| June 23 - Goto page 1, 2 Next |
| View previous topic
:: View next topic |
~kaRN
 Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:40 am |
|
|
|
June 23
The defence isn't even presenting a case? 
'He wouldn't tarnish Rachel's memory'. No. He let his lawyer do it for him a few years later on national TV.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| xcptnl
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:14 pm |
|
|
|
In closing arguments, Entwistle's attorney said he wanted to "protect" his wife's honor and cover up her actions after he found Rachel and Lillian dead with his father-in-law's gun on the bed.
Attorney Elliot Weinstein told jurors that Entwistle took the gun and drove more than 50 miles from Hopkinton to his father-in-law's Carver home to return it because he was "committed to not betraying Rachel's memory." Police later determined it was the gun used to kill mother and daughter.
Interesting - I had not thought about the fact that she could have been so upset over their marriage (debt, maybe finding out about him trolling sex sites, etc) that she might have committed suicide.
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 472
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gwen
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:40 pm |
|
|
|
Closing Arguments in Entwistle Trial
Monday, June 23, 2008
WOBURN, Mass. — A defense attorney for a British man accused of killing his wife and 9-month-old daughter told a jury Monday that his wife shot the baby and committed suicide, and he covered up her actions to "protect her honor."
But a prosecutor said Neil Entwistle killed his wife and daughter because he was dissatisfied with his sex life, despondent about not being able to find a job and wanted to start a new life.
Entwistle, 29, is charged with fatally shooting his wife, Rachel, 27, and daughter, Lillian Rose, in their Hopkinton home in January 2006. The judge was instructing the jurors on the law, and the panel could begin deliberations as early as Monday afternoon.
The couple had just moved into their rented home 10 days earlier, and by all accounts, appeared to be happy and madly in love with their daughter, according to numerous witnesses who testified during the three-week trial.
But Assistant District Attorney Michael Fabbri urged the jury to consider evidence that pointed to "the two sides of Neil Entwistle," including his visits to Internet sex sites in the days and weeks before the slayings. Fabbri dismissed the defense theory that Rachel Entwistle killed her baby and herself, noting the couple had recently returned to the United States so Rachel could be near her family in Massachusetts. The couple had lived in England for several years before that.
"Why would Rachel commit suicide?" Fabbri asked.
"She was back home, she had her home, she had her car, she had her family, and she thought she had a loving husband," Fabbri said.
Entwistle's lawyer, Elliot Weinstein, said police failed to consider suicide because they immediately focused on Entwistle as a suspect when he flew home to England the day after the killings. Entwistle told police he returned home from running errands on Jan. 20, 2006, and found his wife and daughter cuddled together in bed, dead from apparent gunshot wounds.
"Neil found Rachel and Lillian dead. Neil saw that (.22-caliber gun) and knew instantly what happened, and in those moments, he knew what he had to do," Weinstein said.
Weinstein said Entwistle returned the gun to the home of his father-in-law, Joseph Matterazzo so that his wife's family would not know she had committed suicide. Police later determined that Matterazzo's .22-caliber handgun was used in the killings.
"Everything that Neil did after finding Rachel and Lillian in that bedroom, he did because he loved them," Weinstein said.
But Fabbri said the suicide theory "does not make commonsense." Holding the long-barreled gun before the jury, Fabbri said that in order to find suicide credible, the jury would have to believe that Rachel Entwistle shot her baby through the chest, had that bullet lodge in her own breast, then raise the gun over her head and shoot herself at the top of her head, just beyond her hairline.
"It could not have happened the way they said it did," Fabbri said.
Fabbri told jurors that it may be difficult for them to comprehend how a man could kill his wife and baby daughter. But he urged the jury to consider a string of failures Entwistle had had in the months before the killings.
Since moving to Massachusetts four months earlier, Entwistle had been unable to find a job, had had several Internet-based businesses fail and had been looking for sex online through Web sites for escort services and a swingers' site called AdultFriendFinder.com.
"He was failing to provide for his family, and whether that justified homicide, I am not going to stand here and tell you that makes any sense," Fabbri said.
Weinstein had Entwistle had no motive to kill his wife and daughter, and said the Web sites he visited are used by millions of people every day.
"There is no motive, no motive to kill the woman, who by everyone's account, he shared a joyful, loving and caring relationship," Weinstein said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,370183,00.html
|
|
AKA Gagal_05
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 14329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:45 pm |
|
|
|
Thanks Gwen.
I just came home, and missed everything today.
I'm so surprised that the defense did not put up heir own defense case.
I dunno what the jury will decide.........
We'll see.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| gwen
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | Thanks Gwen.
I just came home, and missed everything today.
I'm so surprised that the defense did not put up heir own defense case.
I dunno what the jury will decide.........
We'll see. |
Y/W...I was surprised too.
|
|
AKA Gagal_05
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 14329
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:50 pm |
|
|
|
| xcptnl wrote: | In closing arguments, Entwistle's attorney said he wanted to "protect" his wife's honor and cover up her actions after he found Rachel and Lillian dead with his father-in-law's gun on the bed.
