Yesterday prosecutors in the Neil Entwistle case filed a rebuttal to the defense motion to throw out practically all evidence in the case. They argued that the two initial well-being checks of Entwistle's rented house were constitutional because they were conducted at the urging of worried friends and family members. Incidentally, the Herald also reports that two months ago Entwistle called a lawyer representing the owners of his house to ask for his security deposit and last month's rent to be returned.
As for me, I actually agree with the defense in this case. The right to decide who can enter one's home is more important than the right to know where one's loved ones are at all times. It seems unindividualistic and un-American that others' concerns about my well-being could give the police the right to enter my home without my permission.
Additionally, I must take objection to the wording of the last part of today's Herald article:
"...Entwistle shot his wife and daughter with a gun he stole from her parents’ Carver home to hide a secret life of debt, Internet scams and deviant sexual behavior."
The Herald's articles on Entwistle have always been inflammatory, but this statement is factually inaccurate. Although he did have porn sites and attempted to contact escort services, there is no evidence to suggest that Entwistle engaged in any deviant sexual behavior, or any sexual behavior at all, in the days leading up to the murders. I much prefer the Globe's description of Entwistle's motive for murder:
"...Entwistle had fatally shot his wife and daughter because the unemployed engineer was despondent about his finances and family situation..."
A hearing is scheduled for Monday, so stay tuned till then.
P.S. My condolences to everyone who was affected by the Virginia Tech shooting. May all 33 victims rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment