Bob_Ward's Blog

There is a new computer program being made available to local police that could have an impact on all of our lives.

It's called CrimeReports.

This program provides a window into what police are doing in our communities. Here's how it works. Every day a police department's calls are plotted onto a Google Map. The call is represented by a push pin. Click on the push pin and you get a synopsis of the call. Exact addresses and names are omitted for privacy reasons. Rather than an exact address, you'll get a push

So if you see police in your neighborhood and you want to know why they are there, you can log on and find out.

And day after day, week after week, you can actually see what is happening all around you. If there is a rash of break ins, it's there.
Stolen cars? You'll see it. And, armed with that information you can keep a closer eye on your own property, and maybe report some suspicious activity that could help the police.

Right now only two Massachusetts towns: Barnstable and Haverhill are using CrimeReports. It's likely the number of towns will increase, as the program is available to police departments for $99/month.

Check out my story by clicking here. And let me know what you think.

Bob Ward

There's been an arrest in one of our New England's Unsolved cases. And it's one of the strangest cases we've ever featured.

Today the FBI arrested 26-year-old Daniel Almeida on federal bank robbery charges for the May 2007 robbery of the East Cambridge Savings Bank on Highland Avenue.

Only FOX25 was there when Almeida was busted. And if you click HERE you'll see just how happy he was to see us.

But let me tell you. This was no ordinary bank robbery.

On May 26, 2007, employees at the branch arrived to find one of the tellers tied up with duct tape to a chair. The bank's vault was stripped of nearly ALL of its cash. The FBI told me it was a substantial amount of money taken.

But there's still so much more.

The teller claims this all started the NIGHT BEFORE!

She said she was kidnapped at a package store in Woburn. She said a gunman recognized her from the bank and slid into her car and ordered her to drive to the East Cambridge Savings Bank and open the vault. She said when she told the gunman the vault is on a timer, he ordered her to drive, for hours, until the timer opened the vault.

The teller said the gunman threatened that he had a partner and that his partner would kill her children if she didn't obey him. So they drove. Through Everett, Revere, Boston. She said they stopped twice. Once at projects in Medford. And later at the Mishewam Projects in Charlestown. At Mishewam, the teller said, a police officer drove by, so the gunman made her leave.

During this entire trip, the teller said, she never saw the gunman because he ordered the rear view mirror tilted the other way.

Once at the bank, the teller says the gunman ordered her to duct tape the security cameras. Then he ordered her to empty the vault, giving her two black duffle bags to fill up.

Bags loaded, the gunman ordered the teller to sit in a chair facing a wall, and he taped her up.

The teller told investigators the only glimpse she had of the guy was a blue medical glove.

When I first reported on this case, the FBI gave me exclusive access to surveillance images taken outside the bank. And they revealed a blurry image of a man running behind the branch.

Today, the FBI arrested Daniel Almeida. The feds say he is the guy who kidnapped the teller, robbed the bank, and is seen in the fuzzy surveillance picture.

And, if convicted, Almeida is looking at twenty years.

But this isn't the end of the case. The FBI tells me more arrests are possible.

I told you this was a strange story!

What do you think?

Bob Ward

I'm sure by now you know the brutal details of the Brooke Bennett case.
She is the 12-year-old girl who disappeared on June 25th, last seen with her uncle at a Cumberland Farms in Randolph, Vermont.

Brooke's body was discovered nearly a week later, buried in a shallow grave near the uncle's house.

Prosecutors believe the uncle, Michael Jacques, was trying to initiate Brooke into a sex ring that allegedly already included Brooke's former step father and a 14-year-old girl.

There are many more sordid details that have been widely reported, and frankly they turn my stomach.

Today Jacques was arraigned in US District Court in Burlington, VT on a kidnapping charge. And at the same time, the State of Vermont dismissed its charges against Jacques.

To me this can only mean prosecutors are paving the way to seek the death penalty against Jacques once the forensics come back from the M.E.

Now, Vermont abolished the death penalty in 1964, and the last execution took place in Vermont more than fifty years ago.

Vermont federal prosecutors have already told reporters they may seek the death penalty against Jacques. It seems to me the legal groundwork is now being laid for that to happen.

Here in Massachusetts, where the death penalty was abolished, the feds successfully sought the death penalty against Gary Sampson. In 2001 Sampson went on a brutal crime spree, killing three people in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Barring an appeal at some point Sampson will be executed in New Hampshire where the death penalty is still on the books.

I find it interesting that the feds are stepping in with the death penalty in states where capital punishment was abolished.

I'm interested to find out what you think.

Are you concerned about the feds seeking death in states where there is no death penalty? Is this an end run around state's rights? Or do you think the feds are merely doing what the states should do on their own?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Bob Ward

The last time anyone saw Dorothy Bois, this 22 year old mother of two was living on Kinsley Street in Nashua, NH with her husband, Ken Bois. That was nearly 35 years ago.

Dorothy has seemingly fallen off the face of the earth. But we know that doesn't really happen, right? So the question becomes, why would a young mother of two walk away? Walk away from her children, walk away from her husband, walk away from her mother and father? And why would she disappear on the day before her birthday? Thirty five years later, no one knows. But the Nashua, NH police department is still working the case.

Last year detectives served search warrants at the home where Ken Bois now lives and at the sprawling home where his parents live. Both of those addresses are in Nashua. Ken Bois was not home when I tried to talk to him. I contacted Bois' lawyer who declined comment for both himself and his client. I did manage to get a hold of Ken's mother on the telephone, she said Dorothy is gone and she has no idea what happened to her daughter in law. Nashua NH police won't say what they were looking for with their search warrants or what they found. They'll only tell me they have many unresolved questions.
 

A very strange case to say the least. And it leaves my central question unanswered: why would a young woman, a mother of two, simply walk away a day before her birthday? Click here to watch the NE Unsolved story. If you have any information about Dorothy Bois please contact Nashua NH police at (603)589-1665.

 Watch the story here.

What do you think? Bob Ward

Tonight (Thursday) Neil Entwistle is spending his final night in the Middlesex County House of Correction in Cambridge. Now that he's convicted of murdering his wife, Rachel, and their 9-month-old daughter,  Lillian, Neil Entwistle is set to begin the next -- and last -- phase of his life.

Under state law, people convicted of first-degree murder must serve at least the first two years of their sentence in a maximum security prison.

This is why Friday morning a van will pick up Neil in Cambridge and give him a one-way ride to the town of Shirley, Mass., and to Neil's new home at the Souza Baranowski Correctional Center. Despite the non-descript name of the place, this is a maximum security prison.

And if you believe in karma, how about this: Rachel's maiden name was Souza.

Neil will spend his first couple of days in the intake facility at Souza. He'll undergo psychological and physical testing. This is done to determine his classification and it will determine where Neil will live at Souza. Neil was segregated from the general population at the House of Correction; we don't know if he'll still be segregated at Souza.

All of the cells at Souza are 13' x 7.' And they are single cells, so no roommates.

But don't worry about Neil Entwistle ever getting lonely.

As of May 29th, according to the Department of Corrections, there are 904 first-degree murder inmates in Massachusetts serving life no parole sentences, like Neil. I'm told Neil will not be the only young man spending decades behind bars without any hope of getting out.

If that figure of 904 first-degree murder inmates startles you, it startles me too. And if you are wondering, there are 11,000 inmates in the Massachusetts prison system.

In time, as Neil Entwistle ages, he will likely be moved to another facility. Again, he must serve at least two years in max. The state's other max is MCI Cedar Junction, aka Walpole State Prison. It is no day at the beach.

When Neil Entwistle was convicted, and when he was sentenced, Neil displayed no emotion in court. He must have the world's most effective poker face because if I was in his shoes, I'd be terrified. And if I was an innocent man wrongly accused, I'd be fighting to the end.

Tonight, I put together a story about Neil's friends back home in England. They talked about how well liked and mild mannered Neil was when they were all growing up. Neil excelled in math and science. He was tight with his teachers. And his boyhood friends were envious that Neil had made it, that he was starting a new life they could only dream about: a life in America.

Neil Entwistle's life in America, thousands of miles away from anyone who loves or cares about him, will be a nightmare.

And to think none of it had to happen.

What a waste.

Bob Ward

Neil Entwistle guilty on two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of his wife, Rachel, and the couple's 9-month-old daughter, Lillian.

No surprise there. The evidence was both powerful and overwhelming.

But what happened outside the court, with Neil's parents still blaming Rachel, going so far as to call her a murderer, I've never seen anything like it.

Not only that, but Neil's mother said she knew Rachel suffered from depression.

It boggles my mind. Not only because this trashes the memory of Rachel Entwistle (the very thing the defense said Neil didn't want to do), but where was this evidence at trial?

