Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/25/08

posted 6/25/08: I hope the jury feels proud that they performed their civic duty well. No matter how strong the evidence, it is always a sober moment when a jury announces that a man's life as a free human being is essentially over.

I remember the first time I worked on a murder trial as a prosecutor. When the jury said "guilty" I cried. The defendant didn't.

The decision was quick but not OJ quick, indicating that jurors took their task seriously and understood the importance of being conscientious when thinking about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

There was little the defense could do with such a strong prosecution case except try to create reasonable doubt by challenging each piece of evidence. In the end, even if jurors felt a sense of doubt about what happened, it isn't doubt alone that demands an acquittal. All jurors have some doubt. An acquittal is never necessary unless that doubt rises to the level of REASONABLE and the defense didn't even come close.

The saddest moment today, however, wasn't when the jury said "guilty". It might have been -- but then Neil's mother had to open her mouth and say something dumb about Rachel killing baby Lillian and then committing suicide.

Suddenly the glimmer of sympathy people might have felt for Neil and his parents went poof.

It's hard enough to feel anything but anger toward a brutal wife- and baby-killer who shows no remorse. When parents of the killer add to the charade by falsely pointing the finger of blame at a loving mother who isn't available to defend herself because -- um -- she's dead -- the cloud of shame over the entire Entwistle family becomes a vast dense fog.

Let's hope Mrs. Entwistle didn't get the idea from Elliot Weinstein. Some people might think defense counsel didn't like the heat he took after accusing Rachel of murder-suicide during his nonsensical closing argument. Some people might wonder whether Weinstein had Mrs. Entwistle repeat the same dumb theory after the verdict was announced in the hope his critics would lay off him, and attack her, instead. Sick, I know. But I'm just saying ....
 

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/25/08: I truly think Neil Entwistle received a just verdict, today. However, I'm certain this isn't over. I expect we will now be subject to as many appeals as the system will allow. In the end, though, Entwistle was mounting the typical murderous psychopath's approach to everything: just keep lying, no matter what, and perhaps you'll get away with it, live to lie, cheat, and manipulate another day.

Nothing can bring back Entwistle's wife and child, but 30 years in prison will deprive him of the one thing most important to conscienceless creatures like Neil -- his liberty.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/20/08: The theme of the defendant’s case - that “things are not always what they appear to be” - first articulated in Elliot Weinstein’s opening statement and repeated often during the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, continued to gain content during the cross examination of the forensic pathologist.

In what can only be described as a model cross examination, Stephanie Page obtained and kept control of the witness, extracting from him admissions consistent with the theory that the death of mother and daughter was a murder/suicide.

After obtaining admissions from (medical examiner) Dr. Zane that he did not rule out suicide as a cause of Rachel Entwistle’s death before forming the conclusion that the manner of her death was homicide at the hands of another, Ms. Page, using well respected forensic pathology texts, repeatedly got Dr. Zane to agree that much of the physical evidence was also consistent with suicide. For example, Rachel Entwistle had gunshot residue on both sides of her hands, which the defense will undoubtedly argue to the jury is more likely to have occurred if she were holding the gun than if someone else was. This theory also explains why there was no indication of a struggle by Rachel Entwistle before the death of the baby and why the bodies of the two were found in the positions described.

Moreover, suicide also explains the damning Internet search to Internet sites about killing methods. Because, as the defense brought out, the fact that no one attempted to lift prints off of the computer keys, it could well have been Rachel who was looking at the sites, not the defendant. Assuming that suicide is the real defense and not just a beard for another theory to be launched later, look for the defense to attempt to develop a reason why Rachel Entwistle would do such a thing – a motive like finding out her husband was a porno/escort freak on the Web or that she was suffering from some condition which caused her to act irrationally

The problem for the defense is that even with all of this, they still have to deal with Mr. Entwistle’s return to England, his inconsistent statements to friends and the police, his failure to attend the funeral.

At the beginning of this case most people - lawyers and non-lawyers alike - considered this case a lay down for the prosecution. But, sometimes things are just not what they appear to be.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/24/08

posted 6/24/08: Elliot Weinstein is lucky they make people go through security screening at the courthouse. I heard there was a strong desire to whack him with metal knuckles after he suggested that Rachel killed baby Lillian and then shot herself in the head. He implied the idea of suicide during questioning of the medical examiner last week, but today he actually had the audacity to suggest it as a reality.

The idea is so ludicrous on its face, it should be unethical for an attorney to say such a thing to a jury. But in this state where defense attorneys can do whatever they want -- no matter how painful to crime victims and their families -- the "defense at any cost" philosophy trumps all common sense and decency.

