R.I.P. Benazir Bhutto

Just a little tribute to the late prime minister of Pakistan...

New Entwistle evidence

The Boston Herald has discovered some new evidence in the Neil Entwistle case: a small amount of gunshot primer residue was found on a knife in Entwistle's house. Gunshot residue is commonly found on the hands and clothing of someone who fires a gun, so this means that Entwistle probably touched the knife after he allegedly shot his wife and baby daughter.

Entwistle has told investigators that he found his wife and baby dead and was so distraught he tried to commit suicide with a knife, but could not bring himself to do it. Perhaps the part about the knife is true! Maybe Entwistle intended to carry out a murder-suicide, but the gun got jammed or was out of bullets or something... Then as a last resort he reached for a knife to kill himself, but was too afraid to. That's my theory anyway, but it could be wrong.

Check out the Herald's two recent articles:

Cracking open the Entwistle file
Entwistle lawyers target embattled ME

Merry Christmas!

Tancredo drops out

Tom Tancredo announced today that he is dropping out of the presidential race and endorsing Mitt Romney. This is a little disappointing, as Tancredo was one of the more unique candidates, with his strong anti-illegal-immigration views. Now I'm even more sure that I will vote for Ron Paul, since Tancredo was probably my second choice. Hopefully Paul will get some of Tancredo's votes now...

Ron Paul's interview

I watched Ron Paul on Glenn Beck last night, and I thought it was a great interview. I agreed with a lot of what Paul had to say, and I appreciated that he got a chance to explain his positions fully. He talked a great deal about making the government smaller and cutting government expenses.

“We spend, and then we tax, and then we borrow, and we still don’t have enough money,” he said. Paul went on to explain that he believes in cutting domestic programs and making social security optional. He also said that “You also have a right to the fruits of your labor, which is why I’m so opposed to the income tax.”

One of the reasons why I like Paul is because of his belief in the Constitution - he wants an America that's more like the America of our founding fathers. “To me the Constitution is very libertarian," he said in the interview. "The Constitution was written to restrain the government, not to restrain the people.”

As you may have seen, I added a link to his site in the sidebar; I think I've decided on him as my primary candidate. Go Ron Paul!

The jury goes back to work

The jury in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson met with Judge Christopher Muse today, and he basically told them to keep deliberating. He reminded the panel of what constitutes reasonable doubt - they do not need to have "proof to a mathematical certainty" but merely "an abiding conviction that the charge is true." Then he advised them to be open-minded toward each other's opinions and told them that the court most likely will not be able to find another jury "more intelligent, more impartial, or more competent than you are." If the jury still can't arrive at a verdict, then a mistrial will be declared. If this happens the prosecution is likely to try Pring-Wilson a third time.

The jury is deadlocked!

After six days of deliberations, the jury in the Pring-Wilson trial is deadlocked. The jurors announced this afternoon that they are unable to reach a consensus. Judge Christopher Muse is meeting with the jurors tomorrow to give them additional instructions, and they are expected to continue deliberating.

Pring-Wilson case goes to jury

Closing arguments took place in the Pring-Wilson trial today, and this afternoon the jury began deliberating. I couldn't be there, unfortunately, so I don't have any more details than that.

I predict that the jury will take a long time to arrive at a verdict. The evidence was not clear cut enough to make it obvious one way or another. I might be wrong, though, and I would really like to be there for the verdict, so I'll probably be calling the DA's press office from time to time to see if a verdict is imminent.

In my opinion, the jury definitely ought to find him not guilty, and I predict that they will. To convict someone in a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn't quite do that. From the evidence that was presented in court, Pring-Wilson's story makes at least as much sense as the prosecution's. I hope the jury looks objectively at the facts and makes the correct decision.

Pring-Wilson testifies, part 2

Today I got to see Alexander Pring-Wilson finish his testimony. Not surprisingy, there were numerous reporters present in the courtroom, as well as a camera crew from Channel 7.

Adrienne Lynch, the prosecutor, cross examined Pring-Wilson for over two hours. First, she made a big deal out of the fact that he said he was punched in the nose and that he covered his head with his hands while he was being beaten, yet he had no injuries to his nose, hands, or forearms. He claimed, however, that he had cuts on his nose and on his finger, but admitted that he accidentally cut his finger with his knife.

Then Lynch asked Pring-Wilson why he stabbed the person in front of him if he was so concerned about being pounded in the back of the head. "I did what I had to do to get out from that experience," he replied.

Lynch sarcastically asked Pring-Wilson if he remembered asking her to kneel down before him yesterday, referring to his exasperated request that she demonstrate how she thought he knelt when he was being attacked. The question was objected to, and the objection was sustained.

She also questioned him extensively about his testimony in the first trial, giving him a lengthy transcript from which to read and follow along, and focusing on his lies to police. Lynch also noted that Pring-Wilson's estimate of how many concussions he had previously suffered increased from 10 to 12 from the first trial to the second. He replied that he was "not really sure" of the exact number. Additionally, she asked if he had "accused" the state police chemist of moving his knife to make it look like he had hidden it. "I'm not sure if I accused him, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened," said Pring-Wilson. "There's no other way it could have gotten there...I'm perfectly willing to believe that it was an accident and not an act of malice."

Another point that Lynch raised was Pring-Wilson's choice to wear his jeans and button-down shirt from the night of the fight to the police station, but not his flip flops and yellow raincoat, which she argued were more "distinctive" and therefore more recognizable. "I would also argue that raincoats are commonly worn by people when it's raining," he retorted.

Next, Lynch got Pring-Wilson to admit that he had carried a knife since the age of 12 but decided not to bring the knife to the police station. He explained that he didn't bring the knife "for the same reason I think it's inappropriate to take it to airports."

After being asked about the forensic tests performed on his hands, Pring-Wilson replied that "Everything's so jumbled after going through this whole process twice." Lynch theorized that Pring-Wilson's left hand appeared dirtier than his right in a police photograph because Rodriguez knocked him to the ground after he stabbed Colono, and he broke his fall with his left hand while holding the knife in his right. "I don't ever recall falling with my knife in my hand," he replied.

Next, Lynch called attention to a piece of Pring-Wilson's testimony in the first trial when he describes how he felt after the fight and begins to say the word "hangover" but quickly changes it to "headache." He tried really hard to avoid the question, and then to read his complete response, but he was eventually forced to concede that he did, indeed, say that.

Later she picked on Pring-Wilson for walking home after calling the police and for calling a driveway an alley. She also asked him why he swore at Colono if he wasn't angry (all he said was that he wasn't angry before he heard Colono's insults; he very well could have been angry afterward) and asked him who was in the driver's seat of the car. Pring-Wilson responded that he didn't remember very well because "He came out of the car very quickly. He hit me...I fell to the ground."

Then, Lynch attacked Pring-Wilson for using a weapon on two unarmed men, repeatedly asking if either Rodriguez or Colono had a weapon, to which he replied that, no, he did not see any weapons on them. "They were kicking at me, and they were punching me, and there were two of them, and I was on the ground," Pring-Wilson shot back. Lynch suggested that no one kicked Pring-Wilson, but that instead his feet were cut up because he was wearing flip flops in the middle of a city, and he answered that "They were cut up because I was attacked by two men in the middle of that city." Next she raised the point that Pring-Wilson never called for help and that he says he was on his knees yet was still able to stab Colono four to five times, twice in the chest.

