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.