Last thoughts on the Entwistle trial

Jami Floyd from TruTV posted a great blog entry called “For the defense,” which I happen to agree with. Throughout the Neil Entwistle case, I have read comments online that Entwistle does not deserve a publicly-funded defense or even a trial. Such comments are simply un-American. The Constitution guarantees all defendants the right to legal representation and a fair trial by jury. The fact that there is a lot of evidence against a particular defendant, or that the defendant is widely hated, does not and should not change this.

I commend Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page for putting forth their best effort in defending their client. Although their murder-suicide theory did not ultimately succeed, it was a bold, ingenious move. I understand the pain that the Matterazzo family is suffering and why they are offended by the defense’s version of events, but no one should criticize Weinstein or Page for doing the best job possible for their client.

I generally support a small government with as few taxes as possible, but one of the few things I’m willing to pay taxes for is the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights. State-funded representation is often necessary to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. Providing a fair legal system is one of the most important duties (if not the most important) of the government. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn’t you agree?

Sentencing

Neil Entwistle was officially sentenced to life in prison today. Judge Diane Kottmyer sentenced Entwistle to two concurrent life sentences without parole for the murders of his wife Rachel and baby Lillian and also gave him 10 years of probation for possession of a firearm and ammunition, with the condition that he cannot make money from selling his story in any way.

Before the sentence was officially read, Rachel's relatives gave victim impact statements. Her mother, Priscilla Matterazzo, asked the judge to impose two consecutive life sentences and called the defense's theory that Rachel committed a murder-suicide "low and despicable." Rachel's stepfather, Joe Matterazzo, told Entwistle that "one day you will face the ultimate judgement for your horrific deeds." Jerome Souza, Rachel's brother, said that "each and every day we have to live with the heartache of Neil's betrayal" and "we can only reflect on what Rachel did and speculate on what Lilly might have done."

Entwistle did not react to the statements but smiled faintly at his parents and brother when he entered the courtroom and again when he left for the last time. He was given an opportunity to speak, but his lawyer Elliot Weinstein told the court that he did not wish to do so.

Judge Kottmyer called the crimes "incomprehensible" and "in violation of the bonds we recognize as central to our identity as human beings." She had the option of giving Entwistle consecutive or concurrent life sentences, but decided on concurrent because consecutive life sentences might give the impression to those unfamiliar with the Massachusetts legal system that Entwistle might eventually be able to get out of jail. The decision was purely symbolic, of course. Unless he is successful in his appeals, Entwistle will be in jail for the rest of his life with no opportunity for parole.

Afterward, defense lawyers Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page gave a press conference outside the courthouse. They criticized the attitude that defendants should prove their innocence and insisted that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof in the case. "What I'm frustrated with is that so many people do not understand what a trial is," Weinstein replied when asked if he was frustrated with Entwistle's mother, Yvonne, for saying yesterday that she believes Rachel committed a murder-suicide. "It's unfair to Neil, it's unfair to the American citizenry to perpetuate this myth," he later said.

So, one of the biggest trials in Massachusetts history is now over. Entwistle is now at MCI-Cedar Junction in Walpole, Mass., where he will serve his life sentence. I will continue blogging about the case whenever there is a new development. Until then, I'll have to find a new trial to follow...

EDIT: The MetroWest Daily News has reported that contrary to what was said at sentencing, Entwistle will actually be held at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley starting tomorrow.

Guilty verdict for Entwistle

Neil Entwistle was found guilty this afternoon of murdering his wife Rachel and baby Lillian. The jury of 6 men and 6 women convicted him of two counts of first-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

It was announced at about 2:25 that the jury had reached a verdict, eliciting a stampede of reporters and spectators into courtroom 430. This was the first time the courtroom was completely full and people had to be turned away. Next to me a spectator and some reporters were squabbling over a space on a wooden bench. However, there were several bail hearings that had to be completed in the courtroom, so the verdict was not announced until after 2:45.

Neil did not show much reaction to the verdict. He smiled and nodded at his family as he entered the courtroom, and as he left he shrugged his shoulders and gave his family a sad look that seemed to say, "oh well." Neither of the families reacted noticeably, either.

After the verdict, the judge thanked the jurors and alternates and she met with them privately in another room. Neil's family, defense lawyers, Rachel's family, prosecutors, and Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone all spoke to the press. Unfortunately, I missed the Entwistles and the defense team, who spoke outside the courthouse, but I was there for the D.A.'s press conference in room 730.

Leone had some harsh words for Neil. "I'd like to begin by thanking the jury and honoring the memory of Lillian and Rachel," he said, surrounded by Rachel's family and friends. He pointed out that Lillian would have turned three years old this April. "She should be here, talking, walking, and playing with her mom, Rachel, doting over her...and that's not going to happen because of the reprehensible acts of Neil Entwistle." He then praised Rachel's parents, Joe and Priscilla Matterazzo, for their dignity in handling the tragedy. "At the same time that I commend Joe and Priscilla, I condemn Neil Entwistle," said Leone. "A just verdict has been returned, an Neil Entwistle will spend the rest of his life in jail where he belongs."

Then, Joe Flaherty, a spokesman for the family, thanked supporters, investigators, law enforcement, and prosecutors. "We do know that Rachel and Lillian Rose loved and trusted Neil Entwistle...Neil Entwistle will live with his evil deeds for the rest of his natural life, only to be judged again," he said.

Joe and Priscilla themselves briefly thanked people for sending them cards and condolences, and then Leone and Assistant D.A. Michael Fabbri answered questions from reporters. When asked to comment on Neil's family's reaction, Leone replied, "I'd expect nothing less from the parents of someone who's been convicted of first-degree murder...It was his cowardly, shameful, unforgivable acts that were the basis for this first-degree murder conviction." When asked about Neil's motive, he responded, "There are some acts that are so heinous, that are so shameful, there's never a reason, let alone a good reason." Fabbri, when asked what the most important piece of evidence was, said, "I think Neil Entwistle himself was one of the most critical pieces of evidence that we had."

As for my opinion, I have a lot of respect for the jurors and their decision. I am honestly not sure what I would have done if I was on that jury. The defense's suicide theory was certainly improbable, but I wouldn't call it impossible. The DNA on the murder weapon was what clinched the prosecution's case, but the gunshot residue (which was found on Rachel's hands and nothing of Neil's) made the defense's theory look plausible.

There will be victim impact statements tomorrow at 10:00, and Neil will then be sentenced to life in prison without parole, the only option for first-degree murder. His case will automatically be appealed. I'm guessing the warrantless searches of his house and the widespread pretrial publicity will be big issues on appeal.

Deliberations

A jury deliberated Neil Entwistle's fate all day today and will continue deliberating tomorrow. Reporters, spectators, photographers, and camera operators spent most of the day waiting for a verdict, reading, talking on cell phones, and typing on BlackBerries outside the courthouse and in the hall outside courtroom 430. Defense attorneys Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page hung out with Entwistle's family in what I believe is the public defenders' office. Peter Parker, the Entwistle family's lawyer, also made an appearance.

Just after 3:30 the crowd, along with the lawyers in the case, the defendant, family members from both sides, and the judge, assembled in the courtroom because the jury had a question. It turned out that jurors wanted to see Entwistle's computer records from January 20, 2006, the day of the alleged murders. Entwistle used the Internet around 12:30 that day to check on job applications.

The jury then entered at about 4:25 to let the judge know that they were done for the day. They will report back at 9:00 tomorrow.

It could be good for the defense that the jury isn't rushing to judgemnt. There's a chance they are leaning toward convicting Entwistle and are just waiting another day to be 100% sure, but there's also a chance some aren't convinced of his guilt. I think he has a chance of getting a hung jury, but it'll depend on how stubborn the dissenting jurors are in sticking to their opinions.

