|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> NEIL WAS NEVER FOCUSED ON MAKING THE 911 CALL. HOW COULD HE PERMIT THE POLICE TO COME KNOWING THAT JOE'S REVOLVER ON THE BED WOULD PERMIT THE POLICE TO KNOW WHAT RACHEL DID. >> WHAT RACHEL DID. THE VOICE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE SUMMATION CLAIMING THAT IT WAS RACHEL WHO TOOK THE LIFE OF HER DAUGHTER AND THEN HER OWN LIFE. THAT VOICE FOLLOWED BY THE VOICE OF THE PROSECUTOR WHO SAYS, NO, IT WAS THIS MAN, NEIL ENTWISLE WAS THE KILLER. THE HUSBAND, FATHER, TOOK THE LIFE OF HIS DAUGHTER AND WIFE. SOON, THE ONLY VOICE THAT TRULY MATTERS, THE VOICE OF THE JURY, WILL DECIDE HIS FATE. WE'VE LIVE TODAY AS "BANFIELD & FORD" TAKE YOU "COURTSIDE." >>> AND A GOOD MONDAY AFTERNOON TO ALL OF YOU. WELCOME TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE." WE ARE IN SESSION. I'M JACK FORD. >> AND I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. WELL, IT'S ALMOST, ALMOST UP TO THE JURY BY NOW. BARRING A FEW INSTRUCTIONS BASICALLY. THAT'S IT. IT WOULD BECOME A DELIBERATING PROCESS, AND BOY, DO THEY HAVE A LOT TO THINK ABOUT. >> AND FUNNY HOW THIS CASE PICKED UP SUCH SPEED. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GOT TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE THE END OF THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT CASE, IF ANY, THE DEFENSE WOULD PUT ON. UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT ON ANY DEFENSE AT ALL. ALL OF A SUDDEN THE END OF YESTERDAY AND THE MORNING TODAY, RACED THROUGH, THE PROSECUTION SAID, THE COMMON WEALTH RESTS. THE DEFENSE SAID, THAT'S IT FOR US. THERE'S NO CASE, FOR US. >> IT'S SO FRUSTRATING. >> AND THE JUDGE SAID, LET'S HEAR SOME CLOSING ARGUMENT. >> YOU ALWAYS TOLD ME FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU WAIT FOR THE ROLLER COASTER. IT'S UP ON THE PROSECUTION CASE AND IT'S DOWN WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEFENSE. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, HE'S INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND WE CANNOT WAIT TO HEAR WHAT ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN HAS IN STORE FOR US. WE'VE SAID IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND WE DIDN'T GET THE DELIVERY. >> IT'S ALWAYS THE DILEMMA OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND I'VE SAT THERE AT THE TABLE AND I'VE TALKED TO MY CLIENT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, HERE'S THE PLUSES IF WE PUT YOU ON A STAND. IF WE PUT A CASE ON. HERE ARE THE MINUSES IF WE PUT YOU ON THE STAND AND PUT A CASE ON. LET'S FIGURE OUT THE CALCULUS FOR US AND SEE WHAT WORKS BEST FOR US. AND THE DEFENSE HAVE SAID THE JURORS HAVE HEARD EVERY WORD THAT NEIL ENTWISLE COULD HAVE SAID ON THE STAND AND YOU KNOW WHAT WE GOT TO CROSS-EXAMINE EVERYBODY AND ASK ALL THE QUESTIONS WE WANT TO, SO CLEARLY THEY SAID WE'RE GOOD WITH THIS. OUR JOB IS TO RAISE QUESTIONS, WE THINK WE'VE DONE THAT AND WE'RE GOOD WITH IT. IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH CALL FOR THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR CLIENTS. >> IT'S THE BIG BENEFIT THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK LAST IF YOU PUT ON A DEFENSE. >> NOT IN THIS JURISDICTION, SOME YOU DO, BUT MASSACHUSETTS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. THERE'S NO PROCEDURAL ADVANTAGE FOR YOU. THE DEFENSE HAD TO GO FIRST. >> AND HONESTLY, JACK, WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE? I'M NOT UNLIKE ANY JUROR, I WANT TO HEAR HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. I WANT TO SEE WHAT POSSIBLY COULD BE SO WRONG IN ALL OF THESE FACTS THAT SEEM LIKE THEY MAKE SO MUCH SENSE AND I'M STILL LEFT HANGING AND BY THE WAY, A LITTLE OFFENDED THAT WE'RE ALL CALLING RACHEL A BABY KILLER. >> IT'S A TOUGH DECISION TO MAKE AND WE TALKED WITH ALL OF OUR ANALYSTS AND THEY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, I PROBABLY WOULDN'T PUT HIM ON THE STAND EITHER. AND YOU I AND TALKED ABOUT THAT, FOR THE DEFENSE TO SAY, SHE'S THE KILLER, IT RAISES RISKS. >> RISKS? REAL RISKS. >> IT'S THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT THEY FELT THAT THEY HAD. TO THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT. AS A DEFENSE LAWYER YOU ALWAYS KNOW IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND, SOME JURORS MIGHT BE OFFENDED BY IT AND I HOPE THEY ARE WILLING TO WORK THROUGH IT. ALL SORTS OF PROBLEMS AND ISSUES THAT ARE PERCOLATING INSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. AND IN A LITTLE WILE AS ASHLEIGH SAID, THE JURY WILL GET THAT CASE, THE ONLY VOICE THAT TRULY MATTERS INSIDE THAT COURTROOM WILL SPEAK AFTER THAT. BUT IT'S BEEN A CONVOLUTED AND TWISTED JOURNEY THAT BROUGHT IT AND BROUGHT IT TO THE JURY'S HANDS. OUR OWN BETH KARAS TAKES A CLOSER LOOK FOR US. >> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE, BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE MURDER WAS EFFECTED. THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> Reporter: ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT IN A SUBURB OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISLE. GUESTS HAD ARRIVED FOR A DINNER PARTY, BUT THE FAMILY WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. POLICE DID A CURSORY SEARCH OF THE HOUSE TWICE, BEFORE MAKING A GRUESOME DISCOVERY. >> NEIL ENTWISLE WITH A FIREARM THAT WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOMETIME BEFORE THAT, SHOT RACHEL ENTWISLE IN THE HEAD. THEN PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> Reporter: THE ONE THING THEY COULD NOT FIND WAS NEIL ENTWISLE. MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATORS LEARNED HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS' HOME OUTSIDE OF LONDON. >> NEIL ENTWISLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISLE. >> Reporter: ENTWISLE WAIVED EXTRADITION AND RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO FACE THE CHARGES. SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN THE MURDERS. >> ALL RIGHT, YOU WILL BE HELD WITHOUT BAIL UNTIL SUCH TIME -- >> Reporter: THE ARRAIGNMENT, IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM, ATTRACTED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT MR. ENTWISLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BY HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS IS UNDER WAY. >> Reporter: DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTMENT NEIL ENTWISLE FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I AM GOING TO AGGRESSIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> AND THAT VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE COURTROOM PRESENTATION ON THE PART OF BOTH SIDES, THE PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE, HAS NOW BASICALLY WRAPPED UP. JOINING US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE, OUR OWN BETH KARAS, TO GUIDE US THROUGH ALL THAT. AND WE'RE ALWAYS DELIGHTED WHEN WE CAN START OFF A PROGRAM WITH SOME GUIDANCE HERE FROM BETH. SO, BETH, YOU HEARD ME SEE A FEW MINUTES AGO, THIS HAS SORT OF ROCKETED TO A CONCLUSION IN TERMS OF THE TRIAL AND THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AND WE ENDED UP GETTING CLOSING ARGUMENTS I THINK EARLIER THAN MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT TODAY. SO, LET'S TAKE IT IN THE ORDER THAT IT WAS -- IT APPEARED BEFORE THE JURORS. LET'S START WITH THE DEFENSE. SO WE CAN -- WHAT'S THE HEADLINE COMING OUT OF THE DEFENSE SUMMATION HERE? >> WELL, IN 45 MINUTES ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN ATTACKED A LOT OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, AND ALSO EXPLAINED WHY IT ALSO SUPPORTED SUICIDE. SAYING THAT THE POLICE WERE BIASED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION, RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THAT THEY WERE TARGETING NEIL ENTWISLE AND ASSUMED THAT IT WAS A HOMICIDE TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER POSSIBLE MANNER OF DEATH, OF COURSE, THEIR THEORY IS THAT IT WAS SUICIDE. AND HE EXPLAINED AWAY ELLIOTT -- I MEAN, NEIL ENTWISLE'S FAILURE TO CALL 911, BUT BASICALLY SAYING -- ALTHOUGH HE DIDN'T UTTER THESE WORDS -- THAT HE WAS PROTECTING HIS WIFE'S REPUTATION, AFTER ALL SUICIDE CAN BE A BLACK MARK ON A FAMILY IS THE POINT HE WAS MAKING AND THAT, YOU KNOW, ENTWISLE RETURNED THE GUN TO THE CARVER HOME 60 MILES AWAY. NOW, I MEAN, HE ALSO -- I MEAN, HE TALKED ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE AND THINGS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS DID NOT COLLECT IN THEIR FOCUS ON THIS BEING A HOMICIDE AND KNOWING WHO THEY'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON, AND THEY ALSO NEVER BOTHERED TO CALL ENGLAND TO TELL THE ENTWISLE FAMILY WHAT WAS GOING ON BECAUSE THEY WERE -- THEY WERE TARGETING NEIL ENTWISLE, SO THEY DON'T LOOK FOR BLOOD IN CERTAIN PLACES, AND HE FOCUSES ON -- THIS IS WEINSTEIN -- THE PRESENCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE HANDS OF -- OF RACHEL AND HOW THE PRESENCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE IS CONSISTENT WITH HER HAVING HANDLED THE GUN. OF COURSE, IT'S EQUALLY CONSISTENT WITH HER HANDS JUST BEING IN THE VICINITY OF A GUN WHEN THE GUN WAS FIRED. AND HE SUGGESTS THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS. HE SUGGESTS THAT RACHEL KILLED HER BABY IN AN ATTEMPT TO KILL HERSELF, AND IT WAS POINTING IT TOWARD HER HEART. IT JUST HAPPENS TO GO THROUGH THE BABY BEFORE IT GOES INTO HER LEFT BREAST. AND IT WASN'T A FATAL SHOT, SO SHE POINTS AT HER HEAD. NOW, SHE'S LYING IN A BED, AND HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, SHE POINTS AT HER FOREHEAD. IT'S REALLY -- IT WAS INTO THE HAIRLINE, SO IT'S REALLY MORE OF THE TOP OF HER HEAD THAN THE FOREHEAD, BUT HE CALLED IT A FOREHEAD. NOT PERHAPS THE MOST CONVENIENT LOCATION IS ONE IS LOOKING TO KILL ONESELF. SHE HELD IT FAR ENOUGH AWAY SO IT WASN'T A CONTACT SHOT. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND NEIL ENTWISLE NEVER MENTIONS SEEING THIS GUN TO ANYONE BECAUSE HE WAS BASICALLY PROTECTING HIS WIFE. >> ALL RIGHT, SO WE'D KNOWN THAT LAST WEEK THAT OF THE DEFENSE SEEMED TO BE IN SOME WAYS MOVING AROUND THE MARGINS OF COMING FLAT OUT AND SAYING THAT RACHEL WAS THE KILLER HERE AND THEN TOOK HER OWN LIFE. CLEARLY IN THE SUMMATIONS THEY CAME RIGHT OUT AND SAID THAT. WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE, THEN, FROM THE PROSECUTION IN THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS? >> WELL, MICHAEL FABBRI DID DEAL IMMEDIATELY WITH THE SUE SCPID THE ABSURDITY OF SAYING IT WAS SUICIDE, BECAUSE NEIL ENTWISLE HAS BEEN SITTING IN THE MIDDLESEX COUNTY JAIL FOR 2 1/2 YEARS KNOWING HE'S FACING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE AND HE'S STILL NOT TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT THE SUICIDE AND LETTING PEOPLE THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HE MAY HAVE DONE IT? HE THEN GIVES HIS OWN THEORY OF EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AND WHY THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT. AND THAT IS THAT HE PUTS THE BABY IN THE BED WITH HER BEFORE HE GOES OUT AND GOES OUT TO GET THE GUN. IT IS BELIEVED BY THE PROSECUTION THAT ENTWISLE RETRIEVES THE GUN THE MORNING OF JANUARY 20th. HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT ANY TIME THAT WEEK BECAUSE JOE MATTERAZZO WOULDN'T CHECK HIS GUN BOX EXCEPT ON SATURDAYS WHEN HE WOULD GO TO THE GUN CLUB AND HE WOULD GO WEEKLY. BUT THE PROSECUTION BELIEVES HE PICKED IT UP THAT MORNING. SO, THERE MAY BE A LOT OF TRUTH IN THE TIMELINE THAT ENTWISLE GIVES. LIKE, HE'S GONE FOR TWO HOURS DOING ERRANDS. HE'S DOWN IN CARVER GETTING THE GUN AND HE COMES BACK. AND IT IS -- THE PROSECUTION SAID, YOU CAN'T TELL THE ORDER OF SHOTS AND JUST BECAUSE THERE'S BRUISING AROUND THE BABY'S FACE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT WAS THE SHOT WHICH WAS FIRST, WHICH IS SOMETHING THE DEFENSE HAS SAID. HE BELIEVES THAT RACHEL IS SHOT FIRST, AND THEN THE BABY'S IN HER ARMS. RACHEL'S SHOT. OTHERWISE SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR HER BABY AND BECAUSE IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR A FATAL SHOT AFTER IT WENT INTO THE BABY. IT JUST WENT INTO THE FLESH OF HER LEFT BREAST. AND IT DIDN'T HIT ANY ORGANS OR BONES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE SHOOTS HER, NOT A CONTACT WOUND. POINTS IT AT HER HEAD WHILE SHE'S SLEEPING AND THEN HE SHOOTS THE BABY, COVERS THEM UP. RETURNS THE GUN TO CARVER. GOES TO THE AIRPORT. TRIES TO GET MONEY. NEEDS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HE WANTS BEFORE HE LEAVES. CANNOT GET MONEY OUT OF ANIMENT ATMs IN LOGAN AIRPORT, SO HE HAS TO LEAVE BEFORE HE GETS THE MONEY, $400 OR SO, AND HE RETURNS AND FLIES HOME. BUT I HAD BEEN LISTENING FOR THE SCENARIO OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER OF THE SHOTS, WHEN THE GUN WAS STOLEN, AND WHETHER OR NOT ENTWISLE PUT THE BABY IN THE BED AFTER KILLING RACHEL AND THEN SHOT THE BABY. BUT PROSECUTION BELIEVES HE HAD THE BABY IN BED WITH HER, WHICH HE ADMITTED TO THE POLICE THAT HE HAD DONE. HE PUT THE BABY TO BED BEFORE HE WENT OUT TO DO ERRANDS. >> BETH, AS YOU SAID, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF DRAMA INSIDE THE COURTROOM AS THERE USUALLY IS IN A MURDER CASE WHEN YOU ARE LISTENING TO BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE IN THE SUMMATION WHICH GETS TO US OUR "COURTSIDE" DOCKET, IN HIS OWN WORDS, THAT IS BECAUSE THE LAST WORDS, THE LAST TESTIMONY THE JURORS HEARD WERE THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISLE. WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THAT ALL COMES IN TO PLAY HERE IN TERMS OF BOTH SIDE'S ARGUMENTS. IN ADDITION TO BETH JOINING US, WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE OUR GOOD FRIEND WENDY MURPHY SPENDING TIME WITH US TODAY. A PROSECUTOR IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY, AND CURRENTLY A PROFESSOR AT THE SCHOOL OF BOSTON, AND AN AUTHOR OF "AND JUSTICE SOR SOME" THE EXPOSÉ, A VICTIMS' RIGHTS ADVOCATE. WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU SPEND SOME TIME WITH ME. STICK WITH ME FOR ONE MINUTE. I HAVE A QUESTION BUT FIRST I WANT TO SET THIS UP FOR OUR VIEWERS OUT THERE. AS WE SAID, LAST THINGS THAT WEIS JURORS HEARD, THE LAST WORD THAT THE JURORS HEARD IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WERE THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISLE BOTH ON FRIDAY AND THEN AGAIN EARLIER THIS MORNING. SO, THE QUESTION IS, ARE THOSE WORDS ENOUGH TO CONVICT? LISTEN TO A PORTION OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY HERE WHEN HE'S BEING QUESTIONED BY TROOPER MANNING ABOUT HOW HE FOUND THE BODIES AND HOW HE LEFT THEM. >> YOU PULLED THE BEDSHEET OVER THEM? >> BEFORE I LEFT, YEAH. >> BEFORE YOU LEFT. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> I -- >> SO, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU PULLED THE BEDSHEET OVER THEM TO COVER THEM UP? >> YEAH. >> NOT OFF THEM. >> NO. TO COVER THEM UP. >> OKAY. WHY DID YOU DO THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A -- I DON'T KNOW WHY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, SOME OF THE WORDS OF NEIL ENTWISLE. WENDY, LET ME COME AFTER YOU HERE. AS A PROSECUTOR, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T OFTEN GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE DEFENDANT'S OWN WORDS HERE. HOW SIGNIFICANT DO YOU THINK HIS WORDS AND THE DELIVERY AND THE QUESTIONING AND WHAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS ARE THE INCONSISTENCIES CAN BE FOR THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE? >> WELL, REMEMBER, THIS IS THE GUY THE DEFENSE SAID AT THE OUTSET -- AND THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL -- WAS SUCH A NICE MAN. LOVED HIS FAMILY. SUCH A NICE GUY. ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THESE STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH HE CERTAINLY DOESN'T CONFESS, A CONFESSION IS ALWAYS GREAT FOR A PROSECUTOR, BUT YOU GET THE SENSE THAT THIS IS A GUY WHO SHOULD BE IN TEARS, WHO SHOULD ALTERNATIVELY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY THAT COULD HELP EXPLAIN THINGS, AND YOU GET ANYTHING BUT. YOU GET A STAMMERING KIND OF WEIRD ANSWER TO REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. SO, THE GOOD NEWS FOR THE PROSECUTION, JACK, IS THAT THIS WAS THE VOICE OF NEIL ENTWISLE, THE ONLY VOICE OF NEIL ENTWISLE, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TAKE THE STAND, WHICH IS HIS RIGHT, BUT THE JURY'S THINKING ABOUT IT. AND THEY'RE HEARING THE GUY BASICALLY MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL AND HE'S NOT SAD AND IT HAPPENS AT THE END OF THE TRIAL WHEN YOU WANT THE JURY TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY'RE SPECULATING ABOUT. THEY'RE THINKING TO THEMSELVES, WELL, THE PROSECUTION PUT ON A DARN GOOD CASE. BUT I HAVE TO KEEP MY MIND OPEN TO THE POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. WELL, WHAT COULD THEY BE? I WONDER WHAT NEIL WOULD SAY? AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GIVE THEM, AT THE END OF A VERY DRAMATIC PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. I THINK THE JURY PROBABLY HEARD THOSE WORDS AND SAID, GOOD LORD, THIS GUY'S CREEPY? HE'S NOT SUCH A NICE GUY. I CAN'T BELIEVE HE HAD NOTHING GOOD TO SAY FOR HIMSELF. HE WASN'T CRYING. THIS GUY'S THE TYPE WHO COULD KILL HIS WIFE AND BABY. >> AND AS YOU SAID, IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR, A VERY STRA TEE JIK WAY TO FINISH UP YOUR CASE. THE OTHER THING THAT WENDY SAID, HE THOSE NOT TO TESTIFY AND THE FACT THAT JURORS HEARD SO MUCH OF HIM ALREADY ON TAPE WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN THAT DECISION AND THAT'S THE FLIP SIDE OF OUR ARGUMENT HERE, THAT THOSE WORDS COULD POSSIBLY WORK BOTH WAYS INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE. LISTEN TO SOME. AGAIN, IT'S A CONVERSATION BETWEEN NEIL ENTWISLE AND SERGEANT MANNING WHERE NEIL ENTWISLE IS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF HIS REACTIONS AND HIS RESPONSES TO WHAT HE FOUND. >> YOU THINK IN THOSE SITUATIONS THAT I WOULD JUST LOOK AND BREAK DOWN AND THAT THAT'S NOT JUST WENT THROUGH MY HEAD. I -- >> WHAT DID GO THROUGH YOUR HEAD? >> WELL, THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO DO WAS DO SOMETHING TO MYSELF. >> HOW COME? >> IT WAS MY WIFE AND BABY IN THERE. >> SO, WENDY, AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR, LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, ARE YOU AT ALL SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THE DEFENSE DECIDED YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT HIM ON THE STAND, WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY WE'RE RESTING OUR CASE HERE? >> YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARD TO PUT NEIL ON. YOU KNOW, THE JURY, I'M SURE, WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM, BUT A GOOD DEFENSE ATTORNEY CAN'T PUT A GUY ON JUST BECAUSE THE JURY'S INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM HIM WHEN YOU KNOW WHAT IT EXPOSES YOUR GUY TO IS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON EVERYTHING HE SAID, EVERYTHING HE DID, HIS REALLY WEIRD SEXUAL LIFESTYLE. I MEAN, THE LIST WOULD GO ON. THAT GUY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR SIX DAYS! SO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE REALLY DESTROYED THE DEFENSE'S CASE. THE DEFENSE DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A CASE ANYWAY, JACK. EST ELLIOTT COULD DO IS POKE TINY HOLES IN SOME OF THE EVIDENCE. I STRETCH THEM WHEN I CALL THEM HOLES. YOU PUT NEIL ENTWISLE ON THE STAND YOU WILL BLOW ATOMIC-SIZE HOLES INTO THE PROS DEFENSE. IT'S HIS LOOK THAT WORKED TO HIS ADVANTAGE AND NOT THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. I DON'T THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT IT WAS MUCH OF AN ADVANTAGE. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND KNOW THEIR WAY AROUND A COURTROOM WHO AS YOU SAID, WENDY, SO MUCH ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE IF YOU PUT HIM ON THE STAND AND BASICALLY HOW MUCH MORE ARE YOU GOING TO GET FROM HIM THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS THERE? EVENT WENDY WILL STAY ON AS WE LOOK AT EVENTS BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM. THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS TOOK PLACE A COUPLE OF HOURS AGO. AND BETH WILL STAY WITH US. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BREAK WE WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME OF WHAT WAS SAID INSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE DEFENSE CLOSINGS. WHERE WE HEARD THEM SAY NEIL ENTWISLE WAS NOT THE KILLER. RACHEL WAS. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD." WE ARE IN SESSION. BRIEF BREAK IN THE COURTROOM BUT WE ARE GETTING BACK UNDER WAY WITH THE FINAL SECONDS FROM THE JUDGE TO THE JURY. SO IMPORTANT, THE INSTRUCTIONS, THE LAST THING THEY HEAR BEFORE THEY HAVE TO DECIDE NEIL ENTWISLE'S FATE. ONE OF THE LAST THINGS THEY HEARD WAS NEIL ENTWISLE'S ATTORNEY NOT PUTTING ON A CASE. HE DIDN'T. HE JUST DID THE CLOSINGS. VERY EFFECTIVE CLOSINGS, ODD, I'LL SAY THAT. BUT EFFECTIVE. I'VE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING TRYING TO GIVE THIS GUY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ALL ALONG, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, RIGHT? WAITING FOR HIS STORY, WILLING TO ACCEPT HIS STORY IF IT'S PLAUSIBLE, IF IT'S REASONABLE. AND THE ONLY STORY WE GOT IS THIS, I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU. IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE CLOSING AMENT BY ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN, THE ATTORNEY FOR NEIL ENTWISLE. HAVE A LISTEN. >> 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. PROSECUTION SEEKS TO CONVINCE YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT NEIL KILLED THEM BOTH. WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? BECAUSE HE VISITED INTERNET IS EXCITES? HOW MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE VISIT THESE SITES EACH DAY? THERE'S 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 DEBTS. BECAUSE THEY HAD BOUGHT SOME FURNITURE FOR THE HOUSE? OR BECAUSE THEIR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WAG NOT 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 WAS A WELL-EDUCATED, TALENTED, EXPERIENCED COMPUTER ENGINEER. NEIL WOULD HAVE GOT AN GOOD JOB. HE WAS RECEIVING JOB INQUIRIES EVEN AFTER HE RETURNED TO ENGLAND. PERHAPS YOU ASK YOURSELVES IF NEIL DIDN'T DO IT, THEN WHO DID. ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE SHOT WITH JOE MATTERAZZO'S .22. PERHAPS YOU HAD COUNTERED THE PEOPLE WHO HAD ACCESS TO THAT .22 WHOSE ALIBIS 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 BIAS, CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS. WHEN THE CRIME SCENE SERVICES CHEMIST, MR. SORES AND MISS DYINGEN MET WITH DETECTIVES AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION AND LATER DEPARTED WITH THEIR FIELD NOTES ALREADY FILLED IN WITH NEIL ENTWISLE'S NAME, THIS INVESTIGATION WAS NOT OPEN-ENDED. WHY? BECAUSE THE INVESTIGATORS' BIAS 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 PHOTOGRAPHERS USE FILTERS, THEY LET IN MORE OR LESS LIGHT, HELP TO FOCUS OR BLUR AN IMAGE, PERMIT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO CAPTURE THE EXACT IMAGE THAT HE IS SEEKING. INVESTIGATORS SHOULD TAKE ALL STEPS TO SEE THINGS CLEARLY. CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NEUTRAL AND OPEN-MINDED. BECAUSE IF THEY GO ABOUT THEIR WORK WITH A BIAS, BE IT 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, UNINTENTIONALLY. MR. SOARES AND MISS DYGEN, BEGAN WITH THE WORK AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION AND STATE POLICE DETECTIVES IDENTIFYING FOR THEM THAT NEIL WAS A SUSPECT. EVERYONE'S MINDSET, EVERYONE'S FRAME OF REFERENCE FILTERED INFORMATION TO SOLVE A MURDER. NO ONE WAS OPEN TO EVEN CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF SUICIDE. THE FIRST POLICE DETECTIVE SAW THE BODIES ON THE BED AND ASSUMED THAT 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. WHEN YOU STUDY THAT, YOU'LL SEE THAT RACHEL'S HANDS WERE UNDERNEATH THE PILLOW. >> OKAY. I'M STILL -- I'M STILL OPEN TO THIS. WENDY MURPHY, I AM STILL OPEN TO ANOTHER THEORY. I ALWAYS AM. HERE'S MY PROBLEM. IF THIS ENTIRE THEORY THAT ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN IS PUTTING FORTH CENTERS AROUND THE WHOLE CONCEPT THAT NEIL WAS SO OVERWROUGHT ABOUT THIS MURDER/SUICIDE COMMITTED BY RACHEL, THAT HE DECIDED TO PROTECT HER HONOR, PROTECT HER HONOR, WEINSTEIN SAID IT IN COURT. AND TAKE THE GUN AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE MATTERAZZOS TO PROTECT HER HONOR FROM NOT ONLY THE STIGMA OF SUICIDE BUT THE STIGMA OF MURDER ALSO, BABY MURDER. UM, OKAY, WENDY, I'M GOOD WITH THIS UNTIL WE GET TO ENGLAND AND HE WANTS TO SELL THE STORY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOOD WITH IT. I'M SO NOT GOOD WITH IT EVEN BEFORE THEN, BUT I UNDER YOUR POINT. >> I'M TRYING, WENDY. IT'S A REACH, MY DEAR, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, ON THIS SHOW YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. I CANNOT SAY IT ENOUGH BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS. AND I'M STRUGGLING AND STRUGGLING SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING TO THINK THROUGH IT TO GET IN HIS HEAD AND GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND BY THIS POINT I'M NOW GETTING MAD. BECAUSE TO SUGGEST FOR A MINUTE THAT YOU'RE DEFENDING HER HONOR AND THEN SELLING HER STORY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, WELL, I'M SORRY I'M NOT AN IDIOT. >> NO, YOU'RE NOT. AND I GIVE YOU A LOT OF CREDIT, ASHLEIGH, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO CONTINUE TO PRESUME INNOCENCE UNTIL THE END EVEN WHEN IT'S IRRATIONAL AND DIFFICULT, SO I GIVE YOU A LOT OF CREDIT. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE THEORY IS RIDICULOUS AND EVEN ASSUMING COULD YOU BUY INTO IT BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO OR BECAUSE YOU REALLY BELIEVED THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME EXPLANATION. THE GOOD NEWS FOR ME IS, ASHLEIGH, TALK ABOUT CYNICISM TAKING A DAY OFF, AND I'M A PRETTY CYNICAL PUNDIT AS THE CASES GO, I GET NERVOUS BECAUSE I'M FULLY EXPECTING ELLIOTT TO PUT ON SOME HIRED GUN WHO WOULD SELL THEIR SOUL TO MAKE THAT THEORY ACTUALLY SOUND SCIENTIFIC AND GUESS WHAT, HE COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY! HE COULDN'T FIND AN EXPERT WHO FOR A FEE WOULD BE WILLING TO TESTIFY THAT UP IS DOWN AND BLACK IS WHITE AND THIS WAS SUICIDE/MURDER AT THE HAND OF RACHEL ENTWISLE. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS. I FEEL SO RELIEVED THAT HE COULDN'T FIND AN EXPERT WILLING TO TAKE A STAND AND SAY THAT IT HAS VALIDITY. >> I'M GOING TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AND I'M DOING IT EVERY DAY AND THE CASE ISN'T OVER YET AND I'LL KEEP DOING THAT UNTIL WE HEAR WHAT THE JURY HAD TO SAY. AND MAYBE IT WASN'T ABOUT AN EXPERT. MAYBE IT WASN'T ABOUT A SCIENTIST, MAYBE IT WAS ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE AND MAYBE ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN REALLY FELT LIKE THE PROSECUTION HADN'T MET ITS BURDEN OR THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME OTHER ADVANTAGE NOT TO PUTTING ON A CASE. I'M THE LAYPERSON HERE. YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR. PLACE EXPLAIN TO ME, MISS MURPHY, WHAT ADVANTAGE, WHAT ADVANTAGE, MIGHT HE HAVE ACTUALLY REACHED NOT PUTTING ON A CASE? >> WELL, THE ONLY EXPLANATION, THE ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, ASHLEIGH, IS THAT HE HONESTLY BELIEVED THAT EVEN FOR THE SMALL POINTS THAT HE MADE, TO PUT EXPERTS ON TO TESTIFY -- TO TESTIFY ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE ANGLE OF THE GUNSHOT IN RACHEL'S HEAD, IF HE HAD FOUND AN EXPERT WILLING TO SAY SHE COULD HAVE DONE THIS HERSELF, THE EXPERT'S REPUTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO THE JURY THAT THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY TO THE THEORY. IT'S BETTER JUST TO TOSS IT OUT THERE AS ALMOST LARGE SPECULATION BECAUSE THE JURY HASN'T HEARD A SCIENTIST SAY THAT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. THEY EVEN HEARD THE PROSECUTION'S OWN MEDICAL EXAMINER SAY IT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE GUNSHOT RESIDUE, IT'S POSSIBLE. SO, THAT'S GOOD FROM A DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE. THAT'S GOOD. YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE SAYING IT'S POSSIBLE. I THINK IF YOU PUT AN EXPERT ON, ANY EXPERT WHO CARED ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR REPUTATION WOULD HAVE BEEN CROSS-EXAMINED TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD HAVE BECOME I THINK A GOOD WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. SO, HE DID THE RIGHT THING BY NOT PUTTING ON A CASE, BECAUSE FRANKLY, HE DOESN'T HAVE A CASE. >> YEAH, IT'S PRETTY -- IT'S -- A LOT OF IT IS A REAL REACH. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP AS WELL. I GOT TO GO TO A BREAK. I DID SOME GYMNASTICS ON THE SET FRIDAY WHERE REMI AND I WERE SITTING ON THE SET TOGETHER AND I TRIED TO ACTUALLY HOLD MY HANDS OUT AS FAR AS IT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO HOLD THAT GUN WITH THE LONG BARREL AND 18 INCHES I THINK THAT WERE REQUIRED BETWEEN THE END OF THE BARREL AND MY HEAD AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE LONG ENOUGH ARMS AND I'M 56 INCH AND SHE'S ONLY'5", I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HER ARMS ARE. >> EXACTLY MY POINT. >> THE JURY RECOMMENDED TO THE JURY THAT THEY PICK UP THE GUN IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM AND TRY IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. I'M NOT SURE WHERE HE WAS GOING WITH THAT, WHY HE WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED THAT, BECAUSE THE MINUTE THEY DID THAT THEY'D HAVE FOUND IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT IN A MINUTE. WE GOT TO SQUEEZE IN A QUICK BREAK. BECAUSE COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK, SOME O.J. NEWS, YES, FOLKS, WE'VE GOT MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT INFORMATION YOU CAN GLEAN FROM A JUROR BEFORE HE OR SHE CAN BE PICKED TO DECIDE THAT MAN'S FATE IN THE MIDDLE TWO GOOD LAWYERS, BLANKED, WHOA, WHAT WILL THESE JURORS BE ASKED ABOUT O.J. AND HIS PAST? ALL COMING UP IN A MOMENT. >>> WELL, ANOTHER BIG STORY IN THE NEWS THAT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR A WHILE AND GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE IN THE NEWS. O.J. SIMPSON, WELL, A JUDGE HAS DENIED A MOTION FOR O.J. SIMPSON'S TWO CO-DEFENDANTS WHO ARE ATTEMPTING TO BE TRIED SEPARATELY FROM SIMPSON, THE TWO MEN ACCUSED OF SEIZING MEMORABILIA ITEMS IN A HOTEL ROOM. GUNS WERE ALLEGEDLY USED. THEY FACE THE POSSIBILITY OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. AND JOINING US TODAY IS CORRESPONDENT JEAN CASAREZ WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THIS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. LET'S GET UP TO DATE ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURTROOM ON FRIDAY. BECAUSE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE COURT HAD TO DEAL WITH. LET'S START OFF FIRST BY THE APPLICATION BY THE OTHER TWO CO-DEFENDANTS. BASICALLY THEY WANT OUT, THEY SAID BASICALLY FROM THE BEGINNING WE DON'T WANT TO BE TRIED WITH O.J. SIMPSON. TELL US WHAT THE ARGUMENTS WERE AND THEN WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY. BUT LET'S START OFF AS TO WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AS TO WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE TRIED WITH O.J. SIMPSON. >> WELL, THEY DESPERATELY WANT TO GET OUT TO BE SEVERED. THE ARGUE OPERATE FRIDAY BECAUSE IT WAS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION FOR SEVERANCE, THEY SAID THERE'S NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE AND IT IS TWOFOLD. NUMBER ONE, IT IS THE BOOK OF TOM RICCIO THAT HAS RECENTLY COME OUT AND IT GOES INTO LENGTH ABOUT CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN HIM AND O.J. SIMPSON AND THE CONSPIRACY IN THIS CASE AND IT NEVER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER TWO CO-DEFENDANTS. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS. THEY'RE NOT FULLY DISCUSSED IN THE CONVERSATIONS, THOUGHT THEY SHOULD BE SEVERED. SECONDLY, BECAUSE OF THE INHANESED AUDIOTAPES, YOU KNOW, JACK, THERE ARE SO MANY AUDIOTAPES IN THIS CASE AND THE FBI HAS ENHANCED THEM. SO, YOU CAN MORE CLEARLY HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID. THEY SAY THAT WITH THE ENHANCED VERSIONS, THEIR CLIENTS AREN'T TALKING. THEY'RE NOT DISCUSSED. YOU DON'T HEAR ABOUT THEM. THEY'RE NOT A PART OF THE ACTUAL CONSPIRACY ALLEGEDLY OOZE IT'S HAPPENING, THUS, THEY SHOULD BE SEVERED. THE JUDGE SAID NO. WE HEARD EVERYTHING IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. IT'S NOT NEW EVIDENCE. MOTION DENIED. >> YEAH, SOME INTERESTING ARGUMENT, THOUGH, JEAN. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS. LET'S LISTEN TO AS JEAN SAID, JUDGE JACKIE GLASS. THE IT ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY IN RESPONSE HERE. >> THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE PREVIOUSLY FILED MOTION FOR SEVERANCE IS AGAIN DENIED. THE SAME ISSUES THAT WERE AVAILABLE TO US TO DISCUSS THE LAST TIME ARE STILL THE SAME ISSUES. YOU SAT THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. YOU HEARD THE TESTIMONY. THESE DEFENDANTS ARE ALL GOING TO GO TO TRIAL TOGETHER. THEY'LL BE ONLY PROBABLY ONE WAY THAT THESE DEFENDANTS WON'T ALL GO TO TRIAL TOGETHER. THAT'S IF YOU PICK UP THE PHONE, MR. MORON, CALL OVER TO THE STATE AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF NEGOTIATION YOUR CLIENT CAN ENTER INTO. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, AS LONG AS THAT DOESN'T OCCUR AND THERE'S NOTHING ACCEPTED, ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO TRIAL TOGETHER AND THE MOTION IS DENIED. >> SO, NOT MUCH DOUBT ABOUT WHERE THE JUDGE STANDS ON THAT ISSUE. AND, AGAIN, I THINK MOST ANALYSTS THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD END UP GOING TO TRIAL ANYWAY, BUT GOOD ARGUMENTS AND A GOOD ATTEMPT MADE BY THE DEFENSE HERE. SO, JEAN, ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THEY FOCUS ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM WAS ONCE AGAIN THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. EVERYBODY AGREES IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PREPARE SOMETHING IN ADVANCE TO PRESENT THE POTENTIAL JURORS TO HELP THE WEEDING-OUT PROCESS. TELL US WHAT THE BIG ISSUE WAS INSIDE THE COURTROOM NOW ABOUT THIS PROPOSED JURY QUESTIONNAIRE. >> WELL, IT'S THE FIRST QUESTIONS BOTH SIDES DISAGREE UPON. THE JUDGE SAID IN OPEN COURT THAT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AT THIS POINT IS 70 TO 80 PAGES LONG, SO ABOUT 115 QUESTIONS. BUT THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF DISAGREEMENT. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. O.J. SIMPSON COUNSEL'S, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, DO YOU BELIEVE O.J. SIMPSON HAS A RIGHT TO EARN A LIVING AND AN OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT HIS FAMILY. THE OTHER QUESTION HIS COUNSEL WANTED YOU TO BELIEVE O.J. SIMPSON HAS LED A LAWFUL LIFE AND A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS. THOSE QUESTIONS THE JUDGE IS NOT GOING TO ALLOW. BUT ONE THAT SHE IS CONSIDERING THAT WOULD FAVOR THE OTHER CO-DEFENDANTS IS, IN FACT, IF THERE WAS A SPILLOVER EFFECT HERE. DO YOU HAVE NEGATIVE OPINIONS ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CO-DEFENDANTS BECAUSE OF BEING TRIED WITH O.J. SIMPSON? >> AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT THE DEFENSE WANTS TO KNOW. ESPECIALLY THE DEFENSE LAWYERS WHO LOST THEIR MOTION NOW TO SEVER OUT, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY YOU WANT TO DELVE INTO THE THINKING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS HERE. AND SPEAKING OF DELVING INTO THE THINKING, JEAN, WHAT HAS THE JUDGE SAID? AND WE'VE ALL SAID HOW IMPRESSED WE ARE WITH JUDGE JACKIE GLASS AND HOW SHE'S RUNNING THE COURTROOM AND FAIR TO BOTH SIDES IT CERTAINLY APPEARS TO ME, BUT WHAT HAS SHE SAID ABOUT THE EXTENSIVE QUALITY AND NATURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEN HOW MUCH, IF ANY, SORT OF FOLLOW-UP SHE'S GOING TO ALLOW TO THOSE QUESTIONS? >> I THINK THIS WAS HUGE THAT CAME OUT OF THE STATUS CHECK ON FRIDAY. SHE GAVE THEM AN OPTION. YOU CAN HAVE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU CAN HAVE IT, BUT LET ME TELL YOU, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, BUT THEN DAVE GRAPO STOOD UP AND VERY POLITELY SAID TO THE COURT, SOMETIMES THERE ARE TWO-WORD ANSWERS, THREE-WORD ANSWERS, I'VE GOT TO GO INTO THE QUESTIONS IF THEY DON'T FULLY EXPLAIN THEMSELVES. >> DO WE KNOW YET, JEAN, IF THE JUDGE WOULD BE DOING THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, OR WILL THE JUDGE ALLOW THE LAWYERS TO DO THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION? >> WHAT I HAVE HEARD IS THE JUDGE LIKES TO DO THE VOIR DIRE HERSELF. SHE DOES. THEY HAVE ASKED FOR INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE, ESPECIALLY O.J. SIMPSON'S COUNSEL, SHE'S NOT YET RULED ON THAT, BECAUSE SHE SAID NORMALLY WE DON'T NEED THAT IN COURT. I THINK IT WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE END BUT I THINK SHE'LL TAKE CHARGE OF THE JURY VOIR DIRE. >> ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU, JEAN. THERE'S AN GREAT DEAL OF DEBATE OBVIOUSLY AND THE FOCUS ON THE DEFENSE HERE FOR O.J. SIMPSON IS YOU KNOW WHAT, IF THERE WERE GUNS IN THAT ROOM, I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I DIDN'T ORDER THEM TO BRING IT. I WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO BRING IT, I WOULDN'T CONTINUE NANCE GUNS IN THE ROOM. SO, CLEARLY, WE KNOW WHERE THE BATTLEGROUND WILL BE INSIDE THE COURTROOM. BUT THERE WAS A PIECE OF TAPE THAT WAS PLAYED THAT FOCUSED ON O.J. SIMPSON'S KNOWLEDGE AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION. TELL US ABOUT THAT PIECE OF TAPE AND WHY IT WAS SO IN FOCUS ON FRIDAY. >> YOU KNOW, IT WAS PART OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SEVERANCE AND IT WAS EXHIBIT C. IT WAS AT THE VERY END OF IT. REALLY WASN'T TOUCHED IN OPEN COURT. BUT WHEN I READ IT, I SAID WAIT A MINUTE, BECAUSE IT'S A CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL McCLINTON AND O.J. SIMPSON, WE HEARD HIM STAY ON THE STAND I RECORDED O.J. AT THE BAR AND THE PONDS AND YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING AND THE FBI ENHANCED THAT TAPE AND WHAT I SAID THAT O.J. SIMPSON WAS TRYING TO CALM DOWN MICHAEL McCLINTON. COME ON, YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE PIECE OUT IN THE HALL, DID YOU? YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT OUT? NO, NO, I DIDN'T. ALL THEY ARE GOING TO SEE US ON THE TAPE IS US CARRYING OUT BOXES. THAT CAN BE USED ALSO FOR THE DEFENSE. IT CAN WORK THE OTHER WAY THAT O.J. DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE GUN UNTIL MICHAEL McCLINTON TOLD HIM ABOUT IT. >> LET'S PUT UP -- WE HAVE A FULL SCREEN THAT TALKS ABOUT -- THAT SETS FORTH EXACTLY WHAT THE ENHANCED VERSION OF THAT TAPE RECORDING SHOWS HERE. IT'S A CONVERSATION BETWEEN O.J. SIMPSON AND McCLINTON. LET'S PUT IT UP FOR A SECOND HERE IF WE CAN. AND, JEAN, LET ME TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT. O.J. SIMPSON IS TALKING. SO, IF YOU PULL OUT THAT LINE, YOU DIDN'T PULL THE PIECE OUT IN THE HALL, JEAN, YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAID, IF I'M THE PROSECUTOR, I CAN MAKE ONE ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT. IF I'M THE DEFENSE LAWYER, I CAN MAKE THE OTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT. GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT YOU WOULD BE SAYING IF YOU WERE THE PROSECUTOR OR THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY. >> WELL, IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR, YOU'RE SAYING EVEN IF HE DOESN'T KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT, HE KNOWS AFTER THE FACT AND HE TALKS ABOUT THE PIECE AND THERE'S ONLY ONE DEFINITION FOR A PIECE, THAT'S A GUN. THE DEFENSE CAN COUNTER THAT, THAT O.J. SIMPSON DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND WHEN HE ASKED HIM ABOUT IT, THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO, WHEN HE SAYS PIECE. IT COULD BE A PIECE OF MEMORABILIA. YOU CAN'T INTERPRET O.J.'S STATE OF MIND. >> I THINK WE'RE SETTING THE STAGE, JEAN, FOR A LOT OF DEBATE OVER THE WORDS THAT WERE EXPRESSED HERE BY SO MANY OF THE PARTICIPANTS. THE LAST QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, JEAN, WHAT'S NEXT IN THE SCHEDULE FOR THE FLILE >> THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER MONTHLY STATUS CHECK NEXT MONTH. THE JUDGE IS DOING IT ONCE A MONTH TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN ROW FOR THE TRIAL TO BEGIN SEPTEMBER 8th. >> AS ALWAYS, OUR THANKS YOU TO FOR HELPING US GUIDE THROUGH ALL OF THIS. A WONDERFUL JOB AS ALWAYS. WE'LL CHECK IN WITH YOU AS LONG AS THIS CASE CONTINUES TO UNFOLD. OUR OWN JEAN CASAREZ THERE. WE'LL STEP ASIDE. A QUICK BREAK OF OUR OWN. WHEN WE RETURN, WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE THAT COURTROOM, BECAUSE WE EXPECT THE JUDGE TO BE TALKING WITH THE JURORS. THAT VERY CRITICAL MOMENT WHEN THE JURORS ARE TOLD WHAT THE LAW IS IN THIS CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISLE. AND THEN THE JURORS WILL DECIDE HIS FATE. WE'LL BE BACK LIVE INSIDE THE COURTROOM IN JUST A QUICK MOMENT. DON'T GO AWAY. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD." WE ARE IN SESSION. THEY ARE NOT IN SESSION YET, BUT JUST A COUPLE MINUTES LATE BECAUSE THEY WERE SCHEDULED TO GET UNDER WAY, SO WE ARE CHECKING THE LIVE CAMERA SHOT TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T MISS A MOMENT AS THIS TRIAL WINDS DOWN FAR MORE RAPIDLY THAN WE EXPECTED. WE THOUGHT WE HAD AT LEAST UNTIL TOMORROW, PERHAPS, BUT NO DEFENSE CASE. NO DEFENSE CASE. BETH KARAS, LISTEN, I GET IT THAT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS A REQUIREMENT. IT CERTAINLY HAPPENS A LOT, THE DEFENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON A CASE. THE DEFENSE ISN'T REQUIRED TO PROVE ANYTHING. BUT DO YOU GET A SENSE BEING THERE IN MASSACHUSETTS, WHETHER THIS HAS FALLEN FLAT? DO YOU GET A SENSE THAT THE TRIAL WATCHERS, PEOPLE TALKING AT ALL, WHETHER THEY WERE EXPECTING TO HEAR SOMETHING FROM NEIL ENTWISLE AND FELT SOMEWHAT CHEATED IN THE FACTS OR THE STORIES SURROUNDING THIS CASE, NOT HEARING FROM THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN A DEFENSE CASE? >> Reporter: WELL, SOME OF WHAT YOU SAY, YES, BUT NOT EVERYTHING. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO MAY FEEL, OH, THAT'S IT? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE DEFENSE? THEY'RE NOT SEASON COURT WATCHERS OR THEY DON'T REALLY UNDER THE COURTROOM THE WAY WE DO. I MEAN, THE DEFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TO PUT ON ANYTHING AND YOU CAN'T CREATE EVIDENCE. UNLESS THEY HAD AN EXPERT THAT THEY COULD PUT ON, AND, YOU KNOW, WHO ARE THEY GOING TO PUT ON BESIDES THEIR CLIENT AND HE SPOKE PLENTY BEFORE THE TRIAL TO THE POLICE. THEY DON'T NEED TO PUT HIM ON TO, YOU KNOW, BACK HIM -- HAVE HIM BACKED INTO A CORNER YET AGAIN BY SOMEONE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, THIS TIME ONE OF THEM MICHAEL FABBRI. AS WENDY WAS SAYING EARLIER, ANY EXPERT THEY MAY HAVE WANTED TO CALL MAY HAVE LOST CREDIBILITY IN HIS OR HER FIELD OF EXPERTISE IF THE SUICIDE THEORY WAS ACCEPTED. BECAUSE THESE EXPERTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE UNBIASED. THEY GET HIRED GENERALLY BY BOTH SIDES AND WHAT THEY TESTIFY IN A TRIAL GET MEMORIALIZED IN A TRANSCRIPT OR IN THIS CASE MEMORIALIZED ON TAPE, AND IT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT THEM IN FUTURE TRIALS. AND EXPERTS ARE NOT SO QUICK CONTRARY TO WHAT SOME PEOPLE MAY THINK, TO GIVE AN OPINION THAT ONE SIDE WANTS. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. >> OKAY, I'LL GO WITH THAT. A LOT OF JURORS MAY NOT KNOW THE PROCESS AND MAY NOT KNOW THAT THAT'S AN OPTION FOR A DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO GET AN EXPERT OR NOT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS THEORY OF HOLDING THE GUN WAY FAR OUT FROM THE HAIRLINE IS PLAUSIBLE. BUT LET ME GO ANOTHER WAY. SCIENTISTS ASIDE, EXPERTS ASIDE, WHAT ABOUT MR. AND MRS. ENTWISLE? WHAT ABOUT RUSSELL ENTWISLE? THEY HAVE BEEN SITTING BEHIND THAT DEFENDANT EVERY SINGLE DAY? THEY'VE BEEN WEEPING AND SOBBING. CLEARLY THAT HAS NOT BEEN LOST ON THE JURY. THEY ARE PART OF THE STORY WHEN NEIL ARRIVED IN ENGLAND. NO HIDE NOR HAIR OF THEM, NEITHER THE PROSECUTOR OR THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CALLING THEM. WHY? >> THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. FIRST OF ALL, THEY HAVE RELEVANT INFORMATION. THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. THEY SPENT TWO OR THREE WEEKS WITH HIM AFTER THE FACT. AT A MINIMUM THEY COULD TESTIFY TO, YOU KNOW, HIS DEMEANOR, HOW HE WAS ACTING BUT ONLY IF THE OTHER SIDE CALLED THEM. THEY CANNOT GET ON THE STAND ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE AND SAY FAVORABLE THINGS ABOUT ENTWISLE AT LEAST NOT TO HIS STATEMENTS, BECAUSE THAT'S SELF-SERVING. THAT'S NOT PERMISSIBLE. IF ANY OF ENTWISLE'S SELF-SERVING FAVORABLE, HELPFUL STATEMENTS GOING TO COME IN, THEY HAVE TO COME IN FROM ENTWISLE HIMSELF SO HE CAN BE SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND THE PROSECUTION, ON THE OTHER SIDE, I MEAN, COULD THEY HAVE SUBPOENAED HIM, ONCE THEY'RE ON U.S. SOIL? I SUPPOSE. BUT MICHAEL FABBRI HAD A LOT -- HE HAS A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO WORK WITH. IS HE GOING TO MAKE THE PARENTS OF THIS YOUNG MAN GET ON THE STAND AND TESTIFY AGAINST HIM? I THINK NOT. >> OKAY -- >> WHILE HE MAY HAVE CONSIDERED IT, I THINK HE WOULD NOT. >> I AM CONFUSED. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND YOUR EXPLANATION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE DIRECTLY INTEGRAL TO THE TIMELINE OF ALL OF THIS? I THINK AS A JURY, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT HOT AND HEAVY ABOUT NEIL'S PATTERN OF DISCOVERY WITH NEIL'S MOTHER ON THE STAND HAVING TO ANSWER WHAT DAY AND TIME HE ARRIVED AT THE HOUSE? HIS IDEA OF FLEEING MASSACHUSETTS BECAUSE HE NEEDED THE COMFORT OF HIS FAMILY WAS TO SCOOT TO ENGLAND AND SCOOT OVER TO A HOTEL AND SPEND 36 HOURS BEFORE HE GOT TO HIS LOVING FAMILY, I THINK I WOULD WANT HIS MOM TO TELL ME THAT. >> I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IF THE PROSECUTION DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS THEY HAD, THEY MIGHT HAVE PRESSED A LITTLE BIT. THEY DID HAVE TWO OF ENTWISLE'S UNIVERSITY BUDDIES TO TESTIFY THAT ENTWISLE MADE TO THEM, EXPLAINING HIS CONDUCT, NOT INCONSISTENCIES NOT ONLY TO EACH OTHER'S STORIES BUT WHAT HE HAD TOLD TROOPER MANNING ON THE TELEPHONE. SO, THEY HAVE THAT AS PART OF THEIR TIMELINE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DAYS BEFORE ARREST. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A THREE-WEEK TIME PERIOD IN ENGLAND. WE DO KNOW THAT CLIFFORD ENTWISLE CALLED JOE MATTERAZZO TO SAY NEIL'S HERE. THIS IS WHAT HE TOLD US. WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT THE ENTWISLES WERE RESPONSIVE TO -- TO THE MATTERAZZOS. THE PROSECUTION CAN LIVE WITHOUT THE MOTHER GETTING ON THE STAND AND TESTIFYING ABOUT HER SON. I MEAN, THEY COULD JUST LIVE WITHOUT IT. THEY HAVE PLENTY TO WORK WITH. >> ALL RIGHT. LET ME TURN MY ATTENTION TO WENDY MURPHY FOR A MOMENT. BECAUSE AS A PROSECUTOR, I KNOW NOTHING GETS BY YOU, MY FRIEND. I'VE SEEN YOU ON SO MANY TV SHOWS COMING UP WITH THEORIES THAT I NEVER THOUGHT OF. AND I HAVE ONE FOR YOU. I WANT TO ASK YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS. THIS COULD BEING CRAZY "CSI" GIRL, BUT I WAS LISTENING AS THE TAPES WERE BEING PLAYED OUT LIVE IN COURT ON FRIDAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THERE. IN CASE YOU WEREN'T, I WANT YOU TO HEAR IT AGAIN. A LITTLE PIECE OF THE TAPE WHERE NEIL ENTWISLE IS SPEAKING WITH THE TROOPER ON THE TELEPHONE. AGAIN, IT'S A TWO-HOURLONG CONVERSATION THAT HE'S HAVING, COMPLETELY VOLUNTARILY WITH THE TROOPER GOING THROUGH HIS STORY TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HE DID UPON FINDING THE DEAD BODIES OF HIS WIFE AND HIS DAUGHTER. I WANT TO SPECIFICALLY DRAW YOUR ATTENTION, WENDY, TO THE POINT THAT HE DECIDED TO GET IN THE CAR AND WENT TO THE MATTERAZZOS. AND THEN IT CHANGED. BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE MIGHT KILL HIMSELF BECAUSE HE KNEW THERE WERE GUNS IN THE HOUSE. I WANT YOU TO LISTEN CAREFULLY FOR WHAT I THINK IS A FREUDIAN SLIP. I MAY BE IMAGINE THINGS HERE. I THINK IT'S A FREUDIAN SLIP. HE SAID I WENT THERE SO I COULD FINISH -- I MEAN, SO I COULD KIND OF GET MYSELF THAT WAY. I WANT YOU TO LISTEN FOR ME AND THEN I WANT IND OF GET MYSELF, YOU KNOW, THAT WAY. >> I COULD GET MYSELF THAT WAY. DID YOU HEAR IT AS WELL? DID YOU HEAR THAT SLIP, THE THOUGHT I COULD FINISH, GET MYSELF THAT WAY? >> I DID. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING, ASHLEIGH, HE DIDN'T TRY AS HARD TO CORRECT HIMSELF LIKE WE HEARD WHEN HE SAID, THAT'S I FOUND THEM, OOPS, THAT'S HOW I LEFT THEM. REMEMBER THAT SLIP THAT HE WAS SO AWARE OF HE ACTUALLY OVERTLY CORRECTED HIMSELF WHICH WAS PRETTY DAMNING, HE DIDN'T SEEM TO WANT TO CORRECT HIMSELF, BUT YOU CAN TELL HE WAS THINKING, OH, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO SAY ABOUT WHAT I WAS DOING THERE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THINKING AS HE'S SPEAKING THAT, OH, MAN I FORGOT TO COME UP WITH AN EXPLANATION THAT I WAS GOING TO STICK WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE. WHEN YOU'RE -- WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE UP A LIE, IT'S HARD TO STICK WITH IT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REAL AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE CONSISTENT. WHEN YOU'RE TELLING THE TRUTH, USUALLY IT COMES OUT VERY SMOOTHLY. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH TELLING NOT SO MUCH THE WORD, FINISH." BUT, BOY, FREUDIAN SLIP, I'LL BUY INTO THAT. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE CRAZY. IT WAS CLEARLY A MAN WHO WAS MAKING UP A LIE. I DIDN'T THINK HE KNEW WHETHER HE WAS BEING CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT BECAUSE GOING BACK TO THE HOUSE AT ALL MAKES NO SENSE UNLESS YOU'RE GUILTY AND YOU WANT TO GET THE GUN BACK THERE. >> LET ME GET JACK BACK ON THIS, BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE COURTROOM, I ALWAYS GO TO THE GREAT STAGE, JACK, BECAUSE HE'S THE VOICE OF REASON. HE OFTEN TELLS ME WHEN I AM CRAZY. BUT WHEN I LISTEN TO THAT AND WHEN I HEARD "FINISH -- I MEAN GET MYSELF THAT WAY." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE WORD FINISH THAN FINISH THE JOB OR FINISH MYSELF OFF OR FINISH WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN STARTED? I ONLY BRING THIS UP BECAUSE WE'D TALKED ABOUT A FREUDIAN SLIP IN THIS CASE AND MUCH ADO WAS MADE ABOUT IT. THE WAY I LEFT THEM -- THE WAY I FOUND THEM" I THINK THAT'S EASILY EXPLAINABLE. I FOUND THEM DEAD AND I LEFT THEM DEAD. I DIDN'T DO IT. BUT THIS ONE I'M NOT SO SURE I EXPLAIN AWAY. FINISH WHAT? >> IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR, YOU WOULD EXPLAIN IT THE WAY YOU SAID. FINISHING WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FAMILY. WAS THIS GOING TO BE, AS THEY SAID IN THE CENTERPIECE, THE AUTHORITIES, LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES BELIEVED IN THE VERY BEGINNING THAT THIS WAS A MURDER/SUICIDE. THEIR THINKING WAS NEIL ENTWISLE KILLED HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE AND KILLED HIS CHILD. . . >>> THIS IS ONE OF THE CASES THAT THE JURORS ARE GOING TO GO IN, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SO MANY QUESTIONS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RESOLVE. GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY HERE? THE JURORS WANT TO ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THEY COME TO THE REALIZATION WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE'RE NOT FINDING. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS -- THE TRIAL DOESN'T PROVIDE AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH. IT CAN PROVIDE THE TRUTH OF THAT MOMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANSWERS. >> WE'VE HAD GREAT INTERVIEWS WITH JURORS AFTERWARDS WHERE WE ASKED QUESTIONS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE SO CRUCIAL, THEY SAID WE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THAT. WE DIDN'T CARE WHAT HE SAID IN THE JAIL CELL. WE DIDN'T CARE IF IT WAS TRUE OR NOT. >> SAID NOT IMPORTANT? >> GOES TO SHOW US ALL. INCLUDING WINNIE MURPHY, SHE'S HEARING ME GOING ON ABOUT MY CRAZY THEORY. ONLY THE JURORS KNOW WHAT'S IMPORTANT. WE'VE BEEN TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS CASE IN THIS COURTROOM IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE STATE OF YOUR MIND. COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION. E-MAIL US COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND QUESTIONS. GO E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT COURTSIDE@CNN.COM. MAKE IT SHORT, SMART, SWEET. WE LOVE YOUR COMMENTS. THAT'S WHY WE PUT THEM ON THE AIR. >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOMEBACK, EVERYONE, TO BANFIELD & FORD, SESSION. I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. >> I'M JACK FORD. WE EXPECTING THEM TO BE IN SESSION NOW. THE JURY HAS HEARD CLOSING ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES. TIME TO HEAR WHAT THE JUDGE HAS TO SAY BEFORE THEY START THE DELIBERATIONS. >> I DON'T OFTEN LOOK FOR AND REACH FOR THE INSTRUCTIONS, BUT THIS ONE, I'M LEFT HANGING WITH SO MUCH INFORMATION. ANYTHING COMING OUT OF THAT COURTROOM WOULD BE WELCOME NEWS. LIVE FROM "IN SESSION," BETH KARAS REPORTING SINCE THE BEGINNING. WE'RE IN A NEW HOUR, WE HAVE NEW VIEWERS. BY THE WAY, IF YOU BLINK, YOU NEED A LOT OF UPDATING ON TODAY BECAUSE A LOT HAPPENED. TAKE IT FROM THERE. >> THE PROSECUTION CONTINUED AND FINISHED ITS CASE IN CHIEF TODAY WITH SERGEANT ROBERT MANNING PLAYING ONE MORE RECORDED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE. IT WAS RECORDED ON JANUARY 24, 2006. THAT'S WHERE MANNING PRESSED HIM ON EXACTLY WHAT HE SAW WHEN HE SAW THE BODIES AND THE POSITION HE LEFT HIM IN AND ENTWISTLE WONDERED IF HE HAD TOUCHED THE BODIES. ENTWISTLE KNEW THAT THERE WAS A BURN IN THE CLOTHING OF THE BABY BUT THE POLICE DIDN'T KNOW IT UNTIL HE REMOVED RACHAEL ENTWISTLE'S ARM. IT DIDN'T PROPORT THE STATEMENT AT THE SCENE. THEN THE COMMONWEALTH RESTED AND THE DEFENSE RESTED. NO DEFENSE CASE. EVIDENCE AFTER 47 WITNESSES OF DAY 12 OF THE EVIDENCE. THE JUDGE HAD THE LAWYERS UP AT SIDEBAR. HE WAS GOING TO QUESTION NEIL ENTWISTLE IN COURT WHEN HE WAIVED THE RIGHT TO TESTIFY. EVERYTHING WAS DONE AT SIDEBAR SO WE DIDN'T HEAR ENTWISTLE SPEAK ALOUD AND ANSWER THE JUDGE'S QUESTIONS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS DUTTON RECORD. THEN THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE JURY WHILE SHE HELD AN INSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE LAWYERS. THEY ARE ABOUT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION OR THE JUDGE IS ABOUT TO GIVE THE INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY. THE LAWYERS MET IN THE COURTROOM -- THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AN HOUR AGO TO GO OVER THE EVIDENCE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE JURY. THE COURTS WILL DO IT DIFFERENTLY, SOMETIMES THEY GIVE THEM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, EXCEPT MAYBE WEAPONS AND THEY HAVE TO ASK FOR THE WEAPONS SPECIFICALLY. THEY GIVE A LIST AND AS THEY'RE DELIBERATING, THEY HAVE TO ASK SPECIFICALLY FOR CERTAIN ITEMS. NOT SURE HOW THEY'LL DO IT THERE. THEY WILL DECIDE THAT IN THE NEXT HOUR. >> JACK AND I REMARKED AT THE BEGIN OF THE PROGRAM THAT THIS MIGHT BE -- IF WE'RE NOT MISTAKEN, THE FIRST TIME IN OPEN COURT THAT WE HEARD NEIL ENTWISTLE'S ATTORNEY, ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN SAY THE WORDS -- RACHAEL KILL THE BABY AND KILLED HERSELF. THERE ARE ALLUSIONS TO THIS IN CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT SUICIDE MAY BE A POSSIBILITY HERE. BUT THIS ON THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON THE PART OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ARE THE FIRST TIME THAT THE JURY HEARD THE WORDS. ARE WE CORRECT? >> HE DIDN'T CALL HER A MURDERER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE DIDN'T SAY IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL KILLING OF THE BABY. GLITCH THE WAY THE BABY WAS SHOT, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL. HE SAYS RACHAEL PUT THE GUN TO HER HEART, BUT IT WASN'T FATAL TO HER. IT WENT THROUGH THE BABY. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IF SHE'S TRYING TO COMMIT SUICIDE AND IT'S A CONTACT WOUND THE GUN IS TO THE BABY'S CHEST SHE'S HOLDING IT TO HER CHEST. HE DID STOP SHORT OF CALLING RACHAEL ENTWISTLE A MURDERER. >> IT IS NICE. IT'S DIFFICULT AS A JUROR TO GET MY MIND AROUND THE IDEA THAT RACHAEL COMMITTED SUICIDE BUT ACCIDENTALLY THE BABY GOT IN THE WAY AND RACHAEL HAD TO TAKE A SECOND SHOT. AND I WASN'T SURE EXACTLY WHAT MR. WEINSTEIN WAS SAYING, BUT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HEARD HIM SAY THE WORD, BUT SHE WAS THE ONE WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. IN ANY CASE, LET ME PLAY FOR OUR AUDIENCE A FEW MOMENTS, A FEW OF HIS REMARKS FOR THIS JURY. HE REFERRED SPECIFICALLY TO NEIL'S ACTIONS AFTER FINDING HIS WIFE AND BABY SHOT DEAD IN THEIR BED AND HE SAYS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS NEIL WAS THINKING AND WHAT NEIL WAS TRYING TO DO WHEN HE TOOK OFF. HAVE A LOOK. >> 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, 11-ISH. 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 RACHAEL. 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 LAP TOP SCREEN AND SAW EXHIBIT 87. THE PICTURE OF HIS BELOVED DAUGHTER, LILIAN. THEN HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND FOUND RACHAEL AND LILIAN. YOU KNOW THAT THERE WAS NO WAY THAT NEIL COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THIS PICTURE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME IF HE HAD JUST KILLED THE 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. STUDIES OF SUICIDE CASES GO -- AND THIS WAS THE TESTIMONY -- HANDGUNS ARE A PREFERRED WEAPON. 97% OF WOMEN WHO COMMIT SUICIDE USED HANDGUNS. MOST SUICIDE BY GUNSHOT ARE SHOTS TO THE HEAD. 72% OF WOMEN SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE HEAD. MOST SUICIDE DO NOT LEAVE A NOTE BEHIND. AND NOT ALL SUICIDE 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 RACHAEL. BUT YOUR TASK AS JURORS TO MEASURE THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY AND THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THAT THEORY TOGETHER WITH THE ABSENCE OF THE EVIDENCE, FAILURES OF EVIDENCE, AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELVES, HAD THE PROSECUTION PROVEN THE CHARGES IN THIS CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? >> NO ONE IS BLAMING RACHAEL. BUT THE SUGGESTION IS THAT SHE KILLED HERSELF AND ACCIDENTALLY GOT THE BABY BETWEEN HER AND THE GUN AND KILLED THE BABY. THAT'S WHAT THIS JURY IS BEING ASKED TO BELIEVE. WILL THEY? WHEN WE COME BACK, LIVE BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM. THEY ARE RECONVENING AS WE SPEAK, GETTING READY TO HEAR FROM THE JUDGE -- THE WOMAN AT THE FRONT OF THAT ROOM WILL TELL THIS JURY WHAT THEIR JOB IS AND THEN DELIBERATIONS ARE ON. >>> AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT VOICES INSIDE THE COURTROOM. THE JURORS HEARD THE VOICES OF THE PROSECUTOR AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, NOW JUDGE DIANE COTMYER EXPLAINING WHAT'S THE LAW IN THIS CASE. THE LAW THAT WILL GUIDE THEIR DLIKS AND HEAR THE COLLECTIVE VOICE OF THE JURORS. MEANTIME, LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT THE JUDGE HAS TO SAY. >> WILL NOT HAVE YOU WITH THEM IN THE JURY ROOM IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. ANYTHING YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARD OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM IS NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THE VERDICTS MUST BE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AND RECEIVED DURING THE TRIAL. YOUR OATH AS JURORS REQUIRES YOU TO PUT ASIDE ANYTHING YOU MAY HAVE READ OR HEARD BEFORE THE TRIAL AND DECIDE THE CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL. CHARTS, MAPS, AND DIAGRAMS THAT WERE USED TO ILLUSTRATE TESTIMONY ARE NOT EVIDENCE UNLESS THEY WERE ADMITTED AS EXHIBITS. SUCH THINGS MAY BE USED BY YOU TO INFORM YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXHIBITS AND TESTIMONY THAT WERE RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE DURING THE TRIAL. BUT IF THEY WERE NOT ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE, THEY WERE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THOSE OF YOU WHO TOOK NOTES, REMEMBER YOUR NOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE AND THEY ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE TESTIMONY. IF YOU TOOK NOTES, YOU MAY USE THEM TO REFRESH YOUR OWN MEMORY OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU MAY NOT USE THEM TO CHALLENGE ANOTHER JUROR'S MEMORY OF THE EVIDENCE EVEN IF THAT JUROR DID NOT TAKE NOTES. ALL RIGHT, NOW, CERTAIN TESTIMONY THAT YOU HEARD CONCERNED COMPUTER SEARCHES THAT THE COMMONWEALTH ALLEGES WERE INITIATED BY THE DEFENDANT ALONG WITH E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE. AND THAT EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED SUBJECT TO LIMITED INSTRUCTIONS. IT IS FOR YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH PROVED THAT THE SEARCHES AND CORRESPONDENCE TOOK PLACE, AND IF SO, THAT THE DEFENDANT CONDUCTED SOME OR ALL OF THE SEARCHES AND ARE CORRESPONDENCE. IF YOU FIND THAT THE ACTIVITY TOOK PLACE AND THAT THE DEFENDANT INITIATED SOME OR ALL OF THE COMPUTER SEARCHES AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE, I INSTRUCT YOU THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE ONLY FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE. THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT ADD MISSABLE TO SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT IS MISBEHAVED IN SOME MANNER, OR HAS A BAD CHARACTER OR PROPENSITY TO COMMIT THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THESE INDICTMENTS. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU DEEM IT RELEVANT TO THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEIL ENTWISTLE AND RACHAEL END WHISK TOLL THE ISSUES OF THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR, PREPARATION, PLANNING, AND TO STATE OF MIND AND/OR MOTIVE TO COMMIT THE CRIMES CHARGE CHARGED IN THESE INDICTMENTS. YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. IN ADDITION, YOU HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT AND SAW A VIDEOTAPE AND PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE BODIES OF RACHAEL ENTWISTLE AND LILIAN ENTWISTLE. IT WOULD BE NATURAL FOR YOU TO FIND THIS EVIDENCE DISTURBING AND UPSETTING. YOU MUST REMEMBER, HOWEVER, THAT YOU ARE THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REACH A VERDICT BY FINDING THE FACTS AND APPLYING THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU. TO DETERMINE THE FACTS IT IS NECESSARY FOR YOU TO EXAMINE AND EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE, TO DETERMINE WHAT IF ANY WEIGHT TO GIVE TO IT. IN DOING SO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PUT ASIDE ANY FEELINGS OF SYMPATHY OR OTHER EMOTIONS THAT YOU MAY EXPERIENCE AS A RESULT OF HEARING AND SEEING THIS EVIDENCE. AND TO BE OBJECTIVE IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOUR EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND YOUR VERDICTS MUST BE BASED ON REASON, ON JUDGMENT, AND NOT ON SYMPATHY OR OTHER EMOTIONS. IF ANY OF YOU REALIZES DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS EITHER, A, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PUT ASIDE ANYTHING THAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OR SEEN OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM AND DECIDE THE CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE TRIAL, OR, B, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PUT ASIDE YOUR EMOTIONS AND DECIDE THE CASE FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OF ALL OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, YOU MUST SO ADVISE THE COURT DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS BY WAY OF A WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. MOST OF THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED AT TRIAL IS OFFERED THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES. AS THE JURY, YOU ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THESE WITNESSES. IF THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY, IT'S YOUR FUNCTION TO RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS AND DECIDE WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. YOU MAY BELIEVE EVERYTHING A WITNESS SAYS OR ONLY PART OF IT OR NONE OF. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE A WITNESS' TESTIMONY THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED, THAT, OF COURSE, IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT IT DID NOT HAPPEN. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THAT TESTIMONY IS A NULLITY, IT'S AS IF IT DOES NOT EXIST AND YOU MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE FOR CREDIBLE EVIDENCE BEFORE DECIDING WHET R WHETHER -- WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE -- IF A WITNESS TESTIFIES THAT HE DID NOT DO SOMETHING, YOUR DISBELIEF OF THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT HE DID IT. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY ON THAT POINT IS A NULLITY. IT'S AS IF IT DOES NOT EXIST AND YOU MUST LOOK AT THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE FACTS ARE. OFTEN IN EVALUATING CREDIBILITY, IT MAY NOT BE SO MUCH WHAT A WITNESS SAYS BUT HOW HE OR SHE SAYS IT THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU A CLUE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE WITNESS' VERSION OF AN EVENT AS BELIEVABLE. IN DETERMINING CREDIBILITY, YOU MAY CONSIDER A WITNESS' CHARACTER, HIS OR HER APPEARANCE AND DEMEANOR ON THE WITNESS STAND, THE WITNESS' FRANKNESS OR LACK OF FRANKNESS IN TESTIFYING, WHETHER THE WITNESS WAS CONTRADICTED BY ANYTHING THAT HE OR SHE SAID BEFORE THE TRIAL, AND WHETHER THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY IS REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE, PROBABLE OR IMPROBABLE IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. YOU MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW GOOD AN OPPORTUNITY THE WITNESS HAD TO OBSERVE THE FACTS ABOUT WHICH HE OR SHE TESTIFIED, THE WITNESS' MENTAL AND PHYSICAL STATE AT THE TIME THE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE, THE DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE THAT THE WITNESS SHOWS, AND WHETHER THE WITNESS' MEMORY SEEMS ACCURATE. YOU MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE WITNESS' MOTIVE FOR TESTIFYING, WHETHER THE WITNESS DISPLAYED ANY BIAS IN TESTIFYING, AND WHETHER THE WITNESS HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE. NOW SIMPLY BECAUSE A WITNESS HAS AN INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF A CASE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WITNESS IS NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH AS HE OR SHE RECALLS IT OR BELIEVES IT TO BE. BUT A WITNESS' INTEREST IN THE CASE IS A FACTOR THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER ALONG WITH EVERYTHING ELSE IN EVALUATING CREDIBILITY. YOU MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT A WITNESS MAY BE PERFECT LISIN SERE IN HIS OR HER ACCOUNT OF AN EVENT AND SIMPLY BE MISTAKEN AS TO THE TRUTH. WHEN YOU EVALUATE THE TESTIMONY THAT THE WITNESS GAVE HERE IN COURT, YOU MAY CONSIDER WHETHER THE WITNESS MADE ANY EARLIER STATEMENT THAT DIFFERS FROM OR CONTRADICTS IN ANY WAY HIS OR HER IN COURT TESTIMONY. THE EARLIER STATEMENT IS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE SOLELY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING THE WITNESS' CREDIBILITY OR BELIEVABILITY. IF YOU DETERMINE THAT AN EARLIER STATEMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY THE WITNESS TESTIFIED IN COURT, YOU MAY DECIDE THAT THE WITNESS' CREDIBILITY OR BELIEVABILITY IS AFFECTED ADVERSELY. OR YOU MAY DECIDE THAT IT IS NOT AFFECTED ADVERSELY, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU MAY USE THE EARLIER STATEMENT. YOU MAY NOT CONSIDER THE EARLIER STATEMENT AS EVIDENCE OR PROOF OF THE TRUTH OF ANY FACT CONTAINED IN THIS STATEMENT. IT IS THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL THAT IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO BELIEVE A WITNESS, KEEP IN MIND THAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES FORGET THINGS OR GET CONFUSED OR REMEMBER AN EVENT DIFFERENTLY. MEMORY IS NOT ALWAYS RELIABLE. WHEN SOMEONE RECOUNTS A STORY TWICE, IT WILL SELDOM BE IDENTICAL IN EVERY DETAIL UNLESS IT'S A MEMORIZED LIE OR THE WITNESSES POSSESSED EXTRAORDINARY PERCEPTION AND RECALL. IT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHETHER ANY CONTRADICTIONS IN A WITNESS' TESTIMONY ARE INNOCENT LAPSES OF MEMORY OR INTENTIONAL FALSEHOODS. THAT MAY DEPEND ON WHETHER IMPORTANT FACTS OR SMALL DETAILS ARE AT ISSUE AND HOW IMPORTANT THE FACT MIGHT HAVE APPEARED TO THE WITNESS AT THE TIME THE FACT WAS PERCEIVED. BUT, AGAIN, CREDIBILITY IS FOR YOU AND FOR YOU ALONE TO DECIDE. CONSIDERING ALL OF THE FACTORS THAT I'VE DESCRIBED TO YOU. NOW, THERE IS ONE MORE POINT ABOUT WITNESSES THAT I NEED TO ADDRESS. CERTAIN WITNESSES ARE REFERRED TO AS EXPERT WITNESSES. THIS TERM REFERS TO WITNESSES WITH SPECIALIZED TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE IN A PARTICULAR FIELD. GENERALLY IN CASES THAT ARE TRIED IN OUR COURTS, BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL, WITNESSES MAY TESTIFY ONLY TO FACTS THAT ARE WITHIN THEIR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. >> SO, JUDGE DIANE COTMYER SETTING FORTH FOR THE JURORS WHAT THE LAW IS IN THE COMMONWEALTH WHAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW WHEN THEY BEGIN THEIR DELIBERATIONS. BACK TO MY FRIEND -- WENDY, AS YOU KNOW, THE CASE LIKE THIS ARE DRAMATIC. THEN THE JUDGE OFFERS UP THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW. AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE THOSE INSTRUCTIONS CAN BE MORE CRITICAL THAN OTHERS. DO YOU LOOK AT THE CASE WHERE THE INSTRUCTIONS THEMSELVES PLAY A MORE CRITICAL ROLE OR IS IT A MORE TRADITIONAL HERE'S WHAT THE LAW IS AND YOU FIGURE IT OUT IN THE CASE? >> I'VE SAID SO MANY TIMES TODAY THAT I THINK THIS IS INCREDIBLY STRONG PROSECUTION CASE. IN THOSE KINDS OF CASES, THE INSTRUCTIONS, I THINK, DON'T MATTER VERY MUCH. IN A CLOSED CASE, JURORS TAKE THE DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT QUITE SERIOUSLY. WHAT DOES REASONABLE MEAN? QUITE FRANKLY, LOTS OF VERY SMART PEOPLE CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. IT'S HOW THE JURY FEELS ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR IN THIS CASE THAT THESE INSTRUCTIONS ARE GOING TO REALLY HAVE MUCH OF AN AFFECT ON WHEN THE JUROR GOES BACK TO DELIBERATE. BUT TILL YOU THIS MUCH -- THEY MAY CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF A SECOND DEGREE CONVICTION IN LARGE PART BECAUSE OF THE SYMPATHY THEY FEEL, BECAUSE OF HOW HANDSOME NEIL IS, BECAUSE OF THE IMPLAUSIBILITY OF IT ALL. WHEN YOU WRAP THAT TOGETHER WITH WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE IN TERMS OF POKING SOME OF THESE HOLES, I THINK FRANKLY THEY'LL BE LISTENING VERY CAREFULLY TO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER, HOW DOES THAT DIFFER FROM FIRST DEGREE MURDER. SHOULD WE PICK THE LESSER CHARGE OVER THE MORE SERIOUS CHARGE? THEN THE JURORS WHO ARE TAKING IT SAYING NO, THEY'RE BASICALLY PUTTING A GUY WAY FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE WHEN THEY SAY GUILTY ON THE FIRST DEGREE. THAT'S WHERE I HEAR -- ON STRONG CASES, THAT'S WHERE JURORS GET STUCK SOMETIMES. >> YOU THINK IN LINE WITH THAT, I SAID FROM THE BEGINNING IF I'M THE DEFENSE LAWYER, I'M FOCUSING SO MUCH ON THE WHY QUESTION HERE AND SAYING TO THE JURORS, LOOK AT THEIR LIFE. LOOK AT THEIR LIFE TOGETHER. LISTEN TO THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES ABOUT THE LOVING HUSBAND AND FATHER. THERE'S JUST NO ANSWER -- NO REASONABLE ANSWER TO THAT WHY. DO YOU THINK THAT SORT OF DILEMMA IS THE KIND OF THING THAT CAN MAKE THEM SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE STILL THINK HE DID IT BUT WE'LL MAKE IT A MURDER TWO HERE. >> ABSOLUTELY, JACK. THAT'S MY POINT. THIS IS WHY -- I WRITE ABOUT THIS IN MY BOOK A LITTLE BIT -- THE DESIRE TO FEEL THAT THE WORLD IS GOOD AND JUST AND SAFE. THE DESIRE TO DISBELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WHO LOOKS LIKE YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORHOOD COULD COMMIT SUCH A HIDEOUS CRIME. IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST POWERFUL URGE THAT JURORS BRING WITH THEM TO THE DELIBERATION ROOM. IT'S NOT A CONSCIOUS BIAS. IT'S NOT AS IF THEY SAY, REALLY, I SHOULD GET OVER MYSELF WHEN I THINK ABOUT HOW HANDSOME HE IS AND THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE THE FACE OF A DANGEROUS MAN. IT'S SO INTERNALIZED. IT OFTEN TRANSLATES SOMETIMES IRRATIONALLY SP IN TO REASONABLE DOUBT. YOU KNOW THE DEFENSE TOOK ON THAT THEME EARLY. IT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT ELLIOTT SAID AND WE KEPT HEARING IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN -- THIS MAN HAD A LOVING RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS WIFE. ADORED HIS CHILD. EVEN THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES COULDN'T DISPUTE THAT. THAT'S DRAMA, THOUGH, THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE, JACK. YOU HAVE TO HOPE THAT THE JUROR GOES IN THERE THINKING ONLY ABOUT THE FACTS. >> POINT WELL MADE IN WHAT YOU WROTE AND WHAT YOU EXPLAINED HERE FOR US, WENDY. WE'RE GOING TO FIT IN A QUICK BREAK OF OUR OWN AS WE'RE CONTINUING TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE COURTROOM. REMEMBER THE LAST WEEK THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IN THAT MURDER TRIAL WAS CROSS EXAMINED ABOUT WOMEN WHO USE HANDGUNS TO COMMIT SUICIDE. IN WHICH HIGH-PROFILE CASE WAS IT THE DEFENSE THEORY THAT THE WOMAN COMMITTED SUICIDE? BONNIE LEE BLAKELEY, CRYSTAL WORTHINGTON -- CLICK ON COURTSIDE OR E-MAIL DIRECTLY AT COURTSIDE@CNN.COM. MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE WHERE YOU ARE, WHERE YOU LIVE, AND WE'LL ANNOUNCE THE NAME OF THE CORRECT VIEWER TO COME UP IN THE CORRECT ANSWER IN A LITTLE WHILE. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD," WE'RE IN SESSION. THE HONORABLE JUDGE IS READING THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PANEL OF 16 JURORS. THEY HAVE NOT PICK WHO HAD THE ALTERNATES WILL BE YET. 16 JURORS LISTENING INTENTLY TO EVERY WORD THAT THIS GOOD WOMAN HAS TO SAY TO HER BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT DECISIONS AHEAD OF THEM TO DECIDE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FATE, GUILTY OR NOT. >> IT'S WHAT WE CALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM UNDERLYING FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVED TO YOU. NOW THE LAW ALLOWS BOTH TYPES OF PROOF IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL, AND YOU MAY GIVE THE SAME WEIGHT TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU GIVE TO DIRECT EVIDENCE. THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES THAT APPLY IN THE CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT YOU MAY DRAW INFERENCES AND CONCLUSIONS ONLY FROM FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVED TO YOU. SECOND -- ANY INFERENCES OR CONCLUSIONS WHICH YOU DRAW MUST BE REASONABLE AND NATURAL BASED ON YOUR COMMON SENSE AND YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE. IN A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT EVERY INFERENCE AND CONCLUSION YOU DRAW BE INEVITAB INEVITABLE. BUT IT IS REQUIRED THAT ANY INFERENCES THAT YOU DRAW BE REASONABLE AND THAT THEY BE CONSISTENT WITH YOUR COMMON SENSE AND YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE. FINALLY, ANY INFERENCE OR CONCLUSION YOU DRAW MUST BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. IT MUST BE FOLLOW LOGICALLY WITH THE EVIDENCE. IT MUST NOT BE BASED ON GUESSWORK OR SPECULATION. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, OR A COMBINATION OF THE TWO, THE COMMONWEALTH MUST PROVE THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. NOW, THERE ARE FOUR SEPARATE CHARGES IN THIS CASE, TWO-COUNTS OF MURDER, ONE COUNT CHARGING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, AND ONE COUNT CHARGING POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. YOU MUST CONSIDER EACH CHARGE SEPARATELY. AND FOR THAT REASON, WHEN THROUGHOUT THE INSTRUCTIONS, I MAY REFER TO CHARGE IN THE SINGULAR. THAT'S BECAUSE YOU MUST CONSIDER EACH CHARGE SEPARATELY. NOW I'M GOING TO TURN TO CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES THAT APPLY IN THIS CASE AND EVERY CASE UNDER OUR FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS. THE DEFENDANT, MR. ENTWISTLE LIKE THE DEFENDANT IN ANY CRIMINAL CASE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. THE JURY MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE LAW NEVER IMPOSES ON A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE THE BURDEN OR DUTY OF CALLING ON ANY WITNESS OR PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. THIS LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE IS NOT AN IDLE THEORY TO BE DISCHARGED OF BY THE JURY BY CAPRICE, PASSION, OR PREJUDICE. FURTHER MORE, THE DEFENDANT IS NOT TO BE FOUND GUILTY ON ANY OF THESE CHARGES ON SUSPICION, GUESSWORK, OR CONJECTURE, BUT ONLY ON EVIDENCE PRODUCED AND ADMITTED BEFORE THIS JURY, IN THIS COURTROOM, THAT ESTABLISHES GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, HELD IN CUSTODY, OR COMPLAINED AGAINST SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED BY YOU AS A CIRCUMSTANCE TENDING TO INCRIMINATE HIM OR CREATING ANY UNFAVORABLE IMPRESSION