Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
tribe
I think Louise is the only one who REALLY knows wether she shook baby Eapan,
causing fatal injuries...but if you are asking if she has been convicted...yes, she
was found guilty of manslaughter...and is apealing her case. She was originally
found guilty of murder 2...but Judge Hiller Zobel threw that verdict out based on
the jury's mistaken verdict, (or what he saw as a mistake in their reading of the
jury charge he gave). As far as the supportive letters...-- and this is solely my
opinion-- that is just one product of the mass following Louise gained by people
who have blind faith in her innocence, people who I don't think could be swayed to
believe otherwise, even if confronted with hardfast evidence. I would be suprised
if even 30% of her following had actually watched or followed this case from
beginning to end.
iberty wrote:
> I am just wondering whether Louise Woodward is guilty or innocent in the death
> of baby Mathew Eappan.
>
> I hear people I know say that she is as guilty as sin and I hear about people
> who are sending her letters expressing support.
>
> So what is the story? Is she guilty or innocent? And please verify your claims.
glas
ProLiberty wrote ...
|I am just wondering whether Louise Woodward is guilty or innocent in the
death
|of baby Mathew Eappan.
|
|I hear people I know say that she is as guilty as sin and I hear about
people
|who are sending her letters expressing support.
|
|So what is the story? Is she guilty or innocent? And please verify your
claims.
The story is that you missed the story. We did this one about 2 months ago.
glas
ProLiberty
LdyKarola
Of smilling like a cat that just swallowed a mouse(YES)
She has a whole web page of that,
Where are the supporters for baby Matthew?
If It isnt too much to ask.Pro Liberty, For whom?
Karola
Robotclaw
<As far as the supportive letters...-- and this is solely my
opinion-- that is just one product of the mass following Louise gained by
people
who have blind faith in her innocence,>>
I think a lot of people started mistaking this baby shaker with Mary Poppins,
some kind of misplaced Anglophilia somehow connected with Princess Di.
Sometimes I wonder if this is the same country that dumped tea into the ocean.
SWT
True Crime! Music! Radio! Potatoheads!
Check my web site:
http://members.aol.com/bluespud/
JBrown6000
SWT says:
<<I think a lot of people started mistaking this baby shaker with Mary Poppins,
some kind of misplaced Anglophilia somehow connected with Princess Di.
Sometimes I wonder if this is the same country that dumped tea into the ocean.
**Possibly. I, however, just think she's innocent. Not an anglophile.
Don't own one piece of Diana memorabilia. Sad she died though.
jb
ProLiberty
Then could you please explain how baby Mathew got his fractured skulled and
died?
JBrown6000
probliberty says:
<<
Then could you please explain how baby Mathew got his fractured skulled and
died?
**Haven't a clue. I don't think anybody else does either. But Louise makes a
tidy scapegoat.
jb
ProLiberty
jbrow...@aol.com typed:
<<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
What makes you think she is innocent? Her appearance and British accent?
BTW, I just found out from an article from a newspaper I found in my room from
about 2 months ago that according to the baby's mother, Woodward never called
to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a seriously
injured infant she cared for?
Henry Jackson Browne
--
x-no-archive: yes
ProLiberty wrote in message
<19980102060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>jbrow...@aol.com typed:
>
><<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
>
>What makes you think she is innocent? Her appearance and British accent?
There was no credible eviden that she murdered the child.
>BTW, I just found out from an article from a newspaper I found in my room
from
>about 2 months ago that according to the baby's mother, Woodward never
called
>to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
>would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a
seriously
>injured infant she cared for?
And the babies mom was never around to raise the child. What kind of mom
does that but a murderous one?
Henry Jackson Browne
--
x-no-archive: yes
ProLiberty wrote in message
>died?
Her mom slammed her up against the wall when she was forced to feed him and
change his diapers. She almost admitted it.
She said she hated to do those menial chores.
tribe
I'm not defending Louise...I honestly don't know if she is innocent or
guilty....but as far as questioning her apparent noninterest in the baby in the 5
days follwing his hospitalization- Louise was asked by the Eapans to leave their
house and have no contact with them, and was arrested 2 days later. She was made
to feel like a suspect the moment she notified the mom by phone after the
incident. In her shoes, I don't know that I would risk going to the hospital on
the one day she was able to. It's very easy for us in hindsight to question
Louise's motives in the case, but I personally feel that is what led so many
people to rally to her defense, blindly...without knowing the facts surrounding
this case. Emotion ruled the public's response, not intelligence.
ProLiberty wrote:
> jbrow...@aol.com typed:
>
> <<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
>
> What makes you think she is innocent? Her appearance and British accent?
>
Carol
JBrown6000 wrote:
>
> probliberty says:
>
> <<
> Then could you please explain how baby Mathew got his fractured skulled and
> died?
>
> tidy scapegoat.
>
> jb
From reading some of your posts, I am starting to wonder if any of
the convicted felons were ever deemed guilty as charged, in your
self-righteous mind.
T.G.
Baby Matthew was just a baby. Hey -- we do those all the time!
TG
T.G.
Henry Jackson Browne wrote:
>
> --
> x-no-archive: yes
> ProLiberty wrote in message
> >jbrow...@aol.com typed:
> >
> ><<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
> >
>
>
> from
> >about 2 months ago that according to the baby's mother, Woodward never
> called
> >to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
> >would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a
> seriously
> >injured infant she cared for?
>
> does that but a murderous one?
Maybe a money-earning one?
TG
T.G.
Carol wrote:
>
> JBrown6000 wrote:
> >
> > probliberty says:
> >
> > <<
> > Then could you please explain how baby Mathew got his fractured skulled and
> > died?
> >
> > tidy scapegoat.
> >
> > jb
>
> From reading some of your posts, I am starting to wonder if any of
> the convicted felons were ever deemed guilty as charged, in your
> self-righteous mind.
posts.
TG
Dawg
remember, she is just a kid and perhaps felt so guilty she was terrified to
find out what was going on....I could see being too scared to call.
However, I personally think the child was injured by her.
ProLiberty wrote in message
<19980102060...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>jbrow...@aol.com typed:
>
><<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
>
>What makes you think she is innocent? Her appearance and British accent?
>
JBrown6000
> <<
> Then could you please explain how baby Mathew got his fractured skulled and
> died?
>
a
> tidy scapegoat.
>
> jb
Carol says:
<From reading some of your posts, I am starting to wonder if any of
the convicted felons were ever deemed guilty as charged, in your
self-righteous mind.
**I know! It's a pain in the ass, huh! (Self-rightous?) I did admit that,
till I saw evidence to the contrary, I thought OJ was innocent. It's that old
evidence thing. Just prefer to wait for it. Sorry it rubs you the wrong way.
jb
JBrown6000
proliberty says:
<<
jbrow...@aol.com typed:
<<But Louise makes a tidy scapegoat.>>
What makes you think she is innocent? Her appearance and British accent?
BTW, I just found out from an article from a newspaper I found in my room from
about 2 months ago that according to the baby's mother, Woodward never called
to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a seriously
injured infant she cared for?
**Isn't that interesting? That she would say that? She didn't mention though,
did she, that Louise was in jail at the time.
jb
Robotclaw
<<<
> And the babies mom was never around to raise the child. What kind of mom
> does that but a murderous one?>>
<<Maybe a money-earning one?>>>
Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
guilty of murder. Even the dumb-ass judge said she was guilty of manslaughter.
I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
JIM FILZ
HJB WRITES:
>Woodward never
>called
>>to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
>>would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a
>seriously
Louise was in jail within 18 hours of the incident. When would she get a chance
to call. She was uncerimoniously tossed out of the house within 3 or 4 hours of
the incident, and then locked up the next day. In the interim between the time
of the incident and her being tossed out of the house, she was on the phone
with the mother calling from the hospital for some length of time answering
questions about the day's events. And it did not take 5 days for the baby to
die. They removed life support after 4 days, and let him die.