At 11:00 there was a break, after which Lynch completed her questions by showing the jury a picture of Pring-Wilson on the morning of April 12, in which he does not appear to have any serious injuries. Then Peter Parker, the defense attorney, did a re-direct that lasted about a half an hour. He had Pring-Wilson point out the pocket in his jeans where he always carried his knife and then showed the jury a picture where a cut on Pring-Wilson's nose is visible and a picture of his hands in which they appear to be the same color. Pring-Wilson also was able to read his complete response to the question where he almost said "hangover." Finally he described his state of mind during the attack: "I...saying afraid isn't quite right. I was more afraid than I've ever been in my whole life...It puts you in a horible place."

Throughout his testimony, Pring-Wilson remained calm, never becoming angry or losing his composure. He seemed well-prepared, making sure he had Lynch's questions right and remaining silent until she actually asked something in question form. He often answered questions by saying things like "you can see it there" or "that's what the records say, and I have no reason to doubt them" instead of saying yes or no. Lynch, on the other hand, was rather belligerent, repeating questions over and over and seeming to become angry at Pring-Wilson when he answered indirectly or attempted to elaborate. Both appeared confident and articulate - it's difficult to tell which way the jury will lean. Personally, I think Pring-Wilson did a great job and definitely placed a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's claims.

Pring-Wilson wasn't the only witness today - his girlfriend, Janice Olmstead, testified next, describing how his voice sounded normal when she talked to him before the fight but that he sounded "floaty, unconnected, just different" when he called her from the police station after the incident. She was followed by Edmundo Martinez, a close friend of Pring-Wilson's who testified about his "reputation for peacefulness." Last was Dr. Jeremy Schmahmann, a neurologist who described the symptoms of concussions - which do not necessarily include external injuries and are not detectable by most tests performed in doctors' offices - and gave the opinion that Pring-Wilson suffered a grade 2 concussion, the second most severe classification. He was excellent on cross examination, sticking firmly to his opinions. When Lynch hinted that it would be unwise to trust Pring-Wilson's description of his symptoms, he answered that "a physician in the emergency room who disbelieves his patient should not be a physician." He even called one of her questions "nonsense."

Wow, what a long post! Well, there are three more witnesses scheduled for tomorrow, and closings will take place then or Monday.

Pring-Wilson testifies!

Alexander Pring-Wilson testified in his own defense today, but, most unfortunately, I can't give a very good description of what he said because I was unable to be there! I had a big test smack in the middle of the day. Plus, thanks to the wonderful news media, I didn't even know he would be testifying. Clearly they knew he'd be testifying - there are video clips and pictures of Pring-Wilson from today, but there haven't been camera crews or a large media presence on most days of the trial. But how did they find out? And why on earth didn't they publicize it ahead of time?

From what I've read and watched online, Pring-Wilson was more subdued than at his first trial. His direct examination lasted 45 minutes, and his lawyer told him not to get down from the stand and act out the fight like he did last time.

The only good news is that he didn't finish his testimony, so I will get to see the end of the cross examination tomorrow. Closing arguments might be scheduled for Monday.

Sources:
TheBostonChannel.com
WHDH
Boston Globe
My Fox Boston

Prosecution rests in Pring-Wilson trial

Today the prosecution finished calling witnesses against Alexander Pring-Wilson. The first witness of the day was Harjeet Singh, the manager of Pizza Ring, the restaurant near which the fatal fight between Pring-Wilson and Michael Colono occurred. Next up were Colono's mother, girlfriend, and sister, who described his background and interests. Wanda Rivera, Colono's oldest sister, said that he was interested in "getting a career and furthering his education" and was a lifelong baseball fan. Cindy Guzman, Colono's girlfriend, was the only one of these three witnesses to be cross examined. She admitted that she told Colono the day before the fight that she wanted to break up with him - which may have put him in an angry mood and made him more likely to attack Pring-Wilson - and that Samuel Rodriguez told her he was in the driver's seat of the car - the opposite of what the prosecution claims. Finally, the prosecution called James Connolly, a captain with the state police, to the stand and played clips of Pring-Wilson's testimony in the first trial.

The defense called its first witness today. Jennifer Lipman - a doctor, certified forensic pathologist, consultant, and professional expert witness - gave her opinion on Colono's wounds. She said that two of his five stab wounds were medical incisions, meaning that Pring-Wilson stabbed him only three times. The wound on Colono's wrist, she testified, was the right location, shape, size, and orientation to be made during a "cut-down" - when medical personnel make a cut in a patient's skin to find a vein. Also, the wound was too neat and clean to have been inflicted during a fight, and was located in the wrong place to be a defensive wound. One of the two wounds to Colono's lower abdomen was also made by medical personnel, said Dr. Lipman. The cut was the perfect size and location for a diagnostic peritoneal lavage - a procedure that doctors perform to tell if a patient has internal bleeding. Prosecutor Adrienne Lynch began cross examining Dr. Lipman but will finish tomorrow morning.

I also managed to catch the second half of yesterday's proceedings; sorry for not posting about it! I was there for the testimony of Dr. Faryl Sandler, the medical examiner who examined Colono's body. She described his five wounds, said that the one that punctured his heart was the cause of death, and said that the one on his wrist was consistent with being a defensive wound. I thought Peter Parker, Pring-Wilson's defense lawyer, did a good job on cross examination. He cast doubt on the claim that the wrist wound and one of the abdomen wounds were made by Pring-Wilson and made it seem like the other wounds didn't require a huge amount of force to inflict if the knife was sharp, long, and moving at a high velocity, and if the victim was moving toward the knife. He also mentioned that Dr. Sandler was not a board-certified pathologist and made a big deal of the fact that Dr. Sandler did an internal examination of Colono's head even though there were no outward signs of head injuries - hinting that people (such as Pring-Wilson) commonly have brain injuries that don't necessarily cause external symptoms.

I wasn't there for yesterday morning's events, but the Crimson reports that John Soares, a chemist, finished his testimony, and the prosecution entered Colono's bloody clothing into evidence. Check out their article for the full story.

Entwistle trial delayed yet again

After testimony ended for the day in the Pring-Wilson trial, I stayed around the courthouse to catch Neil Entwistle's pretrial conference. Although Entwistle himself did not make an appearance, many reporters and members of the victims' family were present. Judge Diane Kottmyer reversed the ruling she made last week and agreed to delay the trial yet again! First the trial was going to be in last April, then October 1, then January 28, and now jury selection won't start until after March 10! A hearing is scheduled for December 21, by which time the prosecution must provide all relevant discovery, and a status conference is scheduled for February 1.

Also at today's hearing, defense attorney Elliot Weinstein expressed his outrage that the Boston Herald had published Entwistle's "suicide" letter. Calling the leak an intrusion into attorney-client privilege, Weinstein asked Judge Kottmyer to order an investigation into who gave the Herald a copy of the letter. However, she denied his motion.

Forensic scientists testify against Pring-Wilson

The prosecution continued to present its case today in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. Paul Melaragni finished his testimony from yesterday. He said that he helped the police make a DVD of security camera footage of Pring-Wilson at the police station, and part of the footage was shown in court. Then, Eugene Hagan, a former chemist at the Mass. State Police Crime Lab, testified about how he examined evidence at the scene of the crime as well as at Pring-Wilson's apartment. Pring-Wilson's clothing and knife tested positive for blood, said Hagan, and the knife was hidden in what he described as a "crawl space" in Pring-Wilson's room. However, on cross examination Hagan admitted that he moved items around in the crawl space before taking pictures of the evidence. The next witness was George Behonick, a forensic toxicologist who examined Michael Colono's body and found that he had been drinking before the altercation with Pring-Wilson, but had not consumed any other drugs. Finally, John Soares, who examined evidence with Hagan, began his testimony today. He testified that Pring-Wilson's hands tested positive for blood, as did his raincoat and knife. Also, prosecutor Adrienne Lynch showed Colono's bloodstained clothing to the jury while Soares pointed out the stab marks in the clothes and described how he thinks they could have been inflicted. The trial will resume Monday.

