Stupid New Theory on Matthew Eappen Murder
Osmo Ronkanen
Maggie8097 <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
>I can't believe this one's going anywhere, but it might be good for a laugh:
Why is it stupid.
Osmo
Ivor Loader
Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <7bqpt3$5...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
There was speculation at some point in this case that his big brother might
have had something to do with Mathews death, if he had been strangled then
his big brother might well have been the cultprit so it is not so stupid is
it. What I call stupid is the desicion of the jury to come to a guilty
verdict when Barry Scheck definately proved doubt.
regards
IL
S. B. Wells
Maggie8097 wrote:
> I can't believe this one's going anywhere, but it might be good for a laugh:
Can't you at least wait until you have some genuine basis to call the theory
"stupid"?
I don't think you personally have any idea what the medical evidence shows is
possible; and you haven't quoted anyone who gives a rational explanation why the
evidence of compression of the blood vessel(s) in the neck is inconsistent with
strangulation, or quoted anyone who says there is no such evidence of blood vessel
compression.
DorianA123
>There was speculation at some point in this case that his big brother might
>have had something to do with Mathews death, if he had been strangled then
>his big brother might well have been the cultprit so it is not so stupid is
>it. What I call stupid is the desicion of the jury to come to a guilty
>verdict when Barry Scheck definately proved doubt.
>
>regards
>
>IL
>
on a few things. The older child, Brendan, wasn't that much older than Matthew.
Brendan was small for his age, Matthew was quite large.
I can't remember the exact weight difference between the two of them but it was
minimal.
I doubt that you could find a doctor in the world who would tell you that it
was physically possible for a 2 1/2 year old to strangle an 8 month old to
death.
Matthew Eappen had little or no injuries to his neck. They were so
insignificant that Woodward's lawyers argued that he couldn't have been shaken
to death.
Dorian
Maggie8097
>
>> I can't believe this one's going anywhere, but it might be good for a
>laugh:
>
>Can't you at least wait until you have some genuine basis to call the theory
>"stupid"?
>I don't think you personally have any idea what the medical evidence shows
>is
>possible; and you haven't quoted anyone who gives a rational explanation
>why the
>evidence of compression of the blood vessel(s) in the neck is inconsistent
>with
>strangulation, or quoted anyone who says there is no such evidence of blood
>vessel
>compression.
***The child had a skull fracture and no neck injuries except those both sides
agreed were inflicted while trying to intubate him in the hospital. The
defense's main argument has been that their expert witnesses "wrote the
book"--they were the best in the country. But since the theory of the top
experts in the country didn't work to get her off, now they've decided to try
something different. It's laughable.
Maggie
"Age is a high price to pay for maturity."--Tom Stoppard
tribe
I agree...this latest twist in the case (that I thought ended long ago), just
shows that this whole case is NEVER going to end. How anyone would believe the
position of a doctor who's specialty is NOT with child abuse or pediatric trauma
in any way...but with tumors...is beyond me. Matthew, both sides agreed, had mild
neck injuries inflicted when attempts to resuscitate him. Why is it the verdict
cannot be accepted?? ---Tribe
hall...@borg.com
I believe you are confusing the superficial bruising with what is now being
claimed by a couple of experts of whatever ability. They might have been
less eager to overlook the lack of bruising than the prosecution zealots.
Despite the claim that Louise Woodward had smashed Matthew Eappen's head
against the floor or other hard surface there little or no brusining. The
claim is not only doubtful but has actually become a farce.
I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped into
public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child abusers
likely got away.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
S. B. Wells
Maggie8097 wrote:
>
>
> ***The child had a skull fracture and no neck injuries except those both sides
> agreed were inflicted while trying to intubate him in the hospital. The
> defense's main argument has been that their expert witnesses "wrote the
> book"--they were the best in the country. But since the theory of the top
> experts in the country didn't work to get her off, now they've decided to try
> something different. It's laughable.
>
>
You STILL haven't quoted anyone who gives a rational explanation
why the evidence of compression of the blood vessel(s) in the neck is inconsistent
with strangulation, or quoted anyone who says there is no such evidence of blood
vessel compression.
He had an skull fracture but that doesn't mean evidence of another injury didn't
exist or didn't contribute to his death.
hall...@borg.com
>...Why is it the verdict cannot be accepted?? ---Tribe
Because witchcraft isn't good science.
Maggie8097
>I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped
>into
>public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child abusers
>likely got away.
***Well we agree on one thing. I'm sure that *one* child abuser got away.
Demona888
>>I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped
>>into
>>public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child
>abusers
>>likely got away.
>
>***Well we agree on one thing. I'm sure that *one* child abuser got away.
>
>
>
>Maggie
Yep, Deborah Eappen.
Hester
Ivor Loader
Demona888 wrote in message <19990307072901...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
Couldn't agree more with you Hester. They are showing an interview with
Lousie Woodward & co at around 7pm on monday night on sky news regarding new
evidence found by Scheck. Not sure if this is the new strangling evidence
found but they reckon it will prove Lousie innocent which is what she is
once and for all.
regards
IL
Dave C.
think it's highly irresponsible (at best) to name names as to who that
child abuser is. If you want to speculate, that's one thing, but I
think it's a little overboard to accuse the mother, without proof. The
child abuser (if one existed) could have been Louise Woodward. Or it
could have been one of the parents, maybe. One thing I found really odd
about the death of Matthew Eappen: Why were the parents so quick to
assume that the nanny had killed the child? Heck, they kicked her out
of the house the same day Matthew went to the hospital. That always
struck me as quite odd. I don't know who (if anybody) was abusing
Matthew Eappen. From what I know of the case, the injuries that
eventually led to his death *could have been* accidental. But assuming
it was one of the parents abusing the child (no evidence of that exists,
AFAIK), then it would seem awful convenient that someone else was
convicted in the death of the child. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
hall...@borg.com
> While I agree that it's quite possible a child abuser "got away", I
> think it's highly irresponsible (at best) to name names as to who that
> child abuser is...
I agree, Dave, but it is hardly unconscionable to point out that Deborah
Eappen has not acted in the way that one might expect of a mother,
particularly, who lost a child IMHO. (Sunil Eappen has seemed mostly
supportive - just a perhaps false impression on my part.)
The blind hatred towards Louise Woodward may be part of natural guilt
feelings - for leaving an infant in the hands of one thought to have murdered
him.
But people normally search for reason behind such events. They want the life
that was lost to have some meaning. To turn a cold shoulder to all questions,
to foreclose all investigation about the medical science, speaks of doubt or
guilt.
Maggie8097
>I agree, Dave, but it is hardly unconscionable to point out that Deborah
>Eappen has not acted in the way that one might expect of a mother,
>particularly, who lost a child IMHO. (Sunil Eappen has seemed mostly
>supportive - just a perhaps false impression on my part.)
***Maybe you can tell us how a woman who knows her au pair has killed her baby
should act. IMO, if she hadn't thrown Louise's lazy ass out of the house
immediately, there'd be lots more suspicion of the Eappens ("see--they knew
from the first it couldn't be Louise--parents with a clear conscience would
have had no doubt about who did it")
hall...@borg.com
> ***Maybe you can tell us how a woman who knows her au pair has killed her baby
> should act.
And how did she know that, Maggie?
You clipped what I wrote about what I would expect. I would expect that she
would want to know everything that could be learned - as I wrote. I would
expect that she would want her baby's death to have real meaning - as I wrote.
I would expect more than a blind rage from a doctor in particular.
> IMO, if she hadn't thrown Louise's lazy ass out of the house
> immediately, there'd be lots more suspicion of the Eappens ("see--they knew
> from the first it couldn't be Louise--parents with a clear conscience would
> have had no doubt about who did it")
>
> Maggie
I also wrote that Deborah Eappen's exaggerated actions might have shown guilt.
Maybe for having Louise Woodward watch the children. Who knows?
She did not act in the way I would have expected. It is only MO and has no
more value than what anyone wishes to place on it. But why did you clip it
and then ask, Maggie?
DorianA123
>think it's highly irresponsible (at best) to name names as to who that
>think it's a little overboard to accuse the mother, without proof. The
>child abuser (if one existed) could have been Louise Woodward. Or it
>could have been one of the parents, maybe. One thing I found really odd
>about the death of Matthew Eappen: Why were the parents so quick to
>assume that the nanny had killed the child? Heck, they kicked her out
>of the house the same day Matthew went to the hospital. That always
>struck me as quite odd.
Odd? Are you kidding? It seems to me that the Eappens were more patient and
non-confrontational than I would have expected. Once the doctors told the
Eappens that their kid had been abused in all probability, did you really think
they'd let Louise stay there with their other child???
Just the *suspicion* that abuse might have been a factor is enough to send that
girl packing immediately!
