The Facts

          Jan Leestma, the defence's neuropathologist, provided uncontradicted physical evidence that periosteum, growing bone and osteoblasts showed that the skull fracture was weeks old.

          The fact that serum spurted out of Matthew Eappen's dura [brain matter] when a surgical incision was first made by operating doctors showed that the injury was old.

          The CAT scan testimony by Alisa Gean, the defence's neuroradiologist, also showed that the subdural haematoma was old.

          Witnesses for the prosecution conceded that the defence's "old injury, new re-bleed" position was a widely recognised phenomenon.

          Under Scheck's cross-examination, Dr. Mandl (Prosecution witness) testified that he found no bruises on the baby's arms, shoulders, ribs or neck and that there was no swelling on the back of the victim's head. Scheck also asked the doctor whether he observed anything that supported the prosecution's assertion that Matthew's head had been slammed down "with the force of dropping a child 15 feet onto hard concrete." Mandl responded, "There were no findings to specifically indicate that, no."

          Mandl also conceded to Scheck's theory that the baby may have suffered from what Scheck called "talk, deteriorate, and die" head injuries. (This refers to instances in which a person suffers a head injury, appears to recover from the injury, but then suffers a rapid decline in health after a later, possibly slight, head injury.) Scheck was trying to build support for the defense theory that the infant really died from a previously unknown head injury prior to the Feb. 4 incident with Woodward.

          Dr. Madsen was cross-examined by Scheck with these results -

          When asked by Scheck about the defense's theory that Matthew suffered the head injury weeks before the incident with Louise Woodward, Masden agreed that such a head injury could bleed internally and spontaneously hours, days, or even weeks after its original occurrence. And headswelling, crankiness, unusual crying, vomiting, and lethargy are the symptoms of such these kind of head injuries in infants. (Matthew Eappen showed all these symptoms the day of the alleged shaking.) In addition, Madsen agreed that baby Matthew's skull fracture resembled a fracture that could have been suffered three weeks prior to the alleged incident with Woodward.

          Dr. Robert Cleveland, a consulting radiologist to the Child Protection Team at Children's Hospital, took the stand and analyzed Matthew's X-rays in front of the jury. He said that the baby's skull fracture appeared to be no more than three or four weeks old. When asked about an apparent wrist fracture that X-rays also revealed the night of the incident, Dr. Cleveland said that injury was approximately two-and-a-half to four weeks old.

          During his cross-examination of Dr. Smith, defense attorney Barry Scheck suggested that a drawing of Matthew's eyes done at the time of his examination does not show the retinal hemorrhaging that Smith had said resulted from violent shaking. In a major concession, Smith admitted that if this drawing is correct, then her theory about the infant dying from shaken baby syndrome is wrong.However, Smith preferred to characterize the drawing as "incomplete" rather than inaccurate.

          New photographs of Matthew Eappen's autopsy surfaced towards the end of the trial. Dr. Baden further bolstered the defense theory about the baby's death by saying that Matthew's skull fracture indicated that his fatal head injury was pre-existing and did not occur on the day of his hospitalization on February 4. The fracture was about three weeks old at the time of his hospitalization.

Inadmissible Evidence:- A video showing Deborah Eappen trying to get Brendan Eappen to say that Louise injured Matthew. Brendan kept saying that Louise was a good "nanny" and that she never hurt Matthew.

          The Prosecution stated "What we're saying the case is about is that on February 4, the defendant, in a frustrated, resentful, unhappy attitude, slammed the baby into a hard object and shook him, causing his death--actions that anyone would know would result in death. In this Commonwealth, that is murder."

          If, the injury which caused Matthew Eappen's death was a recurrence of bleeding from a previous fracture from 3 weeks prior to 4th February 1997, the charge of murder, second degree cannot stand.

          If there is any reasonable doubt as to the the mechanics of what caused Matthew Eappen's death, there has to be reasonable doubt as to whether Louise killed Matthew Eappen.

          If Louise had unknowingly aggravated a previous injury which subsequently killed Matthew Eappen, this could at best be classified as Involuntary manslaughter - This wasn't verdict option given to the jury.

          If the verdict options were First degree murder, Second degree murder or acquittal, Acquittal has to be the only option.

Note:

If Judge Hiller B. Zobel reduces the verdict to "Manslaughter", the defendant could use the "Alford plea".

[A prominent Boston attorney Thomas Hoopes has, however, said that there might be an escape route for Woodward through a so-called "Alford plea". That would allow her to enter a guilty plea along with an explanation saying that she was doing so only because the circumstances in which she found herself left her with no other option. According to Mr Hoopes, that would be a way of saying: "I'm telling you I did it because you leave me with no choice. I'm not telling you I did it because I did do it."]