It's right up there with why he didn't call 911. Why wouldn't a mother who felt she had exculpatory evidence, insist it be presented during her son's murder trial? Why are we only hearing about depression after his conviction?

I asked Middlesex County DA Gerry Leone to comment about the Entwistle family's statements and he'd only say this: "I expect nothing less of the parents of someone convicted of First Degree murder. The jury has spoken in this case. They've spoken loudly."

I expect Neil Entwistle's parents will be in court Thursday morning for their son's sentencing. But this will only be a formality. The life no parole sentence is automatic. And so too is the appeal.

I was in the courtroom when the verdict was read. And what a surreal moment it was.

I grabbed a seat after lunch. I had a book with me, but I was talking to other reporters and other observers about the trial, when suddenly there was this rapid influx of people in what was, just moments before, an empty courtroom.

I was used to seeing the defense team, Elliott Weinstein and Stephanie Page walking in and out of the courtroom, but Mike Fabbri, the lead prosecutor suddenly emerged. And just seconds later word filtered in to us that the jury reached a verdict.

The courtroom was packed, there wasn't a spare seat inside. And then the really weird part: the judge entered the courtroom and resumed routine business for about a half and hour. The wait was excruciating.

Finally, when the routine flotsam and jetsam of courtroom life was finished, the judge took another brief break. When Neil walked into the courtroom, he nodded at his parents and took his customary place at the defense table.

When the jury walked in, as I observed yesterday, every single juror, the twelve plus the four alternates, looked away from Entwistle, most craning their necks to avoid looking at him. In the moments while the guilty verdicts were read, just one juror looked at Neil. The rest simply looked at the judge.

When it was all over, when the judge and the jury left, I saw something I'll never forget. Neil Entwistle turned towards his father. He raised his eyebrows. And shrugged. It was an "oh well, we tried" kind of shrug. And then Neil was led away. Not even in Neil's hour of judgment could he muster up an emotion. Neil Entwistle is 29 years old, he could spend 60 years in a Massachusetts prison, thousands of miles from home, his wife and daughter buried in a single coffin, and Neil Entwistle shrugged.

A couple of years ago I read a book about the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth was quoted as looking at his hands and saying, "Useless, useless," before drawing his last breath.

And that's how I feel about this case. A beautiful young mother and her little baby are dead. The handsome young father will never again taste freedom. Two families on both sides of the Atlantic now plunged into unimaginable misery. And all for what? What a complete waste.

During the press conference after the verdict, I asked prosecutor Mike Fabbri what he considered the most critical evidence against Neil Entwistle. And he answered simply: "Neil Entwistle."

In the end Neil Entwistle could not get away from his words and ultimately he could not escape his demons. What drove him to destroy his young family we will never know.

It's something I hope I will never understand.

Thanks all for following this case with us. You know how much I appreciate your support.

Please let me know what you are thinking about all of this..

Bob Ward

Count me as one of those people who thought these deliberations wouldn't take long. I didn't think there'd be an immediate verdict, but I thought it was possible to have something by the end of the day.

Wrong.

The jury called it a day at 4 p.m. It will resume deliberation 9 a.m. on Wednesday.

There is no way to tell how long this is going to take. The only insight we have is the pair of questions the jury had for the judge this afternoon.

The jury wanted information about a receipt recovered from Neil's BMW and about computer activity recorded on Neil's computer on the morning of the murders. It looks like the jury wanted to examine these two pieces of evidence, rather than rely on memory of the testimony.

The computer evidence is interesting. The state's computer forensic witness said that on January 20th, someone using the "ent" log-on, accessed Neil's computer at about 12:30 p.m.

The trouble for Neil is that he told Trooper Manning he found the bodies of his wife and baby at about 11 a.m. So an hour and a half after discovering the bodies, Neil Entwistle doesn't call 911, but he checks his e-mail.

Now, in closing, Neil's lawyer suggested that Neil was wrong about his times. That he returned to his house after the errands later than he thought and accessed the email just before he found the bodies.

The trouble for me is that on the Manning tape, Neil is clear about times, where he was and when. He's also clear about what he did when he walked into the quiet house. He even remembers getting annoyed with Rachel because the kitchen was still dirty ("what was she doing for two hours?"). Yet he says nothing at all about checking his computer.

This issue of changing the timeline only exists in the defense's closing on Monday. There's no other evidence for it.

