Child Molester Priest Geoghan Murdered by Fellow Inmate
Suzanne
discussed in here by now, as much as it relates to the DP issue.
Most of you are probably aware that last Saturday, Aug. 23, John
Geoghan was strangled and beaten to death in his cell. Geoghan was
the priest in the Boston archdiocese who is said to have molested over
150 children during his priesthood. Rather than stopping him or
reporting him to authorities, the Catholic Church protected Geoghan by
shunting him around from one parish to another. This came to an end
when he was sentenced to a 9 to 10 year term.
The suspect, Joseph L. Druce, prepared by stretching socks to strangle
Geoghan and by cutting a book apart to use in jamming his cell door.
Druce followed Geoghan into his cell after the inmates returned their
lunch trays at about 11:52 AM, jammed the door, bound Gehoghan, and
proceeded to beat and strangle him. When a guard on duty was alerted
to the attack, he found the door jammed. By the time help arrived and
guards got into the cell with a nurse it was too late, and Geoghan was
pronounced dead at 1:17 PM.
Druce is already serving a sentence of life without parole for the
murder of a gay man 15 years ago. Massachusetts does not have the
death penalty. What do you do with a prisoner serving LWOP who has
just killed again? Give him another LWOP sentence?
In this case, many people might shrug their shoulders, look at the
harm Geoghan has done, and consider justice done. But this has
happened before. In another abolitionist state a female corrections
officer was murdered by an inmate serving several life sentences for
multiple murders. He got another life sentence. In such cases,
doesn't LWOP become a suit of armor to make a remorseless, repeat
killer untouchable?
Just passing by
>
> Really, they can't do anything. Massachusetts came within one vote of
> reinstating the death penalty a few years ago, but the coincidental timing
> of Louise Woodward's conviction on second degree murder for killing a child
> in her care while working as an au pair reversed one vote to against the
> death penalty.
That was John Slattery. He had previously supported the death penalty
and was fully expected to vote for its introduction in Massachusetts,
but the LW case opened his eyes to how easily miscarriages of justice
can occur under such a flawed system as that which allows the media to
be used to manipulate the public and thus pollute jury pools in the
months leading up to criminal trials.
Slattery is an honourable man who deserves credit for what he did,
unlike Gov. Paul Cellucci who supported the death penalty and called
Slattery "spineless" for switching his vote. But it is Cellucci who is
the spineless one. He sat back and just watched as those crooks, led
by the then Middlesex County DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed
exculpatory medical evidence and arranged for four corrupt police
officers to lie about what the defendant had said to them. He knew
what was going on but he stayed silent and did nothing.
Boris Dynin
The only good faggot and child molester is a dead one, then the
fertiliser gets recycled!!
Paige
> One less piece of garbage to be supported by taxpayers.
> The only good faggot and child molester is a dead one, then the
> fertiliser gets recycled!!
>
>
> On 26 Aug 2003 07:14:10 -0700, sus...@attbi.com (Suzanne) wrote:
>
> >This has been in the news lately, and I fully expected this to be
> >discussed in here by now, as much as it relates to the DP issue.
> >
> >Most of you are probably aware that last Saturday, Aug. 23, John
> >Geoghan was strangled and beaten to death in his cell. Geoghan was
> >the priest in the Boston archdiocese who is said to have molested over
> >150 children during his priesthood. Rather than stopping him or
> >reporting him to authorities, the Catholic Church protected Geoghan by
> >shunting him around from one parish to another. This came to an end
> >when he was sentenced to a 9 to 10 year term.
I find it apalling that the guards who were supposed to be protecting
Father Geoghan blindly stood by while it was planned a month before it
actually happened. If that is true heads should roll and roll fast
because he wasn't sentenced to death. Who gave John Druce the right to
be Father Geoghan's judge jury and executioner? I don't like what
Father Geoghan did but he didn't deserve to be killed because of one
man's hatred. That is very sad.
Peter Morris
"Suzanne" <sus...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1ef0aee.03082...@posting.google.com...
> The suspect, Joseph L. Druce, prepared by stretching socks to strangle
> Geoghan and by cutting a book apart to use in jamming his cell door.
> Druce followed Geoghan into his cell after the inmates returned their
> lunch trays at about 11:52 AM, jammed the door, bound Gehoghan, and
> proceeded to beat and strangle him. When a guard on duty was alerted
> to the attack, he found the door jammed. By the time help arrived and
> guards got into the cell with a nurse it was too late, and Geoghan was
> pronounced dead at 1:17 PM.
> In this case, many people might shrug their shoulders, look at the
> harm Geoghan has done, and consider justice done.
Another deathie supporting murder.
A Planet Visitor
Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off .. Still at it, eh... JPB? The
'Great White Whale' was as guilty as sin.. Guilty of the crime for
which she was convicted... and she actually 'got off' at sentencing
rather easily, simply because the same 'media' you accused -- had
manipulated the judicial system to such a point, that international
politics took over from justice... and she was 'allowed' to flee to
England. Here's the FULL Story --
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE:
THE BOOK OF PROOFS AND FACTS --
A look into the mind of JPB -- a deeply disturbed lovelorn fruitcake.
FOREWORD:
What is most evident about JPB's _argument_ regarding the
presumed innocence of the _Great White Whale_ -- is that it
is permeated by a certain amount of denial of the truth. Without
finding such denial necessary, to form the bedrock of his argument,
it becomes evident that he has no argument at all. What follows
are the examples of his denials.
CHAPTER I : PROLOGUE
Poor little Matthew... dropped...shaken...banged...smacked...thumped...
hammered...punched...whacked...pounded...slapped...cuffed...
walloped...socked...thrown....bopped...hurled...chucked....slung....
smashed..pummeled...beaten...spanked...whipped...tossed...battered...
belted,,,struck...clobbered...bounced...and dribbled...lies dead in his grave...
unwept and forgotten in a pathetic attempt by JPB to claim the only
person who COULD HAVE done this ---the 'great white whale'
(who looks quite flabby and unappealing as a human, but would be
quite mouth watering if she were actually a large ripened ring of camembert) --
didn't do it. Presuming as 'justification' for that belief: his 'evidence'
that a 'riddled with corruption' State of Massachusetts was actually
behind a great conspiracy in the prosecution of the _Great White Whale_
as the perpetrator of that killing!! And further presuming that EVERYONE
KNOWS she didn't do it, but STILL voted for guilty. While the 'great white
whale' is all too ready to see if she can't 'turn a buck,' from her act. Is JPB
delusional?...is he a 'chubby chaser'?...does he 'love cheese'?...or is he only
stupid? The 'eye of the beholder' will have to determine that...as for me...
he simply seems to be a fruitcake.
That being said -- let us recapitulate JPB's _argument_ suggesting that
the _Great White Whale_ is somehow _innocent_, while keeping in
mind Lewis Carroll remarking -- ""Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee,
if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't.
That's logic."
CHAPTER II: JPB'S DENIALS
JPB's argument, in fact, stinks like a three-day old mackerel left in
the sun too long... yet he will not let it die... trying to resuscitate that
fish, by puffing it up with mouth-to-mouth fillip. Understand, Gentle
Reader, that I will again no longer play with him, and will continue to
post my destruction of his various ravings he presumes are arguments.
One cannot argue intelligently with an obsessive zealot, operating on
nothing other than such ravings. One can only look as stupid as he
does by continuing to engage in that hysteria. I will continue to
post this comment whenever he becomes hysterical again.
So, Gentle Reader... let us first again examine some of JPB's
unfounded accusations against EVERYONE in the justice
process, while making claims of the 'innocence' (sic) of the
'great white whale,' without the slightest foundation of 'proof' --
Just a small number of those silly words, which he's provided
in the past, lacking any substance other than those maladroit
ravings I speak of -- His words in quotes, and my comments
when appropriate --
CHAPTER III: UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS --
Certainly, it has been recognized in the past, over and over... that
JPB depends on presuming the corruption of everyone in the
prosecution -- Some of his exact words demonstrating that, follow
in these 22 quotes from his past posts --
1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
Presuming that 'proof' must be provided that 'proves' she was guilty, when
that's already been established, and the responsibility to 'disprove' is totally
his. One does not need to 'prove' what has already been 'proven' in a court
of law. Anymore than one needs to 'prove' that the sun rises each morning.
2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
Eappen."
Excuse me... but SHE IS NOT innocent. Since no court in any
country has declared her innocent. It is absurd that he would offer
such a lie, as a presumed _statement of fact_. Since the 'piece
of evidence' offered is that provided by the opinion of everyone
in the judicial process... from every jury member, to the trial judge,
to every justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. All of whom found her guilty. Not a one, finding
her 'not guilty.'
3) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully convicted of"
Since no court in any country has declared her innocent. It is absurd
to make such an unfounded statement. And this particular comment of
his forms the very bedrock of his entire argument. He states she is
"wrongfully convicted," yet offers nothing other than that claim... OVER
and OVER.
4) "Louise Woodward was framed by a gang of criminals who lied, cheated,
conspired to pervert justice and committed perjury to deliberately
obtain a wrongful and fraudulent murder conviction against someone
they knew to be innocent."
Of course, and Bin Laden did not plan the WTC attack either. The U.S. is
trying to 'frame' him as well. In fact, JPB's pernicious words, would leave him
liable for claims of personal injury against those _unnamed_, who he
would call _criminal_, while whitewashing the _Great White Whale_.
The truth is that this _baby killer_ got off lightly because of political
pressure OUTSIDE of the avenues of justice. Had she been an American,
raised in Boston, she would be in prison today, and for quite some time
to come.
5) "So whoever hid them - and it had to be someone from the prosecution
team - knew she was innocent"
That _someone_ was probably the same person hiding behind the grassy knoll.
6) "Dr. Eli Newberger, the principal architect of the framing of Louise
Woodward."
Another case of a statement, being potentially libelous. And hardly
providing _proof_ of the _Great White Whale's_ innocence. It is, in fact,
an accusation which is morally fraudulent, since there is obviously no motive
for that _framing_. Nor does JPB offer anything other than such
disingenuous accusations against a number of people in the prosecution,
if their efforts served to find justice for Matthew Eappen.
7) "Lies he told in order to frame someone he knew and still knows to
be totally innocent."
Apparently JPB believes that Dr. Newberger either hates the British in
general, or has an _I hate fat people_ paranoia. Since there is no
REASON for him to have done so.
8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
The _biggest conspiracy_ was that undertaken in attempting to undermine
the verdict itself, and to successfully undermine the appropriate sentence,
because she was from the U.K. Taken through various media hypocrisy
and diplomatic channels that we will probably never know of.
9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
was framed"
Again... an unfounded _conspiracy theory_ lie. Offered simply
as a lie.
10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
convicted of. She was framed."
Again, the words "she was framed," constitute a fraud which diminishes the
life of Matthew Eappen. And certainly does NOTHING to demonstrate
any validity to JPB's argument, other than some crazy accusations against
everyone involved in her prosecution. But that has been JPB's purpose
throughout his obsession. Matthew is NOTHING to him.. the _Great
White Whale_ is everything.... to him.
11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
brainwashed, biased population."
Actually, there were more stories of _hate_ against the Eappens --
both being highly visible, appearing to live a life where Matthew
was not important enough to demand closer care, and having been
turned over to an irresponsible twit. Everyone in this case, seemed
more concerned with themselves, ESPECIALLY the _Great White
Whale_, rather than actually feeling anything in respect to the true victim.
Neither the mother, the father or the _Great White Whale_ came
across as caring. The _Great White Whale_ only tried to point her
finger at them, and they didn't come across as _grieving parents_.
What IS true, is this perception of uncaring by the Eappen
family, essentially worked in FAVOR of the _Great White Whale_.
The real effect of her crime ONLY came home to her rather forcefully --
and was the only time she actually seemed concerned -- when she
realized she had been found GUILTY. Then the extent of her crime
was forcibly thrust upon her. That was the moment of her first
hysteria... her first tears... her first realization that her crime carried
consequences.
12) "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it."
And here is the BIGGEST lie from JPB. Since the judge had the
POWER to overturn the verdict and did not do so. That is DAMNING
evidence that the judge KNOWS she DID DO IT, not that she didn't.
Simply that she did not commit the crime of murder, to the extent of
meeting the legal demand of the crime of murder, since Zobel could
not find _malice_ as a part of her crime. Further, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court upheld that decision, and in fact had a legal obligation
to examine each of the points raised by the defense in its appeal petition,
and DID SO. Those points can be found in ---
http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
13) "For months on end you have claimed to agree with the ruling
of Judge Zobel you posted, without even knowing that it included
his acceptance of the re-bleed defence which you now describe as:
"the most disgusting defense imaginable"
Once again, JPB distorts the truth in his denials. Since Judge Zobel
never accepted the re-bleed defense, as his words in his ruling will
verify. He speaks only of "start (or restart) a bleeding that escalated
fatally." And I have certainly agreed, from the very beginning, with
the ruling of reducing the degree of the crime made by Judge Zobel.
Malice could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.
Guilt of manslaughter was certainly proven WELL BEYOND a
reasonable doubt.
14) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
proven crimes?"
And there is the _second biggest lie_ he has told in this process.
Unable to mount any kind of evidence of _innocence_, other than what
was presented by the defense at trial, and at appeal... he is reduced
to demanding that the State... _top to bottom_ be certified as _corrupt_,
unnamed, but seen as brushing a broad stroke of _conspiracy_ across
the entire prosecutorial process. Without such sophistry, on his part,
his _argument_ collapses like a lopsided house of cards.
15) "Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in
causing the death of Matthew Eappen. No cop outs like "The jury
said this" or "this person said the other"
Yes, of course.. let's not 'cop out' by using the views of those
who were closest to the case. The witnesses... the jury... the trial
judge... the justices of that Supreme Court... worthless to JPB.
Instead, let's use HIS hysterical accusations that the 'proof' rests on
claims of corruption, lies, crooks, jury contamination, conspiracy,
cover-up, frame-up, perjury, biased yellow journalism, accusations
and innuendo. Even including JPB's accusation of post-trial
INTIMIDATION of 47 doctors, being the reason they signed a
particular document. At least those claims don't actually have to
be 'proven.' Yes, of course.. let's not _cop out_ by using the
words of those who were closest to the case. Let's simply use
JPB's bilious accusations That approach suits him quite well,
inasmuch as his _argument_ is based on _the unproven_. His
_demand_ that we NOT look at _what the jury said_ in
rendering their verdict, or what _others have said_ about that
verdict, means he can claim anything he wishes... but those who
believe otherwise HAVE NO VOICE. What he actually wishes
to do is make silly presumptions OUTSIDE of evidence, forever
and ever, presuming that non-evidence will prove something
16) "it is scientifically impossible for Louise Woodward to have done
what she was convicted of"
Actually, it is scientifically impossible to truthfully say it is 'scientifically
impossible.' None of us are aware of the actual limitations of science.
17) "Louise Woodward was the one who was wrongfully convicted (she was
definately innocent)"
Simply another example of JPB's Tom Jones syndrome. Another _common
lie_... but _it's not unusual_.
18) "She was also totally innocent of harming that baby in any way
whatsoever - a crime for which she was blatantly framed"
What can be added to a comment which has been so repetitiously,
and robotically, offered with no proof whatsoever?
19) "That she was the victim of a frame-up which included the deliberate
hiding, burial and destruction of exculpatory medical evidence, and
that four police officers committed proven perjury."
Of course... the _hiding of exculpatory medical evidence_, and the
_corrupt entire Police Force. How could anyone have missed
something so obvious? The poor, poor, misunderstood, murdering
'Great White Whale.' What a friggin' fruitcake.
20) "what they were offered was murder or nothing. They all believed
she was not guilty of murder - they have said so."
JPB speaking of the jury verdict. Now, pardon me, if I don't believe they
'said so,' in the verdict. In fact, they ALL found her guilty of murder at
trial. Only ONE, holding out for _not guilty_, would have been
sufficient to hang that jury. The fact is -- they were UNANIMOUS
in their finding, and would obviously have CERTAINLY found her
guilty of the lesser crime she was ultimately convicted of, if that had
been the only crime for which she was charged. In fact, they
UNANIMOUSLY convicted her of a crime GREATER than that
which was eventually upheld throughout ALL due process.
JPB's _argument_ here is reduced to --
A) The jury was 'offered murder.'
B) JPB argues they do not believe she was guilty of murder.
C) But they STILL found her guilty of murder.
What a crowd... but of course... not one of the 12 were 'crooks.'
21) "I stated it as a fact that he had no power in this case to do
that. It remains a fact..."
22) "The defence do not make the rules. If the defence had
asked Zobel to quash the conviction, award Louise $10 million
compensation and appoint her President of the United States,
that wouldn't mean he was empowered to do so."
Here in these two statements he is claiming that Judge Zobel
did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict. In fact, a part of
the defense appeal WAS to ask that Judge Zobel to rule the
entire indictment be dismissed, and a finding of 'not guilty'
be entered by the judge. And in fact, it is proven that Judge
Zobel DID have the power to overturn the verdict. Because
JPB's 'friend,' the Nameless One wasn't actually much of a
'friend' as he checked with the legal authorities in Massachusetts,
and found out that Judge Zobel DID have such power. Poor
JPB... done in... even by his 'friends.' JPB has recently argued
that he did not MEAN Judge Zobel did not have the POWER,
but now pathetically claims that it is _certain_ that the Supreme
Court would have rejected him doing so. But that is a
PRESUMPTION developed by JPB, without a foundation of
REALITY. In any case, it is simply more of JPB trying to
CHANGE the words he has stated. Since he clearly states
that Judge Zobel DID NOT HAVE the power. And yet,
Judge Zobel certainly DID have the power, regardless of what
JPB hypothesizes would have resulted from him doing so.
CHAPTER IV: THE LETTER --
See ---
http://child.cornell.edu/sbsletter.html
/quoting/
THIS LETTER was provided to us by the group of physicians who
developed it. The letter was widely published by the media, appearing
in most major and national daily newspapers, and picked up by many
major television morning and news shows. The process that lead to
the letter involved one of the best examples of the power of the internet
to guide and to inform issues of significant concern. Here is the story:
The Child Abuse Prevention Network co-hosts an Internet Mailing
List ("listserv") for physicians in the field of child abuse and neglect.
Since early 1997, this list has explored a number of clinical topics,
providing physicians and other professionals with ready access to
hard-to-find expertise.
In the fall of 1997, national attention was riveted on the murder trial
of an English Au Pair, Louise Woodward, in the case of an infant who
apparently died of what is popularly known as Shaken Baby Syndrome
(SBS.) The attention was especially great, because the trial was televised,
and the daily progress was reported often on the national network and
cable news outlets.
Physicians on our Mailing List followed the case closely. As matters
unfolded, the list discussion turned to the question of how physicians
could best assure that scientific expertise could be brought to bear in
an effective and responsible way in future cases. The letter below was
the result of those discussions.
Larry Ricci
11/16/97
THIS LETTER IS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT DR. ROBERT REECE
(617-587-1500 or e-mail:breece%ms...@notes.worldcom.com),
DR. LAWRENCE RICCI (207-879-6160 or e-mail:ric...@aol.com)
OR DR. ROBERT KIRSCHNER (312-891-5983 or
e-mail:ki...@midway.uchicago.edu)
Shaken Baby Syndrome - A Forensic Pediatric Response
To the Editor:
As physicians who specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of victims
of child abuse, we feel compelled to speak out regarding the scientific
evidence as portrayed in the trial of Louise Woodward for the murder
of eight month old Matthew Eappen. Both in the United States and in
England, media publicity surrounding the case has led to considerable
sentiment that she was convicted despite allegedly irrefutable scientific
evidence presented by the defense that the infant's injuries had
occurred days to weeks earlier. Many in the media and the public
have failed to credit the jury in this case with having had the intelligence
to understand that the prosecution put forward well established medical
evidence that overwhelmingly supported a violent shaking/impact episode
on the day in question, when Matthew was in the sole custody of Ms.
Woodward. The hypothesis put forward by the defense that minor
trauma caused a "re-bleed" of an earlier head injury can best be
characterized as inaccurate, contrary to vast clinical experience and
unsupported by any published literature. The "re-bleed" theory in infants
is a courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it.
Infants simply do not suffer massive head injury, show no significant
symptoms for days, then suddenly collapse and die. Whatever injuries
Matthew Eappen may or may not have suffered at some earlier date,
when he presented to the hospital in extremis he was suffering from
proximately inflicted head injuries that were incompatible with any period
of normal behavior subsequent to the injury. Such an injury would and
did produce rapidly progressive, if not immediate, loss of consciousness.
The shaken baby syndrome (with or without evidence of impact) is now
a well characterized clinical and pathological entity with diagnostic
features in severe cases virtually unique to this type of injury -
swelling of the brain (cerebral edema) secondary to severe brain injury,
bleeding within the head (subdural hemorrhage), and bleeding in the
interior linings of the eyes (retinal hemorrhages). Let those who would
challenge the specificity of these diagnostic features first do so in the
peer-reviewed literature, before speculating on other causes in court.
Indeed, the courtroom is not the forum for scientific speculation, but
rather the place where only, according the the U.S. Supreme Court in
Daubert vs. Merrill Dow, peer reviewed, generally accepted, and
appropriately tested scientific evidence should be presented.
We endorse a panel of medical experts to offer a scientifically based
analysis of the medical testimony offered in this case and others so that
some guidelines can be established for the courts on future admissibility of
scientifically supportable medical testimony.
Randall Alexander, MD
University of Iowa
Mia Amaya, MD, MPH
University of Alabama
Birmingham, Alabama
Jan Bays, M.D.
Emmanuel Children's Hospital
Portland, OR
Kirsten Bechtel, M.D.
St. Christopher's Hospital
Philadelphia, PA
Rebecca Beltran-Coker, M.D.
East Carolina University School of Medicine
Greenville, NC
Carol D. Berkowitz, M.D.
Harbor/UCLA Medical Center
Torrance, California
Steven D. Blatt, M.D.
SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse
Syracuse, NY
Ann S. Botash, M.D.
SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse
Syracuse, NY
Jocelyn Brown, M.D., M.P.H
College of Physicicans & Surgeons of Columbia University
New York
Mary Carrasco, MD
Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA
David L. Chadwick, M.D.
Children's Hospital and Health Center
San Diego, CA
Cindy Christian, MD
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA
Patrick Clyne, M.D.
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center
San Jose, CA
Daniel L. Coury, MD
Children's Hospital
Columbus, OH
James Crawford, MD
Children's Hospital Oakland
Oakland, CA
Nicholas Cunningham, MD, DrPH
Columbia University
New York, NY
Michael D. DeBellis, M.D
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Pittsburgh, PA
Chris Derauf, M.D.
Kapi'olani Child Protection Center
Honolulu, HA
John de Triquet, MD
Children's Hospital
Norfolk, VA
Benard P. Dreyer, M.D.
NYU School of Medicine
New York, NY
Howard Dubowitz, M.D.
University of Maryland
Baltimore, MD
Kenneth W. Feldman, M.D.
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
Martin A. Finkel, D.O.
Univ. Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
Camden, NJ
Emalee G. Flaherty, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital
Chicago, IL
Lori Frasier, M.D.
University of Missouri Hospitals & Clinics
Columbia, MO
Lorraine Gari, MD
Wolfson Children's Hospital
Jacksonville, FL
Jill Glick, M.D.
University of Chicago Children's Hospital
Chicago, IL
Penny Grant, MD
Broward County Child Protection team
Fort Lauderdale Florida
Gilles Fortin MD
Chief of Clinique de Pediatrie Socio-Juridique
Hopital Sainte-Justine
Montreal, Qubec, Canada
Scott Halpert, M.D.
Lane County Child Advocacy Center
Eugene, OR
Ralph A. Hicks, M.D.
The Children's Medical Center
Dayton, Ohio
Dirk Huyer, MD
Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
Carol Jenny, M.D.
Hasbro Children's Hospital
Providence, RI
Mark Joffe, MD
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA
Steven W. Kairys, MD,MPH
Dartmouth Medical School
Lebanon, NH
Karen M. Kaplan, MD
Penn State Geisenger Health System
Hershey, PA
Marilyn Kaufhold, M.D.
Children's Hospital-San Diego
San Deige, CA
Kathi J. Kemper, MD,MPH
Swedish Family Medicine
Seattle, WA
Robert H. Kirschner, M.D.
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
Elliot J. Krane, M.D.
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Henry Krous, MD
Children's Hospital-San Diego
San Diego, CA
Michelle Lorand, M.D.
Cook County Hospital
Chicago, IL
John McCann, M.D.
University of California, Davis Medical Center
Sacramento, CA
Marcellina Mian, M.D.
Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
Kieran Moran, MD
Sydney Children's Hospital
Sydney, Australia
Lucy M. Osborn, MD,MSPH
University of Utah Health Sciences Center
Salt Lake City, UT
Vincent Palusci, MD
DeVos Children's Hospital
Grand Rapids, MI
Robert M. Reece, M.D.
Institute for Professional Education, MSPCC
Boston, MA
Lawrence R. Ricci, M.D.
The Spurwink Child Abuse Program
Portland, ME
Mary Ann Radkowski, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital
Chicago, IL
Mary E. Rimsza, M.D.
Maricopa Medical Center
Phoenix, AZ
Des Runyan, MD,DrPH
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Michael Ryan, M.D.
The New Children's Hospital
Sydney, Australia
Matthew D. Sadof, M.D.
General Pediatrician
Temple University Health System
Philadelphia, PA
Charles Schubert, MD
Children's Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati Ohio
Robert Sege, MD,PhD
The Floating Hospital
Boston, MA
Robert A. Shapiro, M.D.
Children's Hospital Medical Center
Cincinnati, OH
Benjamin Siegel, MD
Boston Medical Center
Boston, MA
Andrew Sirotnak, MD
Denver, Colorado
Wilbur Smith, MD
University of Iowa
Rebecca Socolar, M.D.
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Demetra Soter, M.D.
Cook County Hospital
Chicago, IL
Suzanne P. Starling, MD
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, TN
Carol Stashwick, MD,PhD
Children's Hospital at Dartmouth
Lebanon, NH
R. Daryl Steiner, D.O.
Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron
Akron, Ohio
John Stirling, MD
Clark County Child Abuse Intervention Center
Vancouver, WA
Naomi Sugar, MD
University of Washington
Thomas Truman, M.D.
Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center
Tallahassee, FL
David Turkewitz, M.D.
York Hospital
York, PA
Claudia Wang, M.D.
UCLA Children's Hospital
Los Angeles, CA
J.M. Whitworth, M.D.
Children's Crisis Center
Jacksonville, FL
Joseph A. Zenel, Jr., MD
Doernbecher Children's Hospital
Portland, Oregon
/unquote/
WOW!!!! Is that a list? Or is that A LIST??
Now, JPB has attempted to discredit this letter using a four-prong
approach --
1) He claims it was an effort in blackmail and distortion on the part
of Reece, Ricci, Kirschner... and probably the World Health
Organization, the Russian Mafia, Doctors Without Borders and
perhaps that guy with the gun behind the grassy knoll.
2) He claims the doctors in question were not 50 as first reported..
but ONLY 47, thus presuming the entire letter is invalidated. Oh,
yeah... that would do it... ONLY 47. Of course, a jury only needs
12.
3) He claims all the doctors signed the document, but never
actually READ it, presuming perhaps it was a petition for higher
medical fees. Or he blames it on the lack of proper reading skills
necessary to attend medical school.
4) He claims some non-entity called Ainsley...reporting live from
Ithon on the Wye river, on an obscure bulletin board site, just
a bit right from those which discuss _alien invaders_ can dispute
ALL those doctors. All by himself.
CHAPTER V: THE CORRUPT DEFENSE ATTORNEY
One of the original defense attorneys for the 'Great White Whale,'
was a person named Elaine Whitfield Sharp. Dear Mrs. Sharp,
apparently feeling guilty about defending a person she knew
was guilty, got drunk one night, and when pulled over by the
Police, admitted that she had been driven to drink because
she knew Woodward was guilty. Of course Woodward sacked
her the following day, although the 'Great White Whale' had
been staying with Sharp, and had been close. With Sharp having
been one of her staunchest supporters. See --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/104557.stm
and
http://www.s-t.com/daily/06-98/06-02-98/a05sr026.htm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/343366.stm
Quoting Sharp "I just want people to understand that I did not charge
her a penny for staying with me and that I did not lie."
And see --
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/louise_woodward.html
Quoting -- "The ex-Louise Woodward lawyer, Elaine Whitfield-Sharp,
recently caught for drink driving made remarkable claims in a
taped telephone call regarding her client. Excerpts from the taped
call were published in UK newspapers.
In a staggering breach of client confidentiality she branded the au pair
as a "duplicitous, lying monster" from a "very, low class family" who
lied over plans to sell her story.
She also said that the she now believes the au pair killed baby
Matthew Eappen."
Of course, after I reported this, and remarked that I saw her as corrupt,
JPB attempted to distort that, by presuming that I was claiming HE had
called her _corrupt_. When it's rather obvious that it doesn't take his
view, or the intelligence of a rocket scientist, to find her corrupt. It only
takes a reading of her actions.
CHAPTER VI: THE IMAGINARY RE-BLEED AND _EVIDENCE IN
THE HYPOTHETICAL
It is ironic, that in spite of all the arguments mounted by the defense, not
ONE case....not even one, can be found of a baby who died as the defense
argued 8-month-old Matthew Eappen did: from an old, undetected skull
fracture and hemorrhage that re-bled weeks later, sending the child into a
fatal coma. In fact, some members of the defense team of the _Great
White Whale_ said (??) they had seen or heard of it. But could not
NAME one specific case. While, an inquiry sent by The Associated Press
through ProfNet, an Internet query service that reaches about 300 hospitals
and 760 colleges and universities around the country, yielded NO examples.
In fact, the entire argument of a re-bled is the most disgusting defense
imaginable, since it's a 'Plan B' defense... blame SOMEONE ELSE. It's a
defense strategy of TRY ANYTHING, no matter how disgraceful it is.
Since it intends to ACCUSE the Eappens of ACTUALLY causing the
brain damage that killed Matthew. Not that I believe it should not be done...
simply that I believe it would be absurd not to see through it. The defense,
must of course, try ANYTHING, including sending doctors dressed in clown
outfits to testify, if they believe it can help their client.
In every instance of JPB's argument, he has only tried to turn fact into
farce. Because the ONLY foundation for his argument depend totally
on presuming that EVERYONE in the prosecution and judgment of
her guilt was corrupt. Yet -
1) not one juror voted for acquittal of the _Great White Whale_
for the crime of MURDER.
2) Judge Zobel NEVER suggested she was innocent of manslaughter,
and found her guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
3) All Supreme Court Justices agreed that she was guilty of the crime
of manslaughter.
4) She was convicted of the crime of manslaughter.
JPB has always promised 'evidence' but instead has always provided
it in the hypothetical... never REAL evidence. Only accusations of
corruption against everyone in the prosecutorial process. In TRUTH,
every person in the ENTIRE justice process was convinced of her guilt.
The trial and appeal process came to the CORRECT conclusion.
She was guilty, but there was no malice, only incredible criminal
stupidity. The jury found her guilty of a greater crime... each one of them.
Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The appeal court
TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was guilty. With four ruling in
favor of Zobel's reduction of the verdict, and the other three dissenting in
favor of sending it to another judge for resentencing. Not even ONE,
believed she was in any way 'innocent' (sic). These are what are called
'FACTS,' and constitute 'EVIDENCE' which provide 'PROOF.' Not
some fatuous hypothetical presumption of corruption in the process.
IMHO, the courts in every instance bent over backwards, and
provided the most limited penalty possible. And, IMHO, the
best interests of the general population was served by getting
rid of her as quickly as possible, since in an American prison
she would have become a cause célèbre. While now she is
the problem of the U.K. I wish both her and the U.K. well,
but I certainly wish she never returns, and I'm rather certain
she never will.
In sum... the record stands at 12 jurors, 1 judge, 7 Supreme Court
justices, and 47 independent doctors ALL believing the _Great White
Whale_ is a _baby basher_. Not even considering the prosecution
or prosecution witnesses. While of course, there was a defense
attorney that I consider corrupt.
In sum... JPB says Zobel knows she didn't do it, but still convicted her.
Of course... JPB says that doesn't make him a crook
In sum... JPB says 12 jurors know she didn't do it, but still convicted her.
Of course... JPB says that doesn't make any of them crooks.
In sum... JPB says that the State of Massachusetts is riddled with corruption.
Apparently they are 'riddled with corruption' but none of them are crooks.
In sum... JPB contends a prosecution team was engaged in a conspiracy.
Any 'crooks' there?
In sum... JPB contends they were assisted in this conspiracy by doctors
for the prosecution.
Any 'crooks' there?
And the media was 'in on it.'
Any 'crooks' there?
And although every member of the appeal court upheld that
conviction, perhaps he also believes THEY know she didn't do it.
Any 'crooks' there?
CHAPTER VII: CONCLUSIONS
JPB's _evidence should not convince anyone, that the 'Great White
Whale' was anything but guilty. I believe that anyone who would be
swayed by an argument so riddled with innuendo, and hypothetical
distortions in the face of evidence to the contrary, must have another
reason for accepting JPB's _argument_ other than an ACTUAL belief
in the _innocence_ of the _Great White Whale_. Again.. in every instance
in his dialog here, he has only tried to turn fact into farce. His argument
is at its core... flawed.... because it depends totally on presuming that
EVERYONE in the prosecution and judgment of her guilt was corrupt.
Yet, not one juror voted for her acquittal to a higher crime. Not one
judge suggested she was innocent of all crime. He has promised 'evidence'
and instead ended only with insipid accusations against everyone in the
process.
Finally, you will notice, gentle reader, that JPB never addresses WHY
so many people could have 'got it wrong,' without calling them
crooks, liars, perjurers, or part of a vast conspiracy.
CHAPTER VIII: POSTSCRIPT --
The example of JPB's defense of the _Great White Whale_ causes a
great well of pity to form for him. Falling in love with 'Bambi, the Playboy
centerfold husband murderer,' is one thing... but _THE GREAT WHITE
WHALE_!!!! I believe I would prefer to have a pathological foot fetish,
than be the obsessive _chubby chaser_ that JPB has proved himself to
be. And in his pathetic whining for me to 'come and play with him' about
rewriting evidence, to change it to the hypothetical, he is no worse than a
whore, standing on a street corner, who would say ==> come on, honey...
spend some time with me. Let's me show you just how disgusting I can
be. <==
CHAPTER IX: INDEX --
Anyone wishing the TRUTH can find the transcript of the trial at
url:http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
The ruling of Judge Zobel can be found at
url:http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.ruling/
The prosecution appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
The defense appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
url:http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
The ruling of the Supreme Court at
url:http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
JPB's hysterical claims of 'corruption' can also be found strewn
about a number of newsgroups that he haunts... looking for the
buzzword -- Woodward -- at which point he begins his 'love
affair' with the "great white whale.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
>Boris Dynin <bo...@movil.com> wrote in message news:<h5jpkv4b2vvi8eg7r...@4ax.com>...
>> One less piece of garbage to be supported by taxpayers.
>> The only good faggot and child molester is a dead one, then the
>> fertiliser gets recycled!!
>>
>>
>> On 26 Aug 2003 07:14:10 -0700, sus...@attbi.com (Suzanne) wrote:
>>
>> >This has been in the news lately, and I fully expected this to be
>> >discussed in here by now, as much as it relates to the DP issue.
>> >
>> >Most of you are probably aware that last Saturday, Aug. 23, John
>> >Geoghan was strangled and beaten to death in his cell. Geoghan was
>> >the priest in the Boston archdiocese who is said to have molested over
>> >150 children during his priesthood. Rather than stopping him or
>> >reporting him to authorities, the Catholic Church protected Geoghan by
>> >shunting him around from one parish to another. This came to an end
>> >when he was sentenced to a 9 to 10 year term.
>
>
>I find it apalling that the guards who were supposed to be protecting
>Father Geoghan blindly stood by while it was planned a month before it
>actually happened. If that is true heads should roll and roll fast
>because he wasn't sentenced to death. Who gave John Druce the right to
>be Father Geoghan's judge jury and executioner? I don't like what
>Father Geoghan did but he didn't deserve to be killed because of one
>man's hatred. That is very sad.
You are right... NO ONE DESERVES TO BE MURDERED. But almost
certainly it appears that John Druce would deserve lawful execution. He was
already a murderer, serving a 'life sentence.' How many 'chances' should
he be provided? Of course the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
determined in their 'wisdom' that he will ALWAYS be provided some
opportunity to murder again, regardless of how slight one might posit.
Unless he has absolutely no physical contact with ANY OTHER HUMAN
BEING, for his entire life. Perhaps you would support 'leg and neck irons
for him,' and being fed through a slot in his solitary cell for his entire life? My
question is -- at what point does incapacitation other than execution become
torture, if we expect to positively prevent a murderer from ever murdering
again?
And there might be more 'method to his madness' than as first seen, since
there is some suspicion that it might have been because John Druce wished
to be transferred to a Federal prison, under a federal 'hate crime'
conviction. See --
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=60218&Sn=WORL
Of course... I understand fully that the article is all 'supposition.'
<rest clipped>
PV
Peter Morris
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:khbqkvsfvgedplmf6...@4ax.com...
How about quoting some facts, instead of spewing out this
pile of hateful drivel.
Just passing by
He can't because he doesn't know anything about the case. He hasn't
actually read any of that stuff he copied & pasted there; he never
does, as I have proved on numerous occasions when I have caught him
out. For example, he once described as "the most disgusting defense
imaginable" a line of reasoning that he had, for months, been claiming
to agree with. The problem was that he had never bothered to actually
read what he was claiming to agree with, so he didn't know what it
was. And that is PV all over - he copies & pastes stuff without
bothering to read it all the time. He thinks that makes his posts look
well researched.
Just passing by
>
> Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off .. Still at it, eh... JPB? The
> 'Great White Whale' was as guilty as sin.. Guilty of the crime for
> which she was convicted... and she actually 'got off' at sentencing
> rather easily, simply because the same 'media' you accused -- had
> manipulated the judicial system to such a point, that international
> politics took over from justice... and she was 'allowed' to flee to
> England. Here's the FULL Story --
< spam clipped >
Another pasted spam job from PV. You have never managed anything
remotely original about that case have you, PV? Every time you have
been cornered you have done one of three things.
1. Paste your same old word-for-word spam.
2. Run away completely acting as if there had never been any debate in
which you were comprehensively hammered daily.
3. Respond to questions you cannot answer with your famous cuckoo
song.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=rC7o9.56678%24g73.1937553%40twister.tampabay.rr.com&rnum=1
That effort, which was the best you could offer in response to
numerous serious points, has come back to haunt you so many times,
hasn't it? Are you proud of it? Perhaps you should be because, sad as
it shows you to be, it is the only original thing you ever posted
during our one sided (i.e MY side) debates.
Again and again you ran away from every challenge to answer question
after question, with that same old response of: "I don't have to."
Again and again, when questioned about the detail in those numerous
copy & paste jobs (such as the SJC ruling you used to post several
times every week) you revealed that you had not even bothered to read
them before posting them. Of all the people I have ever discussed that
case with, you have been by far the easiest to wipe the floor with.
But I can't claim all the credit for that. You are the pathetic and
totally ineffective clown whose posts are now largely ignored by most
others, because Desmond has made you that way. For more than three
years he has regularly battered you into the ground with his vastly
superior wit & intelligence, reducing you to the usenet equivalent of
a punch-drunk boxer. Do you really think anyone is reading these
repetitive copy & paste jobs you are STILL posting in your hopeless
attempts to persuade people of your ludicrous views about "The
Nameless One"?
I have told you before that, as the evidence shows, you have, in the
past, made him more popular in this group than he would have been
without your efforts. "The Famous One" would be a more apt name,
thanks to you. He only has to go a few days without posting here and
friend & foe alike are posting messages asking where he is.
But these days you have neither positive nor negative effect because
nobody pays any attention to you. You sad, punch-drunk fool.
Just passing by
>
> It seems to me that Woodward's dramatic reaction to the guilty verdict being
> returned probably helped sway Slattery's vote.
Quite possibly.
> He cited the conviction on
> second degree murder in this case as being a miscarriage of justice and thus
> a sign that the system shouldn't have the power to sentence defendants to
> death. However, Woodward's predicament only came about because she
> willingly asked (through her counsel) the jury not to consider her guilt on
> a manslaughter charge, but rather decide between 2nd degree murder and
> exonerating her.
That was because she was advised - correctly in my view - that the
jury, unconvinced by the prosecution's evidence, might seize the
manslaughter option, not because that evidence supported it any more
than it supported 2nd or even 1st (the original charge) degree murder,
but as a compromise. The post trial comments of one juror (Stephen
Colwell) of "We didn't want to let down the Commonwealth" vindicate
that view, IMO.
> I am troubled by the case -- namely due to her counsel's
> power to manipulate the jury options between two extremes.
They were defending her against what she was charged with and the
prosecution chose what that was.
> It would have
> been sufficient to convict her of manslaughter ....
Not on the strength of the evidence, it wouldn't, in spite of Zobel's
rationale for his damage limitation exercise. The evidence no more
supports manslaughter than it supports 1st degree murder. Those
injuries - all of them, not just the wrist fracture - have been
incontrovertibly dated as weeks old on the day Matthew was rushed to
hospital.
A Planet Visitor
All of them are facts. and accurate quotes. And the hateful drivel
is clearly that spewed out by JPB in the quite EXACT quotes I have
provided. No better example of hateful drivel toward those who
happened to convict his beloved, could be demonstrated. Why
don't you comment on THAT hateful drivel? Look at it again...
All 22 totally accurate and exact quotes from JPB... all of them
dripping with hateful venom toward everyone in the prosecution
and the Massachusetts Judicial system.
Sometimes, when someone such as JPB lies OVER AND OVER, it
takes an extensive effort to catalog even a small number of those lies
and distortions. I did the best I could... but it could have obviously
been 10 times longer, had I actually decided to remark on ALL his lies
and distortions. JPB's 'defense' of the 'Great White Whale' rests
ENTIRELY on two absurd premises... neither of them containing
a single FACT which would find the 'GWW' anything but guilty.
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
foundation in fact, other the ravings of that lunatic, JPB. And
represents HIS "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
his entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
it is true. Just as he began again "spewing out this pile of
hateful drivel" in this particular thread, with his words -- "But
it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County
DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical
evidence and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie
about what the defendant had said to them." See any FACTS
in that absurd and disgusting "pile of hateful drivel"? The FACTS
are EVERY juror voted for conviction... the Trial Judge
confirmed conviction for a lesser crime. EVERY Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that conviction.
EVERYONE in the prosecution found the 'GWW' GUILTY.
Jesus... Peter... Even one of the DEFENSE team members blurted
out that she was GUILTY, and then 'took it back.' JPB's
'argument' (sic) MUST claim they are ALL corrupt, or his 'argument'
(sic) has no substance whatsoever. Representing nothing more
than accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone else' plan (called
the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'GWW').
Her defense lawyers realized that ONLY the 'GWW' was present
during the time of Matthew's end-problem, so they needed to find
SOMEONE to blame it on. The ONLY ones who could possibly
be blamed, were the parents. The defense would have blamed
the police or the emergency medical techs or the attending doctors,
or the Donald Duck cartoon playing on the TV at the time, if they
had believed it could get the 'GWW' off the hook. And why
not? Weren't the Eappens 'uncaring'? Didn't the fact that they even
hired the 'GWW,' who fully demonstrated that she was 'uncaring,'
simply prove THEY were 'uncaring.' I mean, if they were 'caring'
they CERTAINLY would not have picked a recognized twit such
as the 'GWW' to take care of Matthew. The 'GWW' even admitted
on the stand that she was not equipped emotionally to handle that
child, and Middlesex County District Attorney Gerard Leone Jr.
nailed her to the witness chair about her late hours and other behavior
that prompted Matthew's parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen , to
give her an ultimatum to shape up. Woodward said on the stand
that Sunil Eappen returned one day to find Matthew and his 2
1/2-year-old brother unattended while she did the laundry. "He
was a bit unhappy, yeah," the 'Great White Whale' recalled. Leone's
cross-examination also revealed a young woman who chatted on
the phone, went out with her friends and lied about her age to get
into bars.
So, operating from the premise that the parents were 'uncaring' for
even having 'hired' the uncaring 'GWW,', her 'defense' naturally
hammered on and on about the fact that both parents worked, and
thus seemed 'uninterested' in Matthew. They then moved on to the
emotional, but necessary to their 'defense,' element of trying to
demonstrate that such 'uncaring' was responsible for something that
had never actually been reported before, since the Eappens were
not there when it happened, Only the 'GWW' was THERE. This
is the infamous 're-bleed defense.' The absurd idea that Matthew
had ALREADY been 'dropped' before, and the 'GWW' had
simply 'inherited' a child who was a 'time-bomb,' who was
going to 'bleed out' if she simply fed the baby. Her defense found
some 'hired-gun' doctors who would testify that it was 'possible,'
but they could produce no actual case (of course, it's 'possible' that
the sun will come up in the West tomorrow, but if it does, we will
not be alive to see it). And they found some other 'hired-gun'
doctors who would testify that they had 'heard' of it, but still no
specific case. How strange. Of course, it's strange to build a
case on 'non-evidence,' and a plan-B defense of accusing someone
who was not there at the time the baby was harmed. Gee.. sound
familiar? Look at 1) again.... 2) also represents nothing more than
accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
was nothing more than a _defense strategy_, in the exact wording --
"Many in the media and the public have failed to credit the jury in this
case with having had the intelligence to understand that the prosecution
put forward well established medical evidence that overwhelmingly
supported a violent shaking/impact episode on the day in question,
when Matthew was in the sole custody of Ms. Woodward. The
hypothesis put forward by the defense that minor trauma caused
a "re-bleed" of an earlier head injury can best be characterized as
inaccurate, contrary to vast clinical experience and unsupported by
any published literature. The "re-bleed" theory in infants is a
courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it."
And in a survey of 300 hospitals and 760 Universities, all of them
reported not a single case similar to that offered by the defense.
It's nice to have a 'defense' that is unique to the entire medical profession,
since not a single case of a similar 're-bleed' argument can be
demonstrated. It's all a hear-say argument, offered by 'expert' witnesses
paid a great deal to testify for the defense. In the case of Dr. Baden...
300 dollars an hour to testify. Gee.. do you think he'd actually say
something to incriminate the 'GWW' after getting paid 300 dollars an
hour to claim an imaginary 're-bleed' defense? Well, let's listen... when it
was asked by the prosecution of him -- "And sometime in July, you
told defense counsel, did you not, that you have an opinion that the
injury that Matthew Eappen suffered that caused his death occurred
sometime between forty-eight and twelve hours of his admission to
the emergency room at Children's Hospital, didn't you?" The good
doctor rather stammered and said -- "I'm sorry, say that again?" And
when this was asked again -- "Didn't you tell defense counsel sometime
prior to July 21st that you had an opinion to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty that the injuries that caused Matthew Eappen's death
were caused sometime in the framework between twelve and forty-eight
hours before the child presented to the emergency room, is that true,
Doctor?" The good doctor (recognizing who was paying his fee)
replied -- "I'm not sure I said it that way..." Sure, doc... we know
what you mean -- the check is in the mail. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11240_a.html
But then we also have the esteemed Dr. Leestma... who was paid
350 dollars per hour for off-bench research, and 450 dollars an hour
when testifying. Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya,
who remarked when asked about 'authoritative things,' replied "The
authoritative things I consider like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm
sure the answer to 'who dropped Matthew Eappen' can be found
there. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
Why don't you ask JPB to provide some 'facts,' that do not involve 1)
Everyone was out to 'persecute' the 'Great White Whale,' and they
are all corrupt or crooks, or 2) The Eappens were 'uncaring' as
demonstrated by the fact that they even hired the 'Great White Whale,'
and they (which one undetermined) had actually dropped Matthew
sometime between 1 year ago and 1 day ago (the defense realizes its
always best to leave quite a bit of latitude to argue - especially as the
Eappens were not there when Matthew WAS dropped -- by the
'Great White Whale').
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<khbqkvsfvgedplmf6...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off .. Still at it, eh... JPB? The
>> 'Great White Whale' was as guilty as sin.. Guilty of the crime for
>> which she was convicted... and she actually 'got off' at sentencing
>> rather easily, simply because the same 'media' you accused -- had
>> manipulated the judicial system to such a point, that international
>> politics took over from justice... and she was 'allowed' to flee to
>> England. Here's the FULL Story --
>
>
You're a very sick man, JPB... the 'cure' didn't take. You still are in
love with fat, flabby, pasty white baby killers.
>< spam clipped >
>
>Another pasted spam job from PV.
