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

[HOME]

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

Tuesday, June 17. BLOOM

>>> WHAT TEST OR TESTS DID YOU PERFORM ON THE FRONT OF THAT GAR MEANT?

>> I DID A SCREENING TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND ALSO A CON TIRM TOIR TEST FOR BLOOD.

>> THE RESULTS OF THOSE TESTS.

>> POSITIVE.

>> BOTH OF THEM?

>> YES GL HEART WRENCHING MOMENTS IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM AS PROSECUTORS DISPLAY A BABY'S SLEEPER COVERED IN BLOOD. THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE CONTINUES. THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT NOW IN OPEN COURT.

>>> GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO OPEN COURT. I'M LISA BLOOM THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE IS FOCUSSED ON FORENSICS RIGHT NOW. BUT SCIENCE MIXED WITH EMOTION YESTERDAY. A STATE POLICE WITNESS PRESENTED THE CLOTHING WORN BY RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER BABY, LILLIAN, WHEN THEY WERE SHOT TO DEATH IN THEIR OWN HOME. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE NOW FROM WOO BURN, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH THE BIGGEST MOMENT FROM THE TRIAL YESTERDAY. GOOD MORNING, BETH.

>> Reporter: GOOD MORNING, LISA. JURORS HEARD YESTERDAY MORE ABOUT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT THE SCENE WHERE THEY WERE FOUND SHOT TO DEATH. AS YOU JUST SAID, THE BLOODY CLOTHING BOTH VICTIMS WERE WEARING WAS DISPLAYED TO JURORS AND A FORENSIC SCIENTIST EXPLAINED HER CONCLUSIONS WHEN SHE EXAMINED THE BULLET HOLE TO THE FRONT OF BABY LILLIAN'S SLEEPER.

>> I ALSO OBSERVED A STEL LATE PATTERN AROUND THE HOLE AND SOME RIPPING AND TEARING AND SOME DIN JING AND BURN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT BLACK RESIDUE.

>> BASED ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO CHARACTERIZE OR DESIGNATE THE TYPE OF HOLE?

>> YES.

>> WHAT IS THAT?

>> I CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS A CONTACT SHOT?

>> WHAT IS A CONTACT SHOT?

>> A CONTACT SHOT IS A SHOT FROM A FIREARM WHEN THE FIREARM IS PRESSED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TARGET.

>> DURING THIS TESTIMONY WHEN THAT BLOODY SLEEPER WAS CLIPPED ON TO THE POSTER BOARD ON AN'SLE IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE COURTROOM, THE MOTHER OF NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD TO PUT HER HEAD DOWN. SHE WAS BEING CONSOLED BY HER OTHER SON AND HUSBAND. SHE COULD NOT LOOK, DID NOT APPEAR TO LOOK. IN FACT SHE WAS AUDIBLE AT TIMES BECAUSE SHE WAS SO UPSET LOOKING AT THE SLEEPER.

>> YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE THINK OF EPT WISLES' PARENTS AS THE PARENTS OF THE DEFENDANT AND MAYBE SOMETIMES FORGET THEY WERE THE GRANDPARENTS OF BABY LILLIAN. IT HAD TO BE EXCRUCIATING FOR THEM. OF ALL THE TRIALS YOU AND I HAVE WATCHED, YOU IN THE COURTROOM AND ME OVER HERE IN THE STUDIO I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE WHERE A BUYBY WAS MURDERED. IT IS ABSOLUTELY EXCRUCIATING TO LOOK AT THE BABY'S ONEZY. HOW DID THE JURY REACT TO THAT?

>> JURORS SERIOUS. THEY TAKE NOTES PERIODICALLY. BUT IT WAS JUST A VERY, VERY SOBER MOMENT IN THE COURTROOM. IT'S A PRETTY BIG PUBLIC GALLERY. IT'S HARD TO SEE WHEN THE JURORS' HEADS ARE TURNED IN THE INTERSECTION OF THE WITNESS BOX. YOU CAN'T FROM THE PUBLIC GALLERY SEE WHERE THEIR EXPRESSIONS ARE. THERE WASN'T ANY OBVIOUS EMOTION. I DIDN'T SEE TEARS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT I CAN'T SAY IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

>> WE LEARNED SHE WAS NOT JUST SHOT, BUT IT WAS A CONTACT SHOT, MEANING THE GUN WAS PRESSED RIGHT UP AGAINST HER CHEST. RIGHT?

>> Reporter: YES. GUN IS RIGHT UP AGAINST HER. THERE HASN'T BEEN TESTIMONY LIKE THAT ABOUT THE SHOT TO RACHEL'S HEAD. BUT THE PEOPLE WHO PROCESSED THE SCENE IN THE BEDROOM DIDN'T EVEN KNOW SHE HAD BEEN SHOT IN THE HEAD. AND SHE WASN'T SHOT IN THE FACE. AND THERE WASN'T ANY BLOOD ON HER FACE. IT WAS JUST IN THE CENTER OF HER FOREHEAD JUST ABOVE THE HAIRLINE. SO IT WAS IN THE HEAD. THERE WASN'T AN EXIT WOUND. SHE WASN'T BLEEDING ON TO THE PILLOW. THE BABY HAD AN EXIT WOUND IN HER BACK. AND SHE BLED ON TO HER MOTHER. THAT'S WHY THE FRONT OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S SHIRT WAS SO BLOODY. THERE WAS AN ENTRANCE WOUND TOO INTO RACHEL ENTWISTLE BECAUSE THE BULLET THAT WENT THROUGH LILLIAN WENT INTO RACHEL AND THAT WAS USED FOR COMPARISON LATER TO TRY TO LINK IT UP TO THE MURDER WEAPON. BUT AT AUTOPSY, THEY DISCOVER THE SHOT TO HER HEAD AND WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT WOUND. MAYBE WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF THE GUN FOR THAT SHOT LATER. TOMORROW, PROBABLY.

>> DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WINESTEIN IP POINTS OUT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, HEY, YOU INVESTIGATORS MISSED THAT WOUND INITIALLY. YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING CAREFUL AND METICULOUS WORK AND MISSED THAT WOUND. HE ALSO CALLED INTO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE DNA EVIDENCE, DIDN'T HE?

>> Reporter: I DON'T KNOW. THE DNA EVIDENCE IS COMING UP TODAY. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE FIRST OF THE TESTIMONY. NOT DNA -- WE HAVEN'T HEARD RESULTS OF DNA. WE'VE ONLY HEARD ABOUT SWABBING DONE AND THEN SENT TO THE LAB FOR DNA ANALYSIS. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT GUNSHOT RESIDUE TESTING. AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AND HUMAN BLOOD. THAT'S ALL. BUT THE TNA IS COMING UP.

>> ONE OF THE POINTS HE MADE, THOUGH, WAS THAT THE GUN, THE DNA BEING FOUND ON THE GUN, THE GUN COULD HAVE BEEN CONTAMINATED BY THE TIME THE SCIENTISTS GOT IT BECAUSE THE GUN WAS NOT FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE. RIGHT?

>> Reporter: RIGHT. HE'S LAYING A FOUNDATION FOR HIS CHALLENGE TO WHAT WE'LL HEAR LATER. WHICH IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA WAS ON THE GRIP AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN. BUT HE HAD GONE TARGET SHOOTING. USED THE GUN A COUPLE TYPES. I GUESS UNDERSTANDABLE HIS DN WOULD BE ON THE GUN. YOU CAN'T TELL WHEN IT'S BEEN DEPOSITED. RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS A DIFFERENT STORY BECAUSE SUP POEDEDLY SHE DIDN'T HAVE CONTACT WITH THE GUN AND HER DNA IS ON THE MUZZLE. IT WASN'T BLOOD. IT TESTED NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD. BUT IT'S SOME BROWN, JELLLIKE SUBSTANCE.

>> I GUESS HIS POINT IS IT'S POSSIBLE IT WOULD BE TRANSFERENCE SINCE THE GUN CHANGED HAND A NUMBER OF TIMES BEFORE IT GOT TO THE DNA SCIENTISTS. THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE FORENSIC LAB HAS COME UNDER SCRUTINY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS. NOW TEST RESULTS IN SEVERAL HIGH-PROFILE CASES INCLUDING THIS ONE COULD BE QUESTIONED. BOSTON GLOBE REPORTER JONATHAN SALSMAN HAS BEEN COVERING THE STORY. HE JOINS US BY PHONE WITH MORE. WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS IN THE DNA LAB, EXACTLY?

>> THE STATE POLICE CRIME LAB LAST YEAR WAS WRACKED BY A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS. AND WHAT ULTIMATELY HAPPENED WAS THE STUDY OF $260,000 STUDY CONCLUDED THAT QUALITY CONTROL AT THE CRIME LABORATORY WAS VERY BADLY BROKEN. THAT HAD LED TO A HOST OF PROBLEMS, INCLUDING ONE OF THE NATION'S WORST BACKLOGS IN UNTESTED BUY LOGICAL EVIDENCE.

>> UH-HUH. AND THIS LED TO THE SUSPENSION OF THE CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE DNA DATA BASE AT THE STATE POLICE FORENSIC LABORATORY, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. IN FACT, ROBERT PENO WAS A SETTER RAN FOR TWO DECADES, A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE WHO HEADED THE UNIT OF THE LAB THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY -- IT'S NOT ACTUALLY PROCESSING THE TESTS THEMSELVES. HE WASN'T LIKE A BENCH SCIENTIST DOING THAT. BUT HE WAS A ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COMPUTERIZED SECTION OF THE LAB WHERE THE RESULTS WERE ENTERED. AND IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE RESULTS WERE ENTERED TOO LATE TO ENABLE THE POLICE TO CHARGE ANYONE. AND HE WAS ONE OF THREE PEOPLE WHO ULTIMATELY EITHER RESIGNED OR WAS FIRED FOR, AT LEAST IN PART, PROBLEMS AT THE LAB.

>> DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG AND THE DNA THAT WAS TESTED IN THAT LAB CAN'T BE TRUSTED?

>> SOME DEFENSE LAWYERS HAVE, INDEED, SAID THAT. THEY'VE -- YOU KNOW, THEY'VE CHALLENGED THE ACCURACY OF MATERIAL -- OR THE TESTS PRODUCED AT THE LAB. THE RESULTS. ELLIOT WINESTEIN IS A VERY SEASONED AND SAVVY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER. AND IT WOULD HARDLY BE SURPRISING FOR HIM TO SOMEHOW SUGGEST THAT THE RESULTS IN THE ENTWISTLE CASE CAN'T BE TRUSTED BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS AT THE LAB.

>> YOU KNOW, WE COVERED THE CASE HERE, JONATHAN, OF CHRISTOPHER McCOW WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF CHRIS TA WORTHINGTON LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF DNA FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE ON HER BODY. IS THE DNA IN THAT CASE UNDER SCRUTINY NOW?

