| June 19th, 2008 - |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
Fashionista
 Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
June 19th, 2008
June 19th, 2008
Loyal brothers
Posted by Joe Dwinell at 8:55 am
Russell Entwistle (pictured below) sits silently behind his accused brother day in and day out. He serves as a sentry — a tall one — for his folks who all remain stage right in Courtroom 430 directly behind the accused.
Jerome Souza, Rachel Entwistle’s brother, also sits quietly behind the prosecution table in the first row, stage left. He, too, remains silent.
The blog has yet to sense a smile on either young man’s face. There’s no reason to smile. They both show up early, take a seat in the first row and bear witness to the often-grim proceedings in the double-murder trial of Neil Entwistle. They represent the bond only a brother can understand. They show it quietly, sadly, daily.
June 19th, 2008
Court clarification
Posted by Joe Dwinell at 10:46 am
Defense attorney Elliot Weinstein pulled out of a computer forensic specialist today that Neil Entwistle checked his Outlook e-mail on Jan. 20, 2006, for “jobs.”
In a motions hearing earlier this week — a hearing never seen by jurors — another possible e-mail source was incorrectly mentioned or misinterpreted. Testimony today, which is the ONLY testimony that matters, states those e-mails checked on the days of the murders of Rachel Entwistle, 27, and Lillian Entwistle, 9 months, was for jobs.
June 19th, 2008
'Time of death’
Posted by Joe Dwinell at 11:48 am
Dr. William Zane, the medical examiner in the Entwistle double-murder case, said mother and child were face-to-face and died quickly.
Rachel Souza Entwistle, 27, died “immediately.” A bullet in her left breast (that passed through her child) and a bullet broken into two “fragments” lodged into her skull. (The bullet entered just above her hairline in front of her head.)
Lillian Rose Entwistle, 9 months, took a “minute or minutes to die.” Her right kidney was “macerated.” The destruction of her kidney, Zane testified, resulted in “bleeding to death … fairly rapidly.”
June 19th, 2008
Suicide vs. homicide
Posted by Joe Dwinell at 1:00 pm
Co-defense counsel Stephanie Page is hammering away at medical examiner Dr. William Zane today on the possibility of “suicide” in the deaths of Rachel and Lillian Entwistle.
Page — calling Zane’s job to determine cause of death between homicide vs. suicide a “big responsibility” — questioned if he had all the facts during his autopsy of the dead mother and child. Did he know Rachel had gunpowder residue on her hands?
“No,” he didn’t know, and added he didn’t need to.
“You would not want to know if the person shot the gun?” asked Page.
It’s an aggressive bombardment of questioning in this 10th day of testimony. Page is suggesting the possibility of suicide. She’s coming as close as one can to all but stating the question.
June 19th, 2008
Defense direct hit
Posted by Joe Dwinell at 2:47 pm
Medical examiner Dr. William Zane just admitted in court this afternoon he did not know until today — at about 1 p.m. — that gunshot residue was found on Rachel Entwistle’s hands.
Co-defense counsel Stephanie Page asked the doctor if he was ever told by the prosecution or police the fact that gunshot residue was detected on her right front hand? Right back? Left front? And left back hand?
“No, I was not informed,” said Zane.
Prosecutor Michael Fabbri immediately asked Zane if the knowledge of gunshot residue on Rachel’s hands now changes his opinion about homicide vs. suicide.
“It only tells me the adult female was in the room when the gun was discharged,” he said.
Again, in her final rebuttal, Page asked if it is a “possibility” today that Rachel Entwistle could have fired a gun because she had gunshot residue on both hands?
“Possibility. Yes,” Zane said.
Rachel Entwistle, 27, and her baby girl, Lillian Rose, 9 months, were found slain in the master bedroom of their Hopkinton home Jan. 22, 2006. The jury has been reminded of this at least a hundred times. Somebody connected to the case learning anything new today is news. How will the jury see it?
