|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY ON THE "BEST DEFENSE," A MOTHER AND HER BABY MURDERED IN THEIR HOME. DID THE HUSBAND AND FATHER COMMIT THE CRIME? WE'RE LIVE FOR DAY TWO OF THE TRIAL. THE "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE." I'M RIKKI KLEIMAN IN FOR JAMI FLOYD. I'M HERE IN THE ANCHOR CHAIR ALL WEEK. TODAY WE ARE LIVE IN MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR THE MURDER TRIAL OF NEIL ENT WHISTLE. PROSECUTORS SAY HE SHOT HIS WIFE AND THEIR 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER AND THEN FLED TO HIS NATIVE ENGLAND. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SAY HE WAS WRONGLY ACCUSEDED. THEY SAY HE LEFT THE COUNTRY IN A PANIC AFTER HE DISCOVERED THE BODIES. BETH KARAS JOINS US WITH THE LATEST. BETH, WE'RE WITH THE WITNESS WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. >> Reporter: THAT'S RIGHT, RIKKI. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME BACK TO NEW YORK. THIS IS JOSEPH MADARAZZO. HE'S STILL ON DIRECT EXAMINATION. HE IS THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENT WHISTLE AND THE OWNER OF THE MURDER WEAPON. THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH PAINSTAKING DETAIL IN PUTTING WITNESSES ON THE STAND WHO HANDLED THAT GUN AFTER THE MURDER, THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS, ON JANUARY 21st 2006 WHEN JOSEPH AND TWO OF IZ SONS P WENT TO A GUN CLUB HE HAD JUST JOINED A FEW MONTHS EARLIER IN KINGSTON NEAR THE PLYMOUTH AREA. THE PROSECUTION IS ALLEGING THAT THERE'S DNA OF NEIL ON THE GRIP OF THE GUN AND DNA ON THE MUZZLE OF THE GUN CONSISTENT WITH RACHEL. BUT THE GUN WAS USED THE DAY AFTER SO THE PROSECUTION IS BEING VERY THOROUGH AND SHOWING WHO HANDLED THAT GUN AND WHETHER THE GUN WAS CLEANED, ET CETERA. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LEARNING, BESIDES THE WITNESSES ARE GOING THROUGH THE RELATIONSHIP OF RACHEL AND NEIL AND THEIR EXPERIENCE, THE TWO OF THEM. >> BETH, WE'LL SEE YOU AGAIN LATER ON IN THE SHOW. HERE WATCHING WITH US TODAY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MY DEAR FRIEND, JOSEPH HERE IN NEW YORK AND IN MASSACHUSETTS AN OLD AND DEAR FRIEND OF MINE DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOHN. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU BOTH TO STAND BY. WE'LL GO BACK LIVE. >> WAS THE DEFENDANT WORKING AT THE TIME IN THE FALL OF 2005 WHEN HE WAS LIVING AT YOUR HOME WITH RACHEL AND LILY? >> NO. >> DID HE WORK OUTSIDE OF THE HOME? >> NO. >> DO YOU KNOW IF HE WAS LOOKING FOR WORK? >> YES. >> WHEN DID HE START LOOKING FOR WORK, IF YOU CAN RECALL? >> I THINK AROUND NOVEMBER. >> 2005? >> YES. >> WHAT TYPE OF WORK WAS HE SEEKING? >> IN HIS FIELD, ELECTRONIC TYPE WORK. >> YOU HAD MENTIONEDED THERE WAS A COMPUTER UPSTAIRZ IN THE OFFICE FOR THE HOME. DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE HIS OWN COMPUTER? >> YES. >> WHAT SORT OF COMPUTER WAS IT, SIR? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> WAS IT A PC? >> IT WAS A LAPTOP. >> WOULD YOU EVER SEE HIM USE THAT COMPUTER? >> NO. >> WOULD YOU SEE HIM WITH THE COMPUTER? >> NO. I NEVER WOULD HAVE ENTERED THE OFFICE. >> NO. DID YOU SEE HIM WITH IT? >> OH, YES. >> AND WHERE WAS IT THAT YOU SAW HIM WITH THAT COMPUTER? >> IF HE CARRIED IT DOWNSTAIRS. >> WHEN YOU SAY DOWNSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS FROM THE UPSTAIRS PORTION OF THE HOUSE OR FROM THE OFFICE? >> FROM THE OFFICE. >> FROM BOTH UPSTAIRS PORTIONS OF THE HOUSE? >> YEAH. MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE. MAYBE. >> AND YOUR HOURS, YOUR WORK HOURS, IN THE FALL OF 2005, SIR, WHAT WERE THEY? >> I USED TO WORK AT LEAST 12 HOURS A DAY. I USED TO START WORK AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING AND WHENEVER I GET THROUGH WITH MY WORK, USUALLY 6:00, 7:00 AT NIGHT. >> WHAT DAYS OF THE WEEK WOULD YOU WORK? >> MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. >> WHAT ABOUT THE WEEKEND? >> AN OCCASIONAL WEEKEND DAY, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH ESTIMATING WE HAD TO DO OR HOW BUSY WE WERE. WHEN I FIRST STARTED AT JOHN RYAN, I WAS TRYING TO LEARN ALL -- HIS OPERATION, HOW HE WANTED THINGS DONE SO IT REQUIRED A LITTLE EXTRA TIME. >> WOULD YOU IN THE EVENINGS -- WHERE WOULD YOU SPEND TIME? >> AT HOME. >> WEEKENDS, WHERE WOULD YOU SPEND TIME? >> IF IT WASN'T AT THE SPORTSMAN CLUB, THEN IT WAS WORKING ON MY CARS. I BUILD HOT RODS AND ANTIQUE CARS AS A HOBBY. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEND TIME AT HOME WHEN THE DEFENDANT AND RACHEL WERE THERE? BOTH ON EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. >> YES. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU OBSERVED THE DEFENDANT GOING UP TO THE OFFICE, SPENDING TIME UP IN THE OFFICE ABOVE THE GARAGE. >> YES. >> HOW MUCH TIME WOULD HE SPEND, IF YOU CAN APPROXIMATE IT? >> DURING THE WEEK, I DON'T REALLY KNOW BECAUSE I LEFT FOR WORK SO EARLY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME HE ACTUALLY WENT UP TO THE OFFICE. ON OCCASIONS, HE WOULD GO UP TO THE OFFICE AFTER SUPPER OR HE'D BE UP THERE WHEN I GOT HOME FROM WORK. HE'D BE WORKING. >> WHAT ABOUT WEEKENDS? >> AGAIN, ONT WEEKENDS, I WAS USUALLY DOING MY ACTIVITIES. HE WOULD WORK UP THERE ON WEEKENDS, BUT I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT HOURS HE SPENT UP THERE? >> FAIR TO SAY AT THAT THAT PATTERN CONTINUED THROUGH THE FALL OF 2005? >> YES. >> BY THE WAY, CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP THAT YOU HAD WITH THE DEFENDANT. >> WITH NEIL? >> YES. >> I LIKED NEIL A LOT. HE WAS PART OF THE FAMILY. >> WHAT ABOUT YOUR OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND RACHEL? >> THEY HAD A GREAT RELATIONSHIP. >> AND WHAT ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LILLY? >> SAME. >> SIR, YOU HAD MENTIONED A COUPLE OF HOBBIES THAT YOU HAD HAD, SHOOTING AND CARS. >> YES. >> DESCRIBE YOUR HOBBY WITH THE CARS. >> I WAS -- BUY OLD CARS, FIXED THEM UP, RESTORE THEM, OR MAKE A HOT ROD OUT OF THEM. DEPENDED UPON THE CAR AND OW MUCH TIME I HAD HAD. IT WAS A RESTORATION TYPE OF THING. >> WERE YOU DOING THAT IN THE FALL OF 2005? >> YES. I'VE DONE IT ALL MY LIFE. >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION, HOW LONG YOU'VE HAD THAT AS A HOBBY. >> SINCE I WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL. >> IN THE FALL OF 2005, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO PARTICIPATE WITH THAT HOBBY AND THE DEFENDANT AT ALL? >> NO. NEIL REALLY WASN'T -- I DON'T THINK HE WAS TOO INTERESTED IN THE CARS. >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT'S ASKED, SIR. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY OCCASION TO SPEND ANY TIME WITH THE DEFENDANT AND THAT PARTICULAR HOBBY IN THE FALL 2005? >> VERY LITTLE. >> IN WHAT CAPACITY? >> HE WOULD JUST OBSERVE WHAT IT WAS, WHAT WE DID. I DID TAKE HIM TO AN OCCASIONAL CAR SHOW WITH ME, YOU KNOW. TOOK HIM TO A CORVETTE SHOW DOWN THE CAPE. I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE GONE TO ONE OR TWO CAR SHOWS BESIDES THAT. >> AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR OTHER HOBBY, YOUR SHOOTING HOBBY? HOW LONG HAVE YOU PARTICIPATED IN THAT, IN TERM OF YEARS? >> IN TERM OF YEARS? WELL, IT WAS KIND OF BROKEN UP. WITH MY OTHER CHILDREN, WHO ARE OLDER, I BELONGED TO A CLUB IN BRAINTEE. AT THE WERE IN THE JUNIOR PROGRAM SO I DID A PERIOD OF SHOOTING IN THAT CLUB. THEN WHEN I DIVORCED MY WIFE I STORED THE GUNS AWAY AND I DIDN'T GET BACK INTO THE HOBBY UNTIL 2005. >> WHEN IN 2005 DID YOU GET BACK INTO THE HOBBY? >> MY SONS ANTHONY AND ZACK CAME TO ME AND SAID THERE WAS AN OPEN HOUSE AT THE PEMBROKE SPORTS CLUB. SOME OF THEIR FRIENDS WERE MEMBERS AND THEY WANTED TO SEE WHAT IT WAS LIKE. THEY ASKED ME TO TAKE THEM TO THE OPEN HOUSE. >> DID YOU DO THAT? >> YES, I DID. >> AFTER YOU TOOK THEM TO THE OPEN HOUSE, DID YOU BEGIN GOING TO THAT CLUB ON A REGULAR BASIS? >> YES. >> DID YOU JOIN THE CLUB? >> YES. >> WHEN DID YOU JOIN? >> WELL, ACTUALLY, ANTHONY AND ZACK JOINED THE CLUB BEFORE WE DID. THEY JOINED IN SEPTEMBER. ME AND MY BROTHER-IN-LAW LLOYD, WE JOINED THE CLUB IN SEPTEMBER AND I BELIEVE WE BECAME MEMBERS THE FIST WEEK IN OCTOBER. WE ACTUALLY BECAME MEMBERS. >> EXCUSE ME. GOOD TIME FOR THE MORNING RECESS? >> YOUR DISCRETION, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS FINE. >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'LL TAKE THE RECESS UNTIL 11:30. >> WITH THAT MORNING RECESS, MORE FROM NEIL ENT WHISTLE'S MURDER TRIAL. LET US FOE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE. LOGON TO CFN.COM/CRIME, CLICK ON BEST DEFENSE, DIRECTLY AT BESTDEFENSE@CNN.COM. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BEST DEFENSE." THIS IS THE MORNING RECESS IN THE ENTWISTLE TRIAL. IT ALWAYS COMES SOMETIME RIGHT AROUND NOW. GIVES ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO OUR GUESTS AND BETH KARAS. BETH, THIS CASE HAS BEEN WIDELY ANTICIPATED. WE REALLY HAD HAD DAY ONE, OPENING STATEMENTS, ON FRIDAY, TESTIMONY ON FRIDAY WHICH LED US TO TODAY. I THINK TO GET OUR VIEWERS IN SYNC WITH YOU AND ME I THINK WE OUGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE TESTIMONY FIRST. WHAT DID WE LEARN ON FRIDAY? >> Reporter: WELL, FIVE WITNESSES TOOK THE STAND, ALTHOUGH THE FIFTH WITNESS ONLY COMPLETED IZ DIRECT. HE COMPLETED THE CROSS THIS MORNING. PROSECUTORS ARE SORT OF GOING IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER FROM THE LAST CONTACT THAT RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER HAD WITH HER HAD ON JANUARY 19th. IT WAS A THURSDAY. 