| Defense Strategy Revealed - Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Heli
 Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:56 am |
|
|
|
Defense Strategy Revealed
Well, well ... I missed the morning testimony of the Medical Examiner but to my surprise, Stephanie Page, in her cross-examination, is going down the suicide road that I'd been thinking about from the moment I heard and saw the evidence presented by the State's Criminalist with regard to Lillian and the manner in which the bullet entered and travelled through her body.
Entry wound on the mid to left chest that exited on her right back at a level lower than the entry wound. That tells me that the gun was pointing from Lillians left to her right and downwards. This struck me like a sledge as being consistent with Rachel having held the gun as she and Lillian lay in the bed in the position, generally, that they were found.
Stephanie Page is taking this Medical Examiner apart with regard to how he arrived at the Manner of Death: Homicide. Dr. Zane is not doing very well. Great cross-examination.
One problem though, if suicide is a circumstance in play, I'll be anxious to know how the gun got back to the Materazzo's.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23516
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
Be glad you missed it Heli. It was outrageous. I can't wait to hear how she returned the gun to her parents home either, without spilling a drop of blood. Wait until you hear the theory that it's skin pain you feel from a gunshot wound. Stephanie lost me today. I think she may have lost her jury too.
I went from IUPG to so disgusted today, I hope he fries.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:11 pm |
|
|
|
Did she then after she came back from returning the gun, cover herself with the comforter?
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:28 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | Did she then after she came back from returning the gun, cover herself with the comforter?
|
Apparently Marco, and then she tucked herself and Lillian in so that the police needed to search the house twice. Neil I guess was so distraught that the normal thing to do would be to check your in-laws house, then cruise the internet for dates. No biggie your spouse just murdered your baby.
It was only skin pain after all. I'm surprised mark Geragos didn't dream this up for Scotty. 
I don't think it's that great a cross Heli. He's coming across as nervous like a real human person who got to dissect a 9 month old baby. But, if I were on the jury listening to him be grilled I'd be counting the minutes until I got to vote. Why wasn't this theory put out there from day one? Why didn't he tell his buddies back home that Rachel had killed the baby then herself?? Why didn't he call the police????
Last edited by ~kaRN on Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:33 pm |
|
|
|
Ridicules.
Yah, maybe Geragos will learn something from this defense team.
How in the world can they think that this story will fly with the jury?
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:37 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | Ridicules.
Yah, maybe Geragos will learn something from this defense team.
How in the world can they think that this story will fly with the jury?
|
I think it's pure desperation. Per CTV, they have no experts on the list to contradict the Medical Examiner so you have to wonder if this isn't just an attmpt to baffle with BS.
Neil is all smiley on TV now. Did you notice that?
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
I think it's pure desperation. Per CTV, they have no experts on the list to contradict the Medical Examiner so you have to wonder if this isn't just an attmpt to baffle with BS.
Neil is all smiley on TV now. Did you notice that? |
Would you find it interesting that Rachel Entwistle had GSR (gunshot
residue) on both her hands, both front and back?? Would you also
find it interesting that Rachel Entwistle was found with only her right
hand visible while her left arm and hand were partially covered by
her body and that of Lillian?
If you'd seen the cross examination of this medical examiner, Dr. William
Zane, you couldn't come to any other conclusion than he is sorely
compromised. He did not know until today that Rachel had GSR on both
sides of both her hands so he obviously did not consider that in his
determination of the manner of death.
Further, he boldly stated that knowing about GSR on both her hands would
not be important information for him to know when determining manner
of death.  Is he kidding or what?
I have to ask myself, if a person is passive in a gunshot incident, do they
get GSR on both sides of both their hands?
Dr Zane even rejected portions of Dr Werner Spitz' textbook that's used to teach
Forensic Pathologists. Sheesh, he must be kidding!
Listen to the science, the forensic evidence with an open mind. Somebody will have to tell me how the gun left that premises and went
back to the Materazzo's home but at this moment, the Defense is showing
me that this ME overlooked some of the most important factors in arriving at a Manner of Death.
The GSR on both of Rachel's hands is consistent with her having held and fired a gun. The nature of Lillian's wound is consistent with Rachel having
shot her while laying beside her and the bullet travelling through Lillian &
into Rachel's left breast. I'm waiting for the rest of the evidence ...
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23516
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:54 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
I think it's pure desperation. Per CTV, they have no experts on the list to contradict the Medical Examiner so you have to wonder if this isn't just an attmpt to baffle with BS.
