|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. >> ON INDICTMENT NUMBER -- CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHAT SAY YOUR FOREPERSON, IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> IN THE CASE HA SHOCKED NOT ONE, BUT TWO NATIONS, THE VERDICT IS IN. NEIL ENTWISTLE FACES THE JURORS AND LEARNS HIS FATE. THAT'S COMING UP RIGHT NOW ON OPEN COURT. >>> GOOND MORNING AND WELCOME TO OPEN COURT. I'M JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL. LE IS A BLOOM AS THE DAY OFF P THE DRAMATIC CONCLUSION TO A MURDER TRIAL THAT RIFLED MILLIONS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ACROSS THE POND, A BRITISH MAND ACCUSED OF KILLING HIS AMERICAN WIFE AND BABY IN THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. THE JURY DELIBERATED FOR A TOTAL OF 11 HOURS AND 12 MINUTES. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED AS THEIR VERDICT WAS ANNOUNCED. >> FOREPERSON OF THE JURY IN THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH VERSUS NEIL ENTWISTLE ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006387001 CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHAT SAY YOUR FOREPERSON, IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> ON INDICTMENT NURMT 20063870002 CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE TIRS DEGREE, WHAT SAY YOUR FOREPERSON IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006387003 CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH POSSESSION OF A FOIR ARM, WHAT SAY YOUR FOREPERSON IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. >> GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE AS CHARGED. >> ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006387004 CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, WHAT SAY YOUR FOREPERSON, IS DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE AS CHARGED. >>> ONCE AGAIN, NEIL ENTWISTLE FOUND GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. RIGHT NOW CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON JOINS US LIVE FROM WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS, WITH THE LATEST VERDICT REACTION. JENNIFER? >> Reporter: GOOD MORNING, JANE. THERE WAS STANDING ROOM ONLY INSIDE THAT COURTROOM YESTERDAY. IN FACT, A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WERE TOLD THEY SIMPLY HAD TO WAIT OUTSIDE BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH ROOM IN THE GALLERY FOR EVERYBODY THAT WANTED TO BE INSIDE TO HEAR THE READING OF THIS VERDICT. AS EXPECTED, THE BAILIFF DID ADMONISH THE COURT THAT NO OUTBURSTS WOULD BE TOLERATED WHEN THE VERDICT WAS READ. SO IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A SILENT COURTROOM AS WE HEARD THE VERDICT COME DOWN. YOU SAW NEIL ENTWISTLE'S VERY LITTLE REACTION FROM HIM. HE CLOSED HIS EYES BRIEFLY. HE EVER SO SLIGHTLY SHOOK HIS HEAD WHEN THE VERDICT WAS READ. BUT VERY LITTLE EMOTION COMING FROM HIM, JANE. OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VERDICT, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PARENTS DID GIVE A BRIEF STATEMENT TO THE PRESS AND SURPRISED MANY BY THEIR STATEMENTS ABOUT RACHEL. >> WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT. AND WE ARE DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRANDCHILD. AND THEN COMMITTING SUICIDE. I KNEW RACHEL WAS DEPRESSED. OUR SON WILL NOW GO TO JAIL FOR LOVING, HONORING, AN PROTECTING HIS WIFE'S MEMORY. >> FROM THE MOMENT THE MATTERAZZO SPOKESMAN STATED, AND I QUOTE, ALL WE NEED NOW IS THE RIGHT JURY POOL. WE KNEW NEIL WOULD NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL. WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR OUR INNOCENT SON WITH THE HOPE THAT ONE DAY JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. AND OUR LITTLE GRANDDAUGHTER, LILLY, MAY REST IN PEACE. WE WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK ELLIOT WINESTEIN AND STEPHANIE PAGE AND THEIR DEFENSE TEAM FOR THE DEDICATION AND THE MASSIVE EFFORT THAT THEY HAVE APPLIED TO THIS CASE. WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY FURTHER STATEMENTS AT THIS TIME AND ASK THAT YOU REFER ANY QUERIES TO OUR LAWYER IN BOSTON. THANK YOU. >> CAN YOU PLEASE -- >>> AND IF I COULD TAKE YOU BACK INSIDE THAT COURTROOM JUST FOR A MOMENT, JANE, RIGHT AFTER THE VERDICT WAS READ, AS USUAL, IT WAS ASKED THAT EVERYBODY RISE AS THE JUDGE WAS LEAVING THE BENCH AND THE JURY WAS LEAVING THE COURTHOUSE OR THE COURTROOM. AND EVERYONE IN THE COURTROOM DID STAND TO RISE EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON. AND THAT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER. SHE REMAINED SEATED AFTER EVERYBODY WAS ASKED TO STAND UP AND RISE. CERTAINLY I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE AS TO WHY SHE MAY HAVE DONE THAT. WE DO KNOW THAT SHE WAS IN COURT FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRIAL. SO SURELY SHE KNOWS WHAT THE PROTOCOL IS. BUT SHE DID NOT STAND AS THE JURY WAS EXCUSED FROM THE COURTHOUSE. >> JENNIFER, IF NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN ACTING SOMEWHAT NONCHALANT, CERTAINLY HIS MOTHER IS EXPRESSING HER RAGE. WHAT WAS HER EMOTIONAL STATE? BECAUSE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING ON VIDEO TAPE AND WHEN YOU SEE IT IN PERSON, IT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. WAS SHE ALMOST GIVERING WITH ANGER? >> Reporter: NOT THAT I COULD SEE. SHE WAS -- NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILY, HIS MOTHER, FATHER AND BROTHER, WERE SEATED IN THE VERY FIRST ROW JUST BEHIND THE DEFENDANT'S TABLE. SO FROM WHERE MY PERSPECTIVE WAS IN THE COURTHOUSE I HAD A VERY NICE VIEW OF THEIR BACK. I COULD SEE THEM LOOKING AT EACH OTHER, OF COURSE, WHEN THEY WERE LISTENING TO THE VERDICT. BUT I COULD NOT SEE THEIR FACIAL EXPRESSIONS. WHEN THEY LEFT THE COURTHOUSE, I DID NOT SEE THAT THEY WERE VISIBLY SHAKING WITH ANGER OR SHAKING WITH DISGUST. SOME, AS THEY WERE LEAVING THE COURTHOUSE, A COUPLE OF PEOPLE, DID HEAR NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER SAY PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING SHE SAID AT THE PRESSER, WHICH IS WE BELIEVE THE DEFENSE'S THEORY THAT RACHEL SHOT LILY AND THEN SHOT HERSELF. THAT DID SURPRISE MANY PEOPLE. THEN, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT SHE WENT PUBLIC AND SAID THAT BEFORE THE MEDIA IN THE BRIEF PRESS CONFERENCE. >> IT'S KIND OF A SHOCKER. SHE'S SAYING IT MORE BLUNTLY THAN IT WAS EVEN STATED IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENSE. WAS THERE A KIND OF REVULSION TO THAT FACT THAT SHE, AGAIN, ACCUSED THE VICTIM HERE OF BEING A MURDER ESZ? >> WE ASKED THE PROSECUTION WHEN THEY HELD THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE, ONE OF THE REPORTERS ASKED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SORT OF WHAT THEIR REACTION WAS. AND THEY SAID, LOOK, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. BUT WE DO FEEL THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILY, THEY'RE VICTIMS IN THIS AS WELL. NOT ONLY DO WE NOW KNOW THE FATE OF THEIR SON, BUT THEY DID LOSE A GRANDDAUGHTER AND THEY DID LOSE A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND THEY'VE LOST A NEW FAMILY THAT EVERYBODY HAD WELCOMED ON BOTH SIDES WHEN THE TWO GOT MARRIED. SO THE PROSECUTION IS SAYING -- TAKING THE HIGH ROAD WITH REGARD TO THAT, SAYING WE DO FEEL THAT THEY ARE VICTIMS TOO AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. I CAN TELL YOU SORT OF THE BUZZ AROUND THE COURTHOUSE. ID IT DID CREATE QUITE A STIR. AT FIRST WHEN THE DEFENSE PUT FORTH THE THEORY IN CLOSING THAT THIS WAS A SUICIDE IN THE HANDS OF RACHEL, THAT SHE FIRST SHOT THE BABY AND TURNED THE GUN ON HERSELF, MANY PEOPLE WERE O FENNED BY THAT, MANY THOUGHT IT WAS DISTASTEFUL. OTHERS SAID THE DEFENSE IS SIMPLY DOING THEIR JOB. THEY ARE DEFENDING THEIR CLIENT. IT DID COME AS A SHOCK TO MANY TO HEAR NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER SAY THAT RACHEL, HER DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, MURDERED THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER. THAT DID SURPRISE AND SHOCK MANY PEOPLE YESTERDAY. >> JENNIFER, AT 10:00 TELL US WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. >> Reporter: NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL BE FORMALLY SENTENCED FOR THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN. HE WAS CONVICTED FOR MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE ON BOTH OF THOSE COUNTS IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY. THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR HIM WILL BE LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE. SENTENCING WILL REALLY BE A FORMALITY. THE JUDGE HAS DISCRETION WHETHER HE WILL SERVE THOSE TWO LIFE SENTENCES WITHOUT PAROLE CONSECUTIVELY OR CONCURRENTLY. AND THEN THERE ARE THE TWO OTHER CHARGES THAT HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF, THE ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM AND ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. THOSE ARE SEPARATE CHARGES. THEY DO CARRY FIVE YEARS. THE JUDGE WILL HAVE THE DISCRETION HOW TO SENTENCE THAT. WILL SHE SENTENCE THAT CONCURRENTLY OR CONSECUTIVELY. BUT WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY MORE IS SHE MAKING A STATEMENT WITH REGARD TO CONSECUTIVE OR CONCURRENT. WE ARE EXPECTING SENTENCING TO LAST ABOUT 30 TO 45 MINUTES. WE DO EXPECT TO HEAR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. WE'RE TOLD, PERHAPS, WE WILL HEAR FROM TWO MEMBERS OF RACHEL'S FAMILY. >> AND THEN THEY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO HAVE THEIR SAY. THANK YOU, JENNIFER. I HAVE SEVERAL GUESTS JOINING ME NOW. FIRST HERE ONSET, PETER SHAFER, A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY QUITE NOTED. ALSO JOINING US IN OUR NEW YORK STUDIO, PSYCHOTHERAPIST P.T. COHEN. SHE WROTE THE BOOK FOR BETTER, FOR WORSE, FOREVER. JOINING US LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY SPOKESMAN. I WANT TO START WITH YOU, OBVIOUSLY THERE IS NO VICTORY WHEN A FAMILY LOSES A CHILD AND A GRANDCHILD. BUT DID THIS CONVICTION GIVE THE MATTERAZZOS SOME KIND OF COMFORT, SOME KIND OF CLOSURE? >> WELL, IT CERTAINLY GIVES THEM SOME PEACE TO KNOW THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ROSE IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. THAT'S WHAT THEY SOUGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE. AND IT FINALLY CAME TO FRUITION WITH THE VERDICT OF THE JURY. >> WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE REACTION OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER AFTER THE VERDICT WHERE SHE BLUNTLY ACCUSED RACHEL OF BEING THE MURDERESZ OF HER OWN CHILD AND THERE WAS KIND OF SHOCK HEARING THIS. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION, THE FACT THAT SHE CLINGS TO THIS DISCREDITED THEORY? >> FIRST OF ALL, IT CONTRADICTS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. IF YOU -- YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE JURY AND THE ATTENTION -- AND THIS IS A JURY, BY THE WAY, OF MR. ENTWISTLE'S PEERS. HE TOOK PART IN THE JURY SELECTION. HE AGREED TO BE JUDGED BY HIS PEERS. AND THEY LISTENED TO THE EVIDENCE, THEY TOOK METICULOUS NOTES. THEY LISTENED TO THE JUDGE'S CHARGE. THEY DELIBERATED FOR TWO DAYS. AND WERE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE WAS, IN FACT, NEIL ENTWISTLE. AND IT'S SAD ALL THE WAY AROUND. BECAUSE NEIL ENTWISTLE RUINED MANY LIVES. >> I WANT TO BRING PETER SHAFER, NOTED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, INTO THIS CONVERSATION. WE HEARD NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER SAY, I KNEW RACHEL WAS DEPRESSED. WELL, WHY DIDN'T SHE TESTIFY, THEN? >> I IMAGINE THAT ALTHOUGH SHE BLURTED THAT OUT AT THAT POINT, THAT SHE WAS EVALUATED AND PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD WITNESS ON OTHER POINTS. I THOUGHT IT WAS UNUSUAL THAT SHE SAID IT AT THAT POINT AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED REGARDING DEPRESSION. >> WELL, WHEN THERE WAS NO DEFENSE PRESENTED AND THEN THEY DROPPED THIS BOMBSHELL THEORY THAT RACHEL KILLED HER CHILD AND HERSELF IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS, REALLY LAYING IT OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS, A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT, VERY CLEVER NOT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE. OBVIOUSLY NOW THAT WE HAVE A CONVICTION, IT'S NOT SO CLEVER. WAS IT A BIG MISTAKE BY THE DEFENSE NOT TO PRESENT ANY KIND OF DEFENSE, NO WITNESSES? >> WELL, I MEAN, THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROVE IN THIS CASE. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT PARTICULAR DEFENSE BY ANY STANDARD. I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A LAST GRASP FOR SOMETHING. I DON'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY. SO I DON'T THINK IT MADE ONE DIFFERENCE WHETHER THEY SAID THAT IN CLOSING OR NOT. >> B.T. COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, WE OBVIOUSLY FEEL COMPASSION FOR BOTH FAMILIES HERE. THE ONLY PERSON CONVICTED IS NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF. BUT THERE WAS KIND OF SHOCK TO HEAR HOW VI SIF ROUS NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER WAS IN STATING THIS DISCREDITED THEORY ONCE AGAIN AFTER THE VERDICT THAT RACHEL KILLED HERSELF AND HER BABY. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT AS A MOTHER OF THE DEFENDANT, SHE IS CLINGING TO THIS THEORY? >> I THINK MAYBE IN PART SHE REALLY NEEDS TO BELIEVE THAT HER SON IS -- YOU KNOW, IS DEFINITELY INNOCENT. I THINK THE COMMENTS WERE CERTAINLY VERY INAPPROPRIATE. I THINK OBVIOUSLY, JANE, THE PARPTS DID KNOW THEIR SON AND RACHEL OBVIOUSLY DID NOT KNOW THE MAN WHO SHE WAS MARRYING. >> JOSEPH FLAIRTY, NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME VICTIMS' IMPACT STATEMENTS COMING UP IN A LITTLE BIT. TELL US WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK FOR THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY AND WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTED TO SAY. >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT CERTAINLY PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AND ALSO RACHEL'S BROTHER JEROME SOUZA WILL TAKE PART IN THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. I'D RATHER WAIT UNTIL THEY GIVE THOSE STATEMENTS RATHER THAN TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SAY RIGHT NOW. SUFFICE THEY'LL TALK ABOUT JUST WHAT A BEAUTIFUL PERSON RACHEL AND LILLIAN WERE, HOW MUCH SHE LOVED HER CHILD AND WHAT A TRAGEDY THIS IS. FAIR FAMILY'S BEEN RUINED AS A RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE ON JANUARY 20th OF 2006. >> BEATTY COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, WHAT DOES IT DO FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE VICTIMS TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP IN COURT AND SPEAK? HOW DOES IT AFFECT THEM PSYCHOLOGICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY? >> IT'S VERY CATHARTIC AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. NOT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ANY REAL CLOSURE. CERTAINLY NOT IN -- YOU KNOW, AT THE PRESENT TIME. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO SAY WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY NEED TO SAY TO THEIR SON-IN-LAW AND TO THE COURT AND TO ALL OF US. AND HOPEFULLY AS TIME GOES ON, ONCE THE SHOCK REALLY DIMINISHES SOMEWHAT, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE IT'S NEVER GOING TO TOTALLY DIMINISH, HOPEFULLY THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GO ON WITH THEIR LIVES. I MEAN, THIS IS -- WHAT AN ABSOLUTE TRAGEDY IT IS. >> PETER SHAFER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS DELIBERATION, THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY DLIB RAGS RECENTLY IN VERY HIGH-PROFILE CASES WHERE IT SEEMED COMMON SENSE WAS THROWN TO THE WIND. CASES WHERE IT SEEMS THE PROSECUTION HAD ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD AND YET WE COME BACK WITH A MISTRIAL, FILL PHIL SPECTOR, ROBERT BLAKE. IS THIS A VICTORY CONGRESSMEN IT COMES TO COMMON SENSE, REASONABLE DOUBT? >> I'D BE THE WRONG PERSON TO SAY THAT. >> I'M GOING TO SAY IT, THEN. IT'S A VICTORY FOR REASONABLE DOUBT, NOT MEANING WILL THE SUN COME UP TOMORROW, WE DON'T KNOW. >> THE CASES THAT YOU CITED SUCH AS PHIL SPECTOR THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER FACTORS. IN THIS CASE IT SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING TO ME WHEN I HEARD THE DEFENSE COUNSEL GIVE A PRESS CONFERENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ARREST I WAS THINKING TO MYSELF, WHY IS THIS GUY SAYING ANYTHING? BECAUSE WHEN ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS IN ONE WAY, SURE, HE HAS -- MR. ENTWISTLE HAED A RIGHT TO A TRIAL. HE HAD THE RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT. BUT WHEN THERE'S REALLY NO LEGITIMATE DEFENSE, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE. >> JOSEPH, WE'VE SEEN SO MANY CASES THAT SEEMED OPEN AND SHUT END IN MISTRIAL OR ACQUITTAL WHILE YOU WERE WAITING FOR THOSE 11 PLUS HOURS AS THE DELIBERATIONS WENT ON IT MUST HAVE BEEN AGONIZING FOR THE MATTERAZZOS. >> WELL, I KNOW THAT THE MATTERAZZOS UNDERSTOOD. AND WE WERE CERTAINLY IN TOUCH WITH THE PROSECUTORS, MIKE FABBRI, WHO DID A TERRIFIC JOB PIECING THIS CASE TOGETHER. WE KNEW THEY WERE AWARE OF THE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE. THEY SAT THERE THROUGH THIS TRIAL. THEY KNEW THE NUMBER OF EXHIBITS THAT WERE -- THAT THE JURY WAS GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT. AND THE JURY TAKES THESE MATTERS SERIOUS. THEY PUT THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO THESE CASES BEFORE THEY COME BACK AND SEND SOMEBODY AWAY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. SO THEY KNEW THAT THIS WOULD -- COULD GO ON FOR DAYS. IT WOULDN'T BE A MATTER OF COMING BACK IN TWO OR THREE HOURS. BECAUSE THEY WOULD NEED PROBABLY A DAY JUST TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE LET ALONE DELIBERATE OVER THAT EVIDENCE. >> AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF SPECULATION ABOUT THIS DEFENSE. REMEMBER, NEIL ENTWISTLE SAT IN JAIL FOR MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT RACHEL KILLING HERSELF AND THE BABY. AND THEN SUDDENLY TOWARD THE END OF THIS TRIAL, WE HAVE THIS FULL-FLEDGED NEW DEFENSE BOMBSHELL THAT'S DROPPED. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON HOW THIS DEFENSE CAME ABOUT? DO YOU FEEL IT WAS MANUFACTURED? >> WELL, IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT IS PUT FORWARD BY NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF. HE IS THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE. AND I'M SURE HIS ATTORNEY WOULDN'T PUT FORWARD A DEFENSE THAT WASN'T APPROVED BY MR. ENTWISTLE. I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY AN OUTRAGEOUS THING TO SAY AND TO INDICATE -- OR TO ALLEGE THAT SOMEHOW RACHEL HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE HOMICIDE OF HER OWN CHILD. IT CERTAINLY, AS I SAID BEFORE, IT CONTRADICTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS PUT IN VERY METHODICALLY AND I JUST DON'T KNOW -- THERE WAS SHOCK BY THE -- BY THE DEFENSE. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. I KNOW THIS IS A DIFFICULT TIME FOR THE FAMILY. A SPECIAL THANKS, ONCE AGAIN, FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. >>> NEIL ENTWISTLE SET TO BE SENTENCED IN LESS THAN AN HOUR FROM NOW. WE WILL BRING YOU LIVE COVERAGE OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS. THE SENTENCING COMES ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE VERDICT BECAUSE ENTWISTLE WAS CONVICTED OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER. SO TODAY'S QUESTION OF THE DAY IS, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ENTWISTLE VERDICT? YOU CAN SEND US YOUR ANSWERS. JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT. OR YOU CAN E-MAIL US CORRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. WRITE A BRIEF ANSWER AND WE'LL READ ONE OF YOUR RESPONSES AT THE END OF THE SHOW. >>> I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR PRAYERS, THEIR CARDS AND THEIR SUPPORT. IT WAS A TREMENDOUS HELP OVER THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS. AND JUST THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE. >> THERE YOU HAVE THE VICTIM'S STEP DAD SPEAKING IN THE WAKE OF THE VERDICT, GUILTY. TWO COUNTS MURDER ONE. AND IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, THE VICTIM'S MOTHER, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, AND HER BROTHER WILL BE SPEAKING, GIVING THEIR VICTIMS IMPACT STATEMENTS DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE. ALWAYS A VERY EMOTIONAL ASPECT OF ANY TRIAL. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT IN JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES WHEN THE SENTENCING HEARING BEGINS AT 10:00. IN THE MEANTIME, LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD TO SAY. THIS IS THE MAN AT THE CENTER OF THE STORM OVER THIS CONTROVERSIAL DEFENSE THAT WAS POS SITED AT THE LAST MINUTE DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS, THAT RACHEL KILLED HERSELF AND HER BABY. A DEFENSE THAT THE JURY JUST DIDN'T BUY. >> I SUSPECT IF I WERE TO ASK A QUESTION, ASK YOU IF YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR US, IT WOULD BE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? HOW DOES YOUR CLIENT FEEL? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE VERDICT? WHAT I DO HAVE TO SAY IS AS FOLLOWS. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY SAD CASE. FOR TWO FAMILIES. ONE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ONE IN THE UNITED STATES. STEPHANIE AND I DID EVERYTHING THAT WE KNEW TO DO TO PROVIDE NEIL EPT WISLE WITH THE MOST VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO UNDER OUR LAWS AND UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. WE ARE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DID. WE ARE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DID FOR NEIL. AND WE'RE PROUD OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTION IN THIS COUNTRY, AND A CONSTITUTION IN THIS STATE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON HAVE COUNSEL AND PROVIDES THAT THE PROSECUTION NEED A BURDEN OF PROOF. NOW, WE DISAGREE WITH THE RESULT THAT THE JURY REACHED. WE DISAGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT UNDER A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE SELECTED TO HEAR THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT WILL BE PRESENTED ON APPEAL. AND BECAUSE OF THAT AND BECAUSE OF OUR CONFIDENCE IN THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION THAT WE TOOK AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE UNLAWFUL ENTRIES INTO THAT HOME BY THE POLICE IN HOPKINTON, NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE, THAT THIS CASE WILL MEET A SUCCESSFUL REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT. BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CANNOT COMMENT AT ALL ABOUT THE TRIAL EVIDENCE. AND WILL NOT. >>> NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY, VOWING TO APPEAL. SAYING THEY'VE GOT STRONG CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES. ONCE AGAIN, THAT ATTORNEY, ELLIOT WINESTEIN, AT THE CENTER OF THIS CONTROVERSIAL DEFENSE. PETER SCHAFFER, VELER RAN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY BASED IN NEW YORK AND CONNECTICUT, YOU'VE COVERED SO MANY TRIALS. IS THERE GOING TO BE A BASH LASH AGAINST THIS ATTORNEY FOR THIS CONTROVERSIAL DEFENSE? BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD MANY, MANY CONTROVERSIAL DEFENSES. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY VILIFYING THIS DEFENSE AND SAYING, REALLY, THAT IT WAS ABHORRENT TO BLAME THE VICTIM IN THIS MANNER FOR KILLING HER OWN BABY, THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU AN INDICATION THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OUTRAGE OUT THERE. >> I REALLY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS ATTORNEY'S PRACTICE UP IN MASSACHUSETTS. I WOULD SAY THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME BACKLASH. BUT, YOU KNOW, HE'S GIVEN A VERY DIFFICULT JOB. I READ THAT HE WAS APPOINTED TO THIS CASE. AND IT'S HIS JOB TO ZEL LOUSILY REPRESENT THIS DEFENDANT. SO YOU HAVE TO -- IF HE DID THAT JOB, ONE WOULD HOPE THAT HE WOULD GET THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THE DEFENSE TACTIC THEY TOOK. >> LISTEN. IF HE'D GOTTEN AN ACQUIT AT HE'D BE BEING CALLED A GENES YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT HE DIDN'T. OBVIOUSLY HE HAS TO COME UP WITH A DEFENSE. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS COME UP WITH A DEFENSE AT THE END GAME WHEN THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF HASN'T USED THIS DEFENSE FOR 2 1/2 YEARS SITTING IN JAIL AND THERE'S A SENSE THAT, WELL, MAYBE IT WAS A MANUFACTURED DEFENSE? YOUR THOUGHTS? >> I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN ATTORNEY MANUFACTURED THIS DEFENSE. IN FACT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MR. ENTWISTLE TOLD HIS ATTORNEYS DURING THAT TIME BECAUSE THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED. MR. ENTWISTLE, NO MATTER HOW ABHORRENT THIS CRIME MAY SEEM, HAS THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. AND THAT INCLUDES NOT TELLING ANYBODY WHAT HIS DEFENSE TO THE CASE IS. I THINK THE WAY -- PEOPLE ARE SHOCKED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT THE DEFENSE TILL THE END, YOU KNOW, DURING CLOSING ARGUMENTS. AND I THINK THAT ONLY GOES TO THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T VERY EFFECTIVE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE DEFENSE LAWYERS HAD MUCH FAITH IN IT. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANYBODY MANUFACTURED IT OR THAT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS THOUGHT OF FROM THE BEGINNING. >> BEE TIE COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST YOU JUST HEARD PETER SCHAFFER TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THE ATTORNEY HAS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, YET HE YAKKED FOR HOURS ON THE PHONE FROM LONDON TO THE AUTHORITIES WHO WERE TAPING HIM. DIDN'T HE KNOW HE HAD A RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT? WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS BEHIND THE STAMMERING AND EVASIVE ANSWERS THAT WENT ON FOR TWO HOURS? >> I THINK, JANE, THIS IS KIND OF CONSISTENT. MR. ENTWISTLE IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION CERTAINLY IS A NARCISSIST. HE HAS A NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. HE OBVIOUSLY IS VERY PSYCHOPA PSYCHOPATH PSYCHOPATHIC. NO CONSCIOUS. IT WAS ALL ABOUT HIM ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS. I THINK IN THE END, JANE, HE WAS JUST TRYING TO PULL STRAWS. PULL STRAWS REALLY OUT OF ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE. AND HAD SHE BEEN SUFFERING FROM POSTPARTUM DEPRESSION, THAT OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE BEEN A DEFENSE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN USED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL. AND I THINK THAT FOR HIM, IT'S PROBABLY ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT HIM AND IT'LL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO ALWAYS BE ABOUT HIM. >> YOU BRING UP A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. AS WE PREPARE TO HEAR THE VICTIMS IMPACT STATEMENTS, I'M REMINDED OF ANOTHER CASE, THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE, AND WHEN LACY, THE VICTIMS MOM TODAY UP TO SPEAK, SHE TURNED TO SCOTT PETERSON AND SAID WORDS TO THE EFFECT OF, DIVORCE IS ALWAYS AN OPTION. BEATTY, WHY DIDN'T NEIL ENTWISTLE IF HE WAS SO MISERABLE JUST PICK UP AND TAKE OFF TO LONDON WITHOUT KILLING THE FAMILY? >> WELL, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION. I GUESS I WOULD ALSO ASK THE QUESTION, AND WE'LL NEVER KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, IS IF THE MARRIAGE WAS REALLY IN A BAD PLACE, WHY DIDN'T THE WIFE ALSO, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT BLAMING THE VICTIMS HERE, BUT WHY DIDN'T THE WIFE SPEAK TO HER FAMILY, SPEAK TO A COUNSELOR AND, PERHAPS, ALSO WHY DIDN'T SHE FILE FOR DIVORCE? BUT, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING, JANE, AT A MAN WHO HAS SERIOUS PERSONALITY DISORDERS. OKAY? AND I THINK PROBABLY -- >> HE SEEMS TO BE ACTUALLY SMILING. >> YES. >> THERE'S ALWAYS A HINT OF A SMILE EVEN WHEN HE'S GETTING THIS HORRIBLE NEWS THAT HE'S GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON. WHAT IS THAT ABOUT? >> ONE REALLY WONDERS. OF COURSE, WE KNOW NOW THAT BEFORE THE KILLINGS AND AFTER THE KILLINGS, I MEAN, HE WAS VERY MUCH INVOLVED WITH PROSTITUTES AND WITH PORN. I WOULD SUSPECT, JANE, THAT THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT MR. ENTWISTLE HAD ISSUES IN HIS LIFE AND ISSUES IN HIS RELATIONSHIPS. UNFORTUNATELY LOOK AT WHAT HAD TO HAPPEN BEFORE -- WELL, BEFORE THIS WHOLE MESS TOOK PLACE. >> YEAH. THIS IS A CAUTIONARY TALE ABOUT MARRIAGE, MONEY, SEX, A LOT OF LESSONS HERE. MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TIME TO SORT SOME OF THOSE OUT. IT IS TIME NOW TO TAKE OUR FIRST LOOK AT TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERDICT? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR TO CAST YOUR VOTE. LATER IN THE SHOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW YOU ARE VOTING. >>> THERE IS STILL TIME TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS IN TO "OPEN COURT" AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ENTWISTLE VERDICT? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. NOW, AFTER THE VERDICT WAS READ, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, THERE WERE A FLURRY OF NEWS CONFERENCES. ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPOKE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO PRAISED THE VICTIMS' FAMILY FOR THEIR POISE AND CONDEMNED THE DEFENDANT. LET'S LISTEN. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY. TO BEGIN WITH, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING THE JURY AND HONORING THE MEMORIES OF LILLIAN AND RACHEL. I WANT TO THANK YOU THIS JURY FOR OBVIOUSLY PLEASED WITH THEIR VERDICT. BUT I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THE DLIB RATIVE WAY THEY PAID ATTENTION DURING THIS CASE AND DELIVERED A TRUE, JUST AND RIGHT VERDICT. THIS APRIL, LILLIAN WOULD HAVE BEEN 3 YEARS OLD. SHE SHOULD BE HERE WALKING, TALKING AND PLAYING. WITH HER MOM, RACHEL, DOTING OVER HER. AND THIS LARGE FAMILY DOTING OVER THE BOTH OF THEM. BUT WE ALL NOW KNOW THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE REPREHENSIBLE ACTS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. BUT I WANT TO COMMEND JOE AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. I WANT TO COMMEND THEM FOR THE POISE AND THE DIGNITY THAT THEY'VE DISPLAYED AND EXHIBITED THROUGH THIS UNSPEAKABLE TIME. OUR PRAYERS OBVIOUSLY CONTINUE TO BE WITH JOE AND PRISCILLA IN THIS EXTENDED, LOVING FAMILY AS THEY TRY TO COPE WITH THIS TRAGEDY. AT THE SAME TIME THAT I COMMEND JOE AND PRISCILLA, I CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE. I CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE FOR HIS UNSPEAKABLE, UNFORGIVABLE ACTS. I CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE FOR COMPOUNDING THE UNSPEAKABLE NATURE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE BY DISPARAGING THE MEMORY OF HIS WIFE AND VILIFYING THE ENTIRE MATTERAZZO FAMILY BY HIS DECISIONS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, HE IS NOW HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE UNFORGIVABLE ACTS. AND THE REASON HE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE IS BECAUSE OF THE WONDERFUL TRIAL TEAM THAT STANDS BEHIND ME. THIS IS THE VERY BEST OF PUBLIC SERVANTS. I THANK THEM. NOT ONLY FOR FIGHTING HARD, BUT FOR FIGHTING FAIRLY. MICHAEL FABBRI DID JUST AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF QUARTER BACKING THIS TEAM OF PROFESSIONALES. DAN BENNETT, MARSHALLING THE COMPUTER EVIDENCE, DNA AND COMPUTER EVIDENCE, AS MICHAEL BROUGHT THE ENTIRE TEAM TOGETHER THROUGHOUT THE CASE. PA TREES LEADING A TEAM OF VICTIM ADVOCATES. MEGHAN O NEIL AND JENNIFER BILLS ROUNDING OUT THE IMMEDIATE TEAM OF PEOPLE PROTECTING AND SERVING THE MATTERAZZOS. THIS WAS A FOCUSED AND DETERMINED TEAM THAT DID NOT GET DISTRACTED DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE ASSIGNED TO THE MIDDLESEX DA'S OFFICE FOR THEIR OUTSTANDING AND TIRELESS WORK. ALONG WITH THE HOPKINTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHAT YOU SAW IS THE BEST OF PUBLIC SERVICE. MICHAEL BANKS, BOB BY MANNING LEADING THE INVESTIGATORS. I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DID NOT MENTION SERGEANT BOBBIE MANNING PERSONALLY. BOBBY MANNING IS A GOOD FRIEND. HE'S BEEN A COLLEAGUE FOR OVER A DECADE. AND I'VE WATCHED HIM PROFESSIONALLY AND SKILLFULLY DO HIS JOB. BOBBY AND OTHERS LIKE HIM USUALLY DO THEIR JOBS ANONYMOUSLY. BUT WHAT YOU SAW DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE WAS HIM BEING THROWN INTO THE LIMELIGHT. AND WHAT YOU SAW WAS THE EPITOME OF PROFESSIONALLISM AND SKILLFULNESS AS HIS INTERVIEWS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE BECAME CRITICAL TO OUR PROVING THIS CASE. LASTLY, I WANT TO REMARK ON THIS OFFICE. WE SPEAK FOR PEOPLE WITH NO VOICE. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS CASE, WE SPOKE LITERALLY FOR RACHEL AND LAL LILLIAN. BUT GRATEFULLY, WE WERE NOT ALONE. JOE AND PRISCILLA HAD TO ENDURE WHAT ONE WOULD HOPE NO PARENT OR GRANDPARENT HAS TO GO THROUGH. AND THEY DID SO IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER. JOANNA GATELY, OUT OF HER LOVE AND CONCERN FOR HER FRIEND, LITERALLY STAYED IN HER CAR OVERNIGHT HOPING WHAT SHE WOULD NOT HEAR. AND BEHIND ME, THE SCORES OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE EVERY SINGLE DAY, NEVER ONCE FORGETTING WHY WE WERE HERE. ALWAYS BEING HERE AS A SUPPORTIVE, EXTENDED FAMILY. AND IT'S NOW THAT ALL OF THESE VOICES HAVE BEEN HEARD INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY. THESE VOICES HAVE BEEN HEARD, A JUST VERDICT HAS BEEN RETURNED, AND NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL, WHICH IS WHERE HE BELONGS. >> PRETTY STRONG STUFF, THE DA SPEAKING VERY FORCEFULLY, STANDING IN FRONT OF THE VICK TOIRS PROSECUTION TEAM WITH THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY HOLDING HANDS. EMOTIONAL STUFF. NOW NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS TO FACE HIS FATE. JENNIFER LONDON, YOU WERE IN THE COURTROOM. WHAT HAPPENS NOW TO NEIL ENTWISTLE AFTER THE SENTENCING? SHIPPED OFF TO PRISON, WHICH PRISON, WILL HE BE KEPT IN ISOLATION? >> Reporter: ALL VERY GOOD QUESTION. WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. WE DO KNOW THAT HE WILL IMMEDIATELY BE REMANDED INTO CUSTODY. HE HAS BEEN IN CUSTODY FOR PAST 2 1/2 YEARS. IN JAIL HE WILL BE MOVED TO A PRISON. WE DON'T KNOW WHICH PRISON. WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL BE WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION. WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL BE ISOLATED. WE DON'T KNOW IF HE WILL BE PUT ON A SUICIDE WATCH. WHEN HE WAS EXTRADITED FROM THE UK BACK TO THE U.S. AND HELD IN CUSTODY, HE WAS INITIALLY PUT ON A SUICIDE WATCH. WILL HE AGAIN? WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW. >> YOU KNOW, BEATTY COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST THERE IS KIND OF A TORTURE OF IRONY TO THE FACT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS GOING TO BE SPEPDING THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON IN THE UNITED STATES. BECAUSE CLEARLY HE WAS NOT HAPPY ABOUT BEING HERE. AND AFTER THE MURDERS WENT BACK TO ENGLAND. AND RESEARCHING THIS CASE, THERE WAS DISCONTENT, APPARENTLY, OVER HAVING TO MOVE TO THE UNITED STATES, GIVE UP HIS JOB, GIVE UP HIS FRIENDS, HIS FAMILY, AND SETTLE HERE WHERE HE HAD NO FRIENDS, NO FAMILY. NOW HE'S GOING TO BE SPENDING THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON HERE WITH NO FRIENDS, NO FAMILY TO VISIT HIM. >> WELL, JANE, HE GETS EXACTLY WHAT HE DESERVES. AND WHEN HE MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES INITIALLY, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES. HE MADE A DECISION TO MOVE WITH HIS WIFE TO THE UNITED STATES. SO SURELY EVEN IN THAT SITUATION, THAT'S THE VERY, VERY CLEAR. HE CERTAINLY ABDICATED RESPONSIBILITY. AND HE MADE CHOICES. HE MADE CHOICES TO MOVE. HE MADE CHOICES TO -- TO MARRY HER. HE MADE A CHOICE TO HAVE A CHILD. HE MADE A CHOICE TO KILL THEM. AND -- AND, FRANKLY, HE IS CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY GETTING EXACTLY WHAT HE DESERVES AND HE'S FORTUNATE THAT THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS DOES NOT HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY. >> BEATTY COHEN, JUST TO FOLLOW UP, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS VERDICT, A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GROUP CALLED JANE DOE, INK INK, ISSUED A STATEMENT SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. AMERICA HAS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS EPIDEMIC OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, HUSBANDS KILLING THEIR WIVES, BOYFRIENDS KILLING THEIR GIRLFRIENDS. WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN? >> YOU KNOW, JANE, RELATIONSHIPS AND MARRIAGES BASICALLY FAIL. AND IT CAN END UP LIKE THIS FOR FOUR REASONS. NOURM ONE, IF WE INDIVIDUALLY DO NOT HAVE OUR LIFE TOGETHER, EMOTIONALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY, WE'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE GOOD CHOICES WHEN IT COMES TO CHOOSING PARTNER. NUMBER TWO, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW WHAT INGREDIENTS GO INTO A SUCCESSFUL, LONG-LASTING RELATIONSHIP. NUMBER THREE, AS A RESULT OF THAT THERE ARE IN ABSOLUTELY NO POSITION TO BE ABLE TO ASSESS WHO'S RIGHT FOR THEM AND WHO'S WRONG FOR THEM. NUMBER FOUR, WE'RE ALL, I THINK, LACKING AND NEED GREAT IMPROVEMENT WHEN IT COMES TO COMMUNICATION IN RELATIONSHIPS AND PROBLEM SOLVING SKILLS. UNFORTUNATELY, RACHEL, AGAIN, NEVER BLAMING THE VICTIM, SHE DID NOT KNOW THE MAN WHO SHE MARRIED. >> I WANT TO DO A ROUND TABLE OF SORTS ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF MOTIVE. I'VE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THE WEAKEST PART OF THE PROSECUTION CASE WAS MOTIVE, WHY DID HE DO THIS. IT SEEMS TO ME, PETER SCHAFFER, THAT THERE WERE PRETTY OBVIOUS REASONS. IT WASN'T JUST ALL ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SATISFY HIS SEX LIFE AND MONEY ISSUES. I THINK REALLY IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS ALIENATION, HOME SICKNESS. A GUY WHO HAD NO FRIENDS, NO FAMILY, NO JOB, NO SUPPORT SYSTEM AND IS ALREADY KIND OF A SCAMMER AND LIVING ON THE FRINGE JUST KIND OF TOO MANY THINGS. MULTI-DETERMINED COMING TOGETHER AND EXPLODING IN VIOLENCE. >> YEAH. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE THINGS REALLY EXPLAIN HOW ONE HUMAN BEING KILLS ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. IN THIS CASE A WIFE AND A CHILD. I DON'T THINK -- NO MATTER HOW ALIENATED YOU REALLY -- I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF, YOU KNOW, THIS VERDICT HOLDS UP ON APPEAL. AND THAT'S DETERMINED TO BE THE VERDICT THAT WILL LAST FOREVER. YOU HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT. DOES THIS GUY HAVE MENTAL ISSUES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN DIAGNOSED? BECAUSE, REALLY, IT'S BEYOND SIMPLY BEING ALIENATED. WHAT TOOK PLACE HERE. >> AND BEE TIE COHEN, I MEAN, THIS ISN'T JUST A CASE OF SOMEBODY HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS. WITH A LOT OF THESE KILLERS, THEY ARE NOT IN THE SOLUTION. THERE WERE MANY SOLUTIONS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE PAYING $2,700 A MONTH FOR THAT FANCY HOUSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE LEASING A BMW. MOVE TO A LITTLE APARTMENT AND EAT RAMEN LIKE THE REST OF YOUNG COUPLES DO WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY. WHY WAS IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE TO LEVEL WITH HIS WIFE ABOUT HIS FINANCES AND DO THAT? >> AGAIN, WE'LL NEVER KNOW WHAT KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS HE DID OR DIDN'T HAVE WITH HIS WIFE. AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE STRIK PART OF THIS, JANE, AND HE WAS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A STRIS FOR THE DEFENSE, FOR THE PROSECUTION, BUT IN EVERYTHING THAT I'VE READ, I MEAN, THIS IS A MAN WHO CLEARLY HAS A NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER. IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM. IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT HIM. AND I CAN IMAGINE WHEN THE BIRTH OF THE -- WITH THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD, OF COURSE THE CHILD WAS GOING TO BE CRYING. HE WAS NOT GOING TO HAVE THE CONSTANT ATTENTION AND POSSIBLE AFFECTION OF HIS WIFE. BUT, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, AS THE LAWYER WAS SAYING, IT WASN'T JUST COMING TO A COUNTRY, JANE. THIS IS A MAN WHO HAD ABSOLUTELY AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONSCIENCE, NO EMPATHY. AND IF WE WERE TO LOOK INTO HIS FAMILY BACKGROUND AND INTO HIS PREVIOUS AND PAST RELATIONSHIPS, I THINK WE WOULD FIND OUT SOME VERY INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S HISTORY. >> AND, OF COURSE, BRIEFLY, ONE OF HIS FIRST ENTERPRISES WAS A PORNOGRAPHIC ENTERPRISE CALLED THE BIG PENIS MANUAL. AS SOON AS I SAW THAT I SAID, WOW, BRING IN DR. FREUD. >> RIGHT. >> IT SAYS A LOT. STILL AHEAD ON "OPEN COURT," WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU LIVE COVERAGE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S SENTENCING. UP NEXT, MORE REACTION TO THE GUILTY VERDICT. >>> WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT. AND WE ARE DEVASTATED TO LEARN ABOUT THE EVIDENCE POINTING TO RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRANDCHILD. AND THEN COMMITTING SUICIDE. >>> A MASSACHUSETTS JURY CONVICTS NEIL ENTWISTLE OF DOUBLE MURDER. NOW HE'LL LEARN HIS PUNISHMENT FOR KILLING HIS WIFE AND BABY. >>> DID IT EVER CROSS YOUR MIND TO CALL 911? >> WELL, MY -- THE FIRST -- WELL, LOOKING BACK ON IT, I KNOW IT'S -- I DON'T KNOW WHY -- WHY I DID THINGS THE WAY THAT I DID. >>> INDEED. NEIL ENTWISTLE TALKING AND TALKING AND DIGGING HIMSELF IN DEEPER AND DEEPER. WHY DIDN'T HE CALL 911? WHY DID HE RACE BACK TO LONDON? WHY DIDN'T HE COME BACK FOR THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. AFTER THE VERDICT OF GUILTY ON TWO COUNTS OF MURDER ONE, THE PROSECUTOR SPOKE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT CONVICTED NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> BASED ON DISCUSSIONS BETWEE THE DEFENDANT AND HIS COUNSEL, I'M GLAD WE HAD ANTICIPATED IT, BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO MARSHAL THE FACTS THAT WE DID HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL, BRING THEM IN THE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, AND I THINK VERY CONVINCINGLY SHOW THE JURY THAT THAT JUST WAS NOT A VIABLE DEFENSE. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK WAS THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE YOU HAD AGAINST MR. ENTWISTLE. >> I THINK NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF WAS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD. THESE CASES ARE BUILT PIECE BY PIECE, WITNESS BY WITNESS. BUT IN THE END I THINK NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS PROBABLY THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD IN THIS CASE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY -- FILL IN THE MISSING HOURS? WHAT HE WAS DOING ON THIS SIDE OF THE WATER AND WHAT ON EARTH HE DID IN ENGLAND BEFORE HE SHOWED UP? ANY ROUGH CLUES? >> AS THE DA INDICATED, WE DO OUR BEST TO TRY AND GARNER AS MANY FACTS DURING OUR INVESTIGATION AS WE CAN. THERE ARE GAPS. SOME OF THOSE GAPS WE CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR. BY AND LARGE, THEY'RE PROBABLY IN THE EXCLUSIVE PROVINCE OF THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF OR OTHERS THAT ARE CLOSE TO HIM. I THINK -- I'LL LET THE RECORD SPEAK AND THE TESTIMONY SPEAK AS TO WHAT HE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE DURING THE GAPS, AS YOU CALL THEM. THE OTHER PART OF THE QUESTION? >> THE OTHER QUESTION WAS WHAT -- IN YOUR MIND WHAT'S SO -- >> I THINK IT'S ALWAYS -- IN THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION AND BEING ABLE TO TRY A CASE TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT WHAT A DEFENDANT SAYS HE DID OR DID NOT DO. AND WE FORTUNATELY HAD THAT PIECE IN OUR CASE AND WERE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT PORTION OF THE CASE TO THE JURY AND LET THEM MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS WHICH VERSION OF THE EVENTS MAKES SENSE. >> DURING THE TRIAL THE MESSAGE RACHEL SENT TO JOANNA WHICH PROMPTED CONCERN ON JOANNA'S PART. CAN YOU SAY WHAT WAS IN THAT TEXT MESSAGE THAT MIGHT HAVE FOCUSED HER STATE OF MIND? >> IT WASN'T PART OF THE RECORD, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT WASN'T A TEXT MESSAGE THAT RELATED TO CONCERN. IT WAS A TEXT MESSAGE ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING SATURDAY NIGHT. IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO. >> THERE WAS SOME MENTION MADE BY THE DEFENSE OF POSSIBLE APPEALS BASED UPON -- DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? >> MY ONLY COMMENT ON THAT WOULD BE THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL IN FIRST-DEGREE MURDER PLACES. >> ON THAT PARTICULAR EVIDENCE SHARE ISSUE? >> WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT THEY RAISE ON APPEAL. IT'S UP TO THEM. >> AS A COROLLARY TO THAT ANSWER, I CAN TELL YOU NOT ONLY WAS THIS CASE TRIED WELL, IT WAS TRIED FAIRLY. WE'RE FULLY CONFIDENCE ANY ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL WILL BE DISPENSED WITH AND THIS VERDICT WILL BE UPHELD. >>> PEOPLE ARE FILING INTO COURT RIGHT NOW. THE SENTENCING OF NEIL ENTWISTLE AND THE VICTIMS IMPACT STATEMENTS EXPECTED TO BEGIN IN A COUPLE MINUTES AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR. WE ARE TAKING A SHORT BREAK SO YOU CAN TAKE A MOMENT TO WRITE TO US AND ANSWER OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ENTWISTLE