Massachusetts v Louise Woodward

Floh

Former Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
7,747
Reaction score
17
We can reveal the prosecution's star medical witness, whose damning testimony convinced jurors teenager Louise was a MURDERER, has now done a startling U-turn.


After a decade's research, Dr Patrick Barnes has changed his mind — and believes the young au pair did NOT inflict fatal brain injuries on eight-month-old Matthew Eappen by violently shaking and slamming him down.

The medic concludes that death could have been caused by an old injury, as argued by the defence.


And in a scientific paper he admits: "The science we have today could, in fact, have exonerated Louise. There is certainly, in retrospect, reasonable doubt."


http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/nanny.shtml


There may be some who remember the The State of Massachusetts v Louise Woodward case from 10 or so years ago. i know Websleuths wasn't around during the time and a quick search here has revealed this to be so. for anyone interested, the case may finally be overturned because the prosecution's star medical witness, Dr Patrick Barnes, has decided the defence's assertion could have been true enough to create reasonable doubt after all. quite astonishing he should come forward after all this time.

i'm sure there are posters who firmly believe in Woodward's guilt and equally sure there may be others who believe she was not guilty of murdering eight-month-old Matthew Eappen.

if it is so, that she wasn't guilty, i hope the conviction is overturned as soon as possible and the shadow cast over her life is removed.

Louise Woodward, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward


A piece by The Boston Globe, 11th Feb, discussing shaken baby syndrome (in a very informative way, i think) and confirming Dr Patrick Barnes has had a re-think.

The Agonizing, Complicated, Lingering Questions of Shaken Baby Syndrome

Barnes says he had been indoctrinated throughout his career to believe that “there were certain features that were absolutely classic, that they were child abuse and could be nothing else.” He didn’t question those teachings, he says, until soon after the Woodward trial when he learned more details of the case, such as that Matthew had a weeks-old wrist fracture. “None of this was ever revealed to me by the prosecution,” he says. “I began to have real concerns about how a case like that was being handled.” He also began to wonder if previous injuries or genetic vulnerability could have caused the fatal insult to Matthew’s brain.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ma..._lingering_questions_of_shaken_baby_syndrome/

Louise Woodward received a law degree, class 2:2, in July 2002. she now pursues a career as a salsa dancing teacher, with her boyfriend.
 
I followed that case and I never believed Louise was guilty. Matthew's mother always set off my hinky-meter.
 
For the record, I believe WS was around at the time (of the trial, at least) and the case was discussed here. But there were a couple of crashes in the old days and the forum started over.
 
mrsjonnob said:
I followed that case and I never believed Louise was guilty. Matthew's mother always set off my hinky-meter.

I never thought Louise did anything, either. It broke my heart when she sobbed when the second-degree murder conviction was read, sobbed so hard she collapsed. I was so glad when she was released with time served.
 
I never knew what to think. When there is conflicting forensic testimony, I am usually left behind.
 
Nova said:
I never knew what to think. When there is conflicting forensic testimony, I am usually left behind.


Same here. Was glad I wasn't on the jury.
 
englishleigh said:
I never thought Louise did anything, either. It broke my heart when she sobbed when the second-degree murder conviction was read, sobbed so hard she collapsed. I was so glad when she was released with time served.
Me too, englishleigh. I just wasn't persuaded by what I knew of the case (to include the forensic evidence which was not at all conclusive) that she was guilty. I was heartbroken for her. Still am.
 
As the mother of a child who was shaken by his bio father, and later died from the injuries, this case has always hit too close to home.

My concern is more about those who say there's no such thing as shaken baby syndrome. I'm sure there's been misdiagnoses but my son's dad admitted to shaking him, and it doesn't take much imagination to realize the kind of injuries likely to occur when you violently shake a tiny infant. I just get defensive when people say the thing that clearly sent my baby to his grave doesn't actually exist.

So I was extra uncomfortable with this case. But like many of you have said, I wouldn't have wanted to be on that jury, not that that jury would have wanted me on it, either lol.

It's interesting that the medical professional is talking about it and having different thoughts after all these years. I'm curious to see what this progress into, if anything.

All IMO, and I really don't want to nor intend to start a discussion on the existence of shaken baby syndrome, so I hesitate a bit to post...My soul just can't take it, my son's birthday is coming up.

I wonder how Matthew's parents have held up.
 
Oh duh, flourish, this is an old thread lol didn't realize...
 