Dorian
Dave C.
to second-guess someone after the fact, but putting myself in the shoes
of either of the Eappen parents for a moment, I would have wanted to
know *EXACTLY* what happened to my baby. If there was any doubt at all,
I would have done whatever I could to ensure that I had the RIGHT
answers about who (if anybody) dunnit, how they dunnit and WHY they
dunnit. There are so many unanswered questions in this case that, if it
was MY child that was dead, I would *still* not be able to sleep at
night, wondering what the Hell happened. If the Eappens paid any
attention at all to the trial, then they would know that there is some
question (that's an understatement) as to WHEN the child's skull was
fractured. Consider this for a moment: What if the skull fracture is
as old as the prosecution and defense medical witnesses agreed that it
was? That would mean (assuming the parents believe themselves to be
innocent), that somebody possibly murdered the baby WEEKS before they
thought he was murdered. Yeah, it could be Louise, but what if it
wasn't? That would mean that there's a baby killer still on the loose
somewhere, possibly still in contact with the Eappens' other children.
Yeah, I know it's a stretch, but that's just ONE reason why I (assuming
I was the parent of the dead child and had other children) would want to
know EXACTLY what happened. It is really odd that the Eappens' seem to
consider this case closed, when there are so many unanswered questions
about it. Guilt? Maybe. All the reports I've heard of the injuries
this child suffered (fractured ribs, skull and wrist for starters, just
off the top of my head) lead me to believe that somebody was seriously
abusing the baby, and it didn't all happen in one day, obviously. Those
injuries were accumulated over time. Yes, it could have been Louise.
But where's the evidence saying that *Louise* was abusing Matthew? And
if she was abusing Matthew (habitually), why did she leave the other
baby alone? Doesn't compute. If you are a child abuser, you don't pick
and choose which children to abuse, you abuse all the children in your
care. Don't ask me how I know this. I'll just say that I've been
there. (and no, I'm not a child abuser) -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
hall...@borg.com wrote in message <7c0fi6$sjt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>I agree, Dave, but it is hardly unconscionable to point out that
Deborah
>Eappen has not acted in the way that one might expect of a mother,
>particularly, who lost a child IMHO. (Sunil Eappen has seemed mostly
>supportive - just a perhaps false impression on my part.)
>
>The blind hatred towards Louise Woodward may be part of natural guilt
>feelings - for leaving an infant in the hands of one thought to have
murdered
>him.
>
>But people normally search for reason behind such events. They want
the life
>that was lost to have some meaning. To turn a cold shoulder to all
questions,
>to foreclose all investigation about the medical science, speaks of
doubt or
>guilt.
>
Eliza
>
>I agree, Dave, but it is hardly unconscionable to point out that Deborah
>Eappen has not acted in the way that one might expect of a mother,
>particularly, who lost a child IMHO. (Sunil Eappen has seemed mostly
>supportive - just a perhaps false impression on my part.)
>
>The blind hatred towards Louise Woodward may be part of natural guilt
>feelings - for leaving an infant in the hands of one thought to have murdered
>him.
>
>But people normally search for reason behind such events. They want the life
People who have lost a loved one to murder often decide quickly as to
the guilt or innocence of other suspected parties. This may not be
wise, but it is not a sign of guilt.
Eliza
Eliza
<spamm...@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>if she was abusing Matthew (habitually), why did she leave the other
>baby alone? Doesn't compute. If you are a child abuser, you don't pick
>and choose which children to abuse, you abuse all the children in your
>care. Don't ask me how I know this. I'll just say that I've been
>there. (and no, I'm not a child abuser) -Dave
>
This is simply not true. There are certainly cases where abuse is
uniform, and that may be true in the case(s) you're familiar with, but
there are many, many documented cases of one child being abused and
others being left alone. This is especially true in families but is
also true in child care settings.
In this case, the other "baby" was over two, which, for a very young
child care worker, will not always be as frustrating as an infant who
cannot communicate at all.
Eliza
DorianA123
>> ***Maybe you can tell us how a woman who knows her au pair has killed her
>baby
>> should act.
>
>And how did she know that, Maggie?
>
>You clipped what I wrote about what I would expect. I would expect that she
>would want to know everything that could be learned - as I wrote. I would
>expect that she would want her baby's death to have real meaning - as I
>wrote.
>I would expect more than a blind rage from a doctor in particular.
I would expect that she knew that Louise harmed her baby...I would expect
nothing short of rage....and I would expect that she would take immediate steps
to protect her other child from the woman who has just harmed her baby.
Good God! Just because she's a doctor she isn't supposed to feel rage?
FWIW - She did grill Louise on the phone extensively and quickly realized that
she wasn't going to get anything out of her except the lies that Louise had
been feeding them since she started working for them.
I would have had her leave that house immediately......just for her own safety
and to prevent me from comitting murder myself!
Dorian
DorianA123
>to second-guess someone after the fact, but putting myself in the shoes
>of either of the Eappen parents for a moment, I would have wanted to
>know *EXACTLY* what happened to my baby. If there was any doubt at all,
>I would have done whatever I could to ensure that I had the RIGHT
>answers about who (if anybody) dunnit, how they dunnit and WHY they
>dunnit. There are so many unanswered questions in this case that, if it
>was MY child that was dead, I would *still* not be able to sleep at
>night, wondering what the Hell happened. If the Eappens paid any
>attention at all to the trial, then they would know that there is some
>question (that's an understatement) as to WHEN the child's skull was
>fractured. Consider this for a moment: What if the skull fracture is
Maybe they figured the POLICE were more qualified to get those answers out of
Louise ....and they probably figured they'd be busy watching their infant son
die for the next 5 days....and then there were those pesky funeral
arrangements.
Dorian
DorianA123
>People who have lost a loved one to murder often decide quickly as to
>the guilt or innocence of other suspected parties. This may not be
>wise, but it is not a sign of guilt.
>
>Eliza
>
And when there were only two of you in the house and you know that *you* didn't
do it....well it's pretty easy to figure out who did.
Isn't it?
Dorian
hall...@borg.com
The very first thing one might want to do is figure out if there is a murder.
Then one might start counting.
But that complicates the easy answers, of course.
hall...@borg.com
I repeat, Dorian, I expect someone that has lost a baby to want to know
exactly what happened, to want to make the baby's life count for something.
Others may, of course, see things differently.
glas
I agree with you that a parent in Deborah Eappen's situation should want to
find out what REALLY happened to cause her child's death. However, the
Eappen's had another child to think about and considering the circumstances
were completely justified in asking Louise to leave. Regardless of the
eventual outcome, at the time all they knew was that their son was badly
injured and quite likely by the person that had been caring for him.
I would have thrown the girl out too and not lost a minute's sleep over it.
My responsibility and obligation would be my family PERIOD. If proven wrong
after an investigation then an apology might be warranted but in the
meantime, better safe than sorry. After all, the stakes were pretty
high...too high to gamble with. Maybe you would be more cavalier with your
own child's safety but I doubt many parents would.
glas
hall...@borg.com
> |I repeat, Dorian, I expect someone that has lost a baby to want to know
> |exactly what happened, to want to make the baby's life count for something.
> |Others may, of course, see things differently.
>
> I agree with you that a parent in Deborah Eappen's situation should want to
> find out what REALLY happened to cause her child's death. However, the
> Eappen's had another child to think about and considering the circumstances
> were completely justified in asking Louise to leave. Regardless of the
> eventual outcome, at the time all they knew was that their son was badly
> injured and quite likely by the person that had been caring for him.
>
> I would have thrown the girl out too and not lost a minute's sleep over it.
> My responsibility and obligation would be my family PERIOD. If proven wrong
> after an investigation then an apology might be warranted but in the
> meantime, better safe than sorry. After all, the stakes were pretty
> high...too high to gamble with. Maybe you would be more cavalier with your
> own child's safety but I doubt many parents would.
>
> glas
Maybe if you read a bit more carefully you will notice that I never said that
I would not have removed Louise Woodward immediately.
Contrary to your statement ("all they knew was that their son was badly
injured and quite likely by the person that had been caring for him") Deborah
Eappen claimed she had to be convinced of Woodward's culpability in the death
of her infant which she was in denial about for a period of time. That, too,
is quite reasonable.
What I do not understand is the Eappens' unwillingness to explore any cause
for their son's death.
John Alway
>
> Osmo Ronkanen wrote in message <7bqpt3$5...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>...
> >In article <19990306004046...@ng-fr1.aol.com>,
> >Maggie8097 <maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC> wrote:
> >>I can't believe this one's going anywhere, but it might be good for a
> laugh:
> >
> >
> >Osmo
> >
>
> There was speculation at some point in this case that his big brother might
> have had something to do with Mathews death, if he had been strangled then
> his big brother might well have been the cultprit so it is not so stupid is
> it. What I call stupid is the desicion of the jury to come to a guilty
> verdict when Barry Scheck definately proved doubt.
No question about that. There was a great deal of doubt. In fact,
the evidence was against the prosecution, but that didn't matter one
wit, it appears. Evidence isn't that important to courts today.
Btw, for those interested, there is a board which is devoted to
discussion of this topic. Just point your browser here:
http://www.masscomm.net/ccwa/
...John
John Alway
>
> terry said:
> >I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped
> >into
> >public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child abusers
> >likely got away.
>
> ***Well we agree on one thing. I'm sure that *one* child abuser got away.
The facts never penetrate some minds. Vilify someone just to
vilify them and the facts be damned seems to be the way of some
people. Attack Louise Woodward as if she has no right to life simply
because someone accused her of something. Short circuit the thinking
and evaluating process and proclaim someone guilty because you want
to. That's what it amounts to.
As has been pointed out time and time again, the facts did not add
up in the Woodward case. There was uncontrovertable evidence of an old
brain injury, not to mention old fractures on the body. This latest
60 minutes piece just adds ever stronger evidence in favor of those of
us who knew this.
...John
Maggie8097
>> >I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped
>> >into
>> >public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child
>abusers
>> >likely got away.
>>
>> ***Well we agree on one thing. I'm sure that *one* child abuser got away.
>
> The facts never penetrate some minds. Vilify someone just to
>vilify them and the facts be damned seems to be the way of some
>people. Attack Louise Woodward as if she has no right to life simply
>because someone accused her of something.
****LOL. Did you forget she wasn't simply *accused* of something, but
*convicted* of "something"?
jalway said:
Short circuit the thinking
>and evaluating process and proclaim someone guilty because you want
>to. That's what it amounts to.
***....well, that and the conviction by the jury and the judge.
>
jalway said:
> As has been pointed out time and time again, the facts did not add
>up in the Woodward case. There was uncontrovertable evidence of an old
>brain injury, not to mention old fractures on the body. This latest
>60 minutes piece just adds ever stronger evidence in favor of those of
>us who knew this.
***Seems to me it weakens the defense case. The entirety of the defense case
was that the injury was inflicted two or three weeks before death. The latest
information says less than 48 hours. Sounds like the defense is sort of
converging on the prosecution theory.
JBrown6000
<<****LOL. Did you forget she wasn't simply *accused* of something, but
*convicted* of "something"?
**LEH (laughing even harder). People are getting out of prison every day
because their convictions have been overturned. A conviction is not a
guarantee of the truth of an accusation, and the converse is also true.
jb
hall...@borg.com
> jalway said:
> > As has been pointed out time and time again, the facts did not add
> >up in the Woodward case. There was uncontrovertable evidence of an old
> >brain injury, not to mention old fractures on the body. This latest
> >60 minutes piece just adds ever stronger evidence in favor of those of
> >us who knew this.
>
> ***Seems to me it weakens the defense case. The entirety of the defense case
> was that the injury was inflicted two or three weeks before death. The latest
> information says less than 48 hours. Sounds like the defense is sort of
> converging on the prosecution theory.
>
> Maggie
ROTFL!
That is a wonderful twist on the proof that the prosecution never had a case.
Woodward will not be the first nor the last to convicted without proof of
guilt but it is rather unusual to argue that the refutation of a dubious case
proves it is true.
JBrown6000
<<In this case, the other "baby" was over two, which, for a very young
child care worker, will not always be as frustrating as an infant who
cannot communicate at all.
**That's probably not limited to child care workers.
jb
JBrown6000
<<Maybe they figured the POLICE were more qualified to get those answers out of
Louise ....and they probably figured they'd be busy watching their infant son
die for the next 5 days....and then there were those pesky funeral
arrangements.
**I only saw a tiny bit of the trial, so I don't know if this was commented on.
Did the parents ever mention Matty being habitually abused? Was there any
discussion about his earlier broken bones?
jb
JBrown6000
<<Odd? Are you kidding? It seems to me that the Eappens were more patient and
non-confrontational than I would have expected. Once the doctors told the
Eappens that their kid had been abused in all probability, did you really think
they'd let Louise stay there with their other child???
Just the *suspicion* that abuse might have been a factor is enough to send that
girl packing immediately!
**You know that's the really curious thing. That they would have to be told.
Apparently this child was knocked around a lot. They're both doctors.
Wouldn't they notice something was out of whack? It just seems so peculiar
that they never noticed.
jb
DorianA123
>You bring up another good point, there. I know it doesn't do much good
>to second-guess someone after the fact, but putting myself in the shoes
>of either of the Eappen parents for a moment, I would have wanted to
>know *EXACTLY* what happened to my baby. If there was any doubt at all,
>I would have done whatever I could to ensure that I had the RIGHT
>answers about who (if anybody) dunnit, how they dunnit and WHY they
>dunnit.
If they knew they didn't do it that only leaves Louise. Debbie eappen did try
to question her on the phone and quickly realized that she wasn't going to get
any information out of her that wasn't a lie. Better let the cops handle it.
Besides, she was pretty busy with a critically injured child and worrying about
the safety of the older one.
> There are so many unanswered questions in this case that, if it
>was MY child that was dead, I would *still* not be able to sleep at
>night, wondering what the Hell happened. If the Eappens paid any
>attention at all to the trial, then they would know that there is some
>question (that's an understatement) as to WHEN the child's skull was
>fractured. Consider this for a moment: What if the skull fracture is
>as old as the prosecution and defense medical witnesses agreed that it
>was? That would mean (assuming the parents believe themselves to be
>innocent), that somebody possibly murdered the baby WEEKS before they
>thought he was murdered.
The defense expert said that the fracture showed 1-2 weeks worth of healing in
his opinion. Matthew Eappen laid in a coma for 5 days before his
death....there's your answer.
>this child suffered (fractured ribs, skull and wrist for starters, just
>off the top of my head) lead me to believe that somebody was seriously
>abusing the baby, and it didn't all happen in one day, obviously.
If you watched the CBS show you'd know that the rib fractures were likely
caused by the autopsy. It's not that uncommon for they type of wrist fracture
that Matthew had to go unnoticed....as it obviously did in this case.
>But where's the evidence saying that *Louise* was abusing Matthew? And
>if she was abusing Matthew (habitually), why did she leave the other
>baby alone? Doesn't compute. If you are a child abuser, you don't pick
>and choose which children to abuse, you abuse all the children in your
>care. Don't ask me how I know this. I'll just say that I've been
>there. (and no, I'm not a child abuser) -Dave
>
Whatever you experience with child abuse..it's obviously not extensive. What
you have stated above is absolutely, provably, 100% untrue. It is not uncommon
for an abuser to single out one child to get all of the abuse. This "whipping
boy" syndrome is well-documented by professionals who deal with child abuse on
a regular basis.
Dorian
DorianA123
Of course they didn't think Matty was habitually abused or Louise wouldn't have
been still employed with them!
Debbie Eappen was sick when she heard about the wrist fracture of course...but
no one noticed any swelling or bruising that would indicate a wrist injury. Not
the Eappens and not Louise.
Dorian
DorianA123
>>
>> terry said:
>> >I have no idea if the baby was strangled but the prosecution case tapped
>> >into
>> >public hysteria over child abuse. In reality one or more actual child
>abusers
>> >likely got away.
>>
>
>vilify them and the facts be damned seems to be the way of some
>people. Attack Louise Woodward as if she has no right to life simply
>because someone accused her of something.
She was accused, arrested, tried, and convicted by a jury. That conviction was
reduced, yet confirmed, by a presiding judge *and* an appellate panel of
judges.
Are you so set in your own mind that you can ignore all of those facts?
> Short circuit the thinking
>and evaluating process and proclaim someone guilty because you want
>to. That's what it amounts to.
As does your position.
>
> As has been pointed out time and time again, the facts did not add
>up in the Woodward case.
The fact that uninformed persons keep repeating the same refrain does not make
it a fact. The facts added up for plenty of people...including the people who
were charged with evaluating the case.
> There was uncontrovertable evidence of an old
>brain injury,
<sigh> Please look up the word "uncontrovertable".
It most certainly was contested. We had dueling 'experts' with differing
opinions.
> not to mention old fractures on the body. This latest
>60 minutes piece just adds ever stronger evidence in favor of those of
>us who knew this.
>
>
>
> ...John
>
>
This 60 Minutes piece was sloppy journalism at best. Interestingly though, if
Dr. Gilles is correct inhis theory it actually points more strongly toward
Louise's guilt.
Dorian
DorianA123
she was accused of something.
Maggie was pointing out that she was far more than just accused.
The issue wasn't how many convictions are overturned on appeal.
spin spin spin
Dorian
DorianA123
>I guess I didn't explain myself correctly. What I found odd is that the
>Eappens seemingly found it quite easy to believe that the nanny might
>have hurt their child. AFAIK, there was no heart-to-heart between the
>Eappens and Louise about what had happened the day that Matthew went to
>the hospital.
Not true...Deborah spent quite some time onthe phone with Louise trying to stay
calm and find out what happened. Between what she later learned from police and
the treating doctors, and Louise's demeanor and obvious lies, it became
obvious to her that she wasn't going to get any pertinent information from
Louise.
> Report I read is that Louise Woodward was asked to leave
>the household rather abruptly. No presumption of innocence at all.
>AFAIK, they jumped to the conclusion that Louise was responsible,
>without even bothering to talk to her about it first.
Well now I've informed you differently. But the fact remains that the Eappens
knew that they were at work and that Louise was with the kids......it was
obvious who was to blame.
Besides, they aren't jurors. They're parents.