The fact that this jury didn't return a quick verdict is a sign that the jurors are taking very seriously their duty to go over all of the evidence. Remember when Elliot Weinstein said it's impossible to seat a fair and impartial jury in Middlesex County before the trial started? It's obvious to me now that this jury is doing what it is supposed to do: weigh the facts, consider the evidence, and work through it all.

The only other thing I can tell you is that when the jury entered the courtroom and exited the courtroom at the end of the day, not a single juror looked at Neil. In fact, they were all grim faced, and most craned their necks to purposely look away from him. I don't think that's a very good sign for Neil. But that's just me. Someone else will probably say that body language means nothing.

So I'll be back here again Wednesday morning, along with Ted Daniel and a team of Fox25 photographers and technicians.

We are expected to get a five minute heads up when the jury reaches its verdict.

And yes, I'm going to guess that we'll have something by the end of Wednesday. But don't bet on it. My track record predicting this jury isn't exactly on target!

I'll see you tomorrow.

Let me know what you think. Both Ted Daniel and I are reading all of your responses. Ted's been better at responding to them than I have been, but I'll try to catch up. Just want to let you know I am enjoying all of your views and all of your input.

Bob Ward

If Neil Entwistle is ultimately convicted for the murders of his wife, Rachel, and their daughter, Lillian, in their rented Hopkinton home, he won't be able to say he didn't have a good lawyer.

True, the defense didn't call any witnesses, but the defense doesn't have to. It's the state that has to prove its case.

And I'm not saying the state hasn't proven its case.

What I am saying is that in his closing statements, Elliott Weinstein gave this jury a lot to think about. What may have seemed a slam dunk when the audio tapes were played late last week and again this morning, now may not be. Is it enough to prove reasonable doubt? I'm not so sure. But is it enough for one member of the jury? Could be.

Here's what Elliott Weinstein did. He gave the jury a reason for Rachel Entwistle to have the gun residue on both of her hands. He explained why Neil went back to Carver, why he went back to England, and why he didn't call 911. The reason: Neil found the bodies and didn't want to tarnish his dead wife's honor or memory by telling the world she killed herself.

When Elliott presented these facts in closing, the wheels in my head were spinning. Hmmm, what if, what if?

The trouble with this theory for me is that Neil has waited until the 11th and a half hour to reveal it.

Plus it doesn't explain everything. For example, who was looking up How to Kill With a Knife on the internet on Neil's computer days before the murders?

And this strategy doesn't come without risk. In his closing Elliott Weinstein said he is not blaming Rachel. But that could be exactly what the jury will think about this suicide defense.

Now, the state's closing was also very effective. Mike Fabbri hit it out of the park, using Entwistle's own words about "closing them off" when he described Entwistle covering the bodies, locking the house, throwing away his wallet.

We also were reminded about the Adult Friend Finder profile. About an email Neil wrote to a woman, how he wanted more fun in the bedroom. Doesn't exactly paint a portrait of a man deeply in love with his wife.

But Fabbri's most powerful argument in closing, I thought, was the gun. And the DNA. Fabbri reminded the jurors that Neil's was found all over the weapon, but Rachel's was found in just one place: the muzzle.

If Rachel held the gun to her baby and to her own forehead, Mike Fabbri asked, wouldn't her DNA, not Neil's, be all over the weapon?

I've learned a long time ago not to predict what a jury will do.

I think both sides presented strong arguments. And it's anyone's guess where this will go.

How about you?

Did the state prove its case?

Or is the defense making you go back over everything and re-think what you've heard?

Does the fact the defense didn't call any witnesses bother you?

Let me know,

Bob Ward

We still don't know if Neil Entwistle is going to be called to take the stand in his own defense. But in a sense Neil has already testified in this internationally watched double murder trial.

As its final piece of evidence, the state is presenting long, tape-recorded statements Neil Entwistle gave to the Massachusetts State Police just days after the horrific murders of Neil's wife Rachel and their infant daughter Lillian.

The tape is nothing short of amazing. MA State Trooper Robert Manning was masterful in drawing Entwistle's story out of him, and then challenging him on key points. Trooper (now Sgt.) Manning is superb in gaining Neil Entwistle's trust and keeping him on the telephone long enough to explore the sad events of January 2006.

The first tape played for the jury today was two hours long. And it seems like Neil Entwistle couldn't stop talking.

The key is that Neil's statements here, and to others, set in stone where he was and when. By Neil's account, the murders had to have happened between 9 and 11 am on Friday January 20, 2006 when he was running errands.