No, don't "duh" yourself, Flourish. I am truly sorry you've experienced the heartache of your son's loss...many hugs for you.

As a medical professional, I worry about shaken baby syndrome too. I've always had an issue, however, with calling everything that occurs SBS...babies are soo fragile, and things happen sometimes that to us, seem like no big deal; but for an infant's fragile body, well...it's a devastating injury.

I have always been sad about the Woodward situation...little Matty is gone, and that's hard enough. but to have questions about how or why he passed? I'm with the rest of you who said that I'm glad I was not on the jury...

As for her expecting a baby, I say "good for you...and may you have many treasured years, Louise, with your dear one."

Best-
Herding Cats
 
As the mother of a child who was shaken by his bio father, and later died from the injuries, this case has always hit too close to home.

My concern is more about those who say there's no such thing as shaken baby syndrome. I'm sure there's been misdiagnoses but my son's dad admitted to shaking him, and it doesn't take much imagination to realize the kind of injuries likely to occur when you violently shake a tiny infant. I just get defensive when people say the thing that clearly sent my baby to his grave doesn't actually exist.

So I was extra uncomfortable with this case. But like many of you have said, I wouldn't have wanted to be on that jury, not that that jury would have wanted me on it, either lol.

It's interesting that the medical professional is talking about it and having different thoughts after all these years. I'm curious to see what this progress into, if anything.

All IMO, and I really don't want to nor intend to start a discussion on the existence of shaken baby syndrome, so I hesitate a bit to post...My soul just can't take it, my son's birthday is coming up.

I wonder how Matthew's parents have held up.

Don't DUH yourself, it's a thread that's pertinent to you. There's nothing wrong with that.

As for Dr. Barnes, I did some research into him when I worked on a shaken baby case a few years ago. The news article makes it sound like he did an abrupt about-face, but his change in opinion had to do with further research into SBS. He's not a complete skeptic, he's just wary of the overdiagnosis. I think the problem comes from some hospitals not doing a thorough look into ruling out things like brittle bone disease or other genetic mutations that can look like SBS on its face.

Even if there are wrongful prosecutions, SBS does exist and it breaks my heart. I'm so sorry to hear that you've dealt with it yourself.
 
No, don't "duh" yourself, Flourish. I am truly sorry you've experienced the heartache of your son's loss...many hugs for you.

As a medical professional, I worry about shaken baby syndrome too. I've always had an issue, however, with calling everything that occurs SBS...babies are soo fragile, and things happen sometimes that to us, seem like no big deal; but for an infant's fragile body, well...it's a devastating injury.

I have always been sad about the Woodward situation...little Matty is gone, and that's hard enough. but to have questions about how or why he passed? I'm with the rest of you who said that I'm glad I was not on the jury...

As for her expecting a baby, I say "good for you...and may you have many treasured years, Louise, with your dear one."


Best-
Herding Cats

You are such a sweet, kind person. It warms my heart.
 
For the record, I believe WS was around at the time (of the trial, at least) and the case was discussed here. But there were a couple of crashes in the old days and the forum started over.

Yep, I'm pretty sure WS started in '97. However, I believe it was just a forum to discuss the JonBenet case then. So I am not sure when they started having forums for other cases or if they just had a thread for Louise's trial? Using the Wayback Machine, the earliest screenshot I could find was 2000, and there were forums to discuss about four cases.
 
Thursday November 11
The Trial of Louise Woodward
ITV, 9pm
ITV pips Channel 4 to the post with this documentary about a court case that stunned the world nearly 25 years ago. In October 1997, British au pair Louise Woodward, then 19, went on trial for the murder of Matthew Eappen, a nine-month-old she had been hired to care for in a wealthy suburb of Boston, Massachusetts. But the trial of Cheshire native Woodward remains controversial to this day, dividing opinion about her culpability, the expert testimony about the cause of Eappen’s death, and the levelling of a second-degree murder charge against Woodward.

The case also sparked a debate about a childcare system that allowed inexperienced teenagers to look after babies. Woodward was convicted, although her conviction was swiftly downgraded to involuntary manslaughter and she served less than a year in prison. Here, lawyers and expert witnesses from both sides comment on the troubling case, and Woodward’s lead defence lawyer, Barry Scheck, expresses his hope that the record be set straight: “One hopes on the 25th anniversary of this case, that people will actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence demonstrated that she [did] not do this.” VP
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,041
Total visitors
1,176

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,789
Members
228,003
Latest member
Knovah
Back
Top