Neil is all smiley on TV now. Did you notice that? |
As per TruTv's announcement yesterday, Neil Entwistle can no longer be
on camera in the courtroom so I don't think you would have seen images
of him in the last two days.
ETA: I've just seen Neil on the CNN feed as he returns from sidebar.
Well, can't explain that in light of the announcement yesterday about his
image being prohibited henceforth from being shown.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23516
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:23 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: |
As per TruTv's announcement yesterday, Neil Entwistle can no longer be
on camera in the courtroom so I don't think you would have seen images
of him in the last two days.
ETA: I've just seen Neil on the CNN feed as he returns from sidebar.
Well, can't explain that in light of the announcement yesterday about his
image being prohibited henceforth from being shown. |
That's when I saw him, after the sidebar like a grinning fool. As for the gunshot residue, I don't know except perhaps after the first shot to her chest, she tried to wrestle the gun from her assailant (resisted the urge to type husband  ) They did testify yesterday that GSR could be transferred. Maybe it was transferred from Neils hands onto hers as he arranged the bodies in the comforter.
Doesn't explain any of his actions after the fact in any case. Doesn't explain why this theory wasn't alluded to in the opening statement or in the 2 years he sat in jail or why he wouldn't attend his murdered child's funeral to say goodbye or fight to have the child buried home in England seeing as he was so betrayed by his wife, her Mother.
I think at this juncture it was a low blow from a defense with nothing to lose.
I do think the Pathologist did a good job of attempting to be neutral. It's hard to look at a murdered baby and not have a very strong emotional response. He wasn't rude to Stephanie even though her questions were loaded and showed little understanding of either anatomy or pathology. She quoted a text book he studied 20 odd years ago to pass a board exam. I don't refer to my old text books except to get a chuckle. Science is constantly evolving in that way. IMO if the man has 20 plus years experience directly performing autopsy's then his expertise shouldn't be in question. I'd much rather have my surgery for example performed by someone who has 20 years of hands on clinical experience than by the person who has spent the lion's share of his or her time researching and documenting the statistics of what others do while performing my particular surgery.
Besides I don't see a single photograph of Rachel where she doesn't seem entralled by her child or depressed. Depressed people don't exude the type of maternal joy that she does. Looking happy is hard work when you're depressed.
How did she get the gun back to her parents home when she didn't have the car or did Neil, in the shock of discovering his dead family feel the most important thing to do at that moment was return the gun? I don't recall hearing that her fingerprints were found on the gun in any case. It'll be interesting to see where they go with this. My gut tells me, they won't get too far. Gun shot residue isn't even close to an exact science. Meant one thing in Blake's trial, another in Spector's and ended up as nothing in both.
Don't know Heli. You're way more an expert than me on court and evidence things. I just know I felt sick when they suddenly hammered away on the suicide questions today and I bet the jury did too. They better produce her family Doctor to confirm her post partum depression is all I can say.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SavannahStar
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | ~kaRN wrote: |
I think it's pure desperation. Per CTV, they have no experts on the list to contradict the Medical Examiner so you have to wonder if this isn't just an attmpt to baffle with BS.
Neil is all smiley on TV now. Did you notice that? |
Would you find it interesting that Rachel Entwistle had GSR (gunshot
residue) on both her hands, both front and back?? Would you also
find it interesting that Rachel Entwistle was found with only her right
hand visible while her left arm and hand were partially covered by
her body and that of Lillian?
If you'd seen the cross examination of this medical examiner, Dr. William
Zane, you couldn't come to any other conclusion than he is sorely
compromised. He did not know until today that Rachel had GSR on both
sides of both her hands so he obviously did not consider that in his
determination of the manner of death.
Further, he boldly stated that knowing about GSR on both her hands would
not be important information for him to know when determining manner
of death. Is he kidding or what?
I have to ask myself, if a person is passive in a gunshot incident, do they
get GSR on both sides of both their hands?
Dr Zane even rejected portions of Dr Werner Spitz' textbook that's used to teach
Forensic Pathologists. Sheesh, he must be kidding!
Listen to the science, the forensic evidence with an open mind. Somebody will have to tell me how the gun left that premises and went
back to the Materazzo's home but at this moment, the Defense is showing
me that this ME overlooked some of the most important factors in arriving at a Manner of Death.
