Talk:Louise Woodward case/Archive 1

Theoretical Explanation
I'm adding to this article for a class assignment for Women and Crime. I had to add a theoretical explanation. Chrisguapo27 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)chrisguapo27 chrisguapo27Chrisguapo27 (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Key witness changes his mind
Why is there no mention of Dr. Patrick Barnes, a key witness against Woodward, having changed his mind in light of a "revolution" in the understanding of head injuries since the trial? http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137454415/the-child-cases-guilty-until-proven-innocent?ft=1&f=1001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.82.48 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. This is important evidence in determining Woodward’s guilt or innocence. I also have considerable doubt about baby-sitter Trenda Kemmerer’s conviction in the death of 10-month-old Christina Dew - a very similar case: in 2001, she was sentenced to 55 years, but it could equally have been the baby’s mother who was responsible.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm going to overhaul this article later today. I'm not expecting anyone to be making any major edits (or really viewing this page so much), but it'll be an easy fix.

Hjfreyer 10:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This case also highlighted the institutional racism of the American judicial system and the supporters of Woodward, namely the British media. When a white girl from the UK murders a brown baby the likes of the Daily Mirror mounted a huge campaign to have Woodward freed, even though they had no idea if she was innocent or not. However when Manjit Basuta, a brown brit who was accused of murdering a white baby no such media frenzy was visible. And the US justice system sent her down for life. - Equality? - Don't make me laugh 81.179.244.250 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)P http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_412000/412542.stm

The above post is misleading. Unlike LW, Ms Basuta was a professional 43 year old childcarer. She was convicted largely because of eyewitness evidence by a (non-caucasion) employee. There was in fact a considerable effort on her behalf which did lead to an order for a retrial and to her being released in December 2003.

The Louise Woodward entry is also wrong to say that the US Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s appeal against the reduction of the conviction from second-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. That appeal was rejected unanimously. It was the prosecution’s appeal against the 279-day sentence which was rejected 4-3.

I think you mean the Massachusetts Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. Cbreitel 03:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that the article should include facts related to the racial bias, if not blatant racism, of some especially in the UK. There were statements that implied or even claimed that the Asian-Indian parents murdered their child; the White girl could not have, etc.

DrLeonP (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Popped the baby on the bed
At the moment this article (falsely) assumes that all readers will know what this phrase means in US English. Could a native speaker of American English please clarify it?
 * You're right that it's not clear, and I've never seen an account of what an actual juror took the term to mean. So it might just be a media-created controversy, or perhaps the defense team trying to do some anticipatory damage control with no regard as to whether or not it was necessary. As a native speaker (who watched the whole trial, by the way), I took "pop" to be a casual way of saying "place" or "put" pretty much just as Woodward said she intended. Akin to the idea of when you intend to visit someone for a short time, an American might say "I'll pop over later." When you hear a non-American accent, you allow a little more leeway as to what the speaker literally means. The only other American meanings of "pop" as a verb are violent ones that don't make sense in this context, such as squeezing something until it explodes or punching someone in the face with your fist. I think it may be a tempest in a tea pot: Woodward always represented herself with a collected, rational demeanor, and no killer in her right mind would confess a violent action like squeezing the baby to death or beating the baby with her fist and then plead not guilty. This "pop" business isn't really evidence of anything one way or the other. But rather than try to settle the linguistic matter, it would be far more instructive and relevant to the article to find out how the jurors actually received the term. JimmyTheSaint 23:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

'Pop the baby on the bed' is UK English, surely? Certainly I;ve been using the phrase (and similar) all my life StuartDouglas 11:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The verb "to pop" in British English implies "to place" - as in, "I popped the baby on the bed" approximately equals "I placed the baby on the bed". There is no connotation of violent action in British English as there is in American English. I am Canadian and have lived in Britain for two years, and have used "to pop" in the nonviolent sense of the word many times. Perhaps the prosecution or defense counsel in this case should have hired a linguistics expert conversant in both American and British English to explain the difference in meanings.

"There were old wrist injuries to the infant that may have been incurred before Woodward even arrived at the house. Woodward, however, admitted under cross-examination that she never noticed any slight bumps, marks or any unusual behavior by the baby at any time prior to the night he was taken to hospital."

The first sentence in the above quote has weasel words ("may have been incurred"....need citation?) in it. The whole paragraph needs proper citation, especially the second sentence. Can someone find verbatim testimony please? Sdsures (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Salsa ?
She quit law studies to become a salsa dance teacher ?? That is so wierd...she is going to be making no money in salsa teaching, thatz for sure... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raindreamer (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

UK Response?
I was in the US at the time she was first sentenced, and I heard that there was a strong and widespread reaction against it in the UK. I was curious to know whether that negative reaction was because there were doubts of her guilt, a feeling that the trial was unjust, a feeling that the sentence was too harsh, or some other issue entirely. I was hoping the article might have some information on this.

