The Entwistle Notebook

~ Baby Lilly

On one side of the notebook, he professes love for his "Orange Rose" and "my Lilly." On the other side, he drafted letters, looking to sell the story of their deaths to the highest bidder.

Entwistle had the notebook with him when he was arrested in London three weeks after the slayings. In it, he calls his wife his "soul-mate" and "very best friend." "As a husband, I could never dream for more."

He wrote of the pain of losing his wife and daughter in what "sounds" like a suicide note - "I miss my wife and daughter so much it feels like I am completely empty inside.”

"The void grows larger each day and I fear a lifetime of this can only bring more pain. I need to be with them again, my Orange Rose and my Lilly."

On the other side of the notebook, he drafted two letters to editors.

He described himself as a "close friend and confidante" of Entwistle, and says he wants to "tell his side of the story."

"What's of interest to us is what price you would be willing to pay for exclusive rights to the full story."

Yesterday, Priscilla said to a packed courtroom, "Suffering does not begin to describe what we have been enduring without our beloved Rachel and Lillian.”

"I have lost two generations of my family."

Poor Phil Spector: No New Judge for Retrial

The ruling from the California Supreme Court was wonderful news to wake up to this morning.

E! Online reports:
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review an appellate court's refusal to order a hearing on the defense's wish to have the judge who presided over Spector's first murder trial removed from the case.

The Associated Press reports:
The notice on the Supreme Court Web site said: "Petition for review denied." It noted that Chief Justice Ronald George was absent and did not participate in the decision.

Isn't that just music to your ears? Spector's defense attorney, Doron Weinberg's bank account gets fatter and fatter each time Spector has him waste the courts time on another delusional motion. I never thought this motion would go anywhere because I remember many discussions during the trial among the accredited press, talking about how Judge Fidler has the lowest number of reversal appellate cases on record.

I can just imagine the maniacal tirade that ensued at "the castle" last night when Spector was given news of the ruling. Lets hope the next trial is shorter than round one.

Entwistle Sentencing

~ Rachel and Lilly get justice






Entwistle doesn’t look so smug today.

Fabbri wants mandatory life consecutively.

3-5 years on lesser.

Priscilla Matterrazzo speaks and calls Neil, "low and despicable" for trying to blame Rachel for suicide.

Joe talks of the betrayal by Neil.

Jeremy, Rachel’s brother says they will never get to hear Lilly’s first word or take her first step.

ritanita says - Short and sweet. This family is all class.

Entwistle does not speak.

Kottmyer says 1st degree murder in Boston means life sentence with no parole. She basically says the consecutive sentences are redundant, so they run concurrent

Lesser charges, 10 years probation

Entwistle will not be allowed to profit from selling his story to any media outlets.

CNN.Crime

Jersey + Justice = Joke!

After seeing our system of justice work so beautifully with the verdict in the Entwistle case yesterday, I am deeply saddened by what occurred and continues to occur in the Jersey abuse scandal.

As readers know, the suspects arrested the other day were released without charge. Stuart Syvret gives a very detailed explanation of how and why it happened.

~ Remember, Syvret has called on the UK’s Jack Straw to intervene to obtain justice for the abuse victims ~

From Senator Stuart Syvret Blog: Jersey’s Attorney General, William Bailhache – brother of Jersey’s chief judge, Sir Philip Bailhache – in an effort to obstruct and sabotage the police investigation, appointed, some months ago, lawyers of his choosing to vet the States police work; to make sure every possible legal box had been ticked before charges could be laid – and, as I said many months ago, to generally assist the Jersey oligarchy to do all it could to minimise the scope and scale of any prosecutions arising from the Jersey child abuse disaster.

The Police – battling against every conceivable obstruction – have been slowly making progress and bringing suspects to charge; but each time, they face the “legal” obstructions described above.

Nevertheless, yesterday morning they reached the stage where they had ample evidence to charge the two suspects in question. That the case was sound, and that charging was justified, was even agreed by Will Bailhache’s stooge – that’s how clear-cut it was.

So the police arrested the two suspects, and brought them in for charging.

But – Will Bailhache’s appointed lawyer reported back to Bailhache what he had said to the police. This lawyer then contacted the police again, later in the day, to inform them that “upon reflection, he had revised his opinion of that morning, and now could not endorse charging.” (Like I said, you couldn’t make this stuff up.)

The police – rightly and understandably – were furious at this, and correctly decided to defy what was clearly an attempt by Bailhache - via his stooge – to pervert the course of justice. They told the lawyer they were going to charge anyway – whether he agreed it or not. The police then – for reasons described above – had to get an honorary police officer in to actually charge the suspects – because the States police don’t have the power to charge, remember.

This officer – Danny Scaife – accepted that the “evidence was present” – but told the professional Police that notwithstanding this – he wasn’t going to charge the two suspects.

So the States of Jersey Police had to release them - without charge.

The honorary officer - Danny Scaife – refused to give any direct explanation for his extraordinary actions – other than to say he “had acted after receiving expert legal opinion”.

Now – who do we think was behind that “expert legal opinion”?

One of the comments on my last post, attempts to assert that the Attorney General, William Bailhache, could not have obstructed the professional police. (Hello, William.)

The reason given, as I have explained above, being that the States police don’t have the power to charge. Therefore he couldn’t have stopped them from charging – from exerting a power they don’t possess. The comment is gross sophistry.

It is known that the States police don’t have the power to charge; and it is known that only the honoraries can. But – we must ask – how does this fact mean that the Attorney General couldn’t interfere with the work of the States police?

It doesn’t.

Not least because – guess what? – And you couldn’t make this up - the Attorney General is the titular head and ultimate authority – apart from the court itself – over all of Jersey’s honorary police.

I will be tabling – as a matter of urgency – an amendment to the law to give the power to charge to the professional police force.

As I said earlier – we now have – in plain view – the collapse of the rule of law in Jersey.

You want, perhaps, a further illustration of this collapse? And just why Jack Straw cannot credibly refuse to intervene?

Remember a couple of weeks ago, another suspect was arrested. On that occasion too, the police had to release him without charge. The suspect’s name is Danny Wherry.

This is getting so easy – but let’s do it anyway; who do you think is a friend of Wherry and member of the same golf club? “The Royal Jersey Golf Club”?

Yep – William Bailhache, Jersey’s Attorney General. One of the tragic and bizarre features of this episode is that such is this man’s arrogance, megalomania and hubris – that he just cannot see that he has, essentially, corrupted the rule of law in Jersey.

Pretty frightening, no?

Take a look at a comment sent to the good Senator : "submitted a comment to the effect that I was ‘a f**king little shit – and should do everyone a favour by actually killing myself."

Entwistle's Parents Statements On Verdict

~ Clifford and Yvonne
Entwistle




Yvonne Entwistle
“We know that our son Neil is innocent and we are devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then committing suicide.

I knew Rachel was depressed. Our son will now go to jail for loving, honoring, and protecting his wife’s memory.”

Clifford Entwistle
“From the moment Matterazzo’s spokesman Joe Flaherty stated, and I quote, “All we need now is the right jury pool.” We knew Neil would not receive a fair trial.

We will continue to fight for our innocent son with the hope that, one day justice will prevail. And our little granddaughter Lilly, may rest in peace.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page and their defense team for the dedication and the massive effort they have applied to this case.

We are not making any further statements at this time and ask that you refer any queries to our lawyer in Boston, Peter Parker.”

Well, they're sure towing the Weinstein/Page line!

Entwistle Verdict Is In!!!!

~Stephanie Page consoles Entwistle after his first degree guilty verdicts are read.



Updated3!
Jury Clock, 11:12:24 and stopped!

Intrepid says: What was the adage about jury deliberations usually lasting as many hours as there were days of testimony? Was it one hour for one day? I think I remember that correctly.

If that's correct, then there should be a verdict some time mid-afternoon. That's what I'm shooting for.

Stay tuned!!!!!

Update!
Good God! Neil is smiling as he enters the courtroom!

Murder first degree…guilty
Murder first degree…guilty
Weapon…guilty
Ammo…guilty

2nd update!!
Sprocket here: Donchais is on pins and needles waiting for the verdict.

I think it's guilty on first.

Neil comes into the room with a slight smile on his face.

It's like he is having a hard time keeping from smiling. He purses his lips together. Yep. He is having a hard time keeping from smiling!

Entwistles eyes wander around the room.

Guilty of Murder of first degree of Rachael Entwistle.
Guilty of Murder of first degree of Lillian Entwistle.
Guilty of poessing a firearm.
Guilty of poessing amunition.

So say you foreperson.
Yes.
So say you members of the jury.
Yes.

Even with the verdict read, that same expression, trying not to smile. Hie eyes still wander. OMG! Look at his mother.

Sentencing tomorrow at 10 am.

3rd Update!
ritanita brings us this tidbit from Fox News:
Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, members of the Middlesex County prosecution team, and family and friends of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle will hold a press conference today at 4:15 to discuss today's verdict in the case of Commonwealth vs. Neil Entwistle. The press conference will be held at 4:15 p.m.


CNN.Crime

What Is Going On In Jersey?

UPDATED!
Senator Stuart Syvret had a disturbing post today.

The Senator is currently in London attending a “care leavers” meeting in the House of Commons. He says there are a good number of supportive folks in attendance.

Syvret spoke at the meeting and individually to MP’s, telling them that unless Jack Straw to get involved gets taken to court in the UK, the Jersey establishment will win.

Jack Straw and his civil servants carry on asserting - in a pack of lies - that they 'have no power to act - but even if they did, there is no need, as the Jersey system is working just fine.'

Remember, Syvret called on Jack Straw to intervene in the scandal investigation and any subsequent trials due to the conflict of interest between the legal and governmental bodies of Jersey.

What I found highly disturbing, Syvret said: Sadly, more news of Jersey corruption reaches me tonight. Jersey Attorney General, William Bailhache, has obstructed the States of Jersey Police in charging two suspects. I think you're going to hear a lot about this in the coming days. You just couldn't make it up.

Gosh, this is unbelievable!

Update:
The Guardian just reported: Two people arrested in connection with the investigation into child abuse at a former children's home in Jersey have been released without charge.

A 70-year-old man and a 69-year-old woman were arrested yesterday in relation to three "grave and criminal assaults".

An investigating officer invited a Centenier, an elected senior police officer with the power to charge suspects, to police headquarters yesterday.

"Despite stating that the evidence was present, the Centenier declined to charge," said a police spokeswoman. "The States of Jersey police have no alternative, therefore, but to release the two suspects without charge."

How despicable!

Neil Entwistle Murder Trial: Verdict Watch Day One

Updated!
The jury in the Neil Enwistle case went home today at 4:20 pm without reaching a verdict. While watching the live camera we were able to see the lovely Beth Karas come in and out of camera view for a few moments. The Judge instructs the jurors on not reading any articles, etc., as well as not deliberating until they return tomorrow and that's it. We hear "Court's in recess" and the gallery slowly exits the courtroom. Although the sound has been cut, we still see a few images in the courtroom of people leaving. And then the camera pans to the ceiling.

Verdict watch begins tomorrow at 9 am ET.

Update: 6:00 pm
A short note from one of our best trial watchers, ritanita:

Well, today we learned to keep an eye on the feed that shows the ceiling. Today it was the Fox station.

For those who didn't catch the action, the jury asked for the computer log-in records for January 20th.

A quick trip over to Joe Dwinell's blog at the Boston Herald site and I find out that the jury also asked for the Starbuck's receipt that Weinstein referred to in his closing statements.

I borrowed this from the Boston Herald to explain the significance of that receipt.

• Weinstein said Neil stopped for two “lattes” at Starbucks Jan. 20 and paid $7.04 intending to bring one home for his wife.
• Fabbri said the coffee run to Starbucks was the day before and the receipt will prove it.

Thanks ritanita!

CNN.Crime

Additional Arrests In the Jersey Abuse Scandal

Arrest numbers five and six have been made in the ongoing abuse scandal investigation.

A 69-year-old woman and a 70-year-old man have been arrested over claims of abuse of children in care on Jersey.

The pair is being questioned over allegations of assaults said to have taken place in the 1960s and 70s.

The arrests are linked to the Jersey abuse investigation, but are not tied directly to Haut de la Garenne.

As in the last arrest of the former Jersey police officer - additional details will not be released unless the persons concerned are charged.

Entwistle Verdict Watch

Lilly waits

Rachel waits

Priscilla & Joe wait
They have waited almost 2-1/2 years for justice; I guess I can wait a little longer too.

With juror instructions running until 3:30 EST, Judge Diane Kottmyer appointed Juror #4 as the foreperson and then adjourned court for the day. The jury begins deliberations this morning.

Yesterday, after listening to another taped phone call between Sgt. Manning and Neil Entwistle, Michael Fabbri rested the case for the prosecution.

Elliot Weinstein then took to his feet and announced the defense rests! Well, what did they really have to work with?

During closing arguments – the defense went first – Weinstein claimed, "Everything Neil did after finding the bodies was because he loved them.”

Yup, you heard that right! He didn’t call 911, he didn’t call Priscilla and Joe, he fled to England – because he loved them!

Weinstein, standing at the podium reading his closing, showed little emotion or conviction. His closing was based solely on Rachel killing Lillian and then herself.

Fabbri listened to the entire defense closing with an incredulous look on his face.

Weinstein’s theory is that Rachel positioned Lillian against her so that the baby would be over her heart. When she didn’t kill herself with that shot, shot again and hit herself in the forehead.

Entwistle on the other hand, was portrayed as the loving, caring husband and father. In this first-time floated theory, Weinstein said, “He was protecting Rachel’s honor. He wasn’t going to tell Manning he returned the gun to Carver. Neil, committed to not betraying Rachel’s memory.”

It’s an age-old tactic, but how sad for Rachel’s family and friends to endure listening to the “smear the victim” fairy tale woven by the defense.

Michael Fabbri, animatedly laid out, point-by-point, all the red herrings in the defense’s closing. He dramatically picked up the .22 caliber handgun and physically tried to enact how Rachel might have shot herself in the head…much as ritanita did in her entry on Saturday. Pretty much impossible.

He implored the jury to pay particular attention to the notepad found on the defendant that states Entwistle was willing to sell his story, “to the highest bidder.”

The photos, the tapes, and the weapon…it’s all in the jury’s hands now.

Lilly waits, Rachel waits, Priscilla & Joe wait…we all wait for justice.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Closing Arguments

Judge: Now that the evidence of the case is completed, it's time for closing arguments. Closing argument is not evidence. It's for the attorneys to assert in argument what has happened in the case. If your memory is different you should disregard what the attorney says.

If they refer to their own feelings or thoughts, you must disregard that.

You may not take notes during closing arguments except, if one or both attorneys refer to an exhibit and the context of the argument that is made, you may write the exhibit number down so that you can evaluate it in the jury room, you may do so. With that, we'll being with the closing arguments.

Closing Argument: Elliot Weinstein for the defense.

Weinstein begins by quoting Spitz and Fisher about homicide vs. suicide. Everything Neil did after finding the bodies was because he loved them. The prosecution said it was because he visited websites. Lots of people do that.

(Speaking of the porn & adult sites) How many millions of people visit these sites each day? There's no motive, no motive to kill the woman that he shared a loving relationship. Why would he do that? Because he and Rachel had some debt? Because their Paypal account wasn't paying out? There was no insurance on Rachel and Lillian.

There is no evidence of insurance. Neil was a talented, well-experienced computer engineer. Debt was not a motive.

He mentions that if not Neil, “who.” Others’ alibis worked out. But things are not always as they seem.

He discusses how scientists and investigations are supposed to be open-minded. Dygan and other investigators left the house with Entwistle’s name already filled in. Filters only let in what you are seeking. Weinstein is again going over that the crime scene investigators are supposed to be neutral. Mr. Soares and Ms. Dygan unintentionally went in with the idea Neil was the suspect. They went in with the idea it was a murder. They did not consider it was a suicide.

Weinstein shows picture of bodies in the bed. The photograph shows the bodies were moved before the picture was taken. Neil saw the gun on the sheet, moved the bodies, to protect them.

Yeah, right!

Neil left the US because he had no one left there for him.

Human emotions are not predictable. Manning even says on the tape that “things just happen.” He goes on to say “who can say any reaction is appropriate or inappropriate.” Neil acted the way he acted. He was protecting Rachel’s honor. He wasn’t going to tell Manning he returned the gun to Carver. Neil, committed to not betraying Rachel’s memory, couldn’t answer Manning’s questions.

When Manning accused him, Neil never considered “what he’d be getting.” He states Neil’s reaction.

He couldn’t call 911 and have the police find Joe’s revolver on the bed.

Weinstein reads the duty of the pathologist is to prove the deaths are consistent with how the investigators report. He quotes again from Spitzer and Fisher.

GSR was found on Rachel’s hands. Dygan says that it only says it proves Rachel was in the room when the gun was shot. He goes on to point at Zane’s shortcomings.

Weinstein’s theory is that Rachel positioned Lillian against her so that the baby would be over her heart. When she didn’t kill herself with that shot, shot again and hit herself in the forehead.

Weinstein again stresses the gunshot residue on both of her hands. There is no evidence that Rachel did not fire the gun. They never tested for GSR on wrists, sleeves, sheet. It they were positive, it might be positive evidence she did not fire the gun, but they didn’t.

GSR requires a scanning electron microscope. He goes on to all the places they could have tested for GSR and didn't.

They could have test fired the 22 to measure GSR cloud. Therefore, reasonable doubt remains.

The investigators did not consider suicide and didn’t do the GSR tests.

Neil arrived home 11:00 - 11:30. Later he said he didn’t remember exactly why he remembers.

At 11:30, Neil was at Starbucks. It proves he bought 2 lattes to share with Rachel. He didn’t return to shoot her. He went to the computer first and checked for job information. (Indicating Neil came back at 12ish.)

He shows the picture of Lillian and says that Neil couldn’t have looked at that picture on his computer and shot his family.

Suicide is considered by many to be shameful. He attributes the statistics from DiMaio’s book to Dr. Zane and states, among other things, that 92% of women who commit suicide do so with a handgun.

Neil found Rachel and Lillian dead. He saw the 22 and knew what happened. He had to get the 22 back to Carver, and he didn't call the police because he couldn't tell him what they did. He wasn't thinking rationally. How could he?

He couldn't tell Pricilla and Joe what Rachel did. How could he? He had to be with his family.

The jury has to decide for themselves if the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Weinstein says Neil wasn’t thinking rationally. He reiterates how he couldn’t bear tarnishing Rachel’s memory and returned the gun to Carver. He went home to his family, as he had nobody in the US.

Reasonable doubt requires and demands you find Neil not guilty.

Other evidence: Joanna Gately and her sister were supposed to be at the house for dinner at 5PM and arrived two hours late. The police entered the house and discovered nothing unusual. Joanna called Priscilla. She and her sister decided to stay in the car during the entire cold night. Weinstein opines that perhaps Rachel confided something to her best friend that Rachel hadn’t shared with her own family. That would explain Joanna’s apprehension.

At no time, did anyone, while searching for the family call Neil’s family to see if they knew where the family was. No one voiced any suspicions about Neil.

It’s not the defense’s burden to provide evidence of Rachel’s state of mind.

Weinstein points out that the investigators should have contacted Rachel’s doctors to discover if she was depressed.

Weinstein outlines Neil’s trip to Logan and on to England. It was not planned. He didn’t have a ticket, he had to get money.

His statement that he needed to be with his family was true.

The investigation wasn’t complete. There were failures to investigate. Why didn’t anyone tell the ME about the GSR testing?

Why no GSR testing on the fitted sheet?

Why didn’t the detectives go beyond 6-inch test for patterns of GSR?

They had the weapon since January 2006 and denied themselves, the ME, and the jury this information.

The “Neil did it filters” prevented a full investigation.

DNA sample from the muzzle wasn’t tested as to what it was. It could have been transfer DNA. Since there was only one swab, can’t really say what part of the gun it was on, the muzzle, or the barrel.

The “brown gel” wasn’t tested as to what it was.

Rachel was a potential DNA contributor on the black gun case.

Investigators didn’t investigate vaporous gunshot residue on pillowcase.

He goes on to mention other tests that weren’t done.

Her left hand was first seen under a pillow. Why didn’t they investigate? The position of the bodies in the photograph were not it the same position in which they were shot. Weinstein goes on to give examples of what should have been further investigated.

Addressing internet activity, Weinstein says it’s not a reason or motive to commit murder. The world has changed.

Financial difficulties. There was no evidence of financial problems. He mentions Rachel’s college debt, car, house.

He insinuates Rachel did the finances and searched for “kill” sites. He indicates the ENT account was the family account.

January 9, 2006 - Weinstein mentions the round-trip-flight for two adults from Manchester. He wanted his family to visit them.

Weinstein goes back to Dr. Zane and his lack of interest in GSR. His loyalty didn’t go to medical science; to the experts (that were quoted)... it didn’t go to a search for the truth.

We are now back to Neil struggling and grappling with this horrendous reality. He says we can’t understand the horror, the trauma of the situation. It was “trance-like.”

Weinstein discusses the funeral. Neil knew he couldn’t attend because he needed to protect Rachel’s memory. He went to the place he first proposed to Rachel.

If Neil did this, why would he leave his laptop behind? Why travel so openly to Carver?

Neil didn’t have a better story and made contradictory statements to friends? Why didn’t he have money, plane ticket, motive? Neil did not do this.

All of Neil's actions are excused because he had no motive for these killings. It may be very difficult for you to consider Rachel as a suicide, but you must. You must look at what was investigated and what was not investigated.

The deaths are an unimaginable tragedy and no one can bring them back. It’s a nightmare for everyone involved. The jury should not compound this tragedy.

Find Neil Entwistle not guilty.


Michael Fabbri for the prosecution

We agree that the burden is on the Commonwealth and you are duty bound to acquit the defendant if we didn’t prove the case.

You heard evidence that wasn’t in the courtroom.

Mr. Spitz and DiMaio weren’t in this courtroom.

We agree do not always appear as they are.

You heard a lot of testimony of the loving care Mr. Entwistle had for his family.

That don’t want you to think about and the evidence about the interview that never happened, but it was never set up.

He said it was canceled, but he never told his wife. What does that say about his loving and caring?

You heard about GSR on Rachel’s hands. 4 particles. GSR can be transferred easily. After Neil shot them and moved the bodies.

GSR is a red herring.

Let’s talk about this suicide. Is there any evidence that she wanted to commit suicide? She has a baby, a house, her family, and friends.

Because they couldn’t have sex in the Carver house?

The whole concept of shooting through another person makes no sense.

She’s holding the baby, through herself and there is no pain? It makes no sense.

Then hold the gun and shoot herself in the head? The photos would look very different. It’s another red herring.

Let’s look at the why. That a husband would murder his wife and child? It’s hard to look at it.

Neil Entwistle who claims to be the deep and loving husband and father. January 4th Neil is posting on Adult Friend Finder. “I’m looking for more fun in the bedroom?” What does that say about a loving husband?

You have this notepad where he explains his loss of Lillian and Rachel after several re-write. On the back you will see he wants to sell his story to the highest bidder. 2 weeks after finding the bodies of his wife and daughter.

Read the other story in here about looking up an old female friend.

He had no job, he was failing financially. When he talked to Sgt. Manning about suicide, he was talking about himself.

When they were at the Carver house on the 16th. They are trying to say Rachel did the searches for half priced escorts, violent death, eBay. She was in the house playing with Lilly and Priscilla.

January 19th the last day anyone spoke to Rachel. Priscilla, Joanna Gately.

Friday morning the defendant gets up. Leaves Rachel and Lilly. He decided enough is enough. Instead of going on that interview, he said he went on errands. He drove to Carver and got the gun.

When considering suicide, handle the gun. Try to configure the suicide if you can. The gun had Mr. Entwistle’s DNA all over it.

I suggest that Rachel didn’t use firearms. I doubt she even knew had to load it. But he did!

Rachel’s DNA is in and on that muzzle. You heard Trooper Walsh on back splatter. That’s how Rachel’s DNA got there.

He conveniently told Manning that he left the garage door open.

I got back, what have they been doing the last 2 hours. What does that tell you about how loving and caring?

He shoots Rachel first, shoots Lillian. The crying and screaming coming out of Lilly, he could not face it. That’s why he lays them out, puts the pillow, and covered them. He closed them off. He closed the door to the hose and walks out. He closes them off.

He didn’t even come back for the funeral. Talk about something incomprehensible.

That home, the belonging, the car, the wife the child…I have no interest. What does that tell you about the relationship he had with Rachel and Lillian.

He drives to the airport. Watch the videos. He's in terminal E and B walking around. Now he doesn’t know what to do. He drove and got gas. He leaves the car and the keys and closes them out again.

He tells Manning, I had to go home and be with my family. Why did he tell his friends another story?

Why did he tell Manning he saw blood bubbling out of Lilly’s mouth? Yet he doesn’t call 911.

He said he didn’t call because he didn’t have a cell phone. It didn’t take him long to get this cell phone in England.

He told his friends a different story that he called the police after finding the bodies.

The wallet with the ring, inscribed, “Always my orange rose, a little US money, some receipts is in a waste basket. Closing them off again.

The bodies and the scene showed the police the way to go. They turned over all the stones.

Entwistle asked Dash, is there another way to get off the platform. The bodies and evidence led all the way back to that platform and Mr. Entwistle.

This is not a murder suicide, this is a homicide. Put the Commonwealth to the test. We respectfully ask that you come back with a guilty verdict. Thank you.

Well, after the jury is given the instructions, we are officially on verdict watch.

Thank you so much ritanita, for all your help!

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 12

Sgt. Manning is back on the stand – we are getting ready to hear the second taped phone call…transcripts passed to the jury.

January 24th, 2006 call:

Thanks for calling. We go the results back from the ME today. This call is recorded, is that ok? Yeah, uh well no…

The cause and manner of death…both Rachel and Lilly died of a gunshot wound. We’re considering it a Foul Play death. Basically; a homicide. Ok.

May I ask you some questions about when you came up to the bedroom? Ok.

What did you see and remember? I walked in…I could see Rachel’s head. She was just there. I walked further in and saw Lilly. When I saw Lilly, I could see what had happened. There was blood around her mouth? Yeah and in it.

How did you determine she was shot? I saw a hole…a burn hold. You could see that from standing on the side of the bed? Yeah…but…yeah…no.

Did you move the arm? No. I pulled the covers over. I know I didn’t touch them.

How close did you get to the bed. I think my arms were on it. What did you notice about Rachel. I did…ummm.
How did you know she was dead? There was just no question about it.

You said you saw a bullet hole on Lilly. Yeah? What did you see on Rachel? Did you know she was shot? That’s what I thought. When you put it like that…

I saw it on Lilly…I don’t think that’s strange. Around the ribcage.

Did you see any trauma to Rachel. No. I didn’t…no it was all on Lillian. I don’t think….I think there was blood on the covers…on the sheets.

On the covers they were lying on or the ones you pulled up? Yeah, You think you remember? Yeah…ummm I don’t know if there was or not. I haven’t thought about it.

Were there any pillows around…Uhhhh I think maybe Rachel was on a pillow.

You saw nothing on Rachel….I ummm think uhh yeah, no.

We found the BMW…ok good.

I think there were some of the keys on the keychain that were to the House in Carver. Oh, you think so? I’m not certain, but I think so. Oh, ok.

I’m not 100% sure, but I think the Carver house keys are on it. Maybe for Hopkinton house. I don’t…no that’s not right.

On Friday, does the trash come on Friday? Yes, but we didn’t put it out. Does it come in the morning or afternoon? I don’t know…ummm I think it comes in the morning.

And you couldn’t get in Joe and Priscilla house? No, I couldn’t.

Did you use your credit cards on Friday? I first used it in the car park and then bought gas after.

You didn’t carry a lot of cash? No.

The Staples you talked about, is there a Starbucks? Umm yeah and a bookstore.

Was there a Homes Good stores? The have candle holders, furniture. Oh yeah. There’s a long line of stores.

You moved into the house on the 12th? It was a Thursday. Not many people knew you lived there? No.

There wasn’t any disagreements with friends or Joe and Priscilla? No, everything was good.

You remember the garage door being open? Uh, yeah.
There is nothing you can think of as to why this might have a occurred? No. I shouldn’t have happened.

Your right, it shouldn’t have happened. We are trying to look at every situation we can. Ok.

Joe’s guns. He has a bunch of guns in the house? Yeah.

You said the reason you want to Joe’s was to get a gun and hurt yourself? Yeah.

But you could get in the house? No.

Had you ever used the guns? I went with Joe once.

Did he have to teach you about the guns? Yeah. You don’t know about guns? No, I don’t really like them.

When you went, what guns did you fire? We fired a small handgun. Did you ever touch the handguns? Yeah, yes I touched the. You touched them at the house? No, at the gun club.

If I get Joe’s guns, would there be any reason for your prints on the guns? I wouldn’t…I don’t now how long they last. I would say no.

I’m going to ask a number of people, not just you. That seemed to upset you. Well, he may have cleaned them.

I think I had the rifle…
Part of the ME exam, we do toxicology. What’s that? They test for drugs and alcohol and it will take a couple of weeks.

Rachel and Lilly died from gunshot wounds. That’s definite? Yes. Oh, ok.

We are going to keep on the investigation. Ok. You have any questions at all? I…ummmm did it take long for them to die? I’m not a doctor, the ME could answer that. Well you know with Lilly and the state of the room…I don’t think they suffered.

What do you mean by the state of the room? Ummm, the blood and all.

I can check with the doctor. It’s almost like piece of mind? Ok, I’d appreciate that.

Oh yeah, there was one thing…do you know the time? The exact time they died? Yeah. This is not like TV. Yeah, that’s where I got that from. They can’t give the exact time. I talking about the timeframe you gave me.

It doesn’t comfort any way, it doesn’t change things.

