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.