In defense of the Entwistles

As you might know, I attended the trial of Neil Entwistle this summer and blogged about it. I have always tried to be neutral and unbiased and consider both sides equally when writing about this case. But some of the things that have been written in the past couple of days about Neil’s family demand a response.

Neil Entwistle’s parents, Cliff and Yvonne, filed a complaint about their local paper, the Worksop Guardian, for publishing solely vicious, anti-Neil letters to the editor after his conviction, secretly taking pictures of them, and repeatedly contacting them after being asked not to. Their complaint was dismissed by Britain’s press watchdog.

Joe Dwinell of the Boston Herald wrote an editorial about this, which he and the paper dishonestly passed off as an article. In the “article,” he bashed Yvonne, Neil, and the entire Entwistle family. Let me quote a few sentences from it:

“The Guardian printed a series of harsh letters to the editor and post-verdict stories targeting Yvonne Entwistle’s cruel accusation that a “depressed” Rachel Entwistle took her own life and her child’s.”

“The betraying Brit was found guilty in June of executing his 27-year-old wife and 9-month-old baby girl, Lillian Rose, on Jan. 20, 2006, in Hopkinton after becoming frustrated with his crumbling finances and his flat sex life in the States.”

I shouldn’t have to explain why these statements belong in an editorial, not an article, but I will anyway. The point of an article is to present facts. Articles shouldn’t have any opinions in them. Calling a person “cruel” or “betraying” is an opinion. Therefore, any piece of writing that includes these words (except as a quote from someone else) is an editorial, not an article. When I read this “article,” I completely disagreed with the opinion Dwinell was expressing. This is a problem, because authors should not express any opinions in articles, but even if this was an editorial I would disagree with it.

Yvonne was not being cruel. Nothing she said was at all cruel. She was simply expressing her view of what happened, a view that happens to be unpopular.

There is no logical reason why one would call Yvonne cruel. The only reason that I can think of is that she accused Rachel of murder, and perhaps Dwinell thinks that anyone who accuses a person of murder is cruel. But by this same logic, the prosecutors, the DA, the judge, Rachel’s family, and the reporters at the Herald are also cruel, because they have accused Neil of murder. Funny, Dwinell never calls them cruel. I think the only reason Dwinell calls Neil’s mother cruel is because she expressed an opinion that is different from his. Big surprise, Joe, people are actually allowed to express unpopular views.

I do not know the Entwistles personally, and I do not agree 100% with all of the things they have said, but I greatly admire Yvonne’s courage. If you have been reading my blog, you will know that I have a lot of unpopular views, and I can relate to people who are persecuted and harassed for disagreeing with the majority. Yvonne is a lovely, brave lady and she does not deserve this vicious treatment by the press and the public.

To bash someone for disagreeing with you after their son has been sent to prison for life, now that’s cruel. To call it a news article is even crueler.

P.S. If you really want cruel, take a look at the comments that readers leave on the Herald’s “articles” and on Dwinell’s blog. Words cannot describe their barbarity. It is completely unacceptable for a mainstream newspaper to allow such obscene, libelous, brainless vitriol to remain on its website without being deleted. I have strong opinions, but I could never muster enough hate in me to compare to these people. It is truly frightening that such people exist in the world.