Entwistle is in court and the judge has called a sidebar.
Well, it’s 9:50 and one of the jurors has not shown up yet!
Beth Karas says a juror is delayed and trial won't begin until 10:45.
Trial finally begins at 11am.
Sgt. Mary Ritchie is back on the stand -
I asked whether you photographed the ridge detail on the colt firearm. Yes.
She points out on the gun the10 areas where the found prints.
The trigger lock had 3 areas of ridge detail. They didn’t have quality or quantity to do a comparison.
You had begun to describe the items you examined? Yes, several guns, ammo, etc.
Kind of repeating some of yesterday’s testimony.
Ritchie identifies the green ammo box and examines the items inside.
She affirms these were items her team examined.
She is given another box and examines the contents. Where there other handguns in that box? I don’t know without looking at my notes. But, the items in the box were there any ridge detail? No.
Did you take photos and video of the outside of the 6 Cubs Path house? Yes.
Ritchie is looking through photographs and confirms they depict the outside of the house and area. They are marked as an exhibit.
Did you examine the windows and door? Yes, no evidence of forced entry was found.
Oh no, the dreaded diagrams again!
Ritchie shows their movement through the rooms where they shot video and photographs. They go floor-by-floor through them.
Ritchie identifies a DVD that the video is on. It is accurate. There is also some sound on the DVD. It is marked as an exhibit.
They are going to play the video that will show the bodies of Rachel and Lilly in grisly detail – the judge gives an instruction to the jury…put aside any sympathy or any other emotions.
The monitors aren’t working so the jurors go on a short break.
Equipment fixed and the jury is brought in.
You can hear the classical music coming from the Lillian’s room.
Neil sits with his hand over his mouth and looks distressed. He closes his eyes and drops his head for a moment. He’s now weeping.
Funny, shades of Bobby Cutts…I see no tears.
Neil’s mother is slumped against her husband, crying. His father has his head down as does his brother. Each of them has wiped tears away.
Neil has managed a few tears and he is aware the camera is focused on him.
Beth Karas says the monitor was parallel to the audience and she's not sure if the mother saw it at all. She theorizes she either saw a little of it OR she was crying because Neil was crying.
From what I can see, Weinstein has had his eyes averted through the playing of the DVD.
The viewing of the video is over.
That’s all for the prosecution.
Cross by Weinstein –
(Substitute "you" for "she" and "they" since she essentially agrees with what Weinstein says.) She has been with Crime Scene Services Group for 16 years.
Weinstein goes into how she selects evidence to be collected. She points out that the scene is videotaped first.
She has to collect it so as to not interfere with later analysis. She doesn’t want to contaminate crime scene evidence.
She builds in methods into the procedures so you and others will not contaminate the scene or any individual item of evidence. If she did, the evidence may not be valid, may be questioned, may not be reliable.
Knew she had major event when called to 6 Cubs Path, had 2 dead bodies. She knew she would have a major responsibility when she got there. When she got there, other officers were on the scene. She went to the police station first to await the search warrant. She names police officers that were at the police station.
She talked to officers to ascertain if officers had maintained integrity of the scene, since officers had already been in the house. Her hope is that the area she is going to investigate hadn’t been compromised.
When she arrived she didn’t know who was responsible for the deaths of Rachel and Lillian.
She had a group discussion about what you would do when you went to the home.
They went to the house, looked around and made a decision where to begin to focus in their work. Before she touched anything, she wanted to document how the house was found. They took photographs and video.
One of her areas of expertise is fingerprint analysis. Before making a comparison, it was her decision to begin the step for potential fingerprint analysis. She didn’t want anyone to touch anything that could be contaminated.
They started in the master bedroom, looking for potential latents on surfaces. It was a meticulous process, careful, because they had no idea if an individual item might have evidentiary significance, something that would help them determine whether someone did or did not touch an item.
They take “exemplars” of people who could have touched things in the house to compare with prints found.
She took various latents from the house. It was done with the objective of identifying the person who held the object.
She had an open mind as to who committed the crime.
There are items that were not processed because she decided they wouldn’t help in the investigation. In making the decisions, she hopes she errs on the side of caution.
They go on about how items are chosen and processed.
Weinstein asks which are the items she selected for further analysis from the house:
Interior door from garage to hall.
Master Bedroom: bedpost, headboard, bedrails, walls, door, doorjambs.
Interior and Exterior doors of residence.
Kitchen windows - about 3.
Weinstein makes that, 11 items in all at the scene.
