Well, we start with our normal morning sidebar…
John Soares returns to the stand –
We began yesterday discussing what duties you preformed at Logan Airport? Yes sir.
Soares identifies a photo of the BMW.
Describe the interior of the vehicle from to back. The driver seat was reclined. He saw a Dasani water bottle, a Dunkin Donuts coffee cup and a baby seat. Another water bottle and coffee cup was under the driver’s seat. There was also some clothing in the back seat.
Soares didn’t see visible blood. He swabbed the lip area of the drinking items. He tested for gunshot residue from the steering wheel area.
The test designation was given item 9-2. Dasani is item 9-6. He recovered a black shirt and animals hairs. All the items were taken back to the lab for examination.
Soares identifies the items he recovered.
He examined the console areas. He found a set of BMW keys and a parking receipt. On the dash console was a sponge and another seat of keys. He is given the items and identifies them.
The items are marked as exhibits.
Soares is now given a set of photographs. He identifies the photos of the BMW as being accurate.
The photos are put up on the ELMO and Soares points out the items in the BMW. Photos marked as exhibits.
The previous day when you were at the home you said a gunshot residue kit was used to test Rachel’s and? Yes, it was item 5-12. The swabs from the walls were items 5-9, 5-10 and 5-11.
After the baby was moved, what did you observe about Rachel’s arm? Rachel’s left arm was pointing out, her one finger was pointing out and the other fingers were clenched.
Photos of the bodies are shown and again the judge instructs the jury to put aside emotions while viewing the photos.
None of the feeds are showing the grisly pictures; rather, the camera is focused on the back of Neil Entwistle's head. The viewer can only see the left side of his face and he appears to be emotionless, occasionally blinking his eyes.
How much time total, did you spend at the airport that morning? Approximately 2 hours.
February 10th, Soares went to Hopkinton Police and performed a gunshot residue test on the BMW keys. The police gave him a knife block with several knives that he brought back to the lab.
Cross - Weinstein
You are not a State Trooper. No.
Employed by Mass. State Police. Yes.
He goes into Soares duties and the fact that he works with proctors and investigators. He collects and analyzes what he is asked to.
He decides what is of probative value? Weinstein insinuates that he overrules investigators and prosecutors and explains why he feels what is of value and explains. If he is told to evaluate, he does it.
Weinstein asks if he does his tests to implicate a specific person. He does not. Weinstein also elicits that he goes in with an open mind and is fair, with the knowledge that things may not be what they seem to be.
When he goes to a crime scene, he knows in a general way what he might want to investigate. After the general meeting, he knew there were two bodies, not that there was blood.
He was charged with diagramming, identifying and collecting biological evidence. His partner, Dygan and he worked as a team.
He did some presumptive tests at the home. He watched Miss Dygan do her work and made sure procedures were followed.
He collected items from the home. He thinks it was about 11 items he collected.
A member of the Crime Scene Services section entered first.
He doesn't know how many people were in the room prior to his entry.
This is where we get the usual crime-scene contamination issue...
He wasn't aware if the bed or the coverings had been moved, repositioned.
He wasn't aware if anyone touched the bodies before he got there.
He is only aware of the crime scene as of the point he got there.
Ms. Ritchie's fingerprinting came after his work was performed.
He was careful not to touch anything? He was gloved.
Weinstein repeats the question... Yes, he was careful.
Ritchie did fingerprinting several hours after he finished his work.
The Crime Scene Services did the photography before Ms. Ritchie did her work.
He was very concerned to learn everything he could from the crime scene.
He tested significant spots for blood, including the wall.
He went into the walk-in closet. He doesn't recall if it was photographed. He took notes of his observations of the closet. He didn't test anything because there wasn't anything readily apparent.
The same can be said of the bathroom. It was photographed.
There was blood on the bed. He looked into the bathroom to see if there was blood. Someone else examined the bathroom. He went in but didn't see anything. He saw Dygan do a presumptive test on a towel. Nothing else was tested.
Weinstein points out that some staining is readily apparent, but other biological evidence isn't. It's called occult blood that can't be seen with the naked eye. There are methods he can use to search for occult blood. There are special lights that were available to him to do that. There are also chemicals that can be used. He didn't use these tools, nor did his partner.
Weinstein goes through all the items they didn't test...
They didn't check the trap on the sink.
Weinstein points out that they were supposed to be thorough and complete, yet they didn't do all the above-mentioned.
Weinstein says he wasn't thorough and Soares disagrees.
Soares made the decision not to test for discrete blood and if found, it could have been tested and matched.
You didn't do it? Correct.
He made the decision not to search for non-visible blood when there was visible blood on the wall and the decedents.
Occult blood might have told you something? Yes.
Weinstein asks about various paper methods for evidence collection. Yes, brown paper bags.
Did you use any test papers? Confirmatory test paper on Lillian’s pajamas. Part of the gunshot residue collected.
The gunshot residue was collected from the home.
Testing was done on Lillian’s pajamas and Rachel’s hands and shirt.
He didn’t test everything that might have contained gunshot residue.
Logan Airport - He was part of a team, the only civilian.
He had no idea of what they might find. He was looking for items of evidentiary value.