Also today I stuck my head into courtroom 630, where James Brescia was just convicted of hiring a hit-man to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend. I was there just as the guilty verdict was announced. Brescia was not present for the verdict because he suffered a stroke and was admitted to the hospital last night.

Closing arguments

The case of Neil Entwistle is now in the hands of the jury. The prosecution rested its case today, and the defense decided not to present any witnesses. Both sides gave closing arguments, and then the judge gave instructions to the jury.

Defense lawyer Elliot Weinstein went first, arguing that Rachel Entwistle killed herself and her baby daughter, Lillian. He displayed a quote from a respected forensic pathology textbook on a monitor: "The distinction between homicide, suicide, and accident may be difficult or impossible, yet it is the first question asked by the investigator in every death involving a shooting."

Weinstein argued that Neil had no motive to commit the murders. He had no insurance policy on his wife or daughter, his financial problems were not as severe as the prosecution claims, and his interest in sex sites was no reason to kill, Weinstein said. "How many millions of people visit these sites each day?" he asked.

He theorized that Rachel held Lillian where she thought her heart was, and fatally shot Lillian, wounding herself. Then, according to the defense, Rachel shot herself in the forehead and died instantly. "You know the breast wound was the first wound because of the bruising," he said. While this was going on, Neil was running errands. At 11:30, Weinstein said, Neil bought two lattes from Starbucks, and at 12:31 he checked his email on the computer in the basement after entering the house through the garage. Then he went upstairs, found the bodies in bed, saw Joe Matterazzo's .22 revolver on the sheet, and "knew instantly what had happened." He then covered the bodies with a blanket, returned the gun to the Matterazzos' Carver home so that the police would not know what Rachel had done, and went to England to be with his parents. Neil did not call 911, get help, or tell Sgt. Manning about the murder-suicide because he wanted to protect his wife's reputation. "His foremost purpose was to protect Rachel's memory, to protect her honor," said Weinstein. "Human emotions are not predictable, and you know that in your own life experiences."

Weinstein criticized investigators for having "filters on their view of evidence" that caused them to assume Neil was the culprit. "No one was open to even considering the possibility of suicide," he said. Specifically, Weinstein mentioned that no one had tested Rachel's wrists, sleeves, or the fitted sheet on the bed after her hands tested positive for gunshot residue. Additionally, investigators did not test the crime scene extensively enough for occult blood, did not test the murder weapon to see its gunshot residue dispersement pattern, and did not look into whether Rachel suffered from postpartum depression. Nor did they test Neil's laptop for fingerprints to determine whether or not Rachel used the computer. "That is not fair to you, and that isn't fair to Neil," he said.

Furthermore, Weinstein pointed out that Rachel's DNA may only have been found on the inside of the revolver, and that investigators swabbed two locations on the gun with the same swab, potentially contaminating the evidence. Also, Neil did not dispose of his laptop or the gun or prepare a convincing story for the police, friends, and Rachel's relatives, which he would likely have done if he were guilty.

"There is no evidence to support the prosecution's theory that Rachel did not fire the gun," Weinstein said. "Please do not compound this tragedy," he told the jury at the conclusion of his argument.

Next, assistant district attorney Michael Fabbri went to the podium to give his closing argument. He pointed out Neil's alleged visits to sites about killing and sex and held up a newspaper clipping with ads for escorts, asking "What does that say about the depth of his relationship with Rachel and Lillian?"

Fabbri called the gunshot residue on Rachel's hands a "red herring" and said that the defense's scenario was impossible. "The whole idea of committing suicide by shooting through another person makes no common sense," he told the jury. Instead, Fabbri pointed to the fact that Rachel's DNA was found only on the barrel of the gun, while Neil's was found on the grip.

According to Fabbri, Neil "shoots Rachel, he shoots Lillian, the crying and screaming coming out of Lillian, I suggest he could not handle or tolerate...he could not face that. That's why he lays them out, that's why he puts the pillow, that's why he covers them up." He called it "unimaginable" that Neil had not called for help and pointed out that he had rented a car, driven 800 miles, and spent a night in a hotel in England before going to his parents' house.

Fabbri argued that Rachel had no motive to commit a murder-suicide. "She had her home, she had her car, she had her family, she thought she had a loving husband," he said. Neil, on the other hand, "was the one who came here, did not have friends, did not have family...he was failing to provide for his family." According to Fabbri, Neil "got to the tipping point" and "just maybe, the statements he made to Trooper Manning about suicide, he was talking about himself."

Fabbri also disputed Weinstein's assertion that Rachel may have performed internet searches for killing and suicide, since she spent most of her time caring for Lillian and "trying to set up her home." Additionally, he said that the Starbucks receipt that Weinstein mentioned was actually from January 18, not the 20th.

Pointing at Neil, Fabbri said "He is the one who pulled that trigger twice...unfortunately, it was a homicide committed by a husband against his family."

Earlier in the day, the court heard the rest of Sgt. Robert Manning's testimony, which consisted of a second recorded phone conversation between him and the defendant. During the call, Neil reiterated his version of events, and Manning informed him that the keys to the Matterazzos' home were on the keychain that was found in his BMW, contrary to what Neil had previously said. Neil repeatedly asked how long it took for Rachel and Lillian to die and what time they died. "I don't think they suffered a lot," Manning replied. Toward the end of the conversation, Neil said, "It's a shock...You don't want to know what happened, you don't want to believe what happened."

At the end of the day, Judge Diane Kottmyer gave the jurors detailed instructions, and they were released at 3:30 so that the lawyers and judge could make sure all exhibits were in order. The jury has the option of finding Entwistle guilty of first- or second-degree murder. They will begin deliberating tomorrow morning.

Entwistle in his own words

Today the court got to hear Neil Entwistle's version of events in his own words. During the two-hour long tape of a phone call between Entwistle and state police Sgt. Robert Manning, the court heard Entwistle say that he had found his wife and baby dead in bed after a shopping trip, considered killing himself, and finally flew to his native England without calling 911 or telling anyone what had happened.

The call, which took place on January 23, 2006, begins when Manning calls Entwistle to tell him, "We have some bad news about your wife and your daughter."

"Yeah," replies Entwistle.

When asked if he already knew his wife and baby were dead, he replies, "I did."

Then, Entwistle said that he woke at about 7:00, fed Lillian her breakfast, and then put Lillian back to bed with Rachel at 9:00, as he usually did. He then left to buy a wireless device for his computer at Staples, but did not end up buying anything there and tried to go to Wal-Mart but could not find his way there.

“I’m not sure why I think it was 11 when I got back but for some reason I do,” he said. “I called to Rachel, and um, no one answered.” Entwistle saw that the dishes from breakfast were still out and said that he was “a little annoyed when I got back because I thought Rachel had not done anything.”

Then he went upstairs and looked in the master bedroom. "It looked, you know, obvious what had happened," he told Manning. “They were under the covers…I couldn’t see Lilly; I could only see Rachel. “

Entwistle described the condition of the bodies, his voice breaking: “I couldn’t see anything on Rachel; it was all on Lilly.”

“There’d just been so much on Lilly…it was just so much…it was on her mouth and on her chest.”

“Rachel had got her arm…had got her arm across her.”

“They obviously weren’t alive anymore,” said Entwistle. Then he pulled the covers over the bodies, “almost like I was closing them off; I don’t know why I did it.”

“I pulled the covers over them,” he continued, “and the only thing I could think of was the knife.” Entwistle said he considered suicide and “I just kinda held it towards me, and I just couldn’t do it.”