>> WELL, THAT CASE YOU MAY RECALL WAS THIS NOTORIOUS MURDER OF A AFFLUENT VASZER EDUCATED WRITER.

>> UH-HUH.

>> WHO WAS KILLED ALLEGEDLY BY A GARBAGE MAN. AND HE WAS ULTIMATELY CONVICTED. THE INTERESTING THING IN THAT CASE WAS HE DID GIVE A DNA SAMPLE. HE VOLUNTEERED AS DID MANY PEOPLE IN CAPE COD. HE VOLUNTEERED TO GIVE A DNA SAMPLE AND IT TOOK A COUPLE OF YEARS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ULTIMATELY LINKED HIM TO THE -- YOU KNOW, BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY TESTED THE RESULTS. GOT A POSITIVE HIT. AND THEN ARRESTED HIM. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE THERE WERE PROBLEMS WITH DNA.

>> I THAUNS THE FBI WENT IN AND DID AN AUDIT OF THAT STATE POLICE CRIME LAB. WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE AUDIT?

>> THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS OF THE -- OF THE CRIME LAB. OR INQUIRIES. THE ONE THAT I'M MOST AWARE OF WAS THIS ONE THAT WAS DONE BY A PRIVATE CONSULTANT NAMED ADVANCE. THEY DID A $267,000 STUDY. AND THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS -- THERE WAS A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH QUALITY CONTROL AT THE LABORATORY. IT WAS A VERY HARSHLY CRITICAL STUDY THAT WAS RELEASED 11 MONTHS AGO.

>> THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO PLAY INTO THE HANDS OF ELLIOT WINESTEIN. BETH KARAS, DO WE EXPECT HIM TO GO AFTER THE CRIME LAB AS BEING CONTAMINATED, UNRELIABLE, NOT PRODUCING EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN TRUST?

>> Reporter: I THINK HE PROBABLY WILL. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. ELLIOT WINESTEIN DOESN'T TALK TO US ABOUT HIS STRATEGY AND WHAT HE'S PLANNING. BUT I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF HE DOES.

>> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, JONATHAN, YOU HAVE QUOTES FROM HIM IN YOUR ARTICLE THAT YOU WROTE FOR THE "BOSTON GLOBE" WHERE HE SAYS THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW ITS CRIME LAB IS GENERATING SCIENTIFICALLY RELIABLE TEST RESULTS AND HE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT. I WOULD EXPECT HIM TO MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT THIS IN THIS CASE. WOULDN'T YOU, JON THAT?

>> AS I SAID, HE'S A VERY SEASONED AND SAVVY LAWYER. THIS IS A NOTORIOUS CASE BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BROUGHT IN AS A COURT APPOINTED LAWYER. AND SO HE'S GOING TO USE EVERY -- YOU KNOW, EVERY AIR ROW IN HIS GIVE QUIVER TO CHALLENGE WHAT APPEARS TO BE VERY POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE.

>> JONATHAN, BASED ON ALL THE RESEARCH AND WORK YOU'VE DONE COVERING THIS CASE DO YOU THINK THE CRIME LAB RESULTS CAN BE TRUSTED?

>> WELL, IT'S INTERESTING. I MEAN, I HAVE TO SAY THAT A NUMBER OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS LAST YEAR TOOK PAINS TO SAY THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADMINISTRATIONIVE PROBLEMS AT THE LAB AND THE BACKLOG, THAT THE SCIENCE ITSELF WAS VALID. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THE STATE HAVE USED THE PROBLEMS AT THE LAB TO RAISE DOUBTS ABOUT THE -- YOU KNOW, THE ACCURACY OF SOME OF THESE DNA RESULTS.

>> IT'LL BE UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER THOSE DOUBTS ARE VALID OR NOT. BIG THANKS TO YOU FOR TALKING WITH US THIS MORNING AND FOR KORING THIS IMPORTANT STORY.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>>> IN THE MIDST OF ALL THE SCIENCE AND POLICE WORK DISCUSSED IN THE COURTROOM RECENTLY, THERE WERE SOME EMOTIONAL MOMENTS YESTERDAY WHEN PROSECUTORS INTRODUCED SOME DISTURBING EVIDENCE.

>> IT IS ITEM 6-2. IT IS A GREEN AND WHITE SHIRT THAT WAS ON THE ADULT FEMALE.

>> THIS IS THE SLEEPER PAJAMAS THAT WERE RECOVERED FROM THE INFANT.

>> SO TODAY'S QUESTION OF THE DAY IS, WHAT EFFECT WILL THE BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE ON THE JURY? YOU CAN SEND US YOUR ANSWERS. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON "OPEN COURT" OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WRITE A BRIEF ANSWER AND WE'LL READ ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES AT THE END OF THE SHOW.

>>> WELCOME BACK. COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE JUST RESUMED FOR THE DAY. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LIVE SHOT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THE COURTROOM SITTING CALMLY AS HE LISTENS TO ARGUMENTS BEING PROPOUNDED BY THE PROSECUTOR AND HIS OWN ATTORNEY ABOUT COMPUTER EVIDENCE. LET'S LISTEN AS THE JUDGE ENTERS HER RULING.

>> NOT ONLY THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ENTERED BUT IT'S ONE OF THE SCREEN NAMES THAT WAS USED ON THAT COMPUTER. AND AS FAR AS DOCUMENTS OR ENT USER IS A PASSPORT PROTECTED USER. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT PASSPORT TO GET ON THAT COMPUTER TO SEND THAT DOCUMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE JURY COULD FIND THAT IT IS A STATEMENT BY MR. ENTWISTLE, THEN I DON'T SEE A CRAWFORD ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENT OF THIS -- THE DOCUMENT, CENTER SR PUB. THE RESPONSE TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE'S ANY TRUTH TO THE RESPONSE, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO IMPLICATE CRAWFORD ISSUES. ALTHOUGH, IT'S ARGUABLY HEARSAY.

>> WE'RE ALSO -- YOUR HONOR.

>> I BEG YOUR PAR DON? I MEAN, ARE YOU ARGUING THAT THE FACT OF THE RESPONSE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENT WAS ACTUALLY SENT AND RECEIVED?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR. AND ALSO, I MEAN, THE PURPOSE OF THESE ARE TWOFOLD. ON THE 16th YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SAY YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY WHO'S THE PERSON THAT AT 12:54 IS THE PERSON THAT GOES TO -- WHO MAKES A GOOGLE SEARCH TO THE KNIFE INCIDENT. AND I THINK -- I BELIEVE BASED ON ALL OF THE E-MAILS AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE AND AFTER, IT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE JUROR TO BELIEVE THAT MR. ENTWISTLE -- THOSE ARE CONSISTENT WITH MR. ENTWISTLE'S E-MAILS THAT HE HAS SENT. THAT'S WHY I PROVIDED THE ONES THAT HAVE SEXUAL CONTENT. BUT IN BETWEEN THOSE WE HAVE -- LOOKING AT PAY PAL -- I'M SORRY. ENT USER. HE'S LOOKING AT PAY PAL. HE'S LOOKING AT EBAY. HE'S LOOKING FOR JOBS.

>> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THAT GOES TO THE QUESTION WHETHER A JUROR COULD FIND THE SENDER WAS THE DEFENDANT. IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE STATEMENTS TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS A PREDICATE FOR THE JURY TO FIND THAT MR. ENTWISTLE WAS THE SENDER, THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THE E-MAIL ARE ADMISSIBLE.

>> MAY I ALSO JUST PRESS FURTHER THE BASIS ON A QUOTE THAT THE -- IF THAT OVERWEIGHS ANY PROBATIVE VALUE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT. BUT -- AND I WILL GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION TO THE EXTENT REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT IT IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE CASES THAT I CITED EARLY IN McGRAW. IN THAT CONNECTION I DO HAVE IN MIND THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN ELICITED WITH RESPECT TO FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS OBSERVING THE COUPLE AS BEING HAPPY AND THE MARRIAGE AS INTACT AND POSITIVE -- A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP. AS WELL AS THE STATEMENTS THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE COMMONWEALTH WILL OFFER THAT WERE MADE BY THE DEFENDANT RELATING TO HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE. ALL RIGHT. AGAIN, TURNING TO 3394, TO WHICH IS ATTACHED 3403, AND THERE ARE ATTACHMENTS TO THAT WITH A MESSAGE SENT. AND ATTACHED TO THAT IS A DISKRIPGS OF THE E-MAIL THAT THE MESSAGERS WERE SENT IN RESPONSE TO. I DON'T SEE THE RELEVANCE OF THE E-MAIL THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED BY THAT COMPUTER. THAT WOULD BE THE LAST TWO PA S PAGES. THE PROFILE.

>> YES, YOUR HONOR. I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S FINE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S EXCLUDED.

>> THAT'S EXCLUDED. OKAY.

>> THE -- IT'S EXCLUDED BECAUSE THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT OUTWEIGHS THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF ANY.

>> SO I CAN DECLARE, YOUR HONOR, SO I DON'T BREAK ONE OF YOUR RULES, I CAN STILL ELICIT FROM THE -- WITH THE CORRECT PREDICATE FROM THE WITNESS THAT THAT SITE WAS VISITED ON THAT COMPUTER AT THAT TIME, AT LEAST ON THE HISTORY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. WITH RESPECT TO THE MESSAGE SENT, THE FIRST TWO PAGES OF THAT ATTACHMENT, I DON'T SEE ANY DATE AND TIME ON THAT. AND ALSO THE REFERENCE TO SIMON KING. UNDERSCORE MM. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE OF THAT.

>> SIMON KING IS, YOUR HONOR, ONE OF THE -- ONE OF THE DEFENDANT'S WEBSITES ON THE RECORDS THAT WERE ALREADY INTRODUCED.

>> UH-HUH.

>> SO IT WOULD GO TO IDENTIFY SIMON KING, YOUR HONOR.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> IT'S IN THE PAY PAL RECORDS. THAT'S ONE OF THE WEBSITES.

>> ALL RIGHT. AND WHY ARE THERE TWO COPIES OF THAT MESSAGE? THE SUBJECT OF THE MESSAGE, JUST TO BE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME DOCUMENT, IS THANK YOU FOR THE WINK? IT'S A ONE-PAGE DOCUMENT. I SEEM TO HAVE TWO COPIES OF THIS SAME DOCUMENT.

>> IS THAT THE DOCUMENT ATTACHED -- TO WHICH ONE, YOUR HONOR? TO 3394?

>> YES. AND 3403.

>> I ONLY HAVE -- IT'S A TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT THAT I HAVE ATTACHED, YOUR HONOR. MAYBE WE MADE A MISTAKE IN COPYING. WE WEREN'T ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT TWO IN THIS CASE.

>> ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU OFFERING THE ONE THAT INDICATES MESSAGE SENT -- YES.

