Lawyer of Man Convicted of Murdering His Wife and Baby Speaks Out

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," June 25, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: A verdict has been reached in the murder trial of Brit Neil Entwistle. Entwistle is accused of shooting his wife and daughter on January 20, 2006, and tucking them into bed.

The British man was arrested on February 9, 2006, after fleeing to England. Today a jury reached their decision.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What say you floor person? Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty of murder in the first degree of Rachel Entwistle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Charging the defendants with murder in the first degree, what's say you floor person? Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Guilty of murder in the first degree of Lillian Entwistle.


VAN SUSTEREN: Neil Entwistle's family is standing by the now convicted double killer. They've reacted to the news that Neil is guilty.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We know that our son Neil is innocent, and we are devastated to learn that the evidence points to Rachel murdering our grandchild and then committing suicide. I knew Rachel was depressed. Our son will now go to jail for loving, honoring, and protecting his wife's memory.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From the moment the Matterasso spokesman, Joe Flatley(ph) stated, and a quote, "All we need now is the right jury pool. We knew that Neil would not receive a fair trial. We will continue to fight for our innocent son with the hope that one day, justice will prevail, and our little granddaughter, Lillie, may rest in peace."


VAN SUSTEREN: Meanwhile, the prosecution was asked about Entwistle's motive.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As you know, any time you build a criminal case, motive is important, but it is not necessary. And in every case (INAUDIBLE) --but there are some acts that are so heinous and so shameful that there is no reason for why people do what they do.

The trial team marshaled all of the facts that we had to try to make sense of this, but at the end of the day, acts like this, there just can't motives.


VAN SUSTEREN: The judge's scheduled Neil Entwistle's sentencing for tomorrow [Thursday] morning. And in Massachusetts the sentence for first degree murder is automatically life in prison without parole. There is no death penalty in Massachusetts.

Joining us on the phone is Neil Entwistle's attorney Elliot Weinstein. And Eliot, I guess I don't need to remind you that the Constitution demands that he have a lawyer, and that someone effectively representing him. It is not a job that lawyers always want to do, but they do because the Constitution demands it.

Having said it, your client, the jury heard that he fled to the United Kingdom, bought a one-way ticket, did not call 911, no call to the parents, and he simply tucked those two into bed and they were found dead. What was his defense to that?

ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, ATTORNEY FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE: Greta, this case began in an atmosphere that made it extremely difficult, and now we know impossible, for a jury to consider a case solely based on courtroom evidence. It was considered against the background of media publicity, which convicted Neil long before the trial began.

Watch Greta's interview

Our responsibility was to bring every energy we could to measure the evidence that was presented against the standard that we are absolutely are blessed with in this country, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We are very satisfied that we were able to present a defense which showed that the prosecution's theory was defective. The jury was not willing to see that the defects in proof really were what beyond a reasonable doubt is about.

VAN SUSTEREN: Elliot, I know that you asked question of the jury beforehand to see if they could be fair in light of any publicity that might happen. Apparently I understand now that you have some question about that.

But tell me this, why did your client testify?

WEINSTEIN: The question of whether a person will testify in any case is one that only the person accused can answer. He had a right to testify, he had a right to not testify. His decision was to not testify.

VAN SUSTEREN: I suspect, Elliot, because I have been in your chair, that one of the reason he did not want to testify is because he had said things on tape, and he would have been asked, why did you buy a one-way ticket, why did you not call 911, why did you not call back to the parents to say that you had discovered Rachel dead, and why did you tuck her in bed.

All of these would have been questions the prosecutor would have asked if he took the witness stand.

WEINSTEIN: And all of those questions were answered during the course of the trial.

When you look at what the evidence was, if you look at the timeline that was produced by the prosecution, you will see, and the jury had an opportunity to see, that the theory presented by the prosecution did not match the timeline that the evidence showed.

Even Mr. Entwistle's statements to the police were not matched by the timeline evidence in the case. There was evidence that he was at a Starbucks at 11:30, followed by a return home, being on the computer at 12:30. There was no need, when you look the evidence in the court room, not the public and emotional reaction to the allegation, that there was not a need for him to testify.

VAN SUSTEREN: Elliot, thank you.

Content and Programming Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2008 Voxant, Inc. (, which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.