Return to Transcripts main page
Aired February 09, 2006 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, GUEST HOST: Breaking news tonight, a major break in the mom and baby double murder mystery. Authorities arrest Neil Entwistle in London, charging him with murder. His young American wife and baby were found shot to death just a few weeks ago while they were cuddled together in bed in their Massachusetts home. Entwistle refuses to be extradited to Massachusetts to look Lady Justice in the eye. And tonight, the big question: Was it meant to be a murder-suicide?
Good evening, everybody. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace. Breaking news, Neil Entwistle is behind bars tonight, nearly three weeks after his beautiful wife, Rachel, and 9-month-old baby girl, Lillian, were murdered in their Massachusetts home. Around the same time, Entwistle went AWOL, flying to his native England. Today he was arrested in London and charged with two counts of murder. One particularly gruesome detail -- police believe Entwistle used his father-in-law`s gun.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARTHA COAKLEY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The picture we had was of a young couple starting out on a happy future.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The entire family is overwhelmed by the loss of Rachel and Lillian.
COAKLEY: This afternoon, the medical examiner completed his autopsies.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just totally, absolutely (INAUDIBLE) It`s just awful.
COAKLEY: The car that Neil Entwistle was driving has been found.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There`s a father, and he`s not in the country, and his child and his wife were buried.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for a minute did I actually think that he`d do something like that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The family is deeply saddened at the arrest of Neil Entwistle for the murders of Rachel and Lillian Rose.
COAKLEY: Neil Entwistle, with a firearm, shot Rachel Entwistle in the head and then proceeded to shoot baby Lillian.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Let`s go straight out to Richard Lodge, editor-in- chief of "Metrowest Daily," who has been tracking this case from the very start. Richard, huge developments. What is the very latest? Richard?
RICHARD LODGE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "METROWEST DAILY NEWS": Hi. Yes. A couple of questions were answered today that I think have been hanging over in people`s minds. One was, would Neil Entwistle be arrested in London almost three weeks after the murders in Hopkinton, Mass.? That question was answered, and he`s been charged with the crime.
The other question yet to be answered, although the district attorney tried today at a press conference, is what would they be speculating prompted someone to murder a mother and a young daughter? The district attorney tried to start piecing together the case this morning and looking for some answers.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, we`re very, very honored and delighted to have the district attorney of Middlesex County, where these crimes occurred, with us tonight, Martha Coakley. First of all, congratulations to all the investigators on some terrific detective work.
You know, this case has obsessed America, and a lot of people for the last few weeks have been sitting around, kind of scratching their heads, playing armchair quarterback and saying, Well, what`s he doing off in London, not even named a suspect, a person of interest? Well, it turns out you were very, very busy at work that whole time. what were the key developments that led to this break in this case?
COAKLEY: Well, investigators did work very hard from the beginning. It was obviously a case we wanted to solve, but we wanted to do it right, as opposed to quickly. And I think in adding up a lot of the investigation, as I indicated earlier today, on Tuesday, we did get some forensic information that allowed us to conclude that we had appropriate evidence at this time to ask for a murder warrant.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And of course, the most heart-breaking aspect of this for the family of Rachel is that you believe that Neil Entwistle used his father-in-law`s gun. Tell us what you can about that.
COAKLEY: Well, we know that he had access to that gun. In fact, we know that at least on one prior occasion, he had gone shooting with her father and had used that gun. You know, in looking at this, we sort of thought, Well, where would a gun be available from? So we did focus on that, and it did turn out -- we believe at this time that that was the gun that was used.
It is unfortunate -- it`s -- certainly, the whole situation is unfortunate for the Matterazzo family. They have been extremely cooperative with us. And it`s just one of those pieces that you wish you had a better answer for. But right now, our job was to at least bring charges against the person we believe was responsible for this.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Take us through the timeline because it is a complex timeline, especially the aspect of him allegedly getting the gun from his father-in-law and then returning it, which is very eerie and creepy, if it`s true. Starting on Friday, the 20th, what happened?
COAKLEY: We believe -- and some of this is subject to further confirmation, but we believe that -- we know Rachel was alive Thursday night. We believe that the shootings probably took place sometime Friday morning. That after that time period, Neil headed back down to Carver to return that gun, and then spent the balance of the afternoon, the early evening, trying to figure out how he was going to get back to London and made some inquiries at Logan airport, finally bought a ticket at 5:00 AM Saturday morning. And we know that he was on an 8:15 flight to London on British Airways.