I might feel differently if there was even one iota of evidence that Rachel had anything to do with the crime -- but there was nothing. Absolutely nothing except Weinstein's cruel imagination.

Prosecutor Michael Fabbri mocked the claim in his excellent closing during which he recalled every important bit of evidence without notes -- unlike Weinstein who read his closing argument as if it were a eulogy for a distant cousin.

Rachel Entwistle indisputably loved her baby deeply - and in the aftermath of such a horrifying crime, you would think a defense attorney might understand that suggesting otherwise would cause needless pain to a family that will never recover.

It's not as if Weinstein HAD to lie about Rachel or that it was somehow necessary so he could avoid being accused of malpractice or "ineffective assistance of counsel". He did as well as he could have done, poking tiny holes in a few pieces of evidence. But some cases have no defense and a decent lawyer would admit as much.

Instead, we watched a trial with overwhelming evidence of guilt become a showcase for a gratuitous insult to the honor and reputation of a dead woman and a heartbreaking slap in the face to the people who loved her.

And get this -- Weinstein GOT PAID to sling lies and mud it with MY and YOUR tax dollars! I say we all get together and sue him for a refund. I have no problem with the public's money being used to ensure a fair trial for even the most brutal of criminals. But accusing a dead woman of killing herself and her baby has nothing to do with due process.

There were actually TWO publicly-funded lawyers assigned to defend the case - which makes it even more of an outrage. How many lawyers does it take to put on NO defense and insult the victim and her family? And did it really have to sop up more than two years of the public's money to get ready for a trial where the plan was to do nothing but slap the poor victim around?

Claiming Neil was crazy would have been so much more palatable than claiming Rachel executed her own beloved baby -- "in the heart". Yes - just when you thought he couldn't go lower, Weinstein thought it appropriate to emphasize that baby Lillian was shot in the heart, as if to prove somehow that Rachel must have been depressed because she shot baby Lillian in the heart, indicating some sick expression of motherly love gone awry.

Unbelievable.
 

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/23/08: Now that this case has gone to the jury, it doesn't look good for the defense. It simply beggars common sense to think that a man would find his wife and child dead from a "murder-suicide" and decide his best solution would be to leave them as-is and fly home to England. The jury will do their duty and consider that which they have been charged to consider, but in the end, I still feel simple common sense is Entwistle's biggest enemy.

I'm surprised he let it go this long, only to present this defense, via Mr. Weinstein: "Neil did not do this." If Neil is found guilty, we might be able to look back at his refusal to plead even when his defense was virtually nonexistent and say it's evidence once again of a psychopathic personality at work, refusing even in the face of a well-organized and substantial prosecution to admit the story being told by Mr. Entwistle is supremely hard to swallow. Such personalities are known for their ability to act as if they haven't just lied to your face, even when caught in the lie.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. Weinstein. No witnesses for the defense presenting alternate theories of evidence. Just "Neil did not do this." Perhaps the Entwistle defense team is more interested in the variety of appeals they will be able to mount if Neil is found guilty. Attorney Weinstein appeared to try and lay the groundwork for future appeals at the beginning of the trial with his vocal complaints about the judge's refusal to permit a change of venue. I have to wonder now if he wasn't telegraphing his understanding that they didn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Then again, you never know. One thing anyone who watches trials and crime stories will tell you is this: juries are truly unpredictable. That's the beauty and sometimes the danger of the system. Still: I'm convinced that Mr. Entwistle may just end up spending the next big chunk of his life in an American prison.
 

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/20/08: The theme of the defendant’s case - that “things are not always what they appear to be” - first articulated in Elliot Weinstein’s opening statement and repeated often during the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, continued to gain content during the cross examination of the forensic pathologist.

In what can only be described as a model cross examination, Stephanie Page obtained and kept control of the witness, extracting from him admissions consistent with the theory that the death of mother and daughter was a murder/suicide.

After obtaining admissions from (medical examiner) Dr. Zane that he did not rule out suicide as a cause of Rachel Entwistle’s death before forming the conclusion that the manner of her death was homicide at the hands of another, Ms. Page, using well respected forensic pathology texts, repeatedly got Dr. Zane to agree that much of the physical evidence was also consistent with suicide. For example, Rachel Entwistle had gunshot residue on both sides of her hands, which the defense will undoubtedly argue to the jury is more likely to have occurred if she were holding the gun than if someone else was. This theory also explains why there was no indication of a struggle by Rachel Entwistle before the death of the baby and why the bodies of the two were found in the positions described.

