Skip to main content
Search
Services


 

Return to Transcripts main page

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Man Confesses to Murder After Being Acquitted; Massachusetts Murder Mystery Goes International

Aired January 27, 2006 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, CNN HOST: Tonight, a man confesses to killing his then girlfriend's 2-year-old boy, but he can't be tried for the crime because he was acquitted of it years ago. The latest on the double jeopardy case of Michael Lane with the woman whose child he murdered and more.
And then later, a Massachusetts murder mystery goes international, a mother and her baby girl are brutally shot to death in the bedroom of their half a million dollar home, the unemployed husband and father called a person of interest. But days later authorities have to go to England to talk to him.

It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Good evening, an incredible story to begin with. Two-year-old Paul Watts was found dead in his crib in his Salt Lake City home in February of 1991. The autopsy showed that he died from multiple head injuries.

His mother's live-in boyfriend, Michael Lane, who had been babysitting the boy, was arrested and charged with murder. A jury found Lane not guilty at his 1991 trial.

And then nearly 15 years later, in August of last year, Lane contacted Salt Lake City Police and confessed that he after all had killed the child. He claimed that he'd been high on meth at the time and slammed the boy repeatedly on the floor when the boy started crying.

Jennifer Watts, when this happened, and I know you stood by him at the time, how did you feel?

JENNIFER WATTS, SON MURDERED BY BOYFRIEND: Of course, I was -- I was devastated. My son had just been murdered and I didn't know how to feel. It was almost like it wasn't real. I just almost immediately slipped into denial and...

KING: But when Michael came forward...

WATTS: I just didn't want to believe what was going on.

KING: But when he did come forward, by the way had you continued to live with him or had you separated by then?

WATTS: No, sir we were continuing our relationship. KING: How then did he decide -- did he tell you first before he went to the police?

WATTS: No, sir. We had been separated for about 12 years before he walked in and confessed.

KING: Oh, you had been separated.

Let's meet the rest of our panel. In Salt Lake is Detective Dwayne Baird, Salt Lake City Police Department, public information officer. In Phoenix, Arizona is Leslie "Jo: Facer, foreperson for the jury that acquitted Michael Lane of the killing.

Salt Lake City, James Cope, who prosecuted the case against Michael Lane, now a deputy district attorney in Salt Lake County. Here in Los Angeles Mary Fulginiti, the former federal prosecutor was an assistant U.S. attorney in L.A. And, Mark Geragos, normally with us in L.A. is in Charleston, South Carolina tonight working on legal business there.

Detective Baird, did he just come to the police station?

DET. DWAYNE BAIRD, SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes, he did. He showed up August 15th of last year and announced that he wanted to talk to our homicide detectives and made the announcement that he, in fact, had talked to his -- his local clergy.

He doesn't live in the Salt Lake area. He lives in central Utah, so he drove some time to get here and he talked to our homicide detectives about the fact that he had killed this boy some 15 years ago.

KING: Is he Mormon?

BAIRD: I believe he is. He was talking to a Mormon bishop who required him to come to Salt Lake City Police and tell his story.

KING: Joe, you were the foreperson of the jury. Are you shocked?

Very shocked.

KING: What led you to acquit him?

LESLIE "JO" FACER, FOREPERSON OF JURY THAT ACQUITTED MICHAEL LANE: There was a lot of reasonable doubt in this case. The medical examiner could not even guarantee us it was a murder. She flip- flopped between the two attorneys on her answers to the questions and there were many other items within the trial itself that just put too many holes.

KING: James Cope, who prosecuted the case, what do you make of this?

JAMES COPE, PROSECUTED MICHAEL LANE: Well, it's one of those cases where the jury was not satisfied with the evidence and I think that they are allowed to interpret the evidence in a reasonable way.

My feeling was that they believed that the mother was still on the side of the murderer and I came to the conclusion after the trial was over that they decided that since the mother didn't care that much they shouldn't care that much.

KING: How do you feel now?

COPE: Well, I feel really badly that we were not able to convict a murderer but that's the way things happen in our justice system. The people who get to vote are the jurors. The prosecutors don't get to vote. They get to present the evidence. If they don't present the kind of evidence that impresses the jurors then an acquittal is an appropriate thing to do.

KING: Do we know what he is doing now, Michael? James, do we know what he's doing now?

COPE: No, I don't.

KING: He's free.

COPE: I know only what the detectives told me that he came from Salina, Utah to make his confession.

KING: Detective Baird, do you know what he's doing now?