Not a bit of spam, sport. Almost all YOUR words, at one time or
another. 22 direct quotes demonstrating you lied...lie... and
continue to lie. Just as you did when you came back again... and
immediately began accusing everyone around the conviction of
the 'Great White Whale' to be a corrupt. The only corrupt person
here.. is YOU, sport. Perverting the truth... calling everyone, from
the entire Commonwealth of Massechusetts to be riddled with
corruption, to four officers, to everyone in the prosecutorial process,
to even the judge... corrupt. What else could a judge be but corrupt
in your view... if you claim he KNEW the 'Great White Whale' was
innocent, had the power to find his 'not guilty' and did not exercise
that power?
You mean that you proved yourself to be a racist lover, by defending
him, a proven racist, and characterizing ME as a racist for calling him
a racist? I am still waiting for the answer to a great number of questions,
JPB. You sick son-of-a-bitch.
>I have told you before that, as the evidence shows, you have, in the
>past, made him more popular in this group than he would have been
>without your efforts. "The Famous One" would be a more apt name,
>thanks to you. He only has to go a few days without posting here and
>friend & foe alike are posting messages asking where he is.
>
>But these days you have neither positive nor negative effect because
>nobody pays any attention to you. You sad, punch-drunk fool.
It seems that a great number are 'paying attention to me.' Since almost
every post is directed to me lately. But let's run through it again... since
all you've done here is provide insults, and not a single reference to
my total destruction of your love for the 'Great White Whale.' No
comment at all regarding the 22 DIRECT and EXACT quotes I've
provided of your previous comments. So -- Once again --
The only thing you've 'proved' is that you're obsessive, sport. Since you're
the one who again went into your rant that everyone who convicted the
'Great White Whale' was a crook. Once again... the short version.
Your entire horseshit affection for the 'Great White Whale' rests on only
two possible defenses -- 1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was
corrupt, or a crook. 2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone
else' plan (called the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'GWW').
Sometimes, when someone such as you lies OVER AND OVER, it
takes an extensive effort to catalog even a small number of those lies
and distortions. I did the best I could... but it could have obviously
been 10 times longer, had I actually decided to remark on ALL your lies
and distortions. Your 'defense' of the 'Great White Whale' rests
ENTIRELY on two absurd premises... neither of them containing
a single FACT which would find the 'GWW' anything but guilty.
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
Obviously that is a irrational conclusion, having absolutely no
foundation in fact, other your lunatic ravings. And
represents YOUR "spewing out this pile of hateful drivel." Yet
your entire body of comments regarding the 'GWW' insist that
it is true. Just as you began again "spewing out this pile of
hateful drivel" in this particular thread, with your words -- "But
it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County
DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical
evidence and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie
about what the defendant had said to them." See any FACTS
in that absurd and disgusting "pile of hateful drivel"? The FACTS
are EVERY juror voted for conviction... the Trial Judge
confirmed conviction for a lesser crime. EVERY Justice of the
Massachusetts Supreme Court confirmed that conviction.
EVERYONE in the prosecution found the 'GWW' GUILTY.
Even one of the DEFENSE team members blurted out that she
was GUILTY, and then 'took it back.' Your 'argument' (sic)
MUST claim they are ALL corrupt, or your 'argument'
(sic) has no substance whatsoever. Representing nothing more
than accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be
mounted. Defense 1) -- Thrown out as nonsense.
not there when it happened. Only the 'GWW' was THERE. This
is the infamous 're-bleed defense.' The absurd idea that Matthew
had ALREADY been 'dropped' before, and the 'GWW' had
simply 'inherited' a child who was a 'time-bomb,' who was
going to 'bleed out' if she simply fed the baby. Her defense found
some 'hired-gun' doctors who would testify that it was 'possible,'
but they could produce no actual case (of course, it's 'possible' that
the sun will come up in the West tomorrow, but if it does, we will
not be alive to see it). And they found some other 'hired-gun'
doctors who would testify that they had 'heard' of it, but still no
specific case. How strange. Of course, it's strange to build a
case on 'non-evidence,' and a plan-B defense of accusing someone
who was not there at the time the baby was harmed. Gee.. sound
familiar? Look at 1) again.... 2) also represents nothing more than
accusing others, because a factual defense cannot be mounted.
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
was nothing more than a _defense strategy_, in the exact wording --
"Many in the media and the public have failed to credit the jury in this
case with having had the intelligence to understand that the prosecution
put forward well established medical evidence that overwhelmingly
supported a violent shaking/impact episode on the day in question,
when Matthew was in the sole custody of Ms. Woodward. The
hypothesis put forward by the defense that minor trauma caused
a "re-bleed" of an earlier head injury can best be characterized as
inaccurate, contrary to vast clinical experience and unsupported by
any published literature. The "re-bleed" theory in infants is a
courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it."
And in a survey of 300 hospitals and 760 Universities, all of them
Defense 2) -- Thrown out as unbelievable nonsense.
Why don't you provide some 'facts,' that do not involve 1)
Everyone was out to 'persecute' the 'Great White Whale,' and they
are all corrupt or crooks, or 2) The Eappens were 'uncaring' as
demonstrated by the fact that they even hired the 'Great White Whale,'
and they (which one undetermined) had actually dropped Matthew
sometime between 1 year ago and 1 day ago (the defense realizes its
always best to leave quite a bit of latitude to argue - especially as the
Eappens were not there when Matthew WAS dropped -- by the
'Great White Whale')?
A Planet Visitor
LOL... If I've 'copied and pasted' the stuff, then it demonstrates it
has some application, and it always demonstrates you have not one
reasonable response. Shit, JPB... the 'Great White Whale' had
a DEFENSE ATTORNEY who even thought she was 'guilty,'
and then needed to 'retract her words.' Christ... she couldn't
even gather a consensus of 'not guilty' among all of her defense
team.
And you ARE.. up to your old tricks -- as shown by your words --
"But it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and just
watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex County DA,
Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory medical evidence
and arranged for four corrupt police officers to lie about what the
defendant had said to them. He knew what was going on but he
stayed silent and did nothing." Still blaming everyone but the
murderer. It was all a big 'frame-up' is YOUR DEFENSE. You
ignorant shit. How easy it is to just claim everyone was a crook...
without providing even one piece of substantiating evidence other
than your raving.
> he never
>does, as I have proved on numerous occasions when I have caught him
>out. For example, he once described as "the most disgusting defense
>imaginable" a line of reasoning that he had, for months, been claiming
>to agree with. The problem was that he had never bothered to actually
>read what he was claiming to agree with, so he didn't know what it
>was. And that is PV all over - he copies & pastes stuff without
>bothering to read it all the time. He thinks that makes his posts look
>well researched.
They are most certainly well researched. In fact, I've spent some time
reading the trial testimony... finding out that one 'defense doctor' could
not remember what he had said to defense counsel, and the other
stating that his authoritative 'resources' were the Bible and the Koran.
Quite clearly when a 'defense' rests on calling everyone else a crook,
or inventing and depending upon an imaginary, and never before witnessed
event called a 're-bleed,' one can only state that it IS "the most disgusting
defense imaginable" What would you call it?
PV
A Planet Visitor
ROTFLMAO.
Any rational person wishing to view all the EVIDENCE, and not JPB's
hysterial raving -- See
the complete transcript of the trial at
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
The ruling of Judge Zobel can be found at
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.ruling/
The prosecution appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
The defense appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
The ruling of the Supreme Court at
Just passing by
>
> Why don't you ask JPB to provide some 'facts,'....
You mean like those seven facts that you ran away from day after day?
Not once have you ever even attempted to counter them and it is no
surprise that you have again ignored them in your lies about what my
arguments consist of. Here they are again for you to run away from
again.
1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
underway for at least one week.
2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
Dr. DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
that this lipping was indeed present.
3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr.
DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
explained by the injury being an old one.
4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
no scratches.
5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
than 2 weeks.
7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
weeks old.
Just passing by
> Quite clearly when a 'defense' rests on calling everyone else a crook,
> or inventing and depending upon an imaginary, and never before witnessed
> event called a 're-bleed,' one can only state that it IS "the most disgusting
> defense imaginable" What would you call it?
I would call it the defence you spent months claiming to agree with
until you slipped up and revealed that you hadn't even read it, in
spite of copy & pasting it numerous times. Then, when you called it
"the most disgusting defense imaginable" you provided me with yet
another example to prove how you copy & paste things or link to
websites without even reading them, to add to the others such as the
SJC ruling that you never read and that website that you linked to
claiming "There lies my argument" without even realising that it was a
pro LW site which was putting forward not your, but MY, argument.
Speaking of which ......
> ... an imaginary, and never before witnessed event called a 're-bleed,'...
So a re-bleed is imaginary and never before witnessed, is it? Oh dear,
this is sooooo wonderful! You didn't know, did you, that that very
website referred to above includes an explanation of re-bleeds in the
section dealing with sub-dural hematomas? Yes, PV, the very website
which you claimed was your argument. Here is what it says about
re-bleeds:
__________________________________
WHAT IS A RE-BLEED?
In the case of a chronic SDH there is some sort of head trauma which
causes bleeding between the brain and the dura. This bleeding stops
and doesn't cause immediate problems ( although the person will
probably have a bad headache ). This is the difference between this
and the other forms of SDH in which the bleeding is either so severe,
or doesn't stop, that immediate and severe problems are caused. Mostly
the body copes with a chronic SDH and heals, however, it's not a
totally stable situation, almost anything can, if the sufferer is
unlucky enough, cause bleeding to start again. It's rather like having
a cut in a very awkward position, such that the scab can be easily
knocked off, and fresh bleeding start. Should this scenario occur, it
can often be legally impossible to prove who inflicted the original
injury, or how it was sustained.
____________________________________
http://www.sbs-resource.org/info/basic_sub_durals.htm
Now let's just remind ourselves again of what you said about that
website:
"There lies MY argument." (A Planet Visitor, April 27, 2002)
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y%25Ay8.100493%24nc.15066127%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
You stupid, stupid man!
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<npgtkvgi28t07htqc...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Quite clearly when a 'defense' rests on calling everyone else a crook,
>> or inventing and depending upon an imaginary, and never before witnessed
>> event called a 're-bleed,' one can only state that it IS "the most disgusting
>> defense imaginable" What would you call it?
>
>I would call it the defence you spent months claiming to agree with
>until you slipped up and revealed that you hadn't even read it, in
>spite of copy & pasting it numerous times. Then, when you called it
>"the most disgusting defense imaginable" you provided me with yet
>another example to prove how you copy & paste things or link to
>websites without even reading them, to add to the others such as the
>SJC ruling that you never read and that website that you linked to
>claiming "There lies my argument" without even realising that it was a
>pro LW site which was putting forward not your, but MY, argument.
>Speaking of which ......
>
You could call it anything you wish... but it ends up as "the most disgusting
defense imaginable" .. no matter what YOU call it. A 'defense' which rests
on calling others 'criminals' for prosecuting a murderer... is sickening.
>> ... an imaginary, and never before witnessed event called a 're-bleed,'...
>
>So a re-bleed is imaginary and never before witnessed, is it? Oh dear,
>this is sooooo wonderful! You didn't know, did you, that that very
>website referred to above includes an explanation of re-bleeds in the
>section dealing with sub-dural hematomas? Yes, PV, the very website
>which you claimed was your argument. Here is what it says about
>re-bleeds:
>
>__________________________________
>
>WHAT IS A RE-BLEED?
>
Everyone knows what that is -- "The "re-bleed" theory in infants
is a courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it."
>In the case of a chronic SDH there is some sort of head trauma which
>causes bleeding between the brain and the dura. This bleeding stops
>and doesn't cause immediate problems ( although the person will
>probably have a bad headache ). This is the difference between this
>and the other forms of SDH in which the bleeding is either so severe,
>or doesn't stop, that immediate and severe problems are caused. Mostly
>the body copes with a chronic SDH and heals, however, it's not a
>totally stable situation, almost anything can, if the sufferer is
>unlucky enough, cause bleeding to start again. It's rather like having
>a cut in a very awkward position, such that the scab can be easily
>knocked off, and fresh bleeding start. Should this scenario occur, it
>can often be legally impossible to prove who inflicted the original
>injury, or how it was sustained.
>
>____________________________________
>
>http://www.sbs-resource.org/info/basic_sub_durals.htm
>
>Now let's just remind ourselves again of what you said about that
>website:
>
>"There lies MY argument." (A Planet Visitor, April 27, 2002)
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Y%25Ay8.100493%24nc.15066127%40typhoon.tampabay.rr.com
>
>You stupid, stupid man!
LOL... You have a NAME to assign to ANYONE who has died from
a 're-bleed'? See --
http://child.cornell.edu/sbsletter.html
Larry Ricci
11/16/97
To the Editor:
/unquote/
You stupid, stupid man!! Tell us again, how Judge Zobel could not have
set aside the verdict of guilty of the 'Great White Whale.' Better still... tell
it to your 'Messiah.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<1srskv44hvou695h6...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Why don't you ask JPB to provide some 'facts,'....
>
>You mean like those seven facts that you ran away from day after day?
Those are not 'facts,' sport. Those are your ravings. These are FACTS --
Turning to your pathetic attempts to argue the 're-bleed' lie. I remind
you that this is simply what I have already addressed. One of the only
two 'arguments' (sic), both lies.. that you have to offer. Every point
you offer was simply presented by the defense in their appeal to the
Supreme Court, and all were rejected, by that court. In fact, the
offering of your simpleton 'proofs' was an admission by the defense
that they had 'not done a good job' at trial, and needed the Supreme
Court to 'retry the case,' rehashing what was presented at trial, while
claiming that the jury just didn't 'buy into it.' What you've done is
'clip and paste' from that defense appeal, and pretend that it represents
some FACTUAL PROOF, when it is all just argument that was
totally rejected by the court. This is lie #2 --
not there when it happened. Only the 'GWW' was THERE. This
is the infamous 're-bleed defense.' The absurd idea that Matthew
had ALREADY been 'dropped' before, and the 'GWW' had
simply 'inherited' a child who was a 'time-bomb,' who was
going to 'bleed out' if she simply fed the baby. Her defense found
some 'hired-gun' doctors who would testify that it was 'possible,'
but they could produce no actual case (of course, it's 'possible' that
the sun will come up in the West tomorrow, but if it does, we will
not be alive to see it). And they found some other 'hired-gun'
doctors who would testify that they had 'heard' of it, but still no
specific case. How strange. Of course, it's strange to build a
case on 'non-evidence,' and a plan-B defense of accusing someone
who was not there at the time the baby was harmed.
Of course there is a letter signed by 47 doctors asserting that a re-bleed
when testifying. Who seemed unconcerned with the fact that there
was no evidence of "retinal hemorrhaging." prior to Feb 4, 1996, the
day the 'GWW' harmed Matthew, who died 5 days later. Or this
exchange with the prosecutor, as the doctor spoke about the evidence
as he saw it --
Q Well, let me ask you the question again then, Doctor. Are you
telling the jury that of the four sections of dura that you took, you
believe to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that each
one of those is evidence from that section of his skull and dura,
that he suffered from an event three weeks before he died?
A I'd have to answer that no.
Well... well... well... See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
Or another 'star witness defense doctor,' Dr. Ommaya, testifying as
an 'authoritative expect medical witness,' who remarked when asked
about 'authoritative things,' replied "The authoritative things I consider
like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm sure the answer to 'who dropped
Matthew Eappen' can be found there. WHERE DID the defense
find these clowns? See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
>Not once have you ever even attempted to counter them and it is no
>surprise that you have again ignored them in your lies about what my
>arguments consist of. Here they are again for you to run away from
>again.
>
They have been countered OVER and OVER. From the very first
time I posted the RULINGS of the Massachusetts Supreme Court
which addressed EVERY ONE OF THEM. Where the Supreme
Court considered them all to be WORTHLESS. Especially
Dr. Leestma, whom they characterized as "His testimony on
cross-examination is not entirely clear, although one interpretation
could be that he did not know the precise location from which
he had taken the critical dura samples and that the bone material
he observed (excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact
of the autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture."
>1. Osteoblasts (identified from slides taken of the dura) were found
>at the fracture site. These do not appear until healing has been
>underway for at least one week.
From the Massachusetts Supreme Court RULING on that defense
'argument' (sic) in their appeal --
"Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of
and conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding
of periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding
"alone," she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks
old. (38) Woodward did not ask the judge to take judicial notice
of this "conclusive" scientific evidence. She did, however, argue
that the judge consider this issue as grounds for her postverdict
motion for a required finding of not guilty. Because the claim for
judicial notice was not seasonably raised below, we need not
reach it here. We decline, in any event, either on review of the
judge's denial of a required finding of not guilty, or based on
taking judicial notice ourselves of scientific evidence of the age
of Matthew's head injury, (39) to set aside Woodward's conviction.
She cites us no other similar case in which a lower court judge,
much less an appellate court, has so credited such evidence.
38. Because both prosecution and defense experts agreed that
the fatal subdural hematoma and the fractured skull were caused
by the same event, proof that the skull fracture was weeks old
is, Woodward argues, an "outcome-determinative issue."
39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
>
>2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
>has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
>Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
>was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
>prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
>that this lipping was indeed present.
This is rubbish. This was offered as a defense, claiming "The
Commonwealth destroyed Crucial Physical Evidence." Well, well,
well... the Old Plan B -- Now blame it on the Commonwealth.
And notice that Dr. Leestma... getting paid $350 an hour for
'research,' and $450 an hour for testifying would seem to be the
one who is engaged in 'fraud,' and 'greed.' However, the Supreme
Court wisely ruled in sum to all that rubbish --
"Woodward also claims relief from the loss of potentially exculpatory
evidence obtained during the autopsy. We focus on the "missing"
sections of dura. (31) When Dr. Jan Leestma, an expert for
Woodward, examined the dura, he discovered that sections of
the dura were missing. The judge held a pretrial hearing on this
issue. (32) Dr. DeGirolami, the Commonwealth's neuropathologist,
testified that he had not been informed by the medical examiner's
office or anyone else of the physical evidence preservation order.
Following this hearing, the judge made a finding that the tissue
had been lost, but that the loss was not an act committed in bad
faith in an attempt to suppress evidence. He ruled that the loss
did not justify dismissal of the case because it was not "so critical
to the defense as to make a criminal trial fundamentally unfair."
Commonwealth v. Henderson, 411 Mass. 309, 311 (1991),
quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 61 (Stevens, J.,
concurring). We find no error in the judge's ruling.
...............
"As for the third prong of the test -- the prejudice to the defendant
from the loss of evidence -- we are not persuaded that the degree
of prejudice is so great as to warrant dismissal of the indictment.
The jury heard an abundance of evidentiary detail on, and medical
opinion endorsing, Woodward's theory from Dr. Leestma, based
on his examination of sections of dura covering areas other than
that over the fatal hematoma. The jury also heard from Woodward's
other expert medical witnesses, relying on a significant amount of
other medical and autopsy data, who gave opinions endorsing
Woodward's theory of the cause of death. The lost right side
section of dura was an important piece of potentially exculpatory
evidence, but may well have been cumulative of other forensic
evidence marshaled by Woodward's experts. The loss of
evidence in this case was not so overwhelmingly prejudicial as in
other cases in which lost evidence was uniquely critical. See,
e.g., Commonwealth v. Henderson, supra at 311 .... [many other
case cites clipped].
Neither the Commonwealth's culpability nor the prejudice to the
defendant is as great here as in those cases.
We agree with the judge that the loss of the dura evidence did not
justify dismissal of the indictment against Woodward. [clipped].
In light of Woodward's request that we not remand for retrial, we
need not reach the question whether the judge's failure to exclude
testimony presented by the Commonwealth relevant to the missing
dura tissue would be ground for reversing the manslaughter conviction
and remanding for retrial. For similar reasons we conclude that the
medical examiner's negligence in failing to produce in a timely way
the two closer, more sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture
and the prejudice from their belated availability to Woodward were
not so great as to justify dismissing the indictment. In response to
the admittedly belated delivery of the photographs to Woodward, she
requested only that she be allowed to recall two of her experts, relief
that the judge granted in part. (36) Her expert testified that the
photographs provided important confirming evidence that the skull
fracture was weeks old. In his ruling on Woodward's posttrial
motion, the judge noted that this testimony was "the last word
on the photographs and the conclusions to be drawn from them,"
and correctly determined that Woodward had not been prejudiced
by the late disclosure."
>3. Periosteum (covering new bone) was clearly identified at the
>fracture site. This takes 10-14 days to begin to appear. Dr
>DeGirolami (a PROSECUTION witness) testified that this could only be
>explained by the injury being an old one.
>
Actually the word "periosteum" does not once appear in the defense
cross-examination of DeGirolami --
See http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
The only time the word appears is in the prosecution's questioning of
that witness. And he makes no such claim as you assert. He only says --
Quote --
------------------------------------
Q Thank you. Epidural space, "EDS," thank you, Doctor.
A Okay. Then there is the skull. And the skull is lined by a layer of cells
called the "periosteum." And the periosteum is firmly adhering to the
outer surface of the dura, so that if one needs to remove the dura, one
needs to separate, forcibly separate this connection between the skull
and the dura."
And a few moment later -- Quote --
Q Now, with regard to old injury, disease, or bleeds, whether or not that
has any significance in that area, given the location of it.
A Well, there are several interpretations that could be given to this
thickening. It could be that bits and pieces of periosteum became
dislodged and became attached to the dura, that's one possibility.
Q And given the fact that it's in the epidural, the area above the dura,
rather than below the dura, do you find that significant in your opinions
and findings regarding what happened to Matthew's brain?
A Well, it's not related to this other subdural, considerations as regards
subdural that was talked about.
Q The acute damage?
A Yes.
Q And how do you know that?
A Well, it's on the other side of the dura.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And from the Supreme Court dismissal of this defense rubbish -
"Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of and
conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding of
periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding "alone,"
she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks old. (38) Woodward
did not ask the judge to take judicial notice of this "conclusive" scientific
evidence. She did, however, argue that the judge consider this issue as
grounds for her postverdict motion for a required finding of not guilty.
Because the claim for judicial notice was not seasonably raised below,
we need not reach it here. We decline, in any event, either on review of
the judge's denial of a required finding of not guilty, or based on taking
judicial notice ourselves of scientific evidence of the age of Matthew's
head injury, (39) to set aside Woodward's conviction. She cites us no
other similar case in which a lower court judge, much less an appellate
court, has so credited such evidence.
(39) Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of Dr.
Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic images
of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination is not
entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he did not know
the precise location from which he had taken the critical dura samples
and that the bone material he observed (excluding "vital reaction") could
have been an artifact of the autopsy and therefore come from a location
other than from the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in
itself for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive weight
to Dr. Leestma's findings."
>4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
>against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
>storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
>not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
>no scratches.
>
Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
to Matthew. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals. You need
to understand that defense appeals do not constitute EVIDENCE
or FACTS... they simply consist appeal requests based on THEIR
VIEW. Once again, see the Supreme Court ruling on all of the
appeals presented by the defense.
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
>5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
>have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>
Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
from their ruling --
"As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
>6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
>fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
>fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
>shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
>than 2 weeks.
>
Once again... see above. All of this was examined and REJECTED.
All of it was that offered by that 'greedy doctor' (since you are so
fond of calling everyone in the prosecution a criminal), Dr. Leestma.
And in the cross-examination of Dr. Leestma, one finds some
rather disturbing evidence of a 'conspiracy' afoot, concerning
'retinal hemorrhages.' Sheck rather purposely (IMHO) did not
mention them. And Coakley brought that out, in this exchange --
Q Do you have an opinion as to the age or ages of the retinal hemorrhages
that appeared in Matthew Eappen?
A Yes.
Q And what is that opinion, Doctor?
A My opinion is that the earliest ones observed were proximate to the final
events in the case. I have no evidence that they occurred at a previous
time, that retinal events and pathology evolved in the course of the child
being on a respirator to produce a final picture of retinal hemorrhages and
pathology.
Q Well, let me ask the question this way, Doctor: Is it your belief that there
was more than one episode of retinal hemorrhaging?
A Yes.
Q And what is that based upon?
A It's based upon the natural history of retinal hemorrhages in an individual
that is alive in a sense for five days to allow processes to evolve.
Q Well, then let me be clearer. Is it your opinion that there were retinal
hemorrhages that preceded February 4th, 1996?
A I have no evidence of that.
Q And you can't say that there were any prior incidences of anything,
accident or trauma, that created a retinal hemorrhage in Matthew
Eappen prior to February 4th, isn't that correct?
A I see nothing that could tell me retinal hemorrhage occurred before
that time.
Q In fact, you know that one of the ways you can date hemorrhaging
is by doing something called an "iron stain," is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And you're aware, because you reviewed the records of the
Children's Hospital and Dr. Dryja in the neuropathology of the eyes,
that an iron stain was done that would preclude old retinal hemorrhaging,
isn't that also correct?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "old" as being vague.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "old" are being vague.