Jim
Mike
robo...@aol.com (Robotclaw) wrote:
>Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
>guilty of murder.
I believe the original poster asked that people please verify their
claims. At least one juror said that they felt manslaughter was more
appropriate, but they didn't have that option, so they went with the
next best thing. That is not the same as saying that all of the facts
presented support murder. Therefore, using the jury verdict is not a
valid verification.
The thing people should really be upset about is a provision in the
law that allows the defense to drop one of the possible outcomes
against him/her. The options should all be available to the jury, and
they should decide which is most appropriate.
Best wishes,
Mike
BVendig
Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
***
i agree that the Eappen's careers are irrelevant. The issue is that the
evidence as analyzed by the jury showed her to be guilty.
And..that the judge agreed. If she's guilty of manslaughter she should have
spent more than 9 months in jail.
It seems that the sympathy for this nanny is connected to the strange jealousy
of the Eappens.
T.G.
Robotclaw wrote:
>
>
> Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
> guilty of murder. Even the dumb-ass judge said she was guilty of manslaughter.
> I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
> associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
>
>
> True Crime! Music! Radio! Potatoheads!
> Check my web site:
> http://members.aol.com/bluespud/
Like I said -- the dude who broke the cat's jaw got 30 days. Remember,
this was only a kid.
TG
JBrown6000
SWT says:
<<
Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
guilty of murder. Even the dumb-ass judge said she was guilty of manslaughter.
I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
**Well, I can tell you definitively, that anglophilia, Princess Di and Daphne
have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings that Louise was railroaded. Mom
was the first in line for scrutiny and managed to turn the attention toward
Louise. She makes statements that are ridiculous on their face. Such as the
notion that Louise should have been calling, when she knows that Ms. Woodward
had been arrested.
jb
JBrown6000
Mike says:
<<
The thing people should really be upset about is a provision in the
law that allows the defense to drop one of the possible outcomes
against him/her. The options should all be available to the jury, and
they should decide which is most appropriate.
**Or perhaps, even, they should demand that District Attorney's charge
correctly for the crimes in the first place. Although, in this case, I don't
think it would have made a difference. I think they could have come into court
with a charge of manslaughter, and Louise, being innocent, would have plead
innocent.
jb
Kathy E
Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
child. I don't think most do.
IMHO I do think a lot of people in the UK were misinformed about the
trial and the evidence. I have one of the people on my mailing list who
lives in the UK (Alex) he surprised us by letting us know that they
weren't showing the Nanny trial as it was called then in the UK. They
finally started showing the trial once the defense started their case,
thus a lot of critical evidence wasn't shown to people over there about
what happened to Matty, and since they had only seen the defense case,
common sense would make them think she wasn't guilty. Alex did inform us
after the trial and the lowering of the decision the papers started
reporting the DA's side and people who were thinking she was innocent
seemed to change their minds after seeing both sides of the case.
Henry Jackson Browne wrote:
>
> And the babies mom was never around to raise the child. What kind of mom
> does that but a murderous one?
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime scene
photo's
Martha Sprowles
Kathy E wrote:
>
> Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
> Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
> was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
> lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
> don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
> child. I don't think most do.
>
I do not have an opinion on Louise Woodward's guilt or innocence. I
certainly don't condemn a working mother (for we are *all* working) for
getting extra help with the children. I mention this only because it
has been brought up as an illustration of Deborah Eappen's devotion to
her children:
How come, if she was working only part-time and was so devoted to her
children that she was maintaining a breast-feeding schedule which must
have been a nuisance at least, how come, I say, she wanted full-time
help from Louise? Why was Louise's time off so limited? Was Mrs. Dr.
Eappen more interested in housekeeping than in childcare? This is not a
slam, really; I genuinely don't understand. Was she giving individual
"mommy time" to each child and needed someone to care for the other?
I got the feeling that Louise was very resentful of the restrictions
placed on her by the Eappens. If this is so, why was her time off so
limited? I don't get it.
Martha
Kathy E
Hi Martha :)
The main problem they had is Louise would go out late at night then she
would be late for her morning schedule. Louise did tell them she did
not want a curfew, they tried that but it didn't work, they then told
Louise they were going to put her on a curfew, IMHO this was a young
girl going out and having fun, as most do, unfortunately though when she
did that she wasn't able to handle her responsibilities as one has to do
also.
I do not know every detail of the Eappen's life, nor will I try to
answer what I don't know. I do know she turned down a promotion due to
the fact it would have required longer hours for her and such, that
wasn't their main goal ATT, the children were.
Concerning why did Deborah want a au pair? I personally have never
really thought on that question, what I look at though is Louise was
here to do a job that was her first responsibility, if she found her own
actions were preventing her from doing her job, as it looks like did
happen. Then she had to modify her outings. It seems she wasn't self
disciplined enough to do that, thus the reason for the curfew. IMHO
Louise's actions caused them to have to resort to a curfew.
Guilt or not? I personally don't think she intentionally harmed Matty, I
do think she had a accident with him and he received his head injury. I
know if I had been on the jury I couldn't have convicted on 2nd degree,
but yes I could on Invol. Mans.
Concerning housekeeping and such, Louise only did light housekeeping,
her main job was with the children.
Martha Sprowles wrote:
> I do not have an opinion on Louise Woodward's guilt or innocence. I
> certainly don't condemn a working mother (for we are *all* working) for
> getting extra help with the children. I mention this only because it
> has been brought up as an illustration of Deborah Eappen's devotion to
> her children:
>
> How come, if she was working only part-time and was so devoted to her
> children that she was maintaining a breast-feeding schedule which must
> have been a nuisance at least, how come, I say, she wanted full-time
> help from Louise? Why was Louise's time off so limited? Was Mrs. Dr.
> Eappen more interested in housekeeping than in childcare? This is not a
> slam, really; I genuinely don't understand. Was she giving individual
> "mommy time" to each child and needed someone to care for the other?
>
> I got the feeling that Louise was very resentful of the restrictions
> placed on her by the Eappens. If this is so, why was her time off so
> limited? I don't get it.
>
> Martha
DedNdogYrs
If Louise is guilty I think Mrs. Eappen has some of the responsibility for
treating a young girl the way she did. It is my understanding that Louise was
not allowed to wash her clothes in the family's washing machine and other
things which I cannot remember right off-hand but that were equally degrading
and selfish. I would say don't treat people who are caring for your children
like dirt as they may take their anger out on the children rather than you.
JBrown6000
Kathy E says:
<<Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
child. I don't think most do.
**I have heard this myth too. That she came home to breast feed her baby on
days that she worked. Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't come
home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
jb
JIGSAW1695
Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
From: dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs)
Date: Sun, Jan 4, 1998 05:00 EST
Message-id: <19980104100...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
- - -
Now there is really a great reason for taking the life of a child ..... you
couldnt use a washing machine.
Jigsaw
BVendig
Now there is really a great reason for taking the life of a child ..... you
couldnt use a washing machine.
Jigsaw
***
lol...it's only fair...your washing machine..or your life!!!
BVendig
Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't come
home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
***
Coincidence? since Louise wouldn't have harmed the child in the presence of
his parents...it could ONLY happen while they weren't there.
Neonlovely
Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that she was in jail. The Eappens
were saying a lot of things publically to make Louise look worse than she
already appeared to be.
Barbara
<<BTW, I just found out from an article from a newspaper I found in my room
from
about 2 months ago that according to the baby's mother, Woodward never called
to ask how baby Mathew was doing (it took 5 days for the baby to die). Why
would an innocent person never call to ask about the condition of a seriously
Neonlovely
Ms. Eappen only testified to *two* times that Louise came home late. She also
only testified to a few times that Louise was late and Louise's explanation for
those times all in the same week, was that her alarm clock was off by about 15
minutes.
Barbara
*****
Neonlovely
It's not true that Louise was not allowed to use the family washing machine.