BAIRD: Yes. He is -- he's still working. He's down in central Utah in the Salina area. We know that he's still down there. We haven't had contact with him recently but we have had contact with people who do know where he is.

KING: In your long career, Mary, as a prosecutor you ever have this happen?

MARY FULGINITI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, I haven't. It's really sad and it's a tragic case because the prosecutor in this case has stated it is the goal of the system in the criminal justice system is to obviously prosecute, convict and punish those who are guilty of criminal behavior.

And, it's a shame when those that are truly guilty of criminal behavior go free but sometimes that happens because we have a system that's also designed to protect the innocent. And beyond a reasonable doubt is our standard.

And, if we're not able to present enough evidence and sometimes you just don't have it, you know, you got to give it your best shot with everything you've got but sometimes you just don't have it, then the likely result will be what occurred here unfortunately is an acquittal.

KING: And there's nothing else you can charge him with like perjury, statute of limitations has run on all...

FULGINITI: Well, you know, there may be in the state of Utah. I'm not as familiar with the crimes there. I mean if he took the stand at the time, which I don't believe he did, he could be prosecuted potentially for perjury now.

And, if there was a statute, a criminal statute in the state of Utah that criminalized when you lie to police officers, like we have in the federal system, Martha Stewart prime example, she was charged with lying to federal officials, if you have something similar to that and the statute has not run then he could be charged with that.

KING: James, do you have anything you could charge him with?

COPE: No, I don't believe so. In Utah, you have to charge all of the things that happened in the same criminal episode at the same time. And, the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution means that we can't prosecute him for murder or any lesser included offense in Utah.

So, it would have to be a different sovereign that prosecuted him, if there was one at all. And, I don't believe that he testified at his trial and since he didn't testify he can't be prosecuted for perjury.

KING: Jennifer could sue him civilly.

COPE: Perhaps.

KING: I guess she could. All right, Mark Geragos, defense attorney, you might have handled it. You might have won one. Does the defense feel bad?

MARK GERAGOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, actually I'm not so sure he is out of the woods. Even with the double jeopardy prohibition against Utah, the feds could in some cases step in.

They did it in Rampart in Los Angeles, Larry, when the gentlemen were acquitted out in Simi Valley. The feds came in and tried. There's no prohibition at least in the state court from the feds coming in.

The feds did it also with a CHP officer years ago in California where he was tried a couple of times, hung jury, and then the feds came in and convicted him on a violation of their rights. So, there is the possibility. I'd have to take a look at the statute of limitations.

KING: It sounds like a -- doesn't it sound like a stretch here though?

GERAGOS: Well they do it in cases where there is some compelling reason. The feds will step in and do a subsequent prosecution even after you've been acquitted in state court. It's not unusual. Well, it is unusual but it does happen and I've seen it happen at least three times in recent memory.

KING: Do you agree Mary? FULGINITI: Yes, it does happen and the Rodney King case is a perfect example. The four police officers were acquitted in state court and then the feds stepped in and they charged him with a crime, one of the crimes, which was very similar to what he was charged with but it was under a federal Civil Rights Act statute.

KING: This doesn't appear to be so right?

FULGINITI: And, you know, not here. You usually need a state action or some abuse of state authority.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with more. We'll be including your phone calls.

And later, an extraordinary case of murder in New England, don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Michael Lane walked into a Salt Lake City police station and confessed.

MICHAEL LANE: I was responsible for Paul's death and I just want that to be known. At one point, he kind of went out, passed out. Freaked me out. Put him in his crib. Mom came home later that night, went in and he was dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Detective Baird, did anyone contact federal authorities to see if they could get involved?

BAIRD: Yes, Larry, we did. We contacted the U.S. attorney's office here in Utah to see if they could get involved in the prosecution of this individual for the violation of the civil rights of a 2-year-old boy. That's a very unusual case. They are looking at it but perhaps they'll take on this case as unusual as it is.

KING: Jennifer, why did you stick by him?

WATTS: Well, Larry, first of all I just -- I couldn't even accept that I put my son in this kind of danger. Number two, Michael Lane was comforting, was pleading that he did nothing wrong. His actions when I returned home that day were nothing like somebody that had just murdered a child. I was 20 years old. I was naive. I made a very bad mistake.

KING: Did he have any ideas, did he say who did it?

WATTS: No. He really didn't have any -- later on, you know, he tried to, you know, go along with some of my ideas that I had, you know. Maybe somebody broke into the house. Maybe it happened from a fall that the baby had taken, you know. We both were searching for answers. KING: What did he say he was sleeping? Why wasn't he with the baby?