And of course, many viewers know that investigators did go to London, met with Scotland Yard and other investigators. But we have tried very hard, with all the public interest in this, to do our job to try and make sure that we put the pieces together. And there were a lot of rumors, speculation. There was a lot of incorrect information out on this case. And again, as I`ve said, you know, we`ll try this case in court. He is innocent until he`s proven guilty at trial.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Absolutely. He has the presumption of innocence. You said at your news conference the murder was effected, the suicide was not. I know you have to be careful about what you say, but what did you mean by that?
COAKLEY: Well, one, we looked at the circumstances to try and figure out why. Does this make sense? You know, we don`t throw our common sense out the window, either, when we`re trying to resolve a case like this. It does not fit what you might think is the classic domestic situation, where there`s a crime in the heat of passion, didn`t appear to be a fight or a messy crime scene.
It also did not appear to be extremely well planned out. The trip to London was not something, apparently, that he had thought about or that he was trying to make an escape. It doesn`t like he, in a classic case, where you might by trying to collect on an insurance policy -- we don`t have any of that here. And so -- and it is a theory. I say that to some extent, it`s speculation. But we do have some information, some of which I`m not at liberty to disclose, that would lead us to think at least it`s plausible that that was part of what he had in mind.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: In other words, that he backed out. He wanted to kill himself, and that was the one part he couldn`t go through with. What a shock.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Now, of course, everybody`s wondering, how did he get the gun back into the case, the gun collection case? Did he have a key? I know he had lived with the parents, the in-laws, for several months, so he knew their patterns. He knew when they wouldn`t be home. What can you tell us about that?
COAKLEY: Well, he had access both to the house -- and the gun was properly secured, but he also knew where the key to that was. And so without much difficulty, he could have easily let himself into the home. Again, we`re not sure when he took the firearm because Rachel`s family never knew it was missing, but it would have been a fairly easy matter for him to go back down Friday, enter the house and replace the gun from where he had taken it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What can you tell us about the crime scene? Much has been made about the fact that investigators missed the bodies the first time they went into the home to look. What`s the explanation for that?
COAKLEY: Well, the original call was for a well-being check. At least in Massachusetts, many police departments get called if people aren`t sure what`s happened. In many departments, they don`t even go inside the house. They want to make sure there`s no sign of a B&E. In this case, they went inside and didn`t, you know, smell carbon monoxide. They didn`t see anyone who had fallen down or anybody in distress. And so they left -- perfectly appropriate procedure.
The next day, family and friends went in and didn`t see anything, either. It was a big bed. There was a lot of bedding. And there was much made at the time of it. In the end, I don`t think it will affect the trial. And in fact, what it does do is now pin down for us some of the timeline that we now know when they went in Saturday night, we believe that Rachel and Lillian were there and had been killed earlier on Friday.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And again, I know you have to be careful about what you say, but can you try to clarify for us how Rachel and Lillian were killed? Because we had heard that, of course, they were huddled together, but there were some reports initially that Rachel was hit with two bullets, one that went through Lillian`s torso and then hit her. But then on the death certificate, it`s only listed as one bullet to Rachel.
COAKLEY: Well, the cause of death -- the medical examiner ruled the cause of death to Rachel was one bullet to her head. But the -- and the baby -- they were lying together, and we don`t know whether they were napping, they were sleeping. They were together in bed. The baby was in front of her on their side. There was a bullet that went through the baby into Rachel, but the medical examiner did not believe that was the cause of Rachel`s death.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So I just want to clarify, make sure I heard you correctly. You`re saying you believe they were sleeping when they were shot?
COAKLEY: Don`t know that. We think they may have been napping. They may have been sleeping. Again, we`re not sure exactly what time it was, but there does not appear to be any evidence of, again, a struggle or that they had run there, and so we think that perhaps they were sleeping or dozing. Don`t know for sure, though. Can`t say.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Martha, obviously, this is a gruesome case. As a person, though, as human being, what`s your reaction? I mean, there`s plenty of crimes of passion, but to shoot a mother and a baby possibly while they`re napping, stealing the gun from the father-in-law and then surreptitiously returning it, what does that tell you about premeditation?