Medical examiner Dr. William Zane testifies today about the depth of a bullet — that split into two fragments —
that entered Rachel Entwistle’s brain. (AP/pool)
.
|
|
Homeland Security - Refugee Staff
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 5152
Location: REFSTAGON
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Schmerty
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:54 pm |
|
|
|
Thank You Fashionista. So this the defense strategy? Racheal killed her beloved baby & her self,Suicide? The gun walked back to her parent's home & put itself back in it's case! Marvelous,or Stupid?
|
|
Skipping along my own path.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 3260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gwen
Posted:
Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:12 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks, Fash. Seems like a lame strategy to me.
|
|
AKA Gagal_05
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 14329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Thanks Fash.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:42 am |
|
|
|
| gwen wrote: | | Thanks, Fash. Seems like a lame strategy to me. |
Seems lame to me too.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16032
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:30 pm |
|
|
|
| pax wrote: |
Seems lame to me too. |
Lame but brilliant. Baffle with bullshit. Remember they only need to sell one juror on that theory.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:17 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
Lame but brilliant. Baffle with bullshit. Remember they only need to sell one juror on that theory. |
If you've listened carefully to the cross examination of witnesses, you'll see that the focus is on the downright shoddy investigation not only by
police but by the ME.
No DNA or fingerprint analysis of the laptop.
Cops didn't advise the ME that GSR was found on both Rachel's hands and both front and back of them. Generally, having GSR on both hands, front and back is indicative of having pulled the trigger on a gun. A two handed grip is probably more typical of a woman than a man. Need to consult Dr Vincent DiMaio's book here .. 
The ME not only did not know about the GSR evidence, but when he learned of it yesterday, he said it wasn't important in determining Manner of Death.
The list is somewhat longer, but I don't think it's so much a matter of the defense suggesting murder / suicide but to show that all investigators had tunnel vision and did not exclude other possibilities by conducting the usual analyses. Reasonable doubt in only one juror is all they must achieve.
We haven't heard the Defense case yet nor the closing statement.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23390
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SavannahStar
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:20 pm |
|
|
|
I'm very much enjoying your unbiased analyses, Heli. Thank you.
|
|
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 20781
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:24 pm |
|
|
|
| SavannahStar wrote: | | I'm very much enjoying your unbiased analyses, Heli. Thank you. |
-- me too, Savannah, and thanks so much, Heli.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:59 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: |
If you've listened carefully to the cross examination of witnesses, you'll see that the focus is on the downright shoddy investigation not only by
police but by the ME.
No DNA or fingerprint analysis of the laptop.
Cops didn't advise the ME that GSR was found on both Rachel's hands and both front and back of them. Generally, having GSR on both hands, front and back is indicative of having pulled the trigger on a gun. A two handed grip is probably more typical of a woman than a man. Need to consult Dr Vincent DiMaio's book here ..
The ME not only did not know about the GSR evidence, but when he learned of it yesterday, he said it wasn't important in determining Manner of Death.
The list is somewhat longer, but I don't think it's so much a matter of the defense suggesting murder / suicide but to show that all investigators had tunnel vision and did not exclude other possibilities by conducting the usual analyses. Reasonable doubt in only one juror is all they must achieve.
We haven't heard the Defense case yet nor the closing statement. |
I think I stated clearly that no I hadn't listened to more than 1 hour of testimony today and only a few hours yesterday. I just don't buy any theory involving Rachel murdering her infant. Murdering her unemployed husband maybe. 
If the cops didn't tell the ME everything that they found then yes that is wrong but I wonder if they wouldn't have been damed if they did anyway. The ME is supposed to be neutral.
Why didn't the ME test for it himself I wonder? Good science would dictate her should. Why didn't the cops fingerprint everything I wonder? Those were gross omissions. Good points Heli! If this were my son on trial I'd be outraged but I'm looking at this from a more emotional place. The jury is seeing autopsy photos of a dead baby and smelling the metalic odour of dried blood on her onesie. I hope they're more like you than me because I'm having a really hard time getting past that and looking at this well educated young man without wanting to smack him. I want someone to pay for snuffing out that precious life.
How's the new job Heli?? Hope it's everything you hoped it would be. They're lucky to have you IMO!!
Last edited by ~kaRN on Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
-- me too, Savannah, and thanks so much, Heli. |
Me too SS and YIF. Heli knows (or should by now) that I admire her greatly!
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
| ~kaRN wrote: |
I think I stated clearly that no I hadn't listened to more than 1 hour of testimony today and only a few hours yesterday. I just don't buy any theory involving Rachel murdering her infant. Murdering her unemployed husband maybe.
If the cops didn't tell the ME everything that they found then yes that is wrong but I wonder if they wouldn't have been damed if they did anyway. The ME is supposed to be neutral.