Doctors, roommates testify in Pring-Wilson trial

I went to the Pring-Wilson trial this afternoon. I'm not sure what happened in the morning, but four witnesses took the stand in the afternoon. Kathleen Ahern, one of the EMTs who brought Pring-Wilson to the Cambridge Hospital after he was feeling ill at the police station, testified that he didn't seem too badly injured, had no trouble walking, and seemed alert. Dr. Richard Ma, who treated Pring-Wilson at the hospital on April 12 and 13, said that he performed fine on neurological tests, and that his only injuries were a cut on his foot and a cut on his head. On April 12, Pring-Wilson told Dr. Ma he was hungry, and he got him a sandwich from a party that was going on in one of the offices, and he had no trouble eating it. On the 13th, however, Pring-Wilson returned to the hospital, complaining of nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and a severe headache. A CAT scan was performed, which indicated he didn't have a concussion. On cross examination, defense lawyer Peter Parker brought up that Dr. Ma was just finishing his training at the time he examined Pring-Wilson, that his symptoms were consistent with a concussion, and that he had more injuries to his head, including a large bump near his left eye, than Dr. Ma had mentioned. The next two witnesses were Sarah and Zachary Daniels, who shared an apartment with Pring-Wilson before they got married. They both described how he went out on the night of April 11 after consuming a cocktail at home and then spoke to police officers at the apartment on the morning of the 12th. On cross examination, Sarah said that Pring-Wilson carried his knife all the time and used it for many things, including cutting apples and opening boxes. She also said that the message he left for Jennifer Hansen, with whom he had gone out on the night of the 11th/12th, did not reflect the way he normally speaks, making it seem more likely that he did indeed have a concussion when he called her. Finally, Paul Melaragni, who works for the Cambridge Police Department and specializes in voice recordings, started his testimony in the last few minutes. The message Pring-Wilson left for Hansen will probably be played for the jury when he continues tomorrow.

Neil's letter revealed

Remember when Neil Entwistle wrote that suicide letter last year? Well, the Boston Herald somehow got the full text of it. Neil actually wrote two letters: one to his parents and one to his lawyers, Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page. The one the Herald got is the one to the lawyers. Check it out at the link below:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1044860#articleFull

6 more witnesses testify against Pring-Wilson

Six more witnesses testified for the prosecution in the Pring-Wilson trial yesterday. The first three - Donald Mahoney, Robert Leary, and James Greene, were police officers who responded to Pring-Wilson's 911 call. They described how he told them he was just a witness to a stabbing and then pointed them in the direction he believed the victim and perpetrators had gone. According to the officers, Pring-Wilson didn't seem drunk and didn't appear to have any serious injuries.

After a recess, three more witnesses took the stand. Ricardo and Elizabeth Rodriguez, the brother and sister-in-law of Sammy Rodriguez, described how they went to Beth Israel Hospital after hearing about the stabbing and then picked up the car and found Colono's jacket, with several knife holes, in the back seat. Finally, detective John Fulkerson described how he talked with Colono's famliy members at the hospital after the stabbing and interviewed Pring-Wilson at the police station the next morning.

Sorry for posting this so late! Court got out at 1:00 today, but I don't know what went on, because I wasn't there. Hopefully there'll be some news coverage!

Entwistle hearing today

Unbeknownst to me, there was a hearing in the Neil Entwistle case today. His defense lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, wanted the trial to be delayed even further, until March, to give him time to sort through 9000 pages of new evidence. The judge denied Weinstein's motion for now but might decide to delay the trial if the defense can present more reasons to do so.

I am quite upset at the court system and the news media that this hearing was not publicized in advance in any way whatsoever. Each day when I go to the Cambridge courthouse to observe the Pring-Wilson trial, I check the court docket, which (in theory) allows one to look up all past and upcoming court dates for any trial. The docket made no mention of a hearing for Entwistle today. Now I am not sure if the hearing that the docket said would be next Tuesday will even happen...

Anyway, to see a picture of Entwistle at today's hearing, go to the Boston Herald.

Rodriguez testifies against Pring-Wilson

Today at Alexander Pring-Wilson's trial, prosecution witness Samuel Rodriguez finished up his testimony, which he began Friday. Rodriguez was an eyewitness to the fight that resulted in the death of Michael Colono. He is also Colono's cousin. Rodriguez says Pring-Wilson opened the car door, challenged Colono to a fight, and stabbed him, and that he jumped in to defend his cousin. The defense contends that Rodriguez teamed up with Colono to attack Pring-Wilson and beat him to the ground.

Today's testimony began with the cross examination, as the direct had taken place on Friday. Defense attorney Peter Parker got Rodriguez to admit several inconsistencies: whether the car was on or off, whether Rodriguez was in the driver's seat (as the defense claims) or the passenger's seat (as he claims), and what exactly Colono called Pring-Wilson (initially an obscenity, but then Rodriguez changed it to "idiot"). Like Giselle Abreu, who was also in the car, Rodriguez admitted that he hadn't seen Pring-Wilson punch Colono or wield a knife until after he had been beaten to the ground. While trying to describe where he punched Pring-Wilson, Rodriguez began crying, which resulted in a 5-minute recess.

After the break, Parker brought up Rodriguez's past criminal convictions, all of which he admitted to. The list included the following:

• malicious destruction of property
• assault and battery
• possession of a firearm without a license and resisting arrest
• assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and malicious destruction of property (the prosecution got this one stricken from the record)
• assault and battery and assault with a dangerous weapon
• possession of a firearm and ammunition without a license
• carrying a concealed weapon without a license

Parker also brought up incidents when Rodriguez beat up his former girlfriend, threw bicycles at a car, threw a cup in his sister's eye,and pulled a knife out on his sister's husband. On re-direct, prosecutor Adrienne Lynch tried to get Rodriguez's violent incidents to look less bad, but in my opinion didn't do too well. Rodriguez did say that his ex-girlfriend wouldn't let him leave the house and that he apologized and called the police after he pushed her, but for the most part Lynch didn't get him to look much better.

After a brief re-cross, another witness began her testimony. Julianne Sitler described how she saw Rodriguez and Abreu parked in front of a store, yelling to passerby for directions to a hospital. She had some medical training and helped out until paramedics arrived. Her testimony helped the prosecution a little bit because it showed that Rodriguez and Abreu were trying to get help, not evade the police. However, she couldn't recall how many stab wounds Colono had, which is important in determining how viciously (or not) Pring-Wilson was stabbing him.

2nd day of Pring-Wilson trial

Today, during the second day of Alexander Pring-Wilson's retrial, prosecution witness Giselle Abreu gave her version of the fatal events of April 12, 2003. Abreu was the girlfriend of Michael Colono's cousin, Samuel Rodriguez. During direct examination, she described how she, Rodriguez, and Colono were waiting in their car for a pizza when she saw Pring-Wilson stumbling down the street, and Colono started to make fun of him. Abreu said that Pring-Wilson asked Colono "Did you say something?" and Colono replied "Yeah. Why, you want to do something about it?" Pring-Wilson replied "Yes" and opened the car door, instigating the fight. She then described how she and Rodriguez realized that Colono had been stabbed, frantically tried to get to a hospital, and eventually ended up calling 911.

