Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Entwistle on the Way Back to U.S.

Aired February 14, 2006 - 20:00   ET


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, 27-year-old Neil Entwistle, charged in the murders of his wife and 9-month-old baby girl, believed to be jetting back to the U.S. for arraignment as we speak, double murder charges. How will Entwistle plead? And tonight, search warrants reveal even more about the state`s case. Will the case stick?
Plus, breaking news out of a California courtroom. Scott Dylesky -- remember him? He`s facing off with Lady Justice in the death of Pamela Vitale, Pamela the beautiful wife of California criminal lawyer Daniel Horowitz. Where did the state`s evidence come from? Apparently, from Dyleski`s best friend.

Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. I want to thank you for being with us tonight. Breaking news in California, Scott Dylesky, charged in the brutal bludgeoning death of Pamela Vitale -- Pamela just a lovely person -- wife of California criminal lawyer Dan Horowitz, in court, court ending just moments ago. Did Dyleski`s best friend turn him in? Will his own mother and his own girlfriend help the prosecution build a case of murder one?

But first tonight, Neil Entwistle jets back to Massachusetts, we believe, from his native Great Britain. Why? Arraignment. That`s right, formal charges in the brutal murder of his young wife and 9-month-old baby girl.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He believes that he will receive a fair and proper hearing in the USA of these very serious allegations.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Entwistle was arrested Thursday by British police on a London subway train at this station. Hours later, he briefly appeared at Bow (ph) Street magistrate`s court. When asked by district judge Nicholas Evans (ph) if he understood his decision was irrevocable, Entwistle calmly replied, That`s fine, yes, then signed a waiver giving his consent to return to the U.S. as soon as possible.


GRACE: We believe that at this hour -- and we have yet to confirm this -- Neil Entwistle, 27 years old, is jetting back to the States. Now, remember, he originally fought extradition on the charges he murdered his wife and baby girl. Apparently, he gave up that fight. Big question, why? And also tonight, what is revealed in the state`s case? What do we know about it so far?

To the editor-in-chief of "Metrowest Daily News," Richard Lodge, with us tonight, joining us from Watertown. Thank you for being with us, Richard. Bring us up to date.

RICHARD LODGE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "METROWEST DAILY NEWS": Good evening, Nancy. The judge in Framingham District Court today rounded up a whole mob of media people and explained to them how the Massachusetts court system works. Neil Entwistle is expected to confront it possibly tomorrow, maybe Thursday. No one`s yet sure when he`s going to arrive in Massachusetts.

One thing that did come out today, looking through those court documents released yesterday, Joseph Matterazzo, Entwistle`s father-in-law, says -- told police he used the murder weapon the day after Rachel and Lillian Entwistle were killed.

GRACE: What? Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute. Man, if Johnnie Cochran were with us tonight, he would be having a field day with the argument contamination. Let me get this straight. Richard, after the murders, with the murder weapon...

LODGE: That`s right.

GRACE: ... the victim`s father says he used the gun?

LODGE: Absolutely.

GRACE: For what?

LODGE: Authorities say that Rachel and Lillian were killed on January 20, and police now say that Joseph Matterazzo used the handgun for target shooting. Of course, he didn`t know that anyone had been killed the day after. But that certainly could raise some questions about the state`s case involving the handgun.

GRACE: Well, now, hold on, though, Richard. Let`s just think this through just a moment. Before we think that we`ve got some DNA evidence on his handgun destroyed by the father`s use of the handgun, let`s just think about this a moment. What evidence do prosecution documents say was on that gun?

LODGE: Well, the documents say that DNA from Neil was found on the handgrip of the .22 and that Rachel Entwistle`s DNA was found on the muzzle of the handgun.

GRACE: Repeat.

LODGE: Well, the -- Neil`s DNA found on the grip of the handgun and Rachel`s DNA was found on the muzzle, which I believe is sometimes called blow-back.

GRACE: OK. It`s called forensic fundamentals. We`re talking about blow-back in this case. It`s not a pretty picture, but let`s talk about what blow-back is. Let`s analyze what we`ve got, what we don`t have.

To medical examiner Dr. Jonathan Arden. As a former prosecutor, when you realize your crime scene or your evidence has been tampered with, you might as well toss it out. Even if you get it into evidence, Dr. Arden, it`s contaminated. It`s no good for you anymore. The defense can attack it. The jury will lose credibility in your case if you bring them bad evidence. No can do. But in this case, allegedly, there is blow-back on the gun. Explain blow-back.

DR. JONATHAN ARDEN, MEDICAL EXAMINER: Blow-back is when the gas pressure from the muzzle of the gun -- the gasses come out of the gun that propel the bullet -- causes the tissue to literally blow back into and onto the gun. You have expansion of the tissues. You have a scattering of blood, sometimes skin. Sometimes in a head shot, I have to say -- a little indelicate -- but brain matter may end up back on or inside that gun, as well. And that`s the source of the DNA that you can link the gun to the victim.