COAKLEY: Well, you know, clearly, whenever we have a crime with a weapon -- you know, in Massachusetts, again, premeditation can be a tenth of a second. And so we`re not -- we`re still unraveling some of this. And it certainly says that there was an intent to -- if this is the person who did it, there was an intent to pull the trigger, there was an intent to kill, intent to murder. And so it`s fairly specific in Massachusetts law that if these facts as alleged are true, then a jury could find that someone`s guilty of premeditation. Beyond that, though, we can`t really say how long this was in the planning.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: What happens next? He is in London. He`s said he doesn`t want to be extradited. What do you do to get him back in the United States?
COAKLEY: Well, the British have a process, as do we, for extradition. It`s a little easier after 9/11. The treaty since 2003 may help us speed up the process. But he is entitled to due process in Great Britain, and my understanding, at least preliminarily, is that he intends to exercise that. We will go through those proceedings, and it could be weeks or it could be months. I think we`ll have a better idea in the next few days how long this will actually take.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: District Attorney Martha Coakley, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And once again, congratulations on this huge development in the case.
I`d like to go straight out to Dr. Jonathan Arden, medical examiner, and ask him about the ballistics. How do you connect gunshots with a particular gun and tie it to a suspect?
DR. JONATHAN ARDEN, MEDICAL EXAMINER: There`s basically four ways that you can tie the gun to the victim and to the suspect. The first is -- not too alarming or not too shocking -- is fingerprints. You can have fingerprints on the gun which will match the gun with whoever touched the gun.
The other kind of a fingerprint, if you put that in quotation marks, is the markings on the bullet. Every bullet that goes down the barrel of a gun takes on markings that are unique to that gun. So if you have a weapon you suspect was used, you test fire it, compare that test-fired bullet with the bullet taken from the victim`s body, and you look at them together under the comparison microscope and you can match up the physical markings that is essentially like a fingerprint, and that ties that gun to that murder.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Except there`s a problem here in that we believe, and the reports are, that he used that particular gun before in some sort of a shooting process where he was with his father-in-law, and so he had touched that gun previously. Couldn`t the defense argue, Well, wait, the evidence you found on that gun is really from the previous, when they went to the target range or whatever?
ARDEN: That`s always a possibility with fingerprints. One of the other things that I`m thinking about is the connection between the victim and the gun may also be a biological one, where you can have what they call blow-back, where blood or tissue from the victim may end up inside the barrel of the gun or on the muzzle of the gun. And that`s another way that you can link up how that happened. Of course, you can always argue that the fingerprints could come from another time, but that`s something that the defense would have to try to sustain and try to overcome the burden.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Briefly, to private investigator Tom Shamshak. Is this an open-and-shut case, or is this going to be one of those messy cases where everybody is coming up with all sorts of explanations for why there is ballistic evidence?
TOM SHAMSHAK, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, FORMER POLICE CHIEF: Jane, I`d like to emphasize what your guest just said, that if this is a close contact injury and there was blow-back, there was DNA on that weapon, the Massachusetts State Police would have looked at it locally and then sent it off to the FBI academy for further examination. But this case is really starting to shape up as a very closed case. I think that this is a good, strong case that was methodically plotted by the local district attorney`s detectives, and I think they have a solid case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Well, we`re going to talk to defense attorneys in a moment who might have a totally different take and might come up with a whole bunch of theories and explanations that defense attorneys in this case might end up using.
To tonight`s "Trial Tracking." A jury convicted Daniel Porter (ph) of kidnapping his own children to terrorize his ex-wife. Sam and Lindsey (ph) Porter have not been seen since June 2004, when Porter picked them up from their mother`s home in Independence, Missouri. Since then, Porter`s told horrible stories of selling his kids or sending them into a pornography ring, but he will not reveal the children`s real whereabouts or even if they`re alive.
Also tonight, three children murdered -- 7-year-old Elvis and his 5- year-old twin siblings, Samantha and Samuel Mendez -- allegedly smothered and poisoned to death by their mother, buried in Arkansas yesterday. Police say Paula Mendez killed her children in despair over her husband`s demand for a divorce.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace. Tonight, all attention is on London, where Neil Entwistle, the suspect in a gruesome Massachusetts double murder, sits in jail after saying he doesn`t want to be extradited to face charges of killing his wife and baby girl.
For the very latest, let`s go straight out to BBC correspondent James Roberson in Nottingham, England. James, give us the very latest on this extradition angle.
JAMES ROBERSON, BBC CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Jane. Yes, the situation was that in court tonight, in London, Neil Entwistle just spoke to confirm his name. It was a very short hearing, about five minutes only. He, as I say, confirmed his name, his date of birth. He appeared calm. He was dressed casually.