>>> AND AS THE ATTORNEYS GO TO SIDE BAR TO CONTINUE DISCUSSING WITH THE JUDGE WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE ALLOWED IN AND WHAT WILL NOT BE ALLOWED IN, THIS IS A GOOD CHANCE TO GET OUR BREAK IN BEFORE LIVE TESTIMONY RESUMES. IT'S TIME TO TAKE OUR FIRST LOOK AT TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. IS THE FIREARM TESTIMONY HELPING THE PROSECUTION? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO CAST YOUR VOTE. LATER ON IN THE SHOW WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR YOU'RE VOTING. STAY WITH US.

>>> THERE'S STILL TIME TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS INTO OPEN COURT AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT EFFECT WILL THE BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE ON THE JURY? THEY SAW THEM YESTERDAY. WHAT IMPACT WILL SEEING RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S SHIRT AND BABY LILLIAN'S SLEEPER HAVE ON THE PANEL? LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT OR E-MAIL US CORRECTLY AT OPEN COURT@CNN.COM. WE DON'T HAVE LIVE TESTIMONY IN THE COURTROOM YET. THE JUDGE IS STILL WORKING OUT EVIDENCE SHARE ISSUES WITH THE ATTORNEYS. LET ME BRING IN OUR GUESTS. FIRST ROBERT BIG LOW IS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY. GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> GREAT TO SEE YOU.

>> JANELL WEINSTEIN IS A FAMILY BASED ATTORNEY. GREAT TO SEE YOU AS WELL.

>>> AND JOINING US FROM WOO BURN ROBERT GAL BOYS IS A MASSACHUSETTS BASED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND FORMER PROSECUTOR. ROBERT, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> GOOD MORNING, LISA.

>> I SEE I HAVE TWO ROBERTS. LET ME BE VERY CLEAR WHEN I'M SPEAKING TO YOU. ROBERT GALA BOYS, LET ME SPEAK WITH YOU. ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT WITH THE JUDGE IS WHETHER NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER ISSUES SHOULD BE COMING IN AND HEARD. HIS COMPUTER ACTIVITY ON ADULT FRIEND FINDER. SHOULD THE JURY BE HEARING ABOUT THAT?

>> JUST LISTENING TO HER HONOR AND HER DECISION A FEW MOMENTS AGO, SHE WAS INDICATING THAT THAT EVIDENCE WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE TO, PERHAPS, SHOW SOME INCONSISTENT EVIDENCE TO WHAT IS COMING IN AS PORTRAYAL OF A VERY HAPPY FAMILY, HAPPY MARRIAGE, FINANCIALLY SECURE, THINGS OF THAT SORT. AND THE JUDGE APPEARS TO BE DECIDING THAT WHILE THIS EVIDENCE DOES HAVE SOME PROBATIVE VALUE TO COUNTER THE SUGGESTION THAT THINGS WERE HUNDREDKY DORI, IF YOU WILL, WITHIN THIS FAMILY AT THE TIME OF THE HOMICIDE.

>> OH, I WILL. I WILL. BECAUSE ROBERT, WE HEARD AND MAYBE THE DEFENSE OPENED THE DOOR, BECAUSE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WE HEARD THE DEFENSE ELICITING TESTIMONY FROM A NUMBER OF WITNESSES SO FAR THAT THIS WAS A VERY HAPPY FAMILY. THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE APPEARED TO BE A LOVING FATHER. HE WAS KIND AND CARING TOWARDS RACHEL AND TOWARDS THE BABY. WAS THAT A MISTAKE FOR THE DEFENSE TO BRING THAT OUT ON CROSS? NOW THE PROSECUTION GETS TO GET ALL THIS PORN EVIDENCE IN, EVIDENCE HE WAS LOOKING FOR ESCORTS. HE WAS ON ADULT FRIEND FIND ZBLER THE DEFENSE HAS DEALT THE DECK IT'S BEEN HANDED. IT APPEARS HE'S JUST TRYING, ELLIOT WINESTEIN, TO DRAW OUT AS MUCH POSITIVE EVIDENCE AS HE CAN THROUGH EACH OF THE GOVERNMENT'S WITNESSES AS THEY'RE MARCHING ALONG HERE. PERHAPS HE SAW THIS AS INEVITABLE AND THEREFORE IS JUST TRYING TO COUNT BALANCE IT WITH SOME POSITIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. ROBERT BIG LOE, LET ME BRING YOU IN. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TESTIMONY YESTERDAY ABOUT THE GUN. YOU KNOW, THE GUN IS REALLY THE SMOKING GUN IN THIS CASE. THEY'VE GOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA ON THE END OF THE GUN. THEY'VE GOT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA ON THE GUN. TO ME THAT IS CRUCIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION. AND YET THE FORENSIC SCIENTISTS HAD TO ADMIT ON CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT, LOOK, THE GUN WASN'T RECOVERED AT THE ENTWISTLE HOME. WHICH IS TRUE. IT WAS RECOVERED AT THE MATTERAZZO HOME. THERE'S NO TELLING HOW MANY SOURCES TOUCHED THE GUN BEFORE THE SCIENTIST RECEIVED PIPT SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MANY SURFACES THE .22 TOUCHED BEFORE IT GOT TO THE LAB. SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BUY LOGICAL EVIDENCE TRANSFERRED ON TO THE GUN OR WHEN BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TRANSFERRED ON TO THE GUN. THAT'S PLETTY SIGNIFICANT STUFF FOR THE DEFENSE, ISN'T IT?

>> INCREDIBLY. THEY HAVE TO GO AFTER THIS CASE VERY HARD. YOU SEE THERE'S A LOT OF SIRJ EVIDENCE. THERE'S DIRECT EVIDENCE. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING WITH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HERE IS HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE AGGRESSIVE WITH A LOT OF WITNESSES AND A LOT OF THIS EVIDENCE. BECAUSE IT IS SEEMINGLY OVERWHELMING. HE HAS A DIFFICULT JOB IN FRONT OF HIM. AND WHILE YOU WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WAS IT A MISTAKE ABOUT OPENING THE DOOR ABOUT TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY WERE A HAPPY FAMILY AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY THIS OTHER EVIDENCE WAS COMING IN, IT MAY BE THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS COMING IN ANYWAY. I THINK IN A CASE LIKE THIS HE'S GOT TO TAKE SOME CHANCES. AND HE MAY HAVE TO TAKE SOME LUMPS ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE IT'S A TOUGH CASE. BUT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO ATTACK THAT DNA. THAT'S THE STRONGEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE. HE'S GOING TO ATTACK THE CRIME LAB IF HE IS ABLE. IF THE JUDGE ALLOWS HIM. THEY MAY HAVE SOME RULINGS ON IF EVERYTHING WAS CLEANED UP. I DON'T KNOW HOW RELEVANT AND WHEN THESE PROBLEMS TOOK PLACE WITH THE LAB. IF THAT WAS CLEANED UP YEARS AGO, IT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT. BUT SOMETHING'S GOING TO COME IN. AND HE'S GOING TO TAKE SOME CHANCES BECAUSE HE HAS TO.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT. JANELLE, WE THINK OF DNA AS BEING SUCH UNASSAILABLE EVIDENCE. SUCH GOOD, HARD, CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. YET THERE ARE ALWAYS ARGUMENTS THE DEFENSE CAN MAKE. HERE THEY CAN ARGUE THE GUN WASN'T KEPT IN A PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT LIKE WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT HOME, TOUCHED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEFORE IT GOT TO THE SCIENTISTS. AND THE DNA LAB ITSELF OUT THERE IN BOSTON HAS COME UNDER SOME SIGNIFICANT CRITICISM. SO I THINK THE DEFENSE REALLY HAS SOMETHING TO WORK WITH HERE ON THE DNA.

>> EXCEPT FOR, LISA, THE FACT IS THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THAT'S THE MURDER WEAPON. SO HOW DID THAT MURDER WEAPON END UP WHERE IT IS? THAT'S THE FATHER-IN-LAW'S GUN. WHO USED IT? WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT TO KILL THESE TWO? THAT'S EVEN MORE RELEVANT TO ME THAN THE DNA.

>> JANELLE, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT. BECAUSE IF THIS WAS AN UNKNOWN INTRUDER WHO CAME IN FOR SOME REASON WITHOUT BREAKING IN IN ANY WAY, GOT INTO THE HOME, SHOT AND KILLED MOTHER AND BABY TOGETHER IN BED, DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING, WHY WOULD THAT PERSON THEN RETURN TO THE MATTERAZZO HOME, YOU KNOW, RISK BEING APPREHENDED BY BREAKING INTO ANOTHER HOME WHERE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PEOPLE THERE AND RETURN THE GUN? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AS TO WHY SOMEBODY WOULD DO THAT. IF THEY'RE AN UNKNOWN INTRUDER THEY WOULD THROW IT INTO A BODY OF WATER OR A DUMPSTER AND GET OUT OF DODGE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S SO RELEVANT. FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO JURORS NP THIS THIS CASE IT'S THE FATHER-IN-LAW'S GUN. HOW DID IT GET THERE? IF IT WASN'T ALREADY EXISTING IN KNEEL ENTWISTLE'S HOUSE, HOW DID IT GET THERE AND HOW DID -- WHY WOULD ANYBODY JUST TAKE THAT GUN AND, LIKE YOU SAID, GO BACK TO WHERE THEY GOT IT FROM? IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BURY NEIL ENTWISTLE.

>> COMMON SENSE ARGUMENTS ARE ALWAYS GOOD. IF WE'RE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS GUN IS CONTAMINATED, I GUESS WE'RE TO BELIEVE THAT SOME POLICE OFFICER GOT SOME OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S BLOOD ON HIS OR HER HANDS, EITHER INTENTIONALLY INADVERTENTLY, THEN TRANSFERRED IT ON TO THE GUN, EITHER ON PURPOSE OR ACCIDENTALLY, AND MAYBE THIS WASN'T THE EXACT GUN USED IN THE SHOOTING, MAYBE IT WAS A DIFFERENT GUN. THAT'S KIND OF A STRETCH AS JANELLE POINTS OUT. THAT REALLY FLIES IN THE FACE OF COMMON SENSE, DOESN'T IT?

>> I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE. IN A CASE LIKE THIS I WOULD EXPECT THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO FOCUS ON THREE DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE, MOTIVE. AND WE'VE HEARD NOW ABOUT THE FINANCIAL DIRE STRAITS THE FAMILY WAS IN AND THAT HE WAS UNHAPPY, PERHAPS, IN HIS MARRIAGE. SECONDLY THAT HE DID HAVE ACCESS TO THE MURDER WEAPON. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THIS WAS THE GUN THAT WAS USED IN THE HOMICIDES THROUGH THE BALLISTIC EVIDENCE. THEN, THIRDLY, THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT AFTER THE HOMICIDE. AND HOW THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WILL BE THE ARGUMENT WITH SOMEONE WHO IS NOT GUILTY IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

>> ROBERT, BOTTOMLINE, DNA'S NOT ALL THAT IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE?

>> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE DNA IS NOT IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. IF THE DEFENSE CAN DO SOME DAMAGE TO THE DNA, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL. BUT JURORS LOVE DNA. IF IT ALL MATCHES UP AND IT ALL COMES DOWN LIKE THE PROSECUTION EXPECTS IT TO, I THINK THAT THAT SINKS THE DEFENSE.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S SO MUCH OTHER EVIDENCE AS JANELLE POINTS OUT, THE WEAPON BEING RETURNED TO THE MATTERAZZO HOME. HOW ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE FLEEING, NOT CALLING THE POLICE WHEN HE SAYS HE FINDS HIS WIFE AND BABY THERE. HE DOESN'T WANT TO FIND THE MURDER? HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET THE POLICE ON THE SCENE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE? HE NEVER CALLS THE POLICE. HE MAKES A NUMBER OF INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. JANELLE, ARE THOSE MORE IMPORTANT IN YOUR VIEW THAN THE DNA?

>> I THINK THAT WHEN YOU TAKE ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER COMBINED, THAT'S WHAT THE JURY'S GOING TO LOOK AT. IT'S SO COMPELLING, HIS FLEEING. CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. HE DOESN'T EVEN CALL ANYBODY. HE DOESN'T GO TO THE FUNERAL. THERE'S NOTHING SAID. THIS IS JUST -- IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO REALLY RESONATE WITH THESE JURORS.

>> SO, JANELLE, LET ME STAY WITH YOU FOR A MINUTE. I KNOW YOUR FAMILY HAS A UK CONNECTION. I KNOW YOU HAVE THAT BRITISH CONNECTION. THIS CASE IS PLAYING OUT VERY DIFFERENTLY THERE. A LOT OF THE BRITISH ARE SKEPTICAL AS TO WHETHER NEIL ENTWISTLE CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL, AS TO WHETHER PROSECUTORS ARE JUST GOING AFTER HIM AND IT'S JUST A RUSH TO JUDGMENT. CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I ACTUALLY APPEARED ON GM TV WHICH IS A MORNING PROGRAM IN ENGLAND. THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS POSED TO ME. THEY THOUGHT THAT AMERICAN MEDIA WAS FINDING HIM GUILTY RIGHT AWAY. AND I GOT THE SENSE THAT OVER THERE IN THE UK THEY AREN'T DOING THAT. BUT THEY ARE STARTING TO CHANGE THEIR TUNE A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THEY'RE JUST SKEPTICAL OF OUR SYSTEM, WHICH I FIND INTERESTING BECAUSE OVER THERE YOU'RE ALMOST GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE THING. I THINK THEY'RE KIND OF PROTECTIVE AS WE KNOW THOSE BRITTS ARE. BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE THE SAME WAY WE ARE AND IT'S TOUGH TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE SAYING TODAY AND THE PAST FEW DAYS.

>> I THINK THAT THEY SEE US AS COWBOYS, THAT WE RIDE ROUGH SHOT OVER THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS. I THINK THAT'S LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE NANNY CASE, THE LA WEEZ WOODWARD CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS. YOU'LL REMEMBER, SOME OF YOU, FROM TEN YEARS AGO THAT SHE WAS PROSECUTED. SHE WAS CONVICTED FOR SHAKING THAT BABY AND KILLING HIM. SHE WAS SENTENCED TO A LONG PRISON TERM. THE BRITISH WERE UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY FELT A LOT OF THE EVIDENCE WAS JUST HER DRINKING AND CAROUSING AND CARRYING ON, WHICH THEY DIDN'T SEE AS PARTICULARLY A BAD THING, CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO CONVICT HER OF MURDER. THAT SENTENCE ULTIMATELY WAS OVERTURNED. SHE WENT BACK TO ENGLAND AND APPARENTLY HAS GONE TO LAW SCHOOL. I THINK THAT STICKS ON THE CRAW OF A LOT OF BRITISH OBSERVERS IN THIS CASE.

>>> THE ENTWISTLES APPEARED TO BE STARTING A NEW LIFE IN MASSACHUSETTS. HOW DID IT END SO TRAGICALLY? STAY TUNED.

>> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEND TIME ALSO WITH LILLIAN AND THE DEFENDANT?

>> YES.

>> DID YOU GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE THREE OF THEM OVER THE FALL OF 2005?

>> YES.

>> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT RELATIONSHIP?

>> A VERY LOVING RELATIONSHIP. A NEW FAMILY WITH A BUYBY. HAPPY AND EXCITED.

>>> PROSECUTORS BUILD THEIR CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE, EVEN DISPLAYING THE VICTIMS' BLOODY CLOTHES. CAN THEY CONVINCE THE JURY NEIL ENTWISTLE IS A KILLER? MORE LIVE COVERAGE AHEAD.

>>> YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER IT WAS FROM A GUN OR A RIFLE.

>> NO -- YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> .22 OR A .9 MILLIMETER.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> FROM WHAT DISTANCE THE GUN WAS WHEN THE SHOTS WERE DISCHARGED?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OR WHO WAS HOLDING THE GUN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IN FACT, YOU WERE NEVER ABLE TO SAY WHO WAS HOLDING THE GUN, ARE YOU?

>> NOT FROM THE CLOTHING, NO.

>>> AND THE GUN WAS FRONT AND CENTER YESTERDAY IN FRONT OF THAT JURY. WELCOME BACK. THE COURT IS NOT YET IN SESSION FOR THE MORNING. THEY'RE STILL WORKING OUT SOME HOUSEKEEPING MATTERS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY LIVE TESTIMONY YET ALTHOUGH WE EXPECT IT TO GET UNDER WAY SHORTLY. IN THE MEANTIME I WANT TO USE THE CHANCE TO SHOW YOU UNSEEN TESTIMONY FROM YESTERDAY FROM THE FIREARMS EXAMINER. HIS NAME IS SERGEANT STEVEN WALSH. HE TOLD THE JURY WHAT HE DID UPON RECEIVING THE GUN HA THE PROSECUTORS SAY WAS THE MURDER WEAPON IN THIS CASE. TAKE A LOOK.

>> THAT FIREARM, SIR, AFTER YOU RECEIVED IT FROM TROOPER BANKS, DID YOU CONDUCT A SERIES OF TESTS AND EXAMINATIONS?

>> FIRST I SUBMITTED IT DOWN TO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT SO IT COULD BE PRINTED AND TAKEN TO DNA.

>> DID IT EVENTUALLY WORK ITS WAY BACK TO YOU?

>> YES. ON THE 27th.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT FIRST WHEN IT WAS RETURNED TO YOU?

>> WHEN A WEAPON FIRST COMES IN I LOOK AT THE OVERALL CONDITION OF THE WEAPON. THEN I MEASURE THE BARREL LENGTH. IN THIS CASE I MEASURE THE BARREL LENGTH BECAUSE IT'S A REVOLVER, PART OF THE LAW IS YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE CYLINDER WHICH IS THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE. I DETERMINED THE LENGTH TO BE SEVEN INCHES. THEN I CHECK THE RIFLING. AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, IT'S A MANUFACTURING PROCESS THAT HELPS THE BULLET BE STABLE IN FLIGHT. AND I NOTICED -- I OBSERVED THAT THE RIFLING ON THIS PARTICULAR WEAPON IS SIX LANDS AND GROOUFS WITH A LEFT TWIST.

>> AND THE CALIBER? DID YOU ALSO DETERMINE THAT?

>> YES. IT'S .22 LONG -- WELL, IT'S MANUFACTURED FOR .22 LONG RIFLE.

>> AND, AGAIN, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONG RIFLE AND STANDARD .22.

>> .22 LONG RIFLE HAS A LARGER PROJECTILE. 40 GRAINS. YOU COULD SHOOT A -- BECAUSE THIS TAKES THE LARGER OF THE THREE, THE LARGEST OF THE THREE, YOU COULD SHOOT A .22 SHORT OUT OF THIS OR .22 LONG OR .22 LONG RIFLE.

>> THE CALIBER OF THOSE THREE, THE SAME OR DIFFERENT?

>> THE CALIBER, THE PROJECTILE, THE DIAMETER, IS THE SAME.

>> DID YOU PERFORM ANY TEST FIRING ON THAT WEAPON?

>> YES.

>> TELL US WHAT YOU DID AND YOUR RESULTS.

>> UPON FIRING TESTS FROM THIS WEAPON, I TAKE A CARBIDE TIP SCRIBE AND SCRIBE MY INITIAL, THE CASE NUMBER AND THEN MY INITIALS ON THE BASE OF THE PROJECTILES OR THE NOSE SOMETIMES. AND I MIKE KRO SKOPICALLY COMPARE THE TESTS TO ONE ANOTHER. THE REASON FOR THAT IS I WANT TO DETERMINE A CERTAIN PATTERN THAT THE RIFLING ON THIS FIREARM MAKES ON THE PROJECTILES. WHEN I'M SATISFIED THAT I CAN IDENTIFY THE PROJECTILES TO ONE ANOTHER, I WILL TAKE THE BEST CANDIDATE, THE BEST TEST, AND COMPARE IT AGAINST THE EVIDENCE.

>> SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DO A NUMBER OF TEST FIRINGS USING -- IS IT STOCK AM IN ADDITION OR SUPPLY AM IN ADDITION?

>> IN THIS CASE IT WAS THE AMMUNITION FROM THE BALLISTICS SECTION.

>> WAS THAT AMMUNITION THAT EWE USED ALSO 40 GRAIN LEAD FROM JEK TILES?

>> YES.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THAT FIREARM TO OPERATE AS A FIREARM?

>> YES.

>> AND DID YOU ULTIMATELY OBTAIN A PROJECTILE DURING THOSE TEST FIRINGS THAT YOU COULD USE FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES?

>> YES.

>> AND, SIR, AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU DISCHARGE OR ATTEMPT TO DISCHARGE ANY OF THE AMMUNITION CONTAINED IN THIS AMMO BOX MARKED 3RKS D FOR IDENTIFICATION?

>> YES.

>> AND WHETHER OR NOT THE AMMUNITION CONTAINED IN THAT AMMO CAN OPERATED?

>> YES. IT FIRED.

>> DID YOU PERFORM ADDITIONAL TESTS ON THAT AMMUNITION FROM THE AMMO CAN?

>> I JUST FIRED TWO FROM ONE OF THE BOXES OF .22 AMMUNITION.

>> LATER ON WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO FIRE ADDITIONAL ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION FROM BB FOR IDENTIFICATION?

>> YES.

>> WHEN WAS THAT DONE AND WHAT RESULT OR RESULTS DID YOU GET?

>> ORAL WHEN I DID THAT.

>> DO YOU HAVE YOUR REPORT?

