|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> NEIL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING RACHEL OR FOR KILLING ANYONE. NEIL ENTWISTLE IS NOT GUILTY. >> ARGUMENTS MADE TO A BRAND NEW JURY IN A BRAND-NEW CASE ON A BRAND-NEW DAY. WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE TWO? WERE THEY MURDERED BY THIS MAN, A BRITISH MAN? THE HUSBAND AND FATHER, OR IS IT ALL A HUGE MISTAKE? TODAY, "BANFIELD & FORD: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, WELCOME TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE." WE'RE IN SESSION. I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. >> AND I'M JACK FORD. WE WELCOME YOU TO A TRUE QUESTION IN THIS COURTROOM. YOU HAVE CASES LIKE NAVEED HAQ. YOU KNOW WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. THE QUESTION IS, WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THIS WOMAN AND HER 9-MONTH-OLD SON. PROSECUTORS SAY IT'S THAT MAN RIGHT THERE, WHOM SHE HAD BEEN MARRIED TO FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. BUT THE DEFENSE SAID JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO, NOT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE INTENT, NOT THAT HE WAS CRIMINALLY INSANE, THEY SAID HE IS NOT THE MAN WHO PULLED THE TRIGGER. >> AND IT SURE DIDN'T TAKE THEM VERY LONG TO LAY THAT OUT IN THE OPENINGS. JACK, LEADING UP TO THIS, THE FACTS ARE BAD FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. I EXPECTED TO HEAR AN OPENING FROM THE DEFENSE THAT WOULD CLEAR IT ALL UP. IT WAS, WHAT, MAYBE TEN MINUTES, IF THAT. >> YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND IT'S A SMART DEFENSE APPROACH, IF YOU CAN'T PROVE NOBODY ELSE DID IT, DON'T TRY TO. JUST SAY TO THE JURORS, LOOK, ALL I'M SAYING IT'S NOT HIM. IT'S A CIRCUMSTANCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT AGAINST HIM BUT IT'S NOT HIM. IT RINGS A QUESTION, WILL WE HEAR THE JURORS SAY, NO, IT WASN'T NEIL. >> I DOUBT IT. WHY DIDN'T YOU CALL POLICE, MR. ENTWISTLE? WHY DID YOU LIE TO THE POLICE, MR. ENTWISTLE? WHY DID YOU LIE TO YOUR PARENTS? >> IF I'M THE PROSECUTOR, I'M SAYING PLEASE TAKE THE STAND. PLEASE GIVE ME A SHOT AT YOU. >> PLEASE. SO MUCH FERTILE GROUND. >> IT'S A TRUE MURDER MYSTERY. >> IS IT EVER. >> LISTEN, IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE NOT ALONE. APPARENTLY THERE ARE EIGHT JURORS WHO DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE EITHER. EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE CASE, THERE'S PROBABLY STILL A LOT YOU DON'T KNOW. HERE'S BETH KARAS TO GET YOU CAUGHT UP ON ALL OF THE DETAILS. >> WE BELIEVE POSSIBLY THAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A MURDER/SUICIDE, BUT WE CANNOT CONFIRM THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE MURDER WAS AFFECTED. THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT IN A SUBURB OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. GUESTS HAD ARRIVED FOR A DINNER PARTY BUT THE FAMILY WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. POLICE DID A CURSORY SEARCH OF THE HOUSE TWICE BEFORE MAKING A GRUESOME DISCOVERY. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE, WITH A FIREARM THAT WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT, SHOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN THE HEAD, AND THEN PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN, WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> Reporter: THE ONE THING THEY COULD NOT FIND WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE. MASSACHUSETTS INVESTIGATORS LEARNED HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS PARENTS' HOME OUTSIDE OF LONDON. >> NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ARRESTED THIS MORNING, JUST BEFORE NOON LONDON TIME, JUST BEFORE 7:00 OUR TIME, ON TWO CHARGES OF MURDER. THE MURDER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. >> Reporter: ENTWISTLE WAIVED EXTRADITION AND RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO FACE THE CHARGES. SPECULATION IS THAT FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLLING ROLL IN THE MURDERS. >> HELD WITHOUT BAIL. >> Reporter: THE ARRAIGNMENT IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM ATTACHED NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION. >> IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT MR. ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN FORMALLY CHARGED IN THIS COURT WITH TWO CRIMES OF MURDER. BY HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, THE PROCESS THAT WE THINK IS IMPORTANT IN THIS COUNTRY OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS IS UNDER WAY. >> Reporter: DESPITE HIS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, SIX WEEKS AFTER HIS ARRAIGNMENT, A GRAND JURY INDICTED ENTWISTLE FOR THE MURDERS OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER. >> I'M GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISTLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS, AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> BETH KARAS, WHO WAS ON THAT REPORT, IS ALSO ON THE STORY AND ON THE LOCATION LIVE. SHE JOINS US NOW OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE. ALL RIGHT, BETH, LET'S START WITH THE OBVIOUS QUESTION, AND THAT IS HOW IS IT THAT YOU HAVE AN OPENING FROM A PROSECUTOR THAT RUNS AROUND 45 MINUTES OR SO AND AN OPENING FROM A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THAT IF YOU BLINKED, YOU MISSED IT. I THINK IT WAS FEWER THAN TEN MINUTES. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THAT SURPRISED. MAYBE ELLIOT WEINSTEIN COULD HAVE SAID A LITTLE MORE BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE AN OPENING AT ALL. HE COULD HAVE WAIVED IT UNTIL THE CLOSE OF THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE AND THE PROSECUTOR, THE D.A., MICHAEL FABBRI, HAS A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. A BIG CASE HE WILL BE PUTTING TOGETHER AND HE WANTED TO LAY OUT ALL OF THE PIECES FOR THE JURY. SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS TO HAVE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY PUT TOGETHER A VERY THOROUGH OPENING STATEMENT, AND GIVE THE JURY THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SEE. AND HE DID IT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND HE'S PUTTING HIS EVIDENCE ON AND EXACTLY THE WAY I PREDICTED. I THOUGHT KRISTIN HAS RATTO WOULD BE THE FIRST WITNESS, AND SHE MAY BE THE ONLY WITNESS TODAY BECAUSE IT IS TAKING QUITE A WHILE. SHE HAS A LOT TO SAY ABOUT HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE AS WELL AS HER MARRIAGE IN ENGLAND, AND THEN MOVING TO THE UNITED STATES AND THOSE DAYS JUST BEFORE AND AFTER THE MURDERS OF HER DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER. >> SO LET ME GET SOME OF OUR VIEWERS UP TO SPEED, SINCE WE'RE IN A BRAND-NEW HOUR. WE HAD, HAD THE FIRST WITNESS ON THE STAND, THE MOTHER OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS, AT LEAST, IN THIS CASE. DID SHE SAY ANYTHING THAT WAS A SURPRISE? WERE THERE ANY REACTIONS? I EXPECT WHEN A MOTHER OF A SHOOTING VICTIM TAKES THE STAND THAT THERE WILL BE TEARS. MAYBE YOU CAN DESCRIBE FOR OUR VIEWERS WHO MAY BE JUST TUNING IN HOW IT WENT. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, SHE -- SHE ACTUALLY IS PRETTY STOIC, VERY STOIC IN HER DELIVERY BUT SHE WAS EXTREMELY EMOTIONAL AS YOU CAN IMAGINE 2 1/2 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS HAPPENED. IN FACT THE REPORTS ARE WHEN SHE IS TOLD AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION, AT THE TIME SHE'S FILING A MISSING PERSON'S REPORT THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN ARE DEAD, WHAT HAPPENS IS WHILE SHE AND JOANNA GATELY ARE THERE AND I BELIEVE HER HUSBAND, JOE MATTERAZZO'S THERE AS WELL, WHILE THEY ARE FILING THE MISSING PERSON'S REPORT ON THE EVENING OF SUNDAY, JANUARY 22nd. RACHEL'S BEEN DEAD SINCE THE MORNING OF THE 20th, TWO OTHER OFFICERS GO TO THE HOUSE AND AGAIN SEARCH IT AND FIND THE BODIES BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY -- THE BODIES WERE BEGINNING TO SMELL AND THE ODOR CAUSES THEM TO GO UPSTAIRS AND FIND THE BODY AND LOOK UNDER THE PILE OF THE COMFORTER AND PILE OF BLANKETS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A PILE AND UNKEPT BED. THE POLICE WERE TOLD NOT TO TELL THE MATTERAZZOS AT THAT POINT. BUT THE POLICE CHIEF COMES AND DOES GIVE THEM NOTIFICATION. THAT'S WHY THEY WERE THERE SIX, SEVEN HOURS, SHE SAID. THE REPORTS ARE THAT PRISCILLA FELL TO THE GROUND WHEN SHE FOUND OUT. >> THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. >> YOU DIDN'T GET THAT ALL TODAY. IT'S BEEN 2 1/2 YEARS. SHE CENTERED HERSELF, FOCUSED HERSELF, WHATEVER, FOR TODAY'S TESTIMONY. SHE'S FACING A COURTROOM FULL OF PEOPLE, AND AS WELL AS THE PERSON SHE BELIEVES IS HER DAUGHTER AND GRANDDAUGHTER'S KILLER, AND SO SHE MAY BE JUST REALLY PUTTING ON A REAL FLAT ACT TO GET THROUGH THIS. >> AS PARENTS, I FLIPPED THROUGH WHAT YOU PROVIDED AS A WITNESS LIST AND IT'S ACTUALLY THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE JURORS TO LOOK OVER THIS LIST OF NAMES AND LET US KNOW IF YOU KNOW ANYBODY WHO'S ON THIS LIST. I HAD TO LOOK A SECOND TIME, BECAUSE I REALLY EXPECTED TO SEE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PARENTS CALLED AS WITNESSES BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO WERE TOLD A STORY, AN INCONSISTENT STORY BY NEIL ENTWISTLE UPON HIS ARRIVAL IN ENGLAND. I TELL YOU, I'M FLIPPING THROUGH IT A THIRD TIME. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? THEY ARE NOT HERE. >> YOU ARE NOT MISSING ANYTHING. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID, AS SOON AS I GOT MY HANDS ON THE LIST, I LOOKED FOR CLIFFORD AND EVA ENTWISTLE. SINCE THEY CALLED HIM AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THE FIRST STATEMENTS, INCLUDING HE CALLED THE POLICE. >> YEAH, THAT'S A BIG FACT. >> YES, THAT'S A HUGE FACT. WELL, I ASKED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHETHER OR NOT THE ENTWISTLES HAD BEEN SERVED WITH SUBPOENAS, ONCE THEY ARE ON U.S. SOIL OR IN THE COURTROOM, DID YOU SERVE THEM WITH SUBPOENAS? ARE THEY IN THE COURTROOM? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THE FATHER ON THE STAND? AND THEY WON'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. >> SO HERE'S SOMETHING I GUESS I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS KIND OF LOGISTICALLY WOULD WORK ITSELF OUT. BUT BECAUSE THEY PRESUMABLY HAVEN'T BEEN ON U.S. SOIL UNTIL SHORTLY BEFORE THE TRIAL, IS IT A JURISDICTIONAL, INTERNATIONAL ISSUE. YOU CAN'T SUBPOENA SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE OVERSEAS? >> WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, I WISH I HAD THE ANSWER. >> YOU KNOW WHAT, I GOT THE REPORT HERE. >> IF YOU TO GET A MATERIAL WITNESS FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY. ONE ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT YOU CAN. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT HAPPEN. YOU EXTRADITE PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES. CAN YOU ACTUALLY FORCE A WITNESS FROM FOREIGN SOIL, AND I'M NOT TALKING DOING IT FROM STATE TO STATE. >> BUT I HAVE JACK FORD AND HE KNOWS THE ANSWER. WHAT IS IT? >> THE ONLY REASON I KNOW IT IS BECAUSE I HAD TO DO IT ONCE WHEN I WAS PRACTICING LAW. >> OKAY. >> THERE ARE VARIOUS COMPACTS SIGNED BETWEEN THE U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES, NOT EVERYBODY. AND IT PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR YOU TO SUBPOENA A WITNESS IN CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT IF IT'S A RECKLESS DRIVING CASE. >> IS THIS AN EXHIBITION TREATY? >> IT'S SIMILAR THAT YOUR SIGNATORY IS TO IT, YOU REACH AGREEMENT, HOW IT WILL HAPPEN. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT IT IS FOR. MINOR EVENTS, IT'S NOT GOING HAPPEN. A MURDER TRIAL, IF YOU ARE INDEED A MATERIAL WITNESS, THERE ARE PROVISIONS THAT THE U.S. AHAS, AGREEMENT THE U.S. HAS WITH OTHER NATIONS THAT WILL ALLOW. HAVE YOU TO GO INTO COURT AND FILE AFFIDAVITS. IT'S FAIRLY COMPLICATED BUT IT'S DOABLE. AS BETH SAYS HERE, THOUGH, I'M SORT OF PUZZLED MYSELF. I THINK AS WE ALL ARE, AS TO WHY WE ARE NOT SEEING THE PARENTS OF NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THAT WITNESS LIST WAS YOU WOULD THINK IF THEY WANTED HIM, THEY WOULD HAVE PROBABLY TRIED TO DO THAT SOONER RATHER THAN SAY LET'S BANK ON THEM SHOWING UP HERE AND WHEN THEY DO, WE WILL SLAP A SUBPOENA ON THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING GOING ON WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT. >> AND I ASSUME ENGLAND IS RATHER COOPERATIVE WITH OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN EVERY OTHER IMPACT SO WHY NOT THIS? >> EXCEPT THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE IT. >> SURE, SURE. HERE'S SOMETHING ELSE I DID IN MY SHERLOCK HOLMES MODE. ON THE WITNESS LIST, I ALSO SAW SOMEBODY WHO HAD CHEMIST BEFORE HIS NAME. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME OVERSEAS AND I KNOW CHEMIST MEANS DRUGGIST OR PHARMACIST OVERSEAS. WHEN HEAR WE DON'T USE THAT TERM. AND I WONDERED IF IN FACT THESE ARE PHARMACISTS FROM OVERSEAS WHO ARE MAYBE GOING TO TESTIFY ABOUT SOME KIND OF DRUG USE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE? I'M SURE THESE QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANSWERED BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD THROW THEM YOUR WAY ANYWAY. >> YOU KNOW THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO THAT IN THE OPENING STATEMENT. I THOUGHT THAT IN THE OPENING OF MICHAEL FABBRI, WE MIGHT HEAR SOME DETAILS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC YET. I DID NOT HEAR ANY DETAIL THAT'S HAVE NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. IF -- I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. THESE ARE ALL CHEMISTS. UK WITNESSES? >> I DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T SAY -- OH, IT DOES. IT DOES SAY. LET ME FIND OUT. NO, THEY'RE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. SO MAYBE THEY ARE ACTUALLY CHEMISTRY. I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE NOTICED THAT. >> FROM THE POLICE LAB THEN. >> ONE OF THE WITNESSES I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING FROM, AND I HAVE BEEN SORT OF MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT HIM, IS TROOPER MICHAEL BANKS. I SEE HE'S FOURTH ON THE WITNESS LIST. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE'S GOING TO BE ANY CLOSER UP IN TESTIFYING. THE WITNESS LIST IS THE WITNESS LIST. IT'S NOT IN ANY KIND OF ORDER OTHER THAN ALPHABETICAL. >> RIGHT, ALPHABETICAL ORDER. >> RIGHT. >> ARE WE EXPECTING TO HEAR FROM HIM? >> I SUSPECT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM JOANNA AND MAUREEN GATELY AND MORE JOE MATTERAZZO BEFORE ANY POLICE WITNESSES BUT YOU NEVER KNOW. HE MAY INTERSPERSE POLICE WITNESSES WITH CIVILIANS. MAYBE THE FIRST POLICE TO THE HOUSE AND CURSORY SEARCH DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING. BUT CHECKED THE CAMERA LAST USED ON JANUARY 13th. TROOPER BANKS SWEARS OUT AN AFFIDAVIT -- ACTUALLY SEVERAL AFFIDAVITS FOR SEVERAL SEARCH WARRANTS, AND IT'S ONE OF THE KEY AFFIDAVITS IN THE CASE. BUT HE'S NOT THE ONLY TROOPER TO SWEAR OUT AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF A SEARCH WARRANT. >> I JUST LOVED HIS -- HIS AFFIDAVIT LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN LIKE A LAWYER, AND IT TURNS OUT HE IS A LAWYER AS WELL AS A TROOPER AND IT'S JUST INCREDIBLY TEDIOUS. THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION PACKED IN SO BEAUTIFULLY, I THOUGHT HE WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT WITNESS. PLUS HE'S THE GUY WHO HAD THE TELEPHONE CALLS TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> NO, THAT WAS TROOPER MANNING. THAT IS AN ERROR. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING THAT. MANNING SPOKE TO HIM BY PHONE BUT BANKS TALKS ABOUT IT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT. >> THAT'S INTERESTING. I ACTUALLY READ LANGUAGE SAYING, I SPOKE WITH HIM. >> MAYBE THEY BOTH DID BUT MANNING HAD THE TWO-HOUR CONVERSATION. >> HERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, AND THAT IS HOW DID MIRANDA WORK WHEN SOMEONE IS NOT ON U.S. SOIL AND HAVING A CONVERSATION AND CAN YOU USE ALL OF THAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE MIRANDA MAYBE DOESN'T APPLY? >> THE DEFENSE DID CHALLENGE STATEMENTS MADE TO DEPUTY U.S. MARSHALS CHANCE PORTING ENTWISTLE FROM LONDON TO THE UNITED STATES, SAYING THAT HE COOPERATED BECAUSE HE FELT HE HAD TO, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE IMPROPERLY TAKEN BUT THAT THE BRITS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME SORT OF RIGHTS AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL WE HAVE. THIS IS WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SAID IN THE PAPERS. YOU COULD BE PENALIZED IF YOU DON'T COOPERATE IN AN INTERROGATION. WELL, WE DIDN'T HEAR THE JUDGE'S RULING IN OOP COURT ON WHETHER OR NOT THOSE STATEMENTS CAN BE EXCLUDED IF THE PROSECUTION CHOOSES TO USE THEM. I BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO COME IN. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY CAN QUESTION HIM UNTIL HE'S IN U.S. CUSTODY AND ONCE HE'S ON THE U.S. PLANE IN THE AIR, I BELIEVE, THAT, THAT'S OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. >> HE'S IN U.S. CUSTODY. >> BETH, LET ME JUST LET OUR VIEWERS KNOW ALL OF THIS TIME I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, THEY HAVE NOT MISSED ANY TESTIMONY AT ALL BECAUSE THEY ARE AND A BRIEF BREAK. WE WILL SQUEEZE IN SOME BREAKS OF OUR OWN. WHEN WE COME BACK, JACK AND I WILL TALK A LOT ABOUT THIS JURY. I SAID IT OFF THE TOP, EIGHT -- EIGHT OF THIS PANEL KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS CASE, DESPITE THE UNBELIEVABLE PRESS COVERAGE 2 1/2 YEARS AGO. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, IF ANYTHING? JACK WILL LOOK INTO IT. ALL COMING UP. >>> WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. THEY ARE NOT IN SESSION NOW IN THE COURTROOM UP IN MASSACHUSETTS. THEY ARE IN THE MIDST OF A BREAK. AS SOON AS THEY GET READY AND STARTED AGAIN, WE WILL JUMP YOU RIGHT INTO THE COURTROOM SO WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE LIVE COVERAGE, FIRST WITNESS ON THE STAND FOR THE PROSECUTION. BUT IT DOES GIVE US A CHANCE TO LOOK AT OUR "COURTSIDE" DOCKET FOR TODAY. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE JURY AND AS A CONSEQUENCE WE ARE CALLING IT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, WHICH IS WHAT THEY WANT FROM JURORS. MAKE SOME INTRODUCTIONS. A COUPLE OF OUR FAVORITE GUESTS SPENDING SOME TIME WITH US HERE TODAY. OUTSIDE THE COURT, ROB IS WITH US. WELL-KNOWN MASSACHUSETTS-BASED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR. ALSO DOWN IN OUR STUDIOS IN NEW YORK, TIM BACKEN IS BACK WITH US, HIMSELF A FORMER PROSECUTOR AND LAW PROFESSOR AT WEST POINT AT THE MILITARY ACADEMY WHERE HE TEACHES CRIMINAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ALSO THE AUTHOR OF "THE GUIDE TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN NEW YORK." BOTH ROB AND TIM WILL SPEND TIME WITH US HERE IN SESSION. SO LOOKING AT THE JURY THAT WAS FINALLY SEATED LATE YESTERDAY AND THE QUESTION ACCORDING TO THE DEFENSE HERE IS, ARE THESE JURORS HOPELESSLY PREJUDICED? THE DEFENSE HAS TAKEN A POSITION FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY. LET'S LISTEN TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAD TO SAY EARLIER IN THE CASE. >> NOTHING IN THE LAST MONTH OR SIX WEEKS HAS BEEN ANYTHING TO LESSEN MY BELIEF THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE, FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE TO RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL BY JURORS WHO ARE NOT BIASED AGAINST HIM AS A RESULT OF EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE HEARD AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE SEEN ABOUT HIM. >> SO THIS IS THE POSITION THAT THE DEFENSE HAS TAKEN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND EVEN INDEED THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE JURY SELECTION. LET'S JUMP BACK OUT TO BETH KARAS FOR A MOMENT TO GET A FACTUAL SETUP FOR THIS IF WE CAN. SO, BETH, THE DEFENSE HAS SAID AND YOU HEARD HIM RIGHT THERE, WE DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN GET A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY. JUST A REMINDER FOR OUR VIEWERS JOINING US, HOW MANY JURORS WERE QUESTIONED BEFORE THEY CAME UP WITH THAT FINAL JURY? AND HOW ABOUT THIS PANEL? WHAT HAVE THESE JURORS SAID ABOUT WHAT THEY KNOW OR DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CASE? >> WELL, 189 JURORS WERE QUESTIONED. THIS WAS INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONING. A FEW HAD MEDICAL EXCUSES SO OF THE 189 MAYBE A HANDFUL WERE EXCUSED BEFORE EVEN BEING QUESTIONED. BUT THE JUDGE DID ALL OF THE QUESTIONING. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE EXCUSED WERE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. THERE WERE 21 PEREMPTORIES EXERCISED OF THE 32, THE 16 EACH SIDE HAD. THE DEFENSE ALL 16, PROSECUTION 5 SO THEY HAD A PANEL OF 16. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE EXCUSED WERE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE BECAUSE THEY HAD PREJUDGED THE CASE. THEY HAD A BIAS. THEY KNEW TOO MUCH ABOUT IT. THERE WAS SO MUCH PUBLICITY. THIS COMMUNITY WAS SATURATED WITH IT AND HAS BEEN OVER THE YEARS. THERE HAD BEEN COURT DATES PERIODICALLY AND IT GETS A LOT OF PRESS WHENEVER HE'S IN COURT. BUT OF THE JURORS SELECTED, EIGHT MEN AND EIGHT WOMEN, HALF OF THEM DIDN'T HAVE ANY -- DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CRIME. WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO THE BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE JURORS. THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN OPEN COURT AND NOT RELEASED TO US. SO I DON'T KNOW OF THESE EIGHT PEOPLE IF SOME OF THEM HAVE MOVED HERE SINCE JANUARY 2006 AND JUST WEREN'T HERE WHEN -- YOU KNOW, WHEN THE MURDERS HAPPENED AND WHEN THE BIGGEST AMOUNT OF PUBLICITY OCCURRED IN THOSE FEW WEEKS BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED. BUT IT IS INTERESTING THAT HALF OF THEM DON'T HAVE ANY -- ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRIME OR ANY BACKGROUND, ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT IT. BUT THE OTHERS DO. AND SOME HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF DETAIL KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT BUT HAD NOT PREJUDGED IT. THEY WERE KEEPING AN OPEN MIND SO THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BE QUALIFIED AND ULTIMATELY PICKED. THE DEFENSE -- THEY RAN OUT OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGED. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY PLEASED WITH THIS PANEL. >> LET ME ASK ROB ABOUT THIS. YOU PRACTICE UP IN THAT AREA AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT. FIRST OF ALL, HOW SURPRISING IS IT TO YOU GIVEN THE PUBLICITY THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS CASE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT HALF OF THESE JURORS WHO HAVE BEEN SEATED BASICALLY SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, UNTIL I GOT HERE INTO THIS COURTROOM, UNTIL I WAS SUMMONED, I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. >> THAT IS ACTUALLY PRETTY SURPRISING. AS BETH WAS JUST MENTIONING, PERHAPS SOME OF THOSE EIGHT PEOPLE MOVED TO THE AREA RECENTLY. THIS IS PERHAPS ONE OF THE LARGEST COUNTIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH. THE PRESS ATTENTION TO THIS CASE HAS BEEN GREAT THROUGHOUT THE PAST TWO YEARS. TO TRULY ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, ONE WOULD HAVE TO THINK THAT THEY ARE NEW TO THE COUNTY. >> TIM, LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN, WHAT DOES THIS DO -- THIS BY THE FACT 8 OF THE 16 IMPANELLED JURORS HAVE SAID, DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE DEFENSE'S ARGUMENT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY WANT TO PRESERVE IT IN THE EVENT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS CONVICTED. NOT SAYING HE WOULD BE OR SHOULD BE, BUT IN THE EVENT THAT HE IS, WHAT DOES IT DO TO THAT APPELLATE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WAS -- IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURY BECAUSE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PUBLICITY, AND HALF OF THE JURORS SAID, DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >> THE LARGE PART DEGATES THE IMPACT AND THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL POPULATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, SAYING THOSE PEOPLE IN THAT POPULATION KNEW ABOUT THE CASE. EVEN IF THEY KNEW ABOUT THE CASE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE PREJUDICED. THEY ARE ENTITLED BY THEIR PEERS, UNLESS THEY CAN PROVE THOSE PARTICULAR PEERS ARE PREJUDICE. THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE, EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE DIDN'T LIKE IT, IS THE ONE THAT ASKED THE QUESTION. IN MANY OTHER STATES, ALTHOUGH NOT IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM, IT WOULD BE THE ATTORNEY THAT'S ASK THE QUESTION. THE APPELLATE ISSUE IS PROBABLY WHAT THE DEFENSE WAS THINKING WHEN IT WENT INTO THIS CASE, IT WAS ONE SAVING GRACE. IT'S ONE THING WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT BEHIND THE CASE AND THAT IS GIVEN THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE, WHY HAS THERE NOT BEEN A PLEA OFFER DISCUSSED OR POSSIBLY A PLEA OFFER EVEN TAKEN? MY GUESS IS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT OFFERED ANY PLEA AT ALL IN THE CASE, AND IS HOLDING OUT FOR A CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE. THE DEFENSE IS LOOKING AT ULTERIOR ISSUES AND TRYING TO GET THE CASES OVERTURNED IF THERE IS A CONVICTION AFTER THE TRIAL. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. WE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE TO SEE IF THEY AGREE. MY GUESS IS ALL FOUR OF US HAVE BEEN PROSECUTORS HERE BEFORE, AND MY GUESS IS, I'M THE PROSECUTOR. I'M NOT PUTTING ANYTHING ON THE TABLE. AT LEAST NOT THE FIRST TIME AROUND. I WILL TRY IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE. THE OTHER, WHAT THE COURT IS HOPING FOR HERE IS THESE JURORS WILL BRING ESSENTIALLY A CLEAN SLATE INTO THE COURTROOM. EVEN THOUGH EIGHT OF THEM SAID I KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT IT. LET'S LOOK AT SOME OF THE COMMENTS JUDGE DIANE KOTTMYER HAD IN HER OPENING INSTRUCTIONS TO THESE JURORS. >> EACH OF US IS REQUIRED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND UNTIL YOU HEAR ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. YOU MUST DECIDE THE CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL. THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE COMMONWEALTH THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. MR. ENTWISTLE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. >> SO, ROB, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, IF YOU'RE THE DEFENSE LAWYER HERE, EVEN IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR, ARE YOU CONCERNED AT ALL THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT SO DESPERATELY WANT TO BE ON THIS JURY, TO GET THEIR 15 MINUTES OF FAME AFTERWARDS, THAT MAYBE SOMEBODY SAID, I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, MAYBE THEY DID? OR MAYBE SOMEBODY SAID, I KNOW SOMETHING BUT I HAVEN'T REACHED AN OPINION, MAYBE THEY HAVE. HOW MUCH OF A CONCERN IS THAT FOR EITHER SIDE, DO YOU THINK? >> THAT IS VERY MUCH A CONCERN. I WOULD SUGGEST FOR BOTH SIDES. AS YOU'RE TRYING TO SELECT THE JURY, YOU'RE CERTAINLY TRYING TO GUARD AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE THAT. CERTAINLY FROM THE PROSECUTION'S PERSPECTIVE, WOULD YOU THINK THAT YOU REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND. YOU WANT TO HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN YOUR CASE, AND YOU DON'T WANT ANY OF THESE COLLATERAL ISSUES OUT THERE REGARDING JURORS BECAUSE ONCE YOU PUT IN YOUR CASE AND IF YOU DO SECURE A CONVICTION, THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO IS TO HAVE TO RETRY THIS CASE BASED ON A REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION BECAUSE OF SOME SORT OF COLLATERAL ISSUE AGAIN HAVING TO DO WITH A JUROR. >> AND, TIM, I KNOW THE JURORS TRY MIGHTILY, WE HAVE ALWAYS SAID THIS HERE ON "IN SESSION," JURORS, WE ASK AN AWFUL LOT OF THEM AND THEY DO MARVELOUS JOBS. BUT YOU DO HAVE TO WONDER WHETHER OR NOT SOMEWHERE LURKING IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME THOUGHTS, SOME CONCLUSIONS, THAT THEY HAVEN'T EXPRESSED. MAYBE THEY HAVEN'T CRYSTALLIZED YET. I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, AGAIN, A BIG CASE LIKE THIS, HOW MUCH OF A CONCERN WOULD IT BE FOR YOU, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, EVEN THOUGH A JUROR HAS SAID TO YOU, LOOK, I'M OKAY WITH THIS. I HAVEN'T REACHED ANY CONCLUSIONS. I'LL LISTEN CAREFULLY, THAT, THAT SOMEWHERE BACK THERE, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT DO NOT A LOT ABOUT THE CASE, SOMEWHERE THERE'S ALREADY A CONCLUSION THAT'S FORMED. >> THERE'S ALWAYS A CONCERN BUT IN EVERY CASE JURORS WILL BRING IN PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN A PRECONCEIVED NOTION IS AN ILLEGITIMATE NOTION OR A NOTION THAT A TRIAL COURT SHOULD COMPLETELY REJECT BECAUSE WE ALL COME INTO CASES WITH A HISTORY. WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME JURORS WHO JUST WANT TO BE ON THE CASE, THIS IS NOT SO NOTORIOUS A CASE OUTSIDE MASSACHUSETTS THAT JURORS ARE GOING TO BE INTERVIEWED NATURALLY FOR DAYS AND BE IN A POSITION TO WRITE A BOOK AND PROFIT FROM IT. EVEN ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE JURORS THAT WILL BE ASKED BY THIS JUDGE TO RENDER A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION AND ESPECIALLY BY THE PROSECUTOR. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO RENDER THOSE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AND FIND ANOTHER HUMAN BEING GUILTY OF MURDER AND SEND HIM TO PRISON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. FOR EVERY JUROR THERE, THERE MIGHT BE ONE WHO IS WILLING TO BE ON THE JURY FOR AIL TERRIER MOTIVES. THERE ARE OTHERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE JURY. JUST ABOUT THE BEST WE CAN DO IS ASK THEM TO BE AS HONEST AS THEY CAN WHEN THEY ARE BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT BY THE JUDGE AND WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO RENDER A VERDICT. >> I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THE FACT THE VAST MAJORITY OF JURORS ARE THERE NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE THERE, ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE DOING THEIR CIVIC DUTY INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM. LET ME BOUNCE BACK TO BETH FOR A QUICK QUESTION BEFORE WE FIT IN A BREAK. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE HAD BEEN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS OR OFFERED MADE. HAVE WE HEARD ANYTHING AT ALL THAT WOULD SUGGEST THERE HAD BEEN ANYTHING PUT ON THE TABLE BY THE PROSECUTION? >> NO, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. OF COURSE, A TOP COUNSEL IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE IF A DEFENDANT WANTS TO TAKE IT. THAT'S NOT AN OFFER OR ANY SORT OF DEAL. IF HE WANTS TO GET THE CASE OVER WITH, AND OCCASIONALLY THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. BUT THE SENTENCE HERE IS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR THE CHARGES HERE SO IT'S NOT SURPRISING THERE, WITH THE FACTS, IF THEY ARE TRUE AND PROVEN BY THE PROSECUTION, THAT THERE WAS NO PLEA. >> I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THAT WAS THE CASE. WELL, OBVIOUSLY, BETH IS STAYING WITH US. TIM AND ROB WILL STAY WITH US ALSO THROUGH THE COURSE OF OUR SESSION HERE AT "IN SESSION." WE WILL FIT IN A BREAK OF OUR OWN. WE EXPECT THEM TO GET STARTED WITH MORE LIVE TESTIMONY IN THE TRIAL, VERY EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY BY THE MOTHER, CONTROLLED, I SHOULD SAY, BUT STILL EMOTIONAL WITHIN IT, BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE MOTHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. SHE SHOULD BE BACK ON THE STAND WHEN THEY RETURN. WE WILL GET IN A QUICK BREAK >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE". WE ARE IN SESSION. BRIEF BREAK IN THE COURTHOUSE WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE IS BEING TRIED. DAY ONE OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS. THEY HAVE TAKEN A BRIEF BREAK WITH THE MOTHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE ON THE STAND. HER NAME IS, OF COURSE, MATTERAZZO. SHE'S REMARRIED SINCE HAVING RACHEL, WHO IS HER DAUGHTER. AND THAT IS NOT FINISHED, THAT TESTIMONY. THEY HAVE JUST GONE TO THE BREAK. THEY WILL COME BACK. SHE'S UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION. STILL WONDERING WHERE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE'S GOING TO GO. WE WILL KEEP AN EYE ON THE CLOCK FOR YOU. MUST MISSED SOME OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS, THEY