PDA

View Full Version : Neil Entwistle - Post Sentencing


jilly
06-30-2008, 01:40 PM
Clarification re incarceration:

At six months, Entwistle, like any other maximum-security prisoner, will have a classification hearing to determine if he stays at Souza-Baranowski or transfers to Cedar Junction. This hearing will be repeated every six months.

Inmates serving life sentences typically start with two years at a maximum-security facility, Wiffin said.

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x19927078/Whats-next-for-Entwistle

panthera
06-30-2008, 08:38 PM
I've read that Cedar Junction wouldn't be any kind of a picnic for him. I think he might survive if he stays at Souza in a single cell, but if he's goes somewhere with lots of interaction with other prisoners someone will get him. :behindbar

DEPUTYDAWG
06-30-2008, 08:53 PM
He's such a wimp.

panthera
06-30-2008, 08:57 PM
He's such a wimp.
He's definitely going to be in for the shock of his life in with the hard-core criminals. :eek:

jilly
06-30-2008, 09:34 PM
He's definitely going to be in for the shock of his life in with the hard-core criminals. :eek:

I don't think he'll be smirking!:crazy: Even though we've had a hint of Neil's psychological background like narcissist, sociopath, psychopath etc., he's still a rookie when placed with this prison population. I know he's been in jail for the past 2 yrs but prison will be nothing like this! I would think he might do himself in but then EW says he's very optimistic that he'll win his appeal. I think EW made him think that so that he won't commit suicide.

Nugrandma1
06-30-2008, 09:51 PM
Gee I don't feel one bit sorry for the creep. He deserves everything he will get. 10 fold.

Class-z
06-30-2008, 10:43 PM
I don't think he'll be smirking!:crazy: Even though we've had a hint of Neil's psychological background like narcissist, sociopath, psychopath etc., he's still a rookie when placed with this prison population. I know he's been in jail for the past 2 yrs but prison will be nothing like this! I would think he might do himself in but then EW says he's very optimistic that he'll win his appeal. I think EW made him think that so that he won't commit suicide.

He's had many a chance to do himself in, but it hurts too much remember? He's too much of a coward to do that I suspect.

panthera
06-30-2008, 11:03 PM
I don't think he'll be smirking!:crazy: Even though we've had a hint of Neil's psychological background like narcissist, sociopath, psychopath etc., he's still a rookie when placed with this prison population. I know he's been in jail for the past 2 yrs but prison will be nothing like this! I would think he might do himself in but then EW says he's very optimistic that he'll win his appeal. I think EW made him think that so that he won't commit suicide.
While in county jail awaiting his trial he's been presumed innocent, and has had regular visits especially with his lawyers. He's been in and out of court for motions and the trial. Gone forever now are the suits or interaction with people outside of prison. He'll be in his small cell for most of each and every day. When he's allowed out he'll be fearing other inmates doing him in since he's been convicted of killing a baby. This is his first brush with the law and he's not "prison savvy" like many other hard timers he'll be in contact with. I don't know if he'll have the nerve to kill himself but someone else might get to him first. MOO

jilly
07-01-2008, 10:27 AM
Yup...I agree with you classz - coward and Panthera's right - he's now a convicted criminal.
Too bad we don't have a Vernell spokesperson to see if he's "jazzed" or not!:crazy:

mollymalone
07-01-2008, 11:27 AM
Yup...I agree with you classz - coward and Panthera's right - he's now a convicted criminal.
Too bad we don't have a Vernell spokesperson to see if he's "jazzed" or not!:crazy:Oh, I'm sure there will be some one whether official :cop: spokesperson or some :behindbar inmate's family (couldn't find a little birdie icon) who'll report and give updates on the :snake: from time to time.


:gomods: You're the best! Love the new icons!

jilly
07-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Oh, I'm sure there will be some one whether official :cop: spokesperson or some :behindbar inmate's family (couldn't find a little birdie icon) who'll report and give updates on the :snake: from time to time.


:gomods: You're the best! Love the new icons!

:applause:Cracking up with you guys and your emoticons! We could make a complete post with emoticons now like those kid's picture books.

Back o/t - I read an article earlier in the Worksop Guardian but when I went back to it it says "the article has been unable to display". I'll post the link anyways in case it works for any of you.

They're basically saying that the Entwistles' have not yet arrived back in Worksop and no one knows where they are or when they'll return. It also said that they passed around a card at the recent coucil meeting for Clifford offering their support for the "difficult situation" he's been in over the past month.

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/entwistle/Entwistle-parents-yet-to-return.4239323.jp

panthera
07-01-2008, 08:19 PM
:applause:Cracking up with you guys and your emoticons! We could make a complete post with emoticons now like those kid's picture books.

Back o/t - I read an article earlier in the Worksop Guardian but when I went back to it it says "the article has been unable to display". I'll post the link anyways in case it works for any of you.

They're basically saying that the Entwistles' have not yet arrived back in Worksop and no one knows where they are or when they'll return. It also said that they passed around a card at the recent coucil meeting for Clifford offering their support for the "difficult situation" he's been in over the past month.

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/entwistle/Entwistle-parents-yet-to-return.4239323.jp

I didn't get the article either but that's ok, I'll take your word for it! :) Maybe they're still here in the US trying to find their son an appeals lawyer? Doesn't it take a while for visitation to be approved at state prison? I wouldn't think they'd be able to see him so soon.

jilly
07-01-2008, 10:03 PM
I didn't get the article either but that's ok, I'll take your word for it! :) Maybe they're still here in the US trying to find their son an appeals lawyer? Doesn't it take a while for visitation to be approved at state prison? I wouldn't think they'd be able to see him so soon.

I wouldn't think so either but then after his sentencing he was allowed to approach the Judge with EW and ask for some time with his parents to say goodbye!:furious:And the Judge said yes!:furious::furious:

I kind of thought they'd settle for an appointed appeals lawyer. I don't think they're that well off like the Ps.

I'm going through the same thing as I did after the Peterson case. Withdrawl - need to hear more. Are you going to follow the Peterson civil case?

panthera
07-01-2008, 10:53 PM
I wouldn't think so either but then after his sentencing he was allowed to approach the Judge with EW and ask for some time with his parents to say goodbye!:furious:And the Judge said yes!:furious::furious:

I kind of thought they'd settle for an appointed appeals lawyer. I don't think they're that well off like the Ps.

I'm going through the same thing as I did after the Peterson case. Withdrawl - need to hear more. Are you going to follow the Peterson civil case?
I think the judge was just trying to be fair because his parents will be going home to England and probably won't see him for a long time. I don't really think they can afford a lawyer for his appeals and he'll probably get a court appointed one, which I hear can take some time at least in most states.

I'm not sure if I'll have time for the Peterson civil trial, at least not to follow it closely. I'm waiting for Spector Part 2 in Sept., Edwin Hall, and the return of Cesar Laurean from Mexico. :)

mollymalone
07-01-2008, 11:22 PM
I think the judge was just trying to be fair because his parents will be going home to England and probably won't see him for a long time. I don't really think they can afford a lawyer for his appeals and he'll probably get a court appointed one, which I hear can take some time at least in most states.