No doctor could give you the exact time.

Have you talked with Priscilla and Joe? You spoke to them before you talked to me?

Are you staying there for a while? Now that I’m coming to terms with it…it’s the journey back that I’m not looking forward to. When can we begin the funeral arrangements? The bodies can be released now.

Where was Lilly born? In England.

Yeah, the bodies are ready to be released do you want the number to the ME’s office? Yes.

Manning gives him the number.

Anything else? No, I don’t…no…it’s shock. You don’t want to know what’s happened, but when you do you cn deal with that.

Have you told them? We’ll take care of that, I’ll tell them.

Will you be there for a while? Yeah, till we work it out. Work what out? The funeral arrangements.


In the weeks and months after the conversations, Manning and his colleagues did further investigation into the trial.

Cross - Weinstein

No questions

Yikes, no questions!

Long pause, bet the prosecution is going to rest!

Wonder what Weinstein is going to do.

THE PROSECUTION RESTS!

Judge and attorneys are going over jury instructions.

Judge will give standard instructions with function of judge, jury, evidence, credibility. She will also give limiting instructions modified from what was already said to the jury.

Fabbri suggests on p. 13, prior bad acts include "relevant to prove state of mind, intent, identity, etc.

The identity of person/persons operating the computer may be of issue. They should be expanded to include identity.

Judge: Pattern of conduct, yes. Prior bad acts?

Page: There has to be a finding that they believe it is the defendant.

Judge: Judge looks at case law. She will check on it to make sure it encompasses preparation, plan, identity.

Fabbri: Mainly concerned with identity.

Judge: Next, p. 18. She won't instruct on extreme abuse, atrocity. (The perpetrator tended to maximize suffering)

Bottom of p. 21: Is directly from the model instruction. If so, it is consistent with the instructions the judge sent.

Page: Objects under due process, it invades the province of the jury to exercise their own discretion.

Judge: The jury must find for the most serious crime the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Voluntariance is not an issue. Next instruction mentioned will not be given.

Judge Request from the defendant: the admissibility of material from a learned treatise. DiMaio, Spitz The witness acknowledged both treatises are reliable and relied on by those who practice in the field of pathology. The jury can consider those statements as evidence.

Defendant: Failure to test. There is no such thing as a Bowden instruction.

Page: There were normal procedures that weren't done by the ME. Not just a minor instance, the ME was never told about GSR. Page says it is a major, major factor.

Judge: There is no such instruction, not that it isn't an appropriate for argument.

Fabbri: Council must be able to argue the issue is inappropriate.

Consciousness of innocence vs. guilt. Fabbri states case law. It is in the model jury instructions. There may be innocent reasons the defendant did what he did and this may be mentioned to the jury. Consciousness of guilt will be included as per standard charge.

Page: P. 20 "Firearm is a dangerous weapon" invades the province of the jury. May argue after given to jury.

Page mentions another one which is about finding a defendant guilty even without intent. She has no case law.

Fabbri: 1st degree - only first prong of malice applies
2nd degree - others apply

Page: Wants involuntary manslaughter included. Will not be given.
The judge must give 3rd prong of malice.

If 2nd degree verdict, the judge will ask about which prong(s) of malice proven.

Fabbri: Wants to know if there will be mention of circumstantial evidence.

Judge: Cites what she sent to attys. "Whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial or a combination of the two, the jury can find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Page: Wants instruction for ? Will be included in "housekeeping matters." This is something about the defendant not testifying.

Page objects to language about finding the defendant of the highest charge as mentioned earlier.

Judge will define "possession" in terms of ammunition.

4th element - possession of the firearm outside the residence or place of business is required in this case.

Operable firearm below 16 inches, outside of home and possessed. In reference to ammunition.

Judge: "Accused does not have a license to carry."

This is a little hard to follow!

Verdict slips will reflect:

Not guilty
Guilty 1st degree
Guilty 2nd degree

Other charges will be
Guilty
Not Guilty


Closing arguments at 11:15 EST!

Neil Entwistle Trial: Recap for Day 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11.

Trial Recap for Day Seven: Prosecution Witnesses

Deanna Dygan is back on the stand under direct. She introduces more evidence exhibits such as a pillow case taken from the bedroom, swabs from the bedroom walls and Rachael, Rachael's clothing, Lillian's clothing, etc.

30. John Drugan: A chemist for the State Police crime lab. His area of expertise is explosives; gunshot residue (GSR). He testifies about the properties of GSR.

31. Sgt. Stephen Walsh: He is a MA trooper in the firearms identification unit. He explains how each firearm has unique internal marks and they are imparted to the projectile when fired. He tested all the guns collected and compared the bullet retrieved from Rachael's breast to test firings.

Trial Recap for Day Eight: Prosecution Witnesses

32. Laura Bryant: Bryant is the DNA expert. At the state crime lab she compares DNA evidence to known DNA. She is also a supervisor of the lab. She testifies to various items collected from the scene that she tested for DNA. She testifies that a swab from the gun’s trigger lock shows DNA from Entlwistle as the major contributor and two minor contributors.

33. Debra Egan. She owns a florist shop in Plymouth. Her daughter Kelly works there also. She testifies that she took an order from a younger British male. The person asked for orange roses or lilies. He wanted a single rose and lily in a bud vase. She also took an order for a funeral spray.

34. Kelly Egan: Debra’s Egan's daughter. She testifies she took the info from Entwistle for what was to be written on the card. She also took a second order from Entwistle, and then a third on the 31st.

35. Benjamin Prior: He is from London. He knows Neil from University, since 1998. They were on the rowing team. He, Dash Munding, Neil and Rachel were all good friends. He testifies to calling Entwistle and Prior in February to ask how they were. He testifies as to what Entwistle told him about finding Rachael and Lillian's bodies after coming back from shopping. He also testifies that Entwistle told him that he BOUGHT the Hopkinton house with a 100% mortgage. He also told them they bought the BMW. Prior testifies that Entwistle said Rachel wanted all the money for the new house and the baby and they were struggling and living by credit cards mostly.

36. Dashiel Munding: This is another friend of Neil and Rachel. He testifies that he's known them since 1998 from University. He testifies that Neil called him in February, and he picked up Entwistle and met Entwistle with Prior. He testifies that Entwistle told him he drove to Priscilla’s office and called the police from there (after finding the bodies). Munding testifies that Entwistle said he left the office and drove for a while and then went to Logan so he could fly home to be comforted by his parents.

37. Urooje Sheikh: Det. Constable from London. He’s in computer forensics. He testifies that EnCase is a forensic tool used to image a computer. The forensic image takes a copy of the data on the computer. No changes are made to the original hard drive. He testifies that he took forensic images from 3 computers. RJP 3 and RJP4 were imaged and then he write blocked the drives so they couldn’t be altered.

38. Lawrence James: He is employed as a police office with the city of Medford. He works the computer crime unit and does data forensic examinations. He testifies that he examined three computers as well as three other computers sent over from the UK. He testifies to the Internet history (16,000 pages) on the hard drive from a laptop hard drive, submitted into evidence. He identifies a Google search by a user "ENT" with the words "How to kill with a knife."

Trial Recap for Day Nine: Prosecution Witnesses

A witness is brought in out of order, #39.

39: Michael Fee, Esq.: Attorney who advised the Puig's, owners of the house at 6 Cubs' path. He testifies that he helped the Puig's recover some property. Fee identifies a CD that has a recording of a conversation he had with Entwistle. The CD is entered into evidence and played. On the CD we can hear Neil saying he has no interest in anything in the house anymore. He wants any money returned and the possessions in the house should be taken care of by Rachel’s family.

Lawrence James is recalled to the stand. He testifies to more of the Internet searches that were performed by "ENT" on the laptop specifically the "How to kill with a knife" search, "search for "knife in neck kill," search for "quick suicide method," several local escort services, a graphic image from adult friend finder, Entwistle's Paypal account, a genealogy site, hosting web sites as well as searches for purchasing a flight online. James testifies that some of these searches occurred after Rachael and Lillian were killed.

Trial Recap for Day Ten: Prosecution Witnesses

Lawrence James returns to the stand. James testifies to more Internet activity on the laptop. There was activity on "Adult Friend Finder," with a free trial membership and a paid membership.

40. Dr. William Zane: Medical Examiner. He specializes in forensic pathology. He’s performed 6,000 or more autopsies. 500-600 homicide victims and gunshot wounds. Zane testifies that Rachael had two bullet wounds. One to her left breast (this is the bullet that went through Lillian first) and one through the skull back in the hairline. The head wound showed no stippling; it was a non contact wound, as was the wound to her chest. Zane testifies that Lillian was moved. There was lividity on the front of her body and she was found on her back with a pillow over her.

In cross examination of Dr. Zane, defense attorney Page brings up suicide, parent/child suicide specifically and quotes from Vincent Di Maio's book, Gunshot Wounds.

It's like a nightmare deja vu with Di Maio's book being brought in as "expert" opinion.

Page gets Dr. Zane to admit he did not know that Rachael's hands had GSR on them.

While this is going on, the T&T trial watching gang becomes hopping mad at Page's cross of the ME. It was back during the Robert Blake criminal trial that I first learned how unreliable GSR testing can be. It basically will only tell you that an individual was in the vicinity of a weapon that was fired. Heck, it could mean that someone was just in the same room as another individual who was carrying a weapon.

41. Sgt. Gary Flood: UK subject, he works for the extradition Unit with Scotland Yard. The unit seeks out fugitives from countries they have extradition agreements with. He testifies that he received information about Entwistle. His unit contacted British Airways to see if Entwistle arrived in the UK. Entwistle was located on a train. The train was stopped and Entwistle was taken into custody in the UK. Sgt. Flood testifies that on February 16th, Entwistle was taken to Gatewick airport and transferred to the custody of US Marshals.

42. DC Ron Hay: He works in the extradition unit and assisted Flood in arresting Entwistle. Hay describes how Entwistle was located and arrested.

43. DC Richard Potter. Employed by the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit. He works with Flood and Hay. Potter testifies to searching Entwistle's parent's home and the evidence collected from their home, including two computers.

Trial Recap for Day Eleven: Prosecution Witnesses

44. Trooper Michael Banks: Works for the homicide unit. Banks testifies that on January 22, 2006 he was sent to Hopkinton, 6 Cubs Path at 8pm and then returned to the station. He then returned to the house with crime scene investigators. He testifies to any procedures he was involved with in photographing the house and removing items as outlined in the search warrant. Banks also testifies to the execution of the search warrant on the BMW as well as search warrants for financial records.

45. Sgt. Robert Manning: With MA State Police assigned to the DA’s office in homicide. He testifies to interviewing Entwistle over the phone. The interview is entered into evidence and played for the jury.

This is the first time that we hear Entwistle tell his story as to how he discovered Rachael and Lillian's bodies, what he felt and what he did afterwards.

I'd like to give a shout out to a blogger in the UK who is doing an excellent job covering the Entwistle case. She's an aspiring writer and quite good. Check out her blog here.

CNN.Crime

Scott Peterson Civil Trial & Cameron Brown Retrial

At the Cameron Brown pretrial hearing on June 13th, Nareg Gourjian an associate in Mark Geragos's law firm was in the gallery observing the proceedings. Patsy, of CMM sent me a mail to let me know that this is the attorney that is defending Scott Peterson in the civil suit filed by Laci Peterson's parents, Sharon and Dennis Rocha.

You had to have been living in a cave not to have heard of Scott Peterson, the death of 8 months pregnant Laci Peterson and the OJ Simpson level of media frenzy that surrounded it. Although I knew that Geragos missed the reading of the verdict and another Geragos associate, Pat Harris, sat next to Peterson when he was found guilty of first degree murder, I didn't know that Gourjian was also at the table. Patsy was kind enough to forward some links mentioning Gourjian and the civil case. What do you want to bet that Ma & Pa Peterson are shelling out some serious bucks for Scooter's defense in the civil case?

In a stunning move, Judge Roger Beauchesne ruled that the criminal conviction alone was insufficient evidence to prove guilt in the civil case. However, Judge Beauchesne also stayed his ruling and allowed lawyers until June 23 to appeal. The trial is officially set to start on July 8th, 2008.

From the Modesto Bee:
While the civil trial will be longer and more difficult as a result of the ruling, Professor Michael Vitiello of the University of Pacific's McGeorge School of Law said having a jury hear the emotional testimony could result in a larger monetary award.

"You want to hear as many details as possible to come before the jury ... all the evidence about all the things (Peterson) did and how (Laci's) body vanished, showing a calculating and uncaring person," Vitiello said. "You get the jury all worked up, and when it comes to finding damages, then the jury's mad."

A larger award? That sounds good to me. The trial is projected to last about five weeks and T&T will be keeping tabs on whatever news comes out of Judge Beauchesne's courtroom.

In the mean time, with the added responsibility of taking care of Mr. Sprocket for the next several months while he recovers from surgery on his right distal bicepital tendon, I've come to the realization that I will not be able to attend the Cameron Brown retrial in Judge Pastor's courtroom. There is a slim possibility that may change by the time the trial is projected to start on July 28th. However, at this point with all the therapy appointments I know I will have to take him to, it's doubtful.

CNN.Crime

Guest Entry: ritanita on the Entwistle Murder Trial

~ The murder weapon and the path of the fatal bullet




Logic to the Wind – by ritanita

Stephanie Page's cross-examination of Medical Examiner William Zane on Thursday, made my blood pressure go off the charts. It's natural for a defense attorney to paint an alternate picture of a case, but in this situation, Ms. Page managed to throw logic to the wind and attempt to browbeat a witness.

However, my first thoughts go to Rachel's family and friends. In her attempt to explain Neil Entwistle's "innocence", Page turned Rachel Entwistle into a baby-killer; a murderer. She further made Rachel a suicide. What a terrible thing to do to the memory of a loving daughter, sister, and friend.

Against all the testimony as to Rachel's state of mind, Page insinuated that she “might” have been suffering from postpartum depression. One wonders where this talk of depression comes from. There were no questions from Ms. Page concerning depression when she questioned her mother, her stepfather, and her friends.

Then, we can look at the forensic evidence. According to the ME, Rachel's toxicological screens came back negative for drugs of abuse and alcohol. She wasn't high; she wasn't drunk. She was a new mother with a precious child she loved.

There's the matter of the gun itself. The weapon, a 6-inch barreled target gun was presented into evidence earlier this week. Joseph Matterazzo testified that Rachel never showed any interest in the guns. He never took her out shooting. Why are we to think she would take the gun from the Carver home and kill her child and herself?

Just imagining these shootings can boggle the mind. Imagine Rachel clutching her baby to her breast and attempting to fire that gun, at that angle through the child. Physics says it can't happen. The barrel is just too long. Rachel was only 5'2'' and there is no way, that arm could reach out around the child so the bullet would also hit her in the breast. Likewise with the shot to the head. Put an imaginary gun with a 6-inch barrel to your head in the manner depicted in the chart. It's not going to happen!

Rachel did have a few specks of gunshot residue (GSR) on her hands. Ms. Page made such a big deal about it. We learned about GSR in the Spector trial. It's unreliable. In fact, the FBI no longer tests for it. On the May 26th, 2006 Georgia Criminal Law Blog, it states, "the FBI has distanced itself from another test once regarded as a reliable test. They will no longer be performing gun shot residue analysis.” In addition, earlier testimony pointed out that gunshot residue was easily removed and transferable. The fact that there was a tiny amount of GSR on Rachel's hands, means nothing. She was shot, there was a gun in the room, and there were armed police officers in the room. For Ms. Page to attempt to indicate it was significant is totally disingenuous.

Finally, I think that, as Ron Kuby puts it, "impeachment by learned treatise" is a cheap shot. Ms. Page read pieces of information from Vincent DiMaio's book on gunshot wounds and Spitz and Fisher's tome on forensic medical investigation and asked Dr. Zane to answer, "Yes" to all the questions. When Dr. Zane answered "No," he became the target of rather acerbic comments. I only wish that the prosecutors had been able to elicit more complete explanations from this ME.

It was an awful experience to view this and I hope the jury feels the same as I do and has the wisdom to see the facts - not the things that definitely are what they seem to be.

Thank you very much ritanita!

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 11

~ Neil Entwistle
Jury hears the taped conversation, that may seal his fate.


On the stand – Trooper Michael Banks, homicide unit.

January 22, 2006 he was sent to Hopkinton, 6 Cubs Path at 8pm. He returned to Hopkinton Police Department.

He met with several officers and Sgt. Manning and some civilians. He left at 1am and went back to 6 Cubs Path with a number of officers and crime scene services.

Banks and Manning followed crime scene services into the home. He describes the crime scene services video-taping and process the bedroom.

The bed was photographed and as the layers were pulled back it was also photographed.

Banks saw Rachel lying on her side. The pillow seemed to peel of Lilly’s face due to a dried substance. Banks identifies a photo of the bed and Rachel and the baby faces.

Banks remained in the bedroom for a short time

Sidebar

Banks left the house while the house was processed. The bodies had been removed by the ME’s office.

They re-entered the house did their own photos and removed several items from the home per the search warrant.

They removed a Feline’s receipt and a shaving kit from the master bedroom bathroom. Banks identifies the items and they are marked.

They proceeded to the family room. The TV was on. They found a cordless phone and a cell phone next to the coach. Banks identifies the phones and they are marked for identification.

The dinning room had a table and numerous papers, mostly mail and a family photo.

The kitchen looked like a meal had been finished, but not cleaned up. They saw a camera, a desk. They saw a phone that was disconnected. On a shelf they saw 2 house keys. He identifies the keys in a photo. It is marked.

They took custody of the key and brought them to the DA’s office. He opens an evidence bag and identifies the keys, which are marked.

Next they went to the basement. The room on the left had a number of boxes as of someone was just moving in. Another small room off that contained a computer and some tools. He identifies photos of the computer and tools.

Banks is shown the laptop and he identifies it as the one they took into custody.

Banks is shown a photo of the cell phone in the TV room, which he identifies.

In the den, they went through the boxes that were there and he identifies a photo. There was a black document bin that contained various financial documents.

Banks says he spent a couple of hours at the home.

January 24th, he executed a search warrant on the BMW that was still at Logan. The vehicle was processed, Banks seized a garage door open, Dasani water bottle, a garage ticket, and keys, marked BMW and house keys. A sponge and another set of keys.

Banks opens a bag containing the keys they collected from the BMW and identifies the items.

Later, he went to the home in Carver. They interviewed Joe and Priscilla and removed the guns, ammo can, computer, rifles, gun case, and a document.

Banks identifies photos of the ammo can, gun case, computer, and the document they recovered. He now identifies the ammo can and pistol box and the .22 colt.

All the items closed and locked up in the home. He transported the to the evidence locker. The next day he took them to the crime lab. The lab inventoried the items.

January 26th, a second warrant for financial records at 6 Cubs Path. Banks identifies the documents that were seized.

He identifies documents pertaining to setting up a corporation, that he seized.

January 28th and the 31st he delivered search warrants to Larry James to examine the computers recovered from Carver and 6 Cubs Path.

Feb. 8th, he returned to 6 Cubs Path. They seized the butcher block of knives two pillows and map quest documents.

They checked the GPS on the BMW – found nothing of use.

March 2nd, he met with Gary Flood and received the evidence recovered in the UK and they had a debriefing.

March 14th he received trigger lock keys from Joe and Priscilla. He identifies them

March 21st, Banks went to the UK and he collected the records the DC’s had seized and conducted interviews. They gathered various business records. He identifies the records – subpoenas…Yankee Candles and Exxon Mobile, Capitol One, Citibank credit card account, Washington Mutual PayPal credit card account.

MBNA records on an account opened by Rachel, 911 calls for Hopkinton Police on January 20, Carver Police, and State Troopers Barracks. Comcast for service at 6 Cubs Path.

Getting into geography here: Hopkinton to Carver about 60 miles – Carver to Braintree, 40 miles…they cover a bunch of destinations…

April, Banks went to Logan and photographed ATM’s in terminals E & B as well as the #666, walk-up pay machine in the garage. Banks identifies the photographs.

Sidebar

No more questions.

Weinstein – cross

The laptop your retrieved from 6 Cubs Path, ever send it to be tested for fingerprints? No.

No more questions

Next witness – Robert Manning, Sgt. With MA State Police assigned to the DA’s office in homicide. He went to Hopkinton, 6 Cubs Path; then he went to the Hopkinton Police Department. We go through the same group of people. He spoke with Priscilla and Joe Matterzazzo.

He spent about 2 hours at 6 Cubs Path. He received a call from Joe at about 11:30am. He then returned to the station. At 1-1:30 on the 23rd, Manning called Clifford Entwistle and Neil. He spoke to Neil at 1:30. They spoke for 2 hours and the call was recorded.

Manning identifies the CD’s made of the phone call and they are marked as an exhibit.

Court on recess –

Transcripts are given to the judge, clerk and defense and jury. They jury will not have the transcripts in deliberations.

Tape being played – Manning tells Neil his wife and daughter, are deceased. Neil says he knew.

He knows the call is being recorded.

Neil says he went out on Friday morning. They got up at 7 and he fed Lillian. He went to the store for some computer equipment. He put Lilly back to bed at 9. He thought Rachel was awake.

He came back at 11; he called out to them and got no reply. He got a few things together downstairs. He heard no noise and he went upstairs and found them. He looked and saw what had happened. He had to get out of the house. He had no numbers to call the in-laws. So he decided to drive to their house. First he went to the kitchen and got a knife, but couldn’t do it. He got in the car and drove to Carver. He knew Joe had guns in the house and he thought he could finish it. He got to the house and the house key wasn’t there…Rachel must have removed. He decides to go to Priscilla’s office, but he couldn’t remember how to get there. He went to Logan Airport because it was the only place familiar. He wanted to let the emotions out, but they wouldn’t come out. He walked around a bit, but it reminded of being there with Rachel and Lillian. He got back in the car and drove around and got lost a bit. I couldn’t face going back to the house. Then I felt lost.

I drove around and stopped for gas, somewhere in Boston. I don’t really know my way around…I just followed signs.

The state that I’m in I know I didn’t do the right thing. I just couldn’t get it right in my head.

He went in Lilly’s bedroom and they weren’t there. He went to the master bedroom and he saw Rachel on the bed…he starts crying. It looked like she was asleep. The covers were partially up. They were half covered. I didn’t see Lilly right away. I couldn’t understand why Rachel was still in bed. Rachel was pale and then I saw Lilly. I pulled the covers back and that was when I saw…Lilly was such a mess. There wasn’t any blood on Rachel, it was all on Lilly. Her mouth and nose were covered by like bubbles. It’s obvious they weren’t alive anymore. Looking back I don’t remember seeing the house disturbed.

It was a small amount of time that I was out. There was no work pattern so it was erratic when we were in and out.

He says he came in through the garage. The front door would have been locked. The garage door I left open. The inside door wasn’t locked.

You left the door up? Uhh no, I closed it. When I got to the house it was open. I thought omg she’s going yell at me for forgetting to close the door.

The front was locked…I know it was shut…I don’t know if it was locked.

I called to let them know I was back. I have given Lilly breakfast and I was surprised all the things were out. I was a little mad at Rachel because why hadn’t she gotten up and cleaned the kitchen?

We had a set routine with Lilly…she'd get up at 7 and back to bed at 9 for a 1/2 hour and then back down at 12. I always fed Lilly and sometimes Rachel stayed in bed or went back to bed at 9.

I put Lilly in bed with Rachel before I went out. I don’t know if Rachel was asleep. When Lilly is in bed, she moves around a lot and I figured she would walk Rachel.

He wanted to go to Staples and Wal-Mart. I never found the Wal-Mart. I went to Staples where the big Stop and Shop. On Route 9? Yeah.

Did you buy anything? No, I figured I could get it cheaper at Wal-Mart.

Neil gives a rambling account of the shopping area and can’t say what town…Westborough? He was gone for a couple of hours.

He drove up and down Route 9 a couple of times. You just ran errands. Did you go to work? No, it didn’t work out. I didn’t even tell Rachel…I knew she’d be disappointed.

He says he was working for himself. Small bits and things.

Oh, the Staples where I was at, was next to Intrinsic. Their office is just next to Staples, but it didn’t work out.

I was pushing to get a permanent position. We just got the house.

I looked at Staples, but thought I could get it at Wal-Mart, but I could find it. When I didn’t find it, I thought we could go out together and get it. I got back to the house at 11. I’m pretty sure. I felt that’s when I got back.

Did you talk to Rachel by phone? No. We have a cell but it’s Rachel’s.

Saturday she planned on Priscilla coming over and they had friends coming that night. Neil says Rachel didn’t have plans on Friday or she wouldn’t have gotten up.

He says the car is at Logan. The plate is 65KW78…a white BMW, SUV.

You didn’t see anything at the house that alarmed you except the door was up. I know Rachel yelled at me the last time I did it. I do know that was open. I think the other door was shut.

For breakfast we hadn’t had anything and I thought we would have it later. Yeah, I fed Lilly her breakfast. Oatmeal, prunes, and pears mixed in a bowl. After breakfast before you brought her upstairs, was she playing in the playroom at all? She was fussing so I gave her some Cheerios.

Was the kitchen relatively clean? It wasn’t mucked up. Maybe one or two things from the night before. Some things on the counter. The house didn’t look any different.

You found them in the bed and there was some blood on your daughter. I didn’t see anything on Rachel.

What do you think happened to them? I don’t know…I been trying…it seems so clean cut…there isn’t.

Did you shake them? Obviously Lillian. I leaned over Rachel…it was just obvious.

Have you ever seen anybody dead before? No, only on TV. But, it was obvious. Did you touch them? No, I pulled the bed sheet over them to cover them up.

Why? I don’t know…it just seemed…it almost seems like I was closing them off.

You just moved into this house? Do you know about 911? Yeah, I did. Did it ever cross your mind to call 911? Looking back I don’t know what I thought. You’d think I would look at that and break down. But I just didn’t.

The first thing I wanted to do was be by myself. Were you in shock? I don’t know.

I pulled the covers over them, I pulled out the wide meat knife and pointed it toward me, but I knew it was hurt. Then I thought to get to Priscilla because I knew she would help me. I don’t know why I didn’t to call you.

I didn’t think to call the neighbors. I didn’t think they would be home anyway.

I didn’t call Joe or Priscilla because I don’t have their numbers. I just started driving. I went to Carver to get one of Joe’s guns to hurt myself.

I went to the garage…I don’t know if I locked the door. I just left with what I was wearing…what I’ve got here. Wearing blue jeans a blue sweater and a gray coat.

So you wanted to hurt yourself? You didn’t call anybody, 911 or grab a neighbor? No.

What happened at Carver? The house key was on the car keys ring, but when I got there it wasn’t on the ring.

Do you have the keys with you? No, they are in the car.

Did you know where Joe kept the guns? I knew they were in the bedroom. I drove down to the barn, I thought maybe there was a gun in the barn, but it was locked too.

What did you think happened to Rachel and Lilly? They had been shot? I saw a hole in Lilly…didn’t see anything on Rachel…I just assumed. There was so much blood on Lilly’s chest. Rachel had her arm across Lilly.

Did you move Rachel’s arm? No. So you don’t know if they were slightly breathing? No.

Did you leave the house right away? Yeah.

What happened when you couldn’t get into Carver? Well I was kinda coming around and I thought I would go see Priscilla in Braintree, where she works. I drove up there, but I couldn’t find it. I’ve been there many times, but I never drove there. I don’t know how long I drove around. Did you make any calls? No, I didn’t have anything with me. I didn’t stop to call.

What time did you get to the airport? It was dark. Did you get out? I kinda sat there for a while. I don’t know what was going on in my head. Yeah, I got out and just wandered around.

Did you get a coffee or something to eat? No, I don’t think so. Pretty sure not.

Did you ask for help? No. Did you talk to anybody? No. Did you call anybody? No.

It had been a while at this point. I go back in the car to go home and do something about it. I got lost. I filled up for gas. You don’t know where? I don’t.

You stop for money? No. Did you have any money? Maybe a little. I must have paid for gas with a credit card.

You never made it back to Hopkinton? No, I just drove around frustrated. Scared or frustrated? Yeah scared.

I decided I needed to be with someone. Who? My parents. Did you call your parents? No.

Did you call your folks when you got to London? No, I rented a car to drive up and see my folks. Did you talk to any friends? No, I’ve only spoken with my parents.

Are they helping you? Yeah, they know how long it’s been. Did you call Joe and Priscilla? I’ve tried several times and got the answering machine. You haven’t spoken to them? My dad did and then I spoke with Joe.

He asked what happened and I told him what I told you.
Did you tell him Lillian and Rachel were dead? I think my dad may have. I thought they knew. I don’t even know how they found out.

You came to this country, why? We wanted…Rachel wanted to be closer to her mom. We wanted Lilly to be raised in the US. Things were going ok? Yeah, fine. Things were going fine.

What are you going to do now? I don’t know.

How did you know to go to the house? After so many days nobody had heard from them. Ok.

What are you going to do about funeral arrangements? Did you think about that? No.

Are you going to stay in England? I don’t know what I’m going to do. I don’t know in terms of getting back to the States.

Because of what you saw you felt you needed to be with your parents? Yes, I feel sorry for Joe and Priscilla. It was wrong.

For you to go to England? That’s not for me to say.

We're just glad you are ok. I never thought of that. That Joe and Priscilla wouldn’t know where I was.

When you found Rachel and Lilly, did it ever cross your mind to call 911? No.

The bodies will be taken to the ME’s to try and determine how they died. Ok.

You’re going to stay with your parents? Yeah I have nowhere to go. I have no idea what I’m going to do.

Anything else you can tell me. You left at 9 and came back 11? Yeah, yeah.

Who knew you lived there? Just some family…we didn’t know the neighbors yet. We met the hospitality lady. She knew we moved in from the landlady.

