In the News

Entwistle Sex Details May Be Necessary Evil
By Joe Dwinell
Boston Herald
June 23, 2008

Intimate details usually kept in the bedroom are being uncovered in the double-murder trial of Neil Entwistle in a bold move domestic abuse prevention advocates say is a necessary evil.

“The victim cannot speak for herself, so use all the evidence you can muster,” said Toni Troop, spokeswoman for Jane Doe Inc.

Troop said the use of raw forensic evidence can dispel the notion a victim and her attacker were soul mates.

“Soul mates don’t kill. It can’t be whitewashed,” Troop told the Herald yesterday.
Prosecutors say Entwistle murdered his wife, Rachel, 27, and baby girl, Lillian Rose, 9 months, on Jan. 20, 2006, in their rented Hopkinton home. The broke Brit, prosecutors say, was frustrated with his ruined finances and sex life.

The jury in the Entwistle double-murder case learned in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn late Friday that the accused told an investigator he did not complete intercourse with his wife two days before the murders out of a fear of her becoming pregnant, state police Sgt. Robert Manning testified.

Manning, who returns to the stand today, said he pressed Entwistle, 29, during a telephone call to England on whether he had sex with his wife either the night before the murders or the night before that. Manning said Entwistle told him they “cuddled” Thursday night and did not complete intercourse Wednesday night.

But, according to previous testimony in the case, DNA taken off Rachel’s underwear matches her husband’s DNA, making him the “major male profile.”

That implies the couple had sex around the time of the murders, pointing out a possible inconsistency in the defendant’s story.

Troop said no matter how personal the facts can be, it’s up to the jury to weigh every point - sexual and otherwise.

“The state has the opportunity to tell the story for Lillian and Rachel Entwistle,” Troop added.

All that matters now, said Troop, is how the jury weighs the facts.

“It must be a painful thing for people to hear,” she said. “But it’s necessary to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1102552