What was true was that she was expected to do both her own washing and the
children's washing on her own time as the Eappens did not want her to do the
wash in the basement even while both of the children were napping.
Barbara
**
Neonlovely
>The defense experts testified to the fact that the injury was approximately 3
weeks old and there was no way to tell how he got it.
The prosecution witnesses testified to the fact that it was a recent injury.
Except for 2 of them and the Medical Examiner. Dr. Madsen testified on cross,
that the liquid that spurted out of Matthew Eappens skill was serum . Dr.
Neuberger testified to the fact that serum is only seen from an old injury.
the Medical Examiner did not agree with the prosecution.
Barbara
JBrown6000
bvendig says:
<<***
Coincidence? since Louise wouldn't have harmed the child in the presence of
his parents...it could ONLY happen while they weren't there.
**I think it's entirely possible the mother didn't WANT to go home. Why not?
She knew the baby was very unhappy when she left the house. He had been
restless and, some say, constipated the day before. If she's such a tireless,
breast-feeding mommy, wouldn't this be the one day she'd want to be there, to
comfort him, and see if he'd come out of his funk? It just doesn't add up for
me. But, then again, it could just be a damn big coincidence. Or a lie.
Maybe she didn't always come home and feed her baby at lunchtime.
jb
Dawg
Now Jiggy!
I am sure we all must realize that if Louise injured the child (I believe
she did - either accidentally or possibly not) she didn't deliberately
INTEND to hurt the kid. But the anger that Louise felt at having a curfew
and not being able to use the washing machine and being treated like the
child she was probably made her pretty angry. This girl left the UK so she
could be grown up and do whatever she wanted and things didn't work out that
way. Its obvious, however, that she was not MATURE enough to be a surrogate
parent (which is what i consider a nanny) and this is where things went
awry.
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message
<19980104103...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
>From: dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs)
>Date: Sun, Jan 4, 1998 05:00 EST
>Message-id: <19980104100...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>If Louise is guilty I think Mrs. Eappen has some of the responsibility for
>treating a young girl the way she did. It is my understanding that Louise
was
>not allowed to wash her clothes in the family's washing machine and other
>things which I cannot remember right off-hand but that were equally
degrading
>and selfish. I would say don't treat people who are caring for your
children
>like dirt as they may take their anger out on the children rather than you.
>
> - - -
Dawg
Jiminy Christmas - my mother would leave me in the backyard in a stroller to
nap.
It seems ridiculous that the girl should have to do the childrens laundry on
her own time...
Neonlovely wrote in message
<19980104144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>It's not true that Louise was not allowed to use the family washing
machine.
>What was true was that she was expected to do both her own washing and the
>children's washing on her own time as the Eappens did not want her to do
the
>wash in the basement even while both of the children were napping.
>Barbara
>
>**
>
kry...@excaliber.net
On 1/3/98 2:50PM, in message <19980103195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JBrown6000 <jbrow...@aol.com> wrote:
I believe the attention turned away from Mom because she was at work during
the time the baby was shaken and fatally injured, not really due to any
devious machinations on her part. Louise admitted shaking the child and
throwing him on the bed. Mom admitted to no such actions. As I understood
it, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
and second day following the tragedy. Anybody?
Krystal
kry...@excaliber.net
On 1/4/98 5:30AM, in message <19980104103...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
> From: dednd...@aol.com (DedNdogYrs)
> Date: Sun, Jan 4, 1998 05:00 EST
> Message-id: <19980104100...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
> If Louise is guilty I think Mrs. Eappen has some of the responsibility for
> treating a young girl the way she did. It is my understanding that Louise was
> not allowed to wash her clothes in the family's washing machine and other
> things which I cannot remember right off-hand but that were equally degrading
> and selfish. I would say don't treat people who are caring for your children
> like dirt as they may take their anger out on the children rather than you.
>
> - - -
>
> Now there is really a great reason for taking the life of a child ..... you
> couldnt use a washing machine.
>
> Jigsaw
Not only that, the info is totally incorrect. The Eappens didn't want her
doing laundry or having long phone conversations while she was supposed to
be watching the children. She had plenty of time to do her laundry when
the Eappens were at home. Mrs. Eappen only worked 3 days a week, and both
parents were home evenings and weekends. Louise was most welcome to use
the washer and drier during those times. The Eappens were very good to
Louise, IMO. She was given the use of a car when she went out (every
night, it seems), her mother was welcomed into the Eappen home for a
week-long visit, they were paying for acting lessons for Louise. They
had bought and wrapped gifts for Louise and while they were at church
Christmas morning, Louise tore into hers and opened them before the
Eappens returned. She sounds like a spoiled, self-centered brat to me.
A brat who was so annoyed by a fussy baby in her care, she shook him to
death.
Krystal
JBrown6000
Krystal says:
<<I believe the attention turned away from Mom because she was at work during
the time the baby was shaken and fatally injured, not really due to any
devious machinations on her part. Louise admitted shaking the child and
throwing him on the bed. Mom admitted to no such actions. As I understood
it, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
and second day following the tragedy. Anybody?
**I don't think it's been proven "WHEN" the fatal shaking took place, so mom
being at work (and not, surprisingly enough, coming home to tend to her sick
baby) means nothing. How many cracked heads have you seen coming out of a
bounce on a bed?
jb
JIM FILZ
krystal asks:
>, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
>some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
>condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
>Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
>and second day following the
Louise was with friends of the Eappens for a couple hours, during which time
the police questioned her. She was then sent packing from the house to stay
with an agent of the Au Pair Service for that night. She was arrested the next
day before noon, and jailed without bail for the next 9 months. (Like she was
going to run back to England?) She never admitted to "tossing" the baby
anywhere, although the police detective claimed she did. His story was not
backed up either by his written report, or by the other policeman who was
actually supposed to be taking notes of this interview. I personally think she
was "railroaded". I'm not saying she is totally innocent, but she sure as hell
was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope that the upcoming
hearing will bring out some additional information. And maybe we will get a
reasonable debate about the "cause" of death in this case. It certainly seem
more than "possible" that this baby died from an older injury.
Jim
kry...@excaliber.net
On 1/4/98 5:18AM, in message <19980104101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JBrown6000 <jbrow...@aol.com> wrote:
> Kathy E says:
>
> <<Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
> Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
> was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
> lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
> don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
> child. I don't think most do.
>
> **I have heard this myth too. That she came home to breast feed her baby on
> days that she worked. Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't come
> home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
>
> jb
She did and the baby was perfectly fine at lunch time. You obviously know
very little about this case. You apparently don't want any facts intruding
on your belief in Ms. Woodward's innocence.
Krystal
kry...@excaliber.net
On 1/5/98 7:25AM, in message <19980105122...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JIM FILZ <jim...@aol.com> wrote:
> krystal asks:
>
> >, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
> >some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
> >condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
> >Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
> >and second day following the
>
> Louise was with friends of the Eappens for a couple hours, during which time
> the police questioned her. She was then sent packing from the house to stay
> with an agent of the Au Pair Service for that night. She was arrested the next
> day before noon, and jailed without bail for the next 9 months.
Quite a bit of time actually, to not show any interest in how a critically
injured baby who was in your care was doing.
> I personally think she
> was "railroaded". I'm not saying she is totally innocent, but she sure as hell
> was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, the judge and jury thought so and their opinions are the ones
that count.
> I hope that the upcoming
> hearing will bring out some additional information. And maybe we will get a
> reasonable debate about the "cause" of death in this case. It certainly seem
> more than "possible" that this baby died from an older injury.
>
> Jim
>
Not to me. I've never in my life heard of a baby being perfectly fine, then
all of a sudden presenting with critical brain damage and a swollen face from
an old injury. I worked in a hospital for years, saw lots of injuries
to children and I don't believe it for a minute.