GRACE: Let me get something straight, Doctor. So for instance, human DNA matter such as flesh, blood, hair, bone, brain matter, if that is found in and around the scene -- for instance, when JFK was shot, we now know that Jackie Onassis had brain matter on her clothing, had blood, matter from her own husband because of that shot. Is that not blow-back, and only what`s on the gun is blow-back?

ARDEN: I think maybe for the sake of the audience, we`re splitting heirs. But actually, that wouldn`t be blow-back.


ARDEN: Blow-back really is the phenomenon where the gun is very close to or touching the target and the gasses cause the material to be blown around, and in fact, backward onto the against, hence the term blow-back. I think what you have in the Kennedy issue is a high-powered rifle causing much more destruction of tissue, and then there is separation of...

GRACE: Gotcha.

ARDEN: ... of stuff around, biological material. But you know, I want to go back to something else you said, Nancy, though, about the evidence. You don`t necessarily have inadequate or invalid evidence because there has been some contamination or some addition to it. You still have the original biological DNA evidence on the surface of that gun, which, if it tests correctly and if it identifies or matches to somebody, is just as valid if somebody else`s DNA has been added to it.

GRACE: Right.

ARDEN: So it doesn`t invalidate the whole concept, it just gives you something else that you have to explain scientifically to the jury, to show them why it`s still appropriate.

GRACE: Well, from a trial strategy point of view, Dr. Arden, it gives the defense a peg to hang their hat on, saying the evidence has been contaminated. What we`re talking about, everybody, Richard Lodge with "Metrowest Daily News" -- he`s their editor-in-chief -- has just advised us regarding blow-back of human matter -- we`re talking about blood, flesh, brain matter -- back onto the weapon, the murder weapon. It`s a phenomena Dr. Arden has just explained.

So bottom line -- let me go to Don Clark. He is the former head of the FBI, Houston bureau. Don, how is the state going to explain this? And another issue, what will this mean to the state`s case?

DON CLARK, FORMER HEAD OF FBI HOUSTON BUREAU: Well, I think the state has a delicate case, and they`re going to have to go through all of these steps...

GRACE: Delicate? Wait! Delicate?

CLARK: Well, they do.

GRACE: The man finds his wife and child dead, according to his own words, and instead of calling police, calling 911, trying to resuscitate them, he goes, OK, bye-bye, and flies to England. What`s delicate about that?

CLARK: Well, the idea is, is that you talk about somebody else having to -- their hands on the gun. So that problem has to be explained. You`ve got to look at the evidence and see just what you have. It`s just not going to be DNA evidence, Nancy. And I think investigators today have to realize, too, is that we just can`t stake out a case as just on DNA alone. We`ve got to put all the totality of the circumstances, gather as much evidence as we can and link that together so that we can make a strong case. And you`re going to have a little problem with the gun there, but I think they can overcome that problem with the gun.

GRACE: Well, yes.

CLARK: But the bottom line is, is get the evidence in line.

GRACE: Well, yes, Don, you`re absolutely right.

Let me throw this to Nicole Deborde, veteran defense attorney. Nicole, the bottom line is all the defense can do with this evidence, the fact that the father -- this is the victim`s father -- handled the gun, used it for target practice after it was a murder weapon -- what are they going to claim, the father did it? I don`t think so.

NICOLE DEBORDE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I hear you, but Nancy, like you pointed out earlier, it not only gives the defense a peg to hang their hat on, it gives them a hat rack. I mean, we now have the gun removed completely from the house, and you know, he`s been through the house potentially on a walk-throw...

GRACE: I`m groaning. I`m groaning.

DEBORDE: I hear you. But I mean, it`s something that -- we have been hearing all about how air-tight the state`s case is in this circumstance, and quite frankly, you know, we thought originally, from what accounts we were hearing, that the only possible contamination was coming through people traipsing in and out of this house. Now we know that the potential murder weapon has actually been not only removed from the original crime scene but actually removed from a secondary location.

GRACE: OK. And one other thing. I want to go back to Richard Lodge, editor-in-chief with "Metrowest Daily News." A lot of people will wonder why the father did not notice any of this on the murder weapon, his own .22-caliber weapon.

LODGE: Well, I think that`s going to have to come out in court, Nancy. It`s probably a pretty fine, possibly a mist, some kind of material on there. That question will`s going to have to be explored by experts. And you know, with DNA, any kind of forensics, you`ll have people who have...

GRACE: Gotcha.

LODGE: ... pored over that weapon.

