Monday, February 13, 2006

Neil Entwistle: A Tangled Web

Click to enlarge the affidavit.

I realize I'm stating the obvious, but Neil Entwistle is a liar. The following is an excerpt from an affidavit released last week, detailing a portion of the district attorney's case against him.

On January 23, 2006, police called Neil Entwistle at the home of his parents in Worksop, England. Entwistle told police that on January 20, 2006, at approximately 9:00 am, he had left his Hopkinton, Massachusetts, home to do an errand. He said his wife and daughter were in bed when he left. He said he returned at approximately 11:00 am and found his wife and daughter dead from gunshot wounds. He said he did not call for emergency assistance, but instead covered them up and got a knife to kill himself, but could not go through with it. He said he left the home in the family car and drove to his in-laws home in Carver, Massachusetts, to get a gun from his father in-law so he could kill himself. He said he could not get into the home so he drove to Logan airport because he wanted to go home to his parents in England.

In the above document, Sergeant Joseph Bennett, the attesting officer, contrasts Entwistle's lies with the pertinent facts. Mr. Entwistle's recounting of his actions upon finding his wife and infant daughter in bed with bullet wounds defies reason. Wouldn't the normal response have been a frantic call to 911 and a desperate attempt to revive them? Instead, he comes up with this cockamamie tale of twice-failed suicide in an attempt to kill two birds with one stone –- to explain his presence at the Matterazzo home late that morning and to garner sympathy for himself. Neil purposes to disassociate himself and the murder weapon from the crime by declaring that he was unable to get into his in-laws' home. In contradiction, the house keys were found in the car that he drove to the airport. The murder weapon, a .22 caliber handgun from Mr. Matterazzo's collection, had been placed back inside the home. Neil Entwistle's DNA was found on the grip, and Rachel's on the muzzle.

What additional lies should we anticipate from Neil Entwistle? Are we to hear that Rachel knew of and was a partner in his fraudulent and failing Internet businesses? Will he say that he told her in early January about his venture into the enterprise of Internet porn because it was the right thing to do, and she was fine with it? (Those are some Peterson pearls, in case you didn't recognize them.) Will he assert that Rachel was a willing participant in the suicide pact, but he was too cowardly to hold up his end of the bargain? There is probably an endless litany of fabrications running through Neil Entwistle's mind. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who will own up to his misdeeds without first trying to wriggle out of accountability. These things are only incidental to Neil Entwistle's character. There are more relevant questions to be asked.

Thus far, the district attorney seems willing to consider the tale of a murder/suicide gone awry. It remains to be seen if DA Coakley truly considers it a possibility or is merely giving it forbearance as a matter of strategy. The supposition appears to be dually based on Neil's own declarations and on the fact that he surfed suicide websites before the murders. But Neil Entwistle is a liar. And what is to be learned by perusing suicide websites? How to kill quickly and effectively, of course. Who were the originally intended victims? Only Rachel and Lillian are dead. We know these things: By January 9th, Neil Entwistle was well aware that his eBay business was in shambles, and he had no present means to support his wife and child. Yet he went ahead and moved his family from the free accommodations of her parents' house in Carver to a large rental home in Hopkinton at the cost of $2700 per month. Ten days later, Rachel and Lillian were shot dead with a handgun that Neil surreptitiously took from his father-in-law's gun collection. Reportedly, Neil had previously fired that same weapon during an outing with Mr. Matterazzo. What was the pretense behind that male bonding session, and when did it occur? At what point did Neil purloin the firearm in question? These are the questions that I want honest answers to. I wonder if any are to be had.

3:48 Update
Now I'm aware that more documents have been released. I'll have to read them later and find out if there are more questions than answers therein. That's what I get for keeping this entry in draft for three days.