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.

according to the media reports, it doesn't look good.

but truly, having worked in the criminal courts, it is amazing how things get reported in the media.

that being said, he's not looking pure as the driven snow.

certain opinions can be construed as libellous, dittany.

in the not too distant past, this board was very nearly shut down due to a similar sort of accusation.

Interesting that the defence reserved this explanation until the closing speech. There is no time for the prosecution to find the evidence about trajectories etc to rebut it now.

"The defence rested without putting any witnesses on the stand."

If there was any shred of truth in his story, you'd have thought his lawyers would have been able to find a forensics expert witness to say that it could have happened as he claimed, or a witness to say that his wife had been depressed or suicidal.

I feel sorry for the lawyers having to defend him.

Yes, but if Mrs Entwhistle did commit suicide, why did he jump on a plane back to the UK?

Presumably his lawyers have to earn their fees.

The circumstantial evidence is looking reasonably compelling, I must say.

(& I agree it compounds the offence IF he did it & is now traducing his murdered wife...)

Oh, please, dittany.

Just because you have a 'right' to express opinions doesn't mean a) others will agree with them b) you're not responsible for those opinions.

FWIW, my personal feeling is that he is guilty.

BUT, even if he is found such, there are things NO ONE is ever going to know.

And even if you read the trial's entire transcript, there's still stuff that goes on in the court that can't be recorded - even peoples' facial expressions and mannerisms - that believe it or not have a lot of influence on juries.

The difference is that I stated it was my opinion he is guilty, and that may or not be true.

Whereas you, as usual, come in all guns blazing.

'so why not just dial it back a bit? '

I might say likewise. Do you ever step off the warpath for even a millisecond?

Might want to try it sometime.

I read a word for it on another thread: chillax.

'Do you have a leetle problem with me? If you do I don't want to know, just try and work on those double standards. '

Not as big as the chip you've got tethered to your back that comes across in nearly every post.

At least my 'double standards' don't have as many prongs as that pitchfork you're always parading around.

Obviously not if you're up at this time of night responding to me.

But hey ho, it's your time and all.

Lynch 'em all!

Edam I was thinking more along the lines of the Ipswich murders, when the first suspect who was arrested was released without charge, and yet the press had already published his name and address. Sadly mud sticks, and even though most people probably don't remember who he was, there will always be those that will remember, and will know that he was arrested in connection with murdering those women.

I do wonder how it is possible to get an unbiased jury in high profile cases. Just look at some of the responses on here "he's an evil bastard" and imagine that those people are called to sit on a jury, having already heard of the case in the media. How can they be sure that everyone on that jury will look at the facts presented to them, as opposed to remembering the case from its reports in the press?

I can't believe he doesn't just plead guilty. A murderer and shameless.

He doesn't strike me as credible - though obviously I am just going by what I read in the papers.

Deeply sad and horrible way for the LO and her mother to die though. I don't really know why I opened this thread, actually, as I have already spent too long feeling troubled by this case.

Wannabe!!!

It's not as though the people who've made those comments have been 'reading the wrong file'.

He FLED the country leaving HIS wife and HIS baby dead, shot. HIS dna on the handle of the gun and HER dna on the end of the gun.

HE was unhappily married and had been trawling the internet looking for sex and he was depressed over his career.

THESE FACTS I JUST GOT FROM VIDEO SHOT IN THE COURT CASE ITSELF.

It doesn't matter what I think, or what Dittany thinks or whoever it was called him an evil bastard, but it's hardly a MASSIVE leap to call him guilty.

ps another point wannabe. My view based on the facts I have at the moment is that he's guilty. Why do you have so litle faith in the jury, if they are sitting there, and NEW extra facts are presented to them, that they would be unable to take on board those extra facts and form a new opinion.

case has been handed to the jury.

GE I never said that I had no faith in this particular jury. Fwiw from what I have heard about this case I will be somewhat surprised if he is not found guilty.

What I said was, given the amount of coverage the media lends to criminal cases, I do wonder how it can be possible to know you have found a totally unbiased jury, and not one who has already been swayed by the previous media coverage.

Look at any high profile crime over the past few years, holly and jessica, sara Payne, the ipswich girls... In all three of those cases the right person was tried and convicted (and may they all spend the rest of their lives wrotting inside). they were all highly charged cases. Cases which had the british public involved, afraid for those children, afraid for those women, wanting an outcome, and wanting someone to be brought to justice. So what if it had been someone else who had been arrested? What if someone else had been charged and brought to trial? given the amount of media publicity attached to those cases, do you honestly think that all jurers could walk in there and forget everything they had read over the past months, and take the evidence as it was presented? If someone had been brought to trial for the murder of Holly and Jessica, do you not think that a jury would feel pressured (not from anyone in particular but because of the amount of coverage) into finding that someone guilty? Often when someone is arrested in connection with a crime the media have all but sent them down before they're even charged, so if it went to court how could one be sure that some of those jurers didn't read those papers and had already decided the defendent was guilty anyway?

I don't think the media coverage matters as much as you think it matters though, if you see what I mean.

Most people would walk in to the court with a gut feeling perhaps, but as the real and comprehensive evidence is put before them firsthand, it would actually be really difficult to fix your opinion so rigidly that you could not be wavered by new information and new facts.

So basically, I just have more faith in people's ability to sit still, listen, learn, consider etc,,