Next, he decided to go to his in-laws’ house in Carver. “It’s strange because I didn’t call them because I didn’t think they were going to be in,” he said, “but I wanted to go to their house to see them.” Additionally, Entwistle said he wanted to use one of his father-in-law’s guns to kill himself.

“Well, I got there and the key to the house used to be on the car keychain…but when I got to the door, the key wasn’t on there.” So he then decided to find his mother-in-law at her workplace in Braintree. “I got back in the car and started to drive to how I thought to get to Braintree.”

But he was unable to find his way. "I ended up at the airport, at Logan Airport," said Entwistle, who described the airport as "the only place I know."

“I parked the car and I think I just sat there for a while… I don’t know what was going through my head at that point.”

"I started toward Hopkinton...and then I just got lost."

“I was driving around more and more, getting more and more frustrated.” When Manning asked him if he was frustrated or scared, Entwistle admitted, “I was scared, yeah.”

After being unable to find Hopkinton, Entwistle says he returned to the airport, where he booked a one-way ticket to England the next morning.

When asked whether he had thought about funeral arrangements for his wife and daughter, he replied, “No, not really. I don’t know.”

He also expressed some regret about his decision to fly to England without trying to get help. “The only reason why I came back here was because I wanted to be with my family,” he said. “It just wasn’t the right thing to do, was it?”

Manning pressed Entwistle on why he never called for help or told anyone about his wife’s and baby’s deaths. “I’m believing what you tell me, only I have a hard time understanding why you didn’t call 911,” Manning said.

“I don’t know why,” Entwistle replied, “It’s just not what I did.”

Manning also repeatedly questioned Entwistle on why he wanted to kill himself but never did. He asked if Entwistle had ever been depressed or if there were any circumstances that were “out of character.” Entwistle replied, “I didn’t know why that’s what I wanted to do.”

Although Manning never overtly accused him of the murders, his questions clearly made Entwistle uncomfortable. Near the end of the phone call, he exclaimed “I couldn’t do that! Why would I do that?”

“I don’t know what to say to you,” Entwistle said later.

Overall, Entwistle did not seem to be as grief-stricken as some might expect, but neither did he seem to be a cold-blooded murderer. He seemed to be on the verge of tears at several points during the conversation but was relatively calm at other times. He seemed nervous and often had trouble finding the right words.

The court heard the beginning of a second call between Entwistle and Manning, which took place the next day, but the jury had trouble hearing it so court was adjourned early. The prosecution will most likely rest their case on Monday, and I’ve heard some people in the courtroom say that the defense may not call any witnesses. That’s only speculation, though, so we’ll see if they have anything else up their sleeve. I highly doubt Entwistle himself is going to testify, although it would be really interesting…

The suicide theory

Could Rachel Entwistle have committed suicide? Neil Entwistle's lawyers want you to think so. The defense team has been hinting all along at various theories, trying to create reasonable doubt that Neil was the killer. They have questioned the activities of Rachel's stepfather, Joe Matterazzo and her friend Joanna Gately, hinted at signs of depression Rachel may have shown, and criticized investigators for being too focused on Neil as the suspect. Today, however, was the first time the defense overtly presented the theory that Rachel killed herself and her baby, Lillian.

The dramatic testimony came during the cross examination of medical examiner Dr. William Zane, who performed autopsies on Rachel and Lillian. On direct examination, Zane testified that Rachel was killed instantly by a gunshot wound about an inch below the top of her head. She also had a gunshot wound to her left breast, which did not strike any organs or major blood vessels. Neither of the wounds were contact shots. Lillian was killed by a gunshot wound to her left chest that penetrated her liver, one of her kidneys, and exited through the right side of her back. It may have been "a minute or minutes" before she died. Zane testified that Lillian's back must have been against Rachel's chest, and the bullet that passed through Lillian was the same one that struck Rachel in the chest.

Defense lawyer Stephanie Page cross-examined Zane. She quoted two widely respected forensic pathology textbooks, which had some interesting facts:

• 92% of women who commit suicide use handguns
• women use handguns to commit suicide more often than men
• only 25% of people who commit suicide leave suicide notes
• although the temple, mouth, and chin are the most common places for people to shoot themselves in the head, people have been known to shoot themselves in the top of the head
• in some suicides, there is no weapon at the scene; it is usually a family member that moves the weapon

The defense theory seemed to be that Rachel held Lillian to her and fired the gun at the baby's chest in an attempt to kill them both with one bullet. The shot to Rachel's chest was not fatal, so she then shot herself in the head. According to this theory, Neil may have arrived to find his wife and baby dead and then returned the gun to the Matterazzos' house.

Page pointed out that it is possible for someone to shoot themselves in both of the places where Rachel was shot, that people have been known to kill themselves by shooting through another person, and that not all suicides involve contact shots. Zane agreed but said that most suicides by gun involve contact wounds and that in over 200 suicides for which he performed autopsies, no one had ever shot through someone else.

Another point that Page made was that Rachel had what Zane described as a bruise around her chest wound. Because bruises form when blood goes to the area, Rachel must have been alive when she was shot in the chest. This is contrary to the theory that Neil shot Rachel in the head first and then fired the bullet that hit both Lillian and Rachel.

Finally, Page made a big deal of the fact that Rachel's hands tested positive for gunshot residue, a fact of which Zane was unaware until today. She criticized him for assuming Neil was the perpetrator and for not trying to ascertain whether Rachel had a history of depression or had easy access to firearms. Gunshot residue indicates that someone either fired a gun, handled a gun, or was in the room when a gun was fired.

Zane appeared flustered at times and was unfamiliar with some of the statistics Page cited but said he had no reason to disagree. The medical examiner's office has been criticized recently for numerous mistakes including misplacing a body. In 2005, Zane botched the autopsy of Kelly Proctor, who was allegedly beaten to death by twins Daniel and Peter McGuane. Page was Peter McGuane's lawyer.

I must say that this is the most reasonable doubt the defense has created to far. It doesn't seem likely that Rachel carried out a murder-suicide, but it doesn't seem impossible either. I don't know which way I would be leaning right now if I was on the jury, but I can tell you that Stephanie Page is most definitely a good lawyer.

In other Entwistle news, four witnesses besides Zane took the stand today. Det. Larry James, who examined Entwistle's computer, read from a profile on Adult Friend Finder in which the defendant wrote, "I am looking for 1-on-1 discrete relationships with American ladies and always aim to make all experiences ones to remember." Additionally, he testified that on January 20, 2006, the day of the alleged murders, someone accessed emails and visited websites for purposes related to job searching. Numerous news reports, including one of mine, erroneously stated that someone had visited an Adult Friend Finder account at this time, which turns out not to be true. I did not remember hearing that in court, but I assumed that it had happened and that I had missed it when I saw various news outlets all reporting the same thing. Oops! I have corrected the earlier post.

At the end of the day, the court heard from three detectives with the extradition unit of Scotland Yard. Det. Gary Flood and Det. Constable Ronald Hay arrested Entwistle at the Royal Oak tube station after speaking with his friend Dash Munding. They seized all the items he had with him, including a blue bag that contained clothing, toiletries, correspondance, a cell phone charger, and a driver's license, as well as a notepad, a newspaper clipping, the lease for the Hopkinton house, a piece of paper with writing on it, a blue Nokia cell phone, and a black leather wallet that contained just under 500 pounds in cash, 7 credit cards, letters, a ticket, and a metal ring. Finally, Det. Constable Richard Potter testified that he searched the Entwistles' Worksop home and confiscated a wallet from the trash bin in Neil's room, as well as two desktop computers and one laptop.

Apparently Channel 7 was wrong when they predicted the medical examiner would be the last prosecution witness. I'm guessing more British and American police officers are going to testify tomorrow. The judge said testimony would end at 3:30 tomorrow, so perhaps the prosecution will rest its case.