And Alison Reilly (ph), representing the U.S. government, gave only brief details of the allegations against Entwistle. The accusation was that he`s committed two murders in America before January the 27th this year.
Now, when the judge, the district judge, asked Entwistle whether he understood the allegation, Entwistle simply replied, Yes, I do. And Judge Workman (ph) also said, I understand you`ve been asked about the possibility of your consenting about your return to the United States. I understand you`re choosing not to do so at this stage. At this stage, yes, confirmed Entwistle. So he`s confirmed he does not want to be extradited.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You know, there`s something here that doesn`t seem to add up for me. This is supposedly a murder-suicide, and the suicide part never happened. But yet all the reports about Neil Entwistle seem to indicate that he`s calm, cool and collected. Surveillance videos from the airport reportedly show him calm, cool and collected. You say in court he`s calm, cool and collected. That doesn`t jibe. My question to you is, is he on a suicide watch tonight? In other words, are they watching to see if he`s suicidal? And if not, is it because he`s so cool?
ROBERSON: We don`t know, to be quite honest, whether he is or not. He probably is on a suicide watch. That`s quite normal in this sort of circumstance, since he`s now behind bars for the first time. But at this stage, it`s very unclear to know exactly how he`s feeling. We`ve heard nothing from the family, from him or his family, not a single word during the whole of this investigation. So it`s very unclear as to what he`s feeling, other than his lawyers may have advised him just to say nothing, do nothing, appear calm, and just see how things turn out.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We want to talk more about the extradition issues. But I have to ask you, how are the people of London reacting to all of this? I mean, the United States is obsessed with this case. Is there an obsession going on in Great Britain, as well?
ROBERSON: Frankly, no, not particularly. Today there`s been another very big case, where another man was accused and has been cleared after three trials of a murder charge. That has been obsessing the -- that`s the top story in Britain today. So this is of some interest, and it`s been midway down the news bulletin, but not particularly of interest, certainly not in London because, obviously, this man comes from Nottinghamshire, which is 150 miles north of London. So in London itself, there`s interest amongst the media, but not amongst Londoners. There is interest, however, here, where I am, in Nottingham, because he`s a local man.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. Stand by. We will be getting back to you.
To tonight`s "Case Alert." It has been a painful two years for the family of a Massachusetts woman, Maura Murray, who disappeared after a minor car accident in northern New Hampshire. Murray, a 21-year-old student at U. Mass, was last seen on February 9, 2004, walking away from her car at the scene of the crash. Maura`s loved ones have searched the area many, many times, but they have yet to find any clues at all. So if you have any information on Maura Murray, please call New Hampshire State Police at 603-846-3333. Please, help us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COAKLEY: This is a very tragic and obviously of great interest to folks how this could have happened because it`s our worst nightmare, in some respects, mother, child. It`s a very sad story.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell, sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace. Neil Entwistle charged with killing his wife and baby daughter. And everybody`s trying to figure out why would he do such a thing? One thing we know for sure, however, is he doesn`t seem to want to come back to the United States. Now, there is a bail hearing set for tomorrow.
Let`s go back out to our BBC reporter across the pond, James Roberson. What do you expect to happen at that bail hearing tomorrow? Could he be granted bail?
ROBERSON: It`s possible that he could be granted bail. The procedure is, is that -- in Britain, is that if somebody is not considered likely to abscond -- and he has, as far as we know, gone along with the police and been in contact with the police over here ever since he got back to Britain -- then there`s every reason to expect that he could be given bail.
But if he was, he would probably have his passport taken away from him, and he would have to report to a police station every single day. And also, he would have to stay possibly at his home in Worksop or with some relative where the police would be able to keep tabs on him. But it`s possible he could be given bail.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Former federal prosecutor Michelle Martinez. This is crazy! I mean, obviously, he`s a flight risk. How could he get bail?
MICHELLE MARTINEZ, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Oh, absolutely, this is crazy. I mean, this is somebody who`s already absconded. He was in the United States and he fled to England. I can`t imagine anybody who`s more likely to flee again. It`s easy to get a false passport. All he`d have to do is buy one and he`d be gone.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, why are they even considering that? I mean, is it because this is happening in England? Is it because perhaps our side of the story, the people from Massachusetts, are not there to argue their side of the case?
MARTINEZ: Well, it`s true that it`s the British lawyers who will be arguing in the British court, but I`m sure they`re asking for him to be held. The reason that he wouldn`t be -- that he might be granted bail is because he`s a local citizen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Arrested for murder. American police now believe Neil Entwistle did shoot his wife and baby daughter.
