Neil Entwistle

[hulkyj61]

Fair trial yes, its in our constitution i dont disagree with that. But him getting off is what worries me the most. These days people take reasonable doubt to a new level. It is illegal for the cops and percution to plant or use fake evidence to make a case, but it is legal to use irrelevant evidence to caue doubt in the minds of the jurors. It must be a unanimus decision so one person doubting the man killing his wife and baby can set him free.

This is the exact reason they are placing the fathers DNA on the gun. So Neil's DNA and his dad's is on the gun, along with blood from the mother on the muzzle. Now the father has the alliby that he was at home or with someone, but Neil was "running errands" and has no recipts from any stores that can give his excuse and validity.

This is where we need someone like the Boondock Saints making sure these people dont walk the streets even if they are found not guilty in the court of law, and everything points to them doing the crime.

[Hooper]

Excellent point Hulkyj...

I saw on the news that the defense is putting forth the notion that this is actually a murder suicide case but the gun was not found beside Rachale's body.

Hmmmm, now there's a trick

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by hulkyj61

It must be a unanimus decision so one person doubting the man killing his wife and baby can set him free.

.

No--what would happen then is called a mistrial due to a hung jury. It would result in another trial, during which time Entwistle would still be held without bail awaiting that trial. A person charged with first degree murder in Massachusetts has no right to bail. Only a not guilty verdict would set him free. That ain't happenening. You can bet the mortgage on it. There aren't 12 sane people in the Commonwealth who would vote to acquit Entwistle.

.