Krystal
Eric
In article <N.010498....@Excaliber.net>,
kry...@Excaliber.net wrote:
>
> On 1/3/98 2:50PM, in message <19980103195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> JBrown6000 <jbrow...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > SWT says:
> >
> > <<
> > Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss
> > Poppins
> > guilty of murder. Even the dumb-ass judge said she was guilty of manslaughter.
> > I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
> > associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
> >
> >
> > **Well, I can tell you definitively, that anglophilia, Princess Di and Daphne
> > have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings that Louise was railroaded.
> > Mom
> > was the first in line for scrutiny and managed to turn the attention toward
> > Louise. She makes statements that are ridiculous on their face. Such as the
> > notion that Louise should have been calling, when she knows that Ms. Woodward
> > had been arrested.
> >
> > jb
>
> the time the baby was shaken and fatally injured, not really due to any
> devious machinations on her part.
There is a photograph with calcifications, proving that the baby was
fatally injured before Feb. 4, and was fine until that morning, when he
was fussy.
>Louise admitted shaking the child and throwing him on the bed. Mom admitted to >no such actions.
The cops who claim that Louise confessed did not record the
interrogation, nor did they write anything down.
>As I understood it, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen >>home with
> some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
> condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
> Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
> and second day following the tragedy. Anybody?
Matthew was rushed to the hospital on February 4. Louise was arrested on
Feb. 5.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Neonlovely
krystal asks:
>, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
>some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
>condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
>Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
>and second day following the
Louise was with friends of the Eappens for a couple hours, during which time
the police questioned her. She was then sent packing from the house to stay
with an agent of the Au Pair Service for that night. She was arrested the next
day before noon, and jailed without bail for the next 9 months. (Like she was
going to run back to England?) She never admitted to "tossing" the baby
anywhere, although the police detective claimed she did. His story was not
backed up either by his written report, or by the other policeman who was
actually supposed to be taking notes of this interview. I personally think she
was "railroaded". I'm not saying she is totally innocent, but she sure as hell
was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope that the upcoming
hearing will bring out some additional information. And maybe we will get a
reasonable debate about the "cause" of death in this case. It certainly seem
more than "possible" that this baby died from an older injury.
Jim
**
Jim
My recollection is that after Tuesday, the day of the incident, she spent the
next day at the Au Pair office talking about what had happened. After the way
she was kicked out of the house it was apparent that the Eappens thought she
was responsible and she needed to find out what to do.
I think she was arrested on the day following that day.
Barbara
Neonlovely
Not to me. I've never in my life heard of a baby being perfectly fine, then
all of a sudden presenting with critical brain damage and a swollen face from
an old injury. I worked in a hospital for years, saw lots of injuries
to children and I don't believe it for a minute.
Krystal
***
Your personal experience I think cannot be substituted for the opinions of
experts who have studied thousands of cases. There was an honest difference of
opinion about this particular case but no one , not even the prosection , was
saying what you are here, that it could never happen.
There is much evidence of other cases where it did happen. This was documented
at the trial.
I would suggest you find out the facts of this case. Matthew did not have a
swollen face. Where did you get that from?
Barbara
Neonlovely
> Kathy E says:
>
> <<Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
> Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
> was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
> lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
> don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
> child. I don't think most do.
>
> **I have heard this myth too. That she came home to breast feed her baby on
> days that she worked. Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't come
> home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
>
> jb
She did and the baby was perfectly fine at lunch time. You obviously know
very little about this case. You apparently don't want any facts intruding
on your belief in Ms. Woodward's innocence.
Krystal
***
I saw the trial awhile ago obviously and am beginning to fade on the details
but I dont think she came home that day in fact there was a lot made of her
supposedly being too busy to even call, which she explained on the stand.
Monday was the day she was close enough to come home, the days she was in
surgery, This was a Tuesday.
Courttv has a site on America On Line if you can access it where they have a
daily summary of the trial.
Barbara
Maggie8097
Neonlovely wrote:
Your personal experience I think cannot be substituted for the opinions of
experts who have studied thousands of cases. There was an honest difference of
opinion about this particular case but no one , not even the prosection , was
saying what you are here, that it could never happen.
There is much evidence of other cases where it did happen. This was documented
at the trial.
***Not true. You must have missed the letter from the 50 MDs who said that
there is NO evidence that the defense theory of the case has ever happened to
any child anywhere. Anyone who would like a copy of that letter, email me.
Maggie
"If a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of
robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and
from that to incivility and procrastination."--Thomas De Quincey
Maggie8097
jb wrote:
**I think it's entirely possible the mother didn't WANT to go home. Why not?
She knew the baby was very unhappy when she left the house. He had been
restless and, some say, constipated the day before. If she's such a tireless,
breast-feeding mommy, wouldn't this be the one day she'd want to be there, to
comfort him, and see if he'd come out of his funk? It just doesn't add up for
me. But, then again, it could just be a damn big coincidence. Or a lie.
Maybe she didn't always come home and feed her baby at lunchtime.
***Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion on
the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
Eric Saeger
Maggie8097 wrote:
> ***Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
> Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
> irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
> framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion on
> the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
Better question, Mag: when did she ever say anything that made sense, I
mean, you know, in a real world kinda, like, sense?
--
Insert rotating skull ANI GIF here
Remove NOSPAM* to replay
QA Analysis done from my home! http://members.aol.com/ManORuin/QA.html
Neonlovely
Neonlovely wrote:
Your personal experience I think cannot be substituted for the opinions of
experts who have studied thousands of cases. There was an honest difference of
opinion about this particular case but no one , not even the prosection , was
saying what you are here, that it could never happen.
There is much evidence of other cases where it did happen. This was documented
at the trial.
***Not true. You must have missed the letter from the 50 MDs who said that
there is NO evidence that the defense theory of the case has ever happened to
any child anywhere. Anyone who would like a copy of that letter, email me.
Maggie
"If a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of
robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and
from that to incivility and procrastination."--Thomas De Quincey
***
I have that letter. And I saw the leader of the group in an interview. He was
the *only* one who saw any of the evidence in this trial, none of the others
did and he did not see it all.
I htink I would take the word of doctors and pathologists who saw and studied
the evidence over doctors who haven't.
Barbara
Neonlovely
***Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion on
the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
Maggie
"If a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of
robbing; and from robbing he next comes to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and
from that to incivility and procrastination."--Thomas De Quincey
***
there is absolutely no evidence that Deborah Eappen had anything to do with
Matthew's death. It is mere speculation.
Barbara
Maggie8097
Neonlovely wrote:
Your personal experience I think cannot be substituted for the opinions of
experts who have studied thousands of cases. There was an honest difference of
opinion about this particular case but no one , not even the prosection , was
saying what you are here, that it could never happen.
There is much evidence of other cases where it did happen. This was documented
at the trial.
Maggie said:
***Not true. You must have missed the letter from the 50 MDs who said that
there is NO evidence that the defense theory of the case has ever happened to
any child anywhere. Anyone who would like a copy of that letter, email me.
Neonlovely replied:
I have that letter. And I saw the leader of the group in an interview. He was
the *only* one who saw any of the evidence in this trial, none of the others
did and he did not see it all.
I htink I would take the word of doctors and pathologists who saw and studied
the evidence over doctors who haven't.
***And I'll take the word of 50 physicians who offered their opinion for free
over 3 or 4 who were paid handsomely by the defense to spout the party line.
Don't be fooled by this saw-the-evidence/didn't-see-the-evidence thing. What
the 50 doctors have said is that the defense theory is impossible on its face.