JOE FLAHERTY, FAMILY SPOKESPERSON: God didn`t do this. There is evil among us.
MARTHA COAKLEY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We believe possibly that this was intended to be a murder-suicide, but we cannot confirm that.
FLAHERTY: Everyone that became a friend of Rachel`s became a very close friend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell filling in for Nancy Grace. And, of course, Neil Entwistle has the presumption of innocence. He has been charged, but he hasn`t been convicted of anything. We want to stress that.
And also stress we`ve been trying to talk to his lawyer across the pond, but we have not been able to reach that attorney.
Let`s go now to Stephanie Jones, clinical psychologist, and try to talk about the big issue, the why. Why would a man seemingly in love with a beautiful wife and a beautiful baby kill them both?
And we have a lot of information about pressures. I mean, they were married, and they were in England. Then they decide to leave England where he had a job. He leaves his job to come to the United States. He is unemployed. She has told a friend she wants to be a stay-at-home mom. But the...
STEPHANIE JONES, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: ... agreement to begin with.
JONES: She might have sprung that on him; we don`t know. Sometimes, when people get married, she might have agreed. She was working as a teacher. And then she might have had second thoughts when she had the kids and said, "You know what? I want to be a stay-at-home mom," which often happens and this conflict arises spontaneously.
And men aren`t prepared for it, because women sometimes aren`t prepared for it. Sometimes women don`t even know that they`re not ready to go back to work. Sometimes they think they`ll want to go back to work and, in fact, they have second thoughts.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And the whole fact that he moved to the United States, I think it`s very significant that the first place he goes when he gets into deep, deep trouble is where? Back to Mom and Dad in England.
JONES: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. He ran right home where it was safe for him, where he was familiar. And then he probably didn`t want to leave in the first place. I mean, it was a tremendous sacrifice to leave his home that he was close to, his family, his friends, his job. And to come to the United States to live with her family to raise a family is a tremendous sacrifice for somebody.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But what I don`t understand is, why the murder- suicide theory?
Let`s go to Joe Lawless, defense attorney. Do you think, if the forensics prove overwhelming, that he will mount an insanity defense?
JOE LAWLESS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don`t think, Jane, from what I`ve heard the forensics are going to prove anything other than the gun was the murder weapon. I don`t think they have any evidence to tie him to the gun. They don`t have a witness to the killing and, quite frankly, if I were advising Neil Entwistle now, I`d tell him to stay in London, because the atmosphere in this country is such that he couldn`t get a fair trial with a gun and a knife. It wouldn`t happen.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, let`s go to Rahul Manchanda who is an expert in these kinds of affairs. He is an international lawyer. Tell us about the whole extradition battle that we can expect. Apparently, there could be months that could go by before he`s brought back here, if at all.
RAHUL MANCHANDA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I don`t think so. I think that a lot`s going to depend on tomorrow`s hearing. The judge is going to go through the evidence and find out if there`s reasonable suspicion.
The 2003 treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. allow for easy extradition, and with a lower threshold of proof required. And the U.K. ratified that treaty; the U.S. has not done so, but the U.K. has shown that they would be helpful to this extradition.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I had read that the judge in Britain had 60 days to certify the extradition and after that Neil Entwistle can appeal. Is that incorrect?
MANCHANDA: Well, he can appeal, but the reality is that it`s much easier now to extradite people from the U.K. to the U.S., pursuant to this treaty of 2003. It used to be a much higher burden of proof required, but now that`s not the case.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK, so all those who have said, "Oh, boy, the prosecutors from Massachusetts are going to have to take a flight over from London and launch a mini-trial," they don`t know what they`re talking about? Because I`ve heard pundits today say that very thing.
MANCHANDA: Well, it wouldn`t be fair to try him in London because all the evidence of the crime took place in Massachusetts. Everything is located in Massachusetts, and that`s where he fled from.
But it`s interesting to note that he might cite the fact that he is a British citizen to avoid extradition. I think he`ll throw everything but the kitchen sink into the defense, but the reality is that he should come home to face the music.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I absolutely agree. He definitely should come home to face the music.
Joe Lawless, defense attorney, we were talking about the ballistics evidence, and you said the only thing you could prove is that this particular gunshot shot Rachel and Lillian, but not necessarily connecting it to him.
And I think what you`re talking about is the fact that the there have been reports that he had used this gun in the past with his father-in-law. So could the defense attorney mount some kind of defense that, hey, whenever you found on that gun was from the time we went out a few weeks ago, it has nothing to do with this murder?