THE COURT: "Old," we'll, I guess you'll have to interpret what you
mean by "old."
Q Okay. Prior to February 4th, 1996.
A That's my understanding of the report.
Q So you would agree with me that the evidence that you've seen, and
based upon your experience in this field, is that there are no, prior to
February 4th, old retinal hemorrhages, isn't that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And so regardless of what your opinion is about everything else,
you agree that at least that particular incident of retinal hemorrhaging
occurred on or about February 4th, 1996?
A That's the beginning of the process, yes, I agree
------------------------------------------------------
It seems that Dr. Leetsma is rather adept at 'double-speak.' There 'were'
and yet... 'I have no evidence of that.' The reading of the cross-examination
of Dr. Leestma, is some very interesting reading. See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
Of course... he WAS getting 'paid' to testify.
>7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
>weeks old.
Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
Supreme Court ruled --
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
And, of course, the Supreme Court's opinion of Dr. Leestma --
"39. Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony of
Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the
critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the
autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself
for us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive
weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
So you see... The Supreme Court dealt with all of them. In fact... it
is HILARIOUS that one of the 'authoritative defense MEDICAL
experts' asserted that the documents he found 'authoritative' were
THE BIBLE and THE KORAN. See above for the link to the
rather 'funny words' of one supposedly providing 'authoritative
testimony.'
What is actually happening is that YOU are running away from a very
lengthy destruction of your entire 'argument' (sic). Simply by calling
it 'spam,' you actually think you have addressed the issues. You speak
of seven... I speak of HUNDREDS of your absurd and ridiculous ravings.
You never address ANY of those. Speak to the 'defense' you might have
to the simple 22 ACCURATE quotes of your ravings I've presented.
Speak to all the proof that there is NO ACTUAL CASE of a 're-bleed.'
Speak to the 47 Doctors, 300 Hospitals, and 760 Universities who
call such an argument -- a "courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis"
Speak to even a DEFENSE ATTORNEY who blurted out that the
'Great White Whale' was guilty, and then recognized that she faced
possible disbarment for an 'ethics violation,' and needed to retract her
words. See --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/104557.stm
Speak to your LIES, where you claim in respect to whether Judge
Zobel could have overturned the verdict and returned a verdict of
'not guilty.' Your words -- ""I stated it as a fact that he had no power
in this case to do that. It remains a fact..." While your 'Messiah'
managed to prove you are a liar... when he CHECKED with the
Massachusetts Bar Association and reported these words --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that Judge
Zobel could not have overturned the guilty verdict, and that the
only option open to him, was to reduce the verdict of second
degree murder, to a lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was,
in fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary)
quash it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from
the Massachusetts Bar Association, would appear to confirm
this view. Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm
that, _as far as I am able to ascertain_, PV is right." See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com
Apparently your 'Messiah' is actually a Judas... so where is your
admission of your LIE??
BTW -- Did I mention that even one of the 'Great White Whale's'
defense attorneys thought she was guilty? Ho ho ho.
PV
Just passing by
August 29, 2003. Remember that date, because it is the first time
ever, that A Planet Visitor has attempted to respond to those seven
facts relating to the LW case one by one instead of running away from
them, pretending they had never even appeared in the post he is
replying to and then trying to hide his retreat by simply pasting the
SJC ruling as if it had some relevance to them .... which, of course,
it doesn't.
But, back down to Earth we go, because there the noteworthiness of
August 29, 2003 ends. My recent posts, drawing attention to the way PV
has always run away from those seven facts, had obviously embarrassed
PV sufficiently to cause him to make this special effort. But, sadly,
he has made such a pig's ear of it, he would probably have been better
continuing to run away as before.
So on we go with the latest demolition.
A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<scb0lv8biokuju68t...@4ax.com>...
As I have acknowledged, the SJC did address just one of the seven
facts in the list. That is the one. However, three points to add:
1. The above, from the SJC ruling, does not disprove the defence claim
but merely offers a possible - though highly unlikely - alternative
explanation.
2. If the new cells Leestma found did not come from the site of the
fracture, where else could they have come from? These osteoblasts were
not of the kind found in normal bone but were identified by their
different shape as those which had, through a process called "cell
differentiation" developed from osteoprogenitor cells into their new
form. That process takes at least one week. So what other fractured
bone could these cells have originated from?
3. Dr DeGirolami (a prosecution witness) confirmed that he saw "a few
extra cells on the outer surface of the dura" and offered the
explanation that "bits and pieces of periosteum became dislodged and
became attached to the dura ...". So where else could the periosteum
have come from?
> >2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
> >has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
> >Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
> >was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
> >prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
> >that this lipping was indeed present.
>
> This is rubbish. This was offered as a defense, claiming "The
> Commonwealth destroyed Crucial Physical Evidence."
< totally irrelevant part of the SJC ruling clipped >
Oh dear, you stupid man, 95% of the SJC ruling you extracted there
dealt with the question of the dura which was discarded in
contravention of a court order, and not the photographs showing lipped
edges on the fracture. So all that can be clipped, leaving just this
part:
> For similar reasons we conclude that the
> medical examiner's negligence in failing to produce in a timely way
> the two closer, more sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture
> and the prejudice from their belated availability to Woodward were
> not so great as to justify dismissing the indictment. In response to
> the admittedly belated delivery of the photographs to Woodward, she
> requested only that she be allowed to recall two of her experts, relief
> that the judge granted in part. (36) Her expert testified that the
> photographs provided important confirming evidence that the skull
> fracture was weeks old. In his ruling on Woodward's posttrial
> motion, the judge noted that this testimony was "the last word
> on the photographs and the conclusions to be drawn from them,"
> and correctly determined that Woodward had not been prejudiced
> by the late disclosure."
But even that is totally irrelevant to the fact that those
photographs, showing lipped edges on the fracture, are conclusive
proof of innocence. All the SJC have done there is deal with the
matter of the photographs being hidden rather than the significance of
what they show. Nowhere there do the SJC mention lipped edges, and
that is what this whole thing is about. The question of WHY they were
hidden, and why it was only the two clear photos which prove
something, rather than any of the many others which, because of their
lack of clarity, do not, which were hidden, is incidental. The SJC
should have addressed the significance of lipped edges on the
fracture, and they didn't. Instead they ignored it.
You don't understand what you are reading, do you? And that is because
you don't know what periosteum is, nor, more importantly, what its
significance is in relation to the age of an injury of this kind.
DeGirolami offered only one explanation for his earlier revelation
that he saw "a few extra cells on the outer surface of the dura" and
that explanation was "that bits and pieces of periosteum became
dislodged and became attached to the dura ..." That was the only
explanation he offered and that totally supports the findings of Dr
Leestma who identified cells he found under the microscope as
osteoblasts. That section of DeGirolami's testimony fully supports
Leestma's contention that the injury was weeks old because if it had
been fresh, there would have been no osteoblasts and no periosteum.
DeGirolami was the prosecution's main neuropathologist witness, and
yet not only did he offer nothing to challenge Leestma's findings re.
osteoblasts, but by suggesting that periosteum had become dislodged
and stuck to the dura (and offering no other explanation) he
effectively endorsed that. Furthermore, the prosecution chose not to
recall either Dr Feigin or two other of their witnesses who were
qualified to give testimony in this area, to challenge Leestma's
evidence. Therefore that evidence remained unrebutted by the
prosecution and that, in itself, should have meant the end of the
trial and the whole case being thrown out because Leestma's findings,
on their own, proved that the fracture could not possibly have been
caused on Feb 4, 1997.
> And from the Supreme Court dismissal of this defense rubbish -
>
> "Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of and
> conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding of
> periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding "alone,"
> she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks old .... etc, etc.
Already dealt with following fact number 1 (see above).
> >4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
> >against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
> >storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
> >not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
> >no scratches.
> >
> Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
> to Matthew.
What the hell are you talking about, you moron? Nothing to do with the
damage done to Matthew? It refers to Matthew's skull fracture. So what
did you think it refers to?
Eli Newberger put out that outrageous lie based upon what he said was
the severity of the skull fracture. However, the fact is that the
fracture was linear rather than depressed. A linear fracture can be
caused by a baby knocking its head against its cot or any other such
minor bump. But any impact of the kind Newberger described would
always result in the more severe depressed type of fracture. Read up
on what Dr Thibault had to say about that in the transcripts. Oh no, I
forgot, you never actually read anything like that, do you? That's why
you thought the above scenario had "absolutely nothing to do with the
damage incurred to Matthew". My god, that really is one of the most
stupid things I have ever seen written about this case.
> "The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
> of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
> caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
> cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
> we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
> did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
> Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do with fact number 4?
Where is this 15ft fall claim mentioned there? It isn't, so why have
you extracted that and put it forward as if it is relevant to fact
number 4?
> >5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
> >have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
> >
> Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
> See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
> from their ruling --
>
> "As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
> conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
> reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
> as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
> corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
> is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
> presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
> physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
> on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
> cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
> as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
> judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
You're at it again. What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do
with fact number 5? Where is soft tissue swelling mentioned there? It
isn't, so why have you extracted that and put it forward as if it is
relevant to fact number 5?
> >6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
> >fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
> >fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
> >shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
> >than 2 weeks.
> >
> Once again... see above. All of this was examined and REJECTED.
Where? Where is it even mentioned, let alone examined and rejected?
You say, "see above". Do you mean in that same irrelevant extract you
provided for fact number 5? What has the above, from the SJC ruling,
to do with fact number 6? Where are proliferating capillaries
mentioned there? They aren't, so why have you extracted that and put
it forward as if it is relevant to fact number 6?
You are trying to run away again, aren't you? Let's remember what you
have been claiming all along for many months. You have been claiming
that every one of those seven points on the list was individually
dealt with in the SJC ruling. I have been telling you that ONLY ONE of
them was dealt with. We are now up to number 6 and I have been proved
right. Only one of them (the first) has been dealt with by the
extracts you have offered from that ruling. Nothing you have posted
from the ruling has mentioned lipped edges on the fracture, the 15ft
fall claim, soft tissue swelling or proliferating capillaries.
With only one more to go, you have proved me 100% right in my claim
that the SJC dealt with only one of those seven facts. You have
desperately tried to wriggle out of this by offering totally
irrelevant and unconnected extracts from the ruling, but you have
failed. You are too dishonest to admit that you have now been proved
wrong and exposed as a liar, but that matters not, because the
evidence is there for anyone to see.
So let's now see if you can do better with number 7.
> >7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
> >weeks old.
>
> Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
> Supreme Court ruled --
>
> "The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
> of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
> caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
> effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
Oh dear. Still desperately trying to hide your failure to meet this
challenge. What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do with fact
number 7? Where is layered subdural bleeding mentioned there? It
isn't, so why have you extracted that and put it forward as if it is
relevant to fact number 7?
What a truly pathetic and pitiful effort that was. Only one of the
seven points was directly addressed by the SJC, which is exactly what
I have been telling you for months on end.
What a washout your red letter day has been. All you have done is
prove me 100% right and yourself 100% wrong. You would probably have
been better off continuing to run away from those seven facts, but
anyone can clearly see now why you always have done in the past. You
just can't handle them because you can't find anything anywhere - on
the internet or elsewhere - to help you in arguing against them. The
SJC ruling, as you have shown, doesn't even come close to doing that.
So I guess it's back to the spamming, eh, PV?
A Planet Visitor
>RED LETTER DAY!! RED LETTER DAY!! RED LETTER DAY!!
>
>August 29, 2003. Remember that date, because it is the first time
>ever, that A Planet Visitor has attempted to respond to those seven
>facts relating to the LW case one by one instead of running away from
>them,
There are many dates to remember when you've made a fool of yourself,
JPB. This day is no different from any other... hardly a RED LETTER
DAY... but a rather ordinary repeat of you making a fool of yourself over
and over. You have not presented 'facts' (sic), bullet-head. You have
presented 'opinion'... opinion which had been already judged as non-compelling
to a jury, a judge and the Supreme Court.
Do not expects me to replay the role of the prosecution here, while
you replay the defense in 'retrying' a case which has already been proven.
Permitting you to claim opinion as fact... while you try to lie your way
through the dialog. As you've tried in so many difference cases, not
only those limited to the 'Great White Whale.' It's just tough shit, JPB.
The prosecution proved its case CONCLUSIVELY to a jury of 12
members, certainly all more familiar with the 'medical evidence' than
you will ever be. You simply repeat the defense arguments which did
not disprove the FACT that the 'Great White Whale' committed the
crime of manslaughter on Matthew Eappen. Defense arguments based
only on those opinions offered by its pathetically inept team of 'defense
medical experts,' as the defense realized that it had failed to convince
anyone at trial, and hoped to convince some justices on the Supreme
Court at appeal.
You constantly forgets that the real victim here... was Matthew
Eappen -- murdered by the violent handling of an angry 'Great
White Whale' who was unhappy and frustrated with Matthew's
crying all day. The 'Great White Whale' who told the Newton
police that she was a little rough with Matthew that day. That
she tossed him on the bed before a bath, that she dropped him
to a tile floor in the bathroom and possibly his head hit where
the bath meets the tile on that floor. He was 'cranky,' and she
simply couldn't stand it, and decided some 'shaking' was in order.
THOSE are the 'facts,' bullet-head.
> pretending they had never even appeared in the post he is
>replying to and then trying to hide his retreat by simply pasting the
>SJC ruling as if it had some relevance to them .... which, of course,
>it doesn't.
Actually, all of my postings come from that ruling. And that ruling is
quite enough... always has been to address each of your pathetic
'points.' I do not 'manufacture' evidence as you do. You are under
the mistaken impression that I will 'reargue' evidence which was
presented at trial, and found by every member of the jury to be
non-compelling. I have simply shown you that the points you
mentioned had already been adjudicated, and you actually had no
'new evidence' which the jury had not seen. The trial judge
likewise found any medical evidence offered by the defense in their
pathetic attempt to 'retry' the case before that judge, that might
suggest the 'Great White Whale' was innocent, to be non-compelling.
The trial judge ruled only on the lack of clear evidence, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that malice was included in the murder committed
by the 'Great White Whale.' He found the medical evidence offered
by the prosecution to be sufficient to prove MANSLAUGHTER.
In the words of the Supreme Court -- "the judge does not quote
Woodward's exact words, but suggests that Woodward "did handle
[Matthew] roughly" (emphasis in original)." While the Supreme
Court handily addressed and dispatched all of the 'Great While
Whale's' appeals to that court, with the words -- ""We address
and reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment or a required
finding of not guilty."
In fact, the prosecution, in its appeal, never even mentions 'medical
evidence,' as its case had already been PROVEN, as to the guilt
of the 'Great White Whale.' See --
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
The prosecution need not 'prove again' what had already been
PROVEN, as I need not 'prove again' what has already been
proven. The prosecution asked only that the original verdict
of the JURY be reinstated, and the 'Great White Whale' be
found guilty of MURDER. Only the defense, realizing how
pitifully weak its case in respect to 'medical evidence' had been,
tried to convince the Supreme Court to 'prove again' that which
had already been PROVEN. The Supreme Court wisely told
the defense that it is not necessary for the Prosecution to 'prove
again' its case in respect to 'seeing it' the way the defense had
postulated such 'medical evidence' (sic), or presume that the
jury was composed of a group of halfwits, or, as JPB likes to
claim about everyone who found her guilty... "corrupt."
>But, back down to Earth we go, because there the noteworthiness of
>August 29, 2003 ends. My recent posts, drawing attention to the way PV
>has always run away from those seven facts, had obviously embarrassed
>PV sufficiently to cause him to make this special effort. But, sadly,
>he has made such a pig's ear of it, he would probably have been better
>continuing to run away as before.
>
No, bullet-head... I addressed each and every point you've ever raised.
By demolishing your claims of 'corruption.' By proving you are a liar in
respect to your claim that it is a 'FACT' that Judge Zobel could not
overturn the verdict. And by posting the entire content of the Supreme
Court ruling from the very beginning which addresses each and every
of your seven lies regarding the manslaughter of Matthew Eappen,
committed by the 'Great White Whale.' More than one year ago, in
fact... Proof positive. See --
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=y4%2579.335436%24XH.7441899%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
You simply didn't want to accept the fact that the Supreme Court had
ruled against every argument, both medical and otherwise, in the
defense petition of appeal to that court. I never had to be 'explicit'
as to your silly opinions regarding your trying to present the defense
appeal as some sort of FACTUAL medical presentation (which it is
NOT). I simply had to show that the Supreme Court had REJECTED
that defense appeal which included the points that you've mentioned.
And they did... all inclusive... with these words -- ""We address and
reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment or a required
finding of not guilty." That's rather abrupt and to the point.
>So on we go with the latest demolition.
Actually, don't give me any credit for having demolished you. It belongs
to the jury, and the judges who looked at your points and practically
laughed in your pathetic face. Throwing them out, and finding your
baby-killer guilty. I was not the jury or the judges... THEY
demolished your pathetic opinions... I simply pointed out that they
had done so, and tried to show you why. But in your case, love
conquered all...even rationality and sanity. It must be tough to hold
onto a dream of flab, that will forever be too large for you to grasp.
On to more of your being demolished.
Of course it does. It discredits it totally. Who are YOU to claim it
doesn't?
>2. If the new cells Leestma found did not come from the site of the
>fracture, where else could they have come from? These osteoblasts were
>not of the kind found in normal bone but were identified by their
>different shape as those which had, through a process called "cell
>differentiation" developed from osteoprogenitor cells into their new
>form. That process takes at least one week. So what other fractured
>bone could these cells have originated from?
>
Actually, ALL of Dr. Leestma's 'findings' are simply his unproven
testimony, which the jury examines as such. The Supreme Court
said in respect to the testimony of Dr. Leestma == "His testimony on
cross-examination is not entirely clear, although one interpretation
could be that he did not know the precise location from which he
had taken the critical dura samples and that the bone material he
observed (excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact
of the autopsy and therefore come from a location other than from
the site of the skull fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself for
us to reject Woodward's request that we give conclusive weight
to Dr. Leestma's findings."
A polite way of saying that Dr. Leestma was not that convincing on
the stand? Or a polite way of saying that Dr. Leestma is a bloody
fool, whose motto is -- first money...then ethics!!
>3. Dr DeGirolami (a prosecution witness) confirmed that he saw "a few
>extra cells on the outer surface of the dura" and offered the
>explanation that "bits and pieces of periosteum became dislodged and
>became attached to the dura ...". So where else could the periosteum
>have come from?
>
Since you admit that the testimony of Dr. DeGirolami was examined by
the jury, it's rather obvious that THEY found your 'question' to not be
relevant, in respect to your implication that it 'proves' a previous injury,
and a 're-bleed.' You certainly can't presume that YOUR opinion carries
greater weight than that of 12 members of the jury who spent a
considerable amount of time pouring over evidence that you will
never see. Can you????
>> >2. The fracture had clearly identifiable lipped edges. A new fracture
>> >has sharp edges which do not develop to this new stage for 2-3 weeks.
>> >Dr DeGirolami testified that to the best of his recollection there
>> >was no lipping. However, the photographs which, conveniently for the
>> >prosecution, were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed
>> >that this lipping was indeed present.
>>
>> This is rubbish. This was offered as a defense, claiming "The
>> Commonwealth destroyed Crucial Physical Evidence."
>
>< totally irrelevant part of the SJC ruling clipped >
>
>Oh dear, you stupid man, 95% of the SJC ruling you extracted there
>dealt with the question of the dura which was discarded in
>contravention of a court order, and not the photographs showing lipped
>edges on the fracture. So all that can be clipped, leaving just this
>part:
>
How's this -- from the Supreme Court ruling -- "At trial, Dr. DeGirolami
testified that the sections had not been discarded, that he had been able
to "reconstruct" the dura and that no pieces were missing. The
neuropathologist testifying for Woodward, Dr. Jan Leestma, after
reviewing the "reconstruction," maintained that pieces of dura were
missing." It is obvious that you are simply presuming that Dr. Leestma
is 'right' and Dr. DeGirolami is 'wrong.' An unwise choice in my
view... and the view of everyone in the process of judging the
'Great White Whale.' It seems your 'opinion' is in the great
minority.
In fact, the use of 'lipped' is a funny-story in itself. It seems that
this word does not appear in the entire trial, until the defense
RECALLED (probably after some intensive 'defense strategy
sessions') Dr. Baden, as the VERY FINAL 'defense medical
expert' (sic). After a four-day 'break' in his testimony. One
wonders what Dr. Baden was 'briefed' on during that four-day
break in his testimony. See
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11340_a.html
Knowing that their case was rather weak... they needed to change
the OPINION of Dr. Baden.. but he was subsequently cut to
pieces on cross-examination by Coakley -- See
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11350_a.html
But the defense now felt that they had a good 'buzz word' to use in
their appeal... and funny enough there is it. And you keep throwing
it out... just as they did... and of course... just as the jury, the trial
judge and the Supreme Court 'threw it out' recognizing it for the
worthless buzz word' that it was.
And, of course, Dr. Baden was also famous for stumbling badly by
practically admitting he had told the defense team that his opinion
was the injury to Matthew occurred between 48 and 12 hours of his
admission to the hospital, and needed to then look at his check book,
to say "I'm not sure I said it that way." See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11240_a.html
>> For similar reasons we conclude that the
>> medical examiner's negligence in failing to produce in a timely way
>> the two closer, more sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture
>> and the prejudice from their belated availability to Woodward were
>> not so great as to justify dismissing the indictment. In response to
>> the admittedly belated delivery of the photographs to Woodward, she
>> requested only that she be allowed to recall two of her experts, relief
>> that the judge granted in part. (36) Her expert testified that the
>> photographs provided important confirming evidence that the skull
>> fracture was weeks old. In his ruling on Woodward's posttrial
>> motion, the judge noted that this testimony was "the last word
>> on the photographs and the conclusions to be drawn from them,"
>> and correctly determined that Woodward had not been prejudiced
>> by the late disclosure."
>
>But even that is totally irrelevant to the fact that those
>photographs, showing lipped edges on the fracture, are conclusive
>proof of innocence.
Horseshit, bullet-head. That was certainly not found to be 'conclusive'
of anything by the jury. You are simply trying to state YOUR
OPINION as a presumed FACT. The jury actually LOOKED at the
photographs, and studied them rather intently. You are simply
intent on seeing them YOUR way... because of your love for
the 'Great White Whale.' As I have said before... the word
'lipped' does not appear in the entire trial testimony, until the
defense RECALLED (probably after some intensive 'defense
strategy sessions') Dr. Baden... See
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11340_a.html
Knowing that their case was rather weak... they needed to change
the OPINION of Dr. Baden.. and he was cut to pieces on
cross-examination by Coakley -- See
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11350_a.html
You really should research the trial testimony, bullet-head.
> All the SJC have done there is deal with the
>matter of the photographs being hidden rather than the significance of
>what they show. Nowhere there do the SJC mention lipped edges, and
>that is what this whole thing is about. The question of WHY they were
>hidden, and why it was only the two clear photos which prove
>something, rather than any of the many others which, because of their
>lack of clarity, do not, which were hidden, is incidental. The SJC
>should have addressed the significance of lipped edges on the
>fracture, and they didn't. Instead they ignored it.
>
They addressed it perfectly, with these words -- "The judge allowed
Dr. Baden, one of two available expert witnesses for Woodward,
to return and testify concerning these photographs. Dr. Baden
pointed out what he detected as signs of healing on the edges of
the fracture, that, in his opinion, indicated an older injury." This
was the first mention of that word. They both addressed it, and
rejected it, in their general rejection of all defense appeals. And
they wisely rejected even using that silly word.
No 'medical expert' other than Dr. Baden had mentioned 'lipping,'
and as noted, he only did so on RETURN after having already
finished testifying and being cross-examined. Gee... you think
maybe he was 'coached' by the defense? Scheck is rather good
at that! See above... and above.
I understand very well... that you're a raving maniac. The jury considers
ALL 'medical testimony' and weighs it in their mind. Clearly Dr.
DeGirolami was disagreeing completely with Dr. Leestma. And
the Supreme Court noted that disagreement on many levels. The
jury obviously felt that DeGirolami's testimony was the more
believable. In an exchange between DeGirolami and the prosecution --
Q And when you were looking for any abnormality, or unusual findings
with regard to the brain, did you find any, other than those associated
with trauma?
A Well, we also found, as I said, anoxic ischemic injury in other regions
of the brain, in the other hemisphere and in the portions of the brain that
are below the tentorium, in the posterior fossa structures.
Q And during the course of your examination, what did you attribute
the anoxic ischemic injury to the brain to?
