Neil Entwistle on trial in killings of wife, infant

[Stowaway]

Jury deliberation began today after twelve days of testimony in the trial of Neil Entwistle, accused of the shooting deaths of his wife and their infant daughter on January 20, 2006.

The defence presented no testimony on Mr. Entwistle's behalf, arguing only on the theory that his wife Rachel had killed their daughter and then herself. The theory attempts to explain Entwistle's behavior subsequent to their deaths, including his acts of notifying no one, removing the murder weapon from the scene, and fleeing the country.

Various news accounts on the web characterize the man as narcissistic, impulsive, and deceptive - hallmark traits of a psychopath - but - a Google search for any news article that contains "Entwistle" and "psychopath" returned zero articles. This is astonishing, no? The time is ripe for a much wider recognition of psychopathy at all levels in society.

 

[mudrabbit]

I've been watching this one unfold on truTV (formerly Court TV). It's been on the morning show, Jamie Floyd, Best Defense.
Here's some information if you've been looking for it unsuccessfully elsewhere on the web. If one goes to trutv.com and does a search on his name, this list comes up.

_http://search.trutv.com/search?site=trutv_com&client=trutv&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=trutv&q=Neil+Entwistle

(added: It's also being televised on Banfield & Ford. Jury is at 4 hours, 13+ min on deliberation.) The defense attorney tried to bring up that Rachel killed her baby then shot herself. Considering the type of firearm used, it doesn't look possible to me. And why did Neil run to England if he's not guilty?

 

[Stowaway]

Juror: Neil doomed by narcissism

By Joe Dwinell
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The Boston Herald

A juror who carefully watched a curiously grinning Neil Entwistle over 12 days of testimony by 46 witnesses said the perfectly coiffed wife-and-baby killer is nothing but a narcissist.

Donna M. Lisacki, one of 12 jurors who declared the bizarre Brit guilty of two first-degree murders Wednesday, told the Herald yesterday she was not surprised by Entwistle’s smirking, especially at his sentencing.

It was the same Mr. Entwistle. He is what he is, just a narcissistic individual and that is what came through when he was sentenced,” Lisacki said of Entwistle, who flashed his trademark grin even as he was being led out of court Thursday to begin a life sentence at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center in Shirley.

The Woburn juror said she watched the sentencing on television.

As for the defense theory that Entwistle’s wife killed their baby in a murder-suicide prompted by depression, the juror said the evidence didn’t back it up.

We did what we had to do,” Lisacki said. “We looked at the evidence, we saw it, and, in the end, we believed it.”

Middlesex Superior Court Judge Diane M. Kottmyer sentenced Entwistle, 29, to two concurrent life sentences on Thursday for the murders of his wife, Rachel, 27, and daughter Lillian Rose, 9 months.

[...]

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/2008_06_28_Juror:_Neil_doomed_by_narcissism:_‘We_did_what_we_had_to_do_/
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Editorial: Not a surprise

By Karen Gibson
Jun 26 2008

As everyone within at least a hundred miles of Hopkinton knows by now, Neil Entwistle was found guilty of first degree murder in the deaths of his wife, Rachel, and their baby daughter, Lillian, at their Hopkinton home in January of 2006.

[...] The cold-blooded murder of his own child and wife, then leaving their bodies alone while he diligently returned the weapon to his in-laws house, and then flying back to his family in England, proves that this psychopath had no feelings towards his young family. Proof of that could be easily seen during the short trial when he watched the proceedings with little emotion.

The one time during the three week trial he showed he was not a robot, was when the bloody clothes of baby Lillian was displayed for the jury, and he was either crying (as his attorneys insist) or laughing, as many court observers thought.

[...]

http://www.wickedlocal.com/hopkinton/news/lifestyle/columnists/x2010597109/Editorial-Not-a-surprise

 

[Pierre]

The one time during the three week trial he showed he was not a robot, was when the bloody clothes of baby Lillian was displayed for the jury, and he was either crying (as his attorneys insist) or laughing, as many court observers thought.

Here is a video of Entwistled when crime scene was shown to the Jury.

 

[Adaryn]

The one time during the three week trial he showed he was not a robot, was when the bloody clothes of baby Lillian was displayed for the jury, and he was either crying (as his attorneys insist) or laughing, as many court observers thought.

Here is a video of Entwistled when crime scene was shown to the Jury.

It really looks like he's laughing! - at least to me.
Eyes not puffed and not red, smiling lips, smiling eyes.

 

[Craig]

It really looks like he's laughing! - at least to me. Eyes not puffed and not red, smiling lips, smiling eyes.