LAWLESS: Yes. And that assumes that something`s going to be found on the gun in the first place. There may be traces of DNA. There may be something they can link to them.
But as far as I know -- and we`ve heard the prosecutor talking about all the evidence they supposedly had -- they don`t have any evidence that he had the gun in his hand and pulled the trigger. They really don`t have any evidence that he`s the killer. Got a lot of speculation, but no evidence.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Wait a second. Former federal prosecutor Michelle Martinez, is this going to start getting ugly now? We`ve seen so many cases where somebody is accused and then they try to point the finger at someone else, say someone else borrowed the gun, maybe even, God forbid -- it scares me to even say this -- try to point it at another family member?
MARTINEZ: No, they`ve thought about this. They know exactly what happened with that gun. They know when he shot it in the past, and I`m sure they know whether it was cleaned between when he shot it before and when it was used in the murder. They didn`t just forget to think about this issue, believe me.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, I understand that, but what I`m saying is the defense now, Joe Lawless, going back to you, it really, I think, enrages people more than anything else when somebody is accused of a crime and then they start counter-charging at other people and sort of turning other innocent people into suspects because that`s their only defense.
LAWLESS: Jane, the one thing you have to remember is he`s an innocent person. It`s not his obligation to rebut charges that are made in the media by a prosecutor. He is presumed innocent, and he is innocent under the law, and he has every right to insist they prove that he did it.
Not maybe, not could have, should have, would have, but what is your evidence, what can you prove, not what can you say in press conference after press conference. If they don`t have evidence, he shouldn`t be convicted.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So let`s go back to Richard Lodge, editor-in-chief of "MetroWest Daily News," who has been covering this case from the very beginning, to learn about the key, key, key aspect of this case is the alleged borrowing of the gun.
How far apart are the two homes? How would he have had a key to get into the gun collection? And then how could he possibly return it? And how would they know when he returned it if they weren`t at home?
LODGE: Well, the homes are about 40 or 50 miles apart. And we know the Entwistles lived Rachel`s mother and father-in-law -- or stepfather, excuse me. So Neil certainly knew how to get in the house. He may have had a key. That hasn`t become clear.
He knew their routine. He knew where things were in the house. He had fired the gun before. He knew where a key was to the gun cabinet and clearly had a way to get in and return the gun, which is what the district attorney is claiming.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So, Tom Shamshak, is that enough, private investigator and former police chief, or are we going to have an ugly trial?
SHAMSHAK: I don`t think it`s going to be ugly. I think also that, if there was a discharge in the house and it was transferred onto his hands, that could have also been transferred onto the steering wheel. We don`t know what they have for evidence in that automobile.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: You may actually have raised a very good point, because we`ve all assumed, "Oh, he went to London. Therefore, he`s taking a lot of evidence with him, clothes that he may have worn." In fact, we don`t really know -- and it is a very good question, if somebody has the answer to this -- whether or not he was carrying a suitcase with him when he went.
Let me ask Ellie, who knows just about everything about this case. Ellie, our expert, did he have a suitcase with him?
ELIZABETH YUSKAITIS, PRODUCER: We haven`t heard that. We haven`t heard either way whether he had bags with him or not.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: So we don`t know that but that would be interesting. He could take a lot of evidence, put it in a suitcase, take it to London, and it could be floating down the river on the other side of the pond. I mean, we don`t really know.
But you`re saying that he -- just because he`s a human being and he can`t be perfect, he has left evidence behind. Is that what you`re saying, Tom?
SHAMSHAK: Yes. And trash day was the following day.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: OK. Well, that`s interesting.
I want to go back to our clinical psychologist Stephanie Jones, because I have to tell you that this is certainly -- and, again, the presumption of innocence; he`s only accused -- but this is not the first case of a husband accused of killing his wife that we`ve heard -- this show is chock full of them.
Why isn`t this considered a national epidemic? Why isn`t there soul searching? As someone said to me today, if women were accused of killing men at this rate, and if you took every newscast and reversed the sexes, there`d be a national uproar.
JONES: Absolutely. I think that there should be more attention paid to this issue earlier on. And I know people scoff, and we say, oh, other relationship books are out, and people talk about how to manage stress.
But it`s true. People really do need to know how to manage their emotions and how to manage stress more effectively, so it doesn`t get to this point where people are pressure-cookers and they explode.
