The fate of Neil Entwistle is now in the hands of the
jurors. Today after both the prosecution and defense
rested their closing arguments were presented.
The defense called no witnesses, instead relying on
their cross examination of the prosecution witnesses
to raise reasonable doubt. Weinstein also told
the jury that Rachel killed her child Lillian and then
If defense attorneys are so learned and excellent
as many of their peers claim, then perhaps they
should prove their excellence by finding ways to
defend their client(s) without trashing the victims.
Rachel, who by all accounts, including the defense,
loved her baby Lillian. She was excited about purchasing
furniture and setting up their new home and being
close to her family. Now she's accused of being depressed
and taking her and her child's life.... by the same
defense attorney who proved in the beginning of
the court trial that Rachel was happy in her marriage.
In this instance and in that of the gun, the defense
is trying to have their cake and eat it too, and it's
just not possible. It's either or.
Throughout the trial we've heard statements from
Neil on audio tape saying that he couldn't get into the
father in law's home, that Rachel must have removed
the keys from the key ring that also had the BMW keys
on it. In testimony it was proven that the house keys
were still on the ring and Neil had access to them.
Weinstein further tells us Neil went to the house
to return the gun to protect Rachel's memory.
He didn't call 911 in order to protect her memory.
He didn't call her parents to tell them she'd
committed suicide. Why? Because they would
have known that was a lie!
In closing arguments Weinstein tells us all this,
and then says Neil couldn't get into the home.
But he NEVER explains how the gun got back into
Weinstein placed the gun in Neil's hand by his
scenario and only one person could have
returned the gun to Joe M's home and that was
Neil Entwistle who had the gun in his
When Neil is told by Officer Manning that
his wife and child were killed by foul play
Neil is nonchalant and merely wants to
know if they suffered at all. He wanted
to know what the time of death was.
He didn't ask, "who could have done it"
"Do you have a suspect?" "What are
you doing to find who did this?"
Neil's casual demeanor on the audio tapes when he
discusses the property on his landlord's answering
machine is chilling. He didn't ask for photos or albums
of his wife and child reflecting happier times. Even if
this was a suicide, one would think he'd still want those.
Neil was erasing Rachel and Lillian from his life. He
wanted the jewelry returned but nothing else.
No mementos to remind him of his wife, nothing
that would remind him of Lillian.
He erased his American life by casually letting others
do the work of disposing of the furniture, the personal
belongings, clothing and other property belonging to
himself, Rachel and Lillian. He threw away the
wallet he carried here, along with the remaining
U.S. dollars into a trash bin at his parent's home.
Then he got on with his life, moving to stay with friends
in London, looking up an old girlfriend and planning to
sell the story of his wife and child's murders for the
highest amount he could get. He erased them from
his life but he still would use them to get money
to fund his "new" lifestyle of adult internet sites
and sexual encounters free of the bonds of marriage
The jury will decide if this chameleon will have to
adapt to prison or if he'll go on his way back to
merry old London to his porn and sleaze.
Deliberations begin again tomorrow morning
at 9:30 and perhaps soon we'll learn their