A We attributed it to lack of profusion, lack of vascular supply to the
brain in the postoperative period.
Q And the cause of that?
A Edema, brain edema.
Q And the cause of the brain edema?
A The traumatic injury.
Q Now, whether or not during the course of your examination, did you
find any old lesions on the dura?
A No, we didn't.
Q Did you find any chronic or old subdural hematoma?
A No, we didn't.
Q Did you find any old bleeds?
A We did not.
Q If those type of old or chronic injuries were present, what would you have
expected to see in Matthew Eappen's brain?
A We would have expected to see on examination --
MR. SCHECK: Objection to compound question - which ones.
THE COURT: The question was "any of those things."
MR. SCHECK: Well, that's why I objected to the compound --
THE COURT: I'll allow it.
Q What would you have expected to find, Doctor, if an old bleed or
chronic injury was present in Matthew Eappen's brain?
A We would have expected to see on the under-surface of the dura,
a thickened dark flat region.
Q And did you examine the dura specifically?
A Yes, we did.
Q And did you examine the dura specifically for whether or not there
were old bleeds or injury to the dura?
A We did.
Q And did you find any?
A We didn't find any.
And in concluding --
Q Do you have an opinion, sir?
A Yes, I have an opinion.
Q And what is your opinion, Dr. DeGirolami?
A My opinion is that the large area of disruption of brain tissue that
was described in my report is, this was due to an acute traumatic
injury, that there was an associated cerebral edema involving both
hemispheres, and that there was extensive anoxic ischemic injury
that followed after the acute injury in the period of time five days
after the injury.
Q And would it be fair to say that the dating of that traumatic event
can only be done from a neuropathological perspective in days?
A Yes, in days.
Q And do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty given your findings in this case, the general date of that
traumatic event that you've just described?
A Within a week.
See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10370_a.html
And one really needs to look at the opening of the cross of Dr.
DeGirolami, by Scheck. It's disgusting how he 'jokes' around and
plays to an audience... pretending that HE suffers from "increased
intracranial pressure and it's tough to get started." Joking about a
very serious subject, and preening before the jury. See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10380_a.html
I do not believe that helped the defense. I would not have been
amused. Since murder is serious business.
>DeGirolami was the prosecution's main neuropathologist witness, and
>yet not only did he offer nothing to challenge Leestma's findings re.
>osteoblasts, but by suggesting that periosteum had become dislodged
>and stuck to the dura (and offering no other explanation) he
>effectively endorsed that. Furthermore, the prosecution chose not to
>recall either Dr Feigin or two other of their witnesses who were
>qualified to give testimony in this area, to challenge Leestma's
>evidence. Therefore that evidence remained unrebutted by the
>prosecution and that, in itself, should have meant the end of the
>trial and the whole case being thrown out because Leestma's findings,
>on their own, proved that the fracture could not possibly have been
>caused on Feb 4, 1997.
There was no reason to.. since Dr. Leetsma had already demonstrated
his rather inept methods of offering opinion as fact, without providing
such fact. That again, was noted by the Supreme Court, when they
ruled -- "Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony
of Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he did
not know the precise location from which he had taken the critical
dura samples and that the bone material he observed (excluding
"vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the autopsy and
therefore come from a location other than from the site of the skull
fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself for us to reject Woodward's
request that we give conclusive weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
Simply put... anything offered by Dr. Leestma should be viewed as
'ambiguous,' 'not that clear,' and of course, not that reliable.
>> And from the Supreme Court dismissal of this defense rubbish -
>>
>> "Woodward also presses us to take judicial notice of the validity of and
>> conclusive proof inferred from Dr. Leestma's "crucial finding of
>> periosteum dislodged from the fracture in the dura." This finding "alone,"
>> she argues, "proved" that the skull fracture was weeks old .... etc, etc.
>
>Already dealt with following fact number 1 (see above).
>
You have NO FACTS, bullet-head... you only have your OPINION.
And given the fact that you've proven yourself to be a liar, and obsessed
with the 'Great White Whale,' your opinion means shit. You simply refer
to another piece of rubbish you've offered.... and call it 'fact.'
>> >4. The prosecution alleged that Louise had slammed Matthew's head
>> >against a hard surface with a force equal to him falling from a 2nd
>> >storey window, head first, onto hard concrete. But Matthew's head did
>> >not have a single external mark on it - no bumps; no bruises; no cuts;
>> >no scratches.
>> >
>> Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage incurred
>> to Matthew.
>
>What the hell are you talking about, you moron? Nothing to do with the
>damage done to Matthew? It refers to Matthew's skull fracture. So what
>did you think it refers to?
>
A skull fracture does not have to demonstrate any external marks.
Especially with an infant. You really should avail yourself of some
literature on this subject. A good starting point might be --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/index.html
and
http://brain.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/124/7/1290
demonstrating that not all skull fractures exhibit extracranial damage,
especially in infants.
In any case, the jury was well aware of all the medical evidence, and
ruled for a conviction of the 'Great White Whale' for the crime of murder.
>Eli Newberger put out that outrageous lie based upon what he said was
>the severity of the skull fracture.
Sure, sport. Eli Newberger is a 'liar' to you, since you cannot handle
his testimony. The Supreme Court rather decided who was the 'liar'
in that trial... With the words -- ""Woodward relies here all but
exclusively on the testimony of Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified
microscopic photographic images of specimens of the dura. His testimony
on cross-examination is not entirely clear, although one interpretation
could be that he did not know the precise location from which he had
taken the critical dura samples and that the bone material he observed
(excluding "vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the autopsy and
therefore come from a location other than from the site of the skull
fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself for us to reject Woodward's
request that we give conclusive weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
> However, the fact is that the
>fracture was linear rather than depressed. A linear fracture can be
>caused by a baby knocking its head against its cot or any other such
>minor bump. But any impact of the kind Newberger described would
>always result in the more severe depressed type of fracture. Read up
>on what Dr Thibault had to say about that in the transcripts. Oh no, I
>forgot, you never actually read anything like that, do you? That's why
>you thought the above scenario had "absolutely nothing to do with the
>damage incurred to Matthew". My god, that really is one of the most
>stupid things I have ever seen written about this case.
>
Actually the jury read up on it sufficiently to convict the 'Great White
Whale' of murder... Murder... MURDER.... Only a benevolent
trial judge, finding no evidence of malice 'beyond a reasonable doubt,'
lowered that conviction to guilty of MANSLAUGHTER.
Your problem, JPB... is that you call EVERYONE either 'corrupt'
or 'stupid' if they are convinced that the 'Great White Whale' is
GUILTY. EVERYONE!! But the fact is... it is YOU who is
stupid... incredibly so. And certainly a liar, and corrupt as well.
Unable to see beyond the waistline of your hugh love. Your 'defense
medical experts,' are a JOKE. A fucking JOKE. Ranging
from Dr. Leestma, the 'architect' of the most colossal bungling of
testimony ever witnessed... with the Supreme Court characterizing
his testimony as 'ambiguous,' and 'not entirely clear.' . to Dr.
Baden, who fumbled badly by practically admitting he had told the
defense team that his opinion was the injury to Matthew occurred
between 48 and 12 hours of his admission to the hospital, and needed
to then look at his check book, to say "I'm not sure I said it that
way." To Dr. Ommaya, testifying as an 'authoritative expect
medical witness,' who remarked when asked about 'authoritative
things,' replied "The authoritative things I consider like the Bible...
and the Koran." I'm sure the answer to 'who dropped
Matthew Eappen' can be found there. WHERE DID the defense
find these clowns? Oh, yeah... now I know where.. they were
the ONLY 'medical experts' the defense could find who would sell
out their souls for a few bucks. money first -- then ethics.
>
>> "The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
>> of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
>> caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
>> cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence, as
>> we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the judge
>> did not err in denying Woodward's motion. See Cordle, supra; Commonwealth v.
>> Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-679 (1979), S.C., 423 Mass. 129 (1996)."
>
>What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do with fact number 4?
>Where is this 15ft fall claim mentioned there? It isn't, so why have
>you extracted that and put it forward as if it is relevant to fact
>number 4?
>
No one claims that the 'Great White Whale' climbed a 15 ft. ladder
and dropped Matthew, you imbecile. Only the defense is presuming
its 'medical experts' know what they're talking about. And it's rather
obvious that the jury, the trial judge and the Supreme Court rather
felt they did not. Here is how it ACTUALLY went --
This case is about Matthew Eappen being violently slammed against
a hard object and severely shaken, causing massive injuries. This
violent shaking and this severe slamming being done by the defendant
Louise Woodward in a frustrated, unhappy, resentful rage, based
on her attitude towards her job and a crying Matthew Eappen on
February 4th of 1997.
On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both
of her little boys, eight-month-old Matty and two-and-a-half-year-old
Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matty, she changed Brendan's
diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine. She
gave some instructions to the defendant concerning care for the kids
that day, and she left the home to work at her part-time job as an
ophthalmologist. When she left that home, Matthew Eappen was
normal, healthy, and well. It was the last time Debby Eappen would
see her little boy normal, healthy, and well again.
Because later that day, after a 911 call from the defendant, Matthew
Eappen was rushed to Children's Hospital, suffering from a fractured
two-and-a-half-inch fractured skull, a massively-swollen brain, and
bloody retinal hemorrhaging all over his eyes, that occurred while
in the care of the defendant that day.
Debby Eappen would rush to Children's Hospital, as would Sunny
Eappen. And the next time Debby Eappen would see her little boy,
he was lying on a gurney in the emergency room at Children's
Hospital, suffering from that skull fracture, from the massively swollen
brain, and the retinal hemorrhaging in his eyes in the area that leads
to his brain. Matthew Eappen was rushed into a C-T scan, a picture
of his brain taken. He was then whisked off to the operating room,
and his parents watched him be wheeled into that operating room
for an emergency brain surgery.
And during the course of this surgery, as the Children's Hospital
doctors tried to save little Matty's life, the defendant was back
in the Eappen home in Newton. She was being interviewed by
police officers that evening, giving an explanation for what she
said happened that day.
She told those Newton police officers that she was unhappy and
frustrated with Matthew's crying all day. She told those Newton
police officers that she was a little rough with Matthew that day,
that she tossed him on the bed before a bath, that she dropped
him to a tile floor in the bathroom and possibly his head hit where
the bath meets the tile on that floor. That she later shook him to
revive him because he seemed unresponsive to her.
The doctors at Children's Hospital will tell you that the explanation
the defendant gave to the Newton police officers for what
happened that day is untrue. A two-and-a-half-inch skull fracture
to the back of Matty's head, a massively-swollen brain pressing
against the sides of his skull, bloody retinal hemorrhaging in the
area of his head, between the eyes of the brain; these injuries
were not caused by someone being a "little rough." These
injuries were not caused by a toss on the bed or a drop to the
floor. These injuries weren't caused by a gentle revival shaking.
These injuries were caused by a violent slam against a hard
object causing that skull fracture which eventually killed Matthew
five days later, an extremely atrocious, cruel manner of death,
as he progressively worsened over those five days. A violent
slam against a hard object and severe prolonged shaking, so
that that baby's head went back and forth, back and forth,
shearing the veins inside his head, causing the retinal hemorrhaging,
actions that anyone would know would cause a little
eight-month-old boy to die. That in this commonwealth is murder.
Fact is... it comes close to MURDER... just lacks proof beyond
a reasonable doubt of malice.
>> >5. There was no soft tissue swelling around the fracture. It would
>> >have taken weeks for the swelling to completely disappear.
>> >
>> Again... just rubbish. Simply repeating rejected defense appeals.
>> See the Supreme Court ruling on all the defense appeals -- Quoting
>> from their ruling --
>>
>> "As the judge pointed out, to reach a guilty verdict the jury had to
>> conclude that the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a
>> reasonable doubt and, considering Woodward's defense, "spurned
>> as not worthy of belief, professional opinions emanating from a
>> corps of highly-qualified, authoritative experts, [but] such dismissal
>> is unquestionably within the jury's province." The Commonwealth
>> presented its own qualified experts, including many of the treating
>> physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was caused
>> on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively
>> cross-examined Woodward's medical experts. Viewing this evidence,
>> as we must, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the
>> judge did not err in denying Woodward's motion."
>
>
>You're at it again. What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do
>with fact number 5? Where is soft tissue swelling mentioned there? It
>isn't, so why have you extracted that and put it forward as if it is
>relevant to fact number 5?
It is relevant to ALL evidence placed before the jury. Both sides
presented evidence, and the jury decided what was more conclusive
evidence, and what was bull-shit. Much of the testimony of every
'defense medical expert' was bull-shit. Look, bullet-head... this one
sentence means that EVERY claim offered in the defense appeal
was ADDRESSED and REJECTED. They do not have to minutely
speak to EVERY WORD in such an appeal, they only need to
identify that it was addressed -- Their words -- "We address and
reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment or a required
finding of not guilty."
>
>> >6. Proliferating capillaries were found in the dura. A healing
>> >fracture requires a supply of blood through capillaries into the
>> >fracture hematoma. The presence of these proliferating capillaries
>> >shows that the injury was at a stage of healing that could not be less
>> >than 2 weeks.
>> >
>> Once again... see above. All of this was examined and REJECTED.
>
>Where? Where is it even mentioned, let alone examined and rejected?
>You say, "see above". Do you mean in that same irrelevant extract you
>provided for fact number 5? What has the above, from the SJC ruling,
>to do with fact number 6? Where are proliferating capillaries
>mentioned there? They aren't, so why have you extracted that and put
>it forward as if it is relevant to fact number 6?
Jesus... you DO have a 'reading problem' Once again, bullet-head... this
one sentence means that EVERY claim offered in the defense appeal
was ADDRESSED and REJECTED. They do not have to minutely
speak to EVERY WORD in such an appeal, they only need to
identify that it was addressed -- Their words -- "We address and
reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment or a required
finding of not guilty."
Further, we again have these words in the Supreme Court ruling --
"The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including
many of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's
fatal injury was caused on the day of his hospitalization. The
Commonwealth also effectively cross-examined Woodward's
medical experts." In fact, I would more certainly lend greater
validity to those doctors who PHYSICALLY EXAMINED
Matthew upon his admission, rather than those 'paid by the
defense' to look at slides, CT Scans and X-rays some weeks
or months later, KNOWING that they were being PAID by
the defense to do so.
>You are trying to run away again, aren't you?
Not at all... in fact, I am preparing a Second Edition to my "BOOK
OF PROOFS AND FACTS." And whenever I see you even mention
the 'Great White Whale,' presuming her innocence is determined by
your absurd ravings that everyone in the prosecution was corrupt or
criminal, or claim the 'rebleed' defense is anything other than a 'defense
strategy' having no medical basis, I will simply top-post my book to
your absurd ravings. Because your defense of a baby-killer sickens
me.
> Let's remember what you
>have been claiming all along for many months. You have been claiming
>that every one of those seven points on the list was individually
>dealt with in the SJC ruling.
They were most certainly dealt with within their ruling. You should
really READ the ruling, sport. Once again -- Their words --
"We address and reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment
or a required finding of not guilty." That, of course, means they
have 'addressed ALL of her claims,' and 'rejected ALL of her
claims.'
> I have been telling you that ONLY ONE of
>them was dealt with. We are now up to number 6 and I have been proved
>right. Only one of them (the first) has been dealt with by the
>extracts you have offered from that ruling. Nothing you have posted
>from the ruling has mentioned lipped edges on the fracture, the 15ft
>fall claim, soft tissue swelling or proliferating capillaries.
>
All have been dealt with. Again... because you have this 'reading
disability.' Their words -- "We address and reject her claims seeking
dismissal of the indictment or a required finding of not guilty."
>With only one more to go, you have proved me 100% right in my claim
>that the SJC dealt with only one of those seven facts.
I've proved you're 100% blind, and obsessed with presuming that
your opinion has some factual validity, which would outweigh the
evidence offered by the prosecution, which provided the necessary
evidence for a finding of MURDER.. lacking ONLY the proof of
malice. The crutch you have depended on for so long.. that of
presuming she was 'framed,' has been totally destroyed by me,
having demonstrated how you lie in such words. Now, I have
provided proof through the Supreme Court, and testimony at
trial that your other sickening attempt at a 'defense,' of BLAMING
someone else is equally destroyed.
Of course, 47 doctors did that long before I even concerned myself
with the proven guilt of the "Great White Whale.' See -
http://child.cornell.edu/sbsletter.html
Of course, then we also have a report commissioned by the New
England Journal of Medicine, perhaps the most prestigious medical
journal available, which can be found at --
http://www.th-record.com/1998/06/19/woodward.htm
The report concluded that ""There is no evidence of a prolonged interval
of lucidity between the injury and the onset of symptoms" in children
with such severe head injuries, said the report in the current New
England Journal of Medicine. "Thus, an alert, well-appearing child has
not already sustained a devastating acute injury that will become
clinically obvious hours to days later." The article, by four physicians
at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, was commissioned
by the journal to respond to the scientific controversy over
"shaken-baby syndrome" generated by the Woodward case, although
the authors did not specifically address that case. The report, and
interviews with its authors, generally bolster arguments raised by the
Woodward prosecution."
And of course we have an inquiry sent by The Associated Press
through ProfNet, an Internet query service that reaches about 300
hospitals and 760 colleges and universities around the country, yielded
NO examples. See --
http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-97/12-08-97/b07sr075.htm
All of that MEDICAL PROOF offered by others never even examined
at trial.
> You have
>desperately tried to wriggle out of this by offering totally
>irrelevant and unconnected extracts from the ruling, but you have
>failed. You are too dishonest to admit that you have now been proved
>wrong and exposed as a liar, but that matters not, because the
>evidence is there for anyone to see.
>
>So let's now see if you can do better with number 7.
>
Let's see you do better than call the jury a bunch of dummies. While
you imply the trial judge was a CROOK (yes, quite clearly IMHO...
since you contended that HE KNEW she was innocent, had the
POWER to find her innocent, and did not do so... in my opinion... that
is what is called a 'crooked judge'). While you dispute the rulings
from the Supreme Court. And while you have been caught in a
bold-faced lie in respect to the FACTUAL powers of the trial
judge.
>
>> >7. The CT scans showed layered subdural bleeding which was several
>> >weeks old.
>>
>> Again, simply the finding of Dr. Leetsma. And repeating what the
>> Supreme Court ruled --
>>
>> "The Commonwealth presented its own qualified experts, including many
>> of the treating physicians, who concluded that Matthew's fatal injury was
>> caused on the day of his hospitalization. The Commonwealth also
>> effectively cross-examined Woodward's medical experts."
>
>Oh dear. Still desperately trying to hide your failure to meet this
>challenge. What has the above, from the SJC ruling, to do with fact
>number 7? Where is layered subdural bleeding mentioned there? It
>isn't, so why have you extracted that and put it forward as if it is
>relevant to fact number 7?
>
It has everything to do with it. Those were INTERPRETATIONS of
the CT scan, and not conclusive evidence. They simply represented
OPINION... you stupid...stupid.....stupid....stupid man. And the
Supreme Court rightly found Dr. Leetsma not to be that 'stable' a
performer on the witness stand.
>What a truly pathetic and pitiful effort that was. Only one of the
>seven points was directly addressed by the SJC, which is exactly what
>I have been telling you for months on end.
>
They addressed every one of those points. Again... since your bullet-head
brain seems not able to absorb the written word in that ruling -- Their
words -- "We address and reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment
or a required finding of not guilty." And in fact, so did the JURY. Tell
me which point you've raised was NOT raised at trial? And being
raised at trial, means the jury examined them in depth. And they were
not obviously blinded by the 'chubby-chaser' affection you hold for that
infant-murderer -- the 'Great White Whale.' You see the jury, unlike
you and I, enters a judgment that is unbiased. As does the trial judge.
As do the justices on the Supreme Court. While you are biased to
the point of dementia... being obsessed with the Nameless One. While
I am simply convinced beyond ANY DOUBT in my mind that she is
a baby-killer.
>What a washout your red letter day has been. All you have done is
>prove me 100% right and yourself 100% wrong. You would probably have
>been better off continuing to run away from those seven facts, but
>anyone can clearly see now why you always have done in the past. You
>just can't handle them because you can't find anything anywhere - on
>the internet or elsewhere - to help you in arguing against them. The
>SJC ruling, as you have shown, doesn't even come close to doing that.
>So I guess it's back to the spamming, eh, PV?
Easy for you to dismiss it all, and simply call it spamming. Why not
address the points I raise in my book? How can you possibly defend
those 22 raging lying insults you offered? How can you possibly defend
a letter from 47 physicians who specialize in the diagnosis and treatment
of victims of child abuse, having characterized the medical defense
offered to be a THEORY used only in a courtroom, calling it "The "re-bleed"
theory in infants is a courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and
the jury properly rejected it"? How can you possibly defend the fact
that even one of the 'Great White Whale's' DEFENSE attorneys
blurted out that she was 'GUILTY'? How can you possibly defend
against an inquiry sent by The Associated Press through ProfNet, an Internet
query service that reaches about 300 hospitals and 760 colleges and
universities around the country, that yielded NO examples of any
specific 'rebleed' such as that offered by the defense? How can you
defend against NOT ONE juror having voted for acquittal of the 'Great White
Whale' for the crime of MURDER. How can you defend against
Judge Zobel NEVER suggesting she was innocent of manslaughter,
and finding her guilty of the crime of manslaughter? How can you
defend against all Supreme Court Justices agreeing that she was
guilty of the crime of manslaughter? How can you defend against
the FACT that she was convicted of the crime of manslaughter?
How can you defend the most inept 'defense medical experts'
ever assembled? Unsure, hesitant, and one even claiming the Bible
forms his 'authoritative' view?
You can only do so by inventing imaginary 'defenses,' as that tried
by her defense team in its appeal, after realizing how pathetic had
been their presentation at trial. And that's what you've continually
tried to do. The Book... and subsequent revisions will be all that
you'll receive, sport. Because ALL of your comments are simply
your OPINION, which rest on NO factual foundation whatsoever.
PV
Just passing by
> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >RED LETTER DAY!! RED LETTER DAY!! RED LETTER DAY!!
> >
> >August 29, 2003. Remember that date, because it is the first time
> >ever, that A Planet Visitor has attempted to respond to those seven
> >facts relating to the LW case one by one instead of running away from
> >them,
>
> There are many dates to remember when you've made a fool of yourself,
> JPB. This day is no different from any other... hardly a RED LETTER
> DAY... but a rather ordinary repeat of you making a fool of yourself over
> and over. You have not presented 'facts' (sic), bullet-head. You have
> presented 'opinion'... opinion which had been already judged as non-compelling
> to a jury, a judge and the Supreme Court.
>
> Do not expects me to replay the role of the prosecution here, while
> you replay the defense in 'retrying' a case which has already been proven.
> Permitting you to claim opinion as fact... while you try to lie your way
> through the dialog. As you've tried in so many difference cases, not
> only those limited to the 'Great White Whale.' It's just tough shit, JPB.
> The prosecution proved its case CONCLUSIVELY to a jury of 12
> members, certainly all more familiar with the 'medical evidence' than
> you will ever be.
Usual PV drivel without a single qualifying word. The jurors, BY THEIR
OWN ADMISSION, were baffled by the evidence and could not even recall
Dr Leestma's testimony. They asked for a transcript of it so they
could study it but this was refused by the judge. I have studied
Leestma's testimony and fully understand it and all other medical
evidence presented at that trial. You, on the other hand, DO NOT
understand what Leestma told the court, as I showed in my last post
and as you confirmed in yours.
> You simply repeat the defense arguments which did
> not disprove the FACT that the 'Great White Whale' committed the
> crime of manslaughter on Matthew Eappen. Defense arguments based
> only on those opinions offered by its pathetically inept team of 'defense
> medical experts,'
"Pathetically inept"? Who says so? The biggest idiot in this group,
who wrote about the alleged impact that caused Matthew's skull
fracture: "Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with the damage
incurred to Matthew."
Does anyone else describe those medical experts as "pathetically
inept"? No, just PV. The prosecution, the trial judge, the
prosecution's own medical witnesses, world renowned and respected
doctors and scientists unconnected to the trial, have all commented
upon the staggeringly high quality of those defence medical witnesses.
Those defence witnesses probably amounted to the greatest collection
of medical & scientific minds ever to come together in a single
criminal trial.
Let's take Dr Lawrence Thibault as the first example. I first wrote
the piece below in this group just under a year ago, but unlike you, I
don't have to pretend that it has never appeared before and so am
happy to declare that. You never do that because 95% of your output is
spam which you hope people will believe is new and original.