WATTS: Well, the baby and him were both sick. They had colds and, you know, he just told me when I -- I was going to go to church and then I was going to stay home and he just kept saying, you know, "Go ahead and go. I'll take care of the baby."

And, when I returned home, you know, I -- I kind of asked how things went and he said they were fine and the baby had laid down to take a nap. And, he also was in bed sleeping when I got home.

KING: And who found the baby?

WATTS: I did.

KING: You stuck with him for how many years before you broke up?

WATTS: Four years sir.

KING: At any time after that did you have suspicions?

WATTS: Yes, there were things in his actions that made me start believing that he could have been capable of doing this but it seemed like every time I tried to talk myself into something I was talking myself out of it just as fast.

KING: Was this your only child?

WATTS: Yes, it was.

KING: Do you have other children now?

WATTS: No, sir. I couldn't bear to have children.

KING: Has he -- yes. Has he contacted you since confessing?

WATTS: No, sir he hasn't.

KING: Have you thought of calling him?

WATTS: Absolutely not. I just want to see justice for my son.

KING: Well, you know about double jeopardy. What do you want to see happen?

WATTS: Well, I'd like to see Mr. Lane be held accountable for his actions.

KING: And, I imagine Jo Facer of the jury would like it too but, of course, there's nothing you can do now. Was there much argument in the jury? Was there people trying to get a guilty?

FACER: Yes. It was not a unanimous decision at first. We had several people who did believe he was guilty but nobody really had a reason for why they felt that way. And, the district attorney made a comment a few minutes ago that he believes that it was because Jennifer stood by him. That was never discussed between us at all. That was never brought up.

The reasonable doubt was all due to the medical examiner, the shoe information that the district attorney kept trying to introduce. That was really where the reasonable doubt came from.

KING: Did he have a good defense attorney?

FACER: Well, I've never been in a trial before or since, so as trials go I guess he was very good.

KING: I mean was he impressive? Did the judge appear fair to you?

FACER: The judge appeared very fair. I don't think that his attorney was very -- was impressive or not.

KING: How long were you out?

FACER: About five to six hours.

KING: Mary, that's pretty quick isn't it for a murder case, not guilty?

FULGINITI: You know it is. It is a little quick. I mean but it depends on what evidence was presented to them and how long it took. I think it was a one week trial, so five to six hours isn't necessarily that short.

But, you know, I think the foreperson is making a good point. You know, they just didn't go on their gut, which is what, you know, many people in their gut may think he's guilty but they really stuck to the letter of the law.

KING: How are the police feeling, detective do they feel like they nabbed the right guy and now look at it?

BAIRD: Yes, we believed early on right from the beginning that we had the right guy. We put together the evidence necessary to charge him through the district attorney's office and to bring the charge to a trial.

We were not shocked when he came in to confess what he had done. We were glad that he did it but because of the double jeopardy rule it was something that we had to look at and look in another direction and that was the direction that we took it to the U.S. attorney's office. But, you know, we were -- we were not overly surprised that he had confessed to what he had done.

KING: We'll be right back with more and more of your phone calls right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROWLANDS: When Michael Lane was finished confessing, he got up and simply walked out the front door of the Salt Lake City Police Department. There was no arrest, no handcuffs. Investigators simply let him go.

The reason even though Michael Lane was now confessing to murder it was a crime that he had already been tried and acquitted of. This was a clear case of double jeopardy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Mark Geragos, is there something to be said for redemption? He went to his bishop. He didn't have to do any of that. He walked in. In fact, even Mary thinks he thought he was going to be rearrested. He wasn't rearrested and he walked out.

GERAGOS: Well, and you know there is something to be said for redemption, although I'm not so sure that he's not going to get charged federally. I didn't know before the officer said it that they'd taken it over to the federal authorities but if I had to bet and I were a betting man, I would think that the feds will file something on him. I just don't think that he's out of the woods by any means.

KING: Mary.

FULGINITI: Well there has to be a federal statute obviously that's applicable here and I know they're looking at it through the civil rights statutes and I've looked at a bunch of them...

KING: They wouldn't know by now?

FULGINITI: Well, they've got to look at a lot of the statutes and see if they can sort of massage the facts into one of the federal statutes.

KING: Raleigh, North Carolina, hello. I'm sorry, go ahead Mark.

GERAGOS: I was just going to say the obvious one is the violation of civil rights and, as Mary says, the key question is, is has the statute of limitations run and is there something outstanding?

