IN THE FINAL ARGUMENT IF NEIL ENTWISTLE DOESN'T GET WITHIN AN AREA CODE OF THE WITNESS STAND. YOU MADE US THESE PROMISES. YOU HAVE TO KEEP THEM OR THE SYSTEM JUST WON'T PRODUCE A JUST RESULT.

>> THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE GET TO THE SUMMATION. BRIAN, AS ALWAYS, A PLEASURE HAVING YOU WITH US. WE'RE GLAD. YOU NEED TO COME VISIT US MORE OFTEN FROM THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS.

>> YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WATCH LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE ONLINE STARTING UP IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES. CNN.COM/CRIME. THAT DOES IT FOR US FOR TODAY. IT'S BEEN A BUSY WEEK HERE.

>> I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

>> YOU HAVE TO. YOU DON'T GET TO DO THAT.

>> I AM BEING SNARKY. I AM BEING SNARKY. I WASN'T TOO CRAZY ABOUT THAT LAST COMMENT.

>> THAT'S UNUSUAL. IT'S BEEN A BUSY WEEK. A BUSY WEEK NEXT WEEK AS WE CONTINUE OUR LIVE COVERAGE. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND. HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO EVERYONE OUT THERE.

>> OH, YEAH. HAPPY FATHER'S DAY TO MY LOVELY HUSBAND HOWARD.

[HOME]