|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> ON A KITCHEN COUNTER IN YOUR HOUSE, RIGHT? >> 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. >> THEY WERE CERTAINLY VISIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT LOOK, THE KEYS WOULD BE THERE, RIGHT? >> YES. >> TESTIMONY ABOUT THE KEYS, THE GUN LOCKS, ONE OF THOSE GUNS WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. THE WEAPON USED TO KILL RACHEL AND LILLIAN, HER 9-MONTH-OLD DAUGHTER. PROSECUTORS SAY THIS IS THE MAN, HER HUSBAND, NEIL, WHO HAD GOTTEN THAT .2 CALIBER HANDGUN AND KILLED HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. THE DEFENSE SAYS, HE IS THE WRONG MAN ON TRIAL. LIVE TESTIMONY TODAY AS "BAN FIELD & FORD" TAKE YOU COURTSIDE. >>> GOOD MONDAY AFTERNOON, WELCOME TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE." WE ARE IN SESSION AND I'M JACK FORD. >> I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. THERE'S NOTHING LIKE A GOOD CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A GRIEVING FAMILY TO KICK OFF YOUR WEEK. SORRY TO BE SO TRITE ABOUT IT. I NEVER, EVER FEEL COMFORTABLE WHEN I SEE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD A HORRIBLE LOSS. >> ONE OF THE GREAT HARDSHIPS IF YOU'RE ON EITHER SIDE IS WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS SUFFERED SUCH A TERRIBLE LOSS BUT THEY BECOME CRITICAL TO YOUR CASE, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THEM? JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ON THE STAND. THEY'RE TAKING A QUICK BREAK AND THEY'LL BE BACK WITH MORE OF HIS TESTIMONY. IT'S POWERFUL STUFF. THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, HAD TO BE, WHEN YOU TALKED TO NEIL FROM ENGLAND, HE WAS UPSET, WHIMPERING WHEN HE WAS ON THE PHONE. MAYBE THIS GUY PANICKED AND DID ALL THE WRONG THINGS BUT HE'S NOT THE GUY THAT HAD THE GUN IN HIS HANDS. >> I TEND TO BE OVERSENSITIVE. BUT I'VE GOT TO SAY, LISTENING TO THIS QUESTIONING, THERE WAS A TONE OF VOICE. YOU KNOW YOUR BUSINESS. I DON'T KNOW YOUR BUSINESS. IT'S JUST A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE. IF I WERE A JUROR, I WOULD BE ANGRY. >> YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. YOU DON'T WANT TO ANGER THE JURORS. THESE PEOPLE ARE SITTING THERE SAYING, THIS GUY ON THE WITNESS STAND, HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. HE LOST HIS STEPDAUGHTER. DON'T TRY TO BEAT HIM UP. IT'S A FINE LINE, A DELICATE LINE THEY HAVE TO WALK RIGHT THERE. A QUICK BREAK INSIDE THE COURTROOM. WHEN THEY COME BACK, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO WILL CONTINUE HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION. THE CASE MOVING ALONG, THE PROSECUTION LAYING OUT ITS FACTS, COMPLICATED FACTS. BETH KARAS HAS THIS REPORT TO GET US CAUGHT UP WITH 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 EFFECTED, THE SUICIDE WAS NOT. >> Reporter: ON A QUIET WINTER NIGHT IN A SUBURB OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, THE POLICE WERE CALLED TO THE HOUSE OF NEIL AND RACHEL 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. >> KNEEL ENTWISTLE WITH A FIREARM THAT WE BELIEVE HE HAD SECURED AT SOME TIME BEFORE THAT SHOT RACHEL ENTWISTLE IN THE HEAD, THEN PROCEEDED TO SHOOT BABY LILLIAN, WHO WAS LYING ON THE BED NEXT TO HER MOTHER. >> Reporter: THE ONE THING THEY COULD NOT FIND WAS NEIL 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 ROLE IN THE MURDERS. >> HELD WITHOUT BAIL. >> Reporter: THE ARRAIGNMENT IN A MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM ATTRACTED 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. >> AND THEY ARE IN FACT INSIDE OF THAT COURTROOM, HAVE BEEN SINCE LAST WEEK. AS THIS TRIAL MOVES ALONG. BETH KARAS JOINS US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE TO FILL US IN ON HOW THE CASE HAS BEEN MOVING SO FAR TODAY. GOOD TO START OFF THE PROGRAM WITH YOU. TELL US, WHAT'S TAKING PLACE SO FAR IN THE COURTROOM TODAY? WHAT DO WE EXPECT WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR BREAK? >> THREE MORE WITNESSES TOOK THE STAND. WITNESS NUMBER EIGHT ON THE STAND, NOW ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. JOE MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, WHOSE GUN IT WAS THAT WAS USED TO KILL RACHEL AND HER BABY, LILLIAN. THE WITNESSES BEFORE HIM, INCLUDED ONE WHO HAD TAKEN THE STAND LAST FRIDAY AND COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY TODAY AND THAT IS LLOYD COOK, THE BROTHER OF PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. HE USED TO GO TARGET SHOOTING ALSO AT THE GUN CLUB. ANYONE WHO HANDLED THOSE GUNS IN THE FALL OF 2005 AND 2006 SEEMS TO BE TAKING THE STAND, INCLUDING THE SON -- ONE OF THE MANY SONS OF JOE MATTERAZZO, MICHAEL MATTERAZZO WHO ACTUALLY WENT TARGET SHOOTING AT THIS GUN CLUB THE DAY AFTER THE MURDERS AND AMONG THE GUNS BROUGHT BY JOE MATTERAZZO AND TWO OF HIS SONS TO THE GUN CLUB ON JANUARY 21st WAS THE MURDER WEAPON. OF COURSE, NO ONE KNEW IT. JOE MATTERAZZO SAID HIS SON, ANTHONY, WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO CLEAN GUNS. HIS SON WAS IN THE JUNIOR PROGRAM LEARNING HOW TO USE, CARE FOR AND CLEAN GUNS. HE DIDN'T SPECIFY WHETHER THE .22 CALIBER REVOLVER USED TO KILL RACHEL AND LILLIAN WAS ACTUALLY CLEANED BY ANTHONY. MAYBE IF ANTHONY TESTIFIES, WE'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT. IT WASN'T CLEANED SO WELL THIS ALL THE DNA WAS REMOVED FROM IT. THERE WILL BE WITNESSES THAT DNA CONSISTENT WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FOUND ON THE GRIP AND DNA CONSISTENT WITH RACHEL WAS FOUND ON THE MUZZLE, WHETHER THAT BE BLOOD OR BRAIN MATTER. AMONG OTHER GUNS, HE USED THIS .22 CALIBER REVOLVER. >> BETH, WE EXPECT HIM TO BE CONTINUING HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE WITNESS STAND WHEN THEY FINISH UP THEIR BREAK HERE. OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, DO WE KNOW, I KNOW WHEN WE SAW THE SHOT OF THE OPENING STATEMENT IN THE COURTROOM, IT IS A MAKESHIFT COURTROOM AS YOU DESCRIBED TO US. NOT THE NORMAL COURTHOUSE. IT SEEMED TO BE FAIRLY PACKED. ARE WE SEEING THE SAME THING NOW THAT WE'VE MOVED ON TO TESTIMONY? >> YES. THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA AND FAMILY MEMBERS ON BONE SIDES. NEIL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER, FATHER AND BROTHER WITH THERE. THEY'RE NOT ON THE WITNESS LIST, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT. THEY'RE NOT LISTED ON THE PRINTED LIST THAT WE HAVE. THERE IS A SEQUESTRATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS. JOE AND PRISCILLA WERE IN THE COURTROOM. JOE WAS IN THERE BEFORE HE TOOK THE STAND. I BELIEVE ONE -- MAYBE JEROME -- I'M NOT SURE, ONE OF THE CHILDREN WAS AN EXCEPTION TO WITNESS SEQUESTRATION. BUT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE INTERESTED. SOMETIMES I FIND THAT I REALLY CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF UNSCIENTIFIC STUDY ON MY OWN BUT IN TALKING TO PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ATTEND THE TRIAL AS INTERESTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WHEN IT'S BEING TELEVISED DON'T NECESSARILY TAKE THE TIME TO COME DOWN TO THE COURTHOUSE. THEY'LL WATCH IT ON TV. I DON'T KNOW IF BECAUSE WE'RE TELEVISING IT, THERE ARE FEWER GENERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE COURTROOM. >> BETH, STAY WITH US. I WANT TO TALK WITH YOU SOME MORE AS WE GET INTO OUR COURTSIDE THAT WE'RE CALLING, APPROPRIATELY ENOUGH, A MURDER HISTORY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING HAPPEN INSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. ANOTHER QUICK INTRODUCTION. ONE OF OUR GOOD FRIENDS, WE'RE ALWAYS DELIGHTED TO HAVE HIM, PETER ALCAN. HE'S THE AUTHOR OFF "TOUGH ON CRIME MYTHS: REAL SOLUTIONS TO CUT CRIME." WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PROSECUTION WANTS THE JURY TO FOCUS ON AND THAT IS, IF NOT HIM, BEING NEIL ENTWISTLE, THEN WHO? LISTEN TO SOME OF THE OPENING REMARKS BY PROSECUTOR MICHAEL FABRY WHEN HE WAS TALKING TO THE JURORS LAST WEEK. >> BY EVERY OUTWARD APPEARANCE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'LL CONCLUDE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEIL AND RACHEL AND LILLIAN AND ALL THE MATTERAZZOS AND ALL THE EXTEND FAMILY MEMBERS WAS NOTHING BUT LOVING, STABLE. YOU WILL ALSO LEARN OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER SIDE TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUE VERDICT IN THIS CASE. AND ONE FOR MURDER IN THIS CASE. AND THAT IS THE DEFENDANT. >> SO SOME OF WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAD TO SAY. LET ME GO TO BETH FOR A SECOND. BETH, LOOKING AT THE PROSECUTION'S CASE HERE FOR THIS PART OF OUR DOCKET AND THE PROSECUTOR SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF NOT HIM, WHO? OBVIOUSLY BRINGS YOU BACK TO THE QUESTION OF A MOTIVE AND WHAT HAS THE PROSECUTION SAID SO FAR, WHAT HAVE THEY SUGGESTED SO FAR IS THE MOTIVE FOR THIS MURDER? THESE MURDERS I SHOULD SAY. >> Reporter: PROSECUTION SAID IN OPENING STATEMENTS, MICHAEL FABBRI THAT THE MOUNTING FINANCIAL DEBT APPEARS TO BE THE MOTIVE HERE. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HIS OFFICE HAS MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE PAST 2 1/2 YEARS. I LISTEN CAREFULLY TO OPENING STATEMENTS BY MICHAEL FABBRI. THERE ARE ONLY A FEW TIDBITS, NOT MUCH, THAT HE SAID IN THE OPENING THAT WASN'T A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. AS TESTIMONY IS UNFOLDING I'M LISTENING CAREFULLY TO SOMETHING NEW. WE HEARD SOMETHING NEW TODAY, THAT WAS MORE THAN A TIDBIT. AND THAT IS JOE MATTERAZZO TESTIFYING THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE CALLED HIM EVERY DAY FOR FOUR DAYS IN A ROW AFTER THE MURDERS, MONDAY, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, 23rd TO 26th AT ABOUT 10:00 IN THE MORNING. HE WOULD SPEAK 10 TO 15 MINUTES. ON CROSS-EXAMINATION -- WELL, LET ME SAY ONE OTHER THING. THE PROSECUTION IN PUTTING ON A NUMBER OF THE EIGHT WITNESSES SO FAR IS LOCKING UP THE ALIBIS FOR ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE GUNS, WHO KNEW WHERE THE GUN SAFE WAS IN THE MATTERAZZO HOME, JOE'S SONS AS WELL AS NEIL ENTWISTLE, WHERE THE KEYS WERE TO IT, WHO HANDLED IT. JOE MATTERAZZO IN DETAIL GAVE HIS ALIBI. HE ACCOUNT FOR THE WHOLE DAY ON FEBRUARY 20th, THE DAY OF THE MURDERS. AND NOW ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, ELLE YET WEINSTEIN -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A POINT HE'S TRYING TO MAKE. HE WAS SORT OF HAMMERING HOME THAT THE CAR THAT PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, A DODGE INTREPID, OWNED AT THE TIME, THEY BOUGHT WITH AN EQUITY LOAN. SO MAYBE THEY HAD FINANCIAL PROBLEMS, TOO. IN OTHER WORDS, FINANCIAL PROBLEMS AREN'T A REASON FOR MURDER. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN WILL DO WHATEVER HE CAN TO PUNCH HOLES IN THE CASE AND SHOW REASONABLE DOUBT. MAYBE HE'S TRYING TO DO THAT WITH A MOTIVE HERE. >> PETER, YOU HAVE HERE AS BETH EXPLAINED, SORT OF THE SHAKY CONTOURS OF AN OUTLINE OF A MOTIVE HERE, NOT THE HARD KIND OF MOTIVE WE SEE IN OTHER CASES. YOU DON'T HAVE ANOTHER WOMAN INVOLVED IN A RELATIONSHIP. YOU HAVE THE SUGGESTION THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS ONLINE LOOKING UP ESCORT SERVICES. YOU DON'T HAVE AN INSURANCE POLICY FOR RACHEL WORTH $1 MILLION. BUT YOU HAVE SOME TESTIMONY THAT THEY WERE KIND OF STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY. SO, THAT BEING THE CASE HERE, HOW SIGNIFICANT DO YOU THINK AN ARGUMENT OF, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, IF NOT HIM, WHO WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE DONE IT, COULD BE FOR THE PROSECUTION? >> YEAH, WELL, I THINK REALLY THEY ARE GOING TO HAMMER HOME ON THAT. BECAUSE ALWAYS -- THE JURY ALWAYS ASKS THAT QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL ASKING THAT ABOUT THE O.J. SIMPSON TRIAL. HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY. HOW COME WE NEVER CAME UP WITH ANYBODY EVER SINCE, NOT EVEN A SUSPECT WHATSOEVER. THEY'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THAT. I AGREE, THOUGH, ON THE OTHER SIDE, THOUGH, AS YOU SAY, THERE'S NOT A GREAT MOTIVE. HE HAD SOME SORT OF DEBT, YOU MURDER YOUR BABY AND YOUR WIFE BECAUSE YOU OWE MONEY? HE DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE. HE COULDN'T MAKE MONEY FROM IT. IF HE WAS LOOKING AT, LET'S SAY, HE WAS LOOKING ONLINE, WASN'T HAPPY WITH HIS SEX LIFE, THERE'S SUCH THING AS A DIVORCE. THE FAMILY NEVER SAW ANY HINT THAT THIS COUPLE WASN'T GETTING ALONG. WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING THERE. AS A MOTIVE AT ALL EXCEPT A VAGUE, GEE, MAYBE HE HAD DEBT, MAYBE HE WAS UPSET ABOUT THAT. >> YOU GET US NICELY TO THE SECOND PART OF THE DOCKET. THIS IS IN FACT A REAL WHO DONE IT AND THE WHO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT NEIL ENTWISTLE. LISTEN TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS BY ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. >> IF IT WAS THAT CLEAR AND IF IT WAS THAT EASY, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. BUT IT IS NOT THAT CLEAR AND IT IS NOT THAT EASY. >> OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN DURING THIS TRIAL YOU WILL LEARN THAT THINGS ARE NOT THE WAY THEY FIRST MAY APPEAR TO BE. >> SO PETER, LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU POINTED TO A LOT OF THE THINGS, JUST A FEW MOMENTS AGO THAT THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO FOCUS ON HERE. NO HISTORY OF FIGHTING AMONGST THESE TWO. NO REAL HARD MOTIVE FOR A MURDER. NOT ONLY AS YOU SAID OF THE WIFE BUT OF A 9-MONTH-OLD CHILD. IF YOU'RE THE DEFENSE AND YOU DON'T HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE TO POINT TO HERE, THERE'S NO EMPTY CHAIR THERE OF A CO-DEFENDANT. THERE'S NO OTHER PERSON WHO IMMEDIATELY COMES TO MIND, WHAT DO YOU DO IN TERMS OF THIS ARGUMENT? DO YOU DO SIMPLY AS WE SAW ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SAY A FEW MOMENTS AGO, THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH EVIDENCE OR DO YOU TRY TO FIND SOMEBODY YOU CAN POINT TO? >> EVERYBODY ALWAYS WANTS TO SEE A THEORY OF DEFENSE, IF NOT HIM, WHO OR WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? QUITE FRANKLY, I THOUGHT YOU WOULDN'T ASK ME THAT QUESTION. WE CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT EACH OTHER. WHAT'S THE DEFENSE GOING TO BE? WE SAY, I DON'T KNOW. WE DO KNOW ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS ONE OF THE FINEST MEMBERS OF THE BAR HERE. IF HE SAYS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO AGAIN AND AGAIN SEE SOMETHING HERE THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE EXPECTED, THEN WE ASSUME, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IS AN ETHICAL, ABOVE BOARD KIND OF GUY. MAYBE THEIR INVESTIGATIONS HAVE COME UP WITH SOMETHING. HE'S NOT PLAYING THE CASE IN THE MEDIA. HE HASN'T BEEN TALKING TO THE PRESS AT ALL BEFOREHAND. HE'S BASICALLY PROMISED UP, PUT UP OR SHUT UP HERE. HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO SURPRISE US AND LEARN THINGS WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT. >> THE INTERESTING THING IS, PETER, I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD THIS, I'VE HAD THIS. THE REAL DIFFICULTY IF YOU'RE A DEFENSE LAWYER, ONE OF THE WORST SITUATIONS FOR YOU TO BE IN, CURIOUSLY AND IRONICALLY ENOUGH, YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE IS INNOCENT BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE WHO ELSE DID IT AND YOUR DEFENSE IS SEASONALLY, TRUST ME, IT WASN'T MY CLIENT. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT'S PLAYING OUT HERE. WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK. PETER WILL STAY WITH US. BETH WILL BE WITH US AS WE CONTINUE OUR COVERAGE HERE. WE WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE TESTIMONY, EMOTIONAL, POWERFUL TESTIMONY BETH TOLD YOU ABOUT HERE, TOOK PLACE EARLIER HERE TODAY. THIS MAN, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL TALKING ABOUT HIS CONTACTS WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE LITERALLY DAYS AFTER THE BODIES OF HIS DEPP DAUGHTER AND STEP GRANDDAUGHTER RETURNED. ALL THAT WHEN WE RETURN. >>> WELCOME BACK TO "BANFIELD & FORD: COURTSIDE." WE ARE IN SESSION BUT THERE SAY BREAK IN THE COURTROOM IN MASSACHUSETTS. THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GET YOU TESTIMONY YOU HAVE NOT SEEN BEFORE. WE GO TO BREAK EVERY SO OFTEN. I KNOW IT DRIVES YOU CRAZY WHEN WE DO IT. BUT WE DO HAVE TO. WE TAPE EVERYTHING THAT PLAYS DURING THE BREAK SO WE CAN PLAY IT FOR YOU AT A LATER TIME WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN ACTION IN THE COURTROOM. JOE MATTERAZZO HAS BEEN ON THE WITNESS STAND YUNTD GOING A CROSS-EXAMINATION. BEFORE THAT, THERE WAS THE DIRECT EXAMINATION. LAY IT OUT. WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT WAS YOUR PART IN ALL OF THIS? ONE OF THE BIG KEY PARTS THAT JOE MATTERAZZO PLAYED IN ALL OF THIS WAS THAT HE TOOK PHONE CALLS FROM HIS STEP SON-IN-LAW WHEN HIS STEP SON-IN-LAW NEIL ENTWISTLE HAD FLED THE COUNTRY TO ENGLAND. HE WAS WHIMPERING ON THE OTHER END, TELLING HIM HIS SIDE OF THE STORY. IN THE MYSTERIOUS DEATH OF HIS WIFE AND BABY AND WHY HE WENT TO ENGLAND SO FAST. HAVE A LISTEN TO HOW THAT TESTIMONY PLAYED OUT. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME ON THE TELEPHONE THAT MORNING WITH THE DEFENDANT? >> YES. >> HOW LONG DID THAT CONVERSATION LAST? >> ABOUT 15 MINUTES. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO HEAR HIS DEMEANOR DURING THAT CONVERSATION? >> YES. >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THAT DEMEANOR? >> HIS VOICE WAS VERY SHAKY. WHIMPERING-TYPE, I GUESS. >> WHIMPERING TYPE? >> WHIMPERING TYPE, VERY SHAKY, LIKE. >> DO YOU RECALL THE FIRST THING HE SAID TO YOU, SIR? >> YES. >> WHAT DID HE SAY? >> AT FIRST HE SAID, HI, JOE, I DON'T KNOW HOW THINGS GOT LIKE THIS. >> AND DID YOU THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND DID HE SAY CERTAIN THINGS TO YOU OVER THE COURSE OF THAT CONVERSATION. >> YES. >> WHAT DO YOU CALL HIM SAYING? >> I TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LEFT THE HOPKINTON HOME AROUND 9:00 IN THE MORNING AND HE WENT TO STAPLES AND HE ATTEMPTED TO FIND A WAL-MART, I BELIEVE HE SAID, BUT HE COULDN'T FIND IT. >> DID HE SAY HOW LONG HE WAS GONE? >> HE WAS GONE FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS. HE RETURNED HOME AT 11:00. >> DID HE SAY WHAT DAY THIS WAS? >> FRIDAY THE 20th. >> DID HE SAY WHAT HE DID, IF ANYTHING, BEFORE HE LEFT? >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING -- >> ABOUT WHAT HE HAD DONE BEFORE HE LEFT AT 9:00? >> HE SAID HE FED LILLY HER BREAKFAST. >> AND WHAT DID HE SAY? >> AND THEN HE LEFT THE HOUSE AT 9:00. >> WHAT ELSE DO YOU RECALL HIM SAYING? >> HE SAID HE RETURNED HOME AROUND 11:00. WHEN HE GOT THERE, HE WALKED AROUND THE HOUSE AND THEN HE WENT INSIDE THE HOUSE AND HE CALLED UP TO RACHEL AND HE WAS THERE WAS NO ANSWER. SO HE SAID HE STARTED TO CLEAN THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, CLEAN THE HOUSE. BASICALLY. >> DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE SAID HE DID NEXT? >> YES. THEN HE SAID HE WENT UPSTAIRS. AND HE WENT UPSTAIRS AND FOUND RACHEL AND LILLY SHOT. AND THAT -- >> DID HE DESCRIBE IT IN A PARTICULAR WAY? >> NO. THAT'S ALL HE SAID. BUT HE SAID IT WAS JUST A BIG MESS. >> WHAT DID HE TELL YOU HE DID NEXT, SIR? >> THEN HE SAID HE LEFT THE HOME AND DROVE DOWN TO MY HOUSE. >> DID HE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR CARBER HOME AND WHAT HE DID WHEN HE GOT THERE? >> YES. WHEN HE GOT TO THE HOUSE, HE KNEW I HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE A KEY, COULDN'T GET IN. >> WHAT ELSE DID HE TELL YOU? >> HE SAID HE WANTED TO SEE ME AND PRISCILLA. HE SAID HE COULDN'T FACE ME. HE WAS KIND OF REPEATING HIMSELF. A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN HE SAID HE LEFT THE CARBER HOME AND HE DROVE AROUND 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? >> I THINK YB YES, HE SAID HE TALKED TO -- HE CALLED HIS FATHER TO GET A TICKET. AND I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH -- >> 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? >> YES. >> WHAT ELSE DID HE SAY? WHAT ELSE DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING? >> WHAT ELSE DID NEIL SAY? NO, I DON'T REMEMBER. >> DO YOU RECALL TALKING TO HIM OR ASKING HIM ANYTHING? >> YES. HE MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE KNEW HI GUNS IN THE HOUSE. AND I QUESTIONED HIM ABOUT THAT. I ASKED HIM, WHY DID YOU CARE THAT I HAD GUNS IN THE HOUSE. >> WHAT DID HE CERRE? >> NOTHING. >> AND DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATION FURTHER WITH HIM ABOUT WHAT HE HAD SEEN AND HOW IT HAD HAPPENED? >> NO. >> DID YOU RECALL ASKING HIM ANYTHING? >> I ASKED HIM, NEIL, DID YOU DO THIS OR DO YOU KNOW WHO DID THIS? >> WHAT DID 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? >> 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. >> DID YOU SPEND 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 UNUSUALLY CALLED ABOUT THE SAME TIME, BETWEEN 10:00 AND 11 DLK IN THE MORNING. >> DID HE CALL YOU THAT TUESDAY. >> YES. >> HOW ABOUT WEDNESDAY? >> YES. >> DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM ON THURSDAY? >> YES. >> DID YOU SPEND TIME SPEAKING TO HIM? >> YES. >> DO YOU RECALL ANY OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS OR 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. HE MENTIONED 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. >> 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 ABOUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING, 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, SIR, TO SPEAK TO HIM AT SOME POINT IN TIME ABOUT FUNERAL ARRANGE HAD THES? >> YES. >> DID 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 LILLY 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. >> 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? >> ALL THE SAME. >> WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? >> HE WAS SHAKY, A LITTLE NERVOUS, WHIMPERING. A LITTLE 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 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. >> WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR CALLING HIM? >> WE HAD GONE TO THE FUNERAL HOME TO MAKE FOUND RAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR TOLD US THAT -- >> YOU SPOKE TO THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR? >> YES. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION DID YOU THEN CALL THE DEFENDANT? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM? >> YES. >> AND WHAT DID YOU SAY AND WHAT DID HE SAY? >> I TOLD HIM THAT WE NEEDED HIS PERMISSION TO DO THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS AND THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR GAVE ME A SLIP OF PAPER, WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO WRITE AND HIS SIGNATURE ON IT, 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 PORNOGRAPHIC STUFF AND THE E-MAILS AND ALL THAT WAS RIDICULOUS. >> HE TOLD THAT TO YOU DURING THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ARRANGEMENTS? >> HE SAID ALL THAT STUFF WAS RIDICULOUS, THAT WAS OUT IN THE NEWS. >> DID YOU HAVE 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? >> OKAY. 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. >> BUT IN CASE YOU MISSED IT, NEIL ENTWISTLE NEVER CAME TO THAT FUNERAL. HE SENT FLOWERS. HE DIDN'T SHOW UP. FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND BABY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SAYS ANYTHING. THERE'S SOMEONE WHO MAY BE ABLE TO READ MORE INTO THIS. BECAUSE HE'S BEEN COVERING THE CASE, THE MURDER MYSTERY SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. NORMAN MILLER, LOCAL REPORTER WHO'S BEEN ON THE CASE IS GOING TO TALK TO US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS AND THE SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT THAT EIGHT OF THE JURORS WHO WERE PICKED FOR THIS TRIAL HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE. NORMAN LIVES THERE. NORMAN WORKS THERE. MAYBE NORMAN CAN TELL US HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE, COMING UP AFTER THE BREAK. >>> NEIL WHEN WHISTLE WAS AFRED 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. ONE POSSESSION OF CHARGE OF A FIREARM AND ONE CHARGE OF POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION. >> THAT IS MARTHA COAKLEY FROM SOME MONTHS AGO, CLEARLY AFTER THE ARREST. AT THE TIME SHE WAS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THIS JURISDICTION. SHE HAS ASCENDED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL. CONGRATULATIONS, MS. COAKLEY. WE'RE STARTING TO HEAR AS THE CASE IS LAID OUT BEFORE US. BUT FOR THE GOOD WORK OF THOSE REPORTERS IN THE COMMUNE WHO THE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DIG UP A LOT. THAT INCLUDES OUR BETH KARAS WHO IS PHENOMENAL WHEN SHE GETS HER HANDS ON THE COURT FILINGS AND NORMAL MILLER, A WRITER FOR THE METRO WEST DAILY NEWS. WE GLEANED INFORMATION FROM HIS WORKS. WE'RE APPRECIATIVE OF YOU TO JOIN US. HELLO THERE. >> HI, HOW ARE YOU? >> I'M WELL. THANK YOU. I'VE GOT TO ASK YOU, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT WHEN WE COME IN AND LOOK INTO A CASE AND DIG UP THINGS FROM LIVING IN THE COMMUNITY AND LIVING THROUGH THE CRIME AND THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FINDING OUT ABOUT THE CRIME. MY FIRST QUESTION TO YOU, NORMAN IS, WERE YOU A LITTLE SURPRISED WHEN THROUGH JURY SELECTION WE ALL LEARNED THAT HALF OF THE JURY POOL THAT WAS SELECTED DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CRIME, DESPITE IT BEING SO WIDESPREAD, THE COVERAGE? >> NOT REALLY. MIDDLESEX COUNTY IS SPREAD OUT. AND THERE'S A LOT OF YOUNGER PEOPLE ON THE JURY. JUST KIND OF PROVES NOT EVERYONE READS NEWSPAPERS OR WATCHES THE NEW OZ ON A DAILY BASIS. >> SOME PEOPLE COULD SAY THAT COULD BE A GOOD THING AND OTHER PEOPLE WOULD SAY I'M NOT SO SURE THAT IS A GOOD THING. WE MIGHT HAVE JURORS WHO AREN'T EDUCATED. >> IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT EDUCATED. IT MEANS THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF STATE FOR COLLEGE OR HAD A DIFFERENT WORK SCHEDULE. >> I'LL SWITCH GEARS A LITTLE BIT. THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE, ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE STEPS LAST WEEK BY NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FATHER ON BEHALF OF NEIL'S FAMILY, I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HEAR THIS, ALTHOUGH EVERY FATHER I WOULD ASSUME WOULD STAND BY HIS SON. I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HEAR THE QUOTATION, WE KNOW OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT. 100% INNOCENT. WERE YOU SURPRISED AT ALL TO HEAR THAT? AND, OF COURSE, HE FOLLOWED THAT BY SAYING THAT'S ALL WE'RE GOING TO SAY UNTIL AFTER THE TRIAL. >> NO. I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AFTER. IF SOMETHING -- IF I WAS EVER ARRESTED MY MOTHER WOULD PROBABLY SAY THE SAME THING. MOST PARENTS WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE THE BEST OF THE CHILD NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENED, EITHER WAY. >> YOU KNOW AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS, THAT THE FIRST STORIES THAT WERE INCONSISTENT TO COME OUT ACTUALLY WERE FROM NEIL TO HIS FATHER, RIGHT? >> THAT'S WHAT -- YES. THROUGH MONTHS OF AFFIDAVITS ANDEN TOS OF REPORTS FILED, THERE SEEM TO BE DIFFERENT STORIES. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE STORY WAS THAT HE TOLD HIS FATHER, ABOUT SHOWING UP ON HIS DOOR STEP WITH A DEAD WIFE AND CHILD IN THEIR BED AT HOME? >> ORIGINALLY HE TOLD THE POLICE THAT HE FOUND THE BODIES. THEN APPARENTLY FROM AT LEAST POLICE REPORTS HE TOLD US HIS FATHER THAT HE HAD CONTACTED THEM, THEN LEFT. >> SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE INCONSISTENCIES CONTINUED BECAUSE NEIL ENTWISTLE ENDED UP GETTING ON THE TELEPHONE WITH A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, RACHEL'S STEPFATHER FOR ONE, WHO'S TESTIFYING RIGHT NOW, AS WELL AS A TROOPER WHO WAS INVESTIGATING THE CASE. I THINK THEY SPOKE FOR SOMETHING LIKE TWO HOURS. AS A REPORTER, THAT IS SOMETHING YOU DON'T OFTEN GET TO SEE, AN AFFIDAVIT WITH ALL THAT INFORMATION IN IT. WERE YOU SURPRISED TO SORT OF SEE THIS WEALTH OF OFFERINGS FROM THE DEFENDANT HIMSELF? >> WELL, IT WAS DEFINITELY A LONG AFFIDAVIT. IT JUST SHOWED THERE WAS A LOT OF INVESTIGATION THAT WENT INTO IT. AS YOU KNOW, MOST MURDERS ARE SOLVED RELATIVELY QUICKLY. THIS CASE, THE ARREST DIDN'T COME FOR A FEW WEEKS. THERE WAS A LOT OF INVESTIGATION BETWEEN THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND THE ARREST OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF CRIME BEAT, BUT BETWEEN YOU AND ME AND THE FENCE POST HERE, WE DON'T OFTEN GET THE VALUE OF A TWO-HOUR PHONE CALL WITH A POLICE OFFICER WITHIN 72 HOURS OR SO OF A CRIME IN ORDER TO MINE INFORMATION BEFORE WE GO TO TRIAL. >> WELL, NO, USUALLY LICK I SAID, MOST OF THE TIME, THE ARRESTS ARE RELATIVELY QUICKLY AND THEY HAPPEN -- INTERVIEWS HAPPEN AT THE POLICE STATION AND A LOT OF TIME LAWYERS BECOME INVOLVED EARLY ON. SOMETIMES THEY DON'T BUT THIS IS, LIKE I SAID, A SLOWER DEVELOPING INVESTIGATION. IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE WAS ARRESTED WITHIN THE FIRST 24 OR 48 HOURS. >> NORMAN, TALK TO ME ABOUT MR. ENTWISTLE'S DEMEANOR. WE'RE SEEING PICTURES NOW. YOU AND I HAVE POPPED BACK UP ON THE VEEN. WE WERE ROLLING SOME TAPE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S APPEARANCES IN COURT. I WASN'T SURE WHAT TO EXPECT. 2 1/2 YEARS SINCE THE CRIME. A LOT OF PEOPLE PUT ON WEIGHT AWAITING TRIAL. A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOK DIFFERENT, HAVE A DIFFERENT DEMEANOR. TO THE UNTRAINED EYE, THAT WOULD BE MINE, HE SEEMS LIKE HE'S FIT AND HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL. WHAT DO YOU SEE? >> HE SEEMS SIMILAR. IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS BUT IT'S BEEN IN THE JAIL AND I'M GUESSING BECAUSE HE PROBABLY HAD -- HIS PARENTS ARE VISITING NOW. THEY'RE IN TOWN. THAT MIGHT HELP HIS DEMEANOR A LITTLE. IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS OF HIS LIFE. HE'S HAD TIME TO ADJUST TO IT. IT'S NOT LIKE HIS FIRST COURT APPEARANCE OR SECOND COURT APPEARANCE. HE'S BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS. HE KNOWS WHAT TO EXPECT FROM THE MEDIA AND BEING IN COURT. >> NOW, I'M WATCH SOMETHING TAPE OF HIM TURNING AROUND AND LOOKING TOWARD THE GALLERY WHEN HE'S SEATED AT THE DEFENSE TABLE. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO GLEAN ANYTHING FROM HIS DEMEANOR IN COURT OR HIS ACTIONS IN COURT? HAS HE CAST ANY GLANCES THE WAY OF HIS PARENTS OR EVEN OVER TO THE MATTERAZZOS, THE GRIEVING FAMILY LEFT BEHIND, RACHEL'S MOTHER AND STEPFATHER? HAVE YOU SEEN ANY INTERACTION AT ALL BETWEEN NEIL AND THOSE IN THE GALLERY? >> HE LOOKS TOWARDS HIS FAMILY MOST MORNINGS WHEN HE FIRST COMES IN AND LEAVES AT THE END OF THE DAY. THE FIRST DAY IN COURT LAST TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JURY SELECTION, HE SMILED OVER AT THEM. AND HE MOUTHED SOME WORDS TO THEM ONE DAY LAST WEEK. I DON'T READ LIPS. I WASN'T SURE WHAT HE SAID. >> WHAT ABOUT TOWARDS THE MATTERAZZOS, DOES HE HAVE A DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT TO THEM? >> I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM LOOK OVER THERE. HE CAN LOOK TO HIS LEFT AND THEY'LL BE LEFT AND BEHIND HIM. >> BUT HE HASN'T MADE ANY EFFORT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR PRESENCE, AT LEAST THAT YOU HAVE NOTICED? >> NOT THAT I HAVE NOTICED, NO. >> SO, TELL ME, WHAT DID YOU MAKE -- I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING A BIG DEAL OF THIS, OF PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO'S DEMEANOR ON THE STAND. I ONLY ASK THAT BECAUSE WE COVER A LOT OF CASES. WHEN YOU HAVE A MOTHER WHO'S LOST A CHILD TESTIFY, YOU CAN ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY EXPECT SOMEONE TO BREAK DOWN AND CRY ABOUT THE MOMENT THEY LEARNED OF THE DEATH OF THEIR CHILDREN. NOT PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. SHE WAS VERY STOIC. >> WELL, I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHY THAT OCCURRED. I KNOW THEY DIDN'T GO INTO DETAILS ABOUT THE CONVERSATION OF HOW SHE FOUND OUT. SO I MEAN, IT WASN'T LIKE SHE WAS DESTROYING DETAILS. SHE JUST GAVE HER GENERAL REACTION. IT WASN'T WHAT DID YOU HEAR? HOW DID YOU HEAR? DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE POLICE CHIEF? HOW DID YOU FEEL AFTER THE CONVERSATION? IT WASN'T A DETAILED CONVERSATION. >> AND WE SHOULD GIVE HER THE BENEFIT THAT IT HAS BEEN 2 1/2 YEARS, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE ANYBODY OUT THERE WOULD SAY IF YOU LOSE A CHILD, IT WILL NEVER EVER GO AWAY, THE PAIN THAT YOU ENDURE. ONE LAST QUICK QUESTION TO YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE LEARNED IN YOUR INVESTIGATIVE WORK COVERING THIS CASE THAT PERHAPS WILL NOT MAKE IT INTO EVIDENCE? >> THEY'VE BEEN VERY OPEN WITH EVERYTHING. I MEAN, THE AFFIDAVITS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN COLLECTED HAVE BEEN PRETTY MUCH IN THE PUBLIC EYE SINCE THEY'VE OCCURRED. THIS HAS BEEN COVERED MAINLY, I MEAN, BY INTERNATIONAL PRESS. IT'S NOT MUCH THAT HASN'T BEEN REPORTED THAT WILL BE IN THE TRIAL. >> NORMAN, GOOD TO TALK TO YOU. I SURE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME DURING THIS BREAK. I KNOW YOU HAVE TO GET BACK INTO THE COURTROOM TO GET READY FOR THE TESTIMONY. I KNOW IT'S GOING TO RESUME ANY MINUTE NOW. OUR APPRECIATION. THANKS SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE HAVE TO SAY IF YOU HAD THE JURY BOX SEATS TO THIS CASE. WE CALL IT THE 13th JUROR. THE WAY TO GET INVOLVED. YOU LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. CLICK ON 13th JUROR. DID RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S MOTHER HELP THE PROSECUTION? 76% SAY YES. 24% SAY NO. I WONDER IF THAT WAS A DEMEANOR ISSUE. I'M NOT SURE. WE'LL UPDATE THE RESULTS AS WE CONTINUE TO PROGRESS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. LIVE TESTIMONY RESUMING IN JUST MINUTES. WE'RE BACK AFTER THIS. >>> THE MURDER WEAPON USED TO KILL THE ENTWISTLES CAME FROM HER STEPFATHER'S GUN CABINET. HOW DID IT GET THERE AND HOW DID IT GET BACK? >>> I CALLED HOPKINTON POLICE. >> AND DID YOU ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING? >> I ASKED THEM -- I EXPLAINED THAT I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER WASN'T AT HOME WHERE SHE SAID SHE WOULD BE THAT DAY AND HADN'T ANSWERED THE PHONE ALL DAY AND ALSO WASN'T THERE FOR ANOTHER ENGAGEMENT WITH HER FRIEND. AND THAT SHE ALWAYS, IF SHE MADE PLANS, SHE WAS ALWAYS THERE. AND I ASKED IF THEY COULD GO IN THE HOUSE AND SEE IF EVERYTHING WAS OKAY. >> WELL, IT TURNED OUT THAT EVERYTHING WAS NOT OKAY. THAT'S BECAUSE PRISCILLA HAT WAS ZOE WHO YOU SAW THERE, THE FIRST WITNESS CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION, AS YOU KNOW BY NOW, HER DAUGHTER, RACHEL AND GRANDDAUGHTER, LILLIAN, WERE SHOT TO DEATH IN HER OWN HOME. PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO, THE FIRST WITNESS ON THE STAND, THE EIGHTH CALLED TO THE STAND WAS HER HUSBAND, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO. WE EXPECT HIM BACK WITH LIVE TESTIMONY IN ANY MINUTE AS THEY RESUME IN THE COURTROOM. IN THE MEANTIME, WE'RE SHOWING YOU EARLIER TESTIMONY FROM TODAY, THAT YOU DID NOT SEE. HE'S DESCRIBING MULTIPLE PHONE CONVERSATIONS THAT HE HAD WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE AFTER THE BODIES WERE FOUND. HE CONTINUES HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION HERE. LET'S LISTEN. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU RECEIVE A FAX AT YOUR FAX MACHINE IN THE OFFICE? >> HE FAXED IT RIGHT OVER, YES. >> YOU RECOGNIZE THAT DOCUMENT I PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, SIR? >> YES. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> THIS IS WHAT THE -- 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 SOMEWHERE? >> YES. >> WHERE DID YOU BRING IT? >> TO THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR. >> MAY SHALL -- YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> MAY I DISPLAY IT, YOUR HONOR? >> YES. >> NOW, SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE TEP DOWN, WALK OVER TO THE SCREEN? >> AND DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE SIGNATURE ON THERE? >> YES. >> WHOSE SIGNATURE IS THAT? >> NEIL'S. >> YOU HAVE TO SPEAK UP SO IT CAN BE RECORDED. >> NEIL'S. >> MAY I ASK THE WITNESS TO READ THAT DOCUMENT? >> YES. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT HE SIT DOWN AT THE MICROPHONE IN ORDER TO DO THAT. >> I'LL HAND IT BACK IN. >> HAVE A SEAT, SIR. >> DO I READ THIS? >> POLICE. >> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. I NEIL ENTWISTLE HUSBAND OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND FATHER OF LILLIAN ROSE ENTWISTLE RELINQUISH ALL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FUNERAL ARRANGEMENTS TO JOSEPH AND PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. SINCERELY, MR. NEIL ENTWISTLE, JANUARY 26th, 2006. >> THE LANGUAGE, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, THE LANGUAGE AND THE TEXT CAME FROM THE FUNERAL DIRECTOR? >> YES. >> THE SIGNATURE ON THERE YOU RECOGNIZE? >> AS NEILS. >> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER. >> AS NEIL'S, YES. >> DID YOU SPEAK WITH THE DEFENDANT AGAIN AFTER THAT, SIR? >> NO. >> OVER THE COURSE OF THAT WEEK, SIR, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK TO ONE OR MORE POLICE OFFICERS? >> YES. >> WHERE DID THOSE CONVERSATIONS TAKE PLACE? >> EITHER ON THE PHONE OR AT MY HOUSE. >> WERE YOU VISITED BY THE POLICE THAT WEEK? >> YES. >> AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME, DID YOU GIVE THEM CERTAIN ITEMS FROM YOUR HOME? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU GIVE THEM? >> COMPUTERS THAT WERE UP IN MY OFFICE. ALL MY GUNS AND AMMUNITION. >> EXHIBIT 8 AND 9, YOUR HONOR. SIR, IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT NUMBER 8 -- >> IF YOU COULD LIFT THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU, SIR. >> I'M SORRY. >> YOU MENTIONED A COMPUTER THAT YOU GAVE TO THE POLICE. >> YES. >> IS THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPUTER THAT YOU GAVE TO THEM? >> YES. >> AND THE OTHER EXHIBIT -- YOU CAN'T PUT IT ON TOP OF THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. >> YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD GIVEN THE GUNS AND THE AMMUNITION TO THE POLICE. ARE THOSE THE ITEMS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT NUMBER 9? >> YES. THE OTHER RIFLES I HAD IN THE CLOSET. >> OTHER GUNS NOT DEPICTED IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? >> RIGHT. >> IF I COULD JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. >> YES. >> SOME MORE OF THAT TESTIMONY FROM JOSEPH MATTERAZZO TOOK PLACE EARLIER TODAY. LET'S HEAD BACK OUT, OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE AWAITING THEM ANY MINUTE GETTING STARTED. MORE TESTIMONY, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JOSEPH MATTERAZZO. LET'S CHECK IN WITH BETH KARROS RIGHT NOW. LET'S TALK ABOUT A PROSECUTION MOTIVE HERE. SO OFTEN YOU HEAR IN A SPOUSAL MURDER CASE ABOUT THE SPOUSES NOT GETTING ALONG, HAVING VIOLENT DISAGREEMENTS, SOMETIMES EVEN REAL VIOLENCE IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP. WHAT HAVE WE HEARD SO FAR IN THE COURTROOM ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEIL AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> Reporter: EVERYONE WHO HAS TESTIFIED WHO HAD EXPERIENCE OR EXPOSURE TO THE TWO OF THEM AS A COUPLE, WHETHER IT WAS JUST BEGINNING IN THE FALL OF 2005 OR WAY BACK WHEN THEY BEGAN DATING AND NEIL ENTWISTLE MADE HIS FIRST VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES, BEFORE THEY WERE MARRIED IN 2003, EVERYONE, HANDS DOWN SAID THEY WERE A LOVING COUPLE. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT EMPHASIZED EVERYTHING IS NOT AS IT APPEARS. HE'S REFERRING TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. EVERYTHING APPEARS TO BE POINTING TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. YOU CAN TURN HIS WORDS AROUND AND SAY, THE SAME THING ABOUT THE MARRIAGE. EVERYTHING ISN'T AS IT APPEARED. IT APPEARED TO BE A LOVING RELATIONSHIP. MAYBE NOT SO. NO ONE OVERHEARD ARGUMENTS EXCEPT FOR ONE, PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO SAID SHE OVERHEARD A DISCUSSION, MAYBE A LITTLE HEATED, ABOUT FINANCES. THAT WASN'T THAT LONG BEFORE THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE. NO ABUSE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, NO PHYSICAL ABUSE OR REGULAR ARGUMENTS THAT ANYONE WAS AWARE OF. >> PETER ALLICAN, IF YOU'RE THE PROSECUTOR AND WE KNOW JURORS COME INTO CASES WITH CERTAIN EXPECTATIONS. ARE YOU WORRIED THAT THE JURORS MIGHT EXPECT TO HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT KNOCK-DOWN, DRAG-OUT BATTLES OF PHYSICAL ASSAULTS, RESTRAINING ORDERS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HEAR ABOUT IT IN THIS CASE? >> YEAH. IT'S ONE PROBLEM. THE PROSECUTION SEEMS TO HAVE SO MUCH STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SO MANY OTHER AREAS. IN THIS ONE AREA, IT IS A LITTLE BIT WEAK, THAT THE JURY ALWAYS SAYS, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST WHO'S DONE IT BUT WHY. THAT'S NOT WHAT A TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. DID HE DO OR NOT. WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE REASONS ARE, HOWEVER, THE JURY WANTS TO HEAR THAT. SO FAR WE REALLY HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. IT'S JUST BEEN -- EVEN HER FAMILY WHO OBVIOUSLY THINKS HE'S GUILTY, STILL CAN'T SEEM TO COME UP WITH BIG PROBLEMS THEY HAD IN THE MARRIAGE. NO HISTORY OF ABUSE. NO ARGUMENTS. THERE'S JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANYTHING THERE THAT ANYBODY CAN SEE. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, PETER. BOTH YOU AND BETH, WE'VE BEEN SAYING THIS IS A CLASSIC MURDER MYSTERY INSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM. YOU DON'T HAVE THE TYPE OF TESTIMONY THAT WE OFTEN SEE. THE JURY WILL HAVE A LOT THEY'LL HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE JUST ABOUT READY TO GET STARTED INSIDE THE COURTROOM. THE PARTIES ARE STARTING TO GATHER HERE. THEY'VE BEEN VERY PROMPT. THE JUDGE VERY PROMPT IN HER RUNNING OF THIS COURTROOM. WE EXPECT THEM TO GET STARTED IN JUST A COUPLE MINUTES. BETH WILL STAY ON OBVIOUSLY AND CONTINUE HER COVERAGE, SO IS PETER. AS WE HEAD OUT FOR A QUICK BREAK BEFORE WE TAKE YOU IN, AS ALWAYS, WE WANT TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, IN YOUR MIND, YOUR THOUGHTS. E-MAIL US WITH VIEWS, THOUGHTS, OPINIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, EVEN QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS TRIAL. LOGON TO CNN.COM/CRIME. LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. QUICK BREAK, COME BACK, LIVE TESTIMONY. DON'T GO AWAY. >>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME BACK. WE ARE "IN SESSION." I'M ASHLEIGH BANFIELD. >> I'M JACK FORD. >> WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THEIR, OF COURSE, DIRECT EXAMINATION SINCE EARLY THIS MORNING AND THEN THE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS OF THE STEPFATHER OF THIS POOR RECOMMEND, RACHEL ENTWISTLE WHO WAS SHOT DEAD IN HER BED WHILE CLUTCHING HER BABY. I NEVER FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT THIS, BUT I GUESS IT'S GOT TO BE DONE. >> THE GREAT DILLAMY IS ALWAYS HOW DO YOU ASK THE QUESTIONS. WHAT IS YOUR DEMEANOR. HOW DO YOU GET THE INFORMATION OUT YOU NEED TO GET OUT AND BE CAREFUL YOU DON'T ALIENATE JURORS. THEY ARE THE ONES ULTIMATELY THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION. THAT'S ALWAYS A FINE LINE FOR THEM TO TRAVEL. >> JUST GENTLE WITH HER DEMEANOR. I APPRECIATED THE WAY SHE APPROACHED THIS GRIEVING MOTHER. LET ME GET YOU RIGHT OUT TO THE SCENE. JOINING US LIVE FROM OUTSIDE THE COURTHOUSE IS "IN SESSION'S" BETH KARAS WHO HAS BEEN COVERING THIS FROM THE BEGINNING. SET THE SCENE. I KNOW LIVE TESTIMONY IS ABOUT TO GET UNDER WAY. >> WITNESS NUMBER EIGHT, JOE MATTERAZZO, THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE IS ON THE STAND. CROSS-EXAMINATION BEGAN BEFORE THE LUNCH BREAK AND THAT WILL RESUME SHORTLY. I DON'T KNOW WHO IS LINED UP AFTER HIM. THEY ARE GOING PRETTY QUICKLY THROUGH THE WITNESSES AND IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER FROM THE TIME RACHEL, LILIAN AND NEIL WERE REPORTED MISSING AND THEN THE BODIES FOUND AND WHAT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION FOUND. >> JOE MATTERAZZO HAS HAD AN INTEGRAL ROLE TO PLAY BECAUSE HE SPOKE ON THE PHONE, ONE OF MANY, WITH NEIL ENTWISTLE. THE EXAMINATION HAS CONTINUED. LET'S WATCH AS RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S STEPFATHER IS ON THE STAND. >> THEY WENT OUT TO SEE IF YOUR ALIBI COULD BE PROVEN CORRECT. >> YES. >> AND THEY SPOKE TO VARIOUS PEOPLE THAT YOU HAD ENGAGED WITH OR MET WITH DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR WORKDAY. >> YES. >> AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION BUT THAT EVERYTHING YOU TOLD THEM WAS CORRECT. >> YES. >> JUST AS YOU TOLD US TODAY WHERE YOU WERE AND WHAT YOU DID ON JANUARY 20. >> YES. >> AND IT'S ALSO TRUE IS IT NOT, THAT THE STATE POLICE WERE STILL CHECKING OUT YOUR ALIBI MOVEMENTS ON -- >> OBJECTION. >> SUSTAINED AS TO THE CHARACTERIZATION. >> THE STATE POLICE WERE STILL CHECKING OUT YOUR MOVEMENTS AND WHO YOU WERE WITH AS LATE AS 2007. CORRECT? >> I REALLY DON'T KNOW THAT INFORMATION. >> LET'S FOCUS FOR A MOMENT ON THE FALL OF 2005. >> UH-HUH. >> AND THAT'S THE TIME NOW WHEN RACHEL AND LILIAN HAVE RETURNED FROM ENGLAND, YES? >> YES. >> AND DURING THAT TIME, BEFORE NEIL CAME, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT FOR THE MOST PART, RACHEL WAS TENDING AND CARING FOR LILIAN? >> YES. >> SHE DIDN'T HAVE A CAR OF HER OWN? >> NO. >> AND SO IF YOU WERE AT WORK AND HER MOM WAS OUT AT WORK, THERE WAS NO CAR FOR HER TO GET OUT OF THE CARVER HOME. >> I'M NOT SURE. PRISCILLA MIGHT HAVE LEFT HER CAR FOR RACHEL OR NOT. BUT I DID HAVE A COMPANY VEHICLE AND PRISCILLA COULD DRIVE MY PICKUP TRUCK. SO I CAN'T REALLY SAY THAT. >> AND IF THERE HAS BEEN TESTIMONY THAT PRISCILLA TOOK HER CAR AND WENT TO WORK ON THE FOUR DAYS A WEEK THAT SHE WORKED AT THE MEDICAL CENTER, YOU'D HAVE NO REASON TO CHALLENGE THAT? >> NO. >> AND IF THERE WAS -- IF YOU WERE OFF WITH YOUR CAR, THE WIFE WAS OFF WITH HERS, THEN RACHEL WAS AT HOME WITH THE BABY? >> YES. >> BEFORE NEIL CAME BACK FROM ENGLAND, IT WAS THE HABIT OF THE FAMILY, THE PRACTICE, TO BE AT HOME AND HAVE DINNERS TOGETHER WHEN YOU RETURNED FROM WORK? >> YES. >> IS IT ACCURATE THAT YOU WERE USUALLY THE LAST ONE HOME FROM THE WORKDAY? >> USUALLY, YES. >> AND WHEN YOU CAME HOME, AGAIN, THE PERIOD BEFORE NEIL RETURNED FROM ENGLAND, THE FAMILY WOULD WAIT FOR YOU AND THEN HAVE DINNER TOGETHER? >> YES. >> IT WAS NOT COMMON FOR RACHEL TO GO OFF IN THE EVENINGS WITH FRIENDS? >> NO. >> WHEN NEIL CAME BACK FROM ENGLAND, THAT CUSTOM AND PRACTICE CONTINUED, DID IT NOT? >> YES. >> SO THAT WHEN YOU WOULD COME HOME DURING THE WORKWEEK, THEN THE FAMILY DINNER WOULD TAKE PLACE? >> YES. >> AND IT WOULD BE YOU AND PRISCILLA. >> YES. >> AND THEN THERE WOULD BE RACHEL AND NEIL AND THE BABY LILIAN WOULD ALSO BE WITH YOU? >> SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES SHE WAS IN BED. >> BUT HOME. >> OH, YES, SHE WAS HOME. >> OF COURSE, WE'VE ALSO GOT THE TWO DOGS. >> RIGHT. >> AND FOUR CATS. >> FOUR CATS? >> YES. AND AN OCCASIONAL STRAY. >> I AM CURIOUS. HOW DID THE DOGS AND THE CATS GET ALONG? >> JUST FINE. >> JUST LIKE THE DOGS AND THE DOGS GOT ALONG? >> WELL, THE DOGS LIVE IN THE BARN SO THEY DON'T GET TOGETHER TOO MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. THE OFFICE ABOVE THE GARAGE HAD THE COMPUTER WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT. THE COMPUTER HAD AN INTERNET CONNECTION. >> YES. >> AND IT WAS AN INTERNET CONNECTION THAT WAS A DIAL-UP SYSTEM? DID YOU EVER HAVE TO USE ONE OF THESE THINGS LIKE A PHONE LINE TO PLUG IN? >> YES. >> OKAY. SO YOU PLUG IN ONE END OF THE PHONE LINE TO THE PHONE JACK AND THE OTHER LITTLE END WOULD PLUG INTO THE BACK OF THE COMPUTER? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS THE WAY YOU COULD CONNECT ONTO THE INTERNET. >> YES. >> IN ORDER TO USE THE INTERNET WITH A LAPTOP, ONE HAD TO REMOVE THE PHONE JACK FROM THE BACK OF THE COMPUTER -- I'LL MAKE THAT THE WALL -- AND PLUG IT IN OVER WHERE THE LAPTOP WAS. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >> NO, I NEVER USED THE LAPTOP. >> WERE YOU EVER UP THERE WHEN THE PHONE CORD WAS STRUNG OUT FROM WHERE THE COMPUTER WAS, WHERE THE LAPTOP WAS, LIKE YOU HAD TO STEP OVER IT? >> NO. >> DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT FROM PRISCILLA WHEN SHE WAS UP HERE AND HAD TO CHANGE THE CORDS AT ALL? >> NO. >> OVERRULED. >> IN THE EVENINGS WHEN YOU WERE HOME, THERE WERE TIMES WHEN RACHEL AND NEIL WOULD BE OFF TOGETHER? >> YES. >> BUT ALSO STILL ON YOUR PROPERTY? >> YES. >> AND UP IN THE OFFICE TOGET R TOGETHER. >> I WAS HOME AT NIGHT. I DON'T REMEMBER RACHEL BEING UP IN THE OFFICE WITH NEIL, NO. >> AND WEEKENDS YOU SAW RACHEL AND NEIL TOGETHER? >> YES. >> AND ALSO TIMES THAT THEY WERE IN THE OFFICE TOGETHER? >> NOT VERY OFTEN. >> BUT THERE WERE TIMES WHEN THEY WERE IN THE OFFICE? >> YES. >> BEFORE LUNCH, WE HAD A LITTLE CHAT ABOUT THE FAMILY FLEET. THE CARS THAT YOU OWNED AND HOW YOU ACQUIRED THEM OR THE SOURCE OF MONEY TO BUY THEM. AND THERE WAS CONVERSATION ALSO ONCE RACHEL AND NEIL WERE LIVE WITH YOU IN CARVER AND THE SUBJECT MATTER HAD TO DO WITH AN AUTOMOBILE. YES? >> YES. >> RACHEL WANTED A CAR OF HER OWN. >> YES. >> RACHEL HAD A CAR OF HER OWN WHEN SHE AND NEIL WERE LIVING TOGETHER IN ENGLAND. >> RIGHT, YES. >> AND RACHEL HAD A BMW. >> YES. >> AND YOU KNEW THAT. >> YES. >> YOU KNEW THAT WHEN RACHEL AND NEIL WERE LIVING TOGETHER IN ENGLAND THAT RACHEL ENJOYED THE FACT THAT SHE OWNS A BMW. >> YES, SHE LIKED THE SAFETY OF IT AND THE FEATURES THAT -- >> AND SHE WAS KIND OF PROUD AND HAPPY THAT SHE HAD THIS SLICK CAR. >> YES. >> WHEN SHE'S BACK IN CARVER, SHE WANTED ALSO TO GET A NICE CAR. >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS A SUBJECT OF CONVERSATION AT DINNER. >> YES. >> MORE THAN ONCE. >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT RACHEL AND NEIL WERE LOOKING TO GET A NEW CAR. >> YES. >> YOU WERE AWARE THAT THEY SEARCHED FOR THAT NEW CAR. >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THEY SEARCHED BOTH DEALERS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND USING THE INTERNET TO SEE IF THERE WAS A NEW BMW THAT THEY COULD ACQUIRE. >> I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT THEY DID A LOT OF THEIR WORK ON THE INTERNET, YES. >> THEY CAME AN EVENING WHEN THE SUBJECT OF DINNER TALK WAS THAT THEY HAD FOUND A BMW TO GET. >> YES. >> THERE WAS -- IT WASN'T BRAND, BRAND NEW, CORRECT? >> YES. >> THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT AT DINNER THAT THEY FOUND AN ESSENTIALLY NEW CAR THAT THEY COULD TAKE OVER LEASE PAYMENTS. >> YES. >> IN ORDER TO DO THAT, RACHEL WAS GOING TO BE THE LEASE HOLDER, THE ONE WHO LEASED THE CAR. >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT AT THE DINNER TABLE. >> YES. >> RACHEL COULDN'T DO IT ALL ON HER OWN, THOUGH, COULD SHE? >> NO. >> SHE ASKED AT THE DINNER TABLE FOR SOME HELP. >> YES. >> SHE ASKED FOR SOME HELP FROM HER MOTHER. >> YES. >> AND SHE ASKED FOR SOME HELP FROM YOU. >> YES. >> HER MOTHER HAD TO SAY NO. >> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO HAD TO SAY NO. >> YES. >> YOU KNEW THAT YOU MIGHT NEED A NEW CAR IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> YES. >> AND YOU KNEW THAT IN ORDER TO GET A CAR IN THE NEAR FUTURE, YOU WOULD NEED THE ASSISTANCE OF PRISCILLA TO GET THE LOAN. >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU HAD UNDERGONE A BANKRUPTCY OF YOUR OWN. >> THAT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. >> BUT YOU HAD UNDERGONE A BANKRUPTCY OF YOUR OWN? >> YES. >> AND THAT WAS PART OF THE REASONING WHY YOU COULDN'T ALLOW PRISCILLA TO CO-SIGN LEASE FOR RACHEL TO GET THE NEW BMW. >> NO. >> RACHEL WASN'T PLEASED THAT EVENING, WAS SHE? >> NO, BUT SHE UNDERSTOOD. >> SHE WASN'T PLEASED, WAS SHE? >> SHE WASN'T UPSET, BUT SHE WASN'T, YOU KNOW, NATURALLY YOU WOULDN'T BE HAPPY. BUT SHE -- >> SHE DISPLAYED HER DISAPPOINTMENT. >> MINORLY, I GUESS YOU MIGHT SAY. I MEAN, SHE WASN'T -- >> SHE WASN'T APPLAUDING THE FACT THAT NEITHER HER MOTHER NOR YOU COULD CO-SIGN FOR THE LEASE. IT WASN'T A KICKDOWN SCREAMING I HATE YOU >> NO. >> BUT DISAPPOINTMENT. >> SHE WAS DISAPPOINTED, YES. YES. >> SHE HAD TO GET ASSISTANCE ELSEWHERE? >> YES. >> AND SHE DID. >> YES. >> AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, SHE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THAT WHITE BMW THAT WE SEE IN THE PICTURES. AND THEN SHE WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THAT WHITE BMW. >> YES. >> AND SHE WAS PROUD OF THE FACT THAT SHE HAD A NEW BMW TO DRIVE AROUND TOWN. >> YES. >>> SO SINCE WE WENT TO OUR BREAK, JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, A COUPLE QUICK BACK AND FORTH. AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT NOW, HE'S GETTING UP, LEAVING THE WITNESS STAND. HE HAS COMPLETED HIS TESTIMONY. HE WAS, AS BETH TOLD US, THE EIGHTH WITNESS CALLED BY THE PROSECUTION TO THE STAND. THEY'VE BEEN MOVING FAIRLY QUICKLY INSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM NOW. IT'S INTERESTING. WE SAY IT'S A COURTROOM. YOU LOOK AT IT AND IT'S NOT REALLY A COURTROOM. IT'S A ROOM FUNCTIONING AS A COURTROOM BECAUSE YOU MAY WELL HAVE HEARD BETH EXPLAIN TO US THAT THEY ARE OUT OF THE COURTHOUSE THERE. IT'S A RATHER NICE COURTHOUSE UP THERE, BUT THEY ARE DOING SOME ASBESTOS REMOVAL SO THEY ARE IN ANOTHER BUILDING AND THAT OTHER BUILDING ESSENTIALLY HAS BEEN -- HAD SPACE CARVED OUT WITHIN IT FOR COURTROOMS. NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND. LET'S JUMP RIGHT IN AND LISTEN. >> PLEASE TAKE THE STAND. WATCH YOUR STEP. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. >> DAWN CAMPBELL. D-A-W-N C-A-M-P-B-E-L-L- >> PLEASE PULL YOUR CHAIR A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. >> THANK YOU YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> WHERE DO YOU LIVE? >> HALL. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? >> PRETTYCH ALL MY LIFE. >> HOW OLD ARE YOU? >> 41. >> DO YOU WORK? >> YES. >> WHAT DO YOU DO? >> BOOKKEEPER. >> FOR WHO DO YOU WORK? >> FOR AN ARCHITECT IN NORWELL. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO JANUARY 2006. WERE YOU WORKING FOR THE SAME BOOKKEEPER OR DIFFERENT COMPANY? >> NO, I WAS WORKING FOR JOHN RYAN COMPANY. >> WHERE WAS THAT LECTED? >> AT THE TIME IN ROCKLAND. >> HOW LONG HAD YOU WORK FOR JOHN RYAN? >> ABOUT A YEAR. >> WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THAT BUSINESS? >> ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION WHILE WORKING THERE TO MEET A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF JOE MATTERAZZO? >> YES, I DID. >> WAS HE WORKING THERE WHEN YOU STARTED WORKING THERE? >> YES. >> HE WAS THERE WHEN I WAS THERE, BEFORE I STARTED. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW HIM? >> YES. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION IF I COULD, TO JANUARY 20th, 2006. DID YOU WORK THAT DAY? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT WERE YOUR HOURS? >> I CAME IN AT 8:45 BUT MY HOURS WERE 9:00 TO 5:00. >> WHERE WAS YOUR WORK STATION IN RELATION TO THE MAIN ENTRY. >> RIGHT AT THE FRONT DOOR. >> AND YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING THERE ALL DAY? >> YES. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME, AFTER YOU ARRIVED, DID YOU SEE JOE MATTERAZZO? >> YES, I DID. >> DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH HIM? >> YES. >> WHAT WAS HIS DEMEANOR LIKE? >> HE WAS FINE. HE WAS JUST LETTING US KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING FOR THE DAY. >> WHAT TIME DID HE LEAVE? >> RIGHT AROUND 9:00. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH HIM ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION DURING THE COURSE OF THE DAY? >> YES. >> HOW WAS THAT? BY PHONE OR IN PERSON? >> MOSTLY BY TELEPHONE THEN IN THE AFTERNOON HE WAS THERE. >> SO YOU SAW HIM LATER ON THAT DAY? >> YES. >> WHEN? >> SOMETIME IN MID-AFTERNOON. I'M NOT SURE THE TIME. >> DID HE REMAIN THERE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY AFTER MID-AFTERNOON? >> YES. >> WHAT TIME DID HE LIVE? >> I LEFT AT 5:00. I'M NOT SURE. >> WAS HE STILL THERE WHEN YOU LEFT? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> AND WHEN YOU SAW HIM THAT AFTERNOON, HIS DEMEANOR WAS WHAT? >> HE WAS SAME AS ALWAYS. >> ONE MOMENT, JUDGE? >> HELLO MS. CAMPBELL. >> HELLO. >> QUESTIONS MR. MR. MATTERAZZO IN THE PAST. >> YES. >> BY POLICE. >> YES. >> REMEMBER WHAT DAY THEY TALKED TO YOU? >> PROBABLY RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENED. >> I'M ASKING IF YOU REMEMBER. >> YEAH IT WAS RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENED WITHIN THREE WEEKS. >> OKAY. >> AND HAVE YOU TALKED WITH POLICE SINCE THEN? >> NOT THE POLICE, NO. >> PROSECUTORS? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOTHING, YOUR HONOR. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. >> VERY QUICK WITNESS. AND WITH THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN DOING IS TO PUT A NUMBER OF WITNESSES ON THE STAND WHO CAN BE SURE THAT THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH ALIBIS FOR SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS CASE. JOSEPH MATTERAZZO, FOR INSTANCE, BECAUSE IT WAS -- IT IS A FACT THAT HE WAS THE ONE WHO OWNED THE HANDGUN THAT WAS USED IN THE MURDERS. IT'S ALSO A FACT THAT THAT HANDGUN WAS FOUND BACK IN HIS HOME IN HIS GUN CABINET AND TESTED SUBSEQUENTLY AND SHOWN TO HAVE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, DNA RESIDUE ON THE BARREL OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE, ALSO SHOWN TO HAVE DNA OF NEIL ENTWIFTLE IN THE GRIP AREA. THE PROSECUTION HAS BEEN PUTTING ON WITNESSES TO SHOW THERE IS AN ALIBI FOR MANY OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED. BRAND NEW WITNESS BEING CALLED TO THE STAND. JUST BEEN SWORN IN. LET'S FIND OUT WHO SHE IS AND WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEAD. >> NANCY HUNTLY. NANCY, H-U-N-T-L-E-Y. >> PULL YOUR CHAIR UP TO THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MA'AM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> WHERE DO YOU LIVE? >> STEEFTERN, MASSACHUSETTS. >> DO YOU WORK? >> YES. >> WHAT DO YOU DO FOR WORK? >> I WORK FOR AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING FIRM. IT'S A ONE-GIRL OFFICE. >> WHAT'S THE GAME OF THAT COMPANY? >> VERN G. NORMAN ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED. >> WHERE IS THAT LOCATED? >> SOUTH WAYMATH. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED THERE. >> ABOUT 25 YEARS. >> WHAT DO YOU DO FOR THAT COMPANY? >> BOOKKEEPING, ANSWER THE PHONES, TYPING. A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. >> DOES YOUR COMPANY ASSOCIATE WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN THE AREA? >> YES, WE DO. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPANY CALLED JOHN RYAN ELECTRICS? >> YES. >> HOW LONG HAS YOUR COMPANY BEEN DOING BUSINESS WITH THAT COMPANY? >> QUITE A FEW YEARS. I'D SAY PROBABLY 10 TO 15 YEARS. >> YOUR CAPACITY IS WORKING FOR VERN ASSOCIATES AND HAVING DONE BUSINESS WITH JOHN RYAN, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION IN THE PAST ON ONE OR MORE TIMES TO MEET A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF JOSEPH MATTERAZZO? >> YES. >> HOW DID YOU MEET HIM? >> HE CAME INTO OUR OFFICE ONE MORNING WHEN I WAS THERE TO PICK SMUP DRAWINGS. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THAT MORNING, JANUARY 20th, 2006. WERE YOU WORKING THAT DAY? >> YES. >> WHAT WERE YOUR HOURS? >> 8:00 TO 5:00. >> AND AT APPROXIMATELY SOMETIME THAT MORNING, DID MR. MATTERAZZO, THAT YOU KNOW COME TO PICK UP SOME DRAWINGS? >> YES. >> ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT? >> I WOULD SAY BETWEEN 9:30 AND 11:00. >> SOMETIME THAT MORNING? >> YES. >> CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT? >> I WOULD SAY BETWEEN 10:30 AND 11:00. IT WAS NO LATER THAN 11:00 BUT COULD HAVE BEEN AROUND 9:30. >> DID YOU SPEAK WITH HIM BRIEFLY? >> YES. >> DID HE GET SOMETHING OR DID YOU GIVE HIM SOMETHING? >> HE PICKED UP SOME DRAWINGS. >> DID HE THEN GO ON HIS WAY ABOUT HIS BUSINESS? >> YES. >> AND HIS DEMEANOR THAT DAY? >> NORMAL, FINE. >> DID YOU SEE HIM AFTER THAT OR SPEAK TO HIM AT ALL AFTER THAT DAY? >> NO. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> NO QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. YOU MAY STEP DOWN. >> AND YET ANOTHER WITNESS TALKING ABOUT JOSEPH MATTERAZZO AND THE EARLY PART OF THE DAY OF FRIDAY, JANUARY 20th, OF 2006. THAT AGAIN IS BECAUSE LAST TIME ANYBODY HEARD FROM RACHEL ENTWISTLE WAS THURSDAY NIGHT. PEOPLE THEORIZE THE KILLINGS TOOK PLACE THE MORNING OF JANUARY 20th, 2006. AGAIN, WE'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF WITNESSES ON THE STAND SAYING THEY SAW JOSEPH MATTERAZZO THAT MORNING AND NOTHING SEEMED TO BE OUT OF THE ORDINARY AT ALL WITH HIM. CLEARLY, THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO MAKE SURE THE JURY IS SATISFIED THAT JOSEPH MATTERAZZO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE KILLINGS. A NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND JUST BEEN SWORN IN. LET'S GO INSIDE AND FIND OUT WHO HE IS AND WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> JOSEPH C. MARSY. J-O-S-E-P-H OF C. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> WHERE DO YOU LIVE? >> MIDDLEBORROW, MASS. >> YOUR EMPLOYED? >> YES. >> WHAT DO YOU DO FOR WORK? >> I'M AN ELECTRICIAN. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN AN ELECTRICIAN? >> ALMOST 20 YEARS. >> DO YOU WORK ON YOUR OWN OR DO YOU ASSOCIATE WITH A PARTICULAR COMPANY? >> RIGHT NOW I'M SELF-EMPLOYED. >> AND DO YOU DO BUSINESS WITH COMPANIES, COMMERCIAL WORK, RESIDENTIAL WORK? >> COMMERCIAL. >> ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR BUSINESSES THAT YOU ASSOCIATE WITH IN DOING THAT COMMERCIAL WORK? >> JOHN RYAN ELECTRIC. >> BACK IN JANUARY 2006, DID YOU HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH JOHN RYAN ELECTRIC? >> YES, I AM EMPLOYED AND I HAVE A MINIMAL STAKE IN THE BUSINESS. >> AND WAS THAT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH JOHN RYAN ELECTRIC'S BACK IN 2006, JANUARY 2006? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE CERTAIN HOURS YOU'D WORK EVERY DAY? >> NO, I AM -- I HAVE MY OWN SCHEDULE. >> AND WHERE WOULD YOUR JOBS TAKE YOU? >> I GO ALL OVER THE PLACE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND, NEW YORK. >> I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO JANUARY 20th, 2006. WERE YOU DOING A JOB FOR JOHN RYAN ELECTRIC? >> YES. >> WHERE WAS THAT JOB? >> FRAMINGHAM. >> WAS IT FOR A PARTICULAR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS? >> YES, IT WAS FRAMINGHAM CO-OP. >> WHAT TYPE OF JOB WERE YOU DOING THAT DAY? >> RENO VATH AN OLD DENTIST OFFICE INTO A BANKING SPACE. >> AND DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT TIME YOU GOT THERE THAT MORNING? >> ROUGHLY AROUND -- PROBABLY 3:30, 4:00, IN THAT AREA. >> WERE YOU WORK ON YOUR OWN OR WITH OTHER PEOPLE AT THAT JOB SITE? >> I USUALLY GET THERE BEFORE MOST OF THE OTHER GUYS. THAT'S HARD FOR ME TO RECALL EXACTLY IF I WAS ALONE OR WITH SOMEONE THAT DAY. THE CARPENTERS USUALLY CAME IN AROUND 6:30 AND I'D BE THERE A LITTLE BEFORE THEM AND TRY TO GET AHEAD OF THEM FOR THE DAY. >> WHERE WAS THAT JOB IN FRAMINGHAM AT THAT BANK? >> IT'S CLOSE TO ROUTE 9 BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY EN ROUTE 9. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE I REMEMBER THE STREET. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION OF 126 AND ROUTE 9? >> YES -- >> IN THAT VICINITY? >> YES. >> DID YOU WORK THERE FOR THE BALANCE OF THE DAY? >> ALL DAY, YES. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE EVENTUALLY? >> IF YOU CAN RECALL. >> I ROUGHLY WORK 10-HOUR DAYS. >> SO SOME POINT YOU WERE INTO THE AFTERNOON? >> YES. >> IN YOUR CAPACITY AS HAVING A BUSINESS AFFIL YAGSS WITH JOHN RYAN ELECTRIC, DID YOU COME TO KNOW JOSEPH MATTERAZZO? >> YES, I DO. >> AND HAD YOU HAD BUSINESS RELATIONS INSIDE DEALINGS WITH HIM BEFORE? >> YES. >> ON THAT FRIDAY, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SEE HIM AT THE JOB SITE IN FRAMINGHAM? >> YES, I DID. >> WHAT TIME DID YOU SEE HIM INITIALLY? >> IT WAS AFTER 9:30. BETWEEN 9:30 AND 10:00. >> DID YOU SPEND A PERIOD OF TIME WITH HIM? >> WE WENT OVER THE SERVICE FOR THE JOB AND OTHER THINGS THAT PERTAINED TO THE JOB. WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES WERE FOR THE JOB. >>> WELCOME BACK. THE MAN IN THE TIE ON THE STAND IS AN ELECTRICIAN BY THE NAME OF EDWARD FLAG. HE'S BEING QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS ON THE DAY THEY BELIEVE RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HER BABY WERE KILLED. IT'S ANOTHER ALIBI WITNESS FOR THE STEPFATHER OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILLIAN. YOU KNOW, YOU SAW BEFORE THE BREAK HOW FAST THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THOSE WITNESSES. THEY ARE UP ON THE STAND. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, THEY ARE OFF THE STAND. BY MY COUNT, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR -- ABOUT FOUR -- ABOUT FOUR OF THESE ALIBI WITNESSES IN A ROW. AND WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE OTHER ONE TO POP UP IF THAT'S THE CASE -- IF THAT'S WHAT THE CASE WILL BE, JACK FORD, I'M NOT SURE I'VE EVER SEEN A PARADE OF ALIBI WITNESSES LIKE THIS. NOT UNUSUAL? >> IT'S NOT UNUSUAL WHEN YOUR DEFENSE IS THEY HAVE THE WRONG GUY HERE AND MAYBE IT'S ONE OF THESE OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT EVERYBODY. WE HEARD HIM ASK THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY ASK JOE MATTERAZZO. PLEASE WERE CHECKING OUT YOUR WHEREABOUTS AS LATE AS 2007. SO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IF YOU ARE THE PROSECUTOR, YOU LEAVE NO DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF JURORS. >> NEW WITNESS ON THE STAND. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE RECORD. >> MAUREEN RENARD. M-A-UH RECEIVE H-E-E- H-E-E-N R-E-N-A-R-D. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAN MA'AM. >> WHERE DO YOU LIVE? >> PLIM OITH. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? >> 2001. >> WITH WHOM DO YOU LIVE? >> MY HUSBAND, PETER. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN? >> YES, ONE SON. >> DO YOU WORK? >> I WORK TWO DAYS A WEEK. >> FOR WHO DO YOU WORK? >> AS A TOLL COLLECTOR. >> I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. >> A TOLL COLLECTOR. >> DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY IN THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY? >> YES. >> HOW DO YOU KNOW THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY OR PEOPLE IN THE FAMILY? >> MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IS MARRIED TO PRISCILLA MATTERAZZO. >> MY MOTHER-IN-LAW IS SISTERS WITH PRISAIL MATTERAZZO. >> OVER THE YEARS HAVE YOU COME TO KNOW MEMBERS OF THE MATTERAZZO FAMILY? >> YES. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU MEET A RACHEL SUSAN? >> YES. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET HER? >> ABOUT '97, '98. >> DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET HER? >> I DO NOT. >> FROM THE TIME YOU FIRST MET HER UP UNTIL 2003, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEND TIME WITH HER FROM TIME TO TIME? >> FAMILY FUNCTIONS. NOT A LOT. >> AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU LEARN THAT SHE GOT MARRIED? >> OH, YES. YES. >> DID YOU ATTEND THE WEDDING? >> YES. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO MEET HER HUSBAND? >> YES. >> HER NEW HUSBAND? >> YES. >> WOULD THAT BE NEIL ENTWISTLE, THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE? >> YES, CORRECT. >> WHEN DID YOU FIRST MEET HIM? >> PROBABLY '03. >> AND DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEND SOME TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF HIM AND RACHEL ON THE FIRST OCCASION AND OCCASIONS AFTER THAT WHEN YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THEM TOGETHER? >> YES. I KNEW RACHEL FIRST BEFORE I MET NEIL AS WELL, BUT, YES. >> AND HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THEIR RELATIONSHIP BASED ON WHAT YOU WOULD OBSERVE? >> THEY SEEMED LIKE A HAPPY COUPLE. >> DID YOU LEARN SOMETIME IN 2005 THAT RACHEL WAS PLANNING ON MOVING BACK TO THE UNITED STATES? >> YES, YES. >> WHEN DID YOU LEARN THAT? >> PROBABLY OVER THE SUMMER. >> FROM THE TIME OF THEIR WEDDING IN AUGUST OF 2003, DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO BE IN TOUCH WITH RACHEL? >> YES. >> HOW WERE YOU IN TOUCH WITH HER? >> SHE CAME TO VISIT THE HOUSE WHEN I WAS PREGNANT. SHE -- I'M SORRY. BETWEEN WHEN AND WHEN? >> BETWEEN THE WEDDING AND THE SUMMER OF 2005, BEFORE -- WHEN SHE MOVED BACK HERE. >> YES, YES. I E-MAILED HER ON OCCASION OF THE BABY. ANYTIME SHE WAS AROUND, THERE WOULD BE A VISIT. >> YOU WOULD GO VISIT HER? >> SHE CAME WITH HER MOM TO THE HOUSE A COUPLE OF TIMES. >> DID YOU LEARN IN AUGUST OF 2005 THAT RACHEL AND LILLIAN HAD MOVED BACK TO THE UNITED STATES? >> YES, YES. >> AND DID YOU LEARN THAT IN SEPTEMBER, HER HUSBAND JOINED HER? >> OH, YES. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION IN THE FALL OF 2005 FROM SEPTEMBER 2005 TO JANUARY 2006 TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH RACHEL? >> YES, YES, WE SPENT TIME TOGETHER. >> HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU SPEND TOGETHER? >> PROBABLY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK. >> AND WOULD THAT TIME BE WITH RACHEL AND NEIL AND PRISAIL AND LILLY OR JUST RACH SNELL. >> MOSTLY RACHEL AND LILLY. >> WHERE DID YOU GET TOGETHER? >> SHE JOINED OUR BABY GROUP AT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL. >> WHEN DID SHE JOIN THAT? >> PROBABLY EARLY OCTOBER. MAYBE LATE SEPTEMBER. I'M NOT POSITIVE. >> 2005? >> 2005, YES. >> WHAT WAS THAT BABY GROUP? >> IT WAS A COLLECTION OF MOMS AND A INSTRUCTOR THAT WAS KIND OF A PARENTING GROUP WHERE THE MOTHERS SOMETIMES A FATHER BUT USUALLY MOTHERS AND THE BABIES WOULD COME. AND, YOU KNOW, LEARN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS THEIR TROUBLE WITH FEEDING OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OCCASION TO SPEND TIME WITH RACHEL AND LILLY AND YOUR CHILD DURING THOSE MEETINGS? >> YES. >> DID YOU MEET OTHERWISE AND SOCIALIZE OTHERWISE? >> YES, WE ALSO USED TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE BABIES. >> HOW FREQUENTLY WOULD YOU DO THAT? >> WE'D TRY TO DO IT EVERY WEEK. I DON'T THINK WE DID IT EVERY WEEK BUT QUITE OFTEN. >> WHERE WOULD YOU DO THAT? >> SOMETIMES AT HER HOUSE IN E THE -- AT THE MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE. WE USED TO WALK THEM AROUND IN THE CARRIAGES. >> ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES PER WEEK OR PER MONTH WOULD THAT OCCUR FROM SEPTEMBER 2005 UNTIL JANUARY 2006? >> THE BABY GROUP WAS ALMOST EVERY MONDAY UNTIL MAYBE THE END OF -- MAYBE SOME TIME IN NOVEMBER WHEN I STARTED GOING TO TODDLER GROUP. MY SON IS OLDER THAN LILLY. AND THEN MOST -- I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> HOW MANY TIMES PER WEEK OR PER MONTH WOULD YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE THE TWO OF THEM? >> MOSTLY EVERY WEEK. >> IT WAS EITHER WITH THE GROUP OR SOCIALLY? >> YES. >> AND WHAT ABOUT HER HUSBAND, THE DEFENDANT. WOULD YOU SEE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME? >> YES, YES. >> AND IN TERMS OF RACHEL AND HER NEW CHILD, DID SHE APPEAR TO YOU TO BE HAPPY TO BE A MOTHER? >> YES, VERY MUCH SO. >> WAS SHE HAPPY TO BE BACK IN THE UNITED STATES? >> YES. >> SOMETIME AROUND OCTOBER OF 2005, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH RACHEL ABOUT A MOTOR VEHICLE? >> YES. >> AS A RESULT OF THAT DID YOU AGREE TO DO SOMETHING? >> YES. >> WHAT DID YOU DO? >> CO-SIGNED. >> CO-SIGNED WHAT? >> CO-SIGNED FOR HER LEASE AGREEMENT ON THE BMW. >> AND DID SHE EVENTUALLY GET THAT VEHICLE AS FAR AS YOU KNOW? >> YES. >> DID YOU ALSO CONTINUE TO SEE RACHEL ON VARIOUS HOLIDAYS AND OTHER OCCASIONS WITH THE FAMILY? >> YES. >> IN PARTICULAR, I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO CHRISTMAS EVE. DID YOU SPEND SOME TIME WITH HER AND HER FAMILY AT A FAMILY FUNCTION OR AN EVENT CHRISTMAS EVE OR NEW YEAR'S EVE? >> NEW YEAR'S DAY WE SPENT TOGETHER. >> AND WERE THERE OTHER FAMILY FUNCTIONS FROM SEPTEMBER 2005 -- >> YEAH, BIRTHDAY PARTIES, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> AND AT THOSE OCCASIONS, DID SHE SEEM TO BE HAPPY TO BE A PARENT, TO BE A MOTHER AND TO BE BACK IN THE UNITED STATES? >> VERY MUCH SO, YES. >> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU SAW RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND LILIAN ENTWISTLE? >> PROBABLY JANUARY 9th OR 8th, SOMEWHERE THERE. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT DAY. >> WHERE DID YOU SEE HER. >> MATTERAZZO'S. >> WHAT WAS YOUR REASON FOR BEING THERE. >> TO GET THE BABIES TOGETHER. >> DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK TO RACHEL AFTER THAT AT ANY POINT IN TIME? >> IF YOU RECALL? >> I DON'T THINK SO, NO. NO, NO, I DIDN'T. >> AND WHEN YOU SAW HER ON THE 8th OR THE 9th OF JANUARY, DID SHE -- WAS SHE HAPPY STILL BEING A MOTHER? >> YES, SHE WAS. >>> ON THE STAND STILL, MAUREEN RENAUD WHO IS A FRIEND. SHE'S DESCRIBED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HERSELF AND RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S FAMILY AND HER RELATIONSHIP WITH RACHEL ENTWISTLE AND HOW SHE BECAME FRIENDLY WITH HER. SHE'S ANSWERING QUESTIONS BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEPHANIE PAGE ABOUT THAT. >> -- WITH RACHEL AND LILLIAN. THAT WAS REALLY PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON THE MOTHER ISSUES WITH THE BABY, RIGHT? >> YES, ANY PARENTING ISSUES. THERE WAS SOME FATHER INVOLVEMENT BUT IT WAS USUALLY WOMEN. >> NOW WHEN RACHEL FIRST CAME BACK, HAD YOU SEEN HER BEFORE NEIL ARRIVED? >> YES. >> AND YOU HAD SEEN HER OVER AT THE MATTERAZZO'S HOUSE? >> I AM CERTAIN I MUST HAVE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN, BUT -- >> OH, ACTUALLY, YES, I DO. I DO REMEMBER SEEING HER OVER THERE. YES. >> AND SHE WAS THERE AND SHE DIDN'T HAVE A CAR AT THAT TIME. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I KNOW SHE HAD ACCESS TO A CAR. I DON'T THINK SHE HAD HER OWN. >> SHE DID NOT HAVE HER OWN CAR? >> I DON'T THINK SHE HAD HER OWN. I THINK SHE JUST HAD ACCESS TO A CAR. >> WHEN YOU SAY ACCESS MEANING IF SHE NEEDED TO HAVE A RIDE SHE COULD ASK HER MOTHER OR FATHER? >> YES. >> STEPFATHER. YOU ALSO, I TAKE IT -- YOU HAD NEVER VISITED RACHLE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM IS THAT CORRECT? >> NO. >> SHE'S A VERY POPULAR YOUNG WOMAN, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> SHE WAS VERY NICE. >> SURE. >> SHE WAS A WONDERFUL WOMAN. >> OF COURSE. BUT IN TERMS OF SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE LIKELY TO HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS WHEREVER SHE MIGHT BE FOR A WHILE, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SAY YES TO THAT, BUT JUST TO BE HONEST, I KNEW HER IN THE CONTEXT OF -- >> THE BABIES. >> WE WEREN'T PARTICULARLY GOOD FRIENDS OUTSIDE OF THAT. WE WERE BECOMING BETTER FRIENDS BUT IT WAS ALWAYS ABOUT THE BABIES. HE WEREN'T OUT HOOTING IT UP OR ANYTHING. >> BABIES ARE TIME CONSUMING WHEN THEY ARE YOUNG IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> NOW WHEN -- AFTER NEIL CAME BACK, OBVIOUSLY RACHEL WAS VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HIM BACK HERE? >> YES. >> AND OBVIOUSLY NEIL WAS VERY HAPPY TO BE BACK WITH HIS WIFE AND HIS DAUGHTER, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> I ASSUMED SO. >> AND ANYTIME YOU SAW NEIL WITH RACHEL -- STRIKE THAT. ANYTIME YOU SAW NEIL, HE WAS USUALLY WITH RACHEL AND LILLY, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK ALWAYS. >> AND HE WAS A VERY QUIET SORT OF RESERVED KIND OF GUY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES, VERY MUCH SO. >> HE WOULD OFTEN BE THE, QUOTE, STRANGER IN THE MIX IN TERMS OF THE FAMILY, THE NEWCOMER? >> I DON'T THINK YOU COULD -- IT'S NOT THAT HE WASN'T INCLUDED. IT'S JUST THAT HE WAS A REALLY QUIET GUY. >> QUIET GUY. AT ONE POINT YOU DESCRIBED HIM AS A LITTLE BORING. >> I BELIEVE I DID. >> THAT'S OKAY. NOW ALL THE TIMES THAT YOU SPENT WITH RACHEL, SHE NEVER CLANED TO YOU AT ALL ABOUT MONEY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> SHE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT MONEY, NO. >> OBVIOUSLY, SHE DID NOT HAVE A JOB YET WHEN SHE -- WHEN YOU KNEW HER WHEN SHE FIRST CAME BACK TO CARVER, RIGHT? >> JUST AS A MOM WAS HER JOB. >> AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT SHE HAD HAD A PRETTY GOOD JOB OVER IN ENGLAND TEACHING AT ST. AUGUSTINE'S, ISN'T THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE ALSO AWARE THAT NEIL HAD A PRETTY GOOD JOB IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WORKING IN HIS COMPUTER ENGINEERING FIELD? >> THAT'S WHAT I HAD HEARD. >> AND YOU CERTAINLY WEREN'T WORRIED AT ALL ABOUT RACHEL'S FINANCIAL CONDITION. >> NOT AT ALL. >> SO WHEN SHE APPROACHED YOU ABOUT CO-SIGNING ON THE LEASE, DID SHE TELL YOU THAT SHE NEEDED HELP BECAUSE HER MOTHER AND HER STEPFATHER WOULDN'T CO-SIGN FOR HER? >> NO, SHE SAID THEY COULDN'T. THEY WOULD IF THEY COULD, BUT THAT THEY COULDN'T. >> AND SHE WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY WERE NOT IN THE POSITION TO HELP HER? >> NO, SHE WAS VERY BREEZY. SHE SAID, NOPE, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE ASKED -- I ASKED JOE AND PRISAIL. I MEAN MOM AND JOE AND THEY COULDN'T. SHE WASN'T -- SHE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY CONCERNED. >> AND YOU WERE MARRIED TO HER COUSIN? >> CORRECT. >> SO THAT WHEN YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO CO-SIGN FOR THE LEASE, YOU HAD ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN ABOUT THAT NEIL OR RACHEL HAVING ANY FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES? >> NOT AT ALL, NO. >> AND YOU KNEW THAT THEY HADN'T BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH YET TO ESTABLISH ANY SORT OF -- OR RE-ESTABLISH, IN RACHEL'S CASE, BUT ESTABLISH ANY SORT OF CREDIT HISTORY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> OBJECTION. >> DID YOU KNOW THAT? >> RACHEL TOLD ME THAT -- >> OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. >> SUSTAINED AS TO HEARSAY. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. >> I'LL REPHRASE IT. >> JUST ABOUT TIME FOR US TO WRAP IT UP FOR THE DAY. I WANTED TO SPEND A COUPLE OF MINUTES WITH OUR FRIEND PETER WHO HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO SPEND TIME WITH US UP THERE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. PETER, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONY. MORE FROM THIS WITNESS NOW ABOUT RACHEL ENTWHISTLE AND THIS VEHICLE. A BMW. SORT OF USED. THEY TOOK OVER THE PAYMENTS ON IT AND NEEDED SOMEBODY TO CO-SIGN BECAUSE OF THEIR CREDIT SITUATION. THIS WITNESS WAS THE ONE, ULTIMATELY DID. TESTIMONY FROM HER STEPFATHER JOSEPH MATTERAZZO ABOUT THAT SAME AREA. OBVIOUSLY, JUST BECAUSE IT'S BROUGHT UP DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A MAJOR PIECE OF A PUZZLE HERE, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK THE POINT IS FOR THE DEFENSE TO FOCUS SO MUCH ON THIS VEHICLE AND RACHEL WANTING TO HAVE IT AND BEING HAPPY WITH IT? >> JACK, YOU KNOW, NOT REALLY KNOWING WHAT THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE IS YET, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY LEADING UP TO SOMETHING. I CAN'T QUITE SAY WHERE IT'S GOING, WHAT THAT'S ALL ABOUT. I COME UP WITH A BUNCH OF THEORIES. FIRST OF ALL IT SEEMED LIKE MAYBE THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY RACHEL WAS AS BIG A SPERND AND ENCOURAGING BIG SPENDING AS HER HUSBAND WAS OR MAYBE BRINGING UP THE IDEA THERE DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ANY GREAT -- RACHEL DIDN'T TALK ABOUT GREAT STRESS OR STRUGGLE OR FIGHTING OVER MONEY OR LIKE SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT MONEY PROBLEMS. MAYBE THEY ARE TRYING TO BRING UP THE PHONE, HIT HOME THAT SHE COULDN'T GET MONEY FROM HER OWN FAMILY SO THERE'S SOME KIND OF STRESS AND STRAIN WITH HER OWN FAMILY THERE. BUT I'M JUST ABSOLUTELY SPECULATING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD HERE THAT I'M SURE THERE IS SOME THEORY THAT THE DEFENSE HERE HAS THAT WILL TIE IT IN AND WE'LL ALL SAY, OH, SO THAT'S WHERE IT DEFINITELY WAS GOING. >> WE ALL SORT OF HAD THE SAME THOUGHTS THAT YOU DID. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE SPECULATING. IT MAY WELL BE ACCURATE THERE. ONE OTHER QUESTION TO ASK YOU ABOUT AND GET YOU TO WEIGH IN. ASHLEIGH AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL. HOW THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO HANDLE THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF NEIL ENTWIFTLE TO SHOW UP AT THE FUNERAL OF HIS WIFE AND CHILD. HOW DESTRUCTIVE DO YOU THINK THAT CAN BE FOR THE PROSECUTOR, OR FOR THE DEFENSE HERE AND HOW POSITIVE DO YOU THINK IT CAN BE FOR THE PROSECUTION? >> I THINK IT WAS VERY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE DEFENSE. SORT OF THE THING, THE SCUTTLEBUTT, THE THING THE AVERAGE PERSON ON THE STREET HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS TALKS ABOUT MORE THAN ANYTHING. GEE, IF IT WAS MY CHILD WHO DIED, I WOULD DEFINITELY SHOW UP THERE. WHY WOULD HE -- THE BIG QUESTION IS WHY WOULD YOU RUN AWAY? SO CONSCIENCE OF GUILT. ALL I CAN DO IS PLAY UP THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANGLE. HE IS SO DISTRAUGHT THAT IT'S THE MOST WORST CRISIS OF HIS LIFE. HE'D JUST RUN TO BE IN THE BOSOM OF THE FAMILY BACK IN ENGLAND FOR SUPPORT AND THEN ONCE HE'S THERE, HE IS SO DISTRAUGHT AND SUDDENLY THEY BRING LEGAL THINGS AGAINST HIM. MAYBE IT'S JUST NEATER AND CLEANER THAT THEY ARE STARTING TO POINT THE FINGER AT HIM THAT HE NOT SHOW UP AND UPSET EVERYBODY AT THE TRIAL. I THINK I WOULD KIND OF BE PUSHING ALL THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANGLES. AGAIN, I THINK IT WOULD BE A WEAK ARGUMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE SEEM VERY UPSET ABOUT THE IDEA OF NOT SMOEG UP AT YOUR OWN BABY'S OR LOVING WIFE'S FUNERAL OR EVEN JUST RUNNING AWAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A REAL TOUGH ROAD TO HOE FOR THE DEFENSE ON THAT ONE. >> AT LEAST IT'S AN EXPLANATION. SOMETHING YOU CAN OFFER UP, AS YOU SAID, IN SHOCK. PETER, 30 SECONDS HERE. IT'S UNFAIR TO DOES ASK YOU TO REALLY EXPAND ON BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE QUESTION ANYWAY. WOULD YOU EXPECT TO SEE NEIL ENTWISTLE ON THE STAND TESTIFYING IN THIS CASE? >> NO, I WOULDN'T. HE'S GIVEN SO MANY VERSIONS. HE'S GOT NOTHING TO GAIN AND EVERYTHING TO LOSE. I WOULD SAY NO. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A REAL REASON WHY THEY PUT HIM ON AND MAYBE THERE'S A REASON I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFENSE IS. BUT I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AN ABSOLUTE MINEFIELD. >> YOU AND I WILL TALK ABOUT IT MORE. ALL THE PLUSES AND MINUSES SOMETIME SOON. PETER, AS ALWAYS, DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU WITH US. TAKE CARE. WE'LL TALK WITH YOU REAL SOON. >> YOU CAN CONTINUE TO WATCH LIVE TRIAL COVERAGE ONLINE AT 3:00 P.M. EASTERN TIME. CNN.COM/CRIME. THAT DOES IT FOR US TODAY. WE'LL BE BACK HERE TOMORROW IN THE COURTROOM LIVE. A WHOLE LOT MORE GOING ON. PROBABLY MORE OF THAT POWERFUL TESTIMONY. >> MYSTERY CONTINUES. NOT ONLY IN THIS CASE BUT ALSO IN STRATEGIES AND FIGHTING IT. >> IT'S AN INTERESTING ONE. SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW. TAKE CARE. |