KING: Raleigh, North Carolina, hello.

CALLER FROM RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA: Yes. My question, Larry, is did he consult an attorney before confessing to ensure that he cannot be convicted of any crime?

KING: Do we know Detective Baird?

BAIRD: We don't believe that he did. When he came to confess to us he fully prepared to be taken into custody. He was prepared not to go back home to central Utah. He had said goodbye to his family, his friends down there and he fully expected that we would take him into custody and put him in jail.

KING: He didn't know about double jeopardy?

BAIRD: He was not aware of it or didn't appear to be aware of it. I think he was very surprised when he walked out our front doors.

KING: James Cope, does that surprise you?

COPE: No, it doesn't.

KING: Simply put is that. Not everyone knows about double jeopardy.

COPE: Yes, I thought that this particular fellow was probably the type who would have it eating away at him for years and years. He just wanted to get it off his chest. He went and talked to his ecclesiastical authority, his clergyman, his bishop or whatever.

And the person who he talked to said, "Well, you know, you really need to make this right with the people that you've hurt and you need to -- you need to go make a confession to the people you lied to. You need to go to the police."

KING: Mary -- rather, Jennifer, as you see him, you see him there pictured doing a confession what do you feel?

WATTS: Well, I feel angry and I disagree with what they're saying. I believe that he walked in there knowing he was going to walk out, knowing that there was a double jeopardy law. And, to be quite frank, I'm very surprised that he walked in and confessed. It just doesn't make sense to me. Someone who wants to cleanse themselves of the sins that they've done they don't go in and confess to the law.

KING: What do they do? What should he have done?

WATTS: Go to church.

KING: But he said he went to his bishop and the bishop told him to go to the police. I think that's what he said right?

FULGINITI: Yes.

WATTS: I don't know. Larry, I just felt -- I felt like it was a stab at the Salt Lake City Police Department and at myself.

KING: Iron River, Michigan, hello.

CALLER FROM IRON RIVER, MICHIGAN: Hello.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: Hi. I have a question. Her boyfriend admitted to taking meth, now why would she leave her child alone with him?

KING: Good question, Jennifer? WATTS: He was not on meth. He was not on drugs when we got together and a person that claims to be on meth, as far as I know about the drug, they would not be sleeping in bed.

KING: Jo, when you first went in were you immediately for not guilty or did you -- did you waver?

FACER: No, I was immediately for not guilty based on the medical examiner and some other pieces of evidence.

KING: You said the medical examiner didn't say, couldn't say it was a murder?

FACER: Well, when the district attorney asked her if he had died from being kicked in the head she said yes. And when the defense attorney said "Could he have died from a fall" she said yes.

KING: Mary, is this one of the problems prosecutors face either/or?

FULGINITI: You know, you do with expert testimony definitely because when you ask them well isn't it possible that this could have happened or that could have happened, when a defense attorney does that many times to be truthful, I mean the answer is yes. It is possible something else could have happened.

KING: Obviously it influenced this juror.

FULGINITI: Yes, it obviously did. I just think that's the job of the prosecutor, not that it wasn't done here, but the job of the prosecutor on redirect to bring that expert back to what this case is about (INAUDIBLE).

KING: So, the public -- so the public understands, Mark, what is the defense attorney's role?

GERAGOS: The defense attorney's role is to zealously advocate for his client. In this case, the juror I think came to the -- or the jury came to the decision they had to come to based upon what the evidence was.

The evidence was that basically there were two reasonable interpretations. One was that the child was murdered. The other was that he had died from a fall. Even the child's mother, who's on the show, was saying that she was racking her brain trying to figure out whether it could have come from a fall.

So, I don't know how you can blame the jury in this case. The jury did what they were supposed to do. They get jury instructions that basically tell you if there's two reasonable interpretations as to what happened, one points towards innocence, you must acquit.

KING: And indeed, Jennifer, you supported the jury at that time right?

WATTS: No, I didn't support the jury at the time, no. KING: You didn't want an acquittal?

WATTS: Oh, yes I'm sorry. I misunderstood you, yes.

KING: That's what I meant. In other words, you agreed with the jury's decision at the time they made it?

WATTS: Yes.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with some more and some more phone calls.

And then we'll discuss that mystery in New England. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, for the record, LARRY KING LIVE has made several attempts to contact Michael Lane. He has not returned our calls or answered our correspondence.