>> I DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT.

>> WAS IT AFTER THE INITIAL RECEIPT OF THE AMMO CAN?

>> YES.

>> THE AMMO CAN IN THE FIREARM IN P FOR IDENTIFICATION?

>> YES.

>> WHAT -- WHAT TEST OR TEST FIRING WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO DO AND THAT YOU PERFORMED?

>> TO GET A MEASUREMENT OF THE AVERAGE WEIGHT OF THE .22 LONG RIFLE CALIBER AMMUNITION.

>> THAT WAS THE AMMUNITION FROM THE AMMO CAN?

>> YES.

>> HOW DID YOU DO THAT?

>> I FIRED THE AMMUNITION, AND I ALSO -- I DID WHAT WAS CALLED PULLING THE BULL LETS. I REMOVED THE BULLETS FROM THE LIVE CARTRIDGES TO COMPARE WHAT A SPENT LEAD PROJECTILE WEIGHS VERSUS A NON-SPENT LEAD PROJECTI PROJECTILE, A WHOLE LEAD PROJECTILE.

>> LET'S START WITH THE PULL LEAD PROJECTILE. HOW MANY DID YOU PULL?

>> I DON'T RECALL.

>>> THAT WAS FIREARMS EXAMINER STEVEN WALSH FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE EXPLAINING TO THE JURY YESTERDAY EXACTLY WHAT HE DID IN OBTAINING THE GUN AND THEN TESTING THE GUN. ULTIMATELY HE CONCLUDED IN HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE TEST FIRED BULLETS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE BULLETS THAT WERE RECOVERED FROM RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE'S BODIES. HE COULD NOT EXCLUDE THAT THE BULLETS RECOVERED FROM THEIR BODIES WERE FIRED FROM THE .22 CALIBER REVOLVER BELONGING TO JOE MATTERAZZO. YOU'RE LOOKING NOW AT THE LIVE SHOT OF THE COURTROOM. A NEW WITNESS IS COMING IN. LET'S LISTEN.

>> WILL YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL GIVE IN THE COURT AND JURY SHALL BE THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

>> I DO.

>> PLEASE TAKE THE STAND. WATCH YOUR STEP.

>> COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS LAURA BRYANT. BRIAN IS SPELLED B RRKSZ YRKSZ ARKSZ NRKSZ TRKSZ.

>> HOW ARE YOU EMPLOY SND.

>> I AM CURRENTLY EMPLOYED AT A CHEMIST IN THE DNA UNIT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE CRIME LABORATORY. I AM ALSO A SUPERVISOR IN THAT UNIT.

>> WHAT ARE YOUR JOB RESPONSIBILITIES?

>> MY JOB RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE ANALYZING FORENSIC EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO CONTAIN BIOLOGICAL OR DNA CONTAINING MATERIAL. USUALLY THIS IS DETERMINED BY A SCREENING TEST PERFORMED BY A CRIMINALIST IN THE CRIMINALISTICS UNIT. FROM THIS EVIDENCE A DNA PROFILE IS GENERATED. NOW, KNOWN SAMPLES ARE SUBMITTED FROM INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS BLOOD SAMPLES OR SALIVA SAMPLES. THESE SAMPLES ARE SUBMITTED FOR COMPARISON TO THE EVIDENCE PROFILES. PROFILES THAT ARE OBTAINED FROM THESE KNOWN SAMPLES IN A SIMILAR MANNER IN WHICH THE EVIDENCE PROFILES ARE GENERATED. ONCE ALL OF THE PROFILES ARE OBTAINED, MY JOB IS TO MAKE COMPARISONS BETWEEN THESE KNOWN PROFILES AND THE EVIDENCE PROFILES TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A MATCH OR AN EXCLUSION OR, IN THE CASE OF A MIKTURE PROFILE, TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S AN EXCLUSION OR AN INCLUSION OF THAT PROFILE INTO THE DNA MIXTURE. ONCE I MAKE THESE CONCLUSIONS, I WILL DOCUMENT THEM IN THE FORM OF A REPORT, CALCULATE STATISTICS WHEN NECESSARY, AND ALSO PROVIDE COURT TESTIMONY WHEN NECESSARY. ALSO IN MY ROLE AS A SUPERVISOR IN THE DNA UNIT, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING A TEAM OF DNA ANALYSTS.

>> WHAT IS DNA USED FOR IN THE GENERAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

>> IN THE GENERAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DNA IS USED IN A VARIETY OF FIELDS INCLUDING PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURES, BIOTECHNOLOGY, THE IDENTIFICATION OF MISSING PERSONS, PATERNITY TESTING AND MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS.

>> WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?

>> I HAVE A BASH LOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN BIOLOGY FROM BOSTON COLLEGE AS WELL AS A MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN FORENSIC SCIENCE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OK MAND LOCATED IN NEW ZEALAND. ALSO AS DEEMED BY THE DNA ADVISORY BOARD I HAVE COMPLETED THE REQUIRED COURSE WORK INCLUDING GENETICS, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, BIOCHEMISTRY AND STATISTICS.

>> AND WHAT SPECIALIZED TRAINING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED HAVE YOU RECEIVED EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY FROM THE LAB?

>> WELL, AS REQUIRED BY THE DNA ADVISORY BOARD, I ATTEND AT LEAST ONE TRAINING OR CONFERENCE PER YEAR TO STAY UP TO DATE ON FORENSIC DNA DECKNOLOGY. ALSO, WITHIN THE CRIME LABORATORY DNA UNIT I RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR OF INTENSIVE TRAINING WITHIN THAT UNIT. THAT INTENSIVE TRAINING INCLUDED OBSERVING TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES OF SENIOR DNA ANALYSTS DEMONSTRATING AND PRACTICING THOSE TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES FOR THESE ANALYSTS, PASSING COMPETENCY TESTS IN ALL OF THESE PROCEDURES, PASSING A PROFICIENCY TEST AS WELL AS AN INTERNAL WRITTEN QUALIFYING EXAM. PRIOR TO BECOMING A QUALIFIED DNA ANALYST.

>> HAVE YOU TESTIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN THE COURTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MA NA?

>> YES, I HAVE.

>> WHAT FIELD HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN?

>> IN FORENSIC DNA TESTING.

>> HOW MANY TIMES, APPROXIMATELY, HAVE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE COURTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH AS AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF DNA TESTING?

>> APPROXIMATELY 14 TIMES.

>> NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE LAB, WHAT'S DONE TO ENSURE THE QUALITY CONTROL AT THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE CRIME LAB?

>> OUR LABORATORY ADHERES TO THE QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE DNA ADVISORY BOARD WHICH I MENTIONED PROOEFTSLY IS GOVERNED BY THE FBI. SOME OF THESE QUALITY AINSURANCE STANDARDS, AND THERE ARE MANY OF THEM, INCLUDE INSURING THAT DNA ANALYSTS HAVE THE APPROPRIATE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS, ENSURING THAT ALL OF THE TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES USED WITHIN THE LABORATORY ARE VALIDATED OR TESTED PRIOR TO THEIR USE IN FORENSIC CASE WORK. WE ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN AUDITS, BOTH INTERNAL AUDITS AND EXTERNAL AUDITS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

>> NOW, WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO PERFORM ANY FUNCTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE?

>> YES B I WAS.

>> AND WHAT FUNCTION WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO PERFORM IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE?

>> I WAS THE ASSIGNED DNA ANALYST FOR TESTING SAMPLES WITHIN THIS CASE.

>> WHAT IS DNA?

>> DNA STANDS FOR DEOKSY RYE BOW NUKE LEEK ACID. IT'S THE GENETIC MATERIAL FOUND IN OUR BODY'S CELLS. WE INHERIT DNA FROM OUR PARENTS, ONE-HALF FROM OUR BUY LOGICAL MOTHER AND ONE-HALF FROM OUR BIOLOGICAL FATHER. IT'S THIS DNA OR GENETIC MATERIAL THAT MAKES US WHO WE ARE AND GIVES US OUR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS HAIR COLOR, EYE COLOR, ET CETERA. HOWEVER, IN FORENSIC DNA TESTING WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT REGIONS OF DNA THAT CODE FOR THESE TRAITS. WE'RE LOOKING FOR REGIONS OF DNA COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS JUNK DNA, A VERY SMALL VERSION OF OUR DNA FOR WHICH THERE IS NO KNOWN PURPOSE.

>>> WE'RE TAKING A SHORT BREAK. YOU CAN TAKE A MOMENT TO WRITE TO US AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT EFFECT WILL RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE'S BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE ON THE JURY? THEY SAW THEM YESTERDAY. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT AT CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK WITH MORE LIVE TESTIMONY. WELCOME BACK TO OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE NEIL ENTWISTLE DOUBLE MURDER CASE OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ON THE STAND NOW LIVE, LAURA BRYANT. SHE'S A CHEMIST WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE CRIME LAB. SHE'S EXPLAINING DNA. THE ALL IMPORTANT DNA, TO THIS JURY. LET'S LISTEN IN.

>> WHAT PROCEDURES DO YOU UNDERTAKE TO ENSURE THERE'S NO CONTAMINATION AT THE LAB?

>> WE USE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROCEDURES FOR ENSURING THERE'S NO CONTAMINATION OF OUR EVIDENCE SAMPLES. INCLUDING WEARING LAB COATS, GLOVES, AND FACE MASKS WHEN IN THE LABORATORY HANDLING EVIDENCE SAMPLES. WE ALSO WHEN HANDLING EVIDENCE SAMPLES ONLY OPEN ONE TUBE CONTAINING AN EVIDENCE SAMPLE AT A TIME TO PREVENT CROSS CONTAMINATION BETWEEN THE SAMPLES. ALSO, THE SURFACES AND EQUIPMENT THAT WE USE ARE CLEANED REGULARLY BEFORE AND AFTER CONDUCTING A DNA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE IN THE LABORATORY. OUR LAB BENCHES ARE CLEANED DOWN WITH A BLEACH SOLUTION. ALSO OUR EXEMPLAR SAMPLES OR KNOWN SAMPLES ARE PROCESSED AT A DIFFERENT TIME AND SPACE THAN THE EVIDENCE PROFILES ARE PROCESSED. ALSO, WE HAVE A SEPARATE LABORATORY DEDICATED TO AMPLIFY DNA OR DNA THAT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PCR PROCESS TO AVOID ANY CONTAMINATION FROM THIS AMPLIFIED DNA TO THE DNA SAMPLES BEFORE THEY'RE AMPLIFIED.

>> WHAT MACHINE DO YOU USE TO CONDUCT PCR BASED STR TESTING?

>> THE ACTUAL PCR PROCESS IS USING A THERMAL CYCLER INSTRUMENT PL FOLLOWING THAT WE USE A GENETIC ANALYZER TO THEN SEPARATE AND DETECT THESE INDIVIDUAL FRAGMENTS OF DNA.

>> ONCE THE SAMPLES ARE PLACED IN THE ANALYZER, WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM?

>> THE SAMPLES ARE INJECTED ON TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS A CAPILLARY. IT'S A VERY THIN TUBE CONTAINING A TYPE OF GEL. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THE DNA IS VARIED IN LENGTH BASED ON THE NUMBER OF REPEATS. IT, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AN ELECTRIC CURRENT WILL TRAVEL THROUGH THE CAPILLARY TUBE. DEPENDING UPON THE SIZE OF THE DNA IT WILL MOVE AT DIFFERENT SPEEDS THROUGH THAT GEL SOLUTION. WITH SMALLER PIECES OF DNA TRAVELING FAST IR THAN LARGER PIECES OF DNA. AT THE END OF THAT CAPILLARY TUBE, THE DNA IS DETECTED BY A CAMERA. AND THE CAMERA THEN TRANSLATES THAT DATA INTO AN IMAGE THAT I'M ABLE TO VISUALIZE ON A COMPUTER SCREEN THAT LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO AN EKG WITH A SERIES OF BLIPS OR PEAKS.

>> AT THE CRIME LAB DO YOU NUMBER THE SAMPLES?

>> YES, WE DO.

>> WHAT IS A BUCKLE OR BUICKAL SWAB.

>> A BOOUKAL SWAB IS A IS A SALIVA SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AN INDIVIDUAL USUALLY FROM THE INSIDE OF THE MOUTH CHEEK AREA. IT'S USUALLY A COTTON SWAB USED TO BRUSH THE INTIER YA CHEEK AREA TO OBTAIN SKIN CELLS.

>> DO YOU HAVE YOUR REPORT WITH YOU?

>> YES, I DO.

>> IS BUCCAL SWAB 30-2.1 JOSEPH MATTERAZZO?

>> COULD I REFER TO MY REPORT? THANK YOU.

>> WITH PERMISSION, YOUR HONOR?

>> SO COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

>> CERTAINLY. IS BU KRRK CAL SAMPLE OR SWAB 30-2.1 JOSEPH MATTERAZZO?

>> YES. THAT IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM JOSEPH MATTERAZZO.

>> IS 30-3.1 MICHAEL MATTERAZZO?

>> OBJECTION.

>> SUSTAINED. LEADING.

>> WHO IS BUCCAL SWAB 30-3.1.

>> 30-3.1 IS LISTED AS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM MICHAEL MATTERAZZO.

>> WHAT IS -- WHO IS BUCCAL SWAB 30-1.1?

>> 30-1.1 IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM ANTHONY MATTERAZZO?

>> WHAT IS BUCCAL SWAB 33-1.1?

>> I TEM 33 -- 1.1 IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO.

>> WHAT IS SAMPLE 36-1.1?

>> ITEM NUMBER 36-1.1 IS A KNOWN IS A VIE VA STANDARD FROM ZACHARY MATTERAZZO.

>> WHAT IS SAMPLE 36-2.1.

>> ITEM 36-2.1 IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR.

>> WHAT HAS SAMPLE 39-1.1?

>> ITEM 49-1.1 IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM GEORGE WILSON.

>> WHAT IS SAMPLE 36-3.2?

>> ITEM 36-3 AT ANY TIME 2 IS A KNOWN SALIVA STANDARD FROM LLOYD C COOK.

>> WHAT HAS ITEM 28-1-01.1.1.

>> ITEM 28-1-01.1.1 IS A KNOWN BLOOD STANDARD FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE.

>> WHAT IS ITEM 26-1.1?

>> ITEM 26-1.1 IS A KNOWN HEAD HAIR STANDARD FROM LILLIAN ENTWISTLE.

>> WHAT HAS ITEM 17-4.1?

>> ITEM 17-4.1 IS A SWAB OF THE REVOLVER, SERIAL NUMBER 452151 FROM THE GRIPPED AREA OF THE HANDLE.

>> HOW DOES HANDLER DNA GET DEPOSITED ON AN ITEM?

>> WELL, GENERALLY SPEAKING, HANDLER DNA IS DEPOSITED ON AN ITEM BY THE ACT OF HANDLING THAT ITEM.

>> MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, MS. BRYANT, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE FACTORS THAT MAKE IT LESS OR MORE LIKELY THAT HANDLER DNA IS GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL TO AN ITEM?

>> WELL, THE TRANSFER OF HANDLER DNA WOULD GENERALLY REFER TO TRANSFER OF SKIN CELLS BY HANDLING AN OBJECT. THE TRANSFER OF SKIN CELLS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL'S HAND TO AN OBJECT. THAT CAN BE AFFECTED BY THE TYPE OF CONTACT WITH THE OBJECT. BY THE TYPE OF SURFACE OF THE OBJECT. WHETHER IT'S A ROUGH SURFACE OR A SMOOTH SURFACE. IT COULD ALSO DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL INVOLVED. WHETHER IT BE SKIN CELLS OR ANOTHER BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SUCH AS BLOOD, SALIVA, SEMEN. IT COULD ALSO BE AFFECTED BY -- BY A NUMBER OF OTHER -- OTHER FACTORS.

>> AND I APOLOGIZE. FOR THE RECORD, IS THERE A STICKER ON THAT OBJECT?

>> YES, THERE IS.

>> AND WHAT IS THE ITEM NUMBER ON THAT STICKER? I APOLOGIZE. IT'S P ON THE BOX, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFYING THE ITEM. NOW, IF YOU COULD HOLD THAT ITEM UP FOR THE JURY, MS. BRYANT. AND HOLD IT HIGHER UP FOR THE JURY TO SEE. AND IF YOU COULD POINT TO THE BROWN AREA AND BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AREA THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE OR LESS LIKELY FOR HANDLER DNA TO BE DEPOSITED ON THAT AREA.

>> WELL, THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE HANDLE OF THE GUN CONTAINS WHAT APPEARS TO BE A VERY ROUGH SURFACE. SO IT MAY BE MORE LIKELY TO TRANSFER SKIN CELLS AND FOR SKIN CELLS TO BE RETAINED ON A ROUGH SURFACE SUCH AS THIS.

>> AND WITH REGARDS TO THE PATTERN ON THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PATTERN ON THE HANDLE OF THAT GUN THAT MAKES IT MORE LIKELY FOR DNA TO BE RETAINED ON THAT HANDLE?

>> BECAUSE OF THE ROUGH SURFACE, AND THE APPARENT GROOUFS WITHIN THIS SURFACE, IT MAY BE MORE DIFFICULT TO CLEAN OR SIMPLY WIPE OFF ANY DNA MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRESENT ON THE HANDLE OF THE GUN.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE GROOVES MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO CLEAN THAT DNA MATERIAL OFF?

>> WELL, A SIMPLE WIPING OF THE SURFACE MAY NOT ACTUALLY CONTACT THE PROOVS INSIDE OF THE HANDLE OF THE GUN.

>> THANK YOU. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? NOW, WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 17-4 PPT 1, DID YOU GET A PROFILE FROM THE SWAB OFF OF ITEM 17-4.1?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND DID YOU MAKE A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PROFILE OFF OF 17-4.1 TO JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR., GEORGE WILSON, LOYAL COOK, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, ZACHARY MATTERAZZO, LILLIAN ENTWISTLE AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA PROFILES?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WHAT DID YOUR COMPARISON SHOW?

>> THE INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU JUST NAMED WERE ALL EXCLUDED AS SOURCES OF THE DNA ON THE HANDLE OF THE GUN.

>> WHAT DOES EXCLUDED MEN?

>> EXCLUDED MEANS BASED ON THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED, THESE INDIVIDUALS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SOURCES OF THAT DNA.

>> WHAT WAS ITEM 9-6.1?

>> ITEM --

>> THE WITNESS MAY REFER TO THE REPORT IF NECESSARY.

>> DO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR REPORT TO LOOK AT WHAT ITEM 9-6.1 IS?

>> NO, I DO NOT.

>> WHAT WAS ITEM 9-6.1.

>> IT WAS A SWAB TAKEN FROM A DASANI WATER BOTTLE.

>> AND WERE THERE OTHER -- LET ME BACK UP. DID YOU GET A PROFILE FROM THIS SWABBING?

>> YES, I DID.

>> DID YOU LATER TEST ITEM 40- -- 47-1.1?

>>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE LIVE ON THE STAND. CHEMIST LAURA BRYANT. SHE'S BREAKING IT ALL DOWN FOR THE JURY EXPLAINING HOW SHE COMPARED THE DNA FOUND ON THE GUN TO ALL OF THE KNOWN SAMPLES IN THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY AND THEN TO THE NEIL ENTWISTLE SAMPLE THAT SHE RECEIVED. LET'S LISTEN.

>> I WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE HA THE MAJOR PROFILE FROM THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER GRIPPED AREA OF HANDLE MATCHED THE DNA PROFILE FROM THE ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD OF NEIL ENTWISTLE, THE SWAB FROM THE DASANI WATER BOTTLE.

>> AND TO BE CLEAR, THE DASANI WATER BOTTLE, WHEN YOU GOT A -- WHEN YOUR RECORDS INDICATE YOU GOT A BUCCAL SWAB FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE, MATCHED THAT PROFILE. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION REGARDING THE LIKELIHOOD OF A RANDOM PERSON MATCHING THE PROFILE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAMPLE FROM THE DASANI WATER BOTTLE DID?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT WAS THAT MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION?

>> I CALCULATED THAT THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED INDIVIDUAL HAVING A DNA PROFILE MATCHING THAT OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM WAS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 5.299 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. 1 IN 369.1 TRILLION OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION. AND ONE IN 5.942 TRILLION OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION.

>> WHAT IS ITEM 17-4.3?

>> ITEM 17-4.3 IS A SWAB FROM THE SAME REVOLVER IN THE BARREL AREA.

>> IF I MAY APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

>> ACCORDING TO THE RECORD?

>> I APOLOGIZE. ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS WHAT IS ITEM 17-4.3.

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS IT WAS A SWAB OBTAINED FROM THE REVOLVER FROM THE BARREL AREA OF THE REVOLVER.

>> IF I MAY APPROACH THE WITNESS AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR?

>> YES.

>> IF YOU CAN HOLD UP ITEM P. AND WITH REGARDS AND I'M POINTING FOR THE RECORD TO THE FRONT MUZZLE AREA OF ITEM P., ARE REGARDS TO THAT SURFACE AREA, IN YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, ARE THERE -- WHAT IS THE -- WITH REGARDS TO HANDLER DNA, IS THAT A GOOD SURFACE TO SELECT HANDLER DNA ON?

>> WELL, HANDLER DNA COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY TYPE OF A SURFACE. SO REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT THIS WOULD BE A SMOOTH SURFACE, HANDLER DNA COULD STILL BE OBTAINED FROM THIS SURFACE.

>> AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SMOOTH SURFACE AND THE ROUGH SURFACE REGARDS TO HANDLER DNA BEING RETAINED ON IT?

>> WELL, BY THE ACT OF WIPING OR MAKING ANY KIND OF CONTACT WITH A SMOOTHER SURFACE, IT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO REMOVE LOOSELY ADHERING SKIN CELLS FROM A SMOOTHER SURFACE THAN IT WOULD BE FROM A ROUGH SURFACE WITH THESE TYPES OF GROOVES.

>> THANK YOU. WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 17-4.3, THE BARREL OF THE GUN, ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT DID YOU FIND AS FAR AS A PROFILE ON THAT GUN?

>> I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE THAT WAS A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS. THERE WAS A MAJOR PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS MIXTURE.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO MATCH THE MAJOR PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THAT MIXTURE TO ANY INDIVIDUALS WHOSE SAMPLES THAT YOU HAD?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WITH REGARDS TO THAT MAJOR PROFILE, WHO WERE YOU ABLE TO MATCH THAT TO?

>> I WAS ABLE TO MATCH THE MAJOR DNA PROFILE TO THE DNA PROFILE FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE.

>> WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOM MATCH TO AN UNRELATED PERSON TO THIS DNA PROFILE THAT YOU FOUND ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN?

>> I CALCULATED THAT THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED, UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL HAVING CONTRIBUTED DNA TO THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 21.82 KWA DRILLON OF THE CAUCASIAN POP YOULATION, ONE IN 157.9 KWA DRILLON OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION AND ONE IN 24.8 KWA DRILLON OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION, APPROXIMATELY.

>> MOVE TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY.

>> SIR, WOULD YOU INQUIRE FURTHER?

>> CERTAINLY. WITH REGARDS TO THE BARREL OF THE GUN, WHAT MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION DID YOU MAKE?

>> THE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION WAS JUST AS I JUST STATED.

>>> ALL RIGHT. MY FAVORITE PART OF THAT TESTIMONY WAS APPROXIMATELY 1.21 -- APPROXIMATELY. WHEN YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE KWA DRILLONES, A COUPLE HUNDRED BETWEEN FRIENDS HERE AND THERE DOESN'T MATTER.

>> WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. ACTUALLY, AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK THAT THE DNA STUFF IS ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING. SO RIGHT NOW OBVIOUSLY WE HAVEN'T SEEN CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DEFENSE WITNESSES. WE HAVEN'T HAD AN INQUIRY INTO, YOU KNOW, WHERE HER PROCEDURES ARE GREATLY BEING ATTACKED. BUT I THINK THIS WITNESS HAS DONE A GOOD JOB NOT ONLY OF BUILDING UP THE LAB, BUILDING UP THEIR PROCEDURES, ELICITING THE TESTIMONY -- OR THE PROSECUTOR ACTUALLY DOING A GOOD JOB OF ELICITING THE TESTIMONY ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO WERE ELIMINATED AND WHO COULD HAVE HANDLED THE GUN. AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD THE HANDLE HAS MR. ENTWISTLE'S DNA AND THE BARREL HAS RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S THE MONEY TESTIMONY. THAT'S THE KEY.

>> WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TRILLIONS AND BILLIONS, AND WHAT'S THE ODDS OF THE TWO BEING ON THERE TOGETHER, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GET REALLY AGGRESSIVE. THAT'S WHY I LIKE THIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S STYLE. BECAUSE I THINK WHILE USUALLY IT PAYS TO BE QUITE TACTICAL IN THESE CASES, A CASE OF WHERE THERE'S THIS MUCH EVIDENCE, I THINK HE HAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LIKE A BULL IN A CHINA SHOP AND JUST HOPE SOMETHING BREAKS HIS WAY.

>> YEAH. I ALWAYS LOVED, JANELLE, THAT THESE FORENSIC SCIENTISTS SEEM TO OVERWHELMINGLY BE WOMEN. AND THEY'RE VERY METICULOUS AND PRECISE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THE SAMPLES WERE OBTAINED AND MATCHING THEM UP. BOOM, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA ON THE HANDLE. THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOM PERSON HAVE THAT PROFILE ONE IN 2.SOMETHING TRILLION. SINCE THERE'S ONLY 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET THAT'S PRETTY PRECISE THAT THAT IS HIS DNA, RIGHT?

>> YES. THIS WITNESS HAS BEEN GOOD AT BREAKING IT DOWN. A GREAT DEDEMEANOR. SHE'S PROBABLY GOING A MAKE A GOOD WITNESS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. SHE'S NOT EXCITABLE. SHE'S VERY PRECISE. SHE'S GETTING HER POINT ACROSS. SHE'S ALSO DOING IT IN A VERY SIMILAR POLICIC FASHION, IF YOU CAN, WITH DNA EVIDENCE. SO WE UNDERSTAND HOW SHE'S GETTING TO THAT RESULT. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A BUILDUP. I THINK THE PROSECUTOR IS DOING A GREAT JOB. A LITTLE SUSPENSION, HOLDING BACK. THEN, WOW, DON'T YOU KNOW IT, IT'S NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA. THEN DON'T YOU KNOW IT, IT'S RACHEL'S. I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD EXAMINATION WE'RE SEEING HERE.

>> ROBERT WITH US OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE IN MASSACHUSETTS, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF NUMBERS THAT ARE VERY HARD TO GET YOUR BRAIN AROUND. IT ALWAYS REMINDS ME OF CARL SAY GONE TALKING ABOUT BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF STARS IN THE UNIVERSE. HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DNA AND THE PROBABILITY OF A RAMEN PERSON HAVING THAT DNA. CAN A JURY REALLY GET THEIR BRAINS AROUND THAT?

>> THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO COMPREHEND. YOU LOOK AT THE POPULATION OF THE EARTH. THERE'S 6 OR 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. IN TERMS OF NUMBERS, WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? IT JUST SEEMS SUCH AS OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH NUMBER. I THINK THERE'S PRETTY MUCH GOING TO BE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE DEFENSE. I WOULD EXPECT AT SOME POINT THAT THIS IS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA.

>> THAT'S THE AMAZING THING ABOUT DNA. SOCIAL SECURITY SO PROVICE BUT THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT WILL BE CONTAMINATION. THIS GUN COULD HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. YES, THAT'S RACHEL AND NEIL'S DNA ON THE GUN BUT HOW DID IT GET THERE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DEFENSE ARGUMENT. RIGHT BACK WITH MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. STAY WITH US.

>>> IS THE FIREARM TESTIMONY HELPING THE PROSECUTION? THAT'S TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO VOTE. LET'S SEE. SO FAR 86% OF YOU ARE VOTING YES. GOOD NEWS FOR THE PROSECUTION. 14% OF YOU SAY NO. WE'LL BE UPDATING THOSE 13 JUROR RESULTS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. NEXT ON THE STAND, TALKING ABOUT THE GUN SORT OF. SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE DNA EVIDENCE ON THE GUN. SHE JUST SAID THE DNA ON P MUZZLE HAS BEEN LINKED TO RACHEL. THE DNA ON THE HANDLE HAS BEEN LINKED TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. LOOKING AT A LIVE SHOT OF NEIL ENTWISTLE WATCHING THIS TESTIMONY NOW. LET'S LISTEN IN.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT IS ITEM 17-13.1?

>> ITEM 17-13.1 IS IDENTIFIED AS A SWAB FROM THE TRIGGER LOCK OF THE REVOLVER, SERIAL NUMBER R 52151.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THAT ITEM?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT DID YOUR -- WHAT CONCLUSIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE WITH REGARDS TO THAT PROFILE?

>> THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM WAS A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS. NEIL ENTWISTLE MATCHED THE MAJOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. THE MINOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE YIELDED INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR COMPARISON WITH ANTHONY MATTERAZZO AND GEORGE WILSON. RACHEL ENTWISTLE, LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, ZACHARY MATTERAZZO, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR., AND LLOYD C. COOK ARE EXCLUDED AS SOURCES OF THIS DNA MIXTURE.

>> AS A RESULT OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE A STATISTICAL CALCULATION REGARDING THE LIKELIHOOD OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED PERSON MATCHING THE MAJOR PROFILE ON THE TRIGGER LOCK TO THE EXTENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PROFILE DID?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT WAS THAT?

>> THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL HAVING A DNA PROFILE MATCHING THAT OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 159.9 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. 1 IN 11.2 KWA DRILLON OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION. AND 1 IN 164.3 TRILLION OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION.

>> WHAT IS -- ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT IS ITEM 5-6.2.1?

>> ITEM 5-6.2.1 ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS IS A RED-BROWN STAIN ON PILLOW CASE NUMBER FOUR, BEDROOM NUMBER ONE.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THIS ITEM?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT WERE THE RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS YOU WERE ABLE TO DRAW ONCE YOU WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THIS ITEM?

>> THIS PROFILE MATCHED THE DNA PROFILE FROM LILLIAN ENTWISTLE.

>> AND DID YOU DO A STATISTICAL CALCULATION REGARDING THAT?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> WHAT IS ITEM 17-1.2? I'M SORRY. 17-1.9.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS?

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS. I APOLOGIZE, MS. BRYANT.

>> ITEM 17-1.9, ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, IS A SWAB OF A GREEN METAL AMMUNITION CAN, HANDLE AND LOCK.

>> MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? AND IF I COULD ASK YOU FOR THE RECORD, EXHIBIT BB FOR IDENTIFICATION, IF I COULD ASK YOU TO EXAMINE THE TOP HANDLE AND THE OPENING AREA HERE WITH REGARDS TO THE SURFACES?

>> THE SURFACES APPEAR TO BE FAIRLY SMOOTH SURFACES.

>> AND BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THEM BEING FAIRLY SMOOTH SURFACES?

>> IN RELATION TO WHAT?

>> IN RELATION TO HANDLER DNA.

>> HANDLER DNA COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THESE SMOOTH SURFACES.

>> NOW, WITH REGARDS TO 17-1.9, WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> FROM THAT? AND BASED ON THE PROFILE YOU WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN FROM THAT ITEM, WERE YOU ABLE TO COME TO ANY CONCLUSIONS BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE?

>> YES. THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM INDICATED THE PRESENCE OF A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE. NEIL ENTWISTLE MATCHED THE MAJOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. THE MINOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE YIELDED INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR COMPARISON WITH ZACHARY MOTT RA ZOE, RACHEL ENTWISTLE, LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, ANTHONY MATTERAZ MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, APRIL SILL LA AND JOSEPH C COOK ARE EXCLUDED.

>> BASED ON THE PROFILE YOU WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN DID YOU DO A STATISTICAL CALCULATION OF THE LIKELYHOOD OF A RAMENLY SELECTED PERSON MATCH TLG PROFILE FROM ITEM 17-1.9 TO THE EXTENT THAT MR. ENTWISTLE DID?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND WHAT WAS THAT CALCULATION?

>> THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL HAVING A PROFILE MATCHING THAT OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 159.9 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. 1 IN 11.2 KWA DRILLON OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION. AND 1 IN 164.3 TRILLION OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT IS ITEM 17-4.8?

>> ITEM 17-4.8, ACCORDING TO MY REPORT, IS A SWAB FROM REVOLVER SERIAL NUMBER 452151 CYLINDER.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THAT SWAB?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT CONCLUSIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO DRAW REGARDING THAT PROFILE?

>> THE PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM INDICATED THE PREPS OF A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS DNA MIXTURE. THE PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE YIELDED INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR COMPARISON WITH LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, RACHEL ENTWISTLE, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, ANTHONY MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, ZACHARY MATTERAZZO, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR.,. GEORGE WILSON AND LLOYD C. COOK ARE EXCLUDED AS SOURCES OF THIS DNA MIXTURE.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT WAS ITEM 5-9.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 5-9.1 WAS RED-BROWN STAIN A FROM BEDROOM NUMBER ONE.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT WAS ITEM 5-10.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 5-10.1 WAS RED-BROWN STAIN B FROM BEDROOM NUMBER ONE.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT WAS ITEM 5-11.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 5-11.1 WAS RED-BROWN STAIN D FROM BEDROOM NUMBER ONE.

>> HOW WERE THOSE ITEMS TESTED, MS. BRYANT?

>> THOSE ITEMS WERE TESTED IN THE SIMILAR MANNER THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROO FILE FROM THOSE ITEMS?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARDS TO THAT PROFILE?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND WHAT WERE THOSE CONCLUSIONS?

>> THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THESE THREE ITEMS MATCHED THE DNA PROFILE FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AND DID NOT MATCH THE DNA PROFILES FROM THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTED FOR COMPARISON.

>> OKAY. AND WERE YOU ABLE TO DO A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION REGARDING THE LIKELYHOOD OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED PERSON MATCHING THAT MAJOR PROFILE MATCHING THAT PROFILE TO THE EXTENT THAT A RAMEN PERSON WOULD?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND WHAT WAS THAT?

>> THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL HAVING A DNA PROFILE MATCHING THAT OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 21.82 KWA DRILLON OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. 1 IN 157.9 KWA DRILLON OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION. AND ONE IN 24.8 KWA DRILLON OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT IS ITEM 17-1.9.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 17-1.1.1 WAS A SWAB OF THUNDER BOLT .22 CALIBER AMMUNITION BOX NUMBER ONE.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A PROFILE FROM THIS ITEM?

>> I WAS ONLY ABLE TO OBTAIN ONE CALLED --

>> AS A RESULT OF THAT DID YOU DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS?

>> NO, I DID NOT.

>> WHAT WAS ITEM 17-1.2.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 17-1.2.1 WAS A SWAB OF A .22 CALIBER THUNDER BOLT AMMUNITION BOX NUMBER TWO.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A PROFILE FROM ITEM 17-1.2.1?

>> NO. I OBTAINED NO RESULTS FROM THIS SAMPLE.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT WAS ITEM 17-1.3.1?

>> ITEM 17-1.3.1, ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, WAS A SWAB OF FEDERAL AMMUNITION .22 CALIBER AM IN ADDITION BOX.

>> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A PROFILE FROM THAT ITEM?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU DRAW?

>> THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THE SWAB OF THE FEDERAL AMMUNITION .22 CALIBER AMMUNITION BOX IS A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM AT LEAST TWO INDIVIDUALS. ZACHARY MATTERAZZO IS INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. THE PROFILE YIELDED INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR COMPARISON WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE. RACHEL ENTWISTLE, LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, ANTHONY MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR., GEORGE WILSON AND LLOYD C. COOK ARE EXCLUDED AS SOURCES OF THIS DNA MIXTURE.

>> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS WHAT IS ITEM 17-5.1?

>> ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, ITEM 17-5.1 IS A SWAB OF BLACK GUN CASE, HANDLE, AND FRONT LOCK SNAP.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THIS ITEM?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT CONCLUSIONS DID YOU DRAW BASED ON THAT PROFILE?

>> THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THE SWAB OF BLACK GUN CASE HANDLE AND FRONT LOCKS SNAPS IS A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM AT LEAST THREE INDIVIDUALS.

>>> SO THE JURY HAS NOW HEARD EVIDENCE OF DNA LINKS TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN, NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE HAMMER OF THE GUN, AND, INDEED, NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE AMMUNITION BOX KEPT IN THE MATTERAZZO HOME. WHAT EFFECT WILL SEEING RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE'S BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE ON THE JURY? WHEN WE COME BACK WE'LL HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WE REVEAL OUR ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. STAY WITH US.

>>> A BABY'S SLEEPER STAINED WITH BLOOD AND GUNSHOT RESIDUE. THE EVIDENCE MOUNTS IN THE ENTWISTLE MURDER TRIAL BUT THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE DIDN'T DO IT. MORE LIVE COVERAGE AHEAD ON OPEN COURT.

>>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY IN OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY, WHAT EFFECT WILL SEEING RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE'S BLOODY CLOTHES HAVE ON THE JURY. OUR ANSWER COMES FROM ELLY IN MIAMI, FLORIDA. SHE WRITES IT WAS LIKE DANGLING THE BABY AND MOTHER IN THEIR FACES. IT MADE THE VICTIMS MORE REAL THAN A PHOTO COULD EVER TO. SOMETHING TANGIBLE IS 1,000% MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SOMETHING INTANGIBLE. THANKS FOR THAT ANSWER AND THANKS FOR WATCHING DOWN THERE IN MIAMI.

>>> THE PARTICIPANTS ARE AT A SIDE BAR. YOU'RE IN THE MISSING ANY LIVE TESTIMONY. THERE THEY ARE. LET'S UNLEASH THE LAWYERS ON THE PANEL FOR A MOMENT. LET ME START WITH YOU, ROBERT. WHAT WOULD YOU DO ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH THIS WITNESS?

>> AGAIN, YOU WANT TO TRY TO DRAW OUT SOME SORT OF CONTAMINATION ARGUMENTS IF YOU CAN. AND MAKE YOUR POINTS AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN AND GET OUT. BECAUSE THE JURORS HAVE HEARD THE STAGGERING NUMBERS THAT YOU REALLY DIDN'T GET AROUND. MAKE YOUR POINTS IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN GET INTO SOME DNA CONTAMINATION CERTAINLY DRAW THOSE POINTS OUT AS WELL.

>> LIVE TESTIMONY HAS RESUMED. THE SIDE BAR HAS BROKEN UP. LET'S LISTEN IN.

>> AND IS THAT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE FROM A COLLECTION KIT?

>> ITEM 6-1.1.1, I'M NOT CERTAIN IF IT IS OR NOT.

>> WHAT DID YOU DO WITH ITEM 6-1.1.1?

>> I RECEIVED ITEM 6-1.1.1 FROM THE EVIDENCE UNIT.

>> AND WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR THING YOU HAD TO DO WITH ITEM 6-1.1.1 TO PREPARE IT FOR TESTING?

>> NO, THERE WAS NOT.

>> WHAT WAS ITEM 6-1.1.1 ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT?

>> ITEM 6-1.1.1 WAS THE INTERIOR FRONT AND MIDDLE CROTCH AREAS OF A PAIR OF UNDERWEAR.

>> AND DID YOU OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THAT?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND AS A RESULT OF OBTAINING A PROFILE, DID YOU -- WERE YOU ABLE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> WHAT CONCLUSIONS WERE YOU ABLE TO DRAW?

>> THE CONCLUSION I WAS ABLE TO DRAW WAS THAT THE DNA PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM WAS A MIXTURE OF DNA FROM MORE THAN ONE SOURCE CONSISTENT WITH THE DNA PROFILES FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND NEIL ENTWISTLE. NEIL ENTWISTLE MATCHED THE MAJOR MALE PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE MINOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. I ALSO MADE COMPARISONS WITH THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTED FOR COMPARISON. JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, ANTHONY MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, ZACHARY MATTERAZZO, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO JR., GEORGE WILSON AND LLOYD C. COOK ARE EXCLUDED AS SOURCES OF THIS DNA MIXTURE. THE PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE YIELDED INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR COMPARISON WITH LILLIAN ENTWISTLE.

>> WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE A STATISTICAL CALCULATION BASED ON YOUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE MAJOR PROFILE IN ITEM 6-1.1.1?

>> YES, I WAS.

>> AND WHAT WERE THOSE STATISTICAL CALCULATIONS?

>> THE PROBABILITY OF A RANDOMLY SELECTED UNRELATED INDIVIDUAL HAVING CONTRIBUTED DNA TO THIS ITEM IS APPROXIMATELY ONE IN 159.9 TRILLION OF THE CAUCASIAN POPULATION. ONE IN 11.2 KWA DRILLON OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN POPULATION. AND ONE IN 1 # 4.3 TRILLION OF THE HISPANIC POPULATION.

>> DID YOU TEST FROM YOUR REPORT ITEM 6-1.1.2?

>> YES, I DID.

>> AND BASED ON YOUR REPORT, WHAT IS ITEM 6-1.1.2?

>> ITEM 6-1.1.2 WAS ACTUALLY COMBINED WITH ITEM 6-1.1.3. IN THE SAMPLE PREPARATION PHASE OF DNA TESTING. ITEM 6-1.1.2 AND 6-1.1.3 WERE CUTTINGS FROM THE BACK INTERIOR CROTCH AREA OF A PAIR OF UNDERWEAR.

>> WAS THERE -- WHAT DID YOU DO AS FAR AS SPECIAL PREPARATION WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS?

>> I WAS GIVEN A SNIFF ET FOR TESTING. IT'S A SMALL PORTION OF AN ITEM PREPARED BY THE CRIMINALISTICS UNIT FOR DNA ANALYSIS.

>>> AND THANKS TO OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS REPORTING LIFE FROM MASSACHUSETTS TODAY. THANKS ALSO TO OUR GUESTS IN WOBURN AND ROBERT AND JANELL WEINSTEIN HERE IN NEW YORK. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH RIKKI KLIEMAN HERE FOR JAMI FLOYD TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT ON BEST DEFENSE.

>> OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THIS OH, SO IMPORTANT DNA TESTIMONY THAT WE EXPECT IS GOING TO TIE THE WEAPON, THE PROSECUTION SAYS THE MURDER WEAPON, TO BOTH THE DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIMS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANKS, RIKKI. WOOE L WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU.

>>> THAT WRAPS UP MY TIME WITH YOU ON OPEN COURT. I AM LISA BLOOM. I'LL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW MORNING BRIGHT AND EARLY 9:00 A.M. EASTERN. THANKS FOR WATCHING AND I'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW.

[HOME]