2006. THE PROSECUTION ALLEGES THE MURDERS WERE THE 20th AND THEN PRESILLA STARTS CONTACTING THE POLICE ON THE 21st AND 22nd. THE BODIES ARE FOUND ON THE 22nd. WHAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS DOING IS TAKING THE ATTORNEY THROUGH THE CHRONOLOGY OF THEM MISSING AND BEING FOUND. SHE WAS ABLE TO GIVE HISTORY OF HER DAUGHTER'S LIFE AND MARRIAGE TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. NOBODY HAD ANY CLUE ANYTHING WAS AWRY IN THE FAMILY. EVERYBODY WHO HAS TESTIFIED SO FAR AND THE EIGHT WITNESSES ON THE STAND NOW, ANYONE WHO HAD HAD CONTACT WITH THEM AS A COUPLE THOUGHT THEY WERE JUST A VERY LOVING, VERY CLOSE COUPLE. THIS IS NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. ALSO PRESILLA'S FRIEND WHO WENT TO THE HOUSE WITH HER IN HOPKINTON WHERE THE MURDERS HAPPENED ON JANUARY, SATURDAY 21st TO HAVE LUNCH AND HELP THEM PACK BOXES TESTIFIED, AND HER HAD TESTIMONY WAS CONSISTENT WITH PRESILLA MATTERAZZO IN SHE TALKED ABOUT GOING TO THE HOUSE AND NOT FINDING RACHEL HOME AND THE DOG IS BARKINGING AND THERE ARE LOTS ON AND HOW WORRIED PRESILLA WAS. THEN TWO CO-WORKERS OF PRESILLA'S TESTIFIED TO SAY THAT DURING THE FALL OF 2005 WHEN RACHEL AND NEIL HAD HAD MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES WITH THEIR NEW BABY THEY CAME OFTEN TO THE OFFICE, THE MEDICAL CENTER, WHERE PRESILLA MATTERAZZO IS IT MEDICAL ASSISTANT AND WOULD VISIT. PEOPLE WOULD MEET LILLIAN, THE BABY. THAT APPARENTLY IS AN EFFORT TO ALREADY START TO DISMANTLE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S STATEMENTS, A LONG RECORD THE STATEMENT, HE MADE TO THE POLICE, ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT AFTER FINDING HIS WIFE AND BABY DEAD IN THE MASTER BEDROOM HE WANTED TO KILL HIMSELF. HE DROVE TO CAR VER, 50 MILES AWAY OR SO. HE WANTED TO TELL PRESILLA MATTERAZZO, BUT HE DIDN'T REMEMBER WHERE HE WORKED. THIS SHOWED THEY CAME A NUMBER OF TIMES. HE KNEW WHERE PRESILLA WORKED AND HE DIDN'T CALL HER EITHER. THEN THE FINAL WITNESS FRIDAY AND WHO ALSO TOOK THE STAND TODAY LLOYD COOK, PRESILLA'S BROTHER. HE TALKED ABOUT GOING TO THE GUN CLUB AND USING THE GUNS. >> SO TODAY WE GET A BIT OF FAMILIARITY ABOUT WHO RACHEL WAS, WHO NEIL WAS, ABOUT THAT LAST DAY OF LOOKING FOR THEM, AND THEN -- I GUESS ABOUT THE FIST DAY OF LOOKING FOR THEM. AND 10 WE REALLY GET TO THE WITNESSES HOLDOVER TO TODAY. WE'RE LEARNING MORE ABOUT FAMILY. MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT GUNS BECAUSE IT REALLY IS THE STEPFATHER'S GUN. WE KNOW IT WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. AND THE REAL QUESTION, OF COURSE, COMES DOWN TO, WHERE WAS IT KEPT? WHO HAD ACCESS TO IT? AND THIS MYSTERY ABOUT HOW RACHEL'S DNA COULD HAVE EVER BEEN ON THAT GUN MUZZLE. SO WHAT DO WE LEARN TODAY? >> Reporter: WE LEARN THAT JOE MATTERAZZO'S GUN COLLECTION INCLUDED THE REVOLVER THAT POLICE SAY IS THE MURDER WEAPON. THE WAY THEY'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT IS THAT THE BULLET THAT WENT IN AND OUT OF THE BABY ENTERED THE CHEST AND EXITED AND WENT INTO RACHEL'S LEFT BREAST WAS INTACT IN HER BODY. THEY WERE ABLE TO MATCH THE BULLET THAT WAS THE FATAL SHOT IN RACHEL DID BREAK, AT LEAST IN TWO IF NOT IN MORE PIECES. THAT WAS THE SHOT TO THE HEAD. WE'VE LEARNED THAT. THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL HANDGUNS AND LONG GUNS, RIFLES, SHOTGUNS, THAT JOE MATTERAZZO HAD HAD. HE JOINED A GUN CLUB IN KINGSTON IN THE FALL OF 2005. TWO HIS SONS, ANTHONY AND ZACK, USED TO GO WITH HIM. BUT THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS MICHAEL AND ANTHONY WENT WITH HIM SHOOTING AND THEY TOOK THE GUN, WHICH IS THE MURDER WEAPON. SO THEY USED IT A DAY AFTER. WE HAVEN'T HEARD IF ANYBODY CLEANED IT, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE TESTIMONY THAT DNA CONSISTENT WITH RACHEL'S ON THE MUZZLE APPARENTLY BLOOD OR BRAIN MATTER, BUT IT WAS NOT A MESSY CRIME SCENE. JUST SOW KNOW, THEY DID NOT FIND THE BULLET IN HER HEAD UNTIL AUTOPSY BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN EXIT WOUND APPARENTLY. IT HAD HAD BEEN LOCKED IN THE GUN SAFE, IN THE GUN CASE, IN THE MASTER BEDROOM, BUT THE KEYS WERE OUT ON THE COUNTER. NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD LIVED IN THAT HOUSE FOR FOUR MONTHS AND HAD GONE TARGET SHOOTING A COUPLE OF TIMES WITH JOE MATTERAZZO AND PRESILLA'S BROTHER AND OTHERS SO HE KNEW WHERE THE GUNS WERE, THE KEY WAS, AND HE KNEW HOW TO USE IT. >> RECEIPT ME MOVE OVER TO JOE. JOE, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD SAY IF I WERE DEFENDING THIS CASE AND IF I WERE PREPARING. I WOULD SAY THESE ARE SOME BAD FACTS. WE HAVE A GUN THAT WE KNOW IS THE MURDER WEAPON. I DON'T EVEN SEE HOW IT COULD BE DISPUTED. IT'S IN A LOCKED CABINET. ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE COULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO IT. IT DOES HAVE, WHICH WE WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DNA ON IT BECAUSE HE'SES USED IT IN SHOOTING PRACTICE. BUT HOW DOES RACHEL'S BLOOD OR BRAIN MATTER GET ON THAT GUN UNLESS IT IS THE MURDER WEAPON P? >> RIKKI, THIS IS A FORENSIC MASTERPIECE OF LABORATORY SCIENCE. THAT'S WHAT REALLY INTERESTS ME ABOUT HOW DNA IS TAKEN OFF THE PISTOL GRIP OF NEIL, THE SHOOTER, AND THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET A LITTLE FRAGMENT OF SKIN PARTICLE FROM THE GRIP. HOW THE BLOWBACK ON THE MUZZLE FROM RACHEL GETS ON THE BARREL AND STAYS THERE DURING THE USAGE OF THE GUN, DURING THE PISTOL SHOOT AT THE RANGE. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE IS MORE DAMNING THAN DIRECT EVIDENCE BECAUSE THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE WHERE EVERY SINGLE THING IS BEING BLOCKED BY THE PROSECUTION, ANY EXIT TO CIRCUMSTANTIAL GUILTY ASPECT IS BEING BLOCKED NOW BY THE PROSECUTION TO SHOW THAT THE GUN WASN'T CLEANEDED. YOU'LL SEE THAT LATER IN ALL THIS STUFF. THERE'S NO OTHER WAY THAT YOU CAN GET RACHEL'S BLOOD ON THAT BARREL UNLESS HIS OTHER TWO SONS USED IT. >> OR THE FATHER DID. AND I THINK, AS WE USEDED TO SAY IN THE VERNACULAR, THAT MAY BE A TUNNEL WITH NO CHEESE. I'LL LET YOU THINK ABOUT THAT PHRASE. JOHN, WHAT A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU AFTER ALL THESE YEARS. OW ARE YOU? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME. I'LL LET THEM FIX THAT FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY JOHN CAN'T HEAR ME. UNTIL THEY FIX THAT, YOU'LL LET ME KNOW? MY PRODUCER WILL LET ME KNOW WHEN JOHN'S OKAY. LET ME GO BACK TO YOU, JOE. IN THIS CASE, THE PROBLEM FOR THE DEFENSE -- IF I WERE DEFENDING THIS CASE -- IT GOES TO, IF NOT NEIL ENTWISTLE, THEN WHO? IT'S NOT SOME STRANGER WHO HAPPENED TO WANDER INTO THAT HOUSE WHEN THEY HAD HAD LIVED THERE BARELY TEN DAYS. IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN, IF I'M THE DEFENSE LAWYER, I'M SAYING, DO I PUT THE BLAME ON SOMEONE ELSE? WHAT DO I DO? >> FOR A DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO EVEN HAVE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THIS UNFIXABLE PROBLEM OF AIMING ALL THE EVIDENCE AT THE CLIENT, NEIL ENTWISTLE IS AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS TO PUT ON A GAME POKER FACE AND TRY HIS BEST TO BLAME IT ON A THIRD PARTY SOMEHOW. >> SOMEHOW, SOME WAY. JOHN, HOW ARE YOU? >> GOOD. THANK YOU, RIKKI. >> YOU NOEL YOT WINE STEIN. YOU AND I HAVE PROBABLY KNOWN HIM FOR MORE YEARS THAN I CAN THINK. HE'S A GREAT CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER. HE HAS A VERY BIG UPHILL BATTLE EAR, YES? >> WELL, IT APPEARS THAT HE DOES. THE PROBLEM AT THIS POINT IS THAT ELLIOT OPENED ON -- YOU KNOW, WITH HIS FACTS VERY CLOSES TO HIS VEST. HE DIDN'T REALLY DISCLOSE MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY INTEND TO PUT IN OR THE THEORY OF DEFENSE THAT THEY PROPOSE TO USE. HAVING OPENED THAT WAY, I WOULD GUESS THAT THEY HAVE SOMETHING. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, BOTH HE AND STEPHANIE ARE EXCELLENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS. FOR ELLIOT TO COME OUT AND SAY THAT HIS CLIENT IS INNOCENT IS RELATIVELY STANDARD, BUT TO STAND UP IN AN OPENING AND GIVE SUCH A POSITIVE OPENING, I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT THEY JUST HAVEN'T DISCLOSED YET. AND MAYBE VERY INTERESTING, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT ARRIVES. >> JOHN, RECEIPT ME ASK YOU -- LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU AND I WORKED AGAINST EACH OTHER WHEN YOU WERE A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR. I THINK WE BOTH KNOW HOW TO TRY CASES. MIGHT YOU HAVE OPENED WITH YOUR THEORY OF THE CASE, IF YOU HAVE ONE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? IF YOU'RE RIGHT AND AT THE HAVE SOMETHING, OPENED WITH IT? I MEAN, IT COULD BE WEEKS BEFORE WE GET TO THE DEFENSE CASE. >> YOU KNOW, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO MAKE THAT KIND OF JUDGMENT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE GET PAID FOR. THAT'S WHAT WE GET COURT-APPO T COURT-APPOINTED MONEY FOR. IF YOU LEAD WITH IT, OBVIOUS YOUR OPENING IS STRONGER AND THE JURY HAS SOMETHING IN MIND AS THE CASE GOES ALONG AND THEY'RE NOT AS QUICK TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS FOR ONE SIDE, THE PROSECUTION SIDE, IN IT CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S THERE, YOU MIGHT NOT WANT TO TELEGRAPH IT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GRADUALLY BUILD YOUR CASE THROUGH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN WITNESSES. AND AS YOU'RE DOING AT THAT, THAT, IF YOUR THEORY HAS BEEN DISCLOSED OR THE FACT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO POUNCE ON HAS BEEN DISCLOSED, THEN THOSE WITNESSES IN THE PROSECUTION CAN ANTICIPATE AND -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY FUDGE, BUT THEY CAN TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN PREPARING THEIR OWN WITNESSES FOR TESTIMONY AND TRY TO UNDERCUT THAT BEFORE THE POINT IS EVEN MADE. >> I THINK THAT'S WELL SAID. I THINK ALL OF US KNOW -- WE CAN GO BACK AS FAR AS O.J. SIMPSON, WHICH IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THE PROSECUTION ANTICIPATED EVERYTHING THE DEFENSE WAS GOING TO DO AND WENT FORWARD AND KEPT PUTTING MORE AND MORE IN TO BLUNT THE DEFENSE CASE. WE ALSO KNOW THE RESULT OF THAT IN A CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASE. AS ALL OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS DAY TWO OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S TRIAL. THE PROSECUTION IS JUST GETTING STARTED. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN THE DEFENSE ISN'T SCORING ANY POINTS INSIDE THAT MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOT WINE STEIN TOOK TO THE PODIUM MADE HIS OPENING STATEMENT ON FRIDAY, ALSO WHEN HE TOOK HIS FIRST BEST SHOT. >> THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IS GOING TO BE SORDID. IT'S GOING TO BE GRUESOME. AND IT IS GOING TO BE GRAPHIC. DO NOT BE OVERWHELMED. AS YOU NOW BEGIN TO SEE AND HEAR THE EVIDENCE, THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL LEARN, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU WILL KNOW -- THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW YOU THAT NEIL IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR KILLING RACHEL OR FOR KILLING LILLIAN. NEIL ENT WHIS IL IS NOT GUILTY. >> SO THAT IS ELLIOT'S BEST SHOT FOR FRIDAY. JOE, THIS -- ELLIOT WINESTEIN IS BLESSED WITH A GIFT OF SINCERITY. I MEAN, HE APPEARS TO BELIEVE WHAT HE IS SAYING. HE MAY WELL BELIEVE WHAT HE'S SAYING. IT'S HIS JOB TO BE A FORCEFUL ADVOCATE. BUT HIS SINCERITY COULD GO A LONG WAY. >> ABSOLUTELY. A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, WHEN A DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS UP AGAINST A VERY ZEALOUS, OVERZEALOUS, PROSECUTION, SOMETIMES THE ZEALOUSNESS OF THE PROSECUTOR CAN BE A FACTOR IN GETTING A CONVICTION. THE SAME THING AS YOU MENTION NOW WITH THIS ATTORNEY, MR. WINESTEIN, IS THE WAY HE HAS APPROACHED THIS. HE IS A SINCERE PERSON. THE JURORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STOP AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WOULD THIS LAWYER REALLY GET UP THERE AND SAY, THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW IN THE END YOU'LL FIND HIM NOT GUILTY? I THINK THAT GOES A LONG WAY. ESPECIALLY SINCE I KNOW THAT'S HIS GAME FACE HE'S PLAYING NOW OF'S VERY GOOD. HE'S A VERY GOOD GUY BESIDES BEING A VERY, VERY GOOD LAWYER. JOHN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE AND IT SEEMS TO ME AT THIS EARLY, EARLY STAGE THERE'S NOT A LOT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE BUT IT'S A LONG TRIAL, ONE OF THE THINGS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENSE IS THE FACT THAT THOSE POLICE OFFICERS, AS WELL AS CIVILIANS, DID NOT FIND THOSE BODIES AND THEY WERE IN THAT HOUSE TWICE. NOW, YOU COULD DO A LOT WITH THAT IF YOU'RE DEFENDING. >> OH, I THINK YOU CAN. I THINK ANY TIME THAT YOU CAN BUILD OR START TO BUILD A DEFENSE ON THE BASIS THAT THE MREEPS DIDN'T DO THEIR JOBS CORRECTLY, THAT LEADS INTO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED FROM THE BEDROOM CORRECTLY, WHETHER IT WAS STORED CORRECTLY, AND YOU GO ON FROM THERE WITH A CRITICISM OF HOW THE LAB HANDLED THE EVIDENCE AND YOU MAY GET TO A POINT THAT YOU'VE GOT SO MANY MISTAKES BEING MADE IN THE CASE, STARTING OFF WITH, YOU KNOW, DOING A WELLNESS CHECK AND MISSING THE TWO BODIES, THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP REASONABLE DOUBT OUT OF THAT. >> WHICH BRINGS ME THEN BACK TO OUR OWN BETH KARAS BECAUSE, BETH, YOU KNOW PT FACTS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO COME INTO EVIDENCE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS TO WORK WITH HERE IS THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS VERY ACTIVE ON THAT COMPUTER BECAUSE HE WAS A COMPUTER KIND OF GUY, BUT VERY ACTIVE ON THE COMPUTER IN THE WEEKS PRECEDING THE DEATHS OF HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. THAT EVIDENCE IS POTENTIALLY VERY DAMNING FOR THIS DEFENDANT, ISN'T IT? >> Reporter: YES. THE POLICE SEIZED TWO LAPTOPS FROM THE ENTWISTLE HOME IN HOPKINTON AND THEN OBTAINED SEARCH WARRANTS TO LOOK AT THEM AS WELL AS PALM PILOTS. THERE WERE, LIKE, TEN DIFFERENT SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED AND EXECUTED. ON THE LAPTOP THEY FOUND IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE MURDER, JANUARY 16th, 17 NL, 18th, HE'S DOING SEARCHES FOR ESCORT SERVICES ON THE 18th IN THE WORCESTER/BOSTON AREA, MAPQUESTING DIRECTIONS TO SOME. SO HE WAS PERHAPS TROLLING FOR SEX. AND HE HAD BOUGHT $88 WORTH OF SCENTED CANDLES THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MURDERS. IT'S ONLY SPECULATION, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE AND IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, ALTHOUGH NOT IN THE COURTROOM, THAT MAYBE THESE CANDLES WERE FOR SOME SORT OF ROMANTIC TRYST HE WAS GOING TO HAVE THAT NIGHT OR THE NEXT DAY. IN ADDITION, HE WAS AROUND THE 16th AND 17th DOING SEARCHES FOR HOW TO KILL SOMEONE WITH A KNIFE AND EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE AND BANKRUPTCY. >> WELL, WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT EVIDENCE IS COMING IN AND THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME UNLESS YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION. I'LL BE CURIOUS IF THEY DO WHAT IT IS IT. YOU CAN SEE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE IS IN COURT. THE JURY SHOULD BE COMING IN SOON. LET ME GET IN A BREAK SO WHEN THEY GO LIVE WE CAN BE THERE FOR >>> JOE MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS ON THE STAND. IT IS HIS GUN, THE GUN THAT PROSECUTION SAYS WILL PROVE IS THE MURDER WEAPON. LET'S GO BACK IN LIVE. >> HOW DID YOU KEEP THEM? >> I HAD HAD THEM LOCKED AND USUALLY I KEPT THEM IN ACTUALLY PRESILLA'S CLOTHES CLOSET. >> WHAT TYPE OF LOCKS? >> THEY'RE TRIGGER LOCKS. THERE'S TWO TYPES OF LOCKS, A 30/30, REQUIRED A STRAP THAT WENT AROUND IT AND LOCKED. BUT THE PISTOLS AND RIFLES, THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF LOCK. IT JUST LOCKS THE TRIGGER. >> AND WERE THEY ALL KEPT IN THE SAME AREA, SECURED LIKE THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT ABOUT THE LOCKS? DID THEY REQUIRE KEYS TO OPEN THE LOCKS? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU KEEP THE KEYS? >> I HAD HAD A SET OF KEYS THAT I KEPT DOWNSTAIRS ON THE COUNTER. THERE'S AN OPENING BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND DINING ROOM WHICH HAS A BIG PIECE OF DRIFT WOOD ON IT THAT'S ALL FINISHED. ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE I KEEP ALL MY CAR KEYS, TRUCK KEYS, MY WALLET. BASICALLY ANYTHING THAT'S IN MY POCKET I KEEP IT RIGHT IN THAT CORNER. >> ANYBODY ELSE IN THE FAMILY USE THAT CORNER OF THAT SHELF? >> NO. >> HOW MANY SETS OF KEYS IN 2005 DID YOU HAVE FOR THE GUN LOCKS? >> THREE SETS. >> WHERE WOULD YOU KEEP THOSE THREE SETS? >> ONE ON THE COUNTER WAS A COMPLETE SET BECAUSE THAT HAD HAD THE STRAP KEY THAT WENT ON THE ONE PARTICULAR RIFLE. AND I HAD ANOTHER SET IN MY NIGHTSTAND IN MY BEDROOM, AND I KEPT TWO SPARE KEYS IN MY PICKUP TRUCK. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO -- IN JANUARY 2006 AND EARLY FEBRUARY 2005 AND, AROUND THAT TIME, HAVE AN OCCASION TO LOOK FOR YOUR KEYS AND GET YOUR KEYS? >> YES. >> AND OF THOSE SETS THAT YOU MENTIONED, WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND ALL OF THEM? >> NO. >> WHICH SET OR SETS WERE MISSING? >> THE SET THAT'S IN MY BEDROOM WAS MISSING. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THAT WAS MISSING? >> I'M NOT -- I DON'T EXACTLY REMEMBER. >> SOMETIME IN 2006 OR AFTER THAT? >> YES. >> SIR, I'VE PLACED IN FRONT OF YOU A PHOTOGRAPH. I SEE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO EXAMINE IT? >> YES. >> WHAT DOES THAT SHOW? >> IT SHOWS A CASE THAT'S UP AGAINST THE BACK WALL OF MY BEDROOM WHICH IS FACING THE BACK OF MY BACKYARD, WHICH IS MY SHOTGUN CASE. THE AMMO BLOCKS AND THE BLOCKS THAT I KEEP MY PISTOLS IN. >> AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY SHOWS ALL OF YOUR FIREARMS AND ASSOCIATED AMMUNITION AS THEY APPEARED IN YOUR HOME ON JANUARY 21st, 2006? >> YES. WELL, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF RIFLES THAT ARE IN THE CLOSET. THEY'RE NOT HERE. >> BUT IN SO MUCH AS THE CASES AND ITEMS THAT ARE DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, DOES IT FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY SHOW HOW THEY WERE IN THAT BEDROOM UPSTAIRS ON JANUARY 21st 20086? >> YES. >> ENTER IT AS AN EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR? >> IS THERE AN OBJECTION? >> NO. >> IT MAY BE MARKED. >> THIS IS A PROCEDURE OFTEN USED IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE THE ATTORNEY WILL HAVE IT MARKED, NO OBJECTION, PUBLISH IT TO THE JURY BY SHOWING IT TO THEM OFTEN ONE BY ONE. >> Reporter: AND BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH AN IMPORTANT ITEM IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HOW THAT GUN CASE WAS LOCKED, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, WHERE THE KEYS WERE, BECAUSE THE WEAPON THAT THE PROSECUTION SAYS IS THE MURDER WEAPON WAS A REVOLVER THAT WAS STORED THERE. >> PLEASE KEEP YOUR VOICE UP, SIR. >> NOW, IF YOU COULD POINT OUT RIGHT IN THE CENTER OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH, THAT BLACK CASE YOU'RE POINTING TO, WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT IS THE CASE THAT I KEEP MY PISTOLS IN. >> YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR VOICE UP SO IT CAN BE RECORDED. IS THAT THE CASE THAT YOU KEPT YOUR PISTOLS IN AS OF -- >> THAT'S THE CASE I KEEP MY PISTOLS IN. >> AS OF JANUARY 21st 2006? AND BEFORE THAT TIME? >> YES. >> TO THE LEFT OF THAT CASE IS A DARK GREEN CONTAINER. WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT'S WHERE I STORED MY AMMUNITION. >> AND IN BACK OF BOTH OF THOSE CASES IS A LONG BLACK CONTAINER. WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT'S MY SHOTGUN. >> >> Reporter: WE CAN'T SHOW YOU THAT PHOTOGRAPH AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE IT OBVIOUSLY IS BEING DISPLAYED TOO CLOSE TO THE JURY. WE DON'T SHOW THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY IN MASSACHUSETTS. AT SOME POINT WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE A COPY OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH FOR YOU. WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT NOW. >> SIR, IN THE FALL OF 2005, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION ONE OR MORE TIMES TO GO TO THE CLUB WITH THE DEFENDANT? >> YES. >> HOW MANY TIMES? >> WE WENT TWICE. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT MONTH OR WHEN THOSE VISITS WERE? >> I BELIEVE -- WELL, IT WAS AFTER WE BECAME MEMBERS SO IT WOULD BE IN OCTOBER. I THINK WE WENT THE FIRST TIME. AND NOVEMBER I BELIEVE THE SECOND TIME. >> WHO WENT THE FIRST TIME? >> ME, NEIL, MY BROTHER-IN-LAW LLO LLOYD. I'M NOT SURE IF BOTH ANTHONY AND ZACK WENT. I'M NOT SURE. ANTHONY MIGHT HAVE WENT. >> WAS IT ON A SATURDAY? >> YES. >> WHAT GUN OR GUNS DID YOU BRING? WHICH ONES DID YOU SHOOT? >> WE BROUGHT THEM ALL. THE PISTOLS, RIGHT. >> THE RIFLES, THE SHOTGUN, TOO? >> NO. SHOTGUN I DIDN'T HAVE AT THE TIME. >> HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SPEND AT THE CLUB THAT DAY? >> I WOULD PROBABLY SAY TWO OR THREE HOURS. >> DID YOU SHOOT ALL THOSE FIREARMS? >> YES. >> AND DID THE DEFENDANT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOOT THOSE FIREARMS? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE OR DESCRIBE TO HIM HOW THEY WORKED AND HOW TO USE THEM AND LOAD THEM? >> YES. WE EXPLAINED SOME OF THE SAFETY RULES OF THE CLUB, YOU KNOW, CEASE-FIRES AND ALL THAT, FOR SAFETY REASONS. THEN WE INSTRUCTED NEIL OW TO, YOU KNOW, LOAD THE GUNS AND SHOOT THEM AND TARGETS AND ALL THAT STUFF. >> DID HE SPEND SOME TIME SHOOTING THOSE GUNS, KRUING THE .22 REVOLVER? >> YES. >> DO YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO OBSERVE HIM AS HE WAS SHOOTING? >> YES. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW HE DID. >> HE DID QUITE WELL. >> DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM AFTER OBSERVING HIM SHOOT? >> YES. I ASKED HIM -- >> OBJECTION. >> I ASKED HIM -- >> I SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION, SIR. SO WAIT FOR ANOTHER QUESTION, PLEASE. >> I'M SORRY. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH IM? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU SAY SOMETHING AND DID HE SAY SOMETHING IN RETURN? >> YES. >> WHAT DID HE SAY? >>. >> Reporter: THEY'RE GOING TO THE SIDEBAR. GIVES US TIME FOR A BREAK AND A LOOK AT OUR 13th JUROR QUESTION. TODAY WE WANT TO KNOW -- DID RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER HELP THE PROSECUTION? SO FAR, 76% OF YOU ARE SAYING YES, 24% VOTING NO. LOGON TO NN.COM/CRIME, CAST YOUR VOTE. THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE." WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> JOE MATTERAZZO CONTINUES HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION ON THE STAND. HE IS THE STEPFATHER OF THE VICTIM, RACHEL ENTWISTLE. HE'S NOW DISCUSSING THE DEFENDANT, NEIL ENTWISTLE, AND WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS HE WAS IN OR WAS INVOLVED WITH WHEN HE CAME TO THE UNITED STATES. >> I ASKED HIM EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DEVELOPING OR WHAT HE WAS DOING. >> AND DID HE RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION? >> YES. >> WHAT DID HE SAY? >> HE SHOWED ME A CONNECTOR THAT GOES ON THE BAKT OF A COMPUTER, AND HE WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS PARTICULAR CONNECTOR WAS GOING TO WORK. AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT COMPUTER ORIENTED, AND I DON'T -- HE HE LOST ME SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS ALL ABOUT. >> DID YOU SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT HIS ATTEMPT TO SET UP A BUSINESS? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM AND WHAT DID HE SAY BACK? >> I ASKED HIM, YOU KNOW, THAT HE WAS GOING TO MANUFACTURE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AND MAYBE HE WAS GOING TO PUT IT ON THE MARKET. I SAID TO HIM, I SAYS, YOU KNOW -- I WAS KIND OF -- I SAID, WELL -- >> JUST WHAT YOU SAID. >> I SAID TO HIM, HAS IBM OR MICROSOFT EVER OF PICKED UP ON THIS PARTICULAR CONNECTOR? HE SAID IT WASN'T WORTH THEIR WHILE SO THAT'S WHY HE WAS GOING TO DEVELOP THIS. >> DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION FURTHER AND OFFER ANY ASSISTANCE? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY? AND, IN RETURN, WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT SAY TO YOU? >> WELL, I ASKED NEIL, YOU KNOW, IF HE NEEDED ANY HELP SETTING UP HIS BUSINESS USHGS KNOW, LEGALIZING HIS BUSINESS, IF HE NEEDED AN ACCOUNTANT OR ATTORNEY, ANYTHING, AN ADVISOR, ANYTHING IN THAT AREA -- >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY TO YOU? >> HE SAID, NO, HE WAS PRETTY MUCH ALL SET. I DIDN'T WANT TO PRY. IT WAS NEIL'S THING. I LET HIM KNOW THAT IF HE NEEDED FIGURE IN THAT AREA I COULD HE HIM. >> IN TERMS OF HIS INCOME, DO YOU RECALL ANY CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT ANY INCOME HE SAID HE? HAD? >> WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT -- >> I'M SORRY. >> JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS, DO YOU REMEMBER ANY CONVERSATION? SO FIST JUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION YES OR NO. >> YES. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN THAT CONVERSATION WAS? >> WHEN IT WAS? IT WAS PROBABLY SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS AT DINNERTIME OR JUST RANDOM TALKING. >> AND WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS? >> PRESILLA, NEIL, RACHEL, MYSELF. >> DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF HAVING ASKED DURING THOSE -- DURING ONE OR POUR OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ANY INCOME THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT RESPONSE, IF ANY, HE GAVE? >> THEY SAID THAT -- >> DO YOU RECALL WHAT HE SAID? >> OH, NO. >> DO YOU RECALL A RESPONSE BY RACHEL DURING THAT CONVERSATION? >> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT RESPONSE? >> FOUNDATION, SIR? >> SIDEBAR, YOUR HONOR? >> I'M HERE WITH JOE. I'M GOING TO STOP YOU IF, IN FACT, THEY LEAVE THE SIDEBAR. BUT WHILE THERE AT THE SIDEBAR, THIS IS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE P STUFF. WE KNOW THAT THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS ARE GOING TO COME IN AS EITHER ADMISSIONS ORROR DECLARATIONS AGAINST INTEREST. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROSECUTION LOOKING AT MOTIVE, THAT HE WAS FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, RIGHT? >> HE WAS DESPONDENT BECAUSE OF HIS FINANCIAL SITUATION IS ONE OF HIS PROBLEMS. >> RIGHT. SO WHY IS THERE SO MUCH DIFFICULTY ABOUT GETTING THIS IN? >> BECAUSE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE COULD GO AWRY AND LEAD TO SPECULATION AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE THINKING, WHICH IS JUST SPECULATION ON THE PERSON'S PART WHO'S TESTIFYING. SO WE HAVE THESE ESTABLISHED RULES, AND HEARSAY IS ONE OF THEM. BASICALLY, YOU HAVE TO LAY A FOUNDATION AND SAY, WAS RACHEL POSED WITH A QUESTION THAT SHE RESPONDED TO? AND WHAT QUESTION WAS PUT OUT THERE AT THE DINNER TABLE? SO, YES, THEY JUST GO BACK AND DO THAT. >> THEY'RE LEAVING THE SIDEBAR RIGHT NOW. WE'RE SEEING NEIL ENTWISTLE GOING BACK TO HIS SEAT. HIS TWO DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, STEPHANIE AND ELLIOT, WHO ARE REALLY TERRIFIC LAWYERS AS WELL AS THE PROSECUTOR WHO IS AS WELL. >> THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE? >> IF YOU CAN PIN IT DOWN. >> I WOULD PROBABLY SAY SEPTEMBER, EARLY. >> AFTER RACHEL HAD MOVED INTO THE CARVER HOME AND THE DEFENDANT HAD COME TO THE UNITED STATES? >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL WHERE IT TOOK PLACE? >> IN THE HOME. USUALLY DISCUSSED THINGS, LIKE, AROUND SUPPERTIME. >> DO YOU RECALL ONE PARTICULAR CONVERSATION AT SUPPER IN THE CARVER HOME WHERE THE TOPIC OF INCOME OF THE DEFENDANT CAME UP? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU SAID -- STRIKE THAT. WOULD WAS AT THIS DINNER CONVERSATION? >> MYSELF, PRESILLA, NEIL AND RACHEL. >> PRIOR TO THE TOPIC OF INCOME COMING UP, WERE YOU HAVING CASUAL CONVERSATION? >> YES. >> WERE YOU HAVING ANY DIFFICULTY HEARING OR UNDERSTANDING OTHER PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THE CONVERSATION? >> NO. >> WAS EVERYBODY, PRESILL RA NEIL, RACHEL, PARTICIPATING IN THAT CONVERSATION? IN GENERAL? >> PROBABLY PRESILLA AND RACHEL MORE THAN ANYTHING. >> DID IT APPEAR THAT ANYBODY HAD HAD DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING THE CONVERSATION? >> NO NOW, AT THE POINT OF THE TIME THAT THE CONVERSATION TURNED TO INCOME, WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER SAYING AND WHAT DO YOU REMEMBER HERING IN RESPONSE? >> RACHEL MENTIONED THAT NEIL HAD A CONTRACT TO DEVELOP SOMETHING -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS -- THAT HE HAD $100,000 CONTRACT AND HE WAS RECEIVING $10,000 A MONTH FOR THE CONTRACT. >> IN THE FALL OF 2005, DO YOU RECALL THE DEFENDANT SEEKING EMPLOYMENT, IN PARTICULAR, GOING ON ANY JOB INTERVIEWS? YOURSELF, DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SPEAKING ABOUT OR GOING ON ANY JOB INTERVIEWS? >> YES. HE WENT ON A COUPLE OF JOB INTERVI INTERVIEWS. >> DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY WERE? >> NO. >> BASED ON YOUR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. >> NO. NEIL NEVER MENTIONED -- >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. >> DO YOU RECALL -- STRIKE THAT. MOVING INTO DECEMBER OF 2005, DID YOU LEARN THAT RACHEL AND NEIL BEGAN LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO LIVE OTHER THAN CARVER? >> YES. >> DID YOU ASSIST THEM IN ANY WAY? >> NO, DI NOT. >> DID THEY EVENTUALLY FIND A PLACE? >> YES. >> WHERE WAS THAT? >> IN HOPKINTON. >> AND DID THEY EVENTUALLY MOVE OUT OF THE CARVER HOME AND INTO THE HOPKINTON OEM? >> YES. >> WHEN WAS THAT? >> IN JANUARY. >> TWOI 6? >> YES. >> DID AWE SIFT THEM IN MOVING INTO THE HOME? >> YES. >> I'M GOING TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO JANUARY 7, 2006. DO YOU RECALL GOING SOMEPLACE THAT DAY WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY, INCLUDING RACHEL AND THE DEFENDANT? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU DO THAT DAY? >> WE MOVED NEIL AND RACHEL'S STUFF TO HOPKINTON. >> AND DESCRIBE HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. >> I BORROWED ONE OF THE COMPANY TRUCKS, AND WE, NEIL AND MY SON ANTHONY, WE LOADED A TRUCK UP AT THE CARVER HOME AND BROUGHT IT TO HOPKINTON. >> DID THE DEFENDANT GO WITH YOU? >> YES. >> WHAT ABOUT RACHEL? DID SHE GO THERE, TOO? >> NO. RACHEL WENT THERE BY HERSELF. >> WHAT VEHICLE DID SHE GO IN? >> SHE TOOK THEIR CAR. >> AND THEIR CAR IS WHAT? >> A BMW. >> GOOD MOMENT IN TIME FOR A BREAK. PLEASE DON'T GO AWAY. WE ARE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS WHERE PROSECUTORS ARE BUILDING THEIR DOUBLE MURDER CASE AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE. WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. >>> UP NEXT ON "BEST DEFENSE". A MOTHER AND HER BABY MURDERED IN THEIR MASSACHUSETTS HOME. DID THE VICTIMS' HUSBAND AND FATHER COMMIT THE CRIME? WE'RE LIVE FOR DAY TWO OF THE NEIL ENTWISTLE'S TRIAL. A NEW HOUR OF "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> THIS IS THE BEST DEFENSE. ON JANUARY 22nd, 2006, 27-YEAR-OLD RACHEL END WHICH ISSAL AND HER 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER LILLIAN WERE SHOT TO DEATH IN THEIR HOME. BUT HER HUSBAND NEIL WAS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. HE SURFACED. NOW HE'S IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM ON TRIAL OR MURDER. BUT HE SAYS HE'S NOT NOT GUILTY. THE FATHER OF RACHEL, THIS IS JOE MATTERAZZO. >> HAD YOU EVER BEEN THERE BEFORE? >> NO. >> AND HAD YOU GONE THERE AFTER? >> NO. >> DID YOU HAVE KEYS TO THAT HOME? >> NO. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO JANUARY 20th, 2006. WERE YOU WORKING THAT DAY? >> YES. >> WAS THAT A FRIDAY? >> YES. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE FOR WORK? >> AT 6:30 IN THE MORNING LIKE WE USUALLY DID. ME AND PRISCILLA LEFT TOGETHER. >> WAS ANYBODY HOME WHEN YOU LEFT AT THE CAR RENTAL? >> NO. >> WHERE DID YOU GO WHEN YOU LEFT YOUR HOME? >> I WENT TO MY OFFICE IN ROCK LAND. >> BECAUSE YOUR COMPANY -- >> I WAS IN ROCKLAND AT THE TIME. >> DID YOU SPEND SOME TIME THERE? >> YES. >> IT WAS SOMETIME AROUND 7:00 AND I LEFT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 9:00 AND 9:15. >> AND WHERE WERE YOU HEADED WHEN YOU LEFT THERE AT ABOUT 9:00, 9:15? >> I WENT TO THE STETSON BUILDING IN WILL METH TO PICK UP A SET OF PLANS TO BRING TO MARLBORO. >> AND WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT BUSINESS? >> VERN AND ASSOCIATES. >> DID YOU MEET SOMEBODY THERE? >> YES, THE SECRETARY? >> DO YOU RECALL HER NAME? >> NO, I DON'T. I NEVER MET HER BEFORE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO GET THOSE PLANS FROM HER? >> YES. >> HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND THERE? >> I WAS MAYBE A MINUTE OR TWO. SHE SHOWED ME WHERE THE PLANS WERE AND I SAID GOOD MORNING TO HER AND I GOT THE PLANS AND I LEFT. >> WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER THAT? >> I WENT TO FRAMING HAM? >> AND HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO GET TO FRAMING HAM IF YOU RECALL? >> IT TOOK ME ABOUT A HALF HOUR, 45 MINUTES TO GET TO FRAMING HAM. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE THERE? >> BETWEEN 10:00 AND 10:15. >> WHAT DID YOU DO AT FRAMING HAM? >> ONE OF MY SUPERVISORS ON THE JOB HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ELECTRICAL SERVICE, SOME LIGHTS AND STUFF SO WE HAD A DRAW MEETING. >> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT PERSON'S NAME? >> JOEL MORRISON. >> HOW LONG DID YOU SPEND AT THAT JOB SITE? >> I LEFT THERE AT AROUND 11:00, A LITTLE BIT AFTER 11:00, RIGHT AROUND 11:00. >> WHAT DID YOU DO WHILE YOU WERE THERE? >> JUST HAD A JOB MEETING? >> YOU JUST DISCUSSED THE JOB? >> DISCUSSED THE JOB, HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW SOME ELECTRICAL PANELS WERE GOING TO GO AND GENERAL JOB CONDITION, HOW FAR ALONG WE WERE ON THE JOB. >> WAS THAT THE ACTUAL JOB SITE? >> THE ACTUAL JOB SITE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO WALK AROUND AND OBSERVE AREAS OF THE JOB SITE? >> YES. >> AND DISCUSS IT AT THE SAME TIME? >> THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORKING. >> WHEN YOU LEFT THERE, WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I LEFT THERE AND I WENT TO MARLBORO TO THE JOB THAT WE HAD UP THERE. >> AND WHERE WAS THAT, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS THERE. THAT WAS -- GIVE ME A SECOND. IT WAS -- IT WAS RIGHT OFF THE EXPRESSWAY. MY MIND WENT BLARNG THERE. IT WAS IT WAS 2:45, I CAN'T BELIEVE I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THIS STREET. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE IT WAS IN RELATION TO 495? >> YES, IT'S RIGHT OFF THE EXIT. >> YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, SIR, ANOTHER VISIT THAT YOU TOOK. >> CIMARANO DRIVE. >> WAS THAT WHERE YOU WENT ON THE 7th OF JANUARY? >> YES. >> WHAT TIMD DID YOU ARRIVE THERE? >> I GOT THERE AROUND 11:30. >> WHAT TYPE OF JOB SITE WAS IT? >> IT WAS A FAIRLY LARGE WAREHOUSE THAT HAD HAD A FIRE IN IT. AND WE WERE PUTTING IN A NEW SERVICE, WE WERE TRYING TO REACTIVATE EVERYTHING, THE OUTSIDE LIGHTING, PUT IN TEMPORARY LIGHTING FOR CONSTRUCTION. TO BUILDING LIKE I SAID WAS QUITE LARGE, WE HAD BEEN THERE FOR MONTHS. DID YOU MEET WITH SOMEBODY THERE? >> YES. >> WHO DID YOU MEET WITH? >> ANOTHER OF MY EMPLOYEES. >> THE NAME IF YOU RECALL? >> YES. MR. FLAK. >> DID YOU SPEND SOME TIME WITH MR. FLAK? >> YES. >> WHAT KIND OF TROUBLE WAS HE HAVING? >> YES. WE WERE TRACING THAT OUT AND I ALSO GAVE THE JOB SUPER ON THE JOB THE JOB BLUEPRINTS THAT I HAD PICKED UP. >> THE JOB SUPER BEING THE JOB SUPERVISE SORRY? >> YES. >> AFTER THAT WHAT DID YOU DO? >> I LEFT. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> I WENT DOWN 495 AND I STOPPED AT THE BURGER KING ON ROUTE 224. >> WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR STOPPING? >> I'M A DIABETIC SO I HAVE TO CHECK MY SUGAR AT CERTAIN TIMES. >> DO YOU REMEMBER THE TIME THAT YOU STOPPED THERE? >> YES, IT WAS 12:52, 12:57, I REMEMBER SEEING IT ON MY METER. >> AND DID YOU DO THAT? DID YOU MAKE THAT CHECK? >> YES, AND I HAD TO TAKE INSULIN SO I HAD TO GIVE MYSELF A SHOT OF INSULIN, YEAH. >> WHERE DID YOU GO NEXT? >> I CALLED POLICE LITTLE A WHILE I WAS THERE. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER? >> YES. >> WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONVERSATION, AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT DID YOU DO? >> I WENT TO HER OFFICE? >> AND WHERE IS THAT? >> ON BRAINTREE AND WASHINGTON STREET. >> AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, WAS YOUR WIFE PRISCILLA THERE? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME YOU GOT THERE? >> 1:25. >> WHEN YOU GOT THERE, DID YOU MEET WITH HER? >> ONLY BRIEFLY. I WENT THERE TO HAVE LUNCH. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER WHEN YOU FIRST GOT THERE? >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATION, DID YOU GO SOMEPLACE AT HER OFFICE? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> A LUNCH ROOM. >> AND WHAT DID YOU DO? >> ATE MY LUNCH. >> AND AFTER THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO? >> I LEFT. >> AND WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE? >> I LEFT AROUND QUARTER OF 2:00 BECAUSE PRISCILLA HAD PATIENTS SO SHE COULDN'T SIT WITH ME. >> WHEN YOU LEFT PRISCILLA'S OFFICE, WHERE DID YOU GO NEXT? >> I WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE, I STOPPED AT A GAS STATION AROUND 2:00, I FILLED MY CHUCK UP WITH GAS. AND I WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE. >> WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY. >> I WORKED ON PLANS AND ESTIMATING. >> DID YOU LEAVE YOUR OFFICE THAT DAY? >> YES. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE? >> MY BOSS CALLED ME AROUND 5:00. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR BOSS? >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAFG DID YOU DO OR WHERE DID YOU GO? >> PAINSTAKING DETAIL, PROBABLY TO SHOW THAT THIS MAN WAS NOT A SUSPECT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AND COME BACK WITH MUCH MORE. >>> THE WITNESS ON THE STAND, JOE MATTERAZZO IS THE STEPFATHER OF THE VICTIM, RACHEL ENTWISTLE. HE IS NOW RIGHT ABOUT THE TIME OF THE MURDERS OF RACHEL AND HER BABY. LET'S LISTEN. >> ABOUT HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET FROM THE CLUB TO YOUR HOME IN CARVER? >> ABOUT 20 MINUTES. 25 MINUTES. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE HOME? >> AROUND 4:00. MAYBE A LITTLE AFTER. SOMEWHERE AROUND 4:00 IF I REMEMBER. >> AND -- WHEN YOU GOT HOME, WAS PRISCILLA HOME? >> WHAT DID YOU AND ANTHONY DO? DID YOU GO INTO THE HOME? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE HOME, WHAFLG DID YOU DO? >> ANTHONY WANTED ME TO SHOW HIM HOW TO CLEAN THE GUNS. HE HAD NEVER DONE IT BEFORE SO HE WANTED ME TO TEACH HIM HOW TO DO IT. >> DID YOU BRING THE GUNS IN THE HOUSE? >> YES. >> DID YOU CLEAN THEM? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU CLEAN THEM? >> IF THE FAMILY ROOM DOWNSTAIRS. >> WHO CLEANED THEM. >> ANTHONY, I HELPED HIM AND SHOWED HIM HOW TO DO IT. >> YOU WERE THERE WHEN HE WAS DOING THAT? >> YES. >> AND WHEN HE WAS THROUGH CLEANING THAT, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE GUNS? >> WE PUT THE GUN LOCKS ON THEM. >> WHO PUT THE GUN LOCKS ON THEM? >> WHO PUT THE GUN LOCKS ON THEM? >> I DID. >> AND WHERE -- >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DID PRISCILLA COME HOME THAT SATURDAY? >> YES. >> AND WHAT TIME DID SHE COME HOME? >> SHE COME HOME, I THINK IT WAS AROUND 4:30. SHE AND TERRY CAME IN THE HOUSE AND SAT WITH ME AND ANTHONY WHILE HE CLEANED THE GUNS. >> AND WOULD THAT TERRY BE TERESA PRATT? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH PRISCILLA? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU OBSERVE HER DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME? >> YES. >> AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE HER DEMEANOR AT THAT TIME? >> THE SAME. >> SO AS THEY GO TO THE SIDEBAR, THE QUESTION OF COURSE WE'RE REALLY DEALING AT THE TIME AFTER THESE DEATHS MAY HAVE OCCURRED. THE DEMEANOR OF HIS WIFE. JOHN LACHANCE, IF YOU CAN HEAR ME OUT THERE IN NEW BERN, WHY IS THE DEMEANOR OF THE WIFE RELEVANT, THE MOTHER OF RACHEL? MAYBE I DON'T HAVE JOHN, SO LET ME GO TO JOE BANFONTE? WHY IS THE DEMEANOR OF THE MOTHER RELEVANT? IT ISN'T, IS IT? >> I DON'T SEE IT BEING RELEVANT UNLESS THE PROSECUTION KNOWS SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE SHE WAS VERY CALM AND SHE WAS UNSUSPECTING AND IT WASN'T LIKE A PROBLEM BREWING AND MAYBE SHE INDICATED THAT THEY WERE HAVING PROBLEMS OVER MONEY AGAIN, MAYBE THAT BECOMES RELEVANT. I DON'T KNOW. >> IT'S AN INTERESTING OBJECTION, BUT IT'S ALSO THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTOR WANTED TO PUSH IT BECAUSE AS WE CAN SEE, THEY ARE UP AT THE SIDEBAR NOW. JOHN LACHANCE, I HAVE YOU NOW. I'M CONFUSED MYSELF AS TO WHY THE DEMEANOR OF THE MOTHER OF RACHEL THAT IS THE WIFE OF MR. MATTERAZZO IS RELEVANT AT THIS POINT IN TIME? >> I MEAN WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT THEY JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY IS HAPPENING. WITH THEIR DAUGHTER WHO THEY CAN'T FIND AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT. JOHN, I CAN GET YOU FOR JUST A SECOND, YOUR THOUGHT ON THAT. >> I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE DEMEANOR IS RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE AT THIS POINT. IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT MATTERS. BUT I SUPPOSE IT HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE MOTHER HAS SOME INFORMATION AT THIS TIME OR SOME WORRIES AT THIS TIME THAT SHE'S NOW PROJECTING TO HER HUSBAND. >> FAIR ENOUGH. I THINK THAT IS FAIR ENOUGH. LET'S GO BACK INTO THE COURTROOM. WE'LL SEE WHERE THE PROSECUTOR IS GOING WITH THIS. >> THROUGHOUT THE BALANCE OF THAT AFTERNOON AFTER YOU GOT HOME INTO THE EVENING BEFORE YOU AND PRISCILLA RETIRED FOR THE EVENING, DID YOU HEAR AT ALL FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECEIVE ANY CONTACT AT ALL FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> NO. >> THE NEXT MORNING SUNDAY JANUARY 22, 2006, WHAT DID YOU DO IN THE MORNING? >> WELL, WE GOT UP AND HAD BREAKFAST. >> AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO? >> WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL WHO CALLED? >> JOEY, YEAH ANNA? >> AND THAT WOULD BE JOANNA GATELY? >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT PHONE CALL DID YOU AND POLICE SCYLLA DO ANYTHING? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU DO? >> WE CALLED THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION. >> WHAT, IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO NEXT? >> SPEND SOME TIME AT HOME IN THE MORNING? >> YES. >> DID YOU MAKE OR RECEIVE ANY OTHER PHONE CALLS? >> YES. >> WHAT CALL OR CALLS HAPPENED NEXT? >> WE CALLED RACHEL'S CELL PHONE AND THE HOPKINTON HOUSE PHONE A NUMBER OF TIMES. >> ABLE TO GET THROUGH AT ALL? >> NO. >> WE CALLED SOME --? SATURDAY NOW? >> SUNDAY, SUNDAY MORNING. >> AND I CALLED -- WE CALLED THE HOPKINTON POLICE BECAUSE WE -- >> WHO DID YOU CALL, SIR? >> LET ME STEP BACK TO SATURDAY EVENING. >> OKAY. >> YOU SPENT THE BALANCE OF THE EVENING AT HOME? >> YES. >> I BELIEVE YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY PHONE CALL, YOU DIDN'T SPEAK TO RACHEL OR THE DEFENSE. >> YOU HAD ME MIXED UP WITH THE SATURDAY. >> I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT CON FRUZED YOU. >> I RECEIVED A CALL ON SATURDAY NIGHT. >> WHO CALLED THAT SATURDAY EVENING? >> JOANNA. >> WAS ANOTHER TELEPHONE CALL MADE SATURDAY EVENING? >> YES. >> WHO WAS CALLED? >> THE HOPKINTON POLICE. >> WERE THERE ANY OTHER PHONE CALLS MADE OR RECEIVED THAT SATURDAY EVENING? >> NO. NOW LET'S GET INTO SUNDAY MORNING. YOU WOKE UP AT SOME POINT IN TIME? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU WOKE UP? >> WE HAD -- I WAS MAKING BREAKFAST SO ME AND ANTHONY -- WE RECEIVED A PHONE CALL. >> WHO CALLED THAT MORNING? >> IT WAS JOANNE GATELY AGAIN. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT PHONE CALL, WHAT IF ANYTHING ELSE WAS DONE? >> WE CALLED THE HOPKINTON POLICE AGAIN. >> PLEASE SPEAK UP AND IF IT HELPS PLEASE MOVE YOUR CHAIR IN TO THE MICROPHONE. AFTER THOSE PHONE CALLS, WHAT DID YOU DO? >> I CALLED MY FRIEND JOE FLAHERTY. >> AND HOW LONG HAD YOU KNOWN JOE FLAHERTY? >> THE WITNESS MAY TESTIFY AS TO HOW LONG HE HAD KNOWN HIM. >> AT LEAST 30 YEARS. >> AND WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR CALLING MR. FLAHERTY? >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. FLAHERTY? >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO? >> WE LEFT THE HOUSE AND WE WENT TO -- STARTED HEADING TO HOPKINTON? >> WHO'S WE? >> PRISCILLA, I DROPPED ANTHONY OFF AT HIS HOME AT THE TIME. >> AND WHERE WAS ANTHONY'S HOME? >> PEN BROKE. WHAT DID YOU AND PRISCILLA DO? WHERE DID YOU GO? >> WE SWUNG BY MY DAUGHTER'S HOUSE IN WHITMAN. SHE HAD A KEY THAT I HAD. I GAVE HER THE KEY. >> AND WHICH DAUGHTER WAS THAT? >> ERICA. >> AND WHICH TIME HAD YOU LEFT AFTER THE PHONE CALL, THAT YOU DROPPED ANTHONY OFF TO HEAD DOWN TO HOPKINTON? IF YOU RECALL. >> 9:00, 9:30ISH. AROUND THERE. >> IN THE MORNING? >> YES. >> AFTER YOU DROPPED THE KEY OFF ERICA'S HOUSE, WHERE DID YOU GO NEXT? >> TO HOPKINTON. >> WHERE IN HOPKINTON DID YOU GO? >> TO RACHEL AND NEIL'S HOUSE. >> HOW DID YOU GO? >> WE DROVE. >> WAS IT YOUR TRUCK OR PRISCILLA'S CAR? >> IT WAS PRISCILLA'S CAR, I BELIEVE. >> WAS ANYBODY THERE WHEN YOU ARRIVED. WHO WAS THAT? >> OWE ANN JOANNA AND HER SISTER MAUREEN. >> AND WHERE WERE THEY IN RELATION TO THE HOPKINTON HOME. >> THEY WERE OUTSIDE IN THE DRIVEWAY WITH THE DOG. WITH NEIL AND RACHEL'S DOG. >> AND DID YOU -- DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THEM? >> YES. >> DID ANYBODY ELSE ARRIVE AT THAT HOME? >> YES. >> WHO ELSE ARRIVED? >> TERRY PRATT AND I BELIEVE I THINK HER BOYFRIEND JOHN WAS WITH HER. IT MIGHT SOMEONE ELSE, I DON'T REMEMBER. >> DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THESE PEOPLE? >> YES. >> AS A RESULT OF THE CONVERSATION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING DID YOU AND PRISCILLA DO? >> WE STAYED THERE, BUT TERRY AND JOHN -- >> THEY DROVE OFF? >> THEY DROVE OFF BECAUSE -- >> NOT BECAUSE -- YOU OBSERVED THEM DRIVE OFF? >> YES. >> AFTER THEY DROVE OFF, WHAT DID YOU AND PRISCILLA DO? >> WE STAYED THERE. >> HOW LONG DID YOU REMAIN THERE? >> WE STAYED THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN WE WENT DOWN TO THE SANDWICH SHOP TO GET SOME LUNCH. >> AFTER GETTING SOME LUNCH, DID YOU RETURN TO THE HOPKINTON HOME? >> YES, I DID. >> WHEN YOU GOT BACK THERE WHO WAS THERE, IF ANYBODY. >> WELL, JOEY AND HER SISTER CAME TO LUNCH WITH US. SO WHEN WE CAME BACK, THERE WAS JUST US. >> AND WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING? >> THEY CAME BACK, THEY WERE GONE FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF. AND THEY RETURNED TO THE HOUSE. >> WHEN THEY RETURNED, DID YOU HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THEM? >> YES. >> AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DID THEY LEAVE THAT LOCATION? >> THEY LEFT, YES. >> ABOUT WHAT TIME DID THEY LEAVE? >> I'M NOT SURE. >> WHAT ABOUT YOURSELF? WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THEY LEFT? DID YOU REMAIN THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES. >> AFTER STAYING THERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME OUTSIDE THE HOPKINTON HOME, WHAT, IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO? >> I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL. >> AND WHO WAS THAT FROM? >> DETECTIVE MANNING. >> AND DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES. >> HAD YOU EVER SPOKEN TO HIM BEFORE? >> NO. >> DID YOU KNOW WHO HE WAS? >> NO. >> I KNEW HE WAS A STATE TROOPER. OR A DPKT. DETECTIVE. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT PHONE CONVERSATION, WHAT DID YOU DO? >> DETECTIVE MANNING TOLD US -- >> WHAT DID YOU DO, NOT WHAT DID YOU SAY. AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING DID YOU DO? >> WE LEFT HOPKINTON HOME. >> AND WHAT DID YOU TO? >> WE WENT TO THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION. >> AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, DID YOU MEET WITH SOMEONE? >> YES. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHO IT WAS INITIALLY? >> NO. IT WAS ONE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS. >> DID YOU SPEAK WITH THAT POLICE OFFICER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES. >> WHO WAS IN THAT MEETING WHEN YOU SPOKE WITH THE POLICE OFFICER? >> IT WAS MYSELF, PRISCILLA, JOANNE AND HER SISTER. >> AND DID JOANNA AND HER DISTER HAVE ANYTHING WITH THEM? >> WE TOOK THE DOG WITH US. >> WHOSE DOG WAS THAT? >> NEIL AND RACHEL'S. >> HOW LONG DID YOU MEET WITH THIS POLICE OFFICER? IF YOU REMEMBER, SIR. >> I DON'T -- AN HOUR, MAYBE. >> AFTER HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THAT OFFICER FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, WHAT HAPPENED NEXT, SIR? >> WE FILLED OUT A MISSING PERSONS REPORT. >> AND THAT MISSING PERSON'S REPORT RELATED TO WHOM? >> RACHEL, NEIL AND LILLIAN. >> AND AFTER FILLING OUT THAT REPORT, WHAT IF ANYTHING ELSE DID YOU DO NEXT, SIR? >> WE WAITED THERE. IN THE CAR FOR THEM A LITTLE BIT. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DIDSOME ELSE ENTER THE CONFERENCE ROOM? >> YES, SIR, THE CHIEF OF POLICE DID. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU LEARN AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION? >> HE CAME IN AND SAID A YOUNG LADY AND A BABY WAS FOUND IN THE HOPKINTON HOME. >> WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DEFENDANT NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> I HAD -- >> AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >> I HAD ASKED IF ANYBODY -- YOU KNOW, IF ANYTHING -- IF NEIL WAS IN THE HOME OR -- >> AND DID YOU LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE HE WAS AT THAT POINT IN TIME? >> NO. >> THEN YOU SPENT A PERIOD OF TIME AT THE HOPKINTON POLICE STATION THAT EVENING? >> YES. >> ANYBODY ELSE ARRIVE THAT YOU KNOW OF? >> YES. >> WHO ARRIVED? >> JOANNA'S MOTHER AND FATHER CAME. ANY OTHER OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS COME? >> YES, I MADE A PHONE CALL TO MY SON MICHAEL, I BELIEVE MY SISTER. >> EITHER ONE OF THEM COME DOWN TO THE STATION? >> NO. >> MY SON MICHAEL DID, I'M SORRY. HE CAME DOWN TO THE STATION. I CALLED MY SISTER AND MY BROTHER-IN-LAW LLOYDE. >> HOW LONG WERE YOU AT THE STATION THAT EVENING? >> QUITE A WHILE. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOU LEFT, IF YOU CAN REMEMBER. >> EARLY IN THE MORNING, MAYBE, VERY EARLY, 1:00ISH, MAYBE SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. >> WHERE DID YOU GO? >> WE CAME HOME. >> DID YOU SPEND SOME TIME AT HOME THAT MORNING? >> YES. >> AND THIS IS NOW JANUARY 23rd, 2006? >> MONDAY. >> MONDAY. >> AND OF COURSE WE'RE GOING TO COME TO THE POINT WHERE THEY DO LOCATE THE BODIES. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, LET'S TAKE A BREAK, WE'LL BE BACK WITH MUCH MORE LIVE. >>> THREE DAYS AFTER RACHEL AND LILLIAN ENTWISTLE DIED. NEIL ENTWISTLE NOW IN ENGLAND CALLS JOE MATTERAZZO, LET'S LISTEN. >> COME BACK TO THE HOUSE, HE KNEW THAT I HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE A KEY, HE COULDN'T GET IN. >> WHAT ELSE DID HE TELL YOU? >> HE SAID HE WANTED TO SEE ME AND PRISCILLA AND SAID HE COULDN'T FACE ME. HE WAS KIND OF REPEATING HIMSELF A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN HE SAID HE LEFT THE CARVER HOME AND HE DROVE AROUND AND FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN HE WENT TO THE AIRPORT. >> DID HE SAY WHAT, IF ANYTHING HE DID WHEN HE GOT TO THE AIRPORT? >> HE WAS GOING TO GET A TICKET AT THE AIRPORT. >> DID HE SAY WHETHER HE TALKED TO ANYBODY? OR MADE ANY PHONE CALLS? >> YES, HE SAID HE TALKED TO -- HE CALLED HIS FATHER TO GET A TICKET. AND I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH, I THINK, WHAT -- >> DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT WHETHER HE REMAINED AT THE AIRPORT OR HE LEFT THE AIRPORT? >> NO, HE NEVER SAID HE LEFT THE AIRPORT. >> DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING WHAT HE DID WHILE HE WAS AT THE AIRPORT? >> JUST THAT HE GOT A TICKET AND HE WENT HOME. >> DO YOU RECALL ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION THAT PARTICULAR MORNING? >> WHAT ELSE DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING? >> NO, I DON'T REMEMBER. >> DO YOU REMEMBER ASKING HIM ANYTHING? >> YES, WELL HE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE KNEW I HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE AND I HAD QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THAT AND I ASKED HIM WHY DID YOU CARE THAT I HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE? >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY? >> NOTHING. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION FURTHER WITH HIM ABOUT WHAT HE HAD SEEN AND HOW IT HAD HAPPENED? >> NO. >> DO YOU RECALL ASKING HIM ANYTHING? ABOUT -- INQUIRING AS TO -- >> I ASKED HIM, I SAYS, NEIL, DID YOU DO THIS OR DO YOU KNOW WHO DID THIS? >> AND WHAT HID HE SAY? >> HE SAID NO, I DO NOT. >> DID THAT PHONE CONVERSATION EVENTUALLY END? >> YES. >> DURING THAT CONVERSATION, DID HE ASK TO SPEAK TO PRISCILLA? >> FLO NO. >> DID HE ASK TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE? >> NO. >> DID HE ASK ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE? >> NO. >> WHAT DID YOU DO, SIR, AFTER RECEIVING THAT PHONE CALL AND SPEAKING TO THE DEFENDANT THAT MORNING? >> I CALLED DETECTIVE MANNING? >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> YES. >> YOU SPENT SOME TIME AT HOME THAT DAY? >> YES. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE NEXT MORNING OR ACTUALLY THE NEXT COUPLE MORNINGS, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, DO YOU RECALL HAVING FURTHER CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME? >> YES. >> WHEN DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM? >> HE USUALLY CALLED ABOUT THE SAME TIME. BETWEEN 10:00 AND 11:00 IN THE MORNING. >> AND DID HE CALL YOU THAT DAY? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ABOUT WEDNESDAY? >> YES. >> DID YOU SPEND TIME SPEAKING TO HIM? >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR THE PORTIONS OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS? >> YES, HE TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLICITY, A LOT OF NEWS PEOPLE AT HIS FATHER'S HOUSE AND THAT HE WAS CONCERNED THAT EVERYBODY WAS POINTING THE FINGER AT HIM AND HE SAID HE HAD -- I HAD TOLD HIM TO CALL DETECTIVE MANNING BECAUSE HE NEEDED TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT SOME STUFF. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT OR DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT THE GUNS, YOUR GUNS? >> NO. >> DID HE MENTION IT ONLY A COUPLE OF TIMES -- HE DID, BETWEEN THE FIRST AND SECOND PHONE CALL, HE HAD MENTIONED IT TWICE. >> AND I ASKED HIM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHAT HIS CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE GUNS. >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY? >> HE DID NOT ANSWER ME? >> AND WAS THAT DURING -- IF YOU RECALL, DURING THE SECOND CONVERSATION, THE FIRST OR THE THIRD? >> I THINK IT WAS BOTH BECAUSE HE WAS KIND OF COMING BACK AND FORTH WITH WHAT HE WAS SAYING, HE WAS KIND OF REPEATING HIMSELF. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT WHAT HE HAD DONE THAT MORNING? DID THAT TOPIC COME UP AGAIN DURING THOSE CONVERSATIONS ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY? >> YEAH. HE REPEATED AGAIN WHAT HE HAD DONE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK TO HIM AT SOME POINT IN TIME ABOUT FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS? >> YES. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT DAY THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, IF YOU RECALL? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS WEDNESDAY. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN WEDNESDAY OR TUESDAY, HE ASKED ME IF RACHEL AND LILY COULD BE BURIED TOGETHER. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING FURTHER? >> YES, HE SAYS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY I LEFT THEM, I MEAN THAT'S THE WAY I FOUND THEM. >> AND THAT'S YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HE SAID? >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID. >> APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG DID THOSE CALLS LAST ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY? >> ABOUT THE SAME, 15 MINUTES OR SO. >> AND THE DEFENDANT'S DEMEANOR DURING EACH ONE OF THOSE PHONE CALLS? >> A ALL THE SAME. >> AND WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN. >> HE WAS SHAKY, A LITTLE NERVOUS, WHIMPERING, YOU KNOW, EMOTIONAL. >> DURING ANY OF THOSE PHONE CALLS DID HE ASK TO SPEAK TO PRISCILLA? >> NO. >> DID HE ASK TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY ELSE? >> NO. >> DID HE INQUIRE ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE? >> JUST THAT IF IT WAS ALL RIGHT IF HE COULD TALK TO ME. RATHER THAN ANYBODY ELSE AND I SAID, SURE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK TO HIM ON THURSDAY? >> YES. >> DID YOU CALL HIM OR DID HE CALL YOU? >> I CALLED HIM. >> AND WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR CALLING HIM. >> WE HAD GONE TO THE FUNERAL HOME TO MAKE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR TOAD US THAT? >> YOU SPOKE TO THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR? >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR, YOU CALLED HIM? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DID YOU SAY AND WHAT DID HE SAY? >> I TOLD HIM WE NEEDED -- THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR HANDED ME A SLIP OF PAPER GIVING ME AND PRISCILLA THE RIGHT TO DO THE FUNERAL. >> DID YOU SPEAK TO THE DEFENDANT ON THAT THURSDAY ABOUT THAT? >> YES. >> DURING THAT CONVERSATION DID HE SAY ANYTHING ELSE? >> YES. HE MENTIONED THAT ALL THE STUFF ABOUT THE FOREIGN -- PORNOGRAPHIC STUFF AND THE E-MAILS AND ALL THAT STUFF WAS RIDICULOUS. >> YOU TOLD HIM THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE RAY RAINMENTS? >> YES, HE SAID THAT WAS RIDICULOUS, THAT IT WAS OUT IN THE NEWS. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANT ABOUT THE FUNERAL HOME AND PERMISSION TO MAKE THE ARRANGEMENTS? >> YES, I TOLD HIM. >> DID YOU MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE A COMMUNICATION SENT TO YOU? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY TO HIM AND WHAT DID THE DEFENDANT AGREE TO DO? >> I TOLD HIM EXACTLY WHAT THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR TOLD ME HE HAD TO WRITE AND HE HAD TO SIGN IT AND FAX IT BACK TO ME. >> THAT CONVERSATION END EVENTUALLY? >> YES. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DID YOU RECEIVE A FAX ON YOUR FAX MACHINE? >> HE FAXED IT RIGHT OVER, YES. >> DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE DOCUMENT I PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> THIS IS WHAT THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR TOLD ME TO HAVE NEIL DO, SIGN IT AND SEND IT BACK TO US. >> AND WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE THAT DOCUMENT? >> THAT DAY. >> AND WHERE DID YOU SEE IT? >> MY FAX MACHINE. >> AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU BRING THAT PAPER? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU BRING IT? >> TO THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR. >> SO AGAIN WHAT'S MAPPING HERE IS YOU HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE SIGNS WHICH ALLOWS PERMISSION, GIVES PERMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE FUNERAL AND THE BURIAL AND WHAT THE PROSECUTOR IS DOING IS GIVING IT TO THE JURY TO SEE. >> AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON THERE? >> YES. >> WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? >> NEIL'S. >> AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP SO IT CAN BE RECORDED. >> NEIL'S. >> YOUR HONOR, MAY I ASK THE WITNESS TO READ THAT DOCUMENT? >> YES. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK THAT HE SIT DOWN AT THE MICROPHONES IN ORDER TO DO THAT. >> I'LL HAND IT BACK TO HIM. PROCEED, SIR. >> I DO READ THIS? TWO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN, I NEIL WENT WHICH ISSAL--NEIL ENTWISTLE RELINQUISH ALL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS TO JOSEPH AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, YOURS SINCERELY, MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE, JANUARY 26, 2006. >> AND THE LANGUAGE, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT, THAT CAME FROM THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR? >> YES. >> BUT THE SIGNATURE ON THERE, YOU RECOGNIZE AS -- >> NEILS. >> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER, SIR. >> AS NEILS? >> YES. >> DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT AGAIN AFTER THAT, SIR? >> WE'RE GOING TO SQUEEZE IN A BREAK, WE'LL BE BACK WITH MUCH MORE. >>> HE SAYS HE'S NOT NOT GUILTY OF HIS WIFE AND BABY DAUGHTER'S MURDERS. BUT WILL THE JURY BELIEVE HIM? MORE WHEN THE "BEST DEFENSE" RETURNS. >>> WHAT'S HAPPENED JUST NOW IS WE HAVE LEARNED THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE DID NOT I END THE FUNERAL. DID NOT ATTEND THE WAKE AND THE DEFENSE HAS STOPPED WITH ITS DIRECT. >> 2005, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU WENT, YOU BELIEVE IT WAS OCTOBER WHEN YOU FIRST WENT WITH THE DEFENDANT? >> YEAH, I BELIEVE IT WAS OCTOBER. >> AND THEN THERE WAS THE OTHER OCCASION WHICH YOU COULDN'T USE YOUR GUNS IN YOU BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> AFTER THAT, WERE THERE OTHER OCCASIONS THAT YOU WENT TO THE CLUB TO USE YOUR GUNS AND BROUGHT YOUR SONS AND WENT SHOOTING? >> YES. >> ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES FROM THERE UNTIL JANUARY OF 2006? >> WE WENT EVERY SATURDAY. >> THAT'S ALL, YOUR HONOR. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MATTERAZZO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> NEIL CALLED YOU FROM ENGLAND IN 2006, HE WAS CRYING AND WHIMPERING? YES? >> NO. >> YOU SAID WHEN YOU SPOKE TO HIM THAT HE WAS WHIMPERING. >> HE WAS WHIMPERING -- >> HE WAS UPSET. >> HE WAS NOT CRYING. BUT SHE WAS WHIMPERING. >> YOU COULDN'T SEE HIM CRYING. >> GRANTED. >> SO YOU COULD HEAR WHIMPERING IN HIS TONE OF VOICE. YES? >> YES. >> AND THERE IS NO QUESTION BUT THAT HE WAS UPSET. >> EXCEPT THAT -- >> THERE WAS NO QUESTION BUT THAT HE WAS UPSET. >> YES, HE WAS UPSET, YEAH. >> YOU FIRST LIVED TOGETHER WITH PRISCILLA AND RACHEL IN PLYMOUTH, MASSACHUSETTS? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU FIRST LIVED WITH THEM, WAS JEROME ALSO IN THE HOUSEHOLD? >> YES. >> AND DID YOU HAVE TIMES DURING THE MONTH WHERE YOU HAD YOUR CHILDREN IN THAT HOUSEHOLD AS WELL? >> NOT IN THE BEGINNING. >> SO WHAT YEAR WAS IT THAT YOU STARTED LIVING IN -- AS ONE HOUSEHOLD WITH RACHEL AND JEROME AND PRISCILLA IN PLYMOUTH? WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? >> WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? OH, I DON'T REMEMBER. >> LET ME ASK YOU A DIFFERENT FRAME OF REFERENCE. >> IS RACHEL STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL? >> YES, SHE WAS A JUNIOR. >> SILVER LAKE? >> YES. >> AND YOUR YOUNGER BOYS WERE MOSTLY WITH THEIR MOTHER? >> YES. >> AND YOUR OLDER BOYS WERE OLD ENOUGH THAT THEY WERE ON THEIR OWN? >> AND THERE CAME A TIME WHEN YOUR OWN VISITATION WITH YOUR YOUNGER BOYS INCREASED? >> YES. >> AND THERE CAME A TIME WHERE YOU STARTED TO TAKE THEM FOR PERIODS OF TIME INTO THE HOME IN PLYMOUTH? >> YES. >> AND SO IN THAT FIRST SECTION OF YOUR MARRIAGE AND LIVING TOGETHER IN PLYMOUTH, YOU BEGIN TO BLEND THE FAMILIES TOGETHER, IS THAT A FAIRWAY TO DESCRIBE IT? >> I SUPPOSE, YES. >> AND DURING THAT TIME, THE HIGH SCHOOL PERIOD FOR RACHEL, SHE HAD FRIENDS? >> YES. >> SHE HAD ACTIVITIES? >> YES. >> DID SHE HAVE A BOYFRIEND? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE HERE DURING PORTIONS OF MY QUESTIONING OF YOUR SON MICHAEL, AREN'T YOU? >> YES. >> AND YOU HEARD THE TYPES OF QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED MICHAEL ABOUT RACHEL'S ACTIVITIES IN HIGH SCHOOL? >> UH-HUH. >> CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM DAY BY DAY, BUT GENERALLY DO YOU AGREE WITH THE KINDS OF SOCIAL EVENTS THAT MICHAEL WAS DESCRIBING? >> YES. >> INCLUDING THAT IN RACHEL'S HIGH SCHOOL YEARS, THERE WAS JUST MAYBE ONE BOYFRIEND? >> YES. >> DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER THAT FELLOW OR JUST -- >> YES. >> SO AS YOU RECALL IT, SHE, YES, IN FACT HAD ONE FELLOW THAT MIGHT BE ELEVATED TO THE CATEGORY OF A BOYFRIEND DURING HIGH SCHOOL? >> YES. >> THEN SHE MOVED ON TO HOLY CROSS. >> YES. >> YOU PAY FOR TUITION? >> NO, I DID NOT. >> YOU DIDN'T PAY FOR HER TUITION? >> NOT THE TUITION, NO. >> YOU HELPED WITH SOME OF HER LIVING EXPENSES? >> YES. >> BUT SHE ACTUALLY ASSUMED THE DEBT OF LOANS TO PAY FOR THAT EDUCATION AT HOLY CROSS? >> YES. >> AND YOU KNOW, DO YOU NOT? THAT SHE CARRIED THOSE LOAN DEBTS WITH HER AFTER HER GRADUATION FROM HOLY CROSS? >> YES. >> AND SHE CARRIED THAT LOAN DEBT WHILE SHE BEGAN HER TEACHING CLEAR IN ENGLAND? >> YES. >> AND SHE CONTINUED TO HOLD AND CARRY THAT LOAN DEBT THROUGH THE EARLY YEARS OF MARRIAGE WITH NEIL? >> YES. >> AND SHE HAD THAT LOAN DEBT WHEN SHE RETURNED AFTER LILLIAN WAS BORN AND YOU ALL HAD MOVED FROM PLYMOUTH TO CARVER? >> YES. >> DOES THE FIGURE $18,000 SEEM ABOUT RIGHT FOR WHAT RACHEL OWED ON HER COLLEGE LOANS? >> I THINK IT WAS AROUND IS THERE, YES. >> AND THAT WAS HER RESPONSIBILITY? >> YES. >> NOT YOURS? >> YES. >> WHEN RACHEL MOVED IN TO CARVER, THAT WAS THE SECOND POINT IN TIME -- LET ME SAY IT DIFFERENTLY, WHEN RACHEL MOVED IN TO CARVER WITH LILLIAN, THAT WAS THE SECOND POINT IN TIME THAT SHE LIVED UNDER THE ROOF OF THE CARVER HOME WITH YOU AND PRISCILLA? >> YES. >> IT WAS THAT FEW-MONTH PERIOD THAT SHE LIVED IN THE BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR? >> YES. >> A SMALLER ROOM? >> YES. AVERAGE SIZED ROOM. >> YOU DO ESTIMATING? RIGHT? >> YOU -- YES. >> YOU GOT TO MEASURE THINGS ALL THE TIME? WHAT'S YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OF THAT DOWN STAIRS BEDROOM? >> IT'S IN THE VICINITY OF MAYBE 12 BY 15, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> YOUR ROOM IS ABOVE IT? >> YES. >> AND YOU COULD HEAR EACH OTHER, ONE ROOM TO THE OTHER THROUGH THE ROOF OR THE CEILING DEPENDING ON YOUR PERSPECTIVE? >> NOT VERY WELL, NO. >> SO IT WAS WELL ENOUGH, SOUNDPROOF YOU DIDN'T HEAR EACH OTHER? >> THE HOUSE WAS -- >> NO, MY QUESTION, THE HOUSE WAS WELL ENOUGH SOUNDPROOF THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR EACH OTHER? >> NO. >> NO NOISE FROM ONE FLOOR TO THE NEXT? >> VERY MINOR. >> MUSIC CARRY? >> I DIDN'T HEAR THE QUESTION. >> DID THE MUSIC CARRY? >> WAS MUSIC CARRIED? >> WE DIDN'T PLAY MUCH MUSIC. >> CONVERSATIONS WOULD BE MUFFLED. >> YES, YOU COULDN'T HEAR CONVERSATIONS. >> DOGS BARKING YOU COULD HEAR. >> DOGS BARKING YOU COULD HEAR. >> BABIES CRYING YOU COULD HEAR? >> VERY FAINTLY. >> WHEN YOU WERE LIVING IN CARVER WHEN YOU FIRST MOVED INTO CARVER, YOU HAD A CAR? >> YES. >> IS THAT THE PICK-UP TRUCK THAT'S BEEN DESCRIBED ON AND OFF THUS FAR OR DID YOU HAVE A SEPARATE VEHICLE. >> I HAD A PICK-UP TRUCK AND PRISCILLA HAD AN INTREPID. >> LET'S TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME. MOSTLY YOU DROVE THE PICK-UP TRUCK? >> YES. >> PRISCILLA DIDN'T DRIVE THAT UNLESS IT WAS NECESSARY? >> MOSTLY YES. >> AND SHE DROVE AN INTREAD -- INTREPID. >> A DODGE INTREPID, IN THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR FAMILY, THAT WAS HER CAR? >> YES. >> IN FACT THAT WAS THE CAR THAT SHE BOUGHT WITH HER OWN MONEY? >> LET ME THINK FOR A SECOND ON THAT. I BELIEVE WE BOUGHT THAT CAR WITH AN EQUITY LOAN, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> ON THE CAR OR PROPERTY? >> -- ON THE CARVER PROPERTY? >> THAT WOULD BE '99, YOU THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE PLIM PLYMOUTH PROPERTY. >> SO WAS THAT CAR PAID OFF? >> IT WAS ON THE EQUITY LOAN. . >> SO YOU PURCHASED IT TAKING THE FULL SUM NECESSARY TO BUY THE INTREPID OFF OF A LOAN OF YOUR HOME IN PLYMOUTH? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE PAYING THAT OFF TO THE EQUITY LINE HOLDER, THE BANK? >> YES. >> AND WHEN YOU WERE IN CARVER, YOU WERE STILL PAYING THAT DOWN? >> YES. >> AND HOW MANY YEARS WERE YOU PAYING ON THAT PARTICULAR LOAN? >> I DON'T REMEMBER BECAUSE WE REFINANCED THAT LOAN. WE REFINANCED THE HOUSE AND STUFF. SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW. >> WHEN YOU SAY REFINANCED, YOU'RE REFERRING TO REFINANCING PLYMOUTH? >> NO. >> LET'S TAKE IT IN STEPS. TO BUY THE INTREPID, YOU NEEDED X DOLLARS? >> YES. >> DO YOU REMEMBER THE PRICE? PROBABLY AROUND 15 OR SO, I'M GUESSING, BUT I DON'T KNOW. >> SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. YEAH. >> AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO REACH INTO YOUR POSSIBILITY, YOU WENT, YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO DRAW ON THE EQUITY IN YOUR HOME IN PLYMOUTH? >> RIGHT. >> AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID? >> YES. >> NOW -- >> VERY, VERY INTERESTING BEGINNING OF YOUR CROSS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND WITH THAT THE "BEST DEFENSE" IS GOING A CLOSES FOR TODAY. >> WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING, LIVE COVERAGE INSIDE THAT TRIAL. MORE OF THIS CROSS-EXAMINATION AS YOU SAID, VERY INTERESTING, IS A GOOD WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT. DELICATE, PROBABLY ANOTHER GOOD WAY TO CHARACTERIZE IT. ALL OF THIS AS THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES TO LAY OUT IT'S CASE AND THE DEFENSE TRIES TO KICK SOME HOLES IN EACH OF THESE WITNESSES. A LOT MORE COMING UP INSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. >> YOU WATCH WHERE HE'S GOING, JACK, I HAVE MY SUSPICIONS HERE. >> AND I SUSPECT YOU'LL BE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >> WE'LL SEE YOU AND ASHLEY IN JUST A FEW MINUTES. BUT A BIG THANKS TO MY GUESTS HERE IN NEW YORK. THANKS FOR JOINING ME HERE TODAY, AND YOU KNOW IT'S A LIVE TRIAL, I DIDN'T GET A LOT OF TIME WITH YOU, BUT WE'RE HERE FOR THE TRIAL. THANKS FOR BEING WITH ME HERE TODAY AND I HOPE TO SEE BOTH OF YOU VERY SOON. I'M GOING TO BE BACK HERE TOMORROW, ANOTHER EDITION OF BEST DEFENSE I HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME THEN. |