Even Neil Entwistle himself comments that he can't imagine this being done with such a narrow window of time. He also can't imagine who would do this because no one knew where he lived. These murders took place just ten days after Neil and Rachel moved to Hopkinton. So I guess this rules out an unsatisfied customer from Entwistle's Ebay business looking for some vengeance.

This almost certainly leaves the suicide theory that was first raised in cross on Thursday.

Trouble is, Neil never mentions Rachel committing suicide in this or any other statement. And of course there's the trouble with how the gun ends up locked in Carver at the home of Rachel's step father.

Neil's defense lawyer has warned jurors not to make snap judgments. To listen to all of the evidence, to keep an open mind before reaching a verdict. After today, that's got to be a tough task for jurors.

And I'm left wondering if Neil will be forced to take the stand and try to explain inconsistencies in his stories.

But I want you to make up your own mind about this. We have posted Neil's statements to Mass State Police and you can find the first hour here.

For the second hour of the tape, click here.

And let me know what you think.

As for what's next. There is another MA State Police tape that will be presented to jurors on Monday. Then the state will rest its case.

We'll see who Elliott Weinstein and Stephanie Page, Entwistle's lawyers, will call to the stand very, very soon.

Talk to you soon,

Bob Ward

It is very likely that the state will call its final witness Friday in the double murder trial of Neil Entwistle. He is the Englishman accused of killing his wife Rachel and their nine month old daughter Lillian in their rented Hopkinton home in January of 2006.

And as the state prepares to rest its case, the defense is giving jurors something new to consider: that Rachel Entwistle killed her baby before turning the gun on herself on that awful January day.

This theory came in the form of ferocious cross examination of state medical examiner William Zane. He testified that Rachel's death was "immediate" when she was shot in the head. And that baby Lillian, shot in the chest, likely died within a "minute or minutes" of her fatal gunshot.

Both mother and child were discovered in Neil and Rachel's bed with Rachel's arm draped over her baby daughter.

We already know that gun residue, which occurs when a gun is fired, was found on Rachel's hands, but no gun residue was found on anything associated with Neil Entwistle.

Under cross examination William Zane revealed he determined Rachel and Lillian were murdered without knowing about the gun residue on Rachel's hands.

Now, during earlier testimony the jury was told that a person could get gun residue on himself in one of three ways: by handling the gun as it is fired, by being near the weapon as it is fired, or by touching the weapon soon after it is shot.

When Lillian was shot, she was immediately in front of her mother. That bullet passed through the baby and into Rachel's left breast. A separate shot, to the top of Rachel's head, above the hairline killed Rachel.

I'm having a hard time imagining how Rachel could place the baby in front of her, pull the trigger, and then put the barrel of the .22 long Colt to the top of her head and fire again. There is also testimony that Rachel may have been standing in another part of the room when she was killed, as there is blood on the walls away from the bed, four feet nine inches up from the floor.

We also know that Rachel's DNA was found on the gun muzzle, but Neil's was found on the grip, and five other areas associated with the gun.

There is another hole in this theory: the gun was found locked up in Rachel's step father's house in Carver. If Rachel killed the baby and herself, how did she put the gun back?

And if Neil Entwistle stumbled on the scene as he told his friends and police, why did he never mention the gun? It would seem a very important detail.

Also today, we learn more about Neil's profile on Adult Friend Finder, the swinger's website. According to testimony, Neil's profile described himself as an Englishman recently moved to America who was looking for American ladies for 1 on 1 discreet relationships.

Going back to the suicide theory that's emerging from the defense, we won't know for some time if it will take hold with any jurors.

What do you think?

Is the suicide idea a workable one? Can it explain any of the discrepancies in this case?

What do you think of the state's case? It looks like the state will rest on Friday.

Bob Ward

I believe the strongest evidence against Neil Entwistle in his double murder trial are the statements he made after the murders of his wife Rachel and their nine-month-old daughter Lillian in their rented Hopkinton home.

Today, after devastating DNA evidence was introduced (more about that in a moment) two of Neil Entwistle's UK friends took the stand. Both men were with Neil the night before he was arrested.

At dinner, Benjamin Prior asked Neil what happened. And what Neil allegedly said to his friend is loaded with inconsistencies.

Benjamin says that Neil told him that on the morning of the murders, Neil left the house, and when he returned at around 11am, he discovered the bodies of Rachel and Lillian in the upstairs bedroom.