Moreover, suicide also explains the damning Internet search to Internet sites about killing methods. Because, as the defense brought out, the fact that no one attempted to lift prints off of the computer keys, it could well have been Rachel who was looking at the sites, not the defendant. Assuming that suicide is the real defense and not just a beard for another theory to be launched later, look for the defense to attempt to develop a reason why Rachel Entwistle would do such a thing – a motive like finding out her husband was a porno/escort freak on the Web or that she was suffering from some condition which caused her to act irrationally

The problem for the defense is that even with all of this, they still have to deal with Mr. Entwistle’s return to England, his inconsistent statements to friends and the police, his failure to attend the funeral.

At the beginning of this case most people - lawyers and non-lawyers alike - considered this case a lay down for the prosecution. But, sometimes things are just not what they appear to be.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/23/08

posted 6/18/08: Boy was this a bad week for the defense. We have to remember that they haven't had their turn yet -- but it's looking like even the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass won't help.

First we heard how Neil told two different stories to two different friends when he got to the U.K. In one version, he said he went to Priscilla Matterazzo's home after finding Rachel and Lillian dead and told her what he found, and that he contacted the State Police. This is all untrue - and because it came from the testimony of one of Neil's British friends, there was nothing the defense could do to relieve the sting of the jury hearing such a significant lie. Unlike when a friend of the victim takes the stand, the defense couldn't exactly suggest on cross-examination that Neil's buddies are biased against him.

Then we heard that Neil searched on Google for "how to kill with a knife" only a few days before the crime. I suppose he could argue that because Rachel and Lillian were killed with a gun instead of a knife, there's some doubt about his guilt. But come on -- it's STILL a search about KILLING!

Oh but the real icing on the cake for the prosecution so far this week was when the jury heard about Neil using his laptop to see if anyone had responded to his e-mail request at a swingers sex-buddies type of Web site. This happened not only AFTER the murders but only steps away from where Rachel and baby Lillian lay dead. Neil had sent photos of himself to the site and asked for "takers" -- so he was, um, checking to see if he might have a date. Not exactly the thing that should be on your mind if you just noticed your wife and baby lying in your bed - shot to death.

Call me close-minded but I just don't see how the defense can explain this evidence -- but I'm waiting. If they say it must have been someone else -- the obvious question is who? It was done on HIS laptop in HIS house and the person used HIS e-mail information at a Web site that HE was involved with. So maybe we're supposed to think it was the boogey-man (wouldn't be the first time a defense attorney simply made something up to explain damning evidence - Barry Sheck did it when he suggested baby Matthew Eappen died from an old injury - rather than at the hands of his convicted killer-nanny Louise Woodward. Memo to Elliot Weinstein: Take a lesson from Sheck. The jury was offended by his shenanigans in Woodward's case - and it obviously hurt his client's interests.)

I suppose Weinstein could claim Neil checked out his sexual options on-line BEFORE the murders -- but we know he logged on after 11 a.m. on the day of the crime. And we know that Neil told police he discovered the bodies long before that. Sooooo -- my guess is -- this evidence might just seal the deal for Neil (pardon the rhyme) because the one thing he had going for him was that he didn't seem "the type" who could kill his wife and baby. Far be it for me to dictate what the "type" is -- but I know this: the type of person who logs onto a sex-buddies Web site knowing that the dead bodies of his wife and baby are only steps away is ALSO the type of person who could kill people he claims to love. Dream-date Ken hairdo notwithstanding -- Neil Entwistle is starting to look exactly like the kind of guy who commit an unimaginable crime.
 

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/23/08: Now that this case has gone to the jury, it doesn't look good for the defense. It simply beggars common sense to think that a man would find his wife and child dead from a "murder-suicide" and decide his best solution would be to leave them as-is and fly home to England. The jury will do their duty and consider that which they have been charged to consider, but in the end, I still feel simple common sense is Entwistle's biggest enemy.

I'm surprised he let it go this long, only to present this defense, via Mr. Weinstein: "Neil did not do this." If Neil is found guilty, we might be able to look back at his refusal to plead even when his defense was virtually nonexistent and say it's evidence once again of a psychopathic personality at work, refusing even in the face of a well-organized and substantial prosecution to admit the story being told by Mr. Entwistle is supremely hard to swallow. Such personalities are known for their ability to act as if they haven't just lied to your face, even when caught in the lie.

I almost feel sorry for Mr. Weinstein. No witnesses for the defense presenting alternate theories of evidence. Just "Neil did not do this." Perhaps the Entwistle defense team is more interested in the variety of appeals they will be able to mount if Neil is found guilty. Attorney Weinstein appeared to try and lay the groundwork for future appeals at the beginning of the trial with his vocal complaints about the judge's refusal to permit a change of venue. I have to wonder now if he wasn't telegraphing his understanding that they didn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Then again, you never know. One thing anyone who watches trials and crime stories will tell you is this: juries are truly unpredictable. That's the beauty and sometimes the danger of the system. Still: I'm convinced that Mr. Entwistle may just end up spending the next big chunk of his life in an American prison.
 