GRACE: Right now, I`m hearing in my ear we are being joined from the courthouse there in Framingham. Standing by is our own producer, Naomi Goldstein. Naomi, we are expecting for Entwistle to hit town any moment. We believe, from our sources, that he is en route or soon to be en route back to answer charges. What can you tell us, Naomi?

NAOMI GOLDSTEIN, NANCY GRACE PRODUCER: Well, the latest, Nancy, is the beginning of court, there was a meeting today around 3:00 o`clock with a bevy of reporters and the judge, where the judge said, you know, We anticipate he`ll be here tomorrow for arraignment. By the end of the meeting, an hour-and-a-half later, in the clerk`s office, we were getting word that it would probably be Thursday. So it could be any moment. Nobody knows for sure, at this point, when Neil Entwistle returns to the country.

GRACE: Well, Naomi, what`s the hold-up? The word was, he`s not going to contest extradition anymore.

GOLDSTEIN: That`s absolutely right, Nancy. Nobody is certain. Nobody is giving answers. The U.S. Marshals are the ones that are in charge of bringing him back to the United States, and they`re keeping mum. No one will talk.

GRACE: And speaking of -- Naomi, we`ll be right back with you -- Naomi standing by there at the courthouse for the latest. We expect Entwistle to make landing and head straight to the local jail pronto. He was set tomorrow morning to be in court for formal arraignment. That simply means formal charges being read to him in court, where he will give a plea, most likely of not guilty.

Let`s go to Mike Brooks, a special guest joining us tonight. He`s a law enforcement analyst and an aviation security expert. Not only that, Brooks has transported criminals multiple times, felons from the U.S., back and forth to Great Britain. Mike, let`s talk about how he`s being transported. Explain.

MIKE BROOKS, LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good to be with you Nancy. Well, most likely, the U.S. Marshals, they are the best-suited federal law enforcement agency to bring him back, and they`re the ones that specialize in prisoner transport. Most likely, there`ll be at least two, and this, because it`s a fairly high-profile, possibly three, U.S. Marshals that will bring him on the flight. They will get him from...

GRACE: Wait, wait, wait! Let me stop right there.


GRACE: You know, I just made it back to New York in a blizzard, and I would have liked to known if I had a two-time killer strapped to the seat next to me. I might have taken another flight. I might have taken the train. So do the other people on the plane know you`ve got a double killer back there in coach?

BROOKS: Well, they try to make it as low-profile as possible. The Metropolitan Police, Scotland Yard, will most likely bring him to the airport. The marshals will meet them there. They will have him handcuffed, most likely will pre-board him. So he might be on board before the passengers even get on. And what they usually do is, they will like to take the prisoner -- they`ll take (INAUDIBLE) most likely take Entwistle, put him in a window seat or put him in a middle seat with the marshals on either side of him. And if I were the marshals supervisor, I would have a third person sitting somewhere else on the plane, just in case there are some problems with the passengers.

Now, what they -- they`ll usually have them handcuffed, but they may take the handcuffs off of him just to -- not to frighten the passengers because the captain, the co-pilot and the flight attendants will be the only ones that know that he`s on there...

GRACE: Mike...

BROOKS: ... unless they see his handcuffs. Now...

GRACE: Mike!

BROOKS: Go ahead.

GRACE: I`ve got something I want to donate to the U.S. Marshals. You need a set of these? Because over my dead body do I want somebody on my staff or in my family flying on a plane thousands of feet in the air in a pressurized sardine can with an alleged double killer. What do you mean, take his handcuffs off so you don`t scare the passengers? Are you kidding me?

BROOKS: Well, the other thing they can do...

GRACE: I want him in a straitjacket back there in one of those Delta bathrooms. Nobody can get out of that!


BROOKS: I know what -- I hear you, Nancy, but you know, if it were up to me, I`d like to have leg restraints on him and handcuffs all the time. But of course, because of emergency procedures, you can`t have leg restraints on the passenger. But they could keep the handcuffs.

GRACE: Emergency for who? Haven`t you seen "Lost," for Pete`s sake?


GRACE: I`m just stunned that -- I`m stunned that you would put an alleged double killer on a plane with Grandma!

BROOKS: Well, you know, that`s the whole thing. Hopefully, nobody will know...

GRACE: What do you mean, that`s the whole thing? You`re the expert. What do you mean, it`s the whole thing?

BROOKS: Well, if you`ll let me finish, I`ll tell you.

GRACE: OK. Go ahead.

BROOKS: OK. Now, what they can do is, they can keep the handcuffs on him, and what they`ll do, they`ll go ahead and keep the handcuffs covered. That is know -- that can also be normal procedure. Since there has been the possibility of a murder and now they talk about possible murder- suicide, since they feel he is a danger to himself or others, possibly, they might go ahead and keep the handcuffs on. It`ll be up to the U.S. marshals that are there...