Why didn't the ME test for it himself I wonder? Good science would dictate her should. Why didn't the cops fingerprint everything I wonder? Those were gross omissions. Good points Heli! If this were my son on trial I'd be outraged but I'm looking at this from a more emotional place. The jury is seeing autopsy photos of a dead baby and smelling the metalic odour of dried blood on her onesie. I hope they're more like you than me because I'm having a really hard time getting past that and looking at this well educated young man without wanting to smack him. I want someone to pay for snuffing out that precious life.
How's the new job Heli?? Hope it's everything you hoped it would be. They're lucky to have you IMO!! |
It's the responsibility of LE to bag the hands at the scene and perform GSR testing. Given Rachel had GSR front and back of both her hands, it's truly shocking they didn't give that info to the ME.
Crime scene investigators also didn't look for occult blood in the bedroom or elsewhere in the home i.e. bathroom
I wonder if this ME knew that there was absolutely no trace evidence in the BMW Neil left at the airport. No blood and no GSR anywhere on or in that vehicle.
Since the prosecutor is trying to build a lot of his case on the internet surfing of Neil, it's quite curious that the laptop wasn't dusted for prints nor was it swabbed for DNA.
Today on TruTV , Ashley Banfield was going on and on about how offensive it was that the defense was suggesting Rachel could have killed Lillian and then herself. My response to that is: is it any less offensive to assess testimony on the basis of emotionality and run the risk of convicting an innocent person? Wasn't it offensive when we learned that Susan Smith may have killed her own two boys. It was, yet that's exactly what she'd done.
Preliminarily, from the GSR and bullet trajectory through Lily, I feel murder suicide is in the mix, but I readily admit the validity of that is probably going to fall short when it comes to connecting the dots about how the gun got back to the Materrazos.
The new job begins on Monday and after coveting the position for over 2 years, it almost seems like a dream now. I think reporting in the Superior Court and occasionally back in Criminal and Family Court is going to be a great challenge.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23390
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Schmerty
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | ~kaRN wrote: |
I think I stated clearly that no I hadn't listened to more than 1 hour of testimony today and only a few hours yesterday. I just don't buy any theory involving Rachel murdering her infant. Murdering her unemployed husband maybe.
If the cops didn't tell the ME everything that they found then yes that is wrong but I wonder if they wouldn't have been damed if they did anyway. The ME is supposed to be neutral.
Why didn't the ME test for it himself I wonder? Good science would dictate her should. Why didn't the cops fingerprint everything I wonder? Those were gross omissions. Good points Heli! If this were my son on trial I'd be outraged but I'm looking at this from a more emotional place. The jury is seeing autopsy photos of a dead baby and smelling the metalic odour of dried blood on her onesie. I hope they're more like you than me because I'm having a really hard time getting past that and looking at this well educated young man without wanting to smack him. I want someone to pay for snuffing out that precious life.
How's the new job Heli?? Hope it's everything you hoped it would be. They're lucky to have you IMO!! |
It's the responsibility of LE to bag the hands at the scene and perform GSR testing. Given Rachel had GSR front and back of both her hands, it's truly shocking they didn't give that info to the ME.
Crime scene investigators also didn't look for occult blood in the bedroom or elsewhere in the home i.e. bathroom
I wonder if this ME knew that there was absolutely no trace evidence in the BMW Neil left at the airport. No blood and no GSR anywhere on or in that vehicle.
Since the prosecutor is trying to build a lot of his case on the internet surfing of Neil, it's quite curious that the laptop wasn't dusted for prints nor was it swabbed for DNA.
Today on TruTV , Ashley Banfield was going on and on about how offensive it was that the defense was suggesting Rachel could have killed Lillian and then herself. My response to that is: is it any less offensive to assess testimony on the basis of emotionality and run the risk of convicting an innocent person? Wasn't it offensive when we learned that Susan Smith may have killed her own two boys. It was, yet that's exactly what she'd done.
Preliminarily, from the GSR and bullet trajectory through Lily, I feel murder suicide is in the mix, but I readily admit the validity of that is probably going to fall short when it comes to connecting the dots about how the gun got back to the Materrazos.
