|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." AND TODAY, FORENSIC EVIDENCE STILL FRONT AND CENTER IN THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. PROSECUTORS SAY IT WAS A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT AT THE PERSON THAT KILLED HIS WIFE RACHEL AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN. BUT DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY PROSECUTORS HAVE THE WRONG MAN. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTHOUSE WITH THE LATEST. BETH, TELL US WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. GOOD MORNING, RICKI. THERE WAS AN OPEN COURT ARGUMENT, DISCUSSION, BEFORE THE JURY CAME IN. ABOUT WHAT COMPUTER FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED THIS AFTERNOON. THAT WILL BE THIS AFTERNOON FOR COMPUTER SEARCHES THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE APPARENTLY DID IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS. THIS WITNESS HAS BEEN TESTIFYING ABOUT HER ANALYSIS OF A NUMBER OF SWABS COLLECTED FROM ITEMS OF EVIDENCE COMPARED TO KNOWN SOURCES. AND A MATCH OR CONTRIBUTOR OR MAYOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE ENTWISTLE INCLUDES THE BARREL OF THE REVOLVER USED TO KILL RACHEL AND LILLIAN HAS RACHEL'S DNA. A PREVIOUS WITNESS SAID WHERE THE SWAB CAME FROM, THE MUZZLE END. IT'S RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA AND LILLIAN, OF COURSE, BLOOD ON A PILLOW IN THE BEDROOM. THE STAINS ON THE WALL IN THE BEDROOM. THREE STAINS. RACHEL ENTWISTLE BLOOD. AND THEN, NEIL ENTWISTLE, HIS -- HE'S A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR OF THE DNA MIXTURE ON THE GUN GRIP, THE TRIGGER LOCK TO THE REVOLVER, AND ALSO, A GUN AMMUNITION CAN. WHICH SHE IS CONTINUING TO GO THROUGH THE EVIDENCE. THAT'S THE CRITICAL ONES WITH A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR. >> AND AS YOU ENUMERATE THEM, BETH, WE GET A SENSE GETTING A SENSE OF THE AMMUNITION CAN AND LISTENING TO YOU SAY THE TRIGGER LOCK THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A CHILL. THANK YOU, AS ALWAYS, BETH. WE'LL SEE YOU LATER IN THE SHOW. WATCHING TODAY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY MICHAEL CORNACKIA AND BILL KICKUM. I ASK YOU TO STAND BY AS WE GO LIVE. >> 1.1 WAS A SWAB FROM TRIGGER LOCK KEY SET NUMBER 2, NUMBER 1. >> AND WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THAT SWAB? >> I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN ONLY POTENTIAL DNA PEAKS BELOW OUR THRESHOLD OF DETECTION. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT, HOW DID YOU REPORT THAT? >> NO COMPARISONS WITH THIS ITEM. >> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT WHICH IS ITEM 9-5? >> ITEM 9-5, ACCORDING TO MY REPORT, WAS A SWAB FROM A STARBUCKS CUP. >> DID YOU TEST THAT ITEM? >> YES, I DID. >> AND AS A RESULT OF TESTING THAT ITEM, DID YOU CREATE A PROFILE? >> I DID CREATE A PROFILE. HOWEVER, THE PROFILE WAS NOT REPORTED AS THIS ITEM WAS SUBMITTED AS AN ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD AND WAS CONSIDERED TO BE UNSUITABLE AS AN ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD. >> BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> AN ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD, TO USE THAT AS A STANDARD NEEDS TO BE A SINGLE SOURCE SAMPLE. IF WE'RE USING THE STANDARD FOR A FEMALE, THE PROFILE WOULD NEED TO BE A FEMALE PROFILE. IF WE'RE USING AN ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD FOR A MALE, THE PROFILE WOULD NEED TO BE A MALE PROFILE. >> WHOSE STANDARD WERE YOU ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN WHEN YOU TESTED ITEM 9-5. >> I WAS ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN A DNA PROFILE FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> ACCORDING TO YOUR RECORDS, WHAT IS ITEM 9-4? >> ITEM 9-4 WAS A SWAB, ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, FROM AN AQUIFINA BOTTLE. >> DID YOU OBTAIN A PROFILE FROM THAT SWAB? >> YES,DY. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT, DID YOU DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THAT SWAB? >> THIS SWAB WAS CONSIDERED TO BE UNSUITABLE AS AN ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD. >> YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH? >> WELL, I THOUGHT I WOULDN'T GET TO TALK TO BETH OR MY GUESTS UNTIL THE RECESS BUT BETH KARAS, LET ME GO BACK TO YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID IN THE COURTROOM WAS THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH A FACT OF THE TRIGGER LOCK HAVING DNA. AND, WE WERE ALSO DEALING WITH THE FACT OF THE AMMUNITION HAVING DNA. AND BETH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YOU'RE GOOD? >> NOW I HEAR YOU. >> I KNOW. I SAW THAT. MY VIEWERS SEE ME LOOK OVER THERE AND THEN I THINK YOU KNOW WHEN I LOOK OVER THERE, I'M LOOKING AT A CAMERA ONE I HAVE FOCUSED ON BETH KARAS, ONE ON THE COURTROOM. BUT JUST AS I WAS ABOUT TO ASK YOU, I CAN FOCUS ON THE COURTROOM IN FRONT OF ME AND THAT TELLS ME THEY HAVE GONE AWAY FROM THE SIDE BAR SO BETH, STAY STILL AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE TRIGGER LOCK LATER ON. LET'S LISTEN. >> WHICH IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 17 MINUTES. >> ALL RISE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO WAIT LONG AT ALL. THAT TAKES ME BACK TO BETH KARAS. BETH, IT WAS ONE THING TO HAVE A MIXTURE OF DNA ON THE GUN THAT WOULD COME FROM NEIL EBT WEST L AND ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT TOUCHED THAT GUN. WE KNOW THAT THE GUN WAS USED AT TARGET PRACTICE THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS BUT IT IS ANOTHER THING WHEN YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE TRIGGER LOCK AND THE BOX OR BOTTLE OF AMMUNITION SO TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I REALLY DIDN'T REALIZE FROM THE DEFENSE POINT OF VIEW EL YET WEINSTEIN HAS TO REBUT ALL OF THIS. >> YES, HE DOES. AND HE HAS A LITTLE BIT TO WORK WITH BECAUSE THIS IS A SCANDAL, INVESTIGATION OF THE LAB AND DNA BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE LAB, CONTAMINATION DOESN'T CREATE MATCHES. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW HE'S GOING TO USE THE INVESTIGATION, THE DNA LAB IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT THE AMMUNITION BOX, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT ONES THAT WERE -- THAT SHE TESTIFIED TO. NO RESULTS ON TWO OF THEM. DIDN'T CONNECT NEIL ENTWISTLE TO A THIRD ONE AND FOUND A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO ONE OF THEM, AND A MAYOR TO ONE OF THEM, THE GUN AMMUNITION CAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS IN THAT CAN. I ASSUME .22 CALIBER AMMUNITION FOR THIS GUN BUT HE COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING IN DIFFERENT BOXES TO FIND THE RIGHT AMMUNITION, AND HE'S A MAJOR ON THE TRIGGER LOCK AND ON THE GUN GRIP. AT LEAST HE'S A MIXTURE ON THE GUN GRIP SO I MEAN, GUN WAS HANDLED BY OTHER PEOPLE THE DAY AFTER AND IT WAS CLEANED BY ANTHONY, PRESUMABLY. I MEAN, HE LEARNED TO CLEAN THE GUNS THAT HIS FATHER OWNS AND PRESUMABLY CLEANED THIS .22 REVOLVER. THERE WAS NO SPECIFICITY OF WHICH GUNS WERE OR WEREN'T CLEANED. HE DIDN'T DO THAT GOOD OF A JOB IF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA ON THE MUZZLE END OF THE MURDER WEAPON AND THAT WAS THAT BROWNISH GEL-LIKE SUBSTANCE TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY. AND IT JUST MAY BE THAT WHOEVER HANDLED THE GUNS DAY AFTER, THE MURDER WEAPON, DIDN'T DEPOSIT DNA. I MEAN, NOT EVERYBODY WILL DEPOSIT I GUESS DNA IN THE SAME WAY. MAYBE NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD SWEATY PALMS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WILL DO TO ATTACK THIS. HE WILL SAY A LOT OF PEOPLE HANDLED THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE BUT DOESN'T TAKE NEIL ENTWISTLE OUT OF THE EQUATION. >> NO, IT DOES NOT. MICHAEL, I USED TO SAY TO MY ASSOCIATES IF I WAS ASKING THEM TO DRAFT A MOTION AND THEY'D SAY, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. I CAN'T DO THIS. THERE'S NO WAY AROUND THIS. I WOULD SAY, YOU'RE BEING PAID TO THINK LOGICALLY, TO BE A LAWYER. THERE IS ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT. OTHERWISE, IT'S SIMPLY A PLEA OF GUILTY. THERE'S ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT. WELL, THERE IS ALWAYS AN ARGUMENT. IT IS JUST IF YOU'RE DEFENDING THIS CASE AND YOU ENDED SOME QUOTE UNQUOTE IMPOSSIBLE CASES. WHAT DO YOU DO? >> THE BEST DEFENSE IN THIS CASE TO STAY IN ENGLAND. BUT GIVEN THAT HE CAN'T DO THAT, HE CAME BACK -- >> I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING. >> THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THE VERSION HE GIVES EVEN TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, ONE OF THEM HE SPOKE TO PUTS IT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. HE HAS TO ARGUE SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO FIND MOTIVE AND DEVELOP THAT MOTIVE W. THE CONNECTION TO THE GUN, TO THE IN-LAWS, THAT'S NATURAL PLACE TO START AND PROBABLY WHERE THEY'LL FOCUS ON BUT AS OF NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIAS IS OR BACKGROUND TO SAY THEY DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHICH IS HORRIBLE. >> IT IS REALLY HORRIBLE. LET ME GO OUT TO BILL. BILL, YOU ARE DOING WORK ON THIS CASE, TALKING ABOUT IT. HAD IT ON YOUR BLOG. YOU AND I HAVE KNOWN ELLIOT WEINSTEIN AND STEPHANIE PAIGE FOR YEARS UPON YEARS, DECADES. I HAVE TO HAND IT TO THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER. YOU ARE DEALT THE HAND YOU ARE DEALT AND THEY'RE DOING THE BEST THEY CAN WITH WHAT THEY HAVE GOT BUT DO YOU STILL HAVE SOME FEELING THAT ELLIOT MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, JACK RABBIT TO PULL OUT OF THE SENATE. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK, HE MAY HAVE SOME EXPLODED EVIDENT YAR BOMBSHELL IN THE BRIEFCASE. I DON'T KNOW. NONE OF US KNOW BUT HE HAS A TOUGH ROAD TO HOE HERE AND I THINK AS YOU JUST SAID, HE IS DOING THE BEST HE CAN WITH THE CARDS THAT HE'S BEEN DEALT. WHEN YOU WAKE UP IN THE MORNING AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU DON'T SAY, GOD, PLEASE GIVE ME THE BEST MIX OF GIFTS AND EVIDENCE TO GET TODAY MY CLIENT. YOU GO WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND HAVE. HE'S LEADING TRYING TO CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. WHETHER HE HAS SOME UNEXPLODED BOMBSHELLS SOME PLACE, IT'S HARD TO SAY. IT IS HARD TO SAY. I WOULD HOPE FOR HIS SAKE AND MR. ENTWISTLE'S HE DOES BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY. >> I AGREE. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WE'LL STEP AWAY FOR A QUICK BREAK. BUT FIRST, YOU KNOW I LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. THIS IS MY LAST DAY MERE HERE FOR A WHILE. SEND ME QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE ON YOUR MINE. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. YOU JUST CLICK ON BEST DEFENSE OR E-MAIL ME COLLECTLY. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> PROSECUTORS ARE METHODICALLY PRESENTING THEIR FORENSIC EVIDENCE TO THE JURY, INCLUDING EVIDENCE THEY SAY PROVED NEIL ENTWISTLE USED HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S .22 CALIBER REVOLVER TO SHOOT HIS OWN WIFE AND CHILD. THE GUN WAS DISPLAYED TO THE JURY AND DESCRIBED MATERIAL ON THE END OF THE MUZZLE. PROSECUTORS SAY THAT MATERIAL IS RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S DNA. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WAS QUICK TO GRILL HER ABOUT POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF THAT GUN AND THAT'S WHERE THE DEFENSE TOOK THE BEST SHOT. >> THERE'S NO TELLING HOW MANY PEOPLE HANDLED IT BEFORE YOU RECEIVED IT AT YOUR LABORATORY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON 17-4 IS BEFORE THAT ITEM 17-4 .22 CALIBER REVOLVER CAME INTO YOUR HANDS IN THE CRIME SCENE LABORATORY -- CRIME SERVICES LABORATORY? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? >> THERE'S NO TELLING HOW MANY SOURCE SOURCES TOUCHED THAT .22 BEFORE IT MADE ITS WAY TO YOUR LABORATORY? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> AND OF COURSE, THAT'S PART OF THE ESSENCE OF ELLIOT WEINSTEIN'S DEFENSE OF MR. ENTWISTLE. BETH KARAS, LET ME RETURN TO YOU ON THIS BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THIS GUN HAS GONE THROUGH LOTS OF HANDS, INCLUDING CIVILIAN HANDS THE DAY FOLLOWING THESE KILLINGS. BUT IT'S REALLY THE FACT OF THE -- IT IS ALMOST A CREEPY FACT THAT WITH ALL THE PEOPLE WHO TOUCHED THIS GUN, THAT WE HAVE NEIL ENTWISTLE AT ONE END OF THE GUN AND THEN THE DNA WE EXPECT OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, HER BLOOD AND BRAIN MATTER, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GUN AND JUST ONE OF THOSE FACTORS NO MATTER WHO ELSE'S DNA IS THERE THIS IS WHAT ELLIOT HAS TO FIGHT AGAINST. >> YES. AND THIS IS WHAT THE THEN DISTRICT ATTORNEY COKELY WAITING FOR. AS SOON AS THEY GOT THESE RESULTS WHICH WAS FEBRUARY 7th, 2006, THEY HAD WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST WARRANT AND THAT ARREST WARRANT WAS ISSUED IMMEDIATELY AND IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS IN CUSTODY. THE ARREST WARRANT WAS SENT TO ENGLAND. THE DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS WENT OVER TO LONDON AFTER THE AUTHORITIES PICKED HIM UP ON FEBRUARY 9th LONDON TIME SO THIS IS WHAT THEY NEEDED. TO LINK NEIL ENTWISTLE, THE WEAPON AND RACHEL. >> MICHAEL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT SURPRISE A JUROR OR VIEWER IS ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THIS LINK WHICH REALLY IS A PHENOMENAL LINK FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR BUILDING THEIR CASE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SURPRISED ME IS THERE IS NO GUN RESIDUE FOUND OF NEIL, ON NEIL ENTWISTLE, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S STEERING WHEEL, NEIL EBT WEST L'S CLOTHING IN THE CAR. THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT CAR THAT SHOWS GUN RESIDUE. >> WELL, THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE HE -- YOU KNOW, THEY DO THE PARAFFIN TEST. >> HE'S GONE. BUT THE CAR. >> THE TRANSFERENCE OF THAT, DEPENDS ON WHAT HE DID AFTER HE -- IF HE COMMITTED THE CRIME WHAT HE DID AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S GOING TO EMPHASIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NATURAL FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE LEFT THE RESIDUE. OF COURSE, SOMETIMES THEY SAY PEOPLE THAT COMMIT CRIMES PRESUMED INNOCENT BUT NOT INTELLIGENT. >> WELL SAID. >> PEOPLE THINK, OH, WELL PLOTTED AND WELL PLANNED AND NOT -- THIS IS AN ABERRATION FOR MOST PEOPLE THANKFULLY. IF THEY ARE INVOLVED IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO THEY MAY LEAVE CLUES UNINTENTIONALLY EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE WATCH "CSI" BUT SOME IS TRUE. THEY PICK UP THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF MATERIAL. >> RIGHT. WE GO BACK EVEN TO O.J. SIMPSON THINKING OF THAT WITH THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE OR PRESENCE OF EVIDENCE WHERE YOU EXPECT EVIDENCE TO BE IT ISN'T AND WHERE YOU DON'T EXPECT EVIDENCE TO BE IT IS. IT'S AN INTERESTING PATTERN. BILL, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMPOSITE OF EVIDENCE HERE, WOULD NEIL ENTWISTLE HAVE BEEN IN A FAR BETTER POSITION -- OH, THIS IS SUCH A SOFTBALL QUESTION I CAN'T ASK IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE. WOULD HE HAVE BEEN IN A BETTER POSITION IF HE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING? DIDN'T THE STATEMENTS START TO PUT THE NOOSE EVER TIGHTER AROUND HIS NECK? >> NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. HE SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS MOUTH CLOSED MORE OFTEN THAT HE DID. HE HAD COMMENTS FROM THE SUBWAY PLATFORM ARRESTED ON TO STATEMENTS MADE TO POLICE ALL ALONG THE LINE INCRIMINATED HIMSELF AND CONTRADICTED HIMSELF. HE MADE STATEMENTS BEFORE HE DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GET TO PRIS KRIL LA'S WORKPLACE. NOT TRUE. HE HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE. HE TESTIFIED TO POLICE THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW -- HE DIDN'T HAVE KEYS TO THE CARVER HOME. NOT TRUE. HE HAD KEYS TO THE CARVER HOME. ON AND ON AND ON. SAID A NUMBER OF THING THAT IS MADE THE DEFENSE TEAM'S JOB THAT MUCH HARDER. >> INDEED. I'LL ASK BETH KARAS TO LISTEN WITH ME TO THIS BECAUSE, BETH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU WITH A COMPARATIVE CASE WITH THIS. DIANE COTMIER THE JUDGE WAS MAKING A RULING THIS MORNING ABOUT CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD COME IN AT A LATER POINT IN TIME HAVING TO DO WITH WHAT NEIL ENTWISTLE MAY HAVE BEEN DOING OR SOMEONE ELSE MAY HAVE BEEN DOING ON THE COMPUTER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS SHE CITED THAT IS THE JUDGE CITED WAS THE ISSUE OF THE DEFENSE RAISING THE FACT THAT THEY WERE A LOVING COUPLE. LET'S LISTEN TO SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHO TALKED ABOUT THAT. >> FROM ALL YOU COULD SEE, RACHEL AND NEIL WERE VERY HAPPY TOGETHER? >> THEY WERE. >> FAIR TO SAY THAT IT AS FAR AS YOU EXPERIENCED THEM, THEY WERE A HAPPY AND LOVING COUPLE? >> YES. >> EVERY VISIT THAT YOU HAD WHEN RACHEL BROUGHT NEIL HOME, THEY WERE ALWAYS PLEASANT VISITS. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THEY SEEMED TO GENUINELY LOVE EACH OTHER, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> UH-HUH. >> YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DESCRIBED NEIL AND RACHEL AS A LOVING COUPLE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WOULD YOU ALSO -- WOULD IT ALSO BE TO SAY THAT NEIL IS A DEVOTED HUSBAND, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND A DEVOTED FATHER? >> YES. >> ALL OF WHICH TO SAY THAT IT WAS THE UNTHINKABLE TO COMMIT THIS CRIME AGAINST HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD. I RETURN TO YOU, BETH KARAS. BECAUSE WHEN I WAS LISTENING THIS MORNING TO THE JUDGE MAKING HER RULING, SHE BROUGHT UP THE FACT TO LET IN THIS PERHAPS SEEMY EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF THE COMPUTER IF IT IS HIS USE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENSE BRINGING IN LOVING COUPLE, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT A CASE NEAR AND DEAR TO YOUR HEART AND MINE. AND THAT WAS SIN THEE YEAH SUMMER. ISN'T THIS REALLY COMPARATIVE? THE DEFENSE WENT AHEAD AND SIN THEE YEAH SUMMER AND SAID THAT SHE WAS GRIEVING AND SAID THAT SHE WAS IN A FETAL POSITION AT THE DEATH -- AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND THE JUDGE RULED THAT THAT HAD OPENED UP THE DOOR THEN TO THE WHAT I CALL CONDUCT UNBECOMING A WIDOW EVIDENCE. ISN'T IT ACTUALLY THE SAME? >> WELL, IT IS. I DIDN'T HEAR THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY'VE OPENED THE DOOR TO IT BUT THAT MAY BE THE BASIS FOR THE JUDGE'S RULING. HOWEVER, THIS WAS A MOTION MADE IN ADVANCE AND IT IS EVIDENCE OF -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT -- NOT PRIOR BAD ACTS BUT SHOWS -- IT MAY BE MOTIVE EVIDENCE OR WHERE HIS HEAD IS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND NOT THE LOVING, DOTING HUSBAND. HER SEMEN WAS IN HER UNDERWEAR EVEN THOUGH HE'S TROLLING FOR SEX ELSEWHERE. BUT YES. IT IS COMPARABLE. IT IS A DIFFERENT CASE, HOWEVER, BECAUSE IN CINDY SUMMER LOOKING AT THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE, SHE WAS NEVER TIED TO ARSENIC AS FAR AS THE EVIDENCE TIES NEIL ENTWISTLE TO THE CRIME. >> BETH, SEE, I KNEW I WAS SO EXCITED DOWN STAIRS. I WENT TO MY PRODUCER MICHELLE FOX AND I SAID LOOK AT CYNTHIA SUMMER. WE WERE SO INTENT UPON THAT CASE AND ALL THAT FOLLOWED. SO WITH THAT, IT IS TIME TO TAKE A VERY SHORT BREAK BUT FIRST, BEST DEFENSE LEGAL FLASH BACK. WHO COULD FORGET THIS ONE AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN IT WAS HAPPENING? 14 YEARS AGO TODAY, THE NOW INFAMOUS WHITE BRONCO CHASE. FIVE DAYS AFTER THE BLUTAL MURDERS OF O.J. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE AND HER FRIEND. THE FORMER FOOTBALL GREAT LED POLICE ON THAT SLOW SPEED CHASE THROUGHOUT LOS ANGELES AFTER LEARNING HE'D BE ARRESTED. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS TUNED IN TO WATCH THE BIZARRE CAR CHASE. IT CONTINUED FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR. BEFORE SIMPSON EVENTUALLY SURRENDERED TO AUTHORITIES. OF COURSE, SIMPSON WAS TRIED, FAMOUSLY ACQUITTED IN THE MURDERS THAT FOLLOWING YEAR AND WE WERE RIGHT THERE. BUT SIMPSON EVENTUALLY FOUND LIABLE FOR THE DEATHS IN THE CIVIL TRIAL. THAT WILL TAKE YOU BACK AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE SHOCKED NOT ONLY THE SMALL MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITY BUT THE NATION. IT SEEMED AN UNTHINKABLE CRIME, A MOTHER AND HER BABY SHOT DEAD IN BED. THE MOTHER'S ARM AROUND HER CHILD. BUT HOW OFTEN DO FATAL SHOOTINGS OCCUR IN THIS COUNTRY AND SPECIFICALLY HOW MANY OF THE VICTIMS ARE INFANTS? THAT'S TODAY'S FACT CHECK. ACCORDING TO THE FBI'S MOST RECENT STATISTICS, THERE WERE 14,990 MURDER VICTIMS IN 2006 AND THAT'S THE SAME YEAR THAT THE ENTWISTLES WERE KILLED. OF THOSE, THE MAJORITY, 10,177 DIED BY FIREARMS. NOT SURPRISINGLY, MOST OF THE PEOPLE FATALLY SHOT IN 2006 OVER THE AGE OF 18. BUT SADLY, SIX OF THEM WERE UNDER THE AGE OF 1. LIKE YOUNG LILLIAN. TO GIVE MORE PERSPECTIVE, HOW MANY FIREARM MURDERS WERE THERE IN MASSACHUSETTS THAT YEAR? WELL, THERE WERE 185 TOTAL. OF THOSE, 111 WERE DEATHS BY FIREARMS. LET'S RETURN TO THE COURTROOM. THEY ARE BACK LIVE NOW. THE WITNESS CONTINUING ON THE STAND TO TALK ABOUT DNA. AND OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHERE THE WITNESS ALLEGES THAT THERE ARE MATCHES, NOT CALLED THE MATCHES. A PAUSE RIGHT NOW IN THE ACTION DEALING WITH THIS CHART. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS WITH DNA TESTIMONY IS AS I GO TO YOU MICHAEL, I MAY LEAVE YOU QUICKLY AS THEY SET THIS UP AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENS ABOUT DNA TESTIMONY IS CAN'T USE THE WORD MATCH BUT 1 IN A CATRILLION ZL, THAT'S A MATCH. >> THEY SAY IT'S FOR THE JURY TO SAY. THE WAY TO ATTACK DNA IS POLLUTION OR CONTAMINATION ARGUMENT. >> HERE'S THE CHART SO LET'S LISTEN. >> BUT THAT'S FINE. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE JURORS SEE THE CHARTS. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE CHARTS THAT I COULD LOOK AT? >> I DO, YOUR HONOR. >> WITH THE POINTER? >> WHILE YOU ARE AWAY FROM THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE FACE THE JURORS WHEN YOU SPEAK AND KEEP YOUR VOICE UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> NOW, MS. BRYANT, LOOKING AT THE CHART ON YOUR LEFT, WHAT IS THE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, LETTER, I'M SORRY, ON THE CHART ON YOUR LEFT. ON THE LITTLE BLUE STICKER. >> IDENTIFY KAY NUMBER IS EXHIBIT PT. >> AND WITH THE IDENTIFICATION LETTER ON THE OTHER CHART TO YOUR LEFT, MY RIGHT? >> THIS IS EXHIBIT 00. >> YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP. ALL RIGHT? ON THE TOP LINE OF PP, WHAT DOES THAT INDICATE ON THE TOP LINE OF PP? >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS AREA HERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR THE RECORD, THE TOP LEFT-HAND BOX OF THE EXHIBIT FOR IDENTIFICATION PP. WHAT IS THAT, IN THAT BOX? >> THE TOP LEFT BOX STATES IDENTIFIER RESULTS TABLE. >> WHAT DOES IDENTIFIER RESULTS TABLE MEAN? >> THESE ARE THE DNA RESULTS OBTAINED -- >> ALL RIGHT. MS. BRYANT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PROJECT YOUR VOICE THAT THE COURT REPORTER AND I CAN HEAR YOU. JUST GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK MUCH MORE LOUDLY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THE IDENTIFIER RESULTS TABLE INDICATES THAT THESE ARE THE DNA RESULTS OBTAINED USING THE IDENTIFIER TEST. >> AND RIGHT BELOW THE IDENTIFIER RESULTS TABLE, ON THE BOX THAT IS FROM MY DIRECTION TO THE LEFT, WHAT ZUZ THAT SAY IN DARK, BOLD WRITING? >> THIS BOX RIGHT HERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. FOR THE RECORD, IT'S FAR TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE CHART WHEN YOU'RE FACING IT. >> THIS BOX STATES SAMPLES DESCRIPTION. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THIS IS REFERRING TO THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN TO THE ITEMS WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED FOR TESTING. >> TO THE IMMEDIATE SIDE OF THAT, AND IT WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IN THE DIRECTION I'M FACING, THERE'S SOME MORE BOLD WRITING. WHAT IS THAT? >> THIS BOX CONTAINS THE WORDS ABSTRACT NUMBERS, CASE NUMBER AND ITEM NUMBER. >> WHAT DOES EXTRACT NUMBER MEAN IN? >> MEANS TO THE UNIQUE IDENTIFIER NUMBER THAT'S ASSIGNED TO EVERY SAMPLE. >> WHAT DOES CASE NUMBER MEAN? >> THE CASE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO ALL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR A PARTICULAR CASE. >> AND WHAT DOES ITEM NUMBER MEAN? >> THE ITEM NUMBER IS THE ITEM NUMBER GIVEN TO EVIDENCE SAMPLES WHEN THEY'RE ARE SUBMITTED TO LABORATORIES. THIS ITEM NUMBER IS USED FOR US TO TRACK THE EVIDENCE AS IT PROGRESSES THROUGH THE VARIOUS UNITS IN THE DNA LABORATORY AND OTHER LABORATORIES WITHIN THE CRIME LABORATORY. >> IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, THERE ARE A SERIES OF NUMBERS. FOR INSTANCE IN THE FIRST BOX, IT'S D 8S 1179, I BELIEVE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WHAT DO THOSE NUMBERS STAND FOR? >> IT IS SIMPLY THE NAME GIVEN TO ONE OF THE DIFFERENT REGIONS WHICH WE TEST IN SR TESTING. >> CAN YOU HEAR, YOUR HONOR? I'M SORRY. >> LOUDER WOULD BE BETTER. >> AS IF YOU HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE ABSOLUTE BACK OF THE COURTROOM, MS. BRYANT. >> 79 IS SIMPLY STATED THE NAME GIVEN TO THE SPECIFIC REGION OF THE DNA THAT WE ARE TESTING. >> AND THERE'S COLORS ON THE CHART. WHAT DO THOSE STAND FOR? >> THESE COLORS ARE REFER TO THE DYES THAT ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE PARTICULAR FRAGMENTS OF DNA WHEN THEY'RE AMPLIFIED FOR A COPY RESULTING IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF DNA FOR ANALYSIS. >> SOME OF THE LETTERS ARE IN BOLD. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN WITH REGARDS TO THESE REPORT TABLES? >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE NUMBERS? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE BOLDED NUMBERS REFER TO THE MAJOR PROFILE IN EACH ITEM THAT IS SENT IN. >> AND SOME OF THE NUMBERS ARE NOT BOLD. WHAT DOES THAT REFER TO? >> NONBOLDED ITEMS ARE THE NONBOLDED NUMBERS, IF THEY'RE IN A DNA PROFILE CONTAINING THE GOLDEN NUMBERS, THEY REFER TO THE MINOR PROFILE IN THAT SAMPLE. IF THERE ARE NO BOLDED NUMBERS, SUCH AS IN THIS SAMPLE HERE, THEN THIS SAMPLE, THAT MEANS THERE WAS NO MAJOR PROFILE IN THAT SAMPLE. THESE ARE SIMPLY ALL OF THE DNA VARIATIONS OBTAINED FOR EACH SAMPLE. >> THERE ARE ASTERISKS ON THE CHART PP. WHAT DO THE ASTERISKS STAND FOR? >> THE ASTERISKS AS YOU CAN SEE HERE AND IN NUMEROUS LOCATIONS, THESE ASTERISKS REFER TO POTENTIAL DNA PEAKS BELOW OUR THRESHOLD OF DETECTION AND THEN MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, OUR DNA DATA LOOKS SIMILAR TO -- WITH A SERIES OF PEAKS OR BLIPS. THOSE PEAKS MUCH REACH A CERTAIN HEIGHT FOR OUR COMPUTERS SOFTWARE TO DO THESE IN A REAL DESIGNATION OR A NUMBER IN THE DNA PROFILE. IF WE SEE INDICATION OF A PEAK, THAT DOES NOT REACH THAT LEVEL, THAT THRESHOLD OF DETECTION, WE'LL FLAG THAT PEAK AND GIVE THAT AN ASTERISK IN OUR REPORT TABLE. >> AND FINALLY, THE CHART OO I BELIEVE TO YOUR -- MY RIGHT, TO YOUR LEFT, WHAT IS THAT A CHART OF? >> THIS IS A CHART OF KNOWN SAMPLES. THESE ARE THE DNA PROFILES OBTAINED FROM KNOWN INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTED FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. >> NOW, WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRST COLUMN, WHAT ITEM NUMBER IS ON THE FIRST COLUMN ON THE TOP? >> THE ITEM NUMBER FOR THE FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 17-428. >> OKAY. AND ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT ITEM IS THAT? >> ACCORDING TO TO THIS CHART, ITEM 17-428 IS A SWAB FROM THE REVOLVER SERIAL NUMBER R 5251 SILL CINDER. >> I'LL ASK YOU TO STEP TO YOUR LEFT, MY RIGHT, AND STARTING FROM THE LEFT TO RIGHT, IF YOU COULD READ THE NUMBERS FROM THE TOP LINE AND THEN COMPARE THEM TO MR. ENTWISTLE'S ITEM 47-1.1 ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT LINE, IF YOU COULD COMPARE THOSE TWO NUMBERS FOR THE FIRST TOP LINE. >> THE DNA PROFILES IN THESE CHARTS ARE READ FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. AND THE FIRST AREA OF DNA LISTED, D 8 S 1179, A TO PRO FILE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE IS 1213. MOVING TO THE SWAB FROM THE REVOLVER R 521 CYLINDER, THE NUMBER IN THIS PROFILE AT THIS LOCATION ARE ALSO 1213. >> NOW, MISS BRYANT, FOR THE NEXT THREE LOCATIONS, D 2 S, D 7 S AND CCF IPO. , DID YOU GET RESULTS FROM THAT ITEM? >> I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE RESULTS FOR THE AREA REFERRED TO AT D 21 S 11 BUT ONLY AN INDICATION OF DNA BELOW THE THRESHOLD OF DETECTION. FOR THE AREAS NAMED C 7 S 820, I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE ANY RESULTS. THAT IS WHAT NR INDICATES, NO RESULTS. FOR THE AREA CSS IPO I WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN ONE POTENTIAL DNA PEAK. >> OKAY. IN THE NEXT COLUMN, WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN A RESULT, A NUMBER RESULT? >> YES, I WAS. >> AND WHAT WAS THE NUMBER RESULT AND WHAT'S THE COLUMN? >> THE COLUMN IS D 3 S 1758. AND THE NUMBER RESULTS WOULD BE 16. >> YOU HAVE TWO ASTERISKS ON EACH SIDE OF THAT NUMBER. WHAT DOES THAT SIGNIFY IN YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE? >> THAT THEY'RE INDICATIONS OF POTENTIAL DNA BELOW OUR THRESHOLD OF DETECTION IN TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. >> WITH REGARDS TO THE KNOWN SAMPLES ON MR. ENTWISTLE, WHAT NUMBERS DID HE HAVE AT THAT LOCATION, AT THAT LOCI? >> AT THE LOCATION D 3 S 158, THE DNA PROFILE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE IS 15 AND 16. >> WHY ARE THERE TWO NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION -- WHY ARE THERE TWO LOW NUMBERS FOR EVERY PERSON'S LOCI? >> AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE DNA FROM THE PARENTS. ONE HALF FROM OUR MOTHER, ONE HALF FROM OUR FATHER. WE HAVE TWO COPIES OF EACH OF THE REGIONLESS OF DNA FROM OUR PARENTS. SO ONE OF THESE NUMBERS IN THE DNA PROFILE WOULD HAVE BEEN INHERITED FROM THE BIOLOGICAL FATHER. THE OTHER NUMBER FROM THE BIOLOGICAL MOTHER N. SOME INSTANCES, SUCH AS AT THIS LOCATION HERE, IN THE DNA PROFILE FROM LILLIAN ENT WHISTLE, THERE IS A 12 AND A 12. THAT INDICATES THAT THE DNA THAT SHE INHERITED FROM BOTH PARENTS WAS THE SAME FROM BOTH REGIONS OF THE DNA. >> NOW WHAT IS KNOWN AS FO 1, I BELIEVE? WAS THERE A NUMBER AT THAT LOCATION FOR THAT ITEM FOR THE TOP ITEM, THE CYLINDER? >> YES, THERE WAS. >> WHAT NUMBER WAS THAT? >> NUMBER OBTAINED IS 7. >> OKAY. AND ON THE CHART, IS THERE A NUMBER FOR MR. ENTWISTLE'S SAMPLE FOR FO 1? >> YES, THERE WAS. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT? >> THE NUMBER AT FO 1 FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE ARE 7 AND 9.3. >> OKAY. NOW, GOING TO THE LOWER HALF OF THE CHART, GOING TO D 19 ON THE SAMPLE FROM THE REVOLVER CYLINDER, IS THERE A NUMBER AT THAT LOCATION? >> THERE ARE TWO NUMBERS AT THE LOCATION D 19 S 433 AND THESE NUMBERS ARE 13 AND 14. >> OKAY. AND GOING TO MR. ENTWISTLE'S SAMPLE AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT NUMBERS ARE -- IS HE AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THIS LOCATION, THE NUMBERS FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE ARE 14 AND 14. >> NOW, WHAT TYPE OF PROFILE IS THIS? MEANING THE CYLINDER. >> THIS PROFILE IS A PARTIAL PROFILE WITH AN INDICATION OF DNA FOR MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. >> SO IT IS A MIXTURE? >> IT IS TIME FOR A BREAK AND A LOOK AT THE 13th JUROR QUESTION. TODAY WE WANT TO KNOW, IS THE FIREARM TESTIMONY HELPING THE PROSECUTION? SO FAR, NO SURPRISE, 87% SAY YES AND 13% OF YOU VOTING NO. LOG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME TO CAST YOUR VOTE. >>> THEY ARE LIFE IN THAT MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. SO LET'S GO RIGHT BACK IN. >> AND C 8 F 1179, THE NUMBERS ARE 12, 13 AND ASTERISK, THE 12 AND 13 ARE BOLDED INDICATING THAT THAT IS PART OF THE MAJOR PROFILE OBTAINED FROM THIS ITEM. >> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THE LOCATION D 8 S 1179 NEIL ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 12 AND 13. >> OKAY. IN THE SECOND BOX, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE MAJOR PROFILE? >> AT D 21 S 11 THE MAYOR PROFILE IS A 30, 31. >> AND WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THIS LOCATION, MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 30, 31. >> OKAY. AND THEN IN THE NEXT BOX, WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF THE MAJOR PROFILE? >> AT E 7 S 820 THE NUMBERS ARE 9, 13. >> THAN WHAT'S MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THIS LOCATION, THE NUMBERS IN THE PROFILE ARE 9, 13. >> AND WHAT ARE DID NUMBERS IN THE NEXT LOCATION ON THAT PROFILE? >> AT C S 130 THE NUMBERS ARE 11 AND 12. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS IN MR. ENTWISTLE'S PROFILE AT THAT PROLOCATION FROM 11 AND 12. >> IN THE NEXT LOCATION, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS. >> AT THE LOCATION B 3 S 1358 THE NUMBERS ARE 15 AND 16. THERE IS ALSO AN ASTERISK INDICATED AT THAT LOCATION. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 15 AND 16. >> AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THAT SAMPLE IN THE NEXT BOX? >> AT THE LOCATION FO 1 THE NUMBERS IN THE MAJOR PROFILE FROM 7, 9.3. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THIS LOCATION ARE 7 AND 9.3. >> AND WHAT'S THE NUMBERS IN THE NEXT LOCATION? >> AT D 13 F 317, THE NUMBERS ARE 10 AND 12 IN THE MAYOR PROFILE. >> AND WHO WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION ARE C 13 F 317 -- IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AT D 13 F 317 MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 10 AND 12. >> WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS IN THE NEXT BOX FOR THE AMMUNITION CAN ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT? >> AT THE LOCATION D 16 F 539, THE NUMBERS IN THE MAJOR PROFILE ARE 11 AND 12. >> WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS FOR MR. ENT WEST L AT THIS LOCATION? >> THE NUMBERS ARE 11 AND 12. >> AND IN THE LAST BOX ON THE UPPER LINE, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT IN THE GREEN AMBITION CAN AND HANDLE? >> NUMBERS AT THE LOCATION D 2 S 1338 IN THE MAJOR PROFILE ARE 17 AND 25. >> AND WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS FROM 17 AND 25. >> GOING DOWN TO THE LOWER BOXES, THE FIRST BOX IN THE LEFT, WHAT IS THE NUMBER THERE? >> THIS ONE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AT THE LOCATION D 19 F 433, THE NUMBER IN THE MAJOR FROM FILE IS THE NUMBER 14. >> OKAY. WHEN THERE'S ONE NUMBER LIKE THAT BASED ON YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE WHAT DOES THAT SOMETIMES INDICATE? >> IN THE TABLE THAT IS THE MIXTURE OF DNA PROFILE FROM MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL. INSTEAD OF GROUPING THE BOXES AS IN A SINGLE CORE SAMPLE, WE GROUP DID BOXES WITH ONLY ONE BOX PER LOCATION ON DID DNA. SO INSTEAD OF LISTING 14, 14 AS WE WOULD HAVE FOR A SINGLE SOURCE SAMPLE, THERE'S ONLY ONE PIECE PRESENT AT THIS LOCI FOR THE NUMBER 14 REPRESENTS THE ONE PIECE PRESENCE AT THAT LOCATION. >> WHAT THE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THAT LOCATION, MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 14 AND 14. >> OKAY. AND THE NEXT BOX, WHAT ARE DID NUMBERS FOR THE GREEN AMMUNITION CAN ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT? >> AT THE LOCATION, THE NUMBERS IN THE MAJOR PROFILE ARE 16 AND 18. >> AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS FOR MR. ENTWISTLE AT THAT LOCATION? >> MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION ARE 16 AND 18. >> AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE NEXT BOX FOR THE GREEN AMMUNITION CAN ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT? >> AT THE LOCATION, THE NUMBERS IN THE MAJOR PROFILE ARE 8 AND 11. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> AT THIS LOCATION, MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 8 AND 11. >> WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS FOR THE NEXT BOX? >> AT THE LOCATION D 18 S 51, MAJOR PROFILE OF A NUMBERS 14 AND 15. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THIS LOCATION, MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 14 AND 15. >> NOW IT GIVES SEX DETERMINATION. WHAT DOES THE SEX DETERMINATION ON THE PROFILE ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT OF THE GREEN AMMUNITION CAN AND HAND SNL. >> THE PROFILE IN THIS SAMPLE IS THE MALE PROFILE. AND WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS IN THE NEXT LOCATION ON THAT CHART? >> AT P 5818 THERE'S AN ASTERISK AND MAJOR PROFILE NUMBERS ARE 11 AND 12. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION. >> AT THIS LOCATION, MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS ARE 11 AND 12. >> AS FAR AS THE LAST BOX, WHAT ARE THE INDICATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE GREEN AMBITION CAN HANDLE AND LOCK? >> NUMBERS UNDERNEATH THE PROFILE AT THIS LOCATION ARE 20 AND 21. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS OF MR. ENTWISTLE'S PROFILE ARE 20 AND 21. >> OKAY. GOING DOWN TO NOW THE THIRD COLUMN, I'M SORRY. THIRD ROW. EXCUSE ME. DOES THAT HAVE AN ITEM NUMBER ON IT? >> YES, IT DOES. >> WHAT'S THE ITEM NUMBER? >> ITEM NUMBER IS 17-13.1. >> ACCORDING TO THE CHART AND YOUR REPORT, WHAT IS THAT A TEST FOR? >> THAT IS CORRESPONDING TO LOGS FROM TRIGGER LOGS OF THE REVOLVER. >> AND IN THE FIRST BOX, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS? >> NUMBER IN BOLD IN THE FIRST BOX ARE 12 AND 13. >> WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THAT LOCATION, 12 AND 13. >> IN THE SECOND BOX, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> IN THE SECOND BOX, THE NUMBERS IN BOLD ARE 30 AND 31. >> AND WHAT ARE MR. ENTWISTLE'S -- >> WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. BUT WE'LL BE BACK IN A FEW MINUTES SO PLEASE DON'T GO AWAY. WE ARE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS AS PROSECUTORS MAKE THE DOUBLE MURDER CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. >>> THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." IS NEIL ANTI-WHICH ISLE A LOVING FATHER WHO BECAME SO OVERCOME WITH GRIEF AND PANIC WHEN DISCOVERING HIS LIFE RACHEL AND 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN DEAD THAT HE HOP AS PLANE AND RUNS HOME TO ENGLAND? OR IS HE A COLD-BLOODED KILLER BY KILLING THEM AND SKIPPING TOWN? PROSECUTORS ARE TRYING TO PROVE THE LATTER. THEY ARE CALLING WITNESSES AFTER WITNESSES IN THEIR DOUBLE MURDER CASE AGAINST NEIL ANTI-WHICH ISLE. JOINING US LIVE IS CORRESPOND BETH KARAS. >> WAR DAN BENNETT HAS DONE IS HAVE HER TESTIFY TO THE RESULTS OF HER ANALYSIS. ALL THE GOOD STUFF UP FRONT. LIKE WHEN HE HAD THE ATTENTION SPAN OF EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM, BUT PRIMARILY THOSE 16 JURORS. NOW SHE IS GOING THROUGH THE BASIS FOR HER OPINION. WHY SHE KNOWS NEIL ENTWISTLE IS THE MATCH OR THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR, MAJOR PROFILE OF A MIXTURE. SHE IS GOING THROUGH GENETIC MARKERS ON EACH OF THE ITEMS THAT SHE TESTIFIED TO, AND HOW MANY GENETIC MARKERS WERE PRESENT THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE OR WHY SHE COULD CONCLUDE HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON CONTRIBUTING TO WHATEVER SAMPLE IT WAS SHE WAS TESTING. SO IT'S TEDIOUS, BUT SHE IS BACKING UP THE CONCLUSIONS THAT SHE REACHED. ALL THE GOOD STUFF WAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO. >> WHAT MIGHT BE TEDIOUS TO SO MANY OF US WHO WATCHED SO MANY CASES IN MANY YEARS, FROM THE CSI VIEWERS REALLY GET INTO THIS TESTIMONY. I LIKE THAT. THANK YOU, BETH. BECAUSE THEY ARE LIVE, LET'S HEAD BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. STILL WATCHING WITH WHICH IS, MICHAEL CARNACCIA. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO STAND BY. WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK LIVE. WHEN IS THERE A PAUSE I'LL GET TO YOU. >> SIGNIFICANT MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THAT SAMPLE, I AM UNABLE TO MAKE A CONSISTENT PROFILE. >> IF YOU COULD FOR THE RECORD READ THE RESULTS OFF FROM EACH BOXES GOING LEFT TO RIGHT. IDENTIFYING EACH BLOCK AS YOU GO AS PP, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> READ OFF ON PP WHAT THOSE MIXTURE NUMBERS WERE, WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE OTHER CHART. >> AT LOCATION D87119. INCLUDED 11, 12, 13, 15 AND 17. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BLOCKS? >> AT LOCATION B21S11, THE NUMBERS WERE 29, 30, 31 AND AN ASTERISK. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET RESULTS FOR THE NEXT TWO BOXES? >> NO WHAT IS NOT. >> D-3F1358, NUMBERS WERE 15, 16, 17 AND ASTERISK. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BLOCKS OVER, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS FOR THAT BOX? >> AT THE LOCATION O1, SIX, SEVEN, ASTERISK AND 9.3. >> NEXT BLOCKS. >> AT LOCATION D-13, S-317, NUMBER OBTAINED WERE 10 AND 2 ASTERISK. >> WHAT WAS THE NEXT NUMBER? >> AT LOCATION 26R7B-16F 539, NUMBER WAS 12 AS WELL AS ASTERISK. >> YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO RETAIN, OBTAIN A SUFFICIENT RESULT TO GIVE A NUMBER TO THE LAST BOX, THAT IS FAIR TO SAY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> GOING TO THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER WITH REGARD TO D-19 LOCATION. WERE YOU ABLE TO OBTAIN SOME NUMBERS BASED ON THE PORTFOLIO? >> YES. >> WHAT WERE THOSE? >> 13, 14 AND ASTERISK AND 15.3. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BOX WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS, 16 AND 18. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BOX WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS WERE 8 AND 11. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BLOCKS, CSFIPO WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A RESULT? I'M SORRY, DAT. >> AT 51, NO. >> WITH REGARD TO D-5, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS AT D-5 WERE 9, 11, 12. >> WITH FGA WERE YOU ABLE TO GET A RESULT TO REPORT A NUMBER? >> NO, I WAS NOT. >> MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? >> NOW THE TABLE WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS AN IDENTIFIER TABLE. THIS IS IDENTIFIED AS A CODE FILER RESULTS TABLE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN IDENTITIER CODE TABLE? >> EIFFEL TABLE WILL INCLUDE RESULTS OF 15 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AND GENDER DETERMINING REGION. CO-FILER CODE TABLE WILL ONLY PROVIDE DNA RESULTS FOR SIX DIFFERENT LOCATIONS PLUS THE GENDER DETERMINING REGION. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS TABLE? >> YES, I DO. >> WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT AS? >> THIS IS ONE OF THE TABLES THAT I REVIEWED PRIOR TO MY TESTIMONY FROM WITH DATA TAKEN FROM MY DNA REPORT. >> WHAT IS THE FIRST ITEM NUMBER ON THE, IT WOULD BE THIRD ROW DOWN IN THE SECOND BOX? >> THE FIRST ITEM IS 17-4.1. >> WITH REGARD TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT ITEM IS THAT? >> THIS ITEM IS LOG OF THE REVOLVER R 52151, GRIP AREA OF HANDLE. >> ON THE FIRST AREA, D-3, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> DID YOU GET A NUMBER RESULT FOR D-3? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS THAT NUMBER RESULT? >> AT LOCATION D-3, F 1358, I OBTAINED THE NUMBERS 15 AND 16. >> GOING DOWN TO THE BOTTOM ROW, DO YOU HAVE AN ITEM NUMBER THERE? >> YES, I DO. >> WHAT IS THAT ITEM NUMBER? >> THAT ITEM NUMBER IS 9-6.1. >> ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, WHAT IS THAT ITEM NUMBER? >> THAT ITEM NUMBER CORRESPONDS TO SWABS FROM THE DESANI WATER BOTTLE WHICH WAS USED AND ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD. >> DOES THAT ITEM NUMBER MATCH THE PROFILE IN THE KNOWN SALIVA SAMPLE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE 49-.1? >> YES, IT IS. >> WITH REGARD TO THAT FIRST BOX, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS IN THAT FIRST BOX ON THE TOP COLUMN? THE TOP ROW, EXCUSE ME? >> YOU ARE REFERRING TO THESE NUMBERS? >> CORRECT. FOR THE RECORD, IT'S ACTUALLY THE THIRD ROW DOWN BUT THE FIRST ROW WITH NUMBERS ON IT. >> 15 AND 16. >> WHAT, ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT WERE NEIL ANTI-WHISTLE NUMBERS FROM THE ALTERNATE STANDARD, THE DESANI BOTTLE? >> THE NUMBER AT THIS LOCATION WERE 15 AND 16. >> GOING TO THE SECOND COLUMN OVER, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS FROM YOUR REPORT WITH REGARD TO THE HANDLE OF THE GUN? >> THE NUMBERS AT THE LOCATION D-16, F-539 WERE 11 AND 12. >> WHAT WERE MR. ENTWISTLE NUMBERS? >> FROM THE ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD NUMBERS WERE 11 AND 12. >> WHAT IS THE NUMBER FOR THE GRIP AREA OF THE HANDLE? >> X AND A Y. >> WHICH MEANS MALE, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> 0-1, WAR THE NUMBERS FOR THE GRIP AREA OF THE HANDLE? >> NUMBERS WERE 7 AND 9.3. >> WHAT WERE MR. ENTWISTLE NUMBERS? >> FOR THE ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD NUMBERS AT THIS LOCATION WERE 7 AND 9.3. >> AT T-POX, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS FOR THE GRIP AREA OF THE HANDLE? >> AT THIS LOCATION NUMBERS WERE 8 AND 11. >> WARE WITH MR. ATE WHICH ISLE NUMBERS? >> ALTERNATE DNA STANDARD THE NUMBERS WERE 8 AND 11. >> I'VE GOT TO HAND IT TO PROSECUTOR DAVID BENNETT. IF YOU WATCH HIM, HE'S NOT EVEN LOOKING AT A NOTE. HE KNOWS HIS MATERIAL INSIDE AND OUT. HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHERE HE'S GOING. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF PROSECUTORS PEOPLE WHO ARE GOOD DEFENSE LAWYERS DREAD. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK. BEFORE WE DO, A LOOK AT THE EXONERATED. IN 1996, MARILYN PENDLETON WAS TRIED FOR ROBBING AND RAPING A WOMAN IN CHICAGO. THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR DNA TESTING AT THAT TIME. AND THE VICTIM DESCRIBED HER ATTACKER AS WEIGHING 30 POUNDS MORE THAN PENDLETON. NEVERTHELESS, HE WAS CONVICTED, SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS. A DECADE LATER, DNA HELPED PROVE PENDLETON'S INNOCENCE. HIS CONVICTION WAS VACATED. ALL CHARGES WERE FINALLY DROPPED. >>> IN MASSACHUSETTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH'S PROSECUTION AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE WE ARE GETTING TO THAT KEY TESTIMONY ABOUT DNA EVIDENCE. LET ME GO OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. BILL HAS BEEN WATCHING THE TRIAL WITH US. HE IS A WONDERFUL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER IN MASSACHUSETTS. BILL, THIS IS PAINSTAKING TESTIMONY, BUT IT MUST BE DONE. I GIVE DAVID BENNETT CREDIT AS A PROSECUTOR. HE KNOWS THIS INSIDE AND OUT BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OF THE CASE SO FAR IS THAT THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION HAS BEEN SLOPPY OR CONTAMINATED. WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THIS, DON'T YOU GET THE FEELING THAT THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION WAS REALLY QUITE THOROUGH? >> QUITE METHODICAL. THE PROSECUTION IS BEING VERY CLEAR TO MAKE THAT CHRIS CAL CLEAR. HE IS BEING VERY METHODICAL, EXACTING IN HIS QUESTIONS. HE WANTS TO MAKE CLEAR THERE WAS NO MISHAP GOING ON HERE. THERE WAS NO SLOPPY WORK. WHAT WAS DONE HERE WAS VERY CAREFUL, VERY SCIENTIFIC, VERY EXACTING AND VERY PRODUCTIVE. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. >> INDEED SO. MICHAEL, AS I REVIEWED SOME OF THE VIEWER E-MAILS WHILE I HAD A MOMENT OR TWO, ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICE IS THAT THE VIEWERS OR SOME OF THEM REALLY HAVE A FEELING THAT THERE STILL IS SOMETHING AMISS HERE. SOMETHING AMISS. WE KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HANDLED THAT GUN AFTER THESE KILLINGS. YET WHAT WE FIND IS WHY DO WE HAVE NEIL ANTI-WHISTLE AND WHERE DID ALL THE OTHER DNA TESTING GO?ENTWISTLE AND WHERE DID ALL THE OTHER DNA TESTING GO? >> THE MORE THEY GO THROUGH THE PAINS TAKING DETAIL THE JURORS THINK MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING. WHY DO THEY HAVE TO PRODUCE SO MUCH EVIDENCE? PART OF THAT IS THE OTHER DNA. THE DEGREE THE PROSECUTION GOES TO THEY BECOME THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND ARE LOOKING THROUGH THIS TO FIGURE IT OUT. I LIKE THE INTENSITY OF THIS PROSECUTOR. HE IS INTENSE, METHODICAL, YOU KNOW HE IS ANGRY WITH THE DEFENDANT. >> YOU ARE A PRETTY INTUITIVE PERSON. AS I GO BACK OUT TO BILL FOR A MOMENT, FROM ALL THE YEARS I SPENT PRACTICING LAW IN BOSTON, AS I WATCH DAVID BENNETT, HE IS SUCH A BOSTON PRODUCT. HE HAS THAT SWAGGER AND THAT KENNEDIESQUE HAIRCUT. HE HAS THAT KIND OF SIMMERING ANGER THAT MICHAEL BRINGS UP. I BET JURORS LIKE THAT. THEY USED TO LOVE JERRY LEONE IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY. HE IS SO BOSTON. >> LET'S FACE IT. THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL CASE. THERE IS NOTHING DRY ABOUT THIS. THERE IS A LOT OF OUTRAGE IN THAT COURTROOM ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS YOUNG WOMAN AND HER CHILD. I THINK AS FAR AS BEING A CONNED QUIT FOR THAT OUTRAGE, HE IS DOING A FANTASTIC JOB. HE IS CLEARLY MAKING THE KNOWN WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS HORRID. IT WAS BEYOND THE PALE. HE IS IN A SUBTLE, BUT IN A DETECTIBLE WAY MAKING THAT ANGER KNOWN. I THINK HE IS CONVEYING IT EFFECTIVELY. >> I DO, TOO. I SPENT A LOT OF YAERS IN BOSTON AND THESE GUYS WERE JUST GREAT ON EITHER SIDE. WITH THAT, LET'S GO BACK IN LIVE. >> WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS FOR THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL? >> MAJOR PROFILE WAS 16-18. >> VWA FOR RACHEL ENTWISTLE, WHAT WERE HER NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS AT DWA ARE 16 AND 18. >> WITH REGARDS TO FGA ON THE PROFILE OR PLUS TABLE, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS THERE? >> NUMBER, THAT FGA WAR ASTERISK, 21, 22 AND 23 WITH 22 AND 23 BEING THE MAJOR PROFILE. >> WHAT DOES IT INDICATE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT 22 AND 23 WERE THE MAJOR PROFILE AT THAT LOCATION? >> WELL, THE MAJOR PROFILE IS DETERMINED AS A WHOLE BY LOOKING AT THE PROFILE AS A WHOLE. AT THAT LOCATION, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DNA FROM THE 22 AND 23 VARIATIONS THAN THERE WAS FROM THE 21 FOR THIS ASTERISK PEAK. >> FGA ON THE IDENTIFY TABLE. >> HER NUMBERS WERE 22 AND 23. >> IN THE AMIEL ON THE PROFILER PLUS TABLE, IT HAS A BOLDED X AND SMALL Y. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THAT INDICATES THAT THE MAJOR PROFILE IN THIS MIXTURE WAS FROM A FEMALE. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT BOX OVER, WHAT WAS THAT? >> D-8-F 1179. >> WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> 11, 12, 13 AND 14 WITH 11 AND 14 BEING FROM THE MAJOR PROFILE. >> WITH REGARDS TO RACHEL EVANS WHICH ISLE, WHAT WERE HER NUMBERS? >> AT THAT LOCATION 11 AND 14. >> THE NEXT BOX OVER ON THE PROFILER PLUS TABLE BEINGS, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS IN THAT TABLE? >> IN BOLD ARE 29 AND 31.2. ALSO THERE IS AN ACE ASTERISK PRESENT AT THAT LOCATION. >> THAT IS THE LOCATION D-21 F 11. >> ON THE IDENTIFIER TABLE, WHAT NUMBERS WERE SHE? >> 29 AND 31.2. >> ON THE PROFILER PLUS TABLE, WHAT WERE THE NEXT NUMBERS? >> NEXT LOCATION D-18, F-51, NUMBERS WERE 12, 14, ASTERISK AND 20 WITH 12 AND 20 BEING THE MAJOR PROFILE AT THIS LOCATION. >> WITH REGARDS TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE, WHAT WERE HER NUMBERS? >> AT THIS LOCATION, RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS WERE 12 AND 20. >> NEXT BOX OVER ON THE PROFILER OR PLUS TABLE, WITH REGARD TO THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS IN BOLD FOR THE MAJOR PROFILE ARE 12 AND 13 AT THE LOCATION D-5, F-818. >> WITH REGARD TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT WERE HER NUMBERS? >> RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S PROFILE AT THAT LOCATION WAS 12, 13. >> LAST BOX ON THE PROFILER PLUS TABLE AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT WAS THE MAJOR PROFILER? WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> D-7 AND 820. NUMBERS IN THE MAJOR PROFILE WERE 9 AND 13. >> WITH REGARD TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE, WHAT WERE HER NUMBERS? >> AT THAT LOCATION, THE NUMBERS ARE 9 AND 13. >> MOVING BACK ONE COLUMN. AT D-13S. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS IN THAT COLUMN WITH REGARD TO THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL? >> NUMBERS WERE 10, 11, 12 AND 13 WITH 12 AND 13 IN BOLD AS THE MAJOR PROFILE. >> WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> 12 AND 13. >> MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, FOR A MOMENT? >>> PLACING BACK BEFORE YOU MARKED FOR I.D.QQ, 17-4.3, THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT. AT THE FIRST LOCATION, WHAT LOCATION IS IT AND WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS IN THE MIDDLE COLUMN? MIDDLE ROW? >> THE LOCATION IS D-3, F-1358. THE NUMBERS WERE 15, 16 AND ASTERISK WITH 15-16 BEING THE MAJOR PROFILE AT THIS LOCATION. >> WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> 15 AND 16. >> WITH REGARD TO THE NEXT COLUMN OVER, WHAT LOCATION IS IT? >> THE NEXT LOCATION IS D-16, F-539. >> WHAT WAS THE MAJOR PROFILE AT THAT LOCATION? >> THE MAJOR PROFILE IS 12-13. >> AT THAT LOCATION, WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS? >> RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS WERE 12, 136789. >> WHAT WAS THE AMIEL ON THE CODE FILER RESULTS TABLE? >> THE AMIEL CONSISTED OF AN X AND A Y WITH X BEING THE BOLDED NUMBER OR BOLDED LETTER, INDICATING THAT THE MAJOR PROFILE WAS FROM A FEMALE. >> AND 0-1 WITH REGARD TO THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL, WHAT WERE THE NUMBER? >> 6, 7 AND 9 WITH 6 AND 9 BEING THE BOLDED PROFILE. >> 0-1, ACCORDING TO YOUR RESULTS TABLE, WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS? >> 6 AND 9. >> AT TPOX, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS? >> NUMBERS WERE 8 AND 11 IN BOLD. >> AT TPOX, WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS? >> RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS ARE 8 AND 11. >> NEXT COLUMN OVER HSHGS CSF-1 PO, WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> 11 IN BOLD. >> WHAT WAS RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBER AT THAT LOCATION? >> AT THIS LOCATION, RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS ARE 11 AND 11. >> MS. BRYANT, ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL, THE LAST LOCATION, D-7, WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS FOR THE SWAB OF THE BARREL ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT? >> 9 AND 13 IN BOLD. >> AND WHAT WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION? >> RACHEL ENTWISTLE NUMBERS AT THAT LOCATION ARE 9 AND 13. >> AS A RESULT OF YOUR REPORT, YOUR FINDINGS, YOUR TRAINING, YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOUR EDUCATION, WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHO MATCHED THE MAJOR PROFILE OF THE SWAB OF THE REVOLVER BARREL? >> I WAS. >> WHO MATCHED THAT MAJOR PROFILE? >> THE MAJOR PROFILE FROM THIS ITEM MATCHED THE DNA PROFILE FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> JUST ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> SO WE GET TO THAT ULTIMATE QUESTION OF THE DNA OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE BEING, AS I WOULD CALL IT, "THE MATCH." WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. WE'LL BE BACK. >>> BEFORE THE BREAK YOU HEARD THE FORENSIC DNA ANALYST GIVE HER CONCLUSION. NOW ELLIOT WINESTEIN IS CROSS-EXAMINING. >> IF, FOR EXAMPLE, A SWAB WAS TAKEN OFF ITEM 17-4, THE .22 CALIBER REVOLVER, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE A TRACKING NUMBER THAT YOU COULD REFER TO? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND WHEN YOU RECEIVED A SWAB OFF ITEM 17-4, YOU KNEW THE SWAB CAME FROM SOMEWHERE OFF THE REVOLVER? >> YES. ACCORDING TO -- >> OKAY. SO WHAT YOU DID WAS, YOU REFERENCE ITEM WOULD BE THE MAJOR NUMBER 17-4 WOULD APPLY TO THE REVOLVER ITSELF. >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> THEN ANY PORTIONS FROM WHICH OR OFF OF THAT REVOLVER FROM WHERE A SWAB WAS TAKEN MIGHT HAVE A SUBNUMBER, A DASH, A 1.SOMETHING OR 2.SOMETHING? >> IT WOULD BE A .1, .2, SO ON. >> WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE SWAB THAT YOUR INFORMATION ASSERTED CAME FROM THE BARREL, THAT TOLD YOU THAT IT WAS A SWABBING, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IN COLLECTION OF BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OFF OF THE GUN, THE PROPER TECHNIQUE WOULD BE TO SWAB FROM ONE AREA. >> NOT NECESSARILY. >> WELL, IF YOU TOOK ONE SWAB FROM MORE THAN ONE AREA, THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO COLLECT ANY DNA THAT WAS DEPOSITED? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IT WOULD BE A WAY TO ANALYZE WHETHER THE DNA THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM MORE THAN ONE LOCATION ON A PARTICULAR ITEM COULD DEVELOP INTO A PROFILE? >> I'M SORRY. COULD YOU RESTATE THAT? >> WELL, IF YOUR LABORATORY COLLECTION PERSON TOOK A SWAB OFF, JUST SAY ONE SIDE OF THE GUN, THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY TO ANALYZE WHETHER THERE WAS DNA FROM THAT SIDE OF THE GUN WORTHY OF ANALYSIS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU ARE IN THE LABORATORY, YOU CAN'T TELL WHETHER THAT ONE SWAB CAME FROM THE LEFT SIDE OR THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE GUN? >> I COULD REFER TO THE CRIMINALISTICS NOTES OR CONSULT WITH THE CRIMINALIST WHO OBTAINED THE SWAB FROM THE ITEM. >> FROM YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE BASE, YOU COULDN'T KNOW. >> BASED ON A TYPICAL PRACTICE WHEN I WOULD RECEIVE AN ITEM, I WOULD CONSULT OUR LABORATORY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. OUR LIMS DATA BASE FOR A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THE ITEM WAS TAKEN FROM. >> LET'S DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN YOUR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE AND INDIRECT KNOWLEDGE. >> OKAY. >> YOUR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE SEEING THAT A SWAB WAS TAKEN FROM WOULD SIDE OF THE GUN. YOUR INDIRECT KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE SOMEBODY TELLING YOU A SWAB WAS TAKEN FROM ONE SIDE OF THE GUN, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO WHEN YOU ARE IN THE LABORATORY WORKING JUST FROM THE SAMPLE ENVELOPES THAT YOU RECEIVED, YOU DON'T KNOW DIRECT KNOWLEDGE WHERE THE SAMPLE CAME FROM. >> NO. ALL I HAVE IS AN ITEM DESCRIPTION. >> WHEN YOU RECEIVED AN ITEM DESCRIPTION THAT SAID SWAB FROM BARREL OF THE .22, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM. >> NOT THE SPECIFIC LOCATION, NO. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK SOMEBODY ELSE? >> I WOULD HAVE TO ASK SOMEBODY ELSE OR CONSULT NOTES. >> OR REFER TO WHAT THE PERSON DID. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, IF A SWAB CAME FROM TWO PARTICULAR SPOTS ON THE GUN, THAT WOULDN'T PREVENT YOU FROM DOING DNA ANALYSIS, WOULD IT? >> IF THERE WERE MULTIPLE SWABS FROM MULTIPLE AREAS? >> ONE SWAB FROM MULTIPLE AREAS. >> NO, IT WOULD NOT. >> IT WOULD PREVENT FROM YOU DIFFERENTIATING WHETHER THE DNA WAS FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE BARREL, FOR EXAMPLE, OR THE GRIP OF THE HANDLE IF YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE PERSON SWABBED THE BARREL AND THE GRIP AND GAVE IT TO YOU AS ONE SAMPLE. >> IF I WAS TOLD THE SWAB WAS FROM THE BARREL AND THE GRIP ON ONE SWAB AND I EXTRACTED DNA FROM THAT SWAB, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE WHERE THAT DNA CAME FROM. >> IF IT CAME FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE MUZZLE AND INSIDE OF THE BARREL, IT'S CORRECT YOU WOULD ALSO NOT BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE WHERE THE DNA CAME FROM IF YOU EXTRACTED DNA? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IF ONE WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS DNA INSIDE THE BARREL, AND ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE MUZZLE, THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO TAKE TWO DIFFERENT SWABBINGS, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU USED THE TERM HANDLER DNA. HANDLER DNA DESCRIBES, IN YOUR VERNACULAR, WHEN DNA IS DIRECTLY DEPOSITED ON TO AN OBJECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BECAUSE DNA COULD BE APPLIED TO ANY OBJECT BY THE DIRECT OR INDIRECT METHOD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AN EXAMPLE OF DIRECT DEPOSITED DNA MIGHT BE, IF YOU SAW ME HOLDING MY PEN AND THEN YOU TOOK THE PEN FROM ME AND SWABBED IT, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING IN THAT SITUATION AN EXAMPLE OF HANDLER DNA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT'S ALSO CORRECT THOUGH THAT IF MY PEN WAS DOWN HERE AND I PUT MY HAND LIKE THIS AND WALKED AWAY, AND YOU TOOK A SAMPLE, THAT WOULD ALSO BE HANDLER DNA? >> FROM THE PODIUM, YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO HANDLER DOESN'T MEAN TO DESCRIBE SOMEBODY GRIPPING ON TO THE DNA SAMPLE, DOES IT? >> NOT NECESSARILY, NO. >> SOME TYPE OF TOUCHING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BRUSHING AGAINST WOULD ALSO FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF HANDLER DNA AS YOU USED IT IN THE LABORATORY? >> I'M NOT SURE I WOULD USE BRUSHING UP AGAINST AN ITEM AS HANDLER DNA. >> LET'S SAY THAT USING MY PEN AGAIN, THAT YOU SAW ME GO LIKE THAT. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IDEA POSITIVE TED DNA ON THE SURFACE OF MY PEN. >> YES, IT IS POSSIBLE, AS LONG AS YOU DID TOUCH THE SURFACE OF THE PEN. >> NOW, ASSUME THAT I JUST TOUCHED THE SURFACE OF MY PEN AND SOMEBODY BROUGHT THE PEN TO YOU AND SAID WE WANT TO KNOW IF ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HANDLED THAT PEN. WOULD YOU SEARCH FOR HANDLER DNA? >> YES. >> AND IF YOU EXTRACTED A DNA SAMPLE OFF OF MY PEN THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE MANNER I JUST DESCRIBED TO YOU, THAT WOULD BE HANDLER DNA IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR. >> I WOULD BE LOOKING -- I MAY BE LOOKING FOR HANDLER DNA, HOWEVER, IF I OBTAINED A DNA PROFILE, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DETERMINE IF THAT WAS DNA TRANSFERRED THROUGH SKIN CELLS, BLOOD OR ANY OTHER BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL. >> AND THAT'S TRUE WITH ALL OF YOUR TESTING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AS I WAS DISCUSSING WITH YOU THE CONCEPT OF OF DIRECT DEPOSIT OF DNA ON TO AN OBJECT, THERE IS INDIRECT DEPOSIT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WALK AROUND THE ROOM RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY SKIN CELLS ARE FALLING OFF ON TO THE FLOOR. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT WAS A TIME WHEN I WOULD WALK AROUND AND YOU SAY MY HAIR MIGHT BE FALLING OFF ON TO THE FLOOR. >> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, YES. >> LESS LIKELY TODAY THAN SOME YEARS AGO. YOU CAN SAY IT. MY DAUGHTER LAUGHS ALL THE TIME AT ME. AND THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OR EXAMPLES OF THE INDIRECT DEPOSIT OF DNA ON TO AN OBJECT. >> THAT'S A GRAY AREA THERE. >> HOW GRAY IS IT? IT WASN'T DIRECT. IT FELL ON TO THE FLOOR. THAT'S AN INDIRECT DEPOSIT, ISN'T IT? >> I WOULD ALLOW THAT, YES. >> YOU WOULD ALLOW IT BECAUSE IT FELL. >> YES. >> WHEN YOU RECEIVE A SAMPLE IN A LABORATORY, YOU RECEIVE IT, UNLESS SOMEBODY TELLS YOU THEY SAW HOW THE DNA ARRIVED ON AN OBJECT, YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DIRECT DEPOSIT OR INDIRECT DEPOSIT AS A DNA ON TO THE OBJECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN ALL OF THIS SOPHISTICATED DNA ANALYSIS THAT YOU DO, DOESN'T MEASURE WHETHER THE DNA EVIDENCE SAMPLE WAS APPLIED BY A DIRECT OR AN INDIRECT METHOD, DOES IT? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. >> THERE IS EVEN A CONCEPT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH CALLED TRANSFER OF DNA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHEN AN OBJECT BRUSHES AGAINST ANOTHER OBJECT, IF THERE WAS DNA ON OBJECT ONE, BRUSHING AGAINST OBJECT TWO, THERE MIGHT BE A TRANSFER OF THE DNA FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ALSO THAT CONCEPT OF TRANSFER OF DNA APPLIES IF THERE IS A TOUCHING BY A PERSON TO AN OBJECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THE WORK THAT YOU DO AS A SCIENTIST FOCUSSES ON THE ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE THAT YOU RECEIVE IN THE LABORATORY FOR ANALYSIS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND FROM THAT ANALYSIS, YOU ENDEAVOR TO OBTAIN THIS DNA PROFILE? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THEN YOU ENDEAVOR TO SEE WHETHER THE PROFILE THAT YOU HAVE MATCHES UP OR COMES PRETTY DARN CLOSE TO THE PROFILE FROM A KNOWN PERSON. >> I CAN MAKE A COMPARISON AND DETERMINE IF THERE IS A MATCH, AN INCLUSION AND A MIXTURE, INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS OR EXCLUSIVE. >> AN EXCLUSION TELLS YOU THAT THE SAMPLE THAT YOU ANALYZED COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE COME FROM THE KNOWN SOURCE THAT YOU COMPARED IT TO. >> THE DNA PROFILE OF OBTAINED COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM THAT INDIVIDUAL, YES. >> THAT'S ONE END OF THE SPECTRUM. ANOTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM IS THAT IT DID COME FROM OR USING THE PROBABILITY ANALYSIS THAT YOU APPLY, THE LIKELIHOOD OF A RANDOM MATCH IS SO HUGE THAT THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT IT WASN'T FROM THE PERSON THAT YOU MATCHED IT UP TO. >> I'M SORRY. COULD YOU RESTATE THAT? >> WHEN YOU COME IN, YOU SAY THAT A DNA PROFILE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROFILE OF A KNOWN SOURCE, YOU DON'T SAY IT'S A DIRECT MATCH. >> IF IT'S A SINGLE-SOURCE PROFILE COMPARED TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S PROFILE AND THE PROFILES MATCH, I CAN SAY IT IS A MATCH BETWEEN THE TWO PROFILES. >> IF IT'S A MIXTURE YOU CAN'T? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IF IT'S A MIXTURE YOU GO TO YOUR PROBABILITY TABLES. >> IF IT'S A MIXTURE I CAN MAKE A CONCLUSION WHETHER OR NOT THAT PARTICULAR DNA PROFILE CAN BE INCLUDED IN THAT DNA MIXTURE. >> WHEN YOU USE THE TERMS MAJOR AND MINOR CONTRIBUTOR, THAT GOES TO SHOWING THE AMOUNT OR THE QUANTITY OF DNA IN A MIXTURE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND IT DON'T DESCRIBE, DOES IT, WHO HANDLES THE OBJECT LAST? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. >> IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE WHO HANDLED THE OBJECT THE LONGEST? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. >> IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE WHO GRIPPED THE OBJECT THE TIGHTEST? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. >> WHO PRESSED AGAINST IT THE LONGEST? >> NO. >> THE WORK THAT YOU DO IS ON THE BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE. IS THE WORK THAT YOU DO ABLE TO TEST WHEN THE SAMPLE WAS DEPOSITED ON A GIVEN OBJECT? >> NO, IT DOES NOT. >> I HAVE TO SAY THIS, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT TRIAL ADVOCACY, THIS IS ABOUT AS CLOSE TO A PERFECT CROSS-EXAMINATION AS YOU COULD EVER WATCH. ULTIMATELY, THE CONCLUSION OF THE FACTS WILL BE UP TO THE JURY. MUCH MORE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM AFTER THIS BREAK. AND A LOOK AT WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS CASE. BILL IN CALIFORNIA WRITES, "THE DEFENSE IS DOING WHAT THE DEFENSE IS TAUGHT. TYPICAL 101 CLASS. CONFUSE, CONCEAL AND FABRICATE." LISA FROM MASSACHUSETTS SAYS, THE DEFENSE CAN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT THE JURY BY POSTURING CONTAMINATION UNTIL THEY ARE BLUE IN THE FACE, BUT THE FACT IS THEY CAN'T EXCLUDE RACHEL'S BRAIN MATTER ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN." THANKS FOR THE COMMENTS. KEEP THEM COMING. >>> NEIL ENTWISTLE IS DESCRIBED AS A LOVING FATHER, BUT IS HE A COLD-BLOODED KILLER? >>> LET'S GO RIGHT BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN CONTINUES HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE DNA ANALYST. >> NOW, WITH RESPECT TO -- WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 17-I THINK IT'S 13.1, SWAB FROM THE TRIGGER LOCK OF THE REVOLVER. >> YES. SOME OF YOUR RESULTS WERE INCONCLUSIVE AND SOME OF THEM WERE EXCLUDEING. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> NOW, DID THREE TERMS THAT YOU USED WITH RESPECT TO ANALYZING MIXTURES INCLUDE, INCLUDING AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> EXCLUDEING AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR. YES? >> YES. >> THERE IS ANOTHER TERM AS WELL? >> INCONCLUSIVE IS ALSO USED. >> THERE WAS AN ITEM CALLED A BLACK GUN CASE, ISN'T IT THERE? 17-5.1. >> YES, THERE WAS. >> NOW, THAT BLACK GUN CASE, YOU ANALYZED, YOU WERE INFORMED THAT YOU HAD A DNA SWAB FROM THE FRONT LOCKS AND THE SNAPS OF THAT CASE? >> THAT WAS IN THE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION, YES. >> AND YOU ANALYZED AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A MIXTURE OF DNA IN THAT SAMPLE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT WAS A MIXTURE FROM AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU INCLUDED, DID YOU NOT, RACHEL ENTWISTLE AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR IN THAT DNA MIXTURE? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO DNA OF A BLACK GUN CASE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THAT'S THE SAME WAY YOU DESCRIBED RACHEL'S DNA WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS THAT CAME TO YOU IN AN EVIDENCE COLLECTION ENVELOPE FROM UNDERPANTS AND VAGINAL SWAB. DO YOU NEED THE ITEM NUMBER? WILL THAT HELP YOU? 6-1.1.2 AND 28-1.5? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU ANALYZED THAT MIXTURE, YOU DESCRIBED THAT -- AND THOSE ITEMS THAT THE SWAB CAME OFF OF WERE FROM RACHEL'S UNDERPANTS AND HER OWN VAGINAL SWAB. >> FROM THE UNDERPANTS I ACTUALLY ANALYZED A CUTTING OF THE MATERIAL FROM THE UNDERWEAR. >> SURE. IN DESCRIBING YOUR FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE ON THOSE GARMENTS AND FROM HER OWN BODY, YOU DESCRIBED THE DNA ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO RACHEL AS, SHE BEING HER DNA PROFILE WAS SUCH THAT SHE WAS INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR. >> FOR THE SPERM FRACTION OF THE UNDERPANTS. ARE YOU REFERRING TO 6-1.1.2 OR 6-1.1.1? >> WHICHEVER ONE HAS IT? >> ON BOTH 6 .1.1.1, WHICH IS THE UNDERPANTS INTERIOR FRONT AND MIDDLE CROTCH, ON THE SPERM FRACTION, RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MINOR PROFILE. ALSO ITEM 6-1.1.2/6 .1 .1 .3, THE SPERM FRACTION OF THE UNDERPANTS BACK INTERIOR CROTCH AREA, RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS ALSO INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR OF THE MINOR PROFILE IN THIS MIXTURE. >> SHE IS ALSO INCLUDED AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO USE YOUR LABORATORY LANGUAGE WITH RESPECT TO HER OWN VAGINAL SWAB. 28-1.5. >> FOR THE SPERM FRACTION OF THE VAGINAL SWAB, RACHEL ENTWISTLE MATCHED THE MAJOR PROFILE IN THIS DNA MIXTURE. >> AND THAT'S THE SAME NOME N NOMENCLATURE YOU USED AS SHE RELATED TO THE DNA PROFILE MIXTURE FOR THE BLACK GUN CASE THAT SHE, AND THERE ARE OTHERS, THE OTHERS INCLUDED NEIL ENTWISTLE AND JOSEPH MATARAZZO. ARE YOU FOLLOWING THE REPORT? >> SORRY, IT'S QUITE A LENGTHY REPORT. >> IF YOU GO TO PAGE TWO OF YOUR REPORT. SIX PARAGRAPHS DOWN. SUMMARY OF YOUR CONCLUSIONS. I'LL ASK THE QUESTION. YOU HAVE THE REFERENCE? >> YES, I DO. >> SO WITH RESPECT TO THE BLACK GUN CASE, THERE WERE PERSONS WHO YOU INCLUDED AS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTORS, AMONGST THEM NEIL ENTWISTLE, JOSEPH MATARAZZO, ANTHONY MATARAZZO, PRISCILLA MATARAZZO AND FLOYD COOK. >> WITH THAT "BEST DEFENSE" WILL REST FOR THE DAY. IT'S TIME TO CHECK IN WITH JACK FORD. >> GOOD TO SEE YOU. WELL, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE SCIENCE, AS YOU KNOW, FOR THE PROSECUTION IT'S ABOUT THE CONCLUSIONS. FOR THE DEFENSE IT'S ABOUT THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF GATHERING UP THOSE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND TESTING. WE ARE SEEING THE CONFLICT NOW BETWEEN THE BOTTOM LINE AND HOW YOU REACH THAT BOTTOM LINE. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH ALL THE LIVE COVERAGE. A LOT MORE COMING UP. >> OKAY, JACK. WE'LL SEE YOU AND ASHLEIGH IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. >>> FIRST A BIG THANKS TO MY GUEST. MICHAEL CARNACCIA IN NEW YORK AND BILL KICKHAM IN MASSACHUSETTS. HOPE TO SEE YOU BOTH REALLY SOON. THANKS SO MUCH FOR WATCHING TODAY. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE BEING BACK WITH YOU IN NEW YORK. I'M GOING TO THINK ABOUT YOU A LOT WHILE I'M BACK IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I WILL BE GOING. RON KUBI WILL BE HERE TOMORROW. JAMIE WILL BE BACK NEXT WEEK. I'LL BE BACK IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS. IN THE MEANTIME, PLEASE STAY TUNE FOR "BANFIELD AND FORD: COURTSIDE." I'LL BE WATCHING ALONG WITH YOU FROM CALIFORNIA. |