GRACE: Mike...

BROOKS: -- to see whether or not they feel he`s a threat to other people...

GRACE: Hey, Mike...

BROOKS: ... on board the aircraft. But most likely -- they do it all the time, Nancy, on commercial airliners. People never even know they`re there.

GRACE: Hey, Mike, don`t worry about him committing suicide, OK?


GRACE: He`s already attempted that, and somehow, everybody else in the house ended up dead and he ended up at home with his mommy and daddy in Great Britain. Mike, don`t leave. You`re still on the hot seat, buddy.

We believe that, tonight, Entwistle, 27-year-old Neil Entwistle, is en route back to the U.S. Now, you`ve heard today that he is no longer opposing extradition. News flash. He did oppose extradition when he was first arrested, until some little birdie put in his ear what bad PR that was and how even if he fought extradition, he had to come back to the U.S. one way or another, be it in three days or be it in three months. So what plays better to a jury, that you fought extradition or that you agreed? Think about it. We`ll all be right back.

But very quickly to tonight`s "Trial Tracker." Today, in a desperate attempt to save his own life, Joseph Smith cried -- or he looked like he was crying -- and apologized for the kidnap, rape and murder of this little girl, 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, two years ago Super Bowl Sunday. At sentencing today, Smith blamed his violent crimes on his own voluntary ingestion of cocaine and heroin.


JOSEPH SMITH, CONVICTED OF MURDERING CARLIE BRUCIA: I`m not trying to make excuses for what happened, but I really don`t remember much about anything on that day after about 4:00 PM. I never would have expected or believed that I could commit this horrible crime. I can only hope that I will -- that I will be an example to others of what drugs, depression and regards for -- no regards for yourself can lead to because it`s a very dangerous combination.


GRACE: Mr. Smith, we hope you`re going to be an example, too. A Florida jury recommends the death penalty. That Florida judge decides Smith`s penalty March 15.



MARTHA COAKLEY, MIDDLESEX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: 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 sides. There was a bullet that went into the baby into Rachel, but the medical examiner did not believe that was the cause of Rachel`s death.


GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We believe at this moment or soon, 27-year-old Neil Entwistle will be jetting his way back to the U.S. for a special date with Lady Justice.

Straight back out to Naomi Goldstein standing by. She`s one of our own producers there at the courthouse, braving the elements. Naomi, explain to me where he will go after he touches down. And do we know about what kind of security they`ll have?

GOLDSTEIN: That`s a great question, Nancy. If he comes during the day, during the business day, he`ll be taken to Hopkinton Police Department, where he`ll be booked. From there, he`ll come to the courthouse. They`re going to set up in the back of this courthouse an area that will be roped off for the press, and he`ll go in through the back entrance. Photographers will be there. They`re expecting a ton of media. He`ll be taken to holding and then up to the courtroom, where he will proceed with the arraignment.

I knew you would ask about, Will he be in shackles, handcuffs or whatever. The judge -- I specifically asked that today during the (INAUDIBLE) conference, he said he did not know, but he said he would be in custody.

GRACE: OK. So he is going to be brought in without shackles? All the other inmates are shackled.

GOLDSTEIN: We`re not sure.

GRACE: Why is he getting special treatment?

GOLDSTEIN: We`re not sure what he`ll be in. He said he was in custody, and he wasn`t exactly sure what exactly...


GOLDSTEIN: ... the arrangements...

GRACE: Hey, Naomi...

GOLDSTEIN: ... would be.

GRACE: ... forget the shackles for a moment. What do we know about whether he`s got a lawyer or not? We`ve been hearing through our sources, he may have a public defender. And that`s not all bad. They`re trying cases every day, unlike a lot of private lawyers.

GOLDSTEIN: Right. We don`t know yet who his attorney will be. We don`t know if it`s a public defender or private attorney. The judge made very clear, though, that they will not proceed with the arraignment until he does have an attorney. But it`s likely, if that`s the case, he`ll have one appointed to him.



JOE FLAHERTY, RACHEL ENTWISTLE FAMILY SPOKESMAN: 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.


GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. We believe 27-year-old Neil Entwistle on his way back for a date with Lady Justice right now. The arraignment will either be tomorrow or Thursday.

Very quickly to Joe Bodiford, defense attorney. Just tell us, nutshell, arraignment. It sounds so technical. It`s not.

JOE BODIFORD, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No, it`s not. It`s very simply two steps. The judge will tell him what he`s charged with, and then they`ll tell him or ask him how wishes to plead. Very simple. In fact, in Florida, where I practice, we`re entitled to waive that. We file a written pleading saying we plead not guilty, and we waive the reading of the indictment or the information that`s filed, and we go from there.

GRACE: And probably not a bad idea to waive it because it will be a media circus, and you never know when your client`s going to blurt something out that you haven`t rehearsed with him or her and it will go on the record.