San Clemente, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi. My name is Carry Jaeger (ph). My son, Tyler Jaeger (ph), was killed back in 1994 in California. And there's a law here named after him. The circumstances of our case are really frighteningly similar to that of Jennifer's. And I was wondering how she's coping with having this wound reopened again, and if she's getting any help from support groups such as Parents of Murdered Children or anything like that?

KING: Was your son's killer found not guilty?

CALLER: No, he's in prison.

KING: Oh, OK. But you're talking about coping?

CALLER: Yes, I'm talking about -- yeah. Because I know when I had to go for a parole hearing, last year, it just reopened everything, to have to, you know, relive the facts of the case again and I'm wondering how Jennifer's dealing with all of that.

KING: How are you, Jennifer? How are you doing it?

WATTS: Well, ma'am, first of all, I want to say I'm sorry for your loss. And I'm not doing well at all. It's like you said, it's like you relive it, thinking about it you know, such in detail every day.

KING: Actually, this was terrible that he came forward in a sense.

WATTS: Well, you know -- I want justice for my son.

KING: I mean, he brought it all back for you.

WATTS: But yes, it's been very difficult. Just reliving it again.

KING: Decatur, Illinois, hello.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. I would like to know if you guys think there's a high possibility of vigilante justice, if he's walking the streets, now that he's admitted to killing the child. And Jennifer, as a mother, my heart goes out to you.

KING: Detective Baird, do you fear that, I guess is the right word, that someone will want to take it out on him?

BAIRD: Certainly, that's a concern of ours. But hopefully that wouldn't happen. We rely on our justice system and our court system, and, you know, we don't support that kind of activity.

KING: James Cope, do you fear that?

COPE: I don't fear that. I think most of the citizens out there know that you can't do something like that. You can't take matters into your own hands like that. Certainly the people in this state are very familiar with vigilante justice. And they stay away from it.

KING: Mary?

FULGINITI: Yeah, frankly, I think there's a bigger fear of it if he was incarcerated, because there are definitely gangs in prison that have no tolerance for men who commit crimes with regard to little children. So the fact that he's out might be a better thing for him.

KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: Well, you know, you always have that fear that that will happen. I suppose you could also, if he truly expected that he was going to be taken into custody and being punished, there's also the alternative that he might just do some harm to himself as well.

KING: Yeah. Thank you all very much. Jennifer, we wish you all that we can wish you.

WATTS: Thank you, Larry.

KING: All we can do is try to feel what you're feeling. Amazing story.

When we come back, with a murder case that's unsolved. We'll track it down right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Tom DeLay and Jimmy Carter among the guests next week on LARRY KING LIVE.

Rachel Entwistle and her nine-month-old baby daughter Lillian were found dead in the master bedroom of their Hopkinton, Massachusetts home last Sunday night. They had been shot to death. Neil Entwistle, Rachel's husband, Lillian's father, flew back to his native England before to discover -- before the discovery of the bodies. Neil Entwistle has been labeled a person of interest, not a suspect. Entwistle, an unemployed computer expert, allegedly has been linked to an Internet scheme to get rich quick.

To discuss this in Watertown, Massachusetts is Joe Dwinell of the "Boston Herald", associate editor. His coverage of the Entwistle case can be followed on the paper's Web site bostonherald.com.

In Boston is Dr. Henry Lee, chief emeritus, Connecticut State Police, professor of forensic scientist at the University of New Haven. Author of the book "Blood Crimes." In San Francisco is Candace Delong, the former FBI profiler. And remaining here with us in Los Angeles, Mary Fulginiti, the former federal prosecutor and Mark Geragos is in Charleston, South Carolina, the well-known defense attorney.

Joe, bring us up to date. What happened? Where are we?

JOE DWINELL, "BOSTON HERALD": Well, right now in the case, Neil Entwistle was finally interviewed today by Massachusetts authorities in Great Britain. We have a reporter over there. They say he was interviewed at the embassy for several hours, Larry.

KING: All right. Now, he left when?

DWINELL: They believe, the district attorney in Massachusetts believes he may have left Logan International Airport sometime Friday or possibly early Saturday morning heading to Britain.

KING: So he wasn't there when the people were killed?

DWINELL: Don't know. That is the key question in this case. You know, what did he know, when did he leave? The district attorney is trying to put together a time line. But they're saying it's difficult to say exactly when the murders took place.

KING: Why is that hard, Dr. Lee?

DR. HENRY LEE, PROFESSOR, FORENSIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Well, because the body wasn't found right away. Apparently the police checked the place on Saturday. Then the family checked on Sunday morning. Subsequently the second time police found the bodies, 6:30 p.m. on Sunday. Now, the time of the deaths is crucial in this case. If we can't establish the time of death, then you can't use a time line analysis either including Neil as a suspect or excluding him.