Did she receive other items she received from the house for analysis? Yes.
She goes over her report and changes her answer. Did not receive other items from the house.
Dunkin’ Donuts Coffee Cup?
She looks confused.
She does not have another item she processed in her report. Referring to item 12-3. He is looking at the Forensic Services Index, she is looking at her own report.
She did not receive item 12-3. It was received by the State Police Crime Scene unit in Boston.
There was also a Dasani water bottle? Yes.
Starbucks coffee cup? Yes.
Aquafina water bottle? Yes.
All sent under item 12? Evidence comes into several labs. These came into Boston.
6 Cubs Path wasn’t the only home for fingerprint analysis?
Carver home? She wasn’t involved with that.
Weinstein points out items from the Carver house she testified to earlier. Item 17... ammo boxes, gun, came to her lab. She forgot the name of the town. She recalled it as the Matterazzo home.
She didn’t go to the Carver home to collect those items. She didn’t make the decision what to take from Carver.
The State Police Detectives rely on her to decide what evidence to take. She has trained officers? She doesn’t do training.
Weinstein continues on about keeping an open mind about what evidence to collect for fingerprint analysis.
Items “17” all came from the Mattarazzo home, you know that? Yes.
He lists the items we saw earlier.
KimmyGibbler tells us -On TTV earlier, it was discussed how Neil, if guilty, had also left the family dog to starve to death. The TH's were saying how huge of an impact that often has on juries--anytime someone does harm to a dog, it really gets a reaction. So on top of the deaths of 2 people, the dog was endangered too in this case.
Donchais, Weinstein is getting tedious again!
Weinstein gives the names of all people for whom they had exemplars, including police who had been at the house. There are 24 in all.
Did she ever examine a laptop to see who handled it? No.
Was one presented to anybody to analyze? Weinstein shows her his papers to determine this. Long pause while she examines all the pages...
Were YOU ever presented a laptop computer in connection with this investigation for fingerprint comparison analysis? No.
The jury is probably thinking, "Why is he asking her about things she DIDN'T see or analyze?"
Was anyone? No.
They located friction ridge details on other guns? Yes.
How many? About 24.
Were any sufficient in size and quality to make a further analysis? No.
Do you have any training in firearms? No.
Next witness – Trooper Emily Phaneuf-Lebreque. She is part of the crime scene services. Technician in prints, documenting, videoing and photography.
She arrived at Hopkinton after midnight to process the residence regarding a double homicide. She helped process the bedroom. She is the one who took the photographs of the entire home.
She also processed the 1st floor for fingerprints and also the cellar door. She also looked for forced entry, there was not.
OMG! The floor plan diagrams again!!!
Fabbri has her identify the area in the downstairs that she processed.
He shows her three photographs and has her point out on the floor plan what is shown.
The photos are marked as an exhibit.
On the basement door she found friction ridge detail just above the bolt on the exterior door. She photographed it and did a latent lift. See identifies the photo of the print.
Any other areas that had ridge details? Not in sufficient quality and quantity.
Can you tell when a latent had been deposited? No.
Did you perform further work on this case? Yes, the 25th we received several additional items? Yes, the firearms.
Did you ever receive a laptop to examine for fingerprints? No.
Next witness – Lisa Scoutlas, works for Intrinsic, she recruits, reviews resumes and maintains them.
February 2005 she received and email, cover letter and resume from Neil.
After phone tag they spoke. He told her he and Rachel were relocating to the US. She had no openings and did not have an interview.
He contacted her again in September. She received another resume in December and said he realized he wasn’t qualified for the position posted. The job required US citizenship. She told him that she had nothing to offer him.
Did you ever offer him a position? No.
Fabbri has her review some documents.
She identifies them as the documents from her company file.
Cross - Page
Her job as a recruiter is to recruit new, young people for your company? Yes.
It’s your job to keep in touch by e-mail and phone? Yes.
You contact people who may have a place in your company? Yes.
Neil Contacted you in 2005? He was still in England? Yes.
After the baby was born? Doesn’t know, Page says before.
Jobs are posted on Monster.com.
It’s not unusual for people to go to Monster.com to find a job? No.
He sent his resume and applied as Senior Design Engineer? Yes.
5-7 years electrical engineering involved in customized integrated circuit design, FPGA’s.
Spoke to Neil sometime after Feb. 2005 and again after the baby was born? Yes.
It was a pleasant conversation? Yes.
They’d moved to Hopkinton? Yes.
You said the conversation was light and airy? Yes.
You told him to keep in touch? Yes.