Abreu admitted that Colono had been drinking before the altercation and that she lied to police at the hospital, telling them that she was driving by when she saw Colono fighting with Pring-Wilson.

On cross examination, defense attorney Peter Parker got Abreu to admit that she had a physical fight with Rodriguez on April 12, something that she had denied during direct examination. He also asked if she had sniffed cocaine that day, which she flatly denied, and questioned her timeline of the events - she says that she and Rodriguez left an apartment in Lynn at midnight, drove to Colono's house, which was 45 minutes away, and then went to Pizza Ring, which was only a few minutes away from Colono's house. Cell phone records show that Pring-Wilson walked by the car at 1:50 a.m. Were they waiting for the pizza for a whole hour, or were they just driving around looking for trouble? Maybe most importantly, Abreu admitted that she didn't see Pring-Wilson's knife, and Colono didn't shout that Pring-Wilson had a knife, until Rodriguez had pulled him to the ground. This admission makes it seem more likely that Pring-Wilson pulled out the knife because he had been knocked to the ground, and not vice versa.

One funny thing I noticed was that during direct, Abreu and prosecutor Adrienne Lynch used the names Michael and Sammy to refer to Colono and Rodriguez and referred to Pring-Wilson by his last name or merely as "the defendant." Parker's first question on cross was something to the effect of "You were afraid of calling the police because of what Rodriguez and Colono had done to Alex, right?" But after two questions the judge made him stop! There was a brief bench conference, and then Parker resumed questioning, using the names Michael and Sammy. If the defense has to call them by their first names, shouldn't the prosecution have to call the defendant Alex?

Opening statements, as well as the beginning of Abreu's testimony, took place yesterday. Tomorrow Rodriguez is expected to testify. Should be interesting to see how much of his criminal history the defense will be allowed to bring up.

Jury selected for Pring-Wilson

A jury has been selected in the trial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. As promised, I went to the trial, and the day was taken up by jury selection. Judge Christopher Muse called numerous potential jurors individually to the stand to question them, and each juror was either dismissed by the judge (usually because of a hardship that made it difficult for them to serve), dismissed by defense or prosecution lawyers, or selected to be on the jury. After the judge finished questioning the first batch of jurors (numbers 68 to somewhere in the 120s), the next batch came in (about 145 to 180) and was told the basics of the case, introduced to the defendant and the lawyers, and questioned as a group. Judge Muse asked the jurors several questions, including whether they knew anyone involved in the case, had any affiliation with Harvard, knew anyone who worked for law enforcement, had heard of the case, had any problems with alcohol, or had a hardship that made it excessively burdensome for them to serve. Then the same individual questioning process happened again until 16 jurors had been selected.

At the end of the day, the 16 jurors came back into the courtroom, sat in the jury box, and received instructions from the judge to ignore media reports about the trial, avoid talking to anyone about the trial, and avoid doing independent research. The day ended at about 4:30.

Several of Pring-Wilson's friends and family members were present, as well as a couple of reporters. I bet the courtroom will be much more crowded tomorrow - the jurors are scheduled to visit locations important to the trial and then return to the courthouse for opening statements and testimony from the first three witnesses. The trial is set to last until December 7th. On Mondays and Wednesdays, the proceedings will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on other days the trial will last from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Curt is coming back!

Awesome news for Red Sox fans: Curt Schilling will be back for another year!! See the Boston Herald for the full details. This makes me so happy, because he's my favorite player!

Pring-Wilson jury selection begins

According to the Harvard Crimson, jury selection began today in the retrial of Alexander Pring-Wilson. The Crimson reports that Pring-Wilson showed little emotion and that, surprisingly, there were few people in the courtroom.

I am planning to attend tomorrow's proceedings, so tomorrow night you'll hopefully have a firsthand account of what went on in the courtroom!

Pring-Wilson trial tomorrow

The retrial of Alexander Pring-Wilson, the Harvard grad student convicted in a high-profile murder case, is set to begin tomorrow. The defense will now be allowed to presnet more evidence to bolster Pring-Wilson's self-defense claims, including some of the following tidbits:

• Michael Colono, the alleged victim, threw money in the face of a restaurant cashier in 2001 and kicked the front door, shattering the glass
• In the same year, Colono verbally and physically assaulted passengers on a train and spit at the police officers who arrested him
• Samuel Rodriguez, Colono's cousin, repeatedly beat his girlfriend
• Rodriguez and his friends threw eggs at and then assaulted people in a passing car
• Rodriguez hit his sister in the eye with a plastic cup and then tried to stab his brother-in-law and smashed the windows of his car

According to the AP, the trial is expected to last 2-4 weeks, and Pring-Wilson is planning to testify in his own defense like he did at his first trial.

Peterson denied insurance money

After about two years, there's finally some new news about Scott Peterson. Remember how he wanted Laci's insurance money to use for his appeals? And how a judge denied it to him? Well, he appealed the decision, and (big surprise) the appeals court refused to give him the money too. See the full story at Court TV.

Rolling rally

I went to the Red Sox rolling rally yesterday! I was standing along Tremont St., near Boston Common, and I was in the second row of people. I arrived slightly after 11, and the parade didn't reach us until about 12:50. I didn't really mind the wait, though; there was plenty of excitement going on. Everyone was yelling, chanting, and throwing toilet paper from one side of the street to the other! There were a lot of cops, including a swat team, and I saw two people get arrested. The crowd started cheering whenever any vehicle went by, which was quite amusing. Whenever a police car or a cop on a bicycle went by, they would get covered in toilet paper, because it was all over the ground and was blowing around in the wind!

I was across the street from a Suffolk University dorm and an apartment building, and of course everyone who lived there watched from the windows. Some people threw toilet paper, and even candy, down to the crowd! One room in the dorm must have been inhabited by Yankee fans, because they put up a sign that read "World Series - Red Sox 7, Yankees 26."

I got a few pictures, and the best ones are below:

Congrats Sox!

Hooray! The Red Sox have won the World Series!! Congratulations to everyone on the team.

Hmm, I wonder when the Duck Tours parade is going to be...

Tancredo's baseball bet

Tom Tancredo just made a bet to Mitt Romney: If the Rockies win the World Series Mitt has to drop out of the presidential race, and if the Red Sox win Tom will drop out! Needless to say, Romney declined Tancredo's offer.

See the full story at Fox News, and go Sox!!!

World Series Game 1

Well, last time I blogged to wish the Red Sox good luck, it worked, so why not do it again? Go Sox! Beat the Rockies!

Bush's veto sustained

Wow! My third post in one day!

Well, I think it deserves mentioning that Congress failed to overturn President Bush's veto of the SCHIP bill! This is a victory for everyone who opposes socialized medicine and supports freedom from excessive government intervention. Congrats to all the representatives who stuck to their guns and voted against this bill.

Go to Reuters if you would like to read the full story.

Go Sox!

Brownback dropping out?

According to various news sources, Sam Brownback is planning to drop out of the 2008 presidential race. This is fairly disappointing, as he was among my favorite candidates. However, there are still Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter! I'm not sure who my favorite candidate is, but it's definitely one of those three. I'm leaning toward Paul right now, but only by a small margin.

