Return to Transcripts main page
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Massachusetts Murder Mystery
Aired February 9, 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: Is wife and baby were shot to death last month in their Massachusetts home and today in England, Neil Entwistle is charged with their murders and authorities wonder if it was supposed to be a murder suicide.
Joining us, Martha Coakley, district attorney for Middlesex County, Massachusetts. Then we'll meet Joe Flaherty, spokesperson for the shocked family of the murdered wife and baby. Renowned forensic scientist Dr. Henry Lee, noted criminologist Jack Levin, high profile defense attorney Mark Geragos. Former federal prosecutor Mary Fulginiti and more. Next on LARRY KING LIVE.
We begin with Martha Coakley, the district attorney for Middlesex County, Massachusetts. What broke this, Martha?
MARTHA COAKLEY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY D.A.: We've done a lot of work on this case, but we didn't have what we thought was an important piece of information on Tuesday afternoon when we were able to get forensic information that linked the .22 caliber handgun owned by Rachel's father that we knew Neil Entwistle had access to and had used to these murders.
KING: Where did you find it?
COAKLEY: Well, it was in her father-in-law's collection. We believe it was used on Friday to kill Rachel and Lillian and had been returned sometime Friday afternoon by Neil to the home. It was not known to be missing during this period of time.
KING: Why the supposition that it was supposed to be a murder suicide and then I guess he, for want of a better term, chickened out.
COAKLEY: There's some information I'm not at liberty to discuss, but there is some obvious information that makes this look different from what you might think of as your domestic violence profile. It doesn't appear it be in the heat of passion, some kind of struggle. It also doesn't appear to have been planned in either way, either to benefit him financially or to allow him to escape -- his movements after this indicate he hadn't really planned to go to the U.K., so it seemed as an after thought. There is some information we have that makes this a plausible theory in what is an otherwise somewhat inexplicable set of events.
KING: Do you wonder why he took the life of a child?
COAKLEY: Heartbreaking for this family. If the theory was I'll take my family with me and then kill myself, it certainly doesn't make the pain any easier for this family and we don't, frankly, have a good reason for that. It doesn't make any sense.
KING: I'm told his attorney in Great Britain says he will fight extradition. Does that mean he could spend as long as nine months to a year there?
COAKLEY: That is quite possible, it is our understanding. Because there are several layers of appeal he can go through if he does not waive, that is our understanding also. He said preliminarily today he would not agree to come back.
KING: Now there is a hearing tomorrow. What is that?
COAKLEY: That is a bail hearing where, as in the United States it is a question of whether he is going to be held, will he post? And we don't, frankly, know what will happen at that hearing.
KING: What will happen in Great Britain? Is there bail given in things like this?
COAKLEY: There is bail given although some information we have from officials at the Department of Justice is that in murder cases the British are much more likely to hold than they used to be. But how that would translate to this particular case you can't tell you tonight.
KING: Timeframe, Martha. When did he kill them and then when did he fly out.
COAKLEY: We believe that because we know she was alive Thursday night she spoke with her mother and based on other information we believe the murders happened sometime Friday morning. We believe he returned to Carver where her parents live to return the gun, spent the afternoon trying to get some resources to buy that plane ticket. We know he was at Logan Airport at Boston sometime early even and he probably, most likely, spent that time in the car.
He flew to London at 8:15 the next morning on a British Airways one-way ticket.
KING: Was he under financial pressure?
COAKLEY: We believe that he was. This is part of the investigation when we were looking at a motive. We know he had debts in England, we know that he was unemployed here and made efforts at being self-employed with some Internet ventures that had not done very well. And so, one theory again, one plausible theory is that he owes money. He's in a new country without a job, has a new wife and child. They're living in a pretty tony neighborhood and some of that may have been overwhelming to him.
KING: What's the history of extradition with Great Britain?
COAKLEY: It's been easier since 2003. We always had a good treaty. The one thing that the Great Britain will not do is extradite someone to a state with the death penalty. Massachusetts does not have one. The British authorities have been very cooperative and we believe that although it may take time that this will go relatively smoothly.
KING: You've had good cooperation with the authorities?
COAKLEY: We have. They have been extremely helpful from the beginning on this case.
KING: Scotland Yard involved?
COAKLEY: Yes. Scotland Yard basically particularly since it's a homicide investigation is the main authority for that, but Nottinghamshire police, as well as the metropolitan police have been also very cooperative.
KING: Are you still investigating or are all the threads put together?
COAKLEY: This case is not over. There is ongoing investigation. We expect there may be other facts or information that come to our attention. We still have work to do on this case, but we did believe at this stage that we felt we had enough to seek a warrant, probable cause to arrest him.