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/20/08: The theme of the defendant’s case - that “things are not always what they appear to be” - first articulated in Elliot Weinstein’s opening statement and repeated often during the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, continued to gain content during the cross examination of the forensic pathologist.

In what can only be described as a model cross examination, Stephanie Page obtained and kept control of the witness, extracting from him admissions consistent with the theory that the death of mother and daughter was a murder/suicide.

After obtaining admissions from (medical examiner) Dr. Zane that he did not rule out suicide as a cause of Rachel Entwistle’s death before forming the conclusion that the manner of her death was homicide at the hands of another, Ms. Page, using well respected forensic pathology texts, repeatedly got Dr. Zane to agree that much of the physical evidence was also consistent with suicide. For example, Rachel Entwistle had gunshot residue on both sides of her hands, which the defense will undoubtedly argue to the jury is more likely to have occurred if she were holding the gun than if someone else was. This theory also explains why there was no indication of a struggle by Rachel Entwistle before the death of the baby and why the bodies of the two were found in the positions described.

Moreover, suicide also explains the damning Internet search to Internet sites about killing methods. Because, as the defense brought out, the fact that no one attempted to lift prints off of the computer keys, it could well have been Rachel who was looking at the sites, not the defendant. Assuming that suicide is the real defense and not just a beard for another theory to be launched later, look for the defense to attempt to develop a reason why Rachel Entwistle would do such a thing – a motive like finding out her husband was a porno/escort freak on the Web or that she was suffering from some condition which caused her to act irrationally

The problem for the defense is that even with all of this, they still have to deal with Mr. Entwistle’s return to England, his inconsistent statements to friends and the police, his failure to attend the funeral.

At the beginning of this case most people - lawyers and non-lawyers alike - considered this case a lay down for the prosecution. But, sometimes things are just not what they appear to be.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/20/08

posted 6/18/08: Boy was this a bad week for the defense. We have to remember that they haven't had their turn yet -- but it's looking like even the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass won't help.

First we heard how Neil told two different stories to two different friends when he got to the U.K. In one version, he said he went to Priscilla Matterazzo's home after finding Rachel and Lillian dead and told her what he found, and that he contacted the State Police. This is all untrue - and because it came from the testimony of one of Neil's British friends, there was nothing the defense could do to relieve the sting of the jury hearing such a significant lie. Unlike when a friend of the victim takes the stand, the defense couldn't exactly suggest on cross-examination that Neil's buddies are biased against him.

Then we heard that Neil searched on Google for "how to kill with a knife" only a few days before the crime. I suppose he could argue that because Rachel and Lillian were killed with a gun instead of a knife, there's some doubt about his guilt. But come on -- it's STILL a search about KILLING!

Oh but the real icing on the cake for the prosecution so far this week was when the jury heard about Neil using his laptop to see if anyone had responded to his e-mail request at a swingers sex-buddies type of Web site. This happened not only AFTER the murders but only steps away from where Rachel and baby Lillian lay dead. Neil had sent photos of himself to the site and asked for "takers" -- so he was, um, checking to see if he might have a date. Not exactly the thing that should be on your mind if you just noticed your wife and baby lying in your bed - shot to death.

Call me close-minded but I just don't see how the defense can explain this evidence -- but I'm waiting. If they say it must have been someone else -- the obvious question is who? It was done on HIS laptop in HIS house and the person used HIS e-mail information at a Web site that HE was involved with. So maybe we're supposed to think it was the boogey-man (wouldn't be the first time a defense attorney simply made something up to explain damning evidence - Barry Sheck did it when he suggested baby Matthew Eappen died from an old injury - rather than at the hands of his convicted killer-nanny Louise Woodward. Memo to Elliot Weinstein: Take a lesson from Sheck. The jury was offended by his shenanigans in Woodward's case - and it obviously hurt his client's interests.)

I suppose Weinstein could claim Neil checked out his sexual options on-line BEFORE the murders -- but we know he logged on after 11 a.m. on the day of the crime. And we know that Neil told police he discovered the bodies long before that. Sooooo -- my guess is -- this evidence might just seal the deal for Neil (pardon the rhyme) because the one thing he had going for him was that he didn't seem "the type" who could kill his wife and baby. Far be it for me to dictate what the "type" is -- but I know this: the type of person who logs onto a sex-buddies Web site knowing that the dead bodies of his wife and baby are only steps away is ALSO the type of person who could kill people he claims to love. Dream-date Ken hairdo notwithstanding -- Neil Entwistle is starting to look exactly like the kind of guy who commit an unimaginable crime.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/18/08: Neil's allegedly Googling "how to kill" is weirdly unsurprising. He was a techie by training, a guy who was really comfortable on the Web. The computer was, in his mind, his moneymaker and his magic answer machine -- so why not research the most tried and true murder methods on the Internet?

It seems to smack of planning on his part -- but not much planning, which means there was a touch of desperation underlying his activities. I've never thought of Entwistle -- if he is indeed guilty of these crimes -- as a cold, calculating killer who coolly planned everything in advance. He's always struck me more as an impulsive adolescent. He'd learned to put on an adult act whenever necessary, but inside he was stuck at 12, maturity-wise -- everything was about him and his needs. And used properly, the computer would fulfill those needs -- for information about murder, as a route to meeting a sex partner, you name it.

A guilty verdict would truly render Entwistle a killer for our times.
 

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/20/08: The theme of the defendant’s case - that “things are not always what they appear to be” - first articulated in Elliot Weinstein’s opening statement and repeated often during the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, continued to gain content during the cross examination of the forensic pathologist.

In what can only be described as a model cross examination, Stephanie Page obtained and kept control of the witness, extracting from him admissions consistent with the theory that the death of mother and daughter was a murder/suicide.

After obtaining admissions from (medical examiner) Dr. Zane that he did not rule out suicide as a cause of Rachel Entwistle’s death before forming the conclusion that the manner of her death was homicide at the hands of another, Ms. Page, using well respected forensic pathology texts, repeatedly got Dr. Zane to agree that much of the physical evidence was also consistent with suicide. For example, Rachel Entwistle had gunshot residue on both sides of her hands, which the defense will undoubtedly argue to the jury is more likely to have occurred if she were holding the gun than if someone else was. This theory also explains why there was no indication of a struggle by Rachel Entwistle before the death of the baby and why the bodies of the two were found in the positions described.

Moreover, suicide also explains the damning Internet search to Internet sites about killing methods. Because, as the defense brought out, the fact that no one attempted to lift prints off of the computer keys, it could well have been Rachel who was looking at the sites, not the defendant. Assuming that suicide is the real defense and not just a beard for another theory to be launched later, look for the defense to attempt to develop a reason why Rachel Entwistle would do such a thing – a motive like finding out her husband was a porno/escort freak on the Web or that she was suffering from some condition which caused her to act irrationally

The problem for the defense is that even with all of this, they still have to deal with Mr. Entwistle’s return to England, his inconsistent statements to friends and the police, his failure to attend the funeral.

At the beginning of this case most people - lawyers and non-lawyers alike - considered this case a lay down for the prosecution. But, sometimes things are just not what they appear to be.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/18/08

posted 6/18/08: Boy was this a bad week for the defense. We have to remember that they haven't had their turn yet -- but it's looking like even the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass won't help.

First we heard how Neil told two different stories to two different friends when he got to the U.K. In one version, he said he went to Priscilla Matterazzo's home after finding Rachel and Lillian dead and told her what he found, and that he contacted the State Police. This is all untrue - and because it came from the testimony of one of Neil's British friends, there was nothing the defense could do to relieve the sting of the jury hearing such a significant lie. Unlike when a friend of the victim takes the stand, the defense couldn't exactly suggest on cross-examination that Neil's buddies are biased against him.

Then we heard that Neil searched on Google for "how to kill with a knife" only a few days before the crime. I suppose he could argue that because Rachel and Lillian were killed with a gun instead of a knife, there's some doubt about his guilt. But come on -- it's STILL a search about KILLING!

Oh but the real icing on the cake for the prosecution so far this week was when the jury heard about Neil using his laptop to see if anyone had responded to his e-mail request at a swingers sex-buddies type of Web site. This happened not only AFTER the murders but only steps away from where Rachel and baby Lillian lay dead. Neil had sent photos of himself to the site and asked for "takers" -- so he was, um, checking to see if he might have a date. Not exactly the thing that should be on your mind if you just noticed your wife and baby lying in your bed - shot to death.

Call me close-minded but I just don't see how the defense can explain this evidence -- but I'm waiting. If they say it must have been someone else -- the obvious question is who? It was done on HIS laptop in HIS house and the person used HIS e-mail information at a Web site that HE was involved with. So maybe we're supposed to think it was the boogey-man (wouldn't be the first time a defense attorney simply made something up to explain damning evidence - Barry Sheck did it when he suggested baby Matthew Eappen died from an old injury - rather than at the hands of his convicted killer-nanny Louise Woodward. Memo to Elliot Weinstein: Take a lesson from Sheck. The jury was offended by his shenanigans in Woodward's case - and it obviously hurt his client's interests.)

