|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> AN INVESTIGATOR SPEAKS WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. IT IS THE FATHER ON TRIAL. THE MAN FROM ENGLAND WHO FLED THE SCENE. NO BAGGAGE, ONE-WAY TICKET. THERE IS MORE TO THIS STORY, THOUGH, AND TODAY, "BANFIELD & FORD" TAKE YOU "COURTSIDE." >>> GOOD AFTERNOON, WELCOME, EVERYONE, TO "BANFIELD & FORD." I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD AND JACK FORD IS OFF TODAY. IT'S ONE OF THE DAYS WHERE THE FORENSICS MATTER. IT'S A CROSS-EXAMINATION AND SOME PEOPLE SAY, ESPECIALLY THE EXPERTS IN THE LAW, WHO SAY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE, YOU HAMMER AWAY AT THE LAW AND THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS. BUT, HEY, REMEMBER CYNTHIA SOMMER. REMEMBER CYNTHIA SOMMER, APPARENTLY THERE WAS CONTAMINATION OF TISSUE SAMPLES IN HER CASE AND HER HUSBAND WASN'T POISONED AFTER ALL. SO MAYBE IT DOES MATTER WHEN WE GET ALL INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY IN HAVING THOSE INVESTIGATORS JUST WHAT THEY DID AND WHAT THEY DIDN'T DO. THAT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE THE TACTIC RIGHT NOW OF ELLIOT WEINSTEIN AS HE CROSS-EXAMINES ONE OF THOSE INVESTIGATORS. BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH ALL OF THIS AND I'M GOING TOO FAR AHEAD, HERE'S BETH KARAS FOR ALL THE DETAILS IN THE ENTWISLE CASE. >> 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 OF BOSTON, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISLE. 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 ENTWISLE, WITH A FIREARM THAT WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT, SHORT RACHEL ENTWISLE 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 ENTWISLE. MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATORS LEARNED HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS' HOME OUTSIDE OF LONDON. >> NEIL ENTWISLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING. JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. >> Reporter: ENTWISLE WAIVED EXTRADITION AND RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO FACE CHARGES. THE SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS. THE ARRAIGNMENT IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM ATTRA ATTRACTED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT MR. ENTWISLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BY HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS IS UNDER WAY. >> Reporter: DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTED ENTWISLE FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I AM GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY, AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> ALL RIGHT, WELL, WHILE THAT COURTROOM IS IN A BRIEF BREAK, IT SURE DOES GET US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET CAUGHT UP ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING TODAY AND SOME OF THE REAL, OH, SHALL I SAY, FLOORING MOMENTS. THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN THAT COURTROOM TODAY THAT WAS REALLY DISGUSTING AND DISTURBING. A BABY'S CLOTHES WERE SHOWN, COVERED IN BLOOD. JOINING US LIVE NOW FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE IS BETH KARAS, OUR CORRESPONDENT, WHO IS ON THE STORY. ALSO IN STUDIO IS CHRISTINE GRILLO WHO IS A SENIOR PROSECUTOR IN THE BROOKLYN'S DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE AND IS CURRENTLY THE DEPUTY BUREAU CHIEF OF THE VIOLENCE BUREAU. AND ALSO IS ROBERT GEORGE WHO IS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND A FORMER PROSECUTOR BASED IN BOSTON AND IF HE LOOKS FAMILIAR, OUR VIEWERS MAY REMEMBER WHEN MR. GEORGE REPRESENTED CHRISTOPHER McCOWEN. HE WAS TRIED FOR THE MURDER OF CHRISTA WORTHINGTON BACK IN 2006. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ALL FOR A MOMENT. SO, IF EVERYONE CAN STANDBY EXCEPT FOR BETH KARAS. BETH, GET US CAUGHT UP ON SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. I HATE TO SAY "HIGHLIGHTS" BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING MORE DISTURBING THAN SEEING A BABY'S CLOTHING COVERED WITH BLOOD, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING, AMONG OTHER THINGS. GET US CAUGHT UP ON ALL THE PROCEEDINGS TODAY. >> Reporter: WHEN THAT LITTLE SLEEPER WAS PUT UP ON THE BOARD, CLIPPED ON THE BOARD AND DISPLAYED FRONT AND BACK, YVONNE ENTWISLE, NEIL ENTWISLE'S MOTHER COULDN'T LOOK. HER HEAD WAS DOWN AND HER HUSBAND'S ARM WAS AROUND HER. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE WASN'T CRYING, BUT SHE WASN'T LOOKING AT THE BABY'S CLOTHES. DIANA DYGEN WHO BEGAN HER TESTIMONY LAST FRIDAY DID SAY THE WOUND TO THE BABY BASED ON THE POWDER, THE EVIDENCE AROUND THE HOLE IN THE SLEEPER WAS A CONTACT WOUND. THAT GUN WAS UP AGAINST THE BABY'S CHEST. AND WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT IT WHEN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TESTIFIES. SO, THAT WAS REALLY DISTURBING. THE JURY ALSO SAW THE UNDERPANTS AND THE SHIRT THAT RACHEL ENTWISLE WAS WEARING AND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE PILLOWCASE AND THE BED. AND THE SHEET, THE FITTED SHEET. I MEAN, THERE'S NO SURPRISE THAT THEY ALL TESTED POSITIVE FOR HUMAN BLOOD AND THAT THERE WAS GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE PILLOWS, BUT THEY DID NOT FIND THE WOUND TO THE HEAD OF RACHEL ENTWISLE UNTIL AT AUTOPSY AND THAT TESTIMONY STILL IS TO COME AND THAT WAS THE FATAL WOUND TO HER. THIS WITNESS HAS SWABBED VARIOUS ITEMS, BOTH IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND ALSO ITEMS SEIZED FROM THE MATTERAZZO HOME, IN PARTICULAR THE GUN USED TO KILL RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. THE GUN CASE. THE METAL BOX THAT THE GUNS WERE IN. THE TRIGGER LOCK, THE BOX OF AMMUNITION AND A JAR OF AMMUNITION. SO, SHE WAS SWABBING FOR DNA AND ALSO JUST DOING A VISUAL INSPECTION. OTHERS TESTED THESE ITEMS FOR FINGERPRINTS. SHE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO TESTIFY TO A LOT OF RESULTS, BECAUSE SHE SUBMITTED THE SWABS FOR DNA ANALYSIS TO SOMEONE ELSE. AND THAT TESTIMONY MAY COME LATER TODAY OR ELSE TOMORROW. BECAUSE THERE'S STILL SOME BALLISTICS TO COME. SO, SHE'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT ITEMS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND ITEMS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE GUN. >> YOU KNOW, THERE -- I'M NOT SURE IF WE KNOW THIS OR NOT, BUT OBVIOUSLY IF THE ENTWISLE FAMILY HAD A TOUGH TIME LOOKING AT THAT DISPLAY OF THE BABY'S CLOTHES AND OBVIOUSLY RACHEL'S CLOTHES COVERED IN BLOOD IN THE COURTROOM, MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT RACHEL'S PARENTS, HER MOM AND HER STEPDAD AND PERHAPS THE JURORS MIGHT HAVE HAD A REACTION AS WELL THAT WAS PALPABLE. DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY -- ANY REPORTING OF THAT? >> Reporter: YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE REACTION IS RIGHT NOW, BUT I AM SURE. I MEAN, THESE THINGS ARE DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE HEADS WERE BOWED, YEAH OF RACHEL ENTWISLE'S MOTHER AND STEPFATHER. BUT SHE HAS BEEN IN THE COURTROOM. THIS IS PRICILLA MATTERAZZO FOR ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THE TRIAL, BUT SHE DOES NOT ALWAYS LOOK. >> BETH, OTHER THAN THIS BEING DISTURBING, I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT NOW THAT OUR VIEWERS ARE GETTING A CHANCE TO SEE THE SLEEPERS. THAT IS THAT THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH BLOOD ON THE FRONT OF THE SLEEPERS BUT THERE'S A LOT OF BLOOD ON THE BACK OF THE SLEEPERS, AND PEOPLE THAT WATCH OUR COVERAGE KNOWS THAT AN ENTRY WOUND DOESN'T BLEED AS MUCH AS THE EXIT WOUND BLEEDS. BUT THE SIGNIFICANCE FORENSICALLY TO THE CASE, AND YOU ARE THE LAWYER HERE, I WOULD ASSUME WOULD BE THAT IT WASN'T EXTREMELY VISIBLE THAT THIS BABY HAD BEEN SHOT FROM THE POSITION OF THE BABY. AM I CORRECT? >> Reporter: YEAH, CORRECT. RACHEL ENTWISLE WAS IN THE BED ON HER RIGHT SIDE AND HER LEFT ARM WAS SORT OF ABOVE HER HEAD. HER INDEX FINGER WAS POINTED, THE REST OF HER FINGERS WERE CLENCHED. HER RIGHT ARM WAS OVER THE BABY. THE BABY WAS LYING ON HIS BACK, ON HER. AND THE ARM WAS PLACED OVER THE WOUND. SO, WHOEVER DID THIS, NEIL ENTWISLE OR WHOMEVER, PROBABLY SHOT HER. BECAUSE SHE WOULD HAVE FOUGHT FOR HER BABY IF SHE SAW THEY THREAT TO HER BABY. PROBABLY SHOT HER FIRST AND THEN SHOT THE BABY AND I WOULD SAY, I WOULD ARGUE, PUT HER ARM OVER THE BULLET WOUND, BECAUSE HER ARM IS CLEARLY COVERING THAT BABY'S -- THE ENTRY WOUND. >> IT'S EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT. AND I'M ALMOST WONDERING ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RACHEL'S CLOTHING BROUGHT INTO THIS CASE. THE WOUND THAT KILLED HER WAS TO THE FOREHEAD, TO THE HAIRLINE WHICH WAS NOT VISIBLE RIGHT AWAY TO EVEN THE INVESTIGATORS. >> Reporter: I TELL YOU -- OKAY, THERE WERE THREE PUNCTURE WOUNDS TO THE SHIRT SHE WAS WEARING. AND PROBABLY BECAUSE THE SHIRT IS FOLDED A LITTLE BIT. THE BULLET THAT KILLED THE BABY WENT THROUGH THE BABY -- THROUGH LILLIAN AND INTO HER, INTO RACHEL. SO, HER SHIRT DOESN'T HAVE THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON IT, THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T MAKE CONTACT WITH HER SHIRT, THE GUN DIDN'T. BUT IT WENT INTO HER AND THAT BULLET WAS INTACT AND REMOVED FROM HER. IT DIDN'T EXIT HER BODY. THE BULLET WENT IN HER HEAD, SPLIT IN TWO. SO, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOWED, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE ENTRY IS. I MEAN, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO PLACE -- THEY'LL SAY WHERE THE SHIRT WAS ROUGHLY TO MAKE THE THREE HOLES IN IT. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, BETH, AND HERE WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT WHAT RACHEL WAS SLEEPING IN, WHETHER THEY'RE SLEEPERS OR WHETHER THIS WAS A SHIRT SHE HAPPENED TO BE SLEEPING IN. WE'RE SEEING THE BLOOD PATTERN. NOW, BETH, TO ME, AGAIN, TOTALLY UNTRAINED EYE, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE IS QUITE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF BLOOD ON THE FRONT OF RACHEL'S SHIRT. WOULD THAT BE HELPFUL TO THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE? >> Reporter: WELL, I DON'T THINK SO. THE BABY BLED ONTO HER. I THINK WHEN WE HEAR THE RESULTS OF THE TESTS, WE'LL HEAR THAT THAT'S A LOT OF LILLIAN'S BLOOD, BECAUSE THE BABY -- LILLIAN SORT OF ON HER BACK. AND THE BULLET EXITED LILLIAN, SO SHE'S LEAKING ONTO HER MOTHER. >> BETH, IF YOU COULD MAYBE TELL ME, WHAT EXACTLY IS ELLIOT WEINSTEIN DOING IN CROSS EXAMINATION? THIS SOUNDS LIKE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD STUFF, SO HOW DO YOU TRY TO TEAR DOWN TESTIMONY WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR CROSS? >> Reporter: WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M THE BEST PERSON TO ASK THAT OF, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST. YOU KNOW, HE'S -- HE'S GOT TO WORK WITH WHAT -- WHAT HE HAS. AND, YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE FEEL IT'S A COMPELLING CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION, BUT HE IS CHALLENGING HER EXPERTISE AND THE DECISIONS THAT SHE MADE IN WHAT EVIDENCE TO COLLECT, FROM WHAT AREAS OR WHAT NOT TO COLLECT. YOU RECALL, SHE WAS WITH JOHN SOROS WHO TESTIFIED AT LENGTH LAST WEEK AND SHE WAS DOING SOME NOTE TAKING. HE WAS DOING SOME COLLECTION, VICE VERSA, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE WORKING JOINTLY. AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO SWAB CERTAIN THINGS IN THE MASTER BATHROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, AND ELLIOT WEINSTEIN MADE A BIG DEAL NOT TO SWAB THE FLOSS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IN THE SINK. MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE, MAYBE THE SHOOTER WASHED HIS HANDS AND DEPOSITED SOMETHING ON THE FAUCET. SO, HE'S ALSO CHALLENGING WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS TRULY MAKING INDEPENDENT DECISIONS OR WAS SHE LISTENING TO SOMEONE. THE TROOPER SHOULDN'T BE TELLING HER WHO THE TO DO. NO, SHE'S THE CHEMIST AND THE FORENSIC SCIENTIST, WEINSTEIN MAY BE TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT THE RECENTLY RETIRED, NOW SPOKESPERSON, FORMER HOMICIDE DETECTIVE OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, FRIEND OF THE MATTERAZZOs, JOE FLAHERTY, WAS SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, AS A CIVILIAN STILL DIRECTING THINGS. DEFLECTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE MATTERAZZOs AND ON TO ENTWISLE. I DON'T KNOW IF WEINSTEIN'S GOING TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. THERE'S SPECULATION THAT HE MAY BE. IN EVENT THAT'S WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS DOING. SHE'S CHALLENGING HER EXPERTISE AND CHALLENGING DECISIONS THAT SHE MADE. HE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU DIDN'T KNOW RACHEL WAS SHOT, YOU KNOW, IN THE HEAD WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE THERE. NO. YOU MISSED IT. SHE COLLECTS THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE FROM THE PILLOW THAT HER HEAD'S ON, BUT DOESN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF A SHOT. AND HE SAID DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU WERE CAREFUL AND METICULOUS. HE KEPT USING THE CAREFUL AND METICULOUS OVER AND OVER WITH HER COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE. SHE STILL MISSED THAT. >> LET ME BRING IN I HAD GUESTS WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS PROCESS. CHRISTINE GRILLO, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEDEVILLING TO SOMEONE LIKE YOU, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THIS IS GOING TO COME UP AND YOU KNOW NO MATTER HOW HARD OR DILIGENT YOUR INVESTIGATORS ARE, NO HOW MUCH MATERIAL THEY HAVE TURNED OVER TO YOU. SOMEBODY IS GOING TO TRY TO POKE HOLES IN THEIR EFFORTS, RIGHT? >> SURE. WHAT ELSE IS HE GOING TO DO IN A CASE LIKE THIS? HE'S SETTING UP HIS ARGUMENT FOR SUMMATION. BASICALLY SAYING THERE WAS A PREDETERMINED DEFENDANT HERE. THIS WAS NOT AN OPEN-MINDED INVESTIGATION AND WITHOUT BEING OPEN-MINDED AS AN INVESTIGATOR, YOU COULD HAVE MISSED THINGS. SO, I THINK ALL OF THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION IS LEADING UP TO HOW HE'S GOING TO PREPARE HIS ARGUMENT. BECAUSE AS WE ALL SEE, WITH WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE CASE SO FAR, HE DOESN'T HAVE VERY MUCH CHOICE. >> YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BE TWO STEPS AHEAD. I'M TRYING TO BE TWO STEPS AHEAD HERE AND SAYING WHAT IS THE PROSECUTOR GOING TO THINK ABOUT FOR THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS FOR HIMSELF. BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT'S WHAT ELLIOT'S GOING FOR. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO DO THIS, BY THE WAY? ARE YOU ALLOWED TO SAY, OH, SURE, YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ELSE BUT TO TRY TO GO AFTER THE GOOD WORK OF THE MASSACHUSETTS POLICE. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO GET THAT SORT OF EMOTIONAL ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE'S EFFORT? >> YOU KNOW WHAT, YES, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO HOW THEY SUM UP. AND IF THEY START TO SUM UP ON ATTACK MODE, YOU CAN SUM UP TO REHABILITATE YOUR WITNESSES AND TO SAY WHAT ELSE ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK AT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN YOU? CAN'T SAY SMOKESCREEN. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S ABSOLUTELY REVERSIBLE, BUT YOU CAN DIRECT THEIR ATTENTION -- >> YOU CAN'T SAY THOSE WORDS OR THAT'S THE PEJORATIVE? >> THE SMOKESCREEN IS THE RED FLG THAT WILL GO UP TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION. BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT. THERE ARE WAYS TO SAY, WELL, IN COLLECTING THIS EVIDENCE, THEY'RE -- I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED. AND WE COULD SIT HERE AND WE COULD EXAMINE ALL DAY LONG WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND MAKE ALL THESE KINDS OF SUGGESTIONS. BUT I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS DONE. >> RIGHT. >> AND I'M GOING TO REFOCUS YOU ON THE EVIDENCE WE DO HAVE. >> RIGHT. LET ME BRING IN ROBERT GEORGE. BECAUSE, MR. GEORGE, WHEN I WATCHED YOU IN THE CASE THAT INVOLVED THE MURDER OF CHRISTA WORTHINGTON AND YOUR CLIENT WAS BEING DEFENDED, CHRISTOPHER McCOWEN, I THOUGHT THE FACTS AGAINST YOUR CLIENT WERE SO OVERWHELMING, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD BEGIN A CASE LIKE THAT, AND I SORT OF FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THIS CASE. SO, YOU'RE THE PERFECT PERSON TO ASK. WITH THE FACT PATTERN THAT IS FACING DOWN NEIL ENTWISLE, WHAT ELSE COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO IN THAT COURTROOM BUT WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS DOING? >> YOU KNOW, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS DOING WHAT ANY EXPERIENCED TRIAL LAWYER WOULD DO, HE'S OBVIOUSLY SETTING THE TABLE AND MAKING A RECORD ABOUT THE FORENSIC TESTING IN THE CASE. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE, AND ELLIOT KNOWS IT, THE BOTTOM LINE IN THIS CASE IS WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER THAT KILLED THESE TWO VICTIMS AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING THEM. ALL OF THIS, ALL OF THIS, IS WINDOW DRESSING. NOW, IT'S VERY INFLAMMATORY WINDOW DRESSING. I'M NOT -- I'VE LISTENED TO WHAT YOU'VE SAID. YOU'RE REACTING AS ANY HUMAN BEING WOULD REACT WHEN YOU SEE BLOOD-STAINED BABY'S JUMPERS AND BLOODSTAINED CLOTHING. BUT IF THE JURY BECOMES BLIND TO THE BOTTOM LINE IN THE CASE, WHICH IS DID NEIL ENTWISLE COMMIT THESE CRIMES, HE CAN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF EVIDENCE -- AND DON'T FOOL YOURSELF. THESE PROSECUTORS COULD HAVE USED PHOTOGRAPHS OF THESE THINGS. THEY COULD HAVE DESCRIBED THESE ITEMS. THEY ONLY PUT THEM IN FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ALONE. IT'S TO INFLAME THE JURY AND TO GET THE JURY SO WORKED UP WITH PASSION ABOUT THIS TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE CRIME THAT THE BOTTOM LINE AT THE END OF THE CASE, WHICH IS WHETHER ENTWISLE COMMITTED THE CRIME, IS LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. THAT'S THE DANGER IN THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE. >> I TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, I'M ONE OF THE PEOPLE HERE IN THIS NETWORK WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY. AND I REACT QUITE OFTEN IN THE GUTTURAL WAY THAT SOME OF THE JURORS I'M GUESSING WOULD REACT. IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE THIS STUFF. I STILL WANT TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND, BUT I'M JUST WAITING, MR. GEORGE, I'M JUST WAITING FOR SOME LITTLE SHRED OF SOMETHING TO GIVE THIS GUY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND IT'S REALLY HARD TO DO. AND, OF COURSE, GRANTED, WE ARE IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. HOLD YOUR THOUGHTS FOR A MOMENT. I GOT SO MUCH MORE I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT. AND I DEFINITELY WANT TO GET CHRISTINE GRILLO'S REACTION TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I SAW HER OFFCAMERA, SAYING, HMM, I'M THE PROSECUTOR THAT PUTS THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THESE JURIES. THAT'S COMING UP. >>> AS IS THE MOMENT WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE DESCRIBES HAVING TO DO DEAL WITH THIS, SEEING THE BABY JUMPER COVERED IN BLOOD. HAVING TO PROCESS THAT BABY AND PROCESS THAT MOMMY AND THEN COMING IN TO COURT AND TALK ABOUT IT. >>> WELCOME BACK. IT'S BEEN QUITE A DAY IN THAT COURTROOM, THAT MAKESHIFT COURTROOM, BY THE WAY. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COURTROOM. IT'S JUST SORT OF SOMETHING TEMPORARY FOR THIS TRIAL AGAINST NEIL ENTWISLE. BUT IT WAS ONE OF THOSE MOMENTS THAT WILL STICK IN ALL OF OUR MINDS FOR PROBABLY QUITE A LONG TIME. THOSE WHO SAW AND IT THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE REPLAY OF IT. IT WAS THE DISPLAY OF THE BABY'S SLEEPER COVERED IN BLOOD. IT WAS THE SLEEPER THAT LILLIAN ENTWISLE WAS WEARING WHEN SHE WAS SHOT DEAD IN HER MOTHER'S ARMS. CLOTHE OF HER MOTHER WERE ALSO DISPLAYED COVERED IN BLOOD. FOR US TO SEE IS OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, BUT IMAGINE SEEING THOSE CLOTHES WHEN THEY ARE ACTUALLY ON THE BODIES. THAT'S WHAT THE INVESTIGATORS HAVE TO DO WHEN THEY PROCESS THE THINGS. DIANA DYGEN WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WAS ON THE SCENE THAT HAD TO DO THE JOB. AND SHE CAME TO COURT TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT IT WAS LIKE AND WHAT IT WAS LIKE INSIDE THAT HOME. HAVE A LOOK. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, MA'AM, DID YOU PERFORM A SERIES OF TESTS IN THAT BEDROOM? >> YES, I DID -- WELL, I DID THE DOCUMENTING, BASICALLY TOOK NOTES AND DOCUMENTED THE SCENE. WHILE KEVIN SOROS DID THE CHEMICAL TESTING. >> DID YOU OBSERVE THAT TESTING? >> I DID. >> AND WHAT TYPE OF TESTS OR TESTING WAS PERFORMED? >> WE DID -- EXCUSE ME. HE PERFORMED A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD ON SEVERAL ITEMS. >> AND WERE THERE ANY OTHER TESTS PERFORMED THAT -- >> YES. >> -- THAT EITHER KEVIN SOROS DID OR YOURSELF? >> I, MYSELF, PERFORMED A TEST FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE ANALYSIS TO TEST FOR LEAD. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THE BED AND THE BEDDING WHEN YOU INITIALLY ENTERED THAT ROOM? >> YES. THERE WAS A WHITE COMFORTER ON THE BED. AT FIRST. AND THEN WE SUBSEQUENTLY LATER ON REMOVED THE COMFORTER. >> DESCRIBE HOW YOU DID THAT AND AS WELL AS THE REMOVAL OF ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE BED. >>ING ON. WE FIRST DOCUMENTED THE COMFORTER WHILE IT WAS ON THE BED. WE THEN REMOVED THE COMFORTER. BASICALLY JUST FOLDED IT BACK SO WE COULD OBSERVE WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH THE COMFORTER. >> WHAT DID YOU SEE UNDERNEATH THE COMFORTER WHEN YOU FOLDED IT BACK? >> THERE WERE TWO BODIES THAT WERE LYING ON THE BED. ONE WAS AN ADULT FEMALE AND ONE LOOKED LIKE IT WAS AN INFANT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A PILLOW COVERING THE INFANT, MOST OF ITS BODY AND FACE. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THE PILLOW? >> WE DOCUMENTED HOW THEY WERE LYING, AND THEN WE, AGAIN, FOLDED BACK THE PILLOW AND PLACED IT ASIDE SO THAT WE COULD GO AHEAD AND DOCUMENT WHAT WAS UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW. >> DESCRIBE HOW THOSE TWO BODIES APPEARED AND WERE SITUATED UPON REMOVAL OF THE PILLOW. >> THE ADULT FEMALE WAS LYING ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE BED IF YOU WERE FACING THE BED. SHE WAS ON -- LYING ON HER LEFT SIDE, AND HER KNEES WERE UP-TO-TOWARDS HER WAIST. AND THERE WAS A -- THE TOP SHEET WAS ABOUT HER WAIST LEVEL. SHE WAS LYING ON A PILLOW AS WELL AS A FEMALE INFANT WAS LYING ON A PILLOW AS WELL. THE FEMALE INFANT WAS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BED. AND WAS LYING VERTICALLY. THE ADULT FEMALE'S ARM WAS OVER THE INFANT'S CHEST. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME WERE THE BODIES MOVED OR REPOSITIONED? >> YES. AFTER THE DOCUMENTATION AND SUBSEQUENT -- SOME TESTING WAS COMPLETED, THE BODIES WERE MOVED, YES, BY -- BY US. >> AND DESCRIBE YOUR OBSERVATIONS UPON THE MOVEMENT OR RELOCATION OF THE ADULT FEMALE BODY. DESCRIBE WHAT OB ON SERVINGSES YOU SAW ON THAT BODY. >> THE ADULT FEMALE LIKE I SAID WAS POSITIONED ON HER LEFT SIDE WITH HER KNEES. HER ARM WAS OVER THE INFANT'S CHEST AND SHE WAS WEARING A SILVER BRACELET, SHE WAS ALSO WEARING A GREEN SHIRT AND SOME FLORAL UNDERPANTS. HER HAIR WAS BACK IN A PONYTAIL. RED-BROWN STAINING WAS NOTICED ON HER FACE AND ALSO THERE WAS RED-BROWN STAINING ON HER RIGHT ARM AS FAR AS WE COULD SEE AT THAT POINT. >> COULD YOU OBSERVE AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE -- WHAT, IF ANY, CLOTHING THE INFANT WAS WEARING? >> YES, THE INFANT WAS WEARING A POLKA DOT SLEEPER. BASICALLY FOOTY PAJAMAS. >> WAS SOMETHING DONE WITH THAT SLEEPER AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHILE YOU WERE THERE? >> YES. AT SOME POINT WE SEPARATED THE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT WE COULD EXAMINE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY, AND AT THAT TIME WE UNZIPPED THE SLEEP -- EXCUSE ME, THE SLEEPER. >> AND ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF CLOTHING ON THE -- ON THE INFANT OTHER THAN THE SLEEPER? WERE THERE ANY INNER ARTICLES OF CLOTHING? >> WERE, THERE WAS. THERE WAS A WHITE ONESY ON UNDERNEATH. AND THE ADULT FEMALE, OTHER THAN THE GREEN SHIRT, I'M SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, DID SHE HAVE OTHER CLOTHING ON? >> SHE HAD A PAIR OF FLORAL UNDERPANTS ON. >> TELL US WHAT THAT IS. >> THIS IS THE SLEEPER PAJAMAS THAT WERE RECOVERED FROM THE INFANT. >> WHAT TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM ON THAT ITEM IN THE LABORATORY? >> I DID A VISUAL EXAMINATION OF THE SLEEPER. OBSERVING RED-BROWN STAINS -- HEAVY RED-BROWN STAINS ON ON THE NECK AREA AND CHEST AND ALSO THE BACK OF THE ITEMS. >> DID YOU DO A DAMAGE ASSESSMENT? >> YES, I DID. >> DESCRIBE -- TELL US WHAT YOU FOUND, IF ANYTHING. >> THERE WAS A HOLE APPROXIMATELY MEASURING A QUARTER OF AN INCH ON THE LEFT CHEST. THE HOLES HAD BLACK RESIDUES AROUND IT. ALSO THE HOLE HAD A RIPPING AND TEARING AROUND IT AS WELL. >> WHAT TESTS OR TEST DID YOU PERFORM ON THE FRONT OF THAT GARMENT? >> I DID A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND ALSO A CONFIRMATORY TEST FOR BLOOD. >> THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS? >> THEY WERE POSITIVE. >> BOTH OF THEM? >> YES. >> WHAT OTHER TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM? >> I DID A GUNSHOT RESIDUE ANALYSIS AROUND THE HOLE ON THE LEFT CHEST. >> TELL US WHAT TYPE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE TEST OR TESTS YOU PERFORMED AND THE RESULTS, IF ANY. >> I DID THE TEST THAT TESTS FOR GUNPOWDER RESIDUES, AND THAT WAS POSITIVE ON THIS HOLE. I ALSO DID A VISUAL EXAMINATION, OBSERVED NO PARTICLES AROUND THE HOLES. I ALSO DID A TEST FOR LEAD, AND THAT WAS POSITIVE. I DID A TEST FOR COPPER AND NICKEL AS WELL. THE COPPER AND NICKEL TESTS WERE NEGATIVE. >> MA'AM, WERE THOSE TESTS IN ADDITION TO THE TESTS THAT YOU DESCRIBED? AS HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ON SCENE ON THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd, 2006? >> EXCUSE ME. IF I COULD GO BACK. I -- I TESTED THE LEAD AND COPPER AT THE -- AT THE CRIME SCENE. I DID NOT DO THAT IN THE LABORATORY. >> AND WHICH PORTION OF THOSE THREE OR FOUR TESTS THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED WERE THEN PERFORMED AT THE LABORATORY? >> I DID THE TEST FOR GUNPOWDER RESIDUE AND ALSO A VISUAL EXAMINATION. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THAT SIDE OF THE GARMENT? >> I ALSO DID A SEARCH FOR SEMINAL FLUID RESIDUE OR SPERM CELLS. ON THE LEFT -- UPPER LEFT ARM AND AROUND THE LEFT SHOULDER AREA. >> ANY DETECTED? >> NO. SPERM CELLS, SEMINAL FLUID AND AMLE LACE WAS NOT DETECTED. >> DID YOU DO ANYTHING WITH THE BACK OF THAT GARMENT? >> YES, I DID. >> AND IF YOU COULD NOW TURN IT OVER, RECLIP IT TO THE BOARD.GAN WHAT DID YOU DO FIRST ON THE BACKSIDE OF THAT GARMENT, MA'AM. >> I MADE A VISUAL EXAMINATION OF ANY STAINING, AND I DID OBSERVE RED-BROWN STAINS AND RED-BROWN DISCOLORATION ON THE BACK OF THE ITEM. >> DID YOU TEST THOSE AREAS? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT RESULT DID YOU GET? >> I TESTED A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, WHICH WAS POSITIVE. AND I ALSO DID A CONFIRMATORY TEST FOR HUMAN BLOOD IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE AND THAT WAS POSITIVE AS WELL. >> DID YOU SEE ANYTHING -- DID YOU DO A DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF THE BACK OF THAT GARMENT? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU SEE OR NOTE? >> THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH DIAMETER HOLE ON THE BACK OF THE ITEM. >> WHAT TEST OR TESTS DID YOU DO ON THAT? >> I DID A SERIES OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE TEST'S AS WELL. >> TELL US WHAT RESULTS YOU OBSERVED? >> I DID NOT OBSERVE PARTICLES AROUND THE HOLE. I DID DETECT LEAD ON THE HOLES, AND NICKEL AND COPPER TESTING WAS NEGATIVE. >> WELL, THERE YOU GO. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN BE THAT STOIC, BUT I GUESS SHE'S BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR A WHILE OR AT LEAST AN INVESTIGATOR FOR A WHILE. NOT A POLICE OFFICER, AND THEY DEAL WITH THAT KIND OF THING ALL THE TIME. SORT OF LIKE A DOCTOR DOESN'T GET GROSSED-OUT BY BLOOD, MAYBE INVESTIGATORS DEAL WITH THIS STUFF DIFFERENTLY. THE DIFFICULT THING, YOU KNOW, TO LOOK AT, THOUGH, IN THE COURTROOM, YOU GOT TO ADMIT WHEN YOU SEE A SLEEPER COVERED IN BLOOD AND WHO KNOWS HOW THIS JURY WILL REACT TO THAT. LET'S MOVE ON, SHALL WE? >>> WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY HEAR A FEW REALLY OTHER IMPORTANT THINGS AS WELL. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR NOT ONLY HOW THE REACTIONS WERE IN COURT TO THAT BUT HOW THIS MAN'S ATTORNEY WAS ABLE TO TRY TO KNOCK SOME THINGS DOWN. HE'S GOT QUESTIONS FOR EVERYBODY WHO LOOKS DAMAGING TO HIS CLIENT. WHAT ABOUT HIS STYLE? WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. >>> NEIL ENTWISLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. ONE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AND ONE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. >> SO, AFTER EXTRADITION, HE WAS BROUGHT HERE, AND THAT'S WHERE HE'S ON TRIAL. NOT THERE, HERE. BUT PEOPLE THERE ARE DEFINITELY WATCHING THIS. AND JOINING US TODAY IS JOANNA WALTERS, WHO IS THE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENT FOR THE BRITISH NEWSPAPER "THE DAILY EXPRESS." SHE'S BEEN IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, COVERING THE ENTWISLE TRIAL, AND SHE'S KIND ENOUGH TO JOIN US HERE TODAY. I GOT SO MANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU ABOUT HOW THIS IS ALL PLAYING OUT OVERSEAS. BUT THE FIRST QUESTION IS THE OBVIOUS ONE, DOES ANYBODY CARE, AND DOES ANYBODY THINK THIS GUY IS INNOCENT? >> I THINK THAT THERE'S AN ENORMOUS BELIEF THAT ONE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. OTHERWISE THERE'S ALMOST NO POINT IN HAVING A TRIAL. THAT'S ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BRITISH AND AMERICAN JUSTICE. AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE AN ENORMOUS FAITH IN THAT. THEY MAY SAY TO THEMSELVES, ALL THE EVIDENCE APPEARS TO SHOW THAT THIS CHAP DID IT, BUT YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOMEONE A RUN FOR THEIR MONEY. >> SO, THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND WADE THROUGH ALL THE FACTS. ALTHOUGH, I GOT TO SAY, JOANNA, I SEE THE HEADLINES IN THE BRITISH NEWSPAPER, AND GRANT THEY ARE GIVEN WITH INVERTED COMMENTS. I'VE SEEN HIM DUBBED THE FAMILY KILLER. I'VE SEEN EXTRAORDINARILY HEADLINES SAYING HE KILLED HAD ISWIFE AND DAUGHTER AND HE'S HARD TO SEE THOSE COMMENTS. DO YOU THINK IT'S THE SALACIOUSNESS OF THE TRIAL OR DO YOU THINK IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE OVER THERE? >> I THINK THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISLE IS EXTREMELY STRONG FROM THE PROSECUTION SIDE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE NO OTHER OBVIOUS ANSWER FOR WHO KILLED THESE PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT SHOOT YOUR OWN WIFE AND BABY, MOREOVER, SEEMS UNCONSCIONABLE, I THINK THE EVIDENCE IS REALLY EXTREMELY STRONG. I JUST DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT PEOPLE THINK THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS POINTLESS. BUT, YES, I THINK PEOPLE OVERALL HAVE A VIEW THAT YOU KNOW WHAT, IF THIS GUY DIDN'T DO IT, SHOW ME WHY AND HOW -- >> I'M GLAD YOU SAID THE POINTLESS BUSINESS, BECAUSE I SORT OF WONDER IF THE BRITS HAVE FAITH IN OUR SYSTEM, MEANING, I'M SURE THEY THINK IT WOULDN'T BE POINTLESS IF HE WERE TRIED IN BRITAIN, BUT DO THEY FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THE SYSTEM HERE? DO THEY THINK HE'S BEING GIVEN A FAIR SHAKE HERE? >> YES. >> YOU HESITATED. WHY DID YOU HESITATE? >> WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S -- IT'S ALL TOO EASY IN A STORY LIKE THIS TO WHIP UP A KIND OF BRITISH/AMERICAN ANIMOSITY AND SUSPICION, YOU KNOW, I READ THE BLOGS OVER HERE IN THE U.S. THAT SHOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS NEIL PURELY AS A BRIT. WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING? AND SO IT'S VERY EASY FOR THE BRITS TO SAY, AH, YOU'LL NEVER GET A FREE TRIAL OVER IN AMERICA, YOU KNOW, LIKE HANG HIM, SHOOT HIM, WHATEVER. THE OTHER POINT IS, YOU KNOW, IN MASSACHUSETTS, THERE'S NO DEATH PENALTY. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE EXTRADITION WAS ALLOWED, AND THAT SORT OF DEESCALATES THINGS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF HE WAS ON TRIAL IN TEXAS OR SOMETHING, THERE'D BE A BIT MORE OF, OH, MY GOODNESS, GUNSLINGER IN AMERICA. BUT I THINK THERE'S A REASONABLE FAITH THAT HE CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL. AND ALSO THAT UNDOUBTEDLY THIS WILL GO TO APPEAL. IT'S GOING TO GO ON AND ON AND ON. >> SURE, YOU KNOW HOW IT DOES. AND WE'VE HAD 300 YEARS OF HEALING SO IT'S UNUSUAL THAT BLOGGERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PONDS WOULD SAY THIS. >> I KNOW. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT EXTRADITION, I THINK IF AMERICANS HAD ONE OF THEIR OWN WHO WERE EXTRADITED TO ENGLAND FOR THE SAME TRIAL, THEY MIGHT FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE OR AT LEAST NOT THE SAME WAY AS IF HE WERE HERE. DO THE BRITS FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT ONE OF THEIR OWN WAS PICKED UP AND PUT ON A PLANE AND BROUGHT OVER HERE FOR A TRIAL? >> YES. I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY UNCOMFORTABLE. >> INTERESTING. SO, LET ME ASK YOU THIS -- DO YOU THINK THAT THE BRITISH TABLOIDS DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO SCOUR THIS GUY'S BACKGROUND IN ENGLAND FROM THE MOMENT HE WAS BORNTEL UNTIL THIS HORRIBLE CRIME WAS COMMITTED, TO FIND SOME BAD ACT THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THIS AND HAVE COME UP EMPTY HAND? >> I THINK THERE'S THE EVIDENCE THAT'S COME OUT SO FAR, OR AT LEAST THE CLAIMS FROM THE PROSECUTION, THEY'VE DONE OUR WORK FOR US. I'M NOT SURE THERE'S BEEN ANY PARTICULAR ATTEMPT TO MONSTER THIS GUY, TO TURN HIM INTO A MONSTER IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, LOOK WHAT WE'VE GONE AND FOUND. IT WAS SORT OF ALL THERE TO FIND. SO, WE'VE HAD THE CASE ON THE PLATE. >> RIGHT. I MEAN, I KIND OF THINK THAT IF THERE WERE SOMETHING TO -- BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW, JOANNA, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE WHO IS BASICALLY THIS CLEAN -- OKAY, THERE IS SOME eBAY BUSINESS AND THERE IS SOME -- AND WHO DOESN'T HAVE THAT. BUT HOW COULD SOMEONE THIS CLEAN AND SO BEAUTIFULLY MOPPED UP IN COURT COMMITTED SOMETHING THIS HEINOUS AND I'M JUST THINKING THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE IF, IN FACT, HE'S GUILTY, WHERE IS THERE ANY SIGN? AND MY GUESS IS IF THE POLICE DIDN'T CATCH IT, YOU, ME, AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN OUR BUSINESS WOULD HAVE FOUND SOMETHING. >> YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS -- THIS IS WHY IT'S SO INTRIGUING AS TO WHAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT COME UP WITH. WHAT CAN THEY POSSIBLY -- ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF SURPRISE PIECE THAT SHOWS A DEFINITE CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER PERSON, OR IS IT SIMPLY GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD UP THIS CASE AND BUILD UP THIS CASE OF DOUBT WITH THIS MAN. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY FEELING THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE POSH AND EDUCATED YOU DON'T SNAP OR YOU DON'T -- YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT FORCED TO THE BACK OF YOUR CAVE AT WHICH POINT YOU TURN INTO A KIND OF ANIMAL, YOU KNOW. >> I GET YOU. ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT THAT, BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME KIND OF TRIGGER, RIGHT? AND WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIND EVEN A TRIGGER IN THIS. >> YEAH, MOST PEOPLE GET A DIVORCE. >> RIGHT. AND EVEN THEN, IT LOOKED LIKE A SHAKY CASE THAT WASN'T HEADING TO DIVORCE. EVERYONE SAYS THEY'RE HAPPY. IT'S WEIRD. >> PEOPLE ARE GOOD ACTORS. >> OKAY. WELL, THAT MIGHT BE IT. WE'LL GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT HERE. BUT LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID BACK -- GOING BACK TWO YEARS. I'M DIGGING INTO THE ANALYSIS OF YOUR COVERAGE. AND IT WAS A HEADLINE, FAREWELL TO MURDERED FAMILY OF THE FUGITIVE." IT WAS THE FUNERAL YOU COVERED. >> I WAS THERE. >> I'M GLAD YOU WERE, AS MUCH COVERAGE AS WE'VE DONE OF THE CASE WE'RE SEEING THE PICTURES NOW OF THE FUNERAL, BUT I DON'T RECALL 500 MOURNERS SHOWED UP FOR THE FUNERAL. >> IT WAS HUGE. I DON'T KNOW IF 500 PEOPLE TURNED UP. I MUST SAY I DIDN'T GO TO THE GRAVE SITE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE PEOPLE THERE. THERE WAS A LARGE CHURCH IN PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS, WHICH WAS PACKED. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY THAT SAT. MAYBE IT WAS LIKE 300. IT WAS BIG. IT WAS BIG. SHE WAS A LOCAL GIRL. >> SAYING 500 AND SOMETHING ELSE I FOUND ASTOUNDING, I SUPPOSE I SHOULDN'T HAVE FOUND IT ASTOUNDING, BUT TEN DAYS AFTER THE DEATH HE WAS STILL NOT NAMED A SUSPECT. SO, DURING THIS FUNERAL AS YOU ALL WERE THERE, THE FATHER, WHO WAS ABSENT, NOT IN THAT CHURCH. >> YEAH. >> NOT EVEN MENTIONED IS STILL NOT EVEN CALLED A SUSPECT. HE'S A PERSON OF INTEREST. >> YEAH. >> WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? >> IT WAS VERY PUZZLING. AT THE TIME AS A REPORTER, THAT WAS VERY PUZZLING AND VERY FRUSTRATING AND I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION IN THE MINDS OF THE BRITISH MEDIA, HEY, YOU AMERICAN GUYS ARE WEIRD. WHY AREN'T YOU -- IS HE ONE THING OR ANOTHER? WHY ARE YOU HAVING THIS SORT OF EQUIVOCAL TERM, THIS PERSON OF INTEREST, SAYING THEY WERE BEING EXTREMELY CAREFUL. AND I THINK WE FOUND IT VERY ODD. AND THE DELAY VERY ODD. I GUESS THEY WERE WAITING FOR, YOU KNOW, THE SMOKING GUN. >> DOESN'T IT -- IT DOES SPEAK VOLUMES, THOUGH, AND MAYBE THIS IS SOME FODDER FOR ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IN HIS DEFENSE. BUT, LOOK, WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT THE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT IS HE TOOK OFF, NO BAGGAGE, ONE-WAY. THE KEYS WERE IN THE CAR. HE HAD DIRTY MATERIALS FOR IS EXCITES ON HIM WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED. HE HAD SIGNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SELLING THIS TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. AND ALL THAT STUFF HAD TO HAVE BEEN FOUND WITHIN TEN DAYS. SO, EVERYTHING THAT LOOKS SO GUILTY ABOUT HIM NOW WASN'T ENOUGH THEN TO HAVE CHARGED HIM RIGHT AWAY? >> WELL, YES, QUITE. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES BETWEEN THE POLICE ON THIS SIDE OF THE WATER AND THE POLICE IN ENGLAND ABOUT EXTRADITION AND ABOUT HOW THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU THINK, LOOK, THERE HAS TO BE A REASON FOR THIS. NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT IT. MAYBE IT'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT HE'S HOLED UP AT HIS PARENTS'. THEY DON'T WANT HIM TO FLEE. >> IT'S A GOOD POINT. >> THEY WANT TO JUST BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS. THEY DON'T WANT TO SWOOP AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY GET THIS GUY IN HANDCUFFS AND BRING HIM BACK TO AMERICA, THEY NEED IT TO BE SOLID. >> YEAH. >> AND THE BRITISH POLICE, I'M SURE, I'M SPECULATING, BUT I'M SURE, WOULD HAVE BEEN SAYING YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING HERE. YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING BIG AND YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING SOLID. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXTRADITION. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HAULING SOMEBODY IN FOR QUESTIONING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BIG PROSECUTION. >> DON'T COME TO US WITH A VERY FLIMSY SHREDS. >> LET ME BRING YOU BACK TO THE FUNERAL. WERE YOU IN THE CHURCH, BY THE WAY? >> I WAS. >> SO, YOU'RE SITTING THROUGH THIS SERVICE. >> YEAH. >> ARE YOU NOTICING THAT THERE'S NOT ONE MENTION OF NEIL ENTWISLE, APPARENTLY GRIEVING FATHER AND HUSBAND, NOT ONE MENTION OF HIS NAME? >> YEAH. >> THAT MUST HAVE BEEN ODD. >> IT WAS -- IT WAS THE 900-POUND GORILLA IN THE ROOM. >> YEAH. >> IT WAS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING. >> AND YET THE PRIEST, BILL McKENZIE, IN THE CATHOLIC MASS, DID UTTER THE WORDS, AND IT WAS LITERALLY THE ONLY MENTION IN THE ENTIRE SERVICE OF ANYTHING UNTOWARDS IN THIS WHOLE SITUATION, EVIL WALKS AMONG US. >> YES. >> OH, GOD. >> YEAH. IT WAS -- IT WAS QUITE A DAY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ONE COULD ONLY IMAGINE AT THAT POINT WHAT THE FAMILY WERE GOING THROUGH. AND I THINK IT WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A DAY OR A MORNING OR A FUNERAL OR A CEREMONY WHERE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A TERRIBLE CRIME TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY DIDN'T COME INTO IT. IT WAS JUST A CASE OF WE NEED TO HAVE GRIEF AND REMEMBRANCE AND WOULD YOU PLEASE ALLOW US THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT ALMOST MAKES IT MORE EXTRAORDINARY THAT NEIL WASN'T THERE, AND VERY SUSPICIOUS OBVIOUSLY. BUT THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ALREADY IN THE MINDS OF THE FAMILY THAT HE DID IT. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION ON THIS, AND SO IT WAS THEIR CHOICE. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPOSED ON NEIL FROM ANYWHERE OTHER THAN THE FAMILY. YOU KNOW, BUT IT WAS -- YES, IT WAS A VERY SOMBER DAY. >> I CAN IMAGINE. LET ME PLAY SOMETHING FOR YOU. I KNOW YOU WERE THERE FOR THIS, BUT OUR -- FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR AUDIENCE, I WANT THEM TO SEE SOME TESTIMONY FROM RACHEL'S STEPDAD, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO. HE WAS ON THE STAND UNDER DIRECT EXAMINATION WHEN HE GAVE THIS TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT NEIL SAID TO HIM ON THE TELEPHONE ABOUT DISCOVERING THE BODIES AND THEN, OF COURSE, HOW HE WANTED THEM BURIED TOGETHER AND WHY. VERY, VERY TELLING. YOU AND I WILL TALK ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT LISTEN TO THIS DIRECT EXAMINATION OF JOE MATTERAZZO. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION, SIR, TO THIS SPEAK TO HIM AT SOME POINT IN TIME ABOUT FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT DAY THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE? IF YOU RECALL. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS WEDNESDAY, IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WEDNESDAY OR TUESDAY. HE ASKED ME IF -- IF RACHEL AND LILLY COULD BE BURIED TOGETHER. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YES, HE SAYS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY I LEFT THEM -- I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND THEM. >> YEAH, THAT WAS A LITTLE AWARD. WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOUR READERS WOULD HAVE REALLY PICKED UP OR WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN THE MOMENT FOR THEM? EVERYBODY HAS A MOMENT WHERE, OKAY, I KNOW IT'S OVER FOR ME. I KNOW HE DID IT OR HE DIDN'T. >> IT WAS PRETTY DYNAMITE. >> ENOUGH SAID, RIGHT? >> YEAH. >> JACK FORD AND I HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. AND THAT'S MY PARTNER WHO NOT HERE TODAY. BUT IF THAT WERE A GRIEVING FATHER WHO TRULY DID FIND HIS WIFE AND BABY MURDERED, HE MIGHT ACTUALLY SAY, I LEFT THEM THAT WAY, I FOUND THEM THAT WAY. IT'S THE SAME. THE FACT THAT HE CHANGED IT MAKES IT AWKWARD. >> YEAH. >> THE WORDS AREN'T INDICTING. >> NO, IT'S NOT THE SMOKING GUN. THE -- UNTIL WE COME ON TO THIS STUFF ABOUT THE GUN AND THE DNA IN DETAIL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY TELLING. BUT THE STATEMENT THAT MATTERAZZO MADE WAS NOT -- WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY IT. AND YET ALL OF THESE THINGS, THEY ARE -- THEY CUMULATIVELY THEY ARE ADDING UP. IT'S JUST ANOTHER THING THAT'S STRONG. BUT IT'S -- YEAH, NO, IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY -- IT'S NOT PROOF. I MEAN, I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE -- THAT THE DEFENSE DID CROSS-EXAMINE JOE MATTERAZZO MUCH MORE CLOSELY AND MUCH MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHETHER HE REALLY RECOLLECTED THIS, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU FELT LIKE HE'D BEEN WAITING 2 1/2 YEARS TO SAY THIS IN COURT. YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS HIS MOMENT. HE'D BEEN NEEDING TO SAY THIS, HE'D BEEN WAITING TO SAY THIS. AND YET THEY BARELY CHALLENGED HIM. THEY DIDN'T CHALLENGE HIM ON ANY OTHER THING ABOUT A POSSIBLE MOTIVE WHY HE MIGHT HAVE DONE IT, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WAS LITTLE IMPLICATIONS. NOTHING, NO BIG DEAL. I GUESS MAYBE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE KNEW HE WAS GOING TO HAVE ALL THE ALIBIS. >> A WHOLE BUNCH OF THOSE. >> EXACTLY. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO. OBVIOUSLY IT'S NO BIG SECRET NOW BUT WHEN NEIL ENTWISLE WAS PICKED UP, HE WAS FOUND TO HAVE ON HIS PERSON NOT ONLY THE TORN-OUT PAGE FROM THE NEWSPAPER WITH THE ESCORT SERVICES ON IT, BUT ALSO HE HAD HANDWRITTEN NOTES ABOUT SELLING THE STORY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. AND I WAS SORT OF CURIOUS AS TO WOULD THAT BE A BIDDER IN AMERICA OR A BIDDER IN BRITAIN. YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS, YOU'RE WITH "THE DAILY EXPRESS." WHO WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THAT STORY? >> THE TABS IN BRITAIN. >> EVERYBODY? >> NO. HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE HAD A BIDDING WAR, IF HE WAS REALLY SMART, HE WOULD HAVE GOT HIMSELF AN AGENT. THERE'S A FEW THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO WILL THEN CONDUCT A BIDDING WAR BETWEEN THE TABLOIDS. >> CAN HE STILL DO IT? >> CAN HE STILL DO IT NOW? OH, MY GOODNESS, NO. >> LET'S SAY HE'S CONVICTED AND HE WANTS TO SELL HIS STORY IN BRITAIN. HE CAN'T PROFIT FROM HIS CRIMES HERE BUT I'M NOT SO SURE HE COULD BE PROSECUTED FROM DOING IT OVER THERE. DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD BUY THREAT? >> IT'S A GOOD POINT. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LEGAL SITUATION IS. I THINK IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BE RATHER STOMACH CHURNING TO READ HIS STUFF IF HE'S CONVICTED ESPECIALLY IF IT'S QUITE QUICK AND DECISIVE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY'LL BE -- THEY'LL BE SOMEBODY, THEY'LL BE SOMEBODY THAT WILL PICK THIS UP AND RUN NEIL'S STORY. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT. OR MAYBE A BOOK DEAL, YOU KNOW. >> NOT IN THIS COUNTRY, MY FRIEND. >> NO. I WOULDN'T DO IT. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION A LITTLE BIT LATER ON IN THE SHOW WITH OUR LEGAL EXPERT. I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU THIS OFFHAND. I DO KNOW THIS YOU CANNOT PROFIT FROM YOUR CRIMES IN THIS COUNTRY, BUT IF YOU'RE SELLING IT OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION, COULD BE DIFFERENT AND YOU'RE SPIRITING THOSE FUNDS AWAY TO SOMEONE OUST YOUR JURISDICTION, COULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT, JOANNA, IT'S GOOD TO TALK TO YOU. WILL YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO US AGAIN THROUGHOUT THE PROSECUTION? >> I THINK SO, SURE. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. I SAW YOUR WORK. WHAT I READ WAS GREAT. >> IT'S A BIG LONG STORY. >> IT IS AND IT KEEPS GOING ON AND ON. JOANNA WALTERS JOINING US FROM THE DAILY EXPRESS. MEANTIME, WE WANT TO SPEAK TO YOU. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND THE 13th JUROR QUESTION TODAY IS THIS -- IS THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE HOME HELPING THE PROSECUTION? YEAH, I GUESS SO, 90% OF YOU THINK YOU BETCHA, BUT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ALL OF THE STORY YET. THE DEFENSE HASN'T BEGUN, FOLKS. I WONDER IF THESE NUMBERS WILL CHANGE. NOT A GOOD FACT PATTERN, THOUGH. WE'LL UPDATE THE RESULTS. STAY WITH US. >>> I COVERED THEM UP. TROOPER ROBERT MANNING WHO YOU'LL MEET ASKED, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? IT WAS LIKE I WAS CLOSING THEM OFF. THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISLE THAT YOU WILL HEAR. IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I COULD SEE THE HOLE ON LILLY. >> PROSECUTOR IN HIS OPENING STATEMENTS TALKING ABOUT WHAT NEIL ENTWISLE SAID HE SAW AS THE REASON FOR WHY HE LEFT. ONE-WAY TICKET, NO BAGGAGE TO ENGLAND. NEIL ENTWISLE TOLD INVESTIGATORS THAT HE COULD TELL HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER WERE SHOT. HE COULD SEE IT. BUT IT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE EXPERTS. THE POLICE OFFICERS THAT FOUND AND PHOTOGRAPHED THOSE BODIES, WATCH AS THEY DESCRIBE THAT MOMENT OF DISCOVERY, AND LISTEN FOR THE CLUES THAT CONTRADICT THE DEFENDANT'S VERSION OF THE EVENTS. >> AS YOU FIRST ENTERED THE BASEMENT, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU OBSERVE, OR NOTICE? >> I NOTICED A SLIGHT ODOR IN THE BASEMENT. WHEN I GOT TO THE FIRST INTO, I NOTICED THE ODOR WAS STRONGER AND IT WAS AN ODOR THAT WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE HOUSE THE NIGHT BEFORE. I THEN LIFTED THE COMFORTER ON THAT CORNER IN A SIMILAR MANNER AS I HAD ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED. I FIRST OBSERVED A SMALL BABY'S FACE. AS I CONTINUED TO RAISE THE COME FOSTER SLIGHTLY MORE I LOOKED TO THE RIGHT OF THE BABY'S FACE AND SAW A WOMAN'S FACE. >> UPON REMOVAL OF THE COMFORTER, WE COULD SEE THE INFANT'S BODY FROM THE NECK DOWN, BUT THE FACE WAS COVERED WITH THE PILLOW. WHEN WE REMOVED THE PILLOW FROM THE FACE AREA OF THE INFANT VICTIM, THERE WAS A REDDISH-BROWN STAINS ON COVERING THE OTHER -- THE SIDE OF THE PILLOW THAT WAS UP AGAINST THE FACE OF THE INFANT. >> DESCRIBE OUR OBSERVATIONS OF RACHEL WHEN YOU PULLED THAT SHEET BACK. >> YES. SHE WAS LAYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. I BELIEVE HER FEET WERE CURLED UP A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE BODY. SHE HAD ON WHAT APPEARED TO BE PAJAMAS OR SHORTS AND A TOP, APPEARED TO BE PAJAMAS. AGAIN, SHE WAS LAYING ON HER LEFT SIDE. HER FACE WAS SOMEWHAT DOWNWARD. AND HER RIGHT ARM WAS OVER ACROSS THE INFANT VICTIM, LILLIAN. I NOTICED THERE WAS WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PUNCTURE TO THE LEFT CHEST AREA OF THE INFANT. IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE DARK IN COLOR, ALMOST LIKE SOOT. BURNING. I WAS NOT QUITE SURE WHAT IT WAS AT THE TIME. IT WAS NOT EVIDENT PRIOR TO SEPARATING THE VICTIMS. ON CLOSER EXAMINATION, IT APPEARED TO BE A GUNSHOT WOUND. >> WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING. THE INVESTIGATORS HAD A TOUGH TIME DISCOVERING GUNSHOTS, IN FACT, THE GUNSHOT TO RACHEL WASN'T DISCOVERED UNTIL AUTOPSY. THE ONE THAT KILLED HER AT THE HAIRLINE. SO, ROBERT GEORGE, THAT'S NOT GOOD. >>> ALL THAT ASIDE, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH WHAT YOUR CLIENTS HAVE SAID, WHICH IS I SAW MY BABY AND WIFE SHOT DEAD WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THEY SAW THOSE PEOPLE THAT THEY'D BEEN SHOT DEAD? >> SEE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT NEIL ENTWISTLE SAW OR DIDN'T SEE THAN WHEN HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY THE POLICE. ENTWISTLE TALKING TO THE POLICE WAS NOT A GOOD THING FOR THE DEFENSE. THE VERSION HE LOCKED HIMSELF INTO WAS NOT A GOOD THING. WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU IS WHAT A PERSON SEES WHEN THEY'RE TRAUMATIZED OR SHOCKED THE WAY ENTWISTLE SAID HE WAS SHOCKED CAN EXPLAIN THESE THINGS AND THE INACCURACIES OF WHAT THEY SAW DON'T FIT NOW. WE'RE JUDGING WHAT HE SAID NOW BASED ON WHAT THE FORENSICS ARE COMING TO THE COURTROOM. >> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I AGREE THAT SHOCK CAN DEFINITELY CREATE INACCURACIES. CHRISTINE, I'LL BRING YOU IN ON THIS. SHOCK CAN'T USUALLY CREATE ACCURACIES. >> YOU'RE THINKING THE SAME THING I AM. >> SO WHAT -- >> SHOCK DOESN'T CREATE THINGS FOR -- FOR A LAYMAN TO SEE THAT A FORENSIC EXPERT CAN'T. SO, IN THIS CASE, HE REALLY DID MESS HIMSELF UP BY SPEAKING TO THE POLICE AND SAYING HE SAW THINGS THAT EXPERTS -- TRAINED EXPERTS COULDN'T SEE RIGHT ON SIGHT, WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE SHOW. THE RELEVANCE OF THE BABY'S ONESIE AND SLEEPER COME IN TO PLAY NOW THAT A PICTURE ALONE WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. IT MAKES IT MORE RELEVANT FOR THE PROSECUTION TO ACTUALLY BRING IN THE CLOTHING BECAUSE IT GOES TO SHOW THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS. >> YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE BACK OF A PHOTOGRAPH. >> WHY A PHOTOGRAPH WHEN YOU CAN PRODUCE THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE. IF THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE MAKING THE BIG ARGUMENT THAT -- >> ROBERT GEORGE WILL SAY WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE IS MAKING A JURY FEEL REALLY MAD THAT A BABY GOT SHOT UP WHILE WEARING A ONESIE. >> NO ONE IS GOING TO SAY IF YOU SHOW A PICTURE, HOW DO WE KNOW. HE CAN MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. THE BEST EVIDENCE IS THE ACTUAL -- HE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. HE CAN'T SAY THIS IS TOO PREJUDICIAL FOR THE CLIENT AND WE SHOW A PHOTOGRAPH AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WOULD COME RIGHT BACK AT US AND SAY YOU EAR ONLY SHOWING A PHOTOGRAPH, WHERE'S THE REAL THING. >> I'VE GOT TO GET YOU IN HERE, ROBERT, BUT TEN SECONDS TO GET TO BREAK. THAT'S A BIG ARGUMENT. WHY SHOULD WE PRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ONESIE WITH THE BLOOD ON IT WHEN WE HAVE THE REAL THING? >> WHAT TRIAL LAWYER WITH HALF AN I.Q. WOULD ATTACK A PROSECUTION FOR PUTTING IN PHOTOGRAPHS IF THEY'RE SITTING ON THE REAL THING OUTSIDE IN THE HALLWAY. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT A SMART DEFENSE LAWYER WOULD ATTACK SOMEONE ABOUT PUTTING IN THE PHOTOS WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT IN THE INFLAMMATORY EFFECT OF BLOOD-STAINED PAJAMAS AND RUNNING THE JURY'S FACE IN IT TO MAKE THEM BLIND TO THE TRUE ISSUE WHICH IS PULLING THE TRIGGER. >> I THINK IT'S BIZARRE. IT'S A HORRIBLE COINCIDENCE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT I SAW MY CHILD -- THE MOM OF MY CHILD AND MY CHILD SHOT WHEN HE SAID DEAD WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE SHOT -- THEY WERE SHOT. IF THAT'S A COINCIDENCE, I DO FEEL BAD FOR MR. ENTWISTLE. THERE'S A LOT OF COINCIDENCES IN THIS TRIAL THAT HE'S UP AGAINST. WE WANT TO GET OUR COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION GOING ON THIS CASE. IT'S EASY TO DO. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND E-MAIL COURTSIDE@CNN.COM AND LET US HAVE IT IN ANY WAY YOU WANT. KEEP IT SHORT, SMART, AND SWEET. IF YOU'RE BY THINK, I'M NOT LISTENING -- IF YOU'RE PITHY, YOU MIGHT SEE YOUR WORDS ON AIR. >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO "BANFIELD & FORD COURTSIDE." WE'RE IN SESSION. JACK FORD IS OFF TODAY. WHAT A DAY IT'S BEEN. A STAR WITNESS TURNS OUT NOT TO BE A PERSON AT ALL BUT A THING. A BABY'S SLEEPER COVER IN BLOOD SHOWING CLEARLY WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN ENTRANCE WOUND FOR A BULLET AND AN EXIT WOUND WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE BLOOD ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE SLEEPER. THE FORENSIC INVESTIGATOR SHOWED US ALL AND SHOWED THE COURT WHAT THAT SLEEPER LOOKED LIKE. A DIFFICULT MOMENT FOR MANY TO SAY THE VERY LEAST INSIDE THAT COURTROOM TODAY. JOINING US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM NOW IS BETH KARAS. NO MATTER HOW YOU SLICE IT. NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID ABOUT THE INVESTIGATOR, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT REALLY STICKS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING THIS, ESPECIALLY JURORS. >> ABSOLUTELY TO. SEE THE LITTLE SLEEPER -- HALF STAINED WITH BLOOD AND, OF COURSE, THE JURORS HAVE SEEN WHAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN, THE CRIME SCENE VIDEO, THE PICTURE OF THE BABY WITH HIS MOTHER'S ARM -- HER LITTLE -- LILIAN'S MOTHER'S ARM AROUND HER LYING ON HER BACK WITH HER FAC U AND SORT OF BLOOD AND MUCUS COMING OUT OF HER NOSE AND THE MOUTH AREA BECAUSE SHE HAD BEEN SHOT IN THE CHEST AND HAD BEEN DEAD -- WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOURS AT THE TIME. IF YOU BELIEVED ENTWISTLE, THEY HAD BEEN DEAD A COUPLE OF HOURS AT MOST. BUT I THINK WE'LL HEAR THE TIME OF DEATH WAS CLOSE TO 7:00 IN THE MORNING. BY THE TIME THEY WERE FOUND IT WAS NEARLY THREE DAYS. >> BRIEFLY FOR US, WE WANT TO GET BACK TO THE LIVE TESTIMONY. HOW DID ELLIOTT WINESTEIN SOMEHOW MITIGATE WHAT THAT COURTROOM WENT THROUGH TODAY WITH THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE? >> WELL, HE TALKED ABOUT HER COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE AND HOW SHE COLLECTED, HOW SHE COLLECTED. WHAT SHE CHOSE NOT TO COLLECT. HE CHALLENGED -- HE ASKED HER QUESTIONS THAT NO ONE CAN ANSWER LIKE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO -- YOU CAN'T ANSWER WITH CERTAINTY AS A SCIENTIST, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO FIRED THE GUN BASED UPON THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE. NO. YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN THE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL WAS DEPOS DEPOSITED THERE. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE? NO, I DON'T. TO SHOW THAT HIS ISSUE IS IDENTITY -- YOU GOT THE WRONG GUY ON TRIAL. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW WHO THE RIGHT GUY IS. HE HAS TO SHOW THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TO CONNECT HIS CLIENT TO THIS CRIME. IT'S ENTIRELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT'S A TOUGH ROW TO HOE FOR THE DEFENSE MANY PEOPLE SAID. BUT ELLIOTT IS DOING A VERY, VERY THOROUGHLY CONFIDENT JOB. >> A TOUGH ROW TO HOE. YOU SAID IT. WHAT BETH JUST SUMMARIZED IS NOW ON REDIRECT FOR EXAMINATION. THE CROSS OF THIS WITNESS, THE DNA AND BLOOD STAIN EXPERT IS OVER. NOW THE PROSECUTOR, MICHAEL FABREE HAS ANOTHER SHOT TO DO SOME REDIRECT EXAMINATION. HERE'S LIVE -- >> NOTHING WAS OBSERVED. >> IN THE MASTER BATHROOM? >> THE ORANGE STAIN ON THE TOWEL WAS OBSERVED. OTHER THAN THAT, THERE WERE NO OTHER STAINS OBSERVED. >> AND WHAT ABOUT ELSEWHERE IN THE HALL? FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR AND BASEMENT? >> NO, NOTHING WAS OBSERVED. >> IN THE SIZE, IF YOU WILL, THE DIAMETER OR THE WIDTH OF THE SPOTS OR DROPLETS THAT WERE OBSERVED ON THE WALL ADJACENT TO THE BED? >> THEY WERE APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO FIVE MILLIMETERS WHICH IS A LITTLE LESS THAN A HALF INCH. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST OBSERVE THEM? >> APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE, WE OBSERVED THEM WHEN WE -- AFTER WE EXAMINED THE CLOSET, WE CLOSED THE CLOSET DOOR AND OBSERVED THEM IN THE CORNER OF THE ROOM BEHIND THE CLOSET DOOR. >> MA'AM, I BELIEVE YOU HAD SAID THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS THAT YOU HAD MADE THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE MARK THAT YOU SAW ON THE PAJAMAS OF THE INFANT MAY HAVE BEEN A GUNSHOT WOUND AND THERE WAS CERTAIN INFORMATION THAT YOU KNEW -- THAT LED YOU BELIEVE THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A GUNSHOT-RELATED MARK. TELL US THE INFORMATION YOU HAD. >> I JUST CONDUCTED A VISUAL OBSERVATION ON THE SLEEPER THAT HAD A HOLE THAT LOOKED LIKE THE GUNSHOT HOLE. IT HAD THE FOOTING PERIMETER AROUND IT AND THE PATTERN. ALSO, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE -- THE ONESIE UNDERNEATH, THERE WAS A HOLE ALSO IN THE LEFT CHEST. HOWEVER, ON THE ACTUAL BODY OF THE INFANT, THERE WAS NOT A HOLE. IT WAS JUST A MARKING. >> WHAT ABOUT -- I THINK YOU SAID YOU PERFORMED BLOOD TESTS AT THE SCENE AND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION YOU WERE ASKED IF YOU HAD DONE ANY OTHER TYPES OF TEST AT THE SCENE. IN PARTICULAR ON THE PAJAMAS. DID YOU DO ANYTHING? >> I CONDUCTED A -- A CONFIRM CONCILIATORY TEST FOR LEAD ON THE SLEEPER, THE INFANT. >> THAT WAS DONE AT THE SCENE. AND THE OTHER TESTS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT WERE DONE BACK IN THE LABORATORY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> ALSO THE SCENE, MA'AM, DID YOU OBSERVE A GUNSHOT WOUND TO RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S FOREHEAD? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> DID YOU OBSERVE ANY GUNSHOT WOUND AT ALL TO HER HEAD? >> NO. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO OBSERVE HER LEFT CHEST IN THE AREA OF THE SHIRT IN WHICH IT DESCRIBED THE HOLES. >> YES, I DID. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT PARTICULAR INJURY OR AREA? >> IT WAS A -- JUST A BLACK MARK, I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER TO A HALF INCH IN DIAMETER. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATION APPEARED TO BE SOME SORT OF GUNSHOT WOUND AT THE TIME? >> AT THE TIME, NO? THERE SEEMED TO BE NO PENETRATION INTO THE BODY. >> NOW, MA'AM, THE 18 INCHES THAT YOU HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT ON FRIDAY, TO WHAT DOES THAT RELATE? >> THAT'S RELATING TO HOW FIRE VAPORS' RESIDUES WILL TRAVEL. >> AND IS THERE A REASON WHY A SPECIFIC DISTANCE DETERMINATION WAS NOT DONE AS TO THAT SPOT OR AREA THAT YOU SAW ON THAT PILLOW? >> PILLOW -- WHICH PILLOW ARE YOU SPEAKING SNOF. >> PILLOW NUMBER ONE -- THE ONE UNDER THE HEADS OF RACHAEL AND LILLY ENTWISTLE. >> THERE WAS NOT A HOLE IN THE PILLOW. I CONDUCTED MY INVESTIGATION ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCENE AND THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AS TO WHERE THEIR HEADS WERE POSITIONED. IN ORDER TO DO THE TEST FIRINGS, WE NEED TO DO THE HOLE TO TARGET THE DISTANCE DETERMINATION. >> IN THOSE INSTANCES YOU'RE ABLE TO DO DISTANCE DETERMINATION MEASUREMENTS, THE RESULTING MEASUREMENT, IS IT A SPECIFIC NUMBER, OR IS IT A RANGE OF NUMBERS? >> UNLESS IT'S A CONTACT SHOT, IT IS RANGE. >> SO ANYTHING BEYOND A CONTACT SHOT WILL ALWAYS BE A RANGE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHAT WAS THE REASON YOU HAD DONE THE TESTING IN JULY OF 2006 ON THE PAJAMAS? THE DISTANCE DETERMINATION TESTING I SHOULD SAY. >> THE FOOD, THE RANGE IN WHICH THE FIREARM WAS THE TARGET WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS THE SLEEPER. >> AND LASTLY, MA'AM, YOU MENTIONED THE -- YOUR EXAMINATION OF AN ARTICLE OF CLOTHING FROM THE BMW. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN THE BMW? >> NO, I DO NOT. >> FROM YOUR TEST OR EXAMINATION CAN YOU DETERMINE ANY WAY TO WHOM IT BELONGS? >> NO. >> THAT'S UL -- ALL I HAVE, YOUR HONOR. >>> MS. DYGAN, YOU LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS PRIOR TO TESTIFYING OF THIS 18-INCH DISTANCE IN. >> I LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS -- WHAT ARE YOU TALKING -- >> DID YOU LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE -- OF THE DEAD BODIES IN THE POSITION THAT YOU FOUND THEM? >> YES. >> YOU LOOK AT PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOW THEM POSITIONED ON THE PILLOW. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GOT TO THAT POSITION ON THE PILLOW, DO YOU? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE FOUND IN THE POSITION THAT THEY WERE WHEN SHOT. OF. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> REGARDING THESE -- THESE GLOVES AND MASKS AND SO ON THAT YOU WEAR DURING EVIDENCE COLLECTION -- >> YES, IN TESTING. >> ALSO THE SAME TYPE OF STERILITY TESTS THAT YOU TAKE WITHIN THE LABORATORY. THOSE EFFORTS THAT YOU DESCRIBED JUST MOMENTS AGO ARE ALL DESIGN SOD THAT YOU, THE SCIENTIST, DON'T CROSS CONTAMINATE ANY EVIDENCE SAMPLE THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THOSE STEPS ARE DESIGNED SO THAT YOU, THE SCIENTIST, DON'T CROSS CONTAMINATE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU MIGHT BE ANALYZING BACK IN THE LABORATORY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT YOU HAVE NO WAY OF GUARDING AGAINST THE CROSS CONTAMINATION OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU SHOW UP? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. DYGAN. YOU ARE A GREAT WITNESS. I LIKE THAT ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN WASN'T MEAN TO HER. THAT WAS GOOD, THAT WAS NICE. AND HE MADE A POINT. OF COURSE SHE CAN'T BE IN CONTROL OF THAT CRIME SCENE BEFORE SHE GET THERE IS. WHO COULD? MY PARTNER SAID, OF COURSE, SHE DIDN'T KILL THEM. I LOVE THAT. COME ON BACK IN A COUPLE. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD." WE'RE IN SESSION. SO IS THE COURT. BRAND NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND. THIS IS WITH THE CRIME LAB. HE'S A SEEP YOUR CHEMIST AND EXPERT IN NOT ONLY ARSON BUT GUNSHOT RESIDUE. THIS SHOULD BE GOOD. >> THIS IS A DETERMINATION DESCRIBING HOW FAR THEY WILL FALL AND WHAT MANNER THEY FALL. >> MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF WEAPONS, WIND, IF YOU HAVE LIKE A DRIVE-BY SHOOTING, THAT WILL AFFECT WHERE THE PARTICLES ARE DEPOSITED. DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS TOO. >> THE CALIBER OF THE WEAPON SNITS. >> YES. >> WHAT ABOUT THE ANGLE AT WHICH THE BULLET IS DISCHARGE? >> UP -- >> WHETHER IT'S HORIZONTAL, AT AN ANGLE, VERTICAL, DOES THAT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE -- >> IT MAY HAVE AN IMPACT. >> DESCRIBE THE PATTERN OR PATTERNS IN YOUR TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE ARE CREATED AS A RESULT OF THAT CLOUD COMING OUT OF THE FIREARM. >> WELL, THE PATTERN -- NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. IT FORMS A CLOUD, LIKE I SAID, A VAPOR CLOUD. AND IT'S -- IT EMANATES FROM SPACES IN THE WEAPON AND AGAIN IT DEPOSITS IT ON SURFACES, WHETHER IT'S HANDS OR CLOTHING. >> WHAT SORT OF FACTORS CAN AFFECT THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT WILL REMAIN ON A SURFACE. >> WELL, THEY'RE -- THEY'RE LEAD-BASED, METAL-BASED PARTICLES. THEY ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO RUBBING OR SOMEBODY RUBS THEIR HANDS BEFORE LOOKING FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THEIR HANDS. RUBBING THEIR HANDS, PUTTING THEIR HANDS IN THEIR POCKETS OR WASHING HANDS, THAT MAY AFFECT THE CAPABILITY OF PICKING UP THE PARTICLES. >> WHAT ABOUT THE DISTANCE OVER WHICH THE PARTICLES TRAVEL IN THAT CLOUD? >> APPROXIMATE DISTANCES? >> IF THAT'S THE BEST YOU CAN DO, YES. >> WELL, THERE'S BEEN STUDIES WHERE SEVERAL -- ON EITHER SIDE OF THE WEAPON, IN FRONT OF THE WEAPON, AND IN BACK OF THE WEAPON. >> WHAT ABOUT THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THEM IN THEIR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS? >> YES. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DESCRIBE THAT VAPOR CLOUD, IT -- IT'S -- WHAT HAPPENS THEN THE INITIAL EXPLOSION CREATES A LOT OF HEAT. AND THOSE PARTICLES GO INTO A VAPOR PHASE AND THEY SOLIDIFY ONCE THEY HIT THE AIR. SO UNDER A MICROSCOPE, THERE ARE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE, THEY ROUNDED THE VARYING SIZES. SOME MAY BE ROUND, SOME LOOK LIKE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE. TRY TO DESCRIBE LIKE A GOLF BALL, ACTUALLY. >> PHYSICAL OR NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE? >> CAN'T SEE IT WITH THE NAKED EYE, NO. >> TESTS DEVELOPED TO DETECT WHETHER SURFACE OR SURFACES HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH OR GUNSHOT RESIDUE HAVE FALLEN ON A SURFACE. >> EXTRACTION TECHNIQUE? >> START WITH EXTRACTION. HOW IS THAT DONE? >> WE -- LIKE I SAID, WE ALREADY RECEIVE THESE GUNSHOT RESIDUE KITS AND WHAT'S WITHIN THE KITS ARE THESE STUBS. THEY'RE COATED WITH A CARBON TAPE -- VERY STICKY CARBON TAPE. THE STUBS THEMSELVES ARE ABOUT A HALF INCH OF DIAMETER. AT THE BASE OF THE STUB IS A HANDLING PIN. AND WHAT THESE ARE DESIGNED TO DO IS YOU DAB THE STUB ON THE SURFACE AND THOSE WILL PICK UP ANY PERILS, ANY OTHER DEBRIS THAT MIGHT BE ON THE SURFACE. >> WHAT IS DONE WITH THOSE STUBS ONCE THEY'RE BROUGHT TO THE LAB OR DELIVERED TO THE LAB? >> THE STUBS ARE PUT IN A -- EXCUSE ME, WHAT'S CALLED A SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. WE HAVE A -- AN ENTRANCE CHAMBER THAT'S -- IT SITS FOUR OF THESE STUBS AND THEN WE HAVE A NEGATIVE CONTROL AND A CALIBRATION STUB. WITH THE ELECTRON MICROSCOPE DOES IS IT'S REALLY TWO PARTS. THERE'S THE MICROSCOPE ITSELF, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO INCREASE THE MAGNIFICATION. IT ALLOWS YOU TO LOOK AT THE SAMPLE ITSELF. BUT THE SECOND PART OF THE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT IS A DETECTOR. SO, THAT PART OF THE EQUIPMENT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO IDENTIFY THE COMPONENTS OF THAT SAMPLE. >> SO WHAT HAPPENS FIRST WHEN YOU PUT ONE OF THE STUBS INTO THAT DEVICE -- INTO THE MACHINE? >> YOU LOAD THE SAMPLES IN. YOU PUMP IT DOWN. THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS PUT IN THE COORDINATES. PUT THE SAMPLES IN. THE EQUIPMENT COMES DOWN AND ALLOWS YOU TO AGAIN VISUALIZE AND WE'LL PLUG IN PARAMETERS SO THEY'RE NECESSARY TO DO THE ANALYSIS. AND THE EQUIPMENT RUNS THROUGH IT. IT'S AUTOMATED. >> IS THAT THE SCANNING PORTION OF THE TEST WHERE PHYSICALLY MICROSCOPICALLY LOOKS AT THE STUB ITSELF? >> YES. >> WHAT IS IT LOOKING FOR? >> LOOKING FOR THOSE PARTICLES. THE PARTICLES HAVE A CHARACTERISTIC BRIGHTNESS TO THEM. BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY'RE METAL IN NATURE, METALLIC IN NATURE. IT ALSO LOOKS FOR SIZE AND ROUNDED PARTICLES SO ALL THESE THINGS IT'S IN THE SOFTWARE ITSELF. IT'S LOOKING FOR THESE THINGS. AND, AGAIN, IT'S AUTOMATED. SO IT WILL GO THROUGH, SEARCH THESE STUBS THE STUBS THEMSELVES HAVE BROKEN DOWN TO MANY FIELDS AND WHAT IT DOES IS SEARCHES THROUGH THAT FIELD AND PICKS UP THE COMPONENTS THAT THEY THINK WILL BE GUNSHOT PARTICLES. IT WILL RUN THROUGH THE PROGRAM. IT WILL TAKE A FEW HOURS, IT COULD TAKE SEVERAL HOURS. BUT THE DATA AND THE COORDINATES AND EVERYTHING ELSE ARE STORE IN THE SYSTEM. >> ONCE THE SCANNING PORTION OF THAT TESTING IN THE MACHINE IS DONE AND DATA, IF ANY, IS GATHER ED WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP OR SECOND PORTION OF PHASE OR THAT TEST? >> THE SECOND PORTION IS OUR ANALYSIS ITSELF. WE GET A SUMMARY SHEET OF WHAT IT MAY HAVE FOUND. AND OUR JOB REALLY IS TO GO BACK IN, GO TO X AND Y COORDINATES WHERE IT THINKS IT THREE COMPONENT PARTICLES ARE, AND RESCAN LIVE TIME AND WE'LL MAXIMIZE THE IMAGE -- WE'LL LOOK AT THE PARTICLE ITSELF AND SEE IF IT DOES HAVE THOSE THREE COMPONENTS THAT SHOULD BE PRESENT IN GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE. >> AND THOSE CERTAIN STANDARDS OF PARAMETERS THAT THE CRIME LAB FOLLOWS IN USING THE SCANNING MACHINE AND THE DETECTION MACHINE? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ARE THOSE? >> WE FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN THE -- >> WHAT DOES ASTM GUIDELINE? >> AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING AND MATERIALS. IT'S ASTM 15.88. IT HAS SCANNING PARAMETERS. IT'S A GUIDELINE. IT TELLS YOU THE MINIMUM PORTION OF THE STUB TO ANALYZE AND THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTIC PARTICLES THAT ARE PRESENT. >> NOW, IF YOU GET A -- ULTIMATELY GET A POSITIVE RESULT FROM A PARTICULAR STUB, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? WHAT CAN YOU CONCLUDE FROM THAT POSITIVE RESULT? >> FROM A POSITIVE RESULT? >> YES. >> WE CAN SAY ONE OF THREE THINGS. PERSON FIRED A WEAPON, HANDLED A WEAPON, OR WAS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A FIRED WEAPON. >> CAN YOU TELL WHICH OF THE THREE THINGS WITH THE INFORMATION THAT YOU GET FROM A POSITIVE RESULT? >> NO. >> WHAT ABOUT A NEGATIVE RESULT? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? ANOTHER. >> A NEGATIVE RESULT, IT DOESN'T MEET THE THREE PARTICLE THRESHOLD WE SET. IT ALSO MEANS THAT THE PERSON HAS NOT FIRE ADD WEAPON. >> THE MACHINE AT THE CRIME LAB FOR PURPLES OF SCANNING AND DETECTING GUNSHOT RESIDUE, PRIMER RESIDUE, IS THAT CERTIFIED AND CALIBRATE? >> YES. >> BEEN TRAINED IN THIS MACHINE? >> YES. >>> JOHN DRUGAN IS AN EXPERT IN GSR -- GUNSHOT RESIDUE. LET'S LISTEN. >> NOT AS STRONG AS A MICROSCOPE. LOOKING AT IT UNDER A STEREOSCOPE. I OBSERVED IT WAS IN A REGULAR SHAPE, FLATTENED, AND GRAIN COLOR. THE NEXT I DID WAS CHROME TOM TRI-ON THE SOLVENT RINSE OF THAT ITEM. >> UPON THAT TEST, WHAT DID YOU LEARN THAT PERIL TO BE? >> NOTHING OF EVIDENTIAL SIGNIFICANT. THE FINAL TEST WAS THE ESM-EDX EXAMINATION. >> THE STANDING MIKE ARE SCOPE THAT YOU HAD? >> RIGHT. RIGHT, DETERMINED TO BE LEAD. >> THE NEXT ITEM, SIR, THAT YOU EXAMINED IN KWEX THIS CASE. I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO AN ITEM DESIGNATED 9-2. >> YES. >> TO WHAT WAS THAT ASSOCIATED? >> THAT WAS LABELED IN PART BMW VEHICLE NUMBER ONE, NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> WHAT SORT OF TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM ON THAT KIT? >> AGAIN, IT WAS THE FCM-EDF TEST AND IT WAS A TEST FOR A GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE. >> THE ITEM 9-2 WAS A STUB DOOSHS. >> TWO STUBS. >> WHAT RESULT, IF ANY, DID YOU GET AS A RESULT OF PERFORMING THAT TEST. >> IT WAS NEGATIVE. >> NEXT ITEM, SIR, 34-1. DID YOU RECEIVE A STUB KIT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ITEM NUMBER? >> YES. >> AND TO WHAT WAS IT ASSOCIATED? >> IT WAS ONE GUNSHOT RESIDUE KIT LABELED IN PART NEIL ENTWISTLE, BMW KEYS. >> WHAT TEST IF ANY DID YOU PERFORM ON THAT STUB SET? >> AGAIN, IT WAS AN FTM TEST, THE EDS TEST. >> THE MICROSCOPE, THE SCANNING AND DETECTION? >> YES. >> WHAT RESULT IF ANY DID YOU GET? >> IT WAS NEGATIVE ALSO. >> NEXT ITEM I REFER YOU TO, SIR, ITEM 31-1. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT ITEM? >> YES. >> IN THAT -- ONE AND TWO. WHAT -- TO WHAT WAS THAT -- THOSE ITEM NUMBERS ASSOCIATED? >> ITEM 39-1.1 WAS ONE GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUB FROM RIGHT ARM SLEEVE FROM BLUE POLO JUMPER, A SWEATER. >> SECOND ITEM NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH THAT? >> YES, 39-1.92 WAS GUNSHOT RESIDUE FROM LEFT ARM SLEEVE FROM BLUE POLO JUMPER SWEATER. >> DID YOU PERFORM ANY TESTS ON THAT? >> I DID. >> WHAT TEST? >> IT WAS THE SAME TEST FOR EACH STUB FOR PRESENCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE. >> WHAT DID YOU RECEIVE? >> THEY WERE BOTH NEGATIVE. >> LASTLY, SIR, I WANT TO DIRECT YOU TO ITEM 34-2, A SERIES OF STUBS. DID YOU RECEIVE A STUB KIT ASSOCIATED WITH 34-2. >> YES. >> AND -- >> QUICK SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AND YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO BY NOW, OFTENTIMES NEIL ENTWISTLE HE GOES UP TOO. PERFECT TIMING. I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. CHRISTINE GURILLO AND I, A PROSECUTOR, TELLING US SOMETHING WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT. WHY DOES SOMEBODY WHO DISCOVERS WIFE AND BABY DEAD THROW A BLANKET OVER IT AND NOT CALL THE POLICE AND TAKE OFF. NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS? >> THIS IS A DOMESTIC SITUATION. THIS IS SOMEBODY HE DID LOVE AT ONE TIME. IT'S SHOWING COMPASSION. >> BUT YOU'VE SEEN OTHER CASE WHERE ISBY THE GUY HAS KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND COVERED THEM UP. SAID I DIDN'T KILL THEM BUT I COVERED THEM UP. >> I FOUND THE BODY AND I PUT A SHEET ON THEM. THIS IS SOMEBODY -- YES, I COVERED THEM. GIVING THEM DIGNITY. I'M -- AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS PROSECUTOR, I'D BE ARGUING THAT HE AFTER KILLING THEM PROBABLY PLANNED TO KILL HIMSELF AND THEN DIDN'T GO THROUGH WITH IT. SO BEFORE HE TOOK THE NEXT STEP OR TRIED TO KILL HIMSELF BEFORE HE CHICKENED OUT, HE TOOK CARE OF HIS WIFE, DAUGHTER, POSITIONED THEM IN A LOVING WAY. >> HAND OVER THE BULLET WOUND BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT. >> DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT AND SEND THEM ON THEIR WAY. BUT IT'S COMMON TO COVER UP -- IT'S COVERING UP WHAT YOU'VE JUST DONE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE IT. >> WHAT I'M AMAZED AS IS I NEVER HEARD ABOUT THIS BEFORE AND YOU HAD CASE WHERE IS THE PERPETRATOR THAT DIDN'T GO THROUGH WITH THE SUICIDE PART OF THE MURDER-SUICIDE ADMITS TO COVERING UP THE BODIES BUT SAYS I DIDN'T DO IT. >> THEY'RE GOING TO SAY I CAME IN, FOUND THEM, AND THEY TELL YOU, WELL, YES, I COVERED THEM. I GAVE THEM A SHEET AND I DIDN'T LIKE THAT. I COVERED THEM UP. YOU HAVE TO SAY -- EVEN IF THE PERSON WASN'T, THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY ALWAYS YOU'RE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, WHAT IF IT WASN'T INNOCENT AND YOU GO IN AND FIND A LOVED ONE GOD FORBIT THAT YOU DIDN'T KILL. THAT'S A COMMON REACTION. >> BUT THEN YOU CALL THE COPS OR YOU CALL THE NEIGHBORS OR YOUR CALL YOUR MOTHER OR CALL HER MOTHER AND DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN QUIETLY