No need to examine evidence to determine that some things (like babies
suffering head injuries, appearing normal for three weeks and then, essentially
dying) are simply medically impossible.
tribe
don't mean to butt in here, but didn't that letter come out AFTER the jury's first
verdict...and before the judge threw it out with his ruling?
glas
kry...@Excaliber.net wrote ...
|On 1/4/98 5:18AM, in message
<19980104101...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
|JBrown6000 <jbrow...@aol.com> wrote:
|
|>
|> <<Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
|> Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
|> was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
|> lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
|> don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
|> child. I don't think most do.
|>
|> **I have heard this myth too. That she came home to breast feed her baby
on
|> days that she worked. Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't
come
|> home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
|>
|> jb
|
|She did and the baby was perfectly fine at lunch time. You obviously know
|very little about this case. You apparently don't want any facts intruding
|on your belief in Ms. Woodward's innocence.
|
I'm not positive about this, but wasn't it discussed in great detail that
Mrs. Eappen *didn't* come home that day to feed Matty? My memory isn't
perfect but I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons that many felt she
was somewhat responsible. She said that he was fussy and crying when she
left that morning, so why did she not come home on that day if it was her
normal habit to do so?
glas
glas
Maggie8097 wrote ...
|jb wrote:
|**I think it's entirely possible the mother didn't WANT to go home. Why
not?
|She knew the baby was very unhappy when she left the house. He had been
|restless and, some say, constipated the day before. If she's such a
tireless,
|breast-feeding mommy, wouldn't this be the one day she'd want to be there,
to
|comfort him, and see if he'd come out of his funk? It just doesn't add up
for
|me. But, then again, it could just be a damn big coincidence. Or a lie.
|Maybe she didn't always come home and feed her baby at lunchtime.
|
|Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
|irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
|framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion
on
|the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
|
It makes perfect sense to me. There are quite a few people that judge each
individual case by it's own merits instead of taking the lazy way out and
determining from the get-go that the most easily available suspect is
definitely the guilty party.
glas
Neonlovely
I'm not positive about this, but wasn't it discussed in great detail that
Mrs. Eappen *didn't* come home that day to feed Matty? My memory isn't
perfect but I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons that many felt she
was somewhat responsible. She said that he was fussy and crying when she
left that morning, so why did she not come home on that day if it was her
normal habit to do so?
glas
***
It wasn't, the only day she had time to come home and was nearby enough, was on
Monday's . This was a Tuesday .
Barbara
JIM FILZ
Maggie's favorite line, when she is wrong:
>No need to examine evidence to determine that some things (like babies
If Maggie ever looked at "evidence" she might actuall see something for a
change.
jim
JIM FILZ
I think "jb" at least has a little compassion for people who have been accused
of crimes, and may very well be innocent. I hope he/she continues to post
sensibilities on these boards.
jim
kry...@excaliber.net
On 1/5/98 7:25AM, in message <19980105122...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
JIM FILZ <jim...@aol.com> wrote:
> krystal asks:
>
> >, Ms. Woodward spent the remainder of the day at the Eappen home with
> >some friends of the Eappens present. She never inquired about Matthew's
> >condition, nor did she the next day from the house where she was staying.
> >Not sure when she was arrested, but I don't think it was during the first
> >and second day following the
>
> Louise was with friends of the Eappens for a couple hours, during which time
> the police questioned her. She was then sent packing from the house to stay
> with an agent of the Au Pair Service for that night. She was arrested the next
> day before noon, and jailed without bail for the next 9 months.
Quite a bit of time actually, to not show any interest in how a critically
injured baby who was in your care was doing.
> I personally think she
> was "railroaded". I'm not saying she is totally innocent, but she sure as hell
> was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, the judge and jury thought so and their opinions are the ones
that count.
> I hope that the upcoming
> hearing will bring out some additional information. And maybe we will get a
> reasonable debate about the "cause" of death in this case. It certainly seem
> more than "possible" that this baby died from an older injury.
>
> Jim
>
Maggie8097
***If I'm wrong on this one, I'm in very good,and very well educated company.
Maggie8097
Maggie wrote regarding jb:
|***Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
|Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
|irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
|framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion
on
|the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
|
glas answered:
It makes perfect sense to me. There are quite a few people that judge each
individual case by it's own merits instead of taking the lazy way out and
determining from the get-go that the most easily available suspect is
definitely the guilty party.
***Somehow I'm not the least bit surprised to hear that it makes perfect sense
to you.
Eric Saeger
Neonlovely wrote:
> there is absolutely no evidence that Deborah Eappen had anything to do
> with Matthew's death. It is mere speculation.
I agree with you fully, but the point of Maggie's post was to say that
JB's fence-sitting on the JBR affair clashes quite visibly with her
stance on Matthew Eappen's murder by America's favorite club-going,
murdering nanny.
JBrown6000
Maggie says:
**Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
|Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
|irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
|framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion
on
|the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
**Ummmm. Maggie. Can you find a post where I said D. Eappon murdered her son?
Methinks you are putting words in my mouth. I find her actions highly
questionable, yes. But I did not say she murdered her son.
Does it make any sense to anyone that a woman who insists on keeping things
straight would make this statement?
It's must have given you a headache, the issues I raised, and made you come to
a conclusion that you feel you must ascribe to me. Poor thing.
jb
Maggie8097
Maggie says:
**Does it make any sense to anyone that the same woman who thinks Deborah
|Eappen murdered her infant son and somehow managed to make him go into an
|irreversible coma 8 hours after she had left him with the au pair (thereby
|framing Louise for a murder she committed) is also withholding an opinion
on
|the guilt of the Ramseys until there's more evidence?
jb replied:
Ummmm. Maggie. Can you find a post where I said D. Eappon murdered her son?
Methinks you are putting words in my mouth. I find her actions highly
questionable, yes. But I did not say she murdered her son.
Does it make any sense to anyone that a woman who insists on keeping things
straight would make this statement?
It's must have given you a headache, the issues I raised, and made you come to
a conclusion that you feel you must ascribe to me. Poor thing.
***OK, jb, you're on. Tell me what you meant by these statements if you
weren't implying that Deborah Eappen (DE) killed her son:
----If I had a choice between having Louise watch my children, or the Eappens,
I'd go with Louise in a hot minute.
regarding a lie detector test:
---We already know that Louise would take one, but I think you can bet
the Eappens wouldn't.
regarding Deborah Eappen:
----There is no
less evidence of her guilt than of Louise's at this point.
---The parents were with both children for a greater part of the week than
Louise.
---The parents don't seem concerned
with really finding out what happened. They seem concerned with blaming
someone outside the family.
---DE has been touted as the wonderful caring mom who only worked three days a
week and came home at lunch time to breast feed her child. Where was she this
day? Where were her concerned phone calls? Something just doesn't add up.
--If it goes back to court, given Mrs. Eappen's
flagrant vindictiveness I think they could ask much more probing questions
about the activities in the house in the last month.
Eric
In article <19980101041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
proli...@aol.com (ProLiberty) wrote:
>
> I am just wondering whether Louise Woodward is guilty or innocent in the death
> of baby Mathew Eappan.
>
> I hear people I know say that she is as guilty as sin and I hear about people
> who are sending her letters expressing support.
>
> So what is the story? Is she guilty or innocent? And please verify your claims.
She is innocent. An autopsy photograph with three weeks of calcifications
on the skull fracture proves my point. The prosecution had doctors, the
defense had research scientists. Some people say the Deborah Eappen is
like Susan Smith, but I don't think that it can be proven. This is a
classic case of cold leads. And I invite people who think that she's
guilty to try to convince me.
Eric
In article <19980103141...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
bve...@aol.com (BVendig) wrote:
>
> Dang, it doesn't matter what kind of mother she was. A jury found Miss Poppins
> guilty of murder. Even the dumb-ass judge said she was guilty of manslaughter.
> I still think this sympathy for the nanny is somehow wrapped up in warped
> associations with Princess Di and Daphne, the cute housekeeper on Fraser.
>
> i agree that the Eappen's careers are irrelevant. The issue is that the
> evidence as analyzed by the jury showed her to be guilty.
OJ Simpson was acquitted by a jury. OJ refused a lie detector test,
Louise passed with flying colors and offered to take a test for the DA,
who refused because he knew that she would pass
> And..that the judge agreed. If she's guilty of manslaughter she should have
> spent more than 9 months in jail.