More computer clues

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

DNA, computers, and more

Lots of DNA evidence was presented today in the trial of Neil Entwistle. The court also heard from two of his friends and began to hear evidence of his alleged internet activities.

Laura Bryant, a chemist in the DNA unit of the state police crime lab, tested about 30 items and obtained DNA samples from 11 people involved in the case, including Neil, Rachel, Lillian, and members of the Matterazzo family. Here are some of the items and their results:

• Handle of the .22 Colt revolver (serial number R52151) - a mixture; Neil matched the major profile
• Barrel of the revolver - a mixture with Rachel as the major profile
• Gun case that the revolver was kept in - mixture of Neil, Joe Matterazzo, and possibly Joe's son Zachary
• Trigger lock of revolver - mixture; Neil is the major profile
• Green metal ammo can handle and lock - mixture; Neil is the major profile
• Cylinder of revolver - mixture; Neil is a possible contributor
• Red-brown stains on the bedroom wall - matched Rachel
• Federal Ammunition .22 caliber ammo box - mixture; Zachary is a potential contributor, inconclusive for Neil
• Black gun case handle - mixture with Neil, Rachel, Joe, Priscilla, Joe's son Anthony, and Rachel's uncle Lloyde Cooke as potential contributors
• Trigger lock in black gun case - mixture with Anthony as a potential contributor, everyone else, including Neil, is excluded
• Rachel's underwear and vaginal swabs - Neil was the major male profile, not too surprisingly
• Trigger of revolver - mixture; Joe matched the major profile; Neil excluded

For each of the DNA matches she described, Bryant gave the odds that a random person would have a similar match. In every case she described as a match, the odds were always greater than 1 in a trillion, and occasionally reached the quadrillions. Athough Neil's DNA was on a lot of the items associated with the gun, other people's was too, as many people, including Neil, had used Joe's guns to go target shooting. Weinstein tried to create reasonable doubt by pointing out that DNA that is found on an object does not indicate when someone handled the object, who handled it last, who handled it longest, or who gripped it the hardest.

Next, a mother and daughter who own a flower shop together testified that Neil called from England to order three flower arrangements for Rachel and Lillian's funeral. For one arrangement, Neil requested an orange rose and a white lily, and a card that read, "My Orange Rose and My Lilly For Always." He did not attend the funeral.

Two of Neil's friends from England, Benjamin Prior and Dashiel Munding, testified next. They met Neil in 1998 through the Universitiy of York's rowing club and often socialized with him, Rachel, and another friend named Richard Skinner. After the murders, Neil stayed at Munding's house in London to escape the pack of media camped outside his house in Worksop.

Both friends said Neil told them that he returned home from a shopping trip to find his wife and baby dead and then drove to his in-laws' house. Prior said that Neil went to the Matterazzos' house to obtain a gun to commit suicide, but was unable to get in and drove to Priscilla Matterazzo's work to explain what had happened. Then Rachel's family congregated at the Matterazzo home to grieve. Neil called the police from there, according to Prior, and began to "sort of feel slightly isolated" before he decided to leave for England. According to Munding, however, Neil went to his in-laws' home to make sure none of the guns were missing and called law enforcement from Priscilla's work. In addition to conflicting with each other, the accounts Neil gave his friends conflict with what he told police. Neil told law enforcement that he did not call anyone for help after finding Rachel and Lillian's bodies and that he left for England without speaking to any of Rachel's family.

Munding was with Neil immediately before he was arrested by British police on February 9, 2006. Neil received a call from his father Cliff early in the morning, during which Cliff told him that the police were looking to arrest him and wanted him to return to the family home in Worksop. Munding walked with Neil to the nearest Tube station and then received a call from the police, who apparently had changed their minds and wanted to arrest Neil immediately. When Munding told him, Neil said that he didn't want to meet the police because he wanted to see his family one more time before being arrested, and asked if there was another way off the platform.

Prior testified that Neil and Rachel appeared to be "a really loving couple" but their financial situation was "quite perilous." Neil told his friend that he had considered filing for bankruptcy and that Rachel spent large amounts of money to furnish their house. Munding said that Neil was a "quiet guy" and that Rachel "was the more outgoing of the two."

At the end of the day, the jury finally began to hear computer evidence. Det. Lawrence James of the Medford Police Department examined three computers in the case. He said that there were three usernames on Neil's Toshiba laptop: "Ent," "Internet and Photos," and "Contract." The "Ent" account was password-protected and had administrative privileges, and it had been used to do a Google search on "how to kill with a knife" on January 16, 2006.

At the beginning of the day, Judge Kottmyer ruled that the prosecution could introduce some evidence of Neil's alleged visits to sex sites. Specifically, she ruled that they could introduce evidence that the "Ent" user joined the site Adult Friend Finder, sent e-mails through the site, checked email after 11 am on January 20, 2006, and downloaded maps on January 18. Thankfully, the judge excluded Neil's profile on Adult Friend Finder, which contained a nude picture that may or may not be him. Judge Kottmyer instructed the jury that the evidence that is allowed cannot be used to determine if the defendant "has misbehaved in some manner or has a bad character," but merely to evaluate his relationship with his wife, his state of mind, any any possible motive.

Tomorrow, the internet evidence will continue, so stay tuned.

More gruesome evidence

Today the prosecution continued to present forensic evidence against Neil Entwistle. The most disturbing evidence of the day was the bloodstained clothes that Rachel and Lillian Entwistle were wearing when they were shot to death. Rachel's shirt and underpants and Lillian's pajamas and onesie were shown to the jury during the testimony of state police chemist Deanna Dygan. Dygan performed forensic tests for blood and gunshot residue on many objects in the master bedroom where the bodies were found, including bedding, clothing, and stains on the walls. She testified that there was blood on the walls, a pillow that was covering Lillian, a fitted sheet, and on all the items of clothing the victims were wearing. Additionally, Dygan said that there were three holes in the chest area of Rachel's shirt, two of which tested positive for gunshot residue. She also testified that Rachel's shirt and underpants tested positive for sperm cells, but she did not say whose.

Lillian was shot on the left side of her chest with what Dygan described as a contact shot, which means that the gun was touching her when it was fired. There was also an exit wound on her back. Neil's mother Yvonne wept when Lillian's clothes were shown to the court, and Neil appeared to be crying as well and reached for tissues to wipe his eyes.

Dygan also tested a black t-shirt and blue sweater that were found in the BMW that Neil left at Logan Airport when he fled to England. Neither blood nor gunshot residue could be detected on either item of clothing.

Additionally, Dygan testified that she swabbed the .22 Colt Diamondback revolver that is alleged to be the murder weapon, as well as its case, trigger locks, keys to trigger locks, and an ammunition can. There was a brown, gel-like material inside the muzzle of the gun, she said, but it tested negative for blood.

On cross examination, Elliot Weinstein again stressed that investigators in the case were not open minded enough. "You certainly didn't have any idea about who might be responsible for the deaths of the two bodies?" he asked. Dygan admitted that she had written that Neil Entwistle was the suspect in her report. "That colored your thinking throughout this entire investigation, didn't it?" Weinstein asked. Dygan said that it did not.

Like chemist John Soares, Dygan admitted that other people, including Rachel's friends Joanna and Maureen Gately, had been in the house before her, and she could not be sure if the crime scene was in its original condition by the time she examined it. Additionally, Weinstein stressed that no one had set up potential trajectories of the gunshots, that Dygan herself did not test fire the Colt revolver or any other weapons, and that her statement from Friday that Rachel and Lillian were shot from fewer than 18 inches away was just a general statement about guns, not the alleged murder weapon in particular. Finally, he pointed out that evidence can easily be contaminated.