VERDICT? JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON OPEN COURT OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT OPENCOURT@CNN.COM. >>> OUR SON WILL NOW GO TO JAIL FOR LOVING, HONORING, AND PROTECTING HIS WIFE'S MEMORY. >> IT WAS A TRAGEDY THAT SHATTERED TWO FAMILIES. NOW, NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL LEARN HIS PUNISHMENT FOR MURDERING HIS WIFE AND BABY. WELCOME BACK TO "OPEN COURT." I'M JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL. LISA BLOOM HAS THE DAY OFF. LATE YESTERDAY A MASSACHUSETTS JURY CONVICTED NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE RACHEL AND BABY LILLIAN. TODAY HE'S BACK IN COURT, JUST COMING BACK IN RIGHT NOW FOR SENTENCING. THOSE PROCEEDINGS SET TO START ANY MOMENT. WE WILL TAKE YOU LIVE INTO THE COURTROOM AS SOON AS THEY BEGIN. RIGHT NOW CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON JOINING US FROM OUTSIDE COURT IN WOBURN WITH THE VERY LATEST. WHAT CAN WE EXPECT AT THIS SENTENCING? >> Reporter: WELL, JANE, SENTENCING TODAY REALLY IS A FORMALITY GIVEN THE VERDICT THE JURY CAME BACK WITH YESTERDAY. HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. TWO COUNTS, FOR THE DEATH OF HIS WIFE RACHEL AND THE DEATH OF HIS DAUGHTER LILLIAN. IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS THERE'S NO DEATH PENALTY. THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE, WE KNOW THAT IS THE SENTENCE HE WILL BE GIVEN. WHAT WILL BE INTERESTING FROM THE SENTENCING WILL BE THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. WE DO EXPECT TO HEAR FROM RACHEL'S MOTHER, PRISCILLA. WE EXPECT TO HEAR FROM HER BROTHER, JEROME. NEIL ENTWISTLE, WE'RE TOLD, WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYS MOST LICKLY WE WILL NOT HEAR FROM HIM. >> THAT IS GOING TO BE FASCINATING IF WE DO. BUT, AGAIN, LIKELY THAT WE WILL NOT. PRISCILLA, THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM AND JEROME, THE BROTHER OF THE VICTIM, ARE GOING TO SPEAK. LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THIS SENTENCING OCCURS. OKAY. ONE COUNT OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER PUTS YOU AWAY, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. HE'S GOT TWO COUNTS PLUS SOME WEAPONS COUNTS. IS THIS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE HEAR TWO LIFE SENTENCES PLUS SOME TIME? >> Reporter: WELL, THAT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE. BECAUSE IT IS A MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE ON TWO COUNTS, LIKE YOU SAID, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE, NO DISCRETION THERE. BUT THE JUDGE CAN DECIDE IF HE WILL SERVE THOSE CONSECUTIVELY OR CONCURRENTLY. JANE, I'M GOING TO SEND IT RIGHT BACK TO YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THE COURTROOM. THE SENTENCING IS ABOUT TO BEGIN. AND YOU SEE NEIL ENTWISTLE THERE IN COURT HAVING BEEN CONVICTED. >> A THREE TO FIVE YEAR CONCURRENT SENTENCE WITH COUNT TWO. AND AS TO THE COUNT FOUR, THE POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, A ONE YEAR HOUSE OF CORRECTION SENTENCE ALSO CONCURRENT WITH COUNT THREE AND COUNT TWO. WE DO HAVE TWO IMPACT STATEMENTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO OFFER FOR THE COURT AT THIS TIME. >> YES. DO THE INDIVIDUALS WISH TO SPEAK? >> YES, THEY DO. YES, THEY DO. >> ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> OUR DREAMS AS A PARENT AND GRANDPARENT HAVE BEEN SHATTERED BY THE SHAMEFUL, SELL FISH ACT OF ONE PERSON, NEIL ENTWISTLE. FOR HIM TO HAVE TRIED TO HIDE BEHIND AN ACCUSATION OF MURDER, SUICIDE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WOMAN AND PERFECT MOTHER IS LOW AND DESPICABLE. JOE AND I, OUR FAMILIES, RACHEL'S FRIENDS, STUDENTS HERE AND IN ENGLAND, WERE SENTENCED WITHOUT THE LUXURY OF A TRIAL BY JURY. AND NOW MUST GO ON WITH THE ETERNITY OF EMPTINESS. SUFFERING DOES NOT BEGIN TO DESCRIBE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ENDURING WITHOUT OUR BELOVED RACHEL AND LILLIAN WHO GAVE OUR LIVES SUCH PURPOSE AND MEANING. I HAVE LOST TWO GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO IMPOSE TWO CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES IN THE UNITED STATES, ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIVES OF BOTH RACHEL AND LILLIAN. >> THAT'LL, YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED TODAY BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS ON EARTH. BUT ONE DAY YOU WILL FACE THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF YOUR HORRIFIC DEEDS AND BETRAY YALS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WOULD ALSO OFFER A STATEMENT BY JEROME SOUZA, THE BROTHER OF RACHEL. AND HE'D LIKE TO BE ACCOMPANIED, IF HE COULD, YOUR HONOR, UP TO THE STAND BY SOME FAMILY MEMBERS. >> YES. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD MORNING. >> WHEN I WAS IN THE SECOND GRADE, RACHEL BEGAN KINDERGARTEN. FOR HER FIRST RIDE HOME SHE WAS PUT ON THE WRONG SCHOOL BUS. WHEN I GOT ON THE BUS AND SAW SHE WASN'T THERE, I WENT AND SEARCHED THE BUS LOT TILL I FOUND HER AND BRAULGT HER ON TO THE BRIGHT BUS TO GET BACK HOME. SHE'S MY LITTLE SISTER. I KNOW I HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF HER. CAME TO REALIZE -- SHE WASN'T ALWAYS AS FOND OF THOSE. EXCUSE ME. WE GREW UP IN THE COMPANY OF NEARLY COUNTLESS COUSINS CLOSE TO US IN AGE. AND MANY YEARS AFTER OUR FATHER'S DEATH WHEN OUR MOTHER REMARRIED, OUR FAMILY GREW LARGER WITHOUT LOSING ANY OF THE CLOSENESS WITH OUR OTHER FAMILY. ALL OF THESE COUSINS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS AS THERE ARE NO STEPS IN OUR FAMILY. EACH AND EVERY DAY WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE HEART ACHE OF NEIL'S BETRAYALS BROUGHT TO OUR FAMILY. THE COUSINS RETURN TO VISIT. WE CAN LISTEN TO THE STORIES OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FIRST WORDS, FIRST STEPS, SPORTS ANDS ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT HOW LILLIAN DID IN SCHOOL. WE CANNOT SHARE HER FIRST WORD. WE CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WATCHING HER TAKE HER FIRST STEP. WE CAN ONLY WONDER HOW LILY MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING. IN ALL OF THE PICTURES WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN, RACHEL GLOWS IN A WAY I NEVER SAW WHEN WE WERE CHILDREN. WHAT SHE WAS ALWAYS MOST PROUD OF WAS HER FAMILY. WE WERE ALWAYS RAISED TO KNOW THAT FAMILY CAME FIRST. BUT NOW WHEN THE FAMILY COMES TO VISIT WE CAN ONLY RECOUNT WHAT RACHEL DID AND SPECULATE ON WHAT LILY MIGHT HAVE DONE. WE CAN'T TELL LILY'S COUSINS WHAT HAPPENED TO HER. BUT WE CAN TELL WHAT HAPPENED TO HER BUT WE CANNOT TELL THEM WHY. MY COUSINS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR CHILDREN WHY THERE'S A NEW PICTURE IN THE FRAME BY GRAMMY AND POPPY'S EVERY YEAR BUT WHY RACHELLE AND LILLIAN'S NEVER CHANGE. THE NEXT GENERATION OF MY FAMILY WILL LOSE THEIR SNENS EARLY. SOME FIVE MONTHS OLDER THAN LILLIAN SHOULD BE. WHEN PARENT KS NO LONGER PUT OFF INQUIRIES OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN. I CAN NEVER ASK RACHEL FOR ANY HELP IN HOW TO EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT IS ALL WE HAVE TO OFFER AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. FABBRI. MR. WINESTEIN, DID YOU WISH TO BE HEARD. >> YES, JUDGE. WE REQUEST THAT ALL SENTENCING BE THAT AS MANDATORY BY STATUTE AND THAT WHICH IS DISCRETIONARY BE IMPOSED CONCURRENT WITH THE OTHER SENTENCE. >> DID MR. ENTWISTLE WISH TO SPEAK? >> HE DOES NOT. >> ALL RIGHT. THE JURY HAS FOUND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE FIRST-DEGREE MURDERS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THESE CRIMES ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THEY DEFIE COMPREHENSION BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE P PLANNED AND DELIBERATE MURDERS OF THE DEFENDANT, WIFE AND 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD. IN VIOLATION OF BONDS THAT WE RECOGNIZE AS CENTRAL TO OUR IDENTITY OF HUMAN BEINGS. THOSE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE AND PARENT AND CHILD. WHAT IS ALL TOO CLEAR AND EASILY COMPREHENDED IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSS AND THE PAIN SUFFERED BY RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE'S EXTENDED FAMILY AND FRIENDS. AND, IN PARTICULAR, RACHEL'S BROTHER JEROME SOUZA, HIS FAMILY, AND HER MOTHER AND STEPFATHER, PRISCILLA AND JOSEPH MATTERAZZO. THE SENTENCE FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER IS FIXED BY LAW. IT IS LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S RECOMMENDATION AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO'S REQUEST THAT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES BE IMPOSED IN THAT IT RECOGNIZES SUM BOLLICALLY THAT IF CONSECUTIVE -- THAT THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VICTIM. BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT IF CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE IMPOSED, PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH MASSACHUSETTS LAW WILL HAVE THE E ROANOUS IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE FROM PRISON ON A SENTENCE OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, WHEN THERE IS NOT. AS A MATTER OF LAW, A SENTENCE FOR FIRST-DEGREE MURDER IS AN ACTUAL LIFE SENTENCE. ABSENT A PARDON BY THE GOVERNOR, THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF RELEASE FROM PRISON. A CONSECUTIVE SENTENCE WOULD BE PURELY SYMBOLIC. FOR THAT REASON, I AM IMPOSING CONCURRENT SENTENCES FOR THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THAT MEANS THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL SERVE THE ACTUAL SENTENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WILL SERVE WILL BE FOR BOTH MURDERS. IN ADDITION, I AM GOING TO IMPOSE A PERIOD OF PROBATION CONCURRENT ON THE CHARGES OF POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION AND POSSESSION OF A FIREARM WITH A CONDITION THAT THE DEFENDANT NOT PROFIT IN ANY WAY FROM THE SALE OF HIS STORY, EITHER BY WAY OF BOOK OR -- OR OTHERWISE TO ANY MEDIA OUT LET. THAT IS THE SENTENCE THAT WILL BE IMPOSED. >> MAY WE APPROACH THE BENCH BEFORE FINAL IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >>> WELL, THERE YOU SEE IT. AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE LOOKED A LITTLE BIT SHOCKED AS THE JUDGE SAID THAT, I WILL IMPOSE A PERIOD OF PROBATION ON THE CONDITION THAT THE DEFENDANT NOT PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF ANY BOOK. PETER SCHAFFER, HE WAS CAUGHT -- WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT IN LONDON, HE HAD SOME NOTES ON SELLING HIS STORY. AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT HE'S MOSTLY EXPRESSIONLESS. AT THAT MOMENT HE LOOKED AROUND AS IF, OH, THAT'S MY FINAL IDEA THROWN IN THE TRASH. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WHAT HE WAS THINKING. BUT THAT SHOULD BE THE LEAST OF HIS WORRIES. BECAUSE AS THE JUDGE SAID, A SENTENCE OF LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS JUST THAT. AND THE WAY YOU LEAVE PRISON IS BY YOUR -- WHEN YOUR BODY'S REMOVED. >> ALL RIGHT. ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION ON THAT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCURRENT AND CONSECUTIVE. THE JUDGE SAYS, I'M GOING TO LET THEM BE TOGETHER, CONCURRENT, TO SEND A MESSAGE TO OTHER PEOPLE. WHAT WAS THE MESSAGE IN PLAIN ENGLISH. >> THE MESSAGE IS LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS A TRUE LIFE SENTENCE. OTHER LIFE SENTENCES, THERE MAY BE SOME PAROLE AT SOME POINT. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU HAVE ONE OR TEN. ONCE YOU'RE SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, YOU WILL DIE IN PRISON. >> AND THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS A GUBERNATORIAL PARDON. AND YOU WERE SAYING, UNLESS HIS MOTHER BECOMES GOVERNOR, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU CAN BET ON IT. HE'S GOING TO SERVE HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE. >> LET'S GO BACK INTO THE COURTROOM FOR MORE OF THE SENTENCING HEARING. >> AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT YOU BE SENTENCED TO THE MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CEDAR JUNCTION FOR THE TERM OF LIFE. INDICTMENT NOT 2006387002 AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST-DEGREE IT IS ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT YOU BE SENTENCED TO MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CEDAR JUNCTION FOR THE TERM OF LIFE. THIS SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006387001. AS TO INDICTMENTS 2006387003 AND 004, POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, THAT YOU BE SENTENCED TO PROBATION FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. THIS IS TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN 001 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, THAT YOU WILL NOT PROFIT IN ANY WAY FROM SALE OF YOUR STORY. $90 VICTIM FEE WILL BE IMPOSED, $65 PROBATION SUPERVISION FEE WILL BE IMPOSED, 861 DAYS WILL BE NOTED. >> THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS. >> ALL RISE. THE COURT IS IN RECESS. >>> LET'S GO BACK OUT TO JENNIFER LONDON. WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THIS MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, CEDAR JUNCTION, WHERE HE WILL BE SENT? >> Reporter: JANE, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE HAVE HEARD WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL SERVE OUT HIS SENTENCE. YOU HEARD THAT IT IS A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. IT IS AT CEDAR JUNCTION. WE DO ASSUME THAT AFTER HE'S PROCESSED HE WILL BE REMANDED THERE IMMEDIATELY AND YOU DID HEAR THAT HE WILL SERVE OUT HIS LIFE SENTENCE THERE. >> RIGHT NOW IN COURT, THE FAMILY OF THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, KIND OF GATHERED TOGETHER. AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS TWO FAMILIES DESTROYED. BEATTY COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, THESE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE DIDN'T COMMIT ANY CRIME. NEIL ENTWISTLE DID. IT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW CRIMINALS DESTROY THEIR OWN FAMILIES TIME AND TIME AGAIN. >> ISN'T THAT THE TRUTH? YOU KNOW, SO HERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE -- IT'S TRUE. WE DON'T LIKE EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID AND HOW THEY BEHAVED. BUT THEY DID. THEY LOST THEIR SON. THEY LOST THEIR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, AND THEY LOST THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER. >> AND, ONCE AGAIN, PETER SCHAFFER, BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO BE SERVING OUT HIS LIFE SENTENCE IN MASSACHUSETTS, AND HIS FAMILY LIVES IN ENGLAND, HE IS REALLY SENTENCED TO DAN TA'S ENFEHR KNOW. NO VISITORS UNLESS THEY MOVE HERE OR FLY OVER FOR EVERY VISIT. >> HE'S GOING TO BE PRETTY ISOLATED. I DON'T THINK HE HAD VERY MANY CONNECTIONS TO MASSACHUSETTS. PRAPS THE FAMILY WILL RELOCATE HERE. IN ANY EVENT, I'M SURE HIS VISITS WILL BE LIMITED SOMEWHAT. MAYBE ONCE A WEEK. I THINK MOST OF HIS LIFE HE'LL BE ISOLATED. >> HERE'S AN INTERESTING THING HAPPENING IN COURT. THE TWO SIDES, THE KEY ATTORNEYS, THE PROSECUTOR AND ELLIOT WINESTEIN, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, CHATTING AMICABLY. DOES THAT OFTEN HAPPEN, PETER, AT THE END OF A TRIAL? BITTER E MOEGS IN COURT AND THEN THEY TALK? >> WELL, EACH ATTORNEY HAS HIS JOB TO DO. I MEAN, I DON'T ENVY THE DEFENSE LAWYER IN THIS CASE. I DO DEFENSE WORK. BUT THIS IS A TOUGH CASE TO DEFEND. AND IF YOU CAN'T SEPARATE YOUR JOB FROM THE HUMAN BEING THAT YOU WORKED WITH ON THIS CASE, THEN YOU'RE IN TROUBLE. BECAUSE HE HAS TO LEAVE THIS COURTROOM AND HANDLE ANOTHER MATTER, I'M SURE. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF THE JUDGE SORT OF SCOLDING NEIL ENTWISTLE, DO NOT TRY TO PROFIT OFF OF THIS, SAYING THAT IT COULD AFFECT HIS PROBATION. BUT THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND, DOES HE REALLY CARE ABOUT PROBATION GIVEN THE FACT THAT HE'S LOCKED AWAY FOR LIFE ANYWAY? >> THE PROBATION ASPECT OF THE SENTENCE IS REALLY A FORMALITY. IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. I THINK THE JUDGE JUST WANTED TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO EVERYONE THAT HE WILL NOT PROFIT FROM ANY STORY ABOUT THIS CASE. >> JENNIFER LONDON, DO WE KNOW IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A WRONGFUL DEATH CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE MATTERAZZOS AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S BEEN DONE IN THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE? AND THEY SAID SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO PREVENT SCOTT PETERSON FROM PROFITING OFF OF A BOOK. COULD THE MATTERAZZOS DO THAT AS WELL? >> Reporter: CERTAINLY, THEY COULD. WE DO NOT KNOW IF, IN FACT, THEY WILL. WE DO KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT THE DEFENSE DOES PLAN TO APPEAL THE VERDICT. THEY SAID YESTERDAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VERDICT THAT THEY WILL FILE AN APPEAL. THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE VERY STRONG APPELLATE ISSUES. AND THEY WILL FILE AN APPEAL AS TO WHETHER OR NOT RACHEL'S FAMILY WILL GO FORWARD WITH A CIVIL SUIT, WE HAVE NOT HEARD YET. >> YEAH. AND PETER SCHAFFER, APPARENTLY THE BASIS OF YOUR APPEAL IS GOING TO BE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WENT INTO THE HOME TWICE. FIRST, FOR A WELL-BEING CHECK WHEN ORIGINALLY SOME PEOPLE SHOWED UP FOR A DINNER PARTY AT THE HOME. AND THE LIGHTS WERE ON BUT THEY COULDN'T GET IN. THEN PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AT THE SAME TIME OR AROUND THE SAME TIME OR EARLIER HAD SHOWN UP TO TRY TO VISIT HER DAUGHTER, COULDN'T GET IN. AND SO THEY WENT TO THE POLICE, THE POLICE WENT AND DID A WELL-BEING CHECK. THEY LOOKED THROUGH THE HOUSE BRIEFLY, DIDN'T SEE THE BODIES UNDER THE COVERS BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME COMFORTERS ON IT, AND LEFT. AND THEN AFTER THE FAMILY DIDN'T TURN UP AGAIN, THEY WENT BACK TO THE HOUSE. THAT'S WHEN THEY SMELLED THAT DINGT ODOR OF A ROTTING CORPSE AND DISCOVERED THE BODIES. IS THAT AN ILLEGAL ACT ON THE PART OF POLICE THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF AN APPEAL? >> ANY SEARCH WITHOUT A WARRANT WITH, OR A SEARCH WITH THE WARRANT COULD BE THE BASIS FOR AN APPEAL. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT'S GOING TO GO VERY FAR. AND, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL APPEALS IN GENERAL ARE VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF CONVICTIONS ARE OVERTURNED. AND IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, EVEN IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH ONE OR TWO OF THE SEARCHES, IF THERE WAS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF GUILT, THAT COULD BE DETERMINED TO BE A HARMLESS ERROR. >> I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE IN THE FAMILY, THE MOTHER IS SAYING I DON'T KNOW WHERE MY DAUGHTER IS AND SHE'S GOT A WAY TO GET INTO THE HOUSE OR MAYBE SHE DOESN'T, BUT EITHER WAY, SHE'S THE MOM. THAT'S AN ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THAT HOUSE LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY? >> WELL, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DEFENSE CLAIM. THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE. THE DISTRICT COURT OR THE TRIAL COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS OKAY. AND THAT DECISION BY, YOU KNOW, AUTOMATICALLY GETS REVIEWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THIS IS A FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION. >> WOW. FASCINATING STUFF. OKAY. AS WE GO TO BREAK, WASN'T TO UPDATE YOU ON TODAY'S 13th JUROR QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE VERDICT? SO FAR 96% OF YOU ARE VOTING YES. WHILE 4% OF YOU SAY NO. TO VOTE JUST LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME AND CLICK ON 13th JUROR. STAY RIGHT THERE. >>> THIS HAS BEEN A VERY, VERY SAD CASE. FOR TWO FAMILIES. ONE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ONE IN THE UNITED STATES. AND STEPHANIE AND I DID EVERYTHING THAT WE KNEW TO DO TO PROVIDE NEIL ENTWISTLE WITH THE MOST VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO UNDER OUR LAWS AND UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. >>> ESSENTIALLY THE LOSING TEAM, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WHO UNSUCCESSFULLY REPRESENTED NEIL ENTWISTLE SPEAKING AFTER THE VERDICT. JUST MOMENTS AGO IT WAS TIME FOR THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY, THE FAMILY OF VICTIM RACHEL, TO SPEAK. AND IT WAS BRIEF BUT IT WAS ELOQUENT. >> OUR DREAMS AS A PARENT AND GRANDPARENT HAVE BEEN SHATTERED BY THE SHAMEFUL, SELFISH ACT OF ONE PERSON, NEIL ENT WIS PL FOR HIM TO HAVE TRIED TO HIDE BEHIND AN ACCUSATION OF MURDER/SUICIDE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WOMAN AND PERFECT MOTHER, IS LOW AND DESPICABLE. JOE AND I, OUR FAMILIES, RACHEL'S FRIENDS, STUDENTS HERE AND IN ENGLAND, WERE SENTENCED WITHOUT THE LUXURY OF A TRIAL BY JURY. AND NOW MUST GO ON WITH THE ETERNITY OF EMPTINESS. SUFFERING DOES NOT BEGIN TO DESCRIBE WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ENDURING WITHOUT OUR BELOVED RACHEL AND LILLIAN WHO GAVE OUR LIVES SUCH PURPOSE AND MEANING. I HAVE LOST TWO GENERAL RAGS OF MY FAMILY. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO IMPOSE TWO CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCES IN THE UNITED STATES, ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIVES OF BOTH RACHEL AND LILLIAN. >> NOEL, YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED TODAY BY A JURY OF PEERS ON YOUR EARTH. ONE DAY YOU'LL FACE THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF YOUR HORRIFIC DEEDS AND BETRAYALS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. >>> ONCE AGAIN, BRIEF BY ELOQUENT ON THE PART OF THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY. PETER SCHAFFER, VETERAN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU SAID THIS WAS THE PERFECT SENTENCING HEARING. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> I MEAN IT'S NOT PERFECT FOR THE DEFENDANT, BUT IN THIS CASE EVERYBODY KNEW WHAT THE SENTENCE IS GOING TO BE. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T PUT IT OVER FOR VERY LONG. AND THERE WASN'T MUCH TO SAY, BUT THE -- THE VICTIMS SAID IT SUS SINGTLY. THE JUDGE DIDN'T GO ON WITH A LONG SPEECH. BECAUSE WHEN YOU SENTENCE SOMEONE TO LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE THERE ISN'T MUCH TO SAY. >> AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW MASSACHUSETTS IS SO DIFFERENT FROM CALIFORNIA. A LOT OF THE OUT OF CONTROL TRIALS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT END AS MISTRIAL OR ACQUITTAL DESPITE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE HAPPENED IN, WHERE ELSE, MY HOMETOWN, CALIFORNIA. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ATTITUDE IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CALIFORNIA? >> WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY MOVE THINGS ALONG. I KNOW I PRACTICE IN NEW YORK CITY. AND THOSE LONG, EXTENDED TRIALS ARE RARE. I THINK IT HELPS EVERYONE, INCLUDING, I THINK, THE DEFENSE FOR A TRIAL TO BE CONDUCTED QUICKLY. PAIN STAKINGLY, YET THINKS HAVE TO BE MOVED ALONG. THAT STARTS WITH THE ATTITUDE OF THE JUDGE. IN THIS CASE IT APPEARED LIKE THE JUDGE STARTED EVERYTHING ON TIME AND MOVED THE CASE ALONG. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU 100%. THE JUDGE SEEMED TO DO A VERY GOOD JOB, SEASONED, QUIET, CALM, SUS SINGT IS WORD THAT COMES TO MIND. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY DANCING COT MYERS ON THE LATE NIGHT TALK SHOW. >> ANOTHER THING THAT MADE THIS CASE GO QUICKLY IS THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE PRESENTED. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WRONG, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU HAVE NOTHING TO PUT ON AND YOU HAVE NO BURDEN. BUT WHEN THE DEFENSE DOESN'T CALL ANY WITNESSES, DOESN'T PUT ON ANY EXHIBITS, IT GOES QUICKLY. >> BEATTY COHEN, PSYCHOTHERAPIST, SHOULD NEIL ENTWISTLE BE HELD IN ISOLATION OR SOME KIND OF PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WHEN HE'S IN PRISON? BECAUSE LOOK AT HIM. HE'S A HANDSOME GUY. AND FOR THE MASS OV PRIDSERS INSIDE THE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THEY MAY NOT KNOW ALL THE DETAILS. THEY MAY HEAR HIS ACCENT. THEY MAY SAY HE'S SOME RICH KID, A RIS CAT, FOREIGNER AND HE COULD BECOME A TARGET. >> I THINK WHATEVER IS DONE TO HIM IN PRISON, HIS FEELINGS AND HIS WELL BEING WOULD BE THE LAST THING IN THE WORLD THAT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT. BUT, YOU KNOW, ON THE BREAK I WAS THINKING THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF WOMEN, LIKE IN THE SCOTT PETERSON TRIAL, WHO ARE GOING TO BE WRITING NEIL ENTWISTLE. AND ONE THOUGHT THAT I HAVE, AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PETER SCHAFFER, IS THAT IF HE DECIDES TO MARRY A WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN WRITING TO HIM, WILL THIS BE ALLOWED IN THE PRISON SYSTEM? >> ARE YOU TALKING CONJUGAL VISITS? ALL RIGHT, PETER. >> YES. >> WELL, I DON'T PRACTICE IN MASSACHUSETTS. I'D BE QUITE SURPRISED. I DON'T THINK HE'S GOING TO HAVE CONTACT VISITS WITH ANYBODY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. AND WHETHER HE'S ALLOWED TO MARRY SOMEONE, ALTHOUGH IT'S JUST SPECULATIVE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS WOULD ALLOW THAT. >> WELL, SOME FAMOUS CONVICTS HAVE GOTTEN MARRIED LIKE ONE OF THE MENENDEZ BROTHERS. I DON'T BELIEVE CONJUGAL VISITS WERE ALLOWED BUT THEY DO GET MARRIED. AND SCOTT PETERSON HAD A LOT OF FAN MAIL FROM WOMEN. ONE OF THE FEMALE JURORS WHO CONVICTED HIM BEGAN BECOMING A PEN PAL WITH SCOTT PETERSON. BEATTY COHEN, WHAT ARE THE PARALLELS, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN CONVICTED, BETWEEN THE SCOTT PETERSON CASE AND THIS CASE? YOU HAVE IN BOTH CASES TWO HANDSOME, CHARMING GUYS WHO THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT WHO WERE ESSENTIALLY CHEATING OR THINKING ABOUT CHEATING AND DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH IT. >> GREAT, GREAT QUESTION AND MANY, MANY PARALLELS. ONE, PERSONALITY DISORDER. BOTH NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITIES. TWO, PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES. NO CONSCIENCE. NO EMPATHY. AS FAR AS THE IT'S ALL ABOUT ME, AND BOTH, I GUESS, IF YOU LOOK AT MEN LIKE THIS AND YOU THINK THEY'RE HANDSOME, I MEAN, I CERTAINLY DON'T. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF WOMEN WHO WILL BE CONTACTING THEM THROUGH LETTERS AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE'S GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE -- TO THE INTERNET. BUT VERY, VERY SIMILAR SITUATIONS. >> THEY REALLY, REALLY ARE. AND, HERE'S A QUESTION FOR OUR VIEWERS. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ENTWISTLE VERDICT? WHEN WE COME RIGHT BACK, WE'LL HEAR WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT AS WE REVEAL THE ANSWER TO OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY. STAY WITH US. >>> WE ASKED YOU TODAY IN OUR QUESTION OF THE DAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE ENTWISTLE VERDICT? OUR ANSWER COMES FROM SHANNON IN FLORIDA. SHE WRITES, I KNOW THE VERDICT WAS CORRECT. I FULLY EXPECTED THE JURY TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION. IT WAS QUITE INSULTING TO HEAR MRS. ENTWISTLE SAY THAT NEIL WANTED TO PROTECT RACHEL'S MEMORY AND THEN SHE CALLED RACHEL AND MURDERESS. HOW BLIND SHE IS TO THE TRUTH. WELL SAID. YOU COULD BE A PROSECUTOR, SHANNON. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT ANSWER. WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO JENNIFER LONDON OUTSIDE COURT IN MASSACHUSETTS. SHE'S GOT SOME NEW INFORMATION JUST IN. JENNIFER? >> Reporter: WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY FOR THE DEFENSE AFTER THE SENTENCING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHERE EXACTLY NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL SERVE OUT HIS LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. WE DID HEAR IN SENTENCING THAT HE WAS REMANDED TO A -- THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CEDAR JUNCTION. WE WERE NOT SURE IF THAT'S WHERE, IN FACT, HE WOULD SPEND THE REMAINDER OF HIS LIFE OR IF THAT WOULD BE A TEMPORARY HOLING AREA. THE DEFENSE SAYS IT'LL TAKE A FEW DAYS TO PROCESS HIM AND IT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED WHERE HE WILL BE PERMANENTLY HOUSED. SO WE BELIEVE THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CEDAR JUNCTION MAY SERVE JUST AS A TEMPORARY LOCATION FOR HIM. ALTHOUGH WE DO UNDERSTAND IT IS A MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON. WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT, JANE. >> WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT LIVE FEEDS COMING IN, REPORTERS SCRAMBLING, TRYING TO GET STATEMENTS FROM SOME OF THE KEY PARTICIPANTS. IS THIS A BIG STORY IN ENGLAND? APPARENTLY THERE ARE A LOT OF BRITISH MEDIA THERE, NO? >> Reporter: OH, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S A BIG STORY HERE IN THE U.S. AND ALSO IN THE UK. WE HAVE REPORTERS FROM SKY NEWS, THE BBC. WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE -- THE BRITISH PRINTED PRESS HERE. THIS IS A VERY, VERY BIG STORY. NOT ONLY IS HE A RESIDENT OF THE THE UK, BUT HE FLED BACK TO ENGLAND RIGHT AFTER THE MURDERS WHERE HE WAS ULTIMATELY ARRESTED WITH THE HELP OF SCOTTLAND YARD BEFORE HE WAS EXTRADITED BACK TO THE UNITED STATES. SO THEY HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CASE VERY CLOSELY, JANE. >> AND WHEN HE WAS CAUGHT, HE WAS APPARENTLY IN THE LONDON UNDERGROUND AND WAS LITERALLY WALKING AROUND THERE WITH A COPY OF SOME ADS FOR ESCORT SERVICES. AND APPARENTLY, ACCORDING TO THE PROSECUTION, PETER SCHAFFER, SOME NOTES FOR HOW TO SELL HIS STORY, POSSIBLY. YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I'M ALWAYS FLABBERGASTED BY SOME OF THE EVIDENCE THAT IS OBTAINED. FOR EXAMPLE, TAKING A LOOK AT HIS COMPUTER. HE GOOG LS HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE. A COUPLE OF DAYS, A FEW DAYS BEFORE THIS CRIME, BEFORE HE MURDERS HIS -- WHAT ARE THEY THINKING? DO THEY NOT REALIZE I GOOGLED HOW TO KILL WITH A KNIFE? >> WE SEE THAT IN MORE MODERN CASES OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT EVERY TIME YOU KUCH A KEY ON YOUR KEYBOARD, THAT THAT INFORMATION IS STORED SOMEWHERE. AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT KNOW HOW TO FIGURE IT OUT. SO IN CASES THAT I'VE COMMENTED ON HERE, ON truTV, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS CASES WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SORT OF LAID OUT EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM SIMPLY BY DOING SIMPLE SEARCHES THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE KNOWS ABOUT. >> I HAVE TO BRING THE SHRINK IN ON THIS ONE. PSYCHOTHERAPIST BEATTY COHEN. HE WAS A COMPUTER EXPERT. IF ANYBODY SHOULD KNOW THAT THOSE GOOGLE SEARCHES REMAIN INSIDE YOUR COMPUTER IT WOULD BE HIM. >> I GUESS HE WASN'T SUCH A COMPUTER EXPERT AFTER ALL. I MEAN, REALLY. OBVIOUSLY HE WANTED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW TO DO IT. AND HE CERTAINLY WAS NOT IN A RIGHT FRAME OF MIND. AND I'M SURE THAT THE LAST THING HE WAS THINKING ABOUT WAS THAT SOMEHOW, SOMEBODY WAS GOING TO GET INTO THE COMPUTER AND BE ABLE TO TRACE HIS TRAIL. >> AGAIN, THE SENTENCING OF NEIL ENTWISTLE TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. JUST ENDED. DURING THAT SENTENCING HEARING, WE HEARD FROM THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, THE MOTHER OF RACHEL, AND ALSO THE BROTHER OF RACHEL, JEROME SOUZA. LET'S LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAD TO SAY. >>> WHEN I WAS IN SECOND GRADE RACHEL BEGAN KINDERGARTEN. HER FIRST RIDE HOME SHE WAS PUT ON THE WRONG SCHOOL BUS. THE ROUTES WERE CLOSE BUT WHEN I GOT ON THE BUS AND SHE WASN'T THERE I SEARCHED THE LOT UNTIL I FOUND HER. BROUGHT HER ON THE RIGHT BUS. SHE'S MY LITTLE SISTER. I KNEW I HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY. AS I GREW UP I CAME TO REALIZE. WE GREW UP IN THE COMPANY OF COUNTLESS COUSINS CLOSE TO US IN AGE. MANY YEARS AFTER OUR FATHER'S DEATH WHEN OUR MOTHER REMARRIED, OUR FAMILY GREW LARGER WITHOUT LOSING CLOSENESS OF OTHER FAMILIES. OWL OF THESE COUSINS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS AS THEY ARE NO STEPS IN OUR FAMILIES. WE'RE ALL MISSING AN MOURNING RACHEL AND LILLIAN EVERY DAY. EACH AND EVERY DAY WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE HEART ACHE NEIL'S BETRAYALS BROUGHT TO OUR FAMILY. THE COUSINS RETURN TO VISIT WE CAN LISTEN TO THE STORIES OF THE CHILDREN AND THEIR FIRST WORDS, FIRST STEPS, SPORTS AND ACADEMIC ACCOMPLISHMENTS. WE CANNOT TALK ABOUT HOW LILLIAN DID IN SCHOOL. WE CANNOT SHARE HER FIRST WORD. WE CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WATCHING HER TAKE HER FIRST STEP. WE CAN ONLY WONDER HOW LILY MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING. IN ALL OF THE PICTURES WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN, RACHEL GLOWS IN A WAY I NEVER SAW WHEN WE WERE CHILDREN. WHAT SHE WAS ALWAYS MOST PROUD OF WAS HER FAMILY. WE WERE ALWAYS RAISED TO KNOW THAT FAMILY CAME FIRST. BUT NOW WHEN THE FAMILY COMES TO VISIT WE CAN ONLY RECOUNT WHAT RACHEL DID AND SPECULATE ON WHAT LILY MIGHT HAVE DONE. WE CAN'T TELL LILY'S COUSINS WHAT HAPPENED TO HER. WE CAN TELL BHAPD TO HER, BUT WE CANNOT TELL THEM WHY. ALL OF MY COUSINS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THEIR CHILDREN WHY THERE'S A NEW PICTURE IN THE FRONT OF THEIR FRAME AT GRAMMY AND POPPIES EVERY YEAR BUT WHY RACHEL AND LILLIANS NEVER CHANGE. THE REST OF MY FAMILY WILL HAVE TO LOSE THEIR SNENS EARLY. SOME FIVE MONTHS OLDER THAN LILLIAN SHOULD BE, WHEN THEIR PARENTS CAN'T PUT OFF INQUIRIES ABOUT RACHEL AND LILLIAN. AND I CAN NEVER ASK RACHEL FOR ANY HELP IN HOW TO EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS. >> TRYING TO CONTAIN HIS EMOTIONS. THE BROTHER OF MURDER VICTIM RACHEL SPEAKING VERY ELOQUENTLY THERE. HEARTFELT. AND IT WAS DESCRIBED AS REALLY THE PERFECT SENTENCING HEARING. EVERYBODY REALLY SPOKE FROM THE HEART AND SPOKE SUS SINGTLY AND ELOQUENTLY. THIS CASE IS SO TROUBLING IN SO MANY WAYS. ONE OF THE THINGS, PEELTER SHAFER, I THINK BOTHERS A LOT OF PEOPLE, ANY TIME SINCE O.J., SINCE GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT WAS USED SUCCESSFULLY IN THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE, ANY TIME THERE'S ORR OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT HIS LAWYER DECIDES TO BLAME THE INVESTIGATORS AND SAY THEY WERE BIASSED, THEY CONDUCTED FAULTY POLICE WORK, SLOPPY POLICE WORK. IT'S BASICALLY TAKING A PAGE FROM THE O.J. SIMPSON DEFENSE, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. >> IN THIS CASE IT DIDN'T RING VERY TRUE. IN A LOT OF CASES AND WELL BEFORE THE ATTORNEYS BROUGHT IT UP IN O.J. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER AN INVESTIGATION IS DONE PROPERLY IS FERTILE GROUNDS FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND, YOU KNOW WHAT, A LOT OF TIMES THERE IS FAULTY INVESTIGATION. THERE ARE PEOPLE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS. BUT IN A CASE LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT DOESN'T HELP. >> BEATTY COHEN, IT SEEMS LIKE QUITE OFTEN WITH THESE TRIALS THERE ARE TRENDS. IN OTHER WORDS, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE PEOPLE, THEY LOOK AT THE -- THEY READ THE PAPER. THEY LOOK AT A PREVIOUS CASE THAT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS. THEY GO, OH, THAT WORKED. LET ME TRY THAT. I'M THINKING PHIL SPECTOR. HIS CASE RESULTED IN A MISTRIAL. HE'LL GO BACK ON TRIAL RATHER SOON, AS A MATTER OF FACT. BUT HIS SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY, AT LEAST HIS RESULTED IN A MISTRIAL, WAS SAYING THAT THE VICTIM IN THE CASE, LA NA CLARKSON, THE ACTRESS WHO DIED OF A GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE MOUTH IN HIS CASTLE, KILLED HERSELF. NOW WE HAVE THIS HIGH-PROFILE CASE WHERE ANOTHER CLAIM OF SUICIDE. THIS TIME IT WASN'T SUCCESSFUL. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WILL PULL AT STRAWS, JANE. YOU OWE ONE OF THE THINGS I'M REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT IS WHY THE DEFENSE TEAM DID NOT TRY AND USE A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. I CAN THINK OF ALL KINDS OF HYPOTHESES, PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED. WAS HE BIPOLAR? WAS HE ON DRUGS? HE HAS HIS PSYCH PATTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER, NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER ISSUES. I'M CURIOUS WHY THEY DIDN'T TRY TO MAKE A PSYCHIATRIC DEFENSE. >> BRIEFLY, PETER SCHAFFER, COULD HE HAVE PLEADED INSANITY? >> WELL, I MEAN, HE COULD HAVE DONE IT. I THINK SOMEBODY MADE AN ASSESSMENT THAT THEY WOULDN'T PREVAIL ON THAT. PERHAPS HE DIDN'T APPROVE THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THE DEFENDANT HAS TO -- UNLESS YOU THINK YOUR CLIENT IS TOTALLY INCAPABLE OF ASSISTING IN YOUR DEFENSE, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HELP MAKE A DECISION ON -- ON HOW THE CASE PROCEEDS IN DEFENSE. >> ALL RIGHT. A FASCINATING CASE. ONE WATCHED AGAIN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS IN ENGLAND. NOW A BRITISH MAN SPENDS THE RIGHT OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON IN AMERICA. THANKS TO CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON REPORTING LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS TODAY. UP NEXT ON "OPEN COURT," THE SUPREME COURT ANNOUNCES A HUGE DECISION ABOUT GUN RIGHTS. WE WILL HAVE A LIVE REPORT FROM THE NATION'S CAPITAL, UP NEXT. >>> THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AT THE CENTER OF CONTROVERSY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WILL A SUPREME COURT DECISION CHANGE THE NATION'S GUN RIGHTS? A LIVE REPORT STRAIGHT AHEAD. >>> THERE IS BREAKING NEWS FROM WASHINGTON THIS MORNING. THE SUPREME COURT HAS STRUCK DOWN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S HANDGUN BAN. SENIOR EDITOR GRED GRAHAM JOINS US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE HIGH COURT WITH THE VERY LATEST ON TODAY'S RULING. FRED? >> Reporter: IT'S HISTORIC DECISION BY IN MEASURE. A 5-4 DECISION WHICH PUTS THE SUPREME COURT ON RECORD FOR THE FIRST TIME, AFTER ALL THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IT GOES BACK OVER 200 YEARS, FOR THE FIRST TIME THE SUPREME COURT IS SAYING THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, WHICH IS LAID OUT IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT, IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT WHICH EVERY PERSON IN THE UNITED STATES HAS. IT'S NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT WHICH REACHES ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN MILITIAS. AND THE -- IT FALLS -- FOLLOWS FROM THAT, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THAT THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA'S GUN CONTROL LAW WHICH WAS -- IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE 5-4 DECISION, THE GUN CONTROL LAW IN THIS DISTRICT IS NOW UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND INVALID. IT WAS A VERY STRONG GUN CONTROL LAW. IT SAID YOU COULD NOT OWN A HANDGUN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN HAVE IT IN YOUR HOME FOR YOUR SELF-PROTECTION. AND JUSTICE SCALIA WHO READ THE OPINION FOR THE MAJORITY, WHO WROTE THE OPINION AND READ IT, BY THE WAY, IT WAS 154 PAGES OF OPINIONS IN THIS CASE. IT'S A BIG CASE IN MANY WAYS. BUT THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL HANDGUN LEGISLATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. BUT AT LEAST IT'S TOO MUCH AND IT VIOLATES INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TO SAY A PERSON CANNOT HAVE A HANDGUN IN HIS OR HER OWN HOME FOR SELF-PROTECTION. >> SO, FRED, THE D.C. BAN HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN. BUT WHAT ARE THE NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS FOR GUN LAWS AROUND THE COUNTRY? >> Reporter: WELL, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HEAR THAT THERE IS A PRESS CONFERENCE GOING ON. WE'RE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AND THERE'S INTENSE NATIONAL AND LOCAL INTEREST HERE IN THIS DECISION. BECAUSE IT THROWS OPEN ALL THESE GUN CONTROL MEASURES TO QUESTION. NOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. JUSTICE SKA LISA SAID, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY LAWS IN THE COUNTRY AGAINST CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. THAT SEEMS TO BE REASONABLE. THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST HAVING A WEAPON NEAR A SCHOOL. THAT'S REASONABLE. SO WHAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN HERE IS THAT THE COURTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO ONE AT A TIME THROUGH THE VARIOUS GUN CONTROL LAWS THAT EXIST AROUND THIS COUNTRY. AND SAY, IS THIS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, WHICH IS GUARANTEED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. >> SO SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THIS WENT EVEN FURTHER, APPARENTLY, THAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD ASKED FOR? THIS IS A TREMENDOUS, A HUGE DEFEAT FOR GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES? >> Reporter: OH, YES. IT'S AN INTERESTING HISTORY. THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF A QUIRKY ISSUE IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE SUPREME COURT, ABOUT 70 YEARS AGO, IN 1936, THE SUPREME COURT HINTED IN A CASE THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT'S GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO CARRY AND BEAR ARMS ONLY APPLIED TO PEOPLE IN THE MILITIA. THAT THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL IN THE COUNTRY HAD NO RIGHTS UNDER THAT. AND THE SUPREME COURT JUST HINTED AT THAT. THEN WHAT HAPPENED WAS THERE WERE A SERIES OF COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS THAT FOLLOWED IT OVER THOSE 70 YEARS. AND ALMOST ALL OF THEM SAID, WELL, THERE'S NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, IT'S JUST -- IT'S NOT -- IT'S A CORPORATE RIGHT, COLLECTIVE RIGHT, WHICH RELATES ONLY TO MILITIAMEN. THEN HERE AFTER 70 YEARS OF ALLOWING THE LOWER COURTS TO TAKE THAT POSITION, AND THOSE CASES WERE APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT IN EVERY INSTANCE JUST SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR IT, PEOPLE ASSUMED THEY'RE NOT HEARING THESE CASES BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT AGREED. WELL, 5-4 THIS MORNING THE SUPREME COURT SAID, GOT YOU. ALL THOSE YEARS, IT WAS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND NOW WE ARE PROCLAIMING THAT IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. >> YOU KNOW, WHAT ALWAYS OCCURS TO ME WITH THIS ISSUE IS THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAVE SPOKE ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. BUT I DON'T THINK THEY HAD IN MIND AGERS RUNNING AROUND WITH OOZY GUNS. THE KIND OF WEAPONRY THAT'S AVAILABLE TODAY CAN KILL MANY PEOPLE AT ONE TIME. LOOK AT VIRGINIA TECH AND LOOK AT COLUMN BIN. DO THEY WEIGH THAT IN YOUR DLIB RAGS. >> Reporter: OF COURSE, THIS JUST HAD TO DO WITH A HANDGUN, THE RIGHT TO HAVE A HANDGUN IN YOUR HOME. BUT THERE WERE HINTS FROM JUSTICE SCALIA IN HIS MAJORITY OPINION THAT THIS DOES NOT GO TO -- RELATE TO ASSAULT WEAPONS. IT DOESN'T RELATE TO BAA ZOO KAS. THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A CASE BY CASE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THESE MATTERS. AND BELIEVE ME, IT'S GOING TO KEEP A LOT OF LAWYERS BUSY FOR YEARS. >> SPEAKING OF LAWYERS, PETER SCHAFFER, VETERAN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THERE'S ALWAYS THIS DEBATE OVER THE WORD MILITIA. DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BAN TOGETHER IN CASE A GOVERNMENT TRIES TO ESTABLISH A TOTALITARIAN STATE OR DOES IT MEAN WE CAN ALL RUN AROUND PACKING HEAT? >> I HAVEN'T READ THE DECISION YET. BUT FROM WHAT FRED JUST SAID, THE SUPREME COURT HAS DECIDED THAT -- THAT THE MILITIA ISN'T THAT IMPORTANT. THAT IT HAS TO DO WITH THE INDIVIDUAL. SO THE LAW -- THIS IS A LANDMARK DECISION IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE. >>> WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO IT? >> I'M DISAPPOINTED. I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD THIS CASE BEEN DECIDED THREE YEARS AGO WITH A DIFFERENT SUPREME COURT. IT'S 5-4. DOES THE FACT THAT THE SHIFT IN THE SUPREME COURT MEAN THAT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WILL DIE AT HANDGUN VIOLENCE? I CAN'T -- I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. >> IT'S ONE OF THE MOST DIVISIVE ISSUES IN OUR COUNTRY. A HOT BUTTON ISSUE, EMOTIONS VERY STRONG ON BOTH SIDES. I WANT TO OFFER TREMENDOUS THANKS, OF COURSE, TO SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM FOR JOINING US FROM WASHINGTON TODAY IN THE MIDDLE OF A NEWS CONFERENCE THERE. THANK YOU, SIR. THANKS ALSO TO OUR GUEST, PETER SCHAFFER AND BEATTY COHEN. GREAT JOB, GREAT ANALYSIS. TIME TO CHECK IN WITH JAMI FLOYD TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT ON "BEST DEFENSE." >> IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE YOU IN THE HOUSE AND NICE TO SEE YOU HERE. OF COURSE, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ON THE BIG VERDICT IN THE NEIL ENTWISTLE TRIAL. NEIL ENTWISTLE, OF COURSE, GUILTY OF DOUBLE MURDER. AND WE'VE GOT HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY. ELLIOT WINESTEIN WILL JOIN US FOR A ONE ON ONE CONVERSATION ABOUT HIS DEFENSE AND SOME CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS THEY MADE ALONG THE WAY. OBVIOUSLY, JANE, I'M A LAW GEEK ALONG WITH THE REST OF YOU. WE'LL CHECK BACK IN WITH FRED GRAHAM FOR A WRAPUP OF ALL OF THE SUPREME COURT CASES OF THIS TERM. >> THANKS, JAMI. SOUNDS LIKE A VERY EXCITING SHOW. WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN A MINUTE. THAT WRAPS UP MY TIME WITH YOU ON OPEN COURT. I'M JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL IN FOR LISA BLOOM. I'LL BE BACK HERE 9:00 A.M. EASTERN TOMORROW MORNING WITH MORE TRIAL COVERAGE. THANKS FOR WATCHING. |