ARE GOOD, REAL GOOD. 45 MINUTES OF THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE BEING LAID OUT FACT BY FACT BY FACT. AND THEY ARE NOT GOOD FACTS BY NEIL ENTWISTLE. THE DEFENSE IS TEN MINUTES OR SO AND SOMEWHAT EVASIVE. COULD BE A STRATEGY. IN ANY CASE, FIKAL FABBRI, THE PROSECUTOR, TALKED ABOUT THE GUN THAT WAS USED AND HER LITTLE DAUGHTER 9-MONTH-OLD LILLIAN. TALKED ABOUT HOW THE DEFENDANT HAD ACCESS TO THOSE GUNS. TALKED ABOUT HOW NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FACING BANKRUPTCY AND SEARCHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT IT, SEARCHING ON THE INTERNET ABOUT ESCORT SERVICES. AND OH, YEAH THERE'S THAT INTERNET SEARCH FOR KILLING AND SUICIDE. THAT'S NEVER GOOD. HAVE A LISTEN. >> THE DEFENDANT HAD GONE ON A COUPLE OCCASIONS, AND ON ONE OCCASION HAD USED AND HANDLED JOE'S GUNS, INCLUDING A .22 CALIBER GUN THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW IN THIS CASE WAS A FIREARM THAT KILLED RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE ON JANUARY 20th, 2006. YOU WILL LEARN, THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW WHERE THOSE FIREARMS WERE KEPT, KNEW WHAT THE KEYS LOOKED LIKE, HAD ACCESS TO THEM. AS WE MOVE INTO NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, YOU WILL HEAR EVIDENCE ABOUT HOW THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY FOUND A HOME IN HOPKINTON ON SIX CUBS PATH, A LARGER COLONIAL. THEY DECIDED TO ENTER INTO A LEASE FOR THREE MONTHS. FOR THE PRICE, THE COST OF $2,700 A MONTH, PUTTING $8,100 UP FRONT FOR FIRST, LAST MONTH AND SECURITY DEPOSIT. AND THEY BEGAN THEIR MOVE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, EARLY JANUARY 2006. FROM THE CARVER HOME INTO THE HOPKINTON HOME. AND YOU WILL ALSO LEARN DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE DEFENDANT BEGAN VISITING CERTAIN WEB SITES. LATE IN FALL, EARLY WINTER 2006, HE GOOGLED A WEBSITE ON BANKRUPTCY. LATER IN DECEMBER, HE BEGAN LOOKING AT WEB SITES ABOUT ESCORTS. ESCORTS IN THE WORCESTER AREA, HOPKINTON AREA, WESTPORT AREA. HE VIEWED MAPS OF SOME OF THE ESCORT SERVICES. YOU WILL ALSO LEARN AND YOU WILL SEE RECORDS RELATED TO MR. ENTWISTLE JOINING A SITE KNOWN AS ADULT FRIEND FINDER. AND FROM LATE DECEMBER INTO EARLY AND MID-JANUARY 2006, THE DEFENDANT WENT TO THAT SITE A NUMBER OF TIMES AND BEGAN EXCHANGING E-MAILS WITH FEMALES AND DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTING OUT DISCREET RELATIONSHIPS. YOU WILL LEARN THE VISIT TO THE ESCORT SITES CONTINUED IN EARLY JANUARY. YOU WILL ALSO LEARN THAT IN THE DAYS JUST BEFORE JANUARY 20, 2006, THE DEFENDANT NEIL ENTWISTLE VISITED WEBSITES ABOUT KILLING AND SUICIDE. NOW, YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON THE WEEKEND OF THE 7th AND OVER THE COURSE OF ROUGHLY THE 7th TO THE 14th, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE FAMILY, THE MATTERAZZOS, THE FRIENDS, EVERYBODY WHO SEEMED TO GET ALONG, AS I SAID, YOU WILL HEAR A LOT OF EVIDENCE HOW ON THE SURFACE THE RELATIONSHIP WAS LOVING, NOURISHING AND STABLE. THE MOVE BEGINS AND BY THE 14th AND 15th, THEY ARE ALMOST SETTLED IN. THEY ARE GETTING SETTLED INTO THE HOME IN HOPKINTON. AND YOU WILL LEARN THAT ON THE 19th OF JANUARY, 2006, THE LAST DAY THAT ANYONE HEARD FROM RACHEL AND LILLIAN, OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, WHO'S ALWAYS IN REGULAR CONTACT DAILY, IF NOT EVERY OTHER DAY, WITH HER DAUGHTER, SPOKE TO HER THAT EVENING, PLANS WERE MADE ABOUT A VISIT FOR PRISCILLA TO GO FROM CARVER WITH A FRIEND TO HOPKINTON TO SEE HER DAUGHTER AND NEIL AND THE HOME, HELP UNPACK SOME ITEMS. RACHEL'S FRIEND, DEAR FRIEND, JOANNA GATELY, WHICH YOU WILL MEET AND SEE AND HEAR SPOKE TO RACHEL ON THAT THURSDAY EVENING, MADE PLANS ABOUT GOING THERE FOR DINNER ON SATURDAY EVENING, THE 21st WITH HER SISTER, MAUREEN. THE EVIDENCE WILL THEN SHIFT TO JANUARY 20th, 2006. JOE AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO WENT HOME, AND GET UP AND EXERCISED THEIR REGULAR ROUTINE OF GOING TO WORK. JOE GOT THERE EARLY IN THE MORNING, PICKS UP HIS SCHEDULE FOR THE DAY. GOES UP TO VERNE ASSOCIATES AND PICKS UP SOME PLANS AND TRAVELS OUT TO FRAMINGHAM TO VISIT A JOB SITE AT ABOUT 10:00, 10:30, SPENDS SOME TIME THERE, GOES TO ANOTHER JOB SITE IN MARLBORO AND THEN HEADS BACK. ENDS AT HIGHLAND MEDICAL AND HAS LUNCH WITH HIS WIFE PRISCILLA, AS HE WOULD FROM TIME TO TIME IN BRANCH TREE. YOU WILL LEARN PRISCILLA HAS T GOTTEN UP, LEFT FOR WORK, WENT TO HIGHLAND MEDICAL, SPENT THE DAY THERE, DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CALLS FROM RACHEL. >> SO THERE'S THE PROSECUTOR. MICHAEL FABBRI LAYING OUT PART OF THE CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. NOT GOOD FACTS, AS WE LIKE TO SAY. THERE WAS A LOT MORE TO IT THAN THAT. YOU WILL HEAR MORE OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY IN A MOMENT. FIRST, PUT ON THE BRAKES. WE WANT TO GET YOUR OPINIONS. I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE EARLY TO ASK YOUR OPINION BUT THERE IS THAT WHOLE ISSUE OF TAKING OFF TO ENGLAND AFTER THE KILLINGS OR THE MURDERS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, HE SAID IT WASN'T HIM. SO THESE ARE CALLED THE JURY BOX SEATS. LONG ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. HERE'S THE QUESTION -- IS ENTWIST ENTWISTLE'S FLIGHT TO ENGLAND EVIDENCE OF GUILTY? OH, YES, APPARENTLY 92%, RESOUNDING MAJORITY BELIEVES SO. ONLY 8% OF YOU SAY NO. YOU COULD BE SWAYED TO BELIEVE HE WAS JUST FREAKED OUT. WE WILL UPDATE THE RESULTS. >>> A YOUNG WIFE AND MOTHER BRUTALLY MURDERED. WAS THIS MAN HER HUSBAND ALSO HER KILLER? >>> WE ARE WAITING FOR THEM TO GET STARTED WITH MORE LIVE TESTIMONY IN THIS COURTROOM IN MASSACHUSETTS. SHOULD BE HAPPENING ANY MINUTE NOW. WHEN THEY ARE READY, WE WILL TAKE YOU INTO THE COURTROOM. IN THE MEANTIME WE ARE GIVING YOU A CHANCE TO WATCH AND LISTEN TO SOME OF WHAT THE JURORS HEARD. MICHAEL FABBRI, HE'S EXPLAINING TO THE JURORS AS HE LAYS OUT THE PROSECUTION'S CASE. WE PICK UP WITH THE OPENING STATEMENT. HE'S TALKING WITH THE JURORS ABOUT HOW THE BODIES WERE DISCOVERED AND WHAT IT WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS ABOUT THE DISCOVERY OF THOSE BODIES. >> BY 5:00 THAT AFTERNOON, THEY WERE CONCERNED TO THE POINT THEY DECIDED TO GO TO THE POLICE STATION AGAIN TO MAKE A SERIES OF PHONE CALLS. THEY WANTED ANOTHER WELL BEING CHECK. THEY FILE A MISSING PERSON'S REPORT. SOME TIME AROUND 6:00 TO 7:00 ON THE EVENING OF SUNDAY, JANUARY 22nd, 2006, DETECTIVE SCOTT VAN ROUTEN, SERGEANT SUTTON, THE NIGHT BEFORE RETURNED. THEY DECIDE TO MAKE ENTRY TO LOOK FOR PLANE TICKETS, TO LOOK FOR AN ADDRESS BOOK. CAN WE LOCATE WHERE THIS FAMILY HAS GONE. THEY HIT THE CODE TO THE ENTRANCE FOR THE GARAGE. THERE WAS NO BMW IN THE GARAGE. THE HOUSE WAS OTHERWISE LOCKED UP, SAME CONDITION THAT WAS BEFORE. AND WHEN THEY OPENED, ENTERED THE BISMENT THROUGH THE GARAGE, THEY NOTICED A SMELL. THEY FOLLOWED THAT ODOR UP TO THE FIRST FLOOR, UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR. THEY ENTERED THAT MASTER BEDROOM AGAIN. DETECTIVE VAN ROUTEN THE FIRST TIME. THIS TIME THEY GO THRN THE OTAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED. THEY SEE A FOOT, A HUMAN FOOT. THEY GO BACK AROUND THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BED. THEY LIFT THE TOP, AND THEY SEE WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE FACE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE. THEY CAREFULLY PLACE IT BACK DOWN. THEY DO A QUICK CHECK OF THE OTHER ROOMS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANOTHER VICTIM IN THE HOUSE. FINDING NONE, THEY REPORT TO THIS STATION. INVESTIGATORS BEGIN TO CONVERGE AND ASSEMBLE AT SIX CUBS PATH TO PROCESS THAT AS A CRIME SCENE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL HOURS, 22nd INTO THE 23rd. THE EVIDENCE WILL SHIFT TO THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2006, WHERE BY 11:00 IN THE MORNING, JOE MATTERAZZO ANSWERS HIS PHONE IN HIS CARVER HOME AND IT'S CLIFFORD ENTWISTLE, THE FATHER OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. THEY HAVE BRIEF CONVERSATION AND WITHIN MOMENTS OF THAT CONVERSATION ENDING, THE DEFENDA DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, CALLS. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THIS WAY. I WAS ONLY GONE FOR A COUPLE HOURS. SOMEONE SHOT THEM. YOU WILL HEAR A CONVERSATION THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FEW DAYS, TALKING ABOUT A VARIETY OF THINGS. YOU WILL ALSO HEAR THAT JOE MATTERAZZO CALLED TROOPER MANNING AFTER RECEIVING THAT FIRST CALL FROM THE DEFENDANT, AND TROOPER MANNING AND OTHER INVESTIGATORS DECIDED TO CALL THE DEFENDANT OVER IN THE UK. AND YOU WILL HEAR THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT ON THAT DAY, AND THE DAYS THAT FOLLOW, WHEN HE TELLS TROOPER MANNING, I'VE GONE OUT TO DO SOME ERRANDS THAT MORNING, GO TO STAPLES TO BUY SOME COMPUTER EQUIPMENT. LEFT ABOUT 9:00. CAME BACK ABOUT 11:00. I HAD LEFT THE GARAGE DOOR UP. WHEN I GOT BACK, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING. I CALLED OUT. I LOOKED AROUND. I SAW THAT THINGS WERE PRETTY MUCH IN THE SAME CONDITION." THE DEFENDANT SAYS HE GOES UPSTAIRS AND FROM THE VANTAGE POINT OF THE BEDROOM ENTRYWAY, HE COULD SEE RACHEL. SHE LOOKED ASLEEP, HE SAID. AND HE APPROACHED CLOSER, AND HE SAID HE PULLED THE COVERS BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND HE COULD SEE LILY, HE CLAIMED HE COULD SEE BUBBLES AND LILY AND A HOLE ON LILY. HE TELLS TROOPER MANNING THAT HE THEN COVERS THEM UP WITH THE COMFORTER. HE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A PILLOW. HE CLAIMS THEY HAVE SEEN THE HOLE. HE GOES DOWNSTAIRS. HE PICKS UP A KNIFE, HOLDS IT TO HIMSELF BUT KNOWS IT'S GOING TO HURT. HE TELLS THE TROOPER HE GOES DOWN TO CARVER AFTER THAT, LEFT THE HOUSE, LOCKED THE HOUSE UP, CLOSED THE GARAGE DOOR, DROVE TO CARVER THAT HOUR. TRIED TO GET IN UNTIL HE CAN GET ONE OF JOE'S GUNS AND BE THAT WAY, COMMIT SUICIDE. YOU WILL HEAR AND LEARN THAT THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE COULDN'T GET IN. THAT HE THEN TRIED TO FIND PRISCILLA'S WORKPLACE. DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO GET AHOLD OF HER. THEN HE ENDED UP AT THE ONLY FAMILIAR PLACE TO HIM, AT LOGAN AIRPORT. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR OTHER CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN TROOPER MANNING AND THE DEFENDANT OVER THE NEXT TWO OR THREE DAYS FOLLOWING THAT, ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT, ABOUT HIS FINANCES, ABOUT HOW HE'S UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN THE TROOPER ASKED HIM SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIS WIFE GOING OVER THE CRIME SCENE. YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE INVESTIGATORS THAT CONVERGED ON THAT CRIME SCENE THAT PAINSTAKINGLY TOOK HOURS TO GAIN EVIDENCE, REMOVE THAT COMFORTER METHODICALLY, REMOVE THAT PILLOW, SAW THE ARM, MOVE THE ARM OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. SAW SOME SORT OF BURN HOLE, AND THAT IT TOOK HOURS FOR THEM TO DETERMINE, TOGETHER WITH AN AUTOPSY, WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF DEATH. OF LILLIAN AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR THERE WAS NO BALLISTIC EVIDENCE, NO SHELL CASINGS OR BULLET HOLES AT THE SCENE. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR AND LEARN THERE WAS SOME BLOOD SPATTER ON THE PILLOW IN WHICH RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HEAD LIE, SOME SPATTER ON THE WALL NEXT TO THE BED. THAT THEY EXAMINED THE REST OF THE HOUSE, NO SIGN OF A BREAK-IN ENTRY, FORCED ENTRY OF ANY SORT. THEY EXAMINED UP AND DOWN. THEY DISCOVERED SOME FINGERPRINTS, ONE BELONGING TO THE DEFENDANT, ONE TO RACHEL, ONE TO THE OWNER OF THE HOME. IT WAS A LEASED HOME. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE PHOTOGRAPHS. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A VIDEO OF THAT SCENE. YOU WILL LEARN THAT THE BODIES WERE REMOVED AND TAKEN TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE AND AUTOPSY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOON OF JANUARY 24th, 2006. AND THAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH OF RACHEL WAS FROM ALL INDICATIONS WERE NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT AT THE SCENE UNTIL THE COURSE OF THE AUTOPSY, A HOLE WAS FOUND ABOVE HER HAIRLINE. SHE DIED AS A RESULT OF A SINGLE GUNSHOT WOUND TO THE HEAD THAT PENETRATED HER BRAIN, .22 CALIBER PROJECTILE, BROKEN IN PIECES. YOU ARE GOING TO LEARN THAT THEY HAD SEEN AT THE CRIME SCENE SOME SORT OF TRAUMA TO THE TOP OF HER LEFT BREAST AND HOLE OR A COUPLE OF HOLES THROUGH HER SHIRT. TURNS OUT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER REMOVED A PROJECTILE, A .22 CALIBER PROJECTILE, CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE OF AMMUNITION THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD IN HIS AMMO CASE. AND CONSISTENT WITH THE .22 COLT REVOLVER THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD. YOU WILL LEARN THAT BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE TO IT, THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY LINK IT BUT THAT CALIBER, YOU WILL CONCLUDE THROUGH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT PROJECTILE CAME FROM THAT. AND YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO LEARN ABOUT SOME DNA EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT WAS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING A DESANI WATER BOTTLE FOUND IN THE DEFENDANT'S CAR BY WAY OF A SEARCH WARRANT. THEY FOUND THE KEYS TO THE HOME IN THERE, THEY FOUND A PARKING TICKET TO THE LOGAN AIRPORT. DNA SAMPLES WERE GIVEN BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. AND YOU WILL LEARN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT HAD ONCE HANDLED THAT COLT REVOLVER. >> SO PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABBRI THEN, PART OF THE THREE-PERSON PROSECUTION TEAM HERE, LAYING OUT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE FACTS THAT THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO PROVE HERE. OR AT LEAST ATTEMPTS -- ATTEMPTS TO PROVE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. AGAIN, WE ARE AWAITING THEM GETTING BACK LIVE IN THE COURTROOM ANY MINUTE NOW WITH THE FIRST WITNESS ON THE STAND, THE MOTHER OF THE VICTIM HERE, RACHEL. IN THE MEANTIME AS WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE. YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE COURTROOM. HOW ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION? AS WE ALWAYS ASK YOU TO DO HERE, E-MAIL US WITH YOUR THOUGHTS, YOUR OBSERVATIONS, EVEN QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS CASE. YOU CAN DO THAT BY LOGGING ON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. CLICK ON "COURTSIDE" OR E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT "COURTSIDE" AT CNN.COM. IF IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND INTERESTING, WE WELL MAY JUST PUT IT UP ON THE AIR. WE WILL BE BACK. LIVE TESTIMONY COMING UP. DON'T GO AWAY. >>> WELCOME BACK TO BANFIELD AND FORD. WE ARE SOUTHSIDE AND I AM JACK FORD. >> I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD AND THAT BREAK THAT WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ABOUT IS COMING TO A QUICK CLOSE BECAUSE THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE MOTHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS GOING TO GET BACK ON THE STAND. >> YOU HAVE'RE A DEFENSE LAWYER, YOU FEEL VERY AWKWARD DOING IT AND WE'RE SEEING AS WE WERE WATCHING AND STEPHANIE PAGE WAS GOING THE QUESTIONING, I IMAGINE SHE'S GOING TO CONTINUE WHEN THE TWO-PERSON DEFENSE TEAM, SHE'S BEING VERY GENTLE BUT STILL GETTING INFORMATION THAT SHE WANTS OUT FROM HER. THEY'RE WANDERING BACK INTO THE COURTROOM RIGHT NOW. THE JURY IS NOT BACK IN. SO THAT GIVES US A CHANCE TO CHECK IN ONE MORE TIME WITH OUR OWN BETH KARAS WHO'S BEEN GUIDING US THROUGH ALL THIS SINCE THEY BEGAN JURY SELECTION OF MONDAY. LET'S GO A QUICK CAPSULIZATION IF WE COULD ABOUT THE HEADLINES THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD TO SAY IN OPENING STATEMENT AND HEADLINES OF WHAT THE DEFENSE HAD TO SAY IN OPENING STATEMENTS EARLIER TODAY. >> DISTRICT ATTORNEY MICHAEL FABBRI FOR THE PROSECUTION, BUILDING THE CHRONOLOGY FOR THE JURY, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RACHEL AND NEIL ENTWISTLE, FROM THE TIME THEY MET, UP UNTIL THEIR MARRIAGE IN 2003 AND THEIR RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE FALL OF 2005. MOVING INTO THE HOUSE WHERE THE MURDERS OCCURRED IN JANUARY 2006 AND THEN THOSE DAYS JUST BEFORE AND JUST AFTER AN OF COURSE THE DAY THE BODIES WERE FOUND. PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO IS THE FIRST WITNESS BECAUSE, REALLY, SHE'S THE KEY IN THE BEGINNING OF THAT CHRONOLOGY, TALKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HER DAUGHTER AND NEIL ENTWISTLE UP UNTIL THEY LEASED THE HOUSE, SHE WAS LOOKING FOR HER DAUGHTER, SHE HAD DAILY CONTACT WITH HER, OR NEARLY DAILY CONTACT, SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO SEE HER ON JANUARY 21st, LITTLE DID SHE KNOW, HER DAUGHTER AND -- WAS DEAD ON THE BED. STEPHANIE PAGE IS STILL MAKING HER POINTS, NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE SHE'S GOING EXCEPT THE HUMANIZE HER CLIENT NEIL ENTWISTLE. IN THE VERY BRIEF DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT, WINESTEIN DID NOT GIVE A THEORY OF WHAT HE BELIEVED HAPPEN. ED. BUT SHE SAID HE LOVED HIS WIRE AND DAUGHTER VERY MUCH AND HE EMPHASIZED THAT THE TWO LAP TOP COMPUTERS WHICH WERE SURGED IN THE HOUSE, EVERYONE ASSUMES THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS THE USER, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROVE THAT HE WAS THE USER AND NO ONE ELSE. BUT HE SAID THEY USED THE LAP TOPS FOR THEIR BUSINESSES. SO HE CLEARLY IS EMPHASIZING THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE KNEW WHAT HER HUSBAND WAS DOING AND MAYBE PARTICIPATED IN SOME OF THE BUSINESSES AND THAT ALL IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED LATER. >> THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE COURTROOM THIS MORNING IN TERMS OF THE OPENING STATEMENTS. BETH, WE'RE GOING TO THANK YOU AND LET YOU RUN BACK TO WORK BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND NOW THAT THEY ARE READY TO RESUME INSIDE THE COURTROOM. SO LET'S TAKE YOU BACK INSIDE THE COURTROOM. YOU CAN SEE PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO BACK ON THE WITNESS STAND. AND STEPHANIE PAGE BACK AT THE LEK TURN AND SHE'S JUST BEGUN HER CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> WHEN SHE WAS LIVING ON CAMPUS, YOU WERE STILL IN THE KINGSTON HOUSE FOR THE MOST PART? >> NO, WE WERE NOT IN KINGSTON, WE WERE IN CLEMENS. >> I'M SORRY, IN THE CLEMENS HOUSE. SO IF WE CAN TIE IT TO WHEN RACHEL WENT ON HER YEAR ABROAD AS A JUNIOR, FROM THAT TIME, WHEN DID YOU END UP MOVING INTO THE CARVER HOUSE WITH MR. MATTERAZZO? >> JULY 30 OF 2001. >> AND DO YOU RECALL THE YEAR THAT RACHEL WENT OVER TO ENGLAND? >> HER JUNIOR YEAR, SO IT WAS 19 -- 1999 TO 2000. >> OKAY. >> SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE EXTENT THAT RACHEL, QUOTE, LIVED IN THE CARVER HOUSE WAS WHEN SHE WAS COMING BACK TO VISIT YOU OR COMING BACK FOR VACATIONS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> AT THE TIME WE MOVED INTO THE CARVER HOUSE. SHE WAS MOVING WITH US. >> AND SHE WAS JUST THERE FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE SHE WENT BACK TO ENGLAND? >> CORRECT. >> BACK HERE FOR THAT SUMMER BREAK? >> CORRECT. >> SO THEN AGAIN, THE TIMES AFTER THAT INITIAL COUPLE OF MONTHS, THE ONLY OTHER TIMES THAT SHE HAD ANY -- THAT SHE STAYED OVERNIGHT AND YOU AND MR. MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE WAS WHEN SHE CAME TO VISIT? >> IN THE CARVER HOUSE, YES U THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHEN YOU WENT TO VISIT RACHEL AND NEIL AFTER THEY HAD MOVED AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU SPENT MOST OF YOUR TIME WITH RACHEL AND LITTLE LAND, BECAUSE NEIL WENT OUT TO GO TO WORK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. WHEN HE WAS AT WORK, I WAS WITH THEM, YES. >> OBVIOUSLY RACHEL HAD JUST HAD THE BABY, SO IT WASN'T A TIME WHERE YOU ALL WERE GOING OUT AND MEETING ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE DID GO OUT. RACHEL WAS QUITE ABLE RIGHT AFTER LILLIAN WAS BORN TO RESUME NORMAL ACTIVITIES. >> WELL, THAT'S GOOD. MY POINT WAS, THOUGH, RACHEL AND NEIL WERE PRETTY SOCIAL WHEN THEY LIVED OVER IN ENGLAND, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES, THEY HAD FRIENDS. >> AND THEY HAD FRIENDS THAT THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY AS A YOUNG COUPLE WOULD HAVE, THEY HAD FRIENDS THAT THEY WOULD ALL GO OUT TOGETHER AND HAVE A GOOD TIME TOGETHER, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IN FACT, THE COUPLE OF FRIENDS THAT CAME OVER, IF I MENTION A NAME, DASH, WOULD THAT RING A BELL? >> YES. >> OBVIOUSLY COMING OVER FROM THE UK TO AMERICA MEANS THAT THEY WERE PRETTY CLOSE, THAT DASH AND THE UK FRIENDS WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO RACHEL AND NEIL, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND AS YOU TOLD US, RACHEL WAS TEACHING AT ST. AUGUSTINES, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND SHE WAS VERY POPULAR THERE? >> YES. >> AND SHE HAD A WHOLE SET OF FRIENDS THAT PERHAPS YOU HADN'T MET YET, RIGHT? >> FRIENDS FROM -- >> ST. AUGUSTINE. >> I DID MEET HER COLLEAGUES. >> YOU MET HER COLLEAGUES WHEN YOU WERE VISITING OVER THERE? >> YES. >> AND SHE WAS VERY WELL LIKED? >> YES. >> AND NEIL WAS VERY WELL LIKED AT THE TIME? >> YES. >> AND, AGAIN, THEIR ENTIRE NETWORK OF FRIENDS ARE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAD NOT MET WHILE THEY WERE OVER THERE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. >> THAT WAS BADLY PHRASED. >> THEY HAD MORE FRIENDS THAN YOU HAD EVER MET, IS THAT CORRECT, OVER IN ENGLAND? >> THAT'S CORRECT, I DID NOT MEET ALL OF THEIR FRIENDS, NO. >> AND AGAIN, RACHEL AND NEIL WOULD BE SOMEONE WHO WOULD HAVE PEOPLE OVER TO THE HOUSE FOR