The next witness of the day was John Drugan, also a chemist in the state police crime lab. He testified that Rachel's hands tested positive for gunshot residue, indicating that she had either fired a gun, handled a gun, or was near a gun when it was fired. However, the steering wheel and car keys in Neil's BMW tested negative for gunshot residue, as did his blue sweater and thirteen knives found in the Entwistles' home.

Finally, state police trooper Stephen Walsh testified that the bullet found in Rachel's chest matched the .22 revolver. He first explained how various types of guns work and said that the bullet had the same direction of rifling as the alleged murder weapon. He could not say for certain which gun the bullet was fired by, however.

I saw on the news that witnesses are expected to testify tomorrow about Neil's internet activities and later about additional forensic and DNA evidence. I'm not sure whether the judge has ruled on a defense motion to exclude evidence about alleged visits to sex sites, but there was a bench conference at the end of the day today, and when Neil walked back to his seat, his lawyer Stephanie Page patted his arm as if she was consoling him. Perhaps the judge made a ruling on that motion that the defense wasn't particularly happy with ... but that's just speculation. I really hope the judge doesn't let the prosecution introduce a nude picture that is allegedly of Neil. I don't see how that could possibly be relevant to this murder trial, especially if it isn't actually him. Prosecutors could give the jury a perfectly good idea of Neil's online activities without showing the actual picture. Its prejudicial effects would certainly outweigh its minimal usefulness.

Forensics and finances

There were no tears in the courtroom today as prosecutors continued to present forensic evidence in the trial of Neil Entwistle. State Police Chemist John Soares continued his testimony about the gruesome crime scene. He testified yesterday that the bodies of Entwistle's wife Rachel and baby Lillian were huddled in bed in their Hopkinton home, killed by what appeared to be gunshot wounds and covered by layers of bedding. He also said that there were about four reddish-brown stains on the walls of the master bedroom, all but one of which tested positive for blood. Today Soares talked about forensic tests he did on Entwistle's car, which was found in Logan Airport. Soares swabbed water bottles and coffee cups in the car for DNA and tested the steering wheel and car keys for gunshot residue. He was also given custody of 13 knives found in Entwistle's house, including one found on the kitchen counter. Also during Soares's testimony the jury (but not Neil or anyone in the gallery) viewed photos of Rachel's and Lillian's bodies.

On cross examination, Elliot Weinstein criticized Soares for failing to be open-minded and thorough enought in his investigation. "You wouldn't begin an investigation wanting the evidence to funnel in one direction, would you?" Weinstein asked. Soares replied that he would not. He admitted that he did not know how many people were in the Entwistle home before him and if anyone had moved anything. Additionally, Weinstein pointed out that Soares and others who processed the crime scene did not test anything in the walk-in closet or bathroom except for a towel, did not test anything in the house for occult (invisible) blood, and tested only the steering wheel of the car for gunshot residue. Soares also admitted that he thoroughly tested Neil's car for occult and visible blood, including the driver's side door, steering wheel, and seat positioning levers, but didn't find any.

The next witness of the day was Jeremy Roybal, a fraud investigator with eBay. For the first time in the trial, Assistant D.A. Daniel Bennett, who is working with Michael Fabbri, conducted a direct examination. Roybal's testimony consisted mainly of records on Neil's various PayPal accounts and one under Rachel's name, all created with different mailing addresses and e-mail addresses. He also listed numerous transactions associated with the accounts as information about the transactions was displayed in a spreadsheet on a monitor. Entwistle had received many complaints from buyers in late December 2005 and January 2006 because he had failed to deliver products. On January 20 and 21, PayPal made automatic refunds to these buyers because they were unable to contact the seller.

Next Chemist Deanna Dygan, who processed the crime scene with Soares, described the forensic tests she performed. She collected sheets and pillowcases, a hair found on the bed, and later the clothing that Rachel and Lillian were wearing when they died. The clothing was entered into evidence today, but because it was stored in bags it was not visible to spectators. Additionally, Dygan performed a lead test on a hole found in Lillian's pajamas to see if it was made by a bullet, collected swabs from the bedroom, and tested the pillow that was found under Rachel's and Lillian's heads. Photos of the pillow, which was stained with blood, were displayed on a monitor visible to everyone in the courtroom. Dygan testified that the pillow had high-impact blood spatter and tested positive for vaporous and particulate gunshot residue. According to her, vaporous gunshot residue does not travel farther than 18 inches, so whoever shot Rachel and Lillian must have done so from very close range. Dygan will continue her testimony on Monday.

Entwistle weeps at crime scene video

Neil Entwistle broke down and cried today as jurors were shown a crime scene video of the bodies of his wife and baby daughter huddled together in bed in their Hopkinton home. The 20-minute video was visible only to jurors, who watched it on a monitor facing the jury box, and to Entwistle, his defense lawyers, and prosecutors, who watched it from another monitor on the opposite side of the courtroom. It was shown this morning during the testimony of Mary Ritchie, a state police sergeant who processed the crime scene. Before the video was shown, Judge Diane Kottmyer warned jurors about its graphic nature and reminded them to use reason, not emotion, to evaluate the evidence. Entwistle wiped his eyes and looked down several times as he watched the video. His mother, Yvonne, cried as well and was comforted by her husband Clifford and younger son Russell.

This is by far the most emotion Neil has shown in court. Previously he has always been calm, occasionally smiling at and whispering to his family in the front row of the gallery.

Other witnesses today included Trooper Emily Phaneuf, who helped Ritchie process the crime scene, Lisa Scoutelas, a recruiter at a company called Intrinsix, where Neil repeatedly applied for work, and John Soares, who works in the state police crime lab and also processed the crime scene. Elliot Weinstein is continuing with his strategy of proving that Neil may not be the only one who accessed computers that were allegedly used to visit sex sites and search for information on killing and suicide. He asked Phaneuf and Ritchie whether they had ever tested a laptop for fingerprints in the case, and both replied that they hadn't.

Police officers testify against Entwistle

Today at Middlesex Superior Court, three police officers gave testimony against Neil Entwistle. The first witness was Sgt. Michael Sutton, a Hopkinton police officer who twice searched Neil and Rachel Entwistle's house. Sutton and Officer Aaron O'Neil conducted a "wellness check" on January 21, 2006 at the request of Rachel's friend, Joanna Gately. During this initial search, the officers used a plastic card to open the locked front door, walked through the house, and briefly looked inside all the rooms to see if there was anyone inside who was in need of assistance. Sutton said he observed various lights on in the house, heard music playing in the nursery, and saw that there was water in an upstairs bathtub. In the master bedroom, he noticed that the bedding was in a pile in the middle of the bed. However, he did not find any blood, broken objects, or anything out of the ordinary.

The next day, January 22, after Rachel's family and friends filed a missing persons report, Sutton and Detective Scott Van Raalten searched the house again. This time Sutton noticed a smell that had not been there before, and followed the smell up to the master bedroom on the second floor. He saw a pair of glasses and a woman's watch on the floor near the bed, and then lifted the comforter slightly and saw a woman's foot. Sutton and Van Raalten lifted the comforter near the head of the bed and discovered a baby's face and a woman's face. After discovering the bodies of Rachel and her baby Lillian, the officers searched the house more thoroughly in an attempt to find a third victim, but Neil was nowhere to be found.

On cross examination, Elliot Weinstein criticized Sutton for breaking into the house and pointed out that he found nothing wrong on the first search. "And you learned that things aren't always as they appear to be?" he asked. Weinstein also criticized Sutton for failing to contact Neil's parents to see if they knew where he was and for neglecting to have any police officers drive by the house during the night of January 21 to check the property.

