The Freedom Bulletin

The Boston Herald’s crime journalism has always been sensationalized, but they might have just hit a new low.

I just came across this story mentioning Neil Entwistle, who was convicted last year of killing his wife Rachel and baby Lillian and whose trial I attended. The Herald’s Joe Dwinell interviewed Rachel’s parents about a “Run for the Roses” event that they have planned to help a center for abused children.

But of course, since this is the Herald, the article has to mention sex at every possible opportunity. The first sentence of the article reads:

Rachel Entwistle’s father still hears her voice “clear as a bell” every day as the horrific slaying of his daughter and her baby at the hands of her sex-depraved husband Neil haunts him without mercy.

And the second paragraph of this other article reads as follows:

The 60-mile Run for the Roses trek is being held in memory of Rachel, 27, and her baby girl, Lillian Rose, 9 months, who were murdered by sex-obsessed dad and husband Neil Entwistle.

Okay, I know that Neil is a convicted murderer and standing up for convicted murderers is not going to make me very popular, but come on! The Herald does not have a right to spread whatever lies it wants about someone just because they have been convicted of a crime.

There is no evidence that Neil was “sex-depraved” (whatever the heck that means) or any more interested in sex than the average person. Yes, he might have visited an adult dating site a couple of times, but that probably isn’t uncommon. Was he a pedophile? No. Did he rape anyone? No. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence suggesting that he had sex with anyone other than his wife. The Herald’s “journalism” makes the facts sound much different than they are.

As you can probably tell, it annoys me when the media tries to make every story about sex, and when they disregard the constitutional rights of the accused. In the Entwistle case, the Herald has done both of these things numerous times. Neil Entwistle was not really obsessed with sex, but the Herald, on the other hand, seems highly obsessed with sex.

It’s really unfortunate that Bostonians are stuck with this trashy rag and the liberal-leaning Globe as our only two papers. If he didn’t have other legal problems to worry about, Neil should sue the Herald for libel.

P.S. In his blog, Dwinell writes that Neil’s parents ”came over for last summer’s trial to rub more salt into the wounds.” Right. I’m sure that’s exactly what they were thinking: “Let’s come over because it will make Rachel’s parents feel bad.” I know it’s hard to believe, but maybe they came to the trial to support their son.

As you might know, I attended the trial of Neil Entwistle this summer and blogged about it. I have always tried to be neutral and unbiased and consider both sides equally when writing about this case. But some of the things that have been written in the past couple of days about Neil’s family demand a response.

Neil Entwistle’s parents, Cliff and Yvonne, filed a complaint about their local paper, the Worksop Guardian, for publishing solely vicious, anti-Neil letters to the editor after his conviction, secretly taking pictures of them, and repeatedly contacting them after being asked not to. Their complaint was dismissed by Britain’s press watchdog.

Joe Dwinell of the Boston Herald wrote an editorial about this, which he and the paper dishonestly passed off as an article. In the “article,” he bashed Yvonne, Neil, and the entire Entwistle family. Let me quote a few sentences from it:

“The Guardian printed a series of harsh letters to the editor and post-verdict stories targeting Yvonne Entwistle’s cruel accusation that a “depressed” Rachel Entwistle took her own life and her child’s.”

“The betraying Brit was found guilty in June of executing his 27-year-old wife and 9-month-old baby girl, Lillian Rose, on Jan. 20, 2006, in Hopkinton after becoming frustrated with his crumbling finances and his flat sex life in the States.”

I shouldn’t have to explain why these statements belong in an editorial, not an article, but I will anyway. The point of an article is to present facts. Articles shouldn’t have any opinions in them. Calling a person “cruel” or “betraying” is an opinion. Therefore, any piece of writing that includes these words (except as a quote from someone else) is an editorial, not an article. When I read this “article,” I completely disagreed with the opinion Dwinell was expressing. This is a problem, because authors should not express any opinions in articles, but even if this was an editorial I would disagree with it.

Yvonne was not being cruel. Nothing she said was at all cruel. She was simply expressing her view of what happened, a view that happens to be unpopular.

There is no logical reason why one would call Yvonne cruel. The only reason that I can think of is that she accused Rachel of murder, and perhaps Dwinell thinks that anyone who accuses a person of murder is cruel. But by this same logic, the prosecutors, the DA, the judge, Rachel’s family, and the reporters at the Herald are also cruel, because they have accused Neil of murder. Funny, Dwinell never calls them cruel. I think the only reason Dwinell calls Neil’s mother cruel is because she expressed an opinion that is different from his. Big surprise, Joe, people are actually allowed to express unpopular views.

