NEW YORK–Neil Entwistle is my kind of defendant. That’s right. He’s the kind of guy this show is all about. Is there anyone in America or the motherland, for that matter, that doesn’t think this guy’s guilty?

There are the cases that put us to the test. The cases where common sense and the Constitution seem to conflict, the hard cases. This is where we really have to fight for the fundamental American premise: innocent until proven guilty. And that’s why I, for one, want to commend those who had the courage to defend Neil Entwistle because that wasn’t their only job.

Their job was also to defend the Constitution. The same Constitution that protects us all, not just the likes of Neil Entwistle. And I think we can all agree that if our constitutional system of justice works in his case, it should work in any case. Since Entwistle allegedly committed this horrible crime on this side of the pond he was and is protected by the very Constitution we fought his country to establish.

And that’s the Last Word.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

WOBURN, Massachusetts–Neil Entwistle, now convicted of murdering his wife, Rachel, 27, and infant daughter in their Massachusetts home on January 20, 2006, was sentenced this morning to life in prison without parole.

Judge Diane Kottmyer sent Entwistle to a maximum security prison, where he will serve the sentences for the murders of his family concurrently.

After hearing from 47 witnesses over 12 days, the jury needed less than two days to decide Entwistle’s fate by returning guilty verdicts. When the jury entered the courtroom, their faces were solemn and they did not look at the defendant.

An emotionless Entwistle pressed his eyes shut when the verdict was read: he was guilty of the first-degree murder of Rachel Entwistle. He then shook his head no when it was announced that he was also guilty of the first degree murder of baby Lillian.

The defense plans to file an appeal of Entwistle’s conviction.

–In Session staff

 
NEW YORK — After just over 11 hours of deliberations, a jury has found Neil Entwistle guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in Woburn, Massachusetts. Entwistle, a 29-year-old native of England, gunned down his wife Rachel, 27, and their 9-month-old daughter, Lillian, in their Hopkinton home back in 2006. Sentencing will begin Thursday morning at 10 am and In Session will bring you live coverage.

–In Session staff

WOBURN, Massachusetts–Jury deliberations resume this morning in the murder trial of Neil Entwistle, charged with killing his 27-year-old wife, Rachel and his nine-month-old daughter, Lillian Rose.

Jurors deliberated Tuesday for 6 hours, and asked only two questions: about a Logan Airport parking receipt, and a printout of the activity on the family’s Toshiba laptop on January 20, 2006, the day of the murders.

Entwistle has maintained his innocence and says he found his family dead in their rented home after returning home from running errands.

–In Session staff

NEW YORK — Judging by your e-mails and the commentary and even the coverage of the case, most people didn’t like the defense closing yesterday. But the only audience that really matters in the murder trial of Neil Entwistle or any other murder case is the jury.

And those who criticize Eliot Weinstein for defending Neil Entwistle – or Marc Geragos in the Peterson case or countless other criminal defense attorneys who do their jobs well, are missing that point. It’s not about us, it’s about the Constitution. And it’s not even about the client, it’s about the clients right to counsel, to a fair trial, to an unbiased jury. Because his right are our rights.

If you love this country, like I do, then you’ve read the Constitution and if you’ve read it you know that defending the accused is the most sacred role a lawyer can perform. How can you defend those people? That’s the question I always get. My answer: How could I not? That’s the Last Word.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

WOBURN, Massachusetts–It was a murder-suicide, argued Neil Entwistle’s defense attorney Elliot Weinstein – but his client had nothing to do with the murder of his 27-year-old wife, Rachel and his baby daughter, Lillian Rose, on January 20, 2006.

For the defense, Weinstein tied everything together and argued that Rachel killed Lillian in their Massachusetts home and then shot herself. He portrayed Entwistle as the noble husband who kept this a secret, so his wife’s name would not be disparaged.

Prosecutor Michael Fabbri painted a completely different picture of the events surrounding Rachel and Lillian’s deaths. Although he could not pinpoint the “tipping point,” he speculated that it could have been the fact that Neil Entwistle could not secure a job. Fabbri argued that it is incomprehensible that a man, who claims to love his wife and daughter, would not call 911 and would, instead, flee to London with a one-way ticket.