After Sutton's testimony, Sgt. Steven Bennett, a state police officer who works at Logan Airport, described how he photographed the white BMW X3 that Neil left in an airport parking garage after flying home to England.

Next, Sgt. Mary Ritchie, a state police trooper who works with the crime scene services unit, testified about the crime scene and began to describe fingerprint evidence in the case. She and other officers processed the crime scene in the Hopkinton home in the early morning hours of January 23. Rachel and Lillian were covered under layers of bedding and were both wearing sleepwear. Lillian had a bullet hole in her chest and another in her back, as well as bruising to her face. Rachel was struck in the chest by the bullet that passed through Lillian, and it was discovered later that she was actually killed by a gunshot to her head, just above the hairline. In addition to testifying about the crime scene, Ritchie explained how fingerprints are formed and said that there were 9 to 10 prints on the .22 Colt revolver that is the alleged murder weapon. The court got to see the gun for the first time, although it was difficult to get a good view of it because it was in a box. None of the prints found on the gun were complete enough to be matched to any particular person, however. Ritchie will continue her testimony tomorrow as the prosecution attempts to link the gun to Neil Entwistle.

Entwistle trial, day 3

Prosecution witnesses continued their testimony today in the trial of Neil Entwistle. The first witness of the day was Kim Puig, who owned the house that Neil and Rachel Entwistle rented in Hopkinton. She said that they had requested a six-month lease on the home, but because she was unsure of their ability to pay, she offered them a three-month lease. The rent was $2700 per month, and by the time of the alleged murders the Entwistles had paid $8100, which included two months rent and a security deposit.

Next, Pamela Jackson, who works as the "welcoming lady in Hopkinton," told the court about how she visited the Entwistles on January 15, shortly after they moved into the Hopkinton house. She said that Neil asked about country clubs, religious groups, and mother's groups in the area and that Neil and Rachel had a "loving" and "adorable" relationship. Additionally, she testified that Neil told her he was self-employed and worked in the insurance industry.

The next two witnesses, Michael Sheehan and Marianne Chandler, work for the Massachusetts Port Authority and are involved with overseeing the parking system at Logan Airport. They established that Neil parked his BMW in a garage near the international terminal after 8:00 p.m. on January 20, left at about 9:30, and then returned at nearly 11:00. The court got to see security camera footage of Neil paying for his parking.

Julie-Anne Aloisi, an investigator for Citizens Bank, testified about the Entwistles' finances. She explained a chart of financial transactions that took place with Neil and Rachel's bank account between January 19 and 22. Shortly after 8:30 p.m. and again shortly after 9:00 p.m. on January 20, someone made several attempts to withdraw money from the account from ATMs at Logan Airport. The prosecution introduced additional surveillance videos of Neil, one showing him at an ATM at Logan airport, apparently trying to get funds for a flight to England. Although many of his attempted transactions were denied, he succeeded (using the overdraft protection feature of his account) in getting the $800 that ne needed for a plane ticket.

Then Carol Cox and Mary Hannon, who both worked for British Airways at Logan Airport, testified that Neil obtained an electronic ticket the morning of January 21 and boarded British Airways flight 238, which left shortly after 8:00 a.m. for Heathrow in London. He bought a one-way ticket and took no luggage with him. Cox described him as "pleasant, calm, and polite" and said on cross-examination that although he had to board last so she could verify that he had actually purchased a ticket, he never acted agitated or tried to get her to hurry.

In the afternoon, Rachel's college friend, Joanna Gately, told the court that she and her sister, Maureen, had plans to eat dinner with the Entwistles in their Hopkinton home on January 21, some time between 4:00 and 7:00. When they arrived a little after 7:00, they were unable to get into the house. Joanna called Rachel's mother, Priscilla Matterazzo, who had left a note on the door after being unable to get into the house for a lunch date, and she later called the Hopkinton police. At about 8:30, Sgt. Michael Sutton and Officer Aaron O'Neil arrived, opened the front door with a Blockbuster card, and did a cursory search of the home, during which they found nothing out of the ordinary. The officers let Joanna take the Entwistles' dog, Sally, outside to do her business, and then left. The Gately sisters were so concerned that they stayed in their car at the house overnight. In the morning, Joanna called Priscilla again, drove to stores such as Bob's and Stop and Shop to look for the Entwistles' BMW, and obtained the passcode to the garage door from the neighbors. She and Maureen entered the house again through the garage, walked and fed Sally, and went upstairs, where they noticed that the TV was on in the living room and a radio was playing classical music in baby Lillian's bedroom. Finally, Joe and Priscilla Matterazzo arrived with Priscilla's friend Theresa Pratt and her daughter, and everyone went to the Hopkinton police station at around 5:00 p.m. to file a missing persons report. Later they heard the news about Rachel and Lillian's deaths and were interviewed by the police.

The final witness of the day was Officer Aaron O'Neil, a patrolman with the Hopkinton Police Department who searched the Entwistles' house on January 21 at the request of Joanna Gately. He gave his Blockbuster card to his partner, Sgt. Sutton, who used it to jimmy open the door. Both policemen searched the first floor, where Officer O'Neil noticed toys strewn about, Sally in her crate in the living room, and food left on the table as if someone had just eaten dinner. Officer O'Neil turned on a digital camera that he found on a table in the kitchen and found that the last picture was taken on January 19. Then, Sgt. Sutton searched the second floor while Officer O'Neil searched the garage. Neither discovered anything out of the ordinary during this initial search.

On cross-examination, defense lawyer Elliot Weinstein criticized Officer O'Neil for breaking into the house, turning on the camera, and failing to discover the bodies. He called the Blockbuster card "the item of choice for law enforcement to get past the lock" and asked him, "Were you looking for a person when you grabbed that digital camera off the table?" Weinstein emphasized the fact that the policemen "looked thoroughly" and found no blood, no broken objects, and nothing out of the ordinary. The police did not have a warrant to conduct the initial search.

Victim's stepfather takes the stand

Ten witnesses testified today in the trial of Neil Entwistle, the most prominent being Joe Matterazzo, the stepfather or Neil's slain wife, Rachel. Today's testimony began with the cross-examination of Lloyde Cooke, Rachel's uncle, who had been target shooting with Neil at Old Colony Sportsmen's Club in Pembroke and helped to show him how to handle the guns. While making the point that shooting accurately is a "natural talent," defense lawyer Elliot Weinstein began questioning Cooke about professional basketball and how some players are naturally good at making foul shots and others are not. This drew an objection from prosecutor Michael Fabbri, who said that the questions were irrelevant. Additionally, the defense continued to depict Entwistle as a polite, quiet man, showing that his withdrawn behavior before the alleged murders was not out of character. Cooke admitted that Entwistle and his parents were "decent" people and "even a little reserved."

Michael Matterazzo, Joe's son from a previous marriage, and George Wilson, an instructor at the shooting range, testified that Joe's demeanor was normal on January 21, 2006, when he unknowingly went shooting with the .22 pistol that is alleged to be the murder weapon. The next day, Joe and Priscilla Matterazzo were "very upset" to receive the news that Rachel and her baby Lillian were dead.

