Thursday, June 19, 2008

Entwistle Murder Trial – Day 10

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

James returns to the stand.

Pages 1 through 16 of the computer history –

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No further questions!

Cross - Weinstein

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

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

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

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

It’s not unusual? No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windows EP - what does that mean? Login screen.

The login screen indicates 3 accounts? No.

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

Weinstein puts of photo of baby Lillian.

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

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


Photos stipulated to that they came from the hard drive.

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

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

There were several travel sites? Yes

Airline information, reservation information, Manchester... Yes

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

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

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

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

No more questions.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bullet was given to Trooper Steve Walsh.

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

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

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

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

The chest and abdominal examine showed no damage.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

The autopsy on Lillian was then done.

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

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

Lividity was present on the front of her body.

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

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

The wound was consistent of a contact wound.

Her back had a defect on the right.

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

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

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

The liver and kidney damage could cause death fairly rapidly.

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

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

Where was the lividity? It was on the back!

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

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

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

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

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

No further questions.

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

Cross - Page

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

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

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

First saw them at ME office? Yes.

No firsthand knowledge? Yes, just from history.

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

He signed death certificates and autopsy reports? Yes.

Contained everything you saw? It should.

You never added anything? No addendums or reports.

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

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

You are experienced pathologist, physician? Yes.

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

You should? Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The autopsy is his main laboratory tool.

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

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

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

It can't say who fired the weapon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Handguns are used more than rifles in suicides.

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

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

Page shows him the book.

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

OBJECTION to that.

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

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


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

On to gunshot residue –

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

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

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

If a person was depressed? Yes.

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

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

The heart needs to be pumping to cause a bruise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page – You’ve changed a lot


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

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

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

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

Page suggests they break for lunch.

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

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

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

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

Page gives specific times. He agrees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We go on and on about this issue.


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

Page repeats that he was not informed.

What type of information

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

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

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

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

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

Toxicology results? Yes

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

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

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

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

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

Injuries to the torso result in pain.

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

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

Do people attempt suicide by shooting through another person? No


There are parent/child suicides? Yes

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

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

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

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

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

Zane says he didn't call her doctor.

Page asks a number of questions which are objected to.

Next witness -

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing more, no cross.

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

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

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

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

This is a repeat of Flood’s testimony.

Entwistle had a bag that he took possession of.

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

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

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

The items are published to the jury.

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

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

A phone charger was in the blue bag.

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

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

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

Cross - Weinstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

No further questions.

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

Thanks ritanita!!!


Anonymous said...

Nice work. I think you can leave out the question marks when quoting Weinstein...he doesn't ask questions much, he makes statements that you agree with! or he gets snippy.

Unknown said...

The members at Jurorthirteen had the same reaction as you all did over the defenses rediculous suggestion that Rachel did this.

I wasn't impressed with the Me either. Actually, I thought he looked like he had a really bad hangover...imo