It is an accepted theory that the judge believed that there was reasonable
doubt.
> It seems that the sympathy for this nanny is connected to the strange jealousy
> of the Eappens.
This sympathy for the nanny is connected to having at least two brain
cells to rub against each other.
Monk
Precisely! Why can't people look at the testimony in this case, like
apparently only the Judge was willing to do???? The prosecution had the
audacity to claim that Matthew's head injury was consistent with a
head-first fall from fifteen feet (which would, reasonably--as in "beyond a
reasonable doubt"--cause extensive abrasion, bleeding, not to say a goose
egg the size of tennis ball), yet the examining ER physician observed no
visible sign of blunt force trauma. Helllo? Somebody's out to lunch here.
The Prosecution maybe? Whether Louise is guilty or not, when are people
going to realize that in American jurisprudence, the prosecution cannot
make ludicrous claims and not be held accountable. Listen to the judge
next time you get jury instructions. He/she says, to wit, "if you
ascertain that one portion of a witness' testimony is false or perjured,
you may dismiss their entire testimony." This is the common sense "one
lie, all lies," that is at the heart of our defendant- centered system.
The great Barry Scheck, like he and his colleagues did with the Three
Stooges Prosecution in the Simpson trial, exposed the Massachusett's case
for what it was: ill prepared, ill presented, exaggerated, and, at times,
fatally contradictory. Remember the law is on your side as a defendant.
You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When the people who
are trying to prove you guilty say that the person you killed died from a
blunt force trauma to the head and your lawyer exposes the fact that no one
can testify that there was a blunt force trauma, the jury is compelled by
law to assume that the prosecution is making things up. One lie, all lies.
Eric <return_...@rocketmail.com> wrote in article
<884036921...@dejanews.com>...
> In article <19980101041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> proli...@aol.com (ProLiberty) wrote:
> >
> > I am just wondering whether Louise Woodward is guilty or innocent in
the death
> > of baby Mathew Eappan.
> >
> > I hear people I know say that she is as guilty as sin and I hear about
people
> > who are sending her letters expressing support.
> >
> > So what is the story? Is she guilty or innocent? And please verify your
claims.
>
> She is innocent. An autopsy photograph with three weeks of calcifications
> on the skull fracture proves my point. The prosecution had doctors, the
> defense had research scientists. Some people say the Deborah Eappen is
> like Susan Smith, but I don't think that it can be proven. This is a
> classic case of cold leads. And I invite people who think that she's
> guilty to try to convince me.
>
JBrown6000
Maggie says:
<<
***OK, jb, you're on. Tell me what you meant by these statements if you
weren't implying that Deborah Eappen (DE) killed her son:
----If I had a choice between having Louise watch my children, or the Eappens,
I'd go with Louise in a hot minute.
*I think Louise is innocent, so of course I'd have no concern to have her watch
my children. Ms. Eappon strikes me as cold and dishonest. I could easily do
without her.
regarding a lie detector test:
---We already know that Louise would take one, but I think you can bet
the Eappens wouldn't.
**Gee, Maggie. I would never say someone is guilty for NOT taking a lie
detector test. I think she would hesitate though, don't you? I think she's
been less than honest in this affair.
regarding Deborah Eappen:
----There is no
less evidence of her guilt than of Louise's at this point.
**This is absolutely true, as far as I'm concerned. Which does not, of course,
mean I think she did it.
---The parents were with both children for a greater part of the week than
Louise.
**Again, I'm not saying she did it.
---The parents don't seem concerned
with really finding out what happened. They seem concerned with blaming
someone outside the family.
**Again, I didn't say she did it.
---DE has been touted as the wonderful caring mom who only worked three days a
week and came home at lunch time to breast feed her child. Where was she this
day? Where were her concerned phone calls? Something just doesn't add up.
**It occurs to me that she might know about an accident or something. I really
couldn't say for sure. It's obvious though, what this question makes you
think.
--If it goes back to court, given Mrs. Eappen's
flagrant vindictiveness I think they could ask much more probing questions
about the activities in the house in the last month.
**Again, where do you see that I'm calling her a murderess?
Gee, Maggie, maybe you should examine the answer that these questions invoke in
you.
jb
Neonlovely
***
1. I would expect her to be different about the 2 cases. she was personally
involved with one and that would certainly color her judgment.
2. Louise was not "club going"
Barbara
Maggie8097
***Please tell me how I can "examine the answer that these questions invoke in"
me? Is this an English sentence?
And you are CLEARLY implying in your snide little remarks about the Eappens
that you believe Deborah Eappen is responsible for her son's death. You just
don't have the decency to come out and say it. You make nasty little
insinuations, but never put your obvious feelings into a declarative sentence.
That way you don't have to stand behind, and defend, your opinions.
It absolutely amazes me that you somehow think this mean-spirited character
assassination is morally superior to naming the person you believe responsible
for a crime and stating the reasons for that beliefs.
JBrown6000
Maggie says:
<<***Please tell me how I can "examine the answer that these questions invoke
in"
me? Is this an English sentence?
**What part of it don't you understand? Do you find the statement
incomprehensible, or do just need some time to think up an answer?
<And you are CLEARLY implying in your snide little remarks about the Eappens
that you believe Deborah Eappen is responsible for her son's death. You just
don't have the decency to come out and say it. You make nasty little
insinuations, but never put your obvious feelings into a declarative sentence.
That way you don't have to stand behind, and defend, your opinions.
**Is that what you think, based on the questions that were asked? Did I answer
the questions for you? You read the questions and reached a conclusion based
on your own uncertainties. The questions were reasonable. Is that what
bothers you? You seem mighty "testy" here.
Getting confused? I asked you to show me where I said Mrs. Eappon murdered her
son. You cannot do that.
<It absolutely amazes me that you somehow think this mean-spirited character
assassination is morally superior to naming the person you believe responsible
for a crime and stating the reasons for that beliefs.
**How is what I have said "character assassination?" I'm stating my opinion
about things that bother me about this case. I can see that those same things
are bothering you. It's a puzzle, I agree. Can you point out my egregious
character assassination? Is it somehow less "gentle" than your own remarks in
other cases? Since we all like to play games about people in houses, I would
suggest that there were three other people in that house, and I'm not certain
that they were investigated in quite the same biased way. But this is my
opinion. Do I need to run everything by you for approval first?
jb
Eric Saeger
Uh, I don't see you really answering Maggie's questions JB. Why do you
post things about JBR, out of curiosity?
Eric Saeger
Heh heh, hey Maggie. Replace the words "Eappen" with "Ramsey" and
"Louise" with "intruder" in that list of JB's ridiculous posts that you
put together, or just pretend she was talking about the Ramsey case...
no, I'll do it. Take a look, heh heh.
> ----If I had a choice between having an intruder watch my children, or the Ramseys, I'd go with the intruder in a hot minute.
> regarding a lie detector test:
> ---We already know that the intruder would take one, but I think you
> can bet the Ramseys wouldn't.
> regarding the Ramsey parents:
> ----There is no less evidence of their guilt than of an intruder's at this point.
>
> ---The parents were with both children for a greater part of the week > than the intruder.
>
> ---The parents don't seem concerned
> with really finding out what happened. They seem concerned with
> blaming someone outside the family.
>
> --If it goes back to court, given the Ramseys's
> flagrant vindictiveness I think they could ask much more probing
> questions about the activities in the house in the last month.
--
Sarah Badgett Wells
JBrown6000 wrote:
> ...Gee, Maggie, maybe you should examine the answer that these questions invoke
> in
> you.
>
> jb
Uh, I was hoping I had read the credits wrong and Maggie wrote this sentence. Lay
off the leftover eggnogg, bud.