Attorney Elliot Weinstein told jurors that Entwistle took the gun and drove more than 50 miles from Hopkinton to his father-in-law's Carver home to return it because he was "committed to not betraying Rachel's memory." Police later determined it was the gun used to kill mother and daughter.
Interesting - I had not thought about the fact that she could have been so upset over their marriage (debt, maybe finding out about him trolling sex sites, etc) that she might have committed suicide. |
I don't know.
It's such a stretch.
Just imagine coming home finding your wife and child shot laying in bed.
You bring the gun back where it came from, and then leave the country.
Any normal person would grab the phone and call 911.
Quote:
"Neil found Rachel and Lillian dead. Neil saw that (.22-caliber gun) and knew instantly what happened, and in those moments, he knew what he had to do," Weinstein said.
What he had to do was call 911, not pick up the gun.
To me it just sounds ridiculous.
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| xcptnl
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:21 pm |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | | xcptnl wrote: | In closing arguments, Entwistle's attorney said he wanted to "protect" his wife's honor and cover up her actions after he found Rachel and Lillian dead with his father-in-law's gun on the bed.
Attorney Elliot Weinstein told jurors that Entwistle took the gun and drove more than 50 miles from Hopkinton to his father-in-law's Carver home to return it because he was "committed to not betraying Rachel's memory." Police later determined it was the gun used to kill mother and daughter.
Interesting - I had not thought about the fact that she could have been so upset over their marriage (debt, maybe finding out about him trolling sex sites, etc) that she might have committed suicide. |
I don't know.
It's such a stretch.
Just imagine coming home finding your wife and child shot laying in bed.
You bring the gun back where it came from, and then leave the country.
Any normal person would grab the phone and call 911.
Quote:
"Neil found Rachel and Lillian dead. Neil saw that (.22-caliber gun) and knew instantly what happened, and in those moments, he knew what he had to do," Weinstein said.
What he had to do was call 911, not pick up the gun.
To me it just sounds ridiculous. |
I totally agree that it's a stretch. I am local to the this case and they reported tonight that the defense felt by putting on a defense would just make the jurors think they were 'trying' to make a defense. Interesting thought. But I think the defense might have given the jurors the reasonable doubt they need - especially with the gun residue on Rachel's hand.
|
|
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 472
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arubalover
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:19 pm |
|
|
|
That kind of a statement is what gives a defense attorney a bad name. I don't see how that guy could stand there with a straight face and say Neil was trying not to tarnish Rachael's memory.
How can he look her parents in the eyes?
|
|
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 939
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Schmerty
Posted:
Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
|
|
Neil is not only a murderer he is a coward & a CAD
|
|
Skipping along my own path.
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 3260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| dugo
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:34 am |
|
|
|
| marco wrote: | What he had to do was call 911, not pick up the gun.
To me it just sounds ridiculous. |
What 911? They are dead! Call lawyer, freeze.. do as he says..
|
|
Dashing Dutch Dynamo Dude
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 5951
Location: L4L
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:48 am |
|
|
|
| Arubalover wrote: | That kind of a statement is what gives a defense attorney a bad name. I don't see how that guy could stand there with a straight face and say Neil was trying not to tarnish Rachael's memory.
How can he look her parents in the eyes? |
AL, a defense attorney must defend his client to the best of his ability. He can't get up there and hint that his client is guilty as hell, otherwise he will face sanctions from the bar. He owes his client the best defense that he can give him. I understand how you feel, but if there were no defense attorneys, the people who are innocent would likewise have a serious problem.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SavannahStar
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:34 am |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
AL, a defense attorney must defend his client to the best of his ability. He can't get up there and hint that his client is guilty as hell, otherwise he will face sanctions from the bar. He owes his client the best defense that he can give him. I understand how you feel, but if there were no defense attorneys, the people who are innocent would likewise have a serious problem. |
People tend to forget this when in a trial they are watching, the defendant is particularly unlikeable and the crime is very heinous.
|
|
**SuperStar**
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 20782
Location: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:58 am |
|
|
|
| SavannahStar wrote: |
People tend to forget this when in a trial they are watching, the defendant is particularly unlikeable and the crime is very heinous. |
Yes, Savannah, and it is easy to do just that.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:42 am |
|
|
|
How did the defense attorney explain the GSR on Lillian's hands? Maybe she was the shooter? 
Neil knew 'just what to do' the minute he saw his murdered baby and dead wife and he immediately knew Rachel had killed herself and baby. So he returns the gun to it's location back at his in-laws house. How exactly did he know it was their gun? Was it special in some way? Did it have their initials engraved in the barrel?
Why wouldn't such a bright guy know the right thing to do would be to call for help? Had he called 911 and presented the police with the suicide theory then, while the smoking gun lay there, supposedly in Rachels hands, this whole story might have made it to the local news only. Instead he does everything he shouldn't have done and now the entire world is aware that possibly (but not likely) his wife murdered his child and then committed suicide. His plan to protect sure backfired.
Why didn't he tell his buddies she committed suicide?