Jury deliberations begin this morning at 9 a.m. ET.

–In Session staff

NEW YORK — It’s good to be back and it’s a good thing I am because somebody has to say it. Neil Entwistle is presumed innocent. But for the two weeks I’ve been away, it seems he’s been all but presumed guilty.

When I got up this morning to do my homework, I checked on every show, every blog, every tabloid I’ve seen — Entwistle has been convicted long before the evidence was in. Certainly before the case went to the jury. And even before the jury was selected he was presumed guilty based on facts that were fed to us by prosecutors and police.

I’m not saying he’s innocent. Frankly, I don’t care all that much about Entwistle. What I care about is the right to a fair trial. And that’s not just me talking. That’s the sixth amendment. And the last word.

–Jami Floyd, In Session anchor

WOBURN, Massachusetts–For almost two hours Friday, the Woburn jury who will decide Neil Entwistle’s fate listened to him speak loud and clear, in an audiotaped conversation that took place just days after the murders.

The defendant maintained that he found his family dead after he returned home from running errands on January 20, 2006. His account of the day, as he was questioned by Massachusetts State Police Sergeant Robert Manning was somewhat consistent, but when pressed for certain details, Entwistle hesitated and stumbled over his words with an almost Hugh Grant-like affect.

Entwistle is on trial for the murder of his 27-year-old wife, Rachel, and infant daughter Lillian Rose, who were shot to death in the family’s rented home. He has pleaded not guilty and has maintained his innocence in the case.

–In Session staff

LAS VEGAS, Nevada – A routine status conference for the O.J. Simpson robbery trial was a real eye opener for me on Friday afternoon.

Judge Jackie Glass told prosecutors and attorneys for O.J. Simpson that she has never seen such a lengthy juror questionnaire with so many questions. She put the attorneys on notice that they have a choice…stick with the questionnaire and stick with her requirement that “jury selection will not go on for a significant amount of time.”

Judge Glass concluded by warning “if you don’t want this, we can throw the jury questionnaire out the window”…and thus have more voir dire time face-to-face with jurors. Jury selection could be the most critical aspect to this case, so attorneys are going to have to think about Judge Glass’s words carefully.

The other point from this status check that caught my attention: in denying one of Simpson’s co-defendant’s renewed motion for severance Judge Glass told attorneys “the only way they (co-defendants) won’t go to trial together is if you pick up the phone” and work out a deal.

Hmmm. Could plea deals still be worked out? The big question all defendants need to consider here…will they be willing to serve time? Sources tell me any plea deal for Simpson and his two co-defendants would include jail time along with pleading to felonies. The defense, at least for O.J. Simpson, says no formal offers have been made, but jail time is not an option.

Jury selection for this case begins here on September 8th and at this point all jurors will begin the process by filling out the lengthy questionnaire.

Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent

LAS VEGAS, Nevada–It’s time again for the monthly status check hearing here in Las Vegas for the O.J. Simpson armed robbery case.

I find these hearings extremely interesting because you often learn where both sides may be going once the trial begins.

First up today is a renewed motion for severance by co-defendant Charles Ehrlich. He is asking the court once again to separate his trial from Simpson’s. Co-defendant C.J. Stewart is joining in this motion.

I can tell from speaking with Ehrlich’s attorney Robert Lucherini that he is extremely concerned that negative jury reaction toward Simpson may spill over to the other co-defendants. But this is a conspiracy case and they are never severed here in Clark County; I have been told by the media judge for the District Court there has never been a severance in a conspiracy case.

Another issue on tap for today: as both sides continue to put together the long jury questionnaire that will kick off jury selection in September, prosecutors are at odds with the defense on some of the proposed questions.

Simpson’s defense team wants a question to be included on whether jurors believe Simpson has a right to earn a living, and an obligation to support his children. The prosecution says this is not appropriate for the questionnaire and is actually part of the defense theory that Simpson was retrieving the memorabilia for the financial benefit of his family.

We’ll see it all as it is argued in court.

–Jean Casarez, In Session correspondent