Obviously, this an extreme case of an explosion, but people are exploding all over the place. And men are, in fact, more prone to violence and they`re less able to effectively deal with their emotions. So until men become more emotionally intelligent and people in general become more emotionally intelligent, we`re going to have this problem on our hands.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s something that we all have to think about as a society, because people are dying. It`s a real crisis, I think. I`m going to call it a crisis. What the heck. We`ll be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COAKLEY: The picture we had was of a young couple starting out on a happy future. There`s no indication in the past of trouble. All we know is some of the information that we looked at, in terms of the few months leading up to this, that we would always look at to see, why did this happen? Could this have happened?
And we did determine financial difficulty. Beyond that, I can`t really characterize. Those facts will come out at trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FLAHERTY: The family is deeply saddened at the arrest of Neil Entwistle for the murders of Rachel and Lillian Rose. Rachel and Lily loved Neil very much. Neil was a very trusted husband and father, and it is incomprehensible how that love and trust was betrayed in the ultimate act of violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell sitting in tonight for Nancy Grace.
Martha Coakley reporting today Entwistle apparently had debts in England and was having financial troubles here in the United States. Our Internet blogger, Clark Goldband, joins us now.
Clark, what were some of the signs of financial trouble, as you look at his Internet businesses?
CLARK GOLDBAND, NANCY GRACE INTERNET BLOGGER: Well, Jane, there`s a treasure trove of signs, and most of them involve eBay. If we can take a look at SR Publications, which is the user name for the Entwistle family, you see that he has 113 net positive score.
Every time you do a transaction on eBay, it counts as a positive, as long as you complete the transaction. Well, we see in the past month, there are 17 negatives on Neil Entwistle right here. "Don`t trust the seller. Doesn`t sell."
If we could scroll the screen down a little more, you`ll see negative after negative after negative. Now...
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Oh, wow, yes. "Beware." "Absolutely nothing received." "Seller not responding." Wow, those are a lot of complaints.
GOLDBAND: Now, here`s the strange part. The positives were on selling get rich quick manuals and how to make money. So it`s questionable if that actually helps you make money, but he did send them out.
The negatives come from software, cheap software. Now, this software retails for about $299. He was selling it for $30. And we know he has a background in computers. The software was never sent out.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And apparently there`s also a porn connection, because part of this whole case is the possibility that there were secrets that the wife didn`t know about and perhaps she discovered something about the porn aspect of his Internet business.
GOLDBAND: Well, that`s exactly right, Jane. One of Neil Entwistle`s pet projects was "The Big Penis Manual." This was a homeopathic manual that would tell you how to enlarge your pubic muscles.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. And this was something that he was trying to sell to men, presumably, male enhancement, as they say, is the polite term?
GOLDBAND: Yes, that`s right, Jane. Not only was he trying to sell the penis manual to men, he was saying, "Hey, buy it, and resell it to other people and you`ll get rich."
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I thank you so much. That is fascinating, fascinating stuff.
And we want to go straight out to a very special guest that we have with us tonight. This is a very sad story. It`s a very complex story. Joe Flaherty, a spokesperson for Rachel`s family, is with us tonight.
Thank you for joining us, sir. I know this is difficult for the family, and we do appreciate you taking the time to be with us. What is the family going through tonight? How did they receive this truly mind- boggling information?
FLAHERTY: Very difficult times for the family. It wasn`t that long ago that they put Rachel and Lillian to rest and, of course, they`re devastated. This was a man that was loved by Rachel and Lillian, who was trusted by the family, and they -- it`s just inconceivable to them that he could betray their trust in this manner and be accused of committing such a horrible crime.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: I know that there have been some quotes that the family was quoted as saying that they were shocked by the arrest. Were they, in fact, shocked? Or did they -- were they suspicious long before this? Because I know that there were no references to Neil during the funeral and the obituary.
FLAHERTY: Well, I think that actually I think the wording was really they were saddened by it. You know, they had put their faith in the system, and they were confident all along that the Middlesex County district attorney`s office and Martha Coakley`s office, along with the state police, the Hopkinton police. And, of course, they had cooperation from Scotland Yard and the metropolitan police in England.
And they were confident that they would resolve this case and bring the person that was responsible to justice. And apparently, that has happened. And they`re saddened by that, because they put a lot of trust and a lot of faith in Neil.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: And I know this is -- it`s a difficult question, but were they aware of some of the problems, the financial difficulties that Neil was having?