Upset, Neil ran downstairs to get a knife to kill himself, lost his nerve, and then drove to Carver because he knew his father in law had a gun collection. Once there, Neil settled down and realized he needed to tell someone what had happened.

Neil said he drove to the workplace of Priscilla Matterazzo, Rachel's mom, and told her what he found at the house. Then he went back to the Carver house where grieving family members were gathering. At some point he speaks over the phone to Massachusetts State Police.

Eventually, Neil wants to be alone, so he drives to the only other place in  Massachusetts he knows: Logan Airport. And eventually he gets the idea to go home to the UK so he can be with his own family.

Neil allegedly tells his friends he is having financial problems. He says he and Rachel bought the Hopkinton home with a 100 percent mortgage, and that they bought the BMW, but neither had jobs. He said he would probably declare bankruptcy in the UK.

He said the couple's financial problems were compounded by the fact that Rachel wanted to completely furnish the Hopkinton house with furniture bought on credit.

Another UK friend, Daschiel Munding testified that Neil told him essentially the same story with some key differences.

Neil told him that he remembered the back door to the Hopkinton house was left unlocked when he went to do an errand at Staples on the morning of the murders, and that it was still unlocked when he returned.

Munding says that Neil told him he went to Carver because he knew his father-in-law had a gun collection. And Neil wanted to make sure the guns were secure, that nothing was wrong.

On the day of Rachel and Lillian's funeral, Neil told Munding that he spent time at the place where he proposed to Rachel. When pressed where that was, Munding didn't know.

The stories are key because we know Neil did not show up at Priscilla's workplace, he did not return to the Carver home to grieve with friends, he did not speak with Massachusetts State Police before he returned to the UK. Also, the Hopkinton house was rented, so too was the BMW.

In addition to all of this, there is still more.

To the DNA.

My colleague, Ted Daniel, has blogged about the DNA on the murder weapon.

Here's more DNA evidence.

We now know the DNA found on the bedroom walls, away from the bed, belongs to Rachel. Those blood stains were four feet nine inches off the ground. Rachel was five feet tall. It looks to me like Rachel was shot there and then placed on the bed.

The sperm found on Rachel's clothes and in her body belonged to Neil Entwistle.

Still more evidence.

Neil Entwistle did not attend his wife and daughter's funeral, but he did order flowers from a Pembroke florist.

Neil ordered an orange rose and a white lilly with a card that read: "My orange rose and my lilly for always xoxoxo.

Neil also ordered flowers for his parents, and the next day he called with another order for other family and friends in the UK.

The florist testified the caller identified himself as Neil Entwistle and he gave two phone numbers, both of which were UK numbers.

Finally, a forensic computer technician testified about a Toshiba laptop and its hard drive. On January 16, just days before the murder, someone logging on as "ent" conducted a Google search for the phrase "How to Kill With A Knife." That search was done at 12:54:45.

And with that, court recessed for the day.

Again, what do you think?

Bob Ward

I have to admit, this was a painful day in the Neil Entwistle double murder trial.

This was the day the state showed the jury, and the whole world, the night clothes Rachel and Lillian Entwistle were wearing when they were shot to death inside their rented Hopkinton home.

Rachel's green blouse, and little Lillian's onesie and pj's were covered in blood. Last week only the jury saw the gruesome crime scene photos. But today we were shown the tangible evidence that reveals the brutality of this awful crime.

These bloody clothes were not shown merely for shock value. According to State Police chemist Deanna Dygan Lillian's pjs reveal a very disturbing fact: Lillian's killer pressed the barrel of the gun right up against the baby's chest and pulled the trigger. Brutal. Just brutal.

We also learn that Rachel's blouse and her underpants contained sperm, and that sperm was recovered from Rachel's body. That sperm evidence was sent out for DNA analysis, we have not heard the results.

And if that's not enough, there is still even more startling evidence today. And this has to do with gun powder residue. This is the residue that is released when a gun is fired, and we learn today it typically lands up to three feet away from the fired weapon.

From state witnesses today we learn that gun powder residue was discovered on Rachel Entwistle's hands. And no residue was found on anything belonging to Neil Entwistle that was tested. This includes a blue sweater recovered from the Entwistles' leased and locked BMW Neil left at Logan Airport before flying off to his native England.

