...And the "Neil Is Innocent" Society Starts...

Anonymous said...

He was found guilty because of his strange behavior, after discovering the bodies and during the trial.
Basically he can't kill himself so he is waiting for others to do it.
The fact is, the evidence is very, very clear. He is innocent.
The emotional responses by everyone have clouded the logical facts.
His defense hasn't been helped by the fact that he doesn't want to save himself.

Ignoring the facts and just using probabilities based on human behaviour.
Men do not smother children women do.
A father would not shoot his child in the body. A mother would, if held in an embrace. This explains the wound to her breast. Has anyone not heard of post baby blues and the depth of despair it creates.
Couple this with her husband's bad behavior, debt and HER father's gun.
Remember the chances are, that with the pregnancy and the use of other women by Neil, the obvious fact is that were not having a loving physical relationship.
This and the blues and a father who teaches how to shoot.Did she blame her baby?
Strangely the only other person so far I can find agrees with me is in the legal profession. Perhaps he is just using the facts and case experience.

6:29 AM, June 27, 2008

Where do these people come from? Why do they always appear to think that their peers cannot sit on a jury in a reasonable and honest way? Every single person I've met who has sat on a jury has managed to take the duty very seriously, weigh the evidence, deliberate with fellow jurors, and reach a conclusion based on the law, rather than emotions.

1) Neil's "strange behaviour" points to Consciousness of Guilt. Granted, not everyone in the world reacts the same way in times of stress, but leaving the bodies of your loving wife and baby in your home and running to England without so much as a carry-on bag is so far outside the norm as to be notable. Never mind telling different stories to everyone who asked.

2) Waiting for others to kill him because he can't do it himself. This could actually be true. He may have intended to kill himself after killing Rachel and Lilly, but lost his nerve.

3) If there is clear evidence that exonerates him, why was it not presented at trial? Why did his defense counsel not present a Case in Chief? I'll tell you--because he didn't have one. No witnesses. No evidence. Just a lying lawyer.

4) Your emotional responses are clouding the facts. I, for one, would rather not believe that a young father could gut-shoot his own baby, and shoot his wife in the head.

5) The main fact that has not helped his defense is that the bastard is guilty and didn't cover his tracks worth a hoot.

That seems to take care of your first set of statements. Moving on to your second paragraph:

1) Nobody ignored the facts. And probabilities of human behaviour are pretty reliable as general guidelines. We are all human, and react within a range of human behaviour.

2) Where did you get the idea that Lilly was smothered? He covered both victims with the comforter, which is very common in murders committed by family members. Of course, there is always the possibility that the baby's agonized screams bothered him. That's probably why the radio was turned up so loud.

3) Nobody, father or mother, with half the compassion God gave a doorknob, would shoot a baby, period. The fact remains that Neil did. And, please present statistics on mothers who have shot their babies while holding them in an embrace. Statistically, mothers who kill their children in a premeditated manner generally drown them or overdose them on some sort of medication.

4) I have heard of post-partum depression. Most of us have. I have seen it in friends and family members. I have even experienced it. Cases of post-partum depression (or, as you put it, "baby blues,") are quite common. What is not common is for a case of depression to reach that level without some sort of witness. Friends, family members, doctors, pharmacists...all these people would notice. Trust someone who has been there...it would be noticed. Also, as a side note, cases of post-partum depression leading to murder are extremely rare. Andrea Yates is the only one that comes to mind without googling, and she was not a robust, cheerful woman like Rachel; she was a poor shadow of a woman whose depression was writ large all over her face.

5) Of course it was HER father's gun. Neil apparently was quite interested in HER father's gun. Coming from a culture where gun ownership is forbidden for private citizens, that is not surprising. Remember that HER father took HER husband shooting more than once, according to trial testimony. And, as far as bad behaviour and debt were concerned, I think she would have left him. Possibly, she told him she was going to, and that led to his killing her (speculation). The most dangerous time to leave a man like Neil is when he knows you are going to, taking his secrets with you to a divorce lawyer.

6) Excuse me...the Medical Examiner testified that there was semen and blood in Rachel's underwear at the time of her death. That doesn't sound like he wasn't "getting any." Men who want "strange" want "strange" no matter what. To me, Neil sounds like a sex addict, though experts were not called on to present that in court, so it remains my opinion only.

7) Rachel's father taught Neil how to shoot, as well as Rachel. Teaching a person how to shoot does not ensure that person will commit a crime with a gun. I have been taught to shoot by my loving husband. When he died by gunshot, he pulled the trigger, not I. In a society that permits and even encourages individuals to keep guns, it is not unusual for relatives of a gun owner to know how to use them.

8) Blame the baby? You are really clutching at straws! In my opinion, if Rachel were planning on solving her marital problems with a gun, it would have been Neil who would have wound up on the receiving end. As it was, she was either hanging in there, hoping he would get his act together, or else she was fixing to leave, taking his laptop with her.

9) If there is a person in the legal profession who agrees with you, check his credentials. I do note that you say, "in the legal profession," not, "a practicing criminal attorney." The fact that only one person agrees with you, no matter where he works, might be a clue that you are off the mark, here.

I further note that you use English spelling (as do I, when in doubt) (unless it was a typo). I wonder if that means you are one of Neil's English supporters. Familiarizing yourself with our system before you go off half-cocked might save you from making a total ass of yourself. I'm sure that our (usually) open-to-the-public trial system seems very strange to you, being used to a system that decides everything behind closed doors. Just try to remember that "different" is not a synonym for "inferior," in spite of the prejudices with which you were raised.

There have been a lot of cases in this country in which handsome, promising young men have killed their wives and/or children, and displayed just such stoic behaviour in court. It's because they feel nothing and are sometimes unsure of what to fake, and how much. There are several books about the phenomenon, but the most recent and in my opinion the best that I have read is "Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives" by Marilee Strong.

Google is your friend. Amazon is your friend. Read, and get back to me.