______________________________________
Doctor Thibault is acknowledged throughout the whole world as the
single greatest authority in the field of biomechanics. In 1971 Doctor
Thibault worked at the National Institutes of Health as part of the
biomedical engineering group, dealing with the biomechanics of brain
injuries. His work in this field has continued to this day covering,
in particular, the areas of the brain, spinal cord and central nervous
system. Doctor Thibault is in great demand as an expert in the study
of head injuries in children and babies. This expertise led to the
US Government employing his services to help develop child safety
devices such as head restraints in cars. Those pictures you see of
cars with dummies inside crashing into walls are Doctor Thibault's
tests. The US Government pay him to make cars safe for children and
babies because he knows, more than anyone, how fragile their heads,
necks and spines are. Doctor Thibault was awarded a multi-million
dollar research grant from the National Institutes of Health to study
the area of paediatric head injuries.
Ironically, Doctor Newberger, in his grand jury testimony, relied
heavily on an article, known as The Duhaime study, to demonstrate his
claim that Matthew Eappen was violently shaken. At trial Newberger
explained that this study involved a baby doll being fitted with a
hinge and transducer for the purpose of, in Newberger's words, "
measuring the traction forces that would be measured on a doll, and
analogized to the human brain."
I said that was ironic because the principal figure in the production
of that study was Doctor Lawrence Thibault, and it was he who designed
the device in question. And here was Newberger citing that study to
back up his claim that Louise Woodward violently shook Matthew Eappen.
The above was first posted in this message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0210121157.106a7a57%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
____________________________________________
Pathetically inept, is he, PV? Not according to the world's scientific
community, among whom he is one of the most respected scientists on
the planet. Not according to the medical/paediatric community
(including Dr Newberger) among whom he is regarded as THE expert on
head injuries in children. Not according to the US Government who are
happy to pay huge sums for his vast knowledge and expertise.
Thibault is revered by the world of science and universally praised
for his massive achievements and contributions to medical knowledge
... except that is in one small corner of Florida, where a moron
calling itself "A Planet Visitor" insists all those experts are wrong
about Thibault, and that he is in fact "pathetically inept".
And Dr Leestma is pathetically inept too, is he, PV? Just wait until
you see what the world of medicine has to say about the world's number
one forensic neuropathologist .. but I will leave that until later
in this post - just after the part where you called him "a bloody
fool".
> The 'Great White Whale' who told the Newton
> police that she was a little rough with Matthew that day.
That was a PROVEN lie told by Det. Sgt William Byrne. LW said no such
thing. The prosecution witness, Matthew McCue, who was there at the
time she was alleged to have said that, confirmed that she said no
such thing. McCue is a very close friend of the Eappens who dislikes
Louise and HATES her supporters (that's another story for another day)
and so would have had no reason to lie to save her.
Byrne, on the other hand, had every reason to lie and the
circumstances surrounding that interview show clearly that he was most
definitely lying. I wrote at considerable length about those
circumstances in a post addressed directly to you. So did you attempt
to challenge any of the facts I gave you? Did you rebut any part of
that post? Did you offer any alternative explanation to mine about why
Byrne behaved in the way he did? Let's see.
Here is the post I wrote, detailing the events involving Byrne over
that two day period.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0209020613.aaae62a%40posting.google.com
That was probably the most comprehensive post I have written about the
Byrne episode. Nothing was left out. And your response? You wrote:
"ROTFLMAO.. Did I say JPB was obsessed?" followed by your "GENTLE
READER" spam. You wrote not one single word challenging that post.
Here is the URL to your "reply":
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=wbYc9.80721%24bc.1096932%40twister.tampabay.rr.com
You have still never attempted to challenge those hard facts about
Byrne and his lies and corruption. The best you can manage in response
is "ROTFLMAO" as you run for cover. Just take another look at that
pathetic response of yours to my post about Byrne - one paragraph of
"ROTFLMAO" and other inanities, followed by your usual mass of copy &
pasted spam. Nothing whatsoever about Byrne. Nothing whatsoever
relating to the post you were "replying" to. Look at it and feel
shame, PV. Shame for the cowardly way you ran and ran and ran from a
situation you just couldn't handle.
> > pretending they had never even appeared in the post he is
> >replying to and then trying to hide his retreat by simply pasting the
> >SJC ruling as if it had some relevance to them .... which, of course,
> >it doesn't.
>
> Actually, all of my postings come from that ruling.
No, PV, most of your postings on this topic ARE that ruling. You just
copy & paste it without even reading it. And you STILL haven't read
it. You said that it dealt, individually, with all of those seven
points on the list; I told you it dealt with only one. The previous
two posts here (yours and mine) prove me 100% right and you a 100%
ignorant spammer.
> >But, back down to Earth we go, because there the noteworthiness of
> >August 29, 2003 ends. My recent posts, drawing attention to the way PV
> >has always run away from those seven facts, had obviously embarrassed
> >PV sufficiently to cause him to make this special effort. But, sadly,
> >he has made such a pig's ear of it, he would probably have been better
> >continuing to run away as before.
> >
> No, bullet-head... I addressed each and every point you've ever raised.
No you didn't. Your last but one post was the first time you have ever
replied individually to those seven facts. And that is giving you far
more credit than you deserve because, in reality, you replied to only
one of them (the first). All your other attempts were a sham because
your "replies" were unconnected to the points they were supposed to
address. And, as I showed above, you have never addressed the evidence
of Sgt Byrne's lies.
Or are you saying that "ROTFLMAO" is an answer to the question of why
Byrne never mentioned the alleged confession in his report? Is
"ROTFLMAO" a rebuttal of my points about Matthew McCue confirming that
LW never made that confession? Is your explanation of why Byrne told
two conflicting stories to the Grand Jury and actual trial,
"ROTFLMAO"?
I guess it is. I guess "ROTFLMAO" is your only answer to those and the
many, many other questions you have always run away from. That and the
spam, eh, PV?
> By demolishing your claims of 'corruption.'
Oh yes, "ROTFLMAO" really demolishes everything I have shown, with
clear, concise and irrefutable facts, about police and prosecutorial
corruption, doesn't it? In your dreams, PV! You have consistently run
away from my claims about corruption, never daring to argue properly
against the facts I have provided. You ran away from the post referred
to above about Byrne. You ran away from other posts about that tape
recording PROVING that officers Downing and Braceland lied. You ran
away from posts about Sgt McCarthy's attempts to pervert justice which
were brought to Harvey Silverglate's attention by LW's previous
employer, Mr Komishane. You ran away from the evidence of prosecution
witness Kathleen Sorabella's proven lies having been given to her by
prosecutors, who were the only people who could have known about a
certain fact she inadvertently let slip while on the witness stand.
And your answer to all that evidence? "ROTFLMAO". That is the best you
can do, isn't it, PV? That and your spam. Demolishing my claims? As I
said, only in your dreams, but certainly not in the archives of this
newsgroup, which PROVE that you always run away whenever you can't
face the unanswerable arguments facing you.
> >1. The above, from the SJC ruling, does not disprove the defence claim
> >but merely offers a possible - though highly unlikely - alternative
> >explanation.
> >
> Of course it does. It discredits it totally. Who are YOU to claim it
> doesn't?
Why don't you read what it says? "His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he
did not know the precise location from which he had taken the critical
dura samples ...."
You see those two words - "one interpretation"? Do I really have to
give you reading lessons in addition to exposing the non-existence of
your argument now?
> A polite way of saying that Dr. Leestma was not that convincing on
> the stand? Or a polite way of saying that Dr. Leestma is a bloody
> fool, whose motto is -- first money...then ethics!!
Here we go again. So Leestma is a "bloody fool" is he? Then let's see
if prosecution witness, Dr Umberto DeGirolami, agrees with you. From
the transcripts:
SCHECK: Let's start again, Doctor. You have been a hospital
pathologist of longstanding, is that not true?
DEGIROLAMI: Yes.
SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that the, that there is a field
of forensic pathology, and forensic neuropathology?
DEGIROLAMI: Yes, there is.
SCHECK: That's a different, somewhat different kind of discipline.
DEGIROLAMI: Quite different.
SCHECK: And as a matter of fact, there are differences, would you not
agree, between these subspecialties of pathology?
DEGIROLAMI: There are.
SCHECK: And there are certain subtleties involved in each of them.
DEGIROLAMI: Yes, there are.
SCHECK: And Dr. Leestma, for example, he's a colleague that you know.
DEGIROLAMI: Yes.
SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that one of his areas of
specialty certainly is forensic pathology.
DEGIROLAMI: That's right, neuropathology in particular.
SCHECK: Forensic neuropathology.
DEGIROLAMI: Right.
SCHECK: Which is precisely the question we're dealing with here.
DEGIROLAMI: Yes.
SCHECK: And it would be fair to say as well, that he's a person of
longstanding experience in the area of forensic neuropathology.
DEGIROLAMI: Yes, that's quite correct.
SCHECK: And as a matter of fact, he's written a textbook in this
area.
DEGIROLAMI: Yes, I know.
SCHECK: Have you reviewed this lately?
DEGIROLAMI: Many times.
SCHECK: Many times. And it would be a text that you would adopt as
authoritative I suppose.
DEGIROLAMI: Absolutely.
SCHECK: And it would be fair to say that he is perhaps one of the
leading forensic neuropathologists in our country.
DEGIROLAMI: For sure.
SCHECK: Maybe the top person in forensic neuropathology?
DEGIROLAMI: Yes, that's quite true.
So there we have it, from one of the prosecution's own medical
experts: Dr Jan Leestma is "the top person in forensic
neuropathology". But not according to the idiot PV, who insists that
Leestma is " a bloody fool" and "pathetically inept".
So tell us, PV, what do you know about forensic neuropathology that Dr
DeGirolami doesn't know? Do you even know what forensic neuropathology
is? Of course you don't because you know nothing, you ignorant
buffoon.
Now let's look at what Britain's top pathologist, Dr Iain West, has to
say about Dr Leestma. Dr West is renowned throughout the world for his
eminence in his field. Dr West was the leading pathologist in the
investigation into the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster. He also carried
out the autopsy on murdered TV personality, Jill Dando. Since studying
the evidence in the LW trial, Dr West has publicly stated his own
belief in Louise's innocence. But much earlier, before he had even had
an opportunity to examine the facts, he stated:
"I have only read reports of the trial and have not seen all the
evidence myself but I can draw a firm conclusion based on Leestma's
evidence - which is factual, new blood vessels seen under the
microscope are a fact - that this child had an injury which was at
least two weeks old. Dr. Leestma is an eminent pathologist at the
Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery. If he says there is a neomembrane
forming then I accept his word for it"
So tell us, PV, what do you know about medicine that Dr Iain West
doesn't know? If Dr. Leestma's judgement is good enough for such a
world renowned and experienced pathologist as Dr West, what do you
know that enables you to call him "a bloody fool"?
The truth is that you know nothing about Dr Leestma, you know nothing
about neuropathology, you know nothing about this case and ...... in
short, you know nothing ... period.
> >3. Dr DeGirolami (a prosecution witness) confirmed that he saw "a few
> >extra cells on the outer surface of the dura" and offered the
> >explanation that "bits and pieces of periosteum became dislodged and
> >became attached to the dura ...". So where else could the periosteum
> >have come from?
> >
> Since you admit that the testimony of Dr. DeGirolami was examined by
> the jury, it's rather obvious that THEY found your 'question' to not be
> relevant, in respect to your implication that it 'proves' a previous injury,
> and a 're-bleed.' You certainly can't presume that YOUR opinion carries
> greater weight than that of 12 members of the jury who spent a
> considerable amount of time pouring over evidence that you will
> never see. Can you????
Yes I certainly can because, as I have said before, the jurors
admitted that they were baffled by the evidence. That isn't a
criticism of the jurors because they only heard the evidence once and
so it is not surprising that they failed to take it in. The
transcripts and other evidence such as the photos and other exhibits
are still available for study and I have spent much longer studying
that evidence since the trial than the jurors spent during and
immediately following it.
Now, here is a question for you: Which evidence is it that you refer
to when you say," ... 12 members of the jury who spent a considerable
amount of time pouring over evidence that you will never see"?
Which evidence did the jurors see that I will never see? Are you under
the impression that the jury were privy to information that was, and
still is, kept secret and unavailable to the public? Then do tell us
precisely what this evidence is. And if you try to run away from this
question, I will repeat it again and again until you answer it.
> >Oh dear, you stupid man, 95% of the SJC ruling you extracted there
> >dealt with the question of the dura which was discarded in
> >contravention of a court order, and not the photographs showing lipped
> >edges on the fracture. So all that can be clipped, leaving just this
> >part:
> >
> How's this -- from the Supreme Court ruling -- "At trial, Dr. DeGirolami
> testified that the sections had not been discarded, that he had been able
> to "reconstruct" the dura and that no pieces were missing. The
> neuropathologist testifying for Woodward, Dr. Jan Leestma, after
> reviewing the "reconstruction," maintained that pieces of dura were
> missing." It is obvious that you are simply presuming that Dr. Leestma
> is 'right' and Dr. DeGirolami is 'wrong.' An unwise choice in my
> view... and the view of everyone in the process of judging the
> 'Great White Whale.' It seems your 'opinion' is in the great
> minority.
You complete idiot! Look at the paragraph you were replying to there.
Why did I call you stupid? Because you had posted a huge and totally
irrelevant extract from the SJC ruling that dealt with the missing
dura, when the question was not about the dura but the photographs.
And here you are doing it again! You really do need reading lessons
don't you?
Do you not know the difference between dura and photographs? The dura
is a membrane lining the skull and photographs are what cameras
produce. Is that clear for you now?
> In fact, the use of 'lipped' is a funny-story in itself. It seems that
> this word does not appear in the entire trial, until the defense
> RECALLED (probably after some intensive 'defense strategy
> sessions') Dr. Baden, as the VERY FINAL 'defense medical
> expert' (sic). After a four-day 'break' in his testimony. One
> wonders what Dr. Baden was 'briefed' on during that four-day
> break in his testimony.
Oh dear, you've slipped up again and revealed that you have never read
either the transcripts or the SJC ruling. My god, how many times have
you done this now?
OF COURSE, there was no mention of lipped edges until late in the
trial. OF COURSE Baden didn't mention them when he first appeared. And
the utterly staggering thing is that you don't know why that is! You
really don't, do you?
And the reason you don't know is that you never even read that extract
you posted from the SJC ruling only a few days ago. So here it is
again:
"For similar reasons we conclude that the medical examiner's
negligence in failing to produce in a timely way the two closer, more
sharply focused photographs of the skull fracture and the prejudice
from their belated availability to Woodward were not so great as to
justify dismissing the indictment. In response to the admittedly
belated delivery of the photographs to Woodward ...."
Now what do you think the SJC meant by "failing to produce in a timely
way" and "the admittedly belated delivery of the photographs"?
Here is another clue from my own fact number two:
" However, the photographs which, conveniently for the prosecution,
were kept hidden until the trial was almost over, showed that this
lipping was indeed present."
Now can you see it? Read those words: "kept hidden until the trial was
almost over". Now do you understand, moron?
Make no mistake, PV, I intend to keep reminding you of this one just
as I will about your "Actually, that has absolutely nothing to do with
the damage incurred to Matthew" remark.
> >But even that is totally irrelevant to the fact that those
> >photographs, showing lipped edges on the fracture, are conclusive
> >proof of innocence.
>
> Horseshit, bullet-head. That was certainly not found to be 'conclusive'
> of anything by the jury.
Yes, that is what I said: that it is conclusive proof of innocence.
Who said anything about the jury? I am talking about the facts, not
the jury. The jury got it wrong and that is what the whole controversy
that followed that trial was all about. What have the jury got to do
with the question of what is and is not proof of innocence? They got
it totally wrong and have been proven, beyond question, to have done
so. So what does their judgement count for? Absolutely nothing. Your
ridiculous words about the jury are rather like saying that a horse
has no chance of winning a race because a certain tipster who never
picks winners says so.
"The jury said so" is not even an argument, let alone the final one,
as you seem to think. Juries said that those 100+ prisoners who have
been released from death row were all guilty. So the juries were right
and the exculpatory DNA evidence was wrong - is that it? According to
your insane logic, it is.
When are you going to get it through to your thick head that the jury
and their verdict are meaningless in respect of the facts that prove
LW innocent? If a jury tell you that 2+2=5, are you going to believe
it? Are you going to claim that is now set in stone and ends all
arguments about the matter? That is what you are trying to do
regarding the LW case. And it is obvious why - because you can't argue
on the evidence so instead you just take the easy way out by repeating
"the jury said so" rather like a talking parrot.
"The jury said so" has always been your cop-out. You have always
retreated to that whenever the discussion has become too difficult for
you to handle. It reveals your own lack of self-confidence in
discussing this topic. You know that you can't hope to make any ground
discussing the evidence itself, so whenever things are becoming too
difficult for you and you can't think of an answer, out comes "the
jury said so". It's pathetic.
The remaining items from the list of seven facts were all "dealt with"
in the same way in your latest post - i.e. you ran away from them yet
again. So I will ask you again: Where is any direct mention of layered
subdural bleeding, soft tissue swelling, the 15ft fall claim or lipped
edges on the skull fracture in the SJC ruling? Look at those two words
there - "direct mention". So stop trying to muddy the waters with this
drivel about how a few totally irrelevant paragraphs deal collectively
with them all, because they don't and you are fooling nobody with that
cop-out.
> On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both
> of her little boys, eight-month-old Matty and two-and-a-half-year-old
> Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matty, she changed Brendan's
> diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine... etc, etc.
More plagiarism from PV! Does anyone see any quotation marks around
the above text? Does anyone see any acknowledgements that the above
(and the other paragraphs which I clipped) were the exact words spoken
by prosecutor Gerald Leone in his opening statement at the trial?
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
What the hell are you up to, PV? Run out of things to write, have you?
Trying to pass off Leone's words as your own, are you?
Why didn't you acknowledge that those were not your words? Trying to
cheat your way through this discussion, are you? It's not the first
time you have tried that, is it?
I should treat that with the contempt it deserves by simply clipping
it, as those words have absolutely nothing to do with you and you have
failed to acknowledge that. But I will reply to it because it again
shows that you have never read the transcripts you copy & paste stuff
like that from. What you didn't know was that later in that trial,
those words were disproved by Deborah Eappen herself.
The following is from the Boston Herald, Oct. 9, 1997:
__________________________________________
Under cross-examination by Scheck, Madsen said he was told the
9-month-old boy was "healthy and fine" on the morning of Feb. 4.
Referring to notes written by Matthew's mother, Dr. Deborah Eappen,
Scheck asked if Madsen knew Matthew was "cranky, lethargic and lacked
an appetite" a day before he was rushed to Children's Hospital.
Madsen, who performed the unsuccessful emergency brain surgery on
Matthew, said he was not aware of that and added he had never been
shown Deborah Eappen's notes.
"It would be important to know if a child was falling asleep for long
periods of time, wouldn't it?" asked Scheck.
Madsen replied, "Possibly important to know."
When asked about Matthew's lack of appetite, Madsen said, "That would
be important, yes."
Asked if being cranky, extraordinarily sleepy and having little
appetite was consistent with a pre-existing brain injury two to three
weeks old, Madsen said, "Yes. That would be consistent."
Copyright Boston Herald
_____________________________________________
When are you going to actually research this case before making a fool
of yourself, again and again, as you have done here? You thought you
were filling space, padding out your post by copy & pasting Leone's
statement, didn't you? You thought it looked good and, by pretending
it was your own work, you too would look good. But all that has
happened is that you have fallen flat on your face because you didn't
know about Deborah Eappen's testimony.
Maybe you have read that report before, but read ONLY THE FIRST LINE.
Yes, that would be totally in keeping with your record on this topic.
But reading further we learn that Matthew was not "healthy and fine"
at all, but was "cranky", lethargic, and refusing his food, not only
the previous day, as revealed in the report, but also on the morning
of Feb 4, as the transcripts reveal.
Deborah Eappen lied, firstly to the hospital's social worker and then
to the doctors who were battling to save her baby's life - and needed
accurate information to do so effectively - about Matthew's symptoms.
She later admitted telling those lies and also admitted writing down a
list of his symptoms which she failed to inform either Dr Madsen or
the social worker about. The question is ..... why did she lie? Why
did she not wish Dr Madsen to know all he needed to know to give him
the best possible chance of saving Matthew? What possible motive could
Deborah Eappen have had for dishonestly trying to make it look as if
Matthew had been fine and well in the days leading up to Feb 4, when
she knew that was not true?
You won't address those questions because you are, quite frankly,
scared of them. You feel safer with your "the jury said so" inanity,
your pasted spam and your "ROTFLMAO". It's the most you have ever
managed in all the time you have been ranting about this case, so I
don't expect any change now or ever from you.
Jigsaw1695
"Just passing by" <unimpre...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1da28.0309...@posting.google.com...
< < Y A W N ! ! ! > >
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<csa5lvoke01pd60j0...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) vomited:
TITLE:
THE BOOK OF PROOFS AND FACTS -- SECOND EDITION
A look into the mind of JPB -- a deeply disturbed lovelorn fruitcake.
FOREWORD:
I warn everyone that this is a lengthy list of evidence. But necessary
if one wishes to actually seek the TRUTH in the case of Louise
Woodward (hereafter referred to as the 'Great White Whale').
Those uninterested in the case, or the truth, should simply stop
now, and not bother spending time examining the case and the
truth. Like all discussions in depth, brevity is often impossible
when seeking the truth. I do not intend to be brief here. Fair
warning, right up front.
At the conclusion of this book of evidence, is a list of references
made available for anyone wishing to investigate further on their
own. These references include links to the entire trial testimony,
the ruling of the Superior Court trial judge, the appeal of the
prosecution to the Supreme Court, the appeal of the defense to
the Supreme Court, and the ruling of the Supreme Court. Many
references are made to those documents in the course of this
examination of the evidence. In addition to references to other
documents available on the Internet.
What I intend to demonstrate that is most evident about JPB's
'argument' regarding the presumed innocence of the 'Great
White Whale' -- is that it is permeated by a certain amount of
denial of the truth. Without finding such denial necessary, to
form the bedrock of his argument, it becomes evident that he
has no argument at all. In the course of this post, I will
examine some of his denials of the truth. I ask only that the
reader approach this with an open mind.
CHAPTER I : PROLOGUE
On the morning of February 4th, Debby Eappen awoke with both
of her little boys, eight-month-old Matthew and two-and-a-half-year-old
Brendan. She awoke, she breast-fed Matthew, she changed Brendan's
diaper; both of the boys were normal, healthy, well, and fine. She
gave some instructions to the 'Great White Whale' concerning care
for the kids that day, and she left the home to work at her part-time
job as an ophthalmologist. When she left that home, Matthew
Eappen was normal, healthy, and well. It was the last time Debby
Eappen would see her little boy normal, healthy, and well again.
Because later that day, after a 911 call from the Great White Whale,
Matthew Eappen was rushed to Children's Hospital, suffering from
a fractured two-and-a-half-inch fractured skull, a massively-swollen
brain, and bloody retinal hemorrhaging all over his eyes, that
occurred while in the care of the Great White Whale that day.
Debby Eappen would rush to Children's Hospital, as would Sunny
Eappen. And the next time Debby Eappen would see her little boy,
he was lying on a gurney in the emergency room at Children's
Hospital, suffering from that skull fracture, from the massively
swollen brain, and the retinal hemorrhaging in his eyes in the
area that leads to his brain. Matthew Eappen was rushed into
a C-T scan, a picture of his brain taken. He was then whisked
off to the operating room, and his parents watched him be wheeled
into that operating room for an emergency brain surgery.
And during the course of this surgery, as the Children's Hospital
doctors tried to save little Matthew's life, the Great White Whale was
back in the Eappen home in Newton. She was being interviewed
by police officers that evening, giving an explanation for what she
said happened that day.
She told those Newton police officers that she was unhappy
and frustrated with Matthew's crying all day. She told those
Newton police officers that she was a little rough with Matthew
that day, that she tossed him on the bed before a bath, that she
dropped him to a tile floor in the bathroom and possibly his
head hit where the bath meets the tile on that floor. That she
later shook him to revive him because he seemed unresponsive
to her.
While this explanation was being given by the Great White Whale to
the Newton police officers, the doctors at Children's Hospital were
still trying to save Matthew's life and he was fighting for his life.