I'm not sure if I'll have time for the Peterson civil trial, at least not to follow it closely. I'm waiting for Spector Part 2 in Sept., Edwin Hall, and the return of Cesar Laurean from Mexico. :)The Peterson got pushed back a few weeks. I'm curious to know what else wasn't shown or presented in court and I'm hoping that someone in the media will start talking about it.

Nugrandma1
07-02-2008, 09:32 AM
A"difficult situation" that's an understatement. But then again that's the British for ya. LOL Totally bloodless family. Cold and nasty. I hope they go back home soon. They totally disgust me.

jilly
07-02-2008, 11:12 AM
Sympathy for Entwistles' BBC short video - Editor or Worksop Guardian & 2 citizens in Worksop comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7477989.stm

jilly
07-02-2008, 11:24 AM
Lawyer's Blog - Final Thoughts on Entwistle

It is equally horrific – and shameful – to have witnessed Neil Entwistle’s mother, Yvonne Entwistle – stand before a bank of cameras and microphones, and publicly accuse Rachel Entwistle of “murdering” her granddaughter, despite more evidence convicting her son that any prosecutor could ever dream of. How grossly egotistical, and pathetic.

http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/

Nugrandma1
07-02-2008, 12:11 PM
Yikes I can't understand most of the people on that video. They all have incredible accents. Dignified, my ass. They are creeps.

jilly
07-02-2008, 12:59 PM
Yikes I can't understand most of the people on that video. They all have incredible accents. Dignified, my ass. They are creeps.

:rotfl:I wasn't going to say anything but I need a translation of that female citizen - I've replayed it 3x and still can't understand her!:confused:

Parmenides
07-02-2008, 05:11 PM
This just shows how the media can distort things. Most people in Britain are not going to be following this case closely on the internet. Everything they know about it will come from short sections on the nightly news like we have seen here. And this clip clearly gives the vague impression that NE is probably innocent and his parents are decent people. Anyone watching it, who assumed the BBC is fair, could be forgiven for taking that message away. The reality is, this BBC report is a shameless distortion of the situation. It creates a particular impression, and that impression is a downright LIE. :liar: The TRUTH is NE got a fair trial, he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and his parents are not just in denial but made a disgustingly hurtful slur against the victim. The thing to take away from this is that this is not an isolated incident. On the contrary, this is how the media operate all the time. They spin and distort as much as they feel like, mainly to create controversy and outrage in their readers/viewers. I expect the BBC's intention here is to stir up some good old anti-US hysteria. But I really don't think they are succeeding. Even the 'people in the street' in that clip were not saying they thought he was innocent. There are quite a few Brits commenting on this board, and none of them think anything except that NE is right where he belongs.

Parmenides
07-02-2008, 05:19 PM
:rotfl:I wasn't going to say anything but I need a translation of that female citizen - I've replayed it 3x and still can't understand her!:confused:

I don't know if you are serious, but here is what she said: "Why did he run? Y'know, if he wasn't guilty? So, there's got to have been something there, hasn't there?"

In other words, she is saying that his running away is a pointer to some sort of guilt, at least.

The man says: "Your family should stick by you, but up to a point. Err, I think, if it's definitely, if he's definitely done it, then his family's got to turn round and say, well, he's a criminal."

In other words, the man is saying that there are limits to how far the family should stick by NE, and those limits do not extend to continuing to claim his innocence when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

jilly
07-02-2008, 05:32 PM
Parmenides - I know what you mean about the BBC. I was trying to think of what they reported a couple of years ago that was completely incorrect. I just asked my husband what it was. He said I'd have to be more specific but "everything that comes out of them is horse *****. LOL

When I lived in England, nobody watched the BBC but ITV instead. Just looked up their site for the first time and unfortunately, they might be just as bad. In the link I'm providing they say that ....In a statement the couple said they were "devastated" by the outcome... That's not quite correct either is it? What she actually said was we were devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then committing suicide. Big difference imo.

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Entwistle-guilty-of-double-murder-335706748.html

jilly
07-02-2008, 05:37 PM
I don't know if you are serious, but here is what she said: "Why did he run? Y'know, if he wasn't guilty? So, there's got to have been something there, hasn't there?"

In other words, she is saying that his running away is a pointer to some sort of guilt, at least.

The man says: "Your family should stick by you, but up to a point. Err, I think, if it's definitely, if he's definitely done it, then his family's got to turn round and say, well, he's a criminal."

In other words, the man is saying that there are limits to how far the family should stick by NE, and those limits do not extend to continuing to claim his innocence when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yes, I was serious! Thank you so much for interpreting what she said for me! I got what the man said.:thumb:

Parmenides
07-02-2008, 05:52 PM
When I lived in England, nobody watched the BBC but ITV instead. Just looked up their site for the first time and unfortunately, they might be just as bad. In the link I'm providing they say that ....In a statement the couple said they were "devastated" by the outcome... That's not quite correct either is it? What she actually said was we were devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then committing suicide. Big difference imo.

Totally agree. That is not quite correct at all.

Basically, anyone who is still relying on the mainstream tv and newspapers for their knowledge of the world is living in a fog of distortions, half-truths and misrepresentations. The internet is a godsend as it allows us to go into stories in depth and judge things for ourselves much more. The downside is, it takes an awful lot of time, and it can be a bit addictive.

panthera
07-02-2008, 07:59 PM
The Peterson got pushed back a few weeks. I'm curious to know what else wasn't shown or presented in court and I'm hoping that someone in the media will start talking about it.
Oh thanks so much for the update! :blowkiss:

panthera
07-02-2008, 08:08 PM
This just shows how the media can distort things. Most people in Britain are not going to be following this case closely on the internet. Everything they know about it will come from short sections on the nightly news like we have seen here. And this clip clearly gives the vague impression that NE is probably innocent and his parents are decent people. Anyone watching it, who assumed the BBC is fair, could be forgiven for taking that message away. The reality is, this BBC report is a shameless distortion of the situation. It creates a particular impression, and that impression is a downright LIE. :liar: The TRUTH is NE got a fair trial, he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and his parents are not just in denial but made a disgustingly hurtful slur against the victim. The thing to take away from this is that this is not an isolated incident. On the contrary, this is how the media operate all the time. They spin and distort as much as they feel like, mainly to create controversy and outrage in their readers/viewers. I expect the BBC's intention here is to stir up some good old anti-US hysteria. But I really don't think they are succeeding. Even the 'people in the street' in that clip were not saying they thought he was innocent. There are quite a few Brits commenting on this board, and none of them think anything except that NE is right where he belongs.
I completely agree about the media and it's not just the BBC. There's one cable program hosted by someone I won't name (everyone can probably guess :) ) but she continually gets things mixed up when reporting about a crime and immediately has whoever the person of interest is or suspect guilty. I've read a lot of the comments in the British news from people who say they're in England and I agree, most believe NE is guilty. I still wonder what kind of reception his parents will get when they get home since they're blaming Rachel.