KING: We're going to take a break and when we come back we'll take some calls for Martha Coakley, the district attorney of Middlesex County, Massachusetts and then our panel will assemble. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRY SMITH, ITN (voice-over): The next development came at about noon today when Mr. Entwistle was arrested onboard a train at this tube station in West London. It is believe he boarded the train one stop further up the line.
The authorities in Massachusetts later confirmed that he now faces two charges of murdering his wife Rachel and daughter Lillian. The police believe he may have intended to shoot himself as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: We'll take some calls for Martha Coakley, the district attorney of Middlesex County. Nashville, Tennessee. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah. Good evening. My question is this, Larry. How much -- what was the extent and how much influence is the state police involved in the investigation of this as compared to what you're doing in Middlesex County?
COAKLEY: Well, one of the unusual things about Massachusetts is that we have 11 different district attorneys and we are elected and we work with all the cities and towns and local police, but at least in Massachusetts, in most of the counties, but not all of them. State police are designees for investigating homicides because the district attorney has jurisdiction over that investigation.
KING: Sarasota, Florida. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, hi, Larry. This question is for the panel.
KING: The panel hasn't assembled yet. Do you have a question for Martha?
CALLER: Yes, that's fine. I'd like to know if he had any life insurance policy on the child or the wife?
COAKLEY: We're not aware of any and we don't think that was a motive in this case. We've obviously looked at that, but that doesn't appear that was a motive here.
KING: Salt Lake City, Utah, hello.
CALLER: Yes, I just wanted to ask her. There seems to be such a rise in murders, you know, men murdering their wives and why she thinks this is and, also, I can't believe that somebody like Mark Geragos would even, you know, defend somebody like Scott Peterson.
KING: We'll get to Mark in a little while, but, Martha?
COAKLEY: I'm not sure, Larry, what the first question was. I'm sorry.
KING: There seems to be more killings, domestic killings.
COAKLEY: I think that there are more that we hear about. I think there's more coverage of them. It's hard to know statistically. In fact, domestic violence assaults are a little bit down. Although the number of other assaults are up. But it is good news and bad news. We know more about them and we see them more, whether we're able to change them or not is a whole different picture.
KING: We have a big fan of yours here, Martha. Mary Fulginiti is the former federal prosecutor, handled a lot of drug cases and she admires you a great deal. Do you have a question or a statement?
MARY FULGINITI, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Martha, I just want to say I commend the way you handle, not only the investigation in this case, but publicly the statements. You've really played it close to the vest, but you've tried to be forthcoming and you've waited until you have all your ducks in a row and I think you did a class act and it was a class job.
COAKLEY: Thank you.
KING: Was this hard, Martha?
COAKLEY: This was a difficult case. There's a lot of emotion, as there always is in a case like this. The intense scrutiny that everybody was under. The police officers and the witnesses involved in trying to get this case and not have it impaired, not have the integrity impaired by leaks and other information was difficult. But I have to comment our Hopkinton Police, our state police, I think the investigators did a fabulous job here and, also, the cooperation of the U.K. police has been extraordinary.
KING: Worcester, Massachusetts, hello.
CALLER: Hi, good evening.
CALLER: My question is, how did you decide that the gun would be traced -- that he took the gun out of the house, Neil?
COAKLEY: Well, one of the things we looked at, if we were looking at possibilities here was where could there be a gun that might match what we knew had been used. We knew it was a small caliber murder weapon and we knew, again that Rachel's father had guns. He was very cooperative with us. I should say that. The family has been tremendous through all of this. It was a difficult time but they have been very cooperative through this.
And so, that was a natural place to look, obviously. He owned a .22 handgun and, as I said earlier today without commenting more fully, we had some forensic information that allowed us to link that gun to the crime scene to Neil and, so, on top of all the other information we had, we were able to put that together.
KING: Have you talked to the parents?
COAKLEY: Which parents?
KING: The parents of the deceased?
COAKLEY: We have and, of course, we've talked with them from the beginning and we've been in constant contact with them.
KING: Now there's a bond hearing tomorrow. You would not expect him to get bond, right?
COAKLEY: I can't totally predict that. I don't have a feel for what may happen. We've been told that holding people without bail has become more common in London in murder cases, but, I just can't predict it, what would happen.
KING: Would you fly over at any time for any of the hearings?
COAKLEY: I think that's unlikely. I think that either lawyers from the British government represent the parties or there may be officials from the federal government. But I don't believe at this time that we would be involved directly in those proceedings.
KING: But don't you have a lot more knowledge of it than the British officials or the federal government would have?