Right at this moment, the stomach content is crucial. We'll have to find out what the last meal she ate, and try to look and compare the stomach contents, and the last contact she had with anybody is Thursday. Of course, Neil, they don't know exactly Friday or Saturday morning, that's pretty easy to check the airline passenger log. Also check whether or not he bought the ticket in advance or at the last minute. So it's important, this moment, is to do a time analysis, and link the suspect or exclude a suspect.

KING: Candace Delong, why do you think he is a person of interest? And what does that mean?

CANDACE DELONG, FORMER FBI PROFILE: Well, first of all, what it means, it's more or less the modern-day media terminology for someone who is likely suspect. He or she is not named as a suspect yet. We started doing that, the media and law enforcement started doing that after someone was wrongly accused, I believe Richard Jewel in the Atlanta Olympic bombings back in the '90s. In terms of, I believe you asked me why is it important?

KING: No, why is he a person of interest?

DELONG: Oh, he's a person of interest for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is approximately 75 percent of the time an adult woman is murdered in America, she's murdered by someone that she knows. And a full 33 percent of women that are murdered are murdered by a current or former husband or boyfriend. So what one always -- and of course, she was murdered in her home. So he's the very first place any logical investigation would start.

KING: Would you agree with that, Mary?

FULGINITI: Yes, I agree with that. But the D.A., I just want to point out, is being very responsible in this case, and playing it very safe, and not rushing to judgment with any terms and labels here. I think that's the right way to do it. And it will prevent people like Mr. Geragos in South Carolina from potentially, you know, at the time a trial occurs ...

KING: Hitting him already?

FULGINITI: ... for claiming there was a rush to judgment. They didn't let them investigate any other leads.

KING: Hold it, Mark, do they need a motive? Mary?

FULGINITI: Yeah, they need to find opportunity first and I think it's always nice to have a motive, but sometimes you never find it. But it's nice to put the story together.

KING: You don't need a motive?

FULGINITI: No, you don't need a motive, no.

KING: Mark?

GERAGOS: One of the most fascinating things about this case is the fact that the police were in the house, searched the house, didn't find anything of any moment on Saturday after he's already gone. Obviously that's the big question in this case. As Henry mentioned, first you've got to establish when was the time of death, and even if you establish the time of death, then you've got to go back and say what was the search and what did the police do on that search on that Saturday.

KING: I thought he died on Sunday, Mark? I thought they found the bodies on Sunday? GERAGOS: That's when they found them. They had come to the house before and done a search before.

KING: Why did they come before?

GERAGOS: Somebody had apparently -- or a number of people had apparently come to the house for either a dinner party or come to dinner. And so it was -- they couldn't figure out why there was nobody was there. That's when the police were called out first. Apparently they were called out first. I don't know. You'd have to ask the police, or maybe the reporter, as to what kind of a search was done the first time they were there.

KING: Joe, do we know?

DWINELL: Yes, we do. That's the other major development today. The district attorney confirmed that the friends came to the house for the party on Saturday, couldn't get in. The mother became alarmed, called the police. The police did go in and make a search. They didn't see anything. They left.

The next day, the mother comes back, the friends come back. They all go searching in the house. They don't see anything. The police are then called back again Sunday night. They discover the bodies because of an odor in the house. That is what the D.A. said today.

GERAGOS: Larry. That's precisely the problem. That's what's going to be a major problem here. You've got two searches that were done when this guy's out of the country. And neither one finds the body -- either body.

FULGINITI: Those are the defense wheels already turning in his head. He's obviously setting it up for sort of police misconduct.

GERAGOS: Well, already -- you know ...

KING: One at a time. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: Mary's already accusing this guy. Mary's already got this guy accused.

FULGINITI: No, I do not.

KING: As the suspect. All I'm telling you is that's the problem. And that's what makes this case fascinating, if you will.

FULGINITI: No, what I did say is the district attorney has been very responsible in not labeling him as anything other than a person of interest. And with regard to this investigation, you know, originally the mother was just concerned because she couldn't get in touch with her daughter. So the police did a very cursory search. Because at that point in time they didn't think anything had occurred.

GERAGOS: What, they just missed a couple of dead bodies? They missed a couple of bodies during a cursory search?

FULGINITI: They not only missed it, the relatives missed it the next day. Because apparently ...

GERAGOS: That's if they ...

KING: Hold it. One at a time. We don't even know anything and we're arguing. Dr. Lee, yes. I want to ask Candace something, but Dr. Lee, go ahead.

LEE: Apparently the bodies were covered with blankets. So if the lighting is not too good in the house, and if the victims you know, the body is pretty small, and the nine-month-old daughter, so blanket maybe cover the whole body, did not take the necessary measures to remove the blanket.

So of course, later, after a couple days, I'm sure, because the temperature, the heating, and the bodies start to decompose. Even if the body is decomposed, the medical examiner should look at the body condition and should be able to figure out whether or not they died on Thursday or died on Sunday. And like I say, stomach contents is important component.

KING: Candace, is there an assumption by the prosecution, the FBI, the profilers, that the husband, as an assumption by the defense that it isn't? Do you work on an assumption?

DELONG: No. We work on facts. And of course, statistics are always present. You know, as I said before, this happens a lot, spousal murder happens more frequently than stranger murder. But I just learned something in the course of listening to this argument, and that is that when the bodies found, they were covered with a blanket. That is significant from a profiling standpoint in trying to analyze what happened. Covering bodies is not generally -- generally speaking, bodies are not covered, murdered people are not covered by a blanket when they're murdered in their own home when it is a stranger murder. Generally speaking.

KING: Really?

DELONG: Yes.

KING: Let me get a break and come back. That's fascinating. We'll be right back. Don't go away.

But first let's check in with Anderson Cooper who will host AC 360 at the top of the hour. Anderson?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yeah, Larry, about 14 minutes from now we're also going to be taking a close look at the Massachusetts murder mystery. We're going to be taking a look at Neil Entwistle's eBay businesses, basically this get-rich-quick Internet porn scheme that he seemed to be running. We'll take a look exactly how that worked and if that played any role in this strange crime.

Also tonight, the continued recovery of Sago mine survivor Randy McCloy, Jr. He's been moved out of the hospital into a rehabilitation center. The facility today let us inside to see exactly how Randy is expected to live his life for what they hope is only the next two months. We've also got an exclusive interview with his doctor. You'll be amazed to hear how they think he can get a full recovery. It's a great story.

All that and more, Larry, at the top of the hour.

KING: Thanks, Anderson. Staying on top of this New England mystery. Anderson Cooper at the top of the hour with AC 360 and we'll be right back. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTHA COAKLEY, MIDDLESEX D.A.: The deaths occurred sometime between Thursday night and possibly Saturday morning. We know that Rachel Entwistle was alive and spoke with someone on Thursday night. We believe that both she and the baby had been killed by Saturday.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COAKLEY: He is not on his way back to Massachusetts at this time. And the rest of the question I'm not going to comment on at this time. Obviously we're involved in pursuing him as a person of interest. It is helpful that we have found him and that we are in touch with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And Joe Dwinell has already reported that he's been interviewed in England. Dr. Lee, why no or so little blood?

LEE: Because they're gunshots. If the suspect have a distance from the victim, so we don't expect to find any blood spatter on his hands or his body. In addition, the blanket could be a regional cover, left on the bed. The shot was through the blanket. Then the blanket will absorb the blood. So we have to check the blanket very carefully, look for bullet hole. Because if it's small caliber, two shots were fired, one through the baby's body, then entered the mother, and through. The other one was found lodged in her head. So there's two shots, could be fired, one maybe through the blanket.

KING: Candace, this report about him operating a porno site how relevant is that?

DELONG: Well, it's only relevant, this Web site component to the story, is particularly relevant if for some way or other an individual would be able to find out where he lived, who he was, where he lived, based on the Web site. Or I've heard some kind of talk about the fact that possibly some kind of scheme, get-rich-quick scheme, if there was any kind of involvement in possibly duping other people out of their money. Then, of course, that would make you an enemy of many people. Simply running a porn site could make you an enemy to certain types of people. And it is certainly something that has to be looked into. KING: And Mary, that would make his family suspect. He goes on the lam. Someone was really ripped off, is threatening to kill somebody, isn't it? That could be in his defense that he operated this porno site.

DELONG: You know. It could. That's a theory. I presume the investigators are going to look at these different Internet schemes. Because it has been alleged that they were sort of get-rich-quick schemes and if there were any disgruntled customers, and if he received any threats, that information is going to be relevant to the investigation.

KING: It's possible, Mark, that he wasn't running from murder, but from that, right?

