GUILTY MA - Rachel, 27, & Lillian Entwistle, 9 mos, murdered, 20 Jan 2006

New Posts

panthera said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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/
 
Yikes I can't understand most of the people on that video. They all have incredible accents. Dignified, my *advertiser censored*. They are creeps.
 
Nugrandma1 said:
Yikes I can't understand most of the people on that video. They all have incredible accents. Dignified, my *advertiser censored*. They are creeps.
Click to expand...

: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:
 
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.
 
jilly said:
: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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Parmenides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
mollymalone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh thanks so much for the update! :blowkiss:
 
Parmenides said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jilly said:
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/
Click to expand...
----------
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
 
jilly said:
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/
Click to expand...
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]
 
Parmenides said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ciara said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 65 more.
Total: 2,500 (members: 66, guests: 2,434)

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
2,434
Total visitors
2,500
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,112
Messages
17,963,383
Members
228,686
Latest member
Pabo1998
Back
Top