Next, Joe Matterazzo took the stand, describing how he welcomed Neil into his family and took him shooting, how he heard the news of his daughter's and granddaughter's deaths, and the version of events that Neil gave when he called from England shortly after the murders. "I liked Neil a lot," Matterazzo said. "He was part of the family." While Neil didn't seem particularly interested in building cars, one of Matterazzo 's hobbies, he was more interested in guns and went target shooting twice. "He did quite well," Matterazzo testified. Additionally, Matterazzo described Neil's mysterious business, Embedded Technologies, which involved manufacturing some sort of connector to be used with computers. Matterazzo said that Neil declined his offer to help him set up and legalize his business, and that according to Rachel he had a contract that would pay him $10,000 a month. Matterazzo also described how on January 22 he met with Hopkinton police officers, filed a missing persons report for Neil, Rachel, and Lillian after friends and family were unable to enter their Hopkinton house or make contact with them, and heard the terrible news that the bodies of a young woman and infant were found in the house. Neil called Matterazzo from England a few times after the murders, saying that he had gone to Staples and attempted to go to Wal-Mart from 9:00 to 11:00 on January 20 and returned to find his wife and baby shot to death. "It was just a big mess," Matterazzo quoted Entwistle as saying. Next, Entwistle said he went to the Matterazzos' house to obtain a gun to kill himself, but was unable to get in. The prosecution says the keys to the Matterazzo home were found in Entwistle's BMW at Logan Airport. Matterazzo asked Entwistle, "did you do this, or do you know who did this?" He replied that he did not. Entwistle repeatedly mentioned Matterazzo's firearms and would not answer when asked why he was so concerned with the guns. He also expressed concern about the growing publicity of the case and the fact that "everyone was pointing the finger at him." Additionally, Entwistle made a possible slip-up when he said that he wanted Rachel and Lillian to be buried together "because that's the way I left them, I mean that's the way I found them." Finally, he relinquished control of Rachel and Lillian's funeral arrangements and did not show up for the funeral.

On cross examination, Weinstein joked with Matterazzo about the family's two dogs and four cats. "I'm curious, how did the dogs and the cats gets along?" he asked. Weinstein also pointed out that according to Matterazzo, Entwistle sounded "shaky, a little nervous and whimpering, a little emotional" in the phone calls. Then he called attention to the fact that neither of Rachel's parents was able to co-sign on a loan for her and Neil's new BMW, which Matterazzo admitted she was disappointed about.

After Matterazzo's testimony, four witnesses briefly took the stand to establish his alibi for the morning of January 20. All had seen him at various times during that day, showing that he had no opportunity to commit the murders, and they all said his demeanor was normal. Matterazzo's DNA, in addition to Neil Entwistle's, was found on the grip of the alleged murder weapon.

Toward the end of the day, Maureen Renaud, the wife of Rachel's cousin, described how she often saw Rachel at family functions and at a parenting group to which they both belonged. Rachel's friend, Michelle Vigneux, told the court that she knew Rachel since kindergarten and became close to her again after they graduated from college. Both said that the Entwistles seemed to have a good relationship and that Rachel was happy to be a mother and to return to the United States.

Testimony was interrupted in the afternoon when the entire courthouse had to be evacuated for about 10 minutes due to a malfunction with the fire alarm system. The prosecution will continue to call witnesses tomorrow.

Opening statements

Today in the trial of Neil Entwistle, lawyers for the prosecution and defense gave opening statements, and the mother of Neil's wife Rachel took the stand. The courtroom was almost completely filled with reporters, family members of Neil and Rachel, and a few spectators. The day started with a court clerk reading the charges against Neil, and then the jury was sworn in and Judge Kottmyer read them instructions, including not to discuss the case with anyone else, including each other, not to do any independent research, including looking up words in a dictionary, and to always pay attention.

In his opening statement, prosecutor Michael Fabbri outlined the case against Entwistle. He said that Rachel and Neil's relationship was outwardly "nothing but loving and stable," but there was "another side to Neil Entwistle." Although Entwistle claims he returned from running errands to find his wife and daughter dead, he admitted to investigators that he flew to England without calling 9-1-1, trying to get help, or telling his in-laws. Additionally, Fabbri outlined Entwtisle's financial difficulties and his Internet activities, which included searches for escort services, bankruptcy, killing, and suicide. He also said that Entwistle's DNA was found on the gun, gun locks, and ammunition boxes, that he changed his story about what he did immediately after the alleged murders, and that he attempted to flee when he heard he was going to be arrested.

Elliot Weinstein gave the opening statement for the defense, which was much briefer than that of the prosecution. "Neil loved his wife and Neil loved his daughter, and on January 20 he lost them both," he said. Weinstein emphasized the fact that Entwistle appeared to be a trustworthy father and husband and tried to debunk the computer evidence in the case by pointing out that other people had used the computers in question. He also implied that investigators had been negligent and told jurors that they would learn from what the investigators did not do and "the steps that they failed to take." Weinstein said that the evidence in the case "is not that clear, and it is not that easy" and that "things are not the way they first appear to be." He told the jury to "resist stereotypes" and to "not be overwhelmed" by the gruesome evidence.

The first witness of the day, and the most high-profile, was Rachel's mother, Priscilla Matterazzo. In addition to describing Rachel's life and relationship with Neil, Mrs. Matterazzo described how Neil and Rachel moved into their in-laws' home in Carver before renting a house in Hopkinton. Neil spent hours on his computer in an office over the garage, she said, and appeared "distant" on a few occasions when she saw him shortly before the alleged crimes. Finally, she described how she arrived at the Hopkinton home on January 21, 2006 for a lunch get-together and found the house locked and deserted. She called the police that night and filed a missing persons report the following day, and on the second search of the house the police found the bodies of Rachel and Lillian. Stephanie Page, Weinstein's co-counsel, conducted the cross examinations of all the witnesses today. She got Mrs. Matterazzo to admit that it wasn't abnormal for Neil to act "a little reserved" and that Rachel may have used the laptop in the office for unknown purposes. Additionally, Page hinted that many people knew of Joe Matterazzo's gun collection, creating a possibility that someone besides Neil could have used one of Joe's guns to kill Rachel and Lillian.

Theresa Pratt, a friend of Mrs. Matterazzo, testified that she was with Mrs. Matterazzo on the 21st and talked to her on the 22nd, when she understandably sounded very upset. She also described how she knew Rachel and Neil and that on one occasion Neil said that he was one of only three people in the world who knew how to perform a certain computer task.

Next, two of Mrs. Matterazzo's co-workers, Laureen Mahoney and Margaret Cafano, took the stand. They all worked at Harbor Medical Associates and said that Neil, Rachel, and Lillian visited them a couple of times. This was meant to show that that Neil knew where the medical facility was, contrary to his claim that he tried to drive there after finding the bodies of Rachel and Lillian but could not find his way. On cross examination, they admitted that Neil had never gone there by himself, so perhaps Rachel had been driving and Neil did not know how to get there.

Finally, Mrs. Matterazzo's brother, Lloyde Cooke, testified about how he had gone target shooting with Mr. Matterazzo and Neil on two occasions. He said that Neil was taught how to use the guns and was a decent marksman. His testimony will resume on Monday.

Jury selection, day 4

A jury has been selected to decide Neil Entwistle's fate. Today began with a new pool of 70 jurors to fill just one remaining seaet. After the jurors filled out the jury questionnaire, they were individually questioned by the judge, and the ones who were qualified to serve could be challenged by the prosecution and defense. As expected, there were plenty of jurors to fill the one remaining seat after both sides had the opportunity to use their challenges.

The jury consists of eight men and eight women, and most of them seem to be fairly young. It is not yet clear which 12 individuals will compose the actual jury and which four will be alternates.

Additionally, Judge Kottmyer ruled today that the jury will not get to view Entwistle's house in Hopkinton or his in-laws' house in Carver. She said that the locations of the houses and the arrangement of the rooms can be explained just as effectively with diagrams and videos. Additionally, the furniture and other items in the homes may have changed since the time of the alleged murders, especially in the Entwistle house, which has new owners. This, said the judge, could prejudice jurors. Elliot Weinstein objected to the decision, arguing that visiting the houses is the best way for jurors to understand the spatial arrangements and the only way to guarantee Entwistle's right to "the fullest and fairest trial possible." Although the judge denied his motion for a viewing, she gave him the option of renewing it in the future.