Nore
07-02-2008, 09:38 PM
Lawyer's Blog - Final Thoughts on Entwistle

It is equally horrific – and shameful – to have witnessed Neil Entwistle’s mother, Yvonne Entwistle – stand before a bank of cameras and microphones, and publicly accuse Rachel Entwistle of “murdering” her granddaughter, despite more evidence convicting her son that any prosecutor could ever dream of. How grossly egotistical, and pathetic.

http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/
----------
Yes it is grossly egotistical,and pathetic.Someone should sit them down and explain what went on in that courtroom.They need to be told (for one thing) that Neil saw bubbles coming out of Lilly! Dead people cannot blow bubbles~he said he did not move the bodies so it was not caused by movement.The only way he saw it is by being in the room when she was shot.When a body is moved it can make a sound as the last air comes out.They should study murders,might learn something. Then again~~~~Nore

mollymalone
07-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Lawyer's Blog - Final Thoughts on Entwistle

[B] It is equally horrific – and shameful – to have witnessed Neil Entwistle’s mother, Yvonne Entwistle – stand before a bank of cameras and microphones, and publicly accuse Rachel Entwistle of “murdering” her granddaughter, despite more evidence convicting her son that any prosecutor could ever dream of. How grossly egotistical, and pathetic.[B]

http://www.bostoncriminalattorneyblog.com/Thanks for that link Jilly!!

From the same link but in another entry:
So far, the defense team has indicated that it plans to base their appeal on issues related to the Hopkinton Police Department’s entry into the Entwistle residence in January 2006 without a search warrant, and their retrieval of items of evidence as part of that entry. Legally, these are known as Fourth Amendment “search and seizure” issues, as well as possible privacy issues. While admirable from the standpoint of its zealousness and appellate advocacy, my legal opinion of such an appeal is that will fail. Previously, (approximately a year ago,) the defense team raised these issues in what is called a “Motion To Suppress”. This is a motion the defense brings in a criminal case, to exclude from evidence in the trial, all or certain items of evidence that police may have seized or obtained as part of their arrest and/or investigation of the crime. The hearing that a judge presides over following such a motion is called a “suppression hearing.”

At Entwistle’s suppression hearing, at least two to three police officers who entered the Entwistle home testified as to the circumstances surrounding their entry into the home, and all procedures related to that entry and the collection of evidence obtained therefrom. The matter was vigorously argued, and after careful consideration of all legal, procedural and constitutional issues, the judge denied the defense’s Motion(s) To Suppress. Legally speaking, the Police Department’s entry into the Entwistle home was justified by what are known as “exigent circumstances” and a related legal concept, “probable cause.” Due to the extensive legal arguments already made surrounding this issue and the legal rulings made following those arguments, it is not at all likely that an appellate court (or the Supreme Judicial Court,) would rule otherwise]

mollymalone
07-02-2008, 10:16 PM
Oh thanks so much for the update! :blowkiss:You're welcome!:blowkiss:

Ciara
07-02-2008, 11:56 PM
This just shows how the media can distort things. Most people in Britain are not going to be following this case closely on the internet. Everything they know about it will come from short sections on the nightly news like we have seen here. And this clip clearly gives the vague impression that NE is probably innocent and his parents are decent people. Anyone watching it, who assumed the BBC is fair, could be forgiven for taking that message away. The reality is, this BBC report is a shameless distortion of the situation. It creates a particular impression, and that impression is a downright LIE. :liar: The TRUTH is NE got a fair trial, he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and his parents are not just in denial but made a disgustingly hurtful slur against the victim. The thing to take away from this is that this is not an isolated incident. On the contrary, this is how the media operate all the time. They spin and distort as much as they feel like, mainly to create controversy and outrage in their readers/viewers. I expect the BBC's intention here is to stir up some good old anti-US hysteria. But I really don't think they are succeeding. Even the 'people in the street' in that clip were not saying they thought he was innocent. There are quite a few Brits commenting on this board, and none of them think anything except that NE is right where he belongs.

You are exactly right! NO ONE I know here thinks he didnt get a fair trial or that he isnt right where he belongs! As for the BBC....well the less said about them the better!!!! I am GLAD his trial was over there, as it was less likely he would have gotten such a long sentence here. His parents lost ANY sympathy they had from me when they made those comments.

DebC
07-03-2008, 07:09 AM
You are exactly right! NO ONE I know here thinks he didnt get a fair trial or that he isnt right where he belongs! As for the BBC....well the less said about them the better!!!! I am GLAD his trial was over there, as it was less likely he would have gotten such a long sentence here. His parents lost ANY sympathy they had from me when they made those comments.

I think he got a fair trial. He is where he belongs.
BTW, that video was of a local news program, East Midlands Today, which goes out after the National News. It is only seen by people in the Nottinghamshire area. Where I live we get a different one, Look North. It's all done by the BBC, but not broadcast nationally, if you know what I mean.

Ciara
07-03-2008, 10:22 AM
I know what you mean Deb...our version is Granada Reports. Its the news that is just local to our area type thing and straight after the national news too.
I just have no empathy left for the Entwistles although I did at first. If thats what they say in Public about Rachel...imagine what they will say in private to their friends and relatives etc. They need to accept the fact that their son stood over his innocent baby and pumped a bullet into her.....I could never forgive my son if he did that. I would be horrified and I feel that their reaction was just a further insult to Rachel's parents.

Belle
07-04-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm from the UK (not England though) and definitely believe he was guilty. My husband and I were watching his parents' statement on Sky News and could not believe what was coming out of his mother's mouth. You begin to get an understanding of how he could grow up to be a cold blooded murderer.

Ciara
07-04-2008, 02:35 PM
I'm from the UK (not England though) and definitely believe he was guilty. My husband and I were watching his parents' statement on Sky News and could not believe what was coming out of his mother's mouth. You begin to get an understanding of how he could grow up to be a cold blooded murderer.

Welcome Belle:) And you are dead right about his parents:bang:

biggirl
07-04-2008, 04:20 PM
It is so refreshing and interesting to see all these posts from the UK. It makes me feel good to know that the opinions stated by the d's parents are not the opinions of their fellow countrymen and women. I would be very interested to see how they are received back in their hometown. I hope they are told how callous and horrific it was to hear them talk about their DIL as they did. Even if you were feeling those thoughts, why on earth would you ever express those thoughts to the world. It made them look so ignorant and cruel.

To all of WS's UK posters, thankyou. Keep us updated on what you hear over there. :clap:

Ciara
07-04-2008, 04:43 PM
Its only cruel and ignorant people no matter where they may live, that could agree with what that babykiller's parents had to say BigGirl. I am soooo glad I have not heard anyone here say that they agree with them:blowkiss:

Parmenides
07-04-2008, 05:48 PM
I live in England, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Entwistle family is a complete and utter disgrace to the UK, and Neil Entwistle in particular is not only a disgrace to the UK but a disgrace to the male sex, and also a disgrace to the whole human race, in fact a disgrace to carbon-based lifeforms.