Anything going on in business that may be why this happened? No.

Rachel didn’t have any situations that would make something like this happen? No.

The house wasn’t disturbed. I didn’t see anything.

Were there any disagreements with the family? No family was great.

Are you under a doctor’s care? No.

You’re not depressed? No, I see what you mean.

I haven’t even cried yet, not properly. I shed a few tears. It doesn’t seem real.

Let me tell you it is real, buy I have a hard time understanding why you didn’t call 911. Yeah, I can see that.

When two bodies are found, the police investigate to see what happened. I wish you were here so I could talk to you in person. Yeah.

I like to throw out there; something out of character occurred? Something out of character?

You said you wanted to hurt yourself right a way? Yeah.

I’m trying to understand why you said that. I don’t get what you mean.

I’m wondering was there a situation that happened that was out of character. That I wanted to kill myself?

No, that’s not what I’m saying; I’m asking why you wanted to harm yourself? It just went through my mind after seeing that. Almost like I wanted to be with them.

You took an awful lot of steps not to be with them. I don’t know what you are trying to say.

You drove to Carver which is 40 miles away. You wanted to talk to Priscilla and Joe because something bad happened? Did a situation take place at house? You mean did I have anything…. No, no.

No because, no. That... no, I couldn’t do that. Why would I do that?

I’m not saying you did it. Just asking what happened? It was just a normal day.

Sometimes something crazy happens. I’m just asking…you’ve done a lot of things not to be with them? I see what you’re saying. I don’t know what to say to you.

We need to find out what happened. Yeah.

You find your wife and daughter like that, you don’t call the police, her mother and father or any friends. You grabbed a knife to be with them but, you took a lot of steps not to be with them. I was scared; I knew it would hurt.

You didn’t do anything to help them? I didn’t think there was anything to help them.

You didn’t bother to see if they were alive…you didn’t call for help. Is there anything thing you can tell me? I see what you are saying. I never considered someone would think I did this.

Surely, I just don’t know why…they were just like I left them.

You talked to Rachel before you left? Yeah.

Did Rachel take Lilly from you? Yeah, I think Lilly was playing.

What was Thursday like with you guys? You’ll have to give me a while.

When you went to bed on Thursday we’re you guys ok? Yeah…I stayed up watching TV. Oh I was reading in the small living room.

What time did Rachel go to bed? Around 11pm. Yeah we watched a bit of a movie. As the news started I picked up my book again. I was maybe going to bed a 1/2 hour later.

When you woke up Friday morning, you grabbed Lilly and went downstairs; did you play, watch TV, and eat? We got up at 7, Rachel breast-fed her and then I brought her to the small room, but it was cold. I went to the living room and we played there. I should have turned the heat on. Was the TV on or off when you left at 9am? I don’t know.

What can you tell me to help me out? I wish I could tell you…I don’t…I don’t know who…I don’t understand…there’s no on person…that aren’t any cross words…I’ve been talking to my parents…I don’t know what else…I can only guess…

You want me to keep in touch and let you know what’s going on? Yeah, I’d really appreciate that.

Manning gives him a bunch of contact numbers here.

Sound bites on the tape:

ritianita: He says he left the garage door open. He told his friends he left the back door open.

He knows there is a hole in Lilly's jammies... only way he could know that was if he lifted Rachel's hand. So much blood on Lilly. He didn't move the arm! Guilty!!!

Notice, no mention of all his attempts to get cash out of the ATM's.

Am I alone in thinking Neil is trying so hard not to understand when Manning is obviously saying he suspects him of murder?

Intepid: He's so very detached sounding, isn't he? Totally disconnected emotionally from his dead wife and child.

Kitty Malone: it sounds as though he is faking emotion. His little whimpers won't be winning any Academy Awards!

He stumbles and sighs so much - he sounds so guilty. What he says and how he says it speaks VOLUMES!

He is totally making this up as he goes. A person telling the truth would not stall and stutter as much as he does! Especially when the questions posed to him are fairly simple questions. HE CONTINUALLY hesitates!

Manning on the stand and relates a phone call he had with Neil the next day:

Manning received a call from Neil Entwistle on January 24, 2006. Since the call was to his office, he was unable to tape it. He informed Neil he would be taking notes and he agreed.

He stressed to Neil he didn't want to go into the finding of the bodies. He just wanted to talk about Neil's activities on the 20th.

Neil reviewed with him the information he had given him the day before.
He didn't buy anything in Staples, was shopping for wireless computer gadget.

Matterazzo home in Carver: Neil said he didn't get in and didn't have key on BMW keychain. He said Rachel had lost it after they had taken over the Hopkinton residence but still living in Carver.

Did he have a spare key? In doghouse on Carver property. Rachel knew about the key.

BMW: Where were keys to BMW? Neil said they were in the armrest.

Why did he leave the keys there? So he would have them when he came back.

When was he coming back? He'd spoken to Joe and thought he perhaps should be there.

Funeral arrangements would be made.

Thursday, Jan. 19 activities.

Neil told him they were home all day Thursday and how they'd given Lilly a bath at bedtime. He explained about the music they played while she went to sleep.

After Lilly went to bed they watched TV and Rachel went to bed first and he went to bed later. Rachel "kind of" woke up, they cuddled a while and they went to sleep.

Last time he had sex with Rachel was on Wednesday and he didn't want to go into too much detail and he wasn't comfortable discussing it.

Asked if he had ejaculated when he had sex. He said he did not, something to do with birth control. He said he did not ejaculate at all.

Friday morning prior to 9 AM. He awoke, Lilly awoke, Rachel breast fed her, he took her down and fed her cheerios and some other cerial. She didn't eat much. He took her to toy room and played a while, got cold, went to TV room. Close to 9, he put Lilly in with Rachel and washed up. He went out.

On return from his errands, he came back to the house (said they don't have to go into finding bodies). He didn't call 911 and went to Carver. He didn't get in again, needed time to clear his head, drove around, tried to find Priscilla at work.

Asked if he tried to call Priscilla or Joe. Neil said he didn't call. He only acknowledged knowing the Carver home.

Joe Matterazzo's firearms: Neil said he went to Carver home to get Joe's gun. He assumed they were in the bedroom. If not, they'd be in another room.

Condition of guns: Neil knew the guns had locks on them and he was with Joe when he bought the locks. He knew Joe kept them in a black bag. Neil knew about the keys and was aware that the keys were somewhere in the house, knew what they looked like and could have found them.

Finances: Neil told him what credit cards. He said they had money they brought over from England. Rachel had an account with Priscilla. They were getting on track in US.

They spoke about medical exams to be done, and Neil said that he could call any time.

Jan. 24, about 7:30. Manning called Neil. The call lasted about 45 minutes.

It was recorded.

Sidebar

Tape of the next conversation:

Results from ME, he reminds Neil he is recording the call. Neil has no problem with it.

Manning: Doctors determined cause and manner of death. Both Rachel and Lillie died of gunshot wounds. Manner is still suspicious.

It's hard to hear Neil.

Death is Foul Play.

The tape is too difficult for the jury to hear, so the judge adjourns court till Monday. (They were going to end the session at 3:30 today, anyway.)

Have a great weekend and watch for a special blog edition over the weekend!

Thanks for co-reporting ritanita, as always.

Phil Spector Stiffs the Westin-Bonaventure

I missed this breaking story yesterday because I was at the hospital waiting for Mr. Spocket to get out of surgery to repair a torn distal bicepital tendon. Look for that story soon on my sewing blog.

Nine months since Spector's first defense team flew the coop after winning him another year of freedom, the Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites ~where most of the out of town attorneys and expert witnesses were housed~ filed suit yesterday in LA Superior Court against Spector, the Trial Bride and Spector's agent for non payment of a bill of over 100 thousand dollars. According to TMZ,

The hotel says when they sent a letter demanding to get paid, Spector refused to pay, instead demanding a serious discount.

Does Spector have a history of demanding discounts? From my understanding, the reason it took so long for Spector and his new counsel Doron Weinberg to sign an agreement was because Spector wanted a discount on his legal bill if he was convicted. (Unfortunately, I can't tell you how I know that.) My friend SeniorMoments said, "I'm sure he has money hidden away but he has a sense of noblesse oblige - everything is owed to him!"

Back in September, Michelle Blaine wrote that Spector still hadn't paid his attorney's who represented him in his lawsuit against her, to the tune of $30,000. She's even funnier in her latest piece, an open letter to any defense attorney who might be foolish enough to represent Spector in his latest legal woes.

Does anyone find it ironic that Spector, who has a habit of stiffing attorneys and extended hotel tabs ~not to mention even refusing at times to pay his electric bill~ is suing Robert Shapiro, of OJ Simpson fame and cofounder of Legal Zoom, for breach of contract to get the 1 mil back he paid him. Lest anyone forget, it was Shapiro who, on the night Spector was arrested for alledgedly shooting Lana Clarkson in the foyer of his rundown, tacky Alhambra "Castle," got him out of jail that very same day on a 1 million bond.

As of today, Spector has been walking around free for five years, four months and sixteen days since Clarkson's death. He should be kissing Shapiro's feet for this extended liberty because judgement day is just around the corner.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 10

~ Defense Attorney Stephanie Page floats theory that Rachel killed herself and her daughter.



James returns to the stand.

Pages 1 through 16 of the computer history –

1/19/06 the last use of the computer was at 19:10:38.

Another document shows ent use. The last login 1/20/06 at 12:39:05. 5 seconds before that, an incorrect password was supplied for the ent account.

From 12:35 onward, the internet activity was relative to e-mail being viewed.

Would it have been possible for someone to walk up to the computer and view the e-mail? No, a password for the ent account had to be put in.

Any internet activity from 9am and 11am? No.
Between 11 and 12? No.

Sidebar

What a cold-hearted SOB! Calmly reading e-mails while sitting feet away from the bodies of his wife and daughter. Yup, he was sure distraught and panicked.

Now they have the custodial records from Adult Friend Finder and the court marks them.

A printout from SR Pub at Adult Friend Finder is on the screen. It reads, women for one on one sex.

I am an Englishman just moved to the US and am looking for relations with American woman….

I am looking to meet American woman of all ages. I need to confirm what friends have told me you are much better in bed than woman across the ocean…

Adult Friend Finder has 2 accesses, a free trial membership, or a paid subscription. Paid subscriptions are paid for by credit card,

The report says a credit card number was used. The name Entwistle and a UK address are on the report. Payment was for $19.95. It was on 12/21/05. 1/21/06 is when the account expired!

No further questions!

Cross - Weinstein

He was asked to assist by somebody from within MA State Police? No.

DA’s office? Yes, but doesn’t know why.

He’s the guy who learned End Case and Net analysis. Yes.

He’s one of the few who are trained in this? Yes.

It’s not unusual? No.

Who gave him this computer? State Police, Troopers Banks and Manning.

He’s only talked about the laptop? No, two.

Did he clone other hard drives? Yes, made forensic duplicate.

Was he given a computer from Atty. Michael Fee? No.

Did you know there was a hard drive that came out of a box at 6 Cubs Path? No.

Referring to date 1/20/06 - a user logged on and the user visited different sites, and that some of the sites related to e-mail and the visits to the computer had to do with job searches and the e-mails had to do with job searches? Yes.

Laptop from 6 Cubs Path - you had a computer monitor and you could view things on the screen in front of you? Yes.

You could see things generated from the copy of the hard drive and could see it as seen on the original laptop? No, not exactly.

Windows EP - what does that mean? Login screen.

The login screen indicates 3 accounts? No.

Wallpaper? It was a photograph? Yes (shows picture) He doesn’t recall the image of the wallpaper. The picture doesn’t help him recall it, but he could remember if he produced a print screen image. Pros. stipulates to photo.

Weinstein puts of photo of baby Lillian.

He asks if it’s the image stipulated to? Yes.

Does he recall looking at other photographs memorialized on the hard drive of that computer? Weinstein shows James a photo.

Sidebar

Photos stipulated to that they came from the hard drive.

Weinstein shows a series of photos from the hard drive, but are not being shown on the video stream.

1/9/2006 - He was talking about the computer user searching travel sites? Yes

There were several travel sites? Yes

Airline information, reservation information, Manchester... Yes

You referred to computer activity 1/9/06 - access to Last Minute.com seeking information seeking round-trip air travel. Doesn’t know

You’ve interpreted a lot of information off this documentation, this access 1/9/06 related to a flight from Manchester to Boston for two adults, no children or infants, 4/6/06-4/18/06.

Weinstein is pointing this information out to James, bit-by-bit.

Weinstein then puts the exhibit back on the Elmo and runs through the information once again.

No more questions.

Re-direct

None

Well, it appears Mr. Weinstein did his homework. He found one site that wasn’t about a one-way ticket to England.

Next witness – Dr. William Zane, the ME. He gives his CV. He specializes in forensic pathology.

He’s performed 6,000 or more autopsies. 500-600 homicide victims and gunshot wounds.

January 24, 2006 he performed the autopsy on Rachel. Rachel was 62 inches and 159 pounds. Trooper Julie Mosley and the State Police photographer and several other police and Troopers were present.

The external examination is done head-to-toe, front to back.

Rachel had a gunshot wound to the left breast. The shape of the wound was irregular. It wasn’t immediately visible if it was a gunshot until it was cleaned. An x-ray did reveal a projectile.

There was irregular abrasion around the wound. This could be from a bullet tumbling or passing through another target first. The bullet did not penetrate the chest wall or bone or arteries.

Zane identifies a photo of a small caliber bullet that was recovered from Rachel.

The bullet was given to Trooper Steve Walsh.

Rachel’s body showed lividity in the back – left side and a contusion.

Zane then examined Rachel’s head. He noticed skull hemorrhage and a defect wound in the center of the head. It was a gunshot wound. They shaved the skull at the hairline and exposed the wound. The area was documented and photographed.

Rachel’s face didn’t contain traces of powder. There was no stippling on Rachel. It was a non-contact wound.

The internal examination of the head showed defect in the brain and a broken apart bullet in the brain. The bullet traveled downward and front-to-back. It passed through the frontal lobes. The frontal lobes control higher thinking and personality. The lower part of the lobes control breathing and other body functions.
Zane identifies the bullet fragments.

The chest and abdominal examine showed no damage.

The evidence kit was used prior to any incisions being made and given to LE. Swabs, etc.

Zane's "ah" speech patterns and intonation don't fill me with confidence. He sounds hesitant and unsure at times. He also uses a lot of vague words where a scientist should be using precise language.

Fabbri puts up body diagrams and has Zane point to and mark the areas of the wounds.

Sidebar

The wound to the chest of Rachel was not a contact wound.

Zane identifies a photo of Rachel’s shaved scalp and the bullet wound. Marked into evidence.

The photo is shown to the jury by the court officer – it is not up on the ELMO.

Sidebar

Based on your examination were you able to determine a case of death. The gunshot wound to the head and the perforation of the brain. Death was immediate.

Zane cannot determine day or time of the death. Decomposition was probably occurring 3-4 days when the autopsy was done.

The autopsy on Lillian was then done.

Lilly was 28 inches and 21-1/2 pounds.

There was darkening of the skin and decomposition. Nothing significant about her head.

Lividity was present on the front of her body.

Then Lilly was moved! She was found on her back, with a pillow over her face…

He found a gunshot wound to Lilly’s chest. No powder or stippling.

The wound was consistent of a contact wound.

Her back had a defect on the right.

The internal exam showed a bullet had passed through the chest plate. Damage was by the fourth rib. Damage to the diaphragm and damage in the abdomen. The liver was also damaged – perforated, through and through.

The kidney was also was macerated. The 11th rib was fractured and broken apart. The muscles were lacerated and torn.

The perforation to the diaphragm could affect breathing. A small injury wouldn’t necessarily cause death. Blood could accumulate and cause the lung to collapse.

The liver and kidney damage could cause death fairly rapidly.

LinZbee let us know - Listening to TTV talking legal heads and they ALL have absolutely no arguments to hold up the defense side! I've never seen this situation before here. They ALWAYS argue the most ridiculous ways to try to defend the defendant, but they are speechless here. It is just so satisfyingly funny to witness. Ha!

The external exam of Lilly and the lividity – did you review the photos and your reports? Yes.

Where was the lividity? It was on the back!

OFGS! This guy is a moron. No wonder why he was banned from performing autopsies.

Zane is marking the injuries Lilly sustained on a baby diagram.

During the autopsy Zane was, with photos and probes, able to place Lilly against Rachel and match up the wound through Lilly’s back into Rachel’s breast. The baby’s front would have faced the same direction as Rachel facing.

Lilly’s cause of death was a gunshot wound to the abdomen. Lilly probably died with in minutes. Actual date and time could not be determined, but it appeared to be 3-4 days prior to autopsy.

Zane prepared death certificates and identifies copies that he is looking at.

No further questions.

We are a bit stunned that cross is being done by Page, not Weinstein.

Cross - Page

You never went to 6 Cubs Path, ever? Correct.

You were never able to see the two bodies before they were photographed, before and after police entered. Yes.

You don't know if the bodies were moved before/after police arrived. Yes.

First saw them at ME office? Yes.

No firsthand knowledge? Yes, just from history.

Came from Hopkinton PD, State Police, DA? Yes.

He signed death certificates and autopsy reports? Yes.

Contained everything you saw? It should.

You never added anything? No addendums or reports.

Objectivity, neutrality are needed? You are an independent investigator? Independent physician.

If an expert wasn't objective, neutral, it would weight on the credibility? Yes.

You are experienced pathologist, physician? Yes.

Keep up with advances in field? I didn't say that.

You should? Yes.

You want to do as complete a job as you can? Yes.

You are a member of a number of forensic societies? No, only one.

You have attended very scientific meetings, in-house meetings? Yes.

You rely on sources for information such as "Medical and Legal Investigation of Death," by Spitz and Fischer? Yes.

It's the "bible"? I used it for the boards, he uses it extensively, doesn't know if other doctors consider it a "bible."

Zane goes through the structure and basic content of the book.

Dr. Vincent DiMaio? He is familiar with his book.

He has a sub-specialty in gunshot wounds? Yes.

DiMaio's done quite a bit of research and published beyond his book? Yes.

The American Journal of Forensic Pathology deals with issues he deals with every day.

In order to do your job, you need knowledge in a number of areas? Yes.

Trace evidence? No. (She goes on to give example where he did)

Police at autopsy can collect evidence? I can't tell what they're thinking.

If you have clothing that may contain trace evidence, you'd want the police to examine it before you remove it from the body? Yes.

He would mention existence of evidence of clothing in his report if it mattered.

He needs a working knowledge of ballistics? Define "working".

It is the ME's job to confirm or refute information received.

It is his duty to review new information if it is brought to his attention.

He agrees it is important to get a history on the person involved.

The autopsy is his main laboratory tool.

He relies on information given to him by investigators and decides if a case needs more investigation.

He agrees with Spitz and Fischer that homicide, suicide, or accident can be difficult to decide.

The fact that someone died of a gunshot wound cannot tell if it was a homicide. You base it on history, investigation, etc.

It can't say who fired the weapon.

He needs to rule out accident and suicide. He points out difference between cause and manner of death, and you need to look at the situations.

He says he's not really an expert on guns but he can recognize a bullet hole, recognize entry, and exit wounds.

He needs to know what kind of evidence guns leave on bodies.

Page reminds the witness that things may not be, as they seem.

Sometimes determining the manner of death relies on more than what he sees on the table.

He tries to find out as much as he can about the persons life? No.

Page explores this further. She reviews his testimony and says he knows he's done more autopsies on suicides than homicides.

DiMaio mentions that there are many things to look for to determine homicide.

Sidebar

Handguns are used more than rifles in suicides.

92% of women shoot themselves with a handgun according to studies.

Women use handguns more than men? I’m pleading ignorance.

Page shows him the book.

What’s happening here is that Page is quoting from DiMaio’s book and attempting to get this information into testimony. She reads statistics and asks Zane to agree. When he can’t, she shows him the book and has him read the statistics. In this case, the “fact” that in DiMaio’s book he states that studies show 72% of women who commit suicide shoot themselves in the head.....

OBJECTION to that.

Kitty Malone is freaking out! Why is she bringing up suicide? Please don't even THINK about going there defense team! If she committed suicide - where's the FREAKING GUN? DID SHE RUN IT BACK OVER TO HER PARENT'S HOUSE AS SHE WAS DYING??!!! I can't imagine what they are thinking because I'm sitting here SHAKING MAD!!!! This is why defense attorney's get the bad rap most of them deserve!!! WHERE'S THE GUN, PAGE?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOULDN'T IT BE LYING BESIDE HER AND THE BABY IF SHE OFFED HERSELF?!!! IDIOT!
Page then tries to get Zane to say he agrees. Zane doesn’t quite agree. He relies on Dr. DiMaio as a reliable authority.

Page now asks him to agree that the majority of people who commit suicide don’t leave a note. He agrees, but doesn’t specifically know the 26% she quotes from the book for a fact. Page again hands him the book to peruse.

Sidebar

Yikes, our folks here are totally losing it! LinZbee: They have gone mad! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GUN if Rachel did it????????????????????????? Lame, lame, lame! Aren't these def attorneys embarrassed? Oh, I forgot, they will say ANYTHING. I'm sick. Kitty Malone: I'm coming UNGLUED here! More so than I did during the PS trial! This is just ridiculous!!!!

On to gunshot residue –

Presence on a body could be a factor in determination of suicide. You can’t see it with the naked eye and swabs are taken? Yes.

Page is browbeating Zane asking question he doesn’t want to answer yes or no.

If a suicide is suspected, there are things you’d want to know? Yes,

If a person was depressed? Yes.

Postpartum depression, easy access to guns, prescriptions and their side effects? Yes.

Define a bruise. Caused by a blunt impact with an object that causes the crushing of the underlying tissue to cause bleeding under the skin.

The heart needs to be pumping to cause a bruise?

The breast wound to Rachel? The wound was non fatal; never entered the torso, no GSR? It didn’t break bones, no muscles were torn.

There was a bruise around the wound the heart was still pumping when the wound occurred so the bruise indicated the person was still alive.

There was only one wound t the baby. It occurred sometime when the baby was up against the adult body near where many believe the heart is. The adult female’s wound was also to her left side. He described the path of the baby’s wound as front to back.

There was lividity on the back of the baby that indicates the baby was on her back after death.

The path of the bullets can’t tell you how the gun was held? No.

He can’t say whether the gun was held by one or two hands.

It can’t tell you who fired the gun? Yes, no…he changes his mind.

Page – You’ve changed a lot

Objection

Page states there’s no place in his report that documents where the bullet fragments were found. Zane goes to his report. He did not document it.

Page points out he’s have to have some pretty concrete facts – Zane says he knows where the fragments were.

Page wants the data and says it doesn’t exist.

He says it does exist; it is on his diagram, but not in words in his report.

Page suggests they break for lunch.



Back to bullet fragments. Page says he has precise notes in his notes? No, but he has a diagram.

It doesn't have any measurement, depth, directionality? No

Time of death. It's not possible to get a precise time of death? Yes

Your opinion was good for a range of 3-4 days, plus, minus a day. It could be from Thursday to Saturday? Yes

Page gives specific times. He agrees.

Looking at death certificate - Date of Injury, unknown. Hour of death, unknown.

In terms of photographs. They were a little darker than his memory. Some of them were.

There appeared to be injury to the baby's face? Not to me, to a lay person, yes.

Why does the face appear bruised? It has some darkening because it's been exposed to air and the skin darkens when exposed to dry air, due to decomposition and lividity. Fluids are purged from the mouth. Purging is natural leakage from the body after death.

No evidence of trauma or violence except for the gunshot wound.

The baby could have died within seconds. Could be minutes or minutes.

He was able to track the wound from the baby to the mother but you can't track the wound. He tried to do this during autopsy. He positioned the bodies in a number of ways to see if the wounds matched up. Page mentions the positions.

There was no way for Zane to know exactly what the positions the bodies were in when they were shot. He still had no idea where hands or the female head were.

He had seen photos of the two bodies in the bed. The baby had a lot of lividity on the back side. The baby was on her back. He doesn't recall if that was reported to him.

The baby's right back would have had to been up against the left breast.

No investigation is always over. There may be facts that become available after the autopsy, after signing the death certificate.

If he received information that would change his mind, he would have an obligation to consider it.

He would never turn a blind eye to evidence that came in later.

He expects others to share information with him and vice versa.

From information from the police and DA, he never had a reason to investigate Rachel's life. No reason to question about depression or difficulties in her life.

After 6/15/06, was he told by the pros. office that the gunshot residue tests had come back? No From the police? No

Was he ever told that Rachel tested positive for gunshot residue on the front or back of her hands? No

Rachel's position... one hand stretched out, one over baby? Didn't remember.

Photograph of bodies by police. Page points out position of one arm, other not visible.

Page is trying to elicit that the hands couldn't have been in that position when the gun was fired.... doesn't get in.

Zane learned today on stand about the gunshot residue results. In his meetings with pros. and Trooper Manning, Fabbri never told you they had a test that showed Rachel had gunpowder residue. He says he doesn't remember.

Page points out this is important. He says "NO" He did say it could indicate a person shot a gun, that it's difficult to prove murder or suicide? He says the test wouldn't necessarily have helped him.

He says IF he had asked to see it, he would have been shown the tests if it was appropriate for him to see it.

Page is indignant about this and asks if he shouldn't have been told? He says no.

He works for the Commonwealth and usually called to testify by the prosecution.

Why doesn't he just say that gunpowder residue is an unreliable indicator?
He can't recall what he said this morning about the importance of gunshot residue evidence.

Spitz and Fischer: "Hands suspected of firing a weapon should be tested for gunshot residue" Zane doesn't agree.

Page is outraged and says "Oh, my goodness!"

We go on and on about this issue.

Sidebar

If evidence existed in a case where you had the responsibility to determine cause of death, that would be important information? It depends on the case, he doesn't know in what case it would be helpful in. It could be helpful if it answered a particular question.

Page repeats that he was not informed.
Re-direct

What type of information

It would tell me if someone was inside a room where a gun was discharged.

Can it tell if someone fired a gun? Not equivocally.

Can it tell you under any of the 3 circumstances? No

Knowing her hands tested positive, does it make a difference in your opinion? Not with regards to the findings he has.

It only tells him that the adult female was in the room when the gun was discharged.

Toxicology results? Yes

Rachel: Blood, urine, fluid from eyes. Negative for drugs of abuse, alcohol.

Reports and diagram of fragments: recovered from the substance of the brain, in downward, front-to back location. Indicated location on the diagram.

He is shown a standard diagram. It has a stamp with Rachel's name and case number. It documents the injury to her brain. He x'd in an area of the brain for entry point and marked out the areas where the fragments were. He indicated the direction and angle of the path of the projectile with an arrow.

Based on his training and experience he can state that contusions could occur after death and there can be evidence of contusing after death.

There are pain receptors in the muscle tissue, surrounding the muscle tissue, connecting tissue. There are some in/around organs of the body. Examples: heart attack, appendicitis, stomach pain.

Injuries to the torso result in pain.

If one were to sustain a self-inflicted wound to the torso vs. a gunshot wound to the head, which would cause death faster? Head

Suicidal gunshot wounds generally occur to the temple, mouth, chin. Usually contact wounds.

Do people attempt suicide by shooting through another person? No

Re-Cross

There are parent/child suicides? Yes

Page again goes over the diagram or chart and asks if he accurately described the paths... did he describe it in more detail that coloring in? No

The breast is mostly fatty tissue? Yes
That's where the bullet ended up? Yes
Not debilitating injury? Yes
Did he indicate in his report that the bruise around it came after death? No

Gun residue on Rachel's hand would not change his opinion.

Page asks who Rachel's doctor was, where she delivered the baby? Doesn't know

Page goes into examples of how Zane doesn't know any details about Rachel's life other than what the Police or the Prosecutors told him.

Zane says he didn't call her doctor.

Page asks a number of questions which are objected to.


Next witness -

Det. Sgt, Gary Flood with the extradition Unit with Scotland Yard. The unit seeks out fugitives from countries they have extradition agreements with.

He received information about Entwistle. They contacted British Airways to see if Entwistle arrived in the UK.

On January 26th he met with police from Hopkinton and MA state police.

Sidebar

On February 8, 2006 did you seek anything? Yes, a provisional arrest warrant at 9:30pm.

They contacted Entwistle’s father, Clifford. They told him the warrant had been issued for Neil’s arrest. They asked him to call Neil and have him call the police.

Clifford gave them Neil’s cell phone number that they called, but it was turned off.

They went to Dash Munding’s home. There was no answer. They called his cell and spoke with him and then went to Ladbroke Station – the tube.

He met Munding outside the station and they had a conversation.

They searched the platform and stopped a train, 2 stations down. They drove to the Royal Oak station.

They searched the train and located Neil Entwistle. They had that one train door opened and they told Entwistle and they removed him from the train.

They identified themselves and told him he was under arrest. They asked him his name and date of birth, which he confirmed.

Neil had a blue bag with him. They searched him for weapons and handcuffed him.

They brought him to the police station. He was booked and they searched further. His clothes were taken and pockets emptied.

February 16th, Neil was still in custody and they brought him to Gatwick airport and he was turned over to US Marshals.

They are looking at a map. York and London are 210 miles apart. Manchester to London is 200 miles. Worksop is 160 miles to London. Worksop to York is 60 miles.

Budget Rent A Car has offices at the airport, near York, Manchester and Sheffield, outside of Worksop.

Nothing more, no cross.

Next witness – DC Ron Hay, worked with Flood in arresting Entwistle.

February 9th, 2006 he was on duty with Flood.

He describes going to the train station around 11:35. They met Dash.

He says they drove to Royal Oak station. They entered they station. There was a stopped train in the station. They spotted Entwistle on the train.

This is a repeat of Flood’s testimony.

Entwistle had a bag that he took possession of.