COAKLEY: We do. But keep in mind these hearings really go to a fairly narrow set of issues. Is this the individual who's charged? Is there appropriate charges lodged against him? Is the paperwork in order? This is not really a mini trial or even a probable cause hearing. He's not able to contest what's in the four corners of the document so much as contest procedure. And in that respect, the British government, the folks who work over there are equally capable and maybe more so in terms of British procedure to see if we crossed our Ts and dotted our Is.
KING: Has the accused spoken to anyone from your office?
COAKLEY: I just can't comment on that, Larry. We have very strict rules about what prosecutors can say in impending cases.
KING: All right. Who will be his lawyer here?
COAKLEY: I don't know that. I don't believe he has one yet and I'm not aware that there is anyone yet.
KING: But he has British counsel, right?
COAKLEY: I believe that's right. I believe he would have been represented today, even in the preliminary hearing he had at the end of the day and he certainly would be represented by counsel tomorrow.
KING: I did not know that, that Britain will not extradite if the state has capital punishment.
COAKLEY: That is correct. Not a problem since Massachusetts does not. But Britain like most European countries will not. We had a case recently in Portugal where they would not extradite unless we reduced the charges to manslaughter. Because they will not indict anyone where there is a life sentence.
COAKLEY: Very strict protection of nationals is the idea. But we had a first degree case. We had to reduce it to manslaughter to bring somebody back.
KING: Martha, thank you so much. Thanks for all your cooperation.
COAKLEY: Thank you.
KING: Martha Coakley. The district attorney, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. We'll meet our panel right after this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON CARROLL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The medical examiner can not pinpoint the exact time of deaths. Investigators say it appears to be sometime between Thursday and Saturday. That does not explain how both family and police missed the bodies in previous checks of the home or whether there is some chance Rachel and her baby were shot in that bedroom after those checks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Let's meet our panel in Watertown, Massachusetts. Joe Flaherty, he's the Rachel Entwistle family friend, attorney and retired commander of the state police homicide unit for Suffolk County. Hopkinton, Massachusetts, Dan Hausle, reporter for WHDH who has covered this story from the beginning including making a trip to England.
In New Haven is Dr. Henry Lee, chief emeritus, Connecticut State Police, professor of forensic science, University of New Haven, author of the book "Blood Crimes."
In Watertown is Jack Levin, criminologist, professor at Northeastern University. Good to see Jack again. And here in L.A., Mark Geragos, the high profile defense attorney and Mary Fulginiti, the former federal prosecutor. First let's go to London.
Paula Newton is standing by, CNN reporter covering the story in London where Neil Entwistle was arrested today. What's the latest, Paula?
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now he's spending the night in undisclosed location. He is in custody and we'll see him tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. I was sitting not five feet from him this evening when he came in and said he would contest the extradition. And that, Larry, has triggered what will be for sure here at least a to 12-month process. Also, though, his lawyer, he does have counsel here. His name is Bren Brandon (ph). He has indicated that he will be seeking bail tomorrow and he lined up some character witnesses to prove that his client is not a risk.
KING: What, Paula, is the bail history in London in crimes like this?
NEWTON: Well, as Ms. Coakley was saying earlier, they really do in most of these cases try and keep the people in custody. Of course, certain representations will have to be made. You know, at this point, what they're trying to prove is he's not a risk to flee. In this case, he has already fled the United States, at least that's what prosecutors in the United States are alleging. It may be a really difficult job here to convince anyone that he shouldn't be in custody.
KING: Thanks very much Paula Newton of CNN on top of the scene in London. Mark Geragos, any chance he gets bail?
MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There is a chance he will get bail. The argument is going to be tomorrow morning by his lawyer. Look, he came here, he's a native. He could have gone to a country where they don't have extradition. He stayed here, he surrendered peacefully. He has got family ties there and the process could take, you know they say nine to 12 months. I've had cases where it's taken two years. So it's entirely possible that he gets granted bail.
KING: Mary, what do you think? MARY FULGINITI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I totally disagree. He's facing murder one charges and facing mandatory life without parole. I think given the charges and given the fact that he did flee from the United States to England to begin with. I think the chances of bail are very slim.
KING: Joe Flaherty, how is the family dealing with it?
JOE FLAHERTY, FAMILY SPOKESMAN: They're very strong, Larry, but I have to tell you, this is a very difficult time for them right now. You know, it wasn't that long ago that they put Rachel and Lily to rest and now to be faced with this information that, in fact, a person that they trusted that Rachel and Lily loved, that they - who was -- is responsible or at least is charged as somebody responsible in this horrific murder, murders. They're very sad right now.
KING: They liked him, right?