Very quickly, to Tom Shamshak, private eye and a former police chief. Tom, what`s your take on the fact that the biological father of the victim handled this gun -- excuse me, stepfather of the victim -- handled this gun after the shooting?

TOM SHAMSHAK, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, FORMER MASSACHUSETTS POLICE CHIEF: Well, he did not know that this gun had been used in a murder. And quite frankly, the statements by Neil Entwistle to the police are actually much more stronger, as I read the materials from the court. But the blood that is in the -- on the surface of that weapon has to be up that barrel, and it would appear that Mr. Matterazzo didn`t thoroughly clean the weapon after he used it. So I`m certain that there`s a substantial amount of DNA evidence in there that will be used successfully in the prosecution of Neil Entwistle.

GRACE: We`ll all be right back. Joining us, Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst, and our on-line expert. Stay with us.



COAKLEY: It does not fit what you might think as a classic domestic situation, where there`s a crime in the heat of passion. It 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 look like he -- in a classic case, where he might be trying to collect on an insurance policy. We don`t have any of that here.


GRACE: Not well-planned out. That`s a prosecutor`s dream crime scene. Why? It suggests there is a lot of forensic evidence left behind.

To Richard Lodge, editor-in-chief of "MetroWest Daily News," tell me again what you have learned about the condition of the baby`s body, Baby Lillian.

LODGE: Well, Nancy, statements that Neil made to police and that he made to his own father in England differ quite a bit as to what he saw when he returned to his house after doing errands. In fact, he told police he was gone for about two hours, came back, found his wife and daughter dead.

He told his father in England he was gone about 20 minutes. He also told his father that he had called police after he found the bodies. He said when he found the...

GRACE: Right. I was asking about the crime scene.

LODGE: Right.

GRACE: What do we know about the condition of the baby`s body, Baby Lillian?

LODGE: Right. Well, she was shot through the abdomen. Neil said that he saw blood and that he covered her up with a quilt. Police, however, say that there wasn`t much blood there at all and that the baby had a pillow over her.

GRACE: A pillow over her.

And to Dr. Jonathan Arden, medical examiner out of the D.C. jurisdiction, Dr. Arden, you mentioned something that I had noticed, as well, in the documents, that there was blood, I believe, inside the baby`s mouth and nose. What does that suggest to you, if taken in conjunction with the pillow over the child`s head?

ARDEN: If you have a gunshot wound to the abdomen, there can be injury to many different structures internally and organs. You may get bleeding inside your digestive track, for instance, and some of that may get vomited up. It`s an irritant to the stomach. So you can have blood that...

GRACE: But wait a minute, Dr. Arden, to me that`s inconsistent with the fact that there were also bruises on the face.

ARDEN: Well, I don`t think we have all the answers here yet. The bruises on the face actually do trouble me because everything else in this crime scene seems to look like a shot to the mother first in the head -- avoid any confrontation, if you will -- and then you have to finish the job and you shoot the baby. It doesn`t seem to include any kind of physical altercation, and so that`s an inconsistency that is difficult to explain, as far as the bruises on the head.

GRACE: You`re darn right. But you take bruises on the head and blood inside the mouth and nose, and it sounds like a beating on this tiny baby. This little girl just 9 months old.

You know, I want to go back to Nicole Deborde. Nicole, how`s that going to play to a jury? You could probably explain that your wife quit work, and she had a baby, and she made you move in with the in-laws, and now isn`t she terrible. But how do you explain beating and killing a baby girl? How are you going to do that?

DEBORDE: You know what, Nancy? You`re exactly right. I mean, that`s the truth of this matter, is there is no motivation or no motive that I have yet heard from any source that would explain either shooting your wife in the head and then shooting your baby in the stomach, and particularly beating a baby.

It just doesn`t make any sense. Something here is not right, which I think really, combined with the contamination in this crime scene, plays into the defense`s hands, quite frankly.


GRACE: So, OK, so you think the alleged beating and murder of the baby actually helps the defense. OK, I just want to...

DEBORDE: Well, it`s just...

GRACE: ... savor that assertion for one moment.

Let me go to...

DEBORDE: It`s too much. It`s too much to expect that a father of a child would do that, and I think that the jurors are going to realize that.

GRACE: Yes, OK. Two words for you: Scott Peterson.

To Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst joining us out of L.A., boy, do we need a shrink again tonight. Dr. Bethany, save the day. Shrink it.

BETHANY MARSHALL, PSYCHOANALYST: OK. Well, it`s not too much to think that a father could do this to his wife and daughter because he had what we call a profound detachment disorder. He had no bond with them. They were just objects that could be dispensed with.