Over at the New York Times, I saw this nifty article, a comparison of the candidates and their views on health insurance (which seems to be one of my favorite topics recently). I liked Paul and Hunter the best!

The TSA has gone too far

Remember when the TSA installed those machines at Phoenix airport that create images of people's naked bodies? Now they're trying to defend the machines, saying that "privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image." So being seen naked doesn't violate your privacy at all, as long as the people who see you naked don't know who you are? The TSA is dead wrong. Now, I don't always agree with the ACLU, but this time I like what they had to say:

"First, this technology produces strikingly graphic images of passengers' bodies. Those images reveal not only our private body parts, but also intimate medical details like colostomy bags. That degree of examination amounts to a significant -- and for some people humiliating -- assault on the essential dignity of passengers that citizens in a free nation should not have to tolerate...They say that they are obscuring faces, but that is just a software fix that can be undone as easily as it is applied. And obscuring faces does not hide the fact that rest of the body will be vividly displayed."

Right on!

I must mention that these invasive scans are only done on passengers selected for secondary security checks. But still, everyone who can afford a plane ticket has a right to fly on a plane. Performing humiliating security procedures on innocent people is never justified.

Source: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202401630

P.S. I added a new link to the sidebar. It's the site of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a great organization dedicated to (among other things) fighting oppressive copyright laws. Check it out!

The Browns were tricked!

You probably heard this already, but in case you didn't, Court TV reported that Ed and Elaine Brown never voluntarily agreed to go along with the feds; they were tricked! The sneaky federal agents pretended to be supporters of the Browns, and the Browns let them into their compound. Before they knew who their guests were, Ed and Elaine were in custody. I must say, the feds were very clever, but it's still a shame that the Browns were arrested.

Bush vetoes SCHIP expansion

As expected, President Bush vetoed a bill that would pour large amounts of government money into providing health insurance for kids who have too much money to qualify for Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs. I completely agree with the president's veto. The only thing I would have done differently was publicize the decision more - Bush vetoed the bill behind closed doors without inviting any media representatives or encouraging fanfare. I wish Bush has showed more pride in his decision, as he did when he vetoed the stem cell research bill. At the moment, the Senate has enough votes to override the president's veto, but the House does not. I hope it stays that way and that socialized medicine in this country is not expanded.

My health care idea

Hillary Clinton has just unveiled her plan for health care in America, and I don't agree with it at all. According to Hillary's plan, all Americans would be required to have health insurance, and all large businesses would be required to provide insurance. Small businesses would have tax incentives to provide insurance, but would not be required to. Naturally, the government would provide subsidies to pay for poor people's insurance, so the federal budget would be increased by $110 billion!

First of all, no one should ever be required to have any kind of insurance. The government has no right to tell people what they must spend their money on. If any state mandates health insurance or auto insurance, the federal government has an obligation to step in and overturn the state's law.

Second of all, I don't think employers should provide insurance; I think insurance companies should provide insurance. People should decide if they want health insurance or not, and then, if they choose to, buy it from the company that sells it. Health insurance should be bought and sold like any other commodity, not automatically deducted from people's paychecks.

Finally, I oppose Hillary's plan because it would cause the federal government to spend more money, and the feds already spend vastly more money than they should.

Here is my plan for health care: Health care and health insurance should be completely optional. To make health care affordable, the government should set maximum prices that doctors and health insurance companies can charge for their services. I think anything significantly more than $20 a month for health insurance is unreasonable. Different medical procedures would have different maximum costs, probably each under $100. If you want health care or insurance and think the price is a good deal, then you can buy it. If you can't pay or don't think it's worth the money, then don't get it. If the insurance companies can't make money without charging ridiculously high fees, then they should go out of business and people can just pay for the health care they choose to get.

My plan is the only one I've heard of that is just. The government has no right to force people to get insurance, or to take people's money and give it to poorer people. Health insurance companies and doctors have no right to charge exorbitant prices. My plan solves these three problems and would create a truly fair system for America.

MoveOn went too far

By now you have probably heard of MoveOn.org's "Petraeus or Betray Us" ad that ran in the New York Times. I find MoveOn's decision to bash General Petraeus absolutely shameful. I have never agreed with this liberal group, but this time they have gone way too far. It is one thing to criticize conservative politicians, but to insult a brave, competent leader who seems to remain politically neutral demonstrates a complete lack of class. General Petraeus never did anything to provoke these people; he is a great man who deserves their respect. The New York Times should also be ashamed of themselves for running this ad.

Check out the CNN article here; even John Kerry thinks MoveOn's ad was "over the top"!

Entwistle trial delayed again

Whoops, I was wrong when I wrote in my last post that Neil Entwistle's trial would begin on October 1st. At a hearing today, defense lawyer Elliot Weinstein requested extra time to analyze DNA evidence, and Judge Diane Kottmyer agreed to postpone the trial to January 28. There will be a pretrial hearing on November 20.

Entwistle's motion denied

After several months of deliberation, Judge Dianne Kottmyer denied Neil Entwistle's motion to dismiss evidence. In a 22-page long decision dated August 30, Judge Kottmyer sided with prosecutors and ruled that evidence obtained during two warrantless searches of Entwistle's house can be used at trial. Entwistle's trial is still scheduled to begin October 1st.

Congrats to Clay Buchholz!

I know, I haven't blogged about the Red Sox for a while, but I think this is a great occasion to do so! Clay Buchholz just became the first rookie in Red Sox history to throw a no-hitter! This was just his second game in the major leagues, and he is only 22 years old. Also, he is just the third pitcher in MLB history to throw a no-hitter in his first or second game. It was great to see the whole team mob him at the end of the game. He seems very modest - he just pumped his fist once when he struck out the last batter, instead of jumping up and down or bragging. Congratulations to Clay; he really deserves it!

Gay marriage in Iowa

A district court in Iowa ruled today that gay marriage is legal under the state's constitution. This ruling overturns a state law limiting marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The case, which involved six same-sex couples who want to marry, will advance to the Iowa Supreme Court. As an opponent of gay marriage, I hope the Supreme Court decides to keep marriage laws in the state the way they are.

Entwistle's house is sold

The Hopkinton, MA house where Neil Entwistle allegedly killed his wife and baby has been sold. The colonial home has been on the market for over a year, and its price was slashed from $549,000 to $485,000. Entwistle had been renting the house for $2,700 a month at the time of the murders.

Why Bush should veto SCHIP expansion

Taxes are so ridiculously high that the government needs to be doing as much as possible to cut its expenses. My family pays about 45% of our income in taxes, and we get very little back in return. We don't get government subsidies for health care, food, college tuition, or anything else. Congress is about to send President Bush a bill to expand government funding for SCHIP, a program that provides free health insurance to children who have too much money for Medicaid. Bush says he plans to veto the bill, and I agree with him. Congress wants to pour billions more dollars into SCHIP. In my opinion, this is one of the last things America needs. It is not the government's job to take people's money and distribute it to other people that the government has decided need it more.

How, then, would poor children pay for health care they need? The answer is simple. The government needs to set a limit on how much health care and health insurance can cost. For example, health insurance can cost a maximum of $50 per month. Or setting a broken bone cannot cost more than $30. Then people could choose whether they wanted health insurance or not. Want health insurance? Fine. Don't want health insurance? That's fine too, you can just pay individually for each procedure you get.

OJ has rights too

Barnes & Noble recently announced that it would not stock copies of O.J. Simpson's book "If I Did It" in stores, but would make the book available over the internet. I think the book store made the right decision. Although Barnes & Noble claims that there is little demand for O.J.'s book, I think people who want to buy it have a right to do so. Heck, I am actually considering getting it at some point; it would probably be interesting.

