For the defense

Jami, I agree with you when you say:

"This is where we really have to fight for the fundamental American premise: innocent until proven guilty."

Doesn't Rachel have the same right? Where is the proof that she killed her baby and herself? Since there is no proof, how could the defense and Neil's parents accuse her?

jami floyed"s interview with entwistle"s lawyer was odd to say the least...not once did he mention a search for the "truth" but only what the prosecutor missed. the cross examinations by the defense was just not strong enough! if you change the theory at the last minute one must back it up!this has nothing to do with presumption of guilt .just building a case with substance. thankyou joni

I agree with you! I think the defense did all they could with this case. For the life of me, I can't understand these people that are evil enough to kill someone and then leave all the evidence to be caught. He left a trail from here to London and then wanted everyone to believe he didn't do it! He should have gottten rid of his computer or at least been smart enough to not get on it AFTER the time he said he found them dead!! That was a bullseye shot right there! Then to use the family gun...more footsteps that lead straight back to him and to top it off, blabber on and on to the detective for 2 hours like he had found a couple dead mice in the garage and just wasn't for sure what had happened to them! Is he stupid or what?

Neal Entwistle's attorney crossed the line when he tried to victimize Rachel and Lily all over again! I believe his arrogant behavior after the sentencing begs for censure. I wish Rachel's parents could win a judgment against Elliot Weinstein for slander. Why do the attorneys for people who kill others try to make the victims look guilty? I hope Rachel's family stays strong and lets happy memories comfort them.

Elliott Weinstein,should stop crying and accept the defense he
concocted. It was his idea of a defense not Neilds, It was unreasonable absurd,and ridiculous and any more adj. you can add. I am glad the juries could see through his smoke screen.What do lawyers want for a guilty person ,Do they think they should be set free to kill again. Get ovet it. To have laid that burden on Rachael ,and said she kill her baby was unconscionable My heart goes out to her family

Kudo's to you Floyd!

if one is innocent until proven guilty and(.odd )"not guilty" does not mean innocent! (how can this be?)....then In our great country, how can one be proven innocent??? can you please answer . thank you joni p.s.r i hope you have made sense of my question. thank you joni

Ah, their job was not to defend that piece of slim, but to make sure he got a fair trial. to say that he is innocent is laughable. i for one, refuse to even listen to their rants about pooooor Niel. do they REALLY believe Rachel shot that beautiful baby and then herself? i think not...

I am concerned that you are still using the word "allegedlly" when referring to the "horrible crime." The fact is that he was found guilty and now no longer can the word "allegedly" be used when referring to Neil Entwistle's horrible crime.

I like your point regarding the constitution and a defense attornys job to defend his client.
However, when a defense is offered up that is an obvious farce, it is an insult to the process and especially the victims.
The right to a defense may be absolute, but when those defenders are making up stories that dengrate a victim that cannot defend herself, then "somthing really wrong is going on here."

I am constantly amazed at the parents of a convicted killer who defend their son or daughter even after the verdict is verdict is read by the judge and jury. Is this a form of denial and what is the psychology behind their inability to see thru to the truth of the evidence and the verdict?

he is guilty for sure he had no tears when they showed pics of his dead wife and baby had a cold look on his face.he even laugh and had smile he deserves to go to prison for shooting a beautiful baby happy to know we have good jury.bless those people.

What is sad about the cases that there is no doubt that the defendant is guilty, is the fact that their defense attorney can drag the victim's name through the mud.

Like I said in a previous post, it wasn't this attorney defending Entwistle it is what he said during his closing. This attorney doesn't even put on a defense but in his closing statement instead of attacking the Prosecution's case he attacks the DEAD INNOCENT MOTHER.

Jamie, I understand reasonable doubt but what this defense attorney did was just pathetic. How can he not present a defense but in his closing he tries to present a defense with no foundation or evidence.

During the trial he kept pointing out what the Prosecution did or didn't test. As the defense attorney doesn't he have access to the Prosecution's evidence through discovery? Why didn't he have the tests performed?

Why are you still using the word "allegedly" now that he's been found guilty? He has been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The Constitution remains in tact. And the guilty murderer will remain behind bars. Everyone wins.

I love the Constitution when it is upheld. I despise people know how to manipulate it and do. The sad thing, though, innocent until proven guilty is a Constitutional right but hardly stands up in the court of public opinion. In my life time, I cannot remember anyone who was accused of a crime with this type of publicity who was considered innocent by the court of public opinion. It may be because 99% of the time they were found guilty by the formal court and the 1% of the time, the evidence of their guilt was so strong that even when exhonorated by the real court, the public still believes in their guilt (O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake to name a few).
One person who was guilty and actually admitted it was chastized and branded even though it took a massive amount of courage was Marion Jones. If Americans could get on the page and at least accept the truth from those who have stumbled and admitted it, we might stop judging those who stumbled and waited to be proven guilty. We might actually begin to believe the verdict of the court set forth by the Consitution because more people would be willing to do the honorable thing and accept the consequences of their bad actions instead of hiding behind the Constitution when they know they are guilty.