I think any normal person can see that he's not the least bit upset, and is in fact, enjoying it. It's really disturbing to watch. For those that can't view the video, here's a face of immense suffering and remorse:

 

[mudrabbit]

I watched this thing for much of the trial. Most of the time, he sat there expressionless, like a robot.

 

[PepperFritz]

He's obviously trying REALLY HARD to look as though he's upset and crying, but (unlike many psychopaths) is not able to mimic human emotion. The result is jarring and bizarre to the observer -- withoout any genuine emotion behind the "upset" expressions he is trying to mimic, he sometimes appears as though he is actually laughing.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

What's really interesting is the comments on youtube for these videos. On the video of the trial where a tape is played of a conversation in which Entwistle says it was just a "normal day", one user comments:

i believe neil was in shock when this conversation took place.
I think he is innocent from what i heard of this phone call does not sound like a man who killed his family

And on the video where he's obviously laughing:

He's not laughing for god's sake.Nor was he 'smirking' during the trial.While I don't doubt he committed the crimes,I don't think he can help how his face falls when crying.He had two sides to him, but one side deeply loved his family (makes no sense I know..). Showing him, in the cold light of day, what he has done to those two people he loved would of course cause him to break down. He has received just punishment - a life in a US prison at 29 years old - this is just.

What this person doesn't realize is that facial expressions are universal and instinctually programmed. In a sense this person is right, he CANNOT help that his face smiles when he is "crying" because he really is experiencing a positive "emotion" at the sight of the crime scene. Just shows how ignorant people are of psychopathy and their OWN emotional nature.

 

[anart]

What this person doesn't realize is that facial expressions are universal and instinctually programmed. In a sense this person is right, he CANNOT help that his face smiles when he is "crying" because he really is experiencing a positive "emotion" at the sight of the crime scene. Just shows how ignorant people are of psychopathy and their OWN emotional nature.

I thought exactly the same thing about those comments - critical correction all around and a LOT of ignorance. No wonder pathologicals have such a happy hunting ground here on the BBM - nothing easier than prey who does not know you exist.

Sickening all the way around.

 

[KDawn]

I watched the video and watched him looking at his daughters bloody clothes. I don't understand how anyone could look at their childs clothing after being murdered. I was trying to imagine him being innocent. Who the heck could even look up at bloody clothes like that? Over and over of someone they loved? Never mind the posturing. How could he even look at the evidence if he were innocent? That is what creeped me out.

 

[KDawn]

OK....so he was watching a video of the crime scene. I apologize for my mistake. I thought he was looking at clothing belonging to his child. The crime scene irself is something he had seen before. Ya know? What I am looking at in this video of him is a chillingly Charming very charming person. These kinds of stories are all over the news everyday. It seems to be escalating too. Like an epedemic. The media picks up on this guy though. Why? Because he is so charming looking? He just does not look the part? Maybe thats it, and he is milking it. OSIT

 

[purplehaze]

First -- the fact this animal was on an ONLINE SEX-DATING SITE cruising for prey speaks VOLUMES to us. Many of our predators lurk under other nicknames on Sex Sites while preying on NORMAL women (who they use like whores). Sex is the only thing they ever really "feel."

Second -- Ablow is the idiot who attacked EOPC during the Megan Meier case saying we were inciting a cybermob and the Mike & Juliet Show said they felt "sorry" for Lori Drew (who has since been INDICTED) as did Ablow. In fact, Ablow called EOPC "PATHOLOGICAL"!! He's a media wh*re... sorry.

Your piece on Sott is WONDERFUL Harrison -- right on the money!

 

[Mayb]

Im wondering... if the Boston Globe , can write about his Entwistle "breaks down" while watching video, what that mean? That they havent see video, and just write based on rumors, or watched video and ignoring what they saw,or just lightly watch something that they will comment , or purposly ignore the content of the video and place the comment or judgment for some other purpose...
That opset me more is the fact that this opservation will be accepted automaticly..and many more

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I think it's extremely unlikely that they haven't seen the video. I also don't think they'd write this based on rumors since the video is available so it makes no sense to use any rumors (although when talking about terrorists and national threats, they don't mind using anonymous government sources). I think that the most likely scenario is that they saw the video and either "critically corrected" what they were seeing due to personal ignorance, or have another more conscious agenda to mis-represent what the video shows.

The latter is much more likely, however, because they didn't just "critically correct" as a person normally would (like those comments on youtube did), they went all out into a very graphic/detailed description that was completely and utterly wrong. They painted an entire picture of what was going on - emotionally and visually, and everything they said either did not happen at all, or the opposite happened. It wasn't just a small matter of confusion (like youtube comments about whether people can control their face when crying), it went much further and much more detailed, just making things up out of thin air. So my question would be - what would be a reason for them to lie like this? And none of the answers are good.