DINNER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND OFTEN THEY WOULD GO TO THEIR FRIENDS' HOUSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND SHE WOULD KEEP YOU UPDATED WITH THE GOOD TIMES SHE AND NEIL WOULD HAVE WITH THEIR FRIENDS OVER IN ENGLAND, CORRECT? >> YES. >> WHEN RACHEL AND WILLIAM AND SALLY INITIALLY CAME BACK TO MOVE BACK TO THE UNITED STATES AND STAYED WITH YOU AND MR. HAS MATTERAZZO, YOU ALREADY TOLD US SHE HAD HER OWN CAR, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> YOU SAID SHE DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OUT WITH HER OWN CAR MUCH, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> SHE DIDN'T HAVE A CAR. >> SHE ALSO DIDN'T HAVE LOTS OF VISITORS OR LOTS OF FRIENDS WHEN SHE FIRST GOT BACK HERE THAT WOULD COME DOWN TO THE HOUSE TO SEE HER, CORRECT? >> SHE HAD FAMILY THAT WOULD COME AND HIGH SCHOOL FRIENDS IN THE AREA. >> ONE OF THOSE FRIENDS WAS JOANNE GATELY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND SHE'S A GOOD FRIEND OF RACHEL'S, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND SHE HAD KNOWN HER LONGER THAN SHE HAD KNOWN NEIL, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND JOANNA WOULD COME TO SEE RACHEL WHEN THEY WERE STAYING AT YOUR HOUSE? >> ONCE EVERY OTHER WEEK. >> WAS IT ON A MONDAY SHE WOULD COME DOWN? >> YES, SHE DID COME DOWN OFTEN ON MONDAY. >> AND YOU OF COURSE WOULD BE AT WORK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WOULD BE AT WORK, SHE WOULD STILL BE THERE FOR SUPPER A LOT OF TIMES. >> OKAY. AND -- ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT RACHEL WHEN NEIL WASN'T THERE EVER WENT OUT WITH JOANNA, WOULD THEY GO OUT AND DO THINGS ON THEIR OWN, DO YOU KNOW? >> YES, PROBABLY. >> I'M JUST ASKING YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY KNOW. >> YES. >> AND PROBABLY THEY DID, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY. NOW WHEN YOU GOT OVER HERE AND REUNITED WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN, OBVIOUSLY RACHEL WAS THRILLED TO HAVE THEM FINALLY BACK IN THE UNITED STATES, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY THAT HE WAS HERE WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN? >> YES. >> HE WASIBILITY -- -- HE DID NOT HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, A UNITED STATES OR A MASSACHUSETTS DRIVER'S LICENSE? >> CORRECT. >> AND WHAT HE HAD FOR HIS MAIN IDENTIFICATION WAS HIS PASSPORT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IN THE FIRST FEW WEEKS, YES. >> AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT HE CARRIED WITH HIM AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER MASSACHUSETTS IDENTIFICATION, RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF HE CARRIED IT ALL TIME. >> AND DURING THE TIME WHERE NEIL DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMISSION, LEGAL PERMISSION TO DRIVE, RACHEL WAS THE ONE THAT WOULD DRIVE AROUND, AS SHE WAS DRIVING, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> FOR THE MOST PART, WHEN HE VERY FIRST CAME OVER, YES. >> YES. OKAY. THE HOUSE AND CAR THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TO US AS A CAPE HOUSE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU DESCRIBED WHAT THE ROOMS WERE LIKE. TO THE JURY WHEN THE PROSECUTOR WAS ASKING YOU, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE AT THESE, MS. MATTERAZZO. AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THOSE THREE PICTURES ARE OF? >> YES. >> AND WOULD YOU TELL THE JURY WHAT THEY ARE? >> THEY'RE MY HOUSE, MY HOME IN CARVER. >> AND THAT'S THE HOME THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHERE YOU LIVED WITH MR. MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> AND THAT'S THE HOME WHERE NEIL AND RACHEL, LILLIAN AND SALLY CAME TO STAY WHEN THEY CAME OVER FROM THE UK, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> NOW, I WOULD ASK, ARE THOSE PICTURES A FAIR AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF YOUR HOME? >> YES. >> I WOULD ASK TO HAVE THEM MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION. >> OKAY, THEY MAY BE MARKED. >> THESE ARE THREE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOME ON CARVER. >> MRS. MATTERAZZO, I'M NOW GOING TO -- CAN YOU SEE THIS? >> YES. >> AGAIN, YOU'RE WATCHING TESTIMONY, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, THE MOTHER OF RACHEL END WHICH ISSAL. RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S FATHER HAD DIED WHEN SHE WAS LITTLE AND PRISCILLA REMARRIED JOSEPH MATTERAZZO AND SHE HAD BEEN MARRIED TO HIM THROUGHOUT THESE EVENTS. AND HE MAY WELL BE THE SECOND WITNESS ON THE STAND FOR THE PROSECUTION. LET'S GO BACK AND LISTEN. >> THE SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM AND THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. >> AND THE LIVING ROOM WOULD BE ON WHICH SIDE? >> ON THIS SIDE. >> AND THAT'S THE FIRST TWO WINDOWS? >> MRS. MATTERAZZO, CAN YOU KEEP YOUR VOICE UP SO THE COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR YOU? >> JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT SEEING WHAT SHE'S REFERRING AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE JURORS ARE RIGHT BEYOND WHERE THIS EXHIBIT IS LOCATED AND AS YOU KNOW, WE DON'T SHOW THE JURORS IN THE COURTROOM. WE APOLOGIZE THAT YOU'RE NOT SEEING EVERYTHING THEY'RE POINTING, AND YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHE'S REFERRING TO, BUT THEY ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOME THAT NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE WERE LIVING IN AT THE TIME. >> THIS IS THE GARAGE. >> THANK YOU. >> THE FAMILY ROOM THAT YOU'RE TALKING, IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE FINISHED BASEMENT? >> YES, IT IS. >> THE ROOMS THAT WERE UPSTAIRS, YOU TOLD US THAT THERE WERE TWO BEDROOMS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND ONE OF THEM WAS YOURS AND MR. MATTERAZZO'S? CORRECT. >> AND ANOTHER ONE IS ONE THAT YOU KEPT FOR TWO OF MR. MATTERAZZO'S BOYS? >> YES. >>> AND THEY HAD TWO TWIN BEDS IN THEM? >> YES. >> RACHEL'S ROOM IN TERMS OF -- >> ARE YOU ABLE TO SHOW THE JURY, MRS. MATTERAZZO, WHERE RACHEL'S ROOM IS ON THAT PHOTOGRAPH, THE ROOM THAT RACHEL, NEIL AND LILLIAN WERE STAYING IN? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> WHERE WOULD YOU AND MR. MATTERAZZO'S ROOM BE IN RELATION TO THE ROOM WHERE NEIL AND RACHEL WERE STAYING? ABOVE HERE? >> ABOVE, SECOND STORY. >> OKAY. YOU CAN GO BACK, THANK YOU. >> SO THAT YOU AND MR. MATTERAZZO'S BEDROOM WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE THE BEDROOM IN WHICH NEIL AND RACHEL WERE STAYING IN, IS THAT IS CORRECT? >> IT WAS ACROSS THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE HOUSE SO HALF OF THE LIVING ROOM WAS ABOVE THERE. YEAH. >>> WELCOME BACK, WE ARE STILL IN SESSION AND WE ARE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS IN WILBURN IN THE COURTHOUSE. THAT'S PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, THE MOTHER OF THE MURDER VICTIM IN THIS CASE. SHE UNDER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY NEIL ENTWISTLE, HER SON-IN-LAW'S ATTORNEY. LET'S LISTEN. >> THERE WAS A TABLE THAT YOUR COMPUTER WAS ON? >> YES. >> AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER LITTLE TABLE I GUESS OVER FROM THE DOORWAY TO THE LEFT WHERE NEIL AND RACHEL SET UP THEIR COMPUTERS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THERE WAS A DESK TO THE LEFT OF MY COMPUTER WHERE NEIL HAD SET UP HIS COMPUTER, YES. >> AND THAT'S WHERE NEIL AND/OR RACHEL WOULD USE THE LAP TOP MOST OF THE TIME WHEN THEY WERE USING THAT UP IN THE OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> IF ANYONE USED THE LAP TOP, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT WAS ON THAT DESK. >> AND YOU HAD ALSO GIVEN NEIL AND RACHEL A BOOKSHELF TO PUT WHATEVER THEY NEEDED TO ON IT, ANY DOCUMENTS OR WHATEVER ON IT IN THE OFFICE, YOU CLEARED OFF A SHELF FOR THEM? >> NO, THERE AREN'T ANY SHELVES THERE. >> THERE AREN'T ANY SHELVES OR BOOKCASES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? >> NOT SHELVES, NO. >> WAS THERE ANY SPACE THAT YOU CLEARED OUT FOR RACHEL AND NEIL TO PUT WHATEVER IT WAS THEY NEEDED TO IN THE OFFICE? >> THERE WERE FILE CABINETS THAT WE OFFERED THEM, ANY SPACE IN A FILE CABINET. >> ALL RIGHT. AND IN FACT, NEIL AND RACHEL DID USE ONE OF THOSE FILE CABINETS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT. >> AND IN TERMS OF THE NEIL'S EMBEDDED BUSINESS, WASN'T THERE A FILE DRAWER THAT HAD A TAPED UP PIECE OF PAPER THAT SAID EMBEDDED TECHNOLOGIES AS A LABEL ON A FILE DRAWER? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. >> WOULD THERE BE ANY REASON FOR YOU TO REMEMBER THAT IF IT WERE SO? >> OTHER THAN -- NO, JUST GENERAL KNOWLEDGE. >> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> NOW OBVIOUSLY MRS. MATTERAZZO, YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT NEIL WAS DOING WHEN SHE WAS WORKING UP IN THE OFFICE ON THAT COMPUTER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND YOU HAD NO IDEA WHAT RACHEL WAS DOING WHEN SHE WAS IN THE OFFICE USING THE COMPUTER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> OTHER THAN WHEN SHE TOLD ME SHE WAS GOING TO E-MAIL FRIENDS. >> BUT, AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THAT PRIVATE OFFICE SPACE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> AND AS YOU SAY, THEY DID E-MAIL, THEY WERE E-MAILING -- E-MAILING WAS THE WAY OF COMMUNICATION FOR THEM WITH THEIR FRIENDS IN ENGLAND, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT FOR PHONE CALLS SHE MADE. >> IT WASN'T UNUSUAL FOR EXAMPLE FOR RACHEL TO TELL YOU, I'M GOING TO GO UP AND CHECK E-MAIL, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS PERSONAL E-MAIL OR WHETHER THAT WAS BUSINESS E-MAIL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> RIGHT. >> AND THEY ALSO USED THE COMPUTER FOR EXAMPLE FOR PLACES TO LIVE, TO SEE WHAT ADS WERE OUT AND ABOUT IN THE AREA, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DID. >> THAT'S HOW THEY FOUND THE BMW ON THE INTERNET, WHATEVER SITE WAS SELLING THE BMW, WERE YOU AWARE OF THAT? >> NO. >> NOW IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT THE GUNS AND THE KEYS TO THE GUN LOCK FOR A MOMENT. IT WAS OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY WHO KNEW JOE OR WHO CAME INTO THE HOUSE THAT JOE HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO. >> THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS OFTEN ABOUT THE GUNS IN THE HOUSE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THERE COULD BE, DEPENDING ON WHO HE WAS CONVERSING WITH. >> I'M NOT -- OKAY. WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE, YOU TOLD THEM THAT THERE WERE OFTEN CONVERSATIONS OCCURRING IN THE HOUSE ABOUT THE GUNS. >> YES, THERE COULD BE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEM. >> JOE AND HIS SONS LIKED TO SHOOT, AND THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT THEM? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION? >> THERE COULD BE CONVERSATION. >> AND EVEN IF THERE WAS A CHILD IN THE HOUSE, YOU WOULD WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHERE THE GUNS WERE SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T CAUSE ANY DANGER TO ANYBODY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'M SORRY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> OKAY. IT WAS ALSO CLEAR TO EVERYBODY WHO LIVED IN THE HOUSE THAT JOE, YOUR HUSBAND, MR. MATTERAZZO KEPT THE KEYS TO THE GUN LOCKS ON THE COUNTER IN THE KITCHEN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'M SORRY, DID YOU ASK IF IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE? >> PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE HOUSE KNEW WHERE THE KEYS TO THE GUN LOCKS WERE? >> I WOULD SAY NO, NOT UNLESS THEY RECOGNIZED THE KEYS AS THAT. THEY NEVER TOLD ME THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> LET'S GIVE IT A DIFFERENT WAY, MRS. MATTERAZZO. THE KEYS TO THE GUN LOCKS WERE ON THE KITCHEN COUNTER IN YOUR HOUSE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND WHEN WE SAY KITCHEN COUNTER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE WAS A STOVE AND COUNTER TOPS AND -- >> THERE WAS A LEDGE BETWEEN THE DINNING ROOM AND THE KITCHEN, YES. >> THE KEYS WERE NOT HIDDEN IN ANY WAY, THEY WERE JUST ON THE COUNTER, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THEY WERE OFF TO ONE SIDE IN ONE CORNER, YES. >> BUT THEY WERE CERTAINLY VISIBLE TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT LOOK AND LOOK AT THE KEYS THAT THEY MIGHT BE THERE? >> YES. >> THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT. >> AND IN FACT MR. MATTERAZZO KEPT THE GUNS UP IN YOU AND HE'S BEDROOM, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT HE HAD KEPT THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE, IN THE GARAGE, EXAMPLE? >> ANYWHERE, YES. >> RIGHT? >> YES. >> NOW, WHEN NEIL ENTWISTLE WENT TO THE GUN CLUP WITH YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR STEPSONS. THEY WOULD GO AND THEY WOULD SHOOT GUNS AS A SPORT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, NEIL WENT THERE AND DID PARTICIPATE IN THE SAME KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT YOUR HUSBAND AND YOUR STEPSONS DID? >> YES. >> YOU HAD TOLD US THAT THE PROSECUTOR ASKED YOU A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINANCES OF NEIL AND RACHEL? >> UH-HUH. >> THIS MORNING? AND AS YOU TOLD US, IT IS TRUE THAT THEY HAD A BANK ACCOUNT TOGETHER, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT MEANT THAT BOTH OF THEIR NAMES WERE ON THE CHECKS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT THEY WOULD GET -- OFTEN THEY WOULD GET BILLS OR MONTHLY STATEMENTS THAT WOULD COME TO THE HOUSE THAT WERE IN BOTH OF THEIR NAMES FROM BANKS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THEY WOULD GET ON CREDIT CARDS, BOTH OF THEIR NAMES WOULD BE OFTENTIMES ON THE CREDIT CARDS IN THE MAIL THAT CAME TO BOTH OF THEM, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, RACHEL AND NEIL USED CREDIT CARDS, OBVIOUSLY TO BUY THINGS, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND BOTH OF THEM, BOTH RACHEL AND NEIL USED THE CREDIT CARDS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THE COLLEGE LOAN DEBT THAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT FROM RACHEL, SHE WAS REGULARLY PAYING THAT DEBT WHEN IT CAME IN, THAT MONTHLY PAYMENT WHEN IT CAME IN EVERY MONTH, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU DID TELL US THAT THE LITTLE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE OF RACHEL BEING CON SHEN SUS ABOUT BILLS IS THAT ONE TIME WHEN YOU CAME IN AND RACHEL'S DOING THE BILLS AND NEIL'S DOING THE COOKING, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND RACHEL THOUGHT, AS YOU HAVE TOLD US, THAT SHE WAS GOOD AT FINANCES, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND BETTER AT IT THAN NEIL, CORRECT? IT WAS A JOEBLG. >> IT WAS A JOKE THAT DAY, YES. >> SO THAT OBVIOUSLY NEIL AND RACHEL IN RELOCATING BACK TO THE UNITED STATES, NEIL NEEDED TO GET A JOB, RIGHT? >> YES. >> THEY NEEDED TO FIND A JOB -- HE NEEDED TO FIND A JOB, THEY NEEDED TO FIND A PLACE TO LIVE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THEY NEEDED A CAR, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THEY WERE A YOUNG COUPLE AND THEY'RE STARTING BRAND NEW OVER HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RIGHT? >> YES. NOW NEIL WAS -- HE HAD -- HE WAS SENDING OUT RESUMES AND TRYING TO SET UP INTERVIEWS WHILE HE WAS STILL STAYING IN CARVER, RIGHT? >> I -- IT WAS AN ASSUMPTION, I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING GO OUT. >> AND THE ASSUMPTION, WHEN YOU SAY IT'S ASSUMPTION, IT'S BECAUSE NEITHER NEIL NOR RACHEL NEVER REALLY SPOKE TOO MUCH TO YOU ABOUT THEIR FINANCIAL CONDITION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT IN DEPTH. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> AND ANY TIME THAT THE -- AND YOU'LL AGREE THAT SOMETIMES IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET A JOB, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT FROM AMERICA, IT MAY TAKE EVEN A LITTLE LONGER FOR PEOPLE TO CHECK YOU OUT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER IF SHE KNOWS. >> I WOULD ASSUME IT COULD PERHAPS. >> OKAY. >> AND ANY TIME -- WHEN THE TOPIC OF A JOB CAME UP, YOU WOULD TRY TO BE AS ENCOURAGING, OF COURSE AS YOU COULD BE TO BOTH RACHEL AND NEIL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> OF COURSE. AND AT SOME POINT, AFTER -- AT SOME POINT IN FEBRUARY OF 2006, THERE WERE JOB PEOPLE THAT DID CALL ASKING FOR NEIL TO SET UP AN INTERVIEW, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT CALLED AND SAID THAT THEY WERE RESPONDING TO A CALL FROM HIM. >> AND THIS -- AND YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND MADE NOTES OF -- THESE CAME IN ON ANSWERING MACHINES? MESSAGES? >> YES. >> AND OF COURSE YOU MADE DILIGENT NOTES THAT SOMEONE FROM OXFORD INTERNATIONAL HAD CALLED ASKING TO SPEAK WITH NEIL ABOUT A JOB, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THEY DIDN'T SAY IN THE MESSAGE WHAT IT WAS ABOUT, JUST THAT THEY WERE ANSWERING, >>> WE ARE BACK IN SESSION, THEY ARE GOING OVER SOME RECORDS INSIDE THE COURTROOM NOW, APPLICATIONS FOR JOBS FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. IT'S A CHANCE FOR US TO THROW A QUICK QUESTION TO ROB, FIRST, IF I CAN, WE KNOW THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE GOT ON A PLANE, FLEW BACK TO ENGLAND AND SPEND DAYS THERE AND WAS EXTRADITED BACK TO THE U.S. IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS CAN THE PROSECUTION ASK FOR AND SOMETIMES GET SOME SORT OF A CHARGE TO THE JURY, INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY HOW THEY CAN CONSIDER SOMETHING SUCH AS FLIGHT? >> YES, THEY CAN. IF THEY HAVE LAID THE PROPER FOUNDATION, THEY CAN REQUEST WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT INSTRUCTION. AND IT WOULD APPEAR AT LEAST IN THE OPENING STATEMENTS THAT THE PROSECUTION IS TRYING TO LAY THAT FOUNDATION TO MAKE THE REQUEST AND GET THE RULING AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE SO THAT THE JURY COULD CONSIDER AND TRY TO DRAW WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM HIS FLIGHT BACK TO ENGLAND AND DISCUSSING THAT CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT AT THE TIME OF HIS LEAVING MASSACHUSETTS. >> TAKING YOU BACK TO YOUR PROSECUTOR DAYS ALSO, WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THAT COME FROM THE JUDGE'S MOUTH? >> THE JUDGE HAS MORE AUTHORITY OF COURSE BECAUSE SHE IS A DISINTERESTED PERSON IN THE CASE, BUT EVEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE CONSCIOUS OF GUILTY CHARGE IT IS DILUTED IN THAT EVEN INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL SOMETIMES FLEE BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WAS TRYING TO LAY OUT THIS MORNING WITH THIS WITNESS AND THAT IS THE DEFENDANT HAD A SHY DEMEANOR OR WAS A VERY NICE PERSON AND THAT IT WOULD BE NATURAL FOR HIM, ALTHOUGH MAYBE NOT NATURAL FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO GO BACK TO THE UK. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I THINK IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN HIS MIND ABOUT HAVING TO FLEE AND CONSCIOUSLY BEING GUILTY. >> WE'LL SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT IF THE PROSECUTOR DOES IN FACT GET IT. WE'RE HEADING BACK INTO THE COURTROOM, THE MOTHER PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO ON THE STAND. AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS BEEN VERY EFFECTIVE IN GENTLE FASHION HERE ELICITING ALL SORTS OF INFORMATION FROM THIS WITNESS THAT'S DESIGNED TO KICK HOLES IN THE NOTION OF MOTIVE HERE. AND JUST A MOMENT AGO, SHE SAID THERE WAS EVERY ANTICIPATION THAT MR. ENTWISTLE WOULD IN FACT BE ABLE TO GET A JOB SO THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. LET'S GO BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. >> PLAY WITH HER SILLY ON THE FLOOR SOMETIMES. >> YES. >> AND IF SHE WOULD GET SOMETIMES LILY WOULD WAKE UP CRYING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT OR EARLY ON IN THE MORNING, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WOULD OFTEN SEE NEIL IN THE FAMILY ROOM WITH LILY TRYING TO QUIET HER DOWN SO SHE WOULDN'T WAKE YOU AND MR. MATTERAZZO UP, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> HE WOULD TAKE HER WHEN SHE WAS FUZZY TOO, YES. >> I MEAN HAVING A CRYING BABY IN THE HOUSE SOMETIMES CAN BE A LITTLE IRRITATING, DO YOU AGREE? >> NO, THAT DID NOT BOTHER ME NOR JOE. >> MR. MATTERAZZO WOULD GET UPSET SOMETIMES BECAUSE THERE WERE TOO MANY PEOPLE OR TOO MUCH NOISE IN THE HOUSE? >> NOT USUALLY. >> BUT HE WOULD SOMETIMES? >> OCCASIONALLY. >> AND MR. MATTERAZZO WAS SOMEBODY WHO REALLY LIKED ITALIAN FOOD, IS SOMEBODY WHO REALLY LIKES ITALIAN FOOD? >> OWE. >> EATS PASTA MOST NIGHTS? >> NO. >> SOMETIMES NEIL WOULD DO THE COOKING ON SOME NIGHTS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND NEIL WOULD ALSO CLEAN UP THE KITCHEN THAT HE HAD MESSED UP COOKING, RIGHT? >> AND HE SOMETIMES WOULD DO THE DISHES, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND SOMETIMES HE WOULD TAKE THE TRASH OUT? >> YES. >> SOMETIMES HE WOULD VACUUM, RIGHT? >> I DON'T REMEMBER IN MY HOUSE, BUT I'M SURE HE DID. >> RACHEL AND NEIL WERE TRYING TO NOT IMPOSE ON YOU MORE THAN THEY NEEDED TO IMPOSE ON YOU, BASICALLY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> NOW THE BMW, WHEN THEY FOUND THE BMW, IT WAS AN SUV, RIGHT? THE WHITE SUV? >> YES. >> THEY WERE PRETTY HAPPY ABOUT FINALLY FINDING A CAR, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, NOW THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DEPEND ON YOU OR MR. MATTERAZZO OR ANY OF YOU AND THE OTHER FAMILY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THEY COULD JUST GO ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE JUST AS HAPPY FOR THEM AS THEY WERE FOR EACH OTHER ABOUT THE CAR, RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND IT WAS BIGGER THAN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE FOR A BMW, RIGHT? >> NOT THAT I RECALL. >> AND WHAT KIND OF CAR DID YOU AND MR. MATTERAZZO DRIVE AT THE TIME? >> A DODGE INTREPID. >> OKAY. SO YOU WERE KIND OF PROUD THAT RACHEL HAD A BMW, AS A MOTHER, YOU WERE PROUD FOR HER? >> I WAS HAPPY WITH WHATEVER SHE WAS HAPPY WITH. >> AND RACHEL WAS VERY HAPPY WITH THE BMW? >> YES, SHE WAS HAPPY WITH IT. >> AND NEIL WAS HAPPY ABOUT THE BMW? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE ABLE TO DRIVE THE BMW AT LEAST ONCE, RIGHT? >> AT LEAST ONCE. >> OKAY. NOW, WHEN THE OBJECT OF THE -- WHEN THE SUBJECT OF THIS BMW CAME UP, RACHEL AND NEIL WERE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THEY WERE GOING TO FINANCE THIS LEASE, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I IMAGINE, SO. >> AND YOU ALL HAD A CONVERSATION AT THE DINNER TABLE ONE NIGHT, YOU AND MR. MATTERAZ MATTERAZZO, RACHEL AND NEIL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD CO-SIGN FOR THE LEASE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT MR. MATTERAZZO HAD DONE FOR ONE OF HIS SONS, ISN'T THAT CORRECT, CO-SIGNED A THERE'S FOR HIM? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW. >> DO YOU RECALL THAT COMING UP AT THE DINNER TABLE? >> ABOUT JOE SIGNING FOR ONE OF HIS CHILDREN? >> THAT -- WELL, LET ME STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT. IT TURNED OUT THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO CO-SIGN THE LEASE FOR RACHEL AND NEIL, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS BECAUSE MR. MATTERAZZO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS CREDIT AND HE MIGHT NEED YOU TO DO SOMETHING NEXT YEAR FOR A NEW CAR, IS THAT RIGHT? >> HE WAS CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD BE NEEDING A NEW CAR SOON. I HAD A LOT OF MILES ON MY CAR. >> SURE. >> BUT RACHEL GOT A LITTLE UPSET ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU ALL HAD DONE THAT FOR HIS SON, BUT YOU WEREN'T ABLE TO DO IT FOR HER? >> I DON'T REMEMBER IF HE DID IT FOR ONE OF HIS SONS, I DON'T RECALL THAT? >> AND YOU DON'T RECALL -- I REMEMBER HER BEING UPSET ABOUT MY CO-SIGNING. I DID NOT KNOW THAT JOE SIGNED FOR ONE OF HIS CHILDREN. >> OKAY. >> AND IT TURNED OUT IN THE END THAT -- IS MAUREEN RENALD RACHEL'S AUNT OR HER COUSIN? >> IT'S HER COUSIN'S WIFE. >> IT'S TURNED OUT THAT RACHEL'S COUSIN'S WIFE ENDED UP CO-SIGNING THAT LEASE, IF YOU KNOW? >> THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. >> I GUESS SHE DID. >> OKAY. NOW WHEN THEY FOUND THE HOUSE IN HOPKINTON, ONE OF THE REASONS THEY WERE LOOKING OUT THAT WAY WAS BECAUSE NEIL AND RACHEL WANTED TO BE IN THAT TECHNOLOGY BELT FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO COMMUTE TO WORK EASIER, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THEY THOUGHT WITH HIS CAREER THAT THAT'S WHERE MORE JOBS WOULD BE LIKELY. >> SURE. >> AND SO WHEN THEY FOUND THIS HOUSE IN THIS LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC, THEY WERE VERY HAPPY ABOUT IT, WEREN'T THEY? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE VERY HAPPY FOR THEM? >> YES. >> AND THEY DID -- AND IN MOVING INTO A HOUSE NOW WITH BASICALLY NO FURNITURE OR BELONGINGS TO MOVE INTO IT, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> THEY HAD LIMITED BELONGINGS, RIGHT? >> AND THIS IS A HUGE HOUSE, YOU'LL AGREE? >> IT WAS A LARGE HOUSE, YES. >> IT WAS FOUR BEDROOMS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS BIG? >> YES. >> SO THEY WENT AND BOUGHT FURNITURE FOR THE HOUSE, RIGHT? >> THEY PURCHASED A BED AND A DESK UNIT. >> THEY WENT TO ROTMAN'S FURNITURE AND JORDAN'S FURNITURE TO BUY NECESSARY THINGS THAT THEY NEEDED TO PUT INTO THOSE -- INTO HOUSE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE FURNITURE CAME FROM. >>> A PICTURE PERFECT HOME, A PICTURE PERFECT FAMILY. >>> WELCOME BACK. WE ARE IN SESSION. THIS IS "BANFIELD & FORD". AND THEY ARE IN SESSION. I NEED TO TELL YOU SOMETHING, ONE OF OUR E-MAILERS VERY ASTUTE ASKED THE QUESTION, WHY CAN'T WE SEE ANYMORE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE THAN THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE, KIND OF THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND THE BACK OF ELLIOT WINESTEIN'S HEAD. WHILE THIS TESTIMONY'S GOING ON, YOU WANT TO SEE HIS REACTIONS. THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THIS, WE ABIDE BY THE RULES THAT THE JUDGES MAKE FOR EACH COURTROOM. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE JUDGE HAS REQUESTED THAT WE NOT USE THE OPPOSITE ANGLE ON BENEATH ENTWISTLE WHILE THE JURY IS IN THE ROOM. YOU'RE BETTER AT EXPLAINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT YOU CAN GLEAN FROM A CAMERA ANGLE OF A DEFENDANT WHILE HE'S SEATED AT A DEFENSE TABLE. BY THE WAY IT WAS WENDY FROM SOUTH CAROLINA? >> A COUPLE OF CONCERNS. ONE, YOU WANT TO BE SURE THAT AN ANGLE IS NOT GOING TO SHOW SOME JURORS IN SOME FASHION. AND IN OTHERS, JUDGES ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CAMERAS NOT SHOW, COMMUNICATIONS GOING ON BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND THE ATTORNEY. COURTS ARE SMART ABOUT THIS. LET'S MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET TO SEE SOMETHING, THIS IS THE ANGLE WE'LL USE, EXCEPT WENT THE JURORS ARE GONE THEN YOU CAN GET A DIFFERENT CAMERA ANGLE. >> THE CAMERA ANGLE WE'RE ALWAYS ALLOW TO SHOW TO THE FRONT OF THE COURTROOM, THAT'S THE MOTHER OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE, THAT'S PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO ON THE STAND GIVING HER TESTIMONY. SHE'S ON CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MAY I JUST SAY, STEPHANIE PAGE WHO'S ONE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS IN THIS CASE IS VERY, VERY GENTLE AND SHE'S BEING VERY RESPECTFUL IN HER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS GRIEVING MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER. LET'S LISTEN. >> LAMPS TOGETHER OR PUTTING FURNITURE TOGETHER OR WHATEVER OUT OF YOUR VISION, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND ALL OF YOU WERE SORT OF LIKE DOING THINGS AROUND THE HOUSE TO HELP RACHEL AND NEIL SETTLE IN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> FOR THE MOST PART THAT DAY WE SAT AND VISITED AND PLAYED WITH LILLIAN. >> THE OTHER TUESDAY YOU WERE TALKING TO US ABOUT, THAT WAS WHEN YOU WENT AND HELPED UNPACK THE DISHES? >> YES, THE PREVIOUS WEEK. >> THAT WAS THE PREVIOUS WEEK? >> CORRECT. >> AND YOU RAN INTO A DISHWASHER AND TRYING TO GET THE KITCHEN IN ORDER, IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND, AGAIN, NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR A YOUNG COUPLE MOVING INTO A BRAND NEW HOUSE? >> NO. >> AND WHEN YOU LEFT THAT DAY, EVERYTHING SEEMED FINE? >> YES. >> NOW, AS YOU TOLD US, YOU WERE USING -- YOU WOULD OFTEN CALL RACHEL'S CELL PHONE AND SHE WOULD CALL YOU FROM HER CELL PHONE? >> OR THE HOUSE PHONE, EITHER ONE. >> BUT THE CELL PHONE WAS UNUSUAL TO BE USED? >> IT WASN'T UNUSUAL, NO. >> THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD ON THE 19th WHICH WAS A THURSDAY ABOUT PLANNING YOUR LUNCH, WAS THAT SATURDAY? >> NEIL WAS PART OF THAT PLAN, PART OF THAT CONVERSATION, WASN'T HE? >> HE WAS IN THE BACKGROUND IN SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS. >> IT WASN'T A SECRET THAT SHE WAS COMING OVER ON SATURDAY, AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? >> NO. >> ON THE SATURDAY NIGHT WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH JOANNA GATELY -- >> YES. >> AND SHE AND HER SISTER HAD SHOWN UP TWO HOURS LATE FOR DINNER, REMEMBER? >> YES. JOANNA GATELY AT THAT TIME ENDED UP SPENDING THE WHOLE NIGHT IN THE DRIVEWAY IN HER CAR AT THE ENTWISTLE'S HOUSE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND THE DAY -- AND EARLIER THAT DAY, WHEN YOU HAD GONE FOR LUNCH AND COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY, YOU HAD SPENT A NUMBER OF HOURS, A COUPLE OF HOURS, THREE HOURS TOTAL MAYBE IN AND AROUND THE HOUSE OR IN THE AREA, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU WENT DOWN TO -- WHEN YOU BECAME CONCERNED AND YOU WENT TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION TO FILE A MISSING PERSONS REPORT, DID YOU AT ALL -- DID YOU CALL THE ENTWISTLES AND LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT RACHEL, NEIL AND LILLIAN? >> NO. MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? >> I JUST HAVE TO BRING UP WITH YOU, JACK, THE DEMEANOR OF THIS DEFENSE ATTORNEY, BECAUSE SO OFTEN THIS HAS BEEN THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION GOING INTO A CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WIDOW OR THE MOTHER OF A VICTIM, HOW DO YOU CROSS? AND HOW DO YOU KEEP IT FROM BEING MEAN? >> I THINK STEPHANIE PAGE IS DOING A MARVELOUS JOB OF GETTING SOME CONCESSIONS FROM THIS WITNESS. SHE'S TRYING TO KICK HOLES IN THE MOTIVE THEORY HERE. AND YOU JUST HEARD HER SAY A MOMENT AGO, THEY SEEMED TO BE GETTING ALONG FINE AS A COUPLE, THEY WERE SOCIAL. NEIL ENTWISTLE SPENT TIME WITH HIS LITTLE BABY AND PLAYED ON THE FLOOR AND DID SILLY THINGS. THE FACT THAT STEPHANIE'S ZM IS SO UNCONFRONTATIONAL, YOU'LL FIND MRS. MATTERAZZO IS ANSWERING BACK. >> ONE OF THOSE E-MAILERS JUST ASKED WHY IT SEEMS THAT MRS. MATTERAZZO DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS. WE NEED TO BE FAIR HERE, THIS HAPPENED FOUR YEARS AGO AND SOME OF THE SPECIFICS ARE OF NEIL AND RACHEL'S LIFE TOGETHER. THEY LIVED WITH HER, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME, SO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS MIGHT BE DIFFICULT. REDIRECT HAS JUST STARTED, LET'S LISTEN. >> 1991. >> AND DID YOUR DAUGHTER RACHEL MEET JOE MATTERAZZO AT THE SAME TIME? >> NO, SHE -- NO, SHE WOULD HAVE MET HIM AROUND '94 OR '95. >> AND 1994 OR 1995 UNTIL 1999 WHEN SHE LEFT FOR ENGLAND TO DO HER YEAR, THEY SPENT SOME TIME TOGETHER? >> YES. >> HOW MUCH TIME TOGETHER HAD THEY SPENT? >> JOE WAS LIVING WITH US FROM OCTOBER OF '94 SO SHE WAS ONLY 15 SO UNTIL SHE LEFT AT 18, THEY WERE TOGETHER EVERY DAY. >> AND THIS WAS -- WAS IT THE KINGSTON HOME OR THE PLYMOUTH HOME? >> AT THAT TIME THAT WAS THE PLYMOUTH HOME. >> AND WE'RE FLAT OUT OF TIME. IT'S BEEN AMAZING, THOUGH, TO LISTEN FOR THE FIRST TIME TO DRESK SPECIFICS ABOUT THIS CASE. BECAUSE UP UNTIL NOW IT'S BEEN A LOT OF REPORTING AND A LOT OF READING UP ON DOCUMENTS. I DO WANT TO THANK SOME OF OUR TERRIFIC HELPERS TODAY. ROB BELLWOOD, IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU, WE DO APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US AND WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS CASE AGAIN IF YOU CAN SQUEEZE IN SOME TIME FOR US. >> AND TIM, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU. A REMINDER, EVERYBODY, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WATCH THE LIVE TRIAL, THE COVERAGE BEGINS ONLINE AT 3:00 P.M. EASTERN. CNN.COM/CRIME IS THE PLACE TO GO. >> IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE GOING THE HEAD OUT OF HERE FOR THE WEEKEND, BUT WE'LL BE BACK ON MONDAY CONTINUING WITH THE LIVE TRIAL, A REAL MURDER MYSTERY TAKING PLACE INSIDE THE COURTROOM. HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND, WE'LL SEE YOU THEN. |