|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> BUT YOU DO KNOW, SIR, THAT THERE ARE SIN STANCES WHERE PARENT AND CHILD END UP IN A MURDER/SUICIDE? WE'VE HAD THOSE KIND OF CASES, RIGHT? YOU KNOW THAT? >> YES. >> A SHOCKING TWIST IN THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. THE DEFENSE TEAM INTRODUCES A SUICIDE THEORY. THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT NOW ON OPEN COURT. GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO OPEN COURT. LISA BLOOM HAS THE DAY OFF. THE PROSECUTION CALLED THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TO THE STAND BUT IT WAS THE DEFENSE WHO TOOK CENTER STAGE YESTERDAY. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE RACHEL AND BABY LILLIAN. DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ENTWISTLE'S ATTORNEY RAISED THE QUESTION OF SUICIDE. DID THE YOUNG MOTHER SHOOT HERSELF? CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US NOW LIVE FROM WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH THE BIGGEST MOMENT FROM THE TRIAL THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY. BETH, TAKE IT AWAY. >> Reporter: GOOD MORNING. IT DID COME AS A SURPRISE. THE DEFENSE HAS BEEN VERY TIGHT LIPPED ABOUT THEIR STRATEGY. AND IT WAS DURING THE CROSS-EXAMINATION A MEDICAL EXAMINER, WILLIAM ZANE, THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOR THE FIRST TIME REVEALED THEIR STRATEGY. >> IT'S ALSO TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT NOT ALL GUNSHOT WOUNDS BY SUICIDE ARE CONTACT WOUNDS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND THAT NOT ALL SUICIDES BY HANDGUNS ARE CONTACT WOUNDS. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU WOULD ALSO -- 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. >> Reporter: AND SO IF THE JURY IS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS A SUICIDE OR EVEN WONDER, THEN THEY MUST BELIEVE THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE FIRED A GUN INTO HER BABY'S CHEST THAT WENT THROUGH THE BABY AND INTO HER, BUT IT DID NOT KILL HER. AND THEN SHE PUT THE GUN UP TO HER HEAD AND FIRED JUST BEYOND THE HAIRLINE IN THE CENTER OF HER HEAD. THE GUN WOULD HAVE FALLEN, PRESUMABLY, ON THE FLOOR. THE DEFENSE NOW HAS TO EXPLAIN HOW THAT GUN WITH HER DNA ON THE END OF THE MUZZLE ENDED UP 50 MILES AWAY IN THE LOCKED GUN CASE AT RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER AND STEPFATHER'S HOME. >> EXACTLY. AND YOU MAKE ANOTHER GOOD POINT, BETH, WHICH IS THAT HER DNA WAS ON THE MUZZLE. THERE WAS NO DNA FROM RACHEL ON THE GRIP, WAS THERE? >> Reporter: NO. NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA WAS ON THE GRIP AND OTHERS. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE ABSENCE OF HER DNA DOESN'T MEAN SHE NEVER KUCHED IT. PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS LEAVE FINGERPRINTS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS LEAVE DNA. THERE IS A MANTRA IN THE BUSINESS THAT THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ISN'T EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. THAT DOESN'T MEAN SHE DIDN'T TOUCH IT. >> DO YOU THINK THIS IS A THEORY THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING WITH OR THEY WANT THE JURY TO BELIEVE THIS WAS A MURDER/SUICIDE OF A MOTHER AND HER BABY OR ARE THEY JUST USING THIS TO SHOW THERE ARE MANY POSSIBLE THINGS THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED, MANY AVENUES POLICE DIDN'T LOOK INTO, FOR EXAMPLE, QUESTIONING THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE LOOKED FOR A SUICIDE EVEN IF THERE'S NO GUN? >> Reporter: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT WITH ANY CERTAINTY WHICH WAY THEY'RE GOING. WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, BACK IN OPENING STATEMENTS ON JUNE -- WHENEVER THAT WAS. I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW. EARLY JUNE, ELLIOT WINESTEIN IN A VERY BRIEF OPENING SAID, THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS WHAT THEY APPEAR TO BE. SO HE WANTS THE JURY TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A DOUBLE MURDER BY THE HUSBAND. MAYBE IT IS A MURDER/SUICIDE BY THE MOTHER KILLING THE BABY, KILLING HERSELF. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'LL ARGUE THAT, BUT THEY'RE CERTAINLY TRYING TO RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT HERE. IF THEY CAN GET ONE JUROR TO BELIEVE THEIR THEORY, OR THAT IT AT LEAST HASN'T BEEN PROVEN THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS THE MURDER, THEN THEY GET A NEW TRIAL. IT IS A WIN FOR THE DEFENSE IF IT'S A MISTRIAL. >> RIGHT. THAT'S ALL THEY NEED TO GET A MISTRIAL. I WANT YOU TO BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT SOME TESTIMONY WE ALSO HEARD YESTERDAY IN TERMS OF E-MAIL. THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT ENT, WHICH WE WOULD ASSUME WOULD BE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS LOGGED ON TO AT 12:30 ON JANUARY 20th. PRESUMABLY AN HOUR AND A HALF AFTER HE FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN DEAD. >> Reporter: YES. THAT IS IF YOU BELIEVE HIS STATEMENT. THE PROSECUTION IS LIKELY TO ARGUE THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT ARE NOT BELIEVABLE, NOT CREDIBLE IN HIS STATEMENT. BECAUSE THEY DON'T COMPORT WITH THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T SORT OF PICK -- I GUESS YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO, BUT IT'S NOT GOOD POLICY NECESSARILY TO PICK AND CHOOSE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT BUT WE'LL BELIEVE THIS. WE'LL BELIEVE HE DID FIND THEM AT 11:00 AND HE LOGGED ON AT 12:30. WE DON'T KNOW. THE MEDICAL EXAMINER YESTERDAY, NOT ONLY COULD HE NOT FIX A TIME OF DEATH, HE CAN'T EVEN FIX A DAY OF DEATH. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT OTHER EVIDENCE TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHEN RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE KILLED BY WHOMEVER. WE KNOW SHE WAS ALIVE ON THURSDAY NIGHT AT 10:30 BECAUSE SHE SPOKE TO A FRIEND AT THAT TIME AND ENDED A CONVERSATION AROUND THAT TIME. WE KNOW WHEN SHE'S FOUND ON SUNDAY NIGHT. HER STOMACH'S EMPTY. SHE DIED NOT CLOSE IN TIME TO A MEAL. SHE HAD HAD TIME TO DIGEST HER FOOD. SHE'S IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE PAJAMAS. UNDERPANTS AND A SHIRT THAT PRESUMABLY SHE'S SLEEPING IN BED. IT WAS A PEACEFUL SCENE. IN SIGNS OF A STRUG P. THE BABIES IN PAJAMAS. THERE WAS WATER IN THE TUB WITH TOYS AROUND IT. NOT THE MASTER TUB BUT ANOTHER BATHROOM. YOU CAN LOOK AT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO FIGURE IT PROBABLY WAS IN THE MORNING. PROBABLY WAS IN THE MORNING. SHE HAD DIGESTED HER FOOD FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE DA HAS, UP UNTIL NOW, SAID 7:00 A.M. ON FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 20th. >> UH-HUH. AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THE MUCH EARLIER HOURS OF THE MORNING WHEN SHE AND THE BABY WERE SOUND ASLEEP AFTER SHE GAVE THE BABY HER BETH AND THEY WENT DOWN TO BED FOR THE NIGHT. AS YOU SAID, AFTER HEARING FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THEY DIED. FROM THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION TO COMPUTER ANALYSIS, IT HAS BEEN A WEEK FULL OF FORENSICS IN THE ENTWISTLE CASE. THERE WERE SOME EMOTIONAL MOMENTS IN THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM, LIKE WHEN PROSECUTORS DISPLAYED THE BLOODY CLOTHES WORN BY RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEEK IN REVIEW. >> I ALSO OBSERVED A STEL LATE PATTERN AROUND THE HOLE AND ALSO SOME RIPPING AND TEARING AND SOME SINGEING AND BURN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT BLACK RESIDUE. >> BASED ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS, WERE YOU ABLE TO CHARACTERIZE OR DESIGNATE THE TYPE OF HOLE? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> I CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS A CONTACT SHOT. >> WHAT IS A CONTACT SHOT? >> A CONTACT SHOT IS A SHOT FROM A FIREARM WHEN THE FIREARM IS PRESSED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE TARGET. >> HE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS DEVASTATED. SO HE WENT DOWNSTAIRS TO THE KITCHEN TO GET A KNIFE TO -- BASICALLY JUST COMMIT SUICIDE. TO END IT, SO TO SPEAK. HE SORT OF EXPLAINED HE HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT. SO HE THEN DROVE TO HIS PARENTS IN LAWS' HOUSE. WITH A SORT OF OBJECTIVE OF GETTING A PISTOL FROM HIS STEPFATHER'S GUN COLLECTION. HE KNEW HE HAD GUNS THERE. TO USE ONE OF THOSE INSTEAD. >> HE SAYS THAT HE LEFT THE HOUSE. AND THAT HE WENT TO THE MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE, JOE AND PRISCILLA, THINKING THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY PLACE HE KNEW THAT THERE MIGHT BE FIREARMS. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHY HE HAD GONE DOWN THERE FOR FIREARMS? >> YES. HE WANTED TO -- HE WAPTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE SECURE AND THAT NOTHING WAS -- NOTHING WAS WRONG, NOTHING WAS MISSING. >> ON PAGE 13, IS THERE A TIME AND DATE STAMP ON ALL THREE RECORDS? >> ON ALL THREE RECORDS, YES. ON THE BOTTOM THIRD, 1-20-2006 AT 1230:15. THE MIDDLE RECORD IS 1-20 OF 2006 AT 1230:25. AND THE TOP RECORD IS 1-20 OF 2006 AT 1230:26. >> ALL RIGHT. NOW, SIR, HAVING SYNCHRONIZED THE COMPUTER TO YOUR WATCH, WOULD THAT BE THE LOCAL TIME IN HOPKINTON? >> YES. >> AND, SIR, THE BOTTOM ONE, IS THERE A USER ON THE BOTTOM RECORD THAT YOU SEARCHED FOR? >> YES. >> WHO IS THE USER? >> ENT. >> YOU WERE NEVER INFORMED BY THE PROSECUTOR ABOUT THE POSITIVE RESULTS OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON BOTH RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS, WERE YOU? >> NO. I WAS NOT INFORMED. >> AND YOU WERE NOT INFORMED BY ANY STATE POLICE OFFICER. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT I CAN RECALL. >>> LET'S TAKE YOU STRAIGHT INTO THE COURTROOM IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, WHERE THE FIRST WITNESS OF THE DAY IS JUST BEING SWORN IN. HE'S MICHAEL BANKS, A MASSACHUSETTS STATE TROOPER. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> YOUR PRESENT DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE THE SAME -- ARE THEY THE SAME NOW AS THEY WERE IN JANUARY OF 2006? >> YES. >> SIR, I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EVENING OF JANUARY 22nd, 2006. WERE YOU DISPATCHED TO A PARTICULAR CITY OR TOWN IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY. >> YES. HOPKINTON. >> WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU GOT TO HOPKINTON? >> 6 CUBS PATH. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE? >> APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M. 7:30, 8:00 P.M. >> DID YOU MEET WITH SOMETHING WHEN YOU GOT THERE? >> I MET WITH A UNIFORMED OFFICER FROM HOPKINTON PD. >> DO YOU RECALL THAT OFFICER'S NAME? >> NO. >> ANYBODY ELSE AT THAT LOCATION? >> NO. >> ANY VEHICLES OUTSIDE THAT LOCATION? >> JUST HIS CRUISER. AND THEN THERE WAS A VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY. OF 6 CUBS PATH. >> AFTER HAVING AN OCCASION TO MEET WITH THAT OFFICER, WHERE DID YOU GO NEXT, SIR? >> HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE, APPROXIMATELY? >> APPROXIMATELY A HALF HOUR LATER. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO MEET WITH ONE OR MORE OTHER FELLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS? >> YES. >> WHO? >> SERGEANT MANNING. MAJOR CON LYNN. AND LIEUTENANT EDWARD FOSTER. >> WHAT AGENTRY ARE THEY WITH, SIR? >> MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE. >> WERE THERE ANY CIVILIANS YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO MEET AND SPEAK WITH AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> THERE WERE -- YES. THERE WAS CIVILIAN WITNESSES AND THEN THERE WERE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION THAT WERE THERE. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO LEAVE THE HOPKINTON PLACE? >> YES. >> APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS THAT? >> APPROXIMATELY 1:00 A.M. WE LEFT. >> EXCUSE ME. JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IT WOULD BE 1:00 A.M. ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY 2006. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, APPROXIMATELY. >> AND WHO LEFT THE STATION AND WENT TO 6 CUBS PATH AT THAT HOUR OF THE MORNING? >> SERGEANT MANNING, MAJOR CON LIN, LIEUTENANT FOSTER, MYSELF, SOME DETECTIVES HAVE HOPKINTON PD, AND THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION. >> AND WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR GOING THERE? >> TO EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT, CRIME SCENE SEARCH WARRANT. >> DESCRIBE ONCE AGAIN THE OUTSIDE OF THE PREMISES AS YO YOU OBSERVED IT AT 1:00, 1:30 WHEN YOU ARRIVED THERE THE SECOND TIME. >> THE CENTER ENTRANCE COLONIAL. IT HAD A DRIVEWAY TO THE RIGHT AS YOU FACE IT FROM THE STREET. UNDERNEATH WAS A TWO CAR GARAGE ATTACHED UNDERNEATH THE HOME. >> UNIFORMED OFFICER THAT YOU SAW EARLIER STILL OUTSIDE? >> YES. >> DID YOU ENTER THE HOME AT SOME POINT IN TIME? >> YES. >> WHO WENT TO THE HOME FIRST? >> WHO WENT INSIDE THE HOME FIRST? >> PLEASE. >> IT WAS THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION PERSONNEL. >> DID YOU AND ANY OF YOUR FELLOW POLICE OFFICERS FOLLOW? >> MYSELF AND SERGEANT MANNING FOLLOWED IN AFTERWARDS. >> HOW LONG AFTERWARDS DID YOU AND SERGEANT MANNING GO INTO 6 CUBS PATH AFTER THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES PERSONNEL ENTERED? >> SEVERAL MINUTES. >> DESCRIBE -- TELL US WHERE YOU WENT FIRST WHEN YOU ENTERED THE HOME. >> WE WENT UPSTAIRS TO THE MASTER BEDROOM FIRST. >> AND DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO OBSERVE ANYTHING IN THE MASTER BEDROOM? >> I DID. >> WHAT WAS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. LET ME ASK YOU THIS FIRST, SIR. >> WHO WAS THERE? >> YES. >> SERGEANT MARY RICHIE. TROOPER KEN HEIFER NAN. JOHN ZORS. DEE YAN NA DOGGEN. LIEUTENANT PAUL LITLING. >> TELL US WHAT THEY WERE DOING. >> THEY WERE PROCESSING -- INITIALLY WHEN THEY STARTED THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS VIDEO TAPE, DOCUMENT THE HOME. THE MASTER BEDROOM. >> BY THE WAY WHEN YOU FIRST ENTERED THE HOME, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW AND/OR HEARD, IF ANYTHING, AS YOU ENTERED THAT HOME? FOLLOWING THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES PERSONNEL. >> WHEN I FIRST ENTERED THE HOME THERE'S A FOYER. THERE WAS A LIGHT ON IN THE FIAR AREA. I COULD HEAR MUSIC COMING FROM UPSTAIRS. >> SIR, WHEN YOU WERE IN THAT BEDROOM, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAD OBSERVED THE CRIME SCENE SERVICE PERSONNEL EVENTUALLY PROCESS THAT BEDROOM? >> YES. >> DID YOU SEE THEM DO SOMETHING WITH THE BED? >> YES. >> DESCRIBE, IF YOU CAN, WHAT PROCEDURE THEY FOLLOWED IN CONNECTION WITH THE BED. >> THEY PHOTOGRAPHED THE BED AND THEY WERE REMOVING LAYERS, COVERS AND PILLOWS. AND AS THEY DID EACH LAYER, THEY WOULD PHOTOGRAPH THAT PARTICULAR STAGE. >> WERE YOU THERE AS THEY TOOK THOSE LAYERS BACK? >> YES. >> WHAT CAME BACK FIRST? >> COMFORTER. >> WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE? >> I THEN OBSERVED A PILLOW UNDERBENEATH I COULD SEE THE HEAD OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. I COULD SEE RACHEL ENTWISTLE WITH -- LAYING ON HER SIDE WITH HER ARM UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW. >> AND WHAT CAME OFF NEXT IN THE SERIES OF UNDOING THE BED? >> I BELIEVE A SHEET. AND THEN A PILLOW. >> AND DESCRIBE, IF YOU CAN, HOW THE PILLOW WAS REMOVED. >> THE PILLOW WAS ON LILLIAN'S FACE. IT WAS REMOVED JUST FROM HER FACE. IT SEEMED TO PEEL OFF OF HER FACE FROM A DRIED SUBSTANCE. >>> FROM HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE TO HALF-PRICE ESCORTS, ALL KINDS OF SEARCHES HAVE BEEN LINKED TO NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER. >> WHO WAS THE USER? >> ENT. >> WHAT IS BEING ACCESSED IN THE URL? >> ESCORTS.NAUGHTYNIGHTLIFE.COM. >> WHO IS THE USER, SIR? >> ENT. >> AND WHAT'S BEING ACCESSED BY THE COMPUTER THERE, SIR? >> ADULTFRIENDFINDER.COM. >> IT'S FAIR TO SAY THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ESCORTS ON THAT PAGE, SIR? >> YES. >> REFERRING TO THE TOP ONE, WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE TOP CHOICE. >> BLOND BEAUTIES ESCORT SERVICE. >>> PROSECUTORS HOPE THE CYBER EVIDENCE WILL BOLSTER THEIR CASE. WHAT DID YOU THINK? TODAY'S QUESTION OF THE DAY IS, WHAT DO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES TELL US? YOU CAN SEND US YOUR ANSWERS. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OKLAHOMA. OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WRITE A BRIEF ANSWER AND WE'LL READ ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES AT THE END OF THE SHOW. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> AND WELCOME BACK. MASSACHUSETTS STATE TROOPER MICHAEL BANKS IS ON THE STAND RIGHT NOW. DIRECT EXAMINATION. HE IS TALKING ABOUT RETURNING TO THE ENTWISTLE HOME ON JANUARY 23rd TO EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT. AT THAT POINT THE BODIES OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN HAD ALREADY BEEN REMOVED. LET'S LISTEN IN AS HE TALKS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION. >> EXHIBIT 95 MARKED. >> IS THERE ONE OR MORE ROOMS DOWN ON THE FIRST FLOOR THAT YOU AND THE OTHER OFFICERS EXAMINED AND GATHERED ITEMS OR ARTICLES OF EVIDENCE FROM? >> YES. >> DID YOU GO INTO A LIVING ROOM OR A FAMILY ROOM WITH A TELEVISION? >> YES. AS YOU ENTER THE HOUSE, YOU TAKE AN IMMEDIATE LEFT FROM THE FRONT DOOR. THE FAMILY ROOM. >> DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THAT ROOM? >> THERE WAS A COUCH. THERE WAS AN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER AND A SMALL TELEVISION THAT WAS ON. IT WASN'T -- IT WASN'T NEAT, BUT IT WAS JUST A LITTLE MESSY. THERE WEREN'T THAT MANY ITEMS IN THE ROOM. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU FIND ON THE TABLES NEXT TO THE COUCH IN THAT ROOM? >> A CORDLESS PHONE AND A CELLULAR TELEPHONE. >> TELL US WHAT THOSE TWO ITEMS ARE, SIR. >> THE ITEM I'M HOLDING IN MY HAND IS A CORDLESS TELEPHONE. THAT WAS IN THE FAMILY ROOM THAT I JUST DESCRIBED. IT'S A SAMPSON CELLULAR TELEPHONE. IT WAS ALSO NEXT TO THE COUCH IN THE FAMILY ROOM THAT I JUST DESCRIBED. >> NEXT TWO EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR? >> THEY MAY BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION. THE NEXT LETTER, 1 AND 2. >> WHAT OTHER ROOM DID YOU GO INTO NEXT, SIR? >> ONE MOMENT. >> OH, I'M SORRY. >> MARK IING FOR ID. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WENT INTO THE DINING ROOM. >> DESCRIBE THE CONDITION OF THE DINING ROOM. >> IT HAD A DINING ROOM TABLE. THERE WAS NUMEROUS PAPERS, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ON THE DINING ROOM TABLE. MOSTLY MAIL. THERE WAS ALSO A FAMILY PHOTOGRAPH THAT WE TOOK POSSESSION OF IN THAT ROOM. THEN MOVED ON TO THE KITCHEN. >> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU SAW IN THE KITCHEN. >> THE KITCHEN WAS IN -- A BIT MESSY. IT LOOKED LIKE A MALE HAD JUST BEEN COMPLETED AND THEY HADN'T CLEANED UP YET. THERE WAS A BUTCHER BLOCK TABLE, AN ISLAND. THERE WAS A DIGITAL CAMERA ON THERE. THERE WAS ANOTHER CELLULAR TELEPHONE. THERE WAS A NOTE THAT WE SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE A NOTE WRITTEN BY JOANNA GATELY. THERE WAS A PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING ADDRESS BOOKS. AS YOU -- DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE SINK, THERE WAS A SMALL DESK AREA. AND SELL VING. UNDERNEATH THE -- ON THE DESK AREA THERE WAS A CRADLE THAT APPEARED TO FIT THE CORDLESS PHONE. THE PHONE WAS PLUGGED IN LEKICALLY, BUT THE SERVICE INTO THE PHONE -- TO THE PHONE JACK WAS DISCONNECTED. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO LOOK AT THE SHELVES ABOVE THAT TELEPHONE OR DESK AREA? >> YES. IT WAS ON THAT SHELF AREA, THERE WERE TWO KEYS. APPEARED TO BE HOUSE KEYS. >> TELL US WHAT'S IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR. >> THOSE ARE THE TWO KEYS I JUST DESCRIBED ON THE SHELF. >> AND DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY SHOW THOSE KEYS AS THEY APPEARED TO YOU ON JANUARY 23rd, 2006? >> YES. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, THEY MAY BE MARKED. >> EXHIBIT 96 MARKED. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU DO WITH THOSE KEYS, SIR? >> THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSPORTED TO THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. >> PLEASE LOOK INSIDE THAT BAG D FOR IDENTIFICATION. >>> THERE IS STILL TIME TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS IN TO "OPEN COURT" AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT DO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES LINKED TO NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER TELL US? LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON "OPEN COURT." OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPEN KOCOU COURT@CNN.COM. AND SPEAKING OF COMPUTER SEARCHES WE'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW FROM STATE TROOPER MICHAEL BANKS. HE'S ON THE STAND TALKING ABOUT GOING TO A BASEMENT ROOM WHEN HE'S SEARCHING THE ENTWISTLE HOME WHERE HE HAD FOUND A COMPUTER IN AN OFFICE TYPE AREA. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> I BELIEVE THIS IS SS FOR IDENTIFICATION, YOUR HONOR. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT ITEM, SIR? >> I DO. >> WHAT IS IT? >> THIS IS THE TOSHIBA LAPTOP. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE IT? >> WHEN I ENTERED THAT -- THE ROOM. >> DID YOU TAKE IT INTO CUSTODY AND SEIZE IT THAT MORNING? >> YES, WE DID. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> IT MAY BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AT THIS TIME. I'LL RESERVE ON IT. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> YES, I DO. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> IT'S THE CELLULAR TELEPHONE THAT WAS IN THE FAMILY ROOM, THE TV ROOM. >> DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY DEPICT HOW THAT CELLULAR TELEPHONE APPEARED TO YOU WHEN YOU SAW IT IN THAT TV ROOM ON JANUARY 23rd, 2006? >> YES. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. 97 A, PLEASE. >> 97 A MARKED. >> YOU DESCRIBED AN AREA THAT YOU PASSED THROUGH BEFORE YOU WENT INTO THE AREA THAT HAD THE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT AND THE TOOLS. WHETHER OR NOT YOU EXAMINED ANY ITEMS IN THAT AREA, SIR? >> YES. >> TELL US WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT >> TELL US WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR. >> THIS DEPICTS THE ROOM WITH THE BOXES IN IT. PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS MOST OF THE BOXES AS WELL AS A BLACK DOCUMENT CONTAINER. >> AND WHAT SORT OF DOCUMENTS DID YOU OBSERVE IN THAT CONTAINER AT 6 CUBS PATH. >> FINANCIAL TYPE RECORDS. >> AND, YOUR HONOR, THAT LAST NUMBER? >> 98. THERE'S ALREADY A B ON 98. 98 C. >> 98 C MARKED. >> THANK YOU. >> SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND EXAMINING THE ROOMS IN 6 CUBS PATH THAT MORNING THE SECOND TIME YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES WENT IN? >> A COUPLE OF HOURS. >> I WANT TO DAUL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE 24th OF JANUARY. DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH WARRANT SOMEWHERE? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I ENT TO THE F TROOP BARRACKS AT LOGAN AIRPORT. >> WHAT IN PARTICULAR DID YOU DO? >> I WENT TO THE GARAGE THERE THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE BARRACKS. THE BMW WAS BEING HELD THERE. WE WERE GOING TO EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE? >> APPROXIMATELY 10:00, 10:30. >> WHO DID YOU GO THERE WITH? >> MAJOR CONWAY. AND I BELIEVE -- WE MET WITH DETECTIVE PORTER AT THE -- AT THE GARAGE. >> ANYBODY ELSE ASSIST YOU IN THE EXECUTION OF THAT WARRANT? >> YES. >> WHO ASSISTED YOU? >> MEMBERS OF THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES SECTION. TROOPER CAROL, TROOPER McCARTHY, JOHN SORES. I BELIEVE THAT WAS IT. >> AND DID THEY PROCESS THE MOTOR VEHICLE? >> THEY DID. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT TOLL FOLLOWING THEIR PROCESSING YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE VEHICLE AND SEIZE ONE OR MORE OF THE ITEMS. >> YES, I DID. >> DESCRIBE WHAT YOU OBSERVED ON THE INSIDE OF THE VEHICLE AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, YOU SEIZED. >> MYSELF AND DETECTIVE PORTER WENT INTO THE VEHICLE. WE NOTED THAT THERE WAS GARAGE DOOR OPENERS ON THE VISOR. THERE WAS A WATER -- DA IS ANY WATER BOTTLE CUP UNDERNEATH THE SEAT. WE LOOKED TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVER'S. THERE WAS A CENTER CONSOLE THAT WE LIFTED UP. INSIDE WAS A MASS PORT GARAGE TICKET AS WELL AS KEYS MARKED BMW AND HOUSE KEYS. THEN THERE WAS A SECOND GLOVE COMPARTMENT IN THE CENTER OF THE DASH BOARD. WE OPENED THAT UP. THERE WAS, LIKE, A SPONGE. I GUESS LIKE YOU WOULD CLEAN THE DASH BOARD WITH. AND UNDERNEATH THAT THERE WAS A SECOND SET OF KEYS THAT HAD A BAJA MAS KEY -- METAL ATTACHED TO IT. >> WE'VE GOT 2 AND 50? >> TELL US WHAT THEY ARE. >> EXHIBIT 58 IS THE SET OF KEYS THAT WE FOUND IN THE CENTER CONSOLE TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVER. IT'S A BMW KEY AND APPEAR TO BE TWO HOUSE KEYS. AND EXHIBIT 2 IS WHAT I CALL THE BAA HAM MAS KEYS. IT'S A LITTLE KEY METAL HERE THAT SAYS JAM IN BAA HAM MAS WITH WHAT APPEAR TO BE TWO HOUSE KEYS ON THEM. >> SIR, APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH TILE DID YOU SPEND AT THE BARRACKS EXECUTING THAT WARRANT? >> TWO TO THREE HOURS. >> DID YOU GO SOME PLACE ELSE LATER THAT DAY ON THE 24th? >> I WENT TO THE MATTERAZZO'S HOME IN CARVER. >> AND THE ADDRESS, SIR, IF YOU RECALL IT. >> 41 TRAIL MONT STREET. >> WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN GOING THERE? >> THERE WERE SEVERAL PURPOSES. I WENT THERE WITH DETECTIVE PORTER. WE WERE GOING TO RETRIEVE SOME ITEMS FROM THAT HOME. WE WERE ALSO GOING TO INTERVIEW JOSEPH MATTERAZZO AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. AND THEN WE WERE ALSO GOING TO DO A NEIGHBORHOOD CANVASS IN THAT AREA. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO CONDUCT THOSE INTERVIEWS? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU DO THAT CANVASS? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE ITEMS? WHAT, IF ANY, ITEMS DID YOU RETRIEVE? >> WE -- WE RETRIEVED SEVERAL ITEMS RELATIVE TO FIREARMS. WE RETRIEVED A GREEN AMMO CAN. A BLACK PISTOL CARRYING CASE. SEVERAL RIFLES. WE ALSO RETRIEVED A COMPUTER AND A DOCUMENT. >> THE TOP ONE, TELL US WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER THAT IS. IT WOULD BE ON THE BACK, I THINK. >> EXHIBIT 9. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> YES. >> WHAT IS SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> THE PISTOL BOX. THE GREEN AMMO CAN. AND ONE OF THE CARRYING CASES FOR THE RIFLE. >> DID YOU RETRIEVE THOSE ITEMS? >> YES. >> AND IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH DO THEY APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME CONDITION WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THEM JUST PRIOR TO YOUR RETRIEVAL? >> YES. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> THEY HAVE BEEN MARKED. >> OH, I'M SORRY. THAT'S RIGHT. AND THAT NEXT ONE, SIR, THE EXHIBIT NUMBER PLEASE? >> EIGHT. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> YES, I DO. >> TELL US WHAT IT SHOWS. >> THIS DEPICTS THE COMPUTER IN THE MATTERAZZO HOME THAT WE SEIZED. THE TOWER. >> THE PC ITSELF? >> YES. >> AND THAT ROOM AS IT'S SHOWN PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF THE PC. >> YES. IT ALSO DEPICTS ONE OF THE NOTE -- A NOTE THAT WE RECOVERED NEXT TO THE COMPUTER. >> P FOR IDENTIFICATION ON THIS ONE, YOUR HONOR. TAKE A MOMENT, SIR, AND TAKE A LOOK AT EACH OF THOSE ITEMS. OPEN THEM UP IF NECESSARY. >> THE WITNESS IS LOOKING AT THE AMMUNITION BOX THERE THAT WAS FOUND AT THE MATTERAZZOS' HOME. GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE DISCOVERED IN THAT BOX. LET'S LISTEN. >> THE GREEN AMMO CAN THAT WE RETRIEVED FROM THE HOME. >> THIS ITEM IS THE PISTOL BOX. FIRST ONE I REFERRED TO IS EXHIBIT BB. THE SECOND ONE IS EXHIBIT CC. EXHIBIT P WAS ONE OF THE FIREARMS THAT WAS CONTAINED INSIDE THIS PISTOL BOX. >> INSIDE PISTOL BOX CC? >> YES. >> DESCRIBE FOR US, IF YOU COULD, HOW THOSE ITEMS WERE CONFIGURED WHEN YOU SAW THEM AT THE HOME OF THE MATTERAZZOS. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. CONFIGURED? >> HOW WERE THEY CONFIGURED WHEN YOU SAW THEM? >> WELL, THEY WERE CLOSED. THEY WERE LOCKED UP. >> DID YOU OPEN THEM AT THE HOME? >> NO. >> WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM? >> I TRANSPORTED THEM TO OUR TEMPORARY EVIDENCE LOCKER AT THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THEN THE FOLLOWING MORNING I TOOK THEM TO THE CRIME LAB. >> HOW DID YOU REMOVE THEM FROM THE HOUSE? >> WE USED -- WE UTILIZED GLOVES. AND WE JUST CARRIED THEM. I SECURED THEM IN MY TRUNK. I JUST DROVE UP TO THE UNIT. >> SECURED THEM IN THE EVIDENCE LOCKER OVERNIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THEN THE NEXT DAY WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THEM, SIR? >> I RETRIEVED THEM. UTILIZED GLOVES AGAIN, PUT THEM IN MY TRUNK AND I TOOK THEM TO THE CRIME LAB. >> WHERE IN THE CRIME LAB DID YOU BRING THEM, SIR? >> I INITIALLY BROUGHT THEM TO THE BALLISTICS SECTION. SO THAT THEY COULD DO AN INVENTORY, MAKE SURE THE WEAPONS WERE SAFE FOR THEM TO BE ANALYZED BY THE -- BY THE CHEMISTS. >> WAS THAT INVENTORY DONE IN YOUR PRESENCE? >> YES. >> WERE YOU THERE WHEN THAT AMMO CAN WAS OPENED AND THAT BB AND CC FOR IDENTIFICATION WAS OPENED? >> YES. >> AFTER GOING TO THE BALLISTICS SECTION AND DOING THAT INVENTORY WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR? >> I LEFT THAT PARTICULAR DAY. THEY TRANSPORTED THOSE ITEMS OVER TO FINGERPRINTS AND DNA AND OTHER TESTING. >>> DID HE MURDER HIS OWN FAMILY? THERE'S MORE LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE AHEAD ON "OPEN COURT." >>> WELCOME BACK TO "OPEN COURT." I HAVE SEVERAL GUESTS JOINING ME NOW. FIRST HERE A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. ALSO JOINING US IN OUR STUDIOS IS EDGAR, A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AS WELL AND A FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE SERGEANT. JOINING US LIVE FROM WOBURN IS A DOCTOR AND FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST AND HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL PROFESSOR. DOCTOR, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS BOMB SHELL TESTIMONY THAT ARE STRATEGIES FROM THE DEFENSE YESTERDAY THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN A MURDER/SUICIDE, A MOTHER SHOOTING HER OWN BABY AND TAKING HER OWN LIFE. GIVEN EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IT WAS THAT SHE WAS AN OUTGOING, LOVING, WARM HAPPY MOTHER. DOES THIS SEEM AT ALL PLAUSIBLE TO YOU THAT SOMEBODY COULD BE HARBORING THESE SUICIDAL AND HOMICIDAL THOUGHTS AND EXHIBITING THIS HAPPY EXTERIOR? >> ON ONE HANDING WITH WE NEVER KNOW WHAT LURKS IN THE HEARTS OF HUMAN BEINGS, OUTWARD BEHAVIOR ASIDE. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE WAS NO HISTORY HERE OF RACHEL BEING SUICIDAL, HAVING EVER ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. SO IT WOULD BE A STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION TO GO AHEAD AND ASSUME THAT SHE COMMITTED SUICIDE. FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, THE DEFENSE IS RAISING QUESTIONS REGARDING -- TO CREATE REASONABLE DOUBT. BUT THESE QUESTIONS MUST BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE -- FOR RACHEL'S FAMILY TO HERE SITTING IN THE COURTROOM. ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PRIOR HISTORY OF SUICIDE ATTEMPTS. AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY. WELL, MEDICAL EXAMINERS HAVE A RULE. IT'S CALLED A 51% RULE. YOU HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND BE AT LEAST 51% CERTAIN THAT SOMEONE HAS COMMITTED SUICIDE BEFORE YOU CAN RULE THAT SOMEONE HAS COMMITTED SUICIDE. AND THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENCE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE HISTORY WHICH SUGGESTS APPROACHING ANY WAY ANEW THE THRESHOLD. >> LET'S SWITCH OVER TO NEIL ENTWISTLE, THEN, FOR SORT OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, IF YOU WILL. HE ALSO ON THE OUTSIDE APPEARED TO BE HAPPY. NOW WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE COMPUTER FORENSICS THAT THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON THERE. BUT WHAT -- DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE WHO THERE ARE NO SIGNS OF WHATSOEVER, BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY HARBORING HOMICIDAL INTENTIONS SUCH AS HE'S CHARGED WITH DOING? >> THE TIE -- TITLE OF A RECENT BOOK BY ANOTHER FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST IS BAD MEN DO WHAT GOOD MEN DREAM. CLEARLY, NEIL EPT WISLE WAS DREAMING OR SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN DREAMING. THE QUESTION IS, WAS HE A BAD MAN WHO ACTUALLY DID WHAT HE WAS DREAMING. >> WOULD IT SURPRISE YOU IF HE HAD GONE WITH AN INSANITY DEFENSE? IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE, AND CLEARLY I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS, ALMOST SCHIZOPHRENIC, HIS PERSONALITY. ON THE ONE HAND BEING ACCUSED OF THESE HORRENDOUS CRIMES AND ON THE OTHER HAND ACTING SORT OF HAPPY. AND THEN I FOLLOW THAT UP WITH, OR HIS BEHAVIOR AFTER THESE CRIMES SEEMS TO BIZARRE THAT THERE WOULD SEEM TO BE SOME SORT OF MENTAL INSTABILITY THERE. >> YOU ARE RAISING A VERY VITAL QUESTION. A QUESTION IN THE SUPREME COURT YESTERDAY RAISED. WHICH IS, WHAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT A DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY ILL AND TO HAVE HIM BE EVALUATED. AND THEN IF A DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY ILL TO GO AHEAD AND REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT RATHER THAN TO ALLOW THE DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF. IN THIS PARTICULAR INS STANCE THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY CONSIDER THIS POSSIBILITY AND WHETHER MR. ENTWISTLE REFUSE TO CONSIDER THIS AS A POSSIBILITY. IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR MENTALLY ILL DEFENDANTS TO REJECT A MENTALLY ILL DEFENSE. PEOPLE WHO ARE MENTALLY ILL OFTEN DENY THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MENTALLY ILL. WHICH PLACES THE ATTORNEY IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION. HOW CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND REPRESENT A DEFENDANT WHO MAY BE MENTALLY ILL BUT WHO DENIES BEING MENTALLY ILL AND WHO HE NEEDS A PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION. >> LET ME POSE THAT QUESTION TO YOU, LARRY. IF YOU WERE DEFENDING NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THIS CASE WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED AN INSANITY DEFENSE? HIS ACTIONS SEEM SO INCREDIBLY IR RATIONAL IT SEEMS THE ONLY WAY TO EXPLAIN YOUR WAY OUT OF THEM. >> THERE'S NO QUESTION SOME OF THE THINGS HE DID ARE REMARKABLY IR RATIONAL. THE FLIGHT AFTER THE HOMICIDE, IF YOU WILL, AND ASSUMING IT'S A HOMICIDE, AS WELL AS WHAT HAPPENED BEFOREHAND. BUT INSANITY DEFENSE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. IT IS EXTREMELY LEGALISTIC. AND WHETHER THE CLIENT ADMITS HIS INSANITY, ASSUMING HE HASN'T, OR DENIES IT, IS REALLY NOT A CONSIDERATION FOR A DEFENSE LAWYER. DEFENSE LAWYER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT HIS CLIENT TO UTILIZE WHATEVER THE BEST DEFENSE IS. FRNKLY, WHILE HIS CONDUCT MAY SEEM BIZARRE, I DON'T SEE ANY INDICATION OF INSANITY, PER SE. CERTAINLY NOT LEGAL INSANITY AS THAT'S DEFINED. >> DOCTOR, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T EXAMINED NEIL ENTWISTLE, BUT COULD YOU TAKE WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS CLAIMING HERE AND APPLY THAT TO A PERSON -- CAN YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHAT KIND OF PERSONALITY THAT MIGHT BE? IS IT A PURE COLD-BLOODED KILLER WHO CAN KILL HIS CHILD AND WIFE AND THEN GO ON AND ACT IN SUCH A BIZARRE WAY? TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU VIEW NEIL ENTWISTLE AS A PERSON. >> AS YOU SAY, I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT -- >> BUT GIVEN WHAT THE PROSECUTION IS CLAIMING ABOUT HIM. WHAT TYPE OF A PERSON AND PERSONALITY WOULD WE BE DEALING WITH. >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. FIRST, IN A WAY, LOOKING AT 3-Ds IN A FACT PATTERN SUCH AS THIS. THE THREE Ds ARE, ONE, HE DIDN'T DO IT. TWO, HE'S IN DENIAL. THREE, HE'S DELUSIONAL. THOSE ARE THE THREE Ds. THE QUESTION IS, WHICH OF THESE THREE Ds IS IT? IF HE DID DO IT AS AN INFAMOUS BOOK TITLE GOES, THEN THE QUESTION IS, IS HE NOW DENYING THAT HE DID IT GIVEN HIS VANITY OR IS HE DELUSIONAL? IS HE SAYING, I COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT? I CAN'T IMAGINE MYSELF DOING IT? SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DENIAL AND DELUSION IN A PERSONALITY SUCH AS THIS IS PRECISELY THE DIFFERENCE THAT A FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION WOULD FOCUS ON REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT HE MEETS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF INSANITY. IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO OUT OF VANITY DENYING THAT HE DID IT, THEN HE WAS NOT INSANE. IF HE -- IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S DELUSIONAL, THEN AT LEAST THAT RAISES THE POSSIBILITY OF MEETING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF INSANITY. >> EDGAR, A QUICK QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT THIS. IF HE WERE YOUR CLIENT, WOULD YOU CONSIDER GOING DOWN THE INSANITY ROUTE WITH HIM AS A POSSIBLE DEFENSE? >> IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE PLAUSIBLE DEFENSE THAN TO TRY TO SAY THAT THIS WOMAN KILLED HERSELF, WHICH I FIND IMPLAUSIBLE. THAT SEEMS TO BE A DEFENSE THAT COMES FROM THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE BEING FOUND ON HER HAND. BUT WHEN YOU TAKE IT IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE AND ALL OF THE BEHAVIOR, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT BEHAVIOR SUBSEQUENT TO THIS, ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE, SUICIDE. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S PLAUSIBLE. >> I WANT TO QUICKLY THANK THE DOCTOR BECAUSE WE KNOW HE HAS TO RUN. OUR OTHER GUESTS WILL BE STAYING WITH US THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE PROGRAM. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK RIGHT NOW. YOU CAN TAKE A MOMENT TO WRITE TO US AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT DO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES TELL US? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON "OPEN COURT." OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO OBSERVE THEIR RELATIONSHIP? >> YES, QUITE FREQUENTLY. >> DESCRIBE THAT, JUST IN GENERAL TERMS IF YOU COULD, SIR. >> SURE, VERY LOVING COUPLE, VERY NICE, REALLY LOVE IN EACH OTHER'S COMPANY AND REALLY FUN TO BE AROUND AS WELL. >> A MARRIAGE ENDS IN A MURDER. NOW, A HUSBAND IS ACCUSED OF KILLING HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. WELCOME BACK TO "OPEN COURT" I'M ANNIKA PERGAMENT. LISA HAS THE DAY OFF. PROSECUTORS SAY NEIL ENTWHISTLE SHOT HIS WIFE AND 9-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER AND HE HOPPED A PLANE TO HIS NATIVE ENGLAND WITHOUT LOOKING BACK, BUT THE DEFENSE SAYS THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY APPEAR. THIS MURDER MYSTERY CONTINUES TO UNFOLD IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK IN LIVE. THE FIRST WITNESS OF THE DAY IS ON THE STAND, STATE TROOPER MICHAEL BANK, NOW TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE WHICH HE COLLECTED WHEN HE WENT TO ENGLAND TO CONTINUE HIS INVESTIGATION. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> 102 A, EXCUSE ME. 102 B. >> THANK YOU. >> HAVE YOU START LOOKING AT THOSE. >> IT'S THE -- THE FIRST ONE THAT I'M LOOKING AT ARE BUSINESS RECORDS FROM A CAPITAL ONE CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT, BUSINESS RECORDS SENT IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA SENT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. >> AND DOES THERE APPEAR TO BE RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO THAT SUBPOENA? >> YES, THERE ARE. >> NEXT FOLDER, SIR. >> THESE RECORDS ARE A RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA SENT BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RELATIVE TO A CITIBANK CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT. >> AND THAT THIRD FOLDER, RECORDS THAT ARE STANDING UP? >> THESE ARE RECORDS SENT IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA FROM WASHINGTON MUTUAL, RELATIVE TO A PAYPAL CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE RECORDS IN THERE THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO THAT SUBPOENA? >> YES, THERE ARE. >> NEXT THREE EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR? >> ALL RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE 102 C, D AND E. >> 102 C. 102 D. AND 102 E. >> AND THAT'S WITHOUT OBJECTION. >> STARTING WITH THAT TOP FOLDER, THE RECORDS THAT ARE STANDING UP, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT ENVELOPE. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM? >> YES, I HAVE. >> WHAT ARE THEY? >> THESE ARE BUSINESS RECORDS SENT IN RESPONSE TO A SUBPOENA TO FIA CARD SERVICES. >> AND DO THERE APPEAR TO BE RECORDS IN THERE RESPONSIVE TO THAT SUBPOENA? >> YES, THERE ARE. >> WHAT SORT OF RECORDS ARE THEY? >> THESE ARE OUR ACCOUNTS ON A -- HELD BY, IT IS CALLED MBNA AMERICA RELATIVE TO A CARD OPENED BY RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN NOVEMBER OF 2005. >> THE NEXT EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> NO OBJECTION. IT MAY BE MARKED, THE NEXT WOULD BE 102 F. >> 102 F MARKED. >> THANK YOU. >> AND IF YOU COULD, TAKE A MOMENT AND LOOK IN THE -- THOSE TWO FOLDERS, THE BALANCE OF THE RECORDS. >> I COULDN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. >> I'M SORRY, IF YOU LOOK IN THOSE TWO FOLDERS, THE BALANCE OF THE RECORDS. >> FIRST SET OF RECORDS THAT I'M HOLDING IN MY HAND ARE BUSINESS RECORDS RELATIVE TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, RELATIVE TO 911 CALLS, OR A CALL LOG SHEET, FOR JANUARY 20, 2006. >> NEXT SET? >> THESE ARE THE SAME TYPE OF RECORDS, JUST IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT. THERE IS A SUBPOENA RELATIVE TO RECORDS, BUSINESS RECORDS, FROM COMCAST RELATIVE TO SERVICE AT 6 CUBS PATH. >> THERE ARE OTHER 911-RELATED RECORDS IN THERE, SIR? >> YES, THERE ARE. ADMINISTRATIVE JOURNALS FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, ALL THE BARRACKS IN THE STATE INDICATING ANY INCIDENTS OR ACTIVITY AT EACH BARRACKS FOR JANUARY 20, 2006. >> IS THERE A THIRD SET OF 911-TYPE RECORDS IN THAT SECOND FOLDER? >> YES, THERE IS A CALL SHEET RELATIVE TO THE CARVER POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> PERTAINING TO WHAT DATE, SIR? >> JANUARY 20, 2006. >> NEXT THREE EXHIBITS, YOUR HONOR. >> NO OBJECTION. YOU NEED THEM MARKED, ALSO 102. >> 102 G. 102 H. 102 I. >> THANK YOU. >> DEMONSTRATION, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> CCC. >> JUST ONE MOMENT, PLEASE. >> WELL, THERE IS SO MUCH MADE IN THIS CASE ABOUT THE POLICE WORK AND THE DETECTIVE WORK, NOW THAT WE HAVE A STATE TROOPER ON THE STAND TODAY. FIRST, EDGAR DELEONE, I WANT TO GO TO YOU, WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE WORK THE STATE TROOPER DID IN INVESTIGATING THIS CRIME? ONE POINT THE DEFENSE BROUGHT OUT EARLIER IN THE WEEK IS THAT THEY HADN'T EXAMINE AND FULLY GONE THROUGH AND SEARCHED THE BOXES THEY WERE MOVING INTO THE HOME WITH. HE TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY HAD SEEN A LOT OF MOVING BOXES. SHOULD THEY HAVE SEARCHED THE BOXES? AREAS YOU KNOW THEY SHOULD HAVE SEARCHED AND DIDN'T? >> THE TOP OF MY HEAD, NONE I CAN THINK OF NOW. ONE THING I DID FIND INTERESTING IS HE SAID HE DIDN'T OPEN SOME OF THE BOXES HE PICKED UP. WITH EVERY SEARCH WARRANT I EVER EXECUTED I CAN RECALL, WE CERTAINLY LOOK TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT WE WERE RECOVERING AND DOCUMENTED IT AT THE SCENE. YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN THAT I MEAN, YOU KNOW, FROM THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS MORNING, IT SEEMS PRETTY STANDARD AND FERAL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PICKING UP BOXES AND NOT LOOKING INSIDE AND TO TAKE AN INVENTORY OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THERE. >> WE WILL GO BACK INTO THE TRIAL AND COME BACK WHEN WE TAKE ANOTHER BREAK. >> SIR, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A SERIES -- CITIES, TOWNS AND LOCATIONS, COULD YOU JUST POINT THEM OUT ONE BY ONE AND THEN I WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT DISTANCES IN BETWEEN THOSE LOCATIONS. HOPKINTON, MARLBORO, WEST BORROW AREA, IS THAT SHOWN ON THERE? >> YES THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. MARLBORO. >> IT IS ON THE FAR RIGHT EDGE OF THAT MAP? >> AS YOU LOOK AT IT THE LEFT EDGE. >> THE LEFT AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT? UM. EXCUSE ME. THE PLYMOUTH/CARVER AREA, PLYMOUTH/CARVER/KINGSTON? >> CARVER IS HERE. PLYMOUTH IS HERE. >> AND FRAMINGHAM? >> FRAMINGHAM IS HERE. >> AND THE BOSTON/LOGAN AIRPORT/NEWTON/CHESTNUT HILL AREA? >> BOSTON IS HERE. LOGAN AIRPORT THERE. NEWTON IS HERE. >> AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THOSE LOCATIONS? >> YES, APPROXIMATELY. >> APPROXIMATELY FROM HOPKINTON TO CARVER WHAT IS THE DISTANCE? >> APPROXIMATELY 60 MILES. >> WHAT ABOUT CARVER TO BRAINTREE, IF YOU COULD POINT OUT BRAINTREE ON THERE? >> CARVER TO BRAINTREE IS 35, 40 MILES. >> FROM BRAINTREE UP TO LOGAN AIRPORT? >> I WOULD SAY 15 MILES. >> FROM THE KINGSTON AREA TO THE WEYMOUTH AREA? AND IF YOU COULD POINT OUT THE WEYMOUTH AREA POINTING OUT THAT DISTANCE? >> I WOULD SAY KINGSTON TO WEYMOUTH AREA, 20 MILES. >> AND THE WEYMOUTH TO FRAMINGHAM AREA? >> WOULD BE 30, 35 MILES. >> FRAMINGHAM AREA TO THE MARLBORO AREA IN PARTICULAR, MARLBORO, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 495 AND 20? >> 10 MILES. >> AND LASTLY, FROM MARLBORO DOWN TO HOPKINTON? >> I WOULD SAY 70, 70 MILES. EXCUSE ME, I WOULD SAY MARLBORO TO HOPKINTON WOULD BE 10 MILES. >> ACTUALLY, ONE LAST LOCATION. CHESTNUT HILL TO LOGAN AIRPORT? >> 5 MILE -- 15 MILES. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A LOCATION IN WESTBORO, ROUTE 9, ROUGHLY THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 135? >> YES. >> WHAT IS AT THAT LOCATION? >> THERE IS STABLES, A COMPANY THERE AS WELL AS A STOP AND SHOP. >> THERE A WAL-MART IN THAT VICINITY, SIR? >> WAL-MART TWO BLOCKS DOWN. >> FURTHER DOWN ROUTE 9? >> YES. NCH >> WHY DON'T YOU STAY THERE. ONE MORE DIAGRAM, SIR. >>> WELCOME BACK TO OPEN COURT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK INTO THAT TRIAL, WHERE STATE TROOPER MICHAEL BANKS WAS ON THE STAND. HE WAS ONE OF THE KEY INVESTIGATORS IN THIS CASE. HE IS UNDER DIRECT EXAMINATION RIGHT NOW. THE PROSECUTOR IS ASKING HIM ABOUT LOGAN AIRPORT, EVIDENCE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM THE ATM MACHINE'S VIDEO WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE APPARENTLY TRIED TO WITHDRAW MONEY. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, SIR, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN IN EACH OF THEM? >> EACH PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS THE CITIZEN'S ATM MACHINE AT TERMINAL B. >> DO THEY SHOW THAT CITIZEN ATM MACHINE AS IT APPEARED TO YOU IN APRIL OF 2006? >> YES. >> NEXT, YOUR HONOR? >> AGAIN, NO OBJECTION. THEY MAY BE MARKED AND THAT WOULD BE 14 C AND D. >> 14 C AND D MARKED. >> THANK YOU. >> IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> YES. >> MAY WE APPROACH? >> YES. >> LET ME BRING YOU IN HERE, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS THEORY THAT THE DEFENSE INTRODUCED YESTERDAY ABOUT THE MURDER/SUICIDE POSSIBILITY. HOW CAN THEY EVEN GO THERE WHEN THERE'S NO GUN? AND WOULDN'T THAT RISK ALIENATING THE JURY? >> WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES AND YES. CERTAINLY, IT WOULD ALIENATE THE JURY. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS A THEORY AND I DON'T SUSPECT THAT -- OR I DO SUSPECT THAT WHEN SUMMATIONS COME AROUND, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HEAR AN ARGUMENT FROM THE DEFENSE THAT THIS WAS, IN FACT, A SUICIDE, AND THAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE. I THINK BETH HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD EARLIER -- AT THE TOP OF THE SHOW. THIS COULDN'T HAVE BEEN A SUICIDE BECAUSE THE GUN IS FOUND BACK IN THE LOCKED BOX. I THINK WHAT THE DEFENSE IS DOING IS SHOWING THE IMPROPER INVESTIGATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED. AND THEY ARE PUNCHING HOLES INTO WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS IS A SOLID THEORY AND HERE IT'S CLEARLY NOT. >> IMPROPER MEANING THEY SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATING WHETHER IT WAS A POTENTIAL SUICIDE? BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT STEPHANIE PAGE, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WAS GOING FOR THAT WAS RACHEL ENTWISTLELE HAD GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON HER-HER HAND. >> RIGHT. >> BUT THERE WAS ALREADY TESTIMONY THAT THERE IS VAPOROUS RESIDUE, TESTIMONY THEY HAVE BOTH BEEN SHOT AT CLOSE RANGE. WOULDN'T THAT EXPLAIN THAT AWAY? I THINK AS A JUROR IT WOULD NEGATE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS? >> YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A YEAR AND A HALF LATER. LOOK AT IT NOW, THE DAY AFTER, THE DAY OF, THE FINDINGS OF ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE. WHAT DO THE INVESTIGATORS DO THEN? HOW DID THEY CENTER ON NEIL ENTWISTLE AS THE PRIMARY SUSPECT WITHOUT LOOKING AT OTHER POSSIBLE AVENUES? AND AT LEAST LOOKING AT THEM AND REJECTING THEM? HERE THEY DIDN'T EVEN LOOK. I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENSE IS SIMPLY TRYING TO POINT OUT. >> ED DAR -- EDGAR DELEONE, LET ME BRING YOU IN. YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS RELATIVELY COMPLETE POLICE WORK WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE DEFENSE STRATEGY, POKING HOLES WHERE THEY CAN. WOULD YOU TAKE THAT ROUTE? WOULD YOU TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE? >> I THINK LARVAE ON -- I THINK LARRY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. I THINK IT IS A VERY GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE DEFENSE TRYING TO DO, POKE HOLES. AGAIN, ALL GOING TO AN INVESTIGATION THAT FOCUSED ON ONE INDIVIDUAL AND DID NOT, AT THAT TIME, AT THE TIME THE INVESTIGATION WAS BEING CONDUCTED, LOOK AT OTHER POSSIBILITIES. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT ALWAYS STRIKES JURORS AND CONCERNS JURORS, BUT, YOU KNOW, GUNSHOT RESIDUE IS VERY TRANSFERABLE. IT IS NOT DISSTINKTIVE FROM OTHER MATERIALS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AND YOU LOOK AT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTUAL SHOOTING IT JUST DOES NOT ADD UP THAT THIS IS A SUICIDE. I WOULD AGREE WITH LARRY, I DON'T THINK THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO ARGUE THAT IN SUMMATION, BUT THEY ARE TRYING TO PRY THAT DOOR OPEN TO REASONABLE DOUBT AND TRYING TO GET THE JURY TO LOOK AT THIS POLICE INVESTIGATION AND TO SAY, HEY, THEY FOCUSED ON THIS INDIVIDUAL AND DIDN'T EVEN CONSIDER THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. >> IT REALLY -- YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, YOU SAY THE ACTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE SHOOTINGS, BECAUSE THAT SEEMINGS, TO ME, TO BE THE MOST DAMAGING EVIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE IN THIS CASE, THAT THIS WAS AN ACTUAL MURDER/SUICIDE, AN ACTUAL DOUBLE HOMICIDE, KILLING HIS WIFE AND CHILD THAT HE WOULD HAVE PLANNED IT OUT BETTER THAN TO SIMPLY NOT CALL POLICE AND HOP ON A PLANE TO LONDON THINKING THAT HE'S GONNA GET AWAY WITH T AND MY ONLY THOUGHT ON THAT WOULD BE THAT MAYBE HE DIDN'T THINK THAT HE COULD BE EXTRADITED TO THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THERE IS A FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY. MAYBE HE THOUGHT ENGLAND WON'T EXTRADITE SOMEBODY TO THE STATES AND HE COULD JUST GET AWAY AND BE DONE WITH THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT DEFENDANTS ARE THAT CLEAR AND THINK THAT FAR AHEAD THAT THEY WON'T BE EXTRADITED. CLEARLY, WOULD BE EXTRADITED REGARDLESS OF -- WELL, NOT REGARDLESS. >> ACCIDENT COME BACK FOR THE FUNERAL THOUGH, WHICH IS ANOTHER KEY POINT. HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT ONE AWAY? >> AND THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT IT FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE AND SAY HE IS GUILTY AND HE RAN AWAY TO AVOID PROSECUTION. AND THAT'S CLEARLY ONE POSSIBILITY. THE OTHER IS HE KNOWS THAT HIS WIFE AND CHILD HAVE BEEN -- HAVE BEEN KILLED AND HE IS SO DISTRAUGHT, HE IS SO WROUGHT WITH EMOTION, THAT HE ESSENTIALLY FREAKS OUT. AND RUNS AWAY THEN. >> WHICH IS -- IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS HIS ONLY DEFENSE. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, DON'T YOU THINK THE JURY WOULD WANT TO HEAR WITH THEM -- WOULD WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM AND WOULD YOU PUT HIM ON THE STAND FOR THAT, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE HE IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN GET HIMSELF OUT OF THIS. >> WELL, I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT. I VERY, VERY RELUCTANTLY EVER PUT CLIENTS ON THE STARRED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEIR BACKGROUND IS JUST BECAUSE THEY MAKE BAD WITNESSES. AND IT ALWAYS THEN BECOMES THE JURY'S -- FOR THE JURY CONSIDERATION, WHO DO YOU BELIEVE? I WOULD MUCH RATHER DEFEND THIS CASE, PROVE IT. THE STATE HAS A VERY HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF. THE CASE HERE IS EXTREMELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL. IT IS A GOOD CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE FOR THE STATE, BUT IT IS STILL CIRCUMSTANTIAL. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE CLIENT IS INNOCENT. I ONLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A REASON FOR DOUBT. >> ALL RIGHT. AND I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE STAND, THE JURY'S NOT SUPPOSED TO READ ANYTHING INTO IT. I'M TELLING YOU, IF I'M CHARGED WITH A DOUBLE MURDER, I WILL GET UP THERE AND DEFEND MYSELF. >> MAYBE, BUT NOT IF I'M YOUR LAWYER. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL WHAT DO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES ADMIT NOTED THIS TRIAL TELL US? WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WE REVEAL THE ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. STAY WITH US. >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY IN OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY WHAT DO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES TELL US? OUR ANSWER COMES FROM ELIZABETH IN PENSACOLA, FLORIDA. SHE WRITES, "I THINK THE COMPUTER SEARCHES TELL US MORE ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. HIS DEFENSE TEAM WANTS TO PORTRAY HIM AS THIS LOVING AND DEVOTED FATHER AND FAMILY MAN, BUT HIS SEARCHES TELL A DIFFERENT SIDE TO HIM. IT IS NOT A SMOKING GUN, BUT IT DOES NOT PUT HIM IN THE LIGHT THAT HIS OWN DEFENSE TEAM WANTS TO SHOW HIM." ELIZABETH IN PENSACOLA, FLORIDA, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER. OKAY, TROOPER MICHAEL BANKS IS OFF THE STAND AFTER A BRIEF, BRIEF CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE NOW HAVE SERGEANT ROBERT MANNING, HE IS WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE ON THE STAND. LET'S LISTEN IN. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU MET AND SPOKE WITH ANY CIVILIANS AT THAT LOCATION? >> YES, I DID. >> WHO DID YOU SEE AND WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH? >> I MET PRICILLA AND JOE MATARAZZO. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM? >> YES, I DID. >> AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME, DID YOU LEAVE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION AND GO SOME PLACE ELSE? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> BACK TO SIX CUBS PATH. >> WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR GOING THERE? >> THE EXECUTION OF A CRIME SCENE SEARCH WARRANT, SIR. >> WITH WHOM DID YOU GO? >> THE CRIME SCENE, SERGEANT MARY RICHIE AND HER CREW, AND MYSELF AND I THINK MIKE BANKS. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET THERE? >> RIGHT AROUND 1:30. >> DID YOU SPEND -- >> ARE ALL THE JURORS ABLE TO HEAR THE WITNESS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> SIR, IF YOU COULD, LEAN IN A LITTLE BIT. >> FINE, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SIR, DID YOU ENTER THE PREMISES AT SIX CUBS PATH? >> YES, SIR, I DID. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME IN THERE? >> YES. >> HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND IN THERE INITIALLY, SIR? >> APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE OF HOURS, SIR. >> WHERE DID YOU GO NEXT? >> AFTER I LEFT 6 CUBS PATH? >> YES. >> LATER ON IN THE MORNING, I RETURNED TO HOPKINTON PD. >> AND DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, SIR, I DID. >> WHETHER OR NOT WHILE AT THE STATION THAT MORNING, YOU RECEIVED A PHONE CALL? >> WELL, I'M SORRY, SIR, I RESPONDED BACK TO CUBS PATH IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT MORNING. AND THEN I RESPONDED TO HOPKINTON PD. >> OKAY WHAT TIME DID YOU GO BACK TO CUBS PATH? >> APPROXIMATELY 9:30. >> AND DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME THERE? >> YES, I DID. >> AND WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER THAT? >> TO HOPKINTON, BACK TO HOPKINTON POLICE STATION. >> AFTER YOU GOT TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION THE SECOND TIME THAT DAY, THE 23rd, DID YOU RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEBODY LATER THAT MORNING? >> ON THE 23rd? >> YES. >> WHILE AT 6 CUBS PATH, I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM SOMEBODY. >> I APOLOGIZE. >> I THINK I -- I THINK I MIXED YOU UP, I APOLOGIZE. >> FROM WHOM DID YOU RECEIVE A PHONE CALL? >> JOE MATARAZZO. >> APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS THAT, SIR? >> APPROXIMATELY 11:30 IN THE MORNING. >> DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES, I DID. >> AFTER HAVING CONVERSATION WITH MR. MATARAZZO WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT, SIR? >> I WENT -- NOT IMMEDIATELY BUT SHORTLY THERE AFTER, I WENT BACK TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION. >> AND DID YOU GO ALONE OR WITH SOMEONE ELSE? >> I THINK -- A COUPLE OF OTHER DETECTIVES CAME WITH ME. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU GET BACK THERE? >> IN AND AROUND -- AFTER LUNCHTIME, AROUND 1:00 PROBABLY. >> AND AT APPROXIMATELY 1 TO 1:30, DID YOU DO SOMETHING, SIR? >> I DID, SIR. >> WHAT DID DO YOU? >> I PLACED A PHONE CALL TO ENGLAND. >> AND DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK TO SOMEBODY IN ENGLAND? >> YES, I DID. >> WHO DID YOU SPEAK TO INITIALLY? >> INITIALLY, I BELIEVE CLIFFORD ENTWISTLE. >> AND DID YOU HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> YES, SIR. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU SPOKE TO SOMEBODY ELSE? >> YES, I DID. >> WHO DID YOU SPEAK WITH? >> NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> AND WHAT TIME DID YOU SPEAK WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY AROUND 1:30 P.M. OUR TIME IN THE AFTERNOON. >> AND DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME ON THE TELEPHONE WITH HIM? >> YES, I DID. >> ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND WITH HIM ON THE PHONE? >> I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT TELEPHONE CALL WAS RECORDED BY EQUIPMENT AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT? >> YES, SIR, IT WAS. >> AND HAVE YOU HAD AN OCCASION SINCE TO LISTEN TO THAT RECORDING? >> YES, I HAVE. NCH >> >>. >> SIR, PLACED AN ITEM, A CONTAINER IN FRONT OF YOU WITH TWO CDs, TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE CDs AND TELL US IF YOU RECOGNIZE THEM. >> YES, SIR, I DO. >> WHAT ARE THOSE TWO ITEMS? >> THESE ARE A CD DISK, SAY A COPY OF THE RECORDED CONVERSATION I HAD WITH NEIL ENTWHISTLE. >> HAVE YOU HAD AN OCCASION TO LISTEN TO THOSE TWO CDs? >> YES, SIR, I HAVE. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY CONTAIN A FAIR, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE COPY OF THE PHONE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. NEIL ENTWHISTLELE ON JANUARY 23, 2006, COMMENCING AT APPROXIMATELY 1:30 P.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME? >> YES, SIR, I WOULD SAY THEY DID. >> IF THEY ARE IN ONE CONTAINER THEY MAY BE MARKED WITH ONE NUMBER. >> WELL, I TAKE IT FROM WHAT THE WITNESS SAID THAT THERE IS SOME LENGTH TO THE CONVERSATION? ALL RIGHT, WHAT WE WILL DO THEN IS WE WILL TAKE THE MORNING RECESS EARLY. WE WILL RESUME IN THE COURTROOM AT 11:00. >> ALL RISE. >> WELL, AS THEY TAKE A BRIEF BREAK, A CHANCE FOR US TO GO THROUGH A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE WITH MY GUESTS. LARRY, FIRST YOU, TALKING ABOUT THE DEFENSE STRATEGY, SMOKING HOLES INTO THE PROSECUTION THERE IS SPECULATION OUT THERE ON THE WEB AND BLOGS AND THAT SORT OF THING THAT JOE MATARAZZO, THE STEPFATHER, MAY BE GUILTY OF THESE CRIMES. YOU THINK THAT THAT IS A STRATEGY THAT THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE GOING FOR. HE PUT ON -- THE PROSECUTION PUT ON VERY STRONG ALIBIS FOR HIM. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BE TAKING THIS TACT? >> WELL, THE UNIVERSE OF POE TEN ITS PEOPLE -- POTENTIAL PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE COMMITTED THIS CRIME IS EXTREMELY SMALL T IS ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE BOX WHERE THE WHEN -- WEAPON WAS HELD. THAT WAS THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT AND THE STEPFATHER. I THINK THE MOTHER DID AS WELL, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYONE THINKS THAT IS PLAUSIBLE T IS AS EQUALLY LIKELY THAT NEIL ENTWISTLELE COULD HAVE DONE THIS, AS WELL AS THE STEPFATHER. THEY BOTH HAD ACCESS. COULD HA AS WELL AS THE STEPFATHER. THEY BOTH HAD ACCESS. >> YOU ADD THE MOUNTAINS OF MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE OF THIS CASE AND THE BIZARRE BEHAVIOR OF NEIL ENTER WEST WITHAL, NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE AFTER ALLEGEDLY FINDING THE BODIES THAT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE A PRETTY THIN THEORY. >> FOR ONE, I DISAGREE THERE ARE MOUNTAINS AND MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE T IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE AND IT CAN BE VERY STRONG BUT IT IS STILL CIRCUMSTANTIAL. IT IS ONLY FOR THE DEFENSE LAWYER TO FIND A REASON FOR DOUBT. YOU CALL IT POKING HOLES IN A -- IN THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. I CALL IT REASONABLE DOUBT. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THE CLIENT INNOCENT, I ONLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH I CALL A REASON FOR DOUBT. >> EDGAR DELEONE, WE HAVE HIM NOT CALLING POLICE. WE HAVE HIM FLEEING TO LONDON. WE HAVE HIM, A SERIES OF E-MAILS HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE, PLUS ADD INTO THAT THE ESCORT SERVICES SEARCHES, YOU THINK THAT IS A LOT OF EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM? >> IS A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EVIDENCE. >> I'M SORRY, THE DNA ON THE MUZZLE, RACHEL'S DNA AND HIS ON THE HANDLE? >> YEAH, YEAH. THERE IS A -- PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND THERE IS A -- IT IS ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IT IS STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND YOU CAN MAKE A CASE, JUST BASED SOLELY ON THAT BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, YOU KNOW, NOT TO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEFENSE TO POINT OUT THAT THE STEPFATHER HAD ACCESS IS VERY VERSION IMPORTANT, OKAY? AGAIN, GOING -- PEOPLE -- JURORS AND LET ME SAY, CAN BE OFFENDED BY A POLICE INVESTIGATION THAT IS SO NARROW FROM THE BEGINNING THAT IT JUST HONES IN ON ONE INDIVIDUAL AND DOESN'T CONSIDER ANY OF THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES. >> BUT CAN'T THEY ALSO BE OFF D OFFENDED, EVEN MORE SO, BY A DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO BLAMES MOTHER FOR KILLING HERSELF AND HER BABY? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO COMPLETELY GO WITH THAT. I THINK THAT THEY ARE JUST GOING TO SAY THIS IS A POSSIBILITY AND LET IT HANG THERE, BECAUSE IT IS JUST -- IT IS A VERY, VERY, VERY REMOTE POSSIBILITY, THE BALLISTICS DON'T ADD UP. >> TO START BLAMING THE VICTIM, THOUGH AND THEN TO BLAME THE GRIEVING FAMILY, AS YOU'RE SUGGESTING, THAT'S -- WOULD SEEM TO ME TO BE A VERY RISKY STRATEGY. >> NO QUESTION IT IS A RISKY STRATEGY, BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING THE REST OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S LIFE IN JAIL AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS. AND IF THE DEFENSE LAWYER'S OBLIGATION TO EXPLORE EVERY REASONABLE AND, FRANKLY, UNREASONABLE SCENARIO. >> YOU WOULD TAKE THAT BEFORE PUTTING HIM ON THE STAND? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WHAT ABOUT YOU, EDGAR? WOULD YOU PUT HIM ON THE STAND? >> OH, NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS SOMEBODY YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE STAND, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF WHAT WE CALL PRIOR BAD ACTS AND IMMORAL ACTS AND THINGS THAT I THINK JURORS ARE GOING TO FIND VERY, VERY OFFENSIVE. AND IT IS A DILEMMA FOR THE DEFENSE, BECAUSE ALL OF THIS OTHER BEHAVIOR NEEDS TO PLAINED SOMEHOW, SOME WAY TO THE JURORS. THEY HAVE TO HAVE REASONS FOR THIS BEHAVIOR AND WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? IF YOU PUT HIM ON THE STAND, YOU TAKE A -- YOU KNOW, THE PROSECUTION IS JUST GOING TO -- OPENS UP THE DOOR TO BEING CROSS-EXAMINED ON ALL OF THESE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND IMMORAL ACT, WHICH JURORS, I THINK, ARE GOING TO FIND VERY, VERY OFFENSIVE. >> THE QUESTION IS THEN HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN ALL OF THAT OTHER -- SEEMINGLY UNEXPLAINABLE BEHAVIOR IF YOU DON'T PUT HIM ON THE STAND? MAYBE YOU CAN'T. WE WANT TO THANK OUR CORRESPONDENT, BETH KARAS, REPORTING LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS TODAY. YOU WILL SEE MORE OF THE ENTER WHISTLE THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL HERE ON IN SESSION. UP NEXT, OPEN COURT -- ON OPEN COURT, GOING LIVE TO LAS VEGAS. THERE ARE R NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ARMED ROBBERY CASE AGAINST O.J. SIMPSON. STAY TUNED FOR THAT >>> THE O.J. SIMPSON ARMED ROBBERY CASE HEAD BOOKS TO A VEGAS COURTROOM. HIS CO-DEFENDANTS ARE EXPECTED TO MAKE A NEW REQUEST. WE WILL HAVE A LIVE REPORT NEXT ON "OPEN COURT." >>> O.J. SIMPSON'S ARMED ROBBERY TRIAL IS STILL A FEW MONTHS AWAY, BUT THE CASE IS BACK IN COURT TODAY. SIMPSON AND TWO CO-DEFENDANTS ARE ACCUSED OF HOLDING UP SPORTS MEMORABILIA DEALERS IN A LAS VEGAS HOTEL ROOM LAST FALL. CORRESPONDENT JEAN CASAREZ JOINS US NOW LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS WITH THE LATEST ON TODAY'S HEARING. HELLO, JEAN. >> GOOD MORNING, ANNIKA. WE ARE LIVE HERE IN LAS VEGAS. THIS IS A MONTHLY STATUS CHECK HEARING. EVERY MONTH, THE JUDGE IS DOING THIS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS MOVING FORWARD FOR THAT TRIAL START DATE OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2008. BUT IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES, BECAUSE THERE ARE IMPORTANT LEGAL ISSUES THAT EVERY SINGLE STATUS CONFERENCE HEARING. HERE ARE THE ONES FOR TODAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT A MOTION FOR SEVERANCE. THAT IS ACTUALLY A RENEWED MOTION FROM SEVERANCE FROM THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE TRIED WITH O.J. SIMPSON. THE CONTESTED JURY QUESTIONS. THOSE ARE POTENTIAL JURY QUESTIONS FOR THAT JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. NOT ALL SIDES AGREE ON ALL QUESTIONS. AND LASTLY, THE DEPOSITION OF AN FBI SPECIAL AGENT THAT IS DUE TO TESTIFY FOR THE PROSECUTION. NOW, IN REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE SEVERANCE OF THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT IS SO VERY, VERY SERIOUS WITH THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE, EXCLUDING O.J. SIMPSON. WE SPOKE WITH ROBERT LUCARINI, ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS ON THIS CASE. HE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE JUST HAVE TO HAVE SEPARATE TRIALS. >> ON THE STREET LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT AND YOU SAY, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CLARENCE STEWART? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. BUT YOU SAY O.J. SIMPSON AND THE PERSON LIGHTS UP. THEY ARE VERY OPINIONATED ON O.J. SIMPSON. FOR GOOD OR FOR BAD, AND MOSTLY, UNFORTUNATELY FOR BAD. CJ WILL BE A PART OF THAT CASE WHEN THEY DECIDE O.J.'S FATE, THAT SAME TEMPERAMENT, THOSE SAME FEELINGS OF BIAS AND PREJUDICE, ARE GOING TO CARRY OVER WHEN THEY LOOK AT CJ'S CASE. AND CJ MAY BE COMPLETELY INNOCENT, BUT IF THEY ARE SO FOUNDED ON A FEELING OF BIAS OR PREJUDICE, IT IS GOING TO NEGATIVELY AFFECT MY CLIENT. >> NOW, WHAT DOES THAT NEW DEFEND THAT THEY SAY THERE IS AND SHOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A SEVERANCE? TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THEY SAY THERE ARE ENHANCED AUDIOTAPES NOW. THE FBI WENT THROUGH A PROCESS TO ENHANCE THE AUDIOTAPE. AS FAR AS CJ STEWART AND CHARLES EHRLICH, THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, THEY ARE NOT IN THESE RECORDINGS, YOU DON'T SEE THEM, THEY ARE NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS ENTIRE -- WHAT PROSECUTION SAYS IS A CRIME THAT NIGHT. THOMAS RICCIO CAME OUT WITH A BACK AND ACERTAINED IN THE MOTION, IN THAT BOOK THERE IS A LARGE PART DEVOTED TO CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN RICCIO AND O.J. SIMPSON, FIGURING OUT HOW TO PULL OFF THIS CAPER ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2007. AND THE CONCERNS SAY THAT CHARLES EHRLICH AND CJ STEWART AREN'T INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE A PART OF THEIR CASE, THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE TRIALS. >> JEAN, I KNOW THE PROSECUTION OBJECTING TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS PROPOSED BY THE DEFENSE IN THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND A LENGTHY QUESTIONNAIRE. CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THOSE OBJECTSABLE QUESTIONS ARE? >> SURE. AS IT STANDS NOW, I THINK IT IS ABOUT 26 PAGES AND OVER 100 QUESTIONS, 112 QUESTIONS, I THINK. BUT THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT THE PROSECUTION DISAGREES WITH. SO, THEY HAVE FILED A MEMORANDUM OF LAW DISCUSSING THOSE QUESTIONS. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS THAT THEY MAY ARGUE IN COURT TODAY. FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IF A PERSON IS PRESENT WHEN OTHERS COMMIT A CRIME, THAT HE OR HAD SHE IS ALSO GUILTY OF COMMITTING A CRIME? AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT QUESTION IS SUBMITTED BY THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE OTHER TWO DEFENDANTS, CJ STEWART AND CHARLES EHRLICH. NEXT QUESTION THAT THE PROSECUTION IS OBJECTING TO, DO YOU HAVE ANY PREJUDICES OR NEGATIVE OPINIONS AGAINST CO-DEFENDANT CLARENCE STEWART OR CHARLES EHRLICH BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE AT TRIAL WITH DEFENDANT, O.J. SIMPSON? AND ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT IS A CONTESTED JURY QUESTION AT THIS POINT, DO YOU BELIEVE DEFENDANT -- HAS BEEN A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS? THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THIS JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. THERE ARE FORMS THAT THESE QUESTIONS SHOULD TAKE. THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING THESE QUESTIONS GO TOWARD AGOMENT AND ALSO WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL.RGUMENT AND ALSO WHAT SHOULD BE IN THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL. >> JEAN, O.J. IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE THERE TODAY, CORRECT? >> NO THE DEFENDANT'S PRESENCE HAS BEEN WAIVED IN ALL THESE STATUS HEARINGS, CORRECT. >> HOW IS IT THAT SOMEONE LIKE O.J. SIMPSON, WHO NOW, I THINK INTEREST, OWES THE GOLDMAN FAMILY LIKE $40 MILLION IN THE WRONGFUL DEATH JUDGMENT, HOW IS IT HE IS ABLE TO POST BOND -- WHAT IS HIS BOND AND HOW IS HE ABLE TO POST IT? >> HIS BOND WAS RAISED IN JANUARY TO I BELIEVE $250,000. HE GOT OUT I THINK $37,500. BUT THE CIVIL CASE FROM CALIFORNIA, THAT WRONGFUL DEATH CASE THAT IS GOING TO BE PART OF THIS TRIAL IF THE PROSECUTION HAS THEIR WAY. THE JUDGE HASN'T OFFICIALLY RULED ON IT YET. REMEMBER, THIS WHOLE CASE IS ABOUT MEMORABILIA OR PERSONAL PROPERTY, WHATEVER SIDE YOU'RE ON. AND IT IS, THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY THAT THE REASON O.J. WANTED TO GET THESE THINGS, THE MOTIVE FOR IT, HAD HAD TO DO, ULTIMATELY, WITH THE TURNOVER ORDERS THAT CAME OUT OF CALIFORNIA AFTER THE CIVIL JUDGMENT, WHERE ALL OF HIS PERSONAL EFFECTS WERE TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE GOLDMAN FAMILY. WELL, IT IS ALLEGED IN SOME BOOKS, NAMELY ONE BY MIKE GILBERT, THAT THE PERSONAL EFFECTS WERE PUT IN STORAGE UNITS, WERE HIDDEN IN CARS, WERE TAKEN AWAY, SO THAT THOSE TURNOVER ORDERS COULD NOT BE EXECUTED. THAT, THE PROSECUTION SAYS, IS SOME OF THE MEMORABILIA THAT WAS FOUND IN THAT HOTEL ROOM THAT NIGHT. THEY FEEL IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO BRING THAT INTO THIS CASE. >> WHAT IS O.J.'S DEFENSE GOING TO BE IN THIS CASE, JEAN? >> WELL, AT THIS POINT, THEY ARE NOT SHOWING THEIR HAND. WHAT WE HEARD FROM EARLY ON IS THAT THIS IS A STATE OF MIND CASE, AND THAT O.J. SIMPSON SIMPLY WANTED TO GET HIS PERSONAL EFFECTS BACK. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FAMILY PICTURES, MEMENTOS FROM HIS MOTHER. HE HAS SOME SIGNED FOOTBALLS, BUT THEY WERE IMPORTANT TO HIM PERSONALLY. AND WHEN HE WENT INTO THE ROOM THAT NIGHT TO GET HIS PERSONAL BELONGINGS, THAT HE HAD TUNNEL VISION, THAT IF THERE WAS A GUN, HE DIDN'T SEE T THAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS NOT TO CARRY OUT ANY TYPE OF CRIME WHATSOEVER. >> AND READING THE NOTES ON THIS TRIAL, JEAN, IT SEEMS THE CAST OF CHARACTERS IS A COLORFUL ONE, ONE THAT MAY HAVE CREDIBILITY ISSUE AS? >> SURE. SURE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES, THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO HAVE A TREMENDOUS CROSS-EXAMINATION PROBABLY ON ALL WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY HAVE BACKGROUNDS, CRIMINAL PAST, THINGS THEY WILL BRING OUT AND CHALLENGE FOR THE PROSECUTION NO WAY AROUND IT, BUT I THINK THE PROSECUTION WILL GO IN THE DIRECTION, THAT BIRDS OF A FELTER FLOCK TOGETHER THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF WHY ALL THOSE PEOPLE WERE TOGETHER THAT NIGHT. >> LET ME BRING YOU IN HERE, LARRY, FOR A MINUTE. YOU HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH LAS VEGAS JURIES. I READ THEY ARE GOING TO START WITH A POOL OF SOMETHING LIKE 400 JURORS. TELL US WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU MIGHT -- THAT YOU FORESEE. >> WELL, CLEARLY, O.J. SIMPSON IS A HOUSEHOLD NAME FOR GOOD AND UNFORTUNATELY FOR HIM, MOSTLY FOR BAD. BUT THE INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE ABOUT LAS VEGAS IS EVERYONE THINK IT IS SIN CITY AND EVERYONE IS LIBERAL. AND THAT IS NOT REALLY THE JURY POOL. IT IS REALLY A MIX OF WHAT I CALL SAINTS AND SINNERS. THERE ARE THE CARD DEALERS AND THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE CASINOS WHO ARE PART OF THE JURY POOL, BUT BECAUSE OF LAS VEGAS' PROXIMITY TO UTAH, THERE IS AN EXTREMELY LARGE MORMON POPULATION, WHICH TENDS TO BE QUITE CONSERVATIVE. SO, PICKING THE JURY AND PICKING FROM THOSE POTENTIAL KINDS OF JURORS IS GOING TO BE, FRANKLY, QUITE POSSIBLY WHERE THIS CASE IS WON OR LOST. >> AND, JEAN, IN TERMS OF THE MEDIA COVERAGE OUT THERE, IS THIS EXPECTED TO BE A COMPLETE CIRCUS ONCE THE TRIAL GETS GOING? >> OH, I DEFINITELY THINK SO I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT OUR GUESTS SAID IT IS SO TRUE, LISTEN TO WHAT HE JUST SAID, BECAUSE I CLERKED IN LAS VEGAS ALL THROUGH LAW SCHOOL. THE JURY POOL HERE TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN VERY CONSERVATIVE. THIS IS A MORMON-BASED COMMUNITY. I'M SURE PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT BUT INTERSTATE 15 FROM SALT LAKE TO LAS VEGAS IS A STRAIGHT SHOOT. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE COME DOWN FROM SALT LAKE TO SETTLE IN LAS VEGAS. NOW, IT IS CHANGING. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVING INTO LAS VEGAS, SO THAT WILL MAKE IT A DIVERSE POOL, WHICH COULD HELP THE DEFENSE. >> ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH, JEAN CASAREZ FOR THAT REPORTING LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS TODAY. AND THANKS ALSO TO OUR GUESTS, EDGAR DELEONE AND LARRY SCHOENBACH IN THE STUDIO. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH RON KUBY FOR JAMI FLOYD, WHO IS IN FOR BEST DEFENSE >> GREAT TO SEE YOU. NEXT ON THE "BEST DEFENSE," WE ARE GOING TO BE HEARING SOME OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S CONVERSATIONS WITH TROOPER ROBERT MANNING AND HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUICIDE THEORY, WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CREATING A DOUBT AND A REASONABLE DOUBT? >> ALL RIGHT, RON, THANKS SO MUCH. WE WILL LOOK FORWARD TO IT WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU IN JUST A MINUTE THAT WRAPS UP MY TIME WITH YOU ON OPEN COURT. I'M ANNIKA PERGAMENT IN FOR LISA BLOOM. BE SURE TO TUNE IN AGAIN MONDAY, 9 A.M. EVEN FOR MORE TRIAL COVERAGE. THANKS FOR WATCHING. HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND. |