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."