Videotape of Deborah Eappen?
Jaap Lucassen
BBC CEEFAX Tuesday 4 November:
LOUISE Tape may help au pair's case
VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE MAY HELP WOODWARD
A video made by Matthew Eappen's mother could help secure the freedom of
jailed nanny Louise Woodward.
The tape reportedly shows Deborah Eappen trying to coax her surviving
son to say that Woodward is a killer.
But three-year-old Brendan repeatedly insists she was a good nanny who
loved Matthew, the New York Post reports.
The tape was not used in the trial but may be used by Judge Hiller Zobel
as he decides 19-year-old Woodward's fate.
_____________________
If there is only a grain of truth in this news item, it seems utterly
outrageous that the defense has not jumped on it! What sort of defense
team is it anyway when they now apparently advise a manslaughter charge,
while before they supported Louise Woodward's plea of innocence? Their
main objective seems to be to save their own face, rather than to assist
the defendant and to help unveiling the truth.
Jaap Lucassen
Hadija Roberts
The New York Post is a tabloid! Can you tell me why the NYP has the
scoop on this one but I have never seen this story on any Boston
paper? I included the full text of the NYP article at the end of this
post. Let us assume for a moment that such a videotape exists.
According to the Post, Mrs. Eappen made the tape to shore up the
prosecution's claim. If the videotape has actually turned out
to be damaging to the prosection's claim, why should Mrs. Eappen then
hand over the videotape to the prosecution?
Let's assume that Brendan refused to say that Louise harmed Matthew.
What does that show? Nothing! It may just mean that Brendan didn't
see it happen. It may also mean that he didn't have the maturity to
comprehend that Louise was harming Matthew. Remember we are talking
about a then-2-year old here.
Just take another look at the rest of the NYP article. You can see
what kind of reporting is exercised by the Post:
> Aging sex kitten Joan Collins of Dynasty fame returned from
> Los Angeles to London yesterday and told reporters:
> "The American justice system sucks. I was shocked and
> appalled at the verdict. I couldn't believe it."
> Nudie nightclub king Peter Stringfellow also emerged to
> demand freedom for Woodward.
Hadija
VIDEO SHOWS MATTY'S MOM COAXING
OTHER SON TO FINGER NANNY
By Bill Hoffmann in London and Maria Alvarez in
Cambridge, Mass.
Jurors in the nanny murder case never got to see
a dramatic
videotape in which Deborah Eappen tries to coax
her
surviving son to say that Louise Woodward is a
killer, sources
said last night.
Three-year-old Brendan Eappen refuses to agree on
the tape,
instead insisting that Louise loved his baby
brother, Matthew.
The stunning revelation came as Judge Hiller
Zobel is set to
decide today whether to set aside Woodward's
murder
conviction or allow her to plead guilty to
manslaughter.
A spokesman for the Middlesex County district
attorney's
office confirmed that authorities have a
30-minute videotape of
Deborah Eappen talking with her son Brendan on
the floor of
the Eappen home.
Deborah Eappen is shown repeatedly asking Brendan
to say
that Woodward harmed Matthew and caused his
death,
sources said.
But the youngster repeatedly insists Woodward was
a good
nanny.
"He replies along the lines that he loved Louise,
Matthew
loved Louise and Louise loved them," the police
source says.
The tape, the source says, was made by Eappen in
a bid to
shore up the prosecution's case against Woodward.
It is not known how police obtained the tape or
whether
Eappen could be prosecuted for trying to coach a
witness.
Zobel put the tape under seal and decided not to
let jurors see
it because it was inconclusive.
The judge apparently has viewed the tape and will
use its
contents as he weighs whether to change
Woodward's murder
conviction.
Meanwhile, Woodward's defense team was planning
to
interview Jenny Vestbro, the 23-year-old Swedish
nanny who
worked for the Eappens shortly before Woodward
did.
Vestbro quit her job after Deborah allegedly
accused her of
ignoring her duties and charging that all Swedish
nannies
wanted to do is party.