Muddle-headed Wombat 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a fair bit of media inspired agitation, but for peopl ein general 'strong and widespread' would be pushing it. StuartDouglas 10:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - as far as I can tell, the US media generally got a bit carried away with interpreting the British media's scepticism about the trial and LW's guilt as "strong and widespread" support for her. Take a look at an old opinion page from the BBC around that time and you'll get a sense that UK opinion was more divided than some UK tabloids and the US media seemed to suggest... - 82.152.179.138 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember this case well. Partly because Woodward bore an eerie resemblance to my first wife. I also recall that our (i.e. American) press making a big deal about "waves of outrage" in England about the case. I remember one reporter stating that "many" (who these "many" were and how "many" of them there were, the reporter didn't say) in England thought the American judicial system was "unfair." A curious statement since both English and American law is based on the 18th Century English legal system!


 * Personally, I thought the prosecutor had no case. In fact, I still believe the likely killer of Matthew was the mother. The child had injuries that predated his being in Louise's care, for one thing. I think the mother shook the kid to death and then saw the perfectly patsy: "The British nanny!!! Hmmm, she's a foreigner. She's been a pain in the butt as a nanny. I've got to cover my butt here, so..."


 * The judge did the right thing in reducing the charges. Had he tossed out the verdict, the MA Supreme Court would almost certainly have reversed and Woodward would almost certainly have been tried again.


 * In short, she got railroaded. I'm glad she was able to put a life together despite the travesty in Massachusetts.


 * PainMan (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you read the text of that BBC page, you will see that UK opinion was in favour of her. It was US opinion that was against, or questioning. The issue for Britons was not whether or not she had done it, but the fact that the family left their children in the long-term care of an unqualified babysitter. Under UK law, parental responsibility cannot be delegated, so if had happened here, the parents would probably have been arrested. Ray Ellis (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Parental responsibility cannot be "delegated" in the United States either. (The exception would be where a child is away at a boarding school, college or summer camp, etc. Then the school or camp is what is called in the law in loco parentis.)


 * California has a law, for example, that makes parents liable for leaving liquor unsecured. If a teenager has a party and drinks his parents' booze the parents are in violation of a law which mandates that liquor has to be secured, i.e. minor children cannot have access to it. The penalty is one year in jail.


 * If one of the kids is injured or killed, then the parents would probably be looking at negligence charges, even negligent homicide.


 * For the Eappens to have been "negligent", it would have to be proved that they knew she was a drug addict or that she had a record for child abuse, etc.


 * Short of something like that, the Eappens cannot be said to have been negligent.


 * PainMan (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Category Removed: English Murderers
I removed the category "English murderers" because the conviction that stands is of involuntary manslaughter. DeSales 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The removal of this category is not supported by the colloquial definition of "murder" provided by the dictionary, or the legal definition of murder provided by Massachusetts law. Cbreitel 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The definition of murder in Webster's New World Dictionary is: the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery . Therefore, Woodward should be on the list of English murderers because she was convicted--despite the fact I personally believe she was innocent. The fact is a fact.


 * The terms murder and manslaughter just indicate the type of homicide. Both are still homicides under the law. And in the vernacular they are both murder.


 * PainMan (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, given that the conviction was adjusted FROM (second-degree) murder TO manslaughter, makes it very clear that using the term "murderer" for Louise Woodward is not accurate, is not defensible legally and could even be libellous. Murder and manslaughter are very different, even "colloquially". - 82.152.179.138 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am an attorney and see no basis for any libel claim. The category description of "English murderers" refers to "murderer" in the common English, dictionary sense. The dictionary definition of murder refers to the unlawful killing of a human being, which is consistent with the reduced conviction of manslaughter. Cbreitel 00:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you will know that the Law Society cannot admit a crimnal as a solicitor. In the US she may be classed as a murderer, but in England she is not even a crimnal. ClemMcGann 01:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the above comment is. To begin with she IS a convicted criminal and there is no debate on that question. Second, neither US nor British law societies have a per se prohibition on "criminals" becoming attorneys or solicitors, which explains why she was permitted to practice law in the UK. To say that "in England she is not even a criminal" is a meaningless statement without context. To the British public who worships her as a hero, she is very obviously not a criminal. To the British court system which has entered a civil judgment against her based on the US conviction, however, she has in fact been adjudged a criminal. To any British government entity that gives her papers to fill out where she must disclose whether she has ever been convicted of a crime, she is obligated to mark "Yes". Cbreitel 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While conviction of a felony almost always results in disbarment in the US, Cbreitel is right, it's not automatic. Depending on the state, either the bar association or the state's supreme court makes the decision on disbarment. Since there are 50 states, there maybe other bodies in charge of attorney discipline.