He looked for evidence of bloodstains. He was thorough in his work at Logan that day. He examined each compartment. First, the vehicle was photographed by someone else; then he started his visual examination, looking for bloodstains. He looked carefully and saw no indications of bloodstains on the steering wheel. He considered occult blood. He used chemical tests and did not find any indication of blood on the steering wheel.
He examined the seat and didn’t see any obvious bloodstains. He tested the driver’s seat for occult blood. The test was negative.
He examined the interior driver’s door. Again, no blood was obvious or occult.
He checked the side of the seat where the seat adjustments are because the seat was in a reclined position. Again, no signs of blood.
Collected water bottles for evidence. He didn’t test them for blood, they were never tested. No blood on console (both tests).
Gearshift had no blood (both tests).
He continued the examination through “sections and sections” of the car and found no signs of blood, either evident or occult.
He checked the cargo compartment. No blood.
He checked the outside of the car for blood. No blood.
Okay.... there was no blood!!! You’ve made the point, Mr. Weinstein.
He tested the steering wheel on the steering wheel. It was his decision. He collected stubs from the steering wheel. Another unit at the lab tested it.
Weinstein asks if he asked if he put a rush on gunshot residue? Yes.
It was very important? Yes.
Jan. 27, 2006, Did you have something else to do with this case? I don't believe so.
Was he contacted by Mr. Drugan? I don't know.
Does he have records? Not of phone contacts.
He takes notes in field, examining items of significance like BMW, writes reports? Yes.
There is a case log in the lab to memorialize activity involving the investigation? Yes.
You don't recall a conversation with Mr. Drugan the 27th? I do not.
He is shown a document to refresh his memory.
He now remembers contact with Mr. Drugan about collection of gunshot residue from Rachel's hands, BMW steering wheel. That's when the rush order was transmitted.
There was also note made to contact prosecutor as soon as possible.
February 9th? I think February 10th. He did not examine the BMW again, he examined the keys. They were brought to him at the Hopkinton police department. He knew he would be getting a set of keys that day. Trooper Banks told him where the keys came from. Trooper Banks wanted gunshot residue tests done on the keys. He didn't say "no" to Banks. He tested the keys at the police station. He could have done that at Logan Airport. He didn't test at Logan because he chose not to - the steering wheel would be a better choice.
Weinstein stresses that he "closed the door" on whether to get possible evidence.....
What we're getting at here is the choices Soares made. Weinstein wants to stress that EVERYTHING wasn't tested for EVERYTHING.
February 16th - Soares doesn't recall connection with this case.
Was there any time he was in contact with Miss Dygan about changing the protocols for this case? Was there any deviation of normal protocols? Yes.
He and his supervisor made the decision in terms of the pillowcase and gunshot residue.
He didn't deal with the pillowcase at the home. Kevin Stigan, his boss, decided not to test to gunshot residue. It was examined but not tested. It deviated from normal protocols.
The decision not to test wouldn't change the results.
But is shows the care and attention you scientists paid to the case? Yes.
Gunshot residue was sent to State Crime Unit arson lab.
Weinstein and Soares go through the nature of gunshot residue and why they test for it.
Negative occult blood test indicates no blood is present on the surface, does not say if anything else is present.
Re: hairs or fibers
Hairs were recovered from the lower bed frame.
Why were no occult blood tests done at 6 Cubs Path? There was visible blood available.
Why no gunshot residue tests beyond steering wheel of BMW? Steering wheel was the best location for gunshot residue.
Next witness is called by Daniel Bennett - Jeremy Roybal, he works for E-bay that Pay Pal bought. He’s been there 8 years and he is a fraud investigator.
He collected records on Neil Entwistle and put them on a CD. He identifies the CD and it is marked as evidence.
He retrieved information on Pay Pal accounts that Entwistle had.
The document in front of you, do you recognize it? Yes.
The name on it is Neil Entwistle and has a UK address. The document has an email address and the document was created, 10/13/04, 4:50pm pacific standard time.
What is the significance of that time?
Objection – sidebar
How are these records created? When the customer presses enter the information goes into a database and goes into the appropriate column and row.
He is shown another document. It has Entwistle’s name and a different email address. Created 2/6/03 at 5:43.
A third document is shown, created 5/27/03 at 8:18.
He now identifies a document that ties to Rachel on
There are a 7 of these documents shown.
all 6 of Neil’s documents show different addresses!
They are displaying the files on a computer. What is the significance of all the folders on the report? They are different Pay Pal accounts. (Set up by Neil)
We have had all kinds of problems with video, sound and computers today! As the judge said, “it is Friday the 13th.”
What is action data? Are there certain words in there that have meaning for you? Yes.
Line 213 on this account, is there a date? Yes Jan. 21st.
Objection – sidebar…sheesh
Column C contains the IP address who is making the transaction.
Column E contains “com res – case closed” which means a conflict between a buyer and seller is resolved.
Auto refund issued because seller never responded to buyer.
Line 225 of the report – transaction date Jan. 20, 2006. Buyer complaint submitted. Dispute for non-receipt.
Line 218 - January 20, 2006 – auto refund because seller never responded to buyer.
