|
|
How can the jury, with all that evidence from leading medical experts, come to that conclusion, of "Murder in the second degree". The charge was that, on the 4th of February 1997, the defendant killed Matthew Eappen. Not only killed, but did it with malice.
[If it was pre-meditated it would be first degree murder]
The case rests entirely on the fact of whether Louise did intentionally kill Matthew Eapen on the 4th February 1997. The prosecution case was that Louise had shaken Matthew very vigorously and then slammed him down onto a hard surface.The defence case, brought in experts from around the USA who refuted all this, and declared that Matthew died as a result of an unnoticed injury of some 2-3 weeks previously (evidence of scar tissue in the area of the head injury), and had suffered from that wound re-bleeding.
Now, even if Matthew had been previously injured by Louise, the case could not stand, because the Prosecution's case relied entirely on the fact that Matthew was murdered on the 4th of February 1997. Eminent doctors, here in the United Kingdom, confirm the view of the doctors in the USA - in that an injury like that which Matthew had, could go un-noticed for a few weeks before coming to a head. This sort of injury could have been the result of a simple fall, say out of a chair, or a whip-lash type incident in a car.
However, this was not mentioned at all in the trial. So, we have to consider child abuse. Other, significant pointers indicate long-term child abuse (fractures on the wrist etc),but where is the evidence that these were inflicted by Louise. Deborah Eappen looked after Matthew, the rest of the time ... could she not have done these injuries ? After all, Matthew was only 8 months old and Deborah's career was obviously more important than looking after her children.
In the USA, you are supposed to be "presumed innocent, until proven guilty". In other words, the prosecution MUST prove its case. This wasn't true in this instance. The jury had to acquit if there was any "reasonable doubt" - the defence medical experts provided enough evidence to give this doubt, yet the jury concluded "Guilty, of second degree murder". How ?
I understand, that a juror (Jodie Garber), said that they "felt obliged to deliver a guilty verdict" because of the judge's directions to them.They believed that Louise caused the injury that killed Matthew, but it wasn't intentional. So, if the injury that killed Matthew was 2-3 weeks old, they couldn't have the murder verdict because she did not murder him on the 4th February 1997. As the injury was 2-3 weeks old, we need some facts as to what happened then - these weren't discussed in the court case, so how did they believe that Louise caused the injuries 2-3 weeks previously ?
- Was this from the pre-trial publicity in the media ?
Remember that it is the Prosecution's contention that Louise Woodward did murder Matthew Eappen on the 4th February 1997.
The facts show that the injury which caused his death was from 2-3 weeks before that.
[The underlying question has to be, who caused the injury which caused Matthew's death?]
and send to:- Woodward Appeal,
c/o Mrs Jean Jones,
Meadowbank,
Ince Lane,
Elton,
Chester. CH2 4LX
UNITED KINGDOM.
© R.N.Venkatesh 1997