The doctors at Children's Hospital will tell you that the explanation
the Great White Whale gave to the Newton police officers for
what happened that day is untrue. A two-and-a-half-inch skull
fracture to the back of Matthew's head, a massively-swollen brain
pressing against the sides of his skull, bloody retinal hemorrhaging
in the area of his head, between the eyes of the brain; these injuries
were not caused by someone being a "little rough." These injuries
were not caused by a toss on the bed or a drop to the floor. These
injuries weren't caused by a gentle revival shaking. These injuries
were caused by a violent slam against a hard object causing that
skull fracture which eventually killed Matthew five days later, an
extremely atrocious, cruel manner of death, as he progressively
worsened over those five days. A violent slam against a hard
object and severe prolonged shaking, so that that baby's head
went back and forth, back and forth, shearing the veins inside
his head, causing the retinal hemorrhaging, actions that anyone
would know would cause a little eight-month-old boy to die. [1]
If there is any 'emotion' to be displayed in this case... it must be
for poor little Matthew... horribly abused by the 'Great White Whale'
on February 4, 1997..now.lies dead in his grave... unwept and forgotten
in a pathetic attempt by JPB to claim the only person who COULD
HAVE done this ---the 'Great White Whale' (who looks quite flabby
and unappealing as a human, but would be quite mouth watering if
she were actually a large ripened ring of camembert) -- didn't do it.
Presuming as 'justification' for his belief: that it rests on two, and only
two, flimsy and unbelievably absurd arguments --
1) Everyone in the prosecutorial process was corrupt, or a crook.
His hysterical accusations that a 'riddled with corruption' State of
Massachusetts was actually behind a great conspiracy in the prosecution
of the 'Great White Whale' as the perpetrator of that killing!! Further
presuming that EVERYONE KNOWS she didn't do it, but STILL
voted for guilty.
2) Good old Plan B. The 'blame someone else' plan (called
the 're-bleed defense' in the case of the 'Great White Whale').'
The absurd idea that Matthew had ALREADY been 'dropped'
before, and the 'Great White Whale' had simply 'inherited' a child
who was a 'time-bomb,' who was going to 'bleed out' if she simply
fed the baby. Her defense found some 'hired-gun' doctors who
would testify that it was 'possible,' but they could produce no actual
case. And they found some other 'hired-gun' doctors who would
testify that they had 'heard' of it, but still no specific case. How
strange. Of course, it's strange to build a case on 'non-evidence,'
and a plan-B defense of accusing someone who was not there at
the time the baby was harmed.
I personally find the reasons that JPB is obsessed with the 'Great
White Whale' are just too disturbing to imagine, thus I must blame
it simply on his 'affection for flabby women.' The 'gentle reader,'
if he gets far enough into it, will have to determine what his motives
are..as I present what certainly represents the evidence at hand
which shows why the jury, the trial judge, and the Massachusetts
Supreme Court found the 'Great White Whale' undeniably guilty
of manslaughter, in what follows. I personally have not the slightest
doubt of her guilt.
That being said -- let us recapitulate JPB's 'argument' suggesting that
the _Great White Whale_ is somehow 'innocent,' while keeping in
mind Lewis Carroll remarking -- ""Contrariwise, continued Tweedledee,
if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be: but as it is, it ain't.
That's logic."
CHAPTER II: JPB'S DENIALS
JPB's argument, in fact, stinks like a three-day old mackerel left in
the sun too long to me.. yet he will not let it die... trying to resuscitate
that fish, by puffing it up with mouth-to-mouth fillip. Understand,
Gentle Reader, that I will again no longer play with him, and will
continue to post my destruction of his various ravings he presumes
are arguments. One cannot argue intelligently with an obsessive
zealot, operating on nothing other than such ravings. One can
only look as stupid as he does by continuing to engage in that
hysteria. I will continue to post this book of evidence whenever
he becomes hysterical again. JPB imagines that I will 'play' the
role of the prosecutor, while he 'plays' the role of the defense, in
a sham exhibition permitting him to spread his poisonous lies.
JPB expects me to 'debate' with him an open and shut case of
the guilt of a baby-killer. He should not expect that I would
flatter him by even presuming there is something TO DEBATE
here. The proof of her guilt is hardly 'debatable' since she was
found guilty. His pitiful whining is beneath any standard which
would presume 'debate' is possible.
So, Gentle Reader... let us begin by first examining some of
JPB's unfounded accusations against EVERYONE in the justice
process, while making claims of the 'innocence' (sic) of the
'Great White Whale,' without the slightest foundation of 'proof' --
Just a small number of those silly words, which he's provided
in the past, lacking any substance other than those maladroit
ravings I speak of -- His words in quotes, and my comments
when appropriate --
CHAPTER III: UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS --
Certainly, it has been recognized in the past, over and over... that
JPB depends on presuming the corruption of everyone in the
prosecution -- Some of his exact words demonstrating that, follow
in these 23 quotes from his past posts --
1) "Disgusting is it, that a totally and demonstrably innocent victim of a
deliberate frame-up by corrupt prosecutors and lying cops should study
law? Then qualify and justify your preposterous outburst with facts
relating to that case. Produce here just one piece of real evidence
indicating that Louise Woodward caused the death of Matthew Eappen"
Presuming that 'proof' must be provided that 'proves' she was guilty, when
that's already been established, and the responsibility to 'disprove' is totally
his. One does not need to 'prove' what has already been 'proven' in a court
of law. Anymore than one needs to 'prove' that the sun rises each morning.
2) "Excuse me, but SHE IS innocent. If you know anything about that case -
which you obviously don't - produce here just one piece of evidence
indicating Louise Woodward's guilt in causing the death of Matthew
Eappen."
Excuse me... but SHE IS NOT innocent. Since no court in any
country has declared her innocent. It is absurd that he would offer
such a lie, as a presumed 'statement of fact'. Since the 'piece
of evidence' offered is that provided by the opinion of everyone
in the judicial process... from every jury member, to the trial judge,
to every justice of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. All of whom found her guilty. Not a one, finding
her 'not guilty.'
3) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully convicted
of"
Since no court in any country has declared her innocent. It is absurd
to make such an unfounded statement. And this particular comment of
his forms the very bedrock of his entire argument in case 1), above. He
general, or has an 'I hate fat people' paranoia. Since there is no
REASON for him to have done so.
8) "one of the most blatant criminal conspiracies to frame a
demonstrably innocent person there has ever been"
The 'biggest conspiracy' was that undertaken in attempting to undermine
the verdict itself, and to successfully undermine the appropriate sentence,
because she was from the U.K. Taken through various media hypocrisy
and diplomatic channels that we will probably never know of.
9) "But not only was Louise Woodward wrongly convicted, she
was framed"
Again... an unfounded 'conspiracy theory' lie. Offered simply
as a lie.
10) "Louise Woodward did not do what she was wrongfully
convicted of. She was framed."
Again, the words "she was framed," constitute a fraud which diminishes
the life of Matthew Eappen. And certainly does NOTHING to
demonstrate any validity to JPB's argument, other than some crazy
accusations against everyone involved in her prosecution. But that
has been JPB's purpose throughout his obsession. Matthew is
NOTHING to him.. the 'Great White Whale' is everything.... to him.
11) "bombarded day after day with lies and hate stories in the
media, whilst she was locked away in jail unable to respond,
she had to appear before a jury selected from that totally
brainwashed, biased population."
Actually, there were more stories of _hate_ against the Eappens --
both being highly visible, appearing to live a life where Matthew
was not important enough to demand closer care, and having been
turned over to an irresponsible twit. Everyone in this case, seemed
more concerned with themselves, ESPECIALLY the 'Great White
Whale,' rather than actually feeling anything in respect to the true victim.
Neither the mother, the father or the 'Great White Whale' came
across as caring. The _Great White Whale_ only tried to point her
finger at them, and they didn't come across as 'grieving parents.'
After all, she argued... how could they be 'caring' if they had hired
the 'Great White Whale,' since the 'Great White Whale' was so
obviously 'uncaring' herself? What IS true, is this perception of
uncaring by the Eappen family, essentially worked in FAVOR
of the 'Great White Whale.' The real effect of her crime ONLY
came home to her rather forcefully -- and was the only time she
actually seemed concerned -- when she realized she had been found
GUILTY. Then the extent of her crime was forcibly thrust upon her.
That was the moment of her first hysteria... her first tears... her
first realization that her crime carried consequences. Tears... not
for Matthew Eappen... but for herself.
12) "Zobel certainly knows she didn't do it."
And here is the BIGGEST lie from JPB. Since the judge had the
POWER to overturn the verdict and did not do so. That is DAMNING
evidence that the judge KNOWS she DID DO IT, not that she didn't.
Simply that she did not commit the crime of murder, to the extent of
meeting the legal demand of the crime of murder, since Zobel could
not find _malice_ as a part of her crime. Further, the Massachusetts
Supreme Court upheld that decision, and in fact had a legal obligation
to examine each of the points raised by the defense in its appeal petition,
and DID SO. Those points can be found in the defense appeal, a
link to which is given in the INDEX, at the end of this book.
13) "For months on end you have claimed to agree with the ruling
of Judge Zobel you posted, without even knowing that it included
his acceptance of the re-bleed defence which you now describe as:
"the most disgusting defense imaginable"
Once again, JPB distorts the truth in his denials. Since Judge Zobel
never accepted the re-bleed defense, as his words in his ruling will
verify. He speaks only of "start (or restart) a bleeding that escalated
fatally." And I have certainly agreed, from the very beginning, with
the ruling of reducing the degree of the crime made by Judge Zobel.
Malice could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, IMHO.
Guilt of manslaughter was certainly proven WELL BEYOND a
reasonable doubt.
14) "Because the state of Massachusetts is utterly riddled with
corruption from top to bottom. Where else could four police
officers, against whom there is incontrovertible proof of
perjury, avoid any investigation of, let alone face charges for, their
proven crimes?"
And there is the _second biggest lie_ he has told in this process.
Unable to mount any kind of evidence of 'innocence,' other than what
was presented by the defense at trial, and at appeal... he is reduced
to demanding that the State... 'top to bottom' be certified as 'corrupt,'
brushing a broad stroke of 'conspiracy' across the entire prosecutorial
process. Without such sophistry, on his part, his 'argument' collapses
like a lopsided house of cards.
15) "Present here just one fact proving Louise Woodward's guilt in
causing the death of Matthew Eappen. No cop outs like "The jury
said this" or "this person said the other"
Yes, of course.. let's not 'cop out' by using the views of those
who were closest to the case. The witnesses... the jury... the trial
judge... the justices of that Supreme Court... worthless to JPB.
Instead, let's use HIS hysterical accusations that the 'proof' rests on
claims of corruption, lies, crooks, jury contamination, conspiracy,
cover-up, frame-up, perjury, biased yellow journalism, accusations
and innuendo. Even including JPB's accusation of post-trial
INTIMIDATION of 47 doctors, being the reason they signed a
particular document. At least those claims don't actually have to
be 'proven.' Yes, of course.. let's not _cop out_ by using the
words of those who were closest to the case. Let's simply use
JPB's bilious accusations That approach suits him quite well,
inasmuch as his 'argument' is based on 'the unproven.' His
'demand' that we NOT look at 'what the jury said' in
rendering their verdict, or what 'others have said' about that
verdict, means he can claim anything he wishes... but those who
believe otherwise HAVE NO VOICE. What he actually wishes
to do is make silly presumptions OUTSIDE of evidence, forever
and ever, presuming that non-evidence will prove something
16) "it is scientifically impossible for Louise Woodward to have
done what she was convicted of"
Actually, it is scientifically impossible to truthfully say it is 'scientifically
impossible.' None of us are aware of the actual limitations of science.
17) "Louise Woodward was the one who was wrongfully convicted
(she was definately innocent)"
Hardly leaving any doubt that JPB doesn't actually 'care' about
evidence. He simply raves on.
18) "She was also totally innocent of harming that baby in any way
whatsoever - a crime for which she was blatantly framed"
What can be added to a comment which has been so repetitiously,
and robotically, offered with no proof whatsoever?
19) "That she was the victim of a frame-up which included the deliberate
hiding, burial and destruction of exculpatory medical evidence, and
that four police officers committed proven perjury."
Of course... the 'hiding of exculpatory medical evidence,' and the
corrupt entire Police Force. How could anyone have missed
something so obvious? The poor, poor, misunderstood, murdering
'Great White Whale.' Can someone please give JPB a 'crying
towel'?
20) "what they were offered was murder or nothing. They all believed
she was not guilty of murder - they have said so."
JPB speaking of the jury verdict. Now, pardon me, if I don't believe
they 'said so,' in the verdict. In fact, they ALL found her guilty of
murder at trial. Only ONE, holding out for 'not guilty,' would have
been sufficient to hang that jury. She had depended on that 'one.'
Her defense depended on that 'one.' When that 'one' did not
materialize they were in a state of shock. The fact is -- the jury
was UNANIMOUS in its finding, and would obviously have
CERTAINLY found her guilty of the lesser crime she was ultimately
convicted of, if that had been the only crime for which she was
charged. In fact, they UNANIMOUSLY convicted her of a crime
GREATER than that which was eventually upheld throughout
ALL due process.
JPB's _argument_ here is reduced to --
A) The jury was 'offered murder.'
B) JPB argues they do not believe she was guilty of murder.
C) But they STILL found her guilty of murder.
What a crowd... but of course... not one of the 12 were 'crooks.'
Or perhaps to JPB... they were ALL 'crooks.' After all, they
ALL convicted her.
21) "I stated it as a fact that he had no power in this case to do
that. It remains a fact..."
22) "The defence do not make the rules. If the defence had
asked Zobel to quash the conviction, award Louise $10 million
compensation and appoint her President of the United States,
that wouldn't mean he was empowered to do so."
Here in these two statements he is claiming that Judge Zobel
did not have the POWER to overturn the verdict. In fact, a part of
the defense appeal WAS to ask that Judge Zobel to rule the
entire indictment be dismissed, and a finding of 'not guilty'
be entered by the judge. And in fact, it is proven that Judge
Zobel DID have the power to overturn the verdict. JPB
is simply caught in a lie. Because JPB's 'friend,' the Nameless
One wasn't actually much of a 'friend' as he checked with the
Massachusetts Bar Association, being so 'sure' that JPB was
right, and found out that Judge Zobel DID have such power.
This was what the Nameless One reported --
"Based on my original reading of Rule 25[b][2], I stated that
Judge Zobel could not have overturned the guilty verdict,
and that the only option open to him, was to reduce the verdict of
second degree murder, to a lesser charge, namely that of manslaughter.
Upon further investigation, however, it would appear that he was,
in fact, authorised to both reduce the verdict, and (if necessary)
quash it completely. An e-mail that I received last night, from
the Massachusetts Bar Association, would appear to confirm
this view. Unless new information comes to light, I thus confirm
that, _as far as I am able to ascertain_, PV is right."
See --
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20020830212952.10684.00000094%40mb-cu.aol.com
Poor JPB... done in... even by his 'friends.'
23) And after a pause in his ravings about the 'Great White
Whale,' JPB returned again...up to his old tricks of calling
everyone in the prosecution of the 'Great While Whale'
corrupt. Just a few days ago... He posted --
"But it is Cellucci who is the spineless one. He sat back and
just watched as those crooks, led by the then Middlesex
County DA, Tom Reilly, hid, buried and destroyed exculpatory
medical evidence and arranged for four corrupt police
officers to lie about what the defendant had said to them.
He knew what was going on but he stayed silent and did
nothing."
Time goes on... JPB never changes in his ravings.
See ---
http://child.cornell.edu/sbsletter.html
Larry Ricci
11/16/97
To the Editor:
occurred days to weeks earlier. Many in the media and the public
have failed to credit the jury in this case with having had the intelligence
to understand that the prosecution put forward well established medical
evidence that overwhelmingly supported a violent shaking/impact episode
on the day in question, when Matthew was in the sole custody of Ms.
Woodward. The hypothesis put forward by the defense that minor
trauma caused a "re-bleed" of an earlier head injury can best be
characterized as inaccurate, contrary to vast clinical experience and
unsupported by any published literature. The "re-bleed" theory in infants
is a courtroom "diagnosis", not a medical diagnosis, and the jury properly
rejected it.
Infants simply do not suffer massive head injury, show no significant
symptoms for days, then suddenly collapse and die. Whatever injuries
Matthew Eappen may or may not have suffered at some earlier date,
when he presented to the hospital in extremis he was suffering from
proximately inflicted head injuries that were incompatible with any period
of normal behavior subsequent to the injury. Such an injury would and
did produce rapidly progressive, if not immediate, loss of consciousness.
The shaken baby syndrome (with or without evidence of impact) is now
a well characterized clinical and pathological entity with diagnostic
features in severe cases virtually unique to this type of injury -
swelling of the brain (cerebral edema) secondary to severe brain injury,
bleeding within the head (subdural hemorrhage), and bleeding in the
interior linings of the eyes (retinal hemorrhages). Let those who would
challenge the specificity of these diagnostic features first do so in the
peer-reviewed literature, before speculating on other causes in court.
Indeed, the courtroom is not the forum for scientific speculation, but
rather the place where only, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in
Daubert vs. Merrill Dow, peer reviewed, generally accepted, and
appropriately tested scientific evidence should be presented.
We endorse a panel of medical experts to offer a scientifically based
analysis of the medical testimony offered in this case and others so that
some guidelines can be established for the courts on future admissibility of
scientifically supportable medical testimony.
/signed by 47 medical doctors - specializing in the diagnosis and
treatment of victims of child abuse/
Now, JPB has attempted to discredit this letter using a four-prong
approach --
1) He claims it was an effort in blackmail and distortion on the part
of Reece, Ricci, Kirschner... and probably the World Health
Organization, the Russian Mafia, Doctors Without Borders and
perhaps that guy with the gun behind the grassy knoll.
2) He claims the doctors in question were not 50 as first reported..
but ONLY 47, thus presuming the entire letter is invalidated. Oh,
yeah... that would do it... ONLY 47. Of course, a jury only needs
12.
3) He claims all the doctors signed the document, but never
actually READ it, presuming perhaps it was a petition for higher
medical fees. Or he blames it on the lack of proper reading skills
necessary to attend medical school.
4) He claims some non-entity called Ainsley...reporting live from
Ithon on the Wye river, on an obscure bulletin board site, just
a bit right from those which discuss 'alien invaders' can dispute
My God!!! Even one of the 'Great White Whale's' DEFENSE
ATTORNEYS believed she was guilty.
CHAPTER VI: THE IMAGINARY RE-BLEED AND _EVIDENCE IN
THE HYPOTHETICAL
It is ironic, that in spite of all the arguments mounted by the defense, not
ONE case....not even one, can be found of a baby who died as the defense
argued 8-month-old Matthew Eappen did: from an old, undetected skull
fracture and hemorrhage that re-bled weeks later, sending the child into a
fatal coma. In fact, some members of the defense team of the 'Great
White Whale' said (??) they had seen or heard of it. But could not
NAME one specific case.
1) An inquiry sent by The Associated Press through ProfNet, an Internet
query service that reaches about 300 hospitals and 760 colleges and
universities around the country, yielded NO examples of an old, undetected
skull fracture and hemorrhage that re-bled weeks later, sending the child
into a fatal coma. See --
http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-97/12-08-97/b07sr075.htm
2) From The New England Journal of Medicine See -
http://www.th-record.com/1998/06/19/woodward.htm
"There is no evidence of a prolonged interval of lucidity between the injury
and the onset of symptoms" in children with such severe head injuries, said the
report in the current New England Journal of Medicine. "Thus, an alert,
well-appearing child has not already sustained a devastating acute injury
that will become clinically obvious hours to days later."
The article, by four physicians at the University of Pennsylvania School
of Medicine, was commissioned by the journal to respond to the scientific
controversy over "shaken-baby syndrome" generated by the Woodward
case, although the authors did not specifically address that case. The
report, and interviews with its authors, generally bolster arguments
raised by the Woodward prosecution.
3) And see --
http://www.middlesexda.com/1999/mar79.pdf
Some comments of eminent authorities --
Dr. Douglas Miller, Chief of the Neuropathological Unit at New York
University Medical Center, a former and current neuropathology
consultant for medical examiners in New York City and the State
of New Jersey stated "I have absolutely no doubt that Matthew
Eappen died as a result of head trauma and violent shaking."
"Any other theory is preposterous." According to Dr. Miller:
1) Skulls fractures, such as that found in Matthew Eappen, are caused
by blunt head trauma.
2) The acute asymmetric brain swelling and intraceberal hemorrhage
found in Matthew Eappen are, in context, clearly the result of shaking
and impact trauma.
3) His injuries were likely a consequence of the shaking episode or of
resuscitation efforts.
4) Apart from a single clinically occult wrist fracture which was most likely
the result of a simple fall, there is no basis for any claim of older injuries
to suggest a history of chronic abuse of Matthew Eappen.
And in that same URL, according to Dr. Robert Reece, Director of
Professional Education for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the Tufts University
School of Medicine, and Director of the Child Protection Program at the
New England Medical Center, There should be no dispute, said Dr. Reece,
about Eappen’s cause of death. "We know what killed Matty Eappen: it
was massive injury to the brain that resulted from violent shaking and
slamming his head against a hard surface."
In fact, the entire argument of a re-bled is the most disgusting defense
imaginable, since it's a 'Plan B' defense... blame SOMEONE ELSE.
And in this case, doubly disgusting as the only ones who could
possibly be blamed in such a 'defense strategy,' were the PARENTS.
It's a defense strategy of TRY ANYTHING, no matter how disgraceful
it is. Since it intends to ACCUSE the Eappens of actually causing
the brain damage that killed Matthew. Not that I believe it should not
be done... simply that I believe it would be absurd not to see through it.
The defense, must of course, try ANYTHING, including sending
doctors dressed in clown outfits to testify, if they believe it can help their
client. In fact, after looking at the 'defense medical experts,' one
wonders why they were not dressed in appropriate clown outfits.
In every instance of JPB's argument, he has only tried to turn fact into
farce. Because the ONLY foundation for his argument depend totally
on presuming that EVERYONE in the prosecution and judgment of
her guilt was corrupt. Yet -
1) not one juror voted for acquittal of the _Great White Whale_
for the crime of MURDER.
2) Judge Zobel NEVER suggested she was innocent of manslaughter,
and found her guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
3) All Supreme Court Justices agreed that she was guilty of the crime
of manslaughter.
4) She was convicted of the crime of manslaughter.
JPB has always promised 'evidence' but instead has always provided
it in the hypothetical... never REAL evidence. Only accusations of
corruption against everyone in the prosecutorial process. In TRUTH,
every person in the ENTIRE justice process was convinced of her guilt.
The trial and appeal process came to the CORRECT conclusion.
She was guilty, but there was no malice, only incredible criminal
stupidity. The jury found her guilty of a greater crime... each one of them.
Judge Zobel correctly found her guilty of a lesser crime. The appeal court
TO A MAN, agreed with the fact that she was guilty. With four ruling in
favor of Zobel's reduction of the verdict, and the other three dissenting in
favor of sending it to another judge for resentencing. Not even ONE,
believed she was in any way 'innocent' (sic). These are what are called
'FACTS,' and constitute 'EVIDENCE' which provide 'PROOF.' Not
some fatuous hypothetical presumption of corruption in the process,
or an imaginary 'defense strategy' involving 'rebleed' after weeks.
CHAPER VII: THE 'DEFENSE' MEDICAL TEAM
A rollicking joke. Assembled under a principle of
Money first -- then Ethics.
Membership --
Dr. Leestma -- neuropathology
Dr. Gean - neuroradiology
Dr. Thibault - biomechanics
Dr .Ommaya - Neurology-biomechanics
Dr. Uscinski - pediatric neurosurgeon
Dr. Baden - Anatomic pathology
Not a single one actually examined Matthew Eappen. It was
all C-T scan examination, pieces of Matthew, X-Rays, and
slides of various sort. Examined by those paid by the defense.
While not a single emergency room attending physician, or
a doctor who operated on Matthew was found to be a
defense medical expert. Perhaps because Matthew represented
a little, battered boy to them... and not some impersonal slide...
where one was paid by the hour to examine it. I would certainly
lend more validity greater validity to those doctors who
PHYSICALLY EXAMINED Matthew.
Some examples of the weak testimony of that 'team' of
experts --
Dr. Ommaya -- testifying as an 'authoritative expect medical witness,'
remarked when asked about 'authoritative things,' replied "The
authoritative things I consider like the Bible... and the Koran." I'm
sure the answer to 'who dropped Matthew Eappen' can be found
there. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11140_a.html
Dr. Baden -- Gee.. do you think he'd actually say something to incriminate
the 'Great White Whale' after getting paid 300 dollars an hour to claim an imaginary
're-bleed' defense? Well, let's listen... when it was asked by the prosecution
of him --
Q And sometime in July, you told defense counsel, did you not, that you
have an opinion that the injury that Matthew Eappen suffered that caused
his death occurred sometime between forty-eight and twelve hours of his
admission to the emergency room at Children's Hospital, didn't you?