I suppose Weinstein could claim Neil checked out his sexual options on-line BEFORE the murders -- but we know he logged on after 11 a.m. on the day of the crime. And we know that Neil told police he discovered the bodies long before that. Sooooo -- my guess is -- this evidence might just seal the deal for Neil (pardon the rhyme) because the one thing he had going for him was that he didn't seem "the type" who could kill his wife and baby. Far be it for me to dictate what the "type" is -- but I know this: the type of person who logs onto a sex-buddies Web site knowing that the dead bodies of his wife and baby are only steps away is ALSO the type of person who could kill people he claims to love. Dream-date Ken hairdo notwithstanding -- Neil Entwistle is starting to look exactly like the kind of guy who commit an unimaginable crime.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/18/08: Neil's allegedly Googling "how to kill" is weirdly unsurprising. He was a techie by training, a guy who was really comfortable on the Web. The computer was, in his mind, his moneymaker and his magic answer machine -- so why not research the most tried and true murder methods on the Internet?

It seems to smack of planning on his part -- but not much planning, which means there was a touch of desperation underlying his activities. I've never thought of Entwistle -- if he is indeed guilty of these crimes -- as a cold, calculating killer who coolly planned everything in advance. He's always struck me more as an impulsive adolescent. He'd learned to put on an adult act whenever necessary, but inside he was stuck at 12, maturity-wise -- everything was about him and his needs. And used properly, the computer would fulfill those needs -- for information about murder, as a route to meeting a sex partner, you name it.

A guilty verdict would truly render Entwistle a killer for our times.
 

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/14/08

posted 6/13/08: I know Mike Fabbri pretty well. I worked with him at the DA's office for years - so I'm not surprised to see him take this methodical approach to the trial. It's exactly the style I expected from Mike.

For people hoping for high entertainment value, you're not getting it.

For people hoping for a highly professional, relatively boring trial, you're getting what you want. I don't see anything close to a dog and pony show. But that's no surprise when it's the prosecution's turn. The "show" stuff usually comes from the defense.

I'm underwhelmed by the surprises so far.

The prosecutor is even taking the time to plug holes that he anticipates the defense will make when they put on their case. This stuff is hard for people to understand, unless they have a complete understanding of the case so that they can see why the prosecutor might be asking questions that don't seem especially important.

This feels like the calm before the storm. Elliot Weinstein has taken a close to the vest approach so far which means he is either planning something really big, or he knows full well there's nothing he can do.

I think one of the terribly unfair things this week was Weinstein, coming out publicly, saying he (Neil Entwistle) was crying because he didn't commit the crime. The unfair thing is the prosecutor can't come out and say anything. The prosecutor SHOULD be allowed to say "no - he was crying because he's guilty" -- but the ugly truth is, the defense can use the media to their advantage and say whatever nonsense they feel like saying - while the prosecutor is much more restrained and really can't say anything at all -- even if only to correct a misstatement by the defense.
 

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/14/08: Overall, the thing that hits me the hardest after the first week of the Entwistle murder trial is the sheer size and scope of the tragedy itself. Perhaps it was the classical music coming from the otherwise unseen (to the public) crime scene video, or the recitation of known and indisputable facts by the prosecution: Neil Entwistle *did* withdraw money from ATMs; he *did* inexplicably fly to England even as his wife and child lay dead in their Hopkinton home. As much as I've followed various crime stories throughout the years, I have rarely felt as if I am somehow intruding on something by tracking developments in various cases. Here, I have had that feeling, and it is unsettling.

Questions have come up, too -- mainly, how will Mr. Entwistle's attorney plausibly explain some of these things? How can anyone explain them? It is often said that peoples' reactions to grief are not 100% predictable, and that is true; still, there are some expected parameters, and Neil Entwistle's behavior just didn't fall within those parameters. Entwistle's attorney has to be able to make fathers and husbands, wives and mothers understand how one can find the two people most dear to them in the world dead from gunshot wounds and do nothing save run, get as far away from the scene as possible. That's a huge, tall order, and I'm surprised anyone would even want to take on the task at all -- but that's how the system works, for better or for worse.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/12/08

posted 6/12/08: Wednesday was a tough day all around. We heard the awful details of how Rachel and baby Lillian were found dead - cuddling in bed, with classical music playing in the background. Rachel had apparently just given the baby a bath because the upstairs bathtub was filled with water and baby toys.

After the Hopkinton "Welcome Lady" testified that Neil seemed to be the consummate doting father and one of Rachel's best friends agreed the couple was very much in love, the theme of Neil having "two sides" is getting stronger now that the gruesome facts about the murders are coming out. While most of us were on the verge of tears hearing about the bullet holes in Rachel's head and Lillian's chest, we're seeing images of Neil on the ATM surveillance video - cool as a cucumber trying to extract cash from the family's bank account as he made his escape to London.