FLAHERTY: Yes. I mean, Rachel was a loving mother and wife and the family thought the world of him and this is such a betrayal of trust to everybody in Rachel's family.
KING: Dan Hausle of WHDH who has covered this story from get go and even gone to London. Were you surprised at the events today?
DAN HAUSLE, WHDH TV: No. That's one thing folks aren't saying. Nobody is saying they're shocked, they are surprised. People are not surprised because when Neil ran he was the one they suspected. When he didn't come back, they suspected him even more.
KING: And what do you make of the prosecutor's theory that they were possibly going to be murder suicide?
HAUSLE: Well, that's pretty interesting because that had not been thought up by a lot of people coming up with theories of this and it's really just increased the disgust in the public. The idea that, as you said, that he chickened out. That makes them angrier. If you can imagine anybody would be angrier than thinking of a husband killing his wife and child as he's accused.
KING: Dr. Henry Lee, what part does forensics play now?
DR. HENRY LEE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN: Well, very important, you know, ..22 caliber handgun linked to his father-in-law's handgun. So we have to prove that, in fact he took the gun and then put it back because any homicide investigation will look at motive, means, opportunity. Here we have a pretty good motive and the means, of course, the gun linked to him. Whether or not his fingerprint on the gun, were not, you know, have some knowledge or somebody know he took the gun, how he put it back, opportunity wise. Of course, that is an excellent case. He is the only one. No sign of break and entry, no sign of struggle and, basically, like an execution kind of style. Of course, there are other possibility, whether or not he and wife have a pact decide to homicide/suicide.
Many times we investigate cases, evenly recently, one of the cases people because lost a job, have financial problem, husband doesn't want the wife and kids to suffer. Decide to kill them all and commit suicide. We also have senior citizen because of health problems or love triangle issue. So, this is a possibility.
KING: Jack Levin, criminologist, professor at Northeastern. Haven't seen you in a long time, Jack. Good to see you again.
JACK LEVIN, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Nice to see you, Larry.
KING: What do you make of something like this?
LEVIN: In almost every case of family annihilation there is some catastrophic loss on the part of the killer. It's hard for people to understand this case because there was the potential for suicide. Most of these family annihilations occur out of anger. The husband/father is suffering through a nasty separation or divorce. He blames his wife for all of his personal problems and decides to kill her and everything she loves, which includes the children, in this case, one child. But I don't think this case is like that. This is a case, I think, of a man who was desperate. He had given up any hope of ever making it again. He felt profoundly responsible for his family members.
You know, they did think the world of him and he felt as though he was personally responsible for their well being. So, we hear things like he might have been a devoted father. He might have been a dedicated husband and because he felt that way, when everything failed financially for him, he decided he had to take his wife and his daughter with him to a better life in the year after, at least to reunite spiritually in a better place.
KING: Let's say that's true, Mark. Then he didn't take his own.
GERAGOS: That's correct. Let's say that it isn't true. Let's say something else happened. Before I am going to jump on the band wagon and start describing motives or presuming guilt, I'd like it see a little bit more evidence. And I think most people should. I mean, we still have at least theoretically a presumption of innocence in this country.
KING: You think in this case there is a presumption of innocence?
GERAGOS: No, there isn't. Clearly there isn't. I'm the lone voice in the wilderness here, obviously. Nobody else will give him a presumption of innocence. Everybody has got him already convicted. We have got the D.A. on TV taking calls from callers and answering questions like it's a do-it-yourself interactive CSI and we've got Mary complimenting her on that.
FULGINITI: Oh, come on. She has been careful with her comments.
GERAGOS: She has been very careful until tonight but tonight is when she crossed the line.
FULGINITI: How did she cross the line? GERAGOS: You do not get on TV and start doing interactive CSI.
KING: Most prosecutors would not have done that tonight.
FULGINITI: Most federal prosecutors would not have done that, but the state prosecutors, federal prosecutors are precluded from commenting on their cases.
GERAGOS: So are state prosecutors in most jurisdictions under the ethical rules.
FULGINITI: Perhaps that the case but I think most state prosecutors as we see in many of the cases. In the Peterson case and others in particular they did comment and they do comment quite readily. I just think in this particular case, I think Martha has handled herself very carefully and she has done everything not it convict him.
GERAGOS: I will agree until there is an arrest.
FULGINITI: What she has said here is that he has been charged with an offense. He has not been convicted of a crime. She said very carefully.
GERAGOS: And she speculated as to what the motives are and then started taking questions and said he got the gun from the father-in- law's and everything else. It's a little much. You're going to tell me if you're prosecuting that case, you would have done that.
FULGINITI: No, I would have never gone on television.