I do not know the Entwistles personally, and I do not agree 100% with all of the things they have said, but I greatly admire Yvonne’s courage. If you have been reading my blog, you will know that I have a lot of unpopular views, and I can relate to people who are persecuted and harassed for disagreeing with the majority. Yvonne is a lovely, brave lady and she does not deserve this vicious treatment by the press and the public.

To bash someone for disagreeing with you after their son has been sent to prison for life, now that’s cruel. To call it a news article is even crueler.

P.S. If you really want cruel, take a look at the comments that readers leave on the Herald’s “articles” and on Dwinell’s blog. Words cannot describe their barbarity. It is completely unacceptable for a mainstream newspaper to allow such obscene, libelous, brainless vitriol to remain on its website without being deleted. I have strong opinions, but I could never muster enough hate in me to compare to these people. It is truly frightening that such people exist in the world.

Elliot Weinstein, the defense attorney probably best known for representing Neil Entwistle, has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was scheduled to undergo surgery yesterday.

So this is just a short post to wish him good luck and a full recovery. Based on what I observed at the Entwistle trial, Elliot is an excellent lawyer and a great person. Hopefully he’ll be back in the courtroom or working on Entwistle’s appeals soon!

Source: Boston Herald and Mass. Lawyers Weekly

Jami Floyd from TruTV posted a great blog entry called “For the defense,” which I happen to agree with. Throughout the Neil Entwistle case, I have read comments online that Entwistle does not deserve a publicly-funded defense or even a trial. Such comments are simply un-American. The Constitution guarantees all defendants the right to legal representation and a fair trial by jury. The fact that there is a lot of evidence against a particular defendant, or that the defendant is widely hated, does not and should not change this.

I commend Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page for putting forth their best effort in defending their client. Although their murder-suicide theory did not ultimately succeed, it was a bold, ingenious move. I understand the pain that the Matterazzo family is suffering and why they are offended by the defense’s version of events, but no one should criticize Weinstein or Page for doing the best job possible for their client.

I generally support a small government with as few taxes as possible, but one of the few things I’m willing to pay taxes for is the protection of everyone’s constitutional rights. State-funded representation is often necessary to ensure that defendants receive fair trials. Providing a fair legal system is one of the most important duties (if not the most important) of the government. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn’t you agree?

Neil Entwistle was officially sentenced to life in prison today. Judge Diane Kottmyer sentenced Entwistle to two concurrent life sentences without parole for the murders of his wife Rachel and baby Lillian and also gave him 10 years of probation for possession of a firearm and ammunition, with the condition that he cannot make money from selling his story in any way.

Before the sentence was officially read, Rachel’s relatives gave victim impact statements. Her mother, Priscilla Matterazzo, asked the judge to impose two consecutive life sentences and called the defense’s theory that Rachel committed a murder-suicide “low and despicable.” Rachel’s stepfather, Joe Matterazzo, told Entwistle that “one day you will face the ultimate judgement for your horrific deeds.” Jerome Souza, Rachel’s brother, said that “each and every day we have to live with the heartache of Neil’s betrayal” and “we can only reflect on what Rachel did and speculate on what Lilly might have done.”

Entwistle did not react to the statements but smiled faintly at his parents and brother when he entered the courtroom and again when he left for the last time. He was given an opportunity to speak, but his lawyer Elliot Weinstein told the court that he did not wish to do so.

Judge Kottmyer called the crimes “incomprehensible” and “in violation of the bonds we recognize as central to our identity as human beings.” She had the option of giving Entwistle consecutive or concurrent life sentences, but decided on concurrent because consecutive life sentences might give the impression to those unfamiliar with the Massachusetts legal system that Entwistle might eventually be able to get out of jail. The decision was purely symbolic, of course. Unless he is successful in his appeals, Entwistle will be in jail for the rest of his life with no opportunity for parole.

Afterward, defense lawyers Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page gave a press conference outside the courthouse. They criticized the attitude that defendants should prove their innocence and insisted that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof in the case. “What I’m frustrated with is that so many people do not understand what a trial is,” Weinstein replied when asked if he was frustrated with Entwistle’s mother, Yvonne, for saying yesterday that she believes Rachel committed a murder-suicide. “It’s unfair to Neil, it’s unfair to the American citizenry to perpetuate this myth,” he later said.

So, one of the biggest trials in Massachusetts history is now over. Entwistle is now at MCI-Cedar Junction in Walpole, Mass., where he will serve his life sentence. I will continue blogging about the case whenever there is a new development. Until then, I’ll have to find a new trial to follow…

EDIT: The MetroWest Daily News has reported that contrary to what was said at sentencing, Entwistle will actually be held at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley starting tomorrow.

Neil Entwistle was found guilty this afternoon of murdering his wife Rachel and baby Lillian. The jury of 6 men and 6 women convicted him of two counts of first-degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition.