The other interesting thing is that men who commit homicide cannot process what`s happening to them and they cannot seek appropriate solutions. He was $8,000 in debt, but this guy was an electrical engineer. He could have gotten a job. According to the prosecutors, he said he was dissatisfied.

GRACE: Oh, you mean work for a living like the rest of us?

MARSHALL: Exactly. But, look, he also said he was dissatisfied with his sex life but then he went out looking for escorts. He was $8,000 in debt, but then he got a $2,700-a-month lease on a home.

So this is the kind of guy who could say to himself the only solution for an happy marriage is to kill you or to kill me, either you must die or I must die. Something`s got to give. This is a person who cannot process what`s happening to him, the kind of guy who can commit murder.

GRACE: Of course, we have a forensic field day. We`ve a contamination problem. That`s going to be an issue for the state to overcome.

But, in addition to the hard evidence of forensics, there is a computer trail a mile wide. You might as well open up the window and scream out, "I hire hookers! I go online to porn sites! I`m unhappy! I want out of my marriage! I`ve got financial problems," as opposed to writing it onto your hard drive.

Let`s go to the online expert joining us now, Clark. Clark Goldband is with us. Clark, what else can you tell us regarding the evidence they`re going to seize off this hard drive?

CLARK GOLDBAND, NANCY GRACE INTERNET BLOGGER: Well, there`s a huge trail, Nancy. You`re exactly right.

What they have are all the escort services that he went to online from that time period. He can`t delete them. He can`t do anything about it.

Also, authorities can seize credit card information from online. With that information, they may see discreet charges. Discreet charges, you might say, what are those? Well...

GRACE: Yes, I am asking what are discreet charges?

GOLDBAND: Discreet...

GRACE: Well, we know he -- everything he did was on a credit card because the man wouldn`t work and make a living.

GOLDBAND: Exactly.

GRACE: So he charged everything.


GRACE: Are you talking about hookers, is that what you`re saying?

GOLDBAND: Well, we`re talking about call girl services, like Eye Candy Entertainment and Exotic Express. Discreet charges mean that you don`t want the person or the people who live in your home to know what`s on...

GRACE: So you`re saying on the credit card it`s not going to say, "I charged a hooker for $250"?


GRACE: It`s going to say...

GOLDBAND: J. Enterprises.

GRACE: ... JYT Limited.

GOLDBAND: Right, Enterprises, Limited, a buzz word like that, not to tip off anyone at home that you`re not doing something that you don`t want anybody to know about.

GRACE: Perfect for Valentine`s Day, Clark. Thanks.

GOLDBAND: Well, I wouldn`t want to get that bill in the mail.

GRACE: So, OK, you need to get your mind off the hooker aspect of this case. We`ve got plenty of time to talk about that.

What about the forensics of credit card debt, of him going online looking for ways to commit murder and suicide, as well, which of course didn`t happen?

GOLDBAND: Well, that`s exactly right, Nancy. They have this hard information. They can analyze this information. Every keystroke Neil Entwistle made on that computer is saved, and authorities will have a field day analyzing this information.

He has nothing to worry about if he wasn`t doing anything that`s not inappropriate. But we know, from that warrant, a lot of interesting information was taken off of that computer.

GRACE: OK. I think you did a little private investigation yourself today. Explain.

GOLDBAND: That`s right, Nancy. This is strictly for investigation...

GRACE: When I said find out about the case, I did not mean for you to pay $200 bucks to join Adult FriendFinder.

GOLDBAND: I did not...

GRACE: Don`t charge that to the show.

GOLDBAND: I did not pay the membership fee, but I did join Adult FriendFinder, Nancy, the world`s largest sex and swinger personal site. I found a few interesting details while trying to sign up. For example, there is preferences of what type of anatomy you`re looking for.

GRACE: Physical characteristics.

GOLDBAND: Physical attributes, exactly right. And we won`t go into those because this is a family show.

But on the next page, we did find out how much it cost to join. Now, for someone who supposedly is in financial stress and worried about cash, the gold membership fee here is $149.95.

GRACE: OK, hold on.

As exciting and titillating as that is, to Don Clark, former head of the FBI Houston bureau, let`s talk about forensics. How do they get that information off of a computer and -- look, if you put every guy in jail that went to a porn site, nobody would be working today, OK? They`d all be in jail.

But what`s interesting here, Don, is the proximity in time to his shenanigans online looking for hookers and his wife`s murder.

CLARK: You know, Nancy, I said early on is that, look, you`ve got to go a little bit further than just DNA in this case. And the computer system, the technology that we have today is one of the things that you`ve got to go with.

And investigators and law enforcement agencies -- I had one in my own office here in Houston -- have technical squads to be able to go in and get that information. And, you know, we all know now that nothing is really ever deleted from the computer. You can always get it.