He killed them is why IMO and didn't have the guts to follow through killing himself.
God I hope the jury doesn't let him walk.
 For Rachel and Lillian
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:57 am |
|
|
|
I agree with you, KaRN. Even when they were closing in on him in the tube station, his first inclination was to run away from the friend he was with.
It's too much of a stretch here and as Sharon Rocha said during the Peterson trial, divorce was an option, murder was not.
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:50 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: |
Yes, Savannah, and it is easy to do just that. |
Another example is, doctors treat people no matter whether they are considered 'good' or 'bad.' The accused need a defense lawyer because the State has so much power at its disposal.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16032
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:12 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | I agree with you, KaRN. Even when they were closing in on him in the tube station, his first inclination was to run away from the friend he was with.
It's too much of a stretch here and as Sharon Rocha said during the Peterson trial, divorce was an option, murder was not. |
I've been watching CTV (or whatever it's called now  ) and hoping for a hung jury if any juror has reasonable doubt. I know Heli brought up some great points re the failure of LE to investigate absolutely everything but if there's no gun at the scene of a double shooting, why on earth would the possibility of murder/suicide with one of the deceased being the shooter be considered. If someone has terminal cancer and dies on a train with no signs of trauma, the coroner is likely not going to spend alot of time in autopsy investigating far out theories like murder.
For a man who wanted to protect his murderous wife's reputation at all cost, why would sending suicide notes to his parents, lawyers etc be acceptable??
I think the prosecution theory that Lillians crying and screaming and foaming at the mouth, may have resulted in him shooting her in panic. Would Neils residency status have been in jeopardy if Rachel had divorced him YIF? And please tell me he'll be deported if he walks. He has no family or ties in the US and isn't employed. I'd hate for Rachel's family to have to run into him, should he be found NG due to reasonable doubt after dumping on their daughters memory.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:53 pm |
|
|
|
Karn, prosecutors will say beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean beyond all doubt. If anyone can think of examples, please post them.
Not sure about the divorce thing. Might depend on whether he has a green card.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16032
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
Me neither, Pax. I don't think that he could have obtained the green card in that short a time period, but it is an interesting point. What was his status -- had they filed the appropriate documents with INS to adjust his status and did he have a work authorization?
From my limited knowledge, if he had a green card and they divorced and he wanted to remain in the States, that might have been possible as they had been married for a few years before even coming to the States. It is not like he married her to get into the US. Why would a Brit want to remain in the US anyway?
|
|
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6562
Location: France
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:37 pm |
|
|
|
I'm not sure yif, but they are interesting questions.
Neil looks guilty as heck so far, imo.
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16032
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
| pax wrote: | I'm not sure yif, but they are interesting questions.
Neil looks guilty as heck so far, imo. |
He looked guiltier the minute his lawyer opened his mouth and presented nothing IMO. He's got the same weird eye thing happening as SP. Who abandons the property he's just rented instructing the landlord to advise the grieving parents to clean it up for him. Myra had it right. He's a POS.
I'm hoping the jury is just holding out because the lunches provided are delicious 
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ~kaRN
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:51 pm |
|
|
|
| yankee-in-france wrote: | Me neither, Pax. I don't think that he could have obtained the green card in that short a time period, but it is an interesting point. What was his status -- had they filed the appropriate documents with INS to adjust his status and did he have a work authorization?
From my limited knowledge, if he had a green card and they divorced and he wanted to remain in the States, that might have been possible as they had been married for a few years before even coming to the States. It is not like he married her to get into the US. Why would a Brit want to remain in the US anyway? |
Maybe he had filed so fighting extradition wasn't even an option. Re your last point.....the weather's better and I bet if he was employable, there's way more opportunities in the US. Don't know for sure though. Apparently American women are better in bed so who knows.
|
|
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 3457
Location: Glowing with hope and pride. Thank you friend for voting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MediumRareTBone
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:27 pm |
|
|
|
| xcptnl wrote: |
I totally agree that it's a stretch. I am local to the this case and they reported tonight that the defense felt by putting on a defense would just make the jurors think they were 'trying' to make a defense. Interesting thought. But I think the defense might have given the jurors the reasonable doubt they need - especially with the gun residue on Rachel's hand. |
Sounds like they are laying the ground work for an appeal based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
|
|
**Relentless**
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 3586
Location: celebrating with the Jayhawks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Noor
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
I am dutch and have a green card.
I married an American man, it was very a hard and long process to obtain a green card.
After I divorced my husband, I did not have to leave the states.
Having a green card gives you the right to live here, if you want to.
I have every same right as any American has, except I can not vote, I can not join the army, and I can not become the next president of the united states. 
Other than than that I have the same right as any united stated citizen.
Neil might not even have a green card, maybe just a visa?
|
|
Marco
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 4507
Location: Ohio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pax
Posted:
Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
| MediumRareTBone wrote: | | Sounds like they are laying the ground work for an appeal based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. |
Maybe, but that's really tough to win. Hope you're doing well MRTB!
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 16032
Location: Wish You Were Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