They have no earthly obligation to presume her innocent.
>Eappens received preliminary reports that the child might have been
>abused, why would they assume that it was Louise who abused him?
Well - how about because they knew that they DIDN'T
> He got
>sick BEFORE that day he was hospitalized. In fact, I believe he was
>under the mother's care when he first got sick. (Didn't I read
>somewhere that the mother had special instructions for Louise because
>she knew that he was sick, BEFORE Louise came on duty? Something about
>not eating, or not pooping or something . . .)
Yeah...he was teething and constipated....big deal. That's normal. Exploding
brains are not.
> It's not so odd that
>they asked her to leave the house. It's just odd that they didn't want
>to talk to her first, or so it seemed to me. I got that impression from
>hearing Louise Woodward relate how upset she was about the manner in
>which she was asked to leave the Eappen home. She was genuinely hurt to
>be treated in such a manner. Assuming Louise was totally innocent (not
>a valid assumption, but AT LEAST as valid as assuming that she's
>guilty), her feelings about being asked to leave the home so abruptly
>are understandable. -Dave
Yeah...poor Louise...she was always so put upon! She didn't like being expected
to actually work for her pay, she didn't appreciate having a curfew imposed
when it became obvious that her late nights out were keeping her from being
able to wake up on time in the morning, she didn't like being asked not to
spend hours on the phone with her friends when she was supposed to be watching
two kids. Gimme a break! At the very least the Eappens had every reason in the
world to believe that Louise had abused (or seriously neglected) their baby. It
is not at all unreasonable that they would ask her to leave. They knew they
were going to be tied up at the hospital for a long time.....were they just
supposed to take a chance that Louise wouldn't hurt their other son??? To have
left that young woman in the house with Brendan would truly have been
negligent!
Dorian
DorianA123
At this point there's no reliable indication that the child was knocked around
alot.
He had an old wrist fracture (not uncommon) that no one noticed. Not the
parents, Grandparents, friends, Louise, or his pediatrician.
That's it. No other solid evidence exists to indicate anything different.
Louise and both parents and the child's doctor testified that he was a normal
happy baby.
Dorian
hall...@borg.com
> People who have lost a loved one to murder often decide quickly as to
> the guilt or innocence of other suspected parties.
I would say that it is almost always the case, Eliza, unless there is no real
sign of any solution - in which case the law enforcement people are likely to
suffer the wrath of the survivors. I agree with you.
>This may not be wise, but it is not a sign of guilt.
>
> Eliza
Certainly not.
I only commented that it seemed to me that there seemed to me a lack of
interest regarding the exact cause of death which I personally find strange -
not in any way evidence of guilt. It is something I probably should not have
mentioned. I am not high on demeanor as proof of anything much in most
cases. It is only something that can raise suspicions.
DorianA123
>> she wasn't going to get anything out of her except the lies that Louise had
>> been feeding them since she started working for them.
>> I would have had her leave that house immediately......just for her own
>safety
>> and to prevent me from comitting murder myself!
>> Dorian
>
>exactly what happened, to want to make the baby's life count for something.
>Others may, of course, see things differently.
>
conviction that Louise killed their child. They probably *do* feel as though
they know what happened and red herrings thrown out there by 60 Minutes and
defense-paid doctors aren't likely to change that.
Dorian
WWWoLadyA
>This 60 Minutes piece was sloppy journalism at best.
I absolutely agree.
I watched it and was totally unimpressed.
Mike Wallace allowed this doctor to advance this theory without serious
challenge to it.
Dr. Gilles stated that a blow to the abdomen could be responsible for Matthew's
constipation. How? Temporary nerve paralysis? A hematoma in the lumen of the
bowel? Spasms of the colon?
Nevermind. We'll just take the doctor's word for it.
Dr Gilles stated that he has concluded Matthew's death was a result of
strangulation, by carotid artery compression, several days before his death.
How? The oxygen deprivation damaged the blood vessels in his brain, and they
leaked later when his blood pressure rose during a crying episode?
The damage to the carotid arteries caused them to collapse or occlude days
later?
And what physical signs might one expect to see in a baby who has suffered
this oxygen deprivation, between the strangulation and his actual death?
Nevermind. We'll just take the doctor's word for it and air it in prime time
with no substantiation.
Lady A
hall...@borg.com
I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another rare
condition or a valid conclusion.
But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even if his
idea seems quite bizarre.
Maggie8097
>I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another
>rare
>condition or a valid conclusion.
>
>But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
>who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>
>It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even
>if his
>idea seems quite bizarre.
***Doesn't it embarrass you to reveal yourself as a Louise-groupie (ala Dave)
in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were the
best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity. Now
this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness of the
verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief in
Louise.
DorianA123
>I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another rare
>condition or a valid conclusion.
>
>But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
>who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>
>It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even if
>his
>idea seems quite bizarre.
It's completely vlaid to write him off if he was dishonest.
He never bothered to say that the odds would be far greater that the child
would be immediately symptomatic or dead.
He also failed completely to take the skull fracture into account.
How could he possibly explain an old skull fracture *and* an old strangulation
that were both asymptomatic for 2 days and then a spontaneously exploding
brain??
He couldn't - so he ignored it.
Dorian
WWWoLadyA
>But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
>who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
Fine.
But my point was that the journalist should have explored it in greater depth.
Maybe pursued the opinions of a peds neurologist or two.
>It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think?
The only thing sillier would be to embrace it so quickly, and on a basis of
nothing other than his remarks on 60 Minutes.
If in a court of law, it's innocent til proven guilty.......the scientific
community works exactly opposite. All theories are suspect til proven.
>Even if his
>idea seems quite bizarre.
At least you admit that much.
I'm encouraged. :)
Lady A
hall...@borg.com
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie8097) wrote:
> Terry said:
> >I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another
> >rare
> >condition or a valid conclusion.
> >
> >who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
> >
> >if his
> >idea seems quite bizarre.
>
> in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were the
> best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity. Now
> this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
> doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
> previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness of the
> verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief in
> Louise.
>
> Maggie
Feel better now, Maggie?
The doctor was not a defense expert though he is undoubtedly an expert.
hall...@borg.com
wwwo...@aol.com (WWWoLadyA) wrote:
> hall...@borg.com wrote:
>
> >But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
> >who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>
> But my point was that the journalist should have explored it in greater depth.
> Maybe pursued the opinions of a peds neurologist or two.
>
>
> nothing other than his remarks on 60 Minutes.
> If in a court of law, it's innocent til proven guilty.......the scientific
> community works exactly opposite. All theories are suspect til proven.
>
> >idea seems quite bizarre.
>
> I'm encouraged. :)
>
> Lady A
I don't know who the reporter talked to or who was consulted outside of the
radiologist who agreed with him. "60 Minutes" now claims they have the
transcript of Dr. Newberger, the prosecution expert, agreeing that the opinion
has some validity though he claimed he answered a different question. The
segment could still be taken out of context, I suppose, or misspoke. But then
it would seem he would have been able to explain himself.
ChevreTroi
>I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another rare
>condition or a valid conclusion.
>
>But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
>who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>
>It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even if
>his
>idea seems quite bizarre.
>
Didn't the "60 Minutes" people ask the "prosecution" to name a doctor that they
could go to, whose credentials and reputation were above reproach? And they
named Gilles?
ChevreTrois
Maggie8097
>> >I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another
>> >rare
>> >condition or a valid conclusion.
>> >
>> >But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
>> >who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>> >
>> >It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even
>> >if his
>> >idea seems quite bizarre.
>>
>> ***Doesn't it embarrass you to reveal yourself as a Louise-groupie (ala
>Dave)
>> in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were
>the
>> best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity.
> Now
>> this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
>> doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
>> previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness
>of the
>> verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief
>in
>> Louise.
Terry said:
>Feel better now, Maggie?
***Still a little dyspeptic, I'm afraid. Maybe if you'll answer the question
and address the issue I'll be able to see my way to a recovery.
>
Terry said:
>The doctor was not a defense expert though he is undoubtedly an expert.
**So if the new "strangulation" doctor is an "expert," that must mean the old
"2-week-old-head-bash" doctors are quacks.
At last we agree. But, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
JBrown6000
<<***Doesn't it embarrass you to reveal yourself as a Louise-groupie (ala Dave)
in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were the
best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity. Now
this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness of the
verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief in
Louise.
**Do you honestly believe these doctors would compromise their reputations for
the grand sum of $700? Many people absolutely do believe that the evidence is
not persuasive that Louise bashed/smashed/shook that baby. It has nothing to
do with being a Louise groupie, it has to do with not believing bad evidence.
I can't see any reason to insult people just because they disagree with you.
jb
JBrown6000
<<Whatever you experience with child abuse..it's obviously not extensive. What
you have stated above is absolutely, provably, 100% untrue. It is not uncommon
for an abuser to single out one child to get all of the abuse. This "whipping
boy" syndrome is well-documented by professionals who deal with child abuse on
a regular basis.