The gun residue on Rachel's hands means one of three things: she fired the weapon, she held the weapon after it was fired, or she was near it when it was fired. We know Rachel was found with her arm draped over Lillian's lifeless body. Could this explain the residue?

What about Neil?

No trace of gunpowder residue present in the BMW or on that sweater. Of course we don't know what clothes Neil was wearing on the morning of the murders, but we do know he drove the BMW that day. The BMW was found at Logan where Neil was caught on surveillance cameras pulling money out of an ATM. And he allegedly told the State Police that he drove the BMW to Carver after discovering the bodies. If Neil killed Rachel and Lillian, shouldn't residue have been found in the BMW? I'm expecting that question and many more will be hammered home by Neil's defense team.

There is still more forensic evidence, including DNA evidence, to come. And I'm expecting the state will rely on DNA, not gunpowder residue, to put the murder weapon in Neil's hand. Yet even that DNA evidence may be open to interpretation.

This fascinating trial continues Tuesday morning.

Don't forget to check out our Neil Entwistle trial web page which contains live streaming video of the entire trial, plus trial blogs my colleague Ted Daniel and I are writing as this trial unfolds.

What do you think? Is the state proving its case? Is the defense raising serious issues?

Bob Ward

Remember when we all thought Neil Entwistle was not showing enough emotion during his double murder trial?

That's all changed now.

Neil Entwistle broke down in court Thursday as prosecutors played video of the murdered bodies of Neil's wife, Rachel, and 9-month-old daughter Lillian. Just feet away from Neil, his mother openly sobbed while his brother and father held her.

If you have seen the video of Neil's breakdown, you already know the controversy.

Some have commented on national television and on the Internet that Neil is smiling or laughing through his tears.

And after court Thursday, Neil's lawyers, Elliott Weinstein and Stephanie Page, blasted commentary that suggested Neil was expressing joy while watching the brutal videotape.

I think we must give Neil Entwistle the benefit of the doubt here. I don't think he was laughing or smiling. But I think the way Neil's face is constructed it can look like he is laughing or smiling. I do think the tears were genuine, and I do believe he was overcome with grief, just as the defense lawyers say.

But it's not the national audience the defense lawyers are concerned about, it's the 16 people who are sitting in judgment of Neil Entwistle.

If they think Neil's reaction was inappropriate, he's cooked. It's as simple as that. The lawyers know that, and I think that's why they went public Thursday afternoon.

There's no question Neil has shifty eyes and that he often looks bemused in court. I wrote about this in my first trial blog. But the truth is we don't know Neil Entwistle and I think it's unfair to judge him on his facial expressions or his tears.

OK, that's the headline of the day.

But there was a little nugget that I think is worthy of your consideration.

A Massachusetts State Police crime technician spoke of blood stains found on two walls to the right of the bed where Rachel and Lillian were found. There are three stains. They are 4 to 5 mm in size, and 4 feet 9 inches up off the floor. Rachel Entwistle was 5 feet tall.

Does this mean Rachel was standing when she was shot in the forehead and then placed on the bed?

The more I think about this the more I think these bodies were staged to look like Rachel and Lillian were killed during a nap.

A very interesting day.

Testimony resumes Friday morning.

What do you folks think?

Before I go, click here to check out our chat. I stuck my head in there a couple of times Thursday. I'll likely do it again soon. Hope to see you there.

Bob Ward

In my opinion, a very tough day for the Entwistle jury, and it's going to get tougher on Thursday.

This is the day the jury heard graphic testimony about the discovery of the bodies of Rachel and Lillian, they saw the condition of the master bedroom at 6 Cubs Path where the bodies were found, and they heard about a murder weapon with no identifiable fingerprints.

My colleague Ted Daniel has already blogged about the gun. I can only add that we have heard this same gun was used the day after the murders by Rachel's step father (he owns the gun) at a shooting range. Joe Matterazzo and his son say they cleaned the weapon after a day of shooting. Maybe that explains the lack of good prints? I'm expecting the defense will be making much of this in cross examination.

We've also heard that Rachel's DNA is on the muzzle of the gun, and Neil's is on the grip. But that has not come into evidence yet. So the jury will hear first about the lack of prints on the gun before they hear about DNA evidence.

Back to the scene of the crime, it was truly heartbreaking to listen to how Rachel's right arm was wrapped around Lillian. The medical examiner has not yet testified. But between opening statements and police testimony, we have heard that Rachel suffered a single gunshot wound to her forehead, just above the hairline.