The defense believes Vestbro could paint a vivid
portrait of
tensions at the home - including claims that
Deborah's
husband, Sunil, paid the nanny too much attention
after she
walked through the house scantily clad.
The grass-roots Louise Woodward Defense Fund has
raised
close to $250,000 in Britain alone.
And more celebrities were jumping on the
bandwagon to
demand that the 19-year-old au pair be freed.
Aging sex kitten Joan Collins of Dynasty fame
returned from
Los Angeles to London yesterday and told
reporters:
"The American justice system sucks. I was shocked
and
appalled at the verdict. I couldn't believe it."
Nudie nightclub king Peter Stringfellow also
emerged to
demand freedom for Woodward.
Throughout Britain and Ireland yesterday, tens of
thousands of
residents sported yellow ribbons to show their
support for
Woodward.
And thousands of Irish and English nannies and
former nannies
rallied in London and Dublin to call for her
immediate release.
Becky S
Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
> her.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
> mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>
> Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
> woman?
>
> --
> -- Mike Zarlenga
> finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Most definetly not the only one who thinks we might find out later tht
she did it. Every time I see her I feel like I am looking at the
embodiment of evil. She makes me ill.
Becky
David Swarbrick
In article <345F3E...@euronet.nl>, Jaap Lucassen
<luca...@euronet.nl> writes
>BBC CEEFAX Tuesday 4 November:
>
>LOUISE Tape may help au pair's case
>
>VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE MAY HELP WOODWARD
>
>A video made by Matthew Eappen's mother could help secure the freedom of
>jailed nanny Louise Woodward.
>The tape reportedly shows Deborah Eappen trying to coax her surviving
>son to say that Woodward is a killer.
>If there is only a grain of truth in this news item, it seems utterly
>outrageous that the defense has not jumped on it! What sort of defense
>team is it anyway when they now apparently advise a manslaughter charge,
>while before they supported Louise Woodward's plea of innocence? Their
>main objective seems to be to save their own face, rather than to assist
>the defendant and to help unveiling the truth.
If you ever come to dfend someone you might realise that there are a
thousand decisions made from day to day about whether to do this or
that. They are decisions made often in the hope, for example that a
prosecution witness might crumble, but allowing that they might not.
Such decisions cannot be 100%. Something which looks horribly clear
after the event is nothing such beforehand.
It seems clear that the defense took the view that it was not for them
to attack the Eappens; and that that might well prove counter-
productive. To do so would take away from the strong point they felt
they could make and needed to make.
--
David Swarbrick, Solicitor,Tel +44(0)1484 722531
E-mail: da...@swarb.demon.co.uk http://www.swarb.co.uk/swarbrick
swarb.co.uk Law Index. 7000+ case searchable database at the web site.
Sam Nelson
In article <345F45...@ultranet.com>, Hadija Roberts <hrob...@ultranet.com> writes:
| The New York Post is a tabloid!
|
| Can you tell me why the NYP has the
| scoop on this one but I have never seen this story on any Boston
| paper?
|
As usual with readers of the US press, if it comes from more than a few dozen
miles away, it's irrelevant.
| Let us assume for a moment that such a videotape exists.
| According to the Post, Mrs. Eappen made the tape to shore up the
| prosecution's claim. If the videotape has actually turned out
| to be damaging to the prosection's claim, why should Mrs. Eappen then
| hand over the videotape to the prosecution?
|
Let's put that another way. If the tape actually turns out to be damaging to
the prosecution's case, how can Mrs Eappen, being the honest, conscientious,
respectable woman she undoubtedly 1is, possibly withold that tape from the
defence?
| Let's assume that Brendan refused to say that Louise harmed Matthew.
| What does that show? Nothing! It may just mean that Brendan didn't
| see it happen. It may also mean that he didn't have the maturity to
| comprehend that Louise was harming Matthew. Remember we are talking
| about a then-2-year old here.
|
Well, precisely. So, what was the point in attempting to make the tape? I
have children of 5 and 2, and you can cause them to say just about anything
you want them to.
| > Aging sex kitten Joan Collins of Dynasty fame returned from
| > Los Angeles to London yesterday and told reporters:
| > "The American justice system sucks. I was shocked and
| > appalled at the verdict. I couldn't believe it."
| > Nudie nightclub king Peter Stringfellow also emerged to
| > demand freedom for Woodward.
|
The NYP reports two people, whose views, one supposes, are no less valid than
any other members of the public, as opposing the decision, and this somehow
devalues the paper? Why, exactly?