AGAINST HIM. INDICTMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE. THEY'RE SIMPLY PIECES OF PAPER THAT WE USE IN OUR SYSTEM TO BRING A DEFENDANT BEFORE THE COURT AND THEN INFORM HIM OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM. THE FACT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PRIOR HEARING SUCH AS A GRAND JURY PROCEEDING DOES NOT CHANGE OR ALTER IN THE LEAST THAT PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. YOU ARE NOT TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM THE FACT THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SUCH A HEARING, NOR ARE YOU TO SPECULATE AS TO THE RESULTS OF ANY SUCH HEARING. THE DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL AND UNLESS YOU, THE JURY, DECIDE UNANIMOUSLY THAT THE COMMONWEALTH HAS PROVED THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE UNDER CONSIDERATION BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN THIS CASE, AS IN EVERY CRIMINAL CASE, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH. THE COMMONWEALTH HAS THE BURDEN THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRIAL. THE DEFENDANT NEVER HAS ANY BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE OR TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE. THERE'S NO DUTY RESTING ON THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE OR OTHERWISE ESTABLISH HIS INNOCENCE. THE COMMONWEALTH MUST PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IF, FROM THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED BEFORE YOU, YOU, THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY, ENTERTAIN A REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE CRIMES WITH WHICH HE'S BEEN CHARGED, THEN YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY. AS I SAID, THE BURP IS ON THE -- BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE. I USE THE SINGULAR BECAUSE YOU MUST CONSIDER EACH CHARGE SEPARATELY. IF THE COMMONWEALTH FAILS TO PROVE EACH ELEMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THAT CHARGE. WHAT IS PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? THAT TERM IS OFTEN USED AND PROBABLY PRETTY WELL UNDERSTOOD, THOUGH IT IS NOT EASILY DEFINED. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT DOES NOT MEAN PROOF BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT FOR EVERYTHING IN THE LIVES OF HUMAN BEINGS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR IMAGINARY DOUBT. A CHARGE IS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IF YOU, THE JURY, AFTER YOU HAVE CONSIDERED AND COMPARED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, HAVE IN YOUR MINDS AN ABIDING CONVICTION TO A MORAL CERTAINTY THAT THE CHARGE IS TRUE. I HAVE TOLD YOU THAT EVERY PERSON IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT UNTIL HE OR SHE IS PROVED GUILTY. AND THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH. IF YOU EVALUATE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND YOU STILL HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT REMAINING, THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THAT DOUBT AND MUST BE FOUND NOT GUILTY. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE COMMONWEALTH TO ESTABLISH A PROBABILITY, EVEN A STRONG PROBABILITY, THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOR LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN NOT GUILTY. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. INSTEAD, THE EVIDENCE MUST CONVINCE YOU, THE JURY, OF THE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY TO A REASONABLE AND MORAL CERTAINTY, A CERTAINTY THAT CONVINCES YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND SATISFIES YOUR REASON AND JUDGMENT AS JURORS WHO ARE SWORN TO ACT CONSCIENTIOUSLY ON THE EVIDENCE. THAT IS WHAT IS MEANT BY PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. NOW, YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY AT THIS TRIAL. THE DEFENDANT HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY SINCE THE ENTIRE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE IS ON THE COMMONWEALTH TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS DPLT. IT IS NOT UP TO THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE HE'S INNOCENT. THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT TESTIFY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE'S GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. YOU ARE NOT TO DRAW MY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE DID NOT TESTIFY. YOU ARE NOT TO CONSIDER IT IN ANY WAY OR EVEN TO DISCUSS IT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS. YOU MUST DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMMONWEALTH HAS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE EXHIBITS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE. >>> THE LAWYERS HAVE HAD THEIR SAY. IT'S NOW UP TO THE FINAL WORDS FROM THE JUDGE AND THEN IT IS COMPLETELY UP TO THIS JURY TO DECIDE, WHAT IS NEIL ENTWISTLE? INNOCENT OR GUILTY? >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY ON THE COURTSIDE QUIZ HIGH-PROFILE CASE WAS THE THEORY THAT THEY COMMITTED SUICIDE. THE ANSWER IS -- THE DEATH OF LANA CLARKSON. HE DIED OF A GUNSHOT WOUND OF A HOUSE IN THE FOYER OF THE HOME OF LEGENDARY MUSIC PRODUCER PHIL SPECTOR, SAME NIGHT THEY MET. SPECTER'S DEFENSE WAS AT QUESTION. THE ACTING CAREER WAS LAGGING, TOOK HER OWN LIFE. THE JURY DEADLOCKED AND A NEW TRIAL WAS DECLARED. >>> IN 2001, BARETTA ACTOR ROBERT BLAKE TOOK HIS WIFE TO A RESTAURANT. WHILE SITTING IN A CAR, BLAKELY WAS SHOT TO DEATH. IN 2005, HE WAS TRIED AND ACQUITTED BUT FOUND LIABLE FOR HER WRONGFUL DEATH IN A CIVIL TRIAL. IN 2002, CHRISTA WORTHING TON WAS FOUND DEAD. HER BABY DAUGHTER CRYING AT HER SIDE. THREE YEARS LATER, A GARBAGE COLLECTOR WAS CONVICT IN HER MURDER. ALETA, PAYING ATTENTION TO ALL OF THE TRIALS. NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHAT THE JURY HEARD BEFORE THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PROVIDED TO THEM BY THE TRIAL JUDGE. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO SHOW YOU A NUMBER OF SECTIONS OF THE DEFENSE CLOSING ARGUMENTS. LET'S SHOW YOU SOME OF WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAD TO SAY. THE PROSECUTOR IS TALKING ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE. WHAT HE CLAIMS HAPPENED ON THE DAY OF THE DEATH OF THE MURDER AND THEN THE PROSECUTOR SAYING WHAT THE PROSECUTION BELIEVES ACTUALLY HAPPENED. LET'S WATCH. >> FRIDAY MORNING -- JANUARY 27, 2006. THE DEFENDANT GETS UP. HE LEADS RACHAEL TO BELIEVE HE'S GOING ON THIS INTERVIEW. IT HAD BEEN CANCELLED A COUPLE OF DAYS BEFORE, THE EVIDENCE SHOWS NEVER EVEN EXISTED. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE DEFENDANT DECIDED THAT ENOUGH WAS ENOUGH. HE HAD LOOKED UP HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE -- QUICK SUICIDE METHOD. ESCORTS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS. MORE ADULT FINDER VISITATIONS. INSTEAD OF GOING ON THAT ERROR -- STRIKE THAT, ON THAT INTERVIEW, HE SAYS HE GOES ON ERRANDS. HE GOES TO -- THE CAR. AND HE GETS THIS. WHEN CONSIDERING SUICIDE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HANDLE THIS THING. TRY TO CON FIGURE YOURSELF ABOUT 5'2", RACHAEL ENTWISTLE COULD HAVE USED THIS TO COMMIT SUICIDE -- ASSUMING THAT SHE HAD A REASON TO DO THAT. THE CHEMIST TOLD US WHY SHE WANT ED TO SWAB THE GRIP WITH ONE. IF YOU WOULD HAND AL FIREARM ON ONE SIDE OF THE GRIP. THAT'S HOW YOU HANDLE IT. THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE DNA. WHOSE DNA WAS ALL OVER THIS GRIP? MR. ENTWISTLE. 21 QUADRIL I DON'T KNOW TO WHATEVER -- WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT RACHAEL WASN'T EXCLUDED OUT OF THE BLACK BOX, WELL, 7 OUT OF THE 11 OR 12 WERE NOT EXCLUDED. 2-1, HALF THE POPULATION BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE MIXTURE AND THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT RACHAEL EVER TOUCHED THAT BOX. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE GUN. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE EVIDENCE WAS SHE HAD NO INTEREST IN FIRE ARMS. I SUGGEST SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE EVEN KNOWN HOW TO LOAD THIS AND HANDLE IT. BUT HE DID. WE KNOW HE DID. LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT MUZZLE WHEN YOU'RE IN THE JURY ROOM, DELIBERATING. AND CONSIDER WHY KENNETH DAGEN SWABBED THAT SMALL AREA, PROBABLY A QUARTER OF A SQUARE INCH AND INSIDE THE MUZZLE. SHE'S THE EXPERIENCED CHEMIST. THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS THAT SUBSTANCE ON THERE. AND WHAT DOES SHE GET? ON ONE PLACE -- NOT ON THE CYLINDER, NOT ON THE TRIGGER. ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD IT LIKE THIS, RACHAEL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET HER DNA ELSEWHERE. RACHAEL'S DNA IS IN AND ON THAT MUZZLE. THE ONLY PLACE -- THE ONLY PLACE IT WOULD GO WHEN MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE POINTED THIS GUN AT HER HEAD AND PULLED THE TRIGGER. HEARD FROM HER AND YOU HEARD FROM THE GENTLEMAN ABOUT BACK SPLATTER. THAT'S HOW RACHAEL ENDED UP ON THAT MUZZLE. NOT ON THE BARREL, NOT ON THE GRIP, NOT ON THE CYLINDER. NEIL ENTWISTLE. AMMO CAN, NEIL ENTWISTLE. WHY WOULD HE BE ON THE AMMO CAN? HE GETS THIS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HE DRIVES BACK TO CARVERI CARVER, I SUGGEST TO YOU. HE WALKS IN THAT BEDROOM, HE OPENS IT DOOR. CONVENIENTLY, HE TELLS TROOPER MANNING, I LEFT THE DOOR OPEN. >> SO PROSECUTOR MICHAEL TABSRY HAD TO SAY. ONE LAST QUESTION TO OUR FRIEND WENDY MURPHY BEFORE WE HAVE TO HEAD OUT OF HERE. WE SEE THE GUN IN HIS HAND. HE GETS TO GO LAST. TALK ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS FOR A PROSECUTOR TO HAVE THE LAST WORD IN THAT COURTROOM? >> YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN A PROSECUTOR WITH MICHAEL FABRY IN THIS JURISDICTION. IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE, BECAUSE WHATEVER THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYS, YOU GET TO EXPLAIN IT, CLEAN IT UP, DEAL WITH IT. AND IN A STRONG CASE LIKE THIS, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT MAKES THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE, BUT, LOOK, ELLIOTT GOT UP THERE. AND I DON'T THINK MICHAEL KNEW WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO REALLY HAMMER HOME THE SUICIDE THEORY THE WAY HE DID. SHAME ON HIM BY THE WAY FOR DOING THAT, REALLY, SHAME ON HIM. BUT MICHAEL GOT TO GET UP AND MOCK THAT THEORY. YOU CAN'T DO THAT IF YOU GO FIRST. YOU ABSOLUTELY GET TO DO IT AND EFFECTIVELY IF YOU GO LAST. >> THE HARDEST THING I HAD TO DO WHEN I MADE THE TRANSITION FROM PROSECUTOR TO DEFENSE LAWYER IS NOT TO GET THAT LAST WORD. WENDY, WE APPRECIATE YOU SPENDING TIME HERE GETTING THE PERSPECTIVE ON THIS. TAKE CARE, WE'LL TALK TO YOU SOON. >> NICE TO SEE YOU, JACK. >> WATCH LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE BEGINNING ON-LINE AT 3:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME. THAT DOES IT FOR US FOR NOW. BUT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP AN EYE ON VERDICT WATCH. >> VERDICT WATCH CARRYING PROBABLY INTO TOMORROW IF YOU'RE A BETTING MAN. DON'T BE A BETTING MAN ON ANY OF THESE THINGS. LIVE TOMORROW TO FOLLOW UP ON THE CONVERSATION ON ALL OF THIS, FOLKS. |