Denise Brown, the sister of O.J.'s ex-wife and (alleged) victim is wrong to argue that the book should not be published. Everyone is (and should be) protected by the First Amendment, and that includes murderers and accused murderers. The Son of Sam law was ruled unconstitutional, as it should be. Not liking a book gives you no right to prevent it from being published. Plenty of people hate the Harry Potter books, yet J.K. Rowling continued to write them to the delight of fans worldwide. There are a lot of books I hate, but I am powerless to stop them from being published. Denise Brown is no more important than you or me, and just like you or me she shouldn't be able to stomp on someone's First Amendment rights just because she doesn't like what they have to say. It's not up to me to say who should receive the profits from O.J.'s book, but I believe that he has a right to write and publish it, and that anyone who wants to has a right to read it.

Farewell, Karl

As everybody knows by now, Karl Rove has announced his resignation as President Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff. I never knew a whole lot about Rove, but I just read his article on Wikipedia to find out more about him, and he's a pretty interesting guy. Overall I think he has led a successful career and is an intelligent, good person. His resignation is disappointing, but I hope he enjoys his time off and isn't pestered too much by the Democrats and his other critics.

Happy birthday, Napoleon

Today I would like to wish a happy birthday to one of the greatest emperors of all time - Napoleon. If he were alive today, he would be 238 years old.

Entwistle trial may be delayed

The numerous problems at the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab might affect the case of Neil Entwistle - or at least that's what Neil's lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, seems to think. So far, the lab has taken over five months to test DNA samples from ammunition boxes, gun locks, and other items that Entwistle may have touched while allegedly taking his father-in-law's gun to commit the murders. Weinstein says that when the results finally come in he'll have them tested again by a private company:

"We just have to deal with the reality that the workings of the state crime lab have been called into question. When the lab gets these results, we have every reason to question the results and to be able to have the public and trial juries be mindful that just because the state scientists say something does not mean it's accurate."

District Attorney Gerry Leone downplayed the possibility that the DNA mess will delay Entwistle's trial, which is currently scheduled to begin on October 1st.

Hmm, I wonder if Neil's trial will overlap with that of Alexander Pring-Wilson? At a hearing on Monday a judge set a tentative date of November 5th for the former Harvard grad student's retrial.

Thanks to the Boston Globe for some of my information.

P.S. In case anyone was wondering, there has still not been a ruling on Entwistle's motion to suppress from way back in April. I will post as soon as possible if I find out anything new about either of these two cases.

Man sues over gay marriage question

An aspiring lawyer is suing the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and 4 members of the state's Supreme Judicial Court for a very good reason. Stephen Dunne says that there was a question on the March 1 exam that forced applicants to "accept, support, and promote homosexual marriage and homosexual parenting." Because he left that question blank, Dunne failed the exam. He now wants $9,750,000 in damages, and I agree with him 100%. Scores on standardized tests like the bar exam should never have anything to do with the applicants' opinions. Such tests should only measure people's knowledge of facts and their ability to defend their opinions, never what the opinions are. I hope this unjust question is removed from the exam and that anyone who failed the exam because of it is allowed to pass. Being forced to mindlessly agree with the popular opinion should never be a requirement to practice law.

Happy 4th of July

Happy birthday, America!

Supreme Court says no to racism

The Supreme Court has struck down plans to use race as a factor in assigning students to public schools. It was a 5 to 4 decision, and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. I agree with the Court's decision. Forced integration is wrong, and so is anti-white dicscrimination, which is becoming all too common in today's society. If anything, I think the Court should have made a less wishy-washy ruling - schools are still allowed to consider race to a limited extent in certain situations.

For the full story, see CNN.

Justice for the Duke lacrosse players

Justice seems to have returned to North Carolina. Prosecutor Mike Nifong of the Duke "rape" case was recently disbarred, and just today Duke University announced that it would pay a cash settlement to the three falsely accused young men who were unfairly kicked off their lacrosse team. Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann explained their opinions quite nicely in a joint statement:

"The events of the last year tore the Duke community apart, and forcibly separated us from the university we love. We were the victims of a rogue prosecutor concerned only with winning an election, and others determined to railroad three Duke lacrosse players and to diminish the reputation of Duke University."

Although it was a nice gesture of Nifong to apologize to the three young men and their families, the lacrosse players have every right to sue him, and it seems they may be preparing to do just that. In addition to Nifong, they most definitely have the right to sue Crystal Mangum, the stripper and accuser. Can anyone say slander? These boys paid millions of dollars in legal fees because of Nifong's and Mangum's lies, not to mention the emotional distress and damage to their reputations that they endured. Because they did nothing wrong, the lacrosse players deserve to be recompensated for their suffering and financial losses, and the people who caused this whole fiasco should be the ones to pay.

Ed and Elaine's press conference

Ed and Elaine Brown held a press conference in front of their house today and were joined by a high-profile supporter: Randy Weaver, whose wife and son were killed by federal troops at Ruby Ridge in 1992. I admit that these people are a lot braver than I am, and I admire their devotion to what they believe in. His gun by his side, Ed Brown told the media,

"We will defend it to the death. This is 1776 all over again. You cannot tax someone's labor because that is slavery."

Elaine said that if the feds try to capture them by force,

"We're dead. That's it....We will not volunteer to go into their prison for a non-crime. We have committed no crimes."

Randy Weaver said:

"I'd rather die on my feet right now with good American people than live on my knees under this de facto government. This is serious stuff. Bring it on."

Here are some good links on this standoff:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/13519156/detail.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/16/free-ed-and-elaine-brown/
http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3290003&page=1
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070618/NEWS0201/70618074

In conclusion, here are some quick tax facts:

• Until the early 1800s the government relied only on internal sales taxes.
• Starting in 1817 the government functioned only on tariffs.
• Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the Constitution did not give the federal government the right to tax income.
• The 9th and 10th Amendments state that the federal government does not have any rights unless they are specifically given to it in the Constitution.
• The immigration reform bill that Congress has been debating would not only allow illegal aliens to remain in the US, but would exempt them from paying any taxes they owe.

MA legislature quashes right to vote

This is a sad day for the people's right to vote in Massachusetts. The state legislature has just defeated a measure that would place a question on the ballot in the 2008 elections allowing people to vote on the definition of marriage. All the legislators who voted for the amendment: I congratulate you for your courage to defy peer pressure. Governor Patrick, Speaker DiMasi, and Senate President Murray, shame on you for browbeating your fellow legislators into changing their votes. The marriage amendment was victorious in the first round of voting earlier this year, but this time it fell short of the 50 votes it required to get on the ballot. Clearly, quite a few legislators changed their minds, and VoteOnMarriage.org vows to investigate these changes of opinion for corruption. I hope they find some!

Go Ed and Elaine Brown!

For a while now the federal government has been besieging the New Hampshire compound of a couple named Ed and Elaine Brown. What was their crime? Merely not wanting the government to steal their money. The Browns believe that tax laws are unconstitutional, and therefore have refused to pay their taxes. Recently the government has shut off the Browns' phone service, Internet, and electricity, but the Browns say they can still last for quite a while without these things. I completely agree with Ed and Elaine on taxes. The government has no right to people's money, and the feds' actions in this case seem awfully mean-spirited. I mean, there are over 300 million people in this country. Would it kill the government to go without one couple's tax money?