 * In the Federal system I believe it's the Supreme Court that handles ejection from the federal bar.


 * PainMan (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to make it clear that I am British and do not know any member of the British public who "worships her as a hero". LW gained some public support during her trial (from within the UK and the US) because there was no evidence given at trial that unequivocally proved that she intentionally killed Matthew Eappon. Therefore the guilty verdict for murder was not just - which even the judge agreed on when he reduced it. At the time, most people in the UK seemed to view both her and Matthew Eappon as victims of a tragedy. This is far from seeing her as a hero.Kookoo Star 08:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can some explain this?
What does "she received a degree, class 2:2" exactly does "class 2:2" mean?

PainMan (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectively it means she did poorly, particuarly given the fact that the university she attended is not a very good one. --Mllsskb2 (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of feelings of "good vs bad" universities, it's worth mentioning that a 2:2 classification made up ~30% of all graduates in 2006 in the UK, so I would say the word "average" is more suited to her classification than poor. This is compared to 3rd class honours which was received by 7.2% of 2006 graduates, a considerably lower amount. The grading of British system of classifying undergraduate degrees can be read about here -Iscariot (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Partial sentence removed
Removed the following sentence because it makes no sense:


 * .of the results of these examinations by Woodward's experts was admissible in court.

The editor needs to repost the sentence.

Polygraph results ("lie detectors") are not admissible in US courts because of the device's inherent unreliability. Many, many people have fooled these machines--including a good friend of mine.

The most typical method is to put a tack in one's shoe and the step on it when answering the questions. The pain will cause the block the physiological reactions the machine is supposedly able to "detect" as a lie.

PainMan (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

POV violation
I removed this sentence:


 * One of the "character" witnesses against Louise Woodward was shown on cross-examination to have been a welfare fraudster.

By putting quotation marks around the word character clearly indicates the editor's bias.

Also, something like clearly needs to be sourced.

PainMan (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking from memory but wasn't there a further case where somebody had used funds raised for LW's defence for other purposes. The verdict was not guilty because the money had been contributed with "no strings attached" so could be used in any way. It left a very bad tatse though. 222.209.143.170 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Relevant later events?
I'm not convinced that the following has any relevance to this article, as it has nothing to do with the case:


 * "Louise Woodward studied law at London South Bank University, where she graduated with a 2:2 (Hons) degree in July 2002. In 2004 she began a training contract (the two-year training at an accredited firm that aspiring solicitors must serve) with the law firm Ainley North Halliwell, in Oldham, Greater Manchester. However, she dropped out of her training contract the following year in order to pursue a career as a ballroom and Latin dance teacher in Chester with her former boyfriend, Richard Colley."

In particular I don't see why we have to name her ex-boyfriend. Can anyone who is familiar with WP:NOTABILITY, or WP:BLP, or WP:MOSLEGAL explain why this paragraph should or shouldn't be included? Lfh (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both parents were doctors
I have added this fact to the article, as it is relevant to the question of Woodward’s guilt or innocence. It is much easier to believe that an ignorant teenager could fail to notice injuries to the baby, than that two medically qualified adults could miss them.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: Child abuse in the United Kingdom
I added the (newly created) category Category:Child abuse in the United Kingdom, which covers all child abuse articles which have connections to the United Kingdom. Editor TwoTwoHello then accused me in an edit summary of "How can you accuse someone of child abuse in the UK without a source". I'm not at all! I am just putting it into a category. The case made as many headlines here as in the United States, and started a wider political debate - hence its inclsuion. I have only started this debate to add back the category. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How is the reader supposed to know that Category:Child abuse in the United Kingdom refers to all child abuse articles which have connections to the United Kingdom? I think adding living people to this category when there is no evidence that she has been involved with child abuse in the UK is very wrong. Child abuse is one of the worst things you can accuse people of and I would suggest you exercise a little more care in who you add. TwoTwoHello (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Even if one can justify the inclusion on intellectual grounds - and I think the link between Woodward and the category is too weak even for that - the title of the category is too misleading and defamatory to be able to justify her inclusion.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)