Court was dismissed early today, shortly after the jury was impaneled. Opening statements are set to take place tomorrow, so stay tuned.

Jury selection, day 3

The third day of jury selection in the Neil Entwistle trial ended with 15 jurors, one short of the 16 needed. Today started with 24 qualified jurors, but the number soon decreased to 23 as one juror was excused because she worked for the same ambulance company as one of the court officers.

Next, the first 16 of the 23 remaining jurors filed into the courtroom and took their seats in the jury box. The prosecution and defense are each allowed to challenge 16 jurors without giving a reason. As each side challenged jurors, additional jurors arrived to take their place. Fewer than 16 jurors remained after the challenges, however, so most of the day was devoted to finding more qualified jurors.

Many of the jurors who were questioned today admitted that they had already formed opinions about Entwistle's guilt and were unable to conosider him innocent until proven guilty. Only a few had never heard of the case. One woman said she heard other jurors talking about Entwistle while waiting in line, saying things like "fry him" and "send him away." This angered defense attorney Elliot Weinstein, who (yet again) moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the pool of jurors was "impermissibly infected." Yet again, Judge Diane Kottmyer denied his motion, pointing out that the jurors who made those comments were probably among those who had already been excused for having formed opinions about the case.

After lunch recess and again at the end of the day, both sides had a chance to use more of their challenges. 15 jurors remained by the end of the day. Unfortunately, because the jury pool is exhausted, the selection process will start all over again tomorrow morning to fill the remaining seat. A new group of about 70 jurors will fill out the questionnaire and will then be questioned individually by the judge. There is a chance that opening statements could take place as early as tomorrow afternoon, but I wouldn't count on it.

The Entwistle family was in court again today. They were accompanied for part of the time by their lawyer, Peter Parker, who also defended Alexander Pring-Wilson.

Jury selection, day 2

Jury selection continued today in the Neil Entwistle trial. The process tends to be repetitive and is never the most exciting part of a trial, but there was one big new development: the presence of Neil's family. His father Cliff, mother Yvonne, and younger brother Russell arrived in the courtroom this morning and sat in the front row on the right side of the room. The front benches on the left side are reserved for Rachel's family, who weren't there today. The Entwistles were all nicely dressed and behaved in a very dignified manner throughout the day. Neil smiled at his family as he entered the room and looked back a few times during the proceedings to smile at them again.

Basically the entire day consisted of Judge Kottmyer questioning individual jurors about the answers to the questionnaires they had filled out yesterday. She got through about 65 jurors today, 16 of whom were qualified, bringing the total to 24. The prosecution and defense have not yet had an opportunity to use their preemptory challenges (16 for each side), so there will need to be 48 qualified jurors to guarantee that enough remain for a jury of 12 plus 4 alternates.

At the beginning of court today, Elliot Weinstein asked the judge to reframe the questions for jurors, arguing that the questions tended to make jurors say whatever the judge wanted them to say instead of voicing their true opinions. Judge Kottmyer denied his motion, but Weinstein challenged several jurors for cause and on many occasions moved to ask them if they thought Neil was guilty, a question that was not, at least in those words, on the questionnaire. The judge denied all but one of his challenges and rejected all of his motions to ask them that question.

Tomorrow both sides will get a chance to use their preemptory challenges to kick out jurors for any reason they want, starting with the prosecution. There will almost certainly need to be more qualified jurors, however, so the individual questioning will probably resume again later in the day.

Entwistle trial begins!

Today was the first day of jury selection in the trial of Neil Entwistle! It was more crowded than the hearing on Friday, but I was again able to get a seat in the courtroom. No family members of Rachel or Neil were in the courtroom, but there were 30 or 40 reporters from various news outlets such as the Boston Herald, the MetroWest Daily News, TruTV (formerly Court TV), the Worksop Guardian, the Nottingham Evening Post, ABC, NBC's Dateline, and all of the local news networks. Outside were about 6 news trucks and 2 helicopters circling around.

By the end of the day, 8 jurors were seated. The goal is to get 12 jurors and 4 alternates, so they're halfway there. Judge Kottmyer announced that each side gets 16 peremptory challenges (booting a juror for any reason, which the judge doesn't have to approve) and unlimited challenges for cause (booting jurors for a good reason, which the judge must approve).

The reporters (and I) all got to go to the jury room, which was on the floor below the courtroom. It was a large room, where all 170 or so jurors sat in chairs, filling almost the whole room. The reporters squeezed into benches in the back of the room, and some were forced to stand as the judge introduced herself, the prosecutors (Michael Fabbri, Daniel Bennett and Meghan O'Neill), the defense lawyers (Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page), and finally Neil himself. Then she explained the rules to the jurors: no talking about the case to anyone, no watching news, listening to radio shows, reading articles, or visiting websites about the case or about criminal cases in general. She also read the charges against Neil and reminded the jurors that the indictments are "merely pieces of paper," not evidence, and that the prosecution has the burden of proof. Then officers handed out questionnaires to all the jurors and the reporters and I left the room as they filled them out.

When we returned to the courtroom, the defense had 9 new motions to argue. One of them was a motion that the judge reconsider her decision on Friday's motion to dismiss. Weinstein held up a copy of the front page of the Boston Herald, which proclaimed "BOO HOO: Brits don't think 'monster' Neil can get fair trial here." I must agree with Weinstein's point that the inflammatory media coverage threatens Neil's right to a fair trial. The Herald shouldn't be making fun of British people who are concerned about Neil's rights. Not only is that a little anti-British, but the Herald's biased reporting proves the point of those who think he won't get a fair trial! Not surprisingly, however, Judge Kottmyer denied the motion. Additionally, Weinstein accused Joe Flaherty, the spokesman for Rachel's family, of violating the sequestration order for witnesses. Flaherty made comments to the MetroWest Daily News about how much faith the family has in the DA, which Weinstein called "exactly what sequestration is designed to prevent." The defense also requested that the microphone be removed from their table so they don't have to mute it whenever they have a confidential conversation with each other or their client. Judge Kottmyer denied this motion for the time being.

After the motions were argued, the process of voir dire began. The jurors were called into the courtroom individually, and Judge Kottmyer asked them about any questions they had answered "yes" to in the questionnaire. I got a copy of the questionnaire, and the questions (some paraphrased) included...

• Do you have any difficulty speaking, understanding, or reading English?
• Do you know any of the lawyers, potential witnesses, victims, or the defendant? (a long list of potential witnesses was attached to the questionnaire)
• State the ages of any children who reside with you.
• Would you tend to believe or disbelieve a police officer more or less than another witness?
• Identify any newspapers you read regularly, TV or radio news programs you watch or listen to regularly, or websites about current affairs you visit regularly.
• Have you heard or read anything about this case before?
• Have you formed or expressed any judgment or opinion with respect to this case or its merits?
• Do you think a defendant in a criminal trial should be made to prove his innocence?

The prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendant sit at the same table, and today Judge Kottmyer sat at that table as well, and so did each juror as he or she was questioned. Neil appeared calm but alert and looked directly at every juror.

They got through about 45 jurors today, most of whom were dismissed for various reasons but 8 of whom were qualified to serve. 5 were men, and 3 were women. One was a Welsh man who had been through a nasty divorce and had a restraining order against him. Weinstein challenged one juror for cause, arguing that she hadn't been "forthcoming" about what exactly she had heard about the case. The judge, however, dismissed his challenge.

Perhaps they'll finish jury selection tomorrow, but these things are hard to predict. The prosecution expects to call 50 to 60 witnesses.

In the meantime, take a look at this great editorial by the Worksop Guardian: "In all my 35 years in journalism, I have never seen anything like it."