FLAHERTY: You know, all of those aspects of the investigation are something that the family has right along shared with the investigators in this case, but, you know, they`re not going to comment publicly as to their feelings. But they`ve always been available 24 hours a day for any questioning by any of the investigators and cooperated fully with the district attorney`s office.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: But I guess the bottom line is that they thought they knew one person, Neil Entwistle, and it turned out they didn`t know -- nobody knew him, I guess.
FLAHERTY: Well, I guess based on the charges that were taken out today -- as again, they`re saddened. They feel very betrayed. They feel very hurt. And this was a beautiful young woman, you know, a new mother. And it`s just -- again, it`s uncomprehensible to them that someone could be charged for this brutal crime.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Is there any sense of closure, at least that we have some answers?
FLAHERTY: Well, you know, I know you hear that a lot, people talk about closure. I don`t think -- personally, I don`t think the victims of homicides ever have closure. They`re going to live with this forever.
And I think that perhaps there is some peace to the family when somebody is brought to justice on a case like this and the case is solved, and certainly, you know, they get -- as that happens, they get answers. But I don`t know about ever closing something like this.
I think it maybe brings them a little peace, but that`s going to take a long time. This is really just the beginning, really, of this investigation. And the rest is just part of it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Joe, I want to thank you so much for joining us. And our hearts go out to this family, and please pass that along from the NANCY GRACE show. Our hearts, our prayers, our thoughts are with them tonight.
FLAHERTY: Thank you very much. And they appreciate the thoughts and prayers of everyone, and the e-mails, and the letters and cards. They appreciate it.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you, sir.
FLAHERTY: They appreciate it. Thank you.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Quickly to tonight`s "All-Points Bulletin." FBI and law enforcement across the country on the lookout for Richard Lynn Bare, wanted in connection with the 1984 North Carolina murder of 24-year-old Sherry Elaine Hart.
Bare, 41, 5`8", 175 pounds, brown hair, green eyes. If you have any information on Lynn Bare, call FBI at 704-377-9200.
Local news next for some of you. We will be right back. And remember, live coverage of a case out of Wisconsin after Election Day turned violent, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern, Court TV.
Stay with us as we remember Army Specialist Jessi Zamora, just 22 years old. You`re looking at an American hero.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: We at NANCY GRACE want very much to help in our own way solve unsolved homicides, find missing people. Tonight, take a look at 16-year-old John Holder. He has been missing from Chicago since January 18th.
If you have any information on John Holder, call Chicago police, 312- 745-6052, or go to BeyondMissing.com. Please help us find him.
We`re trying to figure out why, why would anyone kill their baby daughter and their wife? And, of course, Neil Entwistle presumed innocent. He has not been convicted at this point.
And let`s go straight out to Joe Lawless, defense attorney. You`ve heard the debt theory. What do you think of it?
LAWLESS: Nancy -- or, I`m sorry, Jane, 17 negative hits on eBay at $30 a pop comes to $420. Even if the software packages sold for $300, that`s $4200. That`s not a motive for murder, let alone murder-suicide.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Joe, but think about it. He`s got debts in England. He comes here. He leaves a job. He doesn`t have a job here. His wife very understandably says, "I want to be a stay-at-home mom." They move into a $2,500-a-month house. They have a BMW. That`s a lot of debt.
LAWLESS: Is there any evidence that, because of that debt, whatever it is, that he would kill for it?
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Michelle Martinez, former federal prosecutor, quick thoughts?
MARTINEZ: We`ve seen this a lot. We saw at in the Scott Peterson case. We saw it in the Mark Hacking case. New baby, financial pressures, it`s a recipe for disaster.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Stephanie Jones, clinical psychologist, I guess you`re going to get the last word. Why would this happen? Could money be the reason? Or would it be secrets, the fact that he has this porn Web site? And is it possible that his wife found out about it?
JONES: It is possible. We don`t have any evidence to suggest whether she knew or not, but he did have some kind of a secret persona. The guy was involved in plagiarism. He was involved in lying. He was involved in scams.
So we don`t know how deep this pathology ran. I mean, was this guy a complete sociopath? We really don`t know who he was, and we don`t know to the extent that Rachel knew who he was.
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Thank you so much.
We want to thank all of our guests tonight, and thanks to you at home for helping us track these very important cases.
Coming up, headlines from around the world. I`m Jane Velez-Mitchell sitting in for Nancy Grace. We hope to see you right here tomorrow night, 8:00 sharp Eastern. Until then, have a great night.