|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> DID YOU EVER SEE THE GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT FROM RACHEL'S WRIST. >> NOT SPECIFICALLY FROM THE WRIST. >> DID YOU EVER RECEIVE THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE COLLECTION KIT FROM THE ARM? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECEIVE THE GUNSHOT PRIMER RESIDUE OFF OF A FITTED SHEET, WHERE HER HANDS WERE LYING? >> NO. >> CONTINUING TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EXPERTS THAT WILL RAISE QUESTIONS, ON JUST WHO KILLED THIS MOTHER AND HER CHILD. THE DEFENSE SAYS IT WAS A RUSH TO JUDGMENT ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION. MORE OF THAT TESTIMONY, LIVE, TODAY, AS "BANFIELD AND FORD" TAKE YOU COURTSIDE. GOOD TUESDAY AFTERNOON TO YOU. I'M JOCK JACK FORD. >> I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. NOT TO SUGGESTION FOR A MINUTE, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT IN A COURT OF LAW. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S NOT GOING TO TIE ANYBODY TO THE SHOOTING. AND WHAT DOES IT MATTER IF HER DNA IS FOUND ON A GUN? >> IT ESTABLISHES, THAT'S THE KILLER, WEAPON, RIGHT THERE, HER DNA ON IT. AND THEY ARE SHOWING HIS DNA ON THE GUN. >> OKAY. I'LL LIVE WITH THAT. >> THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO SAY, WEE USED IT ANOTHER TIME. >> IN OCTOBER. >> BUT THE PROSECUTION WILL SAY, DON'T BELIEVE IN COINCIDENCES. THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT ON ONE END OF THE GUN IS HIS DNA. AND ON THE OTHER, IS HERS. >> IT'S A FAMILY GUN. >> WE'RE IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. THEY HAVE TO PUT THIS ALL OUT THERE FOR THE JURY. PLUS, KEEP IN MIND, JUROR EXPECTATIONS. THEY WANT TO HEAR SOME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. MAYBE DOWN THE ROAD, MAY MIGHT SAY, MAYBE IT DOES CANCEL OUT. YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM. >> I'M ONE OF THOSE JURORS. AND I'M OKAY, WITH THE IDEA THAT THAT MAN, SHOT THAT GUN, WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, AT A LEGAL GUN RANGE JUST A COUPLE MONTHS EARLIER. >> THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO SAY. BUT IF THE PROFESSION NEVER PUTS IT IN EVIDENCE -- >> WHY IS THERE NO GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON THE STEERING WHEEL. >> THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS POSED BY THE DEFENSE. YOU'RE STARTING TO THINK LIKE A DEFENSE LAWYER. >> NO. I'M THINKING LIKE A JUROR. MULTIPLE WEEKS, THE TRIAL OF NEIL END ENTWHISTLE. AND BETH TAKES A CLOSER LOOK FOR US. >> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE. BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE MURDER WAS AFFECTED. THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISLE. POLICE DID A SEARCH OF THE HOUSE TWICE, BEFORE FINDING A GRUESOME DISCOVERY. >> NEIL ENTWISLE, WITH A FIREARM, SHOT RACHEL ENTWISLE, NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> NEIL ENTWISLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. >> SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS. >> TO BE HELD WITHOUT BAIL, UNTIL SUCH TIME. >> THE ARRAIGNMENT ATTRACTED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR, NOW, THAT MR. ENTWISLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT, WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BUT HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY, OF JUSTICE, AND FAIRNESS, IS UNDER WAY. >> DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTED FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I'M GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> THEY'VE BEEN MOVING ALONG IN THAT ARENA FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW. VIGOROUS CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE DEFENSE. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE DEFENSE WILL PRESENT ANY KIND OF CASE. THAT WILL BE DECIDED DOWN THE ROAD. RIGHT NOW, WE GO LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. THEY'LL BE BACK LIVE FAIRLY SOON. OF COURSE, WE'LL BE LIVE WITH THEM, AS SOON AS THEY RESUME LIVE TESTIMONY. IT GIVES US A CHANCE FOR BETH TO GUIDE US WHAT'S BEEN TAKING PLACE SO FAR. TELL US ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE WITNESS STAND TODAY AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING INSIDE THAT COURTROOM SO FAR. >> THE DNA EXPERT FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE CRIME LAB, HAS TESTIFIED TO ANALYZING A NUMBER OF ITEMS GIVEN TO HER FROM THE CRIME SCENES. IT'S THE MASTER BEDROOM OF THE HOME AND THE BMW THAT WAS LEFT ABANDONED AT LOGAN AIRPORT. MOST HAVE COME, SHE HAS IDENTIFIED NEIL ENTWISTLE, THAT IS A MATCH. OR A MAJOR KRIBTSER ON SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS. THOSE ITEMS ARE A WATER BOTTLE TAKEN OUT OF THE BMW. THAT WAS THE ONLY SAMPLE THEY HAD FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE. SHE ONLY HAD A WATER BOTTLE INITIALLY. THAT'S WHAT WAS USED TO GET THE ARREST WARRANT IN FEBRUARY OF 2006. THEY GOT THE DNA RESULTS. AND GOT THE ARREST WARRANT ON THE 8th. U.S. MARSHALS ARRESTED HIM ON THE SUBWAY, ON THE 9th. HIS DNA'S ON THAT WALTER BOTTLE. HER DNA IS ON THE BARREL OF THE .22 COLT REVOLVER, RACHEL'S. AND WHILE THE WITNESS' -- WE HEARD YESTERDAY, THAT THE SWAB THAT WAS TAKEN AND SENT TO THE LAB, TO ANALYZE, WAS TAKEN FROM THE MUZZLE, THE END, THE TIP OF THE GUN WE HAVEN'T HEARD YET HOW CLOSE THE SHOT WAS TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HEAD. BUT WE HEARD THAT IT WAS FROM CONTACT, THE GUN PRESSED UP ON THE CHEST. THE GUN -- THE GUN GRIP, THE TRIGGER LOCK AND THE WATER BOTTLE. AND HE WAS A MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR ON GUN AMMUNITION CAN. LILLIAN, NO SURPRISE, THE PILLOWCASE. AND THE THREE BLOODSTAINS ON THE WALL, WERE RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S, AS WELL. AND ALSO, A SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE UNDERWEAR THAT RACHEL WAS WEARING. AFTER SHE TESTIFIED HER CONCLUSIONS, SHE USED SOME VERY DETAILED CHARTS. AND SHE BACKED UP HER CONCLUSIONS, EXPLAINING HOW MANY GENETIC MARKERS THERE WERE. ON THESE ITEMS WHERE HE WAS A POTENTIAL OR MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR, AS OPPOSED TO THE ABSOLUTE MATCH. >> OUR VIEWERS ARE FOLLOWING ALL THE STEPS OF THIS. THE WEAPON, THE .22 RESOLVER, THAT WE JUST HAD A PICTURE A MOMENT AGO, WITH THE TRIGGER LOCK IN IT, RIGHT THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT. EXACTLY WHERE WAS THAT FOUND? >> THE TRIGGER LOCK OR THE GUN? >> THE GUN WAS IN ASHIPER CASE. INSIDE A GUN BOX, INSIDE THE BEDROOM. >> THAT GETS US TO OUR COURTSIDE DOCKETS FOR TODAY. AS BETH ALWAYS DOES. THAT'S JUROR EXPECTATIONS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUROR EXPECTATIONS IN TERMS OF THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THEY WERE LISTENING TO IN THE RUM TODAY, THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS. AND WE'RE PLEASED TO HAVE JOINING US, ELAINE WHITFIELD-SHARPE. AN ATTORNEY IN DETAILS CASES, INCLUDING THE BRITISH NANNY MURDER TRIAL. WE'VE BEEN MENTIONING THIS ANY NUMBER OF TIMES, AS WE CONTINUE OUR COVERAGE HERE. ELAINE, WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US HERE. WE HAVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU CAN HOPEFULLY HELP US OUT ON. STAND BY FOR ONE SECOND. THE FIRST PART OF THIS DOCKET THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, IS THE CSI EFFECT, IN TERMS OF JUROR EXPECTATIONS. LISTEN TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONING -- THE DNA AND BLOODSTAIN EXPERT, BEING QUESTIONED BY THE PROSECUTOR. LISTEN TO THIS TESTIMONY. >> I OBSERVED A PATTERN AROUND THE WHOLE. AND ALSO RIPPING AND TEARING. AND SINGEING AND BURNING FROM THAT BLACK RESIDUE. >> ON THOSE ABC VAGSS, WERE YOU ABLE TO CHARACTERIZE OR DESIGNATE THE TYPE OF HOLE? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> I CONCLUDED IT WAS A CONTACT SHOT. >> WHAT IS A CONTACT SHOT? >> A CONTACT SHOT IS A SHOT FROM A FIREARM, WHEN THE FIREARM IS BLESS PRESSED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TARGET. ELAINE, YOU HAVE CARVED OUT AN EXPERTISE IN FORENSICS AS PART OF YOUR LAW PRACTICE. HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT JURORS' EXPECTATIONS HAVE CHANGED, WITH SHOWS LIKE "CSI," OUT THERE. HOW DO YOU THINK THEY EXPECT TO BE PRERNTED WITH FORENSIC EVIDENCE, THAT POINTS CONCLUSIVELY TO SOME SORT OF SUSPECT? >> WELL, JURORS DO EXPECT TO HAVE STRONG FORENSIC EVIDENCE SUP PORTING THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND YOU SEE THIS WHERE DEFENSE LAWYERS WHO PROSECUTED, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY FAIL TO PRESENT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR COVER A TOPIC ON FORENSIC BECAUSE THEY HAVE STIPULATED PRIOR TO TRIAL, THERE WAS A CASE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WHERE THE JURY WAS DELIBERATING. AND ATHEY ASKED THE JUDGE, WHAT ABOUT THE CIGARETTE BUTT FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE. THEY WERE DOING THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, DURING DELIBERATIONS. WHEN, IN FACT, WHAT HAPPEN HAD WAS THE DEFENSE AND THE PROSECUTORS STIPULATED THIS WAS A CIGARETTE BUTT THAT WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE. THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER HE HAD COMMITTED THE MURDER, NOT WHETHER HE WAS PRESENT AT THE CRIME SCENE. IF YOU DON'T FILL IN THE GAP OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, THE JURORS WILL FILL IT IN FOR YOU. AND THE VIEWERS CAN VISIT THE BLOGS AND SEE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT NONFORENSIC-TRAINED PEOPLE ARE ASKING ABOUT THE CASE. YOU CAN BET YOUR BOTTOM DOLLAR, THAT IF THE JURORS AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THEIR CASE AMONGST THEMSELVES, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT, BUT WE KNOW THEY DO. IF THEY'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CASE ON FORENSICS, THEY'RE FILLING IN ANY GAPS. AND THIS IS A CASE WHICH IS ACTUALLY QUITE SHORT ON FORENSIC. NO MATTER HOW MUCH DNA EVIDENCE IS PILED ON. IT'S SHORT ON FORENSICS. AND LONG ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT'S LONG ON ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITY. BUT VERY SHORT ON FORENSICS. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENSE IS BANKING ON. >> YOU GET US TO OUR NEXT ARGUMENT HERE. THAT IS, AS YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE DEFENSE IS SAYING, THEY'RE LIFTING AN ARGUMENT THAT YOU HEARD DURING THE FIRST O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL, THE MURDER CASE. LISTEN TO, AGAIN, SOME OF THE QUESTIONING, THE SAME WITNESS, DEANNA DYGAN, ASKING HER HER ROLE AS A SCIENTIST, AS OPPOSED TO THE INVESTIGATORS GATHERING THAT EVIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATION. >> AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU, THE CAREFUL SCIENTIST, CAN DO, TO GUARD AGAINST THE CONTAMINATION OF CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE PRIOR TO ITS COLLECTION? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU, THE SCIENTIST, CAN DO, TO AVOID THE CONTAMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO, BETH, AFTER YOU, WE ALL COVERED THE O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL. WE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OVER NINE MONTHS OF TRIAL. ARE WE HEARING ARGUMENTS, AT LEAST SO FAR, BASED ON THE CROSS-EXAMINATION, BY THE DEFENSE, ARE WE HEARING ARGUMENTS THAT ARE REMINISCENT OF THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF HOW THEY ATTACK FORENSIC CONCLUSIONS? >> I THINK IT'S LESS OF AN ATTACK. IN O.J., THE MIXTURE OF BLOOD, THEY COULD TELL IT WAS THE TWO VICTIMS AND O.J. AND TO ARGUE, CONTAMINATION, REALLY CONFUSED ISSUES BECAUSE IT'S NONSENSICAL. WHEN YOU CONTAMINATE, YOU DON'T MAKE A MATCH, THE WAY YOU HAD IN THAT CASE. IT'S LIKE AN UNKNOWN. OR YOU CONFUSE THINGS. TODAY, I THINK, JURORS, THE ARGUMENT, ARE MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THEY WERE 14 YEARS AGO, WHENEVER THEY THAT TRIAL WAS. WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN DOES HAVE TO WORK WITH, THERE WAS A SCANDAL IN THIS LAB, ABOUT THE WAY THINGS WERE HANDLED. AND HE DIDN'T ATTACK HER TOO MUCH ABOUT THAT. BUT HE CHALLENGED WHETHER OR NOT SHE HANDLED EVIDENCE, PUTTING ON NEW GLOVES, WITH EACH NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE. SHE TRIED TO DO THAT. AND THAT WAS HER PRACTICE. SHE'S A SUPERVISOR OF THE LAB. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, GOES MORE TO HER CREDIBILITY, I GUESS. BUT THE KEY POINTS HE WANTED TO MAKE, YOU CAN'T TELL WHEN THE DNA WAS DEPOSITED. AND YOU CAN'T TELL HOW IT GOT THERE. HANDLER DNA. WE KNOW IN TERMS OF THE GRIP OF THE GUN, NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD BEEN TO THE GUN CLUB. YOU DON'T KNOW HOW HARD HE GRIPPED IT. AND NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO DEPOSIT IT THE SAME WAY. HE GOT GOOD POINTS ACROSS, RECORDING THE KEY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. >> ELAINE, LET'S GO BACK TO THE COMMENT YOU MADE A FEW MOMENTS AGO. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE. IT'S NOT REALLY LONG ON FORENSICS. WE HEARD SOME THAT ON THE SURFACE, SOUNDS PRETTY COMPELLING, WHERE WE SAY, YES. THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN. DNA. RACHEL, THE VICTIM, ON THE GRIP OF THE PISTOL. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS FROM A DEFENSE ATTORNEY POINT OF VIEW, ARE YOU TAKING THE SAME APPROACH? LET'S ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS SO WE CAN HOPE TO RAISE QUESTIONS? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THIS IS LONG GONE FORENSIC TESTIMONY. BUT IT'S SHORT ON FORENSIC EVIDENCE, THAT LINKS THIS INDIVIDUAL, THIS DEFENDANT, THE ACCUSED, TO THIS CRIME SCENE AND THIS MURDER. THERE'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THERE'S ALSO EVIDENCE THAT IS GREAT EVIDENCE IN THE PROSECUTION ABOUT ACCESS, ABOUT MOTIVE, OPPORTUNITY. HE HAD ACCESS BECAUSE IT WAS HIS HOUSE. HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE HE WAS ALONE WITH THE VICTIM. AND HE CERTAINLY HAD THE MOTIVE, THE LACK OF FINANCIAL SECURITY, THE UNEMPLOYMENT, THE ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS DISSATISFIED WITH HIS SEX LIFE. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AND YOU CAN GET A FIRST-DEGREE MURDER ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE. SO, THE PROSECUTION IS LAY IT ON. I'VE SEEN THE CASE, AS MUCH AS THEY CAN WITH THE FORENSICS, TAKING THEIR TIME TO PLOD THROUGH IT. BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T A LOT OF FORENSIC PROOF. YOU KNOW, THAT LINKS THIS INDIVIDUAL TO THIS CRIME, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY BETH. HE COULD HAVE HANDLED THAT GUN AT ANYTIME. WE KNOW HE DID. WE KNOW HE DID TARGET PRACTICE WITH HIS FATHER-IN-LAW. WE KNOW HE HAD ACCESS TO THE GUN, JUST AS OTHER PEOPLE DID. HE WASN'T THE ONLY ONE. IT'S AN INTERESTING CASE. AND TRYING TO RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT, BY PICKING UP THE FORENSIC INFORMATION. THE AUTOPSY. >> YEAH. I DO IS SAY, A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THE PROSECUTION, TRYING TO PLUG IN HARD FORENSICS EVIDENCE HERE AND THERE. AND THE DEFENSE TRYING TO KICK HOLES IN ALL OF THIS. ELAINE'S GOING TO STAY ON WITH US, AS IS BETH, AS SHE CONTINUES OUR COVERAGE. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND HAVE MORE TO SHOW YOU. WE'LL BE BACK LIVE WITH MORE OF THE TESTIMONY AGAIN. >>> WELCOME BACK. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF REALLY TECHNICAL TESTIMONY. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY. I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. BUT THEY SAY IT. THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. THAT'S THE WAY IT GOES, FOLKS. WHEN YOU'RE HEARING ABOUT THE DNA AND THE BILLIONTH AND TRILLIONTH OF MATCHING, YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND ALSO THE MECHANICS OF A GUN. NOW, A JURY MUST BE AN EXPERT ON HOW A GUNFIRES. THE STRIUATIONS LEFT ON THE BULLET AFTER THE GUNFIRES. THIS GUY IS AN EXPERT. WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR HIM DESCRIBE, SINGLE ACTION, TO MULTIPLE ACTION, TO TRIGGER PULLING. AND WHY IT MATTERS IN THIS CASE. LISTEN. >> A .22. YOU HEAR THE TERM .22, OR 22 CALIBER. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> .22 IS A CLASS OF CALIBER, OF AMMUNITION. IT CAN INCLUDE .22 SHORT, .22 LONG AND .22 LONG RIFLE. THOSE ARE THE THREE .22 CALIBER AMMUNITION. >> WHAT DOES THE .22 MEAN ITSELF. >> THE .22 IS THE FIREARM. IT'S THE MEASUREMENT WITHIN THE BARREL OF THE RIFLE, FROM LAND-TO-LAND. >> AND IS IT MEASURED IN INCHES OR MILLIMETERS? >> .22 IS THE ENGLISH MEASUREMENT SYSTEM. IT'S IN INCHES. >> THE TERM .37 WHAT KIND OF CALIBER IS THAT? >> .357 OF AN INCH. >> LARGER OR SMALLER THAN A .22? >> LARGER THAN A .22. >> AND SOME ARE MEASURED IN MILLIMETERS. >> YES. >> GIVE US EXAMPLES. >> NINE MILLIMETER IS THE MOST POPULAR. AND SIX MILLIMETER. >> IT'S THE SAME CONCEPT. IT'S THE DIAMETER OF THE INSIDE OF THE BARREL. >> 9 MILLIMETER, IF YOU CONVERT THAT TO INCHES, IT'S .355 INCHES. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE DETERMINE SINGLE-ACTION AND DOUBLE-ACTION? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN? >> YES. IN REGARDS TO A REVOLVER, SINGLE-ACTION, MEANS THE PERSON HAS TO DOCK THE HAMMER BACK, BEFORE THEY CAN PULL THE TRIGGER, IN ORDER FOR IT TO FIRE. THE TERM, DOUBLE-ACTION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COCK THE HAMMER BACK. YOU CAN PULL THE TRIGGER. THE HAMMER WILL COME BACK AND GO FORWARD AGAIN. >> WHAT ABOUT THE EJECTION SYSTEM, IF ANY, ASSOCIATED WITH A REVOLVER? HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> THERE'S GENERALLY TWO TYPES OF EJECTION SYSTEM. ONE IS THE CYLINDER. THERE WILL BE A CYLINDER CATCH, WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO RELEASE A CYLINDER. AND IT WILL OPEN TO THE SIDE. USUALLY THERE'S ONE PIN YOU PUSH. AND ONE DISCHARGE, OR LIVE, IF YOU HAVEN'T FIRED THEM. THERE'S ONE CENTERPIECE, ONCE YOU LET THE CYLINDER FALL OPEN. YOU PUSH IT TOWARD YOU. AND IT WILL EJECT THE LIVE AND THE EMPTY CARTRIDGES. THE OTHER WAY, THERE'S AN EJECTION ROD. AND YOU INDIVIDUALLY REMOVE, THE DISCHARGED CARTRIDGE CASES OR THE LIVE, AS NEED BE THE RESOLVER, ONE AT A TIME. >> THE TERM TRIGGER PULL, TO WHAT DOES THAT REFER? >> TRIGGER PULL, IS THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE WE MEASURE IN POUNDS FOR A REVOLVER TO FIRE. IF IT'S A DOUBLE-ACTION, WE'LL MEASURE IT IN BOTH THE DOUBLE-ACTION, WITH THE HAMMER DOWN. AND SINGLE-ACTION, WHEN THE HAMMER IS C COCKED BACK. SINGLE ACTION, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY TO MEASURE, AND THAT'S WITH THE HAMMER COCKED BACK. >> I THINK YOU DESCRIBED VARIOUS PARTS OF A CARTRIDGE. REFERRING TO THE PROJECTILE OR THE FRONT OF THE CARTRIDGE. ARE THERE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIALS THAT CAN MAKE UP THE PROJECTILE? >> YES. >> DESCRIBE THEM, PLEASE. >> MOST COMMONLY, THERE'S LEAD. AND THE DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS, I SHOULD SAY, IS LEAD ONLY. AND SOMETIMES YOU'LL HAVE A, WE CALL IT A COPPER JACKET, WITH A SOFT NOSE, A LEAD TOP. IT'S JACK ELTED ON THE SIDE. AND THE TOP OF THE PROJECTILE. THE TOP WOULD BE LEAD. SOME ARE FULL-METAL JACKETS. THEY'RE COMPLETELY ENCASED IN COPPER. >> WHAT ABOUT THE GUN POWDER. OR THE POWDER INSIDE THE CASING, THAT MAKES UP THE PROPELLANT. ARE THERE DIFFERENT TYPES? >> IT'S BRAND PREFERENCE OR MANUFACTURER PREFERENCE. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROPELLANT. I KNOW IT COMES IN DIFFERENT SHAPES. >> THE LEAD PROJECTILE, IN TERMS OF THE NONJACKETED TYPE. CAN YOU REFER TO THE SURFACE TYPE OF THOSE NONJACKETED PROJECTILES? >> THEY'RE MADE OF LEAD. AND YOU CAN TAKE A THUMBNAIL AND MAKE AN IMPRINT ON THE LEAD. IT'S A SOFT MEDAL. >> WHAT HE CONTINUED TO TESTIFY IS, GUESS WHAT? THOSE BULLET FRAGMENTS AND THE BULLETS THAT WERE TAKEN OUT OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S BODY, WERE THE SAME. THEY HAD TO COME FROM THAT GUN. YOU GOT THE GUY SAYING, THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN. WE TESTED IT. >>> WHEN WE COME BACK, HOW IS ALL THIS PLAYING IN PEORIA, SAY THEY. IT'S OVERSEAS WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE HAILS FROM. THE PAPERS ARE COVERING IT. THE REPORTERS ARE HERE. THEY'RE WATCHING THE STORY, BUT PROGRAMS THROUGH A DIFFERENT PRISM THAN YOU AND I MAY BE DOING. WE'RE GOING TO TALK TO A CORRESPONDENT FROM "THE TIMES" OF LONDON. HE'S JOINING US LIVE TO GIVE US HIS PERSPECTIVE. WONDER IF IT'S DIFFERENT. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD." THE COURT IS TAKING A QUICK BREAK. AND THAT GIVES US A CHANCE TO DELVE A LITTLE DEEPER. IT IS AN INTERNATIONAL STORY. AND THERE'S BEEN HEADLINES IN DIFFERENT PAPERS AROUND THE WORLD, SPECIFICALLY IN "THE TIMES" OF LONDON. FINDING BODIES LEFT ME IN A TRANS. JURORS IN THE ENTWISTLE TRIAL, CHARGED WITH BIAS. AND BRITTON TROLLED FOR SEX, AFTER MURDER OF WIFE AND BABY. JAMES, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN. LET ME JUST ASK YOU RIGHT OFF THE BAT. THE TIMES. IT WAS A BRAD SHEET, IN TABLOID FORM. BUT NOW, IT'S CONSIDERED A RESPECTABLE NEWSPAPER IN ENGLAND. HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE TABS THAT LOVE THE SEXY HEADLINES AROUND THIS CASE? >> THE THING ABOUT COURT COVERAGE, IS SO MUCH SALACIOUS DETAIL COMES OUT IN COVERAGE, THAT OFTEN, UPMARKET NEWSPAPERS CAN USE A LOT OF THE MATERIAL BECAUSE IT'S IN TESTIMONY. SO, I THINK IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE TRIAL AND WHAT'S SAID IN COURT. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUMP ANYTHING UP. IT'S DIRTY STUFF IN COURT. AND THAT'S WHAT THE STORY'S ABOUT. >> IT'S PRETTY LURID, ISN'T IT? >> YEAH. I'VE BEEN ASTOUNDED BY, OBVIOUSLY, THE SEX ANGLE OF IT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEGUN TO DIG INTO. MORE OF THAT TESTIMONY IS COMING, AS HE HAD BEEN TROLLING SEX SITES BEFORE AND AFTER THE KILLING. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE I FOUND UNUSUAL. I WAS HOPING YOU COULD HELP ME OUT HERE AND ALL OF OUR STAFF. WE DON'T HAVE TO A LOT OF BRITS HERE. AND THERE WAS AN EXPRESSION USED BY MR. ENTWISTLE TO THE POLICE. WHEN HE WAS ASKED WHY HE WOULD HAVE THROWN THE BLANKETS OVER HIS DEAD WIFE AND DEAD BABY. HE, SUGGESTING HE WASN'T THE KILLER SAID, I WANTED TO "CLOSE THEM OFF." IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND? IS THAT SOMETHING IN YOUR LANGUAGE THAT DOESN'T EXIST HERE? >> NO. THAT'S NOT A PARTICULAR VE KNACK LAR. THAT'S A VIC PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION. THAT TESTIMONY WAS THE WORDS NEIL ENTWISTLE ALLEGEDLY SAID AFTER THE KILLING WITH A MASSACHUSETTS STATE TROOPER. AND THAT SAME SECTION WAS READ AT THE VERY START OF THE CASE, BY THE PROSECUTOR. AND THAT'S WHERE HE SAID -- HE WAS EXPLAINING HOW HE FOUND THE BODIES. AND HE PUT THIS BEDDING OVER THEM TO CLOSE THEM OFF, AS HE DESCRIBED IT. AND HE SAID EVERYTHING BECAME IN A TRANS-LIKE STATE. THERE WAS ANOTHER PIECE OF THAT CONVERSATION THAT WAS INTERESTING TO ME. ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION, HE LEFT THE HOUSE AROUND 9:00 ON THAT MORNING. HE DROVE DOWN TO HIS IN-LAWS' HOUSE. ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION, CAME BACK. AND AROUND 11:00 CAME BACK, AND ALLEGEDLY KILLED HIS WIFE AND KID. NOW, IN THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE TROOPER, HE SAID HE GOT BACK. AND THINGS STILL HADN'T BEEN DONE. AND IN THE CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE TROOPER, HE SAID THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING WAS WRONG. BUT IT WAS A STRANGE THING TO SAY. AND IT MADE YOU THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ARGUMENT, THAT THE BABY AND THE WIFE WERE STILL IN BED AND HADN'T DONE THE WASHING UP OR WHATEVER IT WAS. AND HE WAS ANNOYED THAT THINGS WEREN'T DONE. IT WAS A LITTLE DETAIL THAT DIDN'T FIT WITH AN EXCULPATORY EXPLANATION. >> I DIDN'T PICK UP ON THAT. I WONDER IF WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. TELL ME IF THIS BRINGS A LOT OF MEMORIES BACK FOR YOU, WITH THE LOUISE WOODWARD CASE. WE LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THE BRITISH. AND THEY CAME TO COVER THE STORY WHEN LOUISE WOODWARD WAS TRIED FOR THE SHAKING OF BABY MATTHEW EAPPEN. DOES THE SAME EXIST NOW? >> I COVERED THE LOUISE WOODWARD CASE. AND IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT. THERE WAS A CONSTITUENCY IN BRITAIN, THAT ARGUED THAT LIEU WAS WOODWARD WAS INNOCENT. THE REALLY -- THERE'S GOING TO -- THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS. AND THE PUBLIC LOVE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS CASES. IN THIS CASE, THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS IS RACHEL ENTWISTLE, WHO IS MORE THAN IN DISTRESS. SHE'S DEAD. THERE'S NOT THE SAME PUBLIC SYMPATHY FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE IN BRITAIN. THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THERE IS PUBLIC SYMPATHY IS HIS HOMETOWN. IN WORKSHOP. HIS FATHER IS A FORMER COLE MINER, WHO BECAME A LOCAL COUNSELOR. AND THERE, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THEY CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL OR NOT. ELSEWHERE IN BRITAIN, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE EITHER SYMPATHY FOR NEIL ENT WHESLE OR DETAILS ON THE CASE. >> I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY HAVE BEEN DRAWN DEEPER INTO THIS CASE, BEEN REPELLED BY IT. BUT WE'RE ENGAGED BY THIS ONE MOMENT. I WANT TO PLAY THE MOMENT WHEN DR DEANNA DYGAN, TOOK THE STAND AND DID SOMETHING THAT WAS REALLY JARRING. SHE SHOWED SOME EVIDENCE THAT WAS EXTRAORDINARILY UNCOMFORTABLE TO LOOK AT. LET'S PLAY THAT AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ON THE OTHER SIDE. TAKE A LOOK. >> WHAT IF ANY, THE DAMAGE, I THINK YOU SAID THERE WAS A HOLE. POINT THAT OUT IF POSSIBLE. >> IT'S RIGHT HERE, ON THE LEFT CHEST AREA. >> AND THE BACKSIDE, IF YOU COULD. POINTING OUT THE RED/BROWN STAINED AREAS. AND THE LOCATION OF THE HOLE. I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT WAS HOLE NUMBER TWO. >> ALMOST THE ENTIRE BACKSIDE OF THE ITEM WAS RED/BROWN STAINS. AND HOLE NUMBER TWO, WAS RIGHT HERE. BASICALLY ON THE CENTER BACK. THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY AN EIGHTH OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER. >> I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO LOOK AT A BABY'S ONECY COVERED IN BLOOD WITH A BULLET HOLE IN IT. IF THERE WAS AN INKLING SYMPATHY FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE, DO YOU THINK THAT MOMENT IN COURT, PERSUADED IT AT ALL? >> THAT DOESN'T SPEAK TO WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. BUT IT IS A VERY EMOTIONAL MOMENT. AND IF JURORS FEEL THEY HAVE A -- THEY'VE REACHED CONCLUSION OR WILL REACH A CONCLUSION, IT WILL REINFORCE THE ANGER THEY MIGHT FEEL AT THE PERSON THEY CONCLUDED PULLED THE TRIG ORRIN THAT. >> I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP FOR A DIFFERENT REASON. THOSE PICTURES WERE SEEN. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT, NOT FOR THE FACT THAT A BABY DIED IN A TRAGIC AND PAINFUL WAY. BUT THEY ALSO ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT NEIL ENT WHISTLE SAID HE WITNESSED. HE SAID HE SAW HIS BABY COVERED IN BLOOD. THE FRONT OF THAT ONESY, AND THAT SLEEPER, WERE NOT COVERED IN BLOOD. >> THERE'S A FURTHER INKLING, OF COURSE, WHICH IS THAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS THAT WHEN THEY DISCOVERED THE BODIES, RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS LYING ON HER LEFT SIDE, CRADLING THE BABY WITH HER RIGHT ARM OVER THAT WOUND. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE SEQUENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN. DID WHOEVER KILLED THESE TWO PEOPLE SHOOT THE BABY FIRST? THE BULLET WENT THROUGH THE BABY, INTO RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S JUST ABOVE HER LEFT BREAST? OR DID THE KILLER PULL THE TRIGGER IN THE FRONT OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S FOREHEAD FIRST? MY FEELING IS, THAT WHOEVER KILLED THEM, SHOULD HAVE SHOT THROUGH THE BABY, LOOKS LIKE IN THE BABY'S HEART, AND THROUGH THE MOTHER. TO MAKE SURE THE MOTHER WAS DEAD. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE WAY IT WENT. EITHER CASE, WHAT NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID HE SAW, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE POLICE SAID THEY FOUND. AND THERE WAS THAT TESTIMONY, FROM THE STEPFATHER, WHERE HE SAID THEY'D BEEN IN A RAMBLING CONVERSATION, AFTER THE KILLING, WHEN NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS IN ENGLAND. NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID HE WANTED HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER BURIED TOGETHER BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY I LEFT THEM. I MEAN, THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND THEM. AND THEY SUGGESTED THAT WAS SOME KIND OF FREUDIAN SLIP. OR HE WAS SAYING THAT'S HOW HE LEFT THE BODIES, I.E., HE PUT THEM IN THAT CONDITION. NOT CONCLUSIVE. BUT IT WAS AN INTERESTING DETAIL. >> WHEN JACK AND I TALK ABOUT, WHILE THAT SOUNDS BAD, IT CERTAINLY COULD BE WHAT AN INNOCENT MAN WOULD SAY. IT'S THE WAY I LEFT THEM, MEANING I LEFT THE HOUSE AND LEFT THEM THAT WAY. THAT DOESN'T SOUND GOOD TO A POLICE OFFICER. I BETTER REAFFIRM THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND THEM. THAT IN ITSELF, DOESN'T NECESSARILY SPEAK TO GUILT. >> THE FACT HE WAS SPEAKING FROM ENGLAND, THOUGH, IS A SLIGHTLY MORE SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCE. >> THAT PART, I AGREE WITH YOU. >> CALL 911. THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND THEM. THAT'S THE WAY I LEFT THEM, I FOUND THEM. BUT THE FACT IT WAS SEVERAL DAYS LATER, HAVING TAKEN OFF FOR ENGLAND. >> THE FACT THAT HE'S IN ENGLAND. >> NOT YOUR INITIAL REACTION IF YOU FIND YOUR WIFE AND KID KILLED, IS IT? >> IT'S A HUGE, HUGE HURDLE FOR THIS JURY TO COME OVER. >> AND YOU HAVE HIM GOING AROUND TO CASH MACHINES AT BOSTON'S LOGAN AIRPORT, TRYING TO TAKE CASH OUT BY CREDIT CARDS. >> WE KNOW THAT WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED, HE WAS FOUND WITH A TEAR-OUT SHEET FOR ESCORT SERVICES. AND A NOTE OF SELLING THE STORY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. I WOULD THINK THAT HORROR WOULD TRANSCEND OUR BORDERS AND FOLKS WOULD BE AS OFFENDED AS FOLKS ARE HERE. DID IT BECOME A LARGER HEADLINE, HAD THE STORY NOT HAD THE SEXUAL ASPECTS OF IT? >> WE'RE OBVIOUSLY INTERESTED IN MOTIVE. AND THIS WAS, OUTWARDLY, A HAPPY MARRIAGE. A COUPLE WHO MET AT UNIVERSITY IN THE BOAT CLUB, ROWING. MOVED TO AMERICA, WITH A YOUNG BABY. NEIL ENTWISTLE LOOKING FOR A JOB. WHAT IS THE MOTIVE. WHAT WENT WRONG HERE? VARIOUS THINGS ALLEGEDLY WENT WRONG. ONE OF THE THINGS IS THEY WERE PILING UP DEBT. AND NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS IN INTERNET, GET RICH QUICK SCAMS THAT DIDN'T MAKE HIM RICH. AND HE HAD FOUND A SWINGER SITE ON THE INTERNET, AND LOOKING FOR SEX WITH PEOPLE. >> WE HAVE TESTIMONY PROBABLY COMING THAT HE HAD PRINTED OFF DRIVING DIRECTIONS TO ONE OF THE TRYST LOCATIONS. >> ONE OF THE DECISIONS TODAY, IS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD WANTED TO INTRODUCE A PICTURE OF WHAT'S DISCREETLY DESCRIBED AS A NUDE AND AROUSED MAN IN A LOUNGE CHAIR. >> WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT? >> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ADMITTED AS TESTIMONY NOW, AS A PICTURE. BUT IN THE MOTIONS, BEFORE THE TRIAL, ALLEGEDLY, THE PROSECUTION SAID THAT NEIL ENT WHISTLE, POSTED A PHOTOGRAPH OF HIMSELF, IN AN AROUSED STATE. A NAKED PHOTOGRAPH OF HIMSELF, ON THIS ADULT FRIEND FINDER SITE. AND THEY WANTED TO USE THAT AS EVIDENCE, THAT THINGS WERE WRONG IN THE MARRIAGE AND HE WAS LOOKING FOR SEX OUT THERE. THE DEFENSE SAID, THE PICTURE OF A NUDE MAN WASN'T HIM. NOW, YOU WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR THE JURY COULD DETERMINE FAIRLY QUICKLY. BUT THE FOCUS OF THE SHOT MIGHT BE ELSEWHERE, SHALL WE SAY. THAT ACTUAL PICTURE WON'T BE ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE. BUT THE FACT OF HIM GOING TO SEX SITES ON THE INTERNET, IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED INTO EVIDENCE. >> I THINK I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. >> AS I SAID, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE EVIDENCE. >> SURE. ALL RIGHT. LET ME MOVE ON TO THE FAMILY OF NEIL ENTWISTLE, WHO HAS BEEN FAITHFULLY SITTING BEHIND HIM. HIS FATHER, MOTHER AND BROTHER. THEY MADE IT QUITE CLEAR AT THE VERY OUTSET, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS DURING THIS TRIAL. THEY SAID THEY SUPPORT THEIR SON. AND THAT HE IS 100% INNOCENT. AND I'M WONDERING IF ANY OVERTURES FROM BRITISH REPORTERS WOULD BE RECEIVED BEFORE OVERTURES FROM AMERICAN REPORTERS. OR IF THERE'S BEEN A CONNECTION MADE BETWEEN YOU AND THE BRITISH COLLEAGUES, TO THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY. >> I'VE GATHERED FROM MY COLLEAGUES, THAT SOME HAVE MADE CASH OFFERS FOR INTERVIEWS. >> ROBUST? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. THE PARENTS WHO AREN'T RICH PEOPLE, HAVE HIRED A BOSTON LAWYER, TO -- PETER PARKER, TO DEAL WITH THE MEDIA. HE DENIES HE'S DEALING WITH THE MEDIA IN ORDER TO SELL THE STORY. IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT HIS ROLE IS. BUT IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT ANY OTHER ROLE WOULD BE. >> I WANT TO TAKE YOU BACK TO ONE OF YOUR STORIES. 2 2 1/2 YEARS AGO. FEBRUARY 2nd, 2006. YOU DID A STORY ABOUT THE FUNERAL IN WHICH YOU NOTED THAT THE ABSENCE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THAT CHURCH WAS PAP PABL. BUT THERE WAS A DETAIL IN YOUR STORY THAT STOOD OUT TO ME. AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT IT. LILLIAN'S DEATH CERTIFICATE. YOU HAD GOTTEN INFORMATION FROM THE DEATH CERTIFICATE. SAYING THAT SHE MAY HAVE SUFFERED FOR MINUTES AFTER BEING SHOT, RATHER THAN HAVING DIED INSTANTLY. AND THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DESCRIBED THE GUNSHOT THAT PERS RATED HER LIVER AND HER KIDNEY. WHEN YOU SAW THE EVIDENCE OF THE SLEEPER AND THE ONESY. DID THAT BRING THAT DETAIL BACK TO YOU? AND HOW DID YOU FIND THAT DETAIL? >> THAT'S A ROUTINE THING FORTOUS CHECK THE DEATH CERTIFICATE IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION. I MUST SAY THAT IT'S -- GIVEN THAT WE'RE TOLD IT WAS A CONTACT SHOT, IT MUST HAVE MISSED HER HEART, IF THAT'S THE CASE. YOU KNOW, MUSTN'T HAVE GONE THROUGH HER HEART AND KILLED HER IMMEDIATELY. I STILL AM NOT CLEAR WHAT THE SEQUENCE OF THE ACTUAL SHOOTINGS WERE. THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY TESTIMONY, REALLY, ON WHICH ONE WAS KILLED FIRST. YOU KNOW, DID THE KILLER KILL RACHEL FIRST AND THEN WITH THE BABY SCREAMING IN HER ARMS, KILL THE BABY? OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND? >> WELL, YOU WOULD THINK IF THE BABY WERE SHOT FIRST, JAMES, THAT THE MOTHER WOULD FIGHT -- FIGHT WITH EVERY OUNCE THAT SHE HAD IN HER AND THAT THERE WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF THAT. >> IT SEEMS THEY MUST HAVE STILL BEEN IN BED. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYONE FORCED THEM BACK INTO BED. >> THERE'S NO DRAG MARKS ON THE SHEETS. >> SO, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN SLEEPING. WHOEVER IS THE KILLER MAY HAVE COME IN AND JUST SHOT THEM. >> DO YOU THINK IT MAT CENTERS. >> IF YOU'RE A JURY, YOU WANT TO HAVE AS CLEAR A PICTURE AS YOU CAN, OF WHAT THE SEQUENCE WAS, SO YOU CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTIVE -- HAVING A BULLET THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE FOREHEAD, ABOVE THE HIRE LINE, WHICH THE POLICE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY FIND, IS AN EXECUTION-STYLE KILLING, ISN'T IT? >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN STOOD IN FRONT OF THE PRESS AND SAID, THERE IS NOT A POSSIBILITY. NO POSSIBILITY, THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL. WE NOW KNOW THAT EIGHT OF THOSE JURORS NEVER HEARD A WORD ABOUT THIS CASE. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY RECEIVED TO IN VOIR DIRE ABOUT THIS CASE. AND I WONDER IF YOU FEEL THAT ANYBODY IN ENGLAND FEELS THE SAME WAY. THAT THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THIS MAN, FACING THESE CHARGES, THIS KIND OF PRESS SCRUTINY, AND SOME OF THE EVIDENCE, A BABY'S SLEEPER COVERED IN BLOOD, CAN GET A FAIR TRIAL? >> IN BRITAIN, WE HAVE MORE STRINGENT RULES ABOUT WHAT WE CAN REPORT BEFORE A TRIAL TAKES PLACE. IN THIS CASE, THERE'S BEEN BLANKET COVERAGE IN BOSTON OF ALL THE LURID DETAILS, FROM THE SEX SITES, THE INTERNET GAMBLING. 2 R THE DNA EVIDENCE, EVEN A LEAKED LETTER FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE FROM JAIL, WHERE HE MIGHT BE TRYING TO KILL HIMSELF. AND HE GAVE INTRODUCTIONS OF HIS ASHES TO BE SCATTERED ON THE GRAVES OF HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. IT'S SURPRISING THAT THE JURY POOL, HAVE BEFORE THEM ALL THIS INFORMATION IN THE MEDIA. IN BRITAIN, THE PRESS COULDN'T PUBLISH IT, EVEN IF WE KNEW IT. THAT HAS BECOME AN ISSUE IN NEIL'S HOMETOWN. WHERE THEY SAY HOW CAN HE GET A FAIR TRIAL WITH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION BEFORE EVERYBODY? AND IT'S TRUE, THAT A NUMBER OF JURIES HAD MADE UP THEIR MINDS ABOUT IT. BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF JURY SELECTION, WAS TO FIND THE 16 OF THEM, WHO DIDN'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT IT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW -- WAS STUDYING SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> TO BE FAIR. I'M NOT SURE OF YOUR ANSWER. IS YOUR ANSWER THAT YOU THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE -- >> I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG ISSUE IN BRITAIN, NO. >> INTERESTING. I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO YOU AGAIN, AS WE PROGRESS THROUGH THIS CASE. WE HAVE YET TO HEAR FROM THE DEFENSE. I KNOW THINGS ARE GOING TO GET MORE INTRIGUING AS WE MOVE ALONG. THANKS FOR JOINING US. WE WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU WOULD FEEL ABOUT THIS CASE, IF YOU WERE IN THE JURY BOX SEATS. HERE'S THE QUESTION -- >>> ON SOME TIME FRIDAY MORNING, NEIL ENTWISTLE, WITH A FIREARM, WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT, FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW, SHOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN THE HEAD. THEN, PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN, WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. WE BELIEVE, POSSIBLY, THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE. BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE MURDER WAS EFFECTED AND THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. AND NEIL ENTWISTLE RETURNED THE COUNTRY TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S HOME IN CARVER. >> THAT WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY LAYING OUT ESSENTIALLY WITH THE PROSECUTION IS TRYING TO PROVE. WE WERE WATCHING A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THE FIRE ARMS IDENTIFICATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE. STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND. AND HE TURNED THIS COURTROOM INTO A CLASSROOM, OF SORTS, WHERE HE'S BEEN EXPLAINING TO JURORS, THE PROCESS OF HIS JOB, COMPARING KNOWN SAMPLES TO UNKNOWN SAMPLES. HE'S TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO DO FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMER'S OFFICE, TO COMPARE SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE. >> SIR, I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO JANUARY 24th, 2006. DID YOU GO SOMEWHERE IN THE CITY OF BOSTON? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I WAS CONTACTED BY THE IDENTIFICATION SECTION TO RESPOND TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >> AND FOR WHAT REASON DID YOU GO THERE? >> TO RETRIEVE A BULL PEPT. >> AND DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I WENT TO THE -- I CHECKED IN AT THE FRONT DESK. AND I WENT BACK TO ONE OF THE EXAMINATION ROOMS. >> AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK, AN AWE TOPTY WAS BEING PERFORMED ON THE BODY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE? >> YES. >> AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS REMOVED FROM THE BODY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND GIVEN TO YOU? >> WHAT A LABELED ITEM 16-1, WHICH WAS A SPENT PROJECTILE, .22 LONG RIFLE CALIBER. >> FROM WHERE WAS THAT REMOVED? >> FROM HER LEFT BREAST. >> CAN YOU LOOK IN THAT ENVELOPE, SIR, AND TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE THE ITEM IN THERE. >> I DO. >> AND WHAT IS IT? >> IT'S A LEAD SPENT PROJECTILE, .22 LONG RIFLE CALIBER. >> AND WHERE DID YOU GET THAT FROM? FROM THE AUTOPSY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE? >> YES. >> ONCE YOU RECEIVED THAT ITEM, DID YOU LEAVE THE AUTOPSY? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I BROUGHT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM BACK TO THE CRIME LABORATORY. >> CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT DAY. DID YOU RECEIVE SOMETHING ELSE? WAS ANOTHER ITEM ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE SUBMITTED TO YOU, FOR EXAMINATION? >>> EXHIBIT 77 MARKED. >> ON ABOUT THAT SAME DATE, SIR, DID YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER ITEM IN TEXT WITH THIS CASE? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU RECEIVE? >> FIVE FIREARMS. WELL, FIVE WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION. >> P FOR IDENTIFICATION, SIR. PLEASE OPEN UP THAT BOX. PLEASE TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE ANYTHING CONTAINED INSIDE. >> YES. >> WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE? >> 22 LONG RIFLE CALIBER COLT DIAMOND BACK SERIAL NUMBER R 52151. >> AND WHEN DID YOU RECEIVE THAT? >> ON THE 25th OF JANUARY. >> FROM WHOM DID YOU RECEIVE IT IF YOU RECALL? >> TROOPER MIKE BANKS. >> AND AT LATER TIME, DID YOU PERFORM EXAMINATION OR TEST ON THAT ITEM? >> YES. >> SERGEANT STEVEN WELLINGS IN THE LONG LIST OF SCIENTIFIC FORENSIC INVESTIGATORS AND WITNESSES ON THE STAND. BETH KARAS, WE EXPECT LITERALLY ANY MINUTE LOOKING IN THE COURTROOM TO GET STARTED WITH LIVE TESTIMONY. WE TALKED ABOUT THE DEFENSE I PROECH HERE. DO WE KNOW IF THE DEFENSE INTENDS SIGNS OR SIGNALS IF THE DEFENSE BRINGS ANY OF THEIR OWN EXPERTS IN TO TESTIFY? >> WE DO NOT KNOW. WE CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW FROM ELLIOT WEINSTEIN'S OPENING STATEMENT WHICH DID NOT MENTION A THING ABOUT EVEN PUTTING ON A CASE. NOW, HE MAY AND I DO ASK HIM IF NOT EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY WHETHER OR NOT HE INTENDS TO PUT ON A CASE AND HE IS NOT TELLINGING ME. I DON'T THINK HE'S TELLING ANYBODY WHAT HIS STRATEGY IS. HE MAY NOT PUT ON A CASE. HE MAY CALL AN EXPERT, THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE. MAYBE HE WOULD CHALLENGE THE DNA. I DON'T KNOW. HE COULD PUT HIS CLIENT ON BUT HE IS SIMPLY NOT LETTING US KNOW. >> HOW THE PROSECUTION CASE SEEM TO BE MOVING ALONG IN TERMS OF ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE MANY. >> WELL, I THINK THEY'RE A LITTLE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. THE PROSECUTION SHOULD CLOSE AT THE -- END ITS CASE IN CHIEF THIS WEEK, PROBABLY THURSDAY. IF THE DEFENSE DOES NOT HAVE A CASE TO PUT ON, I WOULD EXPECT CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON MONDAY. WE HAVE TO SEE IF ELLIOT WEINSTEIN OES GOING TO CALL ANY WITNESSES, CLOSINGS WILL BE SOMETIME NEXT WEEK. >> BETH, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK OF OUR OWN HERE. HELP THANKS ALWAYS TO BETH FOR HER HELP. PEEK INSIDE THE COURTROOM, MOST PARTIES ARE THERE. AS WE STEP AWAY HERE, WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND NOW HOW THE CASE IS PLAYING OUT IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION OUT THERE. WE INVITE YOU TO E-MAIL US WITH YOUR THOUGHTS, OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTION YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS CASE. YOU CLICK ON COURTSIDE OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY. AND MAKE IT INTERESTING, MAY SHOW IT ON THE AIR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. QUICK BREAK OF OUR OWN. MORE TESTIMONY ON THE OTHER SIDE. >>> HI, EVERYBODY. WELCOME BACK. WE ARE IN SESSION. I'M ASHLEIGH FANFIELD. I'M JACK FORD. THIS IS A DAY WE SAY THE COURTROOM IS A CLASSROOM. A STRING OF EXPERT WITNESSES ON THE STAND. >> GUNS, HOW THEY FIRE, THE STRAY YAGSS IN THE BULLET ARE FORMED. HOW THE DNA GETS ON AN END OF A GUN WHEN THE DNA IS ON THE OPPOSITE END OF THE GUN. THIS IS A MURDER CASE. JOINING US LIVE COURTHOUSE IS BETH KARAS. GET ME CAUGHT UP ON WHERE WE HAVE COME TO TODAY AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED. >> WELL, THERE'S A NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND. TODAY WAS GOING TO BE DEVOTED TO DNA EVIDENCE WHICH WE HAVE HEARD IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE DAY AND NOW THE COMPUTER FORENSIC EVIDENCE. THE SEARCHES THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE DID, PARTICULARLY IN THE WEEK BEFORE THE KILLINGS. SEARCHES THAT HE DID, AS WELL AS OTHER BUSINESS. HE DID ONLINE. SO THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE IS JUST BEGINNING NOW IN THE COURTROOM. >> OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT, BETH. I GOT WORD AS YOU WERE SPEAKING AS THE INFORMATION IS COMING IN, THE NEW ACTUAL WITNESS IS A FLORIST. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? PERHAPS BECAUSE FLOWERS WERE SENT, A CARD WAS SENT FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE DEATH OF HIS BABY AND HIS WIFE AND THE FUNERAL BUT NO NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS SENT. PERHAP THAT IS'S WHAT THIS TESTIMONY IS ABOUT. LET'S LISTEN. >> A YOUNGER OR OLDER MALE? >> SOUNDED AS IF IT WAS A YOUNGER MALE. >> DID YOU HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE PERSON ON THE OTHER END OF THE LINE? >> YES, DID. >> COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT PERSON SAID TO YOU, WHAT QUESTION OR QUESTIONS THEY ASKED? WHAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED. >> HE ASKED IF WE HAD ANY ORANGE ROSES OR ANY LILIES BECAUSE HE WANTED A FUNERAL PIECE TO GO TO THE FUNERAL FOR RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. AND HE ASKED IF WE SPECIFICALLY HAD ORANGE ROSES AND HE WANTED TO HAVE AN ORANGE -- A SINGLE ORANGE ROSE AND A SINGLE LILY IN A BUD VASE OR WRAPPED TOGETHER IN SOME WAY. >> DID HE ASK FOR ANY OTHER INFORMATION? >> YES, HE DID. HE ASKED IF THE PRICES FOR OUR FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE -- I TOLD HIM THEY WERE -- THEY STARTED AT $60 AND THEY RAN UP IN $5 INCREMENTS FROM THERE. HE ASKED ME WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. IF I COULD DESCRIBE WHAT OUR FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS LOOK LIKE. AND HE ALSO, I BELIEVE, WE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT COLORS THAT WOULD BE IN THE ARRANGEMENT. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID HE ASK YOUR NAME? >> YES. >> PROVIDE YOUR NAME? >> YES. I SAID MY NAME WAS DEBBIE. >> AND DID YOU END THAT PHONE CALL? >> YES. >> HOW LONG DID IT LAST ABOUT? >> PROBABLY FIVE TO EIGHT MINUTES. APPROXIMATELY. >> DID YOU WORK FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY? >> YES. >> WERE THERE FURTHER PHONE CALLS THAT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY? >> YES, THERE WERE. >> AND, MA'AM, CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE TYPE OF RECORDS THAT YOUR BUSINESS KEEPS? >> WELL, USUALLY IF SOMEONE CALLS IN TO ORDER, YOU KNOW, ANY TYPE OF AN ORDER, WE JOT IT DOWN ON OUR, YOU KNOW, WHITE PIECE OF PAPER THAT'S AN ORDER FORM. >> WHAT SORT OF INFORMATION IS TAKEN? >> THE -- WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT'S THE DATE OF -- IN THIS CASE IT WAS A FUNERAL. THE TIME OF THE FUNERAL. WHO THE DECEASED IS AND WHERE IT'S GOING. WHICH FUNERAL HOME OR A CHURCH OR WHATEVER. THE TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT THAT THEY WANT. THE CARD MESSAGE. HOW THEY'RE PAYING FOR IT. WE USUALLY ALSO ASK FOR PHONE NUMBER WHERE THE PERSON CAN BE REACHED. >> AND IS THAT RECORDKEEPING AND THAT FORM THAT'S FILLED OUT IS THAT THE REGULAR COURSE OF YOUR BUSINESS TO KEEP THAT FORM OR FORM EVERY TIME THERE'S AN ORDER? >> YES. >> AND IS IT THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS OF YOUR COMPANY TO MAKE THOSE RECORDS IN GOOD FAITH FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU MAKE THOSE RECORDS AT OR ABOUT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE DETAILS SET FORTH IN THE RECORDS? >> YES. WE USUALLY DO IT AS WE TAKE THE PHONE CALL. >> NOW, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL RECORD OR DOCUMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE FLOWER ARRANGEMENT ONCE THE ORDER IS FILLED? >> IF -- IT DEPENDS. USUALLY -- A LOT OF OUR PHONE ORDERS WE HAVE GIVEN A CREDIT CARD OVER THE PHONE AND WE MIGHT ATTACH THE CREDIT CARD INFORMATION TO THAT AND WE ALSO FILL OUT A CARD WITH THE MESSAGE ON THE CARD. >> THAT'S THE TYPE OF DOCUMENT I WAS FILLING OUT. SO ONCE THE ORDER IS -- ONCE YOU MAKE THE FLOWER, THE BASKET, TYPICALLY A CARD OR SOME SORT OF INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT? >> YES. >> MA'AM, IF YOU COULD, JUST EXAMINE THE FRONT AND THE BACK OF THOSE FOUR DOCUMENTS I PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THOSE? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ARE THOSE? >> THESE ARE THE ORDER FORMS THAT WERE TAKEN ON THE 30th AND THE 31st OF JANUARY, 2006. AND ALSO THE CARDS THAT WERE WRITTEN TO GO WITH THEM. >> AND TO WHAT ARRANGEMENT OR ARRANGEMENTS DO THEY REFER OR RELATE? >> THEY -- THE CARDS PARTICULARLY REFER TO THE ORDER THAT WAS TAKEN ON JANUARY 30th FOR THE SINGLE ROSE AND A CALLILILY AND THEN FOR A LARGE FUNERAL SPRAY. >> THEN TEN THE OTHER FORM RETLIT WHAT? >> THE OTHER FORM RELATES TO AN ORDER THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 31st OF JANUARY FOR ANOTHER FUNERAL SPRAY. >> AND THOSE ALL RELATED TO THE SAME FUNERAL ARRANGEMENT OR -- >> THEY ALL RELATE TO THE -- YES. >> AND WHICH -- WHOSE FUNERAL WAS THAT? >> FOR RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> MARKED, YOUR HONOR? >> THEY MAY BE MARKED. >> ONE EXHIBIT. >> ITEM 79, YOUR HONOR. HAS BEEN MARKED. >> THANK YOU. >> WERE THOSE TWO ORDERS FILLED, MA'AM, AT SOME POINT IN TIME? >> YES, THEY WERE. >> AND THE CARDS THAT GO WITH THE ARRANGEMENTS, WHO FILLED THOSE OUT? >> I DID. >> THOSE ARRANGEMENTS, WERE THEY EVENTUALLY DELIVERED? >> THEY WERE. >> AND TO WHERE? >> THE SHEPARD FUNERAL HOME IN KINGSTON. >> JUST ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> WOW. WELL THE SPENCE IS KILLING ME. CLEARLY CARDS WERE FILLED OUT. AFTER THE BREAK, WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT WAS ON THOSE CARDS. I HOPE. IF THE QUESTION'S ASKED OF THIS FLORIST. >>> NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND, THE DAUGHTER OF THE PREVIOUS WITNESS ALSO TALKING ABOUT THAT ORDER FOR FLOWERS THAT WAS PLACED BY NEIL ENTWISTLE. LET'S WATCH. >> YES. HE ASKED FOR ORANGE ROSE AND A WHITE LILY. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THE GENTLEMAN REQUESTED ANY SPECIFIC MESSAGES OR ANYTHING ELSE FROM YOU. >> HE ALSO REQUESTED A SECOND ORDER, AS WELL, OF FLOWERS. >> AND DID YOU FILL THOSE ORDERS? >> YES. >> AND TELL US WHAT THE DETAILS OF THOSE TWO ORDERS WERE, MA'AM. >> WELL, THE FIRST ORDER, LIKE I SAID, IT WAS -- HE ORDERED -- REREQUESTED A WHITE LILY. AND AN ORANGE ROSE WRAPPED TOGETHER WITH A RIBBON WITH A CARD MESSAGE FOR THAT WAS TO READ, MY ORANGE ROSE AND MY LILY FOR ALWAYS, XL XL XO. AND HE ASKED CAPITALIZE ORANGE, ROSE, MY AND LILY. >> AND THE SECOND ORDER, IF YOU RECALL THE DETAILS OF THAT, ARE THEY SET FORTH ON THE RECEIPT OF THAT DOCUMENT? >> YES. THE SECOND ORDER WAS A LARGE SPRAY OF PINK AND WHITE FLOWERS, OF LILIES AND ROSES. $100 ORDER. >> AND WHO DID HE SAY THAT WAS FROM? >> THE CARD MESSAGE READ, TO RACHEL AND OUR PRECIOUS GRANDDAUGHTER, IF TEARS COULD BUILD A STAIRWAY AND MEMORIES A LANE, WE WOULD WALK RIGHT UP TO HEAVEN AND BRING YOU HOME AGAIN. WITH LOVE ALWAYS, YVONNE, GRAND MOM, CLIFF, GRAND DAD, RUSSELL AND KISSES. >> AND DID THIS GENTLEMAN PAY FOR THAT ORDER? >> YES, HE DID. >> HOW DID HE PAY FOR THE ORDER? >> VISA CARD. >> DID HE GIVE YOU THAT CREDIT CARD NUMBER? >> YES. >> DID HE GIVE ANY OTHER INFORMATION WHEN HE GAVE YOU THAT NUMBER? >> I ASKED THE PHONE NUMBER WHERE HE COULD HAVE REACHED IF I HAD ANY QUESTIONS. >> DID HE GIVE YOU ONE PHONE NUMBER FOR MULTIPLE PHONE NUMBERS? >> I HAVE TWO WRITTEN DOWN HERE. >> HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION LAST? >> PROBABLY AROUND EIGHT TO TEN MINUTES. >> DID YOU GO ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS THAT DAY? >> YES. >> WERE YOU WORKING THE NEXT DAY. >> YES. >> DID YOU RECEIVE A PHONE CALL THAT MORNING ABOUT 9:00, 9:25, 9:30? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WHO CALLED? >> THE SAME GENTLEMAN. >> DID YOU RECOGNIZE THE VOICE. >> YES. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THE GENTLEMAN IDENTIFIED HIMSELF TO YOU. >> I BELIEVE SO. >> WHAT NAME DO YOU RECALL HIM GIVING TO YOU. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> AND DID YOU HAVE FURTHER CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> HE HAD ASKED FOR KELLY WHO HE HAD SPOKE WITH EARLIER THE NEXT DAY. HE ASKED IF HIS CREDIT CARD WENT THROUGH OKAY. AND THEN, IF SO, HE WOULD LIKE TO PLACE ANOTHER ORDER. >> AT SOME POINT EARLIER ON THE EARLIER DAY, HAD YOU GIVEN HIM YOUR NAME? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> BUT HE ASKED FOR KELLY BY NAME? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT CONVERSATION AGAIN THAT YOU HAD, MA'AM? >> THE CREDIT CARD HAD GONE THROUGH OKAY. I SAID, YES. WELL, HE STILL WANTED TO PLACE ANOTHER ORDER ON THAT CARD. >> DID HE PLACE AN ORDER? >> YES. >> WHAT ORDER DID HE PLACE THAT I'M? >> HE ORDERED A SPRAYED BASKET OF YELLOWS AND WHITES DPLOERS, $60 VALUE ON THE BASKET. AND THE CARD MESSAGE TO READ, TO RACHEL AND LILLIAN, FROM ALL OF YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS IN ENGLA ENGLAND, YOU WILL ALWAYS BE IN OUR HEART, KISSES. >> WAS THAT ORDER FILLED? >> YES, IT WAS. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT ORDER AND THE OTHER ORDERS FROM THE DAY BEFORE WERE FILLED AND EVENTUALLY DELIVERED. >> YES. THEY WERE. >> NOTHING FURTHER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> YOU SPOKE TO A NEIL ENTWISTLE TWO TIMES I TAKE IT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THE FIRST DAY ON THE 30th AS YOU TOLD US, HE ORDERED TWO SETS OF FLOWERS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT -- >> YES. THIS IS THE FIRST DAY. >> OKAY. -- SECOND TIME. >> REFERRING TO THE WHITE LILY AND THE ORANGE ROSE THAT NEIL WANTED TO HAVE MADE UP FOR RACHEL AND LILLIAN, YOU TOLD US THAT HE SPECIFICALLY DICTATED WHAT WORDS HE WANTED. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND IT WAS MY ORANGE ROSE AND MY LILY. RIGHT? >> YES. >> FOR ALWAYS. >> YES. >> AND YOU HAD SAID HE WANTED PARTICULAR WORDS CAPITALIZED. >> YES. >> AND YOU HAD TOLD US ALL OF THOSE WORDS BUT HE ALSO WANTED FOR ALWAYS CAPITALIZED, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> HE DIDN'T WANT THE WORDS CAPITALIZED. >> THE FIRST LETTER OF THE WORDS? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. >> HE THEN WANTED AS YOU A TO ARRANGE ANOTHER SPRAY, ANOTHER FUNERAL ARRANGEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THIS ONE WAS FROM IT TURNS OUT THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND HE WAS ALSO DICTATED TO YOU THE WORDS THEY WANTED ON THE CARD? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS TO RACHEL AND OUR PRECIOUS GRANDDAUGHTER, RIGHT? >> YES. >> IF TEARS COULD BUILD A STAIRWAY, THE MEMORIES A LANE, WE WOULD WALK RIGHT UP TO HEAVEN AND BRING YOU HOME AGAIN. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS FROM THE GRANDMOTHER, YVONNE? >> YES. >> GRANDFATHER, GRAND DAD CLIFF? >> YES. >> THE UNCLE RUSSELL? >> YES. >> SIGNED KISSES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> WHEN YOU SPOKE TO NEIL ENTWISTLE THE NEXT DAY, HE AGAIN ORDERED THAT THIRD FUNERAL ARRANGEMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AGAIN, THAT WAS FROM FRIENDS AND OF THE FAMILY FROM ENGLAND, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND EACH TIME HE ORDERED THE FLOWERS, OBVIOUSLY HE GAVE YOU HIS NAME. >> CORRECT. >> HE GAVE YOU HIS CREDIT CARD NUMBER. >> YES. >> AND THAT CREDIT CARD HAD GONE THROUGH FOR THE FIRST TWO SPRAYS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> FIRST TWO, YES. >> AND YOU WERE FELT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIM TO CHARGE THE THIRD ONE THE NEXT DAY. SNARGT. >> YES. >> AND HE ALSO GAVE YOU A PHONE NUMBER. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND ACTUALLY TWO PHONE NUMBERS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND ONE OF THOSE WAS THE PHONE NUMBER WHERE YOU COULD REACH HIM OVER IN ENGLAND. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. >> BENJAMIN FRYER, PLEASE. >> WELL, THEY WRAPPED UP QUICKLY WITH THAT WITNESS. WHILE THEY CALL THE NEXT WITNESS, WE HAVE A BREAK OF OUR OWN AND THE QUIZ FOR TODAY, PROSECUTORS SAY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE KILLED HIS WIFE AND BABY BUT THE DEFENSE SAYS HE IS NOT GUILTY SO TODAY WE'RE ASKING -- >>> WELCOME BACK TO BAMFIELD AND FORD. WE ARE IN SESSION. BRAND NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND IT'S BEN YEAH GENTLEMAN MIN PRIOR, A COLLEGE FRIEND OF NEIL ENTWISTLE TESTIFYING ABOUT A CREW, A GANG, A CIRCLE OF FRIENDS ALTOGETHER IN COLLEGE AND YOU MIGHT HEAR THESE NAMES MENTIONED, DASH, DASHEL, RACHEL SOUZA. RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MAIDEN NAME AND RICHARD SKINNER AND MENTIONED AS WE WERE IN THE BREAK HE SPOKE WITH NEIL LAST IN EARLY FEBRUARY. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BY MY CALCULATIONS RIGHT AFTER THE MURDER UNLESS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT YEAR. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> WITH MYSELF AND DASHEL. >> AND DID HE EVENTUALLY COME DOWN? >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL WHEN HE CAME DOWN, THE DATE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE? >> IT WAS A TUESDAY. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHICH DATE IN FEBRUARY IT WAS. >> BUT EARLY FEBRUARY ON A TUESDAY? >> YEAH. >> DID YOU AND DASHEL AND THE DEFENDANT GET SNOGT. >> WE DID, YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GET SNOGT. >> INITIALLY I MET WITH NEIL AND DASH AT DASH'S HOUSE IN NOTING HILL. WE THEN WENT OUT FOR DINNER THAT EVENING. >> AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS STAYING WHEN HE WAS DOWN IN LONDON? >> HE WAS STAYING WITH DASH IN NOTINGHILL AT THAT TIME. >> WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR GOING OUT THAT EVENING? >> BASICALLY SORT OF MEETING UP AS A GROUP. TO SEE HOW NEIL WAS AND SORT OF TRYING TO SORT OF FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO HELP. THAT WAS THE CRUX OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. >> EVENTUALLY GOT TOGETHER AND WENT OUT FOR DINNER? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT DURING THAT DINNER? >> YES. >> AND WAS THAT CONVERSATION CONCERNING RECENT ACTIVITIES BACK IN THE UNITED STATES? >> YES. >> AND TELL US IF YOU COULD WHAT YOU RECALL THAT CONVERSATION TO BE, WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID TO YOU. >> CERTAINLY. WE SORT OF DISCUSSING IN GENERAL TERMS WHAT HAD GONE ON. AND SORT OF ASKED NEIL SORT OF HIS VERSION OF EVENTS SORT TO SPEAK AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED. SORT OF EXPLAIN ON THE DAY RACHEL AND LILLIAN HAD DIED HE'D GONE OUT THAT MORNING, RETURNED AND UNFORTUNATELY FOUND THEM DEAD. >> DID HE SAY WHAT TIME HE HAD RETURNED? >> I THINK IT WAS AROUND 11:00 A.M. >> DID HE SAY WHERE HE HAD FOUND THEM DEAD? >> ONE OF THE BEDROOMS OF THE HOUSE, I THINK. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING DID HE SAY THAT HE WANTED TO DO NEXT? >> ACTUALLY EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS TERRIBLY DEVASTATED. SO HE WENT DOWN STAIRS TO THE KITCHEN TO GET A KNIFE TO BASICALLY JUST COMMIT SUICIDE. SORT OF TO END IT SORT TO SPEAK. AND BECAUSE HE WAS SO UPSET. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YEAH. HE SORT OF EXPLAINED THAT HE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT SO HE THEN DROVE TO HIS PARENTS-IN-LAWS' HOUSE WITH A SORT OF OBJECTIVE OF GETTING A PISTOL FROM HIS STEPFATHER'S GUN COLLECTION, HE HAD GUNS. >> DID HE SAY WHERE HE WENT? >> TO THAT HOUSE. >> DID HE NAME THE TOWN OR THE CITY IF YOU RECALL? >> CARVER, I THINK. SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES I THINK IT WAS. >> DID HE TELL WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ABLE TO GET DOWN TO CARVER AND GET A PISTOL? >> HE SAID HE'D GONE TO THE HOUSE AND UNFORTUNATELY WASN'T ABLE TO GET IN. SO HE SORT OF SPENT A COUPLE OF MINUTES CALMING HIMSELF DOWN AND STARTED THINKING A BIT MORE CLEARLY. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING ELSE DID HE TELL YOU, SIR? >> AT THAT POINT, OBVIOUSLY HE EXPLAINED THAT HE CALMED DOWN. SO HIS NEXT SORT OF THOUGHT WAS TO TELL SOMEBODY WHAT HAD HAPPENED SO HE SORT OF SET UP TO FIND HIS STEPPARENTS WHO I BELIEVE WERE AT WORK AT THE TIME AND FIND THEM AND INFORM THEM OF WHAT HAPPENED. >> DID HE SAY WHO HE FOUND? >> I BELIEVE HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW FIRST. AND SORT OF EXPLAINED TO HER OBVIOUSLY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HAPPENED NEXT? >> THEY BASICALLY ALL RETURNED TO THE STEPPARENT -- SORRY. HIS PARENT-IN-LAWS' HOUSE AND WHERE THE EXTENDED FAMILY STARTED TO CONGREGATE I BELIEVE AND WERE EXTREMELY UPSET. AT THAT POINT, I BELIEVE HE SPOKE TO HIS STATE POLICE AND SORT OF TOLD THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED. >> DID HE TELL YOU HOW HE HAD GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH THE STATE POLICE? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS OVER THE TELEPHONE. >> AND DID HE SAY WHEN IT WAS? THAT SAME DAY THAT HE HAD GONE DOWN TO CARVER INITIALLY TO GET THE PISTOL AND THEN HE SAID HE FOUND HIS PARENTS-IN-LAW AND WENT TO THE HOUSE? >> YES, IT WAS LATER THAT EVENING. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT CONTACT WITH THE POLICE? >> AT THAT POINT, HE HADN'T -- HE SORT OF -- THAT WAS THE LAST TIME I THINK HE SPOKE TO THEM IN THE UNITED STATES. AFTER RETURNING TO THE UNITED KINGDOM, SPOKE TO THE LOCAL POLICE ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS AND INFORMED BY THEM THEY FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN THEN AND I THINK HE SPOKE TO THEM AFTER THAT SORT OF DISCUSSING -- >> I'M SORRY. >> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT. DID HE SAY THE LOCAL UK POLICE? >> LOCAL UNITED STATES POLICE. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING DID HE SAY ABOUT THE CONTACT RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL U.S. POLICE? >> HE WAS SLIGHTLY SURPRISED. BECAUSE THEY CALLED HIM TO SAY THAT -- I'M SORRY TO INFORM YOU WE FOUND YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER AND SEEM TO BE A BREAK DOWN IN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE STATE POLICE AND AS HE HAD ALREADY REPORTED HE WAS QUITE SURPRISED SOMEBODY PHONING HIM UNDER THE ASSUMPTION HE WAS UNAWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED. >> DO YOU RECALL ANYTHING FURTHER OF WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID ABOUT WHAT HAD GONE ON OVER IN THE STATES? >> YEAH. SORT OF EXPLAINED HOW HE SORT OF COME TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY. HE WAS SAYING THAT AT HIS PARENTS-IN-LAWS' HOUSE, HE WAS SORT OF FELT SLIGHTLY ISOLATED BECAUSE SORT OF HER FAMILY WAS SORT OF CONSOLING EACH OTHER AND BASICALLY DECIDED AS HE WAS QUITE UPSET WANTED TO GET OUT OF THERE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT AND ONE OF THE FEW PLACES IN THE STATES AND WAS THE AIRPORT AND SORT OF DROVE THERE. AND SPENT A NIGHT IN THE CAR THERE SORT OF BE ALONE AND GET TO KNOW -- I GUESS. AN OF THAT, THOUGHT HE WOULD LIKE TO FLY HOME TO THE UK TO BE SORT OF SURROUNDED BY HIS FAMILY WHO SORT OF BASED OVER THERE STILL. SO HE TOOK THE NEXT FLIGHT HE COULD ACROSS TO THE UNITED KINGDOM. >> SIR, DID THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU ADD WITH THE DEFENDANT THAT EVENING TURN TO OTHER TOPICS? >> YEAH. WE WERE SORT OF GOT ON TO OTHER THINGS. SORT OF SUCH AS FINANCES. WE WERE SORT OF DASH AND MYSELF WERE LOOKING AT WAYS HE COULD SORT OF HELP NEIL AND HE WAS BASED IN THE UK NOW POSSIBLY IN TERMS OF PUTTING HIM UP AND ANYTHING ELSE. AND THINGS LIKE FINANCES AND SORT OF ARRANGEMENTS -- OTHER ARRANGEMENTS CAME UP. >> WHAT DID DID DEFENDANT SAY ABOUT HIS FINANCES, HIS LIVING CONDITION, SITUATIONS, EXCUSE ME, AND HIS WORKING SITUATION IF AT ALL? >> FINANCIAL SITUATION WAS QUITE PERILOUS FROM WHAT HE WAS TELLING US. WHEN HE MOVED TO THE STATES, HE WAS DOING A LITTLE BIT OF FREELANCE CONSULTING AND LOOKING FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT AND LINED UP A COUPLE OF INTERVIEWS BUT UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED, OBVIOUSLY, THAT HAD GONE OUT THE WINDOW AND HE AND RACHEL PURCHASED A HOUSE ON A VERY LARGE MORTGAGE AND BOUGHT A CAR AND THEY WERE SORT OF BALANCING THE BOOKS WITH A FAIR BIT OF EFFORT AND NOT WORKING BASICALLY EVERYTHING SORT OF ON A FINANCIAL LEVEL SORT OF COME APART AND SO HE WAS THINKING ABOUT FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY. THINKING BOTH HERE AND IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. >> WHAT WAS HE CLEAR, SIR, ABOUT THE HOME AS TO WHETHER HE RENTED IT OR HAD PURCHASED IT? >> HE WAS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS SOMETHING WE QUERIED WITH HIM BECAUSE BY THAT TIME, THERE WERE REPORTS IN THE PRESS AND WAS MENTIONED THE HOUSE IS RENTED. SO AFTER WE ASKED NEIL, WE ASSUMED THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT BY THE PRESS AND KIND TO TAKE WHAT HE SAID AS THE TRUTH. >> HE HAD SAID -- DID HE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW HE HAD PURCHASED THE HOME? >> HE SAID THEY'D TAKEN OUT A VERY LARGE MORTGAGE, 100% PLUS TYPE DEAL I THINK IT WAS. BECAUSE THEY HADN'T GONE THAT MUCH EQUITY INVESTED IN IT THEMSELVES. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING DID HE SAY ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE HOUSE NOW? >> HE THOUGHT THAT WHEN HE DECLARED BANKRUPTCY THE HOUSE SORT OF BE SEIZED BY THE CREDITORS AND SORT OF USED TO SETTLE SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING DEBTS. >> AND WHAT ABOUT MOTOR VEHICLES? DID HE TALK TO YOU ABOUT ANY MOTOR VEHICLE THAT HE HAD? >> YEAH. HE HAD A BLACK BMW I BELIEVE. HE SAID THEY PURCHASED THAT, AS WELL. >> WAS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT SPENDING HABITS IN PARTICULAR RACHEL'S SPENDING? >> WE SORT OF CAME ON TO THAT. I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS PROVEN QUITE DIFFICULT IS RACHEL IS QUITE KEEN TO KIT THE HOUSE OUT NOW THAT THEY'VE MOVED IN AND NEIL ONLY MONEY, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY SPENT DOING UP SKRAR YOU ROOMS FOR LILLIAN AND AROUND THE HOUSE SORT OF BASICALLY JUST ABOUT KEEPING THE HEAD ABOVE WATER. >> THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID ABOUT THE SPENDING SITUATION? >> YEAH. SORT OF USING CREDIT CARDS TO PAY FOR VARIOUS THINGS AND TRYING TO PAY THEM OFF AS BEST THEY COULD. >> SIR, DID YOU SPEND FURTHER TIME WITH THE DEFENDANT AND DASH THAT EVENING? >> BEYOND DINNER WE SORT OF TOOK THE CHIEF HOME AND ARRANGED TO MEET UP THE NEXT NIGHT AND MAIN BODY OF THE EVENING WAS GOING OUT FOR DINNER. >> WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO THE NEXT EVENING? >> WE ARRANGED FOR NEIL AND DASH TO COME AROUND TO MY HOUSE FOR DINNER. WE SORT OF HAD A COOKED MEAL THERE AND THEN WENT OUT TO THE CINEMA THAT EVENING. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT MOVIE YOU SAW? >> YES. SOMETHING CALLED "FUN WITH DICK AND JANE." >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME WITH -- AND THE DEFENDANT THAT EVENING? >> YES. >> AT THE END OF THE EVENING, DID YOU PART WAYS? >> YES, WE DID. >> THAT WAS WEDNESDAY? >> THAT WAS WEDNESDAY, YES. >> WHEN DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT NEXT? >> NEXT TIME I SPOKE WITH NEIL WOULD BE ON THURSDAY MORNING. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A POLICE OFFICER IN NOTINGHAM SAYING THAT -- SORRY. >> YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH A POLICE OFFICER? >> YES. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE OFFICER, WHAT IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO? >> I CALLED DASH'S MOBILE TO FIND OUT WHERE HE AND NEIL WERE AND SPOKE TO THEM BOTH AT THAT POINT. >> YOU SPOKE TO DASH? >> YEAH. >> DID YOU EVENTUALLY SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT? >> YES, I DID. >> TELL US WHAT IF ANYTHING YOU RECALL ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. >> I MEAN, I HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM THAT MORNING. MAIN GIST OF THEM WERE I HOPE YOU'RE GOING TO BE OKAY. IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO DO TO SORT OF HELP YOU, PLEASE GIVE US A YELL. BEST OF LUCK BECAUSE IT WAS AT THAT POINT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE POLICE SORT OF LOOKING TO GET HOLD OF HIM QUITE YIKLY AND DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO HIM. >> WAS THAT THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE TO DID DEFENDANT? >> YES. THAT'S THE LAST TIME WE HAD CONTACT. >> ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> SIR, IN YOUR CONVERSATION OR CONVERSATIONS WITH -- >>> NEIL ENTWISTLE TELLS HIS FRIENDS HIS VERSION OF WHAT HAPPENED TO HIS WIFE AND BABY. TROUBLE IS, THE STORIES DON'T REALLY MATCH THE EVIDENCE. >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY WHICH HUSBAND COMMITTED SUICIDE BEFORE STANDING TRIAL FOR THE MURDER OF HIS PREGNANT WIFE -- AND THE ANSWER IS, CHARLES STUART COMMITTED SUICIDE IN 1989. THE MASSACHUSETTS FURRIER SHOT HIS PREGNANT WIFE IN THE HEAD AN PAY LRNT SHOT HIMSELF, AS WELL, WHEN THE STORY OF A BLACK STRANGER ROBBED THEM FELL APART, APPARENTLY SO DID HE. AFTER HIS WIFE LACI PETERSON WENT MISSING, SCOTT PETERSON WAS CON CRICKET VICTIMED OF HER MURDER AND THE MURDER OF THEIR UNBORN SON. MARK HACKING SERVING FOR FELONY MURDER AFTER CONFESSING TO MURDERING HIS PREGNANT WIFE LAURIE AND DISPOSING OF HER BODY. IN THE MEANTIME, INSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM NOW, BENJAMIN PRIOR, YOU HEARD FIRST MET NEIL ENTWISTLE AT UNIVERSITY IN 1998 AND TALKING ABOUT QUESTIONS FROM DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN OF THE CONVERSATIONS HE HAD WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> WHEN YOU SAY YOU WERE CREWED TOGETHER, YOU WERE A CREW HANGING OUT PARTYING? >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. >> AND THAT WAS YOURSELF, DASH. >> UH-HUH. >> AND IT WAS RACHEL IAN IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE, AS WELL? >> SKINNER. >> AND PART OF THAT CREW BECAME MORE THAN JUST ROWING MATES? >> KRAS CORRECT, YES. >> YOU GOT TO WATCH THAT EVOLUTION. >> YES, WE DID. >> IT WAS ABSOLUTELY A SMILE ON YOUR FACE EXPERIENCE, WASN'T IT? >> IT WAS GOOD FUN, YES. WE RIBBED MERCILESSLY. >> YOU WERE THE SINGLE GUYS. >> UH-HUH. >> AND NEIL WAS LOSING HIS BACHELORHOOD. >> YES, ONE WAY TO PUT IT, YES. >> HE WAS NO LONGER FREE TO BE WITH YOU GUYS BECAUSE HE WAS SHOWING HIS DEVOTION TO HIS NEW GIRLFRIEND. >> YES. >> IF THE WITNESS IS ABLE TO ANSWER, HE MAY. >> THEY WERE VERY CLOSE, YES. AS WE ALL WENT AS A GROUP, WE DIDN'T SEE LESS OF THEM BECAUSE OF THAT. BUT THEY WERE VERY DEVOTED TO EACH OTHER, YES. >> AND WHEN YOU WENT OUT, THERE WAS A GROUP OF THE GUYS AND THE WOMAN FROM THE BOAT BUT TWO OF THOSE FOLKS WERE ABSOLUTE COUPLE? >> YES. TOWARDS THE END OF OUR SECOND YEAR, THEY WERE AN OFFICIAL COUPLE, THEY WERE VERY MUCH TOGETHER. >> THEY MOVED IN TOGETHER? >> NOT AT THAT POINT. I THINK THAT WAS AFTER UNIVERSITY THAT HAPPENED, BUT YES, THEY DID. >> AND THE RELATIONSHIP FROM ALL THAT YOU COULD SEE WAS ONLY STRONGER? >> YES. THEY SEEMED VERY MUCH TOGETHER, YES. >> AND IF LOVING CAN BE MORE SO, IT WAS MORE LOVING? >> YEAH. I HAVEN'T GOT GREAT EXPERIENCE AT THAT MYSELF BUT THEY DID SEEM VERY MUCH, VERY MUCH A LOVING COUPLE, YES. >> AND THEY BECAME ENGAGED? >> YES. >> AND THE BONDS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM FROM ALL THAT YOU COULD SEE IN YOUR FRAME OF KNOWLEDGE WAS STRONGER? >> YES. I MEAN, THEY WERE ONE OF THE TWO COUPLES WE CALLED THE 2.4 CHILDREN. VERY MUCH HOUSED UP WITH CHILDREN, LOOKING TO THE FUTURE. >> NOW, TELL ME THAT ONE AGAIN BECAUSE I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. >> SORRY. 2.4 CHILDREN, SORT OF A BRITISH PHRASE. YOU HAVE A COUPLE AND YOU CAN SEE THEM IN HOUSE WITH A DOG AND COUPLE OF KIDS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TYPE THING. >> AND THAT'S THE WAY YOU VIEWED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEIL AND RACH SNELL. >> YES. >> AND THEY GOT MARRIED? >> YES. >> AND THEY CAME BACK AND BEGAN THEIR LIFE TOGETHER AS A MARRIED COUPLE IN THE LONDON AREA? >> I THINK THEY WERE FURTHER NORTH THAN THAT. THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY BASED IN LONDON. >> OH. I'M TRYING TO DO IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE MAP THAT WELL. >> YEAH, NO. >> DWIGHTRICH. >> SOMEWHERE. BY OUR STANDARDS QUITE A DISTANCE BUT IN THE STATES PROBABLY NOTHING AT ALL, REALLY. >> THAT'S WHERE THEY LIVED TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE? >> YES. >> AND YOU HAD CONTACT WITH THEM? >> YES. ON OCCASION, YES. >> EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNEW WAS THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WAS ROCK SOLID? >> YES. >> AND THEN, THEY MOVED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM TO THE UNITED STATES? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES. >> AND THE NEXT YOU SAW NEIL WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY OF '06? >> YES. >> AND THE WORLD THAT HE KNEW HAD CRUMBLED UP? >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. AS TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. >> FROM ALL THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT NEIL, HIS WORLD HAD CHANGED? >> YES. HAD CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY, YES. >> AN ENTHE WORLD AND LIFE THAT HE HAD WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN HAD ENDED? >> YES. >> AND HE WAS DISPLAYING GRIEF AS FAR AS YOU COULD SEE? >> YES. HE LOOKED VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. >> I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. THANK YOU, SIR. >> SIR, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME AFTER YOUR COLLEGE YEARS THAT YOU HAD SEEN THE DEFENDANT AND RACHEL TOGETHER? >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AT ONE OF THE ANNUAL ROWING CLUB DINNERS. I THINK EITHER 2004 OR 2005. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH YEAR IT WAS. >> AND FROM THEN UNTIL 2006, END OF 2005, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SEE THEM TOGETHER? >> I HADN'T SEEN THEM. I HAD SPOKEN TO THEM BOTH ON THE PHONE ON A FEW OCCASIONS. >> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU HAD SEEN THEM PRIOR TO FEBRUARY? >> PROBABLY SOMETIME LATE 2004, 2005, I THINK IT WAS. >> THANK YOU. THAT WILL BE ALL. >> AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM AT DINNER IN 2006, WITH DASH, HE WAS TOTALLY DEVASTATED? >> OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. >> SUSTAINED AS TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. >> YOU TESTIFIED THAT HE APPEARED TO YOU AT THAT DINNER WITH DASH TO BE TOTALLY DEVASTATED? >> HE WAS NOT HIMSELF. HE WAS VERY, VERY UPSET. HE WAS PLAYING WITH HIS WEDDING BAND AND, YEAH. HE JUST -- HE WASN'T THE SAME SORT OF HAPPY, GO LUCKY KIND OF GUY I HAVE KNOWN IN THE PAST. >> OH, A FLURRY OF QUESTIONS, HELPFUL QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR BOTH SIDES WITH THIS WITNESS. ELAINE, A QUESTION TO YOU. WE HAVE ASKED ALL OF OUR OTHER ANALYSTS HERE, DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE STAND TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE? >> NO. I WOULDN'T PUT HIM ON. HE LIED TO THE STATE POLICE ABOUT THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS. HE SAID HE DREW BACK THE BLANKETS AND SAW HIS WIFE WAS DEAD. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT? HAD TO TELL BETWEEN A SLEEPING PERSON AND DEAD PERSON? WASN'T EVIDENT HE WAS BLEEDING. LIED TO THE FRIENDS. HE SAID HE OWNED THE HOUSE. HE DIDN'T OWN THE HOUSE. HE LED A FANTASY LIFE. A VIRTUAL LIFE ON THE INTERNET. WITH SORT OF UNTOWARD ACTIVITIES. YOU KNOW, NO. I WOULDN'T PUT HIM ON YOUR YOUR VOICE JOINED THE CHORUS OF OTHER EXPERTS. ELAINE, THANK YOU FOR SPENDING TIME WITH US. LIVE TRIALS, WE'RE NOT NEVER SURE HOW MUCH WE GET TO TALK. WE APPRECIATE IT. TALK WITH YOU SOON HOPE THINK. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU CAN WATCH LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE ONLINE. THAT DOES IT FOR US TODAY. >> WE ARE COMING BACK LIVE WITH THIS ONE, THOUGH. WE BEGIN AT 1:00 P.M. EASTERN TOMORROW. MAKE SURE YOU CONTINUE TO WATCH. WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEGUN THE DEFENSE'S CASE. GOING TO GET GOOD. >> TAKE CARE. SEE YOU TOMORROW. |