KING: We'll get a break and come right back with more, including your phone calls. Don't go away.
KING: Let's take some calls on this intriguing topic. Toronto, hello.
CALLER: Hello. My question is for Mark Geragos. Are we going to see an insanity defense in this case, given what we have heard from England? "The Sun" reported that he didn't know how he got to England. Could it be the baby seedlings of an insanity defense?
GERAGOS: Well, there are two things that naturally come to mind, at least to me in this case. If they haven't -- I'm speculating and I hate that -- but if they have evidence which points to him and that leads you through a chain of evidence, the D.A., when she gets on and speculates that he was in some state of despair and that it was supposed to be a murder/suicide or this or that, then there is, under Massachusetts law, the ability to turn that into what's called a mental defense.
If -- the other issue that's always kind of troubled me about this case, and that's why I would love to see evidence as opposed to people speculating, is if now, as the D.A. is taking the position that he, that these deaths took place on Friday morning, because he's out of the house by Friday afternoon, and the -- she was talking to her mother on Thursday night, there were two subsequent searches. And somebody is going to have to explain to me or -- not to me, but to whoever it is that is the fact finder here, how it is that if the bodies were there for two days, that nobody picked up on the fact when they went in and did it, first the search with the family and second a search by the police. Those are issues.
KING: Joe Flaherty, did the accused, to your knowledge, did he have some major problems?
FLAHERTY: You know, Larry, again, that's really getting into the crux of this case and the surrounding investigation, and the family has always refused to speculate.
KING: No, but do you know? No, I don't want the family. Do you know if he had any problems? Forget the family, you.
FLAHERTY: Again, you know, I wouldn't be able to share that if I did. I'm representing the family here. And I will tell you one thing, though, in deference to Mr. Geragos, Martha Coakley has always been a terrific prosecutor and a terrific district attorney, and, personally, I don't think that she stepped over any boundaries today.
KING: Dan Hausle, were you aware -- were you aware, Dan, in your investigation that this man had any problems?
HAUSLE: So far there's been no obvious indication of these problems. And by the way, that "Sun" report, the D.A. today said that at least the first part of it, about him supposedly saying that he didn't know how he got to England, she said that part wasn't true.
Other than that, we don't have any indications outward from any statements that there were any problems anyone knows about.
KING: San Clemente, California. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, this question is for anyone on the panel. Has anybody looked into the prospect, besides him being in financial despair, if there was any extramarital affairs or any other motives going on? Was there not a life insurance policy in place on the wife?
KING: Mary, they would look at that, wouldn't they?
FULGINITI: You have to assume that they investigated and looked into all those, and Martha said this evening that there was no insurance policy that they were aware of, and I'm certain they probably explored the extramarital affair avenue also.
GERAGOS: And if they had a life insurance policy or some other financial motive, they certainly wouldn't come out and say that it was because he was in despair. They would have -- here in California, for instance, you have special circumstances if a murder is committed for financial gain. So, that would have been some element that they would have pled.
KING: Dr. Lee, let's say they found the gun. How do they know that he used that gun?
LEE: That's a good question, Larry. They found two bullets in Rachel's body, so firearm examiner looked at (INAUDIBLE), and was able to test fire the handgun, .22 caliber handgun...
KING: Yes, but how do they know he shot it?
KING: Let's say he wiped the prints off. How do they know he shot it?
LEE: Exactly. If you wipe the print, of course (INAUDIBLE) opportunity. He's the one knows the father has the gun and also knows how to open the cabinet and put the gun back. And of course, I'm sure they're going to look for gunshot residue in the vehicle or clothing, trying to do some link, linkage between him to the weapon to the shooting.
KING: Jack Levin, is he, do you think, post the crime -- we don't want to assume that he did it -- what kind of mental state would he be in today?
LEVIN: Well, you know, Larry, I think that it's -- that's really tough for me to say. First of all, he solved the problem. I mean, it was a horrible way in which he solved it, but the way that the bodies were covered in the house in bed leads me to think that he may have felt remorseful even at that time, had pangs of conscience. And I've seen that happen in other murder cases as well, where somebody kills family members and then feels guilty.
But getting back to the idea of the insanity defense, it seems to me that he may try it if the evidence is overwhelming. But it probably won't work. Only 1 percent of all felony defendants even attempt the insanity defense, and it works one-third of the time. And when a child is the victim, it almost never works.
KING: Massachusetts, pretty liberal on it, though, isn't it?
FULGINITI: Well, Massachusetts, like many states, you know, have certain requirements. And if they do have a diminished capacity or insanity defense...
KING: I thought they had an easier chance to use it than other states. I may be wrong.