My Belmont picks

I like Curlin again in the Belmont. I'm picking Rags to Riches for 2nd place because it would be really cool if a filly did well. I'll blog back in a little while with the results.

Edit:

Win: Rags to Riches
Place: Curlin
Show: Tiago

Congrats Rags to Riches! Although Curlin didn't win, I'm pretty happy with the results. It's good that a girl won; maybe more fillies will race against colts in big races now.

Republican debate #2

I just watched the Republican debate, and here's my run-down of the candidates:

Tom Tancredo - The winner, in my opinion. I completely agree with him on immigration. I liked that he said he would never create a campaign ad in Spanish like Mitt Romney did. Great quote: "We are becoming a bilingual nation, and that is not good." Tancredo also mentioned his opposition to government control over healthcare and prescription drugs and expressed his support of conservation.

Duncan Hunter - Had one awesome line that Romney had taken a major step toward socialism with Massachusetts's mandatory health insurance law.

Ron Paul - I liked his opinion on gays in the military - that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is fine and that any immoral sexual acts should be banned, not just gay ones. But I disliked his response to the question "what is the most pressing moral issue facing America, and what would you do about it?" He said preemptive war was the worst moral problem for America.

Mike Huckabee - I liked his belief in intelligent design: "He (God) did it, and that's what's important." However, I really disliked his answer to the moral issue question. He answered "life" - meaning abortion.

Sam Brownback - I liked his opinion on gays in the military - the same as Paul's. I also liked his idea to divide Iraq into 3 states - Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite. However, he had the same answer to the moral issue question as Hukabee.

Jim Gilmore - He had one good quote: "Conservatism means empowering people."

Tommy Thompson - At first I thought he made up a word: conservativism. But I looked it up, and it turns out it is a word. I actually prefer it to conservatism.

Mitt Romney - Didn't say anything particularly interesting. He often seemed to dodge questions and seems kind of phony.

John McCain - Way too liberal on immigration.

Rudy Giuliani - Too liberal as always, but I was surprised when he said that he opposed too much government control of healthcare.

Happy birthday, JFK!

My Preakness picks

My Kentucky Derby picks didn't go so well, but I'm still rooting for Curlin in the Preakness. It would be kind of nice to have a new triple crown winner, but I'm not crazy about Street Sense. I'll blog back with the results.

Edit: Congratulations, Curlin! I was right this time; too bad I didn't bet any money. It was a great race - at the beginning I thought Curlin was out for sure, as he was so far back. The finish reminded me of the 1998 Belmont Stakes, where Victory Gallop defeated Real Quiet by a nose and prevented him from winning the Triple Crown. Unlike in 1998, when I was rooting for Real Quiet, I was very happy with the results this time.

Freedom again in Texas!

Great news on the Gardasil front: Texas governor Rick Perry has announced he won't veto a bill repealing his mandate of the vaccine! This means that the young girls of Texas again have some rights to control their bodies and to be treated as something other than sexual objects. Although he finally made a morally correct decision, Perry shows that he resents having to make the right choice:

"I challenge legislators to look these women in the eyes and tell them, 'We could have prevented this disease for your daughters and granddaughters, but we just didn't have the gumption to address all the misguided and misleading political rhetoric.'"

How rude. I could easily look such women in the eyes with no qualms whatsoever and tell them that if they were celibate they could have easily avoided getting cervical cancer. I am keeping my fingers crossed that Gardasil mandates in other states will die before they become law.

No Entwistle hearing

Unfortunately, the hearing that was scheduled for today in the Neil Entwistle case never took place. I'm not sure when Judge Kottmyer will announce her decision about the motion to dismiss, but I will update as soon as I know.

My Derby picks

Since the Kentucky Derby is coming up in about a half hour, I thought I'd share my picks:

1st place: Curlin - he's never raced as a two-year old, but all of his three starts have been victories by a wide margin

2nd place: Storm in May - a long shot, this beautiful gray colt has only one eye

3rd place: Tiago - Giacomo's brother, another long shot

Entwistle lawyers file new motions

Just a little update on the Neil Entwistle case: Yesterday the prosecution and defense submitted new written motions, arguing about whether or not the well-being checks of Entwistle's house violated the Fourth Amendment. So far the only news outlet that's covered this new development is the Herald.

My take on Entwistle's hearing

I have a little surprise for everyone today: I attended Neil Entwistle's hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to argue Entwistle's motion to dismiss nearly all evidence in the case, as the bodies of his wife and baby were discovered during warrantless searches. I arrived at courtroom 10B in the Middlesex Superior Court in Cambridge at 7:30. While waiting outside the courtroom, I met a law student who worked for Entwistle's defense lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, as well as two camera-people from 7 News. At about 8:30, the guards started letting people in, and I got a seat in the front row near the left side of the room, as guards told everyone not to sit in the middle group of benches. I talked to a reporter from the MetroWest Daily News and watched as the room began to fill up with people. There seemed to be numerous reporters and law students, and there was a photographer in addition to the two individuals who were videotaping the proceeding. Three guards were there, and at about 8:50 a group of people who seemed to be Rachel's family members arrived. After that, Elliott Weinstein entered the courtroom, followed by his co-counsel Stephanie Page, and then prosecutor Michael Fabbri and an assistant.

At about 9:00, when the hearing was scheduled to start, all four lawyers were summoned through a door at the front of the room to speak with Judge Diane Kottmyer, and they remained there for a while, as the guards spoke on their phones, presumably to guards at the jail at the top of the building, telling them to bring Entwistle down. The lawyers emerged from their conference with the judge for a few minutes, and Fabbri instructed a few men who were sitting behind me to wait in the hall. Shortly afterward, the lawyers were called back again. During this time, the guards were milling around by a door at the front of the room to the right, where I knew Entwistle was going to enter. They kept opening and closing the door, and going in and out of the room through it, and I could see an elevator right behind the door. I caught a glimpse of Entwistle as he got out of the elevator, but before going through the door he was led off to the side where no one could see him, as the judge was not yet ready.

Finally, at about 9:30, the four lawyers and the judge emerged, the clerk instructed everyone to stand, and a guard led Entwistle into the room. He was wearing what looked like the dark gray suit he usually wears, but with a new white shirt and dark blue tie with a white design on it. Other than that, he looked much as he does in his photographs. He had a little smirk on his face as he walked in, and he looked at everyone in the audience. He wore handcuffs, as well as a chain at his ankles. After the clerk instructed everyone to be seated, Page helped Neil into his seat at the defense table and the guard removed his handcuffs.

The hearing was much like a mini-trial: Fabbri called four witnesses (the policemen and detectives who were involved with the January 21 and 22 searches of Entwistle's house) to the stand, and Weinstein cross-examined them. The first witness, a police dispatcher, described his conversations with the victims' family and friends, who were concerned about their disappearance and asked the police to check on them. On cross-examination, Weinstein used his laptop computer to play a recording of Priscilla Matterazzo's call to the police and got the dispatcher to admit that Rachel's mother did not sound hysterical when she called. The defense team seemed to have a little bit of trouble with the computer and called the prosecutors over for help, but finally got it to work.

