|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> I AM IMPOSING THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FOR THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> GUILTY FOR GUNNING DOWN HIS WIFE AND BABY AS THEY CRADLED ONE ANOTHER IN BED. LEAVING BEHIND HIS MOTHER WEEPING, HIS FATHER AND BROTHER, AND THESE TWO PEOPLE, THE PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS OF THOSE VICTIMS. THAT MAN GONE AWAY FOR LIFE. SO WHY TODAY IS SALT STILL BEING RUBBED IN THE WOUNDS OF THE VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES? TODAY "BANFIELD AND FORD" TAKE YOU "COURTSIDE." >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO BANFIELD AND FORD COURTSIDE. >> WE'RE IN SESSION, IN WILL BURN, MASSACHUSETTS. THEY ARE NO LONGER IN SESSION. THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE BECAUSE LATE YESTERDAY -- IF YOU WERE WITH US, YOU KNOW IT WAS THE VERY END OF OUR TRIAL COVERAGE DAY. THAT JURY CAME BACK AFTER TWO DAYS OF DELIBERATIONS. THEY SAID WHAT YOU JUST HEARD RIGHT NOW, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, DOWN THE LINE. >> ALMOST EVERY TIME WE REACH A VERDICT, WE COME TO SOME FIN NALLITY IN A CASE WE HAVE A MYSTERY SOLVED, DON'T WE? IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I'VE GOT TO SAY, JACK, ALL LAST NIGHT I TOSSED AND TURNED ABOUT THIS ONE, THE MYSTERY OF WHO HAS BEEN SOLVED. BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO WHY THAT HAS BEEN ANSWERED AND WHY IT'S BEEN COMPOUNDED SINCE THE VERDICT. >> AGAIN, YOU AND I HAVE TALKED. WE ALWAYS SAY PEOPLE LOOK FOR TRUTH TO EMERGE IN A COURTROOM. TO SOME EXTENT IT DOES. BUT UNFORTUNATELY YOU DON'T GET ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED OFTENTIMES IN A COURTROOM. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS CASE, WE'VE SAID -- WE'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION. I SAID IF I'M THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THIS TRIAL, THAT'S WHAT I'M HANGING MY HAT ON, THE INABILITY TO ANSWER A QUESTION WHY WITH A TRADITIONAL ANSWER. WHY WOULD NEIL ENTWISTLE WHO EVERYBODY SAID WAS A LOVING HUSBAND AND FATHER, WHY DOES HE PUT A BULLET IN HIS CHILD AND IN THE HEAD OF HIS WIFE? IS IT'S NOT SCOTT PETERSON WITH AMBER FRY, THE MISTRESS HANGING OUT IN THE NEXT ROOM. NOT AN INSURANCE POLICY FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THE SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS WE STILL REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY. THE JURY HAS SAID WHO, AND THAT'S TO BE ACCEPTED BY US. BUT YOU STILL REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY. >> HERE IS WHAT I FIND TROUBLING. I GET IT THAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS TO PUT ON THE BEST DEFENSE HE OR SHE CAN. I GET IT, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. I GET IT. WHAT I DON'T GET IS ONCE A JURY HAS RESPECTIVELY DELIVERED A VERDICT AND WORKED VERY HARD AND SAT THROUGH THE MOST DIFFICULT TESTIMONY THEY WILL EVER HEAR IN THEIR LIVES, TO COME OUT ON THE STEPS AND CONTINUE TO CALL THE VICTIM IN THIS CASE A BABY MURD MURDERER, NOT ONLY THE DEFENSE DOING THIS, BUT THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THIS MURDERER CONTINUING TO CONTEND THIS POOR VICTIM MURDERED HER BABY, CALLING HER A MURDERER. IT'S REPREHENSIBLE. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE AS A PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE LAWYER FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS. PEM EATS EMOTIONS DON'T END WHEN THE JURY VERDICT COMES IN. AND IF I'M THE FAMILY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT I'M BEING ASSAULTED YET AGAIN BY THE PARENTS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE SAYING THEIR DAURTER MURDERED THEIR CHILD. BUT IF I'M HIS PARENTS, AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THEY BELIEVE IN HIS INNOCENCE, THE FIGHT FOR THEM ISN'T OVER HERE. IT'S ONE OF THOSE -- AGAIN, IT ILLUSTRATES HOW EVERYTHING DOESN'T END WITH THE JURY VERDICT. SOMETHING ENDS WITH THE JURY VERDICT, BUT NOT EVERYTHING WITH THE JURY VERDICT. THE DEFENSE LAWYERS HAVE SAID THIS WAS OUR DEFENSE. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS. AND I WAS IN THAT POSITION WHERE YOU'RE GIVEN A DEFENSE AND YOU HAVE TO RUN WITH IT. >> DO YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE RUNNING WITH IT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS AFTER THE VERDICT? >> THEY'RE SAYING WE DISAGREE WITH THE JURY VERDICT AND TAKE THIS ON APPEAL. THAT'S THEIR JOB. IT IS HARD ON FAMILY MEMBERS WHEN THE BATTLE ISN'T OVER. >> I'LL SIGH. I THINK THIS ONE STANDS OUT MORE THAN MAYBE MANY OTHERS BECAUSE THERE IS A BABY INVOLVED. IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE REST OF US ALL HAVING TO WATCH THIS PLAY OUT TO CONTINUE HEARING ABOUT THIS BEAUTIFUL WOMAN WHO WAS VICTIMIZED BEING CALLED A MURDERER OF THE BABY AND OF HERSELF. IT'S VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR US. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT IS LIKE FOR HER FAMILY, STILL GRIEVING AND FOREVER GRIEVING. JOINING US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE, JENNIFER LONDON. BOY, JENNIFER, DID YOU EVER COME INTO A STORY WROUGHT WITH EMOTION. I KNOW TODAY THE CONTINUE WITH SENTENCING. TELL US WHAT HAPPENED AND HOW EVERYTHING WAS BUTTONED UP TODAY. >> WELL, ASHLEIGH, TODAY NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FORMALLY SENTENCED ON THE MURDER CONVICTION THAT CAME DOWN YESTERDAY. THE SENTENCING WAS BRIEF. IT WAS ONLY ABOUT 20 MINUTES, AND THE JUDGE HEARD VERY BRIEFLY FROM TWO MEMBERS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILIES. THEY EACH GAVE BRIEF VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. THEN SHE FORMALLY SENTENCED NEIL ENTWISTLE TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE. SHE MADE IT VERY CLEAR IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE IS A TRUE SENTENCE AND THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE, BARRING ANY APPEALS IN THIS CASE, WILL SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON AND HE WILL DIE IN PRISON, ASHLEIGH. >> WE'LL CERTAINLY BE TALKING ABOUT THOSISH TWRUS AS WELL. BECAUSE MR. SWINE STEIN DID OUTLINE A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT HE BELIEVES ARE APPELLATE ISSUES SHE'S GOING TO BRING FORWARD. IT'S AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL WHEN IT'S A FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION. TO THAT POINT, JENNIFER, IS IT ANTICLIMACTIC THAT IT WAS AN AUTOMATIC -- I THINK MR. WEINSTEIN SAID I DIDN'T LISTEN TO WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY, IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT THE JUDGE HAD TO SAY. I BELIEVE HE SAID THAT ON JAMI FLOYD'S PROGRAM. WHAT WAS IT LIKE TODAY? WAS THERE THAT TENSION IN THE COURTROOM AGAIN? OR WAS IT JUST PROFORMA, PROCEDURE, BY ROPES? >> I WOULDN'T SAY IT FELT PROCEDURAL. WE KNEW WHAT THE LIFE SENTENCE WOULD BE GIVEN THE VERDICT THAT CAME DOWN YESTERDAY. THERE'S NO DEATH PENALTY IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A PENALTY PHASE PART OF THE TRIAL. WE KNEW WHEN THE VERDICT WAS READ YESTERDAY, GUILTY ON MURDER ONE IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THAT CARRIES AN AUTOMATIC LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE. WE KNEW WHAT THE SENTENCING WOULD BE. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT MADE IT PROCEDURAL BECAUSE STILL YOU HAD THE FAMILY WHO KNEW THEY WOULD BE SPEAKING BEFORE THE JUDGE. THE FAMILY ACTUALLY ASKED THAT THE LIFE SENTENCE -- FOUND GUILTY MURDER FIRST DEGREE FOR THE DEATH OF LILLIAN AND RICH EL, TWO COUNTS OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, THE FAMILY ASKED THEY SERVE THAT CONSECUTIVELY. THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO MAKE A STIM BOLIC STATEMENT THAT EACH LIFE, LILLIAN AND RACHEL'S WERE IMPORTANT AND EACH LIFE MATTERED. THEY LOST TWO GENERATIONS OF THEIR FAMILY. THE JUDGE SAID, SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT, SHE UNDERSTOOD IT, BUT SHE ALSO DID NOT WANT TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE LAW HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS WITH REGARD TO A LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE IS WEAK. SHE DID SAY HE WILL SERVE IT CONCURRENTLY. >> LET ME TELL YOU, SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, LET'S PLAY THE TAPE. IT WAS PRETTY EMOTIONAL LISTENING TO THE MOST STOIC PARENTS, THE MATTERAZZOS HAVE BEEN SO RESPECTFUL THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, EVEN ON THE STAND HAVING TO TESTIFY TO SOME OF THE MOST HORRIFIC EVENTS IN THEIR LIFETIME. THEY HAVE DONE SO WITH GRACE AND DIGNITY AND THEY CONTINUED THAT THIS MORNING AS THEY GAVE THOSE STATEMENTS. LET ME ACTUALLY ASK YOU TO HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND, JENNIFER. WHEN I COME BACK TO YOU I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOW. IT MAY BE TOO EARLY TO ASK THIS. WHAT'S THE PROCESS AND PROTOCOL FOR MOVING HIM TO THE BLACK HOLE WHERE WE HOPEFULLY NEVER HAVE TO SEE HIM AGAIN. PONDER THAT QUESTION FOR A MOMENT. LET ME RACK THAT TAPE UP FOR OUR AUDIENCE. THE PROUS CAN YOU TELLER IN THE CASE, MICHAEL FABBRI MADE A STATEMENT FOLLOWED BY PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO AND JOE MATTERAZZO, AND HER BROTHER, WHO ALSO GAVE THEIR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. HERE IS HOW IT CAME OUT IN COURT. >> THE COMMONWEALTH WOULD MOVE FOR SENTENCING. THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE AS TO COUNT I MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE, COUNT II, CONSECUTIVE MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE. AS TO COUNT III THE FIREARM POSSESSION CHARGE, A THREE TO FIVE-YEAR CONCURRENT SENTENCE WITH COUNT II, AND AS TO THE COUNT IV, THE POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION, A ONE-YEAR HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS SENTENCE, ALSO CONCURRENT WITH COUNT III AND COUNT II. 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. >> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE PROCEED. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> OUR DREAMS AS A PARENT AND GRANDPARENT HAVE BEEN SHATTERED BY THE SHAMEFUL, SELFISH 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 DISSPECKABLE. 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 DEVOUT 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. >> NEIL, YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED TODAY BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS ON EARTH. ONE DAY YOU WILL FACE THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF YOUR HORRIFIC DEEDS AND BE TRAILS. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WOULD ALSO OFFER A STATEMENT BY JEROME SUES SA, THE BROTHER OF RACHEL. HE'D LIKE TO BE ACCOMPANIED IF HE COULD, TO THE STAND BY SOME FAMILY MEMBERS. >> YES. >> GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. >> GOOD MORNING. >> WHEN I WAS IN THE SECOND GRADE RICH EL 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 UNTIL I FOUND HER, BROUGHT HER ONTO THE RIGHT BUS UNTIL I GOT HER HOME. SHE WAS MY LITTLE SISTER. I KNOW I HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING CARE OF HER. SHE WASN'T AS ALWAYS AS FOND OF THOSE. EXCUSE ME. WE GREW UP IN THE COMPANY OF NEARLY COUNTLESS COUSINS WHO WERE CLOSE TO US IN THE AGE. MANY YEARS AFTER OUR FATHER'S DEATH WHEN OUR MOTHER REMARRIED, OUR FAMILY GREW LARGER WITHOUT LOSING WHICH OF THE CLOSENESS WITH OUR OTHER FAMILIES. COUSINS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS AS THERE ARE NO STEPS IN OUR FAMILY. WHO ARE ALL OF OUR GENERATION THE PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS AND AUNTS AND UNCLES, MISSING AND MOURNINGING RACHEL AND LILLIAN EVERY DAY. EACH DAY WE HAVE TO LIVE THE HEART ACHE NEIL'S BE TRAIL BROUGHT TO OUR FAMILY. 