Neil Entwhistle's defence

[georgiemama]

how low can you go?

I know a man is innocent until proven guilty, but really, there is a limit.

not if he's actually innocent there isn't. Not if that's actually what happened - and tbh we don't know.

Oh come on. He so clearly isn't though.

It's a pretty thin story he's giving there. If that's the best he can do...

Exactly edam, ok it could have happened, but it hardly explains his conduct afterwards. We will see what the jury say....

Hasn't he changed his story a time or 2?

it's always questionable anyway using a defence like that. After all, the wife can't exactly stand up and testify can she?

And I wasn't saying he is innocent, just that we don't know and that ultimately it's for the jury to decide, and they have all the actual evidence whereas we have what the media have told us..

it will be not beyond the impossible for the prosecution to determine the exact angle at which Mrs Entwhistle and her child were shot, what hand the gun was held in and how far away the gun was from the victims. and of course, the exact trajectory of the bullet(s) through the bodies of the victims, which again is dependent on how the gun was held and how far away it was.

so if the defense is untrue, it will come out in court, because it will be able to be demonstrated that Mrs Entwhistle could not have been holding the weapon, if that is indeed what happened.

having sat in on more than a few criminal trials in the US, you really can't rely on media reports to determine whether or not someone is guilty.

it will be not beyond the impossible for the prosecution to determine the exact angle at which Mrs Entwhistle and her child were shot, what hand the gun was held in and how far away the gun was from the victims. and of course, the exact trajectory of the bullet(s) through the bodies of the victims, which again is dependent on how the gun was held and how far away it was.

so if the defense is untrue, it will come out in court, because it will be able to be demonstrated that Mrs Entwhistle could not have been holding the weapon, if that is indeed what happened.

having sat in on more than a few criminal trials in the US, you really can't rely on media reports to determine whether or not someone is guilty.

That is the most feeble, pathetic, cowardly defence imaginable. Ridiculous. Surprised his lawyer could bear to say it.

FWIW, it is entirely possible for someone who has been shot to have plenty of gunpowder on them or for their own prints/DNA evidence to be on the weapon itself - they may have handled it in their own home if it was a family weapon or grappled/fought over it with a perpetrator, etc.

many possibilities.

forensics there is a continually advancing scientists and the murder of any child is enough to light a fire under the arse of even the most seasoned of prosecutors - they and their team will do their best to determine who may have killed the victims.

as in criminal cases here, the defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or the jury are bound by law to acquit, so each side usually tries to do its best.

exactly expat. Although if he is found not guilty there will still be those who will say he did it. trial by media is so great isn't it it's a wonder we even bother with a legal system any more .

My understanding - drawn from the media reports - was that the gun used to shoot Mrs Entwhistle was found at her parents house. Have the defence offered any explanation for that - she didn't put it there herself!

it's VERY important in such cases to try to remain as neutral as possible, because even in the case of guilty verdict, in many cases of first degree or capital murder hte defendant has an automatic right of appeal.

and one of the most commonly used tennets of appeal is that the media prejudiced the jury, which is why some cases have gag orders.

do i think he did it? probably.

but i'm not on that jury, and i'm really glad i'm not.

such cases are truly horrible to be involved in.

Wannabe, the media plays a useful role in ensuring that justice isn't secret. Court reporting is an important part of the rule of law.

(Although the rules are very different in the US - amazing what is allowed under the First Amendment, stuff that would be regarded as completely prejudicial over here.)

it is indeed, edam. FWIW, gagging laws also vary by state in the US and a state has the right to apply to the federal government for greater gagging powers in high profile cases - like OJ Simpson, for example.

Not sure first is right, I mean the one about freedom of speech, whichever that is!

Most murder cases are The State of . . . v [Defendant/Respondant]

that is the first amendment, edam, indeed.

the Constitution's preamble and the first 10 amendments are also known as The Bill of Rights.

oh absolutely edam. But there's vast difference between court reporting, ie what's been presented during the trial, and the vast amount of speculation that goes on before the case even comes to trial, at the point before charges are made etc, when the media seem to see fit to publish someone's name and address and other details before they've even been charged with a crime.

How anyone gets a fair trial in this age where the public have huge amounts of information on the crime, the suspect and their family before it all comes to court is beyond me.

Ah, lost confidence in myself for a second there!

Wannabe, I think the courts have been very slow to crack down on some particular instances of pushing the boundaries by the red-tops in the pre-charge phase.

But IMO you are being a bit OTT - are you thinking of Dewsbury? The reason the address was known was that it was (originally) a missing person's enquiry where the police and family were seeking help from the media. Addresses normally aren't published until it is legal to do so.

I'm not a crime reporter but I think the address is one of the ten facts which are the only things that you can report safely once someone has been charged - name, address, charge, date and place of next court appearance etc. etc. etc.

he probably did it, dittany. BUT, that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

yet