Line 223 – January 20, 2006 – auto refund because seller never responded to customer.
So, Neil did many transactions where he screwed the customers.
The owner of the account, Neil, didn’t log in on January 19, 18 17th ….
Objection - sidebar
On January 16th did anyone log in? No sir.
On the 15th, did anyone log in? No sir.
January 14th? No sir.
January 13th? No sir.
January 11th? No sir.
January 10? Yes sir.
Court in recess for lunch
Jeremy Roybal back on the stand…
Now go to line 300 and go to column A…date is Jan. 19th never responded to buyer and monies refunded
302 complaint - another refund for non-receipt
304 complaint - another refund (December timeline now)
305 compliant - another refund
Line 307, same
Line 309, same
Line 310, same
Line 311, same
Line 312, same
Line 313, same
This continues on, line-by-line…we are into line 656, all the same.
OK, we get the point…Neil was scamming people!!!
We are now looking at Rachel’s account – line 247 shows January 5th, the action is web account created.
Line 94 – January 16th – action was web login.
Line 88, login
Line 85, login
This continues on, line-by-line…Rachel logged in on the 19th of January.
So, Neil apparently was logging into Rachel’s account!
Ritanita says - What I want to come out in testimony is this:
If all these people paid the full price of these items to Neil at PayPal, what were his transactions to move the money out of PayPal to another account? Seems he would have made a lot of money since PayPal funded the 50% refunds.
Now we are at the transaction file, where buyers and seller can communicate. Date 1-18-06 the note says, they “you are entitled to a refund.”
As they go through the lines, the seller keeps saying the item was shipped, however you are entitled to a full refund.
Some also say, “I am sorry you feel this is a con.”
Some also say they have sent several emails regarding the purchase and shipment, “check your spam folder.”
“The item was shipped, please return at my cost and you will receive a full refund with our best regards.”
This is pitiful.
We have another CD with 7 files that were used for the subpoena of Entwistle files and it is marked.
Another sidebar –
No further questions.
Cross - Weinstein
E-Bay and PayPal are now one company? Yes.
PayPal founded in November 1999?
E-Bay bought it in 2002.
PayPal is an entity which facilitates the purchase? Yes.
There is a form of satisfaction guaranteed? Yes.
If a buyer isn’t satisfied, they can get a refund back from PayPal. No.
Weinstein explains how PayPal works.
Weinstein tries to explain how buyers get money back from PayPal.
It is such confusing questioning! It seems as though Weinstein had difficulty himself with the processes.
I don’t think I’ll ask you any more questions, Mr. Roybal.
Bet Weinstein feels that he stepped in a cow paddy with his cowboy boots!
Next witness – Deanna Dygan, chemist with the crime lab. She examines physical evidence from crime scenes. Blood, biological and trace evidence.
Dygan goes through her CV and training.
January 22nd, did you respond to the Hopkinton police department? Yes.
What time did you arrive? 10pm.
There were a number of officers and crime scene people.
The team went to 6 Cubs Path at 1:30am.
The entered the home and proceeded to the master bedroom.
She describes the bedroom and the started documenting the scene.
They looked for biological evidence and red-brown stains.
Soares did the chemical testing while she documented.
Dygan preformed the GSR testing.
They folded back the comforter…there was an adult female and an infant.
The adult was lying on the left side of the bed with her knees brought up around waist level.
The adult had her arm over the child’s chest.
She had red-brown staining on her face as well as her arm.
They moved the bodies to examine them more closely.
The baby had a sleeper on and a onesie, the adult had a green shirt and floral underpants on.
Dygan is given an evidence bag an identifies there are 2 paper bags and a plastic bag.
She opens the bag containing Rachel’s shirt and identifies it.
She opens the second bag and identifies it as Rachel’s underpants.
Dygan opens another evidence bag and identifies Lilly’s pajamas. The front of the pajamas had re-brown staining in the chest area and a black residue.
The GSR test was conducted with filter paper and chemicals and it tested positive.
Dygan opens another bag that contains Lilly’s onesie.
She and Soares also spent time gathering additional evidence. Soares examined several pieces of bedding. A human hair was collected from the right bed frame.
They searched and documented the rest of the house.
Dygan opens another bag that contains the hair and swabs taken of the blood on the bedroom wall.
They left the home at 6:30am and they transported the items back to the lab.
At the lab, she began processing the items removed from the home on the 25th.
She processed pillowcase #1 was under Lilly and Rachel’s head. Pillowcase #4 was over Lilly’s face.
There was re-brown stain on pillowcase #1 and she tested and confirmed it was human blood. The pillowcase also had GSR. She documented by photograph.
She is handed 3 photographs and she identifies pillowcase #1. She identifies the areas she tested for blood on the photo.
Photo two is of the same pillowcase after the chemical testing. It shows where the GSR is.
Photo three is the pillowcase with high-speed velocity splatter noted.
High-speed velocity splatter can be caused by bombs, gunshot or machinery injury.
What is the distance would this occur in? 2-4 feet.
Court adjourned for the day.
That’s a wrap for today. Have a great weekend and see ya on Monday!
Ritnita was my faithful co-reporter today!