**Who usually exhibits this "whipping-boy" syndrome?
jb
JBrown6000
<<Of course they didn't think Matty was habitually abused or Louise wouldn't
have
been still employed with them!
Debbie Eappen was sick when she heard about the wrist fracture of course...but
no one noticed any swelling or bruising that would indicate a wrist injury. Not
the Eappens and not Louise.
**Now I'm even more confused. Didn't you say that the Eappens were upset at
what they saw as evidence of neglect on the part of Louise? Her late hours,
long talks on the phone while working, failure to be wide awake and ready to
care for the children, that sort of thing?
Knowing all that, why would they leave a sick baby with her without even
checking in during the day?
jb
hall...@borg.com
> >> Terry said:
> >> >I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another
> >> >rare
> >> >condition or a valid conclusion.
> >> >
> >> >But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a
colleague
> >> >who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
> >> >
> >> >It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even
> >> >if his
> >> >idea seems quite bizarre.
> Maggie said:
> >> ***Doesn't it embarrass you to reveal yourself as a Louise-groupie (ala
> >Dave)
> >> in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were
> >the
> >> best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity.
> > Now
> >> this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
> >> doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
> >> previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness
> >of the
> >> verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief
> >in
> >> Louise.
>
> Terry said:
> >Feel better now, Maggie?
>
> ***Still a little dyspeptic, I'm afraid. Maybe if you'll answer the question
> and address the issue I'll be able to see my way to a recovery.
Sorry, Maggie. I do not intend to trade insults with you. I only wish you
would address the evidence rather than relying on people who will not even
look at the evidence.
> Terry said:
> >The doctor was not a defense expert though he is undoubtedly an expert.
>
> **So if the new "strangulation" doctor is an "expert," that must mean the old
> "2-week-old-head-bash" doctors are quacks.
>
> At last we agree. But, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
>
> Maggie
Even prosecution experts have agreed that there is evidence of an old injury.
Dr. Gilles has not said there was no skull fracture to the best of my
knowledge. His theory of strangulation is not based on some imaginary
condition but actual cases. Whether strangulation is applicable in this case
remains to be determined. It seems bizarre to me but then new areas of
knowledge often do.
Deaths of infants from chronic hematomas are from from unknown and I once even
posted a standard reference work that referred to such occurrences in infants
after some weeks.
Why do you insist on insults rather than addressing the evidence, Maggie?
As for being a Louise groupie, my impression of Louise Woodward is of a rather
unattractive, irresponsible teenager. Such has little meaning really and
certainly may be erroneous.
Maggie8097
>
><<***Doesn't it embarrass you to reveal yourself as a Louise-groupie (ala
>Dave)
>in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts were
>the
>best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity.
> Now
>this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these new
>doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies your
>previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness of
>the
>verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a belief
>in
>Louise.
>
>**Do you honestly believe these doctors would compromise their reputations
>for
>the grand sum of $700? Many people absolutely do believe that the evidence
>is
>not persuasive that Louise bashed/smashed/shook that baby. It has nothing
>to
>do with being a Louise groupie, it has to do with not believing bad evidence.
>
>I can't see any reason to insult people just because they disagree with
>you.
***But jb, who's the best judge of the evidence? A few physicians who have
been paid by the defense to state their opinions, or the vast, vast, vast
majority of physicians who say (for free) that the defense-paid experts are
full of it?
Maggie8097
>
><<Of course they didn't think Matty was habitually abused or Louise wouldn't
>have
>been still employed with them!
>Debbie Eappen was sick when she heard about the wrist fracture of course...but
>no one noticed any swelling or bruising that would indicate a wrist injury.
>Not
>the Eappens and not Louise.
>
>**Now I'm even more confused. Didn't you say that the Eappens were upset
>at
>what they saw as evidence of neglect on the part of Louise? Her late hours,
>long talks on the phone while working, failure to be wide awake and ready
>to
>care for the children, that sort of thing?
>Knowing all that, why would they leave a sick baby with her without even
>checking in during the day?
***This "sick baby" myth is getting very old. The child was not sick. The
child was teething and constipated. It's quite a normal condition for an
8-month-old.
Maggie8097
>
>> >> >I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another
>> >> >rare
>> >> >condition or a valid conclusion.
>> >> >
>> >> >But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a
>colleague
>> >> >who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think?
> Even
>> >> >if his
>> >> >idea seems quite bizarre.
>
>> Maggie said:
>(ala
>> >Dave)
>> >> in this way? Back when you were insisting that the defense experts
>were
>> >the
>> >> best in the world and had to be right, you at least had some integrity.
>> > Now
>> >> this eagerness to jump on any bandwagon at all (nevermind that these
>new
>> >> doctors were paid by the defense) to get Louise off sort of sullies
>your
>> >> previous opinions. It's clear that your belief in the wrongheadedness
>> >of the
>> >> verdict wasn't based on any belief in the science presented--just a
>belief
>> >in
>> >> Louise.
>>
>> >Feel better now, Maggie?
>>
>> ***Still a little dyspeptic, I'm afraid. Maybe if you'll answer the
question
>> and address the issue I'll be able to see my way to a recovery.
Terry said:
>Sorry, Maggie. I do not intend to trade insults with you. I only wish
you
>would address the evidence rather than relying on people who will not even
>look at the evidence.
***So.....that would be a "you got me," huh?
>
>> Terry said:
>> >The doctor was not a defense expert though he is undoubtedly an expert.
>>
maggie said:
>> **So if the new "strangulation" doctor is an "expert," that must mean
>the old
>> "2-week-old-head-bash" doctors are quacks.
>>
>> At last we agree. But, oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Terry said:
>Even prosecution experts have agreed that there is evidence of an old injury.
***Quote 'em. I certainly don't remember that from the trial. What
prosecution experts? What did they say?
Terry said:
>Dr. Gilles has not said there was no skull fracture to the best of my
>knowledge. His theory of strangulation is not based on some imaginary
>condition but actual cases.
***Case. A seven year old girl. Who experienced a seizure and paralysis
immediately after the strangulation. Not very persuasive is it?
Terry said:
Whether strangulation is applicable in this
>case
>remains to be determined. It seems bizarre to me but then new areas of
>knowledge often do.
>
>Deaths of infants from chronic hematomas are from from unknown and I once
>even
>posted a standard reference work that referred to such occurrences in infants
>after some weeks.
***Wonder why 50+ experts in child abuse aren't aware of your information?
Wonder why the defense experts on the stand in the trial couldn't come up with
it? Let me help you with the answer--it's just not true.
>
Terry said:
>Why do you insist on insults rather than addressing the evidence, Maggie?
***I don't believe I've insulted you at all, just asked you to defend what I
feel is an undefensable and illogical position. And you have proven yourself
unable (you say unwilling) to defend it. I think it proves my point. And,
BTW, you certainly feel free enough to insult Kurt Foster who's also arguing
with you about this case. Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?
DorianA123
>
><<Of course they didn't think Matty was habitually abused or Louise wouldn't
>have
>been still employed with them!
>Debbie Eappen was sick when she heard about the wrist fracture of
>course...but
>no one noticed any swelling or bruising that would indicate a wrist injury.
>Not
>the Eappens and not Louise.
>
>what they saw as evidence of neglect on the part of Louise? Her late hours,
>long talks on the phone while working, failure to be wide awake and ready to
>care for the children, that sort of thing?
Yes...they periodically had problems with a yoing sitter...it's quite common.
>Knowing all that, why would they leave a sick baby with her without even
>checking in during the day?
>
>jb
>
a) He wasn't sick
b) Debbie Eappen did check during most days....she usually ran home to
breastfeed. Sunil was also known to pop in here and there.
Dorian
DorianA123
worker, etc.
Dorian
JBrown6000
<<***But jb, who's the best judge of the evidence? A few physicians who have
been paid by the defense to state their opinions, or the vast, vast, vast
majority of physicians who say (for free) that the defense-paid experts are
full of it?
**Your vast vast majority haven't seen the evidence. The prosecution witnesses
had theories that were disputed by the defense witnesses. I'd say they are
equally eager not to be proven wrong. But NOBODY is going to prove anything
without looking at the evidence.
jb
Dave C.
Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
appen? -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
DorianA123 wrote in message
<19990311101444...@ng147.aol.com>...
tribe
team during the trial. That's motive enough for me. Also, I don't see in his
credentials anything that leads me to believe he is expert in any matter of child
abuse, which is in effect what the theory is (if indeed they are claiming
strangulation as cause of death). Dr. Nelson is a radiologist. I don't think it
was the defense team that initiated the 60 Minutes report...seems they would be
doing their client a disservice, she may be a convicted killer....but a free one.
I think these doctors played into 60 Minute's attempt at a ratings coup. ---Tribe
hall...@borg.com wrote:
> I don't know if this is just headline grabbing, a desire to see another rare
> condition or a valid conclusion.
>
> But the doctor has published work on the condition. And he has a colleague
> who agrees with him. It is not a fairy tale.
>
> It is a little silly to write him off so quickly don't you think? Even if his
> idea seems quite bizarre.