I repeat, the Entwistles make us in the UK embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.

biggirl
07-04-2008, 06:06 PM
I live in England, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Entwistle family is a complete and utter disgrace to the UK, and Neil Entwistle in particular is not only a disgrace to the UK but a disgrace to the male sex, and also a disgrace to the whole human race, in fact a disgrace to carbon-based lifeforms.

I repeat, the Entwistles make us in the UK embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.


All the above is "music to the ears". :clap::blowkiss:

Ciara
07-04-2008, 06:13 PM
I live in England, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Entwistle family is a complete and utter disgrace to the UK, and Neil Entwistle in particular is not only a disgrace to the UK but a disgrace to the male sex, and also a disgrace to the whole human race, in fact a disgrace to carbon-based lifeforms.

I repeat, the Entwistles make us in the UK embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
I second this with Bells On. Great post:)

jilly
07-05-2008, 12:35 PM
I am joining in to thank all of you UK posters!:clap: Thank you so much for your valued contributions and like biggirl says - please keep us informed from your end!

In the meantime - a horrible event for Joe Flaherty -

Missing man fell from Entwistles’ spokesman’s boat

The Herald has learned the Nina Maria, the 37-foot craft Anthony “Tony” Tufo, 60, of Quincy inexplicably disappeared from shortly before 6 p.m., is owned and was being driven by attorney Joseph Flaherty, retired commander of the state police homicide unit and more recently the spokesman for the family of murder victims Rachel and Lillian Rose Entwistle.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1105034

jilly
07-05-2008, 12:39 PM
Boater’s absence not noticed at first

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1105085

panthera
07-05-2008, 02:13 PM
I live in England, and I have no hesitation in saying that the Entwistle family is a complete and utter disgrace to the UK, and Neil Entwistle in particular is not only a disgrace to the UK but a disgrace to the male sex, and also a disgrace to the whole human race, in fact a disgrace to carbon-based lifeforms.

I repeat, the Entwistles make us in the UK embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with them in any way, shape or form.
Thanks so much for posting this! :) I got the impression from reading comments at the Worksop Guardian and other places that people in the UK felt this way and it's good to hear. And like I've said before, I wonder what kind of 'welcome home' his parents will get.

panthera
07-05-2008, 02:41 PM
In the meantime - a horrible event for Joe Flaherty -

Missing man fell from Entwistles’ spokesman’s boat

The Herald has learned the Nina Maria, the 37-foot craft Anthony “Tony” Tufo, 60, of Quincy inexplicably disappeared from shortly before 6 p.m., is owned and was being driven by attorney Joseph Flaherty, retired commander of the state police homicide unit and more recently the spokesman for the family of murder victims Rachel and Lillian Rose Entwistle.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1105034
Oh this is so sad. :cry:

DEPUTYDAWG
07-05-2008, 05:52 PM
Oh, how utterly sad................................

DebC
07-08-2008, 08:51 AM
There is no news yet of the Entwistles coming back to England. Not that I have seen anyway.
However, there is a very vocal Entwistle apologist on the Worksop Guardian.
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/entwistle?articleid=4231306&CommentPage=13&CommentPageLength=10#comments

English version of the DRISP apologists. Didn't you just know there would be at least one?

jilly
07-08-2008, 10:00 AM
There is no news yet of the Entwistles coming back to England. Not that I have seen anyway.
However, there is a very vocal Entwistle apologist on the Worksop Guardian.
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/entwistle?articleid=4231306&CommentPage=13&CommentPageLength=10#comments

English version of the DRISP apologists. Didn't you just know there would be at least one?

Hi Deb! I read some of those comments yesterday. Same ole, same ole. I believe that poster frequents every blog around hence the reason for his nic. A wasteoftime would be a better hat for him, imo!:crazy:

DebC
07-08-2008, 10:52 AM
Hi Deb! I read some of those comments yesterday. Same ole, same ole. I believe that poster frequents every blog around hence the reason for his nic. A wasteoftime would be a better hat for him, imo!:crazy:
LOL. I thought WastOfSpace:)

Parmenides
07-08-2008, 11:38 AM
I saw some of that Dateline documentary "The Light in the Upstairs Bedroom". It seemed to lean towards stirring up reasonable doubt about NE's conviction.

According to its information, while GSR was found on RE's hands, none was found on the things that NE touched - the car keys, steering wheel.

Now, it seems that NE did not think through this crime very clearly and did little to deflect suspicion away from himself, e.g. leaving all the incriminating web searches on his computer, and just fleeing rather than trying to come up with a credible story, not even turning the bedroom lights off. So, on the basis of his other impetuous behaviour, you would not expect him to have gone to great lengths to stop himself transferring GSR to the things he touched in the car. Now absence of evidence is not usually evidence of absence, but, given NE's apparent failure to try to cover up, the fact there is no evidence he shot the gun looks quite like evidence he did not shoot the gun.

The Dateline take on things therefore points to there being (a) evidence NE did not shoot the gun and (b) evidence RE did shoot the gun. It starts to look like Weinstein and Mrs Entwistle are right.

Why don't we believe any of this?

(1) Because, as I understand it, the GSR on RE's hands is minimal, and could be explained by her being shot. Maybe even NE put her (dead) hands around the gun to shoot Baby Lillian. (But wasn't there evidence that Lillian was shot first?)
(2) Because, I seem to recall, GSR was found on one of the knives in the knife block -- which NE claimed he had handled when thinking of killing himself.
(3) Because NE's behaviour just doesn't ring true, even for someone freaking out after discovering their wife has killed herself and their baby.

It follows that NE must have cleaned himself up well after the shooting and got rid of the GSR. How easy is that to do? Will just a quick soap and water do it?

NE still seems to be being convicted for his behaviour before and after the shootings (the flaky websites, the running away without notifying anyone), rather than on any solid evidence linking him to the crime itself.

Ciara
07-08-2008, 01:04 PM
LOL. I thought WastOfSpace:)

Total Nut they are.:)

Ciara
07-08-2008, 01:08 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that this POS is guilty. There is just no way I would even leave my worst enemies to die like that and run off, never mind people I am supposed to "love".
There will always be people who cry and wail and shout for these killers but it still don't make them any less Guilty:bang:

DebC
07-08-2008, 03:03 PM
According to its information, while GSR was found on RE's hands, none was found on the things that NE touched - the car keys, steering wheel.



Why don't we believe any of this?

(1) Because, as I understand it, the GSR on RE's hands is minimal, and could be explained by her being shot. Maybe even NE put her (dead) hands around the gun to shoot Baby Lillian. (But wasn't there evidence that Lillian was shot first?)
(2) Because, I seem to recall, GSR was found on one of the knives in the knife block -- which NE claimed he had handled when thinking of killing himself.
(3) Because NE's behaviour just doesn't ring true, even for someone freaking out after discovering their wife has killed herself and their baby.