At the police station he conducted a search. The bag had clothing toiletries and correspondence. He had identification on him and in the bag.

Hay found Entwistle’s UK driver license in the bag. Hay found a notepad. The notepad is identified.

Hay found a newspaper cutting and a lease for a property in the US. Hay identifies the items.

The items are published to the jury.


The newspaper clipping is from The Daily Sport, a United Kingdom publication.

Hay identifies a cell phone that Entwistle had in his pocket.

A phone charger was in the blue bag.

Hay identifies a piece of paper with writing on it that Entwistle had in his pocket.

Hay now identifies a black leather wallet that contained cash, 7 credit cards, correspondence, and a metal yellow ring. There was just under $500 pounds. The US value was about $1,000.

Entwistle’s coat, sweater, jeans and boots were taken into custody by Hay. Eventually they were turned over to the US.

Cross - Weinstein

Packet with ring in wallet. That was one of two rings he had? He doesn't remember the ring on his finger. He doesn't know where it is today.

Maybe he wasn't wearing a ring on his finger?

Next witness - DC Richard Potter, Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit. He works with Flood and Hay.

He went to the Worksop police station on the 9th. He went to Neil’s parent’s house to search it. The parents were home and they had a conversation.

They searched the bedroom and found a wallet in a small waste bin. It was a small black wallet containing $7 US – correspondence, a phone number and a PayPal credit card and number of receipts from the US and Britain.

He identifies the wallet.
He identifies the credit card.
He identifies the receipts.
He identifies the paper with the phone number.

They also took 2 desktop computers from the bedroom.
They searched the other rooms and the garage. They also took custody of a laptop.

On February 13, he turned the computers over to DC Sheikh.

Sidebar

Potter is shown a number of documents collected from Budget Rental and Holiday Express and HSBC bank that he identifies.

No further questions.

Court adjourned. Tomorrow they will end the day at 3:30.

Thanks ritanita!!!

Police Recover More Teeth at Haut de la Garenne

~ Haut de la Garenne

Police say they have recovered an additional 21 teeth at Haut de la Garenne, bringing the total to 48.

Detailed testing is yet to be done, but early indications are that most of the teeth recovered are milk teeth and it appears that most were unlikely to have come out naturally before death.

26 of the teeth are currently undergoing testing in the UK. The additional teeth will be sent to the UK once investigators finish the intensive sieving process being carried out in the four underground cellars.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 9

~ Card Entwistle sent to Rachel and Lillian’s funeral



Out of order witness – Michael Fee
He is an attorney, he advised the Puig’s, who own the 6 Cub’s Path house. He helped them recover some property.

He sent a letter to Entwistle in Hopkinton and one to England.

February 2006 he got a voice message from Entwistle. Fee identifies a CD that contains the voicemail. It is marked as an exhibit.

On the CD we can hear Neil saying he has no interest in anything in the house anymore. He wants any money returned and the possessions in the house should be taken care of by Rachel’s family.

Fee received a second call from Entwistle. Entwistle apologized for taking time in getting back to Fee. February rent had not been paid and Puig’s were concerned the property had been abandoned.

He repeated that the items in the house should be taken care of the Matterazzos, with the exception of recovering some jewelry. Fee drew up an agreement that he e-mailed to Entwistle – he received no final response from Entwistle.

Fee is reviewing some documents – page one is the e-mail from Fee to Neil.

Entwistle e-mailed back with some concerns with the agreement.

There was no further communication.

No further questions.

Cross by Weinstein

Weinstein asks Fee how many boxes he and the Puig's packed up at 6 Cubs Path. Fee says he packed up three boxes including personal papers, photographs, and jewelry. He took those boxes for storage.

Fee cannot say how many boxes the Puigs packed as they worked in another area of the house while he worked in the basement. He also states that there was a great deal of property in the house.

Weinstein asks about supervision of the packing. Fee tells him that State Police were not involved, but that an officer from the Hopkinton Police did escort them to the house and remained for some time, but not all.


No further questions, no redirect

Lawrence James returns to the stand.

Bennett gives James copies of the internet history from the laptop. They discuss an entry on 1/16/06 at 12:54:45 – user was ent.

The search was “How to Kill With a Knife.” - on google.com. The quotes limit the search to that specific phrase.

The same search was accessed again by ent.

Marked for identification.

Sidebar

The knife entry was retrieved from cache 5 times!

James is reading a document that contains a download of the search that is entered as an exhibit…

Sidebar – a lengthy one

The printout is just being marked for identification now.

How would a user grab a document? By clicking on links.
The search on killing with a knife produced a number of links that could be accessed.

James is given another document that is a printed copy of the google search with a link that was clicked on. The browser stored it on the hard drive with date and time stamps.

The document is displayed to the jury.

The link says to stab through the rib cage! Yikes!

James is given a copy of more printouts of internet history. Time visited 1/16/06, 11:45:49, the user is ent – Adult Friend Finder!

1/16/05, 11:46:40 – user ent - Adult Friend Finder graphics.

More printouts:

3 records with date and time:

1/16/06 – all close noon, all by ent – Half Price Escorts, PayPal and Half Price Escorts again.

Yet another sidebar

The jurors are sent out for about 10 minutes.

Judge wants Bennett to read out the numbers on each document. He said she has the ones they agreed to. The other volumes of documents relate to eBay.

The Judge wants them in order and copies given to Weinstein and her.

Fabbri says they have a CD that has all 16,000 pages. She wants copies of anything that is going to be shown to the witness.

Court in recess until this is completed by the prosecutors.

Back in session –

Page 6662 and 6665, January 9th are given to James. More printouts. The file is a graphic image file from Adult Friend Finder.

The next printout is from 1/9/06, user ent. It is from Hot Jobs.com.

The next printout is from 1/9/06, It is from Qinetiqs.

The next printout is from 1/9/06, user ent. The download is from Hot Jobs.

Next printout is from 1/0/06, user ent. It is from Monster. There are NO searches for actual jobs!

The next search is 1/9/06, user ent. This was a download from Embedded - Neil’s company.

Next printout is dated 1/9/06, user ent. The download is eBay.

Date 1/9/06, user ent. PayPal account accessed.

Date 1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Embedded.

Date 1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Cheap Flight.co.uk. Wow!

Date 1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Fly Manchester.com.

Date 1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Last Minute.com – flights

Date 1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Cheap Flight.co.uk, again.

This is so big! On January 9, 2006, user ent. was looking for a flight to England.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed British Airways and Last Minute.com.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Manchester Airport.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed British Airways, select flights.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed Last Minute.com, flight search in conjunction with Cheap Flights.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed British Airways, again.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed eBay.

1/9/06, user ent. Accessed SR Publications.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed MoneyBank.com.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal, again.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Half Price Escorts.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Half Price Escorts, again.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Escort in Wooster.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Hot Local Escorts.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Hot Local Escorts, image.

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Escorts Naughty Night Life.com

1/18/06, user ent. Accessed Adult Friend Finder

Sidebar

Looks like the stuff was marked by the court…

1/18/06, user ent. Searched Wooster area Escort services - Blond Beauties Escort Service

Image files of maps Wooster area.

1/18/06, user ent. The pages show Blond Beauties Escort Service and a map to get there.

1/18/06, user ent. Search for Escort, Worcester, MA.

Sidebar to discuss the next batch of records

1/16/06, user ent. Accessed a profile from Adult Friend Finder.

1/16/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal.

1/16/06, user ent. Accessed Half Price Escorts.

5 records -1/16/06, user ent. Accessed Adult Friend Finder.

5 more records – 1/16/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal and 4 are job search sites.

5 more records – 1/16/06, user ent. Accessed sites for job searches.

1/16/06, user ent. Search for escorts in Westboro.

1/16/06, user ent. Search for female escorts, Boston.

1/16/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal.

1/16/06, user ent. A genealogy site, search for Entwistle.

1/16/06, user ent. Accessed EMC.com, a high tech company.

1/16/06, user ent. Search for Hopkinton, FPGA. James has no idea what FPGA is.

1/17/06, user is contract (password protected user). Accessed PayPal.

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed Monster.com.

Another group of packets –

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed job searches.

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed One on One.co.uk, a web hosting site.

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed the web mailer portion of One on One.

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed IEEE a standards organization.

1/17/06, user contract. Accessed My IEEE membership.org.

1/17/06, user ent. Search results for American Semiconducter.

1/17/06, user ent. Accessed Adult Friend Finder.

Batch of records for 1/17/06, user ent. Accessed PayPal, job searches and eBay.

1/17/06, user ent. Search for Knife in Neck Kill!

Sidebar

Mr. James did the user ent select something from the google search? Yes.

LinZbee reports: Oh MY! Even the lawyers on TTV seem to be throwing in the towel at this point. They usually argue the opposite side of ANYTHING, but this is too much even for them!

Search on 1/17/06 by ent for keywords “quick suicide method”. A selection was made from the search results.

1/20/06 at 12:30:15, 12:30:20 and 12:30:25, by ent.

Judge adjourns court till tomorrow…

Damn, this was going to be the real bad stuff; all occurred after Rachel and Lilly had been murdered!

Thanks for your contribution ritanita.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 8

~Elliot Weinstein and
Michael Fabbri


Bennett calls the next witness – Laura Bryant

Bryant is the DNA expert. She gives her job duties and CV. At the state crime lab she compares DNA evidence to known DNA. She is also a supervisor of the lab.

Bryant is the forensic scientist who analyzed the samples in the Entwistle case.

DNA can be deposited through skin cell, semen, hair with roots, etc.

A “mixture” is a sample that contains DNA from more than one person. A major profile will have a large amount of DNA from one individual; more so than anyone else in the mixture.

She explains how the lab protects from contaminating evidence: gloves, lab cost, cleaning surface with bleach, etc.

They have DNA standards from Joe Matterazzo, Michael Matterazzo, Anthony Matterazzo, Priscilla Matterazzo, Zachary Matterazzo, Joe Matterazzo, Jr, George Wilson, Lloyd Cooke, blood standard from Rachel, head hair standard from Lillian, swab from the gun handle.

Bryant is given the .22 colt and shows the jury that the handle has a rough surface which means depositing of DNA is fairly easy and that wiping the gun probably would not remove all DNA.

The gun contains DNA that did not come from the Matterazzos’ Wilson, Cooke, Rachel or Lillian.

The DNA profile from the Dasani water bottle –

Sidebar

Saliva sample from Neil Entwistle and the Dasani bottle were a confirmed match. There was a minor profile on the bottle that was unidentified.

The swab of the grip of the gun contained Entwistle’s DNA which matches standard!

The swab from the barrel area of the gun contained a mixed profile of DNA - the major profile on the muzzle of the gun was Rachel’s.

Sidebar

A swab from the gun’s trigger lock shows DNA from Entlwistle as the major contributor and two minor contributors.

Blood on pillow case number #4’ - profile is from Lilly.
Swab of ammo can latch and handle is a smooth surface – the profile they obtained indicates several profiles, but the major profile is Entwistle’s.

The swab from the gun cylinder matches Entwistle as major contributor with unidentified contributors.

The swabs from the bedroom walls – spots 1, 2 &3. The DNA matched Rachel’s profile.

Good lord, ain’t no way Weinstein can refute this testimony.

They go through a group of swabs that contained mixture DNA and could not yield a specific individual and/or excluded numerous individuals.

Sidebar

Bryant tested the inside, front and middle crotch area of Rachel’s underwear. The DNA was a mixture from Rachel and Entwistle. Major contributor consistent with Entwistle and minor contribution from Rachel.

Bryant tested the snippet of the back interior crotch of the underwear to obtain a full profile. DNA matched Entwistle as the major and Rachel as the minor contributors.

From the peri-anal swabs, Bryant found Entwistle’s DNA the major profile and Rachel as a minor contributor.

The vaginal swab tested showed the DNA of Rachel is the major profile and Entwistle as a minor.

The hair from the bed frame yielded no profile. The hair was probably too old to test.

Sidebar

Bryant produced a report table from all of her testing. The DNA charts from the report are going to be put up for the jury to see.

One chart has the exemplar profiles or known DNA samples.

Bryant compares the numbers to the evidence items.

This is all a re-hash of the verbal testimony she provided.

Bryant talks about major and minor contributors and profiles that can’t be positively tied to specific DNA exemplars.

Basically, we are pinning Entwistle’s DNA to numerous evidence items.

It’s meticulous and tedious. The court officers have just brought in pillows and blankies for the jurors...yawn.

Now a new chart is put up that is more condensed and is basically only tied to the gun and Entwistle’s DNA.

The profile on the barrel and muzzle swabs of the gun, match Rachel’s DNA.

Direct is done.

Cross - Weinstein

Weinstein mentions how the witness handled each evidence item by changing her gloves. This helps her insure she doesn’t contaminate the items.

She wasn’t so worried in the courtroom because there is not more testing to be done? She wasn’t sure, she did change her gloves.

Weinstein goes on to discuss collection techniques used in the field and other laboratory services in the field.

She was testing items such as swabs that someone else collected. She would know what items she was testing by reference numbers given in the field.

When she received the swab from the barrel, the proper technique would be to swab from area. Not necessarily.

If the laboratory collection person took a swab from one side of the gun, it would give you information that DNA was on that side of the gun? She would look at criminologist notes.

But you wouldn’t know from your direct knowledge? Correct.

Working just from the sample envelopes, you don’t know from direct knowledge from where the evidence was collected? Correct.

You would have to ask somebody else or ask somebody else? Yes, or check notes.

If she were told the swab was from the barrel AND the grip, she wouldn’t know where it came from.

If it was from inside and outside the muzzle, the only way to know where it came from would be to take two different swabbings.

There is a discussion of handler DNA and how DNA can be deposited on an item.

Direct deposit and indirect deposit of DNA. Weinstein is getting at the possibility that DNA on the gun was placed there indirectly.

Unless someone tells her how the DNA got on the item, she has no way to prove whether the DNA is a result of direct or indirect method.

Transfer DNA: When an object brushes against an object, there may be a transfer of DNA from one to another.

Essentially, she tests what she gets, regardless of how it was deposited on the item.

She can make comparison to see if there is a match, inclusion, or exclusion.

When she says a DNA profile is consistent with a known source, you don’t say it’s a direct match. If it’s a mixture, she can’t. She can say it could be.

Testing doesn’t say who handled the object last, longest, tightest, who pressed against it the longest.

She can’t say when the biological sample was deposited onto an item.

She doesn’t know the total number of items she tested. She counts them up. There were about 34, no somewhat less and compared them against the exemplars. She names the known individuals for whom she had exemplars.

The Federal Ammunition Box - her results were inconclusive in terms on Rachel and Neil Entwistle? No, only for Neil Entwistle.

Green Ammunition Can - no conclusive result for Rachel? No, she was excluded.

Green Metal Ammunition Can - minor profile yielded results that excluded people.

Swab from trigger lock - Inconclusive and excluding? Correct.

Three terms used with analyzing mixtures: Including, excluding, inconclusive.

Black gun case - swab from front locks and case. There was a mixture from at least 3 people. She included Rachel as a potential contributor? Yes.

And that’s the same way she described Rachel’s DNA from underpants and vaginal swab? Yes. When she analyzed that mixture from a cutting from the underwear.

He describes the DNA analysis from the underwear; you say she was included as a potential contributor. Rachel was a potential contributor on the sperm fraction on the minor profile.

The same is true for her own vaginal swab? No Rachel was a match for the major contributor.

That’s the same as for the gun case where she tested as a potential contributor? Vaginal swab was a match but she was a potential contributor on the gun case.

Re-direct

In regard to the gun case of the 11 people, how many could you exclude? 4.

What is a sperm fraction? They perform an extraction technique that is different. They add chemicals to break open the cells to release the DNA. The cells extracted are non-sperm cells. Harsher chemicals are added to extract the sperm fraction.

Is it unusual for a female to not be the major contributor to a sperm fraction? No.

Next witness – Debra Egan. She owns a florist shop in Plymouth. Her daughter Kelly works there also. She took a phone call on January 30th, from a younger British male. The person asked for orange roses or lilies. He wanted a single rose and lily in a bud vase. He asked what it would look like.

She also took an order for a funeral spray.

She took the information on the funeral, the order, payment method and a phone number, the message for the card to be included with the flowers.

On the 31st, there was an order for a funeral spray for Rachel and Lilly.

The flowers were delivered to the Shepard Funeral Home.

That’s all for the prosecution.

Cross - Page

In your business, you do a lot of funeral arrangements? Yes.

It’s not uncommon for people to call you on the phone? Yes.

Some people are emotionally upset? Yes.

Some people are very calm, trying to keep control? Yes.

Some people are fixed on the details with very specific instructions? Yes.

Discussion of which words could be capitalized? Yes.

It’s not unusual for orders for precise flowers? Yes.

Did you take credit card information? No, daughter Kelly.

The British person you spoke to on the 30th, you now know it was Neil Entwistle? Yes.

Next witness – Kelly Egan, Debra’s daughter. She took the info from Entwistle for what was to be written on the card.

January 30, she spoke with Entwistle about the order. He also ordered a second order of flowers. The message; “my Orange Rose and Lily for always…

The second order was a spray was pink and white flowers: To Rachel and our precious granddaughter…signed from Neil’s parents and his brother.

Entwistle called again on the 31st. He asked if the credit card went through ok and he wanted to place another order. A spray basket to Rachel and Lillian from all your friends in England…

Ok, I admit, I was crying a bit here.

Cross - Page

You spoke to Neil Entwistle and placed orders for two sets of flowers. Yes.

She places Neil’s note on the screen: He asked certain words capitalized, including For Always. Yes.

He then wanted to order another funeral arrangement? Yes.

It was from the rest of the family? Yes.

Page reads the text of the note. Kelly confirms as she reads.

When you spoke with Neil Entwistle the next day, he ordered another arrangement? Yes.

He ordered it for family friends? Yes.

He gave you his name? Yes.

He ordered on the same credit card? Yes.

He gave you phone numbers? Yes.

One was a number where you could reach him in England? Yes.


Next witness – Benjamin Prior, he is from London. He knows Neil from University, since 1998. They were on the rowing team. He, Dash Munding, Neil and Rachel were all good friends.

Prior says Neil and Rachel were a lot of fun to be with and they were a loving couple.

February 2006 he spoke Entwistle and Prior asked how he was. Entwistle sounded distressed. He asked to come spend a few days in London. Dash, Prior and Entwistle went out to dinner. They met to see how Neil was and if there was anything they could do to help him.

They talked about what went on that day. Neil said he went out the morning and he came home and found Rachel and Lilly dead. He got to the house at 11am. Entwistle said he was so distraught he went to the kitchen to get a knife to kill himself.

He told them he drove to his in-laws to get a gun but couldn’t get in.

Entwistle said he found his mother-in-law and they went to the in-laws house. They spoke to the State Police to tell them what he found.

He spoke with the police several times. They called Neil to tell him that they had found Rachel and Lilly. He was surprised that the police didn’t know he knew about the bodies.

He said he was isolated at the in-laws as they were consoling each other. So, he left and went to the only other place he really knew in the US; Logan Airport. Then he made the decision to fly home to his family.

They discussed his financial situation and he was struggling.

Neil told his friends that he BOUGHT the Hopkinton house with a 100% mortgage. He also told them they bought the BMW.

He said Rachel wanted all the money for the new house and the baby and they were struggling and living by credit cards mostly.

On Thursday the UK police called Prior. He then called Dash and Neil to let them know.

It was apparent to Prior that the police wanted to reach Entwistle right away.

Prior told Entwistle to return home right away on the train. The US police were anxious to know exactly where Neil was.

Cross - Weinstein

That Thursday morning call from the police was to ask if you knew where Neil was? Yes.

Come home? Yes.

Extradition? Yes.

Pass word to Dash? Yes.

Neil was with him? Yes.

You heard Neil’s response, “We’ll, I’d better get going.”

Last time he saw him he was at the Sudbury train station, ready to go home.

Home was where his parents were? Yes.

Talked to Neil at dinner with Dash in restaurant? Yes.

Media camped out on parents’ property? Yes.

He explained that’s why he went to London take pressure of media off family? Yes.

Talked again when they had dinner at his home? Yes.

He had concern for his family in Worksop? Yes.

Concerned about loss of Rachel and Lillian? Yes.

Never met Lily? Yes.

Weinstein goes back and reviews time they spent at university and hung out together, him, Rachel, Neil, Dash, Skinner? Yes.

They had good fun together? Yes.

You were the single guys and Neil was losing his bachelorhood? Yes.

You spent less time with him since he spent time with Rachel as a couple. Yes.

They moved in together? Not then, after university.

The relationship was more loving? Yes, they seemed very much a loving couple.

They became engaged, the bonds between the two of them were stronger? Yes, 2.4 children.

That’s the way HE viewed the relationship? Yes.

They got married? Yes.

They settled near London... further north.

You had contact with them? Yes.

The relationship was rock solid? Yes.

They moved to the US? Yes.

The next time you saw him was in February, 2006? Yes.

His world had changed? Yes.

Did he seem devastated? He seemed very uncomfortable.

Re-direct

Last time he saw them after college? A reunion.

How many times had he seen them together? Hadn’t.

Prior to Feb., when had he seen them? Late 2004, 2005.

Re-cross

When you saw him at dinner with Dash, he appeared to be totally devastated? Totally upset, playing with his wedding ring.


Next witness – Dashiel Munding another friend of Neil and Rachel. He’s known them since 1998 from University and the all rowed together.

He attended Rachel’s wedding in 2003.

They socialized once or twice a year after University. After the wedding he saw them once but they spoke by phone.

Neil called him in February 2006. Neil said he was at his parent’s home and the media was surrounding his house and asked if he could come to London and stay with him. Dash picked him up at the train station.

Over dinner with Neil and Prior, Neil told them that on the day Rachel and Lillian were found dead, he left the house around 9am and went shopping. He said when he left, he left the back door unlocked.

He didn’t buy anything and when he came home the door was still unlocked. He found Rachel and Lillian dead under a blanket.

Neil went to Matterazzo’s to make sure the guns were secure and none were missing.

He the said he drove to Priscilla’s office and called the police from there.

Neil left the office and drove for a while and then went to Logan so he could fly home to be comforted by his parents.

On the day of the funerals Neil said he went to the place where he proposed to Rachel.

One evening they went to the movies. The next day they got up around 7 or 8am. Neil said his father called and said the police were going to arrest him and he needed to go home.

Dash said he would drive him to the train, but Neil said no. They walked together to the tube. They said goodbye.

Dash received a call from Det. Sgt. Flood and Dash went back to the platform to talk to Neil. He told Neil about the call and asked him to return to the street to meet the police.

Neil said he didn’t want to speak to the police there and how could he get out of the station.

3 officers arrived. Dash then went home.

Nothing further.

Cross - Weinstein

This was a Thursday he last saw Neil about 9 AM.

Earlier that day Neil received a call from his father on his mobile phone.

His father saying that LE in Worksop were asking Neil to come back home, because they were going to arrest Neil there.

When he and Neil left, the purpose was for Neil to get back to Worksop, see his family, and be arrested after being with his family one more time.

It didn’t happen because a policeman, Mr. Flood called him and said they wanted to arrest Neil in London.

He left Neil at the tube station because it was Neil’s decision what to do.

Everything Neil communicated said that he knew he was going to be arrested, but wanted to go home first.

Neil was a quiet guy. He had a girlfriend who was more outgoing, vivacious.

He was more reserved that Rachel.

It was a little different in February because he was upset.


Next witness – Urooje Sheikh, Det. Constable from London. He’s in computer forensics. He gives his CV.

EnCase is a forensic tool used to image a computer. The forensic image takes a copy of the data on the computer. No changes are made to the original hard drive.

He took forensic images from 3 computers. RJP 3 and RJP4 were imaged and then he write blocked the drives so they couldn’t be altered.

Sheikh is handed the hard drive that he identifies. He turned it over to Det. Constable Richard Potter.

There is a process to protect and ensure a proper copy of the data onto the forensic image – he describes the process. There were no changes to the information on the drives.

In the UK you access goggle by typing www co.uk. That is done if you are purchasing something; it only brings up UK pages.

Nothing further and no cross.

Next witness – Lawrence James. He is employed as a police office with the city of Medford. He works the computer crime unit and does data forensic examinations.

Larcenies, homicides, child pornography, etc are the types of cases he has worked on.


In 2006, he was brought into the Entwistle case. He examined 3 computers and images from 3 other computers sent over from the UK.

He explains the same duplicate copy process and write block that Sheikh described.

He identifies a hard drive from a laptop and acknowledges he knows where the computer came from. Marked as evidence.

He identifies a laptop that he removed the hard drive from. It is marked for identification.

An MD5 hash (mathematical algorithm) is used in conjunction with an acquisition hash. When they match up it shows the data is transferred accurately.

He examined the different user names on the system – ent, internet and photos, contract.

The “ent” account had admin privileges and was password protected. “Contract” was the same. “Internet and photos” was a lesser account without password

The computer clock was set to the correct local time.

He describes how he processed the internet website access.

He recovered allocated and the unallocated files.

Bennett gives James a packet marked 3126 on the first page and the last is 3140. The pages contain the internet history. The full internet history is 16,000 pages.

Page 3126 has 3 sections. The top section indicates a visit 1/16 12:54 at goggle.com – How to kill with a knife

Page 3140 – google search – How to kill with a knife. The user is the “ent” account

Judge tells the jury they are the responsible for finding whether the defendant made the searches, it doesn’t show the defendant is a bad person. They may use the evidence for determining Neil and Rachel’s relationship, Neil’s state of mind.

Court adjourned and she reminds them tomorrow is a half day.

Whew, long day. The DNA evidence was quite damning and what's coming up with the computer evidence is going to blow the lid off things!

ritanata, thanks as always!

Entwistle Tidbits

A few interesting items...

1. Entwistle’s attorneys are still fighting to make sure the jury doesn’t see a nude photo of him that he allegedly posted on the Adult Friend Finder site. Of course, they claim it isn’t Entwistle in the photo.

2. Weinstein was appointed as Entwistle's attorney by the state Committee for Public Counsel Services and is earning $100 an hour for defending him.

3. A lot of folks are saying that Weinstein’s approach to cross examination leaves much to be desired – you know, he doesn’t ask that many questions and basically parrots the testimony - makes a statement and waits for the witness to agree?

Our friend Sedonia Sunset said: I'd like to see a witness ANSWER in the form of a question, Jeopardy-style.

I can hear it now - Weinstein: "You performed a GSR test on item A." Witness: "What is Yes?"

Weinstein: "You did not perform a GSR test on Item B." Witness: "What is No, I did not?"

Judge to the witness: "WTF are you are you doing?" Witness: "What is SOMEONE has to actually say something in the form of a QUESTION?"

Witness: “BTW, Judge, I appreciate that you actually DID ask me a QUESTION. THAT is a statement."

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 7

~Lillian Rose
4/9/05 – 1/20/06

We start the day with the usual morning sidebar. Deanna Dygan is back on the stand on direct with Fabbri.

We are now going to talk about pillowcase #4. It was on top of Lilly. She did blood and GRS testing.

She tested for burnt powder particles. No GSR was found.

The blood tests were done on 3 spots on the case. All 3 were positive for human blood.

She also tested for amylase that is part of saliva. It tested positive. She also found lead particles on the pillow.

The stains on the pillow correspond to the red-brown stains on Lilly’s mouth area.

Dygan gives the item numbers assigned to the items she tested. The items were preserved for DNA analysis.

Dygan is looking at photos and identifies them as photo’s she took of pillowcase #4.

Dygan also tested the swabs taken from walls in the bedroom. They tested positive for human blood. She preserved the for further DNA testing. She identifies photo of the envelopes that contain the swabs. A fourth envelope contains the human hair found on the bed frame.

Dygan opens an evidence bag and confirms it contains the underpants Rachel was wearing. They contained yellow and brown stains in the crotch area and fecal matter. She also tested for sperm that was positive.

Fabbri gives another evidence bag to Dygan. She identifies the green and white shirt that Rachel was wearing. It is blood-soaked from the neck down through the shoulder and chest area. There were 3 holes in the chest area of the shirt. GSR was preformed on the holes. Hole number 1 and 2 had lead particles.

The red-brown areas tested positive for human blood. She found sperm cells on the shirt as well.

We are now looking at the back of Rachel’s shirt. The shoulders and left arm are stained. The test was positive for blood. She did not find sperm cells on the back of the shirt.

Dygan identifies a photo of the shirt and it is marked as an exhibit.

She received a kit from the ME’s office. She documented what was inside. The swabs are from of number of orifices, hair and blood standards for Rachel.

She found blood and sperm cells on the vaginal swab. The peri-anal swab had blood and sperm cells.

Now we are shown Lilly’s sleeper. It is quite blood stained on the neck and chest area. There is a hole in the left chest. Blood and lead are both present.

The back of the garment is blood stained. The test shows positive for human blood. There is a hole in the back of the sleeper that tested positive for lead.

This is so very sad and difficult to watch.

The hole was concluded to be a contact shot. That means the gun was pressed directly against Lilly’s chest.

Another evidence bag is opened. It contains the white onsie Lilly wore. Blood was found on the chest and stomach area. There was a hole on the left chest area and on the back. Tests show vaporous lead. The hole in the back did not test positive. The entire backside of the onsie is heavily blood stained.

Dygan also tested the black shirt from the BMW. She didn’t see any stains. She collected trace evidence and tested for blood.

She also tested a dirty diaper found in the back of the BMW and found blood.

A blue sweater was tested for blood and it was negative. The sleeves were tested for GSR.

GSR doesn’t travel far because they are like a dust. It can adhere to whatever the land on. They usually last on clothes longer than skin.

If a positive is received what does that indicate? That the person fired a firearm or was in the vicinity of the firearm. Or they could have handled a firearm.