So if you don`t get it from my computer that I sent, you`re going to get it from a Web site that I sent it to. And the law enforcement is clearly equipped to be able to get appropriate warrants and whatever they need to get that information.

And one little piece just keeps leading to another piece, and that`s going to really help to put this case together, notwithstanding any motive or anything of that nature. Who cares? The idea is, is that they can put this together piece by piece, get this evidence from the companies that they need to get warrants from, and be able to put that with DNA, and make a heck of a case here.

GRACE: You`re right. Nobody really cares about motive, Don. You know as well as I do. You`re, you know, a former head of an FBI bureau. The state doesn`t have to prove motive.

But the jury looks for it. As a practical matter, the jury wants to hear motive. They want to make sure, before they convict, that it`s logical to convict.

Let`s go quickly out to Naomi Goldstein, one of our producers there at the Framingham District courthouse.

Naomi, explain for those just joining us -- now, we believe that Entwistle is winging his way back to the U.S. Explain to me how he`s going to get from the plane to the jail, what happens next, and what kind of security we believe is on the plane.

GOLDSTEIN: As far as we know, he`s going to be escorted by U.S. marshals when he gets -- he`s with them now in England, apparently, coming back on a plane with him. He`ll be taken to either Logan International Airport in Boston or another local airport.

From there, he`s supposed to be taken to Hopkinton P.D., police department, where he`ll be booked. And then, if it`s during normal business hours, he`ll come to this courthouse where he will be arraigned, he`ll be taken in.

We don`t know the security precautions. The judge was not clear yet where he`ll be arraigned. He`ll be assigned an attorney or he already has one that he`s enlisted. And, from there, we have an arraignment. They`re read him the charges?

GRACE: Hey, Naomi?


GRACE: You`ll be in court with us, right?

GOLDSTEIN: You got that right, absolutely.



GRACE: The perpetrator likely came right up here, knew exactly where he was going.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He just wore black trench coat, all black pants, black shirt.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was always shy. He was always respectful. We babysat for him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... you committed a felony, a violation of Penal Code Section 187, murder.

GRACE: Whoever killed Pamela Vitale knew exactly where they were going. They knew how to get in. They knew what to do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just know that the Scott that we know would never have done anything like that.

DANIEL HOROWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: If you have a picture of her, every picture that ever you have of her has love and I (INAUDIBLE) every single day.


GRACE: The young man accused in the bludgeoning death of the wife of our friend, Daniel Horowitz, lovely woman, Pamela Vitale, in court today. Today preliminary hearing.

That`s when the state lays -- oh, Elizabeth, please; it`s Valentine`s, not Halloween -- where the state lays out the barebones of their case.

Very quickly to chief correspondents with "Inside Edition," Jim Moret. What happened in court?

JIM MORET, CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, "INSIDE EDITION": What happened in court is day one of what`s expected to be a three-day court hearing, where prosecutors are trying to lay out a case against Scott Dyleski who`s going to be tried as an adult. And at the end of these days, basically the judge will determine if there`s enough evidence for this young man to stand trial for murder.

GRACE: To Daniel Horowitz, a special guest now joining us...

HOROWITZ: Hi, Nancy.

GRACE: ... Pamela`s husband and a friend of the show. Daniel, how are you?

HOROWITZ: I`m holding up, Nancy. Thank you.

GRACE: Tell me about court today.

HOROWITZ: Well, Nancy, I can`t talk about court because, to me, the gag order keeps me from referring to court at all. I can talk about Pamela, which is really, to me, what this is all about. And things like...

GRACE: Let me ask you, Daniel. Today -- I know you were not in court on an earlier court date -- when you saw Dyleski in court today, what went through your mind?

HOROWITZ: Again, not talking about that. Let me in general...


HOROWITZ: ... talk about the court proceedings. I realized over time, not just from today, but from all the court proceedings, that nothing that happens from October 15th to the rest of my life will ever change the fact that Pamela is gone.

And I respect the court system, and it`s a great system we`ve got, but it just hits me over and over again, whenever we talk about court, that it doesn`t really matter in a way, because she`s not coming back. And that`s the fundamental reality, which you know, because you`ve been through it. It`s the fundamental reality.

GRACE: Daniel, do you think you`ll go back to court each and every day?

HOROWITZ: I`m going back tomorrow. I`m going to go...


GRACE: Why? Why are you going back?

HOROWITZ: I don`t know why. It`s funny. I don`t know what motivates me. I mean, I know, you know, what I saw, and that`s the fundamental thing. You know, when I was there (INAUDIBLE) October 15th.

GRACE: You know what? I know what you`re thinking. I recently learned that I went to court every single day following the death of my loved one. And I don`t know why I went. I don`t know, but I just did.

HOROWITZ: I can`t express myself properly, you know, in terms of my feelings. It`s so beyond what can be expressed in words.