*sbw
Maggie8097
Maggie says:
<<***Please tell me how I can "examine the answer that these questions invoke
in"
me? Is this an English sentence?
**What part of it don't you understand? Do you find the statement
incomprehensible, or do just need some time to think up an answer?
***Incomprehensible.
Maggie said:
<And you are CLEARLY implying in your snide little remarks about the Eappens
that you believe Deborah Eappen is responsible for her son's death. You just
don't have the decency to come out and say it. You make nasty little
insinuations, but never put your obvious feelings into a declarative sentence.
That way you don't have to stand behind, and defend, your opinions.
jb said:
Is that what you think, based on the questions that were asked?
**Yes. Based on your statements.
jb said:
Did I answer
the questions for you?
**Of course not. See Eric's post.
jb said:
You read the questions and reached a conclusion based
on your own uncertainties. The questions were reasonable. Is that what
bothers you?
***What questions are you speaking of? Most of your snide statements about the
Eappens were not in the form of questions. And, again, what bothers me is that
you feel perfectly free to blame the Eappens for the murder of their son, but
get extremely self-rightous about anyone else blaming the Ramseys (on
considerably more evidence of guilt).
jb wrote:
You seem mighty "testy" here.
Getting confused? I asked you to show me where I said Mrs. Eappon murdered her
son. You cannot do that.
***I did.
Maggie wrote:
<It absolutely amazes me that you somehow think this mean-spirited character
assassination is morally superior to naming the person you believe responsible
for a crime and stating the reasons for that beliefs.
jb said:
**How is what I have said "character assassination?" I'm stating my opinion
about things that bother me about this case. I can see that those same things
are bothering you. It's a puzzle, I agree.
***Why in the world do you think the same things that bother you are bothering
me? Please don't tar me with that brush.
jb wrote:
Can you point out my egregious
character assassination? Is it somehow less "gentle" than your own remarks in
other cases?
***I state my opinions directly, don't result to character assassination, and
stand behind my opinions, rather than pretending I didn't say something that I
clearly implied.
jb said:
Since we all like to play games about people in houses, I would
suggest that there were three other people in that house, and I'm not certain
that they were investigated in quite the same biased way. But this is my
opinion. Do I need to run everything by you for approval first?
**Yes, please.
JBrown6000
Sarah said:
<<
Uh, I was hoping I had read the credits wrong and Maggie wrote this sentence.
Lay
off the leftover eggnogg, bud.
**Nope. T'was me, I'm afraid. Not eggnog, just a brain-fart.
jb
Kathy E
I think you mixed up something here, what they asked of her concerning
her laundry is for her not to do it while she was home alone with the
children. The washer and dryer were downstairs, and she would have to
leave the children unsupervised to go downstairs and do it.
DedNdogYrs wrote:
>
> If Louise is guilty I think Mrs. Eappen has some of the responsibility for
> treating a young girl the way she did. It is my understanding that Louise was
> not allowed to wash her clothes in the family's washing machine and other
> things which I cannot remember right off-hand but that were equally degrading
> and selfish. I would say don't treat people who are caring for your children
> like dirt as they may take their anger out on the children rather than you.
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime scene
photo's
Kathy E
No I think due to the fact she was in a consultation she wasn't able to
make it home. That is what was testified to at trial.
JBrown6000 wrote:
>
> Kathy E says:
>
> <<Henry did you watch the complete trial? If you did you would know that
> Matty's mother (Deborah) only worked part time, not full time and she
> was around a lot for her children, since she also came home ever day for
> lunch also to breast feed on the days she was working. I personally
> don't consider working three days a week as not being around for your
> child. I don't think most do.
>
> **I have heard this myth too. That she came home to breast feed her baby on
> days that she worked. Was it just horrible coincidence that she didn't come
> home on the one day that something seriously bad was happening?
>
> jb
--
Kathy E
My group was also watching this trial daily, and I was doing daily
reports, from what I remember she couldn't make it home that day, but
she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has
been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.
Neonlovely wrote:
> ***
> I saw the trial awhile ago obviously and am beginning to fade on the details
> but I dont think she came home that day in fact there was a lot made of her
> supposedly being too busy to even call, which she explained on the stand.
> Monday was the day she was close enough to come home, the days she was in
> surgery, This was a Tuesday.
> Courttv has a site on America On Line if you can access it where they have a
> daily summary of the trial.
> Barbara
Kathy E
Well we could go on the number of times she was late, but Louise herself
summed up what was important in this issue don't you think? She herself
admitted she failed her one month without a curfew, and she was finally
told either she go on curfew or she was out of a job. She had the same
problems with the Eappens that she had with the Komishanes, she wouldn't
get up in the morning to do her job.
Neonlovely wrote:
>
> Ms. Eappen only testified to *two* times that Louise came home late. She also
> only testified to a few times that Louise was late and Louise's explanation for
> those times all in the same week, was that her alarm clock was off by about 15
> minutes.
JIM FILZ
Kathy E says:
>she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has<BR>
>been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.<BR
She talked to Louise only from the hospital after the incident. She did not
call home around lunch time, as she says, because she did not want Louise to
think she was checking up on her. Please try to get a copy of the transcript.
Jim
Eric
In article <19980105233...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
maggi...@aol.com (Maggie8097) wrote:
>
> Neonlovely wrote:
> Your personal experience I think cannot be substituted for the opinions of
> experts who have studied thousands of cases. There was an honest difference of
> opinion about this particular case but no one , not even the prosection , was
> saying what you are here, that it could never happen.
> There is much evidence of other cases where it did happen. This was documented
> at the trial.
>
> Maggie said:
> ***Not true. You must have missed the letter from the 50 MDs who said that
> there is NO evidence that the defense theory of the case has ever happened to
> any child anywhere. Anyone who would like a copy of that letter, email me.
>
> Neonlovely replied:
> I have that letter. And I saw the leader of the group in an interview. He was
> the *only* one who saw any of the evidence in this trial, none of the others
> did and he did not see it all.
> I htink I would take the word of doctors and pathologists who saw and studied
> the evidence over doctors who haven't.
>
> ***And I'll take the word of 50 physicians who offered their opinion for free
> over 3 or 4 who were paid handsomely by the defense to spout the party line.
The oppinion of a research scientist is greater than the oppinion of an
MD, not equal. It doesn't matter how much they were paid. The defense
experts were paid more because their oppinions were worth more. They had
a list of credentials as long as my arm, and they were pioneers in their
field.
> Don't be fooled by this saw-the-evidence/didn't-see-the-evidence thing. What
> the 50 doctors have said is that the defense theory is impossible on its face.
> No need to examine evidence to determine that some things (like babies
> suffering head injuries, appearing normal for three weeks and then, essentially
> dying) are simply medically impossible.
It's easy to get 50 MDs from around the country to offer their oppinion.
However, there are hundreds of doctors and pathologists, and some of them
say that it is absolutly, positively, without question, possible for a
baby to conceal head injuries for 3 weeks. Even if it wasn't three week
old injuries, there is still doubt. They could have been inflicted as
little as ten hours before the baby lost conciousness, and they would
still not be linked to Woodward.
Neonlovely
If you saw the trial then you *know* that she didn't come home*other* than on
Monday's when she was operating and close enough to home to go there for lunch.
So she was not supposed to go home that day
(This was a Tuesday, she couldn't go home on Tuesdays.)
Correct me if I am wrong but To the best of my recollection she said she did
not get a chance to call and when she finally did it was 3PM and she didn't
want to call at 3 for fear that Louise would think she was checking up on her.
I guess I could go check it out, I think I still have it on tape.
Barbara
My group was also watching this trial daily, and I was doing daily
reports, from what I remember she couldn't make it home that day, but
she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has
been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.
Neonlovely wrote:
> ***
> I saw the trial awhile ago obviously and am beginning to fade on the details
> but I dont think she came home that day in fact there was a lot made of her
> supposedly being too busy to even call, which she explained on the stand.