>
Maggie8097
>Dorian- Even the most hardcore of the "Louise dunnit" crowd KNOW that
>Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
>appen?
***Wrong again, Dave.
Can you name just one of the "Louise dunnit" crowd who believes Matthew was
sick that day? Just one?
DorianA123
>Dorian- Even the most hardcore of the "Louise dunnit" crowd KNOW that
>Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
Well Dave...you can stop making that assertion. I don't *know* anything of the
sort (and several others here have said the same thing). How can you just make
a blind assertion when you must know the opposite to be true if you're reading
the newsgroup?
I don't believe that the kid was sick...I think he was teething and cranky and
constipated....all normal signs in a teething baby.
Dorian
hall...@borg.com
> This dr. Nelson CAN be written off, IMO. He was a paid consultant to the
> defense team during the trial. That's motive enough for me.
:-}
Most people pay their doctors and do not necessarily write off their opinions
for that reason. All the doctors were compensated for their testimony, Tribe.
Is it only defense experts who are supposed to work for free?
Dr. Nelson was not the doctor who originally gave the opinion that
strangulation was the cause of death. It was Dr. Gilles. One doctor who
agreed that it could have been strangulation was Dr. Newberger, who hunts
witches for prosecutors at Children's Hospital. He now denies what he said
on tape. The prosecution experts have a lot of trouble hewing to the Gospel.
>Also, I don't see in his
> credentials anything that leads me to believe he is expert in any matter of
child
> abuse, which is in effect what the theory is (if indeed they are claiming
> strangulation as cause of death). Dr. Nelson is a radiologist. I don't think
it
> was the defense team that initiated the 60 Minutes report...seems they would
be
> doing their client a disservice, she may be a convicted killer....but a free
one.
> I think these doctors played into 60 Minute's attempt at a ratings coup.
---Tribe
Who could doubt that "60 Minutes" was looking for an interesting story? It
was brought to them by a journalist who had tried to interest the New York
Times but was turned down because it was too technical according to at least
one report. It is fascinating that the now evil Dr. Gilles was suggested as a
reputable and evenhanded expert by the prosecution. Looks like they could
have found a member of the congregation.
JBrown6000
>Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
>appen?
Maggie says:
***Wrong again, Dave.
Can you name just one of the "Louise dunnit" crowd who believes Matthew was
sick that day? Just one?
>>
**I think she's right, Dave. I'd be very surprised to see an LDI admit Mathew
was sick that day.
jb
Maggie8097
>
>> This dr. Nelson CAN be written off, IMO. He was a paid consultant to the
>> defense team during the trial. That's motive enough for me.
terry said:
>Most people pay their doctors and do not necessarily write off their opinions
>for that reason.
***And most people get what they pay for.
Terry said:
All the doctors were compensated for their testimony,
>Tribe.
>Is it only defense experts who are supposed to work for free?
*** The prosecution experts included the doctors who treated Matthew and the
ME. They appeared under subpoena and were not paid experts.
hall...@borg.com
They are not charitable volunteers working for free. They are paid experts.
The testimony is part of their jobs.
The members of Child Abuse, Inc., have a greater vested interest in
maintaining the gospel than any outside expert.
It does not mean they lied. It only shows their prejudices.
hall...@borg.com
Strange isn't it?
Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy, and
inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all documented in
the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
People often remember only what they want to remember.
hall...@borg.com
>Terry said:
>>Sorry, Maggie. I do not intend to trade insults with you...
>***So.....that would be a "you got me," huh?
I have survived professional hit men like the Viet Cong. Girls don't even
scare me.
>Terry said:
>>Even prosecution experts have agreed that there is evidence of an old injury.
>
>***Quote 'em. I certainly don't remember that from the trial.
Maybe you bumped your head.
>What prosecution experts?
Madsen, Barnes, Cleveland.
>What did they say?
What I said.
Here is a sample from the testimony of Dr. Madsen, the attending neurosurgeon
who previously needed prompting to admit some - ummm - problems with his grand
jury testimony:
-------------------------------
Q Infants can fracture their skull and not show any obvious neurological
injury.
A Absolutely, yes.
Q Indeed, sometimes in the hospital, infants come in with fractured skulls;
but if there is no other sign of neurological or deficit, they're not even
taken in to be CAT scanned. That sometimes happens, doesn't it?
A They might not be CAT scanned and be observed overnight, yes.
Q In other words, you just monitor them, and then they send the infant home
with that fractured skull to let it heal.
A That is absolutely correct.
[-]
Q Now, sometimes infants will fall, fracture their skulls as you said,
develop subdural bleeds, and then actually the subdural bleed resolves.
A That occasionally happens, yes.
Q That means it literally heals or disappears.
A That's correct.
Q And sometimes, instead of resolving, the subdural bleed can re-bleed.
A Yes, it can.
Q And re-bleeds of subdural injuries of this nature, can occur from trivial
impacts, jarring of the head, trivial.
A In certain circumstances, yes.
Q And, in fact, sometimes these subdurals can begin to re-bleed
spontaneously.
A That's right. Yes.
Q And that can happen hours, weeks, or days -- withdrawn. That can happen
hours, days, or weeks after the initial injury, that re-bleed.
A In cases of chronic subdural hematoma, yes, sir.
[-]
Q Now, Doctor, let us assume that Matthew Eappen suffered a skull fracture
two or three weeks prior to admission to the hospital in the right
occipital area, and swelling went down afterwards. Aren't these bone
windows consistent with that kind of event, the swelling going down, the
lack of swelling you see here, yes or no?
A Yes, that would be consistent.
-------------------------------------------------------------
>Terry said:
>>Dr. Gilles has not said there was no skull fracture to the best of my
>>knowledge. His theory of strangulation is not based on some imaginary
>>condition but actual cases.
>
>***Case. A seven year old girl. Who experienced a seizure and paralysis
>immediately after the strangulation. Not very persuasive is it?
Actually you are denial about the distress that Matthew Eappen was suffering
as described by Deborah Eappen prior to the imaginary abuse at the hands of
Louise Woodward.
>***Wonder why 50+ experts in child abuse aren't aware of your information?
Maybe they didn't read Dr. Madsen's testimony and that of other prosecution
experts. They couldn't be bothered with the evidence in the case.
[-]
>Terry said:
>>Why do you insist on insults rather than addressing the evidence, Maggie?
>
>***I don't believe I've insulted you at all, just asked you to defend what I
>feel is an undefensable and illogical position.
I am hard to insult actually. I don't plan to answer why I am a Louise
groupie. I try to seek the truth and have no great regard for Louise
Woodward.
[-]
>BTW, you certainly feel free enough to insult Kurt Foster who's also arguing
>with you about this case. Sort of hypocritical, don't you think?
>
>Maggie
Perhaps Kurt is terribly insulted by having his faith challenged but he at
least makes some feeble attempt to address the evidence.
Might I suggest you follow in his footsteps.
Maggie8097
>that
>> >Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
>> >appen?
>>
>> Maggie says:
>>
>> ***Wrong again, Dave.
>>
>> Can you name just one of the "Louise dunnit" crowd who believes Matthew
>was
>> sick that day? Just one?
>> >>
>>
jb said:
>> **I think she's right, Dave. I'd be very surprised to see an LDI admit
>Mathew
>> was sick that day.
Terry said:
>Strange isn't it?
>
>Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy, and
>inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all documented
>in
>the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
>
>People often remember only what they want to remember.
**LOL. Apparently so.
It was Louise, herself, who testified that Matthew slept that morning for over
2 hours while she spent an equally long time on the phone with her friend, Roo.
Roo testified that during this entire, interminable, phone conversation she
never heard a peep from the child you described as crying, cranky and unable to
sleep.
Maggie8097
>> All the doctors were compensated for their testimony,
>> >Tribe.
>> >Is it only defense experts who are supposed to work for free?
>>
>> *** The prosecution experts included the doctors who treated Matthew and
>the
>> ME. They appeared under subpoena and were not paid experts.
Terry said:
>They are not charitable volunteers working for free. They are paid experts.
>The testimony is part of their jobs.
***...and they get paid *exactly* the same amount whether they testify or not,
and whether they testify one thing or the other. Not so, the defense's paid
experts. If they don't testify the way the defense wants them to, they aren't
called and aren't paid.
Dave C.
sick before Louise came on duty that morning? Unless you are bound and
determined to railroad an innocent young lady into a murder conviction,
that is. Then you would have a good motive to deny the facts of this
case. -Dave
On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
hall...@borg.com wrote in message <7caoqm$ufv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Strange isn't it?
>
>Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy,
and
>inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all
documented in
>the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
>
>People often remember only what they want to remember.
>
Maggie8097
>>>Even prosecution experts have agreed that there is evidence of an old
>injury.
>>
>>***Quote 'em. I certainly don't remember that from the trial.
***I'm sure you realize that 90% of your quote is not responsive to the
question. And the last little Q & A doesn't establish anything about what the
doctor thinks about evidence of an old injury. It's just a defense lawyer's
hypothetical ("let us assume that Matthew Eappen suffered a skull fracture two
or three weeks prior to.....") The jury understood. Why can't you?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>Terry said:
>>>Dr. Gilles has not said there was no skull fracture to the best of my
>>>knowledge. His theory of strangulation is not based on some imaginary
>>>condition but actual cases.
