|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY ON THE "BEST DEFENSE," A MURDER MYSTERY IN MASSACHUSETTS. WHO KILLED RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE? PROSECUTORS SAY IT WAS THE VICTIMS' HUSBAND AND FATHER. HE SAYS HE'S INNOCENT. THE "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE." I'M IN FOR JAMIE FLID TODAY. NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FIRST MADE HEADLINES WHEN THE BODSDIES OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER WERE DISCOVERED INSIDE THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME AND HE WAS DISCOVERED IN ENGLAND. NOW, ENTWISTLE IS BACK IN THE UNITED STATES AND BACK IN THE NEWS AS HIS MURDER TRIPE UNFOLDS INSIDE A MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURTROOM. PROSECUTORS SAY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES DROVE THE NOW 29-YEAR-OLD HUSBAND TO SHOOT HIS WIFE, RACHEL, AND THEIR 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER, LILLIAN. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS INSIST THEIR CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY. CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, COURTHOUSE WITH THE LATEST. BETH, GOOD MORNING TO YOU. AND IT'S AUTOPSY STUFF, WHICH IS ALWAYS GRIM. BUT HERE IT HAS A REAL PROSECUTORIAL PURPOSE BESIDES PREJUDICE, DOESN'T IT? >> Reporter: YES. DR. WILLIAM ZANE WHO PERFORMED THE AUTOPSIES ON RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE ON JANUARY 24th LESS THAN 48 HOURS AFTER THEY WERE FOUND IS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE CAUSE AND MANNER OF DEATH AND WHAT HE FOUND AT AUTOPSY. ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE REALLY NO SURPRISE. THE CAUSE OF DEATH BEING THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS. THE CRITICAL TESTIMONY TO COME FROM HIM AND WE'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR THIS IS THE TIME OF DEATH. THE PROSECUTOR, NOT AN OPENING STATEMENT, BUT IN OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND WHICH I HAVE TALKED ABOUT, SAY THAT THE DEATH WAS ABOUT 7:00 IN THE MORNING ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 20th. THIS DOCTOR HAS NOT -- HE CAN'T EVEN NARROW DOWN THE DAY OF THE DEATH, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE TIME. HE IS SAYING IT WAS THREE TO FOUR DAYS BEFORE HIS AUTOPSY, GIVE OR TAKE A DAY. SO I THOUGHT THAT THAT -- I HAD BEEN WAITING FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TESTIMONY. THE REST OF IT PREDICTABLE. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THE PROSECUTION WILL USE. I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS. TO SAY THAT THE DEATH WAS AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING OR AROUND THERE. WE KNOW THAT PEOPLE TALKED TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE, A GIRLFRIEND, AT ABOUT 10:30 THE NIGHT BEFORE. WE KNOW THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S STOMACH IS EMPTY. THEY APPEAR, SHE AND HER DAUGHTER, TO BE WEARING PAJAMAS. AND NEIL ENTWISTLE SAYS HE FOUND THEM AT 11:00 IN THE MORNING ON FRIDAY. BUT HIS STATEMENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE CREDENCE. BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS HE SAID THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EVIDENCE. SO SHE WAS KILLED SOMETIME AFTER 10:30 ON THURSDAY NIGHT AND MAYBE BY THE TIME SOMEONE USES A LAPTOP IN THE HOUSE AT 12:30 IN THE EARLY AFTERNOON THE NEXT DAY. >> WELL, THANK YOU, BETH. WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN LATER IN THE SHOW. WATCHING THE TRIAL WITH US TODAY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN NEW YORK AND IN MASSACHUSETTS DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND I'VE GOT TO ASK YOU BOTH TO STAND BY AS WE GO FOR MORE LIVE TESTIMONY. >> THAT THE MUSCLE IS MUSCLE -- THE DIAPHRAGM CONTRACTS. IT EXPANDS -- ALONG WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE CHEST WALL AIR IS INTRODUCED INTO THE LUNGS. A SMALL PORTION -- OR SMALL INJURY WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE RAPIDLY FATAL OR CAUSE DEATH. >> AND WHAT, IF ANY, FLUIDS WOULD BE AFFECTED BY AN INJURY OF THAT NATURE, AGAIN, FROM THE CHEST WALL THROUGH THE DIAPHRAGM INTO THE STOMACH PORTION OF THE TORSO. >> THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY EFFECT. THERE WOULD BE -- EXCUSE ME. THERE WOULD BE TEAR OF SMALL VESSELS BENEATH THE RIB. BENEATH THE FOURTH RIB. AND THERE WOULD BE TEARS OF SMALL VESSELS IN THE DIAPHRAGM ITSELF. >> AND HOW, IF AT ALL, WOULD THAT AFFECT THE AIRWAY? >> OVER TIME, BLOOD COULD ACCUMULATE AND CAUSE THE LEFT LUNG TO COLLAPSE. >> THE -- IN TERMS OF THE PASSAGE OF THE WOUND THROUGH THE STOMACH ITSELF, THROUGH THE LIVER AND THROUGH THE KIDNEY, DESCRIBE WHAT, IF ANY, EFFECT THAT WOULD HAVE ON THE BODY. >> THE -- BOTH ORGANS ARE VERY VASCULAR AND BOTH ORGANS TAKE IN A GREAT DEAL OF THE HEART'S PERCENT -- A LARGE PORTION OF THE BLOOD PUMPED OUT OF THE HEART WITH EACH BEAT. SO BLEEDING TO DEATH WOULD OCCUR FAIRLY RAPIDLY. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> FOR IDENTIFICATION? >> YES. I'M SORRY. >> FOR IDENTIFICATION, "YY." >> IT'S TIME FOR THE MORNING RECESS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE'LL RESUME IN THE COURTROOM AT 11:30. THE JURORS ARE EXCUSED. >>> OKAY. WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THEIR MID-MORNING BREAK WHICH GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND MAYBE LOOK AHEAD TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE. JON NA SPILLBORE, CRIMINAL DEFENSE COLLEAGUE, THE AUTOPSY EVIDENCE THAT'S COME IN SO FAR SEEMS TO PUT THE NAIL IN THE FINAL ASPECT OF HOPE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE, WHICH IS THAT SOMEHOW, SOME RANDOM GUNMAN GOT AHOLD OF THE MATTERAZZO GUN FOR REASONS -- WHO KNOWS. >> UH-HUH. >> WENT THERE, KILLED THEM, REPLACED THE MATTERAZZO GUN, AND TOOK OFF. THIS INDICATES THERE WAS NO SIGN OF STRUGGLE. NO SIGN OF FORCED ENTRY. >> NO FORCED ENTRY. RIGHT. THE BOOGY MAN DID IT. HE DOESN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF HOPE. ALTHOUGH I DO THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO USE THE TIME OF DEATH IN THEIR FAVOR AS MUCH AS THEY CAN SAYING OUR CLIENT WAS ACROSS THE POND WHEN THESE TWO PEOPLE WERE KILLED. THAT'S TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH HIS ALREADY INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SO THAT PROBABLY WON'T WORK. BUT THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT. THAT'S ALL THEY CAN USE THIS AUTOPSY FOR. >> OKAY. SO YOU ANTICIPATE SOME FAIRLY VIGOROUS CROSS-EXAMINATION FROM WELL YACHT WINESTEIN ABOUT TIME OF DEATH? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> SEE, THAT'S ALL THEY'VE GOT. >> IT'S TRUE. ROBERT GAL BOIS, I TEND TO AGREE. THEY DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH. THE MATTERAZZO GUN STRIKES ME AS THE SINGLE MOST DAMNING PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ADULT FRIEND FINDER, MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, DOESN'T REALLY IMPRESS ME. BUT THE UNIVERSE OF PEOPLE WHO KNEW THE LOCATION OF THE MATTERAZZO GUN, PRETTY SMALL UNIVERSE, RIGHT? >> IT WAS RATHER MINIMAL. AND QUITE CLEARLY THE EVIDENCE HAS SHOWN HE HAD ACCESS TO IT AND ALSO HAD UTILIZED IT IN THE PAST. SO KNEW HOW TO USE THE WEAPON. AND ESSENTIALLY I WOULD EXPECT THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING TO TRY TO OUT LINE IN HIS CLOTHING THREE THINGS. ONE GOING TO PERHAPS A MOTIVE, THE BEST MOTIVE, DETAILING THEIR FINANCIAL SITUATION AND PERHAPS EVIDENCE SUGGESTING IT WASN'T A HAPPY MARRIAGE. SECONDLY, TOO, AGAIN, ACCESS TO THAT MURDER WEAPON. IT'S QUITE CLEAR THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, THIS HANDGUN, THE MURDER WEAPON. AND THEN, THIRDLY AND FINALLY, HIS POST HOMICIDE CONDUCT. THAT IS, FLEEING BACK TO ENGLAND WITHOUT MAKING ANY CALLS WHATSOEVER TO EITHER HER PARENTS OR THE POLICE. >> OKAY. JONNA, FLEEING BACK TO ENGLAND, YOU CAN ARGUE, I SUPPOSE, THE MOST TRAUMATIC THING THAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO SOMEBODY, FIND THEIR WIFE AND BUYBY DAUGHTER DEAD, YOU FREAK OUT DB DISASSOCIATE, BASICALLY GO RUNNING HOME TO MOM BACK IN ENGLAND. THAT CAN BE EXPLAINED. BUT SOMEBODY HAD TO EXPLAIN IT. THE ONLY PERSON I SEE OUT THERE IN THE PERSON SEW NAY IS THE DEFENDANT. IS HE GOING TO TESTIFY? >> MAYBE IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE YOU, PERHAPS, HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE. BECAUSE WE CAN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE NOW AND SAY IT IS SO STACKED AGAINST THIS GUY, MAYBE THE ONLY SHOT HE HAS IS GETTING UP THERE -- LOOK. HE DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A MURDER. HE LOOKS LIKE A NICE ENOUGH GUY. HIS FRIENDS ALL SAID HE WAS A NICE ENOUGH GUY. MAYBE HE CAN GET UP THERE AND CRY CROCODILE TEARS AND MAKE SOME SORT OF HEADWAY WITH THE JURY IF HE DOES. MAYBE THIS IS THE CASE WHERE HE SHOULD TESTIFY. >> RIGHT. I TEND TO AGREE. WE'LL DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE LATER. REMEMBER, THE PROSECUTION NEEDS 12 JURORS. THE DEFENSE, WE JUST NEED ONE FOR A HUNG JURY. WHAT DO YOU THINK? OUR VIEWERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE? WHAT IS HIS BEST DEFENSE? SEND US YOUR COMMENTS OR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY AT BESTDEFENSE@CNN.COM. WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. . >>> WELCOME BACK TO THE "BEST DEFENSE." I'M RON KUBY. COURT IS TAKING ITS MID-MORNING RECESS SO YOU'RE NOT MISSING TESTIMONY. AS SOON AS IT RESUMES WE'LL BRING YOU BACK INTO THE COURTROOM LIVE. IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO BETH KARAS OUTSIDE THE WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, COURTHOUSE. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. WE'LL HEAR CONTINUED TESTIMONY FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE TESTIMONY SO FAR INDICATES, ESSENTIALLY, AN EXECUTION STYLE KILLING. AT LEAST AS TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE. WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE AUTOPSY RESULTS YET AS TO LILLIAN. >> CORRECT. HE'S IN THE MIDDLE OF DESCRIBING WHAT HE FOUND NOW IN HIS INTERNAL EXAMINATION OF THE LITTLE 28-INCH BODY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THERE WAS AN ENTRANCE AND EXIT WOUND WHICH EXPLAINS ALL LILLIAN'S BLOOD ON HER MOTHER'S SHIRT. LILLIAN WAS BASICALLY LYING ON TOP OF HER MOTHER. HER MOTHER WAS ON HER RIGHT SIDE. HE WILL SAY THE ONE SHOT TO THE CHEST OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH. AND THAT THE MANNER IS HOMICIDE. HE HASN'T SAID THE MANNER YET FOR EITHER ONE OF THEM. IT'S INTERESTING THAT IF NEIL ENTWISTLE DID, INDEED, DO THIS, WHOEVER THE SHOOTER WAS CHOSE NOT TO SHOOT RACHEL IN THE FACE BUT IN THE AIRLINE. IT WASN'T EVEN A KNOWN GUNSHOT WOUND UNTIL AUTOPSY. HE DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT IN HIS INITIAL EXTERNAL -- WELL, HE DID, WHEN HE LOOKED AT THE HEAD HE FOUND IT. WHEN HE WAS REMOVING THE SCALP. BUT HE DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS HEAD INJURY INITIALLY. NOR DID THE POLICE OFFICERS. AND WHOEVER DID THIS, NEIL ENTWISTLE OR WHOMEVER, SHOT THE BABY IN THE CHEST AND THEN RACHEL'S ARM IS PLACED OVER THE WOUND. AND SHE'S SHOT IN THE HEAD. THEN THEY ARE COVERED UP WITH THIS COMFORTER. WE SAW THOSE PHOTOS OF THE COMFORTER COVERING THEM UP. REALLY KIND OF TUCKING THEM IN. THERE'S NO BLOOD THAT SEEPED THROUGH. THE BLOOD WAS SEEPING DOWN AND NOT UP AND THROUGH THE COMFORTER. YOU KNOW, WHOEVER IT WAS LEFT THE SCENE. PERHAPS THERE'S A PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND THE HUSBAND DOING THIS AND NOT DAMAGING HIS WIFE'S FACE AND THEN COVERING THEM UP. >> ORIGINALLY PROSECUTORS HAD THOUGHT THIS WAS AN ATTEMPTED SUICIDE/MURDER. THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE FROM YESTERDAY THAT MIGHT LEND SOME CREDENCE TO THAT, IS THERE NOT, BETH, THIS RESEARCH, KNIFE IN THE NECK, KILL, PAINLESS SUICIDE METHODS. IT SUGGESTS, AT LEAST, DOES IT NOT, THE POSSIBILITY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IN SUCH DESPAIR OVER HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION, UNABLE TO EVEN AFFORD HALF-PRICED ESCORTS, OBVIOUSLY INCREDIBLY DESPAIRING MAN DECIDED TO KILL HIS WIFE AND INFANT DAUGHTER AND THEN WAS GOING TO KILL HIMSELF, BUT AS IS OFTEN THE CASE WITH MURDER/SUICIDES, APPARENTLY IT'S EASIER TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE THAN TO ACTUALLY GO AHEAD AND KILL YOURSELF. THAT'S AT LEAST A THEORY THE PROSECUTION FLOATED IN THE PAST. DO WE EXPECT TO SEE THAT IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS? >> Reporter: IT'S SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT. MICHAEL FABBRI DID NOT MENTION THAT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. BUT HIS OPENING STATEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE A LOT OF THE DETAIL THAT WE ARE -- WE'VE BEEN HEARING THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. AND, PERHAPS, HE WILL FLOAT THAT AGAIN. MARTHA COKELY, HIS -- ONE OF HIS BOSSES FROM -- SHE'S NOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HERE. DID SAY THAT INITIALLY. AND HE WAS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO KILL, WHETHER IT WAS HE -- WHOEVER THE USER WAS, HIMSELF OR ANOTHER PERSON WITH A KNIFE. OF COURSE, A KNIFE WAS NEVER USED HERE. IF HE, INDEED, WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF, I KNOW IT TAKES A LOT OF KURJ, BUT HE COULD HAVE JUST TURNED THAT GUN ON HIMSELF. IT'S MUCH EASIER TO KILL YOURSELF WITH A GUN THAN WITH A KNIFE. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S REALLY THAT MUCH OTHER EVIDENCE OF SUICIDE. SURE, HE WAS IN -- HE WAS IN FINANCIAL STRAITS. HE MAY HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY DISUPON DENT THAT HIS WIFE WAS ABOUT TO LEARN THAT HE HAD BEEN LYING ABOUT ALL THIS MONEY IN OFFSHORE ACCOUNTS, THAT THEY HAD ENOUGH MONEY TIED UP ELSEWHERE THAT THEY COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE HOUSE OUT RIGHT OR PUT DOWN A SIGNIFICANT DOWN PAYMENT AND THEIR FUTURE WAS SECURE. THESE ARE THE THINGS HE SAID TO HER ACCORDING TO PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, RACHEL'S MOTHER. I DO THINK THAT THE DEFENSE DID A GOOD JOB IN TAKING THE SEARCH FOR FLIGHTS TO BRITAIN ON JANUARY 9th, SORT OF NEUTRALIZED IT. TOOK IT OUT OF THE PICTURE. I WAS WAITING FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT MAYBE HE WAS PREMEDITATING. AND WAS BUYING A FLIGHT OUT OF THE COUNTRY AS EARLY AS JANUARY 9th OR AT LEAST SEARCHING FOR IT. DEFENSE LAWYER ON CROSS-EXAMINATION USING THE SAME EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION RELIED ON SHOWED THAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR ROUND-TRIP FLIGHTS FROM ENGLAND TO THE U.S. FOR APRIL 6th, RETURNING ON THE 18th FOR TWO ADULTS WITH NO CHILDREN. I SUSPECT IF THAT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE THAT HE WAS LOOKING TO BRING HIS PARENTS OVER TO THE UNITED STATES FOR A VISIT. ON A CHEAP TICKET. >> CERTAINLY WAS A GOOD POINT MADE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE COMMONWEALTH'S CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE TOOK A DRAMATIC TURN FROM FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED STATEMENTS FROM HIS COMPUTER SEARCHES IN THE DAYS LEADING UP TO HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER'S MURDERS. COULD ENTWISTLE'S INTERNET HISTORY COME BACK TO HAUNT HIM? THAT'S TODAY'S SIDE BAR. INTERNET SEARCHES. NOT ALWAYS LOST IN CYBER SPACE. WE'VE SEEN COMPUTER TESTIMONY PLAY KEY ROLES IN RECENT MURDER TRIALS. MOST NOTABLY, JUSTIN BARBER. REMEMBER HIM? ACCUSED OF HIS WIFE'S MURDER TWO YEARS AGO IN FLORIDA. BAB BER, WHO SUSTAINED NONFATAL SHOOTING INJURIES INCLUDING ONE IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF HIS CHEST CLAIMED HE AND HIS WIFE WERE ATTACKED BY A MUGGER. BUT THE STATE THEN PRESENTED EVIDENCE THAT BARBER GOOGLED THE WORDS TRAUMA CASES, GUNSHOT RIGHT AND CHEST BEFORE THE SHOOTINGS. HE WAS ULTIMATELY CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. IN NEIL ENTWISTLE'S TRIAL IT'S ALMOST A CASE OF DEJA VU ACCORDING TO COMPUTER FORENSIC EXPERT LAWRENCE JAMES. AN INTERNET HISTORY SEARCH ON ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER REVEALED NOT ONLY VISITS TO SITES SUCH AS ADULT FRIEND FINDER.COM AND HOT LOCAL ESCORTS IN JANUARY 2006, BUT ALSO THIS DAMAGING GOOGLE SEARCH DONE JUST DAYS BEFORE THE MURDERS. >> WHAT IS THE DATE AND TIME THAT THAT -- THAT THIS VISIT OCCURRED? >> IT'S 6-16-2006 AT 1254:45. >> THE RESOURCE AREA IS -- MENTIONS -- THE RESOURCE OF THE TITLE IN THIS CASE, WHAT WAS PERFORMED ON THE SEARCH THAT DAY. >> AND WHAT WAS -- WHAT DOES IT SAY IN THAT RESOURCE AREA? >> THE RESOURCE AREA IN THIS IS, IN QUOTATION MARKS, HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. >> SO THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE INTERNET SEARCHES SWITCHED GEARS FROM ESCORTS TO METHODS OF KILLING. AND PERHAPS EVEN MORE DISTURBING, THOUGH, WAS WHEN JAMES READ ALOUD FOR THE JURY A PORTION OF THE WEBSITE ACCESSED FROM THAT, HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE SEARCH. >> YOU MAY BE THINKING WHY GO FOR THE -- >> AORTA. >> -- THE AORTA. WHY NOT THE HEART. BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THE -- THIS ISN'T THE MOVIES. AND IT'S -- IT'S A LITTLE BLURRY. AND IT'S TO STAB THROUGH A HUMAN RIB CAGE. SO IF YOU EVER GET A CLEAR SHOT AT THE -- AT THE TORSO, YOU BEST TO STAB THEM IN IT JUST BELOW THE REMEMBER CAGE. ALL THE OTHER STRIKE POINTS ARE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. I HOPE AN INFORMATIVE BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, AN ENTERTAINING THREAD. >> SO FROM HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE AND TO KNIFE IN THE NECK SEARCHES TO HOT LOCAL ESCORTS.COM. JUST HOW DAMAGING WILL ENTWISTLE'S INTERNET ACTIVITY PROVE TO BE IN THE CASE AGAINST HIM? COULD GOOGLING PAST INFLUENCE THIS JURY? JONNA? >> IT'S -- THESE ARE -- I MEAN, LOOK. ADULT FRIEND FINDER. THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY -- >> OKAY. >> YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR PROSTITUTES. YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH YOUR SEX LIFE. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER WOMAN YOU'RE PLANNING TO RUN AWAY WITH. IT'S UGLY, BAD, STUPID. WE'VE EVEN SEEN GOVERNORS DO IT. >> IMAGINE THAT. >> BUT THE OTHER STUFF IS TERRIBLE. >> THE OTHER STUFF IS TERRIBLE UNLESS HE HAS SOME REALLY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. AGAIN, THE KEYWORD HERE IS HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT IF HE TAKES THE STAND. AND HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT? UNLESS, YOU KNOW, HE'S WATCHING A MOVIE AND SOMEBODY WAS MURDERED AND HE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT COULD HAPPEN THAT WAY SO HE JUST HAPPENED TO GOOGLE IT RIGHT BEFORE HIS WIFE AND CHILD WERE KILLED. >> ROBERT GALIBOIS OUT THERE IN MASSACHUSETTS, I KNOW WE DEFENSE LAWYERS, WE NEVER LIKE TO PUT ON OUR CLIENTS IF WE CAN POSSIBLY AVOID IT. BUT IT STRIKES ME THAT THIS IS THE TIME WHERE YOU LOOK AT YOUR CLIENT AND YOU SAY, YOU'RE COOKED. BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE SO FAR. WHO KNOWS. LOOK, WINESTEIN IS AN EXCELLENT LAWYER. HE MAY HAVE A LOT OF EVIDENCE COMES UP THAT REBUTS THIS. BUT RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE PROSECUTION'S CASE, YOU'RE COOKED. THE ONLY SHOT YOU HAVE, AND IT AIN'T A GREAT ONE, BUT THE ONLY SHOT YOU HAVE IS TO GET UP THERE IN FRONT OF THAT JURY, TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU LOVED YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER. PLEAD YOUR CASE AS COMPELLINGLY AS POSSIBLE. AND HOPE YOU REACH ONE JUROR. >> THAT IS VERY TRUE. YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT YOUR CLIENT AND SAY, CAN YOU GET UP THERE AND ESSENTIALLY SELL YOURSELF TO -- AS YOU JUST INDICATED, RON, ONE OF THOSE 12 JURORS. CERTAINLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS I WOULD THINK THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD BE SATISFIED, IF YOU WILL, IF IT'S A HUNG JURY. AGAIN, THOUGH, LOOKING BACK AT THE EVIDENCE AS IT'S BEEN COMING IN, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF INCONSISTENCIES. AND STATEMENTS BY NEIL ENTWISTLE. AND I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO GET BEYOND THAT FROM THE WITNESS STAND. >> JONNA SPILBOR, IMPOSSIBLE, DIFFICULT, YES. MANY INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. BUT A DEFENDANT DOESN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN HIS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. RIGHT? A DEFENDANT CAN SIMPLY SAY, I DON'T REMEMBER. I WAS IN SHOCK. I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT. YOU SAY I SAID IT. I'M NOT DENYING THAT I SAID. I JUST -- I DON'T REMEMBER. MY FAMILY HAD JUST BEEN KILLED. >> WILL A JURY BUY THAT? AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT THIS GUY'S CREDIBILITY. WHEN HE TAKES THE STAND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BELIEVE HIM NOW. AND THE PROSECUTION'S GOING TO HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF HIS INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. SAYING WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE? WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE? EVERY TIME THEY DO THAT THE JURORS ARE GOING TO SAY, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS GUY. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BELIEVE HIM THEN AND THERE IN ORDER TO ACQUIT OR DO WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO. >> BETH KARAS, WE'VE SEEN A FAIRLY COMPELLING PROSECUTION CASE. I HAVE TO SAY, AS A DEFENSE LAWYER. DO YOU HAVE ANY SENSE OF WHAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO DO BEYOND WHAT THEY'VE DONE ALREADY, WHICH IS TO, YOU KNOW, POKE A HOLE HERE, POKE A HOLE THERE? >> Reporter: NO. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T TRIED. EVERY SINGLE DAY I ASK ELLIOT WINESTEIN WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO. AND HE IS NOT TELLING ME A THING. SOME HAVE SPECULATED, JUST PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO, LAWYERS, SOME OF OUR COMMENTATORS IN THE FIELD, THAT MAYBE HE'LL PUT ON AN EXPERT IN CRIME SCENE PROCESSING JUST TO CHALLENGE WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO HAVE A CASE. >> ALL RIGHT, BETH. WE'LL BE SEEING YOU A BIT LATER. COURT IS STILL IN RECESS. THEY TAKE THEIR MID-MORNING RECESS, SO WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A VERY BRIEF RECESS HERE ON THE BEST DEFENSE. BUT DON'T GO AWAY. STAY WITH US. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK TO THE "BEST DEFENSE." I'M RON KUBY. COURT IS STILL IN MID-MORNING RECESS, BUT THEY'RE ABOUT TO RECONVENE SHORTLY. SO WE'LL TAKE YOU INSIDE AS SOON AS THAT STARTS. I WANT TO GO OUT TO ROBERT GALIBOIS JUST TO ASK SORT OF A TECHNICAL, LEGAL QUESTION ABOUT MASSACHUSETTS PROCEDURE. IF YOU INTEND AS A DEFENSE LAWYER TO CALL A BALLISTICS EXPERT OR A DNA EXPERT, INTEND TO INTRODUCE SOME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, DO YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE REPORTS AND WITNESS NAMES BEFOREHAND TO THE PROSECUTION? >> YES, YOU DO. AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM CERTAINLY SEASONALABLE ENOUGH NOTICE FOR THEM TO EXAMINE WHATEVER REPORTS YOU'RE HANDING OVER. OR CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THE EXPERT YOU'RE LOOKING TO CALL. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT WHATEVER OPINION YOU OFFER. >> AND WITH WOULD THOSE DOCUMENTS BE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS OR AT LEAST NOTICE OF THEIR FILING BE PUBLIC SO SOMEBODY LIKE BETH KARAS, YOU KNOW, IN HER INCREDIBLE WAY OF FERTING OUT INFORMATION COULD FIND THEM? >> MANY OF US WELL LIKED DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THE AREA KEEP THE MEDIA PEOPLE IN THE LOOP AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON. IN THIS CASE IT APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND CERTAINLY UNDERSTANDABLE. NORMALLY THINGS LIKE THAT MAY NOT BE PUBLIC INFORMATION. AND ANY FILINGS THAT WERE DONE WITH THE COURT, CERTAINLY THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A REQUEST TO KEEP IT UNDER SEAL. BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, DISCOVERY TYPES OF INFORMATION ARE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY FILED WITH THE COURT. >> AND A VERY QUICK QUESTION OUT TO BETH KARAS. BECAUSE I KNOW NOBODY INVESTIGATES THE WAY BETH KARAS INVESTIGATES. HAVE YOU FOUND A SCINTILLA OF INDICATION THAT THERE ARE DEFENSE SCIENTIFIC WITNESSES WHO ARE GOING TO BE PREPARED TO TESTIFY TO REBUT SOME OF THIS EXTREMELY DAMNING MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND FORENSIC EVIDENCE? >> Reporter: NOT A SCINTILLA. BUT, AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN TRYING. >> NO, NO, NO. WE KNOW THAT. I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING. ALL RIGHT. JONNA SPILBOR, YOU ASKED A VERY GOOD QUESTION OFF MIKE. ASK IT AGAIN. >> WHY DIDN'T THIS GUY, IF HE WAS FEELING LIKE SUCH A LOSER, JUST GET ON A PLANE TO ENGLAND AND SAY BYE-BYE, WIFE AND KIDS. I'M A LOSER. I'M GOING BACK TO MY FAMILY. YOU CONDITIONED FIND ME FOR CHILD SUPPORT. I'M OUT OF HERE. WHY DIDN'T HE JUST DO THAT? >> THIS IS THE QUESTION WE ALWAYS ASK IN SPOUSAL MURDER CASES. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST DIVORCE HIM? WHY DID YOU GET RID OF HER? YOU KNOW, BY LEAVING. BHI DID YOU HAVE TO CUT HIM UP WITH A CHAIN SAW AND PUT HIM IN THREE MATCHING PIECES OF KENNETH COLE LUGGAGE AND DUMP HIM IN MASSACHUSETTS BAY. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK LIVE TO THE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE AUTOPSY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE, DOCTOR, TO LOOK AT YOUR REPORT AND LOOK AT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS DURING THE BREAK? >> YES, I DID. >> AND AS TO YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT, IF ANY, LIVIDITY WAS PRESENT ON THE BODY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, DID YOU OBSERVE SOME? >> YES. >> AND WHERE DO YOU RECALL IT BEING? >> IT WAS ON THE BACK. >> SIR, IF I COULD STEP DOWN FROM THE STAND AND I THINK THAT BLACK MARKER SHOULD STILL BE UP THERE. IF YOU COULD FIRST ON THE UPPER PORTION, THE FIGURE ON THAT DIAGRAM THAT IS FACING OUT, AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, CAN YOU NOTE THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION, USING A NUMBER ONE AND CIRCLING IT, THE -- LET ME FINISH, DOCTOR. THE INJURY THAT YOU NOTED ON THE FRONT OF THE BODY OF RACHEL -- EXCUSE ME. LILLIAN ENTWISTLE? AND YOU USED THAT ONE -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR -- AND YOU CIRCLED IT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND FOR THE RECORD WE'RE TALKING THE UPPER RIGHT DEPICTION ON THAT DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR. NOW, SIR, IF YOU COULD, USING THE UPPER LEFT DEPICTION, THE ONE WHERE THE BACK IS FACING TOWARD YOU, NOTE THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE SECOND WOUND THAT YOU SAW ON THE BODY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE USING THE NUMBER TWO AND CIRCLING IT. NOW, SIR, IF YOU COULD, USING EITHER BOTTOM DEPICTION ON THAT DIAGRAM, IF YOU COULD, NOTE THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL OR THE LOCATION OF THE ROUTE THAT YOU TRACED THAT FRONT WOUND TOWARD THE BACK WOUND. IS THAT DARK ENOUGH? SIR, IF YOU NEED TO USE -- I HAVE ANOTHER MARKER. AND I NOTICE FOR THE RECORD YOU'RE PUTTING ARROW HEADS ON TWO PORTIONS OF THAT DEPICTION. >> YES, SIR. >> ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. OKAY, SIR. YOU CAN RESUME THE STAND. NOW, SIR, DURING THE AUTOPSY, PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE -- EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. THE INTERNAL EXAMINATION OF THE ADULT FEMALE AND THE INFANT, DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CORRELATION BETWEEN THE WOUND ON THE BACK OF THE BODY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE AND THE WOUND TO THE LEFT CHEST OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE? >> YES, I DID. >> AND DESCRIBE HOW YOU DID THAT AND WHAT POSITION OR POSITIONS YOU WERE ABLE TO SITUATE THE BODY IN IN DOING THAT? >> MANIPULATING THE -- THE INFANT ON THE ADULT AND TAKING PHOTOS. AND ALSO USING A PROBE. WE WERE ABLE TO PLACE THE INFANT ON THE ADULT FEMALE'S BREAST, LEFT BREAST. GL AND WHEN YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, CAN YOU DESCRIBE, AGAIN, USING -- STANDING UP RIGHT AS THE REFERENCE POSITION, WHEN DOING THAT, WHAT POSITION DID THE INFANT CHILD END UP IN? >> IF YOU PLACED THE BABY'S RIGHT MID OR LOWER BACK ON THE OUTER QUADRANT OF THE LEFT BREAST, THERE WAS -- YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THE -- >> TELL US WHAT YOU SAW AND TELL US THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE TWO BODIES WHEN YOU WERE -- >> THAT THE BABY -- >> LET ME FINISH, DOCTOR. TELL US THE RELEVANT POSITION OF THE TWO BODIES, AGAIN, IN RELATION TO THE ADULT FEMALE BEING IN AN UP RIGHT POSITION. TELL US THE RELATIVE POSITION OF THE TWO BODIES WHEN YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT ORLATION. >> THAT THE BABY WOULD BE UP RIGHT. THAT THE BABY'S RIGHT BACK WOULD BE AGAINST THE BREAST. THAT THE BABY -- THE FRONT ANTERIOR PORTION OF THE BABY WOULD BE SLIGHTLY KANDERRED TO THE RIGHT. >> AND IN WHAT DIRECTION WOULD BE THE FRONT OF THE BABY BE FACING IN RELATION TO THE FRONT OF THE ADULT FEMALE? >> THE BABY'S FRONT WOULD BE ALMOST THE SAME AS THE ADULT'S FRONT. >> AND YOU SAID THERE WAS A SLIGHT CANT? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DIRECTION WAS THAT CANT IN? >> IT WAS -- THE BABY -- TOWARDS THE BABY'S RIGHT. OR TOWARDS THE ADULT'S RIGHT. EXCUSE ME. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ADULT, THE BABY WOULD HAVE BEEN FACING TOWARDS THE ADULT'S LEFT SIDE OF THE BODY. LOOKING AT THE ADULT STANDING UP. >> SIR, BASED ON YOUR AUTOPSY OF THE BODY OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, YOUR OBSERVATIONS AND EXAMINATION DURING THE EXTERNAL EXAMINATION OF THE BODY, YOUR OBSERVATION AND EXAMINATION OF THE INTERNAL PHASE OF YOUR AUTOPSY ON LILLIAN ENTWISTLE, AND OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU, DID YOU DETERMINE A CAUSE OF DEATH TO LILLIAN ENTWISTLE? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT CAUSE? >> THAT IT WAS A GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE ABDOMEN WITH LIVER AND KIDNEY PER FORRATION. >> AND IN TERMS OF THE TIME OF INJURY, THE ONSET OF INJURY TO THE ONSET -- EXCUSE ME. THE TIME OF THE INJURY TO THE ONSET OF DEATH, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE A TIME? >> JUST AN PROXIMATION. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT APPROXIMATION OR WHAT IS THAT APPROXIMATION? >> A MINUTE OR MINUTES. >> AND IN TERMS OF THE TIME OF DEATH, THE DAY OR APPROXIMATE DAY OF DEATH IN RELATION TO THE TIME OF YOUR AUTOPSY, JANUARY 24th, 2006, WERE YOU ABLE TO APPROXIMATE THAT? >> FROM THE DATE OF THE AUTOPSY, THAT IT WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FOUR DAYS. PLUS OR MINUS ONE OR TWO. AND THAT THE TIME COULDN'T BE DETERMINED. >>> WE'RE LOOKING AT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S BROTHER THERE. HE'S WATCHING FROM THE GALLERY. HE'S BEEN ATTENDING THE TRIAL. WHILE THEY GET THAT TOGETHER, IT'S A GOOD TIME TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK. TAKE A LOOK AT OUR 13th JUROR QUESTION. TODAY WE WANT TO KNOW, DO SEARCHING DONE ON ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER HELP THE PROSECUTION? SO FAR 96% OF YOU ARE SAYING YES. ONLY 4% ARE VOTING NO. I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO TALK WITH SOME OF YOU 4% AT SOME TIME. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME TO CAST YOUR VOTE. THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE" AND WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> NEIL ENTWISTLE SAYS HE WAS HEARTBROKEN WHEN HE DISCOVERED HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER'S BODIES INSIDE HIS MASSACHUSETTS HOME. PROSECUTORS SAY HE'S THE ONE WHO MURDERED THEM. MORE IN 90 SECONDS. >>> WELCOME BACK TO THE "BEST DEFENSE." I'M RON KUBY. IF YOU WERE WONDERING WHAT YOU MISSED DURING OUR BREAK IT WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THERE WAS A SIDE BAR DEALING WITH DEATH CERTIFICATES. SOME ISSUES AS TO -- I'M GOING TO GUESS AS TO WHAT WOULD COME IN, WHAT WOULD NOT COME IN. DR. ZANE IDENTIFYING THE DEATH CERTIFICATES HE ISSUED. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ABOUT READY TO RESUME TESTIMONY. LET'S GO BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND LISTEN. >> WE'RE ALL SET, YOUR HONOR. >> ALL RIGHT. >>> SEFNY PAGE APPARENTLY GETTING READY TO BEGIN HER CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> GOOD MORNING, DOCTOR. >> GOOD MORNING. >> I TAKE IT FROM YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU NEVER WENT TO 6 CUBS PATH EVER. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU THEN WERE NEVER ABLE TO SEE THE TWO BODIES AS THE POLICE FIRST SAW THEM. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU WERE NEVER ABLE TO SEE THE TWO BODIES BEFORE THEY WERE PHOTOGRAPHED, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA, I TAKE IT, ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD BEEN INTO THAT BEDROOM BEFORE THE POLICE WERE EVER IN THERE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OR EVEN AFTER WARDS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THE BODIES HAD BEEN MOVED BEFORE THE POLICE ARRIVED, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT THE BODIES HAD BEEN MOVED AFTER THE POLICE HAD ARRIVED, RIGHT? >> YES. >> FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER SAW THE TWO BODIES WAS WHEN THEY ARRIVED AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND I THEN TAKE IT FROM WHAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD US THAT YOU HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE AT ALL ABOUT THE BEDROOM AT 6 CUBS PATH. IS THAT RIGHT? >> ONLY WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY HISTORY, CORRECT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU SAY PROVIDED BY HISTORY, YOU AS THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IN THIS CASE HAVE TO RELY ON WHAT IS TOLD TO YOU BY THE INVESTIGATORS IN THE CASE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? IN PART? >> IN PART, YES. >> AND THAT WOULD BE THE INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE, HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF YOU ENDING UP ON THIS WITNESS STAND? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT. AND IT'S ALSO FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU'VE TOLD US THAT YOU SIGNED THE DEATH CERTIFICATE, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU COMPLETED THE TWO AUTOPSY REPORTS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THE AUTOPSY REPORTS DETAILED EVERYTHING THAT YOU OBSERVED IN TERMS OF THE BODIES IN THEIR EXAMINATION. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> IT SHOULD, YES. >> OF COURSE IT SHOULD. AND, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'VE NEVER WRITTEN ANY SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS TO ADD INFORMATION TO THE AUTOPSY REPORT THAT WAS IMPORTANT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'VE SUBMITTED NO ADDENDUMS OR OTHER REPORTS. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU WOULD AGREE, DOCTOR, THAT THE HALLMARK OF AN EXPERIENCED AND CREDIBLE EXPERT SUCH AS YOURSELF IS OBJECTTIVITY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> NEUTRALITY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT WORKING FOR THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, CORRECT? >> NO. >> YOU'RE NOT WORKING FOR THE POLICE, RIGHT? >> NO. >> YOU'RE AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATOR. IS THAT CORRECT? >> INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN. >> INDEPENDENT PHYSICIAN WHO INVESTIGATES BODIES TO DETERMINE CAUSE OF DEATH. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT IF AN EXPERT WAS NOT OBJECTIVE, NEUTRAL, OR INDEPENDENT, THEN THAT WOULD WEIGH IN ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERT. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> NOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE VERY EXPERIENCED, DOCTOR. RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU'RE A VERY EXPERIENCED FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU'VE WORKED OVER DB WAS IT 22 YEARS OR 21 YEARS IN THE COMMONWEALTH, RIGHT? >> 20 YEARS, 21, YES. >> AND AS YOU TOLD US ONE OF THE WAYS YOU MAINTAIN YOUR INDEPENDENCE AND NEUTRALITY IS BY KEEPING UP WITH THE ADVANCES IN YOUR FIELD. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I DIDN'T SAY THAT. >> WELL, YOU WOULD AGREE YOU WANT TO KEEP UP WITH ALL THE ADVANCES IN YOUR FIELD? >> YES. >> OF COURSE. I MEAN, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO AS THOROUGH A JOB AS YOU CAN. RIGHT? >> YES. >> AS COMPLETE A JOB AS YOU CAN, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND BECAUSE ULTIMATELY YOU MAKE A DECISION, AS YOU TOLD US, WHAT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND ONE OF THE WAYS, AS YOU'VE TOLD US, YOU KEEP ON TOP OF YOUR AREA IS THAT YOU'RE A MEMBER OF A NUMBER OF SOCIETIES, FORENSIC PATHOLOGY SOCIETIES, RIGHT? >> NO. >> DIDN'T YOU SAY YOU WERE A MEMBER OF NAME -- NATIONAL -- YOU'RE NOT? >> I'M A MEMBER OF ONLY ONE SOCIETY. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO EXAGGERATE. BUT THAT'S A NATIONALLY KNOWN SOCIETY FOR FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO HAVE ATTENDED, AS YOU TOLD US, VARIOUS SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS? >> YES. >> YOU HAVE IN-HOUSE MEETINGS WHERE YOU ALL TALK ABOUT WHATEVER IT IS THAT NEEDS TO BE SPOKEN ABOUT IN YOUR CASES? >> YES. >> AND THERE ARE ALSO CERTAIN REFERENCES THAT YOU AS A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST RELY ON IF YOU NEED SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR OPINION. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND ONE OF THESE IS THE MEDICAL/LEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH BY SPITS AND FISHER? >> COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN? >> SURE. ONE OF THE SOURCES THAT PEOPLE -- YOU AND PEOPLE IN YOUR OFFICE RELY ON IS SPITZ & FISHER'S MEDICAL/LEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND IF I COULD JUST SHOW YOU THIS BOOK. IT'S KIND OF HEAVY. YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> YES. >> IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> YES. I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT. >> AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S -- IT'S REALLY LIKE THE BIBLE FOR FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> -- >> BIBLE MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WORD. IT'S A RELIABLE SOURCE. >> EXCUSE ME. I USED IT TO STUDY FOR THE BOARDS. I USED IT VERY EXTENSIVELY. I DON'T KNOW IF OTHER DOCTORS CALL IT A BIBLE. >> BUT YOU CONSIDER THAT A RELIABLE SOURCE IN TERMS OF EDUCATING YOURSELF. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND IN TERMS OF LOOKING TO SEE IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE UNIQUE THAT MAY BE BEYOND YOUR FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE IF IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE OR IF ITS DOCUMENTED? >> YES. >> AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT BOOK FOR THE JURY? >> IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO ABOUT 15 CHAPTERS GOING WITH -- STARTING WITH IDENTIFICATION, TIME FROM DEATH, SHARP FORCE INJURY, FIREARM INJURIES. >> IT COVERS THE WHOLE RANGE OF SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED DEATHS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IT HAS LOTS OF EXAMPLES OF WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR AREA IS IN PRETTY DESTRIPTIVE DETAIL. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND, AS YOU SAY, IT'S IN YOUR OFFICE? CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IT'S A RELIABLE SOURCE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU'RE ALSO FAMILIAR WITH DR. VIN ENT DEMAY OWE. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH HIS BOOK. >> LET ME JUST SWAP BOOKS FOR A MOMENT. AND DR. DEMAYOWE IS ANOTHER FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST WHO PUBLISHES QUITE A BIT IN THE FIELD OF FORENSIC PATHOLOGY. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND HE HAS A SUBSPECIALTY THAT DEALS WITH GUNSHOT WOUNDS. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND I SHOW YOU THAT TEXT. AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT, SIR? >> YES. >> AND THAT'S DR. DEMAYOWE'S TEXT ON GUNSHOT WOUNDS WITH REGARD TO FORENSIC PATHOLOGY ISSUES. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND HE'S DONE QUITE A BIT OF RESEARCH ON VARIOUS ASPECTS OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND HE'S PUBLISHED EXTENSIVELY BEYOND HIS TEXTBOOKS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION, PLEASE? >> HE HAS PUBLISHED IN JOURNALLING -- >> WELCOME TO THE AREA OF IMPEACHMENT BY LEARNED TREATISE. IT'S SOMETHING WE'LL BE DISCUSSING A LITTLE LATER ON IN THE SHOW WHERE YOU SHOW THE EXPERT WITNESS BOOKS IN THE AREA THAT ARE AUTHORITATIVE AND THEN YOU CROSS EXAMINE HIM OR HER BASED ON THE TEXT OF THE BOOKS. RIGHT NOW IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. STAY WITH US. THE EVIDENCE IS MOUNTING AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE BUT IS IT ENOUGH FOR A GUILTY VERDICT? LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS WHEN THE BEST DEFENSE >>> UP NEXT, A MURDER MYSTERY IN MASSACHUSETTS. PROSECUTORS SAY IT WAS THE VICTIMS' HUSBAND AND FATHER. HE SAYS HE'S INNOCENT. A NEW HOUR OF "THE BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS A COLLEGE STUDENT. TWO YEARS LATER THE TWO MARRIED AND HAD A BABY GIRL TOGETHER. NOW RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER DAUGHTER ARE DEAD AND NEIL ENTWISTLE IS ON TRIAL FOR DOUBLE MURDER. HIS MOUNTING DEBTS AND DISSATISFACTION WITH THEIR SEX LIFE CAUSED HIM TO KILL. BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE MAEGS COURTHOUSE. HELLO. AT THE VERY TAIL END A FEW MINUTES AGO WE GOT TO SEE THE BEGINNING OF IMPEACHMENT BY THE MENTION OF SOME BOOKS THAT ARE CONSIDERED AUTHORITATIVE. >> STEPHANIE PAGE IS ASKING ABOUT MEDICAL, LEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH BY WESTERNER, SPITS AND FISHER. ANOTHER BOOK "GUN SHOT WOUNDS" WHICH WE SAW AND HEARD A LOT ABOUT. THOSE TWO WITNESSES TESTIFIED BY PHIL SPECTOR LAST YEAR. WE'VE SEEN BOTH OF THEM IN OTHER CASES, AS WELL. I SUSPECT SHE IS CHALLENGING HIM ON THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT WOUND ON THE BABY. THERE IS AN ENTRANCE ROOM ON RACHEL IN HER HEAD. MAYBE HE WASN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH IN HIS DESCRIPTION OF THEM OR NOTICING WHAT THEY WERE. I HAD TO LEAVE THE TESTIMONY TO COME OUT HERE AND TALK TO YOU. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE MOST RECENT QUESTIONS. >> BETH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL HEAD RIGHT BACK TO THE COURTROOM. I'VE GOT TO ASK YOU TO STAND BY AS WE GO BACK IN LIVE. >> YOU ALSO AGREE WITH DR. SPITS AND FISHER, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOMICIDE, SUICIDE OR ACCIDENT MAY BE DIFFICULT OR SOMETIMES IMPOSSIBLE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OF COURSE. YOUR DUTY IS TO INVESTIGATE ANY SUDDEN DEATH? >> YES. >> THAT GOES THE WHOLE GAMBIT IN DIFFERENT WAYS PEOPLE CAN DIE SUDDENLY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN SOME CASES, THE FACT SOMEONE DIED OF A GUN SHOT WOUND ALONE CANNOT TELL YOU THAT DEATH WAS THE RESULT OF A HOMICIDE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> LIKE MOST PHYSICIANS YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HISTORY AND PHYSICAL AND YOU BASE IT ON AUTOPSY FINDINGS AND TERMINAL CIRCUMSTANCES. >> THE ANSWER TO THAT WAS? >> SORRY. REPEAT THE QUESTION. >> THE FACT THAT SOMEONE DIED FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND, THAT FACT ALONE IN SOME CASES CANNOT TELL YOU WHETHER THAT DEATH WAS THE RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL KILLING, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT CERTAINLY CAN'T TELL YOU THAT FACT ALONE WHO IT WAS THAT FIRED THE WEAPON, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IF YOU AGREE IF NOT EVERY DEATH FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND IS AN UNLAWFUL KILLING THEN NOT EVERY DEATH FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND IS NECESSARILY A HOMICIDE? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AS YOU GO THROUGH YOUR DUTIES, THERE IS SORT OF LIKE A CHECKLIST OF THINGS YOU ARE CONSIDERING AND CHECKING OFF, ALMOST LIKE A PROCESS OF ELIMINATION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE IS? >> YES. YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF RULING OUT OTHER CAUSES, AT LEAST MENTALLY EVEN IF IT'S NOT ON PAPER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU NEED TO RULE OUT ACCIDENT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YOU NEED TO RULE OUT SUICIDE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I'M SORRY BUT CAUSE IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH MANNER. ACCIDENT IS THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CAUSE, THAT BRINGS THE SITUATION IN HAND SO YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE SITUATIONS. >> RIGHT. I'M TALKING TO YOU NOW JUST BASED ON THE GUN SHOT WOUND ALONE. >> YES. >> YOU NEED TO CONSIDER AND RULE OUT THE MANNER OF CAUSE OF THIS GUN SHOT WOUND, IS THAT RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND YOU NEED TO RULE OUT ACCIDENT, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND YOU NEED TO RULE OUT SUICIDE, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> BECAUSE SOMETIMES THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AS YOU TOLD US, THE WAY YOU DO THIS IS BY TRYING TO LEARN AS MUCH AS YOU CAN BY WHAT'S ALLEGED TO HAVE HAPPENED. RIGHT? >> YES. >> WHAT THE POLICE KNOW, RIGHT? >> YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT COULD BE RELEVANT TO YOUR ULTIMATE DECISION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOU WANT TO BE INFORM THE OF THE TOTALITY OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RESULTED IN SOMEONE DYING FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IN A PERFECT WORLD, YES. >> OF COURSE. OF COURSE YOU TAKE YOUR JOB VERY SERIOUSLY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU ARE DOING THE BEST YOU CAN EVERY MOMENT YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOU CERTAINLY WOULD AGREE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING THAT, ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PERT IN ANY EVENT AND IMPORTANT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH A DEATH WAS CAUSED, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AS YOU TOLD US, SOMETIMES DETERMINING THE MANNER OF DITH, WHETHER IT'S A HOMICIDE, SOW SIDE OR ACCIDENT, DEPENDS ON MORE THAN JUST WHAT YOU SEE AT THE AUTOPSY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT'S SOMETIMES THE COMBINATION OF MANY, MANY FACTORS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> EXISTENCE OR POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE OF OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. POSSIBILITY OF OTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAY RESULT FROM SCIENTIFIC TESTING, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. ALSO IN A COMBINATION WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ABOUT THE PERSON'S LIFE WHO HAS JUST DIED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> NO. >> LET'S EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT, DOCTOR. >> YES. >> YOU TOLD THE JURY YOU HAVE QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE IN GUN SHOT WOUNDS THAT RESULT IN INJURIES, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT RESULT IN DEATH, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU TOLD US IT'S ABOUT A LITTLE MORE THAN 200 THAT RESULTED IN THE MANNER OF HOMICIDE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU HAVE EVEN MORE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE DYING FROM GUN SHOT WOUNDS WHERE IT'S BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE MANNER IS SUICIDE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> IN FACT, IN MASSACHUSETTS, SUICIDE IS ABOUT THREE TIMES AS FREQUENT AS IT IS AS HOMICIDE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. >> YOU KNOW FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE YOU HAD AUTOPSIES ON MORE PEOPLE THAT DIED AS A RESULT OF SUICIDE FROM GUN SHOT WOUNDS THAN HOMICIDE FROM GUN SHOT WOUNDS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. IN TERMS OF THE LITERATURE ON GUN SHOT WOUND BY HOMICIDE, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS SHOULD LOOK FOR IN TRYING TO RULE OUT WHETHER SOMETHING WAS A SUICIDE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> DR. DiMAIO IN HIS TEXAS "GUN SHOT WOUNDS" SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME FOR THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS TO LOOK FOR WHETHER SOMETHING WAS A SUICIDE VERSUS A HOMICIDE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD AGREE WITH DR. DiMAIO AND THE OTHERS THAT HAND GUNS ARE THE PREFERRED WEAPON FOR SUICIDE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID WITH REGARDS TO THAT. >> SURE. >>> WELCOME TO THE AREA OF IMPEACHMENT BY LEARNED TREATIES. USUALLY YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CONFRONT A WITNESS WITH WHAT SOME OTHER PERSON SAID UNLESS IT FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTION OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WHEN YOU HAVE AN AUTHORITATIVE TEXT ON A PARTICULAR AREA, AND THIS WITNESS DR. ZAIN IDENTIFIED BOTH BOOKS AS AUTHORITATIVE TEXASES, ONCE HE SAID YES, THIS MAN IS THE AUTHORITY. HE'S WRITTEN THE BOOK, I RELY ON THIS BOOK. IT'S GENERALLY RELIED UPON IN THE PROFESSION, WHAT YOU CAN THEN DO IS CHALLENGE THE WITNESS DIRECTLY BASED UPON THE ACTUAL TEXT IN THE BOOK. SO IF THE WITNESS SAYS HAND GUNS ARE RARELY A CAUSE OF SUICIDE, BUT THE BOOK, IN FACT SAYS HAND GUNS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF SUICIDE, AND INDEED, THE WITNESS IDENTIFIED THE BOOK AS AN AUTHORITATIVE TEXT YOU CAN CONFRONT HIM AND SAY, AHA, IN THE VERY BOOK YOU IDENTIFIED, IT SAYS HAND GUNS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE. THE SIDEBAR HAS BROKEN UP. I THINK THEY WERE FIGURING OUT WHICH PIECE COULD BE READ WHICH WAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO GO TO A BREAK. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." DURING THE BREAK THAT WE TOOK, MISS PAGE GOT THE WITNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE MR. DiMAIO'S BOOK IN WHICH MR. DiMAIO WRITES THAT INDEED 92% OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE DO SO WITH A HAND GUN. SHE ALSO GOT THE WITNESS TO ADMIT MR. DiMAIO WROTE THAT ALTHOUGH 72% SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE HEAD, IT IS SUGGESTING PERHAPS THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE KILLED HERSELF. DON'T KNOW, BUT LET'S GO BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND LISTEN. >> YOU WOULD AGREE 72% OF WOMEN -- SORRY. 72% OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE HEAD, IS THAT CORRECT? >> OBJECTION. SUSTAINED AS TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. >> DO YOU DISAGREE WITH DR. DiMAIO'S EXPERT STUDIES THAT ESTABLISHED THAT 72% OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE BY GUNS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE HEAD? >> I HAVE TO REASON TO. >> IT'S A RELIABLE AUTHORITY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> SOMEONE WHOM YOU HAVE RELIED ON MANY TIMES FOR AN ULTIMATE OPINION, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> NO, NO. >> YOU RELIED ON DR. I DID PAYO FOR YOUR EXPERT OPINIONS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU, SIR? >> YES. >> ON HIS PUBLICATIONS? >> NO, NO. >> YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGY BOOK HE HAS. >> YES. >> AND YOU USED THAT AS A REFERENCE. >> OH, YES. >> HE IS A RELIABLE AUTHORITY? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH DR. DiMAIO AND HIS FINDINGS THAT MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE DO NOT LEAVE SUICIDE NOTES, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, YES. >> ONLY ABOUT 25% TO 26% OF PEOPLE LEAVE NOTES. >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. >> ARE WE HEARING WHAT WE THINK WE ARE HEARING? THIS SORT OF NEW DEFENSE INTONATION IS THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE KILLED HER BABY AND KILLED HERSELF? >> I THINK THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE HEARING. I AM IMPRESSED AND APPALLED. SHE IS DOWN-RIGHT SUGGESTING IT WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SIT. >> WE HAVE TO DO A LITTLE MORE. >> DON'T YOU? >> THOSE OF US WHO SAT THROUGH THE PHIL SPECTOR TRIAL RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO A LITTLE MORE THAN SUGGEST THAT STATISTICALLY THIS MIGHT BE MORE LIKELY A SUICIDE IF SHE COMMITTED SUICIDE. DON'T YOU HAVE TO PUT OUT SOME EVIDENCE SHE WAS DISTRAUGHT, DEPRESSED, DES POND EVENT? >> UNLESS NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GOING TO TESTIFY SHE WAS SUFFERING POST PARTUM OR BRING IN HIS OWN EXPERT. THIS IS CRAZY. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S COMING OUT OF LEFT FIELD. I FEEL BAD FOR HER PARENTS SITTING THERE LISTENING TO HER SUGGEST SHE KILLED HERSELF AND HER BABY. >> I DON'T MEAN TO IMPUGN THE DEFENSE. I FEEL THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB DEFENDING THEIR CLIENT WITH WHAT THEY HAVE, BUT THIS HAS A QUALITY OF MAKING IT UP AS YOU GO ALONG. >> IT DOES. THAT MIGHT REALLY SEND THE JURY INTO A TAILSPIN. NOW THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY MIGHT LOSE CREDIBILITY, NOT JUST HER CLIENT IF SHE WERE TO PUT HIM ON THE STAND. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL WITH. >> I SUPPOSE THE OTHER DANGER OF ALL OF THIS IS NONE OF THIS WAS, NO INDICATION OF THIS WAS GIVEN IN OPENING STATEMENTS. USUALLY AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE A DEFENSE, YOU WANT TO AT LEAST PREVIEW IN OPENING SO THE JURY GETS SOME SENSE OF WHERE YOU ARE GOING AND WHERE YOU ARE CROSS-EXAMINATION IS TAKING THEM. NONE OF THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. >> EXACTLY. I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR THE REDIRECT NOW OF THIS MEDICAL EXAMINER FOLLOWING THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> INDEED AS WE CAN SEE. THE SIDEBAR HAS BROKEN UP AND CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ABOUT TO RESUME RIGHT NOW. >> THE STATEMENT FROM DR. DiMAIO, CIRCUMSTANCE MOST PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE WITH A FIREARM, LIKE SUICIDE VICTIMS IN GENERAL DO NOT LEAVE A NOTE. NOTES ARE ONLY LEFT IN APPROXIMATELY 25% OF ALL SUICIDES. >> I HAVE NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH HIM. >> IT'S ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT, NOT ALL GUN SHOT WOUNDS BY SUICIDE ARE CONTACT WOUNDS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND THAT NOT ALL SIDE BY HAND GUNS ARE CONTACT WOUNDS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ALSO KNOW, DOCTOR, THAT WHEN PEOPLE SHOOT THEMSELVES AND COMMIT SUICIDE, THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY HOLD THE WEAPON THE SAME WAY THEY WOULD IF THEY WERE FIRING AT A TARGET, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD LOOK FOR TO RULE OUT SUICIDE BEFORE YOU MADE A DETERMINATION OF HOMICIDE WOULD BE WHERE THE WOUNDS WERE THAT CAUSED THE DEATH, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE WOUND TO SEE IF THEY WERE IN AREAS WHICH WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO SHOOT THEMSELVES IN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> LIKE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SHOULDER BLADES, SOMETHING REALLY HARD TO REACH AROUND, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AS YOU TOLD US, WOUNDS TO THE HEAD, THE TOP OR FRONT OF THE HEAD AND THE CHEST ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE BY AN INDIVIDUAL ON THEIR OWN BODY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. >> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >> I'LL REFRIZZ THAT. IF SOMEBODY IS SHOT IN THE FOREHEAD OR THE FRONT OR TOP OF THE HEAD, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE REACHED BY THAT PERSON, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. >> ARE YOU ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, SIR? >> NOT THE WAY IT'S PHRASED. >> IF SOMEBODY SHOOTS THEMSELVES IN THE CHEST, FRONTAL CHEST, THAT IS A PLACE MOST PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO ON THEIR OWN BODY. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IF SOMEBODY SHOOTS THEMSELF IN THE TOP FOREHEAD OF THEIR HEAD, THAT IS ALSO AN AREA OF THE BODY WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS ACCESS TO, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE BY SHOOTING THEMSELVES ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> NOT IN MY EXPERIENCE. >> WELL, LET ME READ YOU THIS. >> SURE. >> THIS STATEMENT FROM DR. DiMAIO'S TEXT, SIR. WITH HAND GUNS, AFTER THE TEMPLE, THE MOST COMMON SITES IN THE HEAD IN DECREASING ORDER OF OCCURRENCE, THE MOUTH, UNDERSIDE OF THE CHIN AND THE FOREHEAD, OKAY? >> YES. >> THERE ARE PEOPLE, HOWEVER, WHO WILL BE DIFFERENT AND SHOOT THEMSELVES ON THE TOP OF THE HEAD. THAT OCCURS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> IT'S POSSIBLE, YES. >> IT'S ALSO, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, SIR, THAT PEOPLE WHO COMMIT SUICIDE SOMETIMES SHOOT THEMSELVES MORE THAN ONCE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THE OTHER THING YOU LOOK AT AS A PROFESSIONAL FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINER, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, IF THERE ARE MORE THAN MULTIPLE GUN SHOT WOUNDS, WHETHER EACH ONE IS FATAL IN ITSELF. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OR IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE, ONE IS NONFATAL, ONE IS FATAL, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IN TERMS OF THE NONFATAL WOUND, YOU WOULD ALSO CONSIDER HOW INCAPACITATING THAT WOUND WOULD BE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OBVIOUSLY IF IS THERE A WOUND TO A FLESHY AREA OF THE BODY, THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT INTO A WOUND OR INTERNAL ORGAN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ALSO KNOW, SIR, THAT PEOPLE WHO SHOOT THEMSELVES, PARTICULARLY MULTIPLE TIMES IN A SUICIDE, CAN HAVE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY EVEN AFTER THE FATAL WOUND HAS OCCURRED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> PEOPLE CAN STILL SOMETIMES WALK OR GET TO THE PHONE OR DO ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU ALSO KNOW FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT THE PAIN FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND IS LIMITED TO THE SKIN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT I DON'T KNOW. >> READING FROM SPITZ AND FISHER'S "MEDICAL AND LEGAL DEFINITION OF DEATH," PAIN FOLLOWING A GUN SHOT IS LIMITED TO THE SKIN. DIFFERENT PAIN RECEPTORS ARE AT THE SURFACE OF THE SKIN. YOU KNOW THAT, DOCTOR, RIGHT? >> YES. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> IF YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AND YOU CONSIDERED IT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. >> JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED AND PUT ANOTHER QUESTION IN, PLEASE. >> YOU JUST TOLD US, DOCTOR, THAT IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE WOUNDS AND ONE IS NONFATAL, RIGHT? >> YES. >> ONE IS TO A FLESHY AREA OF THE BODY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD TRY TO LEARN, EDUCATE YOURSELF EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW HOW INCAPACITATING THAT WOUND COULD BE. >> YES. >> SO WHEN THE MEDICAL SCIENCE SHOWS THAT PAIN IS MOSTLY AT THE SKIN LEVEL, YOU KNOW THAT. >> I'M SORRY I DON'T. >> YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PAIN RECEPTORS. >> I DO KNOW SOME. >> YOU KNOW WHERE THE PAIN RECEPTORS ARE IN THE SKIN, YES? J. >> YES. >> ACCORDING TO SPITZ AND FISHER, "INTERNAL ORGANS USUALLY LACK THE PAIN RECEPTORS IN THE SKIN AND ARE USUALLY LESS SENSITIVE. THAT IS BASIC PATHOLOGY 101, ISN'T IT, SIR? >> I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. >> YOU DON'T AGREE WITH SPITZ AND FISHER. >> YES. >> YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE PEOPLE YOU STUDIED FOR YOUR TEST FROM? >> YES. >> I ALSO KNOW IN YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT IT'S NOT UNUSUAL NOT TO FIND A WEAPON AT THE SCENE OF A SUICIDE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT. >> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK AWAY FROM THIS RATHER STARTLING TESTIMONY, GET YOU BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES. STAY WITH US. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." WE ARE INDEED LIVE IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. DURING BREAK WHAT YOU MISSED WAS DR. ZANE ACKNOWLEDGED BASED ON THE LEARNED TREATISE HE HAD BEEN PRESENTED WITH THE SUICIDE WEAPON WAS MOVED, USUALLY BY A RELATIVE OR FRIEND WHO DISCOVERS THE BODY. CONTINUING TO PURSUE THAT SUICIDE THEME, LET'S GO BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM AND LISTEN. IT'S A REMARKABLE TURN OF EVENTS. >> OCCASIONALLY GUN SMOKE DEPOSITS ARE NOTED ON BOTH HANDS ESPECIALLY ON THE ONE USED TO STEADY THE WEAPON WHILE THE OTHER PULLED OR PUSHED THE TRIGGER. THAT WOULD BE A PLACE YOU WANT TO LOOK, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? >> NOT MYSELF. >> YOU WANT SOMEBODY TO LOOK IF YOU KNEW THERE WAS GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON BOTH HANDS? >> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, NOT NECESSARILY. >> YOU ARE SAYING IF YOU KNEW THERE WAS GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON SOMEONE, ON A PERSON'S HANDS WHO HAS DIED FROM A GUN SHOT WOUND, WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO KNOW THAT? >> DEFINITELY I WOULD NOT WANT TO KNOW THAT. >> YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THE PERSON SHOT THE GUN? >> I WANT TO KNOW IF THE PERSON SHOT THE GUN, BUT WHEN A GUN BARREL, BEA GUN DISCHARGES, THERE IS SOOT, THERE IS FIRE, THERE'S POWDER THAT TRAVELS. >> SIR, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION. >> YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, BUT AT THIS POINT YOU INDICATED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE ONE WITNESS'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WAS NOT INNES AND I DON'T RECALL THE NEXT QUESTION. IF YOU PUT ANOTHER QUESTION. >> I WILL TRY TO DO THAT. DOCTOR, YOU ARE NOT SAYING YOU WOULD WILLINGLY CLOSURE EYES TO OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MAY LEAD YOU TO INVESTIGATE FURTHER THAT SOMEONE SHOT A GUN. YOU WOULDN'T NOT WANT TO KNOW THAT? NO. >> NO WHAT? >> I'M SORRY. >> YOU WANT ALL THE FACT -- >> YES. I AM ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION YES. >> NOW I'M CONFUSED. SORRY. OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT TO KNOW ALL THE FACTS BEFORE YOU ISSUE AN OPINION WHETHER SOMETHING IS A SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOUR OPINION ABOUT SUICIDE OR HOMICIDE IT LEADS TO OTHER THINGS HAPPENING DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE THING IS? >> YES. >> IT IS A BIG RESPONSIBILITY, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD NEVER MAKE THAT OPINION WITHOUT KNOWING ALL THE FACTS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> DOCTOR, YOU ARE A MEDICAL EXAMINER FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR OVER 20 YEARS, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU ARE NOT TELLING US THAT YOU ARE IGNORING FACTS AND JUST MAKING UP AN OPINION ABOUT MANNER OF DEATH, ARE YOU? >> NO, I'M NOT. >> YOU WANT ALL THE FACTS SO THAT YOU CAN DO A PROFESSIONAL AND RELIABLE JOB, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> SO WHEN YOU LOOK INTO THESE JURORS' EYES, THEY CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY BECAUSE YOU ARE BASING IT ON ALL THE FACTS, RIGHT? >> SUSTAINED. >> YOUR CREDIBILITY IS AT ISSUE ANY TIME YOU TESTIFY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> SUSTAINED. >> YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL THE FACTS AVAILABLE TO YOU TO SUPPORT YOUR ULTIMATE OPINION ABOUT MANNER OF DEATH, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> OF COURSE. OF COURSE. IF YOU HAD SOMETHING, IF YOU HAD A SITUATION WHERE SUICIDE WAS EXPECT EXPECTED, THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS YOU WOULD WANT TO INVESTIGATE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> SOME OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY WAS RECENTLY DEPRESSED, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD WANT TO GET AS MUCH SUBJECTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PERSON TO SEE IF IT MATCHED WHAT YOU WERE SEEING IN TERMS OF SUICIDE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD WANT TO, IF NOT YOU, THE POLICE OR SOME INVESTIGATOR, TRY TO LEARN ABOUT THAT PERSON'S LIFE AT OR ABOUT THE TIME THE PERSON DIED, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THINGS LIKE, AS WE SAID DEPRESSION COULD BE, YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT EXISTED, RIGHT? >> YES. >> IF SOMEBODY HAD A BABY, WHETHER THERE WAS POST PARTUM DEPRESSION, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> WHETHER THAT PERSON HAD ANY EASY ACCESS TO ANY GUNS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WANT TO KNOW FOR EXAMPLE MEDICAL HISTORY TO SEE IF THEY WERE ON ANY PARTICULAR PRESCRIPTIONS THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED SIDE EFFECTS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK PEOPLE TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU ALSO WANT TO KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY THAT OCCURRED AROUND THE TIME OF DEATH, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YOU WANT TO KNOW WHETHER CLOSE FRIENDS WERE OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PERSON OR THEIR FAMILY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> NO. >> YOU WANT TO TRY TO FIND OUT AS MUCH AS YOU COULD ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING AROUND THE TIME THE PERSON DIED, RIGHT? >> YES. >> YOU WOULD WANT TO INVESTIGATE AND SAY WAS SOMETHING GOING ON HERE? YOU WOULD WANT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION? >> YES. >> OF COURSE. IF THEY HAD INTERNET ACCESS, YOU WOULD NOT TO KNOW WHETHER ANYONE HAD DONE RESEARCH ON SUICIDE OR HOW TO KILL. YOU WANT TO KNOW THAT. THAT COULD BE IMPORTANT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> QUOTING FROM SPITZ AND FISHER, SUICIDE IS AIR IRRATIONAL ACT WHICH THE VICTIM WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO UNDERSTAND. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT? >> NO, NO. >> YOU THINK IT'S A RATIONAL ACT. >> FOR MYSELF, NO. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU AS A FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINER, NOT YOURSELF, NOT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS, ALL RIGHT? YOU ARE A MEDICAL EXAMINER. >> YES. >> IN ALL OF YOUR EXPERIENCE, MORE THAN 200 CASES OF PEOPLE WHO COMMITTED SUICIDE AS A RESULT OF A GUN SHOT WOUND, NOT RATIONAL ACTS? >> SUSTAINED. >> CAN YOU DEFINE TO US WHAT A BRUISE IS? >> YES. >> PLEASE DO. BRUISE IS CAUSED BY BLUNT IMPACT WITH AN OBJECT. CAUSES CRUSHING OF THE UNDERLYING SKIN, TISSUE ON THE SKIN WHICH RESULTS IN BREAKAGE OF BLOOD VESSELS. >> IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BRUISE, THE HEART MUST BE PUMPING BLOOD INTO THAT AREA, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE AN INJURED PART OF YOUR BODY, THE HEART PUMPS BLOOD DIRECTLY TO THAT? >> YES. >> IT CAUSES COLORING AROUND THE INJURY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND CONTUSION IS ANOTHER WORD FOR BRUISING, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IF WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE WOUND, THE BREAST WOUND TO THE ADULT FEMALE, ALL RIGHT? >> YES. THE. >> THE DATE OF THE AUTOPSY WAS WHAT, SIR? >> THE 24th. >> BY THAT TIME YOU HAD SPOKEN WITH THE POLICE, IS THAT RIGHT OR THE POLICE HAD SPOKEN WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT THEY KNEW? >> YES. >> AT THAT TIME, YOU KNEW THAT THE HUSBAND NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS IN ENGLAND? >> I DON'T RECALL. >> YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? >> NO. >> YOU DIDN'T KNOW BY THAT TIME HE WAS "A PERSON OF INTEREST?" >> I DID KNOW THAT, YES. >> OKAY. >> THE WOUND TO THE BREAST AREA OF THE ADULT FEMALE WAS NONFATAL, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THE BULLET, AS YOU TOLD US, WAS IN THE FLESHY PART OF THE BREAST, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> IT NEVER ENTERED THE TORSO, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AS YOU TOLD US, THERE WAS NO POWDERING, NO GUN SHOT RESIDUE AROUND THAT WOUND? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IF THAT WOUND TO THE FLESHY PART OF THE BREAST WAS A NONFATAL WOUND, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT DIDN'T BREAK ANY BONES, OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> NO BLOOD VESSELS WERE TORN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> TO GO BACK TO -- I'M SORRY. TO GO BACK TO THE ANGLE OF THE WOUND TO THE BREAST, OKAY? >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> I BELIEVE YOU DEMONSTRATED SOMETHING THAT IT WAS STRAIGHT, IT WAS A STRAIGHT ANGLE? IS THAT WHAT YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT UP HERE WITH A POINTER? >> I BELIEVE I DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PATH WAS IN ONE DIRECTION. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT BY JUST DIRECTION, YOU DIDN'T MEAN THE ANGLE OF IT? >> WELL, THERE IS NO ANGLE TO A POINTER. >> LET ME TRY IT THIS WAY, SIR. >> MUCH MORE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM AFTER A BREAK AND A LOOK AT WHAT SOME OF YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THIS CASE. SALLY IN TEXAS WRITES, PREDICTION, THIS VERDICT WILL COME BACK QUICKER THAN O.J.'S WITH DIFFERENT RESULTS. >> DNA EVIDENCE, INTERNET SEARCHES, INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS. WILL IT ADD UP TO A GUILTY VERDICT? >>> WELCOME BACK TO "THE BEST DEFENSE." DR. ZANE ON THE WITNESS STAND BEING CROSS-EXAMINED IN FURTHER PURSUIT OF THE SUICIDE THEORY. LET'S LISTEN. >> YY FOR IDENTIFICATION. SIR, YOU MAKE SOME NOTATIONS ON THE DIAGRAMS, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> IN TERMS OF THE LOWER LEFT HAND DIAGRAM WHERE YOU HAVE THAT LINE WITH THE ARROW PART GOING FRONT TO BACK -- >> YES. >> THERE WAS ALSO, IT ALSO WENT LEFT TO RIGHT, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND LEFT TO RIGHT, AND THAT'S NOT INDICATED IT MAY BE HARD TO DRAW ON THAT DIAGRAM IN TERMS OF THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL? LEFT TO RIGHT MEANS THE ENTRANCE WOUND WAS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BABY, LEFT FRONT SIDE OF THE BABY? >> YES. >> IT TRAVELS THROUGH AND EXITS THE RIGHT BACK PART OF THE BABY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THAT'S AT AN ANGLE. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> THEN IT GOES INTO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ADULT FEMALE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IT'S AT AN ANGLE WITH REGARD TO THE FLOOR OR THE CEILING. IT'S AT AN ANGLE, YES. >> AND YOU DIDN'T TAKE ANY MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF THE ANGLES OR ANYTHING OF THAT WITH ANY OF THESE WOUNDS? >> NO, I DIDN'T. >> THE LEVITY ON THE BACK OF THE BABY. THAT IS WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M ON MY BACK AND I DIE, MY BLOOD DUE TO GRAVITY SEEKS ITS LOWEST POINT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THAT CAUSES THE LAVIDITY INDICATES THE BABY WAS ON HER BACK AT LEAST AFTER DEATH, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THE PATH OF THE BULLET THAT YOU DESCRIBED TO THE JURY, THEY CAN'T TELL YOU IN ANY WAY HOW THE GUN WAS HELD BY A PERSON, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> THE PATH CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER IT WAS HELD BY ONE HAND OR TWO, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER THE PATHS OF THOSE BULLETS CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU WHETHER SOMEBODY WAS STANDING UP OR LYING DOWN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YOU HAVE TO FIX ONE OR THE OTHER. >> WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THIS CASE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THE PATH OF THE BULLET THAT WENT THROUGH THE BABY AND INTO THE BREAST, CAN'T TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT WHO IT WAS THAT WAS HOLDING THE GUN, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. EXCUSE ME. I TAKE THAT BACK. SORRY. I TAKE IT BACK. >> TAKING BACK QUITE A FEW THINGS TODAY, DOCTOR. >> YES, I KNOW. >> THAT'S STRICKEN, MISS PAGE. PLEASE PUT A QUESTION TO THE WITNESS. >> THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE ANGLE OF THE GUN TO THE BREAST WOUND CAN TELL YOU WHO IT WAS THAT FIRED THAT GUN. >> OKAY. >> WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> YES. >> THAT'S JUST ONE FACT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> WE NEED TO KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT THE SITUATION BEFORE YOU CAN REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I GUESS. YES. >> NOW, IN TERMS OF THE WOUND TO THE HEAD OF THE ADULT FEMALE, YOU TOLD US THAT THERE WAS NO SOOT OR POWDER IN THAT WOUND, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THERE WAS NO GUN SHOT RESIDUE OR GUN SHOT POWDER THAT WAS OBSERVED BY YOU IN THE WOUND OR AROUND IT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THERE WASN'T ANYTHING AROUND THE FACIAL AREA THAT YOU COULD SEE? THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONCLUDE IT WAS A CLOSE CONTACT SHOT, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. YOU TOLD US AGAIN OR YOU DEMONSTRAT DEMONSTRATED -- ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM OF THE HEAD. >> YES. THERE IS NOWHERE IN YOUR REPORT, YOUR AUTOPSY REPORT THAT YOU DOCUMENTED EXACTLY WHERE THE BULLET FRAGMENTS WERE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I SAID THE -- WELL, LET'S GO TO MY REPORT. >> LET'S GO. >> QUICKLY WHILE HE LOOKS AT HIS NOTES, IS THIS THE SURPRISE THAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN PROMISED US, THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR? THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE FIRST KILLED HER BABY THEN KILLED HERSELF? THEN EITHER MADE THE GUN DISAPPEAR OR POOR NEIL MADE THE GUN DISAPPEAR WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE SCENE? >> APPARENTLY THIS IS THE SURPRISE THAT HE WAS MENTIONING. THINGS NOT APPEARING THE WAY THEY ARE. UP UNTIL THIS POINT WE KEPT HEARING ABOUT HOW PAPPY A FAMILY THEY WERE AT THE TIME. NOW WE ARE EXPECTING PERHAPS THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET SOME EVIDENCE MAYBE FROM THE DEFENDANT ABOUT HOW SHE WAS DEPRESSED AND SHE MAYBE LEARNED ABOUT HIS SHENANIGANS ON THE COMPUTER AND THEIR FINANCIAL DIRE STRAITS. >> THE SUGGESTION WAS PERHAPS SHE WAS THE ONE ON THE COMPUTER RESEARCHING HERSELF. A LOT OF HINTS, SUGGESTIONS, ALLEGATIONS, INTONATIONS, NOT VERY MUCH EVIDENCE. WHO KNOWS? THE DEFENSE CASE HAS NOT STARTED AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS A TRIAL AND NOT SOME SORT OF A PLAY. WITH THAT, "THE BEST DEFENSE" WILL REST FOR THE DAY. IT'S TIME TO CHECK IN WITH BACK JACK FORD AND WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT. >> NOW THERE ARE THINGS TO TALK ABOUT HERE WHERE THE DEFENSE IS GOING. WE'VE BEEN WONDERING WHAT DEFENSE WE WERE GOING TO SEE. SOUNDS LIKE NOW IT'S HEADING OFF IN THAT DIRECTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUICIDE. WE'LL CHECK IN OBVIOUSLY WITH BETH KARAS UP THERE AND CONTINUING TO WATCH ALL THE TESTIMONY INSIDE THE COURTROOM. THINGS ARE STARTING TO DEVELOP. >> THANK YOU, JASH. WE'LL SEE YOU AND ASHLEIGH. FIRST A BIG THANKS TO JOHN AND RON. HOPE TO SEE YOU AGAIN SOON. I'LL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW FOR ANOTHER EDITION OF "THE BEST DEFENSE." I'M ALSO BACK ON THE RADIO EVERY DAY FROM 3:00 TO 6:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME. THE NAME OF THE SHOW? DOING TIME WITH RON KUBY. THANKS FOR WATCHING. PLEASE STAY TUNED. |