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."
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.
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
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
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."
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!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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!
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!
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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.
Thanks ritanita!
CNN.Crime
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, June 23, 2008
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!
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!
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!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
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.
38. 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
38. 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, 'thecrimewriter,' here.
CNN.Crime
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.
38. 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
38. 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, 'thecrimewriter,' here.
CNN.Crime
Saturday, June 21, 2008
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.
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
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
Ritanita on the Entwistle Murder Trial
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Medical Examiner Dr. William Zane
testifies about Rachel's bullet wound and the path it traveled.
GUEST ENTRY BY RITANITA!
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!
Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab Forensic Chemist Deanna Dygan explains the tests she ran on the gun entered into evidence as the murder weapon, during the murder trial of Neil Entwistle at Middlesex Superior Court, in Woburn, Massachusetts, June 16, 2008
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!
Friday, June 20, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
