Throughout the trial, the Daily News has invited a panel of experts to comment on what is happening in the courtroom. The panel members are: Wendy Murphy, a former Middlesex assistant district attorney and current victim/witness advocate; John LaChance, a former federal prosecutor and current defense lawyer based in Framingham, and Steve Huff, a professional crime blogger who runs two Web sites. Check back often for our experts' opinions. And if you want to share your opinion, visit our blog.

 Expert Panel - 6/25/08

posted 6/25/08: I hope the jury feels proud that they performed their civic duty well. No matter how strong the evidence, it is always a sober moment when a jury announces that a man's life as a free human being is essentially over.

I remember the first time I worked on a murder trial as a prosecutor. When the jury said "guilty" I cried. The defendant didn't.

The decision was quick but not OJ quick, indicating that jurors took their task seriously and understood the importance of being conscientious when thinking about "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

There was little the defense could do with such a strong prosecution case except try to create reasonable doubt by challenging each piece of evidence. In the end, even if jurors felt a sense of doubt about what happened, it isn't doubt alone that demands an acquittal. All jurors have some doubt. An acquittal is never necessary unless that doubt rises to the level of REASONABLE and the defense didn't even come close.

The saddest moment today, however, wasn't when the jury said "guilty". It might have been -- but then Neil's mother had to open her mouth and say something dumb about Rachel killing baby Lillian and then committing suicide.

Suddenly the glimmer of sympathy people might have felt for Neil and his parents went poof.

It's hard enough to feel anything but anger toward a brutal wife- and baby-killer who shows no remorse. When parents of the killer add to the charade by falsely pointing the finger of blame at a loving mother who isn't available to defend herself because -- um -- she's dead -- the cloud of shame over the entire Entwistle family becomes a vast dense fog.

Let's hope Mrs. Entwistle didn't get the idea from Elliot Weinstein. Some people might think defense counsel didn't like the heat he took after accusing Rachel of murder-suicide during his nonsensical closing argument. Some people might wonder whether Weinstein had Mrs. Entwistle repeat the same dumb theory after the verdict was announced in the hope his critics would lay off him, and attack her, instead. Sick, I know. But I'm just saying ....
 

Wendy Murphy is an ex-prosecutor who specialized in child abuse and sex crimes cases. The first lawyer in the country to run a program to provide free legal services to crime victims, Murphy has been fighting for victims' rights for 20 years. Having served as a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School, Murphy now represents crime victims in civil and criminal cases and teaches an advanced seminar on sexual violence at the New England School of Law in Boston. As an adjunct professor, she also manages the Sexual Violence Legal News and Judicial Language projects at her law school and consults with crime victims across the country to help them achieve justice. Murphy, who lives outside of Boston, writes scholarly and pop culture articles, and lectures widely on victims' rights, sex crimes, violence against women and children, media coverage of crime and the criminal justice system.    

posted 6/25/08: I truly think Neil Entwistle received a just verdict, today. However, I'm certain this isn't over. I expect we will now be subject to as many appeals as the system will allow. In the end, though, Entwistle was mounting the typical murderous psychopath's approach to everything: just keep lying, no matter what, and perhaps you'll get away with it, live to lie, cheat, and manipulate another day.

Nothing can bring back Entwistle's wife and child, but 30 years in prison will deprive him of the one thing most important to conscienceless creatures like Neil -- his liberty.

Last year, blogger Steve Huff was featured in MyCase.com, a half-hour special about "cyber-sleuthing" produced for Court TV by Optomen Television. As a freelance journalist Huff contributed groundbreaking investigative articles -- including pieces about the Entwistle case -- to Court TV's CrimeLibrary.com. He currently writes about politics, crime and pop culture for Radar Magazine. Huff's active blogs are The True Crime Weblog and Random Lunatic News. Huff, who lives in Roswell, Ga., is also a classically-trained vocalist and has performed secondary tenor roles with the Atlanta and Knoxville Opera Companies. 

posted 6/20/08: The theme of the defendant’s case - that “things are not always what they appear to be” - first articulated in Elliot Weinstein’s opening statement and repeated often during the cross examination of the Commonwealth’s witnesses, continued to gain content during the cross examination of the forensic pathologist.

In what can only be described as a model cross examination, Stephanie Page obtained and kept control of the witness, extracting from him admissions consistent with the theory that the death of mother and daughter was a murder/suicide.

After obtaining admissions from (medical examiner) Dr. Zane that he did not rule out suicide as a cause of Rachel Entwistle’s death before forming the conclusion that the manner of her death was homicide at the hands of another, Ms. Page, using well respected forensic pathology texts, repeatedly got Dr. Zane to agree that much of the physical evidence was also consistent with suicide. For example, Rachel Entwistle had gunshot residue on both sides of her hands, which the defense will undoubtedly argue to the jury is more likely to have occurred if she were holding the gun than if someone else was. This theory also explains why there was no indication of a struggle by Rachel Entwistle before the death of the baby and why the bodies of the two were found in the positions described.

Moreover, suicide also explains the damning Internet search to Internet sites about killing methods. Because, as the defense brought out, the fact that no one attempted to lift prints off of the computer keys, it could well have been Rachel who was looking at the sites, not the defendant. Assuming that suicide is the real defense and not just a beard for another theory to be launched later, look for the defense to attempt to develop a reason why Rachel Entwistle would do such a thing – a motive like finding out her husband was a porno/escort freak on the Web or that she was suffering from some condition which caused her to act irrationally

The problem for the defense is that even with all of this, they still have to deal with Mr. Entwistle’s return to England, his inconsistent statements to friends and the police, his failure to attend the funeral.

At the beginning of this case most people - lawyers and non-lawyers alike - considered this case a lay down for the prosecution. But, sometimes things are just not what they appear to be.

Attorney John H. LaChance has more than 35 years of criminal trial experience in Massachusetts. He focuses his criminal defense practice on state and federal criminal charges, including drug, white collar, violent and sex crimes. LaChance spent four years as an assistant United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts. This experience helps him to understand the prosecution's way of handling both state and federal cases. He is board certified in criminal trial advocacy. In 1991, the Committee for Public Counsel Services presented him with the Edward G. Duggan Award for zealous advocacy and outstanding legal services.