|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> SEEING NEIL ENTWISTLE STANDING ACCUSED OF THIS AWFUL CRIME, IT GIVES US LITTLE COMFORT AND, IN FACT, ONLY ADDS TO OUR ENORMOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING. TO THINK SOMEONE WE LOVED AND TRUSTED, OPENED OUR HOME TO, COULD DO THIS TO OUR DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER IS BEYOND BELIEF. >> THE NEXT CHAPTER IN A FAMILY TRAGEDY UNFOLDS THIS MORNING IN MASSACHUSETTS. THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT NOW ON GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO OPEN COURT. I'M LISA BLOOM. OPENING STATEMENTS IN THE TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE ARE SCHEDULED TO BEGIN THIS MORNING. ENTWISTLE IS CHARGED WITH THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE, RACHEL, AND HIS 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER, LILLIAN. THE MOTHER AND BABY WERE SHOT TO DEATH IN THEIR HOME IN JANUARY OF 2006. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US NOW LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS WITH SOME NEW INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS EXPECTED IN COURT THIS MORNING. GOOD MORNING, BETH. >> Reporter: GOOD MORNING, LISA. THE JURORS ARE EXPECTED TO HEAR OPENING STATEMENTS BETWEEN 9:30 AND 10:00. HOWEVER, BEFORE THAT THE JUDGE HAS TO RULE ON SOME MOTIONS. THERE ARE MOTIONS IN LIMINE ASKING THE JUDGE TO RULE ON EVIDENCE THAT EACH SIDE WANTS EITHER EXCLUDED OR ININCLUDED, AND THE JUDGE HAS TO RULE BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS BECAUSE IT MAY AFFECT WHAT THE LAWYERS SAY IN THEIR OPENINGS, WHETHER THEY CAN MENTION THIS OR NOT. NOW, LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. SOME OF THE ITEMS THE DEFENSE WANTS LEFT OUT OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, THESE MOTIONS WERE FILED LAST FRIDAY AND THE JUDGE INITIALLY KEPT THEM UNDER SEAL WHILE SHE WAS PONDERING THEM. THE DEFENSE WANTS TO PREVENT THE PROSECUTION FROM INTRODUCING A PHOTOGRAPH OF AN AROUSED, NUDE MAN IN A LOUNGE CHAIR. NEIL ENTWISTLE SAYS IT'S NOT HE. THE PROSECUTION APPARENTLY BELIEVES IT IS, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL SAY THAT ENTWISTLE SENT THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO SOMEONE HE WAS CORRESPONDING WITH ON ONE OF THESE ADULT WEBSITES NOT LONG BEFORE THE MURDERS. THEY ALSO WANT TO PREVENT THE PROSECUTION FROM USING AN OBSCENE TELEPHONE RECORDING TO A MAN NAMED STEVE HORTON. I DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, AND IT WAS MADE ON CHRISTMAS EVE 2005, A MAN WITH A BRITISH OR AUSTRALIAN ACCENT. THE DEFENSE SAYS THAT IS NOT NEIL ENTWISTLE. PERHAPS THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING THAT IT IS. THEY ALSO WANT -- THIS IS THE DEFENSE -- TO PREVENT THE PROSECUTION FROM USING A DVD RECORDING CALLED CASEY'S COLLECTION WHICH DEPICTS FOREIGN GRAPHIC SEXUAL ACTIVITY. THERE'S NO DISCLAIMER THAT IT'S NOT NEIL ENTWISTLE. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S ON IT BEYOND THAT DESCRIPTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC SEXUAL ACTIVITY. THEY ALSO WANT TO PREVENT THE PROSECUTION FROM ELICITING TESTIMONY ON HOW THE POLICE COLLECTED DNA FROM BABY LILLIAN BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD TO TRAVEL TO THE FUNERAL PARLOR SEVERAL MILES AWAY, LIKE 50 MILES AWAY, NEAR PLYMOUTH. OPEN HER CASKET, AND REMOVE IS HAIR SAMPLE. SHE WAS BURIED WITH HER MOTHER. THEY DON'T WANT THE JURY TO HEAR THAT. IN ADDITION, THEY WANT TO EXCLUDE SOME STATEMENTS MADE BY NEIL END WHISTLE EN ROUTE FROM LONDON TO THE UNITED STATES. HE WAS READ HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS, BUT ENTWISTLE SAYS HE DOESN'T REMEMBER THEM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE DEFENSE SAYS THAT BRITISH LAW DOESN'T GIVE AN ACCUSED THE SAME RIGHTS THAT U.S. LAW DOES. THEY DO NOT GET AS MANY RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION OR RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND THE DEFENSE SAYS YOU CAN BE PENALIZED FOR REFUSING TO COOPERATE DURING INTERROGATION IN THE BRITISH SYSTEM. SO THAT IF NEIL ENTWISTLE IS ANSWERING QUESTIONS, IT WAS BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD TO, AND TWO OTHER THINGS THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO INTRODUCE SAYING CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT, HE DID NOT ATTEND HIS WIFE AND CHILD'S FUNERAL, BUT INSTEAD HE DID SEND FLOWERS AND A CARD. AND THEN ON THE DAY HE WAS ARRESTED, WHICH WAS FEBRUARY 9th, 2006, THE MURDERS WERE JANUARY 20th, HE WAS IN LONDON. ACCORDING TO A FRIEND, HE GOT ON A SUBWAY IN LONDON AFTER A FRIEND TOLD HIM THE POLICE WERE LOOKING FOR HIM AND WANTED TO SPEAK TO HIM. HE ASKED THE FRIEND IF THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY OFF THE SUBWAY PLATFORM. THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING THAT'S CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE, AND WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY DECISIONS YET BEING MADE IN WRITING OR IN OPEN COURT. WE MAY HEAR SOME OF THIS BEFORE THE OPENINGS, BETWEEN 9:30 AND 0.42 >> THAT GIVES US A NICE LITTLE PREVIEW OF SOME OF THE EXPLOSIVE ISSUES THAT WILL COME INTO THE CASE. ON THE ISSUE OF THE PORNOGRAPHIC PHOTOS AND COMMUNICATIONS, IS THAT STUFF FOUND ON NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER? >> Reporter: YOU KNOW, THE SOURCE OF IT IS NOT GIVENG IN THE FILINGS. THERE WERE TWO LAPTOP COMPUTERS REMOVED FROM THE ENTWISTLE HOME. I KNOW THEY FOUND A LOT OF FERL LIKE THAT ON THOSE TWO LAPTOPS. SO I AM ASSUMING YES. >> WE ARE KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON THAT COURTROOM. IN THE MEANTIME CATCH US UP ON THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE. >> Reporter: IT WAS 2 1/2 YEARS AGO, LISA, JANUARY 21st. IT WAS A SATURDAY IN 2006 WHEN RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE LUNCH WITH HER AND THEN TWO FRIENDS HAVE DINNER WITH HER. THEY ALL SHOW UP AT THE HOUSE AND THE DOOR IS LOCKED, RACHEL DOESN'T ANSWER, THE LIGHTS ARE ON, THE TABLE IS SET WITH FOOD. MOTHER AND FRIENDS REPORT THIS TO THE POLICE. A DAY LATER THEY MAKE THE OFFICIAL MISSING PERSONS REPORT. A LOT OF TIMES THE POLICE WANT TO WAIT FOR 48 HOURS OR SO BECAUSE SOMETIMES PEOPLE SHOW UP AND IT'S MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. HER FRIENDS AND MOTHER KNEW SOMETHING WAS WRONG. WHILE THEY'RE FILING THE OFFICIAL REPORT ON SUNDAY, LATE AFTERNOON, EARLY EVENING, POLICE GO BACK TO THE HOUSE AND DO ANOTHER SEARCH. THEY HAD DONE A CURSORY SEARCH, FOUND NOTHING, AND THEY WERE HIT BY A HORRIBLE ODOR WHEN THEY ENTERED THE HOUSE AND CAME UPON THE BODIES OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, BUT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS STILL MISSING. >> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE, BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE MURDER WAS EFFECTED. THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> Reporter: ON A I WOULD YET WINTER NIGHT, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RAICHEL ENTWISTLE. GUESTS HAD ARRIVED FOR A DINNER PARTY, BUT THE FAMILY WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. POLICE DID A CURSORY SEARCH OF THE HOUSE TWICE BEFORE MAKING A GRUESOME DISCOVERY. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE, WITH A FIREARM THAT WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT, SHOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN THE HEAD, THEN PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN, WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> Reporter: THE ONE THING THEY COULD NOT FIND WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATORS LEARNED HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS' HOME OUTSIDE OF LONDON. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER, THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> Reporter: ENTWISTLE WAIVED EXTRADITION AND RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO FACE THE CHARGES. SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS. >> TO BE HELD WITHOUT BAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME. >> Reporter: THE ARRAIGNMENT ATTRACTED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT MR. ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BY HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS IS UNDER WAY. >> Reporter: DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTED ENTWISTLE FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I AM GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY, AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISTLE. I AM GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> Reporter: AND SO THAT TRIAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN. IT TOOK FOUR DAYS TO SEAT THE JURY. THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE EXPECTED IN ABOUT A HALF AN HOUR. THE ATTORNEYS JUST EMERGED FROM CHAMBERS WITH THE JUDGE. NOW, WE EXPECT THAT THE JUDGE IS GOING TO PUT A RULING OF THOSE MOTIONS WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT ON THE RECORD IN OPEN COURT, BUT SHE COULD HAVE DONE IT IN CHAMBERS. SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SALACIOUS NATURE OF SOME OF THE FILINGS AND, IN FACT, KEPT SOME THINGS UNDER SEAL FOR A WHILE. WE'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE IF SHE'S GOING TO PUT IT ON RECORD IN OPEN COURT. >> BETH, YOU HAVE BEEN THERE THROUGH THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS THIS WEEK. WHO ULTIMATELY IS ON THIS JURY? >> Reporter: WELL, AS I SAID, LISA, IT TOOK FOUR DAYS TO GET THE JURY, 189 JURORS WERE QUESTIONED. MOST OF THEM WERE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. BUT THE FINAL JURY, 12 DELIBERATING JURORS, FOUR ALTERNATES. ALTERNATES WILL LEARN THEIR IDENTITY AT THE END OF THE CASE. THERE ARE EIGHT MEN AND EIGHT WOMEN ON THE JURY. THAT'S JUST COINCIDENTAL, I BELIEVE. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHO A FEW OF THEM ARE, JUROR NUMBER TWO IS A WHITE FEMALE. SHE APPEARS TO BE IN HER 20s. WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AGES OF ANYONE. WE KNOW VERY LITTLE EXCEPT WHAT WAS SAID IN OPEN COURT. SHE'S A STUDENT ATTENDING PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY, HER PARENTS ARE DIVORCED, AND SHE DID NOT READ NOR DOES SHE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRIMES IN THIS CASE. JUROR NUMBER FOUR IS A WHITE MALE. HE APPEARS TO BE IN HIS 40s. HIS FATHER WAS OR IS A NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE OR THAT WOULD BE A JUSTICE AND IN NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES ARE THE TRIAL LEVEL, THE SAME LEVEL AS THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THIS CASE. HE DID HEAR A LOT ABOUT THE CRIMES WHEN THEY OCCURRED, AND WHEN ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE HE OVERHEARD OTHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS TALKING ABOUT THREE CASES WILL GO LITIGATED IN THE COURTHOUSE INCLUDING THIS ONE, AND THERE ARE THREE TRIALS GOING ON SIMULTANEOUSLY THAT ARE DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE MEDIA. ANOTHER JUROR IS NUMBER SEVEN. HE ALSO WHITE, MALE. HE APPEARS TO BE IN HIS 20s. HE JUST GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE. HE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CRIMES ALLEGED HERE. HE WAS ARRESTED IN HIGH SCHOOL. NO REASON GIVEN, PROBABLY TREATED AS A JUVENILE, AND RECENTLY ARRESTED FOR A NOISE COMPLAINT AND FINED ABOUT $700. HE ALSO OVERHEARD OTHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS TALKING ABOUT THE CASE. SO THAT'S ALL WE KNOW ABOUT THREE OF THE JURORS. THIS IS PRETTY TYPICAL OF THE TYPE OF INFORMATION. IT'S PRETTY LIMITED. >> WE HAD HEARD THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE POTENTIAL JURORS COMPLAINED THAT OTHER POTENTIAL JURORS WERE SAYING THINGS LIKE NEIL ENTWISTLE SHOULD FRY. IS THE JUROR WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT THAT ULTIMATELY ON THIS JURY NOW? >> Reporter: NO. SHE WAS EXCUSED. THE JUDGE DID BELIEVE THAT SHE WAS CANDID, TRUTHFUL ABOUT IT. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, THE LEAD DEFENSE ATTORNEY, WAS VERY UPSET THAT SO LATE IN THE GAME, BECAUSE THIS WAS THE THIRD DAY OF JURY SELECTION WHEN SHE SAID THIS, THAT THESE OTHER JURORS, FOR EXAMPLE JURORS FOUR AND SIX, WHO SAID THEY HEARD PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT IT, DIDN'T REMEMBER ANY SPECIFICS. NO ONE WAS AS DETAILED IN STATEMENTS ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT THEY OVERHEARD AS THIS JUROR WHO WAS EXCUSED. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN THOUGHT PERHAPS THERE SHOULD BE FURTHER INQUIRY TO SEE IF THEY HEARD THE FRY HIM, SEND HIM AWAY, HE'S THE GUY WHO MURDERED HIS FAMILY BECAUSE WEINSTEIN THOUGHT MAYBE THEY WEREN'T BEING CANDID AND MAYBE THE POOL IS TAINTED, BUT ALL OF THAT IS DENIED. >> I HAVE TWO GUESTS IN NEW YORK. JEFFREY EMDEN, GREAT TO SEE YOU, JEFFREY. >> AND DR. LESLIE AUSTIN IS A PSYCHOTHERAPIST AND BEHAVIORAL EXPERT. >> ALWAYS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU. >> JEFFREY, LET ME START WITH YOU. WE HAVE SOME LEGAL ISSUES THIS MORNING AND POTENTIALLY SOME BIG ONE THAT IS COULD SHAPE THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL DEPENDING ON HOW THE JUDGE RULES. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PORNOGRAPHY ISSUE FIRST OF ALL. ONE OF THE PROSECUTION'S THEORIES OF THIS CASE IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH PORNOGRAPHY, CONTACTING ESCORT SERVICES, AND THAT COULD BE PART OF THE MOTIVE FOR HIM KILLING HIS WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD BABY GIRL. SHOULD THE PICTURE OF THE NAKED AROUSED MALE, IF THAT'S NEIL ENTWISTLE, SHOULD THAT COME IN SHOULD HIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE EXCHANGING PORNOGRAPHY, SHOULD THOSE COME INTO THE TRIAL? >> WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO BETH AND I HEARD ABOUT THE PICTURE, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT SHOULD. I THINK IT IS ONLY BEING INTRODUCED FOR ITS SALACIOUS NATURE TO TAINT THE JURY -- >> OTHERWISE ISN'T THE JURY GOING TO SAY WHY ON EARTH WOULD THIS NICE YOUNG MAN BRUTALLY MURDER HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER? WOULDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE WITHOUT THAT, WOULD IT? >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE MOTIVE. >> BUT IT CERTAINLY HELPS IF YOU GOT IT. >> BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A MOTIVE. JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS PATROLLING THE INTERNET OR HAS SOME SEXUAL PECK DILL LOW -- >> YOU DON'T THINK SEX IS A MOTIVE FOR MURDER? YOU DON'T THINK IT'S ONE OF THE OLDEST MOTIVES IN THE BOOK? SEX AND MONEY, WHAT ELSE IS THERE? >> SEX CAN BE A MOTIVE. IS IT A MOTIVE IN THIS CASE? >> THAT'S UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DECIDE IF THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE? >> THEY CAN DECIDE IT BASED UPON THE FACTS. I THINK IT'S MUCH MORE RELEVANT THAT HE PURCHASED A ONE-WAY TICKET, THAT HE DIDN'T CONTACT THE POLICE. THAT HE WENT TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S, THAT HIS DNA COULD BE ON THE GUN. THAT'S DIRECT EVIDENCE. TO TAINT IT WITH SOMETHING WHERE THEY ARE TO SURMISE THAT WELL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH HIS SEX LIFE AND, THEREFORE, HE WANTED TO KILL HER, I MEAN THAT PUTS A LOT OF PEOPLE AS POTENTIAL SUSPECTS. >> DID YOU EVER HEAR OF DR. DIRK GRINADER. A DOCTOR IN MASSACHUSETTS. I KNOW BETH WILL REMEMBER THIS CASE. HE SEEMED LIKE THE PERFECT MAN. HE WAS ALL OVER THE INTERNET ON THE SEX SITES CONTACTING ESCORTS AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE BELIEVED HE KILLED HER IF IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOR THE INTERNET STUFF. DOURNL THAT CASE? >> I DO. I DIDN'T COVER IT, BUT I CERTAINLY REMEMBER IT, AND THAT WAS OUT HERE, NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE. >> BETH, THERE'S BEEN SO MANY CASES -- IT SEEMS PREPOSTEROUS TO THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE WORLD TO THINK SOMEBODY WOULD TAKE THE LIFE OF THEIR SPOUSE, ESPECIALLY YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE, OVER SEX, BUT THAT'S GOT TO BE ONE OF THE MOST COMMON MOTIVES OUT THERE. >> Reporter: RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT WRITTEN ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE AND WHAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC. QUITE A BIT ABOUT THE CASE BUT WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT A DOUBLE LIFE HE WAS LEADING. HE JOINED AN ADULT WEBSITE CALLED ADULT FRIEND FINDER IN AUGUST OF 2005 AFTER HIS WIFE HAD COME TO THE UNITED STATES TO REJOIN HER FAMILY, AND HE WAS JOINING THEM WITHIN A FEW WEEKS AND THEN -- AND HE HAD VISITED A LOT, BUT HE JOINED IT ONCE HIS FAMILY WAS BACK IN THE STATES AND HE WAS STILL IN ENGLAND AND HE REJOINED IT AGAIN IN DECEMBER, ABOUT A MONTH OR SO BEFORE THE CRIMES HERE. SO HE WAS AT LEAST SEARCHING FOR, IF NOT PATRONIZING, SOME OF THESE SWINGERS AND ESCORT SERVICES. >> JUST BRIEFLY, REMEMBER SCOTT PETERSON, WHICH, OF COURSE, YOU COVERED. DIDN'T HE SIGN UP FOR SOME PORN CHANNELS AFTER LACY WENT MISSING? >> Reporter: YES. HE GOT THE PORN CHANNELS, PAID FOR THEM. THEY'RE PAID CHANNELS, NOT LONG AFTER SHE WENT MISSING. SHE WENT MISSING CHRISTMAS EVE AND I THINK HE GOT THE CHANNELS IN EARLY JANUARY. THE SECOND WEEK OF JANUARY. >> UH-HUH. I REST MY CASE. IT WAS FEBRUARY OF 2006 WHEN NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ARRESTED FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY. THE STORY RECEIVED INTERNATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION FROM THE MOMENT IT HAPPENED. >> NEIL END WHISTLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. ONE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AND ONE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. >> TODAY'S QUESTION OF THE DAY IS -- CAN NEIL ENTWISTLE GET A FAIR TRIAL DESPITE THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THIS CASE? THERE'S A LOT OF IT. YOU CAN SEND US YOUR ANSWERS. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT, OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WRITE A BRIEF ANSWER, PLEASE, AND WE WILL READ ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES AT THE END OF THE SHOW. MAYBE IT WILL BE YOURS. >>> WE HAVE GOT A STATEMENT TO MAKE AS A FAMILY. WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT, 100% INNOCENT. WE WILL NOT BE MAKING ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL. IF YOU REQUIRE ANY MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT OUR LAWYER IN BOSTON, PETER PARKER. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL, THANK YOU. >> AND THOSE WERE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PARENTS SPEAKING AT A PRESS CONFERENCE JUST DAYS AGO. WE EXPECT LIVE PROCEEDINGS STARTING UP THIS MORNING JUST IN A MOMENT OR TWO. THE PARTICIPANTS ARE GATHERING IN THE COURTROOM AND THE JUDGE IS TAKING THE BENCH. BRIEFLY TO LESLIE AUSTIN, IF NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS LOOKING AT A LOT OF PORNOGRAPHY, CONTACTING ESCORT SERVICES, WOULD THAT BE IN YOUR VIEW A POSSIBLE MOTIVE FOR MURDER OR IS THAT TOO FARFETCHED? >> NO IT'S NOT TOO FARFETCHED. FROM A PSYCHOLOGY POINT OF VIEW IT GOES MORE TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH HIM IN THAT TIME PERIOD. IT COULD BE A MOTIVE, BUT WITH WHETHER IT IS A MOTIVE OR NOT, IT CERTAINLY SAYS HE WAS PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES, RESTLESS, LOOKING FOR ADVENTURE, WANTING TO BREAK OUT OF THE NORMAL CONFINES. >> DON'T A LOT OF GUYS LOOK AT PORN? >> YES, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE KIND OF PORN. IF HE DID SEND THAT PICTURE, NOT EVERYBODY TAKES THAT KIND OF PHOTO. SO IT GOES TO A STATE OF MIND THAT HE'S PUSHING THE BOUNDAR S BOUNDARIES, AND HE'S ACTING ON IT. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN JUST TROLLING ON THE INTERNET AND HAVING FANTASIES AND TAKING STEPS. >> ALL RIGHT. AND, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE LIVE ACTION IN THE COURTROOM. LET'S LISTEN IN. >>HEARD ANYONE DISCUSSING THIS SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE SINCE I INTERVIEWED YOU IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR REPORTING FOR JURY DUTY? IF SO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME. HAS ANY OF YOU HEARD, SEEN, OR WATCHED OR LISTENED TO ANY MEDIA REPORT OR ANY NEWS REPORT RELATING TO THE CASE? IF SO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE READY TO PROCEED, MR. BERRY. >> WOULD THE JURORS PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU SHOULD WELL AND TRULY TRY THE ISSUE BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH AND THIS DEFENDANT ACCORDING TO THE LAW AND EVIDENCES A GIVEN SO HELP YOU GOD? PLEASE BE SEATED. WILL THE DEFENDANT PLEASE STAND? MEMBERS OF THE JURY, I'LL HEARKEN TO THE INDICTMENTS AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT. ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006-387001, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MIDDLESEX, TO WIT AT THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 2006, THE JURORS FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS UNDER OATH PRESENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006 AT HOPPINGTON IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AFORESAID DID ASSAULT AND BEAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE WITH INTENT TO MURDER HER AND BY SUCH ASSAULT AND BEATING DID KILL AND MURDER RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AGAINST THE PEACE OF SAID COMMONWEALTH AND CONTRARY TO THE FORM NALAL STATUTE. ON INDICTMENT 2006-387002 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MIDDLESEX, TO WIT, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT BEGUN AND HOLDEN AT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLE SECTION IN THE FIRST MONDAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006 THE JURORS PRESENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE 20th DAY OF UNDERIN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006 IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AFORESAID DID ASSAULT AND BEAT LILLIAN ENTWISTLE WITH INTENT TO MURDER HER AND BY SUCH ASSAULT AND BEATING DID KILL AND MURDER LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. AGAINST THE PEACE OF SAID COMMONWEALTH AND CONTRARY TO THE FORMAL STATUTE THAT SUCH CASE MADE AND PROVIDED. ON INDICTMENT 2006-387003, POSSESSION OF A FIREARM. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MIDDLESEX, TO WIT, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT BEGUN AND HOLDEN AT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006, THE JURORS OR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS UNDER OATH PRESENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE 20th DAY OF JAN IN THE YEAR OF 2006 IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AFORESAID, DID KNOWINGLY HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS CONTROL IN A VEHICLE A LOADED OR UNLOADED FIREARM AS DEFINED IN SECTION 121 OF CHAPTER 140 OF THE GENERAL LAWS, TO WIT A .22 CALIBER REVOLVER. SAID PERSON NOT THEN BEING PRESENT IN OR IN HIS RESIDENCE OR PLACE OF BUSINESS OR HAVING IN EFFECT A LICENSE TO CARRY FIREARMS OR OTHERWISE BEING AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO DO SO. AGAINST THE PEACE OF SAID COMMONWEALTH AND COUNTRY, THE FORMAL STATUTE. AND SUCH CASE MADE AND PROVIDED. INDICTMENT 2006-387004, POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, MIDDLESEX, TO WIT, AT THE SUPERIOR COURT BEGUN AND HOLDEN IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, WITHIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF MARCH IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006, THE JURORS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS UNDER OATH PRESENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2006 IN THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AFORESAID DID OWN, POSSESS, OR TRANSFER POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THE FIREARM IDENTIFICATION CARD PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 129C OF CHAPTER 140 OF THE GENERAL LAWS. AGAINST THE PEACE OF SAID COMMONWEALTH AND CONTRARY TO THE FORMAL STATUTE, SUCH CASE MADE AND PROVIDED. MEMBERS OF THE JURY, TO THESE INDICTMENTS THE DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY AND FOR TRIAL HAS PLACED HIMSELF UPON THE COUNTRY, WHICH COUNTRY YOU ARE. YOU ARE SWORN TO TRY THE ISSUE F HE IS GUILTY, YOU WILL SAY SO. IF HE IS NOT GUILTY YOU WILL SAY SO AND NO MORE. MEMBERS OF THE JURY, YOU WILL HEARKEN TO THE EVIDENCE. PLEASE BE SEATED. >> ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN JUST A FEW MINUTES WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE TRIAL OF THE CASE. FIRST, HOWEVER, I WANT TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW DURING THE TRIAL OF THE CASE AND GO OVER WITH YOU THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE TRIAL SO YOU KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT WILL TAKE PLACE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS. FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS, DO NOT DISCUSS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE WITH ANY PERSON, INCLUDING YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS AND YOUR FELLOW JURORS. YOU MAY SIMPLY RESPOND TO ANYONE WHO ASKS OR ATTEMPTS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE THAT YOU CANNOT DISCUSS THE CASE OR LISTEN TO ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CASE. >> AND AS JUDGE DIANE COT MISSISSIPPI -- INSTRUCTS THE CASE, WE WILL GET THIS BREAK IN. WE'RE BRINGING YOU OPENING STATEMENTS LIVE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. STAY TUNED FOR MORE LIVE >>> THERE'S STILL TIME TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS INTO "OPEN COURT" AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. CAN NEIL ENTWISTLE GET A FAIR TRIAL DESPITE ALL THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THIS CASE? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT, OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. ON THAT VERY SUBJECT OF PUBLICITY OVER THE BREAK THE JUDGE HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED THE JURY NOT TO LISTEN TO ANY NEWS REPORTS ABOUT THE CASE. THEY CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER ABOUT SPORTS, THE WEATHER, POLITICS, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THIS CASE UNTIL THEIR DELIBERATIONS BEGIN. LET'S GO BACK IN AND LISTEN LIVE. >> WHEN YOU LEAVE THE COURTHOUSE, PUT THE CASE OUT OF YOUR MIND, RETURN REFRESHED THE NEXT DAY READY TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE AND CONCENTRATE ON THE EVIDENCE. ANY JUROR WHO BECOMES AWARE OF ANY VIOLATION OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS DURING THE TRIAL HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT IT TO THE COURT OFFICERS IMMEDIATELY. NOW I'M GOING TO TURN TO THE TRIAL ITSELF. YOU HAVE TWO RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THIS TRIAL. THE FIRST IS YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. YOU MUST DECIDE THE FACTS, DETERMINE WHAT THE FACTS ARE, BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL. YOU HAVE NOT HEARD ANY EVIDENCE AS YET. A MOMENT AGO YOU HEARD THE CLERK, MR. BARRY, READ THE INDICTMENTS. AS I TOLD YOU DURING IMPANELMENT, THE INDICTMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. THEY ARE SIMPLY PIECES OF PAPER THAT WE USE IN OUR SYSTEM TO ADVISE A PERSON OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND TO BRING HIM BEFORE THE COURT. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS. IT, THE COMMONWEALTH, HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE CHARGES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. MR. ENTWISTLE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. HE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE, TO TESTIFY, OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE YOU THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH, AND IT STAYS ON THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. UNLESS THE COMMONWEALTH SATISFIES ITS BURDEN OF PROOF, MR. ENTWISTLE MUST BE FOUND NOT GUILTY. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECESSARY THAT YOU PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL. YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED IN YOUR EVALUATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE BY ANY PREJUDICES OR BIASES YOU MAY HAVE OR BY SYMPATHY. YOU MUST REMAIN FOCUSED ON THE TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL. OUR COURTROOMS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND THAT MEANS DURING THE TRIAL FROM TIME TO TIME PEOPLE WILL ENTER AND LEAVE THE COURTROOM. YOU SHOULDN'T BE DISTRACTED BY ANYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE BACK OF THE COURTROOM OR BY ANYONE COMING AND GOING FROM THE COURTROOM. IF DURING THE TRIAL ANYTHING IS DISTRACTING YOU AND AFFECTING YOUR ABILITY TO CONCENTRATE AND FOCUS ON THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, PLEASE BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT OFFICERS, AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION. IF AT ANY TIME YOU CANNOT HEAR AN ATTORNEY OR THE WITNESS, YOU MUST RAISE YOUR HAND OR SPEAK UP IMMEDIATELY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, AND IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER, YOU MUST HEAR THE QUESTION. SO IF AT ANY TIME YOU CANNOT HEAR THE ATTORNEY OR THE WITNESS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR SPEAK UP IMMEDIATELY. DON'T BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM. THE MEDIA IS -- THE CAMERAS WILL NEVER BE DIRECTED AT YOU. THE MEDIA IS PROHIBITED FROM CAPTURING ANY JUROR ON VIDEOTAPE OR PHOTOGRAPHING ANY JUROR. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES. THEY UNDERSTAND THESE RESTRICTIONS, AND THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THEM. SO YOU NEED NOT BE CONCERNED BY OR DISTRACTED BY ANY CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM. THE SECOND RESPONSIBILITY YOU HAVE AS JURORS IN THE CASE IN ADDITION TO YOUR PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY OF FINDING THE FACTS OF THE CASE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE YOU HEAR IS TO FOLLOW MY INSTRUCTIONS. I HAVE GIVEN YOU SOME INSTRUCTIONS ALREADY THAT YOU MUST FOLLOW, AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL I WILL BE INSTRUCTING YOU ON THE LAW THAT YOU MUST APPLY TO THE FACTS TO REACH A VERDICT. IT WILL BE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS TO FOLLOW THOSE INSTRUCTIONS, TO APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU TO THE FACTS THAT YOU HAVE FOUND, AND RETURN A FAIR AND JUST VERDICT. NOW, I WANT TO DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE TRIAL. THE TRIAL IS GOING TO BEGIN WITH THE OPENING STATEMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS. THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THE EVIDENCE ITSELF IS GOING TO COME IN IN PIECEMEAL FASHION, WITNESS BY WITNESS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OBJECT, OR DOCUMENT BY DOCUMENT. BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE COMES IN IN PIECEMEAL FASHION, THE ATTORNEYS ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN OPENING STATEMENT IN WHICH THEY TELL YOU WHAT THEY ANTICIPATE THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE. THE PURPOSE IS SIMPLY TO GIVE YOU A CONTEXT OR FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO PUT THE EVIDENCE AS YOU HEAR IT SO THAT YOU BETTER UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE ATTORNEY ANTICIPATES THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL BE. BUT THE ATTORNEYS' STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THE EVIDENCE ITSELF WILL BEGIN ONCE THE OPENING STATEMENTS ARE GIVEN. AND THE EVIDENCE WILL CONSIST PRINCIPALLY OF TWO THINGS, THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES FROM THE WITNESS STAND AND EXHIBITS. EXHIBITS ARE DOCUMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, PHYSICAL OBJECTS THAT ARE ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AND MADE PART OF THE TRIAL RECORD. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT AN EXHIBIT AS CAREFULLY AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO DURING THE TRIAL, DON'T BE CONCERNED. YOU WILL HAVE THE EXHIBITS IN THE JURY ROOM WITH YOU DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEM AS CAREFULLY AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO AT THAT TIME. THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES STANDS ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE INSTANTANEOUS TRANSCRIPTS OF THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY, AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE TRANSCRIPTS OF THEIR TESTIMONY DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS. YOU WILL HAVE TO RELY UPON YOUR COLLECTIVE MEMORY OF THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. NOW, EVEN IF WE COULD PRODUCE TRANSCRIPTS, IT MIGHT NOT BE SUCH A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE TRANSCRIPTS CAN BE VERY MISLEADING. I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR IN YOUR EVERYDAY LIVES OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH YOU ASK A PERSON A QUESTION, AND THE PERSON ANSWERS THAT QUESTION, BUT THE PERSON'S TONE OF VOICE IS SUCH THAT THEY'RE CONVEYING UNCERTAINTY AND IN EFFECT THEY'RE ASKING YOU A QUESTION IN RESPONSE. A TRANSCRIPT WOULD NOT CAPTURE THAT. ON A TRANSCRIPT THAT WOULD APPEAR AS A STATEMENT OF FACT. >> THIS IS A HOTLY CONTESTED CASE. WE EXPECT THOSE OPENING STATEMENTS TO BEGIN MOMENTARILY AND I EXPECT THEM TO BE HIGHLY CONTENTIOUS. TIME NOW TO TAKE OUR FIRST LOOK AT TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. IS ENTWISTLE'S FLIGHT TO ENGLAND EVIDENCE OF GUILT? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO CAST YOUR VOTE. LATER IN THE SHOW, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT HOW YOU'RE VOTING, SO YOO-HOO, PROGRESSIVE SHOPPERS! SAFE DRIVERS' DISCOUNTS ARE YOURS FOR THE TAKING SAFE DRIVERS SAVE MONEY. NOW, THAT'S PROGRESSIVE. INTRODUCING NOW IF PROGRESSIVE COVERS AT NO EXTRA CHARGE. GRRRR! THAT WAS A CAT. NEW PET INJURY COVERAGE. NOW, THAT'S PROGRESSIVE. CALL OR CLICK TODAY. >>> IN ENGLAND THE TRIALS ARE NOT TELEVISED, BUT IN THE UNITED STATES SOMETIMES THEY ARE. IT MUST BE A RUDE SHOCK FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE'S A BRITISH MAN ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS 27-YEAR-OLD AMERICAN WIFE AND HIS 9-MONTH-OLD BABY GIRL. THIS TRIAL IS JUST STARTING UP RIGHT NOW. THE JUDGE IS INSTRUCTING THE JURY. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> ON A PARTICULAR POINT, IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY IS A NULLITY ON THAT POINT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S EVIDENCE OF THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE WITNESS SAID. YOU WOULD SIMPLY HAVE TO LOOK FOR OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE BEFORE DECIDING THAT FACT. SO, AGAIN, IT IS THE WITNESS'S TESTIMONY THAT IS THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, THAT AND THE EXHIBITS ARE THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU MUST RELY UPON IN REACHING A VERDICT. FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, YOU WILL HEAR THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS. AGAIN, THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS PRESENT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EACH OF THE ATTORNEYS TO ARGUE TO YOU WHAT THE ATTORNEY SUBMITS HAS BEEN BEEN PROVED OR NOT PROVED IN THE CASE, AND, AGAIN, THE PURPOSE IS SIMPLY TO ASSIST YOU IN WEIGHING THE EFFECT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. FOLLOWING THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS, YOU'LL HEAR MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, AND THEN YOUR DELIBERATIONS WILL BEGIN. SO THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE TRIAL. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, FROM TIME TO TIME YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ONE OR MORE OF THE ATTORNEYS OBJECT. THERE'S A DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITY IN THE COURTROOM. AS I TOLD YOU, YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND YOU MUST DECIDE THE FACTS BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR DURING THE TRIAL. IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IS ADMISSIBLE UNDER OUR RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE. THE ATTORNEYS HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST ME IN PERFORMING THAT FUNCTION BY OBJECTING IF THEY BELIEVE A QUESTION IS NOT IN PROPER FORM OR THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT IS SOUGHT TO BE ELICITED IS NOT ADMISSIBLE. THE ATTORNEYS DO SO BY STANDING AND SAYING THE WORD, OBJECTION. ON OCCASION YOU MAY HEAR ME ASK ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION. IN THAT CASE, THEY'RE PERMITTED ONLY TO SAY A WORD THAT ALERTS ME TO THE SPECIFIC RULE OR RULES THAT THEY SAY ARE INVOLVED IN THEED A MISABILITY, THE DETERMINATION OF ADMISSIBILITY. AT TIMES IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR ME TO SPEAK WITH THE ATTORNEYS AT THE SIDE BAR TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION BEFORE RULING ON IT. PLEASE BE PATIENT WHEN THAT HAPPENS. WE DO TRY TO DEAL WITH LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE YOU COME IN IN THE MORNING AND AFTER YOU LEAVE IN THE AFTERNOON, BUT IT'S INEVITABLE THAT ISSUES WILL ARISE DURING THE TRIAL, THAT IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR ME TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, AND THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO BE PATIENT WHILE WE DO THAT. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE TRIAL PROCESS. YOU, THE JURORS, SHOULD ATTACH NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER TO THE FACT THAT AN ATTORNEY OBJECTS OR TO MY RULING ON IT UNLESS I GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION. IF I GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION, YOU MUST FOLLOW THAT INSTRUCTION, BUT APART FROM FOLLOWING ANY INSTRUCTION THAT I GIVE YOU, DO NOT ATTACH ANY SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FACT OF AN OBJECTION OR TO THE RULING. DON'T THINK TO YOURSELF, I WONDER WHY THE LAWYER IS OBJECTING? I WONDER WHAT THE WITNESS WOULD SAY IF PERMITTED TO ANSWER? I WONDER WHY THE JUDGE RULED THE WAY SHE DID? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. IT IS, AS I SAID, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF MY RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THE TRIAL, AND YOU SHOULD NOT SPECULATE ABOUT IT. AGAIN, IF I GIVE YOU AN INSTRUCTION, FOR EXAMPLE, I MIGHT SAY THAT CERTAIN TESTIMONY IS STRICKEN, AND YOU MUST DISREGARD IT. OR I MIGHT TELL YOU THAT CERTAIN TESTIMONY IS BEING ADMITTED BUT THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER IT ONLY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND TELL YOU WHAT THAT PURPOSE IS. IF I GIVE YOU SUCH AN INSTRUCTION AGAIN, YOU MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION, BUT APART FROM THAT, AGAIN, ATTACH NO SIGNIFICANCE TO THE FACT OF AN OBJECTION AND TO MY RULING ON IT. UNDER OUR LAWS, THE ATTORNEYS HAVE A DUTY TO OBJECT TO ASSIST ME IN PERFORMING THE FUNCTION OF MAKING SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR DURING THE TRIAL IS RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE. NOW, I JUST BRIEFLY WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE SCHEDULE IS THAT WE FOLLOW DURING THE COURSE OF A TRIAL. ON MONDAY, TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND FRIDAY WHEN WE SIT ALL DAY, IT WILL BE FROM 9:00 TO 1:00 AND 2:00 TO 4:00 OR 4:30. IF AT 4:00 THERE'S A WITNESS ON THE STAND AND WE WANT TO FINISH WITH THAT WITNESS, WE MAY GO AFTER 4:00, BUT NOT BEYOND 4:30. EXCEPT UNLESS THERE WERE AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION AND BEFORE DOING SO I WOULD CHECK WITH THE JURORS TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE ALL AVAILABLE. BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00 AND 1:00, WE TAKE A 15-MINUTE BREAK, WHICH TYPICALLY STRETCHES TO 20 MINUTES, AND TYPICALLY BETWEEN 11:00 AND 11:30 IN THE MORNING WHEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNE TIME FOR A BREAK. WE RELY ON THE CLOCK IN THIS COURTROOM, SO I'M GOING TO ASK YOU SYNCHRONIZE YOUR WATCHES WITH THE CLOCK IN THIS COURTROOM. AND THAT YOU CAN COUNT ON EVERY MORNING. THERE WILL BE A BREAK OF 15 TO 20 MINUTES. IF AT ANY TIME A JUROR NEEDS A BREAK, AND IT'S NOT A SCHEDULED BREAK, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND GET THE ATTENTION OF ONE OF THE COURT OFFICERS OR MYSELF AND WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AT THAT TIME, BUT THERE WILL BE ONE BREAK AT SOME TIME AROUND 11:00 IN THE MORNING, BETWEEN 11:00 AND 0.48 WE BREAK FOR LUNCH BETWEEN 1:00 AND 2:00, AND THEN IN THE AFTERNOON TYPICALLY BECAUSE WE TRY TO KEEP IT TO TWO HOURS, WE DON'T TAKE A BREAK IN THE AFTERNOON. BUT, AGAIN, IF ANY JUROR REQUIRES A BREAK AT A TIME WHEN IT ISN'T A SCHEDULED BREAK, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND GET THE ATTENTION OF MYSELF OR ONE OF THE COURT OFFICERS. ALL RIGHT. WITH ALL OF THAT THEN, UNLESS COUNSEL NEED TO BE HEARD, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE OPENING STATEMENTS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. ALL RIGHT. >> AFTER I CAME HOME AND FOUND THEM -- >> MR. FABRI, I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP SO THAT THE COURT REPORTER AND I CAN HEAR YOU. >> AFTER I CAME HOME AND FOUND THEM IN THE BED, I COVERED THEM UP. TROOPER ROBERT MANNING, WHO YOU WILL MEET, ASKED, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? IT WAS LIKE I WAS CLOSING THEM OFF. WORDS OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, THAT YOU WILL HEAR. >> THE COURT REPORTER CAN'T HEAR YOU, MR. FABRI. I'M SORRY. IF YOU COULD PROJECT YOUR VOICE, PLEASE. >> IT WAS ALL ORDERED AFTER THAT. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS TO GO DOWNSTAIRS AND GET A KNIFE FROM THE KITCHEN TO HURT MYSELF, BUT I KNEW THAT WOULD HURT, SO THEN I DECIDED TO GET IN MY CAR AND LEAVE THE HOME AND DRIVE TO CARVER, THE HOME OF JOE AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AND GET ONE OF THE GUNS THAT JOE HAD SO I COULD KILL MYSELF. THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT YOU WILL HEAR. BUT I COULDN'T GET IN, HE SAYS. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW HOWEVER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE MEANS TO GET IN. HE HAD THE KEYS IN THE FAMILY CAR THAT HE HAD DRIVEN DOWN. HE KNEW WHERE THE SPARE KEY WAS. HE HAD LIVED THERE FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. HE HAD THE MEANS TO GET IN THERE. WHEN I FIRST GOT HOME ABOUT 11:00, I WAS A LITTLE SHOCKED THAT THE THIVENTION IN THE KITCHEN STILL WEREN'T PICKED UP. AND I GOT A LITTLE MAD BECAUSE WHAT HAD RACHEL BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST TWO HOURS? THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT YOU WILL HEAR. IT WAS OBVIOUS WHAT HAD HAPPENED. I COULD SEE THE HOLD ON LILY. HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW WHEN THE INVESTIGATORS CONVERGED ON THE SCENE IN EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JANUARY 23rd, LILLIAN AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE WERE COVERED BY A COMFORTER, BY A PILLOW, AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S ARM EXTENDED ACROSS THE CHEST OF HER 9-MONTH-OLD LILY. I HADN'T EVEN TOLD PRISCILLA AND JOE BEFORE I LEFT FOR ENGLAND. THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. THE SAME JOSEPH AND PRISCILLA MAT RAZ OTHA HE SAID HE CARED ABOUT AS MUCH AS HIS OWN PARENTS. I DIDN'T EVEN THINK OF FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEM UNTIL QUESTIONED ABOUT THAT BY TROOPER MANNING. I DIDN'T EVEN CALL 911 OR CALL FOR HELP. FOR HIS WIFE AND HIS BABY THAT HE CLAIMED HE FOUND LYING THERE IN THE BED OF HIS HOME. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF EVIDENCE. YOU ARE GOING OWE LEARN THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE, BORN IN 1978 TO PRISCILLA SOUSA AT THE TIME, FATHER PAUL, BORN AND RAISED IN PLYMOUTH, SOUTH SHORE. GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL. ATTENDED HOLY CROSS. HER THIRD YEAR, FOURTH YEAR OF COLLEGE SHE STUDIES ABROAD OVER IN ENGLAND, AND THAT'S WHEN SHE MEETS THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, BORN THE SAME YEAR. THEY GOT TO KNOW EACH OTHER THROUGH COLLEGE THROUGH A ROWING TEAM. THE NEXT YEAR RACHEL ENTWISTLE DECIDES TO RETURN FOR ANOTHER YEAR OF STUDY OVER IN THE UK TO GET HER TEACHING CERTIFICATE, AND THEN SHE DECIDES TO STAY THERE, BEGINS DATING THE DEFENDANT, EVENTUALLY MOVING IN, AND LATER IN 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES SHE GET MARRIED. RACHEL BEING GIVEN AWAY AT THAT WEDDING BY HER STEPMOTHER, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO'S NEW HUSBAND, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO'S, >>> WELCOME BACK TO "OPEN COURT". I'M LISA BLOOM. WE'RE LIVE IN THE NEIL ENTWISTLE CASE OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS. THE PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABBRI IS DELIVERING HIS OPENING STATEMENT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK. >> THE PRICE OF THE COST OF $2700 A MONTH. $8100 UP FRONT FOR FIRST LAST MONTH'S SECURITY DEPOSIT. AND THEN BEGAN THEIR MOVE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, EARLY JANUARY, 2006, FROM THE CARVER HOME INTO THE HOPKINTON HOME. AND YOU ALSO LEARNED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT BEGAN VISITING CERTAIN WEBSITES. LATE IN THE FALL, EARLY WINTER 2006, HE GOOGLED A WEBSITE ON BANKRUPTCY. LATER IN DECEMBER, HE BEGAN LOOKING AT WEBSITES ABOUT ESCORTS. IN THE WORCESTER AREA, HOPKINTON AREA, HE VIEWED SOME MAPS OF SOME OF THOSE ESCORT SERVICES. YOU ALSO LEARN AND YOU WILL SEE RECORDS RELATED TO MR. ENTWISTLE JOINING A SITE KNOWN AS ADULT FRIEND FINDER. AND FROM LATE DECEMBER INTO EARLY AND MID-JANUARY 2006 HE WENT TO THAT SITE A NUMBER OF TIMES, BEGAN EXCHANGING E-MAILS WITH FEMALES AND DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF SENDING OUT DISCREET RELATIONSHIPS. YOU'LL LEARN THAT THE VISITS TO THE ESCORT SITES CONTINUED IN EARLY JANUARY 2006. YOU'LL ALSO LEARN THAT IN THE DAYS JUST BEFORE JANUARY 20th, 2006, THE DEFENDANT NEIL ENTWISTLE VISITED WEBSITES ABOUT KILLING AND SUICIDE. YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON THE WEEKEND OF THE 7th AND OVER THE COURSE OF ROUGHLY THE 7th TO THE 14th WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FAMILY, THE MATTERAZZOS AND FRIENDS, EVERYBODY WHO SEEMED TO GET ALONG, AS I SAID, YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF EVIDENCE OF HOW ON THE SURFACE, THE RELATIONSHIP WAS LOVING, NOURISHING AND STAB STABLE. THE MOVE BEGINS AND BY THE 14th AND 15th THEY'RE ALMOST SETTLED IN. THEY'RE GETTING SETTLED IN IN THE HOME IN HOPKINTON. AND YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2006, THE LAST DAY THAT ANYONE HEARD FROM RACHEL AND LILLIAN OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO WHO WAS ALWAYS IN REGULAR CONTACT DAILY, IF NOT EVERY OTHER DAY WITH HER DAUGHTER, SPOKE TO HER THAT EVENING, PLANS WERE MADE ABOUT A VISIT FOR PRISCILLA TO GO FROM CARVER WITH A FRIEND TO HOPKINTON TO SEE HER DAUGHTER AND NEIL IN THE HOME, HELP UNPACK SOME ITEMS. RACHEL'S FRIEND, DEAR FRIEND JOANNA GATELY WHO YOU WILL MEET AND SEE AND HEAR SPOKE TO RACHEL ON THAT THURSDAY EVENING. MADE PLANS ABOUT GOING THERE FOR DINNER ON SATURDAY EVENING, THE 21st WITH HER SISTER, MAUREEN. THE EVIDENCE WILL THEN SHIFT TO JANUARY 20th, 2006. JOHN AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AT HOME, GET UP AND EXERCISE THEIR REGULAR ROUTINE OF GOING TO WORK. JOE TO ROCKLAND. GOT THERE EARLY IN THE MORNING, PICKS UP HIS SCHEDULE FOR THE DAY, GOES UP TO BERN ASSOCIATES IN WAYMOUTH, PICKS UP SOME PLANS, TRAVELS OUT TO FRAMINGHAM TO VISIT A JOB SITE AND ABOUT 10:00, 10:30, SPENT SOME TIME THERE, GOES TO ANOTHER JOB SITE AND THEN HEADS BACK. ENDS AT HIGHLAND MEDICAL AND HAS LUNCH WITH HIS WIFE PRISCILLA AS HE WOULD FROM TIME TO TIME. YOU'LL LEARN THAT PRISCILLA HAD GOTTEN UP, LEFT FOR WORK, WENT TO HIGHLAND MEDICAL, SPENT THE DAY THERE, DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CALLS FROM RACHEL, DIDN'T HEAR FROM NEIL, DIDN'T GET ANY VISITS. YOU'LL ALSO LEARN THAT THAT DAY THE DEFENDANT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH A COMPANY IN WESTBORO FOR A JOB AND THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT HE WAS GOING THERE. BUT YOU WILL LEARN AND HEAR EVIDENCE THAT THAT INTERVIEW WAS NEVER SET UP, WAS NEVER OFFERED. AND YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON THE MORNING OF THE 20th, THE DEFENDANT GOT UP, LEFT HIS HOME, AT ABOUT 9:00, ARRIVED SOMETIME -- ARRIVED BACK SOMETIME AROUND 11:00. PERIOD OF TIME LONG ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIM TO DRIVE FROM HOPKINTON TO CARVER. YOU'LL LEARN THAT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 HE CHECKED HIS E-MAIL ON HIS LAPTOP COMPUTER IN THE HOPKINTON HOME. YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE NEXT SIGHTING OF THE DEFENDANT IS AT LOGAN AIRPORT AT ABOUT 8:15 ON THAT SAME DAY. HIS CAR, THE BMW, YOU'LL SEE PHOTOS OF IT, PULLING INTO THE CENTRAL WEST PARKING GARAGE. NEXT YOU'LL SEE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DEFENDANT HAD A COUPLE OF ATM MACHINES, IN PARTICULAR AT AN ATM MACHINE AT TERMINAL E, INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL. USING A NUMBER OF CREDIT CARDS ATTEMPTING TO TAKE OUT QUANTITIES OF CASH. YOU'LL SEE RECORDS THAT SHOW THAT HE THEN WENT TO TERMINAL B, ANOTHER ATM, ATTEMPTED TO TAKE OUT CASH THERE. RECORDS AND TESTIMONY FROM MASS PORT WILL SHOW THAT AT ABOUT 9:30 THE DEFENDANT GOT BACK INTO HIS BMW, LEFT THE AIRPORT, DROVE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, GOT GAS IN WEST NEWTON. AND ABOUT 10:45, RETURNED TO LOGAN AIRPORT, PARKING HIS CAR ON LEVEL FOUR IN THE CENTRAL WEST PARKING GARAGE, AREA DD SPACE 29. AND YOU'LL LEARN AND HEAR EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT LOCKED THAT CAR UP FOR THE LAST TIME AFTER HAVING LEFT HIS HOUSE AT CUBS PATH EARLIER THAT DAY, AFTER THAT 12:30 E-MAIL CHECK FOR THE LAST TIME, LOCKING THAT HOUSE UP, LOCKING THE KEYS TO THE CARVER HOUSE, LOCKING THE KEYS TO THE HOPKINTON HOUSE AND ALL HIS PERSONAL BELONGINGS IN THAT CAR. AND HE ENTERED THE LOGAN AIRPORT TERMINALS. THE NEXT MORNING THE 21st YOU'LL LEARN THAT JOE MATTERAZZO GOT UP AND HAD PLANS -- MADE PLANS WITH HIS SON, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO AND ANTHONY MATTERAZZO TO GO SHOOTING AS THEY HAD JUST ABOUT EVERY WEEKEND. NORMALLY IT WAS ZACHARY AND ANTHONY, THE TWO YOUNGER KIDS, WITH JOE AND SOME OTHER FRIENDS. BUT ZACHARY WASN'T FEELING WELL THAT DAY, JOE HAD TALKED TO MICHAEL MATTERAZZO, HADN'T SEEN HIS OTHER SON FOR A WHILE, DECIDED TO SPEND SOME TIME TOGETHER, WENT TO THE CLUB, SHOT SHOTGUN, SHOT PISTOL, RIFLES. SPENT THE DAY THERE, RETURNED HOME LATER IN THE AFTERNOON. PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO YOU'LL LEARN DID TRAVEL WITH HER FRIEND AND NOT HEARD FROM RACHEL OR NEIL OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE FAMILY THAT FRIDAY BUT NONETHELESS AS PLANNED LEFT CARVER, DROVE TO HOPKINTON, GOT THERE ABOUT 12:30 AND WHEN THEY GOT THERE, NO ONE WAS HOME. THE HOUSE WAS LOCKED UP TIGHT. BACK DOOR, FRONT DOOR CHECKED. UNUSUAL FOR RACHEL NOT TO HAVE SAID SOMETHING. THEY WAITED AROUND FOR A WHILE, THEY TRIED TO CALL THE HOME PHONE. RACHEL'S CELL PHONE, NO ANSWER. THEY LEFT TO GET SOMETHING TO EAT AND RETURNED. PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AND HER FRIEND THERESA PRATT WHO YOU WILL MEET, AND THEN CONCLUDED THAT THEY MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN, NO ONE SEEMED TO BE AT HOME. PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO GETS HOME, JOE MATTERAZZO IS THERE, AFTER HAVING RETURNED FROM THE SHOOTING RANGE. YOUNG SON ANTHONY WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO CLEAN GUNS. JOE RELUCTANTLY LETS HIM DO THAT, SUPERVISES IT, JOE THEN LOCK THOSE GUNS UP AND PUTS THEM AWAY IN HIS BEDROOM. WHERE THEY USUALLY WERE STORED. OVER THE COURSE OF THE REST OF THAT DAY, STILL