MyFoxBoston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about you?

Did the state prove its case?

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

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

Let me know,

Bob Ward

Bob_Ward's Blog

Entwistle Closing to the Jury

Bob_Ward

Inside Fox:
Politics People Morning News TV Listings Contact Us

Write your comment below: Email me when a new comment is added to this entry