Even if you wanted to believe the defense version - that Neil didn't kill his wife and baby - he just happened upon the murder scene and then he took off because he panicked, it just doesn't make sense that he would not call 911, and then calmly make his way to various ATM machines before hopping a plane to Europe. The defense may well argue that it isn't fair to infer guilt from Neil's behavior and that "there's no playbook on how a guy should act when he finds his wife and baby murdered." Maybe so -- but if there WERE a playbook -- his behavior wouldn't even be a footnote on the last page.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/12/08: Today was one of the more unsettling, chilling days in the trial so far, partly because of the defendant's breakdown. Neil Entwistle appeared to cover his face and sob while a video of the murder scene was played for the jury. Many questions arise from his behavior: was he putting on an act, or did the truth behind his wife's and daughter's deaths hit him for the first time today? There's just no telling how a jury might perceive such a thing.

Personally, I have trouble not thinking about similar cases from the recent past -- this time, Scott and Laci Peterson. Scott Peterson had a lot in common with Neil Entwistle -- both were outwardly nice-looking, golden boy types, the kind you never can believe would do such a thing. Both seem to have led secret lives where sex was concerned, Peterson more overtly through affairs, Entwistle with his visits to Adult Friend Finder and similar sites around the time his wife and child were murdered. And Scott Peterson wept, too -- on a national news broadcast, speaking to a famous journalist. The defendant's tears may make for a fascinating headline, but in truth, they don't mean much -- even middling actors can summon tears at will, and really, no one can truly know why the tears came in the first place. With Neil Entwistle, they may have been for his lost wife and child. They may have also been for himself alone.

I have to wonder if the jury noticed, and if it will make a difference, in the end. To those that remember Scott Peterson's crocodile tears, Neil Entwistle's breakdown in court today will have little bearing on estimations of his guilt or innocence. If viewed as an act, an attempt at manipulation, they will surely work against him.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/10/08

posted June 9: So it looks like Neil not only had access to the gun and knew where the key to the gun safe was in the Matterazzo home, he knew how to shoot it. The defense made no points with the family witnesses from what I could tell except to get them all to say Neil was a seemingly nice guy. It was interesting that the defense asked whether Rachel seemed depressed.

This made me think that even though the answer was "no", she was not depressed, the defense is not planning to implicate any of the family members, except maybe Rachel herself. Remember, the computer records suggested Neil was reading things on-line about suicide and homicide right before the murders. Maybe the defense thinks they can get away with claiming Rachel was the one doing the searching - which is not only rank speculation but a cowardly thing to do when the victim isn't around to defend herself. But the jury will be hard-pressed to believe a young woman who was thrilled to be a new mother would kill her own baby, especially when Neil's - NOT Rachel's - DNA was found on the gun and the ammo -- and it was Neil who fled the country, lawyered up and lied to cops.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/10/08: In 2006, the Entwistle case already reminded me of another family murder; the deaths of the Christian Longo family in Oregon in 2001. Longo was convicted of the murders and sentenced to death.

Like Neil Entwistle, Christian Longo was an outwardly appealing, dynamic young man who appeared to truly love and dote on his family. He impressed everyone who dealt with him. That was how he sidestepped legal repercussions of scams he ran several times before he finally just killed his family and escaped briefly to Mexico.

Today's testimony only made me think of Longo again, and it reinforced my earlier perceptions about the similarities between the cases. Neil Entwistle really didn't have much money at all, but apparently that didn't matter; he was going to live the way he pleased, including the purchase of a BMW that he surely couldn't afford. And the "welcome lady" was charmed by Neil and family, of course -- just as church elders were charmed by Christian Longo, up until the time they finally kicked him out of church, just as judges found Longo impressive enough to believe his claims of turning his life around.

The insidious thing about narcissistic men who eventually find they no longer need their families is just that -- how charming they frequently are to people around them. I'm certain most people who might encounter Neil Entwistle in daily life would find him very easy to like.

It occurred to me today that if Entwistle had chosen to not fly home to England, he might have been in better shape than he is today. The flight from Massachusetts -- with no boarding luggage, even -- was easily one of the most glaring reasons (to the public at the time) to consider him a person of interest.

It's weird to think that if Entwistle had relied on his charm and guile and stuck around, he might have been able to at least stay out of jail a little longer.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/9/08

posted June 9: So it looks like Neil not only had access to the gun and knew where the key to the gun safe was in the Matterazzo home, he knew how to shoot it. The defense made no points with the family witnesses from what I could tell except to get them all to say Neil was a seemingly nice guy. It was interesting that the defense asked whether Rachel seemed depressed.