The GSR on both of Rachel's hands is consistent with her having held and fired a gun. The nature of Lillian's wound is consistent with Rachel having
shot her while laying beside her and the bullet travelling through Lillian &
into Rachel's left breast. I'm waiting for the rest of the evidence ... |
VERY interesting Heli.
|
|
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 21295
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Myra Manes
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:48 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
Apparently Marco, and then she tucked herself and Lillian in so that the police needed to search the house twice. Neil I guess was so distraught that the normal thing to do would be to check your in-laws house, then cruise the internet for dates. No biggie your spouse just murdered your baby.
It was only skin pain after all. I'm surprised mark Geragos didn't dream this up for Scotty.
I don't think it's that great a cross Heli. He's coming across as nervous like a real human person who got to dissect a 9 month old baby. But, if I were on the jury listening to him be grilled I'd be counting the minutes until I got to vote. Why wasn't this theory put out there from day one? Why didn't he tell his buddies back home that Rachel had killed the baby then herself?? Why didn't he call the police???? |
I'm surprised too.....Btw, I think Neil is POS, too....
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 5742
Location: Puckered Up AssHole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hannie
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
When I first heard about the GSR on her hands I thought it was kind of weird also.
|
|
li'l Shango's Mommy
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23202
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:35 am |
|
|
|
| Myra Manes wrote: |
I'm surprised too.....Btw, I think Neil is POS, too.... |
 Yeah! It's gunna be fun agreeing!!
Do you know who's paying for the his defense team Myra?? I thought he was unemployed.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:02 am |
|
|
|
Well, it's fascinating to hear Neil trying to explain the story.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hannie
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Is he on the witness stand then, marco?
|
|
li'l Shango's Mommy
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23202
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
| Hannie wrote: | | Is he on the witness stand then, marco? |
No, it was a 2 hour long telephone conversation a detective had with Neil while he was still in London, before he was arrested.
There are a lot of inconsistency's, plus he said that he saw that Lili was shot
Can't be, because he said he did not touch neither one of them.
The police did not know they where shot until after they moved Rachel's arm.
Can't you hear or see?
I have to go to the store, have to back in half an hour, because court will start again.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hannie
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:59 pm |
|
|
|
Oh, ok thanks , no I'm busy doing other things in between, so I didn't watch the trial anymore since it first started.
Hmm interesting!
|
|
li'l Shango's Mommy
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23202
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:18 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | Well, it's fascinating to hear Neil trying to explain the story.
|
I only caught the last hour of CTV today. Did the possibility that Rachel had been suicidal or depressed in the days and weeks prior to her 'death' come up in the interview? Neil had many days to formulate theories between finding his family slaughtered and the interview. The small bit I heard sounded like he still didn't have a clue who would know he'd be gone to do this to them.
I'm assuming that Lillian was breast fed based on their being no mention of a bottle with them in the bed. Babies wake up hungry and the best way to satisfy that with a Mom's need to catch a few more winks of sleep would be to bring her to the parental bed and let her nurse there. Does anybody know if there was evidence of milk in Lillian's stomach at autopsy? They stated yesterday That Rachels' stomach was empty.
I think that information would be crucial. I find it incredulous to believe a woman would feed her baby, then murder her. I wonder if Andrea Yates made sure everyone was well fed before drowning them. I somehow doubt it.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3498
Location: Behind this guy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
I only caught the last hour of CTV today. Did the possibility that Rachel had been suicidal or depressed in the days and weeks prior to her 'death' come up in the interview?
That did not come up in the interview.
I was thinking the same thing,and wished that the detective had asked that question, was Rachel depressed.
Neil had many days to formulate theories between finding his family slaughtered and the interview. The small bit I heard sounded like he still didn't have a clue who would know he'd be gone to do this to them.
You're right, that's his claim.
But he was searching so many time for an explanation, he could not answer basic questions, like why did you not call 911, why did you not call your parents, why did you not call Rachel's parents, why did you not say anything to anyone in the airport. It went on and on.
He had no answer.
I'm assuming that Lillian was breast fed based on their being no mention of a bottle with them in the bed. Babies wake up hungry and the best way to satisfy that with a Mom's need to catch a few more winks of sleep would be to bring her to the parental bed and let her nurse there. Does anybody know if there was evidence of milk in Lillian's stomach at autopsy?
Neil claimed that Lilly woke up around 7:00, Rachel breastfed the baby, he then went downstairs with her, and Rachel stayed in bed, to sleep some more. He gave a (I believe oatmeal) and some cheerios, then played with her and brought her back upstairs to Rachel at 9:00, he said he put her in the bed where Rachel was laying. I don't remember if she took the baby from him, or that he laid her down.
About the evidence that there was milk in her stomach, I do not know.