--
Sam. (Insert bandwidth-wasting disclaimer here)
Your Mileage May Vary... ...until they switch SA off, at least
Don Hamilton
T Dupuy <tads...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<345F9D...@mindspring.com>...
> >
> > The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
> > her.
It's been reported that the Judge saw the tape before the trial commenced
and ruled it inadmissable. Which prompts me to wonder what was the purpose
of of making the tape.
A lot of things which don't make sense in this affair do start to make
sense when you bring into the equation the fact that the Eappen's have a
civil case against the agency which introduced Louise if it is found that
Louise was in some way responsible for Mathew's death. But it's not only
the Eappen's who would stand to gain from such an action as the case could
be also be rich picking for lawyers. Conversly, the Agency or their
insurers would obviously welcome an aquital.
I get an uneasy feeling when large sums of money are involved, as an
American friend of mine once said, 'Where big bucks are concerned
anything's possible'.
However, such are mere speculative conjections and without being in
possession of all of the facts or having a proper understanding of the law
I'd be loth to jump to any hasty conclusions. Given the time I could
probably figure out in some way that the Pope was responsible.
The truth in all of this will eventually emerge and given the publicity
this case has received I'd hate to be in the shoes of anyone who's being
trying to pull a fast one, whoever they are.
cydr...@cistron.nl
T Dupuy <tads...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
>> her.
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
>> mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>>
>> Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>> woman?
>No way are you the only one getting bad gut feelings about this woman.
>Another mother hit the nail on the head when she said that Mrs. Eappen
>seems as though she had a dissociated personality. I tend to agree.
>This trial is no way near over.
>Tereson
Justice-systems are never perfect, but at least they are trying to
avoid this kind of 'I-don't-like-your-face-lynching-mentality'.
Don
Dale Smoak
cydr...@cistron.nl writes:
> T Dupuy <tads...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >No way are you the only one getting bad gut feelings about this woman.
> >Another mother hit the nail on the head when she said that Mrs. Eappen
> >seems as though she had a dissociated personality. I tend to agree.
>
>
> Justice-systems are never perfect, but at least they are trying to
> avoid this kind of 'I-don't-like-your-face-lynching-mentality'.
Good thing, too. I have yet to hear anything at all credible along
the lines that "the parents did it." There are some truly wacko
assertions being made. "She looks funny, so she did it." "I sense
evil."
These are tabloid-level assertions, about as credible as UFO
sightings.
--
Dale Smoak | da...@shore.net
| http://www.shore.net/~dales/
Don Hamilton
David Swarbrick <Da...@swarb.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<bL9lOSAA...@swarb.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <345F3E...@euronet.nl>, Jaap Lucassen
> <luca...@euronet.nl> writes
> >BBC CEEFAX Tuesday 4 November:
> >
> >LOUISE Tape may help au pair's case
> >
> >VIDEO TAPE EVIDENCE MAY HELP WOODWARD
> >
>
> >outrageous that the defense has not jumped on it! What sort of defense
> >team is it anyway when they now apparently advise a manslaughter charge,
> >while before they supported Louise Woodward's plea of innocence?
>
> If you ever come to dfend someone you might realise that there are a
> thousand decisions made from day to day about whether to do this or
> that.
David,
Various of your postings re Louise Woodward have opened my eyes to the
number of variables whch can affect the outcome of a trial. Many of which
involve one person being making