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 LILLY MIGHT HAVE DONE SOMETHING AND ALL THE PICTURES WITH RICH EL 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. NOW WHEN THE FAMILY COMES TO VISIT WE CAN ONLY RECOUNT WHAT RACHEL DID AND SPECULATE ON WHAT LILLY MIGHT HAVE DONE. WE CAN'T TELL LILLY'S COUSINS WHAT HAPPENED TO HER, BUT WE CAN TELL -- WE CAN TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED TO HER BUT CAN'T TELL THEM WHY. ALL MY COUSINS, BROTHERS, AND SISTERS WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY THERE'S A NEW PICTURE IN THE FRONT OF THEIR FRAME EVERY YEAR, BUT WHY RACHEL AND LILLIAN'S NEVER CHANGE. THE NEXT GENERATION OF MY FAMILY WILL HAVE TO LOSE THEIR INNOCENCE EARLY. WHEN THEIR PARENTS CAN NO LONGER PUT UP THE INQUIRIES ABOUT RACHEL AND LILLIAN. I CAN NEVER ASK RACHEL FOR ANY HELP IN HOW TO EXPLAIN ANY OF THIS. >>> ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE WITNESSING -- THAT'S REALITY, FOLKS. THAT IS REALITY. A BROTHER WHO IS SO SHATTERED HE HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO GIVE HIS LAST STATEMENTS ABOUT HIS SISTER PUBLICLY, AGAIN, IN FRONT OF THE MAN WHOSE DEFENSE WAS TO SUGGEST THAT RACHEL IS A BABY-KILLER AND THEN COMMITTED SUICIDE. JENNIFER, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TOO EARLY TO ASK YOU, WHAT'S THE PROTOCOL FOR THIS DOUBLE MURDERER NOW? WHERE DOES HE GO? HOW DOES HE GET TRANSFERRED? WHAT'S THE STATUS? >> I DID ASK THE DEFENSE WHERE IS NEIL ENTWISTLE RIGHT NOW. THEY WEREN'T SURE. THE SHORT ANSWER IS, THEY DON'T KNOW AT THIS MOMENT WHERE HE IS NOW. BUT THEY DO KNOW THAT IT WILL TAKE MANY DAYS TO PROCESS HIM BEFORE HE WILL BE MOVED. DURING SENTENCING THE COURT SAID HE WILL BE TAKEN TO THE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AT CEDAR JUNCTION HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS. BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IF HE WILL STAY THERE TO SERVE OUT HIS LIFE SENTENCE OR IF HE WILL BE MOVED SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE DO KNOW THIS CONSTRUCTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CEDAR JUNCTION IS A MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY, BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS WHERE HE WILL PERSONAL LNTLY SERVE OUT HIS LIFE SENTENCE. >> THIS IS PROBABLY FAR TOO EARLY TO ASK, I'LL THROW IT OUT AND SEE IF IT STICKS TO THE REFRIGERATOR AND THAT IS THIS. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY WANTS TO MAKE ANY KIND OF EFFORT TO HAVE HIM SERVE OUT HIS SENTENCE CLOSER TO HOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND? IS THAT OUT OF THE QUESTION IN THIS STORY? >> I REALLY CAN'T ANSWER THAT, ASHLEIGH. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LIKE TO. THEY'RE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY, SEPARATED BY THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. OF COURSE, THEY WOULD LOVE TO BE CLOSER TO THEIR SON. I'M SURE THEY WOULD LOVE TO VISIT HIM IN PRISON. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF NEIL THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE TRIAL. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT HE SHOULD BE MOVED AND HELD IN PRISON OVER IN THE U.K. WE DO BELIEVE THAT HIS FAMILY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE HIM AND SPEAK WITH HIM BEFORE HE IS PROCESSED AND TRANSFERRED FROM THE HOLDING AREA HERE AT THE COURTHOUSE TO THE PLACE WHERE HE WILL EITHER BE HELD PERMANENTLY OR A TRANSITIONAL FACILITY, PERHAPS THIS ONE AT CEDAR JUNCTION. >> THAT WAS A COMPLETELY UNFAIR QUESTION. YOU MAKE A VERY GOOD REFRIGERATOR, MIGHT I SAY, MY FRIEND. I WAS TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THIS QUESTION ON MY OWN. JACK IS SITTING BESIDE ME. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN? DO WE HAVE THE TREATIES BE BETWEEN OUR COUNTRY WHERE THEY CAN SAY WE HAVE OUR LIFE SENTENCED SITTING AT HOME. >> THERE ARE CONVENTIONS THAT DO ALLOW THAT. I THINK MY GUESS IS THAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO BE RESEARCHING THAT NOW. WE WILL ALSO, TO FIND THE ANSWER. IT'S VERY COMPLICATED, VERY DIFFICULT. WHEN IT HAS BEEN DONE, IT HAS TO BE DONE WITH ASSURANCES THAT THE SENTENCE WILL REMAIN THE SAME, THAT SOMEBODY IS NOT GOING TO WALK IN AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN THREE WEEKS LATER THEY'LL GET PAROLED AND WALK OUT THE DOOR. THE SHORT ANSWER IS, HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST ON OCCASION, TERRIBLY UNUSUAL. AND SOME STRAIN JENT CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO IT IF IT DOES HAPPEN. >> YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT THE ENTWISTLES ARE GOING THROUGH, KNOWING THEY'RE PROBABLY ON A PLANE VERY SOON BACK TO WORK TO ENGLAND LEAVING BEHIND THEIR SON WHO, HERE IS MY GUESS, PROBABLY WON'T HAVE A LOT OF VISITORS IN PRISON. HADN'T BNT HERE FOR VERY LONG, DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS. CERTAINLY THE IN-LAWS DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM AGAIN. WHO KNOWS HOW MANY VISITORS FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE HE WILL HAVE IN THE AN AMERICAN PRISON. YOU CAN IMAGINE YVONNE ENTWISTLE IS PROBABLY DEVASTATED OVERALL THIS. I THINK IT CERTAINLY SPILLED OUT INTO HER CHOICE OF WORDS LAST NIGHT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO BY MANY TODAY. YOU BE THE JUDGE AND HAVE A LISTEN TO HOW MRS. ENTWISTLE CHARACTERIZING THE VERDICT AND HER DEAD DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. HAVE A LOOK. >> WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT AND WE ARE DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL THAT SHE KILLED HER CHILD AND THEN COMMITTED SUICIDE. I KNEW RACHEL WAS DEPRESSED. >> WOW. I DON'T THINK MANY OF US EXPECTED TO HEAR HER SAYING THAT RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRANDDAUGHTER. AND THEN AT ANOTHER POINT WE ALSO HEARD CLIFFORD ENTWISTLE, NEIL'S FATHER, SUGGEST THAT LILLIAN SHOULD REST IN PEACE. BUT NEVER MADE A MENTION THAT RACHEL SHOULD REST IN PEACE. ONE THING WE DO KNOW, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEACE FOR NEIL 20. IN ANY CASE, HIS LAWYER HAS A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. WHEN WE COME BACK FROM THE BREAK, YOU WILL HEAR ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, HIS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SYSTEM, HIS COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS JURY VERDICT AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH IT WAS REACHED. >>> FOREPERSON OF THE JURY, IN THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH VERSUS NEIL ENTWISTLE ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2006, 387001, CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHAT SAY YOU FOREPERSON? IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> ON INDICTMENT 2006-387002, CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WHAT SAY YOU FOREPERSON, IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF LILLIEN ENTWISTLE. >> SO GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DECREE. AS A CONSEQUENCE SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PROIZ ON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ON THOSE COUNTS. WE'RE CONTINUING TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT ROOM YESTERDAY, CERTAINLY WHAT HAPPENED TO IT LEADING UP TO IT THROUGHOUT THE THREE WEEKS OR SO OF TRIAL. JOINING OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND ALL THIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY FORMER PROSECUTOR, AS A MATTER OF FACT FROM THAT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, KAREN CALUCCI WITH US. AND ALSO DR. MICHELLE WARD IS WITH US, SHE WAS WITH US YESTERDAY, SENIOR TRIAL CONSULTANT AT DECISION ANALYSIS U, ONE OF THE WELL KNOWN TRIAL CONSULTANTS IN THIS COUNTRY, JURY CONSULTANT IN THE PHIL SPECTER TRIAL. I WANT TO PLAY FOR OUR VIEWERS SOME OF WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAD TO SAY ON THE HEELS OF THE SENTENCE BEING IMPOSED BY THE COURT. HE STARTED OFF BY SAYING THE SENTENCE WAS NO SURPRISE. THE DEFENSE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS COMING, GIVEN THE STATUTE IT WAS GOING TO BE LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. THEY TALKED ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT WERE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE CASE FROM THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE, INDEED, WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES COULD BE ON APPEAL FROM THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE. LISTEN TO WHAT HE HAD TO SAY. >> WHEN WE DEMONSTRATEED TO THE JURY WHO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER HE HAD NEVER BEEN INFORMED ABOUT GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS, WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. AND WHEN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER AND THE CHEMIST HAD TO TELL THE JURY THAT GUNSHOT RESIDUE COULD ONLY BE EXPLAINED IF RACHEL HANDLED OR SHOT THE FIREARM, WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. AND TO ASK ANY MORE IN A SYSTEM OF LAW WHICH PRESUMES INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS UNFAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO NEIL. IT'S UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO PER PAET ATE THIS MYTH THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE ANY BURDEN TO DO ANYTHING IN A COURTROOM. AND THAT'S WRONG. IT'S WRONG IF YOU FOLKS THINK THAT WAY. IT'S WRONG IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THINKS THAT WAY. WHAT WE KNOW IS JURORS THINK THAT WAY. AND JURORS WITH PERMITTED TO SIT ON JURIES AND DECIDE GUILT OR INNOCENCE WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANTS WILL TESTIFY WITH THE DESIRE AND THE PREFERENCE THAT DEFENDANTS TESTIFY. AND THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT. WHAT'S RIGHT IS TO HOLD THE PROSECUTION TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROOF, AND THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. AND WHAT'S RIGHT IS WHEN DEFENSE LAWYERS IN A TRIAL, WHEN WE IN THIS TRIAL ELICIT EVIDENCE, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS DAY AFTER DAY WITH WITNESS AFTER WITNESS THAT PEOPLE COME FORWARD AND SAY THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE. TO THE CONTRARY, EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE TRIAL WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. IT DIDN'T PERSUADE THE JURY, AND PERHAPS THAT'S BECAUSE THIS JURY WAS SEATED WITH THE PREDISPOSITION THAT WE HAD A BURDEN OF PROOF, THAT NEIL HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO SATISFY THEIR CURIOSITY ABOUT WHAT WOULD HE SAY. THAT'S WRONG. >> AND IF YOU STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT, THE REAL TRAGEDY AND INJUSTICE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DID NOT FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THEIR CASE, NEVER TOLD THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS, THAT THAT INFORMATION WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED PROPERLY. AND IF IT HAD BEEN, NONE OF US WOULD BE STANDING HERE TODAY. >> DO YOU THINK YOUR CROSS EXAMINATION WOULD HAVE GIVE THE JURY REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER? THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CASE? >> I THINK EVERYTHING WE DID, IF THE JURY COULD HAVE JUST STEPPED BACK AND NOT HAD THE "NEIL DID IT" FILTERS ON, THEY COULD HAVE GONE BACK ONCE WE BROUGHT THAT TO THE JURY'S ATTENTION, TO RE-EVALUATE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT WE BOTH HAD BROUGHT IN EARLIER IN THE CASE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>> SO THAT BEING THE CONTENTION OF THE DEFENSE. AGAIN, A CONTENTION THEY ARGUED STLU OUT THIS TRIAL, THE JURY DIDN'T ACCEPT THEIR ARGUMENTS. WE'LL BE TALKING A LITTLE LATER WITH JERRY LEONE ANY, THE MIDDLE SEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND GET A CHANCE TO ASK HIM ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THOUGHTS THAT THE DEFENSE DID HAVE. LET'S GO TO KAREN AND MICHELLE AND TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED SO FAR. KAREN, I'LL START WITH YOU. YOU BRING A MARVELOUS PERSPECTIVE HERE. YOU SPENT A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THIS DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, A NUMBER OF YEARS OUTSIDE DEFENDING CASES SUCH AS THIS. SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, ARE YOU AT ALL SURPRISED BY WHAT THE JURY HAD TO SAY HERE? >> NO, I'M NOT. I'M SOMEWHAT SURPRISED THAT I FELT THEY CAME BACK RATHER QUICKLY. I MEAN A DAY AND A HALF GIVEN THE CASE AND ALL THAT THEY HEARD. YOU NEED TO REMEMBER, TOO, THAT THE JURORS ARE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER WHILE THE CASE IS GOING ON. THEY'RE ALL RECEIVING THE INFORMATION, LOOKING AT THE WITNESSES. SO I HONESTLY THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER, MAYBE TILL THE END OF YESTERDAY OR EARLY TODAY. BUT I'M NOT SURPRISED AT THE VERDICT. AND THAT'S AFTER LISTENING TO MOST OF THE TESTIMONY. AND, QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THEY CAME BACK WITH THE RIGHT DECISION. I THINK THE PROSECUTION PUT ON A STRONG CASE. I UNDERSTAND ELLIOT'S POINT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HE'S FEARFUL THAT THERE'S THIS BUZZ HE DIDN'T PUT ON A CASE. EVERYONE WAS SOMEWHAT SURPRISED THAT HE RESTED AND DIDN'T CALL A SINGLE WITNESS. HE DID ELICIT EVIDENCE ON HIS CROSS EXAMINATION. HE WAS ENTITLED TO ARGUE THAT TO THE JURY. I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT THE VERDICT CAME DOWN AS A GUILTY. ON FIRST DECREE -- I CAN'T SAY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SECOND DEGREE. I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL THAT THE JURY REJECTED WHAT ELLIOT TRIED TO ARGUE IN HIS CLOSING WHICH I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON. I'M NOT SURPRISED THAT THEY REJECTED THAT. >> I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU ABOUT THAT AND YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT. YOU AND I HAVE DONE THIS FOR A LOT OF YEARS. I'VE SAID BEFORE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S JOB IS, THE CLIENT SAYS HERE IS MY DEFENSE AND YOU PRESENT IT. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID HERE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE JURY IS ALWAYS GOING TO BUY IT AS WE CERTAINLY KNOW FROM WHAT THE STATISTICS ARE IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASE TS. MICHELLE, HOW ABOUT YOU? YOU'VE BEEN PLUGGED INTO THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT IT YESTERDAY. GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE SEEN AND READ ABOUT THE CASE, ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT THE JURY CAME BACK WITH THIS VERDICT? >> I'M NOT SURPRISED THE JURY CAME BACK WITH THIS VERKD. HOWEVER, I AGREED WITH KAREN, I EX-P EKTED THEM TO TAKE A LITTLE LONGER, ESPECIALLY WITH A FIRST DEGREE CONVICTION. I'M SURPRISED WITH WHAT MR. WEINSTEIN WAS SAYING ABOUT THE JURY. THEY TAKE THEIR JOB VERY SERIOUSLY. I THINK THEY DID WEIGH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I THOUGHT THE TIMING WAS A LITTLE QUICK. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH KAREN. >> AFTER HAVING SAT THROUGH THE NINE MONTHS OF THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL AND HAD A JURY DELIBERATION FOR ONLY AN HOUR AND A HALF, I'M LOOKING AT TWO DAYS AND SAYING THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD REFLECTION OF TIME SPENT BY THESE JURORS HERE. KAREN, LET ME COME BACK TO YOU. YOU SAID YOU HAD THOUGHTS ABOUT THE DEFENSE APPROACH, THE ARGUMENTS THEY MADE DURING THE CLOSINGS, DURING THE SUMMATIONS. WHAT ARE THOSE THOUGHTS? >> I'LL TELL YOU, I WAS CONCERNED THAT ELLIOT GAVE A THEORY, AND IN A SENSE, HE WAS TESTIFYING FOR NEIL WHEN HE STARTED SAYING HERE IS WHAT HAPPENED, NEIL CAME HOME, SAW THE GUN ON THE BED, THOUGHT IT WAS SUICIDE, BROUGHT IT BACK TO JOE MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE. A, THERE WAS NEVER ANY TESTIMONY THAT THE GUN WAS FOUND ON THE BED. NOW HE'S CONCEDING THAT IT'S THE MATTERAZZO'S GUN. HE'S CONCEALING THAT NEIL ACTUALLY DROVE BACK TO THE CARVER HOME AND DID IT. WHAT STRUCK ME, THOUGH, IS HE WANTS THE JURY TO SAY THAT NEIL'S FIRST THOUGHT WAS, OH, MY GOD, THEY COMMITTED SUICIDE. BUT BASED ON WHAT? HE HAD GONE ON AND ON ABOUT WHAT A LOVING, WONDERFUL, HAPPY FAMILY THEY WERE. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT NEIL EVEN SUSPECTED THAT RACHEL HAD A TENDENCY TOWARD DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS? I THOUGHT -- YOU'RE NOW ASKING THE JURY TO ACCEPT THIS AND I WOULD HAVE JUST LEFT THE DOOR OPEN. I WOULD HAVE SAID. >> JUST LEAVE IT OUT THERE SAYING -- THE PROSECUTION HASN'T ANSWERED ANY OF THESE QUESTION, BETTER IDEA YOU THINK? >> YEAH. HE'S ALMOST SAYING TO THEM, IT'S EITHER A OR B. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE JURORS THAT SPOKE SAID THEY REJECTED THAT MURDER-SUICIDE. THAT SUICIDE. THEY ALSO CONSIDERED IF IT WAS ANYBODY ELSE. THEY REJECTED THAT AS WELL. >> 30 SECONDS AND I HAVE TO GET A BREAK IN HERE. YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY, THE IDEA OF SETTING THE STAGE FOR THIS DEFENSE RATHER THAN IT SHOWING UP IN SUMMATION. ONE OF THE JURORS WAS QUOTED AS BASICALLY SAYING WHERE WAS THIS BEFORE IN THE CASE? DOES THIS COME BACK TO WHAT YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT WERE? >> I DID READ THAT. IT'S INTERESTING. THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO LIKE THAT, THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT WAS A HAIL MARY KIND OF PASS, THAT PERHAPS THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE PIGEONHOLED THEMSELVES A LITTLE BIT. AS I SAID YESTERDAY, THE JURORS COME UP WITH THESE TYPES OF SCENARIOS IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM. >> AND WHAT WE'VE SAID BEFORE AND WE SAW SAY IT ALWAYS HERE, FIRST AS COURT TV AND NOW IN SESSION truTV WE HAVE DEEP AND ABIDING RESPECT FOR WHAT THESE JURORS DO. EVEN IF THE YOU MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THE VERDICT IN SOME OF THESE CASES, YOU TO RESPECT WHAT THEY DID INSIDE THE JURY DELIBERATION ROOM. IN ANY EVENT, TAKING A LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM. NOW WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR MINDS OUT THERE, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ALL THIS. LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS VERDICT, ABOUT WHAT THE JURY DID HEAR, ABOUT THE ARMTHS ON BOTH SIDES. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. OR E-MAIL US. LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK. QUICK BREAK HERE. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE IN SESSION. THIS IS BANFIELD AND FORD. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS A PRISONER AND WILL BE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IF THE JUDGE IS RIGHT, UNTIL HE DIES HE WILL BE LOCKED UP. IF HIS ATTORNEY IS RIGHT, HE HAS APPELLATE ISSUES IN THE CASE AND THEY'LL FIGHT ONCE AGAIN TO TRY TO SPRING HIM POUR THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. IN THAT THE JUDGE WAS QUITE METHODICAL IN EXPLAINING THE SENTENCE THIS MORNING, JUDGE DIANE COT MEYER FACING NEIL ENTWISTLE AND TELLING HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE'S GOING TO BE SERVING BECAUSE OF THE CRIMES HE COMMITTED. HAVE A LISTEN TO HOW IT PLAYED OUT. >> MR. SWINE STEIN, DID YOU WISH TO BE HEARD? >> YES, JUDGE. WE REQUEST ALL SENTENCING BE AS MANDATORY BY STATUTE AND THAT WHICH IS DISCRETION THEIR BE IMPOSED IN CONCURRENT WITH THE OTHER SENTENCE. >> DID MR. ENTWISTLE WISH TO SPEAK? >> HE DOES NOT. >> THE JURY HAS FOUND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE FIRST DECREE MURDERS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THESE CRIMES ARE INCOMPREHENSIBLE. THEY DEFY COMPREHENSION BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE THE PLANNED AND DELIBERATE MURDERS OF THE DEFENDANT'S 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 LITTLE YANT ENTWISTLE'S EXTENDED FAMILY AND FRIENDS, AND IN PARTICULAR RACHEL'S BROTHER JEROME SUES SA, HIS FAMILY AND HER MOTHER AND STEPFATHER, PRISCILLA AND JOSEPH SELF MATTERAZZO. THE SENTENCE FOR FIRST DECREE 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 SYMBOLICALLY 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 ERRONEOUS 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 DECREE 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 LITTLE YANT 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 OTHERWISE TO ANY MEDIA OUTLET. THAT IS THE SENTENCE THAT WILL BE IMPOSED. >>> THAT'S THE WAY IT HAPPENED. STOIC NEIL ENTWISTLE, NOT EVEN FLINCHING UPON HEARING WHAT HE PROBABLY ALREADY KNEW, GOING AWAY FOR LIFE, MY FRIEND, FOR WHAT YOU DID. OBVIOUSLY NOT EASY FOR HIS PARENTS TO LISTEN TO THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY, THEY CAN'T EVEN VISIT HIM UNLESS THEY TAKE A FLIGHT. THEY HAD SOME CHOICE WORDS FOR THE PRESS WHEN THEY CAME OUT ON THE STEPS OF THE COURTHOUSE SHORTLY AFTER THAT SENTENCING ABOUT THAT WHOLE PROCESS. LET'S HAVE A LISTEN, SHALL WE, TO NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FATHER, CLIFFORD ENTWISTLE AND WHAT HE THOUGHT OF ALL THIS. >> 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. >> STILL WAITING TO HEAR THAT RACHEL MIGHT REST IN PEACE, BUT NO, YOU WOULDN'T HEAR THAT. YOU WON'T HEAR THAT FROM HIM, YOU WON'T HEAR THAT FROM HIS WIFE. NEITHER HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT RACHEL OTHER THAN SHE'S A MURDERER. THEY CONTINUE TO SAY THAT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. JENNIFER LONDON, THIS HAD TO BE EXTRAORDINARILY UNCOMFORTABLE OBVIOUSLY POUR THE FAMILY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, THE MATTERAZZOS, LITERALLY THIS IS SALT IN THE WOUNDS FOR THEM. MRS. ENTWISTLE WOULDN'T STAND IN COURT FOR THE JURY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT TRANSPIRED AND HOW THAT WENT OVER? >> CERTAINLY. IT WAS AFTER THE VERDICT WAS READ IN COURT YESTERDAY, ASHLEIGH. THE JUDGE WAS GETTING READY TO LEAVE THE BENCH. THE JURY HAD BEEN EXCUSED AND THE COURT BAILIFF SAYS ALL RISE, EVERYONE STANDS UP IN THE COURTROOM EXCEPT FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER. EVERYONE INSIDE THAT COURTROOM NOTICED THAT SHE REMAINED SEATED. THIS AS THE JUDGE LEFT THE BENCH AND AS THE JURY WAS EXCUSED. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SPEAK WITH HER AND SAY WHY DIDN'T YOU STAND. WE KNEW SHE HAD BEEN IN COURT FOR THE DURATION OF THE TRIAL. CERTAINLY SHE UNDERSTANDS THE PROTOCOL THAT WHEN THE BAILIFF SAYS ALL RISE, EVERYBODY STANDS OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE COURT. WE KNOW THEY WERE NOT HAPPY WITH THE VERDICT. WE HAD NOT HEARD FROM THE ENTWISTLES UP UNTIL THE POINT WHEN THE PRESS CONFERENCE HAPPENED AFTER THE VERDICT. SO THE PUT IT IN CONTEXT, FIRST WE SAW THAT HAPPEN, THE VERDICT IS READ. SHE DOES NOT STAND. THE FAMILY EXITS THE COURTROOM. AS THEY'RE LEAVING THE COURTROOM SOME REPORTERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GALLERY HEAR HER SAY THAT THEY BELIEVE THE DEFENSE'S THEORY THAT RACHEL IS THE MURDERER OF BABY LILLIAN BEFORE SHE KILLED HERSELF. A LOT OF REPORTERS LOOKING AT EACH OTHER SAYING DID YOU HEAR THAT CORRECTLY, DID SHE SAY THAT ON THE RECORD? IT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HEARD FROM THE ENTWISTLES. THEN WE WENT UP -- THEY WENT UP TO THE MICROPHONE AS WE HEARD FROM NEIL'S FATHER CLIFFORD AND THEN YVONNE SPOKE AND SAID THEY'RE DISAPPOINTED THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL MURDERING LILLY. >> I'VE GOT THAT SOUND BYTE CUED UP. LET'S PLAY IT AND WE'LL FINISH OUR CONVERSATION ON THE OTHER SIDE. HERE IS YVONNE ENTWISTLE SUGGESTING HER MURDERED DAUGHTER-IN-LAW RACHEL WAS ACTUALLY THE MURDERER OF HER GRANDDAUGHTER LILLIAN. HAVE A LISTEN. >> WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT. AND WE ARE DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRAND CHILD. AND THEN COMMITTED SUICIDE. I KNEW RACHEL WAS DEPRESSED. >> CAN'T BE EASY FOR A MOTHER WHO HAS JUST LOST HER SON TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY. SO I'LL GIVE HER THAT. WHAT WAS THE REACTION OF THE PRESS WHO WAS LISTENING TO THAT ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS, JENNIFER? >> WELL, A LOT OF THE PRESS HAD THE SAME REACTION AS THEY DID WHEN THEY HEARD IT INSIDE THE COURTROOM WHICH WAS I REALLY CAN'T BELIEVE SHE JUST SAID THAT. AND THEN THE MURMURS STARTED, IF SHE KNEW RACH 'EM WAS DEPRESSED, WHO DID SHE TELL? DID SOMEBODY STEP IN TO INTERVENE? THERE HAD BEEN NO TESTIMONY PRESENTED IN COURT THAT RACHEL HAD BEEN DEPRESSED. IN FAFKT IT WAS THE OPPOSITE WITH WITNESS AFTER WITNESS WHO NEW THE ENTWISTLES PERSONALLY WHO TESTIFIED RACHEL WAS A LOVING MOTHER, VERY HAPPY BY ALL APPEARANCES, HER AND NEIL WERE HAPPY AND PROUD TO BE NEW PARENTS AND ADD JUSTING TO THEIR NEW LIFE HERE IN UNITED STATES. IT WAS VERY SURPRISING ON MANY LEVELS. A REPORTER DID ASK A SPOKESPERSON FOR THE PROSECUTION TEAM AFTER THE PROSECUTION HELD THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER COULD BE HELD IN CONTEMPT BECAUSE SHE DID NOT STAND? HE SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT BUT HE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS POSSIBLE. ASHLEIGH, IT DID CERTAINLY CREATE A BUZZ AFTER THE VERDICT. >> I'M LOOKING OVER TO MY GREAT SAGE FRIEND JACK FORD. YOU ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD. THAT'S REALLY NOT SOMETHING -- >> THE CASE WAS OVER. THE JUDGE HAD LEFT. IF THIS WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TRIAL AND SOMEBODY WAS DISOBEYING AN ORDER OF THE COURT OR SHOWING DISRESPECT. I THINK A JUDGE WOULD SAY I UNDERSTAND HER SON JUST SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. SHE'S NOT HAPPY AT ALL. EVERYBODY IS GONE. THEIR BACKS WERE TURNED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. JENNIFER, THANK YOU FOR THAT AS WELL. LET ME ADD TO THAT REPORTING JENNIFER AS WELL THAT WE WOULD BE REMISS IF HE DIDN'T AT LEAST SAY THAT PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, RACHEL'S MOM REACTED IN A CERTAIN WRA TO THE COMMENTS THAT THE ENTWISTLES ARE STILL CONSIDERING HER DAUGHTER A MURDERER, A BABY MURDERER SAYING THAT FOR NEIL TO HIDE BEHIND AN ACCUSATION OF MURDER-SUICIDE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WOMAN AND PERFECT MOTHER IS LOW AND DESPICABLE. THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF HER IN COURT TODAY IN HER VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT, LOW AND DESPICABLE TO SUGGEST HER MURDERED DAUGHTER IS A MURDERER HERSELF. WE'RE TELLING YOU THOUGHTS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN VOTING ON OUR 13th JUROR QUESTION TODAY. THAT WAS THE ULTIMATE QUESTION. DID YOU AGREE WITH THIS VERDICT. TWO OF THEM FIRST DECREE MURDER. 96% SAY WAY TO GO, MASSACHUSETTS. YOU DONE US PROUD. 4% NOT SO SURE. WE'LL UPDATE THOSE RESULTS THROUGHOUT IF DAY. WE'RE BACK RIGHT AFTER THIS. >>> I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THIS CASE WITH HELP FROM MY ATTORNEYS ALL THE WAY TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. AND I'M VERY HAPPY THAT NOW I'M ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MY HOUSEHOLD IN MY OWN HOME. >> I'M THRILLED THAT AFTER BEING INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FOR SIX YEARS I'M FINALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE TRIGGER LOCK OFF MY SHOTGUN AND LOAD IT IF I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF IN MY OWN HOME. >> I'M GLAD AFTER 32 YEARS A BAN HAS BEEN OVERTURNED. I CAN FEEL SAFER IN MY HOME. I'M PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. >> THOSE REACTIONS TO A DECISION EARLIER TODAY ON THE LAVLT DAY OF ITS TERM WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN WHAT WAS ESSENTIALLY A BAN ON HANDGUN OWNERSHIP IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. CURIOUSLY THE FIRST TIME ESSENTIALLY IN HISTORY THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TOOK A GOOD HARD LOOK AT THAT SECOND AMENDMENT. IN SESSION SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM IS WITH US TO HELP UNDERSTAND ALL THIS. LET'S START WITH THE DECISION. WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE D.C. STATUTE AND ITS APPLICATION HERE? >> SURPRISE, SURPRISE, JACK. WHEN YOU AND I WERE IN LAW SCHOOL, IF WE HAD SUGGESTED TO A PROFESSOR, WELL, WE'RE DEFENDING SOMEONE ON A GUN CHARGE. WE'LL RAISE HIS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. THE PROFESSOR WOULD HAVE SAID THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT. THAT REFER TOSS A COLLECTIVE RIGHT OF STATE MILITIAS TO BE ARMED WITH WEAPONS. TODAY THE SUPREME COURT AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS AND AFTER HAVING LET THE LEGAL COMMUNITY BELIEVE FOR ALL THOSE YEARS THAT THERE WAS NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THEY CAME UP WITH THIS 5-4, JUSTICE SCALIA WITH A MAJORITY OPINION SAYING GOTCHA. EVER SINCE THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IT'S GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. AND THE WASHINGTON, D.C. GUN LAW WHICH WAS THE MOST STRINGENT IN THE COUNTRY, GUN CONTROL LAW, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. >> FRED, LOOKING AT THIS, AS YOU SAID, I THINK WHAT WAS ASTONISHING TO SO MANY PEOPLE IS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAD NEVER HEAD-ON CONFRONTED THIS ISSUE IN THE PAST. IT LED CERTAIN PEOPLE TO BELIEVE CERTAIN THINGS. WHAT DID THE DECISION SAY? AND WHAT DID THE DECISION MEAN WITH REGARD TO OTHER GUN REGULATION STATUTES, NOT BANS, BUT REGULATION STATUTES CURRENTLY IN EFFECT? >> WELL, IT SAID, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THE -- THERE IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. AND A CITIZEN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WENT INTO COURT AND ASSERTED THAT HE FELT THREATENED IN HIS HOME AT NIGHT. HE LIVED IN A ROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD. HE SHOULD HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT, HE SAID, TO HAVE A WEAPON FOR HIS OWN DEFENSE, AND THE SUPREME COURT ANALYZED WHETHER OR NOT THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLY INS A SITUATION LIKE THIS. THEY SAID HANDGUNS WERE WHAT PEOPLE USED AT THE TIME THE FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THIS IN THE CONSTITUTION, THEY MUST HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT HANDGUNS AND THEY SAID HANDGUNS, YOU CANNOT BAR THE PUBLIC FROM HAVING HANDGUNS IN THEIR HOMES. NOW, WHAT THEY ALSO SAID WAS THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T ENFORCE LAWS SUCH AS THE ONES THAT SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE A WEAPON NEAR A PUBLIC SCHOOL OR NEAR A SCHOOL. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF LITIGATION OVER -- CLEAR THAT THE GUN LAW HERE WHICH WAS SO STRINGENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND WAY OVER HERE YOU HAVE ASSAULT WEAPONS AND BA ZOOK KAS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO QUALIFY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION. IN THE MIDDLE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF LITIGATION OVER WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL AND WHAT IS NOT IN THE REALM OF GUN CONTROL. >> DOES IT SOUND LIKE -- QUICKLY, FRE, LAST QUESTION FOR YOU BEFORE WE HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK. DOES IT SOUND LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, THOSE STATES THAT HAVE LAWS THAT SAY, YES, YOU CAN PURCHASE A HANDGUN, BUT YOU NEED TO BE LICENSED AND YOU NEED A BACKGROUND CHECK, IF YOU'RE A CONVICTED FELON, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, IF YOU'RE FROM AN INSANE ASYLUM -- >> YES, IT DOES. THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS. AND THAT WONDERFUL WORD REASONABLE IS GOING TO BE LITIGATED OVER FOR YEARS AND YEARS. >> I DOUBT THERE'S ANY SINGLE WORD THAT HAS GENERATED MORE LITIGATION THAN THE WORD REASONABLE, FRED, THANK YOU AS ALWAYS FOR GUIDING US THROUGH ALL OF THIS. WE WILL TALK WITH YOU SOON. YOU TAKE CARE. OUR IN SESSION SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM REPORTING FROM THE STEPS OF THE SUPREME COURT. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE'LL CONTINUE THE LOOK BACK INTO THE COURTROOM WHERE A JURY HAS SAID GUILTY TO NEIL ENTWISTLE AND A JUDGE HAS SAID YOU WILL SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. WHAT'S THE REACTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHO LED THIS PROSECUTION? WE'LL CHECK IN WITH HIM IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. >>> WELCOME BACK ON THIS BUSY THURSDAY MORNING. BANFIELD AND FORD "COURTSIDE." I WANT TO REFER TO A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE ON THE PROGRAM THAT PRECEDES US, JAMIE FLOYD'S BEST DEFENSE I HEARD SOMETHING THAT REALLY STUCK WITH ME. THIS ENTWISTLE CASE IS A CASE THAT TRIES A DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S SOUL. IT'S AMAZING. IT REALLY WAS. AND HE'S A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AS IS JAMI. >> I'VE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF JURORS COMING BACK AND SAYING GUILTY TO MURDER CHARGES, WHEN I'VE BEEN DEFENDING THEM AND OFFERING UP WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A VIABLE DEFENSE OF THINGS. I THINK ANYBODY WHO'S A GOOD CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER, WHO HASN'T BEEN ON THE WRONG SIDE OF A VERDICT, HASN'T TRIED MANY CASES, HASN'T TRIED ANY TOUGH ONES. >> OR THEY JUST FIGURED IT OUT. >> AND IT DOESN'T -- YOU CAN TELL THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE COMMITTED. THEY WERE INVESTED IN THEIR DEFENSE HERE, AND THEY WORKED HARD, AND THEY HAD TO STAND UP AND LISTEN TO A JURY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID, BUT WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING WHAT YOU SAID. AND HE'S GUILTY. THAT'S ALWAYS THE TOUGHEST THING TO DO FOR A DEFENSE LAWYER. FOR A PROSECUTOR -- I'VE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE TOO. FOR A PROSECUTOR, YOU TRULY BELIEVED WHAT YOU HAD WAS RIGHT. AND THE JURY SAID, WE'RE JUST NOT CONVINCED HERE. IT'S DEVASTATING FOR A TRIAL LAWYER. >> A LOT GOING ON IN THAT COURTROOM TODAY. >> LET'S GO OUT TO JENNIFER LONDON, WHO IS COVERING FOR US AND DOING ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER WONDERFUL JOB. JENNIFER SORT OF PARACHUTING IF HERE, PICKING UP THE REINS AND GUIDING US THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED. AS ALWAYS, WE APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS. TOP OF THE HOUR. PERHAPS SOME NEW VIEWERS JOINING US. GIVE US AN UPDATE REAL QUICKLY ON WHAT HAPPENED. WE KNOW THE VERDICT CAME BACK LATE YESTERDAY, GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS, FIRST DEGREE MURDER. SENTENCING SCHEDULED FOR TODAY. WHAT HAPPENED? >> WE DID HAVE SENTENCING THIS MORNING, JACK. NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FORMALLY SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. THE JUDGE MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT HERE IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS A TRUE SENTENCE. AS SHE CALLED IT. HE WILL NOT GET OUT OF JAIL IN HIS LIFETIME. HE WILL DIE IN PRISON. HE WAS CONVICTED ON ALL FOUR COUNTS, TWO COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER FOR THE DEATH OF LILLIAN AND THE DEATH OF RACHEL, AND THEN TWO COUNTS OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION -- ONE COUNT OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM, A SECOND COUNT ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. BUT THE REAL BIG ONE, JACK, OBVIOUSLY, THE FIRST MURDER CHARGE. AND TODAY NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FORMALLY SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE. >> AGAIN, IT WAS NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. DR. MICHELLE WARD HAS ALSO BEEN WITH US TODAY AS SHE WAS YESTERDAY AND GIVING US SOME OF HER THOUGHTS HERE. A NOTED JURY CONSULTANT HERE. MICHELLE, LET ME GO BACK TO A QUESTION WE SORT OF TOUCHED ON YESTERDAY. OBVIOUSLY, YOU'RE A PROSECUTOR. YOU'RE LOOKING AT EVIDENCE THAT SORT OF POINTS TO THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT HERE. SO MUCH OF WHAT THE PROSECUTION OFFERED UP WAS WHAT YOU CAN REFER TO AS AFTER THE FACT TESTIMONY, THE FLIGHTS THAT THEY CALLED TO ENGLAND, THE FAILURE TO MAKE A 911 PHONE CALL, THE FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. HAVING HINDSIGHT NOW AND KNOWING WHAT THE JURY DID HERE, HOW SIGNIFICANT DO YOU THINK THAT AFTER THE FACT TESTIMONY WAS? >> WELL, I THINK, JUST LIKE WE ALL THOUGHT, THE JURY PROBABLY THOUGHT IT WAS VERY CURIOUS. YOU COME HOME, AND YOU FIND YOUR WIFE AND DAUGHTER DEAD. YOU DON'T CALL 911? YOU DRIVE AROUND? YOU FLY HOME TO ENGLAND? YES, IT'S VERY CURIOUS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT DIDN'T PLAY AN ENORMOUS PART IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM. >> AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE JURORS' COUNTS -- WE HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH AT ALL FROM THE JURORS. THEY HAVE NOT COME ON CAMERA FOR ANYBODY, AS I UNDERSTAND, YET. THEY DID GIVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS FOR ONE OF THE PRINT REPORTERS UP THERE. AND ONE OF THE JURORS SAID -- THIS GOES BACK TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT YESTERDAY. WAS IT A RISK FOR THE DEFENSE TO OFFER UP THIS THEORY THAT RACHEL WAS THE KILLER? AND ONE OF THE JURORS ACTUALLY SAID THAT HE WAS DISTURBED BY SEEING NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER GOING ON BEFORE CAMERA AND SAYING THAT, YES, THE EVIDENCE SHOWED THAT RACHEL HAD MURDERED THEIR GRANDCHILD. WHAT DOES THAT TEACH YOU ABOUT THE USE OF THIS DEFENSE, THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS USED? >> WELL, I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY CURIOUS. I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT IT, THE DEFENSE DID PUT FORTH THAT THERE WAS SOME GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND NEIL'S MOTHER HOLDING ON TO THAT AND BELIEVING THAT HER SON IS INNOCENT. THAT'S HER JOB. SHE'S HIS MOTHER. HOWEVER, I'M SURPRISED THAT THE JURORS EVEN PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT THE FAMILY SAID AFTERWARD. IT'S REALLY NOT ANY OF THEIR CONCERN AFTER THEY'VE DELIBERATED. >> BUT I DO KNOW THEY ARE SORT OF STARVED OF MEDIA COVERAGE, IF THEY DO IT RIGHT -- AND MOST JURORS DO. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S SORT OF AN INTERESTING IN WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON OUT THERE. MICHELLE, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO HOLD ON FOR A MOMENT. WE ARE PLEASED TO HAVE JOINING US OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM, MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY JERRY LEONE, WHOSE OFFICE PROSECUTED NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE'S NOT JUST THE D.A. BUT ALSO A VETERAN TRIAL ATTORNEY, PROSECUTOR HIMSELF. HE'S NOT JUST A FIGUREHEAD, SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS HIS WAY AROUND THE COURTROOM. JERRY, THANK YOU FOR SPENDING TIME WITH US. I KNOW IT'S A BUSY AND HECTIC TIME FOR YOU. LET ME ASK YOU THE FIRST QUESTION RIGHT OFF THE BAT. WERE YOU SURPRISED TO SEE THE RESPONSE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PARENTS, SPECIFICALLY HIS FATHER SAYING -- AND THESE ARE HIS WORDS -- "WE KNEW NEIL WOULD NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL." AND HIS MOTHER THEN SAYING, HER WORDS, THAT "THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRANDCHILD." DID THOSE STATEMENTS SURPRISE YOU? >> I WOULDN'T SAY IT SURPRISED ME. IT'S SO UNPREDICTABLE AS TO HOW FELLOW FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GOING TO RESPOND TO THE PRESSURE OF WHAT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AND CONVICTED OF THE MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PREDICT HOW THE PARENTS ARE GOING TO RESPOND. >> WERE YOU GOING INTO THIS -- I KNOW YOU HEAD THE OFFICE, BUT YOU CERTAINLY HAD HANDS ON IN THIS CASE. AS I SAID BEFORE, YOU'RE NOT JUST A GUY WHO RUNS THE OFFICE. YOU'VE TRIED THESE TYPES OF CASES BEFORE. WERE YOU CONCERNED WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF MOTIVE, THAT WHY QUESTION? THAT THIS WAS NOT A SCOTT PETERSON TYPE OF CASE WHERE THE PROSECUTOR COULD SAY, HE'S BEEN AN ONGOING AFFAIR WITH THIS WOMAN. THEY WANT TO GET RID OF HIS FAMILY SO HE CAN GO WITH HER. OR A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A NASTY DIVORCE GOING ON. AND THE PROSECUTION CAN SAY HE NEEDED TO GET RID OF HIS WIFE SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY ALL OF THIS ALIMONY. THERE WAS NOT A BIG INSURANCE POLICY INVOLVED HERE. THERE WERE NONE OF THOSE SORT OF TRADITIONAL ANSWERS TO THE WHY QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE TENDED TO SEE. DID THAT WORRY YOU GOING INTO THIS CASE? >> AS YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE MOTIVE, BUT YOU ALWAYS WANT TO GIVE THE JURY THE REASON WHY. IT DIDN'T CONCERN US SO MUCH. IT JUST WAS SOMETHING ON OUR MIND AND WE DEALT WITH AFFIRMATIVELY. WHEN WE CONNECTED ALL THE DOTS AND PUT TOGETHER THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PRODUCED AT TRIAL, WE KNEW THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERSON WHO KILLED BOTH RACHEL AND LILLIAN, AND THAT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> AND TALKING ABOUT EXPECTATIONS HERE. DID YOU EXPECT -- AND, AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS WERE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL WHEN THE DEFENSE STANDS UP AND ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE MEDICAL EXAMINER SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT NOTION OF RACHEL BEING THE KILLER AND THEN IN SUMMATION THE DEFENSE STANDS UP AND SAYS, HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED. RACHEL SHOT THE CHILD, AND THEN SHE SHOT HERSELF. DID YOU SEE THAT COMING? >> WE WEREN'T SURPRISED THAT SUICIDE WOULD BE RAISED AS A DEFENSE. IN FACT, I SAT WITH MICHAEL AND DAN FOR SEVERAL HOURS IN TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE, AND WE KNEW THAT WAS AN OPTION, AND WE DID THINGS AFFIRMATIVELY TO FORECLOSE THAT BEING A VIABLE DEFENSE. WE WERE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED IN HOW THE DEFENSE WAS RAISED AND THEN HOW THEY TRIED TO IMPLEMENT THE DEFENSE AT TRIAL. >> WHEN YOU SAY YOU WERE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED AS TO HOW IT WAS RAISED, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? >> WELL, IT WAS INITIALLY RAISED, AS YOU'LL RECALL, THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ZIDANE, REFERRING TO VERY GENERAL NATIONAL STATISTICS ABOUT SUICIDE. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HIN IGE A DEFENSE ON. >> ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS -- AND I SHOULD SAY WE INVITED THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO COME ON AND TALK WITH US AS YOU ARE DOING HERE, AND THEY REFUSED TO COME ON WITH US. APPARENTLY, THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT OUR COVERAGE WAS NOT FAIR TO THEM, WHICH TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, DISTURBS ME. WE INVITED THEM TO COME. THEY SAID NO. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STEPHANIE PAGE SAID IN HER EARLIER INTERVIEW WAS THAT THEY WERE UPSET BECAUSE THEY DID NOT FIND OUT THAT YOUR MEDICAL EXAMINER, DR. ZANE, WAS NOT TOLD ABOUT GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE HANDS OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AND THAT WAS IN ANSWER TO A QUESTION WHY YOU DIDN'T BRING ANY WITNESSES. THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T LEARN IT UNTIL 2007. SHE DID NOT SAY -- IN FAIRNESS TO HER, IT WASN'T ASKED -- WHETHER THE DEFENSE THEN CAME FORWARD TO THE COURT AND SAID, WE HAVE NEW INFORMATION HERE. WE NEED SOME TIME TO ADEQUATELY PREPARE OUR DEFENSE. DID ANYONE EVER COME TO YOU FROM THE DEFENSE TEAM AND SAY, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION. IT IS IMPORTANT CRITICAL INFORMATION. WE NEED SOME EXTRA TIME HERE TO SEE ABOUT GETTING EXPERTS TO COME IN TO TESTIFY. WAS THAT REQUEST EVER MADE? >> NO. THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE HAD BETWEEN COUNSEL DURING THE COURSE OF TRIAL, BUT THEY KNEW ABOUT THAT EVIDENCE, AND WHEN THEY LEARNED FROM DR. ZANE THAT HE HADN'T BEEN PROVIDED THE INFORMATION, THERE WASN'T ANY SPECIFIC REQUEST OR SPECIAL REQUEST BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> AND UNDER YOUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE DEFENSE AT THAT MOMENT TO SAY TO THE JUDGE WE NEED A REASONABLE CONTINUANCE HERE TO TAKE THIS INFORMATION AND PRESENT IT TO A POSSIBLE EXPERT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ASSISTANCE THAT COULD BE OFFERED HERE BY AN EXPERT WITNESS? >> I DON'T THINK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, THE WAY THE EVIDENCE WAS RAISED AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT WAS RAISED, THAT THERE WAS ANY DETRIMENT TO THE DEFENSE. TO THE EXTENT THEY NEEDED TIME, THEY HAD MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME TO DEAL WITH THAT IF THEY FELT THEY NEEDED TO OR WANTED TO. >> JERRY, EXPLAIN TO US, IF YOU WOULD, BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR VIEWERS KNOW THAT SOMETIMES LIFE IN PRISON IN SOME JURISDICTIONS DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN LIFE IN PRISON. I TELL THE THE STORY, WHEN I WAS PROSECUTING MY FIRST MURDER CASE IN 1975, A MAN WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER, SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. HIS FIRST ELIGIBILITY DATE WAS 11 YEARS LATER. CLEARLY, THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THEN. WHAT DOES LIFE IN PRISON, THE SENTENCE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE RECEIVED HERE, WHAT DOES IT TRULY MEAN? >> IN MAGS, A CONVICTION OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER MEANS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. SECOND DEGREE MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER CARRY A DIFFERENT SENTENCE. BUT THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTIONS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE RECEIVED, EACH CARRY A LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE. >> SO DOES THAT MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, OTHER THAN THE GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH STEPPING IN AND COMMUTING HIS SENTENCE OR A PARDON, IS THERE ANY MECHANISM BY WHICH NEIL ENTWISTLE GETS OUT OF JAIL GIVEN THIS TYPE OF SENTENCE? >> NO. ONLY A GUBERNATORIAL