Today Neil Entwistle was found guilty of murdering his American wife Rachel and 9-month daughter Lillian. Ever since the murders in Hopkinton, MA, and Entwistle’s immediate fleeing to his native England, Entwistle’s guilt has been a foregone conclusion in the minds of most Bostonians, an opinion bolstered by the unseemly details that emerged in the trial and breathlessly reported by the local news: “Today in court, stunning revelations!… Entwistle was financially broke… he was trying to use the Internet to have an affair… he searched on the Internet just days before “How to kill with a Knife”… He changed his story, again!… When Neil cries in court, it looks like he is laughing diabolically!”
On Monday, after 12 days of witnesses and evidence, the Prosecution rested. In a shocking display of confidence, the Defense immediately rested without calling any witnesses, and posited in the closing arguments that Rachel shot her daughter before committing suicide. On Tuesday, the jury was in the second day of deliberation while the local news fought to justify the story’s continual top-billing: “Today in the Neil Entwistle trial, the jury asked the judge a question!”
When it comes to high-profile court trials, I refrain from making judgments about the guilt or non-guilt of the accused. I’m not on the jury, forced to consider every piece of evidence; all my knowledge has been filtered by a sensationalistic media that ferrets out the most tabloid details. Half the time, the information that the media presents isn’t even ruled as admissible evidence.
But with Neil Entwistle, there was never a doubt in my mind that he is guilty. I am strangely elated by the conviction. I look at Neil Entwistle and I see a monster. When I discussed the Entwistle trial with Mr. P during dinner the other night, my confidence in his guilt bothered Mr. P, who defended Entwistle against each point that I raised:
“Okay, so he claims he came home and discovered them dead. Why did he flee to England if he wasn’t guilty?”
“Because he was afraid everyone would think he did it.”
“Oh come on! If you came home and found me murdered, would you not call 911, not call my family, and just hop a plane to France?”
Silence. “It’s hard to know what I’d do.”
Okay, that’s fair. But Neil Entwistle had motives:
“He was unemployed and in debt. They were living beyond their means.”
“Babe, that’s half of America.”
“He placed personal ads on internet sex websites.”
“Again, half of America.”
“He did an Internet search for ‘how to kill with a knife’ only 4 days before the murder.”
Silence. “I’ve searched for some pretty random things, myself.”
The same tawdry evidence that convinced the public of Entwistle’s guilt made Mr. P suspicious of a witch hunt. But in the end, what convinced Mr. Pinault that Neil Entwistle probably did kill his wife and baby girl was old-fashioned evidence, including DNA and Entwistle’s own contradictory statements. Me, I would have convicted him on the grisly Internet searches alone.