It follows that NE must have cleaned himself up well after the shooting and got rid of the GSR. How easy is that to do? Will just a quick soap and water do it?



This begs the question: How long was the time gap between NE doing the double murder, and NE leaving the house for his flight to UK? We know he was checking the computer with two dead bodies in the house, (according to his timeline). Just how many showers did NE take in that time frame? Your American showers are a lot better than our over here. How many showers would you have to take to remove GSR? I think he had enough time to keep the shower going constantly, get in, get out, do other things, get in again, and, out again, and again, and again. He had the time to do this. IMO

Parmenides
07-08-2008, 03:51 PM
This begs the question: How long was the time gap between NE doing the double murder, and NE leaving the house for his flight to UK?...Just how many showers did NE take in that time frame?...I think he had enough time to keep the shower going constantly, get in, get out, do other things, get in again, and, out again, and again, and again. He had the time to do this. IMO

Yeah, but there's no evidence of that is there? I'm not saying NE is innocent. I just wish there was some 'smoking gun' (unfortunate phrase) that shows he did it. At the moment, it still seems to boil down to his behaviour before and after the murders. The impression created by his behaviour could hardly be more damning, but it is still a tad circumstantial.

From what that female juror said, the jury seemed to convince themselves by the fact that Rachel could never have shot herself and the baby in the way that was claimed. Since he admits he put the gun back then, if it is genuinely established Rachel definitively could not have shot herself as she would supposedly have had to, the case is closed. (Well, unless we start introducing intruders again, but the lack of evidence of a robbery I think allows us to discount that.) But how scientific and conclusive is the jury's experiment. It would have been nice if that issue had been bottomed out in court, but the defense avoided that by calling no witnesses to put forward their theory.

I wish NE would just confess, but I guess there is no chance of that as, with LWOP, he has nothing to lose.

biggirl
07-08-2008, 07:15 PM
What does the worksop article say?? I could not pull it up?

panthera
07-08-2008, 08:44 PM
This begs the question: How long was the time gap between NE doing the double murder, and NE leaving the house for his flight to UK? We know he was checking the computer with two dead bodies in the house, (according to his timeline). Just how many showers did NE take in that time frame? Your American showers are a lot better than our over here. How many showers would you have to take to remove GSR? I think he had enough time to keep the shower going constantly, get in, get out, do other things, get in again, and, out again, and again, and again. He had the time to do this. IMO
It wouldn't take that much to wash off GSR and he could've touched a lot of other things before the keys & steering wheel. I wonder if they checked the computer keyboard? I just don't remember it being mentioned. :online:

jilly
07-08-2008, 09:07 PM
What does the worksop article say?? I could not pull it up?

It's not an article - it's the comments after Robinson's editorial - 10 pages of them!

Here's his article again in case you can get it to work.

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/entwistle/Guardian-Editor-34I-only-hope.4231306.jp

DebC
07-09-2008, 06:04 AM
It wouldn't take that much to wash off GSR and he could've touched a lot of other things before the keys & steering wheel. I wonder if they checked the computer keyboard? I just don't remember it being mentioned. :online:
I'm not sure Panthera.

But, didn't they find GSR on the knife in the kitchen? NE said he found the bodies, then went to the kitchen to get a knife to kill himself, but didn't do it. We know Rachael didn't touch the knife, so who put the GSR on it?

Ciara
07-09-2008, 08:30 AM
The GSR on the knife is part of what convinces me too Deb. Rachel sure as heck didnt put it on there.

DebC
07-09-2008, 01:39 PM
The GSR on the knife is part of what convinces me too Deb. Rachel sure as heck didnt put it on there.
Ciara, do you know how NE's defense got this damaging fact excluded as evidence? He, (the lawyer), must have made a convincing argument, but I don't recall seeing it.

Ciara
07-09-2008, 01:44 PM
I dont know Deb but I am going to have a look round and see if I can find out.
Maybe because it was only a minute amount??
Not that, that matters as I think that knife should have been brought into evidence.

Parmenides
07-09-2008, 02:40 PM
Are you sure the GSR on the knife was excluded? I was aware of it (see my original post on this whole issue - it was my #2 point as to why we cannot believe the defense scenario). I don't know how I could have been aware of it unless it was presented in testimony. On the other hand, I suppose I may just have read it on this board. Anyway, when the GSR came up, I seem to remember some discussion about the possibility it was left over from when NE went shooting with Joe M back in 2005. That possibility was dismissed on the basis it was too unlikely. It would be dismissed even more clearly if it were established the knives weren't purchased until after the shooting trip. That seems likely, since there would have been little reason for Neil and Rachel to have a knife block (or have it unpacked and in use) until they got their own home.

It seems in this case as though there is nothing that really nails NE.

Ciara
07-09-2008, 02:47 PM
I read about the knife somewhere after the trial was over. It was part of the list of evidence released that had been excluded from the trial. It may have been on that site where they were blogging the whole trial...I cant remember what it was called...something NeilEntwistle.com.

Ciara
07-09-2008, 02:49 PM
But Neil said that was the knife he picked up to commit suicide with and then changed his mind so the GSR came off his hands onto that knife then, is my opinion.

biggirl
07-09-2008, 06:18 PM
But Neil said that was the knife he picked up to commit suicide with and then changed his mind so the GSR came off his hands onto that knife then, is my opinion.
Isn't it just a shame that he did not go through with his idea about suicide?? It would have saved the taxpayers the expense of the trial and room and board for the rest of his life. I am always morosely happy to hear when a murderer has the good sense to do away with themself and spare all of us the job of punishing them.:furious:

Ciara
07-09-2008, 06:27 PM
Your not the only one biggirl:)

DebC
07-10-2008, 06:27 AM
Are you sure the GSR on the knife was excluded? I was aware of it (see my original post on this whole issue - it was my #2 point as to why we cannot believe the defense scenario). I don't know how I could have been aware of it unless it was presented in testimony. On the other hand, I suppose I may just have read it on this board. Anyway, when the GSR came up, I seem to remember some discussion about the possibility it was left over from when NE went shooting with Joe M back in 2005. That possibility was dismissed on the basis it was too unlikely. It would be dismissed even more clearly if it were established the knives weren't purchased until after the shooting trip. That seems likely, since there would have been little reason for Neil and Rachel to have a knife block (or have it unpacked and in use) until they got their own home.

It seems in this case as though there is nothing that really nails NE.

Parmenides, I first heard about the GSR on the knife here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66557&page=5
Post #104 from Molly

Parmenides
07-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Parmenides, I first heard about the GSR on the knife here:

Thanks. That must be where I heard about it.

What I am longing to see is the conclusive piece of evidence that totally nails NE and shuts the Entwistles up once and for all.

I suppose that is never going to happen, although the GSR on the knife is pretty much there. Is it correct that RE's DNA was not found on the handle and trigger parts of the gun, but NE's was? If so, that would surely blow the suicide theory out of the water. But as I recall that whole testimony about DNA on the gun was a can of worms and not very conclusive.