Dygan identifies the ammo can she was sent in January. She documented the item and then sent on to crime scene services for fingerprinting. She identifies the items in the box. Dygan took swabs for handler DNA. She points out the areas she swabbed. She also swabbed ammo boxes that were inside the can. A glass jar, firearm magazine and a bag with a washer inside.

Now Dygan is asked to identify the gun case that and she documented it by photographed the sent for fingerprinting. When she received back, she collected the handler DNA from the box and contents. Same process as before with the ammo can.

Dygan identifies photos of the ammo can and the gun box and they are marked.

Another evidence box. It contains a tan gun case, a trigger lock and a colt revolver. She identifies the photo of the same. It too is marked.

She saw a white stain on the muzzle and a brown gel-like material inside of the barrel of the gun. It was negative for blood. She identifies the photo of the gun. The swabs were preserved for further testing. She collected swabs from the hammer and grip handle for handler DNA.

She shows the jury where on the trigger lock she tested. Same with case. Same with the colt revolver.

Fabbri gives her another bag and she identifies a trigger lock and gunlock keys that she swabbed for handler DNA.

Another bag is opened that contains envelopes. The envelope holds additional gun lock keys. These too were swabbed.

Dygan received a knife block with 10 knives and kitchen shears in February. 3 additional steak knives from 6 Cubs Path. They tested negative for blood and she tested for GSR.

She identifies a photo of them and it is marked as an exhibit.

She also obtained a DNA swab from Entwistle.

She also examined a fitted sheet that had yellow and brown stains and a large contact area stain. She found positive human blood. There was no damage to the sheet.

She identifies photos of the fitted sheet.

Fabbri has no further questions…

Cross - Weinstein

Weinstein begins questioning by pointing out Dygan in not State Police and comes in without bias. He’s done this with all the scientific witnesses. He stresses that the investigators were open-minded and have no idea as to who may have committed the crime.

Weinstein summarizes her connection with the case from the meeting at the police station. She took field notes for herself and John Soares. He says she wrote down Neil Entwistle on her form prior to going to the home. She knew nothing about him except that they had some background information.

Weinstein stressed she wrote the suspect was Neil Entwistle and that colored her thinking throughout the investigation. She says she wasn’t biased.

She doesn’t recall any odor until she got to the master bedroom.

She looked around first and decided what she needed to do to conduct a thorough crime-scene investigation. She discussed it with John Soares. She did not necessarily discuss it with State Police.

She doesn’t recall anything specific that the troopers told her to look for. She would possibly have done so if they had asked and she felt it made sense to her.

The troopers photographed the room before she began her work. She didn’t look for fingerprint evidence; the Crime Scene Services did that before she started.

She saw a bed covered with a white comforter. She didn’t know if anyone had touched it or anything before she arrived. She was aware that the police had gone in earlier and hadn’t found anything. She was aware the Gately sisters had been in the house.

The police found the bodies on a second walk-through.

There is no way to know if the bed was in the same condition as when Rachel and Lillian were shot.

She was present when the comforter was first removed: She and Soares documented what it looked like before it was removed. On the underside there was red-brown staining that was tested. This was transfer staining. There was transfer staining on much of the surfaces of the bed... the pillowcases, fitted sheets, garment.

Weinstein: “It was a bloody mess.” Yes. (Remember what Neil said to his father-in-law on the phone!)

She did presumptive testing. Testing for human blood was done in the lab.

She was very careful to follow protocol, step-by-step analysis.

Her work was focused, thorough, complete.

Her results need to be credible and reliable.

Cloth on floor - negative for blood

Bathroom - towel tested negative for blood, it was put aside as not needing further analysis.

Discussion of need for rigorous and scientific methods.

Green shirt - tested for blood at scene, gunshot residue at lab.
When she looked at shirt in bedroom she didn’t notice anything that made her think it needed gunshot residue.

The shirt was left on the body. Same with Lillian’s clothes.

Lillian’s Garments - she noticed a hole and determined it was from a contact wound.

She noticed indentation in shirt, vaporous particulate, and other
signs.

She saw the position of the two bodies before the blood was seen. She knows from the positioning of the bodies when the covers were removed. She can’t tell how they got there and in what position they were when they were shot.

She states the medical examiners know about trajectory... No trajectory determined at the site.

At the time they uncovered the body, she didn’t know it was a gunshot wound to the child. She didn’t know whether or not the child had been shot. She now knows because of gunshot residue and testing that was done.

As to Rachel, she didn’t notice Rachel was shot in the forehead.

Weinstein refers to “careful and meticulous” work and they didn’t find gunshot wounds.

They spent about four hours studying the bed. Then they studied the stains on the wall for 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. They could be seen clearly when they moved from the bed to a wider examination of the room. It looked like blood so they tested for it.

We are back to the fact that they did not test for occult blood.

When the moved the bed covers, Rachel’s left arm was extended, index finger pointed. Her right arm was wrapped around the child. Dygan points out they had to remove the pillow first.

Soares physically collected gunshot residue stubs from Rachel’s hands.

They didn’t collect gunshot residue from Lillian’s body or from any of the clothing at the scene.

The bodies were removed about 5 hours after they arrived at the scene. She was there when this occurred.

Weinstein refers to bagging hands. She says that’s ME procedures which she isn’t aware of.

After the bodies were removed, they did other testing for blood.

We are back to the shirt... looking for vaporous residues? No; gunshot residue.

She documented the green shirt and all the other garments. She observed it under a stereo-zoom microscope. She saw something that made her to decide to test for lead. She did the paper test first for burnt gunpowder.

Dygan goes through each and every step of every procedure she did on the green shirt. All three holes tested negative with the paper test. She wanted to test for any of the four residues. Next test... metallic residues test for lead, copper, nickel.
Hole #1 Pos. for lead
#2 Pos. for lead
#3 Neg. for all three

She cannot say what kind of gun or who was holding the gun based on the testing of the clothes.

She did the same test for the pajamas and the onesie. It’s the contact shot from the front. Neither of Rachel’s wounds was a contact shot.

First pillow case, the one on top of the child. (Pillowcase #4) It had transfer bloodstain. She examined it for gunshot residue. Greiss test negative, lead test was positive. It was transferred to the pillowcase from the face.

She spent about 2 hours examining each of the pillowcases.

Pillowcase #1: She went through the same analysis on this.
There were lead particles, from a gun? Can’t say.
She mentioned the 18 inches the other day. Did she test the gun? No.
She got the results for the 22 at a later time. She offered testimony on Friday, she had test firing information for the 22. She received it from Trooper Steve Walsh in July, 2006.

On the piece of cloth used in the test firing was the appropriate information to give her the patterns for the test firings at each distance. None of the test firings were from 18 inches. The distances were contact, close contact (1/2 inch), and 6 inches.

This is very, very, very, very, very tedious…

AHA! She generally knows that vaporous residue travels no more than 18 inches. Weinstein points out triumphantly she could have asked for more testing, that all she had was generality where she should want to be rigorous and precise! He made a point! Didn’t seem to bother the witness.

There is a great deal more questioning by Mr. Weinstein about vaporous residue and the distance the vaporous residue could travel. The witness attempts to answer, but since the answer isn’t "yes" or "no," Weinstein interrupts and asks another, more detailed question. The result is that the information comes out rather muddied up.

Test on the sweater from the BMW. Was the request written? No, phone call from the lead investigator, Trooper Manning. He made no request for a specific test. It was up to her to decide what to test for. She gave the sweater the most thorough investigation she could.

Did she think Mr. Entwistle wiped blood off with the sweater? No, she was just testing for blood. Weinstein states, "That’s because you had an open mind....."

She received an ammunition box from the Carver residence. She did not do a screening test for blood. She was to examine them and decide the tests she would do. Weinstein asks if she knew she was going to look at it and take samples for the DNA analyst. She "utilized that careful process" on each item that came from the Carver house. Weinstein mentions all the items that were to be examined.

I think the only thing Weinstein is getting across here is that there is the slightest scintilla of a hint that maybe there was something that wasn't tested for everything under the sun.

The swabs that she took were sent to the DNA lab.

Weinstein again reiterates the terms scientific, meticulous, yadda, yadda, yadda.

You needed to do all the steps that could be done, you didn't eliminate steps that could rule Neil Entwistle out as a subject. You didn't care who committed the crime?

Again the mention of careful and meticulous and avoidance of contamination of biological evidence.

Your efforts are to eliminate all the sources of possible biological contamination? Avoid it, yes.

You're not perfect? You try to minimize contamination?

By the time it gets to you, the biological evidence has been collected? Yes.

There's nothing that you, the careful scientist can do to avoid the contamination of crime scene evidence? Correct.

This continues on with all the ways evidence can be contaminated.
Item 17-4, the 22 caliber revolver. It wasn't at 6 Cubs Path when you were there January 23rd. There's no way to say how many surfaces it touched, how many people handled it, how many sources touched that 22 before it made it's way to your laboratory.

Weinstein is getting snarky again. Kudos to the witness who is a real trooper, if not a State Trooper!

Re-direct: Fabbri

At the time she got Neil’s name, she knew he had left the country Saturday morning with a one-way ticket and that his BMW was at Logan Airport.

Dygan says they:

wear protective gloves, do not speak over evidence or wear a mask. They clean the tables and tools with a bleach solution at the lab. They use disposable materials and changes gloves regularly.

She observed no visible stains on outside of the comforter, but observed stains on the inside part that had been near the headboard.

They only observed blood on the bed and wall. None in closet, bathroom, rugs, or anywhere else in the house.

The width of the droplets on the wall were about 4-5 millimeters. She first observed them about halfway through the crime scene after they closed the closet door and observed them behind the closet door.

She observed the sleeper visually. It appeared to be a gunshot hole due to gunshot residue and stellate pattern. Same with the onesie. On the body, it did not appear to be a gunshot wound.

She did not observe a gunshot wound to Rachel’s head. She observed a black mark about 1/4-1/2 inch in diameter. It did not appear there was any penetration in the body.

She testified as to how far gunshot residue vapors would travel. There was no hole in the pillow. In order to do test firing, they need a hole to compare to make measurements. If there is a hole, beyond a contact shot, there would be a range.

Why did you test pajamas in 2006 for range? It was a contact impact.

The sweater from BMW -she doesn’t know how long it was in the BMW or to whom it belonged.

Re-Cross Weinstein

Did she look at photographs before testifying about 18-inch distance? The photographs of the dead bodies as they were found? Yes.

You don’t know what position they were in when they were shot? Correct.

Weinstein mentions safeguard for contamination. He points out these steps so that SHE, the SCIENTIST doesn’t contaminate evidence. She has no way of preventing contamination BEFORE she shows up.


Next witness – John Drugan, another chemist.

Fabbri ask him where he works. State Police lab in the explosives area. He has training in prima gunshot residue.

We go into details of what GSR is and collecting GSR. Think expert testimony in the Spector trial.

He confirms that GSR can travel several feet in front of the weapon or behind the weapon.

He explains how the scanning of GSR extraction stubs is done and the reports that are generated by the scanner.

A positive result allows the to say a person, fired a weapon, handled the weapon or was close to the weapon; it does not tell them which of the three.

A negative does NOT prove a person didn’t fire a weapon.

In January he tested a kit with Rachel’s name on it. He got a positive result. On 4 swabs -Rachel’s chest, left back and both palms. The stubs were scanned twice.

The particle was determined to be lead.

Then he tested a kit labeled BMW, Neil Entwistle. It was negative. Also he tested the kit labeled BMW keys. It also was negative.

The next kit was from the sweater sleeves. They were negative.

The next kit…

Sidebar –

The next series of stubs came from knife handles from knife block, 2 knives from the dishwasher and one from knife on counter from 6 Clubs Path. All were negative.

No further questions.

Cross - Weinstein

Weinstein begins by saying the gunshot residue tests with SEM was primarily for gunshot primer residue? Yes.

There is also residue that comes out in a smoky cloud that travels a distance from the gun? Yes.

There are ways to determine the distance the cloud travels? No, there are tests to determine the distance particles travel.

It’s not measuring the cloud itself, but the particulate that lands somewhere? Yes.

Did he do any test firing with the 22 caliber revolver? No.

If there had been testing done, it would have been able to calculate the distance the residue travels? Yes.

Weinstein mentions who-all could have tested the gun.

In a test fire, the distance would have been exact? You could be missing something, there are thousands and thousands of particles.

They disperse down, like snowflakes? Forward, side, and back.

It could be examined under test firing conditions and you could measure the distance the farthest particle went? Here there is confusion about what has been tested....

You COULD have test fired the weapon? Yes.

You weren’t handling the gun? No.

You were handling the stubs from the gunshot residue kits? Yes.

The particles come from the firearm? Yes.

The firearm could be tested? Yes.

It could have shown the dispersement of the particles? He doesn’t know.

What you know is, you tested for and had negative results for the knives and scissor and the sweater and BMW keys and BMW steering wheel? Yes.

Positive result from Rachel Entwistle’s hands? Yes.

She could have handled the gun, shot the gun, or was in the area where this particulate cloud traveled? Yes.

Did you receive any gunshot primer residue collection kit from Rachel Entwistle’s wrist? No.

Arm? No.
Sleeve? No.
Fitted sheet? No.
From any other items from master bedroom from 6 Cubs Path? No.

Re-Direct

Is the result generated specific or approximate? Approximate.

Is it given a distance or range? Approximate.

Based on his training, what is the range or ranges for primer residue? About 8 ft.

When a test is done, can the result be any more specific? No.

Re-Cross

Shows him 22 revolver. Asks distance for gunshot prima residue for the gun. Doesn’t know.

Does he know it was never tested? No, it wasn’t.

Next witness called by Fabbri – Sgt. Stephen Walsh, he is a MA trooper in the firearms identification unit.

He goes through the training for the unit.

He explains how each firearm has unique internal marks and they are imparted to the projectile when fired.

We are going through all the structures of gun; barrel, hammer, etc.

A .22 caliber is a class of the ammunition for a specific class of gun. A .357 is much larger.

The lead found in bullets is very soft. You can mark it with a fingernail.

Blow back happens if the person is shot up close, within several inches, blow back or spatter will hit the shooter.

Now we have a diagram of a gun up and Walsh points out the various parts of the gun he went through just before.

When a projectile is recovered at a shooting scene and gets to his unit they conduct a test fire projectile. It is then checked under a microscope comparing the two projectiles.

Walsh went to the ME’s office to obtain a bullet. He was at Rachel’s autopsy and was given a spent .22 projectile that was removed from her breast.

He brought the spent .22 to the lab.

On January 25th he received lead fragments from the autopsy that he brought back to the crime lab.

He then received 5 weapons and ammo. He opens an evidence box and identifies the .22 colt. He also identifies the ammo that he received.

He opens another envelope and identifies a spent .22 projectile. He examined it and determined it has left twist. Lans and groves could not be identified due to the damage to the projectile.

Another envelope has 2 fragments he could identify other than they were from a spent .22.

Walsh opens the box with the .22 gun. He identifies it. He tested it and observed the lans and groves as well as a left twist.

He tested fired the gun and carved his initials into the bullets to compare against the spent .22. He used lab ammo.

He tested ammo from the ammo can also.

The projectile in his test and the weapon, have the same left twist!

He made notes and documented his tests.

July 2006 did you perform test firings for Deanna Dygan? Yes.

He shot into a chamber, but in front of that was a piece of cardboard covered in cloth.

He also fired the .357, 9mm and two rifles. The recovered cartridge could not have come from any of the handguns.

The .22 rifle and the browning both had a right rifling.
No further questions.

Cross - Weinstein

He did the test firing for Dygan? Yes.

Did any other chemist or anyone else ask you to do test firing? No.

Court is adjourned till 9:15 tomorrow.

Co-reported by ritanita.

Neil Entwistle Trial: Recap for Day 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Trial Recap for Day Three: Prosecution Witnesses

15. Kim Puig: A marketing professional, she owned the house in which Lillian and Rachael were killed. She testifies that she requested a three month lease with Neil and Rachael.

16. Pamela Jackson: She is the Welcome Wagon lady in Hopkinton. she welcomed the Entwistle family in January.

17. Michael Sheehan: Employee of MA Port Authority, he works for the parking system at Logan Airport. He testifies to retrieving the ticketing records for the Entwistle's BMW, found parked at Logan.

18. Marianne Chandler: Employee of MA Port Authority. She maintains the documents and videos of the parking garages.

19. Julie-Ann Aloise: Investigator with Citizen's Bank. She investigates financial crimes against the band and also works with law enforcement. She testifies about the various bank accounts in Neil and Rachael's name as well as the ATM transactions on their accounts from January 19th, 2006 through January 22nd, 2006.

20. Carol Cox: Customer service representative with British Airways. She ensures planes are loaded on time. She testifies that on the day she waited on Neil at her counter, their computers were down. She directed Neil to the reservation system so he could purchase an e-ticket.

21. Mary Hannon: Customer Service Manager for British Airways. She's worked three years at Logan. She oversees the operations for compliance. She also maintains custodial records. In her testimony, she confirms the transaction made by Entwistle. She confirms the records she is shown: - Reservation for Entwistle - Check-in sheet - Passenger list printed the night before – Neil is not on it - Boarding sheets - Fare paid sheet 21st of January at 7:06am, Entwistle purchased the e-ticket according to the call center records - $787, one way fare paid for by Visa credit card.

22. Joanna Gately: A close friend of Rachael. They met at Holy Cross in 1998. Gately testifies to the events of January 2oth, where she and her sister Maureen went to the Entwistle home for a planned dinner get together. Arriving at the home, got no answer at the door. They found the note the Priscilla left earlier and decided to wait in their car. After trying to get into the home and speaking to Priscilla on the phone, they contacted police. Joanna and Maureen stayed at the home all night, only leaving for a two hour period to drive around looking for the BMW.

23. Aaron O’Neil: Police patrolman. O'Neil was on patrol the night of the 20th and responded to the call for assistance at the Entwistle home. It took 10 minutes to get to the house after he was dispatched. Sgt. Sutton was also dispatched. They used a credit card to open the front door and investigate the home.

Trial Recap Day Four: Prosecution Witnesses

24. Sgt. Michael Sutton: He responded to the first call to the Hopkinton home. He has been in law enforcement for 22 years. January 21st, he was on the 4pm to midnight as shift supervisor. At 8:31pm he was dispatched to 6 Cubs path. He testifies that the visit on January 21st was a well being check.

25. Sgt. Mary Ritchie: She has been with the State Police crime scenes services for the past 16 years. She responds to death scenes in the Commonwealth. She has been to hundreds of crime scenes. She goes through her CV. She is a latent fingerprint specialist and footwear specialist.

January 22, 2006 she was called to the Hopkinton Police Department and was told why she was called. She took prints from Joanna Gately. They went to 6 Cubs Path because there were two victims in the home. She testifies to her teams investigation and evidence collection procedures at the Entwistle home in painstaking detail.

Trial Recap for Day Five: Prosecution Witnesses

Sgt. Mary Ritchie is back on the stand for a good portion of the day.

26: Lisa Scoutlas: She works for Intrinsic. She recruits, reviews resumes and maintains them. She testifies to receiving a resume and cover letter from Neil Entwistle in February 2005 as well as December. Since Neil was not a US citizen she did not have a position to offer him.

27. 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. Soares testifies to the investigation and collection work he performed at the Entwistle house.

Trial Recap for Day Six: Prosecution Witnesses

John Soares continues testimony. Yesterday and today, he identifies exhibits from the house that are introduced as evidence.


28. Jeremy Roybal: He is employed by E-bay that purchased Pay Pal. He’s been there 8 years and he is a fraud investigator Roybal testifies that 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 and well over fifty transactions where customers were refunded payment for non-delivery of items by Entwistle.

29. Deanna Dygan: She is a chemist with the crime lab. She examines physical evidence from crime scenes. Blood, biological and trace evidence. Dygan goes through her CV and training and testifies to the work she performed on this case. She identifies exhibits from the house that are introduced into evidence.

CNN.Crime Video Testimony

Cameron Brown Pretrial Hearing: June 13th, 2008

I don't take the train today. I need to pick up a bolt of fabric in downtown and driving means I don't have to come back for a second trip. Traffic was quite light and even leaving my driveway at five past 7:00 am, I made it down to the intersection of First and Hill by 7:35 am. What I did miss was my usual phone call to donchais when I drive into downtown. She and ritanita have been doing an excellent job tag teaming, covering the Neil Entwistle trial, so I just left her a message to give me a call when she could. I parked in the nine dollar lot and made my way up Broadway to the back of the criminal court building.

I pass through the first floor security and get off on the 9th floor and there's a surprise. This is the first time I've ever seen the 9th floor security closed up. No one is there and there are two gentlemen waiting (they look like detectives) for security to open. When the sheriff's finally do arrive, I'm the first person in the hallway at 7:52 am. As expected, the place is deserted.

I take the bench that is at the very end of the hall along the back wall. I get donchais on the phone and she fills me in on whats been happening with the Entwistle trial. I see Patty peek her head around the corner and then go back into the security station area by the elevators.

Patty's brother Ted rounds the corner and heads toward this end of the hall. With all the empty benches in the hall, Ted chooses to sit on the bench next to me. I'm talking to donchais as quietly as I can, but not long after Ted takes out his phone and is speaking to someone so loudly in a foreign language that I can't hear donchais speak. I stand up to walk away and Donchais says to me, "Is someone talking to you?" I tell her what's going on and I move to another bench several feet away on the side wall of the hallway. I can now hear my friend and continue our conversation.

Patty emerges from the restroom. She is wearing all black. She has some sort of open toed shoes or sandals on her feet. I did not look closely enought to see if they are the same ones she wore at the last hearing. This end of the hallway is almost completely empty, there's only a few other people standing at this end of the hall and as Patty approaches, she chooses the bench I'm sitting on. I don't know or care what Patty and Ted's motives are with their hallway bench selection. I just want to have a quiet, private conversation with donchais so I get up again and walk down past the elevators towards the opposite end of the long hallway.

As donchais and I consider a new story idea for the blog, I observe the other end of the hall as best I can and just wait for Pastor's courtroom to open. I can't really tell from where I'm sitting, but I figure that when Patty and Ted go in, I will head down to that end of the hall. From my far away point of view, I see Pastor's clerk enter 107. donchais and I chat a bit more about the Entwistle case. The trial has been on a break but it's almost over. After we say our goodbyes, I take the time to write up my observations so far.

After a bit, I get up from my seat and go stand in the middle of the hallway opposite the elevator bay. I keep my eyes peeled on Pastor's courtroom door. As I watch the other end of the hallway, Patty and Ted are still on their chosen benches. They don't appear to be talking to each other, but if they were I wouldn't be able to tell anyway. I see Patty stands up and walks over to Ted for a moment but she doesn't stay more than a few moments then goes back and sits on the same bench. It's 8:27 am. In just a few minutes the courtroom should be open. Then I observe Ted get up and go sit by Patty.

Mark Geragos shows up and I see Patty give him a big smile. They all head into the courtroom together and that's when I head down towards 107. Patty is sitting in the front row on the far left of the long bench, and I also sit in the front row at the opposite end near the jury box. Ted is in the row behind Patty, off to her right a bit. At 8:35 am the Judge is in his robes but he's not really on the bench or calling court into order. Geragos and Craig Hum greet Judge Pastor right beside his clerk's desk, and it's pleasantries all around as Geragos shakes the Judge's hand. The Judge and both counsel stand there for some time chatting. It's all pleasant sounding conversation although I can not get any detail as to what is being said.

The court reporter is here. A suited gentleman in the well (a clerk or an attorney for another case) speaks to the gallery about the Laker upset last night. Ted responds, "What's the matter with those guys. They play like that, they deserve to lose. " There's more chatter about the game but I don't take any more notes on that. I'm still trying to watch the Judge and see if I can ascertain what they are discussing. More people enter the courtroom, a silver gray haired man with a mustache (whom I can't identify) and a younger, bald headed man whom I believe is Nareg Gourjian, an associate in Geragos's law practice. There are a few others who enter and sit in the same general area with them. The gentleman with the mustache appears in a photo montage on the home page of Geragos's web site but he's not identified anywhere.

We are all waiting for Brown to be brought into the courtroom. Pastor's bailiff is here and I notice one of the gentlemen in Geragos's group is speaking to Patty but I tune it out. I'm still watching Geragos and Hum in deep in conversation with Judge Pastor.

Another sheriff, a black woman comes in to chat with Pastor's clerk. The man who was speaking to Patty is now talking to some of the other individuals in the group. I'm betting that the two attorneys and Judge Pastor are hammering out when this trial is going to start. Geragos has the Miura case that still isn't settled. (If you don't know about Miura, this entry is a short primer. It's a much higher profile case ~ at least in Japan ~ than Brown.) One could easily assume that Geragos needs to get that case over and done with before he puts all his efforts on Brown. Late in the afternoon on Friday, I learned that the next Miura pretrial has been moved from June 16th to July 18th in Torrance, which is where Judge Van Sicklen who is presiding over the Miura matter, is now located.

Ah. The Judge and counsel must have come to an agreement since the attorneys leave the Judge and I overhear the Judge say something to the effect of "... present this to Mr. Brown." A smiling Geragos goes over and greets a pretty young clerk or extern with brown hair and bangs standing behind Judge Pastor's clerk's desk. Hum is over talking to the court reporter. It's 9:55 am and we still wait for Brown to be brought into the courtroom. I see Patty and Ted whisper for a moment. The mustached gentleman passes what looks like a CD or DVD to Patty and Ted. Patty says to Ted, "Check it out."

This could very well be related to the other charge Brown is facing, possession of a weapon while incarcerated. At a pretrial hearing for that case in another court, Brown's counsel demanded that the sheriff's department hand over video tapes or CD's or whatever medium these videos were are stored on. These are tapes of daily activities from the jail that are collected on a hard drive. I don't catch all of Patty's reply back to mustached man which is something to the effect of, "I can't possibly... (?imagine?) ....they must be thinking." Since I'm not really interested in that case and have decided not to follow it, I tune out any more conversation.

Geragos is still having a jovial conversation with Pastor's clerk and the slender young woman. Judge Pastor is in discussion with two other gentlemen, most likely another case.

Brown is finally brought in. He nods and gives a quick smile to Patty and Ted. His hair has been cut very short but his beard is still quite long. Geragos consults with Brown for a few moments and I see the mustached man enter the well and sit in one of the chairs along the low railing behind Geragos. Jurors for another case file along the back wall and proceed to the jury room.

Pastor calls court into order and states that Hum and Geragos are here for the record. There are a few issues that still need to be resolved before they go to trial, and there's scheduling. They are asking for one more pretrial hearing on June 30th, and a trial start date of July 28th, marking that date as a 0-30 count.

The Judge formally asks Brown if he gives up his right to a speedy trial and he first nods his head and then says "Yes," for the record. The Judge formally states that trial will start on July 28th with 0-30 starting there after. On the 3oth, there may be a problem with Hum attending since he may still be in trial in another court. Judge Pastor says that we may do the hearing telephonically, so they may have to facilitate that.

Geragos then asks the court to order the defendant to get a shave. I hear Geragos say, "I want him cleaned up (for trial). Enough of this Taliban look." (That's the word I believe I hear: Taliban.) I glance over at Ted and Patty and I see that Ted has his face down in his arm and his face is beet-red. To me, it appears that Ted finds this statement by Geragos hilarious and is trying to keep himself from laughing out loud in court. The Judge says that he was under the impression that Mr. Brown did not want to get a shave, and he asks Brown what he wants. Brown indicates that since it's closer to trial, he agrees to a shave.

Geragos goes onto say, "They're obviously playing games over there." (Apparently referring to the LA County Jail, and the harassment Brown and his attorneys are claiming he is consistently experiencing at the hands of the sheriffs.') Geragos is mentioning to Judge Pastor now that he and his staff are, "...being made to wait as much as two hours to speak to their client." Pastor appears to be very concerned about this and tells Geragos that he spoke to an officer there. Geragos tells the Judge something to the effect that yes, while he was on the phone with you, but right after he (the officer) said, "No Judge is going to tell me what to do." Geragos tells Judge Pastor, "I'm going to take care of it." And Pastor addresses Geragos, "Handle it properly." Geragos mentions again, "Have to sit for two hours and then for them to say there's no Sergeant available."

The Judge states that he will sign an order requesting that Brown will get a shave. And that's it. I get up to leave as fast as possible. I've got to go get fabric and I've got a client later at 1:00 pm. Ted is right by the door, almost waiting for me to exit and he addresses me. "You know you can talk to us if you like. We're friendly," he says. Although I'm sure an accredited journalist would jump at the chance, I continue out the courtroom doors without responding to him.

I understand that Patty and Ted are standing by Brown and I can respect that. However, T&T has always been a "pro prosecution" blog and it's always been about trial reporting. It's never been an avenue for a defendant's relatives to air their support for their loved one. Patty and Ted have been very vocal in their support of Brown on other blogs and web sites, vigorously defending him against those who think Brown is guilty. T&T is not interested in being drawn into those debates.

I don't know if Cameron Brown did or did not throw his daughter off that Rancho Palos Verdes cliff, Inspiration Point but there is one thing that troubles me about this case. In his first trial, Cameron Brown chose not to take the stand and tell the jury himself in his own words that he is not guilty in the death of his daughter. I understand that when an individual takes an oath to be a juror, they are not allowed to hold that against a defendant. That's a fundamental right of our legal system and it's one of the things that sets the bar higher than the justice served in some other countries. However, I'm not sitting on a jury. I'm in the gallery, observing a trial and observing the defendant. That's one of the things that I'm always interested in: a defendant's behavior pre- and post-incident. I have the question that many T&T readers probably have. Why isn't Brown taking the stand and telling us what happened? Why isn't he telling the jury the story he told investigators? He was there. He is the only witness to this horrific incident. What happened on that cliff, Mr. Brown? How did your daughter happen to fall? From my perspective, if I was innocent and wrongfully accused of premeditated murder, there is nothing that could keep me off the witness stand. I would want to tell the jury myself exactly what happened. Let them hear the story from me, directly.