COMMUTATION. >> LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT, IF I CAN, WITH YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT THE DEFENSE HAS MADE ABOUT ISSUES THEY BELIEVE COULD BE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES ON APPEAL. OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE AN APPEAL FILED HERE. THEY HAVE TALKED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING -- THEY BEING THE DEFENSE -- AND, AGAIN, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY WON'T COME ON HERE AND TALK WITH US. BUT THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT CONCERNS OVER THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AND PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. I THINK YOU HAVE TO AGREE THEY GOT ENORMOUS PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. WE ALSO HAVE TO AGREE GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF A LOT OF THE MEDIA THERE, OPINION DRIVES THE NEWS SOMETIMES. BUT GIVEN THIS JURY THAT WAS SELECTED AND WHAT THEIR RESPONSES WERE TO QUESTIONS DURING VOIR DIRE, DO YOU HAVE ANY REAL CONCERN THAT THERE WOULD BE A PROBLEM WITH THE SELECTION OF THIS JURY AND A SUGGESTION THAT SOMEHOW THEY WERE TAINTED BY PRETRIAL PUBLICITY? >> NO. WE HAVE NO CONCERNS, NO APPELLATE CONCERNS IN THAT REGARD. THIS CASE WAS TRIED EXTREMELY FAIRLY BY VERY CAPABLE COUNSEL. THEY ALL TOOK PART IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS, AND THIS JUDGE IS VERY SMART AND VERY GOOD. NEIL ENTWISTLE GOT A FAIR TRIAL, AND THERE'S -- IN OUR MIND, THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT THIS WILL BE OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. >> ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT THE DEFENSE HAS SAID THAT THEY THINK THEY WILL FOCUS ON ON APPEAL -- AND OBVIOUSLY, THE APPEAL HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED YET AND ALL THE ISSUES HAVEN'T TAKEN A SHAPE OR CONTOUR YET, BUT THEY HAVE EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE FACT THAT TWICE POLICE OFFICERS WENT INTO THE ENTWISTLE HOME. AND ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENT WAS, WELL, THE FIRST TIME YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, BUT THE SECOND TIME BECAME A SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE -- THIS IS THE DEFENSE TALKING -- RATHER THAN A SEARCH FOR WHETHER THERE WAS A PROBLEM IN THE HOUSE AT THE TIME. AGAIN, AS YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS AND WHAT YOUR WITNESSES HAVE SAID HERE, DOES THAT CAUSE ANY CONCERN ON YOUR PART IN TERMS OF AN APPELLATE ISSUE? >> NO. THOSE ISSUES CAUSE US NO CONCERN. THOSE MATTERS WERE LITIGATED, AND WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT THAT IF, IN FACT, THERE'S AN APPEAL FILED ON THOSE PARTICULAR ISSUES, THAT WE'LL PREVAIL. >> JERRY, I KNOW WE ONLY HAVE YOU FOR ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES OR SO BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE VERY BUSY, AND MY PARTNER HERE, ASH LEIGH BANFIELD, WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YOUR TRIAL TEAM, MICHAEL AND DAN BENNETT AND MEGAN O'NEILL WAS INVOLVED IN THAT. THAT WAS A COURTROOM OF VERY, VERY XRENT TRIAL LAWYERS, PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE. YOU SHOULD CERTAINLY BE PROUD OF YOUR TEAM AS PEOPLE SHOULD BE PROUD OF THE EFFORT THAT THE DEFENSE MADE INSIDE THIS COURTROOM. IT SHOWS I'VE OFTEN SAID THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, JURY TRIALS ARE SUCH THAT PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DISSATISFIED AND DISAGREE WITH THE VERDICTS, BUT AS LONG AS WE'RE SATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS AND PEOPLE WHO RUN THE PROCESS, THAT'S THE MOST WE CAN ASK FOR. MY COMPLIMENTS TO YOU AND YOUR TRIAL TEAM. LET ME HAND IT OFF TO MY PARTNER ASHLEIGH, IF I COULD. >> JERRY, THANK YOU FOR AGREEING TO COME ON WITH US. JACK MENTIONED THE DEFGS ATTORNEYS WOULDN'T COME ON. STEPHANIE PAGE IS A HELL OF A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. I THINK YOU GUYS WERE REALLY UP AGAINST SOMEONE IN STEPHANIE. I FOUND HER REMARKABLE FROM THE GET-GO. THAT WOMAN, AS MY COLLEAGUE JAMI FLOYD POINTED OUT, NEEDS TO BE A LESSON FOR ALL LAW STUDENTS IN HOW TO CROSS-EXAMINE. SHE WAS JUST TERRIFIC. CAN I JUST ASK YOU ABOUT A COMMENT THAT I HEARD YOU MAKE IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING THE VERDICT. AND CONGRATULATIONS ON REACHING THAT VERDICT AS WELL, SIR. YOU SAID YOU CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE FOR COMPOUNDING THE UNSPEAKABLE NATURE OF WHAT HE'S DONE BY DISPARAGING THE MEMORY OF HIS WIFE AND VILIFYING THE ENTIRE MATTERAZZO FAMILY BY HIS DECISIONS DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME, THIS IS WHAT LAWYERS HAVE TO DO. THEY HAVE TO TAKE WHAT THEY'RE GIVEN, AND THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST DEFENSE AND THE BEST ARGUMENT. BUT YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS CASE. CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE ON THAT COMMENT? >> I DON'T FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT I DEFINITELY FEEL THAT THE CHOICES AND DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE ARE ALWAYS COMPELLED BY THE CLIENT. THIS DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, SAT THROUGH THIS TRIAL, HEARD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THEN ALLOWED THE DISPARAGEMENT ANDVILLEIFICATION OF HIS WIFE AND HER FAMILY, KNOWING THAT HE KILLED HER AND HE KILLED HIS DAUGHTER. SO THAT DEFENSE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT ON IF IT WAS CONTRARY TO THE DEFENDANT'S WISHES. >> HOW ARE THE MATTERAZZOS DOING, BY THE WAY? >> THE MATTERAZZOS ARE A WONDERFUL FAMILY. THIS IS THE TYPE OF FAMILY THAT YOU WANT TO GO TO A COOKOUT WITH. THEY'RE JUST FUN. THEY'RE A WONDERFUL FAMILY, FULL OF FRIENDS. THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE WEEK, A LOT OF BONDING WENT ON WITH THE MATTERAZZOS AND OUR TEAM, AND I HAD TO KEEP SAYING TO THEM ALL WEEK HOW WONDERFUL IT WAS TO MEET THEM BUT HOW SORRY I WAS THAT IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> I WANT TO ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION THAT YOU AND JACK WERE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL. THIS WAS A SUGGESTION BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN IN THIS CASE. HE DID NOT GO AS FAR AS TO SAY PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, BUT HE BLAMED YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR NOT FORWARDING THE INFORMATION ABOUT GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON THE HANDS OF RACHEL TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. QUITE FRANKLY, AS A TRIAL WATCHER, I STARTED TO BELIEVE THIS WHOLE PROCESS MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY GOTTEN HUNG UP ON THAT, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY. I STARTED TO GET WORRIED ABOUT IT. TWO QUESTIONS. A, WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THAT WITH THIS JURY? AND, B, ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT WHAT MR. WEINSTEIN IS SAYING ABOUT YOU NOW? >> NO AND NO. NO, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT ISSUE. IF ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN, IN FACT, MADE THAT COMMENT, ELLIOTT SHOULD LOOK INWARDLY AT HOW HE TRIED THIS CASE AND HOW HE CLOSED THIS CASE. >> AGAIN, I GOT TO SAY WE ASKED YOU TO COME ON AND TALK WITH US ABOUT THESE THINGS. WE INVITED THEM. WE WERE TOLD IT WAS BECAUSE HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT OUR COVERAGE WAS FAIR, THAT HE WOULDN'T COME OUT AND SPEAK WITH US. WE CAN'T GET HIS COMMENTS AND REACTION TO THAT. I DO WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK WITH US. PLEASE PASS THAT ON TO YOUR TEAM TOO. I WISH WE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM TOO. THEY DID A GREAT JOB, AS DID STEPHANIE PAGE IN THIS TRIAL. THIS WAS A JOY TO WATCH BECAUSE I LEARNED A LOT IN THIS CASE. AND YOU ALL WORKED VERY RESPECTABLY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE TIME TO TALK TO US. THANK YOU. THAT'S JERRY LEONE SPEAKING WITH US, THE D.A. IN THIS CASE. OBVIOUSLY ON HEELS OF A VICTORY FOR HIS SIDE IN THIS STORY. MAKE NO MISTAKE, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DOUBLE MURDER, DOUBLE HOMICIDE, ESPECIALLY ONE IN WHICH A LITTLE BABY IS INVOLVED, THERE ARE NO VICTORIES ANYWHERE. IT'S A SAD DAY ALL AROUND BUT FOR THE FACT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOW GONE AWAY FOR LIFE. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> NOT SURE IF THE JURY WILL SPEAK TO THE PRESS BEFORE RENDERING A VERDICT. SOMETIMES THEY DO, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T, AND IT'S REAL RARE TO GET THEM TO GO ON TV. WE DO NOT HAVE THIS IN THIS CASE. THEY DID SPEAK QUIETLY TO THE FOLKS FROM THE "BOSTON HERALD." JOINs US IS THE STAND CITY EDITOR FOR "THE BOSTON HERALD." CONGRATULATIONS. YOU WIN. YOU GOT THOSE GUESTS, JOE. I WANT TO GO RIGHT TO YOUR REPORTING. SOME OF THE JURORS SPOKE TO YOU. ONE OF THEM IS QUOTED AS SAYING WE WANTED JUSTICE FOR HER, MEANING RACHEL. SHE COULDN'T SPEAK FOR HERSELF. I'D LOVE IT FOR YOU TO EXPAND ON THE COMMENTS YOU GOT AND THAT YOUR TEAM WAS ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER IN YOUR REPORTING TODAY. >> SURE. THE JUROR, RICHARD BOTOUR, I HOPE I'M PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME RIGHT, SIR. HE WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO TALK TO ME LAST NIGHT. HE SAID THAT LILY WAS ALWAYS ON THEIR MINDS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO GET INTO THAT DELIBERATION ROOM AND SPEAK FOR HER. I MEAN, THAT WAS THE QUOTE THAT REALLY -- WHAT HE SAID TO ME REALLY JUMPED OUT. IS THAT SHE COULDN'T SPEAK FOR HERSELF, SO WE DID IT FOR HER. >> YOU ALSO POSED THAT GREAT QUESTION. YOU POSED THAT FABULOUS QUESTION, WHICH IS DID YOU EVER AS A GROUP BUY INTO THIS THEORY THAT THE DEFENSE PUT FORTH OF A MURDER/SUICIDE ON BEHALF OF THIS WOMAN BEING THE MURDERER AND THE VICTIM BEING THE BABY? >> EXACTLY. AND HE SAID GIVE US MORE CREDIT THAN THAT. HE ALSO SAID HE WAS UPSET WHEN HE TURNED ON TV LAST NIGHT AND SAW NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER SAY IT ONCE AGAIN. AND HE SAID IT STILL WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR DECISION. HE WAS STICKING BY IT. HE SAID WORKING ON THIS CASE WAS A GRIND. IT WAS LIKE LIFTING A DAY'S WORTH OF HARD LABOR. IT WAS TOUGH. THEY PUT THEIR "HEART AND SOUL" INTO IT. THEY CAME OUT WITH A JUST DECISION, HE SAID, AND NOTHING IS GOING TO HAVE HIM CHANGE HIS MIND. >> SINCE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT, THE COMMENTS I WAS REFERRING TO AND YOU WERE REFERRING TO BY NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER YVONNE, WHEN IT FOLLOWS, AND WE CAN PLAY THE TAPE. SHE HAD SOME CHOICE WORDS ABOUT THIS ENTIRE CASE. AND THE GUILTY AND INNOCENCE OF HER SON ON THE STEPS OF THE COURTHOUSE. HAVE A LOOK. >> 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. >> SO, JOE, YOU SAID THAT THIS JUROR YOU SPOKE WITH WHO HAD NOT BEEN WATCHING TELEVISION, OBVIOUSLY, OR TELEVISION NEWS ANYWAY, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS ORDEAL AND THE WORK THAT HE'D BEEN DOING WITH THIS JURY, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT HE SAW WERE THESE COMMENTS MADE BY MRS. ENTWISTLE? >> RIGHT. HE CAME HOME AND TURNED ON TV. HE COULDN'T BEFORE. THEY WORKED HARD. AND TO SEE THIS, HE TOLD ME IT UPSET HIM. YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THAT COMING FROM? IT JUST SEEMS SO WRONG, WRONG HEADED, THE WRONG PLACE FOR IT, THE WRONG TIME. YOU'VE GOT THIS -- YOU KNOW, THIS DECISION THAT'S BEEN MADE, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMS TO OUT OF PLACE, SO