NO CONTACT FROM RACHEL OR NEIL ENTWISTLE. JOANNA GATELY, HER FRIEND, AND HER SISTER MAUREEN CONTINUED WITH THEIR PLANS AND ABOUT 7:30 THEY ARRIVE AT 6 CUBS PATH, KNOCK ON THE DOORS, DOORS LOCKED. THEY COULD HEAR SOME NOISE INSIDE, THEY COULD HEAR THE DOG, SALLY, BARKING. THEY COULD SEE A LIGHT ON IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND BEDROOM. THERE WAS A LIGHT ON IN THE FOYER. THERE WAS A LIGHT ON IN THE BACK THAT YOU COULD SEE AND YOU'LL SEE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SLIDER. THE HOUSE IS LOCKED UP. TV OR RADIO NOISE FROM THE INSIDE BUT THE FAMILY SEEMS TO HAVE DISAPPEARED. CONCERN RAISES. JOANNA CALLS PRISCILLA, PRISCILLA ENDS UP CALLING THE HOPKINTON POLICE ASKING THEM TO DO A WELL-BEING CHECK. SERGEANT MICHAEL SUTTON, OFFICER AARON O'NEIL WILL COME IN AND TESTIFY BEFORE YOU, GO TO THE HOME. THEY WALK AROUND, APPEARS TO BE NO EVIDENCE OF ANY SORT OF BREAK. THEY HAVE CONVERSATION BRIEFLY WITH JOANNA AND THEY DECIDE TO ENTER THE HOME. OUT OF THE HEIGHTENED CONCERN. THEY USE A BLOCKBUSTER CARD TO OPEN THE LOCK ON THE FRONT DOOR. THEY GO IN, OFFICER O'NEIL GOING DOWNSTAIRS SEEING THE LIGHT ON IN A ROOM, SEEING THE GARAGE, ATTACHED GARAGE, DOORS CLOSED, NO OUTSIDE WINDOWS, BUT THERE IS NO BMW IN THAT GARAGE. SERGEANT SUTTON HAD GONE UPSTAIRS, LOOKED IN ROOMS, DISTURBED LITTLE OR NOTHING, SIMPLY LOOKING TO SEE IF PEOPLE WERE THERE, WALKED IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND FROM THE ADVANTAGE POINT OF DOORWAY, LOOKED AT THE MASTER BED, THERE WAS A COMFORTER COVERING THAT BED AS IF IT HAD JUST BEEN THROWN THERE, NOT AS IF THE BED HAD BEEN MADE. CHECKED THE OTHER ROOMS UPSTAIRS, WENT DOWN, MET OFFICER SUTTON IN THE KITCHEN AREA. THEY NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A DIGITAL CAMERA ON A TABLE. THEY CHECKED THE LAST DATE ON IT OF THE PHOTO, LAST PHOTO TAKEN. AND IT WAS THE THURSDAY BEFORE. THEY SAW THAT THERE WAS A CELL PHONE THERE. SERGEANT SUTTON NOTICED THE BMW BILL ON THE COUNTERTOP, MADE NOTE OF THE VIN. HAD FURTHER CONVERSATION, WENT OUT AND REPORTED TO JOANNA. JOANNA WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE THE DOG OUT SO THE DOG COULD RELIEF ITSELF AND GO FOR A SHORT WALK. THE OFFICER THEN LEFT THE HOME WITHOUT TOUCHING ANYTHING, TURNING OFF LIGHTS. THEY NOTICED THE TV WAS ON, MUSIC UPSTAIRS, THEY LEFT IT THAT WAY AND CLOSED IT UP. THEY GO BACK TO THE STATION, THEY RUN A REGISTRY CHECK, CHECK AREA HOSPITALS, TALKED TO PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AND LEARN NOTHING. JOANNA GATELY, MAUREEN GATELY REMAIN THERE, LEFT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, GOT SOMETHING TO EAT, CAME BACK. ENDED UP SLEEPING IN THEIR CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AT 6 CUBS PATH OUT OF CONCERN FOR WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO THE FAMILY. THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY. YOU'LL ALSO LEARN THAT THE DEFENDANT ON THAT SAME SATURDAY, JANUARY 24th, EXCUSE ME, 21st, AT ABOUT 7:00 THAT MORNING HAD PURCHASED A ONE-WAY TICKET AT THE BRITISH AIRWAYS TICKET COUNTER AT TERMINAL E LOGAN AIRPORT. PAID 700 SOMETHING DOLLARS, PUT IT ON A CREDIT CARD, ORDERED FLIGHT 238 FOR LONDON, LEAVING ABOUT 8:15, ONE-WAY TICKET, NO LUGGAGE. YOU'LL ALSO LEARN LATER THAT DAY HE LANDED IN LONDON AT ABOUT 7:30 LOCAL TIME. THE DEFENDANT HAVING GONE HOME, YOU'LL HEAR WORDS OF THE DEFENDANT THAT HE WANTED TO GO HOME TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY, HE NEEDED TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY, YET HE RENTS A CAR, AND DRIVES ON. THE EVIDENCE WILL THEN TAKE YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TO JANUARY 22nd. JOANNA AND MAUREEN STILL OUTSIDE, STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAMILY. THEY SPEAK TO THE MATTERAZZOS. THEY HAD GOT JOANNA AND MAUREEN GOT THE CODE TO THE GARAGE DOOR. THEY WANTED TO TAKE THE DOG OUT FOR ANOTHER WALK. WHILE IN THERE, JOANNA NOTICES A NUMBER OF THINGS SHE SPENT SOME TIME IN THERE, SHE NOTICED THE PHONE WAS UNPLUGGED. SHE NOTICED THAT A DIAPER BAG WAS STILL THERE. MATTERAZZO IS ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBERS CONVERGE AND EVERYBODY IS TOLD TO REMAIN OUT OF THE HOUSE. THEY LOOK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY DRIVE AROUND TO SEE IF THE CAR HAD RUN OFF THE ROAD, HAD SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THIS FAMILY. BY 5:00 THAT AFTERNOON, THEY WERE CONCERNED TO THE POINT THAT THEY DECIDE TO GO TO THE POLICE STATION AGAIN, HAVE TO MAKE -- AFTER MAKING A SERIES OF PHONE CALLS. THEY WANT ANOTHER WELL-BEING CHECK. THEY FILE A MISSING PERSONS REPORT. AT SOME TIME AROUND 6:00 TO 7:00 ON THE EVENING OF SUNDAY, JANUARY 22nd, 2006, DETECTIVE SCOTT VAN ROTTEN, SERGEANT SUTTON, THE NIGHT BEFORE, RETURNED TO 6 CUBS PATH. THEY DECIDE TO MAKE ENTRY TO LOOK FOR PLANE TICKETS, TO LOOK FOR AN ADDRESS BOOK, THINGS OF THAT NATURE TO SEE CAN WE LOCATE WHERE THIS FAMILY HAS GONE? THEY GET THE CODE FROM JOANNA, THEY ENTER THROUGH THE GARAGE THERE IS NO BMW IN THE GARAGE, THE HOUSE IS OTHERWISE LOCKED UP, SAME CONDITION THAT IT WAS BEFORE. AND WHEN THEY OPEN -- ENTER THE BASEMENT THROUGH THE GARAGE, THEY NOTICE A SMELL. THEY FOLLOW THAT ODOR UP TO THE FIRST FLOOR, UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR, THEY ENTER THAT MASTER BEDROOM AGAIN. DETECTIVE VAN ROTTEN FOR THE FIRST TIME. THIS TIME THEY GO AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED, THEY LIFT THE FOOT OF THE COMFORTER AT THE FOOT OF THE BED AND THEY SEE A FOOT, A HUMAN FOOT. THEY GO BACK AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED, THEY LIFT THE TOP AND THEY SEE WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE FACE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THEY CAREFULLY PLACE IT BACK DOWN, THEY DO A QUICK CHECK OF THE OTHER ROOMS TO SEE IF THERE IS ANOTHER VICTIM IN THE HOUSE. FINDING NONE, THEY REPORT TO THE STATION, INVESTIGATORS BEGIN TO CONVERGE AND ASSEMBLE AT 6 CUBS PATH TO PROCESS THAT AS A CRIME SCENE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL HOURS, 22nd INTO THE 23rd. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHIFT TO THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2006, WHERE ABOUT 11:00 IN THE MORNING JOE MATTERAZZO ANSWERS THE PHONE AT HIS CARVER HOME AND IT IS CLIFFORD ENTWISTLE, THE FATHER. >>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE LIVE, PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABBRI IS OUTLINING THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAS AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THIS MURDER CASE. LET'S LISTEN. >> THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON OF JANUARY 24th, 2006. AND THAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF RACHEL WHICH FROM ALL OUTWARD INDICATIONS WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT AT THE SCENE UNTIL THE COURSE OF THE AUTOPSY, A HOLE WAS FOUND ABOVE HER HAIRLINE, SHE DIED AS A RESULT OF A SINGLE GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE HEAD, PENETRATED HER BRAIN. .22 CALIBER PROJECTILE, BROKEN IN PIECES. YOU'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT THEY HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE SOME SORT OF TRAUMA TO THE TOP OF HER LEFT BREAST, A HOLE OR COUPLE OF HOLES THROUGH HER SHIRT. TURNS OUT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER REMOVED A PROJECTILE, A .22 CALIBER PROJECTILE, CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD IN HIS AMMO CASE. AND CONSISTENT WITH THE .22 COLT REVOLVER THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD. YOU'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE TO IT, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY LINK IT, BUT THAT CALIBER, YOU WILL CONCLUDE THROUGH ALL THE EVIDENCE, THAT PROJECTILE CAME FROM THAT. YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO LEARN ABOUT SOME DNA EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED INCLUDING A DASANI WATER BOTTLE, FOUND BY WAY OF A SEARCH WARRANT, THEY FOUND THE KEYS TO THE CARVER HOME IN THERE, THEY FOUND THE PARKING TICKET TO THE LOGAN AIRPORT. DNA SAMPLES GIVEN BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND YOU'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT HAD ONCE HANDLED THAT COLT REVOLVER, THAT THE DNA OF THE DEFENDANT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ON THE AMMO CAN, ON THE GRIP OF THAT FIREARM, ON THE GUN LOCK, TURNS OUT THAT JOE MATTERAZZO'S DNA IS ON THE TRIGGER. THE EVIDENCE WAS SHOW HE WAS LAST ONE TO HANDLE THAT ON SATURDAY WHEN HELPING ANTHONY CLEAN IT. MORE IMPORTANTLY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT THE DNA OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE WHO HAD NO INTEREST IN FIREARMS, WHO HAD NEVER TOUCHED THOSE FIREARMS WAS IN AND ON THE MUZZLE OF THAT .22 CALIBER COLT. YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO LEARN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT ON THE 31st OF -- EXCUSE ME, JANUARY, 1st OF FEBRUARY, THE WAKE OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE HELD AND FUNERAL AND THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND. HE SENT FLOWERS. YOU WILL LEARN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION ON FEBRUARY 7th, PHONE MESSAGE AND A PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNERS, WHERE THE DEFENDANT ESSENTIALLY SAYS I GIVE UP ALL INTEREST IN ANYTHING IN THAT HOME AT 6 CUBS PATH. YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE NEXT DAY THE DEFENDANT MET SOME FRIENDS OVER IN THE UK, THEN PRIOR DASH MONDAY HAD DINNER WITH THEM. AND HE TOLD THEM SOMEWHAT THE SAME STORY, AT LEAST INITIALLY, AS HE HAD TOLD JOE MATTERAZZO, AS HE TOLD TROOPER MANNING, BUT IT VARIES A LITTLE BIT IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY. HE TELL HIS FRIENDS OVER IN THE UK THAT HE HAD GONE TO CARVER TO GET A GUN, BUT THEN CAME TO HIS SENSES, THAT HE FOUND PRISCILLA, TOLD PRISCILLA WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN HIS DISCOVERY OF THE BODIES. GONE BACK TO THE CARVER HOME AND CONSOLED EACH OTHER, THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO THE POLICE AND GAVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE. THE EVIDENCE WILL THEN SHIFT TO FEBRUARY 9th, 2006, WHERE THE DEFENDANT'S FRIEND DASH MONDAY, HIS -- TO A SUBWAY STATION. THE DEFENDANT HAVING LEARNED THERE WAS A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST, FOR HIS FATHER. DASH SAYS HIS GOOD-BYES. DEFENDANT ENTERS THE SUBWAY STATION. DASH MONDAY IS THEN