SKULLING AWAY TO THE AIRPORT WITH NO BAGGAGE AND TELL YOUR PARENTS I CALLED THE POLICE. THEY CAME. THEY INVESTIGATED WHEN NONE OF THAT HAPPENED. IS THAT THE WORST THING HE COULD GET CAUGHT ON. >> THAT'S THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE, THE STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE THAT SO CONTRADICTED DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE As TO WHAT -- >> LET ME GET ROBERT GEORGE IN ON THIS. LISTEN THIS, HAS BEEN AN ENLIGHTNING -- EP LIGHTENING THING FOR ME, MR. GEORGE, THE FACT THAT CHRISTINE HAS SEVERAL FAMILIES BEFORE WHERE THE PERSON SAYS IT WASN'T ME BUT I COVERED UP THE BODIES. DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS? >> I HAVEN'T READ CHRIS TEEN'S BOOK ON CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION AND WHAT PEOPLE DO IN CRIME SCENES, I CAN TELL YOU DIFFERENT PEOPLE DO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> SHE DOESN'T HAVE A BOOK RCHLT YOU BEING SARCASTIC? SHE DOESN'T HAVE A BOOK. SHE HASN'T WRITTEN A BOOK. >> THE BOTTOM LINE IS SOME THINGS HAPPEN AT SOME CRIME SCENES THAT OTHERS. YOU KNOW THAT FROM COVERING THE CASES. YOU CAN'T LOOK IN TO THESE KINDS OF THINGS SUCH AS WHETHER NEIL ENTWISTLE COVERED UP THE BODIES WITHOUT TRYING TO SPECULATE THE FACTS IN THE CASE ANT WHETHER HE COMMITTED THE CRIME. >> YOU'RE SO RIGHT EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT I NEVER HEARD OF THIS BEFORE. I NEVER HEARD OF OTHER CASES WHEREBY SOMEBODY WHO'S GUILTY OF MURDER SAYS HE HASN'T DONE IT BUT ALSO COVERED UP HIS LOVED ONES AND MAYBE DIDN'T GO THROUGH WITH THE SUICIDE AND NEVER -- NEVER HEARD THIS M.O. HAD PLAYED OUT SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE IN JUST CHRISTINE'S EXPERIENCE. I HAVE ONE PROSECUTOR HERE. I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY MORE THAT HAVE SIMILAR STORIES OR SHE HAS SEVERAL OF THE SAME STORIES. IT'S BIZARRE. I CAN'T IMAGE UP HOW YOU WOULD REFUTE IT AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY? WHAT DO YOU DO? >> YOU ASK WHAT 'S THE PROOF OF THAT. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? >> THE PROOF IS HE SAID HE DID IT. >> PSYCHIATRICALLY, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU. >> IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE -- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I HAVE TO SAY NEIL HIMSELF SAID HE COVERED UP THE BODIES AND LEFT. >> THE ISSUE IS WHY HE COVERED UP THE BODIES. YOU AND I ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH OVER WHY SOMETHING -- IT'S AN INNOCENT ACT. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INDICATE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. WHAT YOU'VE GOT -- AND YOU TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE, WHAT YOU'VE GOT ARE THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT MAY BE THE BEST EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND THE ACTIONS IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE CRIME. THE DNA IS EVIDENCE. THE FORENSICS ARE EVIDENCE. IF YOU TRY TO SPECULATE ABOUT WHY OR WHY NOT YOU COVER UP THE BODIES, A JURY WOULD BE SPECULATING AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU KNOW HOW IT IS. PEOPLE ARE HUMAN AND JURORS ARE HUMAN AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW WHY A FATHER WOULD DO THIS. WHY HE WOULDN'T CALL OUT FOR HELP. WHY HE WOULDN'T CALL THE POLICE. EVERYBODY GRIEVES IN DIFFERENCE WAYS. I WILL GIVE YOU THAT. I PERSONALLY HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THE FACT THAT HE TOLD HIS FATHER A BIG OLE LIE, THAT THE POLICE HAD COME AND INVESTIGATING AND THE POLICE WERE NOWHERE NEAR THAT HOME. LET'S GO BACK IN AND LISTEN TO THE LIVE TESTIMONY. >> THE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE AND THE TESTS YOU DESCRIBED ON ALL OF THOSE STUBS. >> YES. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT AS A RESULT OF THE RESULTS OF YOUR TESTS, THEY WERE ALL NEGATIVE FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE PRIMER? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GUNSHOT RESIDUE TESTED WITH A SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE IS PRIMARILY THE WORK THAT YOU DID IN THIS INVESTIGATION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHEN YOU TESTING YOUR SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR THE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE FOR THE PRIMER RESIDUE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THERE'S GUNSHOT RESIDUE AND THEN THERE'S THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE WHICH COMING FROM THE EXPLOSION THAT OCCURS WHEN THE FIREARM IGNITES AND PROJECTS OR DISCHARGES THE AMMUNITION? >> THERE'S WHAT'S CALLED ORGANIC GUNSHOT RESIDUE AND THERE'S PRIMER RESIDUE, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY INORGANIC PARTICLES. >> COMES OUT IN A SMOKY CLOUD? >> FAIR TO SAY. >> IT TRAVELS SOME DISTANCE FROM THE FIREARM THAT'S BEING SHOT. >> YES. >> AND THERE'S WAYS TO DETERMINE HOW -- HOW LARGE OR WIDE THAT CLOUD OF GSR MIGHT BE FROM A GIVEN FIREARM? >> NOT AWARE OF WAYS TO DETERMINE -- >> YOU'RE NOT. DID YOU SAY THAT THERE WERE STUDIES THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO DETERMINE THE DISTANCE THAT THE CLOUD TRAVELS FROM A FIREARM? >> I TALKED ABOUT PARTICLES THEMSELVES, NOT THE -- NOT THE CLOUD YOU'RE REFERRING TO. >> THE PARTICLES. >> PARTICLES. >> NOT THE CLOUD THAT THE PARTICLES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN. >> THREE COMPONENTS -- PARTICLES CONSISTENT WITH GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE. >> THE LEAD, BARIUM, ANTIMONY. >> YES. >> AND IF ONE SEES THE IMAGE OF A FIREARM DISCHARGING, ONE MIGHT SEE A CLOUD AROUND THE FIREARM ITSELF. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IT'S WITHIN THAT CLOUD THAT THE PARTICLES THEMSELVES ARE CONTAIN? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE STUDIES, THE STUDIES MEASURE THE DISTANCE THAT THE PARTICLES WITHIN THE CLOUD TRAVELLED. >> YES. >>> GUNSHOT RESIDUE SAYS A LOT ABOUT A CRIME. THAT IS UNLESS THE CHEMIST BEHIND THE TESTING DOESN'T DO A GOOD JOB. THAT'S WHERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING. >>> WE'RE BRACK IN SESSION. THIS EXPERT IS ON STAND. LISTEN IN. THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON. IT'S NOT HAPPY. >> YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> I AM FOCUSING NOW, MR. DRUGAN, ON WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THE LABORATORY IF THERE HAD BEEN A TEST FIRING OF A CERTAIN .22 REVOLVER? >> WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE? >> COULD HAVE BEEN -- >> YOU COULD DO ANYTHING. >> CORRECT. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WAS TO TEST FIRE ITEM 17-4. >> YOU COULD HAVE, CORRECT. >> NOW, YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN HANDLING ITEM 17-4, WERE YOU? >> NO. >> WHAT YOU WERE SPECIFICALLY INVOLVE IN WAS ANALYZING COLLECTION STUBS FROM THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE COLLECTION KITD? >> YES. >> ANALYZING THEM WITHIN THE SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE? >> YES. >> BUT YOU KNOW, DO YOU NOT, THAT PARTICLES THAT YOU EXAMINE COME FROM A FIREARM? >> YES. >> AND THE FIREARM ITSELF COULD HAVE BEEN TEST FIRED? >> YES. >> TEST FIRED BY THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE? >> YES. >> TEST FIRING WHICH MIGHT HAVE SHOWN THE PATTERN OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE PARTICLES WHEN THE GUN IS FIRED? >> I MEAN, AGAIN, I DO THE ANALYSIS ON IS STUBS THEMSELVES. I COULDN'T -- >> YOU DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW. >> WHAT YOU KNOW IS THEY'D BE TESTED, FOR EXAMPLE, AND HAVE NEGATIVE RESULTS FOR GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE ON ALL OF THE 14 ITEM ITEMS WITH THE KNIVES AND THE BLOCK AND THE SCISSOR? >> YES. >> YOU TEST AND HAD NEGATIVE RESULTS WITH RESPECT TO SWEATER? >> YES. >> YOU TESTED AND HAD NEGATIVE RESULTS WITH RESPECT TO BMW KEYS. >> YES. >> YOU TESTED AND HAD NEGATIVE RESULTS WITH RESPECT TO BMW STEERING WHEEL? >> YES. >> YOU TESTED AND HAD POSITIVE RESULT WITH RESPECT TO RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS? >> YES. >> THAT SHOWED YOU AND TOLD YOU AS THE GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE ANALYST THAT ONE OF THREE THINGS WAS LIKELY. >> YES. >> THOSE THREE THINGS ARE -- THAT SHE HANDLED THE GUN. >> YES. >> SHOT -- >> FIRED A WEAPON -- >> SHOT THE GUN. >> YES. >> OR WAS IN THIS AREA WHERE THIS PARTICULAR CLOUD TRAVELLED AND THE PARTICLES LANDED ON HER SNANDS. >> YES. >> DID YOU EVER RECEIVE ANY GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT FROM RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S WRISTS? >> FROM THE WRIST? THESE ARE LABELED LEFT BACK, RIGHT BACK, LEFT PALM, RIGHT PALM. >> DID YOU EVER SEE A GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT FROM RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S WRISTS? >> NOT SPECIFICALLY THE WRISTS? >>> DID YOU RECEIVE A PRIMER RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT FROM RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S ARM? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECEIVE A KIT FROM RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S SLEEVE, THE LEFT GARMENT? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECEIVE ANY GUNSHOT RESIDUE KIT OFF OF A FITTED SHEET FROM WHICH HER HANDS WERE LYING? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECEIVE IT FROM ANY OTHER ITEMS INSIDE THE MASTER BEDROOM? >> NO. >> SIR, WHEN TEST FIRINGS ARE DONE FOR DISTANCE DETERMINATION, IS THE RESULT THAT GIVES GENERATED SPECIFIC OR APPROXIMA APPROXIMATE? >> APPROXIMATE. >> AND IS THE RESULT GIVEN A CERTAIN NUMBER OR A RANGE OF NUMBERS? >> WELL -- >> DISTANCE OR RANGE OF DISTANCE? >> AGAIN, APPROXIMATE. >> IN YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL, WHAT IS THE RANGE OVER WHICH GUNSHOT RESIDUE PRIMER TRAVELS? >> I'VE SEEN DIFFERENT STUDIES. ONE STUDY -- >> YES. HE MAY NOT QUOTE FROM THE STUDY. >> BASED ON YOUR TRAINING EXPERIENCE, WHAT DO YOU KNOW THE RANGE OR RANGES TO BE IN DISTANCE DETERMINATION? >> FOR PRIMER RESIDUE. >> PRIMER RESIDUE. >> AROUND THREE FEET. >> AND WHEN A TEST FIRE FOR DISTANCE DETERMINATION IS DONE, CAN THE RESULT BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT, SIR? >> NO. >> THAT'S SOME GOOD TESTIMONY. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S EFFECTIVE BUT IT WAS GOOD TO WATCH IN ANY CASE. ONCE AGAIN, MR. WEINSTEIN PLEASE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THANK YOU OR I'M FINISHED INSTEAD OF TURNING THE BACK ON THE WITNESS AND WALKING AWAY. IT'S NOT POLITE. CHRISTINE, THANK YOU FOR YOU AS WELL, ONE OF OUR FAVORITE GUESTS. I LOVED BOTH OF OUR CONVERSATIONS TODAY. YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WATCH THE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE THAT STARTS AT CNN.COM/CRIME, THE PLACE TO BE. WE'RE BACK HERE AT 1:00 EASTERN TIME CONTINUE TO LIVE TRIAL. THE TESTIMONY IS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER. THE DEFENSE HAS NOT GOTTEN STARTED. THANK YOU FOR WATCHING, JACK |