You referred him to others? A recruiter with Pro-Tech careers? Around June, 2005.? Yes.
Referred him to Barry Ross? Yes.
Had he been offered a job not in the Boston area by Barry Ross? No.
September, 2005 Neil sent you an updated resume? Yes.
He was still keeping in touch? Yes.
December, 2005, he was responding to a position you posted? He was checking in, he knew he wasn’t qualified for the position.
When Mr. Entwistle contacted you, he wasn’t saying he was qualified for jobs he wasn’t qualified for? No.
Document: Resume from Neil Entwistle.
It lists his qualifications? Yes.
What is his level of education Degree: Masters Hons. In Electrical Engineering, U. of York, UK
She goes on to read the coursework.
Did he list past work experience? Yes.
July 2001 - August 2005
Kinetic - spin off of UK Defense Electronics Research Center
Lists his responsibilities
The witness is unable to explain what the technical language means.
He says he has excellent IT and programming skills.
Novice and Senior Men’s Rowing Captain
I-EEE Computer Society
One job required US citizenship? Yes.
One required more experience? Yes.
He also sent a cover letter? Yes.
Monday, Jan. 31, 2005 is the date on the first cover letter, the second in Sept.
Referring to the second letter:
The witness has to read the letter, not testify about the information in it.
She reads the contents of the second paragraph of the letter which stated he was living in US and had work documentation.
She reads the second sentence of the third paragraph. Mentions work he had geared himself to do.
He chose business management options for his long-term career goals. Has a degree in Business Management.
He spent a “gap” year with IBM and Kinetic.
Can it take a while for a person to find a job? It depends.
Next witness – John Soares. He works in the crime lab for the state police. He does forensic biology at the lab. He gives his CV. He specializes biological recovery and trace materials and blood stain analysis.
He was called to 6 Cubs Path at 1:30am to investigate the double homicide along with Deanna Dygan.
He entered the house and heard loud classical music. He entered the master bedroom. He saw the comforter on the bed and items strewn on the floor. The temperature was 64 in the bedroom.
He saw a yellow rag on the floor with a stain. They screened it for the possibility of blood. It didn’t test positive.
He proceeded to the end of the bed and there was a book, T-shirt and a sweatshirt. They weren’t stained.
Glasses and a gold watch were collected from the floor.
Soares is handed 2 bags and asked to identify what’s in them.
Bag one has the glasses, bag two has the watch.
Soares is shown a photo of the bed stool and watch and he identifies it is as it appeared that evening.
Next photo shows the watch.
The bed itself had white sheeting and a comforter. When the comforter was pulled back, there was red-brown staining on the underside of the comforter. It tested positive for blood.
He saw the adult lying on her left side; the child’s face and chest were covered by a pillow. The underside of the pillow had red-brown stains that tested positive for blood.
They saw red-brown staining on Rachel’s hairline and red-brown staining on the baby’s face.
There was blood on the pillow under Rachel’s head.
Lilly had a dark residue on her sleeper and her onesy. They saw a black mark on Lilly’s chest, but no wound.
Rachel’s shirt had blood satins. However, the top sheet covering had no blood. The fitted sheet was blood saturated.
Two holes were in Rachel’s shirt and she had a black mark on her breast, but no wound.
They tested the black residue and they found it positive for lead – gunpowder.
The comforter, light and bed, were they photo documented? Yes sir.
He identifies the several photos of the bedroom and of blood satins.
They are all marked as exhibits.
Soares is given a bag that contains cuttings from the blood stained comforter. He identifies the item.
Next he identifies the top sheet from the bed.
Soares now identifies the fitted sheet.
He identifies pillow case number one, the pillow was the one under Rachel’s head.
Next identifies pillow case number 4 that was covering Lilly’s face and chest.
Soares tested with a gun shot residue kit on Rachel’s hands.
Soares tested red-brown stains on the wall on the right side of the bed. The size of the four stains, were 4mm to 5mm. They were 4 feet 9 inches up the wall and 4 feet 6 inches across the wall.
Soares identifies photos of the satin on the wall.
Test on the stains a, b, and d tested positive, stain c did not test positive.
Stains were found in Lilly’s room that did not test positive.
They examined the 1st floor and basement and garage, nothing evidentiary was found.
He was at 6 Cubs Path for several hours.
January 24th he went to examine the BMW at Logan Airport. A number of police officers and crime scene people were also there.
Soares identifies a photo of the BMW.
Court is adjourned for the day.
As always, ritanita co-reported today - thanks!