A I'm sorry, say that again?
Q Didn't you tell defense counsel sometime prior to July 21st that you had
an opinion to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the injuries that
caused Matthew Eappen's death were caused sometime in the framework
between twelve and forty-eight hours before the child presented to the
emergency room, is that true, Doctor?
A I'm not sure I said it that way
Sure, doc... we know what you mean -- the check is in the mail. See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11240_a.html
Of course Dr Baden was also famous for introducing the word
'lipping' into the testimony, after some considerable four day briefing
by the defense team, recognizing they needed a 'buzz word,' as
famous as 'if the glove don't fit... you must acquit.' That word
does not appear in the ENTIRE trial transcript, until, as noted, he
only did so on RETURN after having already finished testifying and
being cross-examined. Gee... you think maybe he was 'coached'
by the defense? Scheck is rather good at that! See -
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/11340_a.html
I believe this is the proper place to also mention the deplorable
conduct of Mr. Scheck in his cross-examination of Dr. DeGirolami,
where he played the role of a BUFFOON, before the judge,
the jury and his 'audience.' One needs to look at the opening
of that cross-examination. It's disgusting how he 'jokes' around,
pretending that HE suffers from "increased intracranial pressure
and it's tough to get started." Joking about a very serious subject,
and preening before the jury. The dialog went like this --
Q Now, Doctor -- and good morning, sir, how are you?
A Good morning. How are you?
Q Good to see you.
A Same here.
MR. SCHECK: And good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE COURT: And good morning to you, Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: And good morning.
THE COURT: Now, let's continue.
MR. SCHECK: I've been suffering from increased intracranial pressure and it's tough
to get started.
See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10380_a.html
I do not believe that helped the defense. I would not have been
amused. Since murder is serious business.
One should recognize that I did not even have the need to call
on even on the testimony of even one prosecution medical expert
to bolster the argument that Matthew died because of trauma
sustained on February 4, 1997.
Now turning to some of the Supreme Court rulings on their
finding Dr. Leestma to be 'unclear,' 'ambiguous,' and the
strong implication that his testimony was unreliable. --
Their ruling --
"Woodward relies here all but exclusively on the testimony
of Dr. Leestma who produced the magnified microscopic photographic
images of specimens of the dura. His testimony on cross-examination
is not entirely clear, although one interpretation could be that he did
not know the precise location from which he had taken the critical
dura samples and that the bone material he observed (excluding
"vital reaction") could have been an artifact of the autopsy and
therefore come from a location other than from the site of the skull
fracture. This ambiguity is sufficient in itself for us to reject Woodward's
request that we give conclusive weight to Dr. Leestma's findings."
And of course he WAS -- Dr Leetsma, who seemed unconcerned
with the fact that there was no evidence of "retinal hemorrhaging."
prior to Feb 4, 1996, the day the 'Great White Whale' harmed
Matthew, who died 5 days later. 'Retinal hemorrhages' that Scheck
rather purposely (IMHO) did not mention them. And Coakley
brought that out, in this exchange --
Q Do you have an opinion as to the age or ages of the retinal hemorrhages
that appeared in Matthew Eappen?
A Yes.
Q And what is that opinion, Doctor?
A My opinion is that the earliest ones observed were proximate to the final
events in the case. I have no evidence that they occurred at a previous
time, that retinal events and pathology evolved in the course of the child
being on a respirator to produce a final picture of retinal hemorrhages and
pathology.
And later in his testimony --
Q Well, let me ask you the question again then, Doctor. Are you
telling the jury that of the four sections of dura that you took, you
believe to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that each
one of those is evidence from that section of his skull and dura,
that he suffered from an event three weeks before he died?
A I'd have to answer that no.
Well... well... well... The reading of the cross-examination
of Dr. Leestma, is some very interesting reading. See --
http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10890_a.html
WHERE DID the defense find these clowns? Oh, yeah... now I
know where.. they were the ONLY 'medical experts' the defense
could find who would sell out their souls for a few bucks.
Money first -- then Ethics.
In fact, the only doctors who REALLY examined Matthew, himself,
and determined what injuries were found on HIM... were the attending
doctors at the Children's hospital. I believe they rather confirmed
that his trauma was experienced that day, and resulted in his death
five days later. It seems that ALL of the defense 'medical experts'
were in the field of pathology, or radiology, or biomechanics neurology,
and never examined Matthew, or operated on him. These were the
'defense medical experts' ready to 'sell their soul for a buck.' All of them
convinced medicine is Money first -- then Ethics --
One should also read the Supreme Court ruling in respect to
the many efforts of the 'defense team' to retry the entire case
before the Supreme Court in respect to medical evidence
offered already offered and adjudicated at trial. In which all
jurors were well aware of the testimony. The Supreme Court
found that -- "The Commonwealth presented its own qualified
experts, including many of the treating physicians, who concluded
that Matthew's fatal injury was caused on the day of his
hospitalization. The Commonwealth also effectively cross-examined
Woodward's medical experts." In fact, the defense medical
arguments at appeal were simply a last ditch effort to 'retry' a
case, based on 'medical non-evidence' that they had lost at trial
While the prosecution, in its appeal, never even mentions 'medical
evidence,' as its case had already been PROVEN, as to the guilt
of the 'Great White Whale.' The prosecution did not need to
prove, what had already been PROVEN. See a link to that
appeal of the prosecution to the Supreme Court in the INDEX.
Just as I did not need to use 'prosecution medical experts' to
prove that the 'Great White Whale' caused the trauma which
ended in the death of Matthew Eappen five days later.
The Supreme Court also ruled that -- ""We address and
reject her claims seeking dismissal of the indictment or a
required finding of not guilty." Rather abrupt and precise.
CHAPTER VIII: CONCLUSIONS
JPB's _evidence should not convince anyone, that the 'Great White
Whale' was anything but guilty. I believe that anyone who would be
swayed by an argument so riddled with innuendo, and hypothetical
distortions in the face of evidence to the contrary, must have another
reason for accepting JPB's 'argument' other than an ACTUAL belief
in the 'innocence' of the 'Great White Whale.' Again.. in every instance
in his dialog here, he has only tried to turn fact into farce. His argument
is at its core... flawed.... because it depends totally on presuming that
EVERYONE in the prosecution and judgment of her guilt was corrupt,
or the equally flawed argument that something happened to Matthew
which has never been recorded before. Yet the 'Great White Whale'
was the only one present when the trauma to Matthew occurred.
She was the one who called 911. She was the one who realized
she had gone too far. She even admitted as much to four police
officers, while still in a bit of shock, and then quickly denied her words,
when it became apparent to her that she was in danger of being
charged with a crime. Before that time, she did not think they were
about to find her anything but a 'victim,' just as Matthew, and she
was more forthcoming as to what she had done prior to calling
911. See what one police officer had to say... after the trial..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/118135.stm
Recognize that not one juror voted for her acquittal for a HIGHER
crime. Not one judge suggested she was innocent of all crime. JPB
has promised 'evidence' and instead ended only with insipid accusations
against everyone in the process, including the Mother and Father of
Matthew.. all to save the 'Great White Whale.'
Finally, you will notice, gentle reader, that JPB never addresses WHY
so many people could have 'got it wrong,' without calling them
crooks, liars, perjurers, or part of a vast conspiracy.
CHAPTER IX: POSTSCRIPT --
The example of JPB's defense of the _Great White Whale_ causes a
great well of pity to form for him. Falling in love with 'Bambi, the Playboy
centerfold husband murderer,' is one thing... but 'THE GREAT WHITE
WHALE'!!!! I believe I would prefer to have a pathological foot fetish,
than be the obsessive 'chubby chaser' that JPB has proved himself to
be. And in his pathetic whining for me to 'come and play with him' about
rewriting evidence, to change it to the hypothetical, he is no worse than a
whore, standing on a street corner, who would say ==> come on, honey...
spend some time with me. Let's me show you just how disgusting I can
be. <==
CHAPTER X: INDEX --
Anyone wishing the TRUTH can find the transcript of the trial at
http://www.sbs-resource.org/map.htm
The ruling of Judge Zobel can be found at
http://www.cnn.com/US/9711/10/au.pair.ruling/
The prosecution appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/appeal.html
The defense appeal petition to the Massachusetts Supreme Court at
http://www.silverglategood.com/cases/woodward/
The ruling of the Supreme Court at
http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/decision.html
JPB's hysterical claims of 'corruption' can also be found strewn
about a number of newsgroups that he haunts... looking for the
buzzword -- Woodward -- at which point he begins his 'love
affair' with the "great white whale.'
[1] http://www.sbs-resource.org/lwtrial/10040_a.html
THE END
PV
Followed by some hysterical raving from JPB... containing nothing
of value. Read and ignored the raving, which provides no evidence
whatsoever.
Cerberus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
: On 1 Sep 2003 16:17:07 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
wrote:
:
: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:<csa5lvoke01pd60j0...@4ax.com>...
: >> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
by) vomited:
80 kb?
Bloody hell PV
--
WooF w00f WooF
Just passing by
Of spam.
Not a single point addressed; not a single question answered; not a
single challenge met. Just total copy & pasted spam that PV has posted
countless times before and that has been demolished countless times
before. Just spam, that's all.
Just passing by
< PV's 100% copy & pasted spam clipped >
Not a single question answered. Every challenge ducked.
So it got too much for you again then, PV. I wondered how long you
could "tough it out" in a real exchange before running away again by
pasting your usual spam message which, translated, reads:
"I can't take any more of this from JPB. Those facts he keeps firing
at me and the frequency with which he exposes my utter ignorance on
this topic, are just too much. So I will just have to use the spam
again. I know JPB will ridicule me for this cowardly retreat, but even
that is better than having to keep up this pretence of debating on a
topic I know very little about, and care about even less."
That's about right, isn't it, PV? That is what you are really saying
when you post that long spam message. It always was before, and
nothing much changes.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:cqc8lvoaj99hh3pe9...@4ax.com...
>: On 1 Sep 2003 16:17:07 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
>wrote:
>:
>: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:<csa5lvoke01pd60j0...@4ax.com>...
>: >> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
>by) vomited:
>
>80 kb?
>
>Bloody hell PV
Heh... My first few words -- "Those uninterested in the case, or
the truth, should simply stop now, and not bother spending time
examining the case and the truth. Like all discussions in depth,
brevity is often impossible when seeking the truth. I do not intend
to be brief here. Fair warning, right up front."
But, just for you, I will tell you that many of my replies to JPB
will be simply a request to read the proof contained in my 'book,'
which contradicts everything he might say, since he has never
addressed even a single one of his 23 vomits in respect to nothing
but claims of 'corruption,' 'crooks,' 'perjury,' and 'frame-up.'
Nor has he addressed any of the other evidence I have presented.
He has simply provided spittle-filled rants, without the slightest
substance. And he is enraged that I will not 'come out and play
with him,' in order for him to provide those spittle-filled rants.
But I will not 'play' his whorish game. The case is made...
the 'Great White Whale' is a proven and TRUE baby-killer.
I will, however; just for you, include the words 'long post,' in
the subject (if I don't happen to forget), of every post that
contains only my book as a response to JPB's ugly accusations,
and his love affair with flabby baby-killers.
In short, my book contains extensive proof -- such as --
The fact that even one of the 'Great White Whale's' defense attorneys
felt such remorse that she called the 'Great White Whale' guilty.
An enormous breach of lawyer ethics, but it demonstrates the
tremendous burden that lawyer must have felt defending a client she
KNEW to be a baby-killer.
The fact that 47 doctors found the 'rebleed' defense to not be a
medical diagnose, but one used in a courtroom, plus a study in the
NE Journal of Medicine, and many other respected medical experts
found the 'rebleed' defense laughable.
The fact that 12 jurors voted unanimously for a conviction for the
crime of MURDER.. a higher degree of crime than was upheld by
the trial judge, who had no question that she was guilty, simply
that malice could not be proven and thus he upheld a guilty verdict
for manslaughter. A guilty verdict which was upheld unanimously
by seven justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
The fact that the defense 'medical team of experts' of the 'Great
White Whale' was a JOKE. With one 'expert' claiming that he relied
on 'authoritative' works such as the Bible and the Koran. Or another
'defense medical expert' who was criticized by the Supreme Court,
with them characterizing his testimony as "not entirely clear," and
filled with "ambiguity." Who also seemed totally unconcerned with
the presence of retinal hemorrhaging which he admitted himself were
the result of the trauma caused by the 'Great White Whale' on Feb
4, the day she called 911, with Matthew already in a coma. Or
another who could not remember what he had said to the defense
team when first 'employed.' While not one member of that 'team'
had actually examined Matthew... they were simply relying on slides,
chalkboard drawings, C-T scans, X-rays, and pieces of his brain,
getting paid by the hour to both examine that material and testify
the way the defense wanted them to testify, while making sure the
check was 'in the mail.' Their motto being "money first -- then ethics."
In fact, it is quite illuminating that not a single emergency room
attending physician, and not a single doctor who operated on
Matthew was found to be a defense medical expert. Perhaps
because Matthew represented a little, battered boy to them... and
not some impersonal slide... where one was paid by the hour to
examine it. Perhaps they could not be 'bought' for their testimony.
I would certainly lend greater validity to those doctors who
PHYSICALLY EXAMINED Matthew.
The fact that a defense attorney played the role of a 'clown,'
in front of the jury, when he staggered up jokingly to question a
witness and remarked that he suffers from "increased intracranial
pressure and it's tough to get started." I imagine that Matthew
found it hard to 'get started' from the coma his client had put him in.
The overall examination of this is that the TRUE victim was
lost in this disgusting display.
The fact that a Plan B defense strategy was tried.. which means
'blame it on someone else, rather than actually demonstrate your
client didn't do it,' is despicable on the face of it. The fact that
the ONLY persons who could be 'blamed' in such a defense
were the PARENTS of Matthew is even MORE despicable.
But they were the ONLY ones that the defense could 'use,'
since the 'Great White Whale' was ALONE when she called 911.
While the mother of Matthew remarked on the stand that before
she left that day, Matthew was fine.
The fact that JPB has lied throughout his love-affair with the
'Great White Whale,' having been caught-out in a lie by none
other than his 'friend,' Desmond, who 'ratted' him out, by
showing that JPB had lied.
Ah, well... I hope I remember to put 'long post' in the subject
each time I respond to JPB with my Book....
Just passing by
> But, just for you, I will tell you that many of my replies to JPB
> will be simply a request to read the proof contained in my 'book,'
> which contradicts everything he might say, since he has never
> addressed even a single one of his 23 vomits in respect to nothing
> but claims of 'corruption,' 'crooks,' 'perjury,' and 'frame-up.'
> Nor has he addressed any of the other evidence I have presented.
> He has simply provided spittle-filled rants, without the slightest
> substance.
This is just such pure fantasy! Do you really expect to fool anyone
with such a lie? It is so easy to expose that lie, as I did in the
post you failed to respond to a single challenge in.
Just one example: where is your reply to the following post?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=21b1da28.0209020613.aaae62a%40posting.google.com
That is the one about Byrne which you ran away from. You couldn't
handle it so you just wrote "ROTFLMAO" followed by a mass of totally
unrelated spam which you thought would disguise your cowardly retreat.
That was just one of countless examples of you running away.
And now you simply lie and lie and lie to try hiding the truth about
your pathetic record of never debating on that case but simply running
away from every challenge with either a mass of spam or your pathetic
"the jury said so" cop-out.
The archives, PV, are what will continue to prove your lies, not only
about the LW debate but also about the lies you have told about
others, including Desmond and the one you are still telling about
Peter Morris having said that criminals "deserve to be murdered". He
never said that; you were lying just as you are here. And the archives
will serve to prove your lies.
You are a pathetic joke who can't handle real debate and needs spam
and lies to hide that fact. The archives prove that conclusively.
You can run, PV, but you can't hide. Not even behind your spam.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:38:24 +0800, <Cerberus> wrote:
>
>>
>>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>>news:cqc8lvoaj99hh3pe9...@4ax.com...
>>: On 1 Sep 2003 16:17:07 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
>>wrote:
>>:
>>: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>>news:<csa5lvoke01pd60j0...@4ax.com>...
>>: >> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
>>by) vomited:
>>
>>80 kb?
>>
>>Bloody hell PV
>
> Heh... My first few words -- "Those uninterested in the case, or
> the truth, should simply stop now, and not bother spending time
> examining the case and the truth. Like all discussions in depth,
> brevity is often impossible when seeking the truth. I do not intend
> to be brief here. Fair warning, right up front."
I think that Cerberus' point remains - bloody hell, PV!
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
A Planet Visitor
How pathetic. Actually, it was 80 Kb of precise and accurate demolition of
your affection for 'flabby women,' JPB. Given that you've spread so
many lies and vile poison in expressions of that love for her, it took
80 Kb to demolish them. When one such as you, takes a great number
of hugh shits, in the form of lies and vile poison into AADP... a great number
of flushes are necessary to wipe away all that shit. Try and put that into an
analogy showing that 80 Kb of flushing actually only scratched the surface
of flushing away your lies and vile poison. But it will have to do for the
present. My capacity to respond to all your lies and vile poison are limited.
While you seem to be able to shit a great number of those lies and
vile poison. I can only do what I am able to do. Perhaps it will take
90 or 100 Kb. But I'll keep plugging away... while you'll keep shitting those
lies and vile poison, I'm sure.
One must wonder what form of a psychotic disorder must live in the mind
of someone who --
1) Loves a by-killer
2) Fanatically supports a racist.
3) Weeps over the passing of a murderous regime in Iraq
PV
A Planet Visitor
Refer to the following for questions unanswered by JPB --
Boris Dynin
The only good faggot and child molester is a dead one, then the
fertiliser gets recycled!!
On 26 Aug 2003 07:14:10 -0700, sus...@attbi.com (Suzanne) wrote:
>This has been in the news lately, and I fully expected this to be
>discussed in here by now, as much as it relates to the DP issue.
>
>Most of you are probably aware that last Saturday, Aug. 23, John
>Geoghan was strangled and beaten to death in his cell. Geoghan was
>the priest in the Boston archdiocese who is said to have molested over
>150 children during his priesthood. Rather than stopping him or
>reporting him to authorities, the Catholic Church protected Geoghan by
>shunting him around from one parish to another. This came to an end
>when he was sentenced to a 9 to 10 year term.
>
>The suspect, Joseph L. Druce, prepared by stretching socks to strangle
>Geoghan and by cutting a book apart to use in jamming his cell door.
>Druce followed Geoghan into his cell after the inmates returned their
>lunch trays at about 11:52 AM, jammed the door, bound Gehoghan, and
>proceeded to beat and strangle him. When a guard on duty was alerted
>to the attack, he found the door jammed. By the time help arrived and
>guards got into the cell with a nurse it was too late, and Geoghan was
>pronounced dead at 1:17 PM.
>
>Druce is already serving a sentence of life without parole for the
>murder of a gay man 15 years ago. Massachusetts does not have the
>death penalty. What do you do with a prisoner serving LWOP who has
>just killed again? Give him another LWOP sentence?
>
>In this case, many people might shrug their shoulders, look at the
>harm Geoghan has done, and consider justice done. But this has
>happened before. In another abolitionist state a female corrections
>officer was murdered by an inmate serving several life sentences for
>multiple murders. He got another life sentence. In such cases,
>doesn't LWOP become a suit of armor to make a remorseless, repeat
>killer untouchable?
Just passing by
> On 2 Sep 2003 12:29:54 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>
> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<cqc8lvoaj99hh3pe9...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >< PV's 100% copy & pasted spam clipped >
> >
> >Not a single question answered. Every challenge ducked.
> >
> >So it got too much for you again then, PV. I wondered how long you
> >could "tough it out" in a real exchange before running away again by
> >pasting your usual spam message which, translated, reads:
> >
> >"I can't take any more of this from JPB. Those facts he keeps firing
> >at me and the frequency with which he exposes my utter ignorance on
> >this topic, are just too much. So I will just have to use the spam
> >again. I know JPB will ridicule me for this cowardly retreat, but even
> >that is better than having to keep up this pretence of debating on a
> >topic I know very little about, and care about even less."
> >
> >That's about right, isn't it, PV? That is what you are really saying
> >when you post that long spam message. It always was before, and
> >nothing much changes.
So what does PV do? He posts the same spam, as referred to above, and
as he has pasted into countless posts before, all of which was totally
demolished with facts long ago, in REPLY to my accusation about him
posting it before.
I think he must be on a mission to prove me right in everything I say
about him and accuse him of. What other possible explanation could
there be?
>
> Refer to the following for questions unanswered by JPB --
All of it has been answered and demolished, as I keep proving through
the archives.
< same old spam clipped >
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<8agalv80lih8344t6...@4ax.com>...
>
>> But, just for you, I will tell you that many of my replies to JPB
>> will be simply a request to read the proof contained in my 'book,'
>> which contradicts everything he might say, since he has never
>> addressed even a single one of his 23 vomits in respect to nothing
>> but claims of 'corruption,' 'crooks,' 'perjury,' and 'frame-up.'
>> Nor has he addressed any of the other evidence I have presented.
>> He has simply provided spittle-filled rants, without the slightest
>> substance.
>
>This is just such pure fantasy!
LOL... See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
That's all it takes. We now return to the spittle-filled rants and raves
of JPB, which I will certainly not dignify with any response that might
lend someone to believe he is anything more than a crazed, obsessive
'chubby-chaser.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
>In article <8agalv80lih8344t6...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 14:38:24 +0800, <Cerberus> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>>>news:cqc8lvoaj99hh3pe9...@4ax.com...
>>>: On 1 Sep 2003 16:17:07 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by)
>>>wrote:
>>>:
>>>: >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>>>news:<csa5lvoke01pd60j0...@4ax.com>...
>>>: >> On 30 Aug 2003 11:13:03 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing
>>>by) vomited:
>>>
>>>80 kb?
>>>
>>>Bloody hell PV
>>
>> Heh... My first few words -- "Those uninterested in the case, or
>> the truth, should simply stop now, and not bother spending time
>> examining the case and the truth. Like all discussions in depth,
>> brevity is often impossible when seeking the truth. I do not intend
>> to be brief here. Fair warning, right up front."
>
>I think that Cerberus' point remains - bloody hell, PV!
>
Just fine and dandy with me... See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
Recognize the similarity?
PV
A Planet Visitor
>A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<0sndlv0v6dgaov2eu...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Sep 2003 12:29:54 -0700, unimpre...@yahoo.com (Just passing by) wrote:
>>
>> >A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message news:<cqc8lvoaj99hh3pe9...@4ax.com>...
First... everyone should note that JPB has committed 'FORGERY'
of my words... having placed that forgery into quotes, again LYING
by hoping others believe those are my words.
Second, one need look no further than
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/JPB.html
to find the complete destruction of every word written by
JPB... he simply repeats the SAME garbage... ad infinitum.
LIES... DISTORTIONS... FRAUD. The fact I will no
longer pander to his lies, distortions and fraud has driven
him over the edge of sanity. It all comes back to his
OBSESSION with the 'Great White Whale.' While I can
no longer provide 'long range' therapy in his mental illness
that he DENIES... but is plain to see. He DID try to
deny his obsession... with this short response in a post --
"Just for the record, I have no such obsession and no such
attraction." Of course my response to that is --
How sad... obsession coupled with delusion... You realize that
obsession is often accompanied by the delusion that one is not
actually obsessed... don't you? Such a diagnosis of obsession
is best left to unbiased therapists such as myself, and not to
any attempts at self-diagnosis. Since self-denial is simply a
manifestation of the underlying mental affliction.
"Just for the record".. I have done my best to provide the necessary
mental therapy you so desperately need in this admittedly limited
forum. I'm afraid the rest is either in the hands of therapists who
can work more intimately with you in one-on-one personalized
sessions (perhaps look for an overweight therapist -providing the
possibility of 'affection transference')... or it rests in the hands of
God. I certainly can help no more in the long distance therapy
I've been providing to you.
But you must admit that the pictures bear a striking resemblance
in the URL I've provided.
PV
BTW -- She's a baby-killer, JPB... you SHOULD find some
way to permit 'affection transference' to at least direct your
obsession toward a less disgusting persona. I understand that
Sarah Ferguson is 'free' at the moment. Perhaps you also have
a 'toe fetish.' You can cut out her picture from most of the
British Tabloids, to post about your room.
Pathetic whining of JPB... to 'come out and whore around with
me,' read, and found it provided me a great laugh... but would
have been an insult to Matthew Eappen to even consider
pandering to the baby-killer lover. The answers are etched
in stone in the URL provided above --