It has to come back to NE's behaviour. If he were really trying to protect Rachel's reputation, what did he imagine people were going to think when they found the bodies and him gone without telling anyone? And looking up a former girlfriend, with a page of escort agencies in his pocket? This is his way of grieving? And I think the biggest giveaway - why not testify if he is only telling the truth? Obviously, Weinstein knew that Neil's story would come apart on the stand like a pair of paper swimming trunks.

DebC
07-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Is it correct that RE's DNA was not found on the handle and trigger parts of the gun, but NE's was? If so, that would surely blow the suicide theory out of the water.
Yes. NE's DNA was on the handle and the trigger. RE's DNA was just inside the barrel.

jilly
07-10-2008, 06:13 PM
I recall hearing something about there only being 3 particles of gsr on the knife and that wasn't evidence enough or something. There were 4 particles on the back of Rachel's hand so that was enough to be considered.:confused: The old memory isn't as good as it used to be.:crazy:

panthera
07-10-2008, 08:21 PM
I'm not sure Panthera.

But, didn't they find GSR on the knife in the kitchen? NE said he found the bodies, then went to the kitchen to get a knife to kill himself, but didn't do it. We know Rachael didn't touch the knife, so who put the GSR on it?
Yes there was but what I was thinking is he could've picked it up before washing off his hands or handling other things. :) I can't see anyone but NE being the one who killed Rachel & Lillian!

MoonFlwr
07-11-2008, 05:28 AM
Hi

Although I never posted on these boards during the trial of NE, I followed the whole thing.

I am not suggesting that he is not guilty, but I still can't settle my mind on a firm motive for killing Rachel and Lily. :waitasec:

Parmenides
07-11-2008, 06:15 AM
I am not suggesting that he is not guilty, but I still can't settle my mind on a firm motive for killing Rachel and Lily. :waitasec:

I would say they had just come to seem like a millstone round his neck. He wanted to be free again. He was probably sick of Rachel, and probably the baby too. He didn't like it in the US. Things weren't going his way, as he hadn't found a job. Maybe he thought Rachel had expensive tastes (no income, but they're out buying candles for the house) and didn't appreciate his financial problems (even though it was his fault for not sharing the situation with her). He just looked to the future and saw a dead-end, stuck to this family, and felt fear and anxiety about how he was going to provide for them and meet his responsibilities - also the feeling that he was missing out on sexual opportunities.

At the end of the day, though, his thinking was obviously distorted if he thought killing his wife and child was a good option, so we should not expect to find some clear logical reason. It was probably based on feelings that he could not put into words or even explain to himself.

What is undeniable is that, on finding Rachel and Lillian dead, whether he did it or not, he behaved in a quite bizarre way that was clearly not going to have a happy outcome. It shows a lack of cleverness, forethought and attention to the consequences, which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited when he shot his family.

panthera
07-11-2008, 08:59 PM
Hi

Although I never posted on these boards during the trial of NE, I followed the whole thing.

I am not suggesting that he is not guilty, but I still can't settle my mind on a firm motive for killing Rachel and Lily. :waitasec:
Hi! :seeya: I think his motive was he was living a lie (as to finances and his offshore accounts), he was about to get caught, wanted out of the family life and to go back home to England.
:cow: (sorry, I couldn't resist using this!)

jilly
07-11-2008, 09:07 PM
What is undeniable is that, on finding Rachel and Lillian dead, whether he did it or not, he behaved in a quite bizarre way that was clearly not going to have a happy outcome. It shows a lack of cleverness, forethought and attention to the consequences, which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited when he shot his family.

I'm still leaning towards it being a botched murder suicide. I think after he saw Lilly suffer he came to his senses and couldn't kill himself. I think he might have even been planning this for awhile and possibly took the gun on MLK Day (Jan 16th) when they were last at the Matterazzo's. He really had no plan in place for getting out of a double murder.

After killing them for some reason he became sexually aroused and went on the internet and possibly relieved himself. After that he scrambled to get the heck out of Dodge.

mollymalone
07-12-2008, 01:20 AM
Anyone who kills a woman and a baby, knowing that baby suffered, and still gets on the internet to surf for sex.... or look up an old girlfriend within days of the killing...
that's a cold blooded killer who had no intention of hurting himself. IMO

Whatever his intelligence level was hyped up to be with his degrees etc.. that doesn't mean he was intelligent enough to plan the murder out with all of its consequences or to plan out his getaway. LE has plenty of video and personal tales of intelligent criminals who do very stupid things.

I think he fantasized about killing Rachel and the baby, saw the opportunity to get the gun, and possibly had a timeframe to do it within so he kept it hidden close by. But something happened. Whether it was her finding out he was a fraud or he just had enough and wanted to go home or for whatever reason he did it.
Once the murders were done he took his time. He might have thought the flight went out that night but was mistaken but more than likely it was a "ok, they're dead. I have to leave, when's the next flight."

The way he left everything behind, packed no clothes, no suitcase, no laptop or other items, and when he got home dumped his wedding band, his wallet, American cash.... he was dumping his life here, wife and child included.

Neil Entwistle thinks too much of himself to a)hurt himself c)make himself suffer pain, injury, disability or death b)kill himself (he hasn't the guts).

jilly
07-12-2008, 11:23 AM
Anyone who kills a woman and a baby, knowing that baby suffered, and still gets on the internet to surf for sex.... or look up an old girlfriend within days of the killing...
that's a cold blooded killer who had no intention of hurting himself. IMO

Whatever his intelligence level was hyped up to be with his degrees etc.. that doesn't mean he was intelligent enough to plan the murder out with all of its consequences or to plan out his getaway. LE has plenty of video and personal tales of intelligent criminals who do very stupid things.

I think he fantasized about killing Rachel and the baby, saw the opportunity to get the gun, and possibly had a timeframe to do it within so he kept it hidden close by. But something happened. Whether it was her finding out he was a fraud or he just had enough and wanted to go home or for whatever reason he did it.
Once the murders were done he took his time. He might have thought the flight went out that night but was mistaken but more than likely it was a "ok, they're dead. I have to leave, when's the next flight."

The way he left everything behind, packed no clothes, no suitcase, no laptop or other items, and when he got home dumped his wedding band, his wallet, American cash.... he was dumping his life here, wife and child included.

Neil Entwistle thinks too much of himself to a)hurt himself c)make himself suffer pain, injury, disability or death b)kill himself (he hasn't the guts).

Great post Molly!:clap: I hadn't thought about him fantasizing about the murders. When you think of it, his entire life was a fantasy. That's why, I guess there was no plan in place after the murder. That fantasy coupled with his lack of emotional intelligience - no common sense/no street smarts.

Parmenides
07-12-2008, 03:59 PM
After killing them for some reason he became sexually aroused and went on the internet and possibly relieved himself. After that he scrambled to get the heck out of Dodge.

I think you have great insight. It seems to me that could well be the case.

Parmenides
07-12-2008, 04:04 PM
I think he fantasized about killing Rachel and the baby, saw the opportunity to get the gun, and possibly had a timeframe to do it within so he kept it hidden close by. But something happened.