After court, I drove the few blocks over to my long time canvas and flannel supplier in the warehouse district. Read about that story, and the rooster I saw, on my sewing blog. It should be up later today.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 6

~Lilly and Rachel


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.....

objection.

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.

Redirect

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.

Sidebar

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
1/5/06.

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)

Sidebar

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.

Sidebar

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!

Haut de la Garenne Suspect Released

~Haut de la Garenne children's home


The 50-year-old ex-police officer, arrested yesterday has been released without charge. He was arrested on suspicion of serious crimes at Haut de la Garenne and elsewhere in Jersey.

Police issued a statement saying, "This man has now been released without charge, pending further inquiries into a number of “serious crimes".

"We cannot give any further details at this stage as there are no charges."

While serving as a Jersey police officer during the 1970s, he was a volunteer at the childcare home.

After leaving the police force, he took a position with Jersey children’s services in the 1980s. He worked there for more than 20 years and rose to a position as a senior care officer.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 5

~The Entwistle home and the bed. Rachel and Lilly's bodies are still covered by the comforter.



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.

Sidebar

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?

Another item?

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.

Re-direct

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.

Cross -

Did you ever receive a laptop to examine for fingerprints? No.

Nothing further.

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.

That’s all.

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.

That’s all.

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.

Sidebar

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!

Latest Arrest In Jersey Abuse Investigation

~Haut de la Garenne


Police have confirmed that an unnamed, 50 year-old man has been arrested in connection with the widespread abuse investigation.

The man was arrested for alleged, serious crimes not only at Haut de la Garenne, but elsewhere on the island as well.

The man is an ex-police officer who was a volunteer at Haut de la Garenne. He left the police force to work with children’s services in Jersey.

This is the fourth arrest in the case and the third connected directly to Haut de la Garenne.

Police continue to investigate numerous other suspects based on claims of abuse at the home.

Trial Watching Will Soon be Bigger and Better Than Ever

Last month, we published - The Sad State of Online Trial Coverage - lamenting the loss of Court TV and how dismal the current trial coverage at TruTV and CNN is - it seems you guys agree, based on the comments we received.

Well, fellow trial junkies, we are in for a big treat!

For those of you who are local or international, regular readers, that may be unaware, Michel Bryant has taken the proverbial “bull by the horns” and is about to launch…The Legal Edge.

You remember Michel, former Court TV news anchor and correspondent. His insightful reporting, charm and wit made him a favorite with many of us.

Michel and crew will have gavel-to-gavel trial coverage and will have some way cool features:

Consumer info-tainment
Message Boards
Chat
Caught-On-Tape Library
Edge-Link Attorney Referral Service
On-Demand Content

Michel will also have live chat during coverage so if you miss something, you can send a note and he will respond on screen!

The beta website should be up in mid-July and live coverage will begin September 8th with the OJ Simpson circus...ohhh, ummm trial.

From issue 102 of the TLE newsletter:
"TLE is YOUR Network

It would be so easy to completely control the selection of trials we bring you on TLE. But that would be wrong. We want to bring you the courtroom action you want. So, here's the deal; send us the name of the trial you feel is worth sharing with our audience. Please include the jurisdiction, the defendant's name, and the pending trial date if any. We are already tracking trials coast to coast but we're human (most of us) and we just might miss a good one. Plus, the more vocal people are for a particular trial the better we can respond to the folks that count; you".

How neat is that? I personally have asked – ok, I groveled and begged – that TLE cover Spector, part deux.

Mr. Bryant is now officially, a T&T hero!

So, do not stop, do not collect two hundred dollars, run, don’t walk to Michel’s site and sign-up.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 4

~Entwistle in court


Entwistle is led into court; the judge is on the bench and calls for a pretty long sidebar.

The jury is finally called in at 9:27am.

Fabbri calls witness - Sgt. Michael Sutton, he responded to the first call to the Hopkinton home. He has been in law enforcement for 22 years.

January 21st, he was on the 4pm to midnight as shift supervisor. At 8:31pm he was dispatched to 6 Cubs path.

He met 2 females at the home and spoke with Joanna Gately. He then walked the property checking doors and windows, all of which were locked.

When he returned to the front door and Officer O’Neil arrived they attempted to gain entry to the house through the front door. He used a Blockbuster card to slip the lock.

On entry he heard music and the TV and there were a few lights on. They checked the living room, dinning room and the kitchen.

O’Neil went to the family room, he went to the half bath and laundry room,

The kitchen had dishes and food around like someone had just finished a meal.

O’Neil went to the basement and Sutton went upstairs and checked the bedrooms. He checked the bath and the tub had water in it like they had been bathing the baby. He saw an unmade bed in the master bedroom with the bedding piled up on it.

He the returned to the foyer and talked to O’Neil. They spoke to the Gately sisters. He allowed Joanna into the house to take the dog out.

He checked the mailbox and there were 2 pieces of mail that had no postmarks on them and brought them in the house. He allowed Joanna to leave a note.

He saw a bill on the counter from BMW and called the VIN number in to dispatch to see if they could get a plate number.

They all left the house and Sutton spoke to Priscilla on Joanna phone. He told Priscilla they would put out a general broadcast for the family and vehicle.

Sutton identifies a picture of the kitchen with the counter and the bill and the camera O’Neil had examined.

Sutton then left for the station and confirmed the broadcast went out and he called of few of the area hospitals.

Fabbri puts up a diagram of the 1st floor plan of the house and Sutton confirms that. Sutton shows where they went when they first entered the home.

Fabbri puts up the diagram of the second floor and Sutton repeats the same process of showing the path that he traveled.

The floor plan of the master bedroom and bath is now up and we go through his movement again.

Sutton is shown a photo of the master bedroom that he identifies. It reflects what Sutton saw that night.

Sutton now identifies where on the kitchen table Joanna left the note.

The next day at 5pm on Sutton’s shift, the Gatelys and Matterazzos came to the police station. He introduced them to Officer Greg DeBoer and instructed him to take a missing person report.

He and O’Neil then went back to the neighborhood and canvassed some of the neighbors.

He and Detective Scott van Raalten entered the home through the garage after getting the code from Joanna. As soon as they entered the garage they noticed and odor. When they got to the first floor the odor was even stronger.

They proceeded to the master bedroom. He saw a woman’s wristwatch and reading glasses on the floor. He lifted the edge of the comforter and saw a woman’s foot and then showed Det. van Raalten.

They moved to the head of the bed and lifted the comforter and saw a baby’s face and a woman’s face.

They left the bedroom and went to the foyer. They both made phone calls and then did a further search of the house. This time they opened closets, searched the attic, the shed and hot tub. They found no one else.

They returned to the front door and waited for additional personnel to arrive.

Again, they return to the floor plans and Sutton shows their path of movement during the search. They looked at any area that could conceal a person.

Sutton identifies photos of the bedroom and bed and verifies they are accurate to what they observed that night.

The exited the house after securing it. Det. John Porter and a few patrol officers arrived as well as the chief. Then State Police arrived.

Sutton remained at the scene outside. The next few days, he followed up with interviewing the neighbors.

No further questions.

Cross - Weinstein

Weinstein reviews Sgt. Sutton’s testimony in detail. He emphasizes the following:

Sutton was there on 21st and 22nd? Yes.

And you learned things weren’t, as they seemed?

Gately sisters were there.

She absolutely told you that she was supposed to be there at 5.

He was there to see if anybody was home.

Seeing the lights on didn’t tell him if anybody was home.

It’s a pretty good security measure for a homeowner to leave lights on.

You advise people to do that.

In order to find out, you had to enter the house.

In order to enter the house, you would do everything but break in.

You broke in.

Did you break in? In the way you put it yes.

Did you have the home owner’s permission to pick the lock?

Judge: Mr. Weinstein, wait until the questions are answered.

Joanna didn’t let you know she tried to use a credit card to get in? No.

But you were able to get in. Yes.

Your purpose was to do a thorough search? No.

Your purpose was to see if anybody needed assistance.

Sutton doesn’t think doing a walk-through was a thorough search.

So you didn’t do a thorough search? Yes.

You focused on O’Neil going to see if there was a car in the garage. Yes.

Sutton didn’t have to give him a specific instruction to look for people.

Snarky comment from Weinstein. Judge asks him to reword the question without snarkiness (my words)

Since Sutton didn’t find any blood or other suspicious evidence, they left.

Joanna asked to stay in the house, he said “no” and she decided to stay in the car and wait.

Sutton felt waiting wasn’t out of place based on Joanna’s concern.

Did he check on Joanna and Maureen in the cold night? No.

He didn’t know she was going to stay all night.

He found bodies on the 22nd.


Re-Direct

What was his purpose on the 21st? To check on some people about a well-being check.

What did he know? He knew they’d not lived there long; their being gone was not usual, Joanna had knocked on the door, couldn’t contact anyone at the house. Joanna was distressed. He received additional information from her (not allowed to say what) which made him decide he had to enter the house.

Re-Cross

Weinstein reiterates he received information from a person who had been invited to dinner and was 2 hours late?

He spoke to Priscilla Matterazzo. Did you try to contact Neil’s parents? He had no knowledge of them. He hadn’t called Priscilla, Joanna had.

Weinstein points out his position as a law enforcement officer and all his means of locating them, and he didn’t reach out to his parents. Sutton says not on a Saturday night. And Sunday? Other people were doing that.

Does he have any personal knowledge of anyone attempting to contact Neil’s parents? No.

Fabbri now calls Steve Bennett. He is Sergeant with the State Police with the crime scenes services. He was at Logan Airport and was asked to go to the west garage and photograph a vehicle. It was a white X3 BMW utility vehicle.

Bennett is shown a photo of the vehicle on level four in area DD and he verifies this is the vehicle he photographed.

The vehicle was locked but when he looked inside he saw the driver’s seat was slightly reclined. He met with Trooper Daniel Sullivan who secured the area. Bennett called for a wrecker to pick up the vehicle and bring it to the barracks at the airport that is less than a mile from the garage.

Cross - Weinstein

Car first photographed in it’s parking space? Yes.

Just a “plain old car” like others in the airport? Yes.

Geez, Weinstein isn't winning any friends here with his snarky crap.

Next witness on the stand is Sgt. Mary Ritchie with the State Police crime scenes services for the past 16 years. She responds to death scenes in the Commonwealth. She has been to hundreds of crime scenes. She goes through her CV. She is a latent fingerprint specialist and footwear specialist.

January 22, 2006 she was called to the Hopkinton Police Department and was told why she was called. She took prints from Joanna Gately. They went to 6 Cubs Path because there were two victims in the home.

She describes the home, no forced entry, no sign of a struggle. They went up to the master bedroom. They photographed the crime scene. She describes the unmade bed and a large fluffy white comforter on the bed.

She identifies a photo of the bedroom as accurate.

When you entered the room did you make note of the temperature? No I did not.

She describes how they examined the house by photographing and documenting each room.

Fabbri has Ritchie show their movements through the house on the floor plan diagrams.

I realize Fabbri is meticulous, but I’m going to blow my brains out if we pull out theses floor plans again.

She describes the comforter as covering most of the bed, but bunched up. They photographed everything prior to touching the comforter.

The team knew the victims were under the comforter so they removed the comforter Rachel was facing the left and had her arm over the baby. A sheet was covering Rachel and a pillow was over Lillian’s face and partially covering Rachel’s face.

When they removed the pillow, they could see both Rachel’s and Lillian’s faces. The underside of the pillow had reddish-brown stains. They removed the sheet and they saw her lying on her left side with her feet were drawn up and she had her arm over Lillian.

There was a slight discoloration on Rachel’s mouth and Lillian’s face was bruised around the eye area and she had expelled some liquid. There was a puncture in Rachel’s chest.

They took note of the lividity and it was consistent with how they found Rachel. So she had not been moved.

In moving Lillian, they observed a puncture to the left area chest area. It was not evident prior to moving Lilly because of Rachel’s arm. On examination, they decided it was a gunshot wound.

The ME’s office removed the bodies around 4am.

The team then began processing the home for latent prints. Ritchie examined the master bedroom, the doorjambs, the headboard, part of the wall, etc.

Ritchie describes how fingerprints are different from person to person and what they look for when looking for latent prints. Loop, whorl and arch ridges are the distinct details in fingerprints. Palm prints have different characteristics.

Latent prints are left by perspiration, oils in the skin. Some surfaces are more conducive to leaving fingerprints behind.

To lift prints, they use chemicals or powders depending on the type of surface. They will lift the prints by tapes or putty’s.

Ritchie was able to lift latent prints from the exterior doorjamb – a palm print and a fingerprint.

During the comparison phase they associated the palm print with Neil and the fingerprint was Rachel’s.

No shell casings were found at the house.

Other prints from the door into the garage, on the garage side were found and it was associated to Kim Puig – owner of the house.

A total of 25 sets of prints were taken from the home.

Days and weeks following the examination at 6 Cubs Path, did you process additional items. Yes ballistic items; weapons, handgun, rifles, ammunition, trigger locks, etc.

She examined a jar of ammo that had two fingerprints.

Who did they belong to?

Objection, sustained

Of the number of prints cards you had…

Sidebar –

The jar you processed, please describe the jar. It appeared to be a baby jar filled with shells. Ritchie refers to her report and the jar was given item number 17-1.6. The prints on the jar belonged to Anthony Matterazzo.

She examined a 22-colt firearm that is now given to Ritchie and she identifies for the court as item 17-4. The box also contains an envelope, item 17-13. The envelope holds the trigger lock for the gun. The prints on the lock lacked quantity and quality for comparison phase. The gun had 10 prints that could not meet the comparison phase.

Judge adjourns court till 9am tomorrow.

The judge is reviewing the diagrams the Weinstein has been objecting to.

Judge - The diagrams contain information relating to the size of the rooms.

Fabbri - Some do, your honor.

Judge - There is no foundation for the size of the rooms being on the diagrams.

The diagrams without size will be admitted and those that do, will not.

They will be redacted.

Thanks ritanita for you help!

More Teeth Recovered at Haut de la Garenne

~Haut de la Garenne


Investigators have discovered 14 more teeth since Thursday, bringing the total to 27.

One tooth was recovered from a cistern in the courtyard at Haut de la Garenne - the rest have been found in the series of underground cellars where victims claim they were drugged, beaten and raped.

Police have confirmed that tests are being carried out in the UK on 26 of the teeth.

Police say there are more than 40 suspects in the child abuse scandal investigation.

Three men have been charged in connection with the alleged child abuse:

- Claude Donnelly is due back in court today. He is accused of raping a girl known only as Witness A, at some time between March 1971 and March 1972.

Donnelly is also alleged to have indecently assaulted the girl between 1971 and 1974. At the time, her age was between 12 and 15 years old.

Additionally, police claim Donnelly made the girl carry out an act of gross indecency on him.

- Michael Aubin has pled guilty to charges of sodomy against a boy under 16 and indecently assaulting two other boys under 16. The abuse incidents took place between 1977 and 1980.

- Gordon Wateridge is charged with three offenses of indecent assault on girls under the age of 16 between 1969 and 1979. He was remanded into custody on Monday, until July 7th.

There are indications that a fourth man may have also been arrested as part of the wider abuse investigation.

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 3

~Rachel and Lillian Rose Entwistle

Entwistle is in court and is conferring with Weinstein.
Judge is on the bench and asked for a side bar – it’s pretty lengthy.

I’m pretty amazed at how empty the court has been.

Fabbri calls Kim Puig to the stand: Marketing professional. She owns the house that Rachel and Lillian were killed in - 6 Cubs Path. She lived at the house for 10 years. She rented the property in January 2006 to the Enwistles’.

She identifies the home in a picture.

She identifies Neil Entwistle.

The lease was a 3-month lease -$2700 per month with auto renewal if all terms were met.

4-bedroom house. The attached garage had an entrance into the house with a keypad both inside and outside the house.

She identifies the garage door openers from the house that had been turned over to the Entwistles’.

Her family all had the code as well as the next-door neighbors, the Ramseys’.

She identifies the keys to the house.

April 2006, she was contacted by the police. She gave police a copy of the lease and they finger printed her at that time.

Cross - Page

Re: References? There was one.

She is shown reference of Maureen Renaud

She set up the rental agreement with Neil and Rachel.

It was a pleasant conversation about how heating oil was to be paid.

They seemed to be a lovely couple? I met them briefly

They exchanged pleasantries, told them they could call if they needed anything.

Received $8100 from the Entwistles.

Identifies cashier's checks: one for $2700, one for $5400.

She had 2 months rent (first and last).

She had some concerns about Entwistle's ability to pay, so they only had a 3-month lease.

You knew that they were relocating to the Hopkinton area? Yes.

They had both relocated to the US? Yes.

They entered to secure the property and there were some boxes in the basement still not unpacked.

You wanted to get the Entwistle’s property out of the house?

The house had been vacated as of the end of January? Yes.

You wanted to re-rent it? She was going through eviction since she had a legal tenant, nothing in writing from Entwistle.

Page asks questions about Puig not wanting Entwistle's property. She testifies that she didn't want to get rid of it until it was legal to do so.

She did not remove anything from the house.

Somebody removed the property based on the court order as provided.

Somebody as her agent removed property. She is not aware of details; she had a lawyer handling it. He took things to secure them.

She packed some things, did not remove anything from house.

Packed baby clothes, paper, mail. Marked boxes with contents. Some of the property was taken out of the property.

The rest of the house was intact, as you had shown it? Fingerprint dust.

She eventually got the property back and was able to sell it.

Your attorney was Michael Fee? Yes.

He was your contact with the attorneys and Mr. Weinstein. Yes.

Neil Entwistle relinquished any claims? Yes.

It was between your attorneys? Yes.

Attorney Fee still has some boxes that were removed from the house? I don't know.

Exhibit 12:
Cashiers' checks - signed by Rachel Entwistle. They cleared.

Re-direct:

The home was turned over to Kim in February 2006.

Why was the lease for 3-months, your understanding?

Objection – Sidebar

In terms of 3- month lease, who requested it? I did.

What was your reason? Based on conversations with the real estate agent.

Pamela Jackson on the stand: Welcome Wagon lady in Hopkinton.

She welcomed the Entwistle family in January.

She identifies Entwistle.

She recalls talking to Neil about their reason for renting. Neil said he wanted to test the area for jobs, schools, etc.

He told her that he was in insurance. Also told her he had plenty of money. And, that he had a BMW.

Entwistle told her he was self-employed in the insurance industry.

He asked about mom’s club, shopping and was interested in the local country club.

She said they appeared loving, attentive family.


Redirect

During the time you were at the house, what was the demeanor?

Both Rachel and Neil were very attentive to the baby, it was adorable.

Sidebar

Next witness: Michael Sheehan – Works for MA Port Authority. He works for the parking system at Logan airport.

Each transaction at the site is sent to a major computer systems that stores the records.

Fabbri puts up a diagram of the terminal and parking facilities at Logan, that Sheehan identifies.

Sheehan shows the main parking area and the “west garage”. Terminal E, by the garage, is the international terminal.

There are ticketing machines to enter the garages and payment is made at pay-on-foot machines in the walkways.

Pay-on-foot machine 666 is the one we are interested in.

ritanita -Pay on Foot 666! Evil machine!

Sheehan describes the parking ticket that is numbered; the car is also photographed and matches the plate to the ticket. When you pay, you are issued a receipt. You can pay by cash or credit card.

The plate being photographed is stored in a computer system with attached transaction report.

Cars are inventoried on a daily basis in the garages.

Where you asked to look into a particular plate record on January 20 and 21st? Yes.

Were you able to retrieve those records? Yes.

Photos are shown of Entwistle’s car entering and exiting the garage.

The transaction report tied to the car is identified as well as the credit card report.

The inventory report reflects the cars in the garage.

The parking ticket is identified, dated January 20th at time, 22:49:10.

The pay receipt is also identified.

Photos are shown of the BMW entering and leaving the parking garage.

Sidebar –

The car, with plate 65K W79 entered on the 20th at 8:14pm and left at 9:40pm.

The $8 parking fee was paid with a credit card.

Well, we sure as hell know when and where Neil was on the evening of the 20th!

Now we have information the camera was off-line on the 21st and not logging plates, however parking tickets were still be issued.

Surveillance cameras are scattered throughout the parking systems that capture folks at the pay-on-foot machine.

Redirect:
Is the surveillance system synchronized to your system? No.

Next witness: Marianne Chandler – She also works for MassPort. She maintains the documents and videos of the parking garages.

The surveillance systems photos are time-stamped.

She identifies one of the videotapes from machine 666 from the 20th. They isolated the transaction and put it on CD.

Transaction took place on the 20th between 10:35pm and 10:36pm.

Cross by Weinstein

Did you prepare video and presentation? No/

Did you retrieve from the system? No, it's from the system.

When were you asked to do that? I don't remember exactly when?

Were you asked by police? State police? Police regularly stationed at airport? Yes.

Did you speak to Marty Robichaud? Yes.

You work with him to locate the tape he is looking for? Yes.

He was the only policeman and she worked with co-workers to locate the tape.

She was provided with a pay-on-foot machine and time number.

She did not know why they wanted the tape.

She went through the library of tapes? They keep a log of the number of the tape in the machines which helps give them the correct VCR tape.

It has a lot more images on it? Yes.

In fact, the camera records multiple events? Yes.

Many images are captured? Yes.

Requires a special machine to play it? Yes.

And you need to make a separate tape? I didn't do it, but yes.

When this was all done, exhibit 17, did it come into your hands? No.

You were called to be a record keeper? Yes.

You saw the tape to come here and testify and that's how you could identify Mr. Entwistle? Yes.

Next witness: Julie-Anne Aloise, Investigator with Citizen’s Bank. She investigates financial crimes against the bank and she works with law enforcement.

She reviews account history, transactions, credit card, ATM transactions.

At the end of January 2006, she was asked to review Neil and Rachel Entwistle’s records for three bank accounts.

One joint checking account for Rachel and her mom. August 2004 the account was open with $100. The end balance in 2006 was $918. The account did not have over-draft protection.

One trust account for Lillian, both Rachel and Neil are listed on the account. Statement savings account, opened 11/9/05 for $60. Ending balance $450.05 in 2006.

One joint checking account for Rachel and Neil. Opened, 11/9/05 opened for $50. January 23, 2006 there was a $400 ATM withdrawal. It was covered by overdraft protection.

The ATM debit card was the last transaction on the account.

She reviews the detailed ATM transactions from January 19 to the 22nd. And surveillance photos from the ATM machines used. Transactions match the photos as they occur.

ATM transactions:
1/19/06 -9:05 am – withdrawal for $40
1/19/06- 3:54 pm – debit $7.04

1/20/06 – 20:30 - $400 withdrawal
3 transactions 1/20/06 at another location – within 1 minute - attempt to withdraw - denied

1/22/06 another location $400 approved
3 additional transactions for withdrawals denied - $150, $120, $100
1/22/06 withdrawal denied for $88.78 at a bank in the UK.

ATM video shows locations for Citizen’s Bank and Logan Airport. The video shows the photos as well as the type of transactions, card being used, date, time and the result of the transaction.

They are playing the videos, which of course we can’t see, grrrrrrr!

Cross by Weinstein:

She is here as part of her job as keeper of records at Citizen's? Yes.

And you became familiar with the records and help the jury understand what all this paperwork means. Yes.

Mass. State Police were inquiring of you and bank about various accounts. She doesn't know who requested the documents. Doesn't know who requested the information.

Did you meet with police? No.

Prosecutors? Yes.

To make them aware of contents of these documents? Yes.

The card you brought links to ONE of the accounts? Yes.

Exhibit 21: Citizen's Bank Neil and Rachel joint account? Yes.

Not every event in ATM records was memorialized with ATM camera? Yes.

Matched up some? Yes.

Stores, didn't match? Not linked w/Citizen's.

No camera with Citizen's for $7.04? No.

Card matched with Entwistle account? Yes.

Weinstein asks briefly about all three accounts. Verifies dates of Lillian's trust account.
Dec. 14, 2005, Jan. 3, 2006... deposits of $200 and $100.

Joint account w/ATM account - In early January, balance was significantly larger? No, Yes

January 6, there was a transaction. $8,100 withdrawal. Yes

Deposit for 6 Cubs Path. Yes

Re-direct

Source of funds? Don't know.

ATM associated with trust account? No, no debit or ATM transactions with this account.


Next witness: Carol Cox – Customer Service Supervisor for British Airway. She make sure planes are loaded on time. She worked starting at 5:15 am and was preparing a flight to the UK at 8:15.

She was at the ticket counter at 6am. Ms. Catano was handling sales and directed Neil to her. She said on that day, BA computers were down.

Neil wanted to purchase a ticket and she couldn’t issue a ticket without a computer and told him to call the reservation system to get an e-ticket.

He was pleasant; he didn’t have anything with him. He came back and said he had a ticket. She asked him to wait to board so she could verify the ticket.

He had no luggage and he boarded around 8am.

Cross - Weinstein

You encountered Neil Entwistle at Logan Airport? Yes.

Because BA’s computers were down, Mr. Entwistle had to use the phone and had to pay a premium ($20)? Yes.

You have put together all these documents you talked about for a half hour? I didn’t put them together.

You had to deal with him specially because your computer system was down? Yes.

You told him to use the 800 number? Yes.

You had a pleasant enough chat with him? Yes.

He was able to get a ticket by calling? Yes.

You couldn’t confirm it, you had him wait, he didn’t hassle you, waited patiently, boarded on the plane? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

She was able to confirm the E-ticket? Yes.

At the end of all of this you can tell us is that Neil Entwistle bought a ticket and boarded a plane and flew to England? Yes.

ritanita - Snarky! All he had to say was, "no questions"!!!!!


Thank you....

ritanita

Next witness: Mary Hannon – Customer Service Manager for British Airways, 3 years at Logan. She oversees the operations for compliance. She also maintains custodial records.

To board a plane you would have to have a ticket, passport and depending on your destination, a visa.

She describes how British Airways passenger list, seat list, catering list. They maintain a flight file on all flights whether computer generated or by hand. The records are generated at the time of transactions.

She was asked to confirm the transaction made by Entwistle. She confirms the records she is shown:

- Reservation for Entwistle
- Check-in sheet
- Passenger list printed the night before – Neil is not on it
- Boarding sheets
- Fare paid sheet

21st of January at 7:06am, Entwistle purchased the e-ticket according to the call center records - $787, one way fare paid for by Visa credit card.

Cross:

Because BA’s computers were down, Mr. Entwistle had to use the phone and had to pay a premium ($20)? Yes.

You have put together all these documents you talked about for a half hour? I didn’t put them together.

At the end of all of this you can tell us is that Neil Entwistle bought a ticket and boarded a plane and flew to England? Yes.

Snarky! All he had to say was, "no questions"!!!!!

Next witness: Joanna Gately, Rachel’s close friend. They met at Holy Cross in 1998.
Most of her free time with spent with Rachel. She went to the west coast for work for 2 years.

She could not attend the wedding

They communicated via e-mail and letters during 2003 and 2005.

Rachel came home 2004 and they spent a week together.

She went to England April 2005 after the birth of Lillian.

She met Neil and 2004 and saw him again when in England.

She reconnected with Rachel when Rachel came home to live with her mother. Joanna spent most weekends with Rachel. They socialized with other friends.

She said that Neil, Rachel and Lillian had a very loving relationship. It was a time of transition for them.

January 2006, she went with them when they signed the lease on the house and helped them during the move-in.

The week of the 16th, she and Rachel communicated via text messages. On the 19th they spoke for a half hour and they planned to visit on Saturday.

Saturday. Joanna and her sister Maureen went to Hopkinton. They were to arrive between 4 and 7pm. She called Rachel to let her no they were late. She couldn’t reach Rachel. They made several additional and left messages.

They arrived at the house about 7:20pm. They pulled into the driveway and went to the front door. They rang the bell and knocked, but got no response.

There was a light on in the foyer and the master bedroom.

Joanna is identifying the photo of the Hopkinton house and where she saw lights on.

After getting no answer, she found a note in the door handle. Priscilla, who had been to the house earlier, wrote the note.

Joanna called Priscilla. Joanna and Maureen decided to stay at the house. They went to the back and tried to open the slider door and the basement door. They also checked the porch area and couldn’t get in.

Joanna climbed on an electrical block to look in the bedroom. The blinds were open, but couldn’t see anything.

She spoke to Priscilla most of the night. Priscilla called the police and the police came to the house. There were two officers. She spoke with Sgt. Sutton and they walked to the front door.

The police then tried to open the door with a credit card. The other officer used a Blockbuster card and got the door open.

The girls stayed outside. The police came out after a few moments.

Then Joanna asked to take Sally the dog out to go to the bathroom.

Sally was in the family room in a crate. She took the dog out for a few minutes. She brought Sally in and put her back in the crate.

They all left the house. The police closed the door to the house.

When getting the dog, Joanna noticed a counter-top. The portable phone was missing and the phone jack was disconnected from the wall.

She identifies a photo of the counter top and the phone base and unplugged phone jack.

When the police and the girls were outside, Joanna was on the phone with Priscilla. She passed the phone to Sgt. Sutton.

The girls sat in the car outside the house, waiting for the Entwistle’s car to pull up.

At 6am, Joanna spoke with Priscilla. Maureen and Joanna drove around looking for the BMW for about 2 hours and then went back to the house at 8am.

Joanna walked over to the neighbors and spoke with them and then returned back to the house and called Priscilla. The neighbor then came to the house and opened the garage door because she had the code.

They all entered the house and got Sally again and took her outside. They went back in to find the food dish. The found the dog food downstairs. They fed Sally upstairs. The neighbor left and they left the garage doors open.