This made me think that even though the answer was "no", she was not depressed, the defense is not planning to implicate any of the family members, except maybe Rachel herself. Remember, the computer records suggested Neil was reading things on-line about suicide and homicide right before the murders. Maybe the defense thinks they can get away with claiming Rachel was the one doing the searching - which is not only rank speculation but a cowardly thing to do when the victim isn't around to defend herself. But the jury will be hard-pressed to believe a young woman who was thrilled to be a new mother would kill her own baby, especially when Neil's - NOT Rachel's - DNA was found on the gun and the ammo -- and it was Neil who fled the country, lawyered up and lied to cops.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/6/08: Elliot Weinstein has his work cut out for him. Prosecutor Michael Fabbri's opening statement was chilling in the way it portrayed apparently cold-blooded, conscienceless behavior on Entwistle's part in late January, 2006. Fabbri seemed to let the record, partly as told by Neil Entwistle, speak for itself. The story was classic, in many respects -- commentators on Court TV even noted the similarities between Entwistle's actions (visiting porn-related sites) and no less than Scott Peterson, who infamously ordered a triple X cable channel to be added to his service after Laci Peterson disappeared.

Somehow, Weinstein has to turn the trick of getting the jury to believe that a father's natural reaction to overwhelming grief, horror and loss is to take a transatlantic flight back home to Merrye Old England and hang out with mum and da for a bit.

People will continue railing against the lawyers -- after all, the railing started with Shakespeare -- but Mr. Weinstein has a lot of chutzpah to go up against even some of the most cut and dried elements of this case and still try and paint Neil Entwistle as someone who did "everything he did" for his family "because he loved them." If nothing else, I respect Entwistle's attorney for the kind of moxie you have to possess to stand up in front of a panel of adults and try and sell that story.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.

Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/6/08

posted June 6: I did watch much of the openings and most of the mom's testimony.

Sounded like Elliot (Weinstein) was playing close to the vest -- not really promising anything in terms of a defense. But I got the sense he was planning to suggest one or more of Rachel's family members might have been involved -- which will NOT go over well with the jury.

I am actually involved in representing someone connected to the case so I spent my time today watching AND working on legal pleadings related to that matter -- can't say more just yet.

I've known the prosecutor for 20 years -- Mike Fabbri is not only methodical - he is very careful and his opening made it clear that his goal is to put the case in chronilogically - piece by piece. But he also has to anticipate the defense strategy and address it while he's putting his evidence in. So it seemed to me some of his questions were designed to dampen any suggestion that someone close to Rachel, other than Neil, could have been involved.

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/6/08: Elliot Weinstein has his work cut out for him. Prosecutor Michael Fabbri's opening statement was chilling in the way it portrayed apparently cold-blooded, conscienceless behavior on Entwistle's part in late January, 2006. Fabbri seemed to let the record, partly as told by Neil Entwistle, speak for itself. The story was classic, in many respects -- commentators on Court TV even noted the similarities between Entwistle's actions (visiting porn-related sites) and no less than Scott Peterson, who infamously ordered a triple X cable channel to be added to his service after Laci Peterson disappeared.

Somehow, Weinstein has to turn the trick of getting the jury to believe that a father's natural reaction to overwhelming grief, horror and loss is to take a transatlantic flight back home to Merrye Old England and hang out with mum and da for a bit.

People will continue railing against the lawyers -- after all, the railing started with Shakespeare -- but Mr. Weinstein has a lot of chutzpah to go up against even some of the most cut and dried elements of this case and still try and paint Neil Entwistle as someone who did "everything he did" for his family "because he loved them." If nothing else, I respect Entwistle's attorney for the kind of moxie you have to possess to stand up in front of a panel of adults and try and sell that story.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/6/08: I thought that (prosecutor) Mr. (Michael) Fabbri’s opening statement was well organized and designed for a circumstantial case such as this. He led with his strength, the words and actions of Neil Entwistle himself. This is important because you only have a limited time to catch the jury’s attention and have them view the evidence through the lens of the prosecution. The only problem I saw was the almost too quiet tone of the opening which muted the outrage which should exist just below the surface of the case.

The defense (Elliot Weinstein) opening provided an appropriate contrast to the prosecutor’s opening without disclosing either its specific theory of defense or details of the evidence will elicit both during cross examination of the prosecution witness and during their own case. By keeping their cards close to their vests while emphasizing the presumption of innocence and burden of proof, the defense retains a maximum amount of flexibility without telling the prosecution what the flaws in its case are before exposing those flaws to the jury.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.