The second witness was Sgt. Michael Sutton, one of the two offices who discovered the bodies. He described how he used detective Scott Van Raalten's Blockbuster membership card to open the door of the house, conducted a preliminary search, and discovered that a light was on in Neil's basement office, the radio was on in the baby's room, and there were water and baby toys in the upstairs bathtub. The next day, at further urging by friends and family members, Sutton and Van Raalten searched the house again, and discovered the bodies. Weinstein conducted a lengthy cross-examination, during which he grilled Sutton about his reasons for the searches. He suggested that Sutton had made up his fears that the Entwistles were in danger of carbon monixide poisoning to give himself an excuse to have searched the house. He aggressively asked Sutton how many people he had discussed the carbon monixide idea with, the names of all these people, and what exactly he said to each person and what their responses were. Fabbri objected, and his objection was sustained.

At 11:30, halfway through Weinstein's cross, the judge called for a 15-minute recess, during which a reporter approached me and asked, "Are you related to Neil?" I am not, so I explained that I was merely a spectator. I also spoke briefly to Jonathan Saltzman from the Globe. Fifteen minutes later, Entwistle re-entered the courtroom. A guard walked behind him, not even holding his arm (I guess they trust by now that he won't run away or try to kill anyone) and removed the handcuffs again once he got to his seat.

Weinstein finished his cross, grilling Sutton about his decisions to read a car payment bill and turn on a digital camera, even though he was only supposed to be looking for people in the house. He sarcastically asked something to the effect of "You didn't think there would be a person in the camera, did you?"

The third witness's testimony was very brief, and the fourth witness was Van Raalten, the detective who was working with Sutton when they discovered the bodies. I thought Van Raalten was the best witness; he was confident and spoke loudly and clearly. He described how he and Sutton lifted the white comforter in the master bedroom to reveal the bodies of the mother and baby. At this point in the testimony some reporters started whispering excitedly. Neil, however, swallowed a couple of times but otherwise showed no reaction. Weinstein's cross-examination of Van Raalten was surprisingly brief. After that, the prosecution rested, and the judge asked the defense if they wanted to respond. Weinstein, however, asked for the hearing to be continued another day, and they settled on May 9th.

Overall, Fabbri's demeanor was quiet and meticulous, while Weinstein was surprisingly aggressive and sarcastic. Judge Kottmyer seemed sympathetic to the prosecution, as she sustained nearly all of Fabbri's objections. Neil's other lawyer, Stephanie Page, didn't participate in any of the questioning, but took numerous notes and consulted quietly with Entwistle on several occasions, putting her arm around his shoulders and whispering to him. Neil himself was calm and stoic as usual, even while hearing the gruesome details about the victims' bodies. He didn't make any public statements to the court, but just nodded and agreed quietly when talking with his lawyers. I could actually hear his voice very slightly as he agreed with something Page said, and he does seem to have a British accent, as one would expect.

According to a rumor I heard some reporters discussing, Kottmyer is going to be the new judge in this case. I wonder what happened to Lauriat. Stay tuned for May 9th - I might just attend that one as well.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran

Much of America probably knows by now of John McCain's "bomb Iran" joke (If you haven't, click here). Despite the protests of liberal groups such as MoveOn.org, I thought McCain's joke was witty, humorous, and just great! When I saw him singing that old Beach Boys song on last night's news, I couldn't stop laughing. In response to liberals' complaints, McCain replied, "lighten up and get a life." I couldn't agree with him more! Combined with the fact that he believes in "no gun control," McCain's joke may just have stolen my vote away from Duncan Hunter. Go, McCain!

Farewell, Sanjaya

Alas, Sanjaya Malakar was just voted off of American Idol. I voted for him three times last night and noticed that my votes were going through a little too easily. I knew this would happen at some time or other, and even though I may be in a slim minority I am sad to see him go. Farewell, Sanjaya! I hope you succeed in any and all future endeavors you choose to pursue.

Entwistle prosecutors file rebuttal

Yesterday prosecutors in the Neil Entwistle case filed a rebuttal to the defense motion to throw out practically all evidence in the case. They argued that the two initial well-being checks of Entwistle's rented house were constitutional because they were conducted at the urging of worried friends and family members. Incidentally, the Herald also reports that two months ago Entwistle called a lawyer representing the owners of his house to ask for his security deposit and last month's rent to be returned.

As for me, I actually agree with the defense in this case. The right to decide who can enter one's home is more important than the right to know where one's loved ones are at all times. It seems unindividualistic and un-American that others' concerns about my well-being could give the police the right to enter my home without my permission.

Additionally, I must take objection to the wording of the last part of today's Herald article:

"...Entwistle shot his wife and daughter with a gun he stole from her parents’ Carver home to hide a secret life of debt, Internet scams and deviant sexual behavior."

The Herald's articles on Entwistle have always been inflammatory, but this statement is factually inaccurate. Although he did have porn sites and attempted to contact escort services, there is no evidence to suggest that Entwistle engaged in any deviant sexual behavior, or any sexual behavior at all, in the days leading up to the murders. I much prefer the Globe's description of Entwistle's motive for murder:

"...Entwistle had fatally shot his wife and daughter because the unemployed engineer was despondent about his finances and family situation..."

A hearing is scheduled for Monday, so stay tuned till then.

P.S. My condolences to everyone who was affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. May all 33 victims rest in peace.

All Duke charges dropped

Thank goodness! Prosecutors have finally decided to drop all charges against the three Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a stripper. I never believed her story for one minute. For the full story, see Court TV.

Pring-Wilson gets new trial

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ordered a new trial for accused murderer and former Harvard student Alexander Pring-Wilson. This is good news - I agree with Pring-Wilson's claim that he killed Michael Colono in self-defense. Check the Boston Globe for more details.

In other interesting crime news, Christopher Pittman turned 18 Monday. This teenager was convicted of killing his grandparents after he unsuccessfully tried to blame the medication Zoloft for the crime. It's surprising how many supporters he seems to have - not only does his family support him, but he is regularly visited by several individuals who never even knew him before the murders. Read more at Court TV.

Finally, now that we know who Anna Nicole Smith's baby's father is, there's a glimmer of hope that the news media will start covering more interesting stories than this boring, annoying case. I doubt it, though, but I can always hope!

My "Idol" opinions

I haven't blogged about "American Idol" yet this season, so I thought I'd start. What an injustice that Gina went home tonight. She, along with Chris Sligh, who went home last week, was one of the only unique candidates. Haley has no talent and should have been voted off a long time ago. On the other hand, I actually like Sanjaya. He is truly unique, and his voice isn't nearly as bad as everyone seems to think. LaKisha, Melinda, and Jordin may have good voices, but they are all kind of alike and rather boring.

Perhaps more ranting to come later!

Entwistle wants evidence thrown out

Today Neil Entwistle's lawyers filed a motion to have essentially all the evidence in his double murder case dismissed. The bodies of Entwistle's wife and baby were found by police during a well-being check on January 22, 2006 which was conducted without a warrant. Entwistle's defense team claims that all subsequent searches, although conducted with warrants, were unlawful because they resulted from the initial, warrantless searches (the Jan. 22 one and an earlier one on Jan. 21). I predict this motion will be denied, as the discovery of the bodies provided the police with probable cause. However, Entwistle and his lawyers raise some good legal points. I would probably file such a motion in this situation if I was a defense lawyer. The prosecution has until April 17 to file a rebuttal, and both sides will argue it out in court on April 23.

Check the Boston Globe for more details.

Texas House sticks it to Perry

Hooray! The Texas House of Representatives has passed a bill to keep Gardasil off the list of required vaccines. It is still uncertain whether or not the bill will go into effect and negate Gov. Rick Perry's fascist executive order. This is a massive understatement, but I will say it anyways: Thank you to everyone in the House. You did the right thing. Way to stick it to the man!

See the full story here.