|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY, IT'S CSI INSIDE A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM BUT WHAT DOES THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE OR LACK OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE SAY ABOUT RICH EL AND LILY ENTWISTLE'S KILLER? THE BEST DEFENSE NOW. THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." I'M IN FOR JAMI FLOYD TODAY. IF YOU MISSED KNOWN RADIO, I'M NOW ON THE AIR AMERICA NETWORK FROM 3:00 TO 6:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME. THE SHOW "DOING TIME" WITH RON KUBY. YEAH. ON JANUARY 20th, 2006, 27-YEAR-OLD ENTWISTLE AND HER DAUGHTER WAS FOUND SHOT TO DEATH INSIDE THEIR HOME. NO SIGN OF A BREAK IN THE STRUGGLE AND NEIL, HER HUSBAND AND LILY'S FATHER. HE SURFACED IN NATIVE ENGLAND AND BECAME THE PRIME SUSPECT IN THE CASE. NOW BACK IN THE UNITED STATES AND INSIDE A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM FACING DOUBLE MURDER CHARGES. BUT HE INSISTS HE IS NOT GUILTY T. PROSECUTION'S CASE CONTINUES TODAY AND JOINING WITH US THE VERY LATEST, OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS. BETH, GOOD MORNING TO YOU. ALL ABOUT THE GUN, ISN'T IT? >> WELL, IT IS. GOOD MORNING, RON. IT IS ABOUT THE GUN AND THE GUN CASE AND THE AMMUNITION AND THE GUN BOX. EVERYTHING STORED IN THE HOME. THE PROSECUTION SAYS AND IT'S STILL GOING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT A GUN FROM RACHEL'S STEPFATHER'S COLLECTION WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. AND IT IS THE PROSECUTION'S BELIEF THAT NEIL AT SOME POINT IN THE DAYS BEFORE OR DAY OF THE MURDERS WENT INTO THE HOME, HE HAD KEYS, TOOK 22 CALIBER COLT REVOLVER, KILLED HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND PUT IT BACK. SHE SAYS SHE COLLECTED AMONG OTHER ITEMS OR SWABS FROM THE GUN IS A BROWN GEL-LIKE SUBSTANCE FROM THE MUZZLE THAT TICH OF THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN. INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR. TOOK A SWAB. WE DON'T WHAT THIS WAS YET. BUT NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. >> THANK YOU, BETH. WE CALL THOSE IN THE DEFENSE WORLD REALLY BAD FACTS. WE'LL SEE YOU LATER ON IN THE SHOW AND WATCHING WITH US TODAY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY RANDY ZELLIN IN NEW YORK AND IN MASSACHUSETTS, PETER EDENBURG. I HAVE TO ASK YOU BOTH TO STAND BY AS WE GO BACK LIVE INTO THE COURTROOM. >> AND FORWARD THEM ON TO THE BOMB AND ARSON UNIT FOR ANALYSIS. >> IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE KNIFE BLOCK WITH THE TEN KNIVES AND PAIR OF KITCHEN SHEERS. >> AND IS THAT HOW IT APPEARED TO YOU WHEN THAT BLOCK OF KNIVES FIRST CAME TO YOUR LAB FOR INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS? >> YES. >> EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. OUR NEXT EXHIBIT. >> ANY OBJECTION? IT MAY BE MARKED WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> NUMBER 74. >> THANK YOU. >> MA'AM, IF I COULD BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO DECEMBER 5th, 2006. DID YOU HAVE ON OCCASION TO MEET WITH MR. ENTWISTLE BRIEFLY? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT MEETING? >> TO COLLECT A DNA STANDARD FROM HIM. >> AND DID YOU OBTAIN THAT DNA STANDARD FROM MR. ENTWISTLE? >> YES, I DID. >> WAS THERE AN ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH IN THAT? >> YES. 47-1. >> WAS THAT SUBMITTED TO THE DNA UNIT FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS? >> YES. >> LASTLY, MA'AM, I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO NOVEMBER OF 2007. DID YOU HAVE ON OCCASION TO EXAMINE AN ITEM IN THIS CASE? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS THAT? >> A FITTED SHEET. THAT WAS RECOVERED FROM 6 CUBS WAY. >> TELL US WHAT YOU DID WITH THAT ITEM. >> I PHOTOGRAPHED THE ITEM WITH PHOTOGRAPHY AND NOTED ANY STAINING ON THE ITEM. >> AND WHAT STAINING DID YOU NOTE? >> THERE WERE SOME YELLOW AND RED/BROWN STAINS ON SEVERAL AREAS OF THE FITTED SHEET IN ADDITION TO A LARGE SATURATED CONTACT TRANSFER STAIN ON ONE PORTION OF THE ITEM. >> WHAT TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM IF ANY? >> I TESTED A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD ON ALL OF THE YELLOW AND RED/BROWN STAINED AREAS, AND I ALSO CONFIRMED THE PRESENCE OF HUMAN BLOOD IN ONE AREA. >> IN EXAMINING THAT SHEET FOR STAINS, DID YOU NOTE ANY DAMAGE TO IT AT ALL? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> STILL PHOTOGRAPHS IN FRONT OF YOU, MA'AM. STARTING WITH THE TOP ONE, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT SHOWS? >> IT'S ONE SIDE OF THE FITTED SHEET THAT I EXAMINED. >> AND DOES IT APPEAR IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH AS IT APPEARED TO YOU WHEN YOU EXAMINED IT IN YOUR LAB STORY? >> YES. >> NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR. >> OKAY. OBJECTION? IT MAY BE MARKED. >> IT WILL BE 2 IN THIS SERIES, YOUR HONOR. >> ALL RIGHT. THIS WILL BE A THEN. >> WHAT'S GOING ON NOW IS HE IS GETTING A WILL THE OF PHOTOGRAPHS IDENTIFIED PROBABLY FOR LATER USE WITH LATER WITNESSES. SO LITTLE TEDIOUS LAYING THE FOUNDATION BUT IT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE DONE. >> -- MASTER BEDROOM, WERE YOU ABLE TO FORM INTAKE THAT SHEET IN RELATION TO THE BED AND IN PARTICULAR THE HEAD BOARD? >> YES, I WAS. >> DID YOU THEN MARKER IN FRONT OF YOU AS YOU DID WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS USING THE INITIALS HB AND PUT AN ARROW TO INDICATION THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD BOARD IN RELATION TO THAT SHEET ON THE BEAD WHEN YOU SAW IT IN JANUARY 2006? IF I CAN DISPLAY IT BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. >> YES. >> AND SECOND PHOTOGRAPH IN FRONT OF YOU, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? >> IT'S PORTION OF THE FITTED SHEET WHERE THERE IS A HEAVY, RED/BROWN STAIN. A CONTACT TRANSFER STAIN. >> AND DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATE SHOW THAT AREA OF THAT STAIN ON THAT SHEET AS IT APPEARED TO YOU WHEN YOU EXAMINED THAT ITEM IN THE LABORATORY? >> YES. >> YOUR HONOR? >> ANY OBJECTION? OKAY. THAT WILL BE B, PLEASE. 75-B. >> NUMBER 75-B MARKED. >> MA'AM, IF YOU COULD, STEP DOWN WITH THE POINTER PLEASE. AND INDICATE IF YOU WOULD FIRST OF ALL THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD BOARD IN REFERENCE TO THAT SHEET 75-A FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR. >> THE DIRECTION OF THE HEAD BOARD IS INDICATED BY THE ARROW HERE. WHERE THE HEAD BOARD IS IN THIS DIRECTION. >> SO UP AS IT APPEARS ON THE SCREEN? >> YES. >> AND THE PHOTOGRAPH NOW MARKED 75-B, JUST CIRCLE OR POINT TO THE AREA THAT THAT STAIN DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH REPRESENTS ON 75-A. >> THIS STAINING HERE, THE HEAVY RED/BROWN STAIN THAT'S DEPICTED IN THE NEXT PHOTO. >> AND THERE WAS WITH THE STAND? >> IF I COULD JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE I'M THROUGH. >> YES. >> HE SAYS HE BELIEVES HE IS THROUGH. TIME FOR MID-MORNING BREAK RIGHT NOW IN COURT AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND GIVES YOU A MOMENT TO SEND ME AN E-MAIL. JUST GO TO CNN.COM/CRIME. CLICK ON BEST DEFENSE OR E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY AT BESTDEFENSE@CNN.COM AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." COURT IS TAKING THE MID-MORNING BREAK GIVING US A CHANCE TO GO OUT THERE TO BETH KARAS. BETH, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE DNA AND METICULOUS "CSI" CRIME SCENE ANALYSIS STUFF, BUT WHAT STRIKES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE IS THE GUN. AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, I WANT THERE TO BE 6 BILLION POSSIBLE SUSPECTS. OR, YOU KNOW, 5 BILLION AND THE LIKE. ONCE YOU HAVE THE MURDER WEAPON, THE GUN, THERE'S A VERY NARROW POOL OF PEOPLE WHO KNEW ABOUT THAT GUN AND WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THE UNIVERSE IS VERY NARROW. THIS IS NOT A GUN TAKEN OFF THE STREETS THAT COULD HAVE CHANGED HANDS MANY TIMES AND MANY PEOPLE UNIDENTIFIED. THE USERS OF OF THAT GUN ARE KNOWN. JOE AND HIS SONS. HE USED TO TAKE EVERY WEEKEND, EVERY SATURDAY TO THE GUN CLUB. ANTHONY AND ZACH. WERE THE ONES THAT USED IT. BUT THE WEEKEND -- THE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS, IT WAS ANTHONY AND HIS OLDER SON MICHAEL WHO WENT TO THE GUN CLUB WITH HIM AND THAT GUN AMONG OTHERS WAS BROUGHT ALONG FOR TARGET SHOOTING, AND THEY USED THAT GUN THE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS AND ANTHONY WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO CLEAN GUNS AND WHEN THEY GOT HOME, ANTHONY CLEANED THE GUNS USED BUT CLEARLY DIDN'T CLEAN EVERYTHING OFF OF THEM. BECAUSE THEY GOT RACHEL'S DNA OFF THE MUZZLE. WE DON'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF IT YET. MIGHT BE BRAIN MATTER. TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. THAT COMES LATER IN THE NEXT DAY OR SO. >> RANDY ZELLEN, A FORMER PROSECUTOR, THIS IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT CASE TO DEFEND, IS IT SNOT. >> SOMEONE FAR WISER THAN I SAID IT'S UNTRIABLE. YET IT'S TRIED. IT IS BEING TRIED. TO ME THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT TO GET ACROSS TO THE JURY. WHY AM I HEAR AS A DEFENDANT? MY GOD, IF I WERE SO DEAD, WHY DID I BOTHER ENTERING A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY AND GOING TO TRIAL? START MAKING THEM THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING MORE TO THIS CASE OR WHY WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME? >> OKAY. BROTHER EDENBURG, MY CRIMINAL DEFENSE COLLEAGUE, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT AS A FORM OF STRATEGY? I HAVE TO BE INNOCENT OTHERWISE THE TSUNAMI OF EVIDENCE WOULDN'T EXIST? >> WELL, I THINK THAT THIS GOES RIGHT ALONG WITH WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SAID IN THE OPENING STATEMENT AND THE OPENING STATEMENT IS VERY CONSISTENTLY PROVEN THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE SAID FIRST OF ALL THINGS DON'T APPEAR AS THEY ALWAYS FIRST APPEAR TO BE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> AND HE ALSO SAID DURING THE COURSE OF HIS OPENING STATEMENT, DON'T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS. IF THINGS WERE AS CLEAR AS THE PROSECUTION IS TRYING TO MAKE IT BE, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. THINGS ARE NOT AS CLEAR AS THE PROSECUTOR IS TRYING TO MAKE IT SEEM. >> WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. HE DID INDEED SAY THAT. BUT HE HAS YET TO SHOW US AND HE MAY VERY WELL IN PART OF THE DEFENSE JOB TO SHOW US WHERE THOSE ASPECTS OF UNCLARITY, UNCLEARNESS, HAPPEN TO BE. PROSECUTORS, THEY'RE METICULOUSLY BUILDING THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY THERE'S NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CONNECTIONING THE CLIENT TO THE CRIME. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN CROSS-EXAMINED FORENSIC JOHN SOURCE ABOUT BLOOD TESTS PERFORMED IN ENTWISTLE'S BMW AND WHERE THE DEFENSE TOOK THE BEST SHOT. >> EACH OF THOSE AREAS YOU WERE LOOKING TO FIND BLOOD STAINING? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WITH YOUR OWN EYES? >> YES, SIR. >> WHAT DO YOU SEE WITH BLOOD? ANY OF THE SPECIALIZED TESTING? >> THAT IS RIGHT. >> EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE CAME UP NO BLOOD? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. RANDY ZELLEN, SO WHAT? >> SOMETIMES SO WHAT IS WHAT YOU NEED BECAUSE, AGAIN, IF IT'S SO OBVIOUS, WHY AM I HERE? THEN YOU START THROWING IN THAT -- MY GOD, I WOULD KILL MY WIFE AND THEN FORGET ABOUT THAT, GOING TO KILL MY OWN CHILD? THERE WAS TESTIMONY AS I UNDERSTAND IT MAKING HIM OUT TO BE A PRETTY GOOD FATHER. HOW COULD I KILL MY OWN FLESH AND BLOOD? >> RIGHT. BUT BROTHER ETTENBURG, HE HAS TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND DOES HE NOT TO CONVEY THE SENSE I WAS A LOVING FATHER? I WOULD NEVER, NFR -- THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN SEEING MY WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER DEAD, YOU KNOW, WORSE THAN THAT IS TO BE HERE. IN THIS COURTROOM ACCUSED OF KILLING THEM. HE HAS TO DO THAT, RIGHT? >> I DON'T THINK SO. NUMBER ONE, HE'S GIVEN A LOT OF STATEMENTS ALREADY TO THE POLICE. THERE ARE PHONE CALL THAT IS HAVE BEEN MADE. THERE'S A LOT OF HIS OWN TESTIMONY SORT TO SPEAK CONCERNING HIS WHEREABOUTS AND THINGS THAT HE DID. I DON'T THINK THAT IF HE GETS ON THE STAND THAT HE THEN PUTS HIS CREDIBILITY DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH THE EVIDENCE. AND THE JURY GETS TO DIRECTLY SIZE UP HIM WITH THE EVIDENCE AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY NEED TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT THE DEFENSE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS TO SHOW THAT THINGS ARE NOT THE WAY THEY FIRST APPEAR TO BE AND THERE'S A LACK OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, ACTUALLY TYING HIM RIGHT IN THAT ROOM AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE FOCUS IS GOING TO BE IF YOU PUT NEIL ENTWISTLE UP ON THE STAND, THEN THE FOCUS BECOMES NEIL ENTWISTLE AND NOTHING ELSE AND COULD BE DAMAGING. >> BETH KARAS, I'M CURIOUS, AGAIN, WITH THIS THEME OF THIS PARTICULAR TRIAL. MASSACHUSETTS DOESN'T HAVE A DEATH PENALTY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IS IT FAIR TO DEPOSIT IF THEY HAD THE DEATH PENALTY AND THIS WOULD BE THE KIND OF CASE THAT A DEATH PENALTY PROSECUTOR WOULD SEEK THE DEATH PENALTY, DOUBLE MURDER, TOTALLY INNOCENT VICTIMS, ONE OF THEM BEING A LITTLE BABY, A PLEA WOULD BE MUCH MORE LIKELY THAN IT WOULD BE IN A CASE WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY, NO? >> RIGHT. HE'S FACING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE RIGHT NOW. BUT YOU KNOW, A PLEA -- IF THEY WERE TO GIVE HIM SECOND DEGREE IN THIS CASE, WITH TWO VICTIMS HE IS STILL GOING TO DO A MINIMUM OF 28 YEARS BEFORE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE. I THINK A PLEA IS MORE LIKELY IF THE DEATH PENALTY IS AN ALTERNATIVE BUT I'M TOLD BY A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE, ASKED THIS WHY NO PLEA. WHAT'S HE GOT TO DO LOOSE? LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. WHAT'S TO LOSE? JUST SO YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T TIE HIM FORENSICALLY, DIDN'T FEEL SATISFIED ABOUT SOMETHING PROBLEM CAUSE UNTIL FEBRUARY 7th WHEN THE DNA RESULTS CAME BACK AND THE DNA ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN AND THAT'S WHEN THEY IMMEDIATELY GOT THE ARREST WEREN'T FOR ENGLAND AND ARRESTED ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY. >> THE PROBLEM BECOMES THE FIREARM USED IN THE KILLING. THERE WERE SO FEW PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO IT AND THE PROSECUTION DID A FAIRLY GOOD JOB ELIMINATING JOSEPH AND OTHERS AS SUSPECTS. >> 100% THAT'S PART OF WHAT MAKES THIS CASE UNTRIABLE AND WHAT MAKES IT ALSO EXTRAORDINARILY INTERESTING GOING BACK TO EARLIER POINT, DOES HE TESTIFY? TESTIFIES, EXPLAINS THE WHEREABOUTS OF EVENING OF JANUARY 19th THROUGH THE TIME WHEN HIS CAR IS AT THE AIRPORT. VERY DANGEROUS. HE'S TRYING TO WIN IT OR TRYING THE CASE TO SET UP ASNEEL. >> PETER, YOU KNOW, LOOK. THE FACT THAT AN INNOCENT PERSON SEES HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER DEAD, THERE'S A MYRIAD OF POSSIBLE REACTIONS. WE HOPE THEY'D IMMEDIATELY CALL THE POLICE AND WAIT THERE. I COULD SEE SOMEBODY HAVING A TOTAL PSYCHOTIC BREAK AT THAT MOMENT AND BASICALLY RUNNING HOME TO MOM WHICH HAPPENS TO BE IN ENGLAND. THAT IS NOT INEXPLICABLE, RIGHT? >> OH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK THAT TO TRY AND GET INSIDE SOMEBODY'S HEAD WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE CLEAR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS, PRESENTED, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT A PERSON IS GOING TO DO. YOU CAN'T KNOW HOW A PERSON REACTS IN A CERTAIN SITUATION. THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK DURING THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEO WHETHER THE POLICE MADE THE VIDEO OF DISCOVERING THE BODIES AND WHAT ROUTES THEY WENT THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE AND THERE WAS A LOT MADE OF NEIL'S REACTIONS WHETHER HE WAS LAUGHING OR CRYING OR SMIRKING. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL HOW SOMEBODY'S GOING TO REACT AND IN THIS CASE, WHAT NEIL DID OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT IT IS GOT ON A PLANE AND WENT BACK TO THE FAMILY IN ENGLAND WHERE THE SANCTUARY WAS AT LEAST IN HIS MIND AND ONE OTHER POINT, WHEN YOU ASK ABOUT HIS -- WHETHER HE'S GOING TO TESTIFY OR WHETHER HE SHOULD TESTIFY, AND GET UP AND SAY THAT HE'S A GOOD PERSON OR A GOOD FATHER, THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN LAW A NUMBER OF WITNESSES WITH CONTACT WITH HIM THAT HE IN FACT WAS A VERY GOOD FATHER. THAT HE WAS A DOTING HUSBAND. HE WAS A DOTING PARENT. HE WAS CARING, COMPASSIONATE. HE WOULD -- CHILD WAS THE LIGHT OF HIS LIFE. AND THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR HIM TO WANT TO KILL THESE TWO PEOPLE. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL AGREE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THAT. I THINK THE POWER OF NEIL ENTWISTLE TRYING TO REACH A JUROR WITH THE SINCERITY, I THINK THAT COULD BE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL. WE'LL SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT. SINCE THE TRIAL OPENED THIS MONTH, MANY OF YOU WRITING IN WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE AND YOU'VE ASKED AND WE'LL ANSWER NOW. FIRST UP, JOSE IN OHIO WRITES -- BETH? WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT? >> WELL, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW HIM TO COME UP BUT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAS PROBABLY ASKED FOR SPECIAL PERMISSION FOR HIS CLIENT TO COME UP TO THE BENCH. WHY HE WANTS TO DO THIS, MAYBE HE WANTS HIM TO BE, YOU KNOW, INVOLVED IN EVERY ASPECT OF THE CASE. THIS JUDGE'S PRACTICE NOT TO HEAR ANY ARGUMENTS OR SHE DOESN'T HEAR THE BASIS FOR OBJECTIONS IN FRONT OF JURY. NO ARGUMENTS AND EVEN OUT OF THE ROOM, A LOT OF THINGS DONE AS SIDE BAR SO IF ENTWISTLE TO PARTICIPATE, HE'LL GO UP TO THE BENCH. >> A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT ALL PARTS OF YOUR TRIAL, MATERIALLY AFFECTING THE A IBLT TO DEFEND. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE CONTENT OF THE BENCH CONFERENCE, IF EVIDENCE OR SOMETHING IS DISCUSSED, YOUR ABSENCE MAY INFRINGE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. NEXT UP, MARY BETH IN MASSACHUSETTS, SHE ASKS -- YEAH. BETH, WHY IS THAT? WE HAVE COVER ADD NUMBER OF CASES IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE THERE ARE LITERALLY SORT OF STANDING THERE ALL THE TIME. WHY SITTING HERE? >> RIGHT. IN BARN STABL IN OCTOBER OF 2006 WHEN I WAS THERE AT THE McCOWAN CASE, EVERY WITNESS HAD TO STAND EXCEPT FOR AN ELDERLY MAN ALLOWED TO SIT. THAT WAS JUST A PRACTICE IN THE COURT DOWN THERE ON THE CASE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN MOST COURTS AROUND MASSACHUSETTS, WE COVER THEM WHERE THEY STAND, THEY SIT. MY SISTER IS AN ATTORNEY IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE STATE AND NEVER HAD ANY WITNESSES STANDING IN THE COURTROOM SO IT IS MORE THE NORM THAT THEY SIT THAN STAND BUT WE HAVE SEEN A FEW AND THAT'S A PRACTICE THAT GOES BACK TO, YOU KNOW, OUR ENGLISH ROOTS. >> AND THEN, SUSAN ALSO FROM THE BAY STATE, SHE WRITES -- >> TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WE HAVE COVERED THIS, RANDY ZELLEN. WHAT ARE THE AVERAGES? >> THE ADVANTAGE TO NOT PLEADING IS A APPEN APPEAL. YOU COULD GET ACQUITTED. YOU COULD GET A HUNG JURY. DO THEY WANT TO DO IT AGAIN? WHEN YOU PLEAD, THE CASE IS OVER. >> RIGHT. PETER ETTENBURG, YOU ARE A MASSACHUSETTS -- I WILL LEARN TO SAY THAT WORD BEFORE THIS SHOW IS OVER. YOU ARE A MASSACHUSETTS PRACTITIONER. DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY PLEA ON THE TABLE HERE? THAT IS REASONABLE OUTSIDE OF AN OPEN PLEA TO THE TOP COUNTS? I MEAN, WHO -- IT WOULD BE HARD TO OFFER A LESSER SENTENCE IN A CASE LIKE THIS. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PLEA EITHER ON THE TABLE OR ONE THAT IS FORTHCOMING. AT THE BEGINNING OF A TRIAL, AFTER ALL OR THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE OF ALL OF THE DISCOVERY HAS BEEN EXCHANGED AN ENTHE PARTIES GET A SENSE OF WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CASE AND WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS, THERE MIGHT BE SOME DISCUSSIONS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE MIGHT BE A LESSER CRIME THAT THE DEFENDANT COULD PLEAD GUILTY TO. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BUT I ALSO HAVE TO AGREE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THERE IS NOTHING TO LOSE GOING TO TRIAL. YOU DO SET UP ISSUES FOR APPEAL AND, IN FACT, THE POSSIBILITY IS THAT YOU GET A MISTRIAL BY A HUNG JURY OR ACQUITTAL. I THINK IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEARLY YOU HAVE GOT TO JUST GO TO TRIAL. >> RIGHT, RIGHT. SOME JUROR DECIDES IF THERE'S THIS MUCH EVIDENCE, CAN'T ALL BE POSSIBLY BE TRUE AND NOT GUILTY. CAN ALWAYS HAPPEN. FINELY -- BETH? >> WELL, NOT FINGERPRINTS BUT DNA. DNA IS ON THE GRIP. WE'LL HEAR THAT AND HE DID USE THAT GUN AT LEAST ONE OF THE TWO TIMES IF NOT BOTH TIMES. IT WAS HIS WEAPON OF CHOICE ACCORDING TO JOE. THERE WERE OTHER GUNS THAT HE OWNED THAT HE COULD HAVE CHOSEN FROM SO THE DNA IS ON THE GRIP. THERE IS AN EXPLANATION FOR IT. BUT THERE'S NO EXPLANATION FOR HOW RACHEL'S DNA, NEVER HANDLED THE GUNS. THIS IS HER STEPFATHER. NOT LIVING IN THE HOUSE EXCEPT FOR A THREE-MONTH PERIOD. NO EVIDENCE SHE WENT TO THE GUN CLUB OR TOUCHED THE GUNS. THE SOURCE OF HER DNA, I THINK THE BROWN GEL-LIKE SUBSTANCE, COULD BE BRAIN MATTERMENT HOW IT GOT ON THE GUN. >> THE FACT HE USED THE GUN IS NOT AS SIGNIFICANT AS HE KNEW WHERE THE GUN WAS, KNEW HOW TO LOCATE IT AND THERE WERE VERY, VERY FEW PEOPLE IN THAT POSITION. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A VERY QUICK BREAK. FIRST, "DES BEFS" LEGAL FLASH BACK. IT CAME TO A CLOSE WITH A SURPRISING ACQUITTAL. >> I THINK THE TRUE MESSAGE IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THEMSELVES UNDER JUSTIFIABLY CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT'S WHAT GETZ WAS NOW ALL OVER. HE IS ACQUITTED. AND IT'S FINISHED. >> WELL, IT WASN'T OVER. GETZ HAILED BY SOME AS THE SUBWAY VIGILANTE FOUND NOT GUILTY FOR THE ATTEMPTED MURDER. HE CLAIMED HE SHOT THEM IN SELF DEFENSE BUT PROSECUTORS ALLEGE THE 39-YEAR-OLD BEATEN AND MUGGED WAS LOOKING FOR A CONFRONTATION. HE WAS CONVICTED OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS POSSESSION AND NEARLY A DECADE LATER, I SUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED ONE OF THE SHOOTING VICTIMS WHO WAS PARALYZED IN THE INCIDENT. IN A CIVIL CASE. AGAINST GOETZ. THAT'S THE FLASHBACK AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." THE PERSONS ARE ARRIVING. BETH KARAS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL UP FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. HE HAS AN AWFULLY BIG JOB HE HAS TO DO HERE, DOESN'T HE? >> WELL, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW THE RESULTS OF A LOT OF THE TESTS SHE DID. HOWEVER, HE'S GOING TO CHALLENGE THE WAY SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE. SHE COLLECTED SOME -- SOME SWABS AFTER THE ITEM HAD BEEN HANDLED AT THE LAB AND HAD BEEN TESTED FOR FINGERPRINTS SO HE MAY HAVE SOME ISSUE WITH THAT. CONTAMINATION. I DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE A LOT OF ITEMS SHE DID EXAMINE. BOTH AT THE LAB AND IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. HE HAD ATTACKED A COLLEAGUE PRETTY STRONGLY SHORT OF CROSS-EXAMINATION BUT PRETTY STRONG. AND MARY RICHIE, ALSO. I EXPECT HE'LL SPEND TIME WITH THIS WITNESS. >> WE'LL FIND OUT RIGHT NOW, BETH, WHETHER YOUR SUSPICIONS ARE CORRECT. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAS JUST STARTED. LET'S GO INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND LISTEN. >> AND THAT'S THE SAME FRAME OF MIND THAT YOU BRING TO ALL OF THE WORK YOU DO FOR THE STATE POLICE? >> YES. >> AND THAT'S THE SAME STATE OF MIND THAT YOU BROUGHT WHEN YOU FIRST GOT INVOLVED IN THIS INVESTIGATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU WERE FIRST INVOLVED IN THIS INVESTIGATION BACK IN JANUARY 2006? >> YES. >> AND YOUR FIRST INVOLVED AT A MEETING AT THE HUFFINGTON POLICE STATION? >> YES. >> A MEETING INCLUDED NUMBERS OF STATE POLICE OFFICERS? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HUFFINGTON POLICE OFFICERS? >> YES. >> OTHER MEMBERS FROM YOUR UNIT, THE CRIME SERVICES OF THE LABORATORY? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> AN ENIN PARTICULAR, YOUR PRIMARY PARTNER THAT EVENING WAS JOHN SOURCE? >> YES. >> YOU HAD A MEETING AT THE POLICE STATION TO DISCUSS GENERALLY WHAT YOUR MISSION WOULD BE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AN ENTO WAIT FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT TO BE COMPLETED. >> YOU GENERALLY DISCUSSED WHAT YOU MIGHT BE FINDING BACK AT THE HOME,? >> JUST GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT -- INFORMATION THAT HAD COME ABOUT SO FAR. >> GENERALLY? >> GENERALLY, YES. >> SO THAT YOU HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHAT YOU WOULD DO WHEN YOU FINALLY GOT INTO THE HOUSE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. YOU WERE OPEN MINDED AS TO WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND? >> YES. WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT TO EXPECT. >> AND YOU WERE OPEN AS TO WHERE THIS INVESTIGATION WOULD LEAD YOU? >> YES. >> YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR IDEA WHO MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF THE TWO BODIES THAT YOU KNEW WERE BACK IN THAT HOME. >> NO. NOT AT THAT TIME. >> AND YOU TOOK SOME NOTES ABOUT WHAT YOU WERE DOING THAT EVENING? >> YES. >> AND IN FACT, IT WAS YOUR PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DOCUMENT WHAT WAS GOING ON BETWEEN YOURSELF AND MR. SORES? >> YES. >> IN OTHER WORDS, YOU ALSO DID YOUR OWN SCIENTIFIC WORK BUT AS BETWEEN YOU AND SORES, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO WERE KEEPING THE FIELD NOTE? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU BEGAN THOSE FIELD NOTES, DID YOU NOTE, BACK AT THE HUFFING ON THE POLICE STATION? >> YES. >> AND WHICH YOU IDENTIFIED WHO IT WAS THAT YOU WERE SPEAKING WITH. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHERE IT WAS THAT YOU'D BE GOING? >> YES. >> AND SOME INFORMATION -- A CASE NUMBER, AN INDEX NUMBER FOR WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ENTER ALL OF THE INFORMATION INTO THE RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM? >> I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAD THE LOG NUMBER AT THIS TIME. >> YOU LEFT THE POLICE STATION WITH THE HEADING OF THOSE FIELD NOTES ALREADY FILLED IN? >> YES. THE MAJORITY OF THEM, YES. >> AND WITH AN OPEN MIND, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YET, YOU WROTE DOWN THAT THE SUSPECT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. DIDN'T YOU? >> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS FILLED AT THAT TIME. >> YOU WROTE DOWN NEIL ENTWISTLE AND FIRST TIME YOU WROTE HIS NAME YOU MISSPELLED IT N-E-A-L. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND CROSS IT OUT AND WROTE IN THE CORRECT SPELLING AND WITH YOUR INITIALS AND DATE WHERE YOU MADE THE SCRATCH OUT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU DID THAT ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2006. YES? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE OTHER THAN THAT HE WAS THE HUSBAND OF RACHEL AND THE FATHER OF LILLIAN. >> THE INVESTIGATORS GAVE US SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION AT THAT TIME. >> AN YOU WROTE IN YOUR OBJECTIVE FIELD NOTES ON THAT EARLY MORNING THAT THE SUSPECT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT COLORED YOUR THINKING THROUGHOUT THIS INVESTIGATION, DIDN'T IT? >> NO, IT DID NOT. >> LET'S FIND OUT. YOU WENT TO THE HOME. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ENTERED THE HOME. >> YES. >> WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOME, WAS THERE MUSIC PLAYING? >> YES. THERE WAS. >> YOU COULD HEAR IT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOME, IT WAS THE FIRST AREA YOU WENT WAS UP TO THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> YES. THE SECOND LEVEL. YES. >> AND YOU GOT TO THE SECOND LEVEL, YOU COULD DETECT AS YOU HAVE TOLD US EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY JUST A FAINT ODOR. >> I DON'T BELIEVE I SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE ODOR. >> WELL, WAS THERE A FAINT ODOR WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SECOND FLOOR. >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T RECALL. >> YOU DON'T? >> IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, THERE WAS. NOT AT THE SECOND LEVEL, I DON'T. >> OKAY. SO YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO DETECT ANY ODOR UNTIL YOU GOT INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> NO. THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. >> SORRY. >> AND WHEN YOU WENT IN TO THE MASTER BEDROOM, YOUR PURPOSE FIRST TO LOOK AROUND? >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> I THINK YOU CALL IT YOUR FIRST VISUAL OBSERVATIONS WHICH IS KIND OF REDUNDANT BUT YOU LOOK AND YOU SEE. >> EXACTLY, YEP. >> AND YOU DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHAT IT IS THAT YOU NEED TO DO TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH CRIME SCENE EXAMINATION. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> YOU TALK ABOUT IT. DID YOU NOT, WITH MR. SORES. >> YES. >> AND DO YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE -- YOU'RE GOING TO DO TOGETHER WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT WERE THERE? >> WE DON'T NECESSARILY SHARE WITH THEM WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO. EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN DUTIES AT THE SCENE SO WE JUST TALK AMONGST OURSELVES WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. >> SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU THINK BACK ON GOING IN TO THE HOME THAT EARLY MORNING, WAS WHETHER LAW ENFORCEMENT, THE STATE POLICE, ASKED YOU TO DO ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> I'M SORRY. I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING -- >> IT WASN'T -- I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. >> I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING SPECIFIC. >> IT WASN'T TROOPERS -- STATE TROOPERS' JOB TO TELL YOU THE SCIENTIST WHAT TO LOOK FOR, WAS IT? >> NO. THAT'S CORRECT. >> HAD THEIR GIVEN SOME INPUT, YOU WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> AND YOU WOULD HAVE MADE AN INDEPENDENT DECISION WHETHER IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD FURTHER THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT MADE SENSE TO YOU, YOU WOULD DO IT? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> IF IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE, YOU WOULDN'T? >> YES. GENERALLY. >> AND YOU DON'T REMEMBER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TODAY WHETHER THE STATE POLICE ASKED YOU OR TOLD YOU TO DO ANYTHING IN THE MASTER BEAD ROOM? >> NO. I DON'T RECALL IF THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED ME TO DO SOMETHING. >> PHOTOGRAPH THE ROOM? >> THAT'S NOT DONE BY -- THAT'S NOT DONE BY ME. THAT'S DONE BY THE TROOPERS. >> DOES THAT DONE BEFORE YOU DID ANY WORK? >> YES, IT WAS. >> AND EXAMINATION OF THE ROOM FOR POSSIBLE FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE? THAT WAS DONE? >> THAT WAS ALSO CONDUCTED BY THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES UNIT. >> BEFORE YOU WENT AND ACTUALLY STARTED TO -- TO GO THROUGH ANY OF THE ITEMS IN THE ROOM ITSELF? >> I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE IF THY DID FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS THERE BUT, YEAH, THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT BEFORE WE DID ANY EXAMINATION. >> SO THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS THAT YOU GET THERE. THE ROOM OR THE AREA IN THIS CASE THE WHOLE HOUSE WUSZ PHOTOGRAPHED. YES? >> YES. >> AND IN PARTICULAR, THE FIRST ROOM EXAMINED WAS THAT MASTER BEDROOM. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT WAS PHOTOGRAPHED? >> YES. >> AND BEFORE YOU AND MR. SORES DID ANY OF YOUR WORK, THE FINGERPRINT UNIT DID ITS WORK. >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> AND THEN YOU AND MR. SORES WENT AT IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU SAW, DID YOU NOT, THAT THERE WAS A MASTER OR A BED AND IT WAS COVERED WITH A WHITE COMFORTER? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER ANYBODY HAD TOUCHED ANYTHING ON THE BED BEFORE YOU GOT THERE. DID YOU? NO. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> ALL RIGHT. NONE OF THE POLICE TOLD YOU WHETHER THEY HAD TOUCHED ANYTHING, DID THEY? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. JUST THAT SOMEONE HAD WENT INTO THE HOUSE. THAT WAS ABOUT THE EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT THE POLICE HAD GONE ON ONE DAY AND DIDN'T FIND ANYBODY THERE IN THE BEDROOM? >> YES. WE DID KNOW THAT AT THAT TIME. >> AND DID YOU KNOW THAT SOME WOMEN, SISTERS WHO WERE FRIENDS HAD BEEN IN THE HOUSE ON AND OFF THROUGHOUT SUNDAY, THE 22nd? >> YES. >> DID YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANY NEIGHBORS HAD BEEN IN? >> I THINK JUST -- THEY WERE CATEGORIZED AS FRIENDS. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY LIVED SO -- >> AND AT SOME POINT, THE POLICE WENT AND ON A SECOND LOOK THROUGH, ACTUALLY FOUND THE BODIES. >> YES. I BELIEVE SO. TOOK MORE THAN ONCE. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES BUT -- >> NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THE MASTER BEDROOM, THERE WAS NO WAY TO CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS IN THE EXACT SAME CONDITION AS IT WAS WHETHER RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE SHOT. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN RACHEL AND LIL I DON'T KNOW WERE SHOT. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THE FIRST COVERING, THE COMFORTER, DID YOU -- WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THAT WAS FIRST REMOVED? >> YES, I WAS. AND YOU LOOKED AT IT AND DID YOU DO ANYTHING SCIENTIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE WHITE COMFORTER? >> YES. WE DOCUMENTED WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED, AFTER AND I BELIEVE SORES DID SCREENING TESTS FOR PRESENCE OF BLOOD ON THE COMFORTER. >> NOW, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING? ON THE COMFORTER? >> THERE WERE RED/BROWN STAINS ON THE UNDERSIDE OF THE COMFORTER, YES. >> ON THE UNDERSURFACE? >> YES. >> ON THE OUTER SURFACE. >> ONLY ONE AT A TIME PLEASE. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S START WHERE YOU STARTED. WHICH WAS THE OUTER SURFACE. >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING VISIBLE TO YOU THERE OR TO MR. SORES FROM WHAT YOU REMEMBER? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND ON THE UNDERSIDE, THERE WAS RED/BROWN STAINING THAT WAS TESTED? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, YOU KNOW THE TERM TRANSFERENCE OR CONTACT STAINING? >> YES, I DO. >> NOW, AND THAT IS SOMETHING'S ON TOP OF SOMETHING THAT'S WET WITH BLOOD, THAT WOULD TRANSFER THE BLOOD ON TO THE OTHER SURFACE. >> YES. THAT'S -- IT'S THE OTHER SURFACE ON THE STAIN, YES. >> YES. >> GOOD, STRONG START ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. DEMONSTRATING AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE WENT TRAMPING THROUGH THAT HOME BEFORE THE SCIENTISTS GOT TO WORK. IT IS TIME FOR A BREAK AND A LOOK AT THE 13th JUROR QUESTION. TODAY, WE WANT TO KNOW, IS THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE HOME HELPING THE PROSECUTION? SO FAR, 90% OF YOU SAY YES AND 10% OF YOU VOTING NO WHICH IS PROBABLY WHY CROSS-EXAMINATION IS FOCUSING ON THIS. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME TO CAST YOUR VOTE. >>> WHAT CAUSED NEIL ENTWISTLE TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY? PANIC OVER FINDING HIS FAMILY DEAD OR TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH THEIR MURDERS? >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." IN THE VERY SHORT BREAK, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WENT TO GREAT PAINS TO ASK HOW CAREFUL SHE HAS BEEN. YOU GET THE SENSE THAT HE'S SETTING HER UP FOR SOMETHING. LET'S GO BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND LISTEN. >> THAT APPEARS TO HAVE A STAINING, DIDN'T IT? >> YES. THEY WERE ORANGE STAINS. >> BUT YOU TESTED IT? >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> TESTED IT TO' IF IT WAS BLOOD. >> YES. >> YOU DID THAT PRESUMPTIVE TEST, THAT OR TO TOLADYNE TEST, DIDN'T YOU? >> YOU. >> YES. AND IT WAS NEGATIVE. >> IT WAS A SCREENING TEST FOR BLOOD. >> THAT TOLD YOU IT WAS NOT BLOOD ON THE CLOTH OF THE TOWEL IN THE MASTER BATHROOM. >> YES. >> AND THEREFORE YOU JUST PUT THAT ASIDE. >> PUT THE TOWEL ASIDE? >> YES. >> YES. >> CERTAINLY DIDN'T INDICATE NOW THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT NEEDED ANY FURTHER ANALYSIS. >> NO. >> BECAUSE WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT IN THE FIRST LEVEL OF INQUIRY THAT MORNING WAS BLOOD STAINING. >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> AND BECAUSE THERE WAS BLOOD STAINING ON SO MANY SURFACES, YOU HAD TO TAKE EACH OF THE ITEMS ONE BY ONE TO REACH THE CONCLUSION WHETHER OR NOT THE RED STAIN THAT IF YOU JUST HAD TO SAY THIS IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID THIS IS BLOOD? >> EXCUSE ME. WHAT? CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? >> YOU KNEW MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THE RED/BROWN STAINING ON THE PILLOW AND SHEETS AND CLOTHING, IT WAS BLOOD? >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT OF THE TWO PEOPLE THAT DIED. >> MOST LIKELY, YES. >> BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STEPS. >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. >> AND THAT'S THE RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL SCIENTIFIC METHOD THAT YOU EMPLOYED. >> YES. >> OKAY. RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL SCIENTIFIC METHOD YOU EMPLOYED NOT JUST IN THE MASTER BEDROOM BUT WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THE ITEM THAT IS YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY. >> YES. >> THERE WAS A GREEN, LONG SLEEVED SHIRT ON TOP OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> SHE WAS WEARING IT, YES. >> AN YOU LOOKED AT THAT. >> I DID. >> AN YOU LOOKED AT IT AND TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS BLOOD ON IT. >> YES. >> AND THERE WAS. >> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO LOOKEDALITY IT FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE. >> NOT AT THAT TIME, NO. >> NO, NO, NO. BUT YOU LOOKED AT IT. >> OH, IN THE LABORATORY? >> YES. >> YES. I DID. IN THE LABORATORY. I'M SORRY. >> WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT IN THE LABORATORY, YOU WERE LOOKING AT IT FOR PURPOSES SEPARATE AND DIFFERENT FROM THE BLOOD/NO BLOOD WORK THAT YOU WERE DOING BACK ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, DID YOU MAKE NOTE WHEN YOU WERE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM ON THAT GREEN SHIRT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE? >> NOT NECESSARILY. -- NO, NO, NO. THE QUESTION IS YOU DID OR YOU DIDN'T. I'LL CRY IT AGAIN. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GREEN SHIRT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, WAS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT YOU LOOKED AND SAW AND SAID TO YOU I BETTER CHECK THIS ITEM FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE. >> NO. NOT AT THAT TIME. >> OKAY. THAT WAS -- THAT WAS TESTING THAT YOU ONLY CHOSE TO DO BACK AT THE LAB. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DID YOU COLLECT ANYTHING OFF OF THE GREEN SHIRT BEFORE YOU LEFT? >> NO. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T EVEN TAKE THE SHIRT. >> NO. THAT'S CORRECT. WE LEFT IT ON THE BODY. >> THAT WAS TO STAY ON HER BODY AND TRAVELED OFF FOR AUTOPSY AND OTHER WORK. >> YES. >> SO THE SHIRT ACTUALLY TRAVELS FROM 6 CUBS PATH OUT AND THEN BACK IN TO YOUR LABORATORY SOMETIME LATER. >> THE -- YES. THE ITEMS ON THE BODY, YES. >> YEAH. >> NOT THE BODIES THEMSELVES. >> AND THAT APPLIED FOR THE CLOTHING THAT CHILD, LILLIAN WAS WEARING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU DO SOME OF THIS ERNL TESTING DETERMINED, YES, THERE WAS BLOOD AND THAT CLOTHING'S NOT TAKEN BY YOU FROM THE HOME ON THE 23rd. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. JUST FOR A FEW MINUTES BUT DON'T GO AWAY. BRICK BY BRICK, PROSECUTORS BUILDING THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS WHEN WE RETURN. >>> A NEW HOUR OF "THE BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." NEAL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE APPEARED TO BE A HAPPY, LOVING COUPLE. PROSECUTORS POINT OUT LOOKS CAN BE DECEIVING IN. THIS CASE THEY SAY THEY WERE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE NEIL MURDERED HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY PROSECUTORS HAVE THE WRONG MAN. THAT ANTI-WHICH ISLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME. JOINING US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE, OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS. ELLIOT WINE STEIN IS DOING A GOOD JOB SHOWING ALL OF US HOW TO CROSS-EXAMINE AN EXPERT WITNESS, ISN'T HE? >> YES, HE IS. LET ME GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE THE BEGINNING WAS COMING FROM WHEN HE WAS ASKING QUESTIONS LIKE YOU WOULDN'T BE TOLD BY THE STATE POLICE WHAT TO DO. SHE IS A FORENSICS SCIENTIST, NOT A TROOPER. SHE WAS LIKE, OH, NO. THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE MATARAZZO FAMILY IS A RETIRED HOMICIDE DETECTIVE WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE. HE HAD BEEN RECENTLY RETIRED AT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS. HIS NAME IS JOE FLAHERTY. WHEN THEY WEREN'T GETTING THE HOPKINTON POLICE TO PAY QUITE AS MUCH ATTENTION ON THEIR MISSING DAUGHTER AS THEY WANTED, IT WAS VERY EARLY, WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS OR SO. THEY CALLED JOE AND SAID CAN YOU HELP OUT? APPARENTLY. THIS IS NOT IN THE TRIAL. HE MADE SOME CALLS AND GOT THE STATE POLICE TO FOCUS A LITTLE BIT. I BELIEVE ONCE THE BODIES WERE FOUND, THE STATE POLICE WEREN'T HEARING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. THEY KNEW SOMETHING WAS AWRY. I THINK THERE IS NO BASIS TO BELIEVE THERE IS ANY TRUTH IN THAT, BUT ELLIOT WINESTEIN IS SUGGESTING MAYBE ED FLAHERTY IS TELLING THEM THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, DEFLECTING ATENSION AWAY FROM JOE MATARAZZO AND ON TO NEIL ANTI-WHICH ISLE. >> AT THE VERY BEGINNING, HE HELPED TO ESTABLISH SHE MAY HAVE HAD A BIAS BELIEVING NEIL ANTI-WHICH ISLE. >> THEN YOU MOVED ON TO STAINING ON THE WALL? >> YES. >> HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND EXAMINING STAINS ON THE WALL? >> APPROXIMATELY HALF HOUR, PROBABLY HALF HOUR TO 45 MINUTES. >> COULD YOU SEE THOSE STAIN? >> YES. >> DID YOU NEED A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO SEE THEM? >> NO. A MICROSCOPE TO EVALUATE THEM? >> NO. >> THEY WERE THERE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU COULD SEE THEM WHEN YOU WALKED IN. >> NO. WE DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN WE WALKED IN. >> WHEN YOU GOT TO THE BED. >> NO. THEY WERE IN THE CORNER OF THE ROOM. >> WASN'T UNTIL YOU MOVED FROM THE BED AND BEGAN A WIDER EXAMINATION OF THE ROOM THAT YOU NOTICED THERE WAS BLOOD SPLATTER ON TWO WALL SURFACES IN. >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> AGAIN, IT LOOKED LIKE BLOOD BECAUSE IT HAD THAT RED-BROWN STAIN. >> YES. >> YOU NEEDED TO TAKE THE RIG RUSE STEPS OF A CRIME ANALYSIS TO DO THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTING. >> YES. >> AND ULTIMATELY THE CONFI CONFIRMATORY TESTING. >> YES. >> AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS YOU COULD SAY AND OFFER YOUR OPINION THAT IT WAS, IN FACT, BLOOD STAIN ON THE WALL? >> YES, THAT IS TRUE. >> THAT IS WHAT YOU DID. CAREFUL AND METICULOUS AS YOU CAN BE? >> YES. >> DID YOU GO INTO THE CLOSET AREA OF THE MASTER BEDROOM? >> YES, WE DID. >> DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING OF EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE? >> NO. THAT IS CORRECT. >> THEN YOU WENT TO THE BATHROOM AFTER THAT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BEFORE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS WERE, WHICH ROOM WE WENT IN. >> TODAY YOU DON'T REMEMBER -- I'M ASKING ABOUT THE MASTER BATHROOM. >> OH, OKAY. YES. >> IS THE SEQUENCE CORRECT AS I'VE ASKED YOU OR IS IT DIFFERENT AS YOU REMEMBER IT? >> I DON'T RECALL WHETHER WE LOOKED IN THE CLOSET FIRST BEFORE THE BATHROOM OR AFTER. >> BUT YOU DO RECALL UPON ENTERING THE BATHROOM YOU SAW A TOWEL THAT MAY BE BLOOD, TESTED, NOT BLOOD. >> YES. >> THEN YOU LOOKED ON OTHER SURFACES AS WELL. >> YES. THAT'S TRUE. VISIBLY, YES. >> DIDN'T DO ANY OTHER KIND OF TESTING? >> CORRECT. >> THERE WAS OTHER TESTING THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD? >> NO JUST WHAT WE DO AT THE LABORATORY, YES. >> WHAT TESTS DID YOU USE TO SEARCH FOR THE PRESENCE OF AL COLT BLOOD. >> WE DIDN'T DO ANY TESTING FOR THE BLOOD YOU ARE SPEAKING OF. WE USE THE SAME TACK TO TEST FOR BOTH. >> YOU USED THE TOLATHYADINE. >> RIGHT. >> THAT'S FOR STUFF YOU SAW RED-BROWN STAINING ON, RIGHT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> BUT THERE ARE AREAS THAT MIGHT HAVE EXHIBITED SIGNS OF NONVISIBLE BLOOD. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IT'S CORRECT, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU DIDN'T TEST THOSE AREAS TO DETECT THE PRESENCE OF NONVISIBLE BLOOD? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU MOVED ALL THE COVERING BACK AT THE BED AND RACHEL'S LEFT ARM WAS EXTENDED OUT. >> YES. >> A FULL EXTENSION, WASN'T IT? >> YES. >> INDEX FINGER OF HER LEFT HAND WAS POINTED. >> YES. AT THAT TIME IT WAS UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW. WE COULDN'T SEE IT AT THE TIME. BUT THE RIGHT ARM WAS EXTENDED, YES. >> RIGHT ARM WAS EXTENDED? >> THE RIGHT ARM WAS EXTENDED AROUND THE INFANT. >> THE LEFT ARM WAS EXTENDED. >> LEFT ARM. >> LEFT. EXTENDED. >> IT WAS UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW EXTENDED, YES. >> INDEX FINGER POINTING. >> YES. >> OTHER FINGERS CLENCHED UP. >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> RIGHT ARM WRAPPED AROUND CHILD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU COLLECTED SOMETHING OFF OF HER HANDS. >> YES. >> AND YOU USED THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU USED THAT SO YOU COULD USE THE STUBS OF THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT TO COLLECT WHAT MIGHT BE ON HER HANDS. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS THROUGH A PROCESS CALLED THE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. >> YES. >> IS THAT COLLECTION WORK YOU DID OR THAT SORES DID OR DID YOU DO IT TOGETHER? >> I BELIEVE JOHN SORES PHYSICALLY COLLECTED THE STUBS FROM THE HAND. >> YOU CAN'T SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOMETHING OF SIGNIFICANCE, THAT'S WHY YOU TAKE THE STUBS. >> YES. >> YOU CAN'T SEE WHERE THE NAKED EYE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SOMETHING ON HER HANDS, THAT'S WHY YOU USE THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT. >> YES. >> AND THAT'S WHAT HE DID. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU WATCHED HIM. >> YES. >> HE COLLECTED OFF OF EACH HAND. >> YES. >> AND PUT THE TEST STUBS INTO THE PACKAGING THAT IS PART OF THE KIT, THE EVIDENCE CORRECTION KIT. >> YES, CORRECT. >> EVENTUALLY THAT WORKS ITS WAY FROM HOPKINTON, MASS, TO YOUR LABORATORY? >> YES. WE DELIVERED IT TO THE LAB THAT DAY. >> NOT WORK WITH YOU DO BUT IS DONE IN THE ARSON UNIT? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID YOU DO ANY COLLECTION OFF RACHEL'S GARMENT AT THE SCENE? >> FOR GUN SHOT RESIDUE ANALYSIS? NO. I DID NOT. >> ANY COLLECTION OFF OF THE CHILD AT THE SCENE? >> NO. NOT FOR GUN SHOT RESIDUE. >> OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN BLOOD. >> NO, WE DID NOT. >> SAME QUESTION FOR THE GARMENTS THAT RACHEL WAS WEARING. ONLY THING YOU TESTED AT THE SCENE WAS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN ALL THE OTHER WORK DID YOU WAS DEFERRED TO THE LABORATORY. >> YES. >> HOW LONG WAS IT BEFORE THE TWO BODIES WERE TAKEN FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM AFTER YOU FIRST GOT TO THE HOUSE? >> APPROXIMATELY FIVE HOURS, I THINK, 5 1/2 HOURS. >> WERE YOU THERE WHEN THAT HAPPENED? >> YES, I WAS. >> AS PART OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION PROCEDURES THAT YOU FOLLOWED, IN ADDITION WITH THE COLLECTION OF THOSE STUBS BY SOURCE, IS THERE A BAGGING PROCEDURE OVER THE HANDS? >> THAT WOULD BE DONE BY THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >> SO THAT WASN'T PART OF GSR COLLECTION, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PRACTICE OR PROCEDURE OF THE ME'S? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THEIR PROCEDURES. >> MUCH MORE AFTER A BREAK AND WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS CASE. TRENT IN NORTH CAROLINA WRITES, I REALLY BELIEVE ENTWISTLE TO BE GUILTY AS CAN BE UNTIL TODAY. HAVEN'T EXACTLY CHANGED MY MIND YET, BUT I DO SEE POTENTIAL FOR REASONABLE DOUBT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. WOW, WHAT A DEFENSE TEAM. AND "WHAT HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? WE'VE NOT EVEN HEARD FROM THE DEFENSE YET IT AMAZES ME HOW SO MANY PEOPLE CAN BE POSITIVE ENTWISTLE IS GUILTY BEFORE HEARING ALL OF THE FACTS." >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ELLIOT WINESTEIN CONTINUES. HE IS TAKING THE WITNESS THROUGH MINUTE DETAILS OF GUN SHOT RESIDUE TESTS. NOT SURE WHERE HE IS GOING, BUT I BET HE KNOWS WHERE HE IS GOING. >> IT WAS NEGATIVE FOR COPPER AND NEGATIVE FOR NICKEL. HOLE NUMBER TWO, IF WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED? HOLE NUMBER TWO WAS POSITIVE FOR LEAD, NEGATIVE FOR COPPER AND NECK FOR NICKEL. HOLE NUMBER THREE NEGATIVE FOR LEAD, NEGATIVE FOR COPPER AND NEGATIVE FOR NICKEL. >> DID THAT TELL YOU WHAT TYPE OF ITEM OR OBJECT CAUSED THAT RESIDUE ON THE SHIRT? >> IT JUST INDICATED THE PROJECTILE WAS MADE OF LEAD. >> COULDN'T TELL WHAT THE PROJECTILE CAME FROM? >> CAME FROM IN REFERENCE TO? >> WHEN YOU DID THE TEST, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS FROM A GUN OR A RIFLE? >> YES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> .22 OR .9 MILLIMETER? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> FROM WHAT DISTANCE THE GUN WAS WHEN THE SHOTS WERE DISCHARGED? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OR WHO WAS HOLDING THE GUN. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN FACT, YOU WERE NEVER ABLE TO SAY WHO WAST HOLDING THE GUN, ARE YOU? >> NOT FROM THE CLOTHING, NO. >> DO YOU DO ANY OTHER GUN SHOT RESIDUE TESTING IN CONNECTION WITH THE GRENSHURE? WITH THE PAJAMAS? >> I DID THE SAME TESTS. >> YOU GOT RESULTS THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THERE WAS EVIDENCE ON THE GARMENT A BULLET PASSED THROUGH THE HOLE? >> YES. >> THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE OF ALL THAT YOU DID IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAJAMAS AND A ONESY THAT A BULLET PASSED THROUGH THE HOLE? >> AND THE POSITION IT PASSED THROUGH. >> ON THE ONESIE AND PAJAMAS, THAT'S CONTACT SHOT? >> YES. >> YOU COULDN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WHETHER RESPECT TO RACHEL WHETHER THERE WAS CONTACT SHOT FOR THE HOLES ON THE SHIRT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO KNOW IT WASN'T A CONTACT SHOT FOR THE HOLE IN THE WOUND IN THE FOREHEAD? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO ONE WAS A CONTACT SHOT AND ONE WAS NOT. >> IN REFERENCE TO WHICH ITEM? >> CONTACT SHOT. THE ONE BULLET WOUND TO THE CHILD. >> YES. BUT NO CONTACT SHOT FOR THE WOUND TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE? >> THERE WAS ONE IN HER CHEST AND HER HEAD. >> NEITHER WOUND. >> RIGHT. >> NEITHER WOUND TO RACHEL WAS A CONTACT WOUND, CORRECT? >> YES. >> WHEN YOU FIRST BACK IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, YOU TALKED ABOUT SEEING A PILLOW CASE. >> YES. >> FIRST PILLOW CASE WAS A PILLOW CASE THAT WAS ON TOP OF THE FACE OF THE CHILD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU GAVE THAT IN YOUR TESTIMONY AS PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE OR FOUR? >> FOUR. >> PILLOW CASE NUMBER FOUR HAD THE BLOOD STAINING ON IT, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WOULD BE THE TYPE OF STAIN WE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE EARLIER IS TRANSFER STAINING? >> YES. >> CONTACT ON THE FACE THAT'S BLEEDING OR OTHER PARTS OF THE BODY THAT'S BLEEDING, CAUSING THE STAIN ON TO PILLOW NUMBER FOUR. >> YES. >> BLOOD STAIN ON PILLOW NUMBER FOUR. >> YES. >> DID YOU EXAMINE THAT PILLOW CASE FOR ANYTHING ELSE? >> YES. >> GUN SHOT RESIDUE? >> YES. >> WITH THE TYPE OF PRO DEESE YOU ARES WE'VE GONE THROUGH HERE? WHAT DID YOU GET FOR YOUR RESULT ON PILLOW CASE FOUR? >> THE GRIESE TEST WAS NEGATIVE AND THE TEST FOR LEAD WAS POSITIVE. >> TRANSFER BECAUSE OF WHATEVER WAS ON THE SURFACE WHEN THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE FIRST GETS DEPOSITED GETS TRANSFERRED FROM THE FACE OR WHATEVER BACK TO PILLOW CASE NUMBER FOUR. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE, SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME WORKING ON THAT. >> YES, I DID. >> FAIR TO SAY YOU SPENT MORE TIME ANALYZING PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE THAN PILLOW CASE NUMBER FOUR? >> NO. I WOULDN'T SAY THAT. >> HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND ON EACH THEN? >> ALL IN ALL PROBABLY TWO HOURS ON EACH. >> BECAUSE THOSE PILLOW CASES MIGHT TELL INTERESTED MIND SOMETHING. >> RIGHT. >> YOU AS THE LAB SCIENTIST ARE THERE TO HELP PEOPLE MAKE CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS ON THE PILLOW CASE. >> YES. >> SO YOU TALKED ABOUT SEEING THIS VIPOROUS RESIDUE ON PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHAT I LOOSELY CALLED EARLIER SMOKE STAIN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU LOOKED AT THAT BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS IN FACT RESIDUE FROM A GUN SHOT? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE. >> AND YOU STUDIED IT. >> YES. >> AND YOU WENT THROUGH THE VARIOUS STEPS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT HERE THIS AFTERNOON NOW. >> YES. >> AND THE SAME STEPS YOU TALKED ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE GARMENTS OF LOOKING AND MICROSCOPE, GRIESE TEST PAPER AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> LET'S THEN FOCUS ON WHAT YOU GOT OFF PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE. >> OKAY. >> WHAT YOU GOT WAS A CONCLUSION TO YOURSELF WHAT? THERE WERE LEAD PARTICLES. >> YES, LEAD PARTICLES. >> THAT WAS IN YOUR OPINION COMING FROM A GUN? >> ALL I CAN DETECT, IT'S LEAD. >> YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS 18-INCH DISTANCE ON FRIDAY. >> YES, I DID. >> YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN BE ONLY AS PRECISE AS THE INFORMATION THAT YOU START WITH IN OFFERING YOUR OPINIONS. >> YES. >> DID YOU TEST FIRE ANY OF THE WEAPONS IN THIS INVESTIGATION? >> I DID NOT, NO. >> DID YOU TEST FIRE ANY OF THE WEAPONS IN THIS INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF DISTANCE ANY OF THE RESIDUES WOULD TRAVEL AFTER FIRING? >> I DID NOT. >> WAS THAT DONE? >> YES, IT WAS. >> WAS THAT DONE BY SOMEBODY WHO REPORTED RESULTS TO YOU. >> THEY PRODUCED THE TEST FIRINGS FOR ME. >> THE TEST FIRING FOR THE .22, YOU HAD THAT? >> YES. AT A LATER TIME. >> WHEN YOU TESTIFIED FRIDAY AND YOU OFFERED THIS 18-INCH TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW FAR THE END OF THE GUN WAS FROM THE DISTANCE THAT THE VAPOR WAS TRAVEL, ABOUT 18 INCHES, THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY, WASN'T IT? >> YES. >> WHEN YOU OFFERED THAT TESTIMONY YOU ALREADY HAD SOMEBODY ELSE'S TEST FIRING INFORMATION? >> THE TEST FIRING WAS ACTUALLY FOR A DIFFERENT ITEMS. IT WAS NOT DONE FOR A PILLOW CASE. >> THAT ISN'T WHAT I ASKED YOU. THE INFORMATION YOU HAD IS WITH RESPECT TO THE .22. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? SORRY. >> YOU HAD TEST FIRING INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THE .22 REVOLVER? >> YES. >> TEST FIRING INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO A .9 MILLIMETER HAND GUN? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> WHAT FIREARMS DID YOU HAVE TEST FIRING INFORMATION ABOUT? >> THE 17-4, THE .22 REVOLVER. >> FROM WHOM DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION? >> TROOPER STEVE WALSH. >> WHEN DID YOU GET THAT INFORMATION? >> I HAVE TO REFER TO MY NOTES. JULY 2006. >> THAT INFORMATION TOLD YOU SOMETHING ABOUT ANY PATTERNS OF RESIDUE THAT THE .22 REVOLVER DISPLAYED TO MR. WALSH? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU REFERRED TO JUST THEN? >> YES. I'M SORRY. >> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK AND GET RIGHT BACK INTO CROSS-EXAMINATION. STAY WITH US. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." WE HEARD ABOUT 20 MINUTES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT CONTACT WOUNDS, LEAD RESIDUE, VAPOROUS RESIDUE. PETER, WHERE IS ALL OF THIS GOING? IS THIS JUST AN ISSUE OF THE DISTANCE FROM WHICH THE SHOTS WERE FIRED? IF SO, WHY DOES THAT MATTER? >> IT IS CLEARLY GOING TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE DISTANCE FROM THE SHOT, FROM THE WEAPON TO THE BODY IN THE BED. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING ELLIOT IS TRYING TO HAVE DETERMINED EITHER THAT IT'S CORRECT OR INCORRECT. IF IT'S INCORRECT WHY IT MIGHT BE INCORRECT. IT MAY BE LAYING FOUNDATION FOR LATER WITNESSES WHO CAN TESTIFY BY WAY OF BALLISTICS EVIDENCE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THIS PARTICULAR WITNESS WAS NOT ACCURATE OR THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER EXPLANATION. I THINK WHAT THIS IS DOING IS GOING ALONG WITH ELLIOT WINESTEIN'S THEME OF THINGS NOT APPEARING AS THEY FIRST MIGHT APPEAR. ALSO THAT THINGS MAY HAVE BEEN DONE OR NOT DONE, AND IT'S THE NINGS THAT WERE NOT DONE THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE THINGS THAT WERE DONE. THE THINGS THAT WERE NOT DONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHOW ANOTHER ANSWER OR ANOTHER PERSON THAT MIGHT HAVE DONE THIS AND CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. >> RANDY, I'M ALL FOR THE DOG THAT DID NOT BARK AS SOLVING THE PARTICULAR CASE. EVEN IF YOU GET RID OF ALL THIS EVIDENCE WE HEARD FROM HER FOR THE PAST DAY AND A HALF, IF IT'S THE MAZARATTO .22 THAT CAUSED THE DEATH OF THIS WOMAN AND BABY AND IF EVERYONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT HAS AN ALIBI EXCEPT NEIL ENTWISTLE, HE'S IN TROUBLE. >> I'LL TAKE A CHECK IS MORE LIKE IT. THE INTERESTING THING GOING ON HERE IS, PEOPLE THIS IS NOT CSI ORDER." OH, MIED GOD, I DID IT. HE IS SETTING HER UP. YOU ARE CREDIBLE, PRECISE, THEN START CHOPPING HER LEGS OUT WHERE HE CAN GO TO THE JURY AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE. DO YOU THINK THIS IS SUCH AN EASY CASE? DID YOU SEE WHAT WE DID TO TT THE SCIENTIST? OBJECTIVE, BLACK AND WHITE. SHOULD BE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. NOW YOU START TO THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE HOURS? HOW DID PEOPLE GO THROUGH THE HOUSE AND NOT KNOW THERE ARE DEAD BODIES IN THERE? HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THERE IS A GUN SHOT TO THE HEAD? YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN NOW. >> I'M SURE THE JURY WILL TAKE THEIR TIME. I THINK THE MATARAZZO .22 WILL BE THE KEY UNLESS WINESTEIN HAS A NOTION CHALLENGING WHETHER THAT WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. WE DON'T KNOW YET. LET'S CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> THAT WAS NO MORE THAN 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE PILLOW, DIDN'T YOU? >> NO. >> YOU DIDN'T? >> I WAS SPEAKING OF A RESIDUE IN GENERAL THAT ONLY TRAVELLED LESS THAN 18 INCHES. >> IN GENERAL. ISN'T IT TRUE BEFORE YOU CAN GIVE AN OPINION HOW FAR VAPOROUS RESIDUE CAN TRAVEL, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE WEAPON THAT IT'S TRAVELING OUT OF? >> THAT'S WHY I SAID GENERALLY. THROUGH EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE. >> YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT 17-4 AND WHAT TYPE OF DISTANCE VAPOROUS RESIDUE WOULD TRAVEL WHEN THAT GUN WAS FIRED? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> YOU COULD HAVE TESTED IT, COULDN'T YOU? YOU COULD HAVE HAD WALSH OR ANYBODY FROM THE STATE POLICE DO THAT, COULDN'T YOU HAVE? >> YES, I COULD. >> THAT WOULD TELL YOU WHETHER THAT .22 GIVES AN 18 INCH OR 23 INCH VAPOROUS DISTANCE OR TWO INCHES, RIGHT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> ALL YOU HAD WAS GENERALITY. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IN A CASE YOU ARE AIMING TO BE RIG RICE LU PRECISE. >> YES. >> YOU CAN'T SAY WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 17-4 WHAT IS THE DISTANCE THAT SAUDI ARABIAOROUS RESIDUE WOULD TRAVEL UPON DISCHARGE OF A BULLET FROM THAT FIREARM, CORRECT? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >>> WE TALKED ABOUT A A CONICLE PATTERN. >> A CONICLE SHAPE, YES. >> MEANING TO DESCRIBE THE SHAPE YOU WOULD SEAT VAPOROUS RESIDUE ON A SURFACE? >> YES. >> THE CONTACT TEST FIRINGS, THAT DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE CONICLE SHAPE FROM 18 INCHES OR MORE, DID IT? >> FROM THE CONTACT SHOT? >> YEAH. >> NO. >> IN FACT THE 1/2 INCH TEST FIRING, THAT DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY CONICLE SAP FROM A DISTANCE OF ANYTHING MORE THAN 1/2 INCH. >> YES. IT DID ACTUALLY. >> WHAT DID IT GIVE YOU? >> THE CONICLE SHAPE, LIKE WHEN YOU SPRAY A WATER BOTTLE, IT COMES OUT IN A CONICLE SHAPE AND IS DEPOSITED FROM A TARGET. >> WHEN YOU SPRAY A WATER BOTTLE SIX INCHES FROM A WALL BEHIND YOU, YOU WILL LEAVE A CONICLE SHAPE ON THE WALL, WOULDN'T IT? >> YES. >> IF YOU SPRAY THE WATER BOTTLE FROM 18 INCHES, IT LEAVES A DIFFERENT CONICLE SHAPE, DOESN'T IT? >> IT MIGHT BE MORE SPREAD OUT. >> MORE SPREAD OUCHLT INSTEAD OF A TIGHT LITTLE THING IT MIGHT BE A WIDER THING. >> YES. >> THE CIRCUMFERENCE MIGHT BE WIDER. >> YES. >> THE CIRCUMFERENCE MIGHT BE LARGER IF THE SHOOTING MECHANISM IS FURTHER AWAY. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CIRCUMSTANCE PECULIAR AT ALL BECAUSE THE PARTICULATE FALLS DOWN. >> CORRECT. >> IT MIGHT NOT BE SYMMETRICAL AT ALL, WOULD IT? >> CORRECT. >> DEPENDING ON THE SURFACES THAT THE VAPOR RESIDUE IS ADHERING TO IS GOING TO DICTATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU GET A SYMMETRICAL OR ASYMMETRICAL PATTERN ON THE SURFACE. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> WHAT YOU SAW WAS SOME SMOKE RESIDUE ON PILLOW ONE. >> VAPOROUS RESIDUE, YES. >> WAS LEAD. >> YES. >> THAT YOU KNOW CAME FROM A FIREARM. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT FIREARM. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU HAD 17-4 AVAILABLE FOR SPECIFIC TESTING. YES? >> YES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> YOU HAD 17-4 AVAILABLE FOR SPECIFIC COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS WITH WHAT WE SAW AS THE VAPOROUS RESIDUE ON PILLOW CASE NUMBER ONE. >> YES. >> THERE WAS NEVER BEEN DONE. >> NO. THERE WAS NOT A HOLE IN THE PILLOW SO WE COULDN'T DO THAT. >> I'M TALKING NOW, MA'AM, ABOUT VAPOROUS RESIDUE. IF YOU TEST FIRE ITEM 17-4 FROM DISTANCES, YOU WOULD BE ABLE, WITH USE OF THIS GRIESE TEST PAPER OR CLOTH, TO SHOW AN EXEMPLAR OF THE VAPOROUS RESIDUE? >> YES. >> YOU COULD SHOW IF YOU PUT IT UP CLOSE A HOLE. >> YES. >> AND IF THE BULLET THAT DISCHARGES FROM 17-4 IS LODGED IN A PLACE AND THE VAPOROUS RESIDUE IS GOING TO CONTINUE BEYOND WHERE THE BULLET IS. >> IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE TARGET, BUT THAT'S POSSIBLE, YES. >> DID YOU DO ANY TYPE OF SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS WITH THE VAPOROUS RESIDUE STAIN ON PILLOW ONE TO DETERMINE HOW FAR THE VAPOROUS RESIDUE TRAVELLED BEFORE IT DEPOSITED ON TO PILLOW CASE ONE? >> NO. JUST VAPOROUS LEAD TEST. >> THAT DIDN'T TELL YOU A DARN THING ABOUT DISTANCE THOUGH, DID IT? IT TOLD YOU CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS. >> RIGHT. >> MY QUESTION IS, MY QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU DID ANY SCIENTIFIC TESTING OR ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO HOW FAR VAPOROUS RESIDUE WOULD TRAVEL FROM ITEM 17-4. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> CORRECT MEANING YOU DIDN'T. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN THE COURSE OF THE WORK THAT DID YOU, THERE WAS SOME INTEREST EXPRESSED TO YOU IN CLOTHING, AN ITEM OF CLOTHING THAT CAME FROM A BMW. >> YES. >> THAT BORE SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ITEM NUMBER 9-1, CORRECT. >> YES. >> THAT WAS A SWEATER? >> YES. >> AND THE SWEATER CAME TO YOU AT THE LABORATORY? >> YES, IT DID. >> YOU WERE ASKED TO EXAMINE IT. >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THE REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION WAS IN WRITING OR COME FROM A PERSON? >> I BELIEVE -- WELL, I JUST ANALYZED THE CASE AND DECIDES WHAT NEEDS TESTING. >> WHEN THE SWEATER CAME TO YOU, DID SOMEBODY ASK YOU, IN SUBSTANCE, MISS DYGAN, COULD YOU PLEASE CHECK THIS SWEATER FOR THE FOLLOWING POSSIBILITIES. >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING. >> OKAY. >> DO YOU RECALL WHETHER THE REQUEST TO EXAMINE THE SWEAT EVER WAS WRITTEN? WAS IT A NOTE OR LETTER OR SOME FORM THAT YOU GUYS WHIED? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST A PHONE CALL CONVERSATION. >> PHONE CALL FROM A PROSECUTOR OR FROM A STATE TROOPER? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR TROOPER MANNING. >> DID HE ASK YOU TO DO ANY SPECIFIC WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE SWEATER FROM THE BMW? >> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> IT WAS YOUR DECISION THEN AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE OF OF CONSEQUENCE OR SIGNIFICANCE WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE SWEATER FROM THE BMW? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ARE CERTAINLY LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY INDICATIONS OF BLOOD? >> YES, CORRECT. >> YOU GAVE THAT SWEATER AS THOROUGH AN EXAMINATION AS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> BECAUSE MAYBE, MAYBE NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL USE THAT SWEATER TO WIPE BLOOD OFF HIM. WAS THAT IN YOUR THINKING? >> I JUST DID A TEST FOR BLOOD. >> WAS THAT IN YOUR THINKING? >> NO. >> BECAUSE YOU WERE STILL OPEN-MINDED IN YOUR INVESTIGATION? >> YES. >> THE SAME OPEN-MINDEDNESS PUT MR. ENTWISTLE IN THE SUSPECT BOX BEFORE YOU GOT TO 6 CUBS PATH. YOU TESTED THERE WAS NO INDICATION AT ALL OF BLOOD ON THAT SWEATER, WAS THERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> DID YOU CHECK IT FURTHER FOR ANY INDICATIONS OF ANY OTHER RESIDUES? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> YOU RECEIVED THEN A SERIES OF ITEMS THAT CAME FROM A HOME IN CARVER, MASSACHUSETTS. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >> YES. >> DID YOU KNOW WHEN YOU RECEIVED ITEMS FROM CARVER, MASSACHUSETTS, THAT THEY HAD COME FROM CARVER OR DID YOU LEARN THAT SUBSEQUENT? >> NO. A RESIDENCE OF CARVER IS ALL THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVEN. >> YOU RECEIVED AN AMMUNITION BOX. >> YES. >> YOU DID CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THAT. >> YES. >> LOOKING FOR BLOOD STAINING. >> I DON'T BELIEVE I DID A SCREENING TEST FOR BLOOD ON THAT, NO. >> BUT YOU WERE COLLECTING BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE AN EFFORT TO ANALYZE THESE VARIOUS ITEMS FROM CARVER FOR UNDER THE DNA PROCEDURES OF THE LABORATORY? >> CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? >> SURE. WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE ITEMS FROM CARVER, MASSACHUSETTS, WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD TAKE CERTAIN SWABBINGS OR EXAMINATION RESULTS THAT THEN WOULD BE UTILIZED BY PEOPLE OF THE DNA UNIT OF THE LAB? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO EXAMINE THEM AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO AFTER I EXAMINED THEM. >> IF THE CLOTHES OF THE QUESTION -- >> SOUNDS LIKE ELLIOT WINESTEIN HAS A LOT MORE CHOPPING AWAY TO DO. DOING A GOOD JOB. WE'LL GET YOU BACK IN A MOMENT. >>> BY ALL ACCOUNTS, NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS A LOVING HUSBAND AND LOVING FATHER. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." ELLIOT WINESTEIN STILL HAMMERING AWAY ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. LET'S LISTEN. >> MAGAZINE INSIDE OF THE .9 MILLIMETER PISTOL. >> YES. >> GUN CASE FOR A .357 MAGNUM. >> YES. >> GUN SAYS FOR A .9 MILLIMETER PISTOL. >> YES. >> GUN CASE FOR 17-4. >> YES. >> ANOTHER GUN CASE FOR .22 CALIBER RIFLE. >> YES. >> ANOTHER GUN CASE FOR .22 CALIBER RIFLE? >> YES. >> A MAGAZINE INSIDE A .22 CALIBER RIFLE? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> WANT TO CHECK? >> YES, I WILL. >> 17-23. >> IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO MAKE THEM CHECK THEIR NOTES WHEN THEY ARE SCIENTISTS. IT MAKES THEM LOOK LESS ORGANIZED THAN THEY ORDINARILY APPEAR. KEEP RIFLING THROUGH THOSE PAPERS. >> MAGAZINE FROM 17-7. >> NEXT ONE IS THAT FIFTH TRIGGER LOCK YOU WERE REFERENCING, ISN'T IT? >> YES, CORRECT. >> THESE ITEMS WERE ALL SENT DOWN TO THE DNA ANALYST. >> NOT THE ITEMS, BUT WHAT I COLLECTED FROM THEM, YES. >> THE SWABS THAT YOU COLLECTED OFF THE ITEMS WERE SENT TO DNA. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S THE CAREFUL, METICULOUS, RIG RUSE LAB PROCEDURES HE KNEW TO FOLLOW. >> YES. >> YOU CHECKED ALL THE TRIGGER LOCKS AT ONE POINT TO SEE IF THERE WAS BLOOD ON THEM. >> YES. >> THERE WASN'T. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU RECEIVED A SET OF KNIVES. >> YES, I DID. >> WHICH YOU AGAIN DID SWABBINGS AND SAMPLINGS FOR DNA ANALYSIS. >> I DID. THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE STUBS FROM THE KNIVES. >> YOU DIDN'T DO ANY FURTHER WORK WITH THAT, JUST A COLLECTION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ALSO LOOKED AT THOSE KNIFES TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY BLOOD EVIDENCE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THERE WASN'T? >> YES. >> AGAIN, JUST BEING AS THOROUGH AND COMPLETE AS YOU FOLKS COULD BE. >> YES. >> BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS INVESTIGATION WILL LEAD YOU UNLESS YOU DO THE STEPS THAT COULD BE DONE. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> ALL THE STEPS THAT COULD BE DONE. >> YES. >> WEREN'T SEEKING TO ELIMINATE STEPS BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT FIT THE THEORY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS A SUSPECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BECAUSE YOUR PURPOSE IS THAT OF THE SCIENTIST TO OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT DOESN'T MATTER TO YOU AS THE SCIENTIST WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF RACHEL AND LILY, DOES IT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT MATTERS TO YOU IS THAT THE SCIENTIFIC WORK THAT YOU DO BE THOROUGH, YES. >> ACCURATE. >> YES. >> AND COMPLETE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN DOING THE DNA SAMPLING THAT YOU DISCUSSED HERE, YOU WERE BEING, AGAIN, THOROUGH AND COMPLETE. >> YES. AND THE COLLECTION METHOD THAT YOU USED HAVE VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COLLECT IT IN A STERILE ENVIRONMENT AS YOU CAN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU KNOW IN THE LABORATORY THAT PART OF YOUR MISSION IS TO AVOID LABORATORY CONTAMINATION OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID AS BEST YOU ARE ABLE TO, LABORATORY CONTAMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE. >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT WENT FOR DNA ANALYSIS IS PROPERLY CATEGORIZED AS BIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE, ISN'T IT? >> YES. >> AND BIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MULTIPLE SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION. >> YES. >> YOUR EFFORTS IN THE STATE POLICE CRIME LABORATORY ARE TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION FOR BIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE? >> CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? >> YOUR EFFORT IN THE LABORATORY WAS TO ELIMINATE ALL OF THE SOURCES OF POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE. >> MORE LIKE AVOID IT, NOT ELIMINATE IT. >> MAYBE YOU CAN'T BE PERFECT. >> BECAUSE AT THAT POINT I DON'T KNOW WHO BELONGS TO THAT. >> IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO GET A SCIENTIST MAYBE I COULDN'T BE PERFECT, MAYBE THERE WAS SOME CONTAMINATION. PETER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? GIVE ME A FINAL THOUGHT ON THIS ROUND OF OF EXAMINATION, CROSS-EXAMINATION? >> WELL, I THINK IT GOES RIGHT ALONG WITH THE BEGINNING OF WHAT ELLIOT WINESTEIN WAS TRYING TO SET UP FROM THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF HIS MOUTH IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS, YOU DON'T ASK QUESTIONS YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO OUR DON'T HAVE THE DIRECTION OR YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO IN. ELLIOT KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE HE WANTS TO GO. I THINK HE IS SETTING THIS WITNESS UP FOR FUTURE WITNESSES AND FUTURE EVIDENCE COMING IN. HE IS ALSO TRYING TO SHOW THAT CERTAIN THINGS WEREN'T DONE AND CERTAIN EVIDENCE MIGHT POSSIBLY BE AVAILABLE HAD THINGS BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY. >> ANDY? >> EVERYTHING WE DO WHEN WE TRY A CASE IS WORKING FROM OUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS BACKWARDS. HE IS SET SUGGESTION UP HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT WHICH IS, LOOK, PEOPLE CAN COME ON. THEY CAN OFFER OPINIONS. WHY HE MIGHT HAVE DONE THIS. WHY HE SPLIT TO LONDON, WHY HE DID THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. YOU DON'T CARE WHO DID IT, YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. THE ONE OBJECTIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THEY CAN'T TELL YOU WHO DID IT. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE TO LOOK AT. YOU KNOCK OUT THE GUN, AS YOU SAID, YOU'VE GOT REASONABLE DOUBT. >> IF YOU KNOCK OUT THE GUN. KNOCKING OUT THE GUN, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOCK OUT THE BALLISTICS EVIDENCE. THAT IS A MUCH HARDER THING TO DO. >> THAT'S WHAT ELSE'S GOT TO PLAY WITH. >> INDEED. THAT IS THE DIFFICULTY IN TRYING THESE CASES. YOU DON'T GET TO PICK YOUR EVIDENCE. YOU DON'T GET TO PICK YOUR WITNESSES. YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE CARDS YOU HAVE. ELLIOT WINESTEIN, EXTREMELY SKILLED CROSS-EXAMINER. TOTALLY IN COMMAND OF THE MATERIAL. KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING AND DIDN'T WASTE HIS TIME REPEATING THE DIRECT EXAMINATION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. FOR THAT "THE BEST DEFENSE" IS GOING TO REST FOR THE DAY. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. >> HOW ARE YOU? I HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. >> YOU WANT TO DO IT ON MY SHOW OR YOURS? >> YOU RIGHT NOW. I DO NOT AGREE ABOUT THIS EXPERT CROSS-EXAMINATION SKILL YOU SAID ABOUT ELLIOT WINESTEIN ONLY BECAUSE I'VE SEEN HIM BE VERY RUDE TO SOME PEOPLE ON THAT STAND. I'M SORRY, YOU MAY BE A GREAT LAWYER, BUT IF YOU ARE RUDE I THINK IT'S OFFENSIVE AND THE JURY WILL BE VERY ANNOYED BY THAT. >> OKAY. >> BY THE WAY, WE HAVE LOTS COMING UP ON OUR SHOW, TOO. >> I THINK RUDENESS IS MORE OF AN ISSUE AT A DINNER PARTY THAN IT IS IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL. >> I'M ONE OF THOSE JURORS, ONE OF THOSE LAY PEOPLE, WE'VE GOT TO LIKE YOU. >> BIG THANKS TO MY GUESTS RANDY ZEILER. I'LL SEE YOU AGAIN ON WEDNESDAY FOR ANOTHER EDITION OF "THE BEST DEFENSE." I'M BACK ON THE RADIO" DOING TIME WITH RON KUBY." PLEASE STAY TUNED FOR "ASH FIELD AND FORD, COURTSIDE." |