GERAGOS: Well, what was released, or what I saw today, or read today, that a spokesman from eBay said this guy had been, what he called a "good eBay citizen" up until January 9th when they got all kinds of complaints in a 48-hour period about scams or something like that. And at that point they suspended him from eBay. And it sounded like there were some very angry people. So that's something that's obviously that the investigators are going to look at.

KING: Joe, why has this become an international story?

DWINELL: I believe it all goes back to the original Web site where you see endless photos of beautiful picture, perfect family, and the mother and Lillian Rose, nine-month-old. It's just so sad. I just think that people see that, and this is such a horrific crime, and yet we don't know why it happened. We don't have the answers yet. And as we reported today, the eBay angle is very interesting. You know, he was offering people to get rich quick. He was going to teach them how to build their own pornography site. That was part of his deal.

KING: Let's take a call. Goldsboro, North Carolina, hello.

CALLER: Hey, Larry.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: My question is. I was wondering, when the guy bought the plane ticket, see if he had it all planned out.

KING: Mary, that will be the key?

FULGINITI: That's a good question, whether it was planned or a spontaneous trip to London. I think that will help add to the pieces of the puzzle. It's my understanding, based on the recent news report, and I don't know if this is accurate, that the ticket was purchased two days before he left.

KING: Candace, isn't it confounding, again, as a profiler, what father would shoot an infant daughter?

DELONG: Well, it's hard to understand. Child murders are always hard to understand, especially when the child murdered is supposedly or allegedly murdered by their own parent. But Larry, we do see it. We've seen it actually a number of times in our society the last 10 years. Think of cases where pregnant women have been killed by their husbands. And people have actually been arrested and convicted of killing their own children.

KING: We'll take a break and be back with some more right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COAKLEY: This was not a random attack. Obviously we are interested in talking to anyone who may have information about this. We have been in the process of locating Neil Entwistle.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Joe Dwinell, any reports of in-law contact here?

DWINELL: In England, they're not speaking to the press. In Carver, Massachusetts, they have said for a few days they may come out with a statement. It hasn't happened yet. Maybe tomorrow.

KING: This is the parents of who?

DWINELL: The parents of Rachel.

KING: OK. Are Joe's parents living? I'm sorry, Neil's parents living?

DWINELL: They are. Neil's father accompanied him today to the interview in England at the U.S. embassy.

KING: He went with them to England?

DWINELL: Yes, that's what our reporter in England says.

KING: I see. And you know this area, right?

FULGINITI: You know, it's close to where I grew up. So it's not ...

KING: what kind of town is this?

FULGINITI: It's a small town. And I have to suspect that this is probably one of the worst occurrences that's ever happened in this town because the population of it is not very large.

KING: Is this a small police department or the Boston police?

FULGINITI: That I'm not absolutely clear on.

KING: Who is it, Joe.

DWINELL: It's both. The state police have gone over the England with two Hopkinton detectives. This is Hopkinton. This is the start of the Boston Marathon. This town is a quintessential suburban town in Boston. Small town, big story.

KING: Big story that is spreading I guess because of the little child and the mother and questions about the father ...

FULGINITI: Oh, it's tragic. It's absolutely tragic.

KING: This is only going to grow.

FULGINITI: I agree. And it's growing by continents, it seems.

KING: Thank you all very much. Joe Dwinell of the "Boston Herald." The associate editor. Dr. Henry Lee, author of the book, "Blood Crimes," Candace Delong, the former FBI profiler, Mary Fulginiti, the former federal prosecutor and the well-known defense attorney Mark Geragos.

On Tuesday, January 24th we did a show on George Smith who disappeared on his honeymoon from a cruise ship last July. A guest who we had on that night opined on the relationship between George and his bride Jennifer and also speculated on what might have happened that night, the night George disappeared.

His speculations were not based on any known facts and don't reflect the views of this show or CNN, and we apologize to Jennifer and have invited her to come on a future show.

And don't forget -- well, by the way, we'll be with you following the State of the Union with outstanding guests. We'll come on at 1:00 midnight, 9:00 Pacific Time, Tuesday night following the State of the Union. Right now, our own State of the Union, the State of the State will be delivered by -- I got to figure out something to say each night.

COOPER: It works, it works, works.

KING: Anderson Cooper, the host of AC 360 is going to follow up what we've been talking about.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

Search
© 2007 Cable News Network.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us. Site Map.
Offsite Icon External sites open in new window; not endorsed by CNN.com
Pipeline Icon Pay service with live and archived video. Learn more
Radio News Icon Download audio news  |  RSS Feed Add RSS headlines