If you've been watching network news lately, you've been inundated with the murder mystery of 2006, and images of a young, attractive Englishman, Neil Entwistle, whose 27 year old wife, Rachel, and 9 month old daughter, Lilian, were shot in their rented home in a suburb outside Boston nearly two weeks ago, and who stands accused of this heinous crime.
If you've seen the news at all, you're also aware of a feeding frenzy, on the part of the press and media, both here and in Great Britain, to expose each piece of circumstantial minutia connected to the case. Mr. Entwistle has now been assigned a motive, "financial ruin," and an opportunity to commit the crime. Moreover, a Massachusetts prosecutor coyly suggests they even have "the small pistol" which is responsible for the murders. All they seem to lack is concrete, and undeniable proof.
We have watched Entwistle be led away, with bowed head, in the custody of British police, and extradited to the U.S. where he will, no doubt, face indictment. My question is: who in their right mind can expect him to get a fair trial when the coverage so far has been, in the best sense of the word, prejudicial? Why not save American taxpayers a huge expense, and just convict, and sentence the young man? It appears that everyone, on the talk show circuit, has already convicted him in their mind; except, of course, for Mark Geragos. I mean, if Scott Peterson did it, then Neil Entwistle must have done it, too; ask Dr. Phil.
What a sad statement about Western Sieve, in this year of our Ford 2006, that our concept of a "person of interest" isn't that of someone who would invade a sovereign state, and wreak havoc with the planet in the name of world leadership, or embezzle workers' savings in the name of corporate earnings, but instead a sheepish 30-something lad who appears to be as much a victim of the crooks, and swindlers, who stole John Q. Public's savings account along with his paycheck for the past 5 plus years.
Mind you, by no stretch of the imagination am I suggesting that a person of interest in this bizarre, and heartwrenching, homicide, in Boston, deserves to be held harmless if, and when, he is found to have committed the crimes for which he is already being punished. All I'm saying is, give the guy the benefit of a trial---jeez, Louise, isn't that what our military is risking their lives over there in Iraq to protect, and defend---American jurisprudence which appears to be as much a victim, in this case, as the unfortunate mother and child.
To parody the immortal words of legendary Los Angeles defense attorney, Johnny Cochran, "If the glove don't fit, it don't mean shit." Who needs evidence when we have the National Enquirer? Tabloid justice---coming soon to a nightmare near you!