Lillian suffered a gunshot wound to her chest, and remnants of that second bullet were found in Rachel's chest.

This means two shots, at least.

And up until now, I've always thought mother and daughter were shot to death while they were sleeping. First Rachel, then Lillian, very quick.

I'm not so sure about that anymore. And here's why.

Police have testified that a bathtub had water in it, as if the baby had just been given a bath. In the state's opening, Neil Entwistle was quoted as telling State Police he could see a hole on Lillian and bubbles. Remember that?

Wouldn't this mean that Lillian had just gotten out of the bathtub when she was killed? But weren't they both sleeping? How could Rachel and Lillian both nod off after a bath?

Also, we learn today that Rachel was under a sheet and a comforter, but the baby was on TOP of the sheet, and under the comforter. Does this make sense if they were napping?

I wonder if this means Rachel was shot in the bed, and then the baby was taken out of the bath, placed next to her mother and then shot. There's quite a bit of intent if that's the case. The question then becomes, who pulled the trigger?

And if Neil is to be believed, that he discovered the bodies Friday morning and saw bubbles on the baby, doesn't that suggest he walked into the bedroom shortly (minutes?) after the murders? If only he called police.

I don't know if the prosecution is going to try to connect those dots, but this occurred to me today as I listened to testimony.

Also today, we saw the bed in its condition during the failed wellness check. And after seeing it, I totally understand how Hopkinton police missed finding Rachel and Lillian. It just looked like an unmade bed to me.

Testimony resumes tomorrow. The jury is expected to see pictures of the bodies of Rachel and Lillian. Another tough day.

Also found out that the prosecution is expected to continue calling witnesses into next week. This trial still has a long way to go.

What do you think?

Click here to visit our page devoted to the Entwistle trial, which features live video, live chat, videos, blogs and an interactive timeline.

Bob Ward

At the murder trial of Neil Entwistle, the prosecution released surveillance photos of a well dressed Neil Entwistle calmly withdrawing money from an ATM at Logan Airport.

What's significant to me is that these pictures were taken roughly twelve hours after Entwistle says he found the murdered bodies of his wife Rachel and their infant daughter Lillian in their rented Hopkinton home.
Yet here is Neil Entwistle reaching for cash, and about to buy a one way ticket back to his native England. If Neil Entwistle is distraught, he is certainly hiding his feelings, as these pictures show Neil routinely trying to access cash.

The next day, it's a completely different scene back at his rented Hopkinton house. At 6 Cub's Path, Rachel's friends and Hopkinton police are looking for the missing family. According to testimony police walked through the house, looking in every room, but they missed the bodies of Rachel and Lillian buried beneath a pile of comforters in the master bedroom.

Rachel's lifelong friend Joanna Gately is so concerned, she and her sister stay at the house, sleeping in their car, all night long, Saturday into Sunday, just waiting for the Entwistles to return home in their rented BMW.

According to the prosecutor's opening statement, Neil Entwistle told his father in law that he found the bodies Friday morning when he returned to the house after running errands. But instead of calling for help, Neil said he was scared and shocked and drove to the father in law's house in Carver to get a gun to kill himself. Neil allegedly said he didn't follow through because the house was all locked up.

Yet the state says when they recovered the family's rented BMW SUV at Logan, the keys to the father in law's home were locked inside.

And on the surveillance video, here is Neil, perfectly coiffed trying to access bank accounts. There is no sign of the horror he said he found back at the house just hours before.

Here's another detail I find chilling. On Sunday morning, Joanna Gately found a neighbor who knew the code to the automatic garage door. And they got into the house.

Why was this so important?

Neil and Rachel owned a dog. The dog was locked in its crate. Joanna wanted to walk and feed the dog. This means Neil Entwistle left the family dog locked in its cage to fend for itself knowing he'd never return.

But he did manage to leave the TV on for the dog. The TV was in the same family room where the dog was crated. .

After Joanna took care of the dog, she and her sister walked through the house. Joanna herself walked into the master bedroom, she did not notice the bodies.

But Joanna did notice something else. She heard music playing in Lillian's bedroom.

So, while Neil Entwistle was recorded at the Logan ATM, his family lay dead in his home, the dog crated with the TV on, and music playing on the second floor from his infant daughter's room.

Testimony resumes Wednesday morning. We expect to hear more about the failed wellness check.

We also expect the defense to use that failed wellness check as a major part of its defense.

Bob Ward