Then he said he went to staples looking for some computer stuff, but thought it would be cheaper at Walmart, he drove around trying to find a walmart. H
After two hours he went home without buying anything
I also believe that he took a shower and then left, not positive about that
They stated yesterday That Rachel's' stomach was empty.
I think that information would be crucial. I find it incredulous to believe a woman would feed her baby, then murder her.
You have a very good point there.
Nobody in their right mind would feed a baby and kill her.
I wonder if Andrea Yates made sure everyone was well fed before drowning them. I somehow doubt it. |
Last edited by Noor on Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:01 pm |
|
|
|
I watched and recorded all of the testimony today.
Lillian was breast fed and from today' playing of the 2 hour taped conversation between Sergeant Manning and Neil on the telephone 3 days after the deaths, here are some answers to your questions:
Lillian was breastfed
The morning they died, Neil tells Manning Lily awoke at her usual time of approx 07:00. As was customary, Rachel breastfed her and then Neil took her to the kitchen to feed her breakfast. That morning, he gave her a few Cheerios while he prepared some kind of oatmeal cereal with pears or prunes mixed in.
Lillian didn't eat much, so as was customary he went back upstairs with her and into the toy room, which was somewhat cold so they moved to another room that was a little warmer. On about 09:00 he again did what was customary and brought Lily back to his bedroom and placed her in bed with Rachel. Lily typically had a nap around 09:00 each morning. He then left to go to Staples.
What struck me most of all in the 2 hrs that Neil spoke with Manning on the telephone was not so much what he said but what he did not say. I can accept to a certain extent that he was confused, in an altered state of mind, perhaps even a little psychotic after having discovered his wife and baby dead in the bed. I find it highly suspicious that he never wonders out loud or asks Manning "Who could have done this" "I don't know who could possibly have done this" "You have to find who did this to my family". He answers certain questions in this regard but I would have liked to hear a little more interest and emotion about who the culprit(s) might be.
His description of finding Rachel and Lily was consistent with having come upon them, rather than having killed them (keeping in mind the info we've learned from previous testimony from the ME and CSI witnesses) until he describes seeing the blackened hole on Lily's chest. He told Manning he did not touch the bodies in any way. Testimony from the crime scene investigators is that Rachel's arm was over the bullet hole in Lily's chest and that it wasn't visible until the arm was removed.
Troubling to me was the testimony of the ME who conducted the autopsies.
He didn't know there was GSR on both Rachel's hands, front and back. Significant since her left arm and hand were under a pillow that was under the left side of her head when found. The trajectory of the bullet to Lily's
left chest with exit on her lower right and back ribcage could also be consistent with Rachel having shot her from her position laying to the right of Lily. Hugely problematic of course, is if this is a fact, then we need to learn a plausible explanation about where the gun went to in order to give any weight to the two facts I stated previously.
I found the ME, Dr James Zane extremely problematic in his testimony. It seems beyond comprehension that he wasn't told about the GSR evidence and when learning of it yesterday, he said it wouldn't have been important to his decision on the Manner of Death. YIKES. There was a lot that he did not look at, investigate or deem important that he should have in order to exclude them 100%.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23516
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:11 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks Heli.
I can not, for the life of me, understand that he came home, found his wife and baby lay in bed, murdered, he covers them up, and leave the country the next morning.
The witness who works for British airlines said he was acting normal.
How in the world can you act normal after you find your wife and child murdered.
He did not call his parents and tell them: Mom I'm coming home because Rachel and Lilly are dead.
Also he said that at one point he wanted to kill himself with a knife because he wanted to be with them.
The detective then said: Well, you did everything to get away from them.
He also said he had no idea of funeral plans.
Had no even thought about that.
The list goes on and on.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Myra Manes
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: | Yeah! It's gunna be fun agreeing!!
Do you know who's paying for the his defense team Myra?? I thought he was unemployed. |
hahahaha .......
His parents?
|
|
** Banned **
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 5742
Location: Puckered Up AssHole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Schmerty
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
I think he has been awarded a public defender. It is usual with those who claim they have no means for payment. IIRC W &P are being paid $100/hr.
|
|
Skipping along my own path.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 3335
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
| Myra Manes wrote: |
hahahaha .......
His parents? |
Like scott peterson........
Does that not ring a bell, the similarities between those two.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 5204
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: |
Like scott peterson........
Does that not ring a bell, the similarities between those two. |
I don't find it unusual that family members would pool their resources to pay for the defense of their loved one. Would it really be within the means of a young man with a young family to pay the huge fees charged by criminal defense lawyers?
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23516
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