I bow to you Molly. This has the ring of truth.

Regarding his 'intelligence', he had a degree from York, which is ok but not one of the topmost universities...and these days, anyone who is anyone has a degree of some kind, even if it's just in basket-weaving or picking the fluff from your own navel.

jilly
07-12-2008, 04:54 PM
I think you have great insight. It seems to me that could well be the case.

I would say that he's an addict from what I know about him so you have to throw this into the equation as well. Neil Entwistle is quite the specimen.:eek:

jilly
07-12-2008, 05:03 PM
I bow to you Molly. This has the ring of truth.

Regarding his 'intelligence', he had a degree from York, which is ok but not one of the topmost universities...and these days, anyone who is anyone has a degree of some kind, even if it's just in basket-weaving or picking the fluff from your own navel.

I think I read that he had his Masters which is a step up from a degree but I know what you mean about university standards. Thanks for letting us know about York. Now I'd like to know what kind of marks he had to have to get in there. Probably a C+ or something. Thinking about it now I bet the school he went to in Worksop didn't have a very good batting average and not hard for someone reasonably intelligent to make top of the class.

o/t - I was talking to my mum the other day about this case. She was an English warbride. I knew they met each other on a train but I've just learned that Dad was enroute from Worksop to London. Mum was travelling from Nottingham to wherever to go to a funeral. They married and celebrated their 63rd wedding anniversary this year. On the 60th, they got a letter from the Queen. That's framed on the wall!!
Just thought I'd throw that in for no particular reason!:crazy:

panthera
07-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Anyone who kills a woman and a baby, knowing that baby suffered, and still gets on the internet to surf for sex.... or look up an old girlfriend within days of the killing...
that's a cold blooded killer who had no intention of hurting himself. IMO

Whatever his intelligence level was hyped up to be with his degrees etc.. that doesn't mean he was intelligent enough to plan the murder out with all of its consequences or to plan out his getaway. LE has plenty of video and personal tales of intelligent criminals who do very stupid things.

I think he fantasized about killing Rachel and the baby, saw the opportunity to get the gun, and possibly had a timeframe to do it within so he kept it hidden close by. But something happened. Whether it was her finding out he was a fraud or he just had enough and wanted to go home or for whatever reason he did it.
Once the murders were done he took his time. He might have thought the flight went out that night but was mistaken but more than likely it was a "ok, they're dead. I have to leave, when's the next flight."

The way he left everything behind, packed no clothes, no suitcase, no laptop or other items, and when he got home dumped his wedding band, his wallet, American cash.... he was dumping his life here, wife and child included.

Neil Entwistle thinks too much of himself to a)hurt himself c)make himself suffer pain, injury, disability or death b)kill himself (he hasn't the guts).
I really agreee with what you've said here! From the way Rachel & Lillian were murdered by gunshot at such close range, to aim the gun at Rachel's head as she slept and to see Lillian laying there suffering then put a pillow over her to silence her, I believe only a person with ice in their veins could do. His actions afterward seemed like someone who was completely in control of what he was doing, not panic, and I think the part about leaving everything behind was just that ~ disposing of everything associated with his wife and baby and wanting to go back to the single life he knew in England before they were married. I had some doubt about it being planned to leave the computer and personal belongings behind until the testimony that he'd dumped the wallet & USD in the trash along with the wedding ring. After that, it all seemed to make sense.

panthera
07-13-2008, 01:28 PM
I think I read that he had his Masters which is a step up from a degree but I know what you mean about university standards. Thanks for letting us know about York. Now I'd like to know what kind of marks he had to have to get in there. Probably a C+ or something. Thinking about it now I bet the school he went to in Worksop didn't have a very good batting average and not hard for someone reasonably intelligent to make top of the class.

o/t - I was talking to my mum the other day about this case. She was an English warbride. I knew they met each other on a train but I've just learned that Dad was enroute from Worksop to London. Mum was travelling from Nottingham to wherever to go to a funeral. They married and celebrated their 63rd wedding anniversary this year. On the 60th, they got a letter from the Queen. That's framed on the wall!!
Just thought I'd throw that in for no particular reason!:crazy:
How nice to have received a letter from the Queen! :clap: It's interesting about NE's degree and what I've read in the beginning of the case, I believe an ex-coworker said he was good but not great, or something along those lines.

Parmenides
07-13-2008, 03:48 PM
They married and celebrated their 63rd wedding anniversary this year. On the 60th, they got a letter from the Queen. That's framed on the wall!!

o/t...o/t...o/t...

Congratulations to your parents. The queen sends greetings to every British couple that reaches their diamond wedding (though I believe you have to request it...she doesn't keep a list). I didn't know she did war-brides too, but I am pleased she does.

When my grandparents were coming up to their diamond wedding my mother wrote to the queen's offices to let them know. Then, when it was only a couple of days away, my grandmother fell down the stairs and, not to put too fine a point on it, she died. My mother had to write to say "Hold the certificate". A letter came back to say the queen was very sorry to hear what happened. That got framed and went on the wall.

jilly
07-13-2008, 08:44 PM
I really agreee with what you've said here! From the way Rachel & Lillian were murdered by gunshot at such close range, to aim the gun at Rachel's head as she slept and to see Lillian laying there suffering then put a pillow over her to silence her, I believe only a person with ice in their veins could do. His actions afterward seemed like someone who was completely in control of what he was doing, not panic... and I think the part about leaving everything behind was just that ~ disposing of everything associated with his wife and baby and wanting to go back to the single life he knew in England before they were married. I had some doubt about it being planned to leave the computer and personal belongings behind until the testimony that he'd dumped the wallet & USD in the trash along with the wedding ring. After that, it all seemed to make sense.

You're sooo right. I remember the photos at the ATM - he looked so ordinary!

jilly
07-13-2008, 08:45 PM
How nice to have received a letter from the Queen! :clap: It's interesting about NE's degree and what I've read in the beginning of the case, I believe an ex-coworker said he was good but not great, or something along those lines.

Yup! That's right. A lot of people at the company much better than him! (Thanks for the congrats!) (smile)

jilly
07-13-2008, 09:07 PM
o/t...o/t...o/t...

Congratulations to your parents. The queen sends greetings to every British couple that reaches their diamond wedding (though I believe you have to request it...she doesn't keep a list). I didn't know she did war-brides too, but I am pleased she does.

When my grandparents were coming up to their diamond wedding my mother wrote to the queen's offices to let them know. Then, when it was only a couple of days away, my grandmother fell down the stairs and, not to put too fine a point on it, she died. My mother had to write to say "Hold the certificate". A letter came back to say the queen was very sorry to hear what happened. That got framed and went on the wall.