GRACE: It`s kind of like you can`t stay away, you have to go.

I want to go back now to Jim Moret, chief correspondent, "Inside Edition," Daniel is correct, Jim. He cannot comment on the evidence. He is under a gag order and does not want to jeopardize the case.

Who were the witnesses and what do we expect next?

MORET: Well, so far there have been five law enforcement witnesses. Basically, detectives believe that Scott Dyleski was stealing people`s credit cards and ordering equipment to grow marijuana. And one of the people whose credit cards he stole was Pamela Vitale`s credit card.

But had everything shipped to his own address. That`s important, because an earlier theory was he was going up to the house on that day because he believed that something was wrongly shipped to Pamela Vitale`s home and he was going to retrieve it. That does not appear to be the theory any longer.

We expect to hear from other people to talk about Scott Dyleski`s background. You showed those two photos, the first you referred to as a Halloween photo. That`s how he looked for the last couple of years, and now in court today he is looking rather clean-cut.

You see the dichotomy, the two different people that are Scott Dyleski. He`s appearing rather clean-cut in court, but you`re going to hear witnesses who are going to say otherwise.

GRACE: Jim, explain to me where the best friend fits in. I find this very explosive testimony.

MORET: The best friend is allegedly a person that Scott Dyleski was running this credit card scam with. And basically he struck a deal with prosecutors. They will drop all charges against him if he testifies.

That person is believed to have seen Scott Dyleski the day of the murders and he noticed scratches on Scott Dyleski`s face. He apparently told investigators that Scott Dyleski said he got those scratches from being in the woods. And on a later occasion, Scott Dyleski allegedly told the friend that, while in the woods, he saw Pamela Vitale.


MORET: That kid got scared, he called investigators, and that`s what led them to Scott Dyleski.

GRACE: We`ll be right back with Daniel Horowitz and Jim Moret.

To tonight`s "All-Points Bulletin." Law enforcement on the lookout for Andre Dow, a wannabe rapper, AKA "Mac Minister," wanted in connection with a 2005 Nevada double murder of 23-year-old Anthony Watkins and 22- year-old Jermaine Akins.

Dow is 35, 5`8", 165 pounds, black hair, brown eyes. If you have info, call Vegas police, 702-229-3521.

Local news is next for some of you. We`ll all be right back. And, remember, coverage of an Iowa farmer murder trial, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern, Court TV.

Please stay with us as we stop to remember Lance Corporal Jason Little, just 20 years old, a real American hero.


GRACE: Pamela Vitale, in the prime of her life, bludgeoned to death in her own home. At first, certain doomsters suspected her own husband, Daniel Horowitz. He has been cleared. He is with us tonight. Today, day one of preliminary hearing against a young neighbor, Scott Dyleski.

Straight out to Steve Clark, a veteran defense attorney and friend of Horowitz and Pamela Vitale. Welcome, Steve.


GRACE: What will we learn about Dyleski`s background?

S. CLARK: I think we`re going to see that he`s a depraved, angry individual, and the prosecution is going to put on evidence of how easily he is to anger, and also put on evidence about this Goth culture that he was part of. I mean, this is a guy whose e-mail moniker was Android Messiah and Prince Frightening. And I think that the prosecution wants to show just what this guy...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, wait, wait. What?

S. CLARK: In his e-mail exchanges that he had with the marijuana- growing company, or the lights, he would call himself the Android Messiah or Prince Frightening, in terms of ordering this equipment.

And also what the prosecution is going to do is put on witnesses, both the friend and Dyleski`s mother, to show any admissions that he made and also the depraved conduct that was involved in this murder. Once the coroner testifies in this case, this was just so shocking and horrific, I believe the jury is going to have nothing more to do than just go back there and come back with a first-degree murder verdict.

GRACE: What is it that you keep referring to, Steve, regarding shocking and horrific?

S. CLARK: Just that Dyleski bludgeoned Pamela so many times. For an individual to do something like that and then to carve an emblem in her back, you have to be a very sick, depraved person, and no jury is going to ever want to see this kid walk the streets again.

To hit a lifeless body that many times, any chance the defense has to show that this was some kind of self-defense theory is completely out the window. I`ve seen a lot of coroner reports in my days, but this was the most horrific.

GRACE: To Daniel Horowitz still with us by phone, Daniel, when you hear this evidence, you have to console yourself knowing that Pamela fought.

HOROWITZ: Well, Nancy, you know, thinking about Pamela fighting, all of that is good. But what I want to remember from all of this when it`s all over is that Pamela was loving, caring, raised, mostly as a single mother, two wonderful children, because I`m not going to let the evil part take my memory.

GRACE: Daniel, Daniel, we will not forget it.

Thank you to my guests and to you for being with us. Good night, friend.