Maureen and Joanna stayed in the family room with Sally. They did walk through the house.

She noticed the TV was on in the living room. They went upstairs to the master bedroom. There was also music playing in Lillian’s room.

She looked in the walk-in closet to see if anything was missing. She checked the bathroom – the toilet had been used, but had not been flushed.

Maureen and Joanna went back to the family room and made a few calls to Rachel’s friends, but couldn’t reach them. She left messages.

They called Priscilla and waited in the living room for Priscilla to arrive. Priscilla arrived a few hours later. Joe and Priscilla arrived together.

Joanna and Maureen then left the house and went to the neighbor’s house.

They then drove around again looking for the car. They returned to the house, early afternoon.

Terry Pratt came by.

Priscilla, Joe and the girl’s waited outside for a few hours. They left to get dinner.

At about 5 o’clock they all went to the Hopkinton Police Department.

They spoke with detectives and were finger printed. They eventually learned about Rachel and Lillian.

No further questions.

Cross - Page

Page recaps the background of their friendship as was stated on direct.

They kept in touch by e-mail? Yes.

Rachel and Neil put up a website and she could find out places they went, things they did. They posted photos? Yes.

She first met Neil in 2004 when Rachel and Neil visited? Yes.

They were a loving couple? Yes.

Rachel and Neil had good jobs, a nice place to live, a nice BMW, Rachel was a nice, friendly, social person. She and Neil would often do things with their friends? Yes.

She went to England after Lillian was born. Went with Priscilla. It was a nice visit. Neil was gone a lot and it was mostly between the two women and the baby? Yes.

There was talk then about the move to the US? Yes.

When Rachel first returned, she didn’t have a car. She had to ask someone to take her around or borrow a car? Yes.

She visited with Rachel every Monday during the day. She would visit with Rachel and Lillian? Yes.

She would watch Lillian while Neil and Rachel went elsewhere on the property? Yes.

Lilly had reflux? Yes.

When they put Lilly down, they’d leave classical music on? Doesn’t know.

She would stay with her mother or at Matterazzo house.

Matterazzo house was small.

The room was on the first floor.

Neil would often be working in the office.

Rachel was looking forward to a new place of their own.

They needed a car first?

They had been at the Matterazzo’s house from Aug. To Sept? Yes.

You, Rachel and Neil would have lunch together? Yes.

Everybody got along? Yes.

When Rachel was alone in Carver, how much did you see her? Two weeks at her house.

They became confidants? Rachel was a very open person but yes.

When Rachel and Neil finally got the BMW, do you know how they got it? No.

If it was a Monday, Priscilla was at work? Yes.

They still talked many, many times a day? Yes.

When they found the BMW, Rachel was very proud? Yes, but I don’t think it wasn’t her idea.

She got her cousin to sign for it? Yes.

Once they signed the lease they went furniture shopping? Yes.

Bedroom set, office furniture? Yes.

How many loads? Two.

People were working hard to get stuff off the company truck? Yes.

You were text-messaging Rachel? Yes.

She told you when the furniture was being delivered? Yes.

She was excited? Yes.

Saturday night invitation involved you, sister Maureen, Rachel, Lillian, Neil? Yes.

You didn’t know if Rachel or Neil was going to cook? Yes.

It was to be a celebration? Yes.

It was a nice first get-together in the new home? Yes.

They offered for you to stay over? Yes.

When you and Maureen arrived for dinner, you were about two hours late? No.

To Officer Sutton, you said you were supposed to arrive at 5 but arrived at 7? We were supposed to arrive between 4 and 7.

You told Officer Sutton you were supposed to be there at five and were over two hours late? I don’t think so.

(Page shows her paper)

When you spoke to Officer Sutton January 21 at about 8:21 PM, you told Officer Sutton you were supposed to be there at five and were over two hours late? I believe I told him I was 20 minutes late.

Are you sure? I’m not sure what I said to him that night.

And this was just the first time the police came to the house and they left the house because nothing appeared to be wrong and you answered the questions as best you could? Yes.

You and your sister (arrive late) and you knock on the door? Yes.

You and your sister walk around the back of the house... you go one way and your sister goes another way, and all you know is you arrive late for dinner and you do all these things to ....

ritanita - Page goes on with her narration....punctuated by the witnesses yes'es. She stresses incessantly that the sisters arrived LATE for dinner.

Page says there was nothing unusual that night. Joanna disagrees, there were several things wrong.

Phone - Page says there were cell phones and Joanna didn’t know anything about phone installations.

She told the police that Sally was a pampered dog, they just loved the dog.

When the police left, you didn’t leave right away? No.

Then, you decided to go to Dunkin Donuts? Yes.

You only lived 45 minutes away? No, more like one hour.

Then you decided to go back to Cubs Path Way...

Puts up the picture of the house and asks Joanna to identify her car - a Ford Focus. Front and back seats.

It was cold out? We started it up to heat it from time to time.

You went to the gas station and went back to the house? Yes.

They went back to Cubs Path a little after 2, it’s uncomfortable, you’re warming up the car a little? Yes.

Page continues to testify, OOPS! I meant ask long questions reiterating the testimony.


When they went back in the house there was classical music on? Yes 102.5? Don’t know.

Page continues to stress that they stayed all night at the house.

Page tells the witness what happened after the Matterazzo’s arrived and the witness agrees.

From the time that you knew Rachel and Neil you never knew of any financial or marital problems they might have had? Yes.

They were a loving and devoted, happy and excited with their lives. Yes.


Re-Direct

She left the note in the kitchen when they first went in with the police. She asked permission to do that.

She didn’t go home that night because the situation was not like Rachel and she was concerned. Priscilla was also concerned. Her conversations with Priscilla made her more concerned. Her coming to and goings raised their concerns.

It was Rachel’s idea to lease the BMW? I thought it was Neil’s.

Re-Cross

Rachel and Neil did things as a couple? Right.

They had a BMW in England? Right.

Rachel signed the lease? Right.

There’s nothing wrong with owning a BMW? Right.

Ritanita - I am getting SO annoyed with the defense. They are doing all the testifying for the witnesses. The problem is that the witness has to listen carefully for slight variations in the language. It also puts words into the witness’s mouths...

I'm hearing loving, devoted couple, loving parents from the defense attorneys and not from the witnesses. I'd bet that if the defense attorneys asked for witnesses to use their own verbiage, it might vary from the defense script.


Next witness: Aaron O’Neil. Police patrolman, he was on patrol the night of the 2Oth. It took 10 minutes to get to the house after he was dispatched. Sgt. Sutton was also dispatched.

O’Neil saw two females standing in the front. Sutton was around the back of the house.

He waited out front till Sutton came back.

Both officers decided to open the front door. The door was locked. Sutton opened the door with O’Neil’ Blockbuster card.

O’Neil heard a TV set playing. The officers checked the first floor area together. They noticed a dog in a pen and toys strewn around.

They split up and Sutton went upstairs, O’Neil went downstairs. There were no vehicles in the garage and the garage door was down.

He checked the entire downstairs and found nothing out of the ordinary. He then went back upstairs to the kitchen area and Sutton was there also.

They saw a digital camera and they turned it on. This last entry was date stamped on the 19th.

Joanna asked if she could leave a note, which they ok’d and she then took the dog out.

She asked if she could keep the dog overnight. The police said no.

O’Neil identifies photos of the kitchen area…the notepad that Joanna left the note on as well as the digital camera and a cell phone on the kitchen table.

Now identifies photos of the basement and garage area.

Cross - Weinstein

You went to Cubs Path because you were told to. Yes.

Did you know you would be meeting with Mr. Sutton? Yes.

He was going to be in charge? Yes He’s my supervisor.

You got there first? No, Sgt. Sutton got there first.

You met the ladies there? Yes.

Sutton spoke to the ladies before entering the house.

Weinstein asks the witness if he remembers hearing Miss Gately say she was there two hours late to have dinner with the Entwistles’.

Weinstein asks further questions about what he overheard of the conversations. He says he doesn’t. Weinstein shows him a report to refresh his memory and asks again if he remembers hearing Joanna Gately said she was there to have dinner with Rachel, Neil, and Lillian. No.

That she said she was two hours late. No.

He was there to find out if there was anyone in the house in need of assistance. Yes.

He had to get inside. He had to get into the locked door. Does he remember Sgt. Sutton say he’d get into the house as long as he didn’t have to break in? No.

Sutton tried to jimmy the lock with a credit card? Yes, it worked.

Did he use a credit card OF HIS OWN to get by the lock? Not his own.

Weinstein is getting snarkier by the witness!

LinZbee - He is now in full defense attorney mode. Do they take classes in law school to perfect this attitude?

There’s a reason you used a Blockbuster card is that it’s more pliable, softer. Yes, correct.

And that’s what you did? No, Sgt. Sutton did. With my card.

Weinstein reiterates the manner in which the officers went around the house to ascertain if anybody was there.

You looked? Yes.

You looked carefully? Yes.

It was complete? Yes.

Any indication of blood on the first floor? No.

You picked up a camera (to see if anybody was in the house)?

The mission was to see if you could find a person. No, a time.

Weinstein goes through how the witness investigated the basement.

He found nobody, no signs of foul play in the basement. Yes.

Sgt. Sutton didn’t find anything upstairs. Correct.

When they left they home, they had found nothing to make them believe something was amiss.

Court adjourned.

Wednesday’s are abbreviated schedules and court will be in session from 9 am till 1 pm.

Many thanks again to Ritanita for her contributions and to LinZbee for the insightful and very funny comment!

Neil Entwistle Trial: Day Two Recap

These are the witnesses who testified for the prosecution on Day Two:

5. Lloyd Cooke: Back on the stand under cross examination.

6. Michael Matterazzo: Joe Matterazzo's son. He testified that on January 21st, himself, Joe and his brother Anthony all went to the gun club together and that Joe's guns "Were in their cases and locked." He also testified to the demeanor of the family on Sunday, January 22nd.

7. George Wilson: Controller for a construction company and lead instructor for the junior rifle program. Known the Matterazzo family since September 2005. There was no cross of this witness.

8. Joseph Matterazzo: Husband of Priscilla, Rachael's mother whom he has known for 18 years. Testifies to his history with Priscilla, Rachael, Jerome (Rachael's brother) and Neil. He testifies about the office located over the garage, the spare keys, where the keys to his guns where kept, the times he went to the gun club shooting with Neil and that Neil shot the guns. "He did very well with them." Matterazzo also testifies to an odd telephone call he received from Neil, with Neil telling him about discovering Rachael and Lillian's bodies.

9. Dawn Campbell: A bookkeeper at John Ryan. She knew Joe. She testifies she saw Joe at work on the 20th and his demeanor was fine.

10. Nancy Huntley: Bookkeeper at Vern, a company that does work with John Ryan.

11: Joseph Morrissey: Electrician. He saw (Joe) on the job on January 20th. They spent an hour together talking about the job.

12: Edward Flagg: Electrician. Worked for John Ryan. He knows Joe and saw him at the job site. Joe was there for an hour.

Witnesses 9-12 testified to Joe's demeanor days before Rachael and Lillian's bodies were discovered.

13: Maureen Renaud: Toll collector. She knows Priscilla because her mother-in-law is Priscilla’s sister.

14. Michelle Vigneaux: Close friend of Rachel from high school.

CNN.Crime

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 2

~Entwistle enters court


Entwistle is led into courtroom. Jury is seated.
Cross by Weinstein:

Lloyd Cooke on the stand again. He supplied police with a DNA swab and fingerprints
You own guns? Yes.
For recreational activity? Yes.
Have used guns for hunting? Yes.
Rifles? Yes.
You don’t use handguns for hunting? Correct.
How long have you been shooting? Since my 20’s.
So you’ve been shooting for over 30 years? And you’re only a fair shot? Yes.

Weinstein is going on about whether or not Cooke is a good shot and what makes a good shooter. He drones on about what makes a natural shooter. And, now goes into what makes a good basketball player.

The handguns you own, what are they? A 22 revolver, 38 special and a baretta.

Joe Matarazzo had handguns? Yes.
What kind? A 357 and a 22 revolver.
Rachel was your niece? Yes.
So you followed her growing up? Yes.
Did you know her friends? No.
You knew she moved to England. Yes.
You knew she was dating Neil Entwistle? Yes.
You knew they moved in together? No, I don’t think I was told that?

You met Neil here in the United States? Yes.
You first met Neil when? I’m not sure.
You formed an opinion about Neil? Yes.
A nice guy? Yes.
A quiet guy? Yes.
Neil and Rachel had a loving relationship? Yes.
You went to the wedding? Yes.
You met some of their friends from England? I guess.
You met Neil’s parents at the wedding? Yes.
Nice people? Yes. Quiet and reserved? Yes.

You knew Rachel was pregnant? Yes
. You knew Rachel gave birth? Yes.
Neil and Rachel were happy to be parents? Yes.

You and Joe and Neil went to the gun club together in 2005? Yes, twice.
You used Joe’s guns? Yes.
You had to show Neil how to load the guns? Yes.
How to load the guns? Yes.

Next witness:
Michael Matterazzo on the stand now. This is Joe’s son. He is married and has 2 children. He works construction.

Do you know Joe Matterazzo? Yes he’s my father.
What is your relationship with Joe and your siblings? It’s great.
Did you meet Rachel? Yes.
When did you meet her? 15 years ago.
Describe the relationship you had with Rachel. It was great, it was like having another sister.

The relationship between Priscilla and Rachel? They were very close.
Did you meet Neil Entwistle? I think it was on a school break and Rachel came home. Did you met he more than one time? Yes.
What was your relationship with Neil? It was good.
Did you attend the wedding? Yes.
What part did Joe play in the wedding? He gave her away.

Did Rachel come home after she had the baby? Yes, she moved into my folks home. Did Rachel come home alone? No, she had Lilly.
Do you remember when Neil arrived? Not a specific date.
Did you spend time with Rachel and Neil and Lilly? Yes at my father’s house.
How often? Several times.
Did Rachel have any friends? Yes.
How often did Rachel spend time with friends? I’m not sure.
Did Rachel enjoy being a mother? Yes, she loved it.

On the day of the 20th, were you working? Yes, on a construction job.
When did you get home? Around 3.
Did you speak with Joe that day? Yes we made plans to go to the gun club on Saturday. On that Saturday did you go to the club? Yes.
Did you meet Joe? Yes and my brother Anthony.
Did you spend a period of time at the club? Yes, I left around 3.
Did you shoot that day? Yes.
What was the condition were the guns were in? They were in their cases and locked. How long did you spend at the range? We were there for a few hours and then went to lunch.
Where did you go after lunch? Back to the club.
Did you make or receive any calls? Yes, my wife called.
Did Joe receive any calls? Yes, from Priscilla.
What was Joe’s demeanor that day? He was funny, in a good mood.
After the call with Priscilla, what was his demeanor? He was concerned.
Did you speak with Joe that evening? Yes.
And how was Joe. He was very upset.

Did you speak to Joe on Sunday? Many times. When you saw Joe and Priscilla in the police station, how were they? They were very upset.
Did you see the Gately sisters? Yes, the were very upset.
You learned some news at the station? Yes.

Over the next week did you spend time with the family? A lot.
Did you attend the wake? Yes.
Was Neil there? No.
Were any of the friends from England there? No.
Did you meet with police and provide a statement? Yes and a DNA swab.

Cross by Weinstein:
You met Rachel 15 years ago? Yes.
Did you ever live in the same Plymouth household with Rachel, Joe and Priscilla? No. But your brothers did – off and on? Yes.
Did you ever socialize with Rachel and her friends? Yes.
How frequently? We went to a lot of the same events.
How many times did you go to your parents house? Yes, often.
And Rachel and her friends were there? Yes.
How often? A couple of times a week.
Was it the same friends who were there each time? Yes, mostly.
During the week, you’d pop by a couple of times a week for dinner and Rachel and her friends were there? Yes.
How many times on the weekends? I don’t have a number.
In January? 3.
In February? 2.

Are these from memory or are you just filling in the blanks? Yes, I don’t have a specific number.
What friends where there in January? I don’t recall.
How many were there? I don’t recall.
Who was there the first weekend in February? I don’t recall.
How many where there? I don’t recall.

Weinstein is starting to shake Michael up.

Did Rachel have a boyfriend in high school? Yes.
Did she have a boyfriend at Holy Cross? I don’t know.
Did you know her friends at Holy Cross? No.
Did you visit her at Holy Cross? Yes, once or twice.

When did Joe first show you his weapons? I was around 11.
When you were 11 do you know where he kept the guns? No.
How often did you go shooting when you were 11? Pretty often, I was on the gun team.

When your dad moved to Carver, did you know where the guns were? No.
Did you have a conversation about the gun locks? Yes.
Did you know where the keys to the locks were? Yes, on the counter.
How did you know that? Because I know what the key looks like.

How many bedrooms were on the 1st floor? One.
Who’s room was that? Rachel’s when she was home from college.
How many bedrooms upstairs? 2, my father’s and my brothers.

You were in the office at the home? Yes.
There was a computer up there? Yes a PC.
Did you know it was on dial-up? Yes.
There was a desk on a table with a drawer? Yes.

In the fall of ’95 Rachel and Lillian moved back from England? Yes.
You visited with Rachel and Lillian at Carver? Yes.
When? I don’t have a specific date.
When Neil came back, did you see Neil? Yes.
Was he different from when you first met him? No.
Rachel and Neil were a loving couple? Yes.
Neil loved and cared for Lilly? Yes.

Fabbri on re-direct:
The keys to the guns, describe where they were. On the right counter. He’d put his keys and wallet there.
Did you touch keys on counter? No
Prior to 2006, when was last time you went shooting with your father? About 15 or 16 years old.

Why can you remember seeing Rachel during Junior. year? He would go over to visit his brothers. It changed senior year because of a new job situation.

Witness: George Wilson - Controller for a construction company, 58 years old. He enjoys shooting sports. He's been a member of the shooting club for 33 years and is the lead instructor for the junior rifle program. He goes on to describe the program which is for youths ages 10 to 20.

Met Zachary, Anthony and Joe Matterazzo in Sept. 2005 - 2006. Zachary came every Saturday morning. Anthony came 5-6 weeks and decided to shoot skeet instead.
They would drop Zach off and go skeet shooting. He saw the three on a regular basis.

The junior program runs in the basement where there are no windows. Skeet shooting outside. There is an outdoor rifle range.

Have you observed others using their own or others' weapons? Yes.
Are there other people at the club who handle weapons other than their own? Absolutely.

He describes the 7 stations in the shooting range. Can shoot prone, standing, kneeling.

He observed Joe Matterazzo shooting. Long barreled 22 pistol (late fall 2005).

Sat., Jan. 21, 2005. He saw Joe, Mike, and Anthony at the club. They were in the indoor range. They came in 10:00 - 10:15. They spent a minute or two. He'd never met Michael before. He was at the club 9:30 to noon. Spent a minute or two with them.

They came to say Zachary wasn't coming and didn't see them do anything. Later in 2006 - he spoke to police officers. He provided a DNA swab.

No cross.
Next witness: Joseph Matterrazo - Husband of Priscilla. Married since 2001. Knows her 18 years. They have no children together. Her children are Rachel and Jerome. He met them when Rachel was 14 and Jerome 15 or 16. He came to her house one day and met them and took Priscilla for a walk on the beach. He started dating Priscilla about the time he met the children, about 15 years ago. Had known each other for 3 years before.

Relationship with children? Parent relationship. He started living with them in Plymouth about 8 months after beginning dating. They got married in 2001 and children lived with them until Jerome moved out to go to college in North Carolina. Rachel lived with them until she went to college at Holy Cross. They went to all her college events. Rachel spent her junior year in England as an exchange student. Rachel lived with them during the summers. Rachel and Priscilla had the closest relationship he ever knew. He tried to be a father to her since her father passed away when she was young.

Rachel had many friends. He names some of her closest friends from high school and college. She had foreign friends. She was very popular. After college she went back to England to get a teacher's certificate.

She taught there in St. Augustine's. She had many friends there.
Do you recall August, 2003? Who did she meet there? Neil.
He doesn't remember when he first met Neil. He never went to England.

Rachel and Neil had a very good relationship. When did they get married? "I'm bad with dates." He walked her down the aisle as father of the bride.

Rachel and Neil returned to England. She taught, and he worked for an electronics company.

Joe is an estimator for a construction company (John Ryan). He does electrical work. He sawNeil and Rachel when they returned on a couple of occasions.
He first met Lillian in August, 2005 when Rachel and she returned to the US. Rachel came with Lilly and Neil came in September, 2005.

Rachel and Lilly moved in with them in Carver and stayed in the first floor bedroom. Joe describes the layout of the house. Rachel and Neil were given access to the entire home.
Shown a set of keys: They are Rachel and Neil's keys to the Carver house.

Any buildings on the property? Barn and storage shed.
Garage is attached to house but you have to go outside to enter it. You access the office from the garage. It has 2 desks, table, fax machine, two computers. He used it for an electrical company he had.

Shown a photo of his fax machine, computer, one of the two desks. It is the office above the garage as it appeared fall 2005 - early 2006. Joe didn't use the computer, he's not very good on computers.

Other keys in house? Yes.
Spare set? Yes, in doghouse in the yard.
Looked for the spare key in 2006... keys not in doghouse.

Was defendant working in 2005? No.
Was he looking for work? Yes.
When did he start? November, 2005.
What kind of work? Electronic, his field.
Did defendant have a computer? Yes. What kind? I don't know. Laptop.
He only saw Neil with the computer if he brought it down from the office (1-2 times)

Your work hours? 7 AM to 6 or 7 at night, Monday thru Friday. Sometimes on weekends. Spent evenings at home.

Weekends? Sportsman's club, working on his cars.
Observed defendant spending time in office? Yes.
When? After supper, on weekends. Doesn't know during time he was working and on weekends he was doing his own things.

He liked Neil a lot, he was one of the family. Neil had a great relationship with Rachel and Lilly.

Hobbies? Shooting and restoring cars, hot rods. Neil wasn't too interested in the cars. Objection (sustained).

He spent very little time with Neil observing the cars. He took Neil to occasional car shows.

Shooting? He's participated in it with his older children. When he divorced, he stored the guns away and didn't get back into the hobby until 2005 with his younger sons Anthony and Zachary.

They attended an open house at the gun club and then joined. The boys joined first, then he and Lloyd joined.
Joe is telling what type of guns he has.

Who did sport with you? Older sons, years ago. Zach, Anthony, and sometimes Michael. Joe gives the ages of his children. Anthony and Zach were about 12 and 14 at the time.

Priscilla and Rachel had no interest in guns, he never saw them touch the guns, never took them shooting. Kept the guns in Priscilla's clothes closet. They had trigger locks, one also had a strap. All guns were kept secure.

He kept a set of keys on the counter between the kitchen and dining room. No one else in the family used that corner. He had 3 sets of keys. The one on the counter had all the keys. He kept one set in the nightstand and 2 keys in his truck. He was unable to find the set in his bedroom. He first learned they were missing sometime in 2006.

Shown a photograph of a gun (rifle) case against the back wall of the bedroom, ammo box, and box he keeps pistols in. A couple of rifles in closet aren't in the picture. Points out black case he kept his pistols in as of Jan. 21, 2006 and before. Dark green container: stores ammunition. Long black container: shotgun

Fall, 2005: He went to the gun club twice with the defendant. Went the first time in October. Neil, Lloyd, possibly Anthony went. Brought all the guns, except the shotgun which he didn't have at the time. They spent 2-3 hours there. They shot all the guns. Neil shot them. He explained safety rules for them and showed him how to load them. He shot the 22 revolver and did quite well.

Sidebar: Fabbri is trying to include what Joe said to Neil about his shooting.

Neil did very well with it. He, Anthony, and Lloyd all shot the guns. Joe, Neil, Lloyd, went shooting. Zachary and Anthony were probably with the junior rifle group. They again brought all the guns, but he forgot the keys. They used Lloyd's guns. Everybody shot, including the defendant.

In Sept., 2005, Neil was not working. He was trying to start his own business, Embedded Technology.

Did he have a conversation with him about it? Yes.
Did he respond? Yes.
What did you say to him? He asked what Neil was developing. Neil showed him a connector that goes on the back of a computer and explained how it was going to work. "He lost me." He spoke about it further.

I asked if he was going to manufacture this item and put it on the market? He told Neil he would help him set up the business. Neil said he was pretty well all set.

Do you remember any conversations about income? Yes.
When? Several at dinnertime, random talking.
Did he ask about any income that the defendant have? Yes. He doesn't remember what Neil said.

What did Rachel say?

Sidebar Holy crap, just realized the Entwistle also goes up to the sidebars!

When in the fall of 2005 did this conversation take place? September, early. They usually discussed this about suppertime. Joe, Priscilla, Neil, and Rachel were there.
Rachel mentioned that Neil had a contract to develop something and was receiving $10,000 a month for it.

Job interviews? He went on a couple of job interviews. Doesn't know with whom.

Rachel and Joe started looking for a place to live. They found a place in Hopkinton and moved in January, 2006. He helped them move in. He borrowed one of the company trucks and he, Neil and Anthony loaded the truck and took it to Hopkinton.

Rachel went there in the BMW. Joe is shown photo of the BMW. Rachel and Neil used the car.

Prior to Jan. 6, 2006 had he been to the house on Cubs Path? No.
Who drove the truck? I did, Neil gave directions.
They unloaded the truck, drove back to Carver, loaded the truck again. 45 minute ride.

Took 495. Neil gave directions the second time also. After the second delivery, Neil stayed and gave him directions to get back to 495.

He went to a job site. He and Anthony went back to the Carver home.

Rachel, Neil, and Michelle and her boyfriend Michael were at the Cubs Path house. They came back later to the Carver house. Priscilla had watched Lillian all day.

He didn't go back over the next few days. Tuesday night, January 11 was the last night that the Entwistles’ stayed in Carver. He didn't see the family again. He may have spoken to Rachel once or twice, never spoke to Neil. He only made the 2 trips to the Hopkinton house, did not have keys to the house.

Jan. 20, 2006 - He left for work at about 6 AM. He went to his office in Rockland. Left the office about 9:00- 9:15. It's going a bit fast here, but Joe Matterazzo is essentially giving his alibi for the day. He goes into details about where he went, when he went, with whom he spoke, and what he did in each location.

Ritanita - Well, Joe Matterazzo certainly has his day covered! It went by way to fast to get the specifics, but one example is that he stopped at Burger King at about 12:57. He's a diabetic and has to watch his sugar.

He met with Priscilla in the lunchroom about 1:45. He went back to his office, stopped for gas. He worked on plans and estimating for the rest of the day. He met his boss and an estimator at a restaurant until 6:00 - 6:15. Stopped at Dick's sporting goods store and got home about 7:30. Priscilla was home. He and Priscilla were home all evening. Priscilla was fine, OK.

Next morning... He and Anthony met Michael at the gun club. Zachary was sick that day and didn't come. They shot the firearms. They said hello to George and went out on the gun range for about an hour. He brought the pistols, including the 22, the rifles and the shotgun. They went for lunch at the sub shop nearby.

He didn't speak with Rachel or the defendant during that day. He received a call from Priscilla at the gun club. They left about 3:00. Michael went home, he and Anthony went to the Carver home.

Priscilla wasn't home. Anthony wanted him to teach him how to clean the guns. They cleaned them in the family room downstairs. Anthony cleaned them with his instructions. Then, he locked the guns and put them in the bedroom. Priscilla and Terry -Theresa Pratt - came home around 4:00. They came downstairs and watched them clean the guns.

Sidebar - Fabbri is trying to elicit Priscilla's demeanor when she arrived home.

Did you spend the evening at the Carver home? Yes.

Who was there? Me, Priscilla, Anthony.
Did you hear at all from Rachel Entwistle? No.
Neil Entwistle? No.

Jan. 22, 2006 (Sunday morning) Got up and ate breakfast. Joanna Gatley called Priscilla. They made a call to the Hopkinton Police Station. They spent time at home. They called Rachel's cell phone and house phone several times.

Back to Saturday evening. Did you receive a call? Yes, Joanna called.
Other calls? No

Back to Sunday - Joanna Gatley called and they called the police again. He called his friend Joe Flaherty. He's known him for 30 years. As a result of the conversation, they headed to Hopkinton. They dropped Anthony off at his mother's home in Pembroke. He stopped at his daughter Erika's house to drop off a key.

Headed to Rachel and Neil's house in Hopkinton. Priscilla drove her car. They arrived about noon. Joanna and her sister Maureen were there, outside in the driveway with the dog. Terry Pratt arrived and her boyfriend John and maybe someone else.

He and Priscilla stayed, Terry and John drove off. They stayed there for a little while and went to a sandwich shop for lunch. They received a call from Detective Manning. As a result, they went to the police station and met with one of the police officers. They spoke with him for a while.

He, Priscilla, Joanna, and her sister were there, along with Neil and Rachel's dog. The meeting lasted an hour maybe. Next, they filled out a missing persons report for Rachel, Neil and Lillian. They waited in the conference room and a little while later, the Chief of Police came in and informed him that a lady and a baby were found in the Hopkinton home. They learned nothing about Neil's whereabouts. Joanna's mother and father came. Michael came down to the station. They left the station about 1 AM and went home.

Monday, January 23 Received a call from Cliff Entwistle. It lasted about 10 minutes. Received another phone call. It was Neil Entwistle. The last time he'd heard from him was when he moved to Hopkinton. The conversation lasted about 15 min.

His voice was very shaky, whimpering type. He said, "Hi Joe, I don't know how things got like this." He said he'd left the Hopkinton home about 9AM and went to Staples. Tried to find a WalMart. Was gone about 2 hours. Said he'd fed Lillian her breakfast before leaving.