This case did not put anyone to the test.

Neil murdered his wife and nine month old baby and then put the blame on his dead wife. How cowardly. All the evidence was against Neil and the defence didn't have a chance at winning this one. They could not find an expert that could explain their theory without having to lie under oath.

Neil could have easily blamed poor little Lillian for the deaths, after all, she had gun shot residue on her hands as well. Wouldn't look good if the defence blamed the nine month old baby, would it?

If this ever makes it to appeal, which I doubt it will, I hope the prosecution brings up the fact that, not only was there gun shot residue on Rachael's hands, but there was also gun shot residue on little Lilly's hands. How can one explain that?

Neil had a fair trial and was judged by his peers and now he is paying the price for his cowardly actions.

I am pleased with the outcome of the Entwistle Case, this defendant was guilty not only of murder, horrific murder, but of character assasination of Rachel Entwistle, and her family. How low can he go?? On top of that, his mother, that lovely woman from Britan, (Neil's mother) may God have mercy on her soul for her denouncing Rachel in that manner, now I really have seen the ugly side of DENIAL that some parents can have for/of their children. Sickening. It made my blood boil.........I thought the Petersen parents were bad!! This was worse.......R.I.P. both Rachel and Lillian. To heck with Neil and his in denial parents. They raised a psycho son.....pure/simple/SAD.

Jaime,
Let's be clear–you can no longer say allegedly. Because of our constitution he is now guilty–a jury of his peers says so. Perhaps that is the last word.

And you jump for joy when people like O J get aquitted. That's a slap in the face to our system.

There could be video evidence, DNA, 5 eyewitnesses who knew the defendant and an audio/video written confession and Jami Floyd would try to find a reason to get the person off of murder. Oh I know the defendant pleads insanity. Just like the Jewish center. If he were truly insane he would have never been able to drive a car because driving safely from one place to another requires right from wrong processes, An insane person would have shot up his house or inanimate objects. An insane person would have drove in to a tree. So after all the evidence lets look for a loophole and or take apart the police investigation to get a murderer off or some technicality because the jurors instructions were read wrong. When someone commits a crime in the country taking responsibility for ones actions is the honorable thing to do but defense attorneys don’t want that they’d be out of jobs. A lot of child killers have confessed to murder and without that confession they would have walked free. This is what Jami Floyd wants. "DONT TALK TO POLICE" so you can walk free from a crime to commit more crimes. Having a show where people sit around and strategize how someone should get off of a crime is sad. I will never watch the BEST DEFENSE again because this is exactly what they do on the best defense. They entertain each other with someone grief or loss.

The case of the girl-fight assault at the teacups ride is gonna make your career Jane Valez Mitchell.

This is what they get for putting Walt Disney World in Florida!

LYing under oath is perjury. The defense Attorney lied in closing arguments not under oath. he lied when he suggested suicide and murder. regardless if that was Neil ;s suggestion. Neil did not see her commit suicide, never said he did.
I cannot imagine you Jaimie, even you not flinching at the accusation that mother killed her little baby girl, not that someone else did it, ( I believe Neil originally wanted to place suspicion on Mr. Mattaratso

I'm glad that you are feeling so warm and fuzzy and satisfied with your job security because of guys like Neil Entwistle and Elliot Weinstein.

I'm glad to see the energy you put out for your hero – a defense lawyer "saving the constitution".

I'm glad you feel so protected now, now that our constitution has been proven to be righteous.

I, for one, think the likes of Neil Entwistle and Elliot Weinstein do damage to this country. Why should it ever be okay to tell ball-faced lies about other people?

If people like you didn't get so giddy over liars, if people like you would see the damage that is being done, if people like you would just shut their mouths and open up their brains,–now that is something this country would find worth fighting for.

Neil Entwistle didn't "allegedly committ this horrible crime", he did it! What does the Cosntistution have to do with any of this? He had , according to you, top-notch counsel represent him, he was judged by a jury of his peers, and he was found guilty. They weighed all the evidence and strongly believed the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what's the problem?

With in 6 months John McCain would attack Iran and institute the new draft for the 100 years of war that he wants. Soon after this the U.S., Canada and Mexico would become the North American Union similar to the E.U... All the laws and rights that had been the saving grace of the American people would be completely gone with in 1 year, as the North American Union bows to its new masters in the United Nations and acts as its Military arms by attacking any and every nation that has not come into the fold, and that not bow to the United Nations Rule, A.K.A. The New World Order!