FULGINITI: You know, that I'm not actually specifically familiar with. But if they do, I mean, he can certainly allege it. I mean, we saw Andrea Yates attempt to do so in Texas -- obviously unsuccessful because they wouldn't let her allege it. But it is something that I have to say, I agree with Jack, that I think it's usually when there's overwhelming evidence, when they're caught sort of red-handed, that people typically do resort to something like an insanity defense, as opposed to diminished capacity.
GERAGOS: Well, except that there are instances, and you see it all the time, of where people are truly insane, even by definition. So, I don't know. I don't look at it as a gambit or a ploy. I mean, there is obviously here some serious issues, that you have to, as a defense lawyer, explore them.
KING: Dan Hausle has to leave us. One question, Dan, are you going to go back over to London?
HAUSLE: We have got someone else over there right now, but as this extends, as we're hearing, over a long period, we'll likely go back and watch the process.
KING: Thanks, Dan. Dan Housle of WHDH has covered this from the get-go. Back with more phone calls, don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARROLL: Early Saturday, January 21st, he appeared on a passenger list for an 8:15 a.m. British Airways flight to London's Heathrow Airport.
The British tabloid "The Sun" reports Entwistle told Rachel's stepfather, quote, "I can't remember how I got to England. Is it true Rachel and Lilian are dead?"
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: We're back. Before we get back with our panel, let's check in with Quentin Rayner, chief reporter for the BBC's "East Midlands Today," covering the story in England. Quentin, any prospects for bail here?
QUENTIN RAYNER, BBC: Well, that's the big question, isn't it, Larry? I mean, the proceedings will continue tomorrow. There's been indication from Neil Entwistle's lawyer that he may apply for bail. That hasn't been confirmed yet. It will also mark, of course, the start of the extradition, the continuation of the extradition procedures that were started earlier today.
So, we wait to see. To be honest, your guess is as good as ours, really. I think there will be some surprise if he's granted bail, but as some of your guests have already indicated, it is certainly a possibility. Bear in mind, he doesn't have a criminal record in this country. He hasn't committed a crime in this country. So, it could well be argued that he doesn't pose a risk of absconding. He may be asked to surrender his passport. He may well be asked to report to a local police station at regular intervals.
So, don't discount the possibility that he may be granted bail, and also bear in mind the whole extradition procedure and process could take a long time, maybe several years. Certainly, we're expecting several months.
KING: Why? Why does it take so long? RAYNER: Because there are so many stages that it has to go through. I mean, what has to happen now -- up until now, it's been a provisional extradition request. What happens now is that a certified extradition request now has to be submitted.
When that is received by a district judge, he then has to set a date for an extradition hearing. He has to set that date within two months of receiving this certified extradition request. Then the hearing is held, and certain criteria have to be met. Among them, whether the offense is an extradition offense. Also, does it contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
Now, if the judge is satisfied with that, it then has to be passed to the home secretary for approval. Now, the home secretary then has to consider it.
I mean, what one issue would be if there is a death penalty in the country that is calling for the person's extradition. This case, in the state of Massachusetts, there is no death penalty. That is not an issue. But say the home secretary then approves it, then Neil Entwistle would have up to 14 days to appeal. That would then go up to the high court...
KING: On and on.
RAYNER: ... which would consider his appeal in 76 days. It could go to the House of Lords, Larry.
GERAGOS: It is going to take nine months just to explain it.
KING: Thank you, Quentin. Quentin Rayner, chief reporter for the BBC's "East Midlands Today." Goes to the House of Lords, that would be funny.
By the way, Mary wanted to ask Dr. Lee a question about decomposition.
FULGINITI: Yes, Dr. Lee, I was just very curious as to when you would first start to smell an odor of a decomposing body, because they obviously went in on Saturday, did a cursory search and didn't smell anything, and did on Sunday. And if the bodies were, in fact, you know, if they were killed on Friday morning, how long would it take?
LEE: Well, it depends on room temperature. In New England, it's cold, so much have some heat. Depends what the temperature is at. Of course, blanket covers the body. This will help the decomposition, fasten the decomposition. Also, we have to look at the body weight and what kind of a condition. So, probably takes a day or two before the body starts to decompose.
KING: Lansing, Michigan, hello.
CALLER: We seem to be focused on life insurance policy taken out in the U.S. How about one in England? And if so, would we be able to access that information?
GERAGOS: Absolutely, they'd be able to access that information, and if they had it, I'm sure they would already have been talking about it, is my answer to that question.
KING: Philadelphia, hello.
CALLER: Hi, Larry, love your show.
KING: Thank you.