ALMOST CRUEL. >> CAN I ASK YOU -- I WANT YOU TO LISTEN ALONG WITH ME AND THE REST OF THE VIEWERS TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN IN THIS CASE. HE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO THIS JURY VERDICT. HE SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO DISAGREEING WITH IT. AND THEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THIS JURY WAS CHOSEN. LET'S LISTEN TO IT, AND I'LL ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THE OTHER SIDE. >> WE DISAGREE WITH THE RESULT THE JURY REACHED. WE DISAGREE WITH THEIR VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT UNDER A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT PEOPLE SELECTED TO HEAR THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT. >> SO, JOE, THE IDEA HERE IS THIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS SUGGESTING THAT THIS WHOLE PROCESS, THIS TRIAL WAS FLAWED. YOUR COMMUNITY WAS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PERHAPS ENVIRONMENT TO PICK THIS PANEL. DID YOU GET A SENSE FROM TALKING TO THE JUROR AND THE ALTERNATE JUROR THAT THEY FELT SOMEWHAT SWAYED OR ENTRENCHED IN A POSITION BEFORE THEY CAME IN? OR ON THE OTHER HAND, DID YOU FIND THAT THEY WERE OFFENDED BY THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE, WHICH WAS THAT RACHEL WAS A BABY KILLER? >> I WOULD SAY MORE THE LATTER. I ASKED HIM STRAIGHT UP. WERE YOU OFFENDED? WERE YOU INSULTED? NOW, HE SAID -- AND AS I SAID BEFORE, DON'T -- GIVE US MORE CREDIT THAN THAT, JOE. SO THEY KNOW THAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS FIGHTING FOR THEIR CLIENT. THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO THROW OUT A LOT OF -- YOU KNOW, A LOT OF HARSH OPINIONS AND TRY TO PUSH THEM IN A DIFFERENT WAY. HE SAID, LOOK, WHAT I LOVE WHAT I SAID THE BEST WAS THE PROSECUTION HAD THE LAST AT BAT. THAT'S THE WAY HE SAID IT. THEY HAD THE LAST AT BAT, AND THEY SAID THAT THE SUICIDE THEORY IS A RED HERRING AND JUST TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. SO THIS JUROR SAID THAT THEY WERE A REAL RESOLUTE GROUP. THEY TOOK EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT, AND THEY CAME UP AND WITH THE UNANIMOUS VERDICT THAT, NO, THIS MOTHER DID NOT SHOOT HER BABY AND THEN WOUND HERSELF AND THEN HAVE ENOUGH LEFT TO TURN THIS LONG BARRELLED GUN ON HER OWN HEAD AND KILL HERSELF. SO THEY SAID NO. WE DON'T AGREE WITH IT. WE HEARD IT. WE DISMISSED IT. WHAT THEY DID FOCUS ON WAS DNA EVIDENCE, THE VIDEO AND OTHER RECORDS THAT CAME UP IN THIS CASE. THAT'S A GOOD JURY. THAT'S 12 PEOPLE FROM THIS LARGE COUNTY, PROBABLY ONE OF THE LARGEST COUNTIES IN NEW ENGLAND. THEY CAME UP WITH A JUST DECISION, AND THEY SAID THEY'RE STICKING BY IT. >> SO I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT, BUT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T ASK YOU IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE MATTERAZZOS AND THEIR PROCESS NOW AS THEY'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD AND TRY TO RECAPTURE ANY IOTA OF A LIFE THEY USED TO HAVE. DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH NOW AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING? >> NO. I KNOW THE FAMILY FRIEND QUITE WELL, JOE FLAHERTY, A FORMER STATE TROOPER, A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR HIMSELF, A REAL STAND-UP GUY. HE SAYS THEY NOW HAVE TO MOVE INTO THE NEXT PHASE. HOW CAN YOU -- REALLY, HOW CAN YOU PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR SHOES? I MEAN, YOU JUST FEEL SO BAD ABOUT THEM. I MEAN, THEY EVEN GOT KICKED IN THIS TRIAL ON THE WAY OUT. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOUR HEART GOES OUT TO THEM, AND I BELIEVE THAT AT SOME POINT THEY WILL TALK, AND I'M READY TO LISTEN. >> YEAH, AND I'LL TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN INSIDE A COURTROOM. AND THE POISE AND THE DIGNITY WITH WHICH THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN THIS ENTIRE PROCESS IS SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD BOOKS. I MEAN, IT WAS JUST REALLY QUITE A -- IT WAS REALLY PLEASANT TO SEE THEM AND TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WITH THEM IN THIS HORRIBLE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY REALLY DID REMAIN SO DIGNIFIED. JOE, I WISH WE'D HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK LONGER, BUT WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF OTHER GUESTS STACKED UP. I HOPE WE GET ANOTHER CHANCE TO TALK IN A DIFFERENT CASE BECAUSE YOU ARE GREAT AT WHAT YOU DO, AND WE SURE ENJOY TALKING TO YOU ON THIS ONE. >> THANK YOU, ASHLEIGH. >> JOE DWINNEL JOINING US, THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE CITY EDITOR FOR THE BOSTON HERALD. HE'S BEEN REPORTING LIVE ON THIS. GOOGLE. THE STORIES ARE GREAT. THEY'VE DONE TERRIFIC WORK. >>> QUICK BREAK. AND WHEN WE COME BACK, THE WHOLE MINDSET BEHIND WHY SOMEONE LIKE THIS WOULD PUT A GUN TO THE TORSO OF HIS OWN BABY, MURDER THE BABY, AND MURDER THAT BABY'S MOMMY AS THEY ARE CRADLED IN BED TOGETHER. YOU'LL GET SOME ANSWERS IN A MOMENT. >>> WE ARE BACK IN SESSION, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE JURY DID AND THE JUDGE DID WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE IN THAT COURTROOM IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS. ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS THAT HAS RESONATED THROUGHOUT THIS COURTROOM, THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL IS THE WHY QUESTION. WHY SOMEBODY WHO APPEARS AS NEIL ENTWISTLE APPEARS, TO BE AND HAVE BEEN A LOVING HUSBAND AND FATHER, A PERSON WHO HAS NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH VIOLENCE IN HIS LIFE BEFORE. HOW COULD HE, AS THE JURY NOW SAID, A MURDERER IN THIS CASE, MURDERER OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD? WE HAVE ANOTHER GUEST WHO WE WERE PRIVILEGED TO HAVE YESTERDAY, AND WE DIDN'T GET TO TALK THAT MUCH. WE'RE DELIGHTED HE CAME BACK TO VISIT, DR. JACK LEVIN. HEAD OF THE CENTER ON VIOLENCE AND CONFLICT AT NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY UP IN BOSTON. ALSO A CRIMINOLOGIST, SOCIOLOGI SOCIOLOGIST, EXPERT ON VIOLENT HOMICIDE AND HATE. AUTHOR OF A BOOK CALLED "SERIAL KILLERS, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL," AND "THE WILL TO KILL, MAKING SENSE OF SENSELESS MURDER," SO HE IS CLEARLY THE IDEAL PERSON TO HAVE ON NOW TO LOOK BACK ON ALL OF THIS. DR. LEVIN, YESTERDAY WE HAD A CHANCE TO CHAT WITH YOU REAL BRIEFLY, AND WE WERE TALKING IN TERMS OF HYPOTHETICALS. WE WERE TALKING IN TERMS OF OTHER CASES. REALITY IS NOW THE JURY HAS SPOKEN, AND THEY HAVE SAID NEIL ENTWISTLE IS A KILLER. HE'S THE MAN WHO MURDERED HIS WIFE AND CHILD. LOOKING AT THAT, AND YOU'VE DONE SUCH EXTRAORDINARY RESEARCH ON THIS WRB LOOKING AT NEIL ENTWISTLE, WHAT ABOUT HIM DO YOU THINK FITS WITHIN THE PROFILE OF SOMEBODY WHO WOULD SLAY THEIR ENTIRE FAMILY LIKE THIS? >> YOU KNOW, MOST FAMILY ANNIHILATORS ARE OUT FOR REVENGE, SWEET REVENGE. THEY BLAME THEIR SPOUSE FOR ALL OF THEIR PERSONAL MISERIES, AND THEY HAVE LOTS OF MISERIES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THEY MAY HAVE LOST A JOB. THEY MAY HAVE LOST A LOT OF MONEY, BE IN A LOT OF DEBT LIKE NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS. IN ADDITION, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN CONFRONTING THEIR SPOUSE. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS WITH INTIMACY, AS THERE WAS IN THIS CASE. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT PEOPLE DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT IS SOCIAL ISOLATION. ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THESE FAMILY ANNIHILATORS, THESE HUSBANDS WHO GO ON A RAMPAGE AND KILL THEIR WIFE AND THEIR CHILDREN, ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS NO PLACE TO TURN WHEN THEY GET INTO TROUBLE. THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR FAMILY AND FRIENDS AROUND. IN THIS CASE, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILY AND FRIENDS WERE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY SEPARATED BY THE ATLANTIC OCEAN, AND HE WAS ALONE IN A PSYCHOLOGICAL SENSE. IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE MOST OF THESE FAMILY ANILATIONS OCCUR, THEY USUALLY DON'T OCCUR IN MASSACHUSETTS. THEY OCCUR IN CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, TEXAS, NEW YORK STATE, ILLINOIS, ALASKA, PLACES WHERE THERE ARE LOTS OF STRANGERS, PLACES WHERE THE RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE THEIR SUPPORT SYSTEMS IN PLACE. AND SO WHEN THEY GET INTO TROUBLE, THEY HAVE NOBODY AROUND TO GIVE THEM THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT, THE PEOPLE TO GET THEM THROUGH THE BAD TIMES. I THINK THAT'S POSSIBLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE. >> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE STORY OF NEIL ENTWISTLE AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE, THEY MEET IN GREAT BRITAIN. THEIR ROMANCE BLOOMS IN GREAT BRITAIN. THEY'RE MARRIED. THEY LIVE THERE FOR THE FIRST FEW YEARS OF THEIR MARRIAGE. NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS A JOB THERE, AND BY ALL ACCOUNTS A VERY GOOD AND RESPONSIBLE JOB THERE AS A PROFESSIONAL, AS AN ENGINEER. THEY THEN, WE'RE TOLD, THEY MOVED BACK HERE BECAUSE RACHEL, WE'RE TOLD, WANTED TO BE BACK HERE. RACHEL BACK HERE WITH HER FAMILY BECAUSE OF THEIR CHILD. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU LOOK AT HIS INABILITY TO FIND WORK AT A LEVEL THAT WOULD CORRESPOND TO THE WORK HE HAD BEFORE. AND WE'RE ALSO TOLD NOW -- AND THE JURY WASN'T TOLD THIS. APPARENTLY, THERE WERE BILL COLLECTORS AFTER THEM. THEY'RE LIVING IN THIS $2,700 A MONTH HOUSE, RENTING A BMW. AND WE'RE TOLD THERE WERE BILL COLLECTORS COMING AFTER THEM. ARE THOSE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT FIT WITHIN YOUR MODEL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? >> YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS A PRECIPITATING EPISODE, AND IT USUALLY IS SOME LOSS. WHETHER YOU FEEL THE LOSS OR NOT DEPENDS ON YOUR PERSONAL STANDARDS, ON YOUR OWN EXPECTATIONS. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF THESE GUYS LIKE NEIL ENTWISTLE, KIND OF IN THEIR 30s OR MAYBE EVEN 40s, INTO MIDDLE AGE AT THE VERY TIME IN THEIR LIVES WHEN THEY FEEL THEY SHOULD BE REACHING THE PINNACLE OF SUCCESS, AND INSTEAD THEY'RE SLIDING BACKWARD FAST. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THEY FEEL LIKE COMPLETE FAILURES. NEIL ENTWISTLE APPARENTLY WAS A GREAT STUDENT. HE DID WELL AS A YOUNG MAN AND AS A CHILD, BUT NOW HE FELT LIKE A FAILURE. I THINK IT'S THAT TRIGGERING EPISODE, NOT ONLY A FAILURE AT WORK OR WITH UNEMPLOYMENT, I SHOULD ADD, BUT FAILURE IN TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS FAMILY. YOU KNOW, HE'S THE BREAD WINNER. THEY ARE DEPENDING ON HIS INCOME. AND HE CAN'T EVEN FEED HIS DAUGHTER. SO I -- >> GO AHEAD. FINISH YOUR SENTENCE. I'M SORRY. >> NO. I THINK I'VE KIND OF FINISHED THIS. I THINK -- NOT THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE THAT WAY. IT TAKES A WHOLE SERIES OF FACTORS THAT WORK TOGETHER, INCLUDING CHRONIC FRUSTRATION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. ONE OF THESE LOSSES THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. SOCIAL ISOLATION SO THAT A PERSON DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO TURN WHEN HE GETS INTO TROUBLE. AND EXTERNALIZATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES. SO, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE BLAME THEMSELVES ALL THE TIME, AND THEN THEY COMMIT SUICIDE OR CHANGE THEIR OBJECTIVES IN LIFE. THEY LOWER THEIR STANDARDS. BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM DECIDE THAT THEIR WIFE IS TO BLAME, THEIR BOSS IS TO BLAME, EVERYBODY BUT THEMSELVES. AND THEY DECIDE THEY'RE GOING TO GET EVEN. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE MOTIVE HERE. >> LET ME ASK YOU BECAUSE I THINK THE QUESTION THAT EVERYBODY WHO WAS WATCHING THIS HAS IS ACCEPTING ALL THAT, ACCEPTING THAT HE'S A STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, SO TO SPEAK. HE DOESN'T HAVE HIS FRIENDS. HE DOESN'T HAVE HIS PROFESSIONAL SUCCESSES. BILL COLLECTOR IS KNOCKING AT THE DOOR. BUT I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE WOULD ASK -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS. MOST PEOPLE WOULD ASK LOOKING ATS THE GUY WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT HERE, AND THE PICTURES OF HIM AND LYING IN THE BED AND SLEEPING WITH HIS CHILD, WHY DOESN'T THAT GUY, GIVEN THOSE FRUSTRATIONS AND DIFFICULTIES, SIMPLY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I CAN'T DEAL WITH THIS ANYMORE. I'M OUT OF HERE. I'M GOING BACK. IF YOU WANT TO COME WITH ME, THAT'S FINE. IF NOT, YOU GUYS STAY THERE. WE'LL WORK SOMETHING OUT. WHY DOESN'T HE DO THAT INSTEAD OF COME AND KILL THEM? >> I THINK, JACK, YOU PUT YOUR FINGER ON EXACTLY WHAT HE HAD IN MIND. HE SAID, I'M OUT OF HERE. BUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO GO BACK TO ENGLAND. HE DECIDED TO COMMIT SUICIDE. I'M CONVINCED THAT THIS WAS HIS INITIAL INTENTION. HE WAS GOING TO KILL HIMSELF AFTER HE TOOK CARE OF HIS FAMILY. HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FAMILY IN LIFE. HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM IN DEATH. YOU KNOW, THIS IS HARD FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND, BUT APPARENTLY IT'S EASIER TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE THAN IT IS TO TAKE ONE'S OWN LIFE. THERE'S LOTS OF GUYS WHO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO COMMIT SUICIDE AFTER THEY'VE TAKEN OUT THEIR WIFE AND CHILDREN, BUT THEY CAN'T FOLLOW THROUGH. THEY DON'T HAVE THE GUTS, WHATEVER IT TAKES. SOME OF THEM PLAY SUICIDE BY COP AND LET THE POLICE DO IT. OTHERS GO TO A DEATH PENALTY STATE WHERE THEY PRAY AND BEG TO BE EXECUTED. BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT HE HAD SUICIDE ON HIS MIND BUT COULDN'T GO THROUGH WITH IT. SO HE WANTED TO BE OUT OF HERE. NOT BACK TO ENGLAND, BUT OUT OF THIS LIFE. >> YOU KNOW, IT'S INTERESTING YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IN ONE OF HIS COMMENTS NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID -- HE DIDN'T SAY I INTENDED TO KILL THEM AND THEN COMMIT SUICIDE, BUT HE DID SAY, AFTER I FOUND THEM, I WANTED TO TAKE MY OWN LIFE, AND I WENT DOWN TO THE KITCHEN AND GRABBED A KNIFE, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO DO IT. AND ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE THE JURORS DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT, APPARENTLY WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT NOW, IS THEREst A SMALL ELEMENT OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE, IN FACT, FOUND ON A KNIFE IN THE KITCHEN IN THE ENTWISTLE HOME. WHICH COULD SUBSTANTIATE YOUR THEORY THAT HE TRIED TO TAKE HIS LIFE BUT WASN'T ABLE TO DO IT. LET ME ASK YOU ONE LAST QUESTION. I WANT TO END OUR TUTORIAL HERE. YOU'RE DOING A MARVELOUS JOB AS A PROFESSOR. >> THANK YOU. >> WITHIN 45 SECONDS HERE, WARNING SIGNS PEOPLE SHOULD LOOK FOR. >> YOU KNOW, BY THE TIME THE WARNING SIGNS APPEAR, IT'S PROBABLY TOO LATE. WOMEN SHOULD LOOK VERY EARLY IN A RELATIONSHIP FOR THE WARNING SIGNS WHILE THEY'RE DATING, WHILE THEY'RE IN THEIR INITIAL STAGES OF MARRIAGE. IF A GUY IS POSSESSIVE, IF HE TREATS HER LIKE AN OBJECT, IF HE'S EXTREMELY JEALOUS, THAT'S NOT CUTE. LATER ON IN THE RELATIONSHIP, IT'S DOWN RIGHT DANGEROUS. >> PROFESSOR JACK LEVIN, AGAIN, WE SO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND WE KNOW YOU WERE WITH US YESTERDAY FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THE FACT THAT YOU'D COME BACK AND VISIT US TODAY, IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE APPRECIATE. YOU'VE BEEN A MARVELOUS PROFESSOR FOR US HERE. JACK, THANKS AGAIN. WE APPRECIATE IT. LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING TO YOU SOON. >> GREAT. >> WE'RE GOING TO STEP ASIDE. WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO WRAP UP EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE. WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT NOT ONLY WHAT THE JURY DID, WHAT THE JUDGE DID, AND WHAT THE REACTIONS HAVE BEEN BY ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED, INCLUDING THE FAMILY MEMBERS ON >>> A JURY FOUND NEIL ENTWISTLE >>> A JURY FOUND NEIL ENTWISTLE GUILTY OF MURDERING HIS WIFE AND BABY, SENTENCED TO LIFE BEHIND >>> OUR DREAMS OF A PARENT AND >>> OUR DREAMS OF A PARENT AND GRANDPARENT HAVE BEEN SHATTERED BY THE SHAMEFUL, SELFISH 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 -- >> THIS IS MRS. MATTERAZZO MAKING HER FINAL COMMENTS IN THAT COURTROOM. VICTIM'S IMPACT STATEMENTS. EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEM. SOMETIMES THEY DO, SOMETIMES THEY DON'T. AND USUALLY, THE DEFENDANT ALSO HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, BUT IN THIS CASE, NEIL ENTWISTLE CHOSE NOT TO. KAREN COLLUCCI REMAINS WITH US. SHE IS NOT ONLY A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND WAS A PROSECUTOR IN THIS OFFICE AS WELL. YOU'VE GOT GREAT PERSPECTIVE ON THIS CASE. TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT STATEMENTS, KAREN, AND THAT IS, WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE NEIL ENTWISTLE CHOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT SENTENCING? THERE'S NO JURY THERE. AND WERE YOU SURPRISED AT THAT? >> NO, I WASN'T. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER COMMON THAT A LOT OF DEFENDANTS DO NOT MAKE A STATEMENT. I MEAN, SOMETIMES THEY MAKE A STATEMENT IF THE SENTENCING IS AN ISSUE, TO SAY SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF A MITIGATION, BUT WHERE THERE WAS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE, THERE WAS NOTHING TO SAY. I SUPPOSE PERHAPS THE MATTERAZZOS OR EVERYONE WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE HE WOULD SAY SOMETHING, I'M SORRY. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I WAS NOT SURPRISED AT ALL THAT HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING. >> MAYBE THERE WAS NOTHING LEFT TO SAY CONSIDERING HE SORT OF LEFT THAT PALL IN THE AIR SUGGESTING HIS WIFE WAS ACTUALLY A BABY KILLER INSTEAD OF HE BEING A BABY AND A WIFE KILLER. LET ME BRING IN MICHELLE WARD ON THIS. DR. WARD, WITH ALL OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PSYCHE AND THE CRIMINAL MIND, BEING THE JURY CONSULTANT THAT YOU ARE, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO PLAY ARM CHAIR QUARTERBACK DEFENSE ATTORNEY, BUT JACK AND I HAVE BEEN WONDERING ALOUD IF -- I KNOW THAT THE JURORS WHO HAVE SPOKEN A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, BUT I KNOW THEY HAVEN'T GONE AS FAR AS TO SAY THEY WERE OFFENDED BY THE SUGGESTION THAT RACHEL WAS A BABY KILLER AND THEN COMMITTED SUICIDE. BUT DO YOU THINK THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A SHOT FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE IF YOU JUST WENT WITH HOW GREAT A GUY HE SEEMED BEFORE ALL OF THIS HAPPENED? >> GOOD QUESTION, ASHLEIGH. AND SOMETHING I WANTED TO MENTION BEFORE, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE JURORS SAID THEY DID NOT APPRECIATE OR LIKE THIS POSSIBLE SUICIDE, OR MURDER AND THEN SUICIDE THAT THE DEFENSE PUT FORTH, THEY STILL TALKED WITH B. IT IN THE DELIBERATION ROOM. THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BOUGHT IT, BUT THERE WAS A THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THEY HAD A LIKE-SIZED JUROR REENACT THAT POSSIBILITY. I'M NOT SURE IT WAS WRONG FOR THE DEFENSE TO DO THAT. THEY COULD HAVE GONE WITH WHAT A GREAT GUY HE IS, BUT THEN THAT DOESN'T LEAVE ANY SUGGESTION FOR THE JURORS OF HOW ELSE THIS COULD HAPPEN. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTRUDER. >> AS A JURY CONSULTANT, IS IT POSSIBLE IN THIS DAY AND AGE -- WE KNOW ABOUT THE CSI EFFECT AND THE "FORENSIC FILES" EFFECT, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO HAVE THE MOLECULAR SMOKING GUN IN THIS CASE TO GET ALL THE JURORS TO AGREE ON GUILT. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DEFEND A CASE THESE DAYS BY JUST GETTING IT IN THE MINDS OF AT LEAST ONE JUROR THAT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE LIKE THIS COULD DO THIS. >> I HAVE A GREAT POINT. IT'S THE CSI EFFECT. FRANKLY, JURORS BECOME LITTLE MINI-INVESTIGATORS. IT'S DIFFERENT. YOU CAN GET IT IN THE HEAD OF ONE OF THEM. OH, THAT JUST DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME. >> WE ALL KNOW ABOUT JURY NULLIFICATION TOO. SOMETHING IN THE GUT JUST TELLS YOU TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO NECESSARILY WITH THE EVIDENCE. JENNIFER LONDON, OUR CORRESPONDENT ON THE CASE AND IN FRONT OF THE COURTHOUSE. LET ME BRING YOU BACK INTO THE CONVERSATION. LOOKING AHEAD, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN AUTOMATIC APPEAL AS PART OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STATUTE ON THIS CASE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN OUTLINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT TGS ABOUT THIS CASE THAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY BELIEVES IS AN APPELLATE ISSUE, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM HERE WITH REGARD TO FIGHTING THIS CASE AGAIN. >> THE DEFENSE DID SPEAK YESTERDAY AND TODAY WITH REGARD TO WHAT THEY SEE AS THE APPELLATE ISSUES, AND THEY LISTED A COUPLE, WHICH I CAN JUST BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE FOR YOU. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE TWO SEARCHES, THE ENTRY AND THE SEARCHES OF THE ENTWISTLE HOME WHEN IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE FAMILY COULD NOT REACH RACHEL. AND THEY TRIED IN PRETRIAL MOTIONS, ASHLEIGH, TO HAVE ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED FROM THE HOME FROM THAT SEARCH, FROM THOSE TWO SEARCHES, EXCLUDED FROM THE TRIAL. THAT MOTION WAS DENIED. BUT THEY DID SAY GOING FORWARD THAT WOULD BE AN APPELLATE ISSUE. THEY ALSO RAISED THE QUESTION OF JURY BIAS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ABLE TO SEAT A FAIR JURY GIVEN ALL THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. WE BELIEVE THAT WILL BE AN APPELLATE ISSUE MOVING FORWARD. ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, SAYING TODAY THE APPELLATE TIME COULD BE THREE TO FOUR YEARS, BUT HE IS URGING NEIL ENTWISTLE TO BE OPTIMISTIC DURING THAT TIME. >> LET ME BRING KAREN COLUCCI IN HERE. YOU'D BE THE ONE TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE, HE BELIEVES, LED US ALL TO BELIEVE THIS JURY WAS EXPECTING THAT A DEFENDANT SHOULD PUT ON A DEFENSE. QUICK ANSWER, IF YOU WILL. >> THOSE ARE ALL DEFINITE APPEALABLE ISSUES. HE WILL PURSUE THEM. THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. I'M NOT TOO WORRIED ABOUT THE SEARCH OF THE HOME. I THINK THE POLICE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A WELL-BEING FUNCTION THEY PERFORM IN THIS. ALSO, THE ARGUMENT THAT INEVITABLY THOSE BODIES WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND AND THAT EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, THE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY I DO THINK THAT -- >> I'VE ONLY GOT A COUPLE OF SECONDS LEFT. I'M WRAPPING DOWN TO A HARD BREAK. KAREN COLUCCI, YOU'RE GREAT ON THIS TOPIC. MICHELLE WARD, YOU'RE GREAT TOO. JENNIFER LONDON, GREAT WORK OUT THERE. WE'RE FLAT OUT OF TIME. >> WEEKS OF DRAMA. NEIL ENTWISTLE GUILTY AND GOING TO PRISON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. >> THANKS FOR JOINING US. |