Totally off topic -

Oh my goodness!:( How very sad. That was so nice of the Queen. I really like her you know since after Diana's funeral when she had to connect with the people.
Our member of parliament made the request for the certificate. I'm not sure if it has something to do with Canada being part of the Commonwealth or if it's any warbridge elsewhere.

chicoliving
07-19-2008, 03:12 AM
The forum is archived and this link should make it available to read only

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=101

RoughlyCollie
07-21-2008, 11:33 PM
pix obtained by abc news, including the one of NE on adult friend finder (relevant body parts are blocked):

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5402537&page=1

Satibape
09-13-2008, 12:20 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_09_13_Entwistle_falls_headfirst_for_skinhead_ prank/

Poor Neil!

:laugh::behindbar

jilly
09-13-2008, 07:01 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_09_13_Entwistle_falls_headfirst_for_skinhead_ prank/

Poor Neil!

:laugh::behindbar

Thanks for this Satibape. I don't think he's going to last long in prison.

PattyCake
09-19-2008, 10:46 PM
bwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhaaaaaa! The least they can do. I hope him and SP are both having the time of their lives scared to death! Welcome to the real world Neil! LOL

ARTICLE AT THE END:
"As for Entwistle, the prison prank has apparently made him even more skittish than before.

Said one source: “He comes out very little.”

Satibape
09-26-2008, 11:19 AM
New lawyer will assist in Neil Entwistle appeal bid

Entwistle, who turned 30 last week and whose devoted defense attorney Elliot Weintein is battling pancreatic cancer, maintains he is innocent. It so happens lawyer Stephen Paul Maidman has had some success in that area.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1121575

gitana1
06-16-2009, 10:52 PM
I really agreee with what you've said here! From the way Rachel & Lillian were murdered by gunshot at such close range, to aim the gun at Rachel's head as she slept and to see Lillian laying there suffering then put a pillow over her to silence her, I believe only a person with ice in their veins could do. His actions afterward seemed like someone who was completely in control of what he was doing, not panic, and I think the part about leaving everything behind was just that ~ disposing of everything associated with his wife and baby and wanting to go back to the single life he knew in England before they were married. I had some doubt about it being planned to leave the computer and personal belongings behind until the testimony that he'd dumped the wallet & USD in the trash along with the wedding ring. After that, it all seemed to make sense.

I don't think Rachel was asleep when he killed her. The bath was full of water like she was about to give the baby a bath, and the t.v. was on, lights on, plates set for her meal with friends and dirty dishes in the sink. I think he held the gun on her and forced her and the baby into the room. I think she held the baby to protect Lillian. I think he shot her first and the GSR on Rachel's hands could have come from her grabbing the barrel to stop him from shooting, right as he shot her. I just re-read a book about him and was looking for updates. I hope he's rotting nicely!

Kat
06-29-2011, 11:00 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/30/neil-entwistle-appeals-us-murder-verdicts

Neil Entwistle fights US murder verdicts

British man, Neil Entwistle, who was jailed in 2008 for shooting his wife Rachel, and their nine-month-old Lillian, has filed an appeal against his conviction

Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 30 June 2011 03.37 BST

joe jones
07-01-2011, 07:37 AM
he has filed an appeal

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworl dnews%2Fnorthamerica%2Fusa%2F8608773%2FBritish-man-jailed-in-US-for-murder-of-wife-and-daughter-launches-appeal.html&ei=L7INTtLCF8Gv8gPopIjSDg&usg=AFQjCNHcwz-Y8Tnwoay9Jq-Dp3PAXpHoSw

most English papers have articles in them of his appeal, is it being picked up in the US

I always expected him to ask to be repatriated to an English jail once he has accepted that any or all appeals will be fruitless as even if an appeal was granted he would be convicted again, the suicide theory just does not fit the evidence,

maybe it will take many more years before he accepts that he will die in prison, as he can only be repatriated once all his appelate issues are dealt with, and he cannot appeal any further once repatriated, and he will have to still seve LWOP even if he came home,

Kat
07-08-2011, 05:52 AM
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/our_son_is_innocent_entwistles_1_3555436

Friday 8 July 2011

‘Our son is innocent’ – Entwistles


Can't snip without losing context. His parents have issued a public statement.

joe jones
07-08-2011, 08:24 AM
All through the trial I admired his parents for there stoicism and for being there for there son, after the verdicts I had less admiration but much more sympathy, they just can't accept that he did it, it must be so hard to even contemplate that he committed such horrendous crimes,

grandmaj
07-08-2011, 11:36 AM
I lived literally 4 miles from where this happened. If you could see the sleepy community and the ones surrounding it this murder just literally shocked everyone. Murders in these communities happen maybe once every 30 years. This is truly the burbs....... I still own a home there although I don't live in MA any longer. I followed this trial and there was no evidence that anyone other than Neil was involved. There was some really good State Police work done.

Neil planned and executed this murder and I don't see anyone in Massachusetts letting him get off on appeal.

Francine
08-16-2011, 09:36 PM
http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/our_son_is_innocent_entwistles_1_3555436

Friday 8 July 2011

‘Our son is innocent’ – Entwistles


Can't snip without losing context. His parents have issued a public statement.

They keep repeating that their son is innocent, as if saying it enough will make some people believe it. They seem to imply that the American justice system is backward, and that their "innocent" son Neil would have been found not guilty if tried in England.

One thing I noticed in this new statement by the parents is that they don't dare to accuse Rachel of murdering Lily and then committing suicide.

Could they have been threatened with a lawsuit by Rachel's relatives if they made such defamatory statements again, especially after their son had been found guilty?

At the end of the statement they seem to threaten to have something to say again about the justice system in the US:

We have been waiting and waiting for this appeal, because alongside this appeal we will be speaking out.”

Or will they again try to make outrageous statements about a dead mother, Rachel, who is not here to defend herself against this unusual family? The apple does not fall far from the tree.

I feel sorry for Rachel's mother and step father and hope they can handle these unusual people with all the grace and dignity they can muster.

badhorsie
08-18-2011, 05:57 PM
They just have no idea. I think they truly believe this. Their son is a sociopath, that's what sociopathy can do to people

ohiogirl
08-19-2011, 02:51 PM
They remind me of the Coleman family. The evidence in this case was open and shut, iirc. I can't see an appeal working. But, you gotta try, right?

Reader
08-16-2012, 01:53 AM
Man who killed wife, baby loses appeal in Mass.

http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19044453&ps=1011&cat=&cps=0&lang=en

BOSTON (AP) — The highest court in Massachusetts rejected the appeal of a British man convicted of killing his wife and baby daughter in their rented home, saying in its decision released Tuesday that warrantless searches of the home were justified because those inside might have been in danger.

In arguing for a new trial, lawyers for Neil Entwistle said evidence obtained during the warrantless searches of the Hopkinton home while police were looking for the missing family should have been dismissed at trial. They also argued that media coverage made it impossible to get an impartial jury.

The court rejected the arguments, concluding that Entwistle "received a fair trial that was ably tried and judged."............

Prosecutors were pleased the Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Entwistle's conviction and found grounds of his appeal baseless, Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said in a statement Tuesday.

"Neil Entwistle will continue to spend the rest of his life behind bars for the unimaginable, unforgiveable acts he committed against Rachel and baby Lillian," the statement also read in part.


More at link.....