This is the purpose of the New World Orders leaders to fully control and kill anyone that does not follow their rule. For the women of the U.S. if will be a very difficult time due to the rights that women have fault for over the past few decades. Having to be fully subservient will completely break their will and end all the gains’ that have aided all mankind throughout the whole world!

I kept hoping he would confess & admit that he murdered his wife & daughter. He shot his 9 month old daughter, at point blank range... He deserves to rot in prison for the rest of his life!!!

The fact that N.E. was brought to justice from England to the U.S. to be punished under our laws is hardly new, but it has become almost a rarity that the whole thing seems so simple, perhaps people forget that it wasn't always easy.

The other comment, I think is a bit more far-reaching, but it seems that there are simply some people, N.E.'s parents for example, who think that having a microphone placed in front of them, no matter how pathetic the situation, will make it so people will believe whatever they say.

So now, there are people forced by loyalty, to remain beside these microphone emboldened people 'till the end. It's so sad that people try to deflect the court-determined proof into a long-running campaign to free someone who hasn't the decency himself to confess.

when they run out of ways Rachel Entwistle can be twisted, What's next!? Baby Lilly Entwistle did it?

Yes, I to agree the justice system should yeild the truth and only then can we say justice is 100% flawless. That's just not the case because while Justice is to be blind, it's not because the jurors are human, and yes we're not flawless, only the constitution should ever trump anyone!! I have to say most of the cases I've seen the constitution can't be found in the courtroom!! That in itself speaks very loudly to me and is extremly disgusting. If we followed that, then we wouldn't have to go back and look at the dozens of innocent men & women in prison. While I look at all of the cases, I do beleive that Neil Entwistle had a very fair trial, while Rachele DID NOT!!!!!!! Shame on anyone who blames her for her and baby Lily's demise!!!!!

The fact that we are wasting tax payers money on this type of case makes me wonder where our prorities lie. They need to both be enrolled in anger management classes. They both played a part in this childish behavior. Furthermore if Ms. Krause does decide to sue Disney, she does need her head examined!

i believe that the majority of the "masses" knew from day one that neil entwistle was guilty of this horrific crime. at least from now on he will be confined and away from society and/or his next victim. besides being narcisstic he most likely is 99% a sociopath. love the show and all of the people on it. l. conti

This is suge a childish tradgedy, with the women at Disney World!! In regards to the case shes guilty in my opinion no matter how you look at it! Whether she elbowed her or not doesent give her the right to beat her the way she did! GUILTY as Charged!!!!!

Tracie
Nebraska

Aimee Krause most likely provoked the whole incident and has wasted tax payers dollars for the love of money.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.

I think it was Larry Flint who said something along the lines of "if the constitution protects a scumbag like me, then truly we have freedom for everyone." the exact quote has been often said and rarely verified, but regardless of the wording or the speaker it's true.

It's all to easy to say the system should be adjusted when high-profile and quite obviously guilty defendants go free. Easy, that is, until one day you're caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and it looks really bad. Until your wife has a tragic accident the week after you decide you both need to up your insurance, until someone shoots your neighbor with the same model of gun you happen to own, until coincidences look bad.

Then you'll be glad we have those protections.

It's said that the US justice system would rather set 10 guilty men free than send one innocent man to prison, and while you can quibble of specific rules of evidence and the admissibility of certain testimony, or the role of celebrity or high-priced lawyers, the basic principle is a sound one.

i'm wondering if the investagating officers looked at the job site mark richardson was working at, at the time of the dicaperance of his friend you know his type of work is burring things underground ie: piping , tanks just a thought thanks mike nova scotia canada

The video of the sister's overwhelming almost predatory manner n embracing and kissing the child in interrogation, seems to play to the manipulative control, cult-like, and heavyhanded. I believe he COULD not be accountable as a child, under these circumstances...let alone at this point in time.

Jami,
I have been a juror before and I watched the trial for Mr Cash. I could not help but notice how cold the defendant looked and showed no emotions. I believe he got what he deserved.

Lupe

I am glad I am the 13th Juror in the Worthington's case and not one of the twelve. Our Constitutional rights were founded on the freedom to believe and practice our faith as we believe. However, when our belief treads on the wellfare of another, are we still given that freedom? What about Ava's freedom to live?

The boy that is on trial for stabbing his best friends father seemed alot colder to me, that is until he took the stand then he softned before my eyes. His personality and everything changed by watching him and he seemed very lost and [ INNOCENT]