|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY ON THE BEST DEFENSE, NO WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE. WE ARE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE ABOUT TO BEGIN IN NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MURDER TRIAL. PLUS, O.J. SIMPSON BACK IN COURT AS BOTH SIDES PREPARE FOR HIS TRIAL OUT OF LAS VEGAS AND WE'VE GOT THE LATEST. THE BEST DEFENSE STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE. I'M JAMI FLOYD. GOOD TO BE BACK AFTER A LONG TWO WEEK AWAY. WE'LL HAVE LOTS MORE ON O.J. SIMPSON AND THAT ON GOING ARMED ROBBERY CASE LATER IN THE SHOW, BUT FIRST UP WE'VE GOT THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE AND WHAT SOME ARE CALLING THE MORE NOTORIOUS CASE SO FAR THIS YEAR, PROSECUTORS ARE ACCUSING THE 29-YEAR-OLD ENGLISH MAN OF FATALLY SHOOTING THEIR WIFE AND DAUGHTER BEFORE FLEEING THE COUNTRY. BUT ENTWISTLE SAYS HE'S WRONGLY ACCUSED, HE SAYS HE DISCOVERED THE BODIES INSIDE HIS HOPKINTON MASSACHUSETTS HOME, PANICKED HE SAYS, AND THEN FLU TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY IN ENGLAND. BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE WITH THE LATEST. AND, BETH, SOME DEVELOPMENTS. WE'LL HAVE CLOSING ARGUMENTS SHORTLY. >> Reporter: YES, INDEED. WELCOME BACK. AND GOOD MORNING. THE PROSECUTION RESTED. WE EXPECTED THEM TO REST AFTER THEIR 47th WITNESS, SERGEANT MANS THIS MORNING. THEY WOULD HAVE RESTED LAST FRIDAY IF THERE HADN'T BEEN A LITTLE GLITCH WITH THE LAST OF THE AUDIO TAPED TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS. AND THAT WAS PLAYED THIS MORNING INSTEAD. THEY HAD TO FIX THE AUDIO. THEN THE DEFENSE JUST RESTED WITHOUT CALLING ANY WITNESSES. WE KNEW THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY. THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY EXPERTS ON THE LIST. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD CALL NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE CERTAINLY TALKED ENOUGH AND THEY FELT HE'D SPOKEN ENOUGH SINCE HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER WERE FOUND DEAD. AND SO THE JUDGE, RATHER THAN TAKE THE DAY TO GO OVER JURY INSTRUCTION AND GIVE THE LAWYERS TIME TO PREPARE, HE SAID, NOPE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE CLOSING TODAY. AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN A FEW MINUTES WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN GOING FIRST AND THEN WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE MICHAEL FABBRI FOR THE PROSECUTION SECOND. AND AS YOU POINT OUT, THE PROSECUTION HAVING THE BENEFIT, THEIR SUPPORTERS WOULD SAY, THAT THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL ACTUALLY HELP HIS CASE. TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE AUDIO TAPES. NEIL ENTWISTLE OF COURSE NOT A WITNESS, BUT HIS WORDS BEING USED AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER IN THE SHOW, BUT HIS WORDS BEING USED TO GREAT EFFECT, WEREN'T THEY, THEY END OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. >> Reporter: YES, INDEED. HE SPOKE WITH TROOPER MANNING AT LEAST THREE TIMES. WE HEARD ABOUT THREE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS ON THE DAY AFTER HE RETURNED FROM EVENING XWLAND ON THE 21st OF JANUARY IS WHEN HE RETURNED. HE TALKED TO TROOPER SERGEANT MANNING. HE WAS A TREERP BACK THEN, SERGEANT NOTICE, ON MAN THE 23rd AND TUESDAY THE 24th, A TWO HOUR CONVERSATION ON THE 23rd WHERE MANNING CALLED HIM AND RECORDED IT. AND THE JURY HEARD THE ENTIRE, JUST UNDER TWO HOUR, CONVERSATION. THE NEXT DAY, ENTWISTLE CALLS MANNING THAT WASN'T RECORDED BECAUSE IT WAS THE OTHER DIRECTION. MANNING TALKED TO HIM AND TESTIFIED ABOUT IT. AND THEN LATER THAT SAME DAY, TUESDAY THE 24th, MANNING CALLED HIM AND RECORDED IT AND THAT'S WHAT THE JURY JUST HEARD. IN ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, ENLT WHISTLE DESCRIBED, HE GOESE RETURNED HOME FROM DOING ERRANDS ON FRIDAY MORNING, JANUARY 20th, 2006. HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND BABY DEAD. HE HAS TO EXPLAIN AND MANNING WOULD ASK HIM WHY HE DIDN'T CALL 911, WHY HE SIMPLY COVERED UP THE BODY, DROVE AROUND, SAID THAT HE LOOKED FOR HIS IN-LAW, COULDN'T REMEMBER THOUSAND TO GET TO HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW'S PLACE OF BUSINESS, DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HIS FATHER-IN-LAW'S PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS, COULDN'T GET INTO THE IN-LAW'S HOME. EVEN THOUGH HE SAID IN OPENING THAT THE KEYS TO THE HOME WERE IN THE BMW, WHICH HE ULTIMATELY ABANDONED AT LOGAN AIRPORT IN BOSTON BEFORE GOING TO ENGLAND, HE HAD TO EXPLAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN, HE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION OF WHY HE DIDN'T JUST STOP A POLICE OFFICER, SEEK HELP FROM A NEIGHBOR, CALL 911. HE YOU SAID STOOD THE 911 SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES AND HE SAID HE JUST DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS THINKING AT THE TIME. HE JUST WANTED TO GO HOME. >> WHAT HE MAY NOT HAVE UNDERSTOOD IS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT P.M. BUT LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS. AS YOU'VE JUST REPORTED, WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE HAPPENING NOW AND THEN CLOSING ARGUMENTS. THE JUDGE HAS DECIDED TO HAVE THE ATTORNEYS GO FORWARD WITH THEIR CLOSINGS AND SHE'LL INSTRUCT LATER TODAY. WHAT ARE THE MORE SIGNIFICANT JURY INSTRUCTIONS THAT THIS JURY CAN EXPECT TO HEAR? AND I GUESS THE REAL QUESTION, AND YOU CAN DRAW ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS 00 A FORMER PROSECUTOR, WHAT'S THE TANK GLINK THAT MAY GO ON BEHIND THE SCENES ABOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS? IS THERE ANY CONTENTIOUS INSTRUCTION THAT MIGHT MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE DEFENSE? >> Reporter: WELL, QUITE FRANKLY, IN ALL FAIRNESS TO ME, I WAS ON AIR THE ENTIRE TIME THAT SHE WENT OVER THE INSTRUCTION, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE JURY IS GETTING A SECOND DEGREE LESSER CHARGE. THAT'S AUTOMATIC WHEN IT'S A FIRST DEGREE CHARGE. SO THEY'LL GET FOR THE TWO COUNTS OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, THEY'LL GET SECOND-DEGREE MURDER. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT MALICE BE INSTRUCTED AND I BELIEVE IT IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE ELEMENTS. MY COLLEAGUE NEXT TO ME, BOB JORDAN, MAY BE ABLE TO HELP ON THAT. AND THE JURY IS FOR THE GOING TO BE GETTING AN IN-STRIKES THAT USED TO BE GIVEN BUT NOT THE LAW ANYMORE ABOUT A NEGATIVE INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IF THE JURY BELIEVES THAT CERTAIN TESTING WASN'T DONE. THIS WOULD BE AN INFERENCE TO BE DRAWN IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE IF CERTAIN LIKE LABORATORY TESTING WAS NOT DONE. BUT THEY WILL NOT BE GETTING THAT. IT WILL BE ARGUED, HOWEVER. IT CAN BE ARGUED. AND THEN MICHAEL FABBRIED A ALSO ASKED TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF PRIOR BAD ACTS TO BE MORE THAN JUST MOTIVE, STATE OF MIND, INTENT TO INCLUDE I'DITY. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE JUDGE HAS RULE ORDER THAT, WHETHER OR NOT SHE'S GOING TO ALLOW THE JURY TO CONSIDER PRIOR BAD ACTS FOR IDENTITY. AND HE WAS REFERRING TO THE COMPUTER SEARCHES TO ESTABLISH THAT THAT'S NEIL ENTWISTLE AND NOT SOMEONE ELSE COMING THE COMPUTER SEARCHES. >> ALWAYS A CRITICAL PART OF THE CASE, THE JURY INSTRUCTION, THOUGH. PERHAPS NOT THE MOST DRAMATIC, THEY CAN BE A MAKE OR BREAK ISSUE ESPECIALLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS. I WANT TO BRING OUR GUESTS IN TO THE CONVERSATION. YOU HEARD BETH REFERENCE ONE OF OUR TWO GUESTS, SO LET'S BRING THEM IN. WE HAVE A TERRIFIC PANEL WATCHING WITH ME CAME. WE HAVE A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YAEN TODAY WHEREIN LINDSAY JACKSON. AND ONE P MY HEROS, ROBERT GEORGE, TERRIFIC TO HAVE YOU WITH US. AND BOB I'LL COME OUT TO YOU FIRST. I'LL REMIND OUR VIEWERS THAT THEY'VE SEEN YOUR FINE PERFORMANCE IN MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOMS. I THINK MOST RECENTLY ON OUR AIR DURING THE MCCOWEN CASE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS ABOUT MASSACHUSETTS, BOB. YOU GUYS REALLY PUT OUT SOME TERRIFIC LAWYERS. HE WILL JOT ABOUT TO STAND UP AND MAKE HIS CLOSE. WHAT HAS HE GOT TO GET ACROSS TO THIS JURY ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THEY'VE DECIDED ON THE DEFENSE SIDE OF THIS THING NOT TO PUT ON A CASE? >> WELL, NOT TO BE A TAPE RECORDER BECAUSE YOU'RE ABOUT TO HEAR WHAT ELLIOTT IS GOING TO SAY AND HE'S BEEN AROUND A ROT TIME, HE'S GOING TO ARGUE BURDEN OF PROOF, HE'S GOING TO ARGUE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND I WOULD THINK HE'S GOING TO HARP ON THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT EVIDENCE THAT THE JUDGE IS ABOUT TO TELL THE JURY THEY CAN USE THAT THEIR DELIBERATIONS DOESN'T MEAN WHAT THE JURY THINKS IT MEANS. THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY THINGS HE HAS TO ARGUE HARD IN THIS CASE. HE'S NOT GOING TO ARGUE THE LAW. HE'S NOT GOING TO ARGUE THE FACTS. WHAT HE'LL TRY TO APPEAL TO IN THIS TYPE OF CLOSING ARGUMENT, WHICH TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT CLOSING ARGUMENT, IS THAT THE JURY HAS GOT TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE EVIDENCE, TURN THINGS UPSIDE DOWN AND INSIDE OUT AND LOOK AT THEM IN A HUNDRED DIFFERENT WAYS. BUT THE PROBLEM AT THE END OF IT IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT 100 DIFFERENT WAYS, YOU DON'T WANT THE JURY TO AUTOMATICALLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION WHICH IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ENTWISTLE IS GUILTY. SO ELLIOTT'S GOT TO WARN THE JURY OVER AND OVER AGAIN NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS AND TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE AND LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS TO IT, WHICH ISN'T EXACTLY THE KIND OF CLOSING ARGUMENT YOU WANT TO BE GIVING IN A CASE. >> BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE ARE THESE KINDS OF CASES, THE DEFENSE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PUT ON A CASE, AND IF ANYONE CAN MAKE THIS SUBTLE AND IMPORTANT ARGUMENT, IT'S ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT TAKE. GWENDOLYN, YOU WERE A PROSECUTOR. CAN PROSECUTORS ARGUE TOO MUCH, CAN THEY OVERARGUE, IS THAT A RISK YOU'D BE WORRIED ABOUT IF YOU WERE GETTING READY TO MAKE THE CLOSE AND WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE IS A VERY STRONG PROSECUTION CASE? >> YEAH, WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IS OVERPLAY YOUR HAND. YOU KNOW YOU'RE WINNING BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE A GOOD CASE AND THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW BY BASICALLY VIOLATING THIS DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LEAVING THE WINDOW OPEN FOR VERY VALID APPEAL. AND WHEN I SAY THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO BASICALLY DIGRESS A LITTLE BIT AS TO WHAT MR. GEORGE JUST MENTIONED P.M. SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ARGUE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PUT ON ANYBODY TO TESTIFY H. TESTIFY, THEY'RE GOING TO GET DOWN INTO THE TECHNICALITIES AND DISCUSS THINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE ON THE RECORD, THINGS THAT THEY BELIEVE WERE VIOLATED, CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. YOU HAVE ALL THESE TAPES BEING PLAYED AND MAYBE THE DEFENDANT WASN'T TOLD THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF. THEY WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT THESE THINGS WERE PROBLEMATIC AND THAT THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED AND, THEREFORE THAT IS GOING TO LEAVE A WINDOW OPEN FOR AN APPEAL. >> IT'S A TERRIFIC REMINDER AS WE GO INTO THIS LIVE COVERAGE OF THE CLOSINGS THAT FOR THE DEFENSE, IT VERY OFTEN IS ABOUT THE APPEAL AND NO GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEY PROCEEDS WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT TAKE RECORD. YOU'VE GOT TO BE THINKING ABOUT THE RECORD ALL THE WAY THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. TERRIFIC COMMENTS. WE'LL STAY WITH US. WE EXPECT TO GO LIVE SHORTLY, BETH KARAS IN PLACE, CLOSING ARGUMENTS GETTING READY TO START. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND WHY DON'T YOU GO TO YOUR COMPUTERS. I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENTWISTLE CASE. BEEN REALLY CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ABOUT IT. LOGON TO THE WEB SITE, OR YOU CAN E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY AT BEST DEFENSE AT CNN.COM AND WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD. THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE, OUR CONTINUING COVERAGE OF THE NEIL ENTWISTLE MURDER TRIAL OUT IN MASSACHUSETTS. LET'S JUMP OUT TO BETH KARAS. WE EXPECT CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO BEGIN SHORTLY, DO WE NOT? >> Reporter: YES. AND HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS, IT'S JUST ONE CLOSING EACH SIDE. SOMETIMES IN SOME STATES WE SEE THAT THE STATE GETS TO OPEN AND DO A REBUTTAL IN CLOSING. BUT THAT'S IF THERE'S A DEFENSE CASE, AS WELL. AND SINCE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, THERE WOULD BE ONLY ONE. SO WE HAVE ELLIOT WEINSTEIN FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE AND THEN MICHAEL FABBRI FOR THE COMMONWEALTH. THE JUDGE HAS NOT PUT ANYTIME LIMITS ON THEM, ALTHOUGH MANY AROUND THE COURTHOUSE THINK THAT THE CLOSINGS WILL BE COMPLETED BY THE LUNCH HOUR, WHICH IS THE END OF YOUR SHOW. ED A THEN THE JURY WILL GO TO LUNCH AND THEN SHE'LL BRING THEM BACK FOR A 37 PAGE INSTRUCTION WHICH WILL PROBABLY TAKE ABOUT 35 TO 40 MINUTES TO READ. >> AND AS YOU KNOW, PERHAPS BETTER THAN ANYONE, MASSACHUSETTS IS ONE OF THOSE STATES THAT GIVES US CAMERA ACCESS AND WE'RE AABLE IT TO BRING TO OUR VIEWERS IMPORTANT TRIALS AND CASES THAT EVOLVE IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. AND WE SEE SOME OF THE FINEST LAWYERING OUT OF THAT STATE, PERHAPS DATING BACK TO THE TRADITION OF JOHN ADAM, ONE OF OUR FOUNDERS WHO WAS KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE GREAT TRIAL LAWYERS OF HIS DAY. AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK WITH THAT IN MIND AS WE WAIT FOR CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO BEGIN IN THE ENTWISTLE CASE TO THIS CLOSING ARGUMENT. THIS IS ROBERT GEORGE IN THE CASE OF CHRISTOPHER MCCOWAN. >> NONE OF HIS HAIRS AT THE SCENE, NONE OF HIS FINGER PRINTS AT THE SCENE, NOTHING. EXCEPT THAT HE HAD CONSENTS ALL SEX EARLIER THAT WEEK. IST FAIR? IS IT REASONABLE DOUBT? OF COURSE IT'S REASONABLE DOUBT. IT CAN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE. YOU HEARD ABOUT THE NEED, THE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK, AND YOU HAVE HEARD WHAT A BOTCHED INVESTIGATION THIS WAS. THIS FAMILY HAD A RIGHT TO DEMAND, AS YOU DO, THAT THIS WAS DONE RIGHT, BUT IT WAS NOT DONE RIGHT. >> THAT'S BOB GORNLGT AND WE ARE SO HAPPY TO HAVE BOB WITH US. HE'S OUT IN FRONT OF THAT COURTHOUSE. SO BUSY ARE YOU, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO BE WITH US. HOW DO YOU PREPARE FOR A CLOSING ARGUMENT? I KNOW YOU CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE MCCOWEN CASE AS DO YOU ALL YOUR CASES. HOW DO YOU GET READY FOR THE CLOSE AND HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK CLOSING ARGUMENT IS FOR A DEFENDANT? >> IN A CASE LIKE THIS, A CLOSING COULD NOT BE -- IT MAY NOT BE AS IMPORTANT AS WE THINK IT COULD BE, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, AS THE CASE GOES ON AND YOU'RE TAKING NOTES EVERY DAY AND YOUR CO-COUNSEL'S TAKING NOTES, AT THE END OF THAT DAY, YOU SHOULD BE MARSHALLY YOUR NOTES IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING DAILY TRANSCRIPT AND YOU KNOW BY THE END OF A CASE WHAT HAS TO BE ARGUED, SORT OF A CHECK BOX IN YOUR HEAD AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO GO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU CLOSE ALL THE CIRCLES FOR THE JURY BEFORE THEY GO OUT TO DELIBERATE THE CASE. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ELLIOTT BANGING TABL, JUMPING UP AND DOWN AS SOMEONE LIKE I DO, BUT THE FACT IS, ELLIOTT WILL DISSECT THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, HE'S GOING WARN THE JURY ABOUT WHAT THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING OUT FOR, WHAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS WITH, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE FABBRI GET UP AND GIVE THE SAME TYPE OF CLOSING FOR THE PROSECUTION. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS MUCH OF A BARN BURNER AS SOME OF THE CASES YOU'VE SEEN IN THE PAST BECAUSE THE CASE REALLY WHEN YOU BOIL IT DOWN, BOILS DOWN TO ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING IT TALK ABOUT IN THE CLOSINGS. YOU WON'T SEE A THE LOVE APPEAL TO EMOTION AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS YOU SEE IN THE PAST. >> AND WE VERY DELIBERATELY PICKED THAT PART OF YOUR MCCOWEN CLOSE. THERE WERE MOMENTS OF GREATER BARN BURNING. I LIKE THAT GOOD OLD SOUTHERN EXEXPRESSION. GWENDOLYN, LET ME COME OVER TO YOU. DO YOU GET NERVOUS DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS? I FOUND EVEN AFTER TEN YEARS OF PRACTICE, I WOULD LOSE SLEEP, I COULDN'T EAT, I'D EVEN SOMETIMES GET PHYSICALLY ILL BEFORE THE CLOSE. IT JUST SEEMED THAT EVERYTHING CAME TO THAT LAST ARGUMENT. OFF CUSSLY IF YOU HAVEN'T MADE A GOOD CASE, THE CLOSING ARGUMENT ISN'T GOING TO SAVE YOU, BUT I ALWAYS FELT THAT YOU COULD WRECK YOUR CASE WITH A BAD CLOSING. >> ABSOLUTELY. YOU CAN WRECK YOUR CASE WITH A BAD CLOSING. I KIND OF THINK THAT IN THIS CASE WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS SO OVERWHELMING DEPENDS THIS FELLOW, THAT THE CLOSING ARGUMENT IS GOING TO BE VERY SIGNIFICANT. AND I WOULD THINK THAT IF I WERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, I WOULD TRY TO BURN THE BARN DOWN IN MY CLOSING ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REACH DEEP DOWN INSIDE OF THEMSELVES AND TRY TO REACH TO THE JURY AND CONVEY TO THEM THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE'S -- DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE FELLOW, DESPITE THE FACT THAT WHAT HE DID WAS REPREHENSIBLE AND RIDICULOUS, HE'S NOT A MURDERER, AND THAT THE EVIDENCE IS SHIRK SHAL AND THEY'VE GOT IT PROJECTED IN A WAY THAT IT REACHES THE JURY DOWN IN THEIR PSYCHE. >> YOU HAVE TO FOCUS ON THE BURDEN BEING ON PROSECUTORS AND HIGHLIGHT -- BETH, LET ME COME OVER TO YOU. I KNOW THEY'RE BRINGING THE JURY IN. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IN IS HE CONSIDERED TO BE ONE OF THE FINEST CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN THE COUNTRY, CERTAINLY IN THE STATE OF MASS MARKS BUT EVEN IN THE COUNTRY, HE'S ABOUT TO STAND UP AND MAKE HIS CLOSE. WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT HIM? WE HAD HIM ON BEST DEFENSE SHORTLY AFTER THE CASE WAS CHARGED. WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR REPORTING ON THIS CASE? >> IS HE A PRIVATE ATTORNEY, ALL THOET STATE IS PAYING HIM HERE BECAUSE ENTWISTLE IS INDIGENT, SO HE WAS APPOINTED AND HIS CO-DOWN IS A PUBLIC DEFENDER. BUT ELLIOTT HAS HANDLED A LOT OF BIG CASES IN THE COURSE OF HIS CAREER, BIG IN THIS AREA. I HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM ABOUT SOME OF HIS HELD'S ANGLE CASES, FOR EXAMPLE. AND HE'S GOT A STATE PRACTICE NOT JUST HERE, BUT IN OTHER STATES, AS WELL, AND HE HAS A TRIAL COMING UP SOON IN ARKANSAS. SOMEWHERE OUTSIDE OF LITTLE ROCK. AND IT INVOLVED A HELL'S ANGEL. I DON'T KNOW IF HIS PRACTICE INVOLVED SOME GANGSTER, BUT I AUS PEKT THAT HE HAS. HE HAS A GREAT REPUTATION AND REALLY A GREAT GUY, TOO. >> IT'S A GOOD GUESS YOU'VE GOT A FEW GANG TERS IN THE CLIENT'S TABLE. LET'S TAKE IN YOU LIVE. THE JUDGE IS ADDRESSING THE JURY. THE JURY IS SEATED AND WE EXPECT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN TO BEGIN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF NEIL ENTWISTLE SHORTLY. THIS IS LIVE OUT AT MASSACHUSETTS. >> THAT EXCEPTION IS THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS IN THIS CASE, IF ONE OR BOTH MUCH THE ATTORNEYS SHOULD REFER TO AN EXHIBIT BY NUMBER OR DESCRIPTION AND YOU WANT TO JOT DOWN THE NUMBER OR DESCRIPTION OF THE EXHIBIT AND THE CONTEXT OF THE ARGUMENT THAT IS MADE SO THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT IN THE JURY ROOM AND EVALUATE THE ARGUMENT, YOU MAY DO SO. BUT APART FROM, AS I SAID, JOTTING DOWN THE NUMBER OF AN EXHIBIT AND THE CONTEXT OF AN ARGUMENT, DO NOT TAKE NOTES DURING THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY EVIDENCE IS REFERRED TO AND YOUR MEMORY IS DIFFERENT, YOU SHOULD DISREGARD WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAYS. WITH THAT, WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. MR. WEINSTEIN? >> ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WILL BEGIN THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. AGAIN, HE IS THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF NEIL ENTWISTLE WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF HIS INFANT DAUGHTER AND HIS WIFE. >> GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HOMICIDE, SUICIDE, OR ACCIDENT MAY BE DIFFICULT AND SOMETIMES IMPOSSIBLE, YET IT IS THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED BY THE INVESTIGATOR IN EVERY DEATH INVOLVING A SHOOTING. EVERYTHING THAT NEIL DID AFTER FINDING RACHEL AND LILLIAN IN THAT BEDROOM, HE DID BECAUSE HE LOVED THEM. THE PROSECUTION SEEKS TO CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT NEIL KILLED THEM BOTH. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? BECAUSE HE VISITED INTERNET SEX SITES? HOW MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE VISIT THESE SITES EACH DAY? THERE IS NO MOTIVE. NO MOTIVE TO KILL THE WOMAN WHO BY EVERYONE'S ACCOUNT HE SHARED A JOYFUL, CARING, LOVING RELATIONSHIP. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? BECAUSE HE AND RACHEL HAD SOME DEBT, BECAUSE THEY HAD BOUGHT SOME FURNITURE FOR THE HOUSE, OR BECAUSE THEIR PAY PAL ACCOUNT WAS THOUGHT PAYING OFF? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT NEIL HAD ANY TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY ON RACHEL OR ON LILLIAN. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? BECAUSE HE HADN'T LANDED A JOB YET? NEIL IS A WELL EDUCATED, TALENTED, EXPERIENCED COMPUTER ENGINEER. NEIL WOULD HAVE GOTTEN A GOOD JOB. HE WAS RECEIVING JOB INQUIRIES EVEN AFTER HE RETURNED TO ENGLAND. PERHAPS YOU'LL ASK OURSELVES IF NEIL DIDN'T DO IT, THEN WHO DID? ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE SHOT WITH JOE'S .22. PERHAPS YOU HAD COUNTED THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THAT .22, WHOSE ALLEY BUYS AND WHEREABOUTS WERE INVESTIGATED BY THE STATE POLICE AND ARE SAYING TO YOURSELF THEY ALL CHECKED OUT. BUT YOU KNOW THIS. THINGS AREN'T ALWAYS AS THEY FIRST APPEAR TO BE. THAT'S WHY INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THEIR WORK UNBIASED AND WITH AN OPEN MIND, WILLING TO FOLLOW ALL TRAILS WHEREVER THEY MAY LEAD. THAT IS WHY CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO DO THEIR WORK WITHOUT BY AS, CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS. WHIM THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES CHEMISTS MET WITH DETECTIVES AT THE HOCKING TON POLICE STATION AND LATER DEPARTED WITH THEIR FIELD NOTES ALREADY FILLED IN WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE'S NAME, THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPEN-ENDED. WHY? BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATOR'S BY AS PREVENTED THEM FROM DOING A THOROUGH AND A PROPER EVIDENCE COLLECTION WHICH WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FALSE CONCLUSION THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE SHOT BY ANOTHER. INVESTIGATORS SHOULD NOT HAVE FILTERS ON THEIR VIEW OF EVIDENCE. FILTERS KEEP OUT WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IN. AND FILTERS ONLY LET IN WHAT YOU'RE SEEKING. WHEN PRAFRS USE FILTER, THEY LET IN MORE OR LESS LIGHT AND PERMIT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO CAPTURE THE EXACT IMAGE HE IS SEEKING. INVESTIGATORS SHOULD TAKE ALL STEPS TO SEE THINGS CLEARLY. CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED FOR BE NEUTRAL AND OPEN-MINDED BECAUSE IF THEY GO ABOUT THEIR WORK WITH A BY AS, CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS, THAT WILL INFLUENCE THE NATURE AND THE COURSE OF THEIR WORK. AND THEIR CONCLUSIONS. INTENTIONALLY OR AS THE EVIDENCE DIRECTS IN THIS CASE UNESSENTIALLY, MR. SORES AND MS. DIGAN BEGAN THEIR WORK AT THE POLICE STATION, STATE POLICE DETICK DIFFERENCES IDENTIFYING FOR THEM THAT NEIL WAS A SUSPECT. EVERYONE'S MIND SET, EVERYONE'S FRAME OF REFERENCE, FILTERED INFORMATION TO SOLVE A MURDER. TO ONE WAS OPEN TO EVEN CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF SUICIDE. THE FIRST POLICE DETECTIVE SAW THE BODIES ON THE BED AND ASSUMED THEY WERE IN THAT POSITION WHEN SHOT. THEY ASSUMED THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN RACHEL SHOT THEM. AND YOU KNOW THAT JUST CAN'T BE SO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STUDY THAT PHOTOGRAPH THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU. IT'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 45. AND WHEN YOU STUDY THAT, YOU'LL SEE THAT RACHEL'S HANDS WERE UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW. THE PHOTOGRAPH TELLS YOU THAT THE BODIES WERE MOVED BEFORE THE POLICE ARRIVED. NEIL FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN, HE SAW JOE'S GUN ON THE SHEET. HE REACTED EMOTIONALLY. HE MOVED THEM, HE COVERED THEM. WHAT LOVING FATHER WOULDN'T. WHAT LOVING HUSBAND WOULDN'T. ISN'T THAT EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS CONVEYING TO JOE WHEN HE SPOKE TO HIM ON THE PHONE FROM ENGLAND? THAT'S HOW I FOUND THEM, THAT'S HOW I LEFT THEM. NEIL'S ENTIRE FAMILY, HIS ENTIRE REASON FOR BEING IN AMERICA WAS GONE. THE UNEXPECTED, THE UNIMAGINABLE, HAD HAPPENED. THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE WAY FOR NEIL TO BEHAVE AND THAT WAS TO CALL 911, STAY CALM, COOL, COLLECTED, AND RATIONAL. THAT'S NOT HOW CARING AND LOVING HUMAN BEINGS BEHAVE. HUMAN YOE MOTIONS ARE NOT PREDICTABLE AND YOU KNOW THAT FROM YOUR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCE. EVEN SERGEANT MANNING WHEN HE WAS TALKING WITH NEIL ON THE PHONE SAID YOU HEARD IT ON THE TAPES, IN HIS, MANNING'S EXPERIENCE, THERE'S NOT A PROPER WAY IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THINGS JUST HAPPEN. THINK OF YOUR OWN LIFE EXPERIENCES. THINK OF THE MYRIAD WAYS PEOPLE REACT TO SUDDEN OR UNEXPECTED DEATH. WHO CAN SAY ANY REACTION IS APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE? YOU HEARD NEIL TALK WITH SERGEANT MANNING. YOU HEARD HIM STRUGGLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT CAN'T BE EXPLAINED. NEIL ACTED THE WAY HE ACTED. AND WHEN HE WAS TALKING WITH SERGEANT MANNING, NEIL'S FOREMOST PURPOSE WAS TO PROTECT RACHEL'S MEMORY, TO PROTECT HER HONOR. HE WASN'T GOING TO TELL SERGEANT MANNING THAT HE FOUND JOE'S GUN AND RETURNED IT TO CARVER. SERGEANT MANNING, THE POLICE DETECTIVE, ASSUMED THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN RACHEL WAS RESPONSIBLE. HE ASKED POLICE DETECTIVE QUESTIONS ABOUT NOT CALLING 911. NEIL COMMITTED TO NOT BE TRAYING RACHEL'S MEMORY COULD NOT ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, WHICH SATISFIED SERGEANT MANNING'S INSINUATIONS. HE COULDN'T DO THAT FOR HIMSELF AND HE COULDN'T DO THAT TO RACHEL. WHEN SERGEANT MANNING FINALLY ALMOST DIRECTLY ACCUSED NEIL OF MURDER, YOU HEARD NEIL'S VOICE, HIS TONE, HIS IN-CREDIT UHE HUSBAND REACTION. I NEVER EVEN, I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED THAT'S WHAT I'D BE GETTING. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT'S WHAT I'D BE GETTING AT -- AND I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU. I CAN'T-I NEVER CONSIDERED THAT SOMEONE WOULD THINK I DID THIS. LISTEN AGAIN TO THAT PORTION OF THE TAPED CONVERSATION, AND YOU WILL HEAR NEIL'S AUTHENTIC, INCREDULOUS REACTION. >> ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WARMING UP TO HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT BEFORE THE JURY THAT WILL DECIDE THE FATE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. WE WILL HAVE MORE LIVE RIGHT AFTER THIS. >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD. WE CONTINUE OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE ENTWISTLE TRIAL. YOU SEE MR. ENTWISTLE WHOSE FATE HANGS IN THE BALANCE. HIS LAWYER ON HIS FEET IN FRONT OF THAT JURY ARGUING THAT HIS CLIENT IS NOT GUILTY. >> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY THAT RACHEL DID NOT FIRE THE GUN. THE CHEMIST NEVER CHECKED THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL'S WRISTS, ARMS, THE SLEEVE OF THAT GREEN SHIRT SHE WAS WEARING. THEY NEVER CHECKED THE GUNSHOT RECENT DUE ON THE IF IT'SED SHEET UPON WHICH HER HANDS WERE RESTING. THERE WERE NO GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS COLLECTED. AND IF THEY WERE COLLECTED, AND IF THAT TEST WAS POSITIVE FOR GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE SHEET, THEN MAYBE THAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT SHE DIDN'T FIRE THE GUN, BUT THOSE TESTS WEREN'T DONE. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT AND, INDEED, IT IS YOUR DUTY, TO HOLD THE FAILURE OF PROOF AGAINST THE PROSECUTION. GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS WERE COLLECTED FROM RACHEL'S HANDS BECAUSE THIS IS THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT CAN'T BE SEEN WITH THE NAKED EYE. THIS IS THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRES EXAMINATION WITH A SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE. THEY COULD HAVE EXPECTth COLLECTED STUBS FROM HER WRISTS, HER SHIRT SLEEVES, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO. THEY COULD HAVE COLLECTED GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS FROM THAT FITTED SHEET, BUT THEY DIDN'T. AND THEY COULD HAVE TEST FIRED THE .22 TO DETERMINE JUST HOW FAR OR WIDE ANY GUNSHOT RESIDUE CLOUD FROM THAT GUN WOULD ACTUALLY TRAVEL. BUT THE INVESTIGATORS DECIDED NOT TO PERFORM THESE TESTS AND, THUS, REASONABLE DOUBT REMAINS. THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS OR CONSIDERED THIS A MURDER. THEY WERE NOT OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUICIDE AND, THUS, THEY FAILED TO COLLECT GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS FROM RACHEL'S WRISTS, FROM AROUND HER HANDS. AND IF THEY DID, AND IF IT WAS POSITIVE FOR GSR, IT MIGHT SUPPORT THAT HER HANDS WERE IN THAT POSITION WHEN SHE WAS SHOT AND IF THEY DID, AND IT WAS NEGATIVE FOR GSR, THEN IT WOULD SUPPORT THAT HER HANDS WERE NOT IN THAT POSITION WHEN SHE WAS SHOT. AND IT WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT RACHEL HANDLED THE GUN, HAD HER HANDS ON THE GUN WHEN SHE SHOT LILLIAN AND WHEN SHE SHOT HERSELF. THAT IS NOT PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. AND THEY DIDN'T TEST FOR THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE FITTED SHEET. IF THE PROSECUTION'S EXPLANATION IS THAT HER HANDS WERE IN THE POSITION THEY WERE FOUND WHEN SHE WAS SHOT AND THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE TRAVELED THE DISTANCE AN LANDED ON HER HANDS, THEN GUNSHOT RESIDUE WOULD BE ALL AROUND HER HANDS ON THE SHEET, ALL AROUND HER ARMS, ALL AROUND HER WRISTS. BUT NO ONE THOUGHT TO COLLECT GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS FROM THE FITTED SHEET OR CHOSE NOT TO. AND YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT AND, INDEED, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO HOLD THAT FAILURE OF PROOF AGAINST THE PROSECUTION. WHAT TIME DID NEIL ARRIVE HOME ON JANUARY 20? 11:00, 11:30? NEIL FIRST TOLD MANNING, I WAS GONE MAYBE -- I THINK I CAME BACK ABOUT 11:00, 11ISH. LATER HE SAID I DON'T KNOW WHY I SAID 11:00. THE EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 20 TELLS YOU NEIL ACTUALLY HAD NO GOOD REASON TO THINK HE GOT HOME AT 11:00. WHY? AT 11:30, NEIL WAS AT STARBUCKS. EXHIBIT 21. EXHIBIT 21 IS THE CREDIT CARD INFORMATION FROM CITIZEN'S BANK. IT PROVES THAT 11:30, NEIL BOUGHT TWO LATTES FOR $7.04. HE RETURNED HOME TO SHARE THOSE LATTES WITH RACHEL. HE DIDN'T RETURN HOME TO SHOOT HER. HE ENTERED THROUGH THE GARAGE. HE WENT TO THE COMPUTER IN THE BASEMENT UPON FIRST ENTERING THE HOME. HE DID WHAT HE DID ALL THE TIME. HE WENT TO HIS COMPUTER AND CHECKED FOR JOB INFORMATION. AT 12:31, NEIL LOOKED AT THE LAPTOP SCREEN AND SAW EXHIBIT 87. THE PICTURE OF HIS BE LOVED DAUGHTER, LILLIAN. THEN HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN. YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS NO WAY NEIL COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THIS PICTURE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME IF HE HAD JUST KILLED HIS ENTIRE FAMILY. IN OUR SOCIETY, SUICIDE IS OFTEN A TABOO. SUICIDE IS CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE SHAMEFUL. SUICIDE TARNISHES THE MEMORY OF A LOVED ONE. SUICIDE CAUSES FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO QUESTION THEMSELVES, TO ASK WHAT SIGNS DID I MISS, IS THERE ANYTHING I COULD HAVE DONE TO PREVENT THIS TRAGEDY. AND STUDIES OF SUICIDE CASES SHOW,nd AND THIS WAS THE TESTIMONY OF THE DOCTOR, HANDGUNS ARE A PREFERRED WEAPON. 92% OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE USED HANDGUNS. MOST SUICIDES BY GUNSHOT ARE SHOTS TO THE HEAD. 72% OF WOMEN SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE HEAD. MOST SUICIDES DO NOT LEAVE A NOTE BEHIND. AND NOT ALL SUICIDES BY HANDGUN ARE CONTACT WOUNDS. WHEN PEOPLE SHOOT THEMSELVES, THEY DO NOT NECESSARILY HOLD THE WEAPON THE SAME WAY THEY WOULD IF THEY WERE FIRING AT A TARGET. DON'T MISUNDERSTAND US. NO ONE IS BLAMING RACHEL. BUT YOUR TASK AS JURORS IS TO MEASURE THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY AND THE EVIDENCE IT'S PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THAT THEORY TOGETHER WITH THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND FAILURES OF EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES HAS THE PROSECUTION PROVEN THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? YOU ALL KNOW THAT LIFE IS COMPLICATED AND THINGS ARE NOT AS THEY FIRST APPEAR TO BE. NEIL FOUND RACHEL AND LILLIAN DEAD. NEIL SAW THE .22 AND KNEW INSTANTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND IN THOSE MOMENTS, HE KNEW WHAT HE HAD TO DO AND WHAT HE COULDN'T DO. HE HAD TO GET THE .22 BACK TO CARVER AND HE COULDN'T CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE HE COULDN'T TELL THEM WHAT RACHEL DID. HE WOULDN'T TELL THEM AND HE WOULDN'T TARNISH RACHEL'S MEMORY. WAS HE THINKING RATIONALLY, CLEARLY, OR CORRECTLY? OF COURSE NOT. HOW COULD HE? NEIL DROVE TO CARVER AND RETURNED THE .22. NEIL HAD NO ONE LEFT IN MASSACHUSETTS. HE COULDN'T TELL THE POLICE WHAT HE KNEW. HE COULDN'T TELL JOE OR PRISCILLA WHAT HE KNEW. HE NEEDED TO BE WITH HIS FAMILY. HE NEEDED TO BE WITH HIS PARENTS. HE WAS DISTRAUGHT AND DEVASTATED. HE NEEDED TO GO HOME AND HE DID GO HOME. IF RIGHT NOW YOU'RE THINKING THAT THE EVIDENCE, ESPECIALLY THE GUNSHOT RECENT DUE ON RACHEL'S HAND, IS WORTHY OF SERIOUS DISCUSSION, THEN I SUBMIT YOU HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT AND THE PROSECUTION HASN'T MET ITS BURDEN OF PROVING THAT NEIL IS GUILTY. YOU'RE IDENTIFYING FOR YOURSELF REASONABLE DOUBT. NOT A MERE TECHNICALITY, BUT BECAUSE THAT FACT ALONE ALLOWS YOU TO CONCLUDE THAT NEIL DID NOT SHOOT HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. UNDER THE OATH YOU TOOK, REASONABLE DOUBT REQUIRES, AND, MOREOVER, DEMANDS THAT YOU FIND NEIL NOT GUILTY. WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THAT RACHEL AND NOT NEIL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE DEATHS? RACHEL'S GOOD FRIEND, JOANNA, SHE AND HER SISTER WERE SUPPOSED TO BE AT THE HOME AT 5:00 FOR DINNER. SHE TESTIFIED AT TRIAL THAT THERE WAS SOME 2 1/2 HOUR WINDOW WHEN SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO ARRIVE, BUT THE POLICE OFFICER SUTTON, HE TOLD YOU THAT WHEN HE TALKED WITH JOANNA ON JANUARY 21, JOANNA TOLD HIM SHE WAS DUE AT 5:00 AND THIS THAT SHE ARRIVED MORE THAN TWO HOURS LATE. >> AND OF COURSE JANUARY 21 IS THE DAY ENTWISTLE ULTIMATELY BOUGHT THAT TICKET ON BRITISH AIRWAYS SCHEDULED TO DEPART. HE PARTS ON AN EARLIER FLIGHT HAND ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND ALL OF THIS PROSECUTORS SAY IS CONSCIOUS GUILT. MORE AFTER THIS. >>> THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE AND OUR LIVE COVERAGE OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE BEFORE A MASSACHUSETTS JURY. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN MAKES HIS CLOSE. LET'S TAKE YOU IN LIVE. >> FAILURES TO INVESTIGATE ARE A PROPER BASIS TO INCLUDE REASONABLE DOUBT REMAINS BEFORE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ABOUT THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL'S HASN'TS? WHY WASN'T THE LAPTOP COMPUTER SUBJECTED TO FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS? WHY WASN'T THE LAPTOP COMPUTER SUBJECTED TO DNA ANALYSIS? WHY DIDN'T THE DETECTIVES SEARCH THE RACHEL AND NEIL BEDROOM BACK IN CARVER? WHY DIDN'T DETECTIVES LOOK AT THE HARD DRIVE THAT IS STILL IN THE STORAGE ROOM? WHY DIDN'T DETECTIVES LOOK AT THE JOURNALS AND DIARIES FROM THE BASEMENT THAT ARE NOW IN THE STORAGE ROOM? WHY DIDN'T THEY SEARCH FOR OCCULT BLOOD IN THE MASTER BATHROOM, WHY DIDN'T SHE COLLECT GUNSHOT RESIDUE STUBS FROM RACHEL'S WRIST, ARMS OR SHIRT LEAVES OR THE BOTTOM SHEET IN AND YOU CAN SEE A PHOTO, I THINK IT'S EXHIBIT 75-A. THAT FITTED SHEET WOULD TELL YOU IF THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE WAS ALL AROUND RACHEL'S HANDS AND IF THERE WAS NO GUNSHOT RESIDUE, THEN FURTHER PROOF THAT SHE HANDLED AND SHE SHOT THE .22 HERSELF. WHY DIDN'T DETECTIVES OBTAIN A TEST FIRING PATTERN FOR MORE THAN SIX INCHES? WHY DIDN'T DETECTIVES TEST THE .22 TO LEARN WHAT THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE DISBURSEMENT DISTANCE AND PATTERN ACTUALLY WAS? IT HAD THE WEAPON SINCE JANUARY OF 2006. THEY DENIED THEMSELVES THAT INFORMATION. THEY DENIED THE MEDICAL EXAMINER THAT INFORMATION. AND THEY HAVE DENIED YOU THAT INFORMATION. THAT ISN'T FAIR TO YOU AND THAT IS NOT FAIR TO NEIL. ALL OF THIS MIGHT HAVE ASSISTED THE INVESTIGATION TO LEARN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. BUT THE INVESTIGATION FILTERS, THE NEIL DID IT FELL TERS, PREVENTED THE CLEAR AND TRUE PICTURE FROM EMERGING. WHY DIDN'T THEY TYPE THE BIOLOGICAL DNA SAMPLES TO LEARN WHETHER IT WAS FROM SKIN OR A LIE HAVE A? AS THE EVIDENCE STAND, THERE'S NO BASIS TO SUGGEST THAT THE DNA SWABBED FROM THE GURN WAS ANYTHING BUT TRANSFERRED DNA FROM SKIN, BY HANDLER OR CONTACT TRANSFERRED DNA. THERE'S EVEN NO EVIDENCE AS TO EXACTLY WHERE THAT DNA WAS FOUND. REMEMBER, THE CHEMISTS USED ONE SWAB AND SWABBED TWO DIFFERENT PLACES ON THAT .22. YOU HEARD ABOUT THE CONTAMINATION ISSUES AND HOW EASILY DNA IS TRANSFERRED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT RACHEL'S DNA WAS ANYWHERE BUT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BARREL. CONSISTENT WITH RACHEL HANDLING THE BARREL END OR EVEN PUTTING THE GUN TO HER HEAD. IT COULD BE FROM ANY CONTACT AT ALL ON THE .22. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE TESTIMONY ABOUT BROWN GEL ON THE MUZ HE WILL OR BARREL END OF THE .22 HAS ANY SIGNIFICANCE AT ALL. THERE IS NOTHING TO CONNECT THAT TO RACHEL. AND YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING UP AND NEITHER ACCOUNT PROSECUTION. PLEASE ALSO RECALL THAT RACHEL WAS INCLUDED BY DNA ANALYSIS AS A POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTOR TO THE DNA MIXTURE ON THE BLACK GUN CASE. FRGS ADDITIONALLY, INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO FULLY INVESTIGATE AND EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, OF THE VAPOR REDUCE GUN SHOT RESIDUE PARTICLES THAT WERE TESTIFIED TO AND WERE FOUND ON PILLOW NUMBER ONE. THEY COULD HAVE, BUT THEY FAILED TO TEST FIRE THE .22. AND WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW YOU TO KNOW ABOUT THE POSITION OF THE BODIES WHEN THEY WERE FOUND AND WHEN THEY WERE SHOT IN A TEST THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE. THE INVESTIGATORS KNEW ABOUT THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL'S HANDS AND THEY KNEW THAT HER LEFT HAND WAS FIRST SEEN UNDER A PILLOW. WHY DIDN'T THEY THEN REVISIT AND REEXAMINE AND REEVALUATE THE POSITION OF THE BODIES? THEY KNEW AS SOON AS THE AND YOU HAD TOP SI, THAT THE POSITIONS OF THE BODIES WHEN DISCOVERED COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SAME AS WHEN THEY WERE SHOT. DOCTOR SAINE TESTIFIED THAT ALL KEY COME WAS LINE UP THE PATH OF THE WOUND THROUGH LILLIAN AND INTO RACHEL. HE COULD NOT TELL WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE STANDING, KEY NOT TELL YOU WHERE HER HANDS WERE. WHY DIDN'T THEY PURSUE A FACT THAT WAS CLEARLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE POSITION OF THE BODIES WHEN THE POLICE FOUND THEM? WHY DIDN'T THEY REVISIT THE POSITIONS WHEN MS. DYGON CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE PILLOW? THAT FACT ALONE TOLD THE INVESTIGATORS THAT WHEN RACHEL WAS SHOT, HER HEAD WAS NOT IN THE SAME POSITION ON THE PILLOW AS WHEN SHE WAS FOUND. REMEMBER, THERE WAS NO SOOT OR POWDERING ON RACHEL'S FACE OR FOREHEAD OR AROUND THE ENTRY WOUND. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK WHY AND ADD TO REASONABLE DOUBT. NOW, THE PROSECUTION CERTAINLY IS GOING TO POINT AGAIN AND AGAIN TO INTERNET ACTIVITY. THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PURSUING SEX SITES ON THE INTERNET, AND I SAY TO YOU FOLKS, PURSUING SEX SIGHTS ON THE INTERNET IS NOT A REASON OR MOTIVE TO COMMIT MURDER. THE WORLD CHAS AND I THINKED. ONCE PLAYBOY MAGAZINE WAS VIEWED ONLY IN MEN'S BARB BETTER SHOPS. TODAY, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE ON INTERNET SEX SITES DAILY. THE PROSECUTION MAY POINT TO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FACING NEIL. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. RACHEL HAD SOME COLLEGE DEBT. THEY LEASED THE BMW AND RENTED A HOME WITH $8100 THAT THEY PAID FOR IN ADVANCE FROM AN ACCOUNT OF RACHEL'S. THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT WHILE NEIL DID THE COOKING, RACHEL WAS BETTER AT THE FINANCES. AND, REMEMBER, LILLIAN'S BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH STARTED WITH $60 IN NOVEMBER OF 2005, HAD GROWN TO OVER $400 BY JANUARY. >> THAT'S WHAT MAKES ELLIOT WEINSTEIN ONE OF THE GREATEST DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN THE COUNTRY, CHIPPING AWAY POINT BY POINT AT THE PROSECUTION'S CASE TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE DOUBT IN A CASE WHERE EVERYBODY THOUGHT IT WAS VERY STRONG FOR THE PROSECUTION. ALREADY BEGINNING TO MAKE THAT CLOSING ARGUMENT WORK FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK. HE'S ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE AND CHILD, BUT IS HE GUILTY OR NOT? THE JURY WILL DECIDE. WE'LL HAVE LOTS MORE LIVE COVERAGE OF CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM MASSACHUSETTS WHEN WE RETURN. >>> UP NEXT ON SNCHLT THE BEST DEFENSE" NO WITNESSES. A NEW HOUR OF BEST DEFENSE STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS "BEST DEFENSE" I'M JAMI FLOYD. NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID HE FOUND HIS WIFE AND CHILD AND PANICKED AND FLEW HOME TO HIS FAMILY IN LECHBLGT PROSECUTORS CALLED THAT OVERSEAS TRIP A FLIGHT FROM JUSTICE. THEY BELIEVE ENTWISTLE MURDERED HIS WIFE RACHEL. OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM THE MASSACHUSETTS COURTHOUSE. IN HIS CLOSING SO FAR, ELLIOT WINESTEIN FOCUSSED IN ON THAT SUICIDE THEORY UNTIL NOW WE HEARD SO LITTLE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT UNTIL THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. WILLIAM ZAIN, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER WHO PERFORMED AUTOPSIES JANUARY 24th. WE WERE WAITING FOR AN SPLAING FOR HOW THEY WOULD DESCRIBE THE GUN GETTING FROM THE SCENE IN RACHEL ENTWISTLE MURDERED HERSELF TO AND THE BABY TO 60 MILES AWAY TO A GUN BOX. HIS DESCRIPTION WAS CAN YOU IMAGINE IF NEIL ENTWISTLE CALLED 911 AND THE POLICE HAD SEEN THAT GUN ON THE BEEN AND KNOWN WHAT RACHEL HAS DONE? CLEARLY HE IS SAYING NEIL ENTWISTLE COVERED FOR HIS WIFE. BUT THEN LIED TO THE POLICE SAYING HE COULDN'T GET INTO THE MATTERAZZO HOME WHEN HE WENT BACK THERE AND CONSIDERED KILLING HIMSELF USING ONE OF JOE MATTERAZZO'S GUNS. THAT'S ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS HE MADE TO DESCRIBE OR EXPLAIN AWAY THE BEHAVIOR AND ALL OF THIS BEHAVIOR FRIDAY JANUARY 20th THAT THE PROSECUTION IS USING AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE, INCLUDING HIS WIFE TO ENGLAND ONE WAY. NOT CALLING ANYBODY, NOT EVEN HIS PARENTS, CERTAINLY NOT THE POLICE. >> THIS IS WHY THE CLOSING ARGUMENT BECOMES SO IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE. THANKS TO BETH CARRIES WHO IS GOING TO HEAD BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. STILL WATCHING WITH ME, GEND GWENDOLNY JACKSON. >> WHY DIDN'T HE HAVE ANY MONEY ON HIM WHEN HE WENT TO LONDON? PLANNED THIS. PREMEDITATED. WHY NO LUGGAGE WHEN HE WENT TO LONDON? WHY NO PLANE TICKET AHEAD OF TIME? WHY IS THERE NO MOTIVE FOR THESE KILLINGS? YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO ALL THESE QUESTIONS. NEIL DID NOT DO THIS. THE WORK YOU SOON WILL BEGIN AS JURORS WILL BE DIFFICULT. IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER RACHEL AS A SUICIDE. THE INVESTIGATORS NEVER DID, BUT YOU MUST. YOU MUST EVALUATE WHAT WAS INVESTIGATED AND WHAT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED. WHAT WAS ANALYZED IN THE LABORATORY AND WHAT WAS NOT. AND THAT DR. ZAIN WAS NEVER TOLD ABOUT THE GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL'S HAND. THE DEATHS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ARE AN UNIMAGINABLE TRAGEDY. NOTHING, NOTHING CAN BE DONE TO BRING THEM BACK NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVERYONE IN THIS COURTROOM WISHES THAT IT WAS SO. IT'S A NIGHTMARE FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. PLEASE DO NOT COMPOUND THIS TRAGEDY. NO ONE BENEFITS IF YOU ALLOW THIS NIGHTMARE TO CONTINUE BY CONVICTING NEIL OF SOMETHING HE JUST COULD NOT AND DID NOT DO. THE TIME HAS COME TO FIND NEIL ENTWISTLE NOT GUILTY. AND WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >> WITH THAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN FINISHES HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT. NEIL ENTWISTLE CHARGED WITH THE BRUTAL MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER LILLIAN. HE MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE ALL ALONG. WE SEE, OF COURSE, THE JUDGE INSTRUCTING THE JURY TO PREPARE FOR THE PROSECUTION. BETH KARAS COMING OUT TO YOU. I THINK MAYBE BETH HAS GONE BACK TO THAT COURTROOM. BOB, WE KNOW ELLIOT IS A FINE LAWYER. THIS IS ONE OF THE TOUGHEST CASES. YOU ONLY TRY THE CARDS YOU ARE DEALT. HOW DO YOU THINK HE DID WITH THAT CLOSE? DID HE PRESENT THE SUICIDE THEORY CLEARLY SO THE JURY MIGHT HANG THEIR HAT ON REASONABLE DOUBT THERE? >> HE IS MAKING A CASE FOR THE RECORD. HE CERTAINLY PULLED IT ALL TOGETHER IN THE CLOSING IN TERMS OF WHAT HE WANTS THE RECORD TO REFLECT IN TERMS OF THE DEFENSE. HE OPENED THE ENVELOPE ON THIS SUICIDE DEFENSE WHICH PEOPLE WERE IN A MYSTERY ABOUT. NOW WE KNOW THAT'S THE WAY HE'S GOING. THAT'S WHAT THE FOCUS OF ONE OF THE APPEAL ISSUES WILL BE, I'M SURE. >> LET'S GO BACK LIVE NOW. PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABRY ON HIS FEET MAKING HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT TO THE JURY. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GUILTY OF THESE KILL GOES. WE AGREE THAT SYMPATHY, THINGS NOT IN EVIDENCE PLAY NO ROLE IN YOUR DELIBERATION. I THINK WE JUST HEARD A LOT ABOUT SOME EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT IN THIS COURTROOM. ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. SPITZ, MR. DiMAIO, THEY WEREN'T IN THE COURTROOM. THEY WON'T BE IN THE JURY ROOM LOOKING AT THOSE EXHIBITS AND SCOURING THAT INFORMATION, CHECKING OUT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS. IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO YOU TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE IN PUTTING THIS EVIDENCE TOGETHER. NOT TAKING IT APART AND LOOKING AT THIS PIECE AND SAYING THIS DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. LOOKING AT THIS PIECE AND SAY THIS DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. THERE IS ONE OTHER THING WE AGREE ON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT IS THAT THINGS DO NOT ALWAYS APPEAR AS THEY ARE. WE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE ABOUT THE LOVING, STABLE RELATIONSHIP AND THE CARE THAT SUPPOSEDLY NEIL ENTWISTLE FELT FOR HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. THEY WANT TO SHOW YOU PHOTOGRAPHS LIKE THIS TO DRIVE YOUR SYMPATHY, BUT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO LOOK INSIDE THAT COMPUTER. THEY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE CARING, LOVING, COMPASSIONATE HUSBAND, BUT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT AND THINK ABOUT THIS BEING ON HIS PERSON AT THE TIME OF HIS ARREST. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE DEPTH OF HIS RELATIONSHIP TO RACHEL AND LILLIAN? THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT AND REMEMBER THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THAT INTERVIEW THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAD ON THAT FRIDAY, WHICH COINCIDENTALLY WAS TWO YEARS, FIVE MONTHS AGO THAT FRIDAY. THAT EVIDENCE WHAT INTRINSIC. IT WAS NEVER SET OUT. THE EVIDENCE THAT HE SUPPOSEDLY HAD THAT INTERVIEW, BUT IT WAS CANCELED, BUT I NEVER TOLD MY WIFE. IT WOULD HAVE MEANT TOO MUCH TO HER. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE DEPTH AND MANNER AND MEANS OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HE HAD TO HIS WIFE? LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS COUNCIL SUGGESTED RAISE A REASONABLE DOUBT. WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT GUN SHOT RESIDUE. SEARCH YOUR NOTES AND YOUR OWN MEMORIES VERY CAREFULLY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. GUN SHOT RESIDUE. YOU HANDLE A GUN, YOU FIRED A GUN, YOU WERE NEAR A GUN WHEN IT WAS FIRED. DISSIPATES RATHER QUICKLY. FOUR PARTICLES OUT OF THOUSANDS. I SUGGEST THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH WHERE THEY CAME FROM. THEY WERE SOMEWHERE ON HER HANDS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S EASILY TRANSFERRABLE. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE DEFENDANT MOVED THE BODIES AFTER HE SHOT THEM, IT'S A CLOUD OF DUST AND VAPOR THAT GATHERS AROUND. SOME OF THE TESTS PICKED UP SOME OF THAT RESIDUE AND POWDER AND VAPOR ON THE PILLOW CASE, ON RACHEL'S SHIRT, ON THOSE OTHER AREAS THAT CLEARLY SHOWED THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE WERE MURDERED AND KILLED IN THE POSITIONS THEY WERE FOUND. GUN SHOT RESIDUE IS A RED HERRING. JUST BECAUSE DR. ZAIN DID NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION DOES NOT CHANGE THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS A HOMICIDE AND NOT A SUICIDE. FINGERPRINTS ON THIS LAPTOP. THIS LAPTOP THE DAY BEFORE CONTAINED INFORMATION THAT THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. KNIFE IN NECK. WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP TO HIS WIFE? AND THE SUGGESTION THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS GOING TO THOSE SITES? WHY WOULD SHE BE GOING ON AND LOOK TO HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE IF SHE ALREADY HAD THE GUN. SHE HAD TO HAVE GOTTEN THE GUN, AND I SUGGEST IF THAT STORY MAKES SENSE, SHE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT DAYS BEFORE ON THE 16th. WHY LOOK UP WAYS TO KILL IF YOU ALREADY HAVE A GUN AND YOU ARE THINKING OF COMMITTING SUICIDE? FINGERPRINTS WOULD HAVE TOLD US WHAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN? I SUGGEST VERY LITTLE. THAT THING WAS IN CARVER FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. NOW WE HAVE KNOWLEDGEMENT IT WAS IN NEIL ENTWISTLE'S COMPUTER AND HE USED IT. ANOTHER RED HERRING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS SUICIDE. THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME LIES. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHY RACHEL WOULD COMMIT SUICIDE. IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU THAT SUGGESTS THAT SHE HAD THE DESIRE OR THE INTENT TO COMMIT SUICIDE? SHE WAS BACK HOME. SHE HAD HER HOME. SHE HAD HER CAR. SHE HAD HER FAMILY AND SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD A LOVING HUSBAND. THEY WANT TO SUGGEST MAYBE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SEX IN THE CARVER HOME. NOW SHE HAS HER OWN HOME. AS IF THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO COMMIT SUICIDE. SHE HAD HER FAMILY. SHE HAD HER FRIENDS. SHE WAS SPENDING TIME WITH MAUREEN, WITH MICHELLE WOMSLEY. SHE WAS HAPPY. SHE HAD NO REASON TO COMMIT SUICIDE. LET'S TALK ABOUT SUICIDE ITSELF AND SOME OF THE STUFF WE DID HEAR FROM THE TREATISE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE AT A DISTANCE? DR. ZAIN, TEMPLE, MOUTH, CHIN. AND THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF COMMITTING SUICIDE WHILE SHOOTING THROUGH ANOTHER PERSON MAKES NO COMMON SENSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. AND LOOK AT IT THIS WAY. RACHEL IS GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE BY SHOOTING THROUGH LILLIAN AND SHE FAILED AT DOING THAT. NOW SHE IS GOING TO TAKE THE CHANCE, LET'S HOLD IT AT A DISTANCE AND MAYBE I'LL FAIL AGAIN AND MAIM MYSELF. THAT MAKES NO SENSE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THINK ABOUT LOGISTICALLY HOW SHE WOULD DO THAT. SHE IS HOLDING HER BABY. SHOOTS LILLIAN INTO HERSELF AS IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CAUSE PAIN. THEN SHE HAS TO WITH HER TWO HANDS AT A DISTANCE AGAIN -- REMEMBER THE STEPLING TESTIMONY. NO EVIDENCE OF A CONTACT SHOT OR CLOSE SHOT. IT MAKES NO SENSE. AND THE SCENE ITSELF, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, SUGGEST THIS WAS NOT A SUICIDE. CONSIDER THAT SERIOUSLY BECAUSE AS SHE SHOT HERSELF, FIRST THROUGH LILY INTO THE CHEST THEN ATTEMPTED TO SHOOT HERSELF IN THE HEAD. WHAT WOULD THAT SCENE LOOK LIKE? IT WOULD LOOK DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES RIGHT NOW OR DID IN TERMS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU HAVE. ANOTHER RED HERRING. WHY WOULD SHE DO IT? THERE WAS NO REASON. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY THEY SAID IT HAPPENED. HOW WOULD SHE GET THE GUN? AND ALL THIS NONEVIDENCE ABOUT MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE SUPPOSEDLY BRINGING THAT GUN BACK. THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET'S LOOK AT THE WHY IN TERMS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. CERTAINLY I SUGGEST TO YOU TRYING TO COMPREHEND OR ACCEPT THE FACT THAT A HUSBAND WOULD MURDER HIS WIFE AND CHILD, IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK, BUT THE LIE SOMETIMES DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. THERE COULD BE NO REASON. THERE COULD BE A MILLION REASONS. >> THERE YOU SEE PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABBRI WINDING UP. WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND TAKE YOU BACK IN FOR MORE LIVE ACTION AFTER THIS. >>> WE ARE LIVE IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE NEIL ENTWISTLE MURDER TRIAL OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS. I'M JAMI FLOYD THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE." YOU SEE MR. ENTWISTLE LISTENING AS THE PROSECUTOR MAKES HIS CLOSE TO THE MASSACHUSETTS JURY THAT WILL ULTIMATELY DECIDE HIS FATE. THIS IS LIVE. >> LILY PLAYING WITH RACHEL. WHILE MR. ENTWISTLE IS ON THE COMPUTER UP IN THAT OFFICE. THEY ONCE SUGGESTED IT WAS RACHEL, LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE TIME AND THE TYPES OF THINGS THEY WERE SEARCHING FOR THAT HE WAS SEARCHING FOR. FOR JOBS, eBAY, PAY PAL, THE VIOLENT SITES, THE HALF-PRICE ESCORTS. MOVE TO THE 17th. SIMILAR PATTERN. THIS TIME PRISCILLA AND PAM, THEY'RE WITH RACHEL AS IF RACHEL HAS TIME TO SEARCH FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SHE IS TRYING TO SET UP HER HOME. THE TESTIMONY FROM PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. WHO IS ON THE COMPUTER DOWNSTAIRS ON THE 17th? DURING THOSE AFTERNOON HOURS? AT COUNCIL'S SUGGESTION SOMEHOW THE COMMONWEALTH POINTED OUT THE DEFENDANT WAS PLANNING THIS WAS A FLIGHT? WHAT WAS THAT EVIDENCE JANUARY 29th? THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE KNOWS HOW TO LOOK UP FLIGHTS ON THE COMPUTER. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE TICKET COUNTER LAST MINUTE TO PICK THAT UP. LET'S MOVE TO THE 18th AND TO THE 19th. LOOK AT THE BANK RECORDS CAREFULLY, THE OTHER INFORMATION, CREDIT CARD INFORMATION. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THAT TRIP TO STARBUCKS, TO YANKEE CANDLE, TO FILENE'S WAS ALL ON THURSDAY. LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU HAVE ON THE CRIME SCENE AND WHAT'S ON THE COUNTERTOP IN THE TICHEN. THAT'S WHEN THE STARBUCKS WAS BOUGHT. JANUARY 19th. THE LAST DAY ANYBODY SPOKE TO RACHEL ALIVE. PRISCILLA THAT EVENING. LILLIAN. STRIKE THAT. JOANNA FURTHER INTO THE EVENING, 9:00, 10:00. AGAIN, YOUR MEMORY CONTROLS. FRIDAY MORNING. JANUARY 20, 2006. THE DEFENDANT GETS UP. HE LEAVES RACHEL TO BELIEVE HE IS GOING ON THIS INTERVIEW. THAT HE HAD CANCELED A COUPLE DAYS BEFORE THAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS NEVER EVEN EXISTED. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON THE DEFENDANT DECIDED ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. HE HAD LOOKED UP HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. QUICK SUICIDE. ESCORTS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS. MORE ADULT FRIEND FINDER VISITATIONS. INSTEAD OF GOING ON THAT EARNED, STRIKE THAT, INTERVIEW HE SAYS HE GOES ON ERRANDS. HE GOES TO CARMINE'S. AND GETS THIS. WHEN CONSIDERING SUICIDE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HANDLE THIS THING. TRY TO CONFIGURE YOURSELF HOW 5'2" RACHEL ENTWISTLE COULD HAVE USED THIS TO COMMIT SUICIDE, ASSUMING SHE HAD A REASON TO DO THAT. THE CHEMIST TOLD US WHY SHE WANTED THIS WIDE, THE GRIP WITH ONE SWAB. AS IF YOU ARE GOING TO HANDLE A FIREARM WITH ONE SIDE OF GRIP? THAT'S HOW YOU GET THE DNA. WHOSE DNA WAS ALL OVER THIS GRIP? MR. ENTWISTLE. 21 QUADRILLION TO WHATEVER. RACHEL WASN'T EXCLUDED FROM THE BLACK BOX. WELL 7 OUT OF THE 11 OR 12 WERE NOT SKOOUDED. 2 OUT OF 1. HALF THE POPULATION I SUGGEST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE MIXTURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THAT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN RACHEL TOUCHED THAT BOX. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE SHE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF GUNS. THE EVIDENCE WAS SHE HAD NO INTEREST IN FIREARMS. I SUGGEST SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE KNOWN HOW TO LOAD THIS AND HANDLE IT, BUT HE DID. WE KNOW HE DID. LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT MUZZLE WHEN YOU ARE IN THE JURY ROOM DELIBERATING. CONSIDER WHY. DOT THAT SMALL AREA. PROBABLY 1/4 OF A SQUARE INCH INSIDE THE MUZZLE. SHE IS THE EXPERIENCED CHEMIST. THEY ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THAT SUBSTANCE ON THERE? WHAT DOES SHE GET IN ONE PLACE. NOT ON THE CYLINDER, NOT ON THE TRIGGER. ASSUMING YOU ARE GOING TO HOLD IT LIKE THIS, RACHEL WILL HAVE TO GET HER DNA ELSEWHERE. RACHEL'S DNA IS IN AND ON THAT MUZZLE. THE ONLY PLACE. THE ONLY PLACE TO GO WHEN MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE POINTED THE GUN AT HER HEAD AND PULLED THE TRIGGER. AS YOU HEARD FROM HER AND HEARD FROM GENTLEMAN ABOUT BACK SPLATTER, THAT'S HOW RACHEL ENDED UP ON THAT MUZZLE. NOT ON THE BARREL, NOT ON THE GRIP, NOT ON THE CYLINDER. FEEL ENTWISTLE. ON THE AMMO CAN. WHY WOULD HE BE ON THE AMMO CAN? HE GETS THIS. HE DRIVES BACK TO CARVER, I SUGGEST TO YOU. HE WALKS IN THAT BEDROOM. HE OPENS THAT DOOR. CONVENIENTLY HE TELLS TROOPER MANNING, I LEFT THE DOOR OPEN. WELL, HE LOCKED THAT PLACE UP TIGHT AS A DRUM WHEN HE LEFT SHORTLY AFTER 11:00. IS THAT JUST AN EXCUSES'S TRYING TO MAKE UP? THAT SOMEHOW A MYSTERIOUS STRANGER WANDERED IN, WHEN WE NOW KNOW IT'S ABOUT SUICIDE. HE WALKS UP THOSE STAIRS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I SUGGEST TO YOU, RACHEL AND LILLIAN ARE LYING IN THAT BED. THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE MANNER THE DOOR IS OPEN AND FOOTSTEPS THEY HEAR. LISTEN CAREFULLY TO THAT TAPE AND THE TONE IN HIS VOICE. I GOT BACK. WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING THE PAST TWO HOURS? WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE DEPTH OF HIS RELATIONSHIP. HE WALKS UP TO THAT BEDROOM. AND HE KILLS THEM. AND I SUGGEST YOU DON'T NEED TO CONCERN YOURSELF ABOUT THIS BEING HARD AND WHETHER YOU CAN GET A CONTUSION WITHOUT THE HEART BEATING. YOU HEARD DR. ZAIN, SHORTLY AFTER DEATH YOU CAN GET A CONTUSION. BUT IF HE SHOT LILLIAN FIRST, THEN SHOT RACHEL, THAT WOULD EXPLAIN THAT. I SUGGEST TO YOU WHAT HAPPENED WAS HE SHOOTS RACHEL BECAUSE IF HE SHOT LILLIAN FIRST, AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT SCENE HERE. HE SHOOTS RACHEL. HE SHOOTS LILLIAN. THE CRYING AND SCREAMING COMING OUT OF LILLIAN I SUGGEST HE COULD NOT HANDLE AND TOLERATE. THE THINGS THAT HE TOLD BOBBY MANNING, TROOPER MANNING ABOUT THE BUBBLES, IT HAD JUST HAPPENED, IF YOU BELIEVE HIS STORY. HE COULD NOT FACE THAT. THAT'S WHY HE LAYS THEM OUT. THAT'S WHY HE PUTS THE PILLOW AND THAT'S WHY HE COVERS THEM UP. HE CLOSES THEM ON. HE CLOSED THEM BACK IN AUGUST. HE CLOSED THEM OFF WHEN HE COVERED THEM WITH THAT BLANKET. HE CLOSED THEM OFF WHEN HE WALKED OUT THAT DOOR AND LOCKED THAT HOUSE FOR THE LAST TIME. THINK OF IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HE WANTS US TO BELIEVE THAT HE SOMEHOW DEEPLY AND PASSIONATELY LOVED THE TWO OF THEM, BUT HE GETS ON A ONE-WAY TICKET WITH NO LUGGAGE AND FLIES TO LONDON AND DOESN'T COME BACK FOR THE FUNERAL? TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE. >> MICHAEL FABBRI GOING ONE MORE TIME TO U. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BYE-BYE. >> I HAD NO INTEREST IN ALL OF THIS. THAT HOME, ALL THE BELONGINGS, THE CAR, THE WIFE, THE CHILD, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THIS ANYMORE. I'M CLOSING THIS PART OF MY LIFE OFF. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HE HAD WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE? >> VERY EFFECTIVE CLOSING ARGUMENT. PROSECUTOR MAKING THEIR FINAL ARGUMENT TO THAT JURY. WE'LL TAKE YOU BACK LIVE IN JUST A MOMENT. RIGHT NOW GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. IT IS TIME FOR A BEST DEFENSE LEGAL FLASH BACK. 16 YEARS AGO TODAY IT WAS HERE IN NEW YORK CITY. JOHN GOTTI, THE NOTORIOUS BOSS OF THE GAMBINO CRIME FAMILY WAS FINALLY SENTENCED TO PRISON. >> I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PUBLIC TO BRING THIS GANG LEADER TO JUSTICE. >> GOTTI GUILTY OF FEDERAL MURDER AND RACKETEERING CHARGES SENTENCED TO LIFE. HE HAD GONE HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND ONE IN THREE PREVIOUS TRIALS. HIS LUCK RAN OUT IN 1992. A DECADE LATER HE DIED OF CANCER IN PRISON AT THE AGE OF 61. >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD AND THIS IS BEST DEFENSE. THAT MAN THERE NEIL ENTWISTLE CHARGED WITH THE BRUTAL MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND INFANT DAUGHTER. PROSECUTOR ON HIS FEET WITH THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO CONVINCE THE JURY HE IS GUILTY. THIS IS LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. >> THE BODIES OF LILLIAN AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. THE BODIES IN THE SCENE GAVE THEM DIRECTION IN THIS CASE. THEY CONSIDERED OTHER AVENUES. THEY OVERTURNED MANY A STONE. THEY CONSIDERED OTHER SUSPECTS. LOOK AT THE ALIBI INFORMATION YOU HEARD AND WHAT THEY HAD TO CHECK OUT. BUT I SUGGEST IT KEPT ON COMING BACK TO ONE PLACE. THEY FOLLOWED THAT EVIDENCE ALL THE WAY FROM THAT BEDROOM TO THAT PLATFORM UPON WHICH MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE TRIED TO FLEE ONE MORE TIME. AND IT'S THAT EVIDENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU NEED TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER AND LOOK AT. WHAT DID HE DO AND WHAT DID HE SAY? WHEN YOU TAKE THAT EVIDENCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND CONSIDER IT TOGETHER AND CONSIDER WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE AND WHAT DIRECTION THE EVIDENCE TOOK THEM FROM THOSE BODIES TO THAT PLATFORM, I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT YOU'LL COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT THE POLICE DID, THAT DR. ZAIN DID, THAT COMMON SENSE BRINGS YOU TO. THAT THERE IS ONE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE MURDERS. THAT MAN IS SITTING RIGHT OVER THERE. HE'S THE ONE WHO PULLED THAT TRIGGER TWICE. PUT A BULLET IN THE HEAD OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, PUT A BULLET IN THE BODY OF LILLIAN ANTI-WITH ITLE. NEIL ENTWISTLE AND NOBODY ELSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE MURDERS. I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO GO IN THERE, PUT THE COMMONWEALTH TO ITS TEST. DELIBERATE. SCRUTINIZE EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE. WHEN YOU ARE THROUGH, I AM CONFIDENT YOU WILL COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION THIS WAS NOT A SUICIDE, THIS WAS NOT A STRANGER HOMICIDE, THAT UNFORTUNATELY, WAS A HOMICIDE COMMITTED BY A HUSBAND AGAINST HIS FAMILY. WE ASK YOU TO RETURN THE ONLY TRUE VERDICT IN THIS CASE AND THAT IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GUILTY OF THE MURDERS OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE ON JANUARY 20th IN THE MORNING, 2006, IN THE MASTER BEDROOM. THANK YOU. >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT, CONCLUDES THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE. I REMIND YOU THAT THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. FURTHER, THAT YOU MUST KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU HEARD THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. AT THIS POINT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A LUNCHEON RECESS AND WE WILL RESUME IN APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR SAY 1:45 WITH THE CHARGE TO THE JURY AT THAT TIME. THEN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. >> THROUGH SEE IT. CLOSING ARGUMENTS HAVE CONCLUDED. DON'T GO AWAY. WE HAVE LOTS MORE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. WE'LL CHECK IN WITH OUR CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS AND WITH OUR GUESTS. AND SOME OF THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED. LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE CASE. CHRIS WHO IS IN MASSACHUSETTS. SHE SHOT HERSELF AND THE BABY, THEN DROVE OVER TO HER MOTHERS TO PUT THE GUN BACK. GET REAL. CHRIS NOT BUYING THAT ARGUMENT. ISN'T OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM BASED ON INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? IT SEEMS IN ENTWISTLE'S CASE HE'S GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. MORE ON THAT IN MY LAST WORD. >>> PROSECUTORS SAY NEIL ENTWISTLE IS A COLD-BLOODED KILLER WHO MURDERED HIS BABY AND WIFE. WILL THE JURY AGREE? >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD THIS IS "BEST DEFENSE." CLOSING ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED IN THE TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. THE 29-YEAR-OLD CHARGED WITH THE BRUTAL OF HIS WIFE AND INFANT DAUGHTER. HE HAS MAINTAINED HIS INNOCENCE THROUGHOUT. THE JURY WILL GET THE CASE SHORTLY. THE JUDGE STILL HAS TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LAW AS THEY SHOULD APPLY THE FACTS TO IT. WE EXPECT THAT TO BEGIN AFTER THE LUNCH RECESS THIS MORNING. WE HAD CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND PROSECUTOR IN THE CASE. LEAD ATTORNEYS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CASE. WE HAVE HAD NO REBUTTAL. IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, THERE IS NO REBUTTAL. THAT IS THE WAY THEY DO IT OUT THERE. I'M EXPECTING MY CORRESPONDENT BETH KARAS TO JOIN US AT ANY MOMENT. BEFORE SHE DOES LET ME JUMP OUT TO BOB GEORGE. HE IS OUR NOTED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND EXPERTS ON ALL THINGS MASSACHUSETTS. YOU HEARD THE WHOLE THING. IT WAS FOR DUE FORTUITOUS TO HAVE YOU WITH US. I THOUGHT BOTH ARGUMENTS WERE TERRIFIC. I'M INTERESTED IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE GIVEN YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH MASSACHUSETTS LAW AND THIS CASE. >> AS WE TALKED BEFORE, ELLIOT'S CLOSING WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT. FABBRI'S CLOSING IS AN EXAMPLE YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE DANIEL WEBSTER TO MAKE YOUR POINT WHEN YOU HAVE EVERYTHING HE HAD TO ARGUE. A CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE IS WAY WORSE FOR THE DEFENSE THAN AN EYEWITNESS CASE OR COOPERATING WITNESS CASE. THEY CAN CARGO EWE THE WHICH HE ARGUED IT WHICH IS QUIET AND LOW KEY. HE HAD THE WORDS OF ENTWISTLE AND MAKE HIS CASE WITHOUT HIS TRONICS. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THE WHOLE 45 MINUTES. BOTH THESE GENTLEMEN SEEM TO KNOW IT WELL. >> THE THING ABOUT FABBRI'S CLOSING, FABBRI KNOWS HIS CASE. HE'S BEEN INVOLVED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CASE. ELLIOT KNOWS HIS CASE JUST AS WELL. FABBRI ARGUED IT WITHOUT NOTES WHICH IS IMPRESSIVE IN SOME WHAT IS TO PEOPLE LISTENING TO IT. ON THE OTHER HAND, ENTWISTLE'S OWN WORDS, IF IN THE END HE GETS CONVICTED IN THIS CASE, IT'S HIS OWN ACTIONS AND WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN ARGUED TO THIS JURY BY THE PROSECUTION AND PERHAPS THE DUMBEST THING HE DID. DUMBEST THING WAS TALK TO THE POLICE. SMARTEST THING WOULD BE TO DIVE INTO THE ENGLISH CHANNEL AND KEEP ON SWIMMING. AT THIS POINT NEIL ENTWISTLE, HIS OWN WORDS AND ACTIONS WERE ARGUED TO THIS JURY. >> HE DIDN'T TAKE THE STAND IN HIS OWN DEFENSE. LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT TALKING. I REFERENCED IT EARLIER. HE SAID HE'S NOT IN AMERICA. MAYBE HE DOESN'T KNOW ABOUT THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. WE SEE THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, DEFENDANTS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THEY DO BETTER TO SAY NOTHING. DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE. DON'T TALK TO ANYONE BECAUSE YOUR WORDS DO COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU. WE SAW THEM USED THERE IN THE CLOSING ARGUMENT AS PART OF A MESSAGE HE HAD LEFT FOR SOMEONE. >> YES. THAT'S DEVASTATING. MR. FABBRI WAS CORRECT USING THAT. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE NOTES. THEY WILL HAVE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S OWN WORDS COMING BACK TO BITE HIM. ONLY THING I SEE IN THIS IS THAT IF HE DOES, IF HE IS SUCCESSFUL, HE MIGHT COME BACK WITH SECOND DEGREE AS PREMEDITATED BECAUSE I THINK ELLIOT WAS SUCCESSFUL TO SHOW YOU CAN'T SAY THIS GUY WAS PREMEDITATED. IF HE IS SO SMART AND CALCULATING, HOW IS IT HE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT A PROPER WAY TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY? HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY. >> IT WAS THE WORST PLAN FOR COMMITTING MURDER. I THINK WE SAW A VERY FINE ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT LACK OF PREMEDITATION. WE HEARD COMMENTATORS EARLIER THIS MORNING SUGGEST THE SAME THING. PERHAPS THE BEST HOPE HERE WOULD BE SECOND DEGREE MURDER. WE HAVE BETH KARAS WITH US NOW. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD. FIRST ELLIOT WEINSTEIN STANDS UP IN MASSACHUSETTS. HE GETS ONE OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF THE JURY AND DEFENSE GOES FIRST. WHAT WERE THE KEY POINTS HE MADE? IT SEEMED TO ME HE FINALLY EXPLAINED THIS SUICIDE THEORY. WHAT WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF IT? >> ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAD TO EXPLAIN AND I WAS EAGER TO HEAR HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE EXPLAINED HOW HE ACTED THE WAY HE DID. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS EXPLAIN HUMAN BEHAVIOR. WE REACT DIFFERENTLY TO HUMAN SITUATIONS. NEIL ENTWISTLE FOUND HIS WIFE KILLED HERSELF AND ELLIOT SAID CAN YOU IMAGINE IF HE DID CALL 911 AND THEY SAW THE GUN ON THE BED? THEY WOULD HAVE REALIZED THE WIFE KILLED HIMSELF? IT'S AN BAERMT TO FAMILY, EVIDENCE. THERE IS NOTHING IN HER HISTORY THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THAT HAD A TENDENCY TO BE SUICIDAL OR DEPRESSED. THEN HE SAYS NEIL ENTWISTLE PUT THE GUN AWAY. HE BROUGHT IT BACK TO CARVER. NEIL ENTWISTLE IN ALL THE STATEMENTS HE MADE TO POLICE IN THE PAST DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT AND SITTING IN THE COUNTY HERE, NEVER ADMITTED TO ENTERING THE HOUSE. ALWAYS SAID THE HOUSE WAS LOCKED, HE COULDN'T GET IN. HIS EXPLANATION, WEINSTEIN'S EXPLANATION, THIS IS HOW HE WAS PROTECTING HIS WIFE. >> AND HE SUGGESTS A PANIC STATE, EMOTIONAL STATE AND INCOHERENT STATE. IF IT IS PREMEDITATED, IT IS POORLY PREMEDITATED. THERE WAS NO DEFENSE CASE HERE. WE ALL WANTED TO HEAR WHAT THE DEFENSE SUGGESTS HAPPENED. >> THERE WERE ONLY TWO GUN SHOTS. FIRST RACHEL PUT LILLIAN OVER WHERE SHE THOUGHT HER HEART WAS AND SHOT HER. THE BULLET TRAVELLED THROUGH THE BABY AND INTO RACHEL'S LEFT BREAST. THE BREAST IS JUST A MASS OF FATTY TISSUE. THE PAIN RECEPTORS ARE ALMOST NONEXISTENT. YOU KNOW THE BREAST WOUND WAS THE FIRST WOUND BECAUSE OF THE BRUISING. HER HEART WAS STILL BEATING WHEN SHE FIRED THAT NONFATAL SHOT. THEN SHE POINTED THE GUN TOWARD HER HEAD, STEADIED IT WITH BOTH HANDS AND FIRED. >> VERY DRAMATIC MOMENT IN THAT COURTROOM. BETH, IT DIDN'T SEEM TO THROW THE PROSECUTION AT ALL. I DON'T THINK THE PROSECUTOR REALLY RESPONDED TO THAT DIRECTLY. HE JUST REMINDED THE JURY OF HIS EVIDENCE. >> HE DID START OUT BY DEALING WITH THE SUICIDE AND DEBUNKING IT. THAT IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. SHE TENDS TO SHOOT HERSELF IN THE HEART BUT OOPS, THE BABY IS THERE, TOO SO I'LL JUST SHOOT THROUGH THE BABY AND SHOOT MYSELF IN THE HEAD. WHILE WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE CHOOSE SMALL HAND GUNS, THE STATISTICS SHOW, SHE ACTUALLY WENT UP HERE. IT WASN'T HER FOREHEAD. NOT SHE, THE SHOOTER. SHOT HER UP HERE. IT WASN'T A CONTACT WOUND. THERE IS A LONG BARREL IN THAT GONE. SHE IS A LITTLE WOMAN, 5'2". SHE WOULD HAVE TO HOLD THE GUN AWKWARDLY. >> AND HE PICKED UP THE GUN SO THE JURY COULD BE REMINDED HOW BIG IT WAS. AT THAT MOMENT REMINDED THE JURY HOW SMALL SHE WAS. BOB, I WANT TO FINISH WITH YOU. I WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU MAKE A CLOSING ARGUMENT LIKE THIS, WHICH I THINK HAS VALID POINTS, WITHOUT ANY REAL EVIDENCE ON THE DEFENSE SIDE. NO EXPERTS OF SUICIDE, HAND GUN, NO EVIDENCE OF DEPRESSION. THE BRUISING HE REFERENCES, SEEMS HE MIGHT HAVE HAD AN EXPERT FOR THAT. IT'S A LOT TO ASK THE JURY TO GO WITH YOU ON. >> JAMIE THE PROBLEM WITH GIVING A CLOSING WHERE YOU ARE MAKING ALL THESE SUGGESTIONS TO THE JURY, YOU DON'T WANT TO INSULT THEIR INTELLIGENCE. THE MINUTE YOU INSULT THEIR INTELLIGENCE THEY ARE GOING TO CLOSE THEIR EARS. YOU HAVE TO PICK WHAT'S BEST TRYING TO PERSUADE THEM. MAYBE AS A WHOLE OR ONE BY ONE BASIS OF WHAT THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERING ON REASONABLE DOUBT OR DIMINISHED CAPACITY. WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A TOUGH SITUATION FOR THE DEFENSE. YOU HAVE A DEFENDANT NEIL ENTWISTLE WHO IS SAYING HE DIDN'T COMMIT THE CRIME. IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING ARGUMENT. YOU COULD BE ARGUING DIMINISHED CAPACITY OR CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY DEFENSE WHICH IS INSANITY DEFENSE. IN THIS CASE YOU ARGUE IT AS BEST YOU CAN WITHOUT GETTING THE JURY IRRITATED WITH YOU. AT THIS POINT WHEN YOU THINK OF IT, AT THIS POINT IN THE CASE, WHAT DO YOU CARE IF YOU GET THE JURY IRRITATED AT YOU TRYING TO SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE? >> AT SOME POINT YOU MAKE THAT STRATEGIC CALL. GWYN, I IMAGINE YOU AGREE YOU PUT THE BEST JOBS ON THE TABLE. >> I WAS SURPRISED HE LAID HIS CARDS ON SUICIDE. I WOULD HAVE LEFT IT OPEN AND OPEN THE DOOR FOR AN INTRUDER AS WELL AS SUICIDE. I WOULDN'T HAVE JUST SAID IT WAS SUICIDE. YOU WANT TO PUT REASONABLE DOUBT ANY OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN AND RESONATE IT WAS OF THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVE THE CASE AND HE DIDN'T DO IT. >> AND REASONABLE DOUBT. LET'S CHECK IN WITH JACK FORD ON WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT. >> GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK. YOU CAME BACK FOR A GOOD DAY. WE'LL LOOK BACK INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM. LOOK WHAT THE DEFENSE HAD TO SAY, PROSECUTION HAD TO SAY AND LISTEN AS THE JUDGE TALKS TO THE JURY. THE JUDGE HAS THE LAST WORD. A LOT GOING ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM. >> LATER AS I ALWAYS DO, I AM GOING TO FIND YOU AND PICK YOUR BRAIN OFF THE RECORD AND OFF CAMERA. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT'S JACK FORD. A BIG THANK YOU TO GWYDOLYN JACKSON AND BOB GEORGE AND BETH KARAS LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. NOW I GET THE LAST WORD. IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK AND A GOOD THING I AM BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS TO SAY IT. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT. FOR THE TWO WEEKS I'VE BEEN AWAY IT SEEMS HE'S BEEN ALL BUT PRESUMED GUILTY. WHEN I GOT UP THIS MORNING TO DO MY HOMEWORK I CHECKED ON EVERY SHOW, EVERY BLOG, EVERY TABLOID I'VE SEEN. ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN CONVICTED LONG BEFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS IN. CERTAINLY BEFORE THE CASE WENT TO THE JURY WHICH IT HASN'T YET. EVEN BEFORE THE JURY WAS SELECTED HE WAS PRESUMED GUILTY BASED ON FACTS FED TO US BY PROSECUTORS AND POLICE. I'M NOT SAYING NEIL ENTWISTLE IS INNOCENT. FRANKLY, I DON'T CARE ALL THAT MUCH ABOUT ENTWISTLE. WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL. THAT'S NOT JUST ME TALKING. THAT'S THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THE LAST WORD. |