The new job begins on Monday and after coveting the position for over 2 years, it almost seems like a dream now. I think reporting in the Superior Court and occasionally back in Criminal and Family Court is going to be a great challenge. |
You make excellent points Heli!!! Thank you. It brings much more to a discussion when there are valid alternative questions.
|
|
Skipping along my own path.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 3260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Why, if Rachel shot herself, did she put the gun straight up her head, by the hairline, and shot herself that way?
Would it not make more sense to hold it against her temple?
Who would shoot them self in the head like that?
Why have we not heard anything about Rachel being depressed?
I've seen lots of pictures Rachel being a very very happy and beaming mommy.
The defense better bring up some evidence of depression if they want that to stick.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SavannahStar
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
|
|
| Schmerty wrote: |
You make excellent points Heli!!! Thank you. It brings much more to a discussion when there are valid alternative questions. |
Absolutely and bravo to Heli for that.
I've spent months and years on other crime boards and usually in this "type" of case (wife killed; rotten husband) all you read is those cackling hens, as I like to call them.....who make EVERY comment, EVERY post, based solely on emotions. No intelligent discussion. No....he's a jerk, string him up by his balls.....and blah blah blah.
Neil E. might well have killed his wife and daughter, but at least with some UNbiased reporting, we can make our own decision on that. And it may or may not be what the jury decides.
I'm just thrilled to have someone on here to discuss the case without any preconceived bias! It's truly amazing to me.
|
|
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 20781
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:02 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | Why, if Rachel shot herself, did she put the gun straight up her head, by the hairline, and shot herself that way?
Would it not be better to hold it against her temple?
Who would shoot them self in the head like that?
Why have we not heard anything about Rachel being depressed?
I've seen lots of pictures Rachel being a very very happy and beaming mommy.
The defense better bring up some evidence of depression if they want that to stick. |
I gave that some thought and on the basis that women don't like the thought of 'messing up' their faces, a shot to the top of the head would seem reasonable. In Rachel's case, the trajectory of the bullet was down and towards the back -- again consistent with holding the gun above her head, downards and away from her face.
The problem is, her wound was not a contact wound, nor did it have any significant stippling or GSR residue, so the muzzle would have had to have been held several inches away from her head.
In the end, that would explain the GSR on the front and back of her hands, but leave perplexing questions about the position Neil found her in relative to Lily, as well as the return of the gun to the Materazzos
Women typically don't like to use guns to kill themselves; drug overdoses are the preferred mode of suicide.
With regard to depression, Dr James Zane, the ME testified that he didn't even as much as determine who Rachel's Family Doctor was, let alone inquire about her state of mind and recent activities. Presumably the cops didn't do that either and I understand to a certain extent, why they didn't. No gun at the death scene seems to point without a doubt to a homicide, not a suicide. Even so, I think most good LE agencies would explore each and every option, if only to completely exclude it as a possibility and the moment GSR was identified on both of Rachel's hands,
front and back there should of been some major thinking outside the box.
FYI, a person can be quite severely depressed and be able to function in a job, take care of children and appear to all as relatively normal. Think how often you've heard friends and relatives of a person who's killed themselves say they don't believe it, they were doing well, they seemed happy and functioning in their life. As part of the investigation, nobody saw fit to look into Rachel's world.
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23390
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Heli
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Troubling to me: If Neil pulled the trigger of that .22 that killed Lily and Rachel, why is it Joe Materazzo's fingerprints and DNA solely, that are on the trigger of the gun?
|
|
Transcription Goddess
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 23390
Location: Puffed Up DimWit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:40 pm |
|
|
|
Taking in all your observations. Much appreciated.
But when is ever a police investigation good enough for a defense lawyer?
There will always be something to complain about.
"Woman don't like their faces be messed up", Aij. (that's ducth)
I had a childhood friend who threw herself in front of a train and was killed instantly.
Not a pretty picture.
I never had a thought of killing myself.
But if someone is in such a state, do they really worry about what they would look like afterwards?
Well, it's not the end of the trial, and with what the defense has brought up, it would not surprise me if the prosecution is going to have some witnesses next week to contradict the lawyers defense as far as Rachel's "depression" is concerned.
We'll see.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:42 pm |
|
|
|
| Heli wrote: | | Troubling to me: If Neil pulled the trigger of that .22 that killed Lily and Rachel, why is it Joe Materazzo's fingerprints and DNA solely, that are on the trigger of the gun? |
Maybe he was wearing gloves?
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