> Monday was the day she was close enough to come home, the days she was in
> surgery, This was a Tuesday.
> Courttv has a site on America On Line if you can access it where they have a
> daily summary of the trial.
Neonlovely
Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
From: jim...@aol.com (JIM FILZ)
Date: Thu, Jan 8, 1998 8:07 AM EDT
Message-id: <19980108120...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Kathy E says:
Jim
**
Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
and have Louise think she was checking up.
there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
it, if not the medial stuff.
Barbara
JBrown6000
Kathy E says:
>she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has
>been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.<BR
She talked to Louise only from the hospital after the incident. She did not
call home around lunch time, as she says, because she did not want Louise to
think she was checking up on her. Please try to get a copy of the transcript.
Jim
**
Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
and have Louise think she was checking up.
there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
it, if not the medial stuff.
**Sounds pretty wierd to me. Why would she care what Louise thinks?
She said her baby had been sick. What's more important; finding out how your
sick baby is, or a perceived risk of offending the au pair? She testified
that she and her husband were putting Louise on a curfew. And she's worried
that Louise will be upset about being checked up on? Please.
jb
Maggie8097
Kathy wrote:
Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
and have Louise think she was checking up.
there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
it, if not the medial stuff.
jsaid:
**Sounds pretty wierd to me. Why would she care what Louise thinks?
She said her baby had been sick.
***She said no such thing.
jb said:
What's more important; finding out how your
sick baby is, or a perceived risk of offending the au pair?
***She never said the baby was sick.
Maggie
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."--Winston
Churchill
Neonlovely
Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
Date: Fri, Jan 9, 1998 12:57 AM EDT
Message-id: <19980109045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Kathy E says:
>she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has
>been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.<BR
She talked to Louise only from the hospital after the incident. She did not
call home around lunch time, as she says, because she did not want Louise to
think she was checking up on her. Please try to get a copy of the transcript.
Jim
**
Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
and have Louise think she was checking up.
there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
it, if not the medial stuff.
**Sounds pretty wierd to me. Why would she care what Louise thinks?
She said her baby had been sick. What's more important; finding out how your
sick baby is, or a perceived risk of offending the au pair? She testified
that she and her husband were putting Louise on a curfew. And she's worried
that Louise will be upset about being checked up on? Please.
jb
***
That's what she said on the stand, what can I tell you:))
She never admitted that she thought Matthew was really sick, at least not
enough that she thought she had to call to check on, just that he had been a
little constipated for a couple of days.
There were many things that she testified to that didn't make any sense, nor
did I believe all of them.
barbara
Neonlovely
Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
Date: Fri, Jan 9, 1998 1:14 AM EDT
Message-id: <19980109051...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Kathy wrote:
Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
and have Louise think she was checking up.
there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
it, if not the medial stuff.
jsaid:
**Sounds pretty wierd to me. Why would she care what Louise thinks?
She said her baby had been sick.
***She said no such thing.
jb said:
What's more important; finding out how your
sick baby is, or a perceived risk of offending the au pair?
***She never said the baby was sick.
Maggie
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."--Winston
Churchill
***
Maggie, you're not attributing the quote to the right person.
Kathy didn't say the above, I did. I would hate for her to get blamed for what
I said:))
Barbara
tribe
Jim- Right...she didn't call home until after 3....if she had, she would not have
gotten thru anyway...Louise had that extra long (3 hour) conversation with Ru- her
friend. Remember all the testimony where the DA set the groundwork for his
closing, (when he insinuated that Louise could have hurt Mathew earlier in the
day), and spoke panickingly to Ru about it, (there was no proof of this, and I did
not understand how the prosecutor could get away with that). But I guess it's not
an unusual practice....was Ru a prosecution or defense witness? Who had subpoened
(sp) her?
JBrown6000 wrote:
> Kathy E says:
>
> >she did talk to Louise a couple times on the phone that day. Yet it has
>
> >been awhile since the trial and the minute details tend to fade.<BR
>
> She talked to Louise only from the hospital after the incident. She did not
> call home around lunch time, as she says, because she did not want Louise to
> think she was checking up on her. Please try to get a copy of the transcript.
>
> Jim
>
> **
> Right Jim, that's how i remember it as well. She couldn't call until 3PM and
> since she had told Louise not to let Brendan sleep past 3 she did not want call
> and have Louise think she was checking up.
> there is a rerun that CTV did a few times that has the personal testimony on
> it, if not the medial stuff.
>
> **Sounds pretty wierd to me. Why would she care what Louise thinks?
Maggie8097
Barbara wrote:
Maggie, you're not attributing the quote to the right person.
Kathy didn't say the above, I did. I would hate for her to get blamed for what
I said:))
***Thanks for the correction, Barbara. And to both you and Kathy--sorry for
the misattribution.
Martha Sprowles
Neonlovely wrote:
>
> If you saw the trial then you *know* that she didn't come home*other* than on
> Monday's when she was operating and close enough to home to go there for lunch.
Once again, (or still) I am confused. I thought Mrs. Dr. Eappen was
working only part time so that she could spend time with her children.
This does not appear, from what you post, to be the case. Where did she
go on the other days she wasn't working, if not home?
Martha
Maggie8097
Martha wrote:
Once again, (or still) I am confused. I thought Mrs. Dr. Eappen was
working only part time so that she could spend time with her children.
This does not appear, from what you post, to be the case. Where did she
go on the other days she wasn't working, if not home?
***My memory is rusty, but from what I recall, Mrs. Eappen did surgery on
Monday and was able to come home between cases; saw patients on Tues. and Wed.
and usually was unable to come home for lunch so she pumped breastmilk in her
office; worked half a day on Thurs. (I don't remember what she did) and didn't
work at all on Friday. On Friday mornings she attended something that sounded
like Kindermusik classes with her older son and studied for her board
certification exams in the afternoon (usually away from home)
Neonlovely
Message-id: <19980109132...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Barbara wrote:
Maggie, you're not attributing the quote to the right person.
Kathy didn't say the above, I did. I would hate for her to get blamed for what
I said:))
***Thanks for the correction, Barbara. And to both you and Kathy--sorry for
the misattribution.
Maggie
"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."--Winston
Churchill
***
No problem Maggie, it happens to all of us:)
Barbara
Neonlovely
To the best of my recollection the prosecution called during their case in
chief. She was already locked into some details already of statements that she
had made when first questioned.
Since opening and closing statements are not supposed to be considered
evidence, I think that is why attorneys for both sides are allowed to get away
with conjecture.
Also I believe it was a 2 hour phone call. Just trying to keep the facts
straight:)))
I'm surprised they didn;t have call waiting but they didn't have a baby monitor
either which makes absolutely no sense, any more sense than them not being able
to heat their house adequately. It's curious. Not that it has anything to do
with the case, I just wonder about it.
Barbara
Barbara
Neonlovely
Subject: Re: Is Louise Woodward guilty or innocent??
Date: Fri, Jan 9, 1998 10:31 AM EDT
Message-id: <34B634...@erols.com>
Neonlovely wrote:
>
> If you saw the trial then you *know* that she didn't come home*other* than on
> Monday's when she was operating and close enough to home to go there for
lunch.
Once again, (or still) I am confused. I thought Mrs. Dr. Eappen was
working only part time so that she could spend time with her children.
This does not appear, from what you post, to be the case. Where did she
go on the other days she wasn't working, if not home?
Martha
***
Monday's she was operating about 2/3 's of the time and thats when she was
close enough to come home at lunch. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday she spent
at the HMO. Friday morning she took Brendan to arts and crafts and left Matthew
with Louise. Later on, she spent Friday afternoons out of the house studying
for the board exams.
The myth about the 3 day week was put out by her in news conferences. Along
with some other information that was either untrue or vastly misleading.
I imagine I might too if I had lost a child and I thought Louise did it. I
think it might be part of a campaign to condition the jury for the civil
trial.'
barbara