CALLED BY THE UK POLICE. HE EXPLAINS WHAT HE HAD JUST DONE, THAT -- WHERE HE HAD JUST BROUGHT THE DEFENDANT. POLICE EXPLAIN THEY'RE COMING TO THAT TUBE STATION. YOU'LL LEARN AND HEAR THAT DASH RE-ENTERED THAT TUBE STATION, TOLD THE DEFENDANT THE POLICE ARE COMING, WHY DON'T YOU COME WITH ME? THEY'RE GOING TO MEET US UPSTAIRS. AND THE DEFENDANT SAYS WORDS TO THE EFFECT, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY OFF THIS PLATFORM? DASH, IN SPITE OF HIS FRIEND, WALKS OUT OF THAT PLATFORM, MEETS THE POLICE, EVENTUALLY THE TRAIN IS STOPPED, THE DEFENDANT IS REMOVED FROM THAT TRAIN, HE'S PLACED UNDER ARREST. AND YOU'LL LEARN THAT ON HIS PERSON THE POLICE RECOVERED A -- REMEMBER THE CREDIT CARD HE USED WITH THE ATM TRANSACTIONS FOR AT ADULT FRIEND FINDER TRANSACTIONS, THAT HE HAD ABOUT $900 IN CASH, U.S. EQUIVALENT ON HIS PERSON, HE HAD A CLIPPING FROM A LOCAL NEWSPAPER, PRESS COURT ESCORT AND SEXUAL SERVICES AND HE HAD A NOTE PAD WITH NOTES ON ONE SIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT HIS CLAIM DEEP OF LOVE FOR RACHEL AND LILLY AND ON THE OTHER SIDE ABOUT HOW HE WANTS TO SELL HIS STORY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT'S THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE THAT YOU'LL HEAR OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN DO IS PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT GOES ON IN THIS COURTROOM. I WILL HAVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS CASE. AND AT THAT TIME I WILL BE ASKING YOU TO AGREE WITH THE COMMONWEALTH THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE VERDICT IN THIS CASE, AND ONE MURDER IN THIS CASE AND THAT IS THE DEFENDANT. THANK YOU. >> MR. WEINSTEIN? >> GOOD MORNING. ON JANUARY 20th, 2006 NEIL ENTWISTLE'S WORLD CHANGED. NEVER TO BE THE SAME. NEIL'S LIFE CHANGED ALSO, NEVER TO BE THE SAME. NEIL LOVED HIS WIFE AND NEIL LOVED HIS DAUGHTER. ON JANUARY 20th, HE LOST THEM BOTH. EVERYTHING THAT HE SAID AND EVERYTHING THAT HE DID THERE AFTER HE DID BECAUSE HE LOVED THEM. HE DID BECAUSE HE LOVED THEM BOTH. THE PROSECUTION JUST SPENT MAYBE 40, 45 MINUTES OUTLINING THE EVIDENCE THAT IT BELIEVES PROVES THAT NEIL WAS A MURDERER. IF IT WAS THAT CLEAR, AND IF IT WAS THAT EASY WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. BUT IT IS NOT THAT CLEAR AND IT IS NOT THAT EASY. YOU WILL LEARN AND YOU WILL LEARN EACH DAY AS THIS CASE PROGRESSES DIFFERENTLY FROM WHAT THEY HAVE THEORIZED. OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN DURING THIS TRIAL, YOU WILL LEARN THAT THINGS ARE NOT THE WAY THEY FIRST MAY APPEAR TO BE. BEGINNING WITH THE HOPKINTON POLICE ENTRY INTO 6 CUBS PATH, OFFICERS SUTTON AND O'NEIL JIMMY OPEN THE FRONT DOOR TO THAT HOME. THEY ENTERED. THEY ENTERED TO SEE IF ANYONE WAS THERE TO SEE IF EVERYTHING WAS OKAY. THEY LOOKED, THEY SEARCHED, THEY FOUND NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY, NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT ANYTHING HAD HAPPENED INSIDE THAT HOME. THERE WAS NO BLOOD. THERE WAS NO BROKEN OBJECTS. THERE WERE NO DEAD BODIES. THEY CONCLUDED THAT EVERYTHING WAS JUST FINE. THE NEXT DAY THEY KNEW THINGS WERE JUST NOT THE WAY THEY FIRST ES >>> WELCOME BACK. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS ACCUSED OF SHOOTING AND KILLING HIS YOUNG WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. THIS IS HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SAYING THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR. WE'RE LIVE IN HIS OPENING STATEMENTS. >> WE'RE COMPUTER PEOPLE. BOTH IN CARVER AND AT HOPKINTON AND BACK AT THEIR HOMES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM THEY USED THEIR COMPUTERS. THEY USED THEIR COMPUTERS FOR THEIR E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE, FOR THEIR BUSINESSES, AND FOR THEIR OTHER ACTIVITIES. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU THAT OTHERS ALSO USED THE COMPUTERS. THE PROSECUTION TOOK VERY SPECIAL CARE TO INVESTIGATE THIS CASE AND THE PROSECUTION WILL SPEND MUCH TIME LAYING OUT TO YOU THE DETAILS OF THAT INVESTIGATION. YOU WILL LEARN SOME THINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATORS. YOU WILL LEARN SOME THINGS FROM THE WITNESSES FROM THE STATE POLICE CRIME LABORATORY. YOU WILL ALSO LEARN MUCH MORE FROM THE THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T DO FROM THE STEPS THAT THEY FAILED TO TAKE. YOU WILL HEAR MANY STATE POLICE CRIME LAB WITNESSES, EXPERTS THEY'LL LIKE TO BE REFERRED TO, THEY'RE HERE TO TRY AND PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU. EVERY MAN AND EVERY WOMAN WHO WORKS FOR THE STATE POLICE LAB THAT TESTIFIES, EACH ONE KNOWS THAT HE OR SHE IS HERE TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF THE CASE AGAINST NEIL IS SO SOLID. SOME WILL SIMPLY BE HERE AND TELL YOU THE OBVIOUS. AND THERE WILL BE OTHERS, VERY IMPORTANT OTHER WITNESSES WHO WILL LEAVE YOU WITH QUESTIONS, WHO WILL LEAVE YOU WITH DOUBT. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IS GOING TO BE SORDID. IT IS GOING TO BE GRUESOME. AND IT IS GOING TO BE GRAPHIC. DO NOT BE OVERWHELMED. AS YOU NOW BEGIN TO SEE AND HEAR THE EVIDENCE, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL LEARN AND THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL KNOW. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU THAT NEIL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING RACHEL OR FOR KILLING LILLIAN. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOT GUILTY. THANK YOU. >> AND MUCH BRIEFER OPENING STATEMENT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE THAN WE HEARD ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION. JEFFREY EMDEN, NOT SURPRISING SINCE THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THEY HAVE TO PROOF THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS SAYING KEEP AN OPEN MIND, THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR, HOLD THE STATE TO ITS PROOF. THAT'S APPROPRIATE, I THINK, DON'T YOU? >> I THOUGHT HIS OPENING STATEMENT WAS VERY APPROPRIATE. I THOUGHT THE PROSECUTION'S WAS TOO LONG TO -- AND EMOTIONAL. I WAS NOT VERY IMPRESSED BY THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT. >> DR. AUSTIN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, LET ME BRING YOU IN AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, THE PROSECUTION SET FORTH IN THEIR OPENING STATEMENT, RECOGNIZING THEY'RE NOT IN EVIDENCE YET, THIS IS JUST WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVE IN THIS CASE. BUT NEIL ENTWISTLE FLED TO ENGLAND UPON FINDING HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER DEAD, THAT IS HIS STORY. HE DID NOT CALL THE POLICE. HE DID NOT GO TO THE FUNERAL FOR HIS YOUNG WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. AND HE ATTEMPTED WHEN HE WAS IN ENGLAND SHORTLY AFTER THE DEATH TO SELL HIS STORY. WHAT DOES THAT TELL US ABOUT HIM? >> WELL IT A VERY COMPLICATED AND AMBIGUOUS SET OF REASONS WHY HE BEHAVED THE WAY HE BEHAVED. AND OFTEN WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IS THE SIMPLEST TRUTH. DOES HIS STORY MAKE SENSE IN A SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS WAYS, THE WAY SOMEBODY WHO IS INNOCENT WOULD BE BEHAVE. AND TO ME SO FAR THERE ARE MANY AMBIGUITIES THAT MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO FEEL ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN AND CLEAR AT THIS EARLY PART OF THE TRIAL THAT HE DID NOT DO THIS. IT IS TOO AMBIGUOUS, THERE ARE TOO MANY QUESTIONS I HAVE. HE SEEMS TO BE WORKING WAY TOO HARD TO MAKE SENSE. AND THAT'S ALWAYS TROUBLING EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY TO A JUROR HEARING THIS. IT SHOULD MAKE SENSE IN THE OBVIOUS. >> ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAS COME OUT ALREADY IN PRETRIAL MOTIONS WHICH THE JUDGE HAD TO CONSIDER THIS MORNING WAS THE STATEMENTS THAT HE MADE IN ENGLAND. NOW ENGLAND HAS VERY DIFFERENT LAWS REGARDING A DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS. BUT APPARENTLY HE MADE SOME STATEMENTS WHICH CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM IN ENGLAND, IF HE HAD BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. HE MAY HAVE REMAINED SILENT. SHOULD THOSE STATEMENTS HE MADE IN ENGLAND COME IN IN AN AMERICAN COURT? >> I THINK THAT IT HAS TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR ADMISSIBILITY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT RULE IN ENGLAND AND HE WAS MORE COMPELLED, SO THAT IS NOT A VOLUNTARILY OR KNOWINGLY MADE STATEMENT, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE HERE. BUT GIVEN THAT, I MEAN, I'M REALLY NOT AT THIS POINT CERTAIN OF WHAT THIS STATEMENTS WERE MADE AND HOW THEY WERE IN FACT SOLICITED. IF THEY WERE VOLUNTEERED OR WOULD THEY -- THE SUBJECT OF SOME TYPE OF QUESTIONING, HOW LONG WAS THE QUESTIONING, WHAT WAS THE ATMOSPHERE, YOU KNOW? YOU WOULD HAVE A WHOLE SEPARATE HEARING HERE AS TO ITS ADMISSIBILITY. IF IT MET THOSE BURDENS, IT SHOULD COME IN. >> JEFFREY, AS WE'RE SPEAKING, WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME PHOTOS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN. THEY'RE ABSOLUTELY HEART BREAKING WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT THEY ARE BOTH SHOT AND MURDERED. THIS YOUNG WOMAN AND HER ADORABLE LITTLE BABY. ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, YOU DON'T WANT THIS STUFF COMING IN, YOU DON'T WANT THE JURY LOOKING AT THIS STUFF IT WILL MAKE THEM REALLY ENFLAMED, RIGHT? >> OF COURSE IT IS. HIS RESPONSE IS, YES, I'M PART OF THOSE PICTURES. I WAS THERE, I WAS THE ONE TAKING, I WAS IN THE PICTURES, I LOVED THEM. LOOK HOW LOVING I AM. HOW COULD I DO IT IS THE OTHER SIDE. >> HOW DOES HE NOT CALL THE POLICE. HOW DO YOU NOT WANT THE POLICE TO IMMEDIATELY TRY TO FIND A KILLER OR KILLERS OF YOUR WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER? >> THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH. EVERYTHING HE HAS POINTED TO, ALL OF HIS ACTIONS POINT TO A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT, FAILING TO CALL THE POLICE, COVERING UP THE BODIES WITH THE BLANKETS SO THEY'RE NOT DISCOVERED FOR SOME TIME, GOING TO ENGLAND, SEEING HIS PARENTS AND HIS PARENTS NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE. LET'S ASSUME HE SAYS MOM AND DAD, I'M INNOCENT, THE PARENTS WHO ARE THINKING IN THEIR RIGHT MIND SAY YOU GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. >> YEAH, WELL, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. LESLIE AUSTIN, IF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IS RIGHT, NEIL ENTWISTLE SHOT AND KILLED NOT ONLY HIS WIFE, BUT HIS BABY, WHAT WOULD POSSESS A MAN TO SHOOT HIS OWN 9-MONTH-OLD BABY? AFTER ALL, SHE COULDN'T TESTIFY AGAINST HIM, SHE WOULDN'T REMEMBER EVEN IF HE HAD KILLED HIS WIFE RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER, WHY WOULD HE KILL A 9-MONTH-OLD BABY? >> ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT HE DID DO THAT, HE WOULD BE SEEING THE BABY NOT AS A REAL PERSON, BUT AS A BURDEN ON HIM. THIS WOULD BE A MAN WHO IS IN THE STATE OF MIND THAT HIS LIFE ISN'T GOING THE WAY HE WANTS, HE MAY BE IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE, HE IS SEXUALLY UNHAPPY, HE'S RESTLESS AND HERE HE'S IN A NEW HOUSE THAT IS EXPENSIVE WITH A WIFE NEAR HER FAMILY, NOT AT HOME, WITH A BABY WHO IS 9 MONTHS OLD AND HE'S LOOKING AT A GOOD 20 YEARS OF HAVING TO SUPPORT A WIFE AND A CHILD. AND IN HIS OWN FOCUS ON HIS OWN SELF-GRATIFICATION, HE'S NOT GOING TO SEE THAT BABY AS A REAL PERSON, HE'LL SEE IT AS A BURDEN, AS AN IT, AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO HIS LIFE. AND IN A MOMENT OF DESPERATION, HE MAY JUST WANT TO CLEAR EVERYTHING AWAY. >> VERY MUCH LIKE SCOTT PETERSON, ONE OF THE SINGLE BACHELOR LIFE. CAN NEIL ENTWISTLE GET A FAIR TRIAL DESPITE THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THIS CASE? WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WE REVEAL THE ANSWER TO OUR >>> TWO FAMILIES ARE RIPPED APART BY MURDER. A MOTHER AND BABY ARE SHOT TO DEATH AND A HUSBAND IS THE PRIME SUSPECT. MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE COMING >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY IN OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY, CAN NEIL ENTWISTLE GET A FAIR TRIAL DESPITE THE PUBLICITY SURROUNDING THIS CASE? OUR ANSWER COMES FROM DEBBIE IN WALKER, WEST VIRGINIA. AND SOMETIMES IT IS HOURS AND HOURS, RIGHT? THANKS FOR THAT ANSWER, DEBBIE. THANKS FOR WATCHING OUT THERE IN WEST VIRGINIA. LET'S GO STRAIGHT OUT TO COURT TV -- OR "INSESSION" CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS FOLLOWING THIS CASE. WE JUST SAW THE OPENING STATEMENTS. I THOUGHT THEY WERE SOLID ON BOTH SIDES, THOUGH VERY DIFFERENT, MUCH MORE DETAIL AS YOU WOULD PROBABLY EXPECT ON THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT. GIVE US WHAT YOU WOULD CALL THE HIGHLIGHTS AND LET'S START WITH THE PROSECUTION'S OPENING STATEMENT. >> WELL, ASSUMING THAT THE PROSECUTION PUTS ON EVIDENCE IN SORT OF THE ORDER OF HIS OPENING, HE'LL GO IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, SO MAY ACTUALLY START WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER. AND HER GIRLFRIEND JOANNA GATELY, BOTH OF WHOM SPOKE TO HER ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 19th. THEY'RE THE LAST PEOPLE KNOWN TO HAVE CONTACT WITH HER ASIDES HER HUSBAND AND BABY. AND THEY BOTH HAD PLANS WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE ON SATURDAY, THE 21st. THAT'S SORT OF THE BEGINNING OF THE CHRONOLOGY BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION BELIEVES THAT THE MURDERS HAPPENED ON FRIDAY MORNING, THE 20th. SO WHAT HAPPENED ON THE 19th? AND THEN GO THROUGH THE ARREST, REALLY, OF NEIL ENTWISTLE WHICH IS FEBRUARY 9th IN LONDON AND HIS RETURN TO THE U.S. ABOUT SIX DAYS LATER. SO I THINK WE DIDN'T REALLY LEARN ANYTHING NEW IN THE PROSECUTING'S OPENING THAT HASN'T BEEN A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO US, A LOT OF DETAIL AND AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARREST AND SEVERAL SEARCH WARRANTS EXECUTED AT THE HOUSE, THE CAR AND THE COMPUTERS. AND SO, I MEAN, THE HIGHLIGHTS ARE THAT THEY'RE MISSING, HE GOES -- RACHEL AND LILLIAN ARE MISSING, HE CAN'T BE FOUND, TURNS OUT HE HAS BOUGHT A ONE-WAY TICKET TO THE LONDON, BASICALLY LEFT THE LEASED BMW AT LOGAN AIRPORT WITH KEYS TO HIS HOME AS WELL AS IN-LAW'S HOME LOCKED INSIDE. HE CHECKS NO LUGGAGE AND GOES HOME. CALLS THE MATTERAZZOS, RACHEL'S FAMILY, PARENTS AND MOTHER AND STEPFATHER A FEW DAYS LATER, JANUARY 23rd ON A MONDAY, AND SAYS, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE SHOT, I DON'T KNOW SHOT THEM, I FOUND THEM, I WAS CONFUSED. AND HE CALLED -- HIS FATHER ALSO CALLED THE IN-LAWS AND THEN HE TALKS TO THE POLICE, TROOPER MANNING AND GIVES A VERY DETAILED STATEMENT OF THAT DAY. A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES AND THEN THE JURY, YOU KNOW, WILL BE TAKEN THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT AND ON HIS ARREST AND HIS SEARCHES ON THE COMPUTER JUST BEFORE THE DEATHS AND THEN HOW HE HAD ESCORT SERVICES AND, YOU KNOW, ADS ON HIS PERSONS, LEADING A DOUBLE LIFE. NOT A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THEIR FINANCIAL DEBT. WE HEARD BROAD STROKES ABOUT THAT. I THOUGHT WE MIGHT HEAR MORE. I'M SURE THERE WILL BE MORE AT THE TRIAL. >> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S A KEY PART AS WE UNDERSTAND IT AT LEAST AT THIS POINT. THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL OF THE PROSECUTION'S ARGUMENT FOR MOTIVE, THE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS OF THIS COUPLE. THEN, BETH, ON THE DEFENSE SIDE, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, GET USED TO SAYING THAT CORRECTLY, WEINSTEIN, NOT WEINSTEIN, RIGHT? WEINSTEIN. >> RIGHT. >> ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SEEMS TO BE ARGUING, LOOK, NEIL ENTWISTLE PANICKED, MAY HAVE BEHAVED BADLY, THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIM A MURDERER AND THEY'LL GO AFTER THE POLICE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE. >> RIGHT. YOU KNOW, HE DID NOT PUT OUT A THEORY THE WAY SAY SCOTT PETERSON'S LAWYER MARK GERAGOS DID SAYING SOMEONE ELSE DID IT AND THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, SPOTTED IN THE AREA. HE ACTUALLY DEPOSITED SOME THEORIES OF WHO OR DESCRIPTIONS OF WHO COULD HAVE DONE IT. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN HERE. HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE HAD A MOTIVE TO KILL RACHEL, LILLIAN AND NEIL. BUT HE DOES SAY THAT HE EMPHASIZES THE PLURAL POSSESSIVE PRONOUN FOR COMPUTERS. THEY USED THEIR COMPUTERS FOR THEIR BUSINESSES. SO IT IS NOT AS THOUGH IT WAS NEIL WAS THE USER AND THESE ARE HIS SECRET BUSINESSES SELLING PORNOGRAPHIC SOFTWARE OR SOFTWARE ABOUT HOW TO GET INTO THE ADULT PORN BUSINESS. WE'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT LATER. HE SEEMS TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THEY'RE IN THIS TOGETHER. >> YOU PROBABLY HAD TO MAKE THE DECISION IN NUMEROUS CASES WHETHER AN OPENING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PARTICULAR THEORY OF THE CASE, OR YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SAY REASONABLE DOUBT AND GO AFTER THE PROSECUTION. DO YOU THINK IN THIS CASE IT IS BETTER FOR THE DEFENSE TO HAVE A THEORY OF HOW RACHEL AND LILLY DIED OR JUST TO LEAVE THAT TO THE IMAGINATION OF THE JURORS AS LONG AS THEY CAN PROVE REASONABLE DOUBT? >> THAT'S AN EASY QUESTION FOR ME. I ALWAYS CHOOSE YOUR LATTER CHOICE. I NEVER USUALLY COMMIT TO ANY PARTICULAR THEORY UNTIL I HEAR WHAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS GOING TO PRESENT. ONCE YOU LOCK YOURSELF IN, THEN THE JURY WILL ALWAYS WANT YOU TO, YOU KNOW, DELIVER. >> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, JEFFREY, IS WHO WOULD KILL A BABY? WHO ELSE WOULD HAVE ANY POSSIBLE REASON TO KILL A BABY AND NO FORCED ENTRY, NOTHING STOLEN FROM THE HOME? >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ELEMENT ABOUT THE FORCED ENTRY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAVE -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE WHO DID IT OR WHY IT WAS DONE, YOU JUST HAVE TO KEEP ON POINTING OUT TO -- POINTING THE FINGER BACK TO THE PROSECUTION AND SAY, THEY DID NOT CONNECT THE DOTS, THEY DO NOT HAVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. MAYBE THE GUY IS AN ADULTER ARE, MAYBE LIKES TO PORN SURF, MAKE HE REACTED HORRIBLY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE KILLED THEM, PROVED THAT HE KILLED THEM AND THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS DOING. >> BETH, WHAT MORE CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT RACHEL ENTWISTLE? CAN YOU BRING HER TO LIFE FOR US AT ALL? >> SHE GREW UP IN MASSACHUSETTS, ABOUT 50 MILES SOUTH OF HERE IN THE PLYMOUTH AREA. SHE WAS REALLY POPULAR IN HIGH SCHOOL, VERY ATHLETIC, A SWIMMER, AND WENT TO HOLY CROSS IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS. AND IN HER JUNIOR YEAR SHE WAS ABROAD STUDYING AT NEWARK UNIVERSITY WHERE SHE MET NEIL ENTWISTLE AT THE ROWING CLUB. SHE WOULD ROW WITH HIM ACTUALLY. THERE WERE STORIES ABOUT THE TWO OF THEM FALLING IN LOVE -- FALLING IN LOVE OUT ON THE WATER. HE WAS KIND OF A SHY PERSON AND SHE WAS A LITTLE MORE OUTGOING, BUT THEY, YOU KNOW, WERE REALLY QUITE THE COUPLE. SO MUCH SO THAT SHE RETURNED TO ENGLAND AS WE HEARD MICHAEL FABBRI SAY IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT TO BE WITH HIM AND TO GET HER TEACHING CERTIFICATE THERE. AND SHE WAS VERY POPULAR WITH THE STUDENTS AS WELL. SHE WAS TEACHING DRAMA AND ENGLISH LITERATURE. BUT SHE WANTED HER BABY TO BE CLOSER TO LILLIAN'S MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS AND ALSO NEIL ENTWISTLE FELT HE COULDN'T BE AS SUCCESSFUL IN ENGLAND AS HE PERHAPS COULD BE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HE TOO APPARENTLY WANTED TO MOVE HERE. >> JUST A SAD, SAD STORY ALL AROUND. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THIS CASE LIVE FOR NOW. BIG THANKS TO OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS REPORTING LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS TODAY. AND THANKS ALSO TO OUR GUESTS HERE IN NEW YORK, JEFFREY EMDEN AND DR. LESLIE AUSTIN FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. AND TIME NOW TO CHECK IN WITH RON IN FOR JAMI FLOYD TO FIND OUT WHAT IS COMING UP NEXT ON BEST DEFENSE >> COMING UP ON "THE BEST DEFENSE," WE'RE GOING START TO SEE SOME EVIDENCE RATHER THAN PEOPLE'S DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT THEY THINK DID OR DID NOT HAPPEN. REMEMBER, TRIALS AREN'T PLAYS THAT ARE SCRIPTED OUT IN ADVANCE UNTIL YOU GET TO THE END. SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE RATHER THAN JUST THE OPENING. >> ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. GOOD POINT. POINT WELL TAKEN. THANKS, RON. WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE. WHY DOES HE MAKE ME SQUIRM A LITTLE BIT? WHY? THAT WRAPS UP MY TIME WITH YOU ON "OPEN COURT" TODAY. I'M LISA BLOOM. HE'LL BE BACK HERE MONDAY WITH MORE TRIAL COVERAGE. THANKS FOR WATCHING. SEE YOU NEXT WEEK. |