It was announced at about 2:25 that the jury had reached a verdict, eliciting a stampede of reporters and spectators into courtroom 430. This was the first time the courtroom was completely full and people had to be turned away. Next to me a spectator and some reporters were squabbling over a space on a wooden bench. However, there were several bail hearings that had to be completed in the courtroom, so the verdict was not announced until after 2:45.

Neil did not show much reaction to the verdict. He smiled and nodded at his family as he entered the courtroom, and as he left he shrugged his shoulders and gave his family a sad look that seemed to say, “oh well.” Neither of the families reacted noticeably, either.

After the verdict, the judge thanked the jurors and alternates and she met with them privately in another room. Neil’s family, defense lawyers, Rachel’s family, prosecutors, and Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone all spoke to the press. Unfortunately, I missed the Entwistles and the defense team, who spoke outside the courthouse, but I was there for the D.A.’s press conference in room 730.

Leone had some harsh words for Neil. “I’d like to begin by thanking the jury and honoring the memory of Lillian and Rachel,” he said, surrounded by Rachel’s family and friends. He pointed out that Lillian would have turned three years old this April. “She should be here, talking, walking, and playing with her mom, Rachel, doting over her…and that’s not going to happen because of the reprehensible acts of Neil Entwistle.” He then praised Rachel’s parents, Joe and Priscilla Matterazzo, for their dignity in handling the tragedy. “At the same time that I commend Joe and Priscilla, I condemn Neil Entwistle,” said Leone. “A just verdict has been returned, an Neil Entwistle will spend the rest of his life in jail where he belongs.”

Then, Joe Flaherty, a spokesman for the family, thanked supporters, investigators, law enforcement, and prosecutors. “We do know that Rachel and Lillian Rose loved and trusted Neil Entwistle…Neil Entwistle will live with his evil deeds for the rest of his natural life, only to be judged again,” he said.

Joe and Priscilla themselves briefly thanked people for sending them cards and condolences, and then Leone and Assistant D.A. Michael Fabbri answered questions from reporters. When asked to comment on Neil’s family’s reaction, Leone replied, “I’d expect nothing less from the parents of someone who’s been convicted of first-degree murder…It was his cowardly, shameful, unforgivable acts that were the basis for this first-degree murder conviction.” When asked about Neil’s motive, he responded, “There are some acts that are so heinous, that are so shameful, there’s never a reason, let alone a good reason.” Fabbri, when asked what the most important piece of evidence was, said, “I think Neil Entwistle himself was one of the most critical pieces of evidence that we had.”

As for my opinion, I have a lot of respect for the jurors and their decision. I am honestly not sure what I would have done if I was on that jury. The defense’s suicide theory was certainly improbable, but I wouldn’t call it impossible. The DNA on the murder weapon was what clinched the prosecution’s case, but the gunshot residue (which was found on Rachel’s hands and nothing of Neil’s) made the defense’s theory look plausible.

There will be victim impact statements tomorrow at 10:00, and Neil will then be sentenced to life in prison without parole, the only option for first-degree murder. His case will automatically be appealed. I’m guessing the warrantless searches of his house and the widespread pretrial publicity will be big issues on appeal.

A jury deliberated Neil Entwistle’s fate all day today and will continue deliberating tomorrow. Reporters, spectators, photographers, and camera operators spent most of the day waiting for a verdict, reading, talking on cell phones, and typing on BlackBerries outside the courthouse and in the hall outside courtroom 430. Defense attorneys Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page hung out with Entwistle’s family in what I believe is the public defenders’ office. Peter Parker, the Entwistle family’s lawyer, also made an appearance.

Just after 3:30 the crowd, along with the lawyers in the case, the defendant, family members from both sides, and the judge, assembled in the courtroom because the jury had a question. It turned out that jurors wanted to see Entwistle’s computer records from January 20, 2006, the day of the alleged murders. Entwistle used the Internet around 12:30 that day to check on job applications.

The jury then entered at about 4:25 to let the judge know that they were done for the day. They will report back at 9:00 tomorrow.

It could be good for the defense that the jury isn’t rushing to judgemnt. There’s a chance they are leaning toward convicting Entwistle and are just waiting another day to be 100% sure, but there’s also a chance some aren’t convinced of his guilt. I think he has a chance of getting a hung jury, but it’ll depend on how stubborn the dissenting jurors are in sticking to their opinions.

Also today I stuck my head into courtroom 630, where James Brescia was just convicted of hiring a hit-man to kill his estranged wife’s boyfriend. I was there just as the guilty verdict was announced. Brescia was not present for the verdict because he suffered a stroke and was admitted to the hospital last night.