CALLER: My question is for Joe Flaherty. What has been the interaction between Rachel's family and your family since his arrest?
FLAHERTY: Well, actually, again, you know, all those conversations are -- have been investigated by the district attorney's office and the state police. And you know, those are things that they use to build their case and to take that information where it goes. And, you know, we wouldn't -- I wouldn't be able to comment on those specific conversations. But fair to say that if there were such conversations, they had been given to the prosecutor and to the investigators in this case.
KING: San Diego, hello.
CALLER: Hi. My question is for Mark Geragos.
CALLER: I was wondering if you would be interested in defending Neil?
GERAGOS: No, because it is a Massachusetts state court case, and he's going eventually, whenever he does get extradited, it would be a Massachusetts state court lawyer, and somebody who is well versed there.
KING: But if it were California, you would, right?
GERAGOS: If it's California, it's a case.
FULGINITI: They could have (INAUDIBLE). Come on, when did you turn down a high-profile case?
GERAGOS: Actually, actually, you're practicing criminal defense now. And if I'm not mistaken, you grew up in Massachusetts.
FULGINITI: I did grow up in Massachusetts.
GERAGOS: Yes, so there you go.
FULGINITI: I only do white collar crimes. I don't do street crime.
GERAGOS: What is that? I only do white collar crimes. I only do red, white, and blue collar crimes.
KING: Before we continue, Anderson Cooper will be aboard to host "ANDERSON COOPER 360" at the top of the hour. AC, what's up?
ANDERSON COOPER, HOST, "AC 360": Hey, Larry. Yes, thanks very much. Tonight, we're continuing the fascinating discussion that you were having on the arrest of Neil Entwistle. He is, of course, behind bars right now in England. We're going to talk to the district attorney on the case, hear why she thinks they got their man, and in particular, what she told us about the crime scene. Some fascinating details.
Also, the two sides of Neil Entwistle. We'll be investigating that. He was praised at his former school. I talked to his former headmaster. While others say he ran a shady Internet business. Joe Johns investigates exactly what we know about what Neil Entwistle was doing on the Internet. That's at the top of the hour, Larry.
KING: Thanks, Anderson. It's obviously the story, and we'll be right back with more. Don't go away.
KING: We're back. Framingham, Massachusetts. Hello.
CALLER: Yes, hi. I'm just wondering if anybody on the panel had answered the question on whether or not anybody knows whether or not there's any other suspects that they're looking at, with all the business dealings, the bad business dealings that the fellow had, and there's this maybe just another investigation like we had in Massachusetts with the Stewart case many years ago, in which the husband accused a black fellow of killing a wife and a pregnant...
KING: Remember that? Mary? You think there might be other...
FULGINITI: Well, at this point, no. At this point, they have charged him with the murder of his wife and his baby. So the answer to that question would be now no.
However, at the get-go, Martha said right from the beginning, you know, we're looking at all people, all individuals that could be suspects that could be involved in the killing. So I'm certain they looked at a variety of angles.
KING: What if a new development happened? They'd have to follow it, right?
FULGINITI: Well, if they had a new...
KING: Why are you laughing?
GERAGOS: Why am I laughing? Because...
FULGINITI: Why are you laughing?
GERAGOS: I had a case last month, literally, where I told the D.A. my guy did not do it. Rape case. They had the DNA. I asked them to test him.
FULGINITI: (INAUDIBLE) I didn't do it, though...
GERAGOS: I said, they've got to the DNA. Test it. Test it. No. I had to get a split and have the DNA tested. This poor guy, who has been in custody for two months, it's not him. I give them the DNA results and they still don't want to release him. So they are invested with it. They get invested. Prosecutors get invested.
FULGINITI: I have to agree to some extent, but if, obviously, the defense attorney was able to raise some credible reasons why the person didn't do it and there was another lead that was very, you know, a tangible, verifiable one, I can't say that they would just discount it.
GERAGOS: We've done shows here with you where the DNA, 18 years later exonerated the person, and you have shown film clips where the D.A. is still then arguing a second suspect theory, 18 years later.
KING: Fairfax, California, hello.
CALLER: Yes, hi. Boy, I'm enjoying the Mark and Mary show, it's great. My question is sort of a general one about why these cases, these high-profile cases -- it seems like the lawyers involved are more interested in their egos. And I go back to your case, Mark, with Laci Peterson and the O.J. case...
GERAGOS: Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you.
CALLER: It's really obvious in O.J. that he was guilty, and then Laci Peterson, but you're more interested in your ego.
GERAGOS: Right. I'm more interested in my ego. That's why I decided to pick up my practice and move a year -- move for a year.