When he returned home, he walked around the house, went inside, called for Rachel, no answer, cleaned the main floor. Found "big mess" in bedroom, Rachel and Lillian shot, drove to Carver house but couldn't find key to get in. Went to the airport to get a ticket. He called his father to get a ticket. He never said he left the airport. He said he got a ticket and went home.

Joe asked why Neil cared that he had guns in the house? No answer.
Did you do this? Neil said no.
Did he ask to speak to Priscilla? No.
Anybody else? No.
Joe called Det. Manning.

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday... Neil usually called between 9-10 in the morning. He spent time speaking to him. Neil said: Lot of publicity, news people at his father's house - Concerned people were pointing fingers at him - Joe told Neil to call Det. Manning - Mentioned Joe had guns twice, Joe asked why and Neil didn't answer. Neil repeated what he had done that morning.

Funeral arrangements: Tues. or Wed. he asked if Rachel and Lillian could be buried together. He said that's the way I left them, I found them.

Each call was 15 minutes or so. He was shaky and nervous, emotional. He never asked to speak to anybody else.

Joe called Neil Thursday about the funeral arrangements. He told Neil he needed his permission to make the arrangements. He told Neil what he needed to write to give the permission. He mentioned the pornographic stuff in the news was ridiculous. Neil agreed to fax the permission note. Neil faxed it right over.

Joe identifies Neil's fax. Joe brought it to the funeral director. Joe reads the fax out loud. After that, he didn't speak to the defendant again.

He spoke to police that week on the phone and at his house. He turned over all guns, ammunition, and computer.
In the course of days and he weeks turns over keys to gun locks, fingerprints, DNA swab.

Anthony, Zach, Lloyd, and Priscilla gave fingerprints and DNA swabs at the same time.

Funeral and wake: Defendant was not there.

Back to gun club... October, November already mentioned. Also went every Saturday until murder.

Cross by Weinstein:

Neil called you from England, he was crying and whimpering? No.
You couldn’t see him cry? No.
But there was no question he was upset? No.

What year was it that Rachel, Priscilla and Jerome start living together? I don’t recall. Your boys lived their mother? Yes.

But then you began to bring the boys to your home? Yes.

You began to blend the families? Yes.
You were here when I questioned Michael? Yes.
Did it accurately reflect Rachel’s life at the time? Yes.
Did you pay for her tuition at Holy Cross? No.
You helped with living expenses? Yes.
Rachel financed her tuition through loans? Yes.
And she carried those loans through her time in England and through her marriage? Yes.
Does the amount of $18k sound right? Yes.

The room that Rachel was was small? Not that small.
Your bedroom was above? Yes.
You could hear conversations? No.
You could hear dogs barking? Yes.
You could hear the baby crying? Faintly.

You drove a truck. Yes. Priscilla drove a Dodge? Yes.
Priscilla paid for it herself? No, I believe we took out an equity loan.
How long did you pay that loan? I don’t know – we refinanced.

Weinstein is going on and on about the cars, how much they cost and how many miles.

Prior to August 2005, it was you and Priscilla and the dog? Yes.

Then it was you, Priscilla, Rachel, Lillian and 2 dogs. So 4 adults, a baby and two dogs? Yes.
So the household dynamics certainly changed? Yes.
Then the people got along, but not the dogs? Not the dogs.

You went through earlier what your day was on the 20th? Yes.

And you know the police went out to verify if your alibi? Yes.

The fall of 2005. Rachel and Lillian had returned from England. Yes.

Lillian was basically caring for Lillian? Yes.

Rachel had no car? No.

So if you took your car and Priscilla took hers to work, Rachel had no vehicle. Correct.

The family dinner usually happen when you got home from work? Yes.

And when Neil came here to live that practice continued? Yes.

Now, the computer, it was a dial-up service? What?

Did you have a wire that plug to the phone and to the computer? Oh yes.

You saw Rachel and Neil in the office together? Not all the time.

But, you did see them in the office together? Yes.

Rachel wanted a car of her own? Yes.

Rachel had her own car while in England? Yes.

And that was a BMW? Yes.

You were aware that Rachel and Neil were looking for a car? Yes we discussed it at dinner. Yes.

Neil and Rachel found a BMW on the internet? Yes.

The found a fairly new one where Rachel could take over the lease payments on one? Yes.

At the dinner table, Rachel asked for help from her mother? Yes.

She asked you for help? Yes.

Both of you turned her down? Yes.

You didn’t help her because you thought you would need a new vehicle? Yes.

And you needed Priscilla to sign your loan? Yes.

In fact you had a bankruptcy? A long time ago.

Rachel was upset that you wouldn’t co-sign the lease? She understood.

But she was upset? No, she wasn’t happy. But accepted the fact.

Fabrri on re-direct.

You didn’t co-sign the lease? No we had a small store and it didn’t work out and we had to refinance the house so we had maxed out our credit.

Weinstein re-cross

Regardless that you explained to Rachel why you wouldn’t co-sign, she was still unhappy.

Rachel really wanted to be driving a BMW, the ultimate driving machine? To Rachel, yes.

Next witness:

Dawn Campbell is a bookkeeper. She worked at John Ryan. She knew Joe. She Saw Joe at work on the 20th and his demeanor was fine.

Next witness: Nancy Huntley, bookkeeper at Vern. Her company does work with John Ryan.

She knew Joe and she was the one who gave him the drawings on the 20th.

He was fine that day.

No cross.

Next witness:
Joseph Morrissey, an electrician. He saw on the job on January 20th. They spent an hour together talking about the job.

Cross

Did you speak with police about this case? Yes.

No further questions.

Next witness:

Edward Flagg another electrician. Worked for John Ryan. He knows Joe and saw him at the job site. Joe was there for an hour.

He didn’t see him later that day. His demeanor was fine.

No cross.

So everyone has confirmed Joe’s whereabouts.

Next witness: Maureen Renaud she is a toll collector. She knows Priscilla because her mother-in-law is Priscilla’s sister.

She met Rachel in and saw her at family functions.

She met Neil in 2003. She says Neil and Rachel seemed like a happy couple.

Did you know Rachel was going to move back to the States? Yes.

In 2005 Rachel and Lillian moved here? Yes.

She and Rachel spent time once a week in 2005. They belonged to a baby group. It was a parenting group.

She and Rachel would get together with the kids at Rachel’s about every week.

Was Rachel happy to be here in the States and being a mother? Yes, very much so.

Maureen co-signed Rachel’s car lease.

January 8th or 9th was the last time she saw Rachel when they got the kids together.

Cross by Page:

You knew Rachel because you married her cousin Peter? Yes.

You would see her at family functions? Yes.

You and Rachel had young babies in common? Yes.

Were you aware that Rachel was involved with a baby group in the UK? No, I wasn’t.

It was a support group? Not per se, but it was supportive in talking with other parents.

Lillian had a problem with reflux? Yes.

When Rachel came back had you seen Rachel before Neil came back? Yes.

Rachel didn’t have a car at the time? No.

Neil was a quiet and reserved? Yes.

At one time you described Neil as boring? Yes.

Rachel never complained about money to you? Yes.

Both Rachel and Neil both had good jobs in England? Yes, that’s what I heard.

When she approached you to co-sign the lease she told you her parents wouldn’t so-sign? They couldn’t.

You were you concerned about her finances? No.

Damn, the tape keeps looping...you got coverage Rn? Now yes, but I missed a lot. Thanks to CNN for dropping the feed several times! Sheesh!

Next witness: Michelle Vigneaux, a close friend of Rachel from high school.

They reconnected when Rachel became pregnant. She sent a message to her. She learned Rachel was pregnant late fall, 2005. They began to e-mail once or twice a week.

When they came back for a baby shower, she had a chance to meet Neil.

She saw Rachel when she moved back to Mass. in August.

She came back with Lillian and Neil joined them in September.

Their families lived close together and she'd see her when see went to visit her relatives.

They spoke on the phone and e-mailed occasionally. They saw each other Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve, whenever they could.

She was happy to have Lillian, was happy to be in the US. Rachel and Neil had a "typical" relationship. They had playful nicknames for each other, were concerned about Lillian...

Emergency lights go on, building evacuated. Shades of Jensen!

Ritanita - Well, while we're waiting, I'll comment a bit. While the defense isn't exactly trashing Rachel, they are painting her as a person who was in debt, liked "flashy" cars. Notice how many times Weinstein mentioned the student load debt and how many questions he asked about her wanting the BMW. In my report, I think I even missed a couple of them. Neil, on the other hand, is being portrayed as the quiet, reserved "outsider" in the US. I say...horse feathers! The defense is also pushing a, "Joe could have done it" theory. I don't think the defense has much going for it for all of Weinstein's pre-trial trash talk.


Ok, folks allowed back in the building...just a faulty alarm!

Fabbri continues with the witness.

January, 2006 - She and her husband came to help them move on Jan. 7. Joe, Anthony, Joanna were there, unloading the moving truck. She spent about three hours at the home to help unpack. Rachel was very happy to be moving.

She spoke to on Thursday, Jan. 18 or 19 for about 30-40 minutes that evening. Rachel's demeanor was good, fine.

She did not see or speak to her after that.

Cross: Page

You were very close friends with Rachel all you life? Yes.

Lost touch after high school? Yes.

Saw each other on breaks from college. Yes.

Kept in touch by e-mail. Yes.

They visited each others houses.

Kept up e-mail contact when Rachel went to England? Yes.

Saw her when Rachel came home to visit? Yes.

Rachel had other friends from high school, you got together with Rachel and baby? Yes... at another house.

Rachel had good job in England? Yes.

Neil? Yes.

Own car? BMW? Yes.

Rachel liked to socialize? Yes.

She liked to have dinner parties? Yes.

Celebrate with friends? Yes.

When Neil came over, Rachel was happy to see him? Yes.

And he was happy to see her and Lillian? Yes.

She didn't have a car? Yes.

You dropped over her house? Yes.

Rachel's mother was there? No.

They wanted to get a house of their own? It was something they wanted to do eventually, not necessarily right now.

They had relocated here to start a new life? It was a positive thing? Yes/

They left behind a lot of positive things in England? Don't know.

It was hard for them to have private time in the Carver house? She did mention it was busy.

It was difficult to make love (due to lack of privacy)? She said it was different.

She felt like she wanted to get back in shape? Yes we spoke about going running.

She went to parenting class? Yes.

She wanted to continue when she moved? Yes.

Neil wanted to go with her? Don't know.

Neil was quiet and reserved? Yes.

You spoke with the police a number of times after January 20? Yes.

Asked if she knew of anyone who would want to harm Rachel or Lillian in Feb.? Yes.

She never complained about the relationship or money? No.

They were always smiling at each other and with the baby? Yes.

They were in love? Yes.

Witness steps down.

Sidebar...

The Judge explains that they finished today's testimony early and adjourns the court 20 minutes early.

A huge thank-you to ritanita for all her help!

Haut de la Garenne Warden in Court and Lawyers Call for Special Board for Abuse Victims

~Gordon Wateridge

Gordon Wateridge, former warden at the Haut de la Garenne children's home on Jersey is due to appear in court today charged with indecently assaulting teenage girls during the 1960s and 1970s.

He is charged with three offenses of indecent assault on girls under the age of 16 between 1969 and 1979.

***

According to lawyers, the more than 100 victims of child abuse at Haut de la Garenne face overwhelming obstacles in seeking compensation under Jersey law.

The Jersey criminal injuries compensation board can make awards only for injuries sustained after May 1,1991. Claims for damages in the civil courts have to begin within three years of the victim's turning 18 – similar to our statute of limitations laws.

The Jersey legal system is ill equipped to deal with historic abuse, so lawyers are calling on the Jersey authorities to set up a redress board to ensure justice for victims.

Caroline Dorey, an advocate at Backhurst Dorey and Crane in St Helier, said: "Jersey is under scrutiny as never before. It's crucial that we are seen to be doing everything we can to get to the bottom of whatever happened at Haut de la Garenne, and to provide proper restitution for those affected.

"Although the island is justifiably proud of its legal system, the current situation poses new and extraordinary challenges. We owe it to the island in general, and of course those survivors of child abuse in particular, to ensure that we introduce whatever means are necessary to meet the current situation as openly as possible, and that justice is seen to be done.

"A redress board which is specifically set up to investigate and assess civil claims arising from this historic abuse would seem an appropriate way forward."

Lawyers are suggesting the residential institutions redress board set up in Ireland in 2002, which compensates victims of physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect as a suitable model.

Tracey Emmott, an English lawyer specializing in child abuse at the law firm Pictons in Luton, supports Dorey's call for a redress board.

Emmott said, “My own view is that a redress board would be the appropriate body for Jersey. It was welcomed by the Irish people because it was a recognition of how seriously the government took the complaints.”

"And I think similar sentiments would be echoed in Jersey. Especially given all the allegations of cover-ups, there is all the more reason to be seen to be doing something appropriate."

Neil Entwistle Trial: Day One Recap

Where have we seen this move before? That concerned motherly move of female defense attorneys putting their arm around the shoulder of their client? Linda Kenny Baden did it in the Spector trial.

The prosecution and defense both gave their opening statements today.

The following witnesses testified for the prosecution:

1. Priscilla Matterrazo: Rachael's mother. She testifies to her daughter's education history in England, when she met Neil, their marriage, Lillian's birth and their move from the UK to the US. She also testifies to the days events leading up to the discovery of Rachael and Lillian's bodies.

2. Theresa Pratt: High school friend of Priscilla. She was with Priscilla when they both went to Rachael and Neil's home on January 21st.

3. Laureen Mahoney: A coworker of Priscilla's she is the office receptionist. She testifies to knowing the family and met Rachael approximately 9 years ago. She testifies that on January 20th, she did not take any calls from Neil or Rachael on that day.

4. Margaret Cafano: Another coworker of Priscilla's, she knew Rachael for 12 years.

5. Lloyde Cooke: Priscillas brother, he works in construction. He often went to the gun club with Priscilla's husband and that Neil went to the gun club at least twice. Cooke says Neil handled the firearms well. Neil was shown how to load the guns.

Cooke will be back on the stand on Monday for cross examination.

CNN.Crime

Special thanks to Beth Karas who supplied Margaret's last name for me.

Entwistle Trial Finally Begins

~ Neil Entwistle



UPDATED!
Key Players in the Entwistle case:

Judge - Diane Kottmyer

Defense - Elliot M. Weinstein and Stephanie Page

Prosecution - Michael Fabbri and Daniel Bennett


Judge Kottmyer takes the bench.
Jurors brought in. Jury sworn in.
Indictments read as Entwistle and his attorneys stand.

Judge describes what will take place in the next few weeks. There is to be no discussion of the case, no watching news on the case…the usual admonishments.

Exhibits will be in the jury room during deliberations. Transcripts will not be allowed.

Ritanita - The judge is doing a beautiful job of instructing the jury. She makes it very clear to the jurors what is and isn't evidence, the role of notes, etc. I find very useful that she explained that they will not have transcripts in deliberations. She said that transcripts can be very misleading since they don't include voice inflection, body language, etc.

ADA Michael Fabbri’s opening statement:

After I came home and found them, I covered them up. My first thought was to go down to the kitchen for a knife, but I knew that would hurt. I went to my in-law’s to get a gun and kill myself. But, I couldn’t get in. The evidence will show he had the keys to the house. The words of Neil Entwistle.

I could see the hole in Lilly. Evidence will show this isn’t true.

I didn’t tell Rachel’s parent before I left for England. I didn’t even think about funeral arrangements. The words of Neil Entwistle.

Fabbri goes into how Entwistle and Rachel met, got married and had baby Lillian. They lived with Rachel’s parents after they moved from the UK. How neither Rachel nor Entwistle were employed.

You will hear evidence how Joe, Rachel’s stepfather owned guns and belong to a gun club. You will hear evidence that Entwistle went to the club with Joe and knew where in the house the guns were kept.

You will learn about Entwistle’s search for escorts’ sites. You will learn he visited sites seeking a discreet affair. He also visited sites days before the death of Rachel and Lillian, on murder and suicide.

Entwistle claimed to have an interview on the day of the 20th that was never set up.

You’ll see records of the defendant arriving at Logan airport. You’ll learn the defendant left and then attempted several cash withdrawals. Then Entwistle returned to Logan.

After not hearing from Rachel, her parents went to the house and found it locked. They called the house and Rachel’s cell, but received no answer. The car was not at the house

Friends arrived for dinner and also got no response, but they could hear the family dog inside and a light was on in the house. They then spoke to Rachel’s mom inquiring about the whereabouts of Rachel.

Priscilla’s mom called police and asked for a well being check.

Police did a cursory search and found nothing out of order and no people were in the house.

Rachel’s friends slept in their car in Rachel’s driveway. The next day, police arrived for a second well being check. Police entered the home and noticed a smell. Further search of the bedroom they discovered Rachel and the baby under a comforter.

No shell casings found in the home. Police found blood splatter on the pillow under Rachel’s head and the wall.

At autopsy a bullet hole was found in Rachel’s hairline. The bullet was a 22 caliber, the same ammunition used by Joe Matterrazo.

The defendant didn’t attend the wake and funeral of Rachel and Lillian; he sent flowers.

When arrested, Entwistle had a paper on him that listed escort services and how he wanted to sell his story to the highest bidder.


Defense Attorney Elliot M. Weinstein –

On January 20, 2006 Neil Entwistle changed, his life changed, never to be the same. On that day he lost his wife and daughter. He loved them both.

You will learn that things are not they way they may first appear to be.

The first time police entered the home they found nothing out of the ordinary. No indication that anything was wrong. No blood.

The Gately sisters arrived 2 hours late for a dinner party. They were surprised no one was home. Using a code, they entered the home, watched television.

Everyone will tell you what a loving couple Rachel and Neil were. They were partners; they were soul mates.

Rachel’s parent will tell you that Neil was a loving husband and a good son-in-law.

Rachel and Neil used their computers for their emails correspondence, for their business and for their other entities.

The evidence will show that others also used their computers.

The prosecution took time to investigate this case.

You will learn from the investigators.

You will learn things from the witness from the state crime labs.

You will also learn much from the thins they didn't do from the steps that they didn't take

You will learn several things, from the state witnesses.

The evidence you will hear is going to be sordid. It's going to be gruesome.

Very important witnesses will leave you with questions and doubt.

As you hear and see the evidence, the evidence will show you that Neil is not responsible for killing Lillian or Rachel.

Opening statements are complete.

Priscilla Matterrazo is the first witness:

She is talking about how Rachel and Neil met. Rachel was teaching school in the UK and Neil worked in the computer field.

In 2002 Rachel and Neil spoke about getting married. They married in 2003 in Massachusetts. They came over in April for the wedding shower. They seemed to get along very well and seemed to love and respect each other.

2005 Rachel gave birth to Lillian Rose. Mom spent two weeks in the UK after Lillian was born. She went over with Rachel’s college friend, JoAnna Gately.

Priscilla kept contact with them after April of 2005, talking with them by phone at least every other day.

In August she learned that the Entwistles were planning to move back to the US.

Neil would have better job opportunities to establish his career, and they wanted Lillian to be around her family.

Rachel and Lilly came to live in the United States. Neil closed the home in the UK and Rachel and Lilly lived with her parents.

Entwistle had no job and Rachel stayed home to raise Lillian. She was still receiving pay from the school.

Entwistle had some internet business and used the computer in an office over the garage. Entwistle’s company was "Embedded Technologies" and went by the initials of "ENT". Rachel didn't spend much time on the computer, only to send e-mails. Rachel didn't do any work for ENT.

Rachel and Neil were provided a set of keys to the house. There was a set of spare keys in the doghouse in the backyard.

Rachel and Neil visited Priscilla where she worked.

So that disproves Neil’s statement after the deaths that he didn’t know where she worked.

Rachel brought Lillian in, to see everyone.

Rachel had worked at my office one summer so they all knew her.

Entwistle would come to the office a couple of times a month. Sometimes to have lunch.


They're talking about the guns Joe keeps, and where he keeps them in the house.

Priscilla doesn't know so much about the types of guns Joe has. Joe kept his keys (including the ones for the drawers he kept his guns in) on top of a piece of furniture (?) in the dining room/living room area...

Joe took Neil with him for firearms practice twice.

Neil and Rachel leased a BMW in 2005.

Rachel and her mom had a joint account so Priscilla could pay Rachel’s bills when she was in the UK. Later Entwistle was added to the account.

Rachel and Entwistle had a savings account in Sovereign Bank. Rachel and her mom had a joint account so Priscilla could pay Rachel’s bills when she was in the UK. Later, Entwistle was added to the account.

There was 17,000 dollars in it.

Neil and Rachel discussed monthly bills - one night Priscilla came in and Neil was making dinner and Rachel was paying bills. Rachel said "He's better at that, and I'm better at this".

Rachel had two credit cards.

Neil and Rachel had an arrangement with Joe and Priscilla for $350 per month plus some food for the house, plus any food that Lillian ate.

December 2005, Rachel and Neil rented a house for a year. They started moving in, January 2006, the first Saturday.

Priscilla identifies a photo of the house.

Was Neil working during that time? No - he was looking for work though. Started looking in early December of '05.

He was looking for a job in computer engineering up near in the "technology belt". He had one interview for a job.

She was home when Neil left near 6-6:30 am, he was home by 1-2 PM. He didn't have much to say about the interview, who it was with, the people or the place. She didn't speak with Neil about it and he didn't bring it up.

Into early January of 2006, he had interviews scheduled. He had one scheduled for Jan 20, Friday, after they moved into their house.


Joe and his son Anthony helped them move on the 7th. Some things came from Priscilla’s house and a friend offered some household items…couches, etc. They didn’t move in till the 11th because they were waiting for a bed and office furniture to be delivered.

On that Tuesday, Neil was upstairs putting lamps together for the spare bedroom.

The house had a 2 car garage underneath the house. They'd come up into the house into a foyer. Bathroom and small room on that level. Stairs went up to the kitchen and foyer, with living room and family room. Second floor was 4 bedrooms, two full baths and a walk-in closet in the master bedroom. Master bedroom was on top left, if looking at the front.

Neil stayed upstairs to himself, not much to say on that Tuesday. They were there 4-5 hours. They went home together.

She went up to the Hopkinton home the following Tuesday (her day off) with her sister Pam. They wanted to see the house all set up, and Pam wanted to see Rachel and Lillian.

They moved into the home on the 11th and 12th.

Rachel, Lillian and Neil came to Joe and Priscilla's house on the 16th (MLK day), because Neil needed to use the computer to fill some orders and their house didn't have phones or computer lines yet.

Neil was upstairs in the office over the garage using his laptop.

Rachel was downstairs with Lillian - they were making lunch, feeding the baby, talking. Had late lunch at 2-3 pm.

They left at 5 pm. Neil was distant. He left without saying goodbye.

On the 17th was when she went to the Hopkinton house with her sister Pam. From 9-9:30 - till 5/6 pm.

They had lunch together. The women stayed, talked, played with Lillian.

Neil had lunch with them but was mostly downstairs in the office area because the phone lines were being installed.

The ladies went downstairs so Pam could see the house.

It wasn't set up yet - just boxes, computer equipment, wires, small hand tools.

On Friday Joe stopped by Rachel’s house to have lunch. Priscilla and Joe spent the evening at home and had no phone calls from Rachel. On Saturday, Priscilla had plans to meet with Rachel.

Priscilla and Theresa left for Hopkinton at 11:30. Rachel didn’t come out to greet them. Priscilla received no answer at the door. She could hear the dog barking.

She went to the back of the house and looked through the sliders and couldn’t see anything. All the doors were locked.

She called the house and left a message. Then called Joe to see if Joe had heard from Rachel.

She drove around for a while and then went back to the house around 2:30. She left a note and asked Rachel to call.

Priscilla then returned home. She never received any phone calls from Rachel or Entwistle.

JoAnna Gately called Priscilla. She was at the house for a dinner party and no one was home.

Priscilla called the police and asked them to check the house.

On Sunday, Priscilla spoke to JoAnna again, then she and Joe left for Rachel’s house.

JoAnna and her sister Maureen were at the house and then Theresa and her family arrived.

Priscilla and Joe stayed outside in their car. They went to the police station at 5:30pm and filed a missing person report on Rachel, Neil and Lillian.

They were at the police station for 7 hours. Police told them what happened to Rachel and Lillian. They left the police station at 1:30.

Police arrived that week and removed Joe’s guns and Priscilla’s computer.

The following week, police took DNA swabs from them.

Funeral arrangements were made on January 26th. The wake was held January 31. The funeral was February 1. Entwistle did not attend.

Ms Page on cross-

Rachel didn’t live in the house with you and Joe. Yes she did.
Did she live there or just visit?
She had her own room with her own things.

Rachel was finishing school in England.

You told us about how Neil and Rachel met, Yes.

Then Neil and Rachel decided to move in together. After she got her teaching certificate.

You met Neil prior to their marriage. Yes, twice.

The first time was Christmas? Yes.

Anytime Rachel and Neil were visiting you, the seemed happy and in love. Yes.

He was shy and reserved? I wouldn’t say that.

When Rachel was in the UK, Neil and she set up a website. A personal website, yes.

They put up pictures of the baby? Yes.

They put up pictures of vacations or special occasions? Yes.

After Lillian was born, Neil was an active participant in raising Lilly. Yes.

Some of Rachel and Neil had friends from the UK come over for the wedding? Yes.

They had a good network of friends over in the UK. Yes.

When you went to visit Rachel and Neil and Lillian, the visit was very pleasant? Yes.

Neil was working during that time. Sometimes he was home, sometimes he was at work.

Priscilla spoke with Rachel 2-3 times per week.

In coming here, Rachel and Neil thought Neil would have a better job opportunity here? Yes.

They had a car and a very nice apartment in the UK? It was modest.

Rachel’s first month here was a difficult transition. No, she was here with her family.

She didn’t have her English friends here? No.

She didn’t have a car when she got here? No.

She had to depend on you for transportation? Yes.

Sally, Rachel’s dog and Cassie, Priscilla’s dogs didn’t get along? Correct, they could be outside together.

Court breaks for lunch.


Some extra info:

Court Schedule: Mon, Tues, Thurs, Friday 9 am - 1 pm

2 pm to 4-4:30 pm (usually 4 except if there is a witness testifying and they want to continue, but not after 4:30)

Lunch - 1 - 2 pm__15 min break around 11am - no afternoon breaks

(She didn't mention Wednesday but Beth Karas had said Wednesdays will be 1/2 days.)

Coverage can be seen at:

CNN.Crime

http://news.sky.com/skynews/livenewsevents

http://mfile.akamai.com/12880/live/reflector:38811.asx

Updated - Afternoon session

Page continues with Priscilla Matterrazo cross

Let’s go back to the time that Rachel was in England.

Rachel went to England in 1999.

So, Rachel only stayed in the Carver house for a few months and then when she came to visit? Correct.

So you went to visit Rachel after the birth of Lillian. Yes.

Rachel and Neil were very social with their friends? Yes.

If I mention the name Dasch, he was a very good friend? Yes.

So, the entire group of friends in England they were all very close, but you didn’t know all of them? I met many of them.

When Rachel came back to the US with Lillian, she didn’t have a car? Yes.

So she couldn’t go out much by herself? She didn’t have a car.

One of her close friends was JoAnna Gately? Yes.

She came every week? Every week or every other week.

Rachel was thrilled when Neil joined them here? Yes.

Neil didn’t have a US driver’s license and used his passport as identification.

So Rachel drove Neil around? When he first got here, yes.

Page shows Priscilla photos of her home in Carver. Priscilla identifies them.
And, that’s where Neil, Rachel and Lillian lived? Yes.

Priscilla is going over the floor plan of the Carver house.

Rachel’s room was below Priscilla and Joe’s room? It was across half of it.

When Lilly was put down to bed, Rachel would be concerned about people making too much noise and waking the baby? Yes.

The keys to your house, it was clear to Rachel and Neil where they were in the doghouse. They also had their own keys and were free to enter the house when you weren’t there? Yes.

The office over the garage was a separate little place? Yes.

So, you could have privacy up there? Yes.

Neil was not the only person who used the office? You were out of the house all day working? Yes.

So you wouldn’t know how much time Neil spent up there, or Rachel? Correct.

You had a dial up modem on your desktop? I don’t know, I’m not that computer knowledgeable.

Neil and Rachel had a separate table for their computer? Yes.

You had no idea what Neil was doing when he was in the office? Yes.

You didn’t know what Rachel did in that office. Only when she told me what she was doing. Correct.

Now about the guns and the keys to the gun box. There were conversations about the guns? I suppose.

It was common knowledge where the keys were? If someone recognized them.

The guns were kept in your bedroom? Yes.

You would have preferred they were kept elsewhere? Yes.

Your husband and sons and Neil went to the gun club? Yes.

Neil and Rachel had a joint bank account? Yes.

Both names were on the credit cards? Yes.

And the statements came to the house? Yes.

Neil needed to find a job; they needed a car and a house? Yes.

Neil was sending out resumes when he lived at the Carver house? I assume, but don’t know for sure.

There were several calls on the answering machine concerning employment for Neil? You took notes of the messages? They said they were responding to a call from Neil. They didn’t say anything about a job.

There were two calls in February 2006 from Oxford International about employment for Mr. Entwistle.

You had no reason had to believe Neil would get a job? I had no reason.


You said Rachel brought Neil to your office several times? Yes.

You have no idea whether Neil or Rachel drove to your office. As to who was behind the wheel, no.

Rachel and Neil paid $350 a month to stay at the Carver house and contribute to the added expenses of the household. Yes.

Neil took good care of Lillian. He dressed her, fed her, played with her? Yes.

Neil would often do the cooking for the house and clean up the dishes, take the trash out? Yes.

Neil and Rachel were happy about the BMW and you were happy for them? Yes.

They were concerned how to pay the lease; you had a discussion at the dinner table. You were asked about co-signing the lease? Joe did the same thing fo