Neil Entwistle: Guilty or Not Guilty?

[Disney1fan2002]

If not him, then WHO

If WHO did it, then why did Neil leave for England when he discovered his wife and baby dead? Instead of calling the police? If WHO did it, and Neil is innocent, how could he have stayed in England while his wife and baby were being laid to rest?

WHO also must of been the same person looking up ways to kill people, and how to commit suicide on the web. WHO also must of been searching for a sex partner on a married man's computer.

I'm sorry, but this innocent until proven guilty is BS. Sometimes, a criminal is GUILTY the minute they leave the country.

Here is a question, if the justice system is set up to protect people's innocence, why are they jailed before trial? If the are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law, shouldn't they be out of jail? Jail is for guilty people. So, poor innocent Neil (innocent because he has not been proven guilty yet) sits in jail for a month until his next hearing date.

 

[TDC Nala]

Looks bad for him, but I'd want to see the evidence presented.

Here is a question, if the justice system is set up to protect people's innocence, why are they jailed before trial? If the are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law, shouldn't they be out of jail?

There are circumstances under which a court can deny bail for an accused. Depends on the law of the state, but for him it would probably have to do with 1) the severity of the alleged offense and 2) he's a proven flight risk.

 

[Poohbear123]

He belongs in the same cell as Peterson!

 

[4greatboys]

He belongs in the same cell as Peterson!

No they are both cowards who can only kill women and children. I hope they each get stuck with a seasoned gang banger. Maybe they will be shows a small taste of what their wives and children felt.

 

[zalansky]

He belongs in the same cell as Peterson!

Yes, he does...these "men" make me sick!

 

[kdibattista]

I must be living under a rock because I don't know who that is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185063,00.html

 

[robertsmom]

Well maybe I am jaded, but I thought he was guilty as soon as this story broke. Statistics prove that a husband or significant other is more than likely the culprit when a pregnant woman is murdered. That's why police always attempt to eliminate the spouse as a suspect as soon as possible if they can.

 

[AMcaptured]

He probably did it but the fact that his father in law went to the gun range the next day and fired the gun used to kill the victimes may end up causing the evidence found on the gun to be inadmissaible in court.

If the gun isn't allowed into evidence then it will be much harder to prove he did it.

I would guess he did it based on statistics but if the evidence is tampered with it makes it much harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Jennifer S]

Last night on the news an attorney said "He's a dumb Scott peterson. This is as close to a slam dunk that you can get".

I do believe he's guilty but deserves a fair trial.

 

[twinmomplus2new]

Like I said previous.. after his fair trial...... yada,,, yada,,,, yada,,,

I want to see him get Kitchen duty with Joe Druce. Anyone from MA I am quite sure gets my drift.

 

[chris1gill]

Did anyone see the court proceedings today? He looked so smug standing there, there was something very scary about him

I totally agree with this, he was so smug, it made me physically sick to my stomach. There is no way I could sit on a jury looking at his smugness. Having said that, I find it terribly ironic that the step-father fired the same gun that was used to kill Rachel & Lilli.. He hadn't fired that gun since September I heard.... if that's true, it's a terrible, terrible coincidence... I really hope that they are able to exclude anyone and everyone that touched that gun, or whose finger prints were on that gun... I hope they can exclude them beyond a reasonable doubt... until they can do that, I have to say he looks guilty as sin, but that doesn't mean that he absolutely can be proven to be guilty...

I'm in Middlesex county, I am praying I'm not called for jury duty on this, I'd probably sob through the whole thing.... I'm not cut out for that sort of thing

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Is it a crime when you don't report a crime?

Let's say the gun is out for evidence. That will kill the case. But, his ACTIONS should be evidence. The facts of his actions should prove beyond a reasonable doubt hat he is the one who did this. By his own admission, he said he came home and found them dead in the bed. He then said he drove to Carver to his in-laws, but found they were not home, and drove the the airport (yeah, the poor boy is innocent). If they can't get him on the murders, then he already confessed to knowing about a crime and not reporting it.

Question for a legal mind...what if his lawyer is right? What if with the WORLDWIDE coverage of this case, there is no venue that would give him a fair trial? Does he just NOT go to trial? I say let him sit in jail until they can "find" a venue. Even if it takes few years.

 

[krcit]

He's as guilty as OJ. Let's just hope he doesn't get away with it.

 

[POB14]

Question for a legal mind...what if his lawyer is right? What if with the WORLDWIDE coverage of this case, there is no venue that would give him a fair trial? Does he just NOT go to trial? I say let him sit in jail until they can "find" a venue. Even if it takes few years.

Legal mind here. (Assuming that's not an oxymoron )

No way would that happen. They managed to get a jury for OJ (okay, a bad one, but still), they can get a jury for this schmuck.

It's amazing how many people out there never read a newspaper, never watch the news, never read news stories on the Internet.

Is it a crime when you don't report a crime?

Not generally. (And you probably don't want there to be. Do you want to be required to call the cops every time you see somebody turn without signalling? ) There is, however, a crime (at least here in IL) of Concealment of a Homicidal Death, but that requires some active participation (usually along the lines of hiding the body).

His flight IS evidence of guilt, though. Among the many questionable decisions of the prosecution team in the OJ case was not bringing out the fact that he was being driven around the area of the airport with a chunk of cash and a stupid disguise.

Can you tell I'm still bitter about OJ?

 

[Daxx]

guilty, guilty, guilty. I've been saying it since the beginning. A mother and her baby are found dead, the husband/father leaves for England with a one way ticket around the same time and doesn't come home when he hears the news? Not even to attend their funeral? The gun that was used to kill them has both his DNA and hers on it(hers on the muzzle of the gun)...he said he could not get in to his inlaws house to get the gun to kill himself, yet he has keys to his inlaws house on his keyring...his computer history shows him looking at websites on how to kill others and how to kill yourself... sounds like he did it to me. such a sad story

You said it!!!!

ETA -- this guy should rot w/Scott Peterson and that Hacker guy who murdered his pregnant wife and dumped her in the landfill.

It's called divorce, people -- just get one and move on. Don't kill innocent people b/c you're "tired" of them or whatever. Yeah, a divorce might not be fun ... but it's got to be better than rotting in jail. B/c let's face it ... if you're all thinking you're going to get away w/it, you're not. Just b/c OJ got off the hook (yes, I think he was guilty and if you don't, so be it) doesn't mean everyone is.

 

[CheshireVal]

If not him, then WHO

If WHO did it, then why did Neil leave for England when he discovered his wife and baby dead? Instead of calling the police? If WHO did it, and Neil is innocent, how could he have stayed in England while his wife and baby were being laid to rest?

WHO also must of been the same person looking up ways to kill people, and how to commit suicide on the web. WHO also must of been searching for a sex partner on a married man's computer.

I'm sorry, but this innocent until proven guilty is BS. Sometimes, a criminal is GUILTY the minute they leave the country.

Here is a question, if the justice system is set up to protect people's innocence, why are they jailed before trial? If the are INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law, shouldn't they be out of jail? Jail is for guilty people. So, poor innocent Neil (innocent because he has not been proven guilty yet) sits in jail for a month until his next hearing date.

My thoughts exactly. I'm all for justice and innocent until proven guilty yadda yadda yadda, but in some cases actions really do speak volumes.