GERAGOS: The problem is, and I will take responsibility for this. You hear what you want to hear, because there isn't a camera in the courtroom. And people say all the time, well, it's obvious here or it's obvious there. If you're familiar with the facts of what transpired, then it's a different situation. And, I understand that people like to get mad at the lawyers. Nobody embraces a criminal defense lawyer. You don't see people when they run for office put "criminal defense lawyers" for occupation.
The fact of the matter is, though, you have a Constitution and you -- if you get in trouble, the first person you're going to run to is a criminal defense lawyer and say, what about my rights?
KING: Jack Levin, you agree with that, don't you? LEVIN: Oh, sure. You know, it's interesting that criminal defense lawyers take high-profile cases, and certainly they get -- they benefit in many cases from that, but they also are under tremendous scrutiny at the same time from the public, by the Bar Association. So, it's kind of a mixed blessing for them. I'm glad that I'm not a defense attorney. I don't have to win an argument, I just like to get to the truth.
KING: Wouldn't you agree, Joe Flaherty, that whoever defends this accused, will be contaminated?
FLAHERTY: Well, I think whoever defends this person will do an excellent job for them. We have a great...
KING: But that's not the question. Will he be tainted?
FLAHERTY: No, I don't believe so. No, I don't think any defense attorney is tainted for the cases they take. That's our system. I do believe that, you know, if the prosecutor and the police do an excellent job putting the case together, I think even somebody as great a defense attorney as Mr. Geragos is, I think he'd have a hard time beating the case. So if we do our job correctly, I believe we'll be successful, and that's the system we have, and I think it's the best system in the whole world.
KING: We'll take a break and be back with some more moments. Don't go away.
KING: We're back. Stony Brook, New York. Hello.
CALLER: Love your show, Mr. King.
KING: Thank you.
CALLER: Did anybody ever find out if he ever applied to become United States citizen?
KING: Anybody know that?
FULGINITI: I don't know that.
KING: Do you know, Joe? You know, you're close to the family. Did he ever apply for that?
FLAHERTY: Well, I'm close to the stepfather. I do not know whether he's a U.S. citizen or not.
KING: No, I mean, whether he ever applied?
FLAHERTY: I don't know the answer to that, Larry.
KING: I see. That's a good question. That would have been interesting.
GERAGOS: It is a good question, whether he's here on a visa, whether he's got a green card. You'd want to know, I suppose.
KING: He's protected by his citizenry in this.
GERAGOS: Well, to the extent, you know, when they're going through all the extradition, and people say why it's so cumbersome, why can't they just go pick him up. Just remember, all of these things are so when the shoe is on the other foot. If you're here, and some foreign government wants to grab you off of U.S. soil, you would want to have the same kind of protection. So that's why they're in place, and rightfully so.
KING: But that statement that we heard about how long this is going to take...
GERAGOS: Well, I know.
FULGINITI: Well, that's only because of the appeals process. I mean, the actual proceeding and the hearing is not going to take very long at all. The documentation you put together is really pretty minimal, based on the treaty, and there really isn't much of -- you know, the scope of the hearing is very limited. It's limited to really whether or not the extradition request is a valid one and whether they've complied with the visions of the treaty, period.
So when you think about it, the hearing itself shouldn't be very cumbersome, but unfortunately if the U.S. succeeds, the appellate process...
KING: Are you surprised the prosecutor didn't have any plans to go over?
GERAGOS: No, not at all. Because I don't -- that would be very unusual. Every extradition case I ever had, and I've done quite a few of them, even if it's interstate, you do not see a prosecutor come from out of state to go handle it. I mean, they will let their counterpart do it, because precisely, as Mary says, the issues are extremely narrow. You know, is this the person? Is the warrant good? Is there any defense, you know, in terms of the interstate compact or a treaty of some kind?
So, other than that, no, you don't need it.
KING: Thank you all very much. Joe Flaherty, Dr. Henry Lee, Jack Levin, Mark Geragos and Mary Fulginiti as this fascinating case has more developments occurring today.
Before we go, Karenna Gore Schiff, the daughter of former Vice President Al Gore, has written a terrific and important new book, "Lighting the Way." Tells the story of nine women, remarkable and in some cases overlooked. Women who helped shape the 20th century, from politics to race relations, health and the rights of children.
We can all learn something of value from these inspiring true stories, and I bet we can learn something from "ANDERSON COOPER 360," as well. Tomorrow night on this program, Michael Smith will be our special guest, the Grammy-winning Christian singer with some interesting stories to tell.
There's always interest when we go -- I get excited myself -- when we go to "ANDERSON COOPER 360," who I think is going to be covering the same thing we've been talking about. Right, Anderson?
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com