>>
Maggie said:
>>***Case. A seven year old girl. Who experienced a seizure and paralysis
>>immediately after the strangulation. Not very persuasive is it?
>
Terry said:
>Actually you are denial about the distress that Matthew Eappen was suffering
>as described by Deborah Eappen prior to the imaginary abuse at the hands
>of
>Louise Woodward.
***?????? Oh. Was he paralyzed? Did he suffer seizures? Wonder why Louise
didn't notice?
hall...@borg.com
Thank you for finally admitting that the prosecution employs paid experts just
as the defense does.
hall...@borg.com
> ***I'm sure you realize that 90% of your quote is not responsive to the
> question.
90% huh? Glad we got that 10%. LOL!
> And the last little Q & A doesn't establish anything about what the
> doctor thinks about evidence of an old injury. It's just a defense lawyer's
> hypothetical ("let us assume that Matthew Eappen suffered a skull fracture two
> or three weeks prior to.....") The jury understood. Why can't you?
I said the prosecution's own expert witnesses testified to evidence of a
chronic subdural hematoma. They did so. I posted evidence that you
requested since you had forgotten.
You're welcome.
glas
have posted the *facts* about this baby being CRANKY that morning. He was
not sick, no one - not his parents nor Louise nor anyone - has said that he
was sick that day. Babies are often cranky and especially at the age that
Matty was. Teething, constipation, maybe just growing pains for chrissakes
are part and parcel of infancy and they can make a baby cranky.
It is not a FACT that Matthew Eappen was sick and continuing to insist that
it is makes you out to be totally lacking in credibility for insisting on a
lie.
glas
P.S. By the way, your fly is still open...
Dave C. wrote in message <7cb6n1$7...@news3.newsguy.com>...
|Thank you. Why would anybody deny the *fact* that Matthew Eappen was
|sick before Louise came on duty that morning? Unless you are bound and
|determined to railroad an innocent young lady into a murder conviction,
|that is. Then you would have a good motive to deny the facts of this
|case. -Dave
|
|On hotmail dot com, I am user "davec2".
|
|hall...@borg.com wrote in message <7caoqm$ufv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
|
|>Strange isn't it?
|>
|>Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy,
|and
|>inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all
|documented in
|>the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
|>
|>People often remember only what they want to remember.
|>
DorianA123
>sick before Louise came on duty that morning?
They might deny it because it wasn't true! Not even Louise characterized him as
'sick'....and anyone with experience with babies wouldn't say he was sick
either.
Matter of fact, I don't even recall any of the defense experts saying that
during the trial.
Dorian
hall...@borg.com
> >> << >Dorian- Even the most hardcore of the "Louise dunnit" crowd KNOW
> >that
> >> >Matthew was sick. The only question is HOW sick was Matthew
> >> >appen?
> >>
> >> Maggie says:
> >>
> >> ***Wrong again, Dave.
> >>
> >> Can you name just one of the "Louise dunnit" crowd who believes Matthew
> >was
> >> sick that day? Just one?
> >> >>
> >>
> jb said:
> >> **I think she's right, Dave. I'd be very surprised to see an LDI admit
> >Mathew
> >> was sick that day.
>
> Terry said:
> >
> >Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy, and
> >inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all documented
> >in
> >the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
> >
> >People often remember only what they want to remember.
>
>
> It was Louise, herself, who testified that Matthew slept that morning for over
> 2 hours while she spent an equally long time on the phone with her friend,
Roo.
> Roo testified that during this entire, interminable, phone conversation she
> never heard a peep from the child you described as crying, cranky and unable
to
> sleep.
>
> Maggie
Let me get this straight: you think Dr. Eappen was lying because you believe
that Louse was telling the truth? Amazing.
I didn't describe Matthew as stated. I wasn't there. Dr. Eappen did. Guess
you forgot again.
WWWoLadyA
<snip>
>Q Now, Doctor, let us assume that Matthew Eappen suffered a skull fracture
>two or three weeks prior to admission to the hospital in the right
>occipital area, and swelling went down afterwards. Aren't these bone
>windows consistent with that kind of event, the swelling going down, the
>lack of swelling you see here, yes or no?
>
>A Yes, that would be consistent.
The same physical signs may be present in a variety of conditions. Hence the
"differential" diagnosis.
It is misleading to suggest that because a physician has affirmed that a single
component of Baby Eappen's condition is consistent with chronic subdural
hematoma, that he has acknowledged that this condition existed in this
particular case.
If defense counsel had asked Dr. Madsen whether this X-ray was consistent with
the condition of a skull post-operatively, following removal of a brain tumor
from the right side of his head, his answer probably would also have been yes,
and would have been accurate.
Notice the witness was expressly instructed to answer yes or no.
He was not invited to elaborate, else he may have explained exactly this.
Lady A
Maggie8097
>> >Strange isn't it?
>> >
>> >Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy,
>and
>> >inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all documented
>> >in
>> >the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
>> >
>> >People often remember only what they want to remember.
>>
>> **LOL. Apparently so.
>>
>> It was Louise, herself, who testified that Matthew slept that morning
>for over
>> 2 hours while she spent an equally long time on the phone with her friend,
>Roo.
>> Roo testified that during this entire, interminable, phone conversation
>she
>> never heard a peep from the child you described as crying, cranky and
>unable
>to
>> sleep.
Terry said:
>Let me get this straight: you think Dr. Eappen was lying because you believe
>that Louse was telling the truth? Amazing.
>
>I didn't describe Matthew as stated. I wasn't there. Dr. Eappen did.
>Guess
>you forgot again.
***Why do you insist on lying about testimony? Deborah Eappen never testified
her child was sick. Mattthew was crying when Mrs. Eappen left that morning and
she reported that he hadn't had a bowel movement. She never called him
lethargic and mentioned no "inability to sleep."
You have really gone off the deep end with this thing--particularly with that
little diatribe against Kurt Foster. Aren't you embarrassed?
hall...@borg.com
wwwo...@aol.com (WWWoLadyA) wrote:
> hall...@borg.com quotes testimony of Dr. Madsen:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Q Now, Doctor, let us assume that Matthew Eappen suffered a skull fracture
> >two or three weeks prior to admission to the hospital in the right
> >occipital area, and swelling went down afterwards. Aren't these bone
> >windows consistent with that kind of event, the swelling going down, the
> >lack of swelling you see here, yes or no?
> >
> >A Yes, that would be consistent.
>
> The same physical signs may be present in a variety of conditions. Hence the
> "differential" diagnosis.
Ahh but remember the question is one of exclusion rather than inclusion.
> It is misleading to suggest that because a physician has affirmed that a
single
> component of Baby Eappen's condition is consistent with chronic subdural
> hematoma, that he has acknowledged that this condition existed in this
> particular case.
>
> If defense counsel had asked Dr. Madsen whether this X-ray was consistent
with
> the condition of a skull post-operatively, following removal of a brain tumor
> from the right side of his head, his answer probably would also have been yes,
> and would have been accurate.
The correct answer would obviously be "no." The discussion concerned the
condition of the skull prior to operation.
> Notice the witness was expressly instructed to answer yes or no.
> He was not invited to elaborate, else he may have explained exactly this.
>
> Lady A
Witnesses are not loathe, generally, to refuse to answer the "have you stopped
beating your wife" questions.
It might be a reasonably fair criticism, Lady A, if that was all I posted. It
was not.
The fact remains that the evidence does not exclude an asymptomatic chronic
subdural hematoma causing the death of Matthew Eappen which can even bleed
spontaneously. Many continue to post that such a thing just never existed and
you have the attending neuropathologist, who testified for the prosecution and
cannot discount it. You will notice I deliberately chose a hostile witness.
Maggie8097
>The fact remains that the evidence does not exclude an asymptomatic chronic
>subdural hematoma causing the death of Matthew Eappen which can even bleed
>spontaneously. Many continue to post that such a thing just never existed
>and
>you have the attending neuropathologist, who testified for the prosecution
>and
>cannot discount it. You will notice I deliberately chose a hostile witness.
****Terry, I assume you keep trumpeting this testimony of Dr. Madsen's because
you believe it proves something. I can't for the life of me figure out what
you believe it proves. There's not one word in it about the symptoms that
would be apparent in a chronic subdural hematoma in an infant. The defense
says that infants can appear normal after head injuries, suffer spontaneous
rebleeds, then die. The prosecution (and all published medical evidence) says
it can't happen. Read Dr. Madsen's testimony again, this time with your
blinders off. You'll see that the defense attorney was very, very careful to
ask only questions that could be answered with a "yes" or a "no," and stayed
away from any inquiry about *symptoms* that would be apparent following the
head injury. Now why you think that proves anything about what you've been
saying is beyond me, but it's an excellent example of how someone can read all
kinds of erroneous conclusions into perfectly innocuous testimony. Luckily for
the justice system, the jury was not as easily fooled.
The testimony you posted is below:
A Absolutely, yes.
A That's correct.
A Yes, it can.
JBrown6000
>>***Case. A seven year old girl. Who experienced a seizure and paralysis
>>immediately after the strangulation. Not very persuasive is it?
>
Terry said:
>Actually you are denial about the distress that Matthew Eappen was suffering
>as described by Deborah Eappen prior to the imaginary abuse at the hands
>of
>Louise Woodward.
***?????? Oh. Was he paralyzed? Did he suffer seizures? Wonder why Louise
didn't notice?
**Well, actually Louise did notice extreme distress didn't she? It caused her
to call for help didn't it?
JBrown6000
<<Strange isn't it?
Matthew Eappen's crying, crankiness, unwillingness to eat, lethargy, and
inability to sleep along with the admitted constipation were all documented in
the trial from Deborah Eappen's own description.
People often remember only what they want to remember.
**I agree. But I do understand WHY they won't admit it.
jb
JBrown6000
It was Louise, herself, who testified that Matthew slept that morning for over
2 hours while she spent an equally long time on the phone with her friend, Roo.
Roo testified that during this entire, interminable, phone conversation she
never heard a peep from the child you described as crying, cranky and unable to
sleep.
**Could you add to this the description of the other parts of the day?
jb
JBrown6000
<<
***Why do you insist on lying about testimony? Deborah Eappen never testified
her child was sick. Mattthew was crying when Mrs. Eappen left that morning and
she reported that he hadn't had a bowel movement. She never called him
lethargic and mentioned no "inability to sleep."
You have really gone off the deep end with this thing--particularly with that
little diatribe against Kurt Foster. Aren't you embarrassed?
**A deep end has been gone off, but I don't think Terry is making the dive. If
your child was exhibiting the same signs would you not characterize it as
"illness." Constipation and irritibility can be a sign of a more serious
problem; I'm surprised a doctor mom wouldn't know that. But then she was
probably feeling bad about having to leave her crying sick baby.
jb
JBrown6000
<<It is not a FACT that Matthew Eappen was sick and continuing to insist that
it is makes you out to be totally lacking in credibility for insisting on a
lie.
**He WAS sick. He wouldn't eat, either.
JBrown6000
<<*** The prosecution experts included the doctors who treated Matthew and the
ME. They appeared under subpoena and were not paid experts.
**Do you think the work pro bono. They are PAID.
JBrown6000
<<***...and they get paid *exactly* the same amount whether they testify or
not,
and whether they testify one thing or the other. Not so, the defense's paid
experts. If they don't testify the way the defense wants them to, they aren't
called and aren't paid.
*I thought there was a great hue and cry because an expert was paid and DID NOT
testify. Which is it?
terryh...@my-dejanews.com
Maggie has memory problems. She seems unable to even remember what she just
read. But she must have the letter of the 50 doctors who would not look at the
evidence memorized.
Matthew Eappen may well have been starting the descent into the coma and death
characteristic of infants with chronic hematomas. Those who have dealt with
sick people of any age know that their sleep patterns often change, e.g. sleep
fitfully at night and take long naps during the day.
Maggie8097
>>>***Case. A seven year old girl. Who experienced a seizure and paralysis
>>>immediately after the strangulation. Not very persuasive is it?
>>
>Terry said:
>>Actually you are denial about the distress that Matthew Eappen was suffering
>>as described by Deborah Eappen prior to the imaginary abuse at the hands
>>of
>>Louise Woodward.
>
>***?????? Oh. Was he paralyzed? Did he suffer seizures? Wonder why Louise
>didn't notice?
>
>**Well, actually Louise did notice extreme distress didn't she? It caused
>her
>to call for help didn't it?
***Sure. Right after she whacked he hell out of him.
Maggie8097
>***Why do you insist on lying about testimony? Deborah Eappen never testified
>her child was sick. Mattthew was crying when Mrs. Eappen left that morning
>and
>she reported that he hadn't had a bowel movement. She never called him
>lethargic and mentioned no "inability to sleep."
>
>You have really gone off the deep end with this thing--particularly with
>that
>little diatribe against Kurt Foster. Aren't you embarrassed?
>
>**A deep end has been gone off, but I don't think Terry is making the dive.
> If
>your child was exhibiting the same signs would you not characterize it as
>"illness."
***Absolutely, positively, 100% certainly, not. An 8-month-old who cries when
his mother goes to work is the norm. Certainly not a sign of illness. And
kids get constipated all the time. Mothers would spend all their time in the
pediatrician's office if these two things were considered signs of an illness.
Get a grip.
jb said:
Constipation and irritibility can be a sign of a more serious
>problem; I'm surprised a doctor mom wouldn't know that. But then she was
>probably feeling bad about having to leave her crying sick baby.
***So tell me, jb. Remember back to when your children were 8 months old. One
of them cries when you go out in the morning and he hasn't had a bowel movement
that day. What do you do? Rush him to the emergency room and tell the doctor
there that you suspect an asymptomatic chronic subdural hematoma? Call the
pediatrician and say you think someone stranguled him two days before and the
constipation is a symptom? (Certainly not if you ever want to be taken
seriously again.) Say nothing and run out the door? (That wouldn't look so
good, would it?) How about--tell the au pair and suggest she call you if there
are any additional problems? (BINGO--exactly what Deborah Eappen did!)
Maggie8097
>
><<***...and they get paid *exactly* the same amount whether they testify
>or
>not,
>and whether they testify one thing or the other. Not so, the defense's
>paid
>experts. If they don't testify the way the defense wants them to, they
>aren't
>called and aren't paid.
>
>*I thought there was a great hue and cry because an expert was paid and
>DID NOT
>testify. Which is it?
***Oh, I think the defense definitely got its money's worth with Dr. Nelson.
terryh...@my-dejanews.com
And some, like Dr. Newburger and the 50 doctors who signed the infamous letter
damning the defense, are paid crusaders against infidels who speak of strange
new heresies, who publish papers in scientific journals questioning the Faith.
Dr. Newburger must find it very painful indeed to have the pathologist in his
own hospital denying the one true faith, denying that there was evidence of
shaking and testifying to his heretical views in open court. It is a hard
life for those who must continually preach to the nonbelievers. It is
important that such people be paid well so they can continue to hunt down and
burn witches.
Maggie8097
>Matthew Eappen may well have been starting the descent into the coma and
>death
>characteristic of infants with chronic hematomas. Those who have dealt
>with
>sick people of any age know that their sleep patterns often change, e.g.
>sleep
>fitfully at night and take long naps during the day.
***Those who have dealt with infants know that their sleep patterns often vary,
and when they wake earlier than usual in the morning, the healthy infant will,
invariably, make up for that lost sleep with a lengthy nap.
Maggie8097
>> <<*** The prosecution experts included the doctors who treated Matthew
>and the
>> ME. They appeared under subpoena and were not paid experts.
>>
>> **Do you think the work pro bono. They are PAID.
***...and paid exactly the same amount no matter what they testify. There's no
incentive at all for them to shade their testimony one way or the other. Not
so the defense experts.
>
Terry said:
>And some, like Dr. Newburger and the 50 doctors who signed the infamous
>letter
>damning the defense, are paid crusaders against infidels who speak of strange
>new heresies, who publish papers in scientific journals questioning the
>Faith.
***What papers? What journals? If there had been papers and journal articles,
I'm sure the defense experts would have mentioned them. They didn't. In fact,
they couldn't come up with any independent, published research to support their
position.
>
terry said:
>Dr. Newburger must find it very painful indeed to have the pathologist in
>his
>own hospital denying the one true faith, denying that there was evidence
>of
>shaking and testifying to his heretical views in open court. It is a hard
>life for those who must continually preach to the nonbelievers. It is
>important that such people be paid well so they can continue to hunt down
>and
>burn witches.
***......but not paid nearly as well as those defense experts. Of course, when
one sells one's soul, high recompense is required.
terryh...@my-dejanews.com
> glas says:
It seems glas would rather concentrate on who is lying in this forum rather
than in examining the evidence, which is often contradictory.
Chronic hematomas are devilish things which often have only slight symptoms.
and the problem is compounded in infants who are unable to speak and cannot
express their distress.
Most of us who have been parents I would imagine remember primarily the fevers
that characterized a sick child. Sadly a child like Matthew Eappen can sicken
and die without ever registering a fever.
One can either call Matthew Eappen well or sick with the symptoms he exhibited
prior to falling into a coma. "Sick" is not a precise measurement.
Matthew Eappen was undoubtedly constipated. Deborah Eappen told Louise
Woodward to "push" food on him but then insists he was eating normally. It
seems he was crying in the morning when our children tended to be the
happiest. He did apparently sleep unusually well on the day he was
hospitalized with a coma but that would not seem a sign of robust health.
His sleepiness and lethargy that day was duly noted.
As a lay person bereft of medical knowledge I would not have characterized
Matthew Eappen as sick if the ensuing coma and death had not occurred. That
is why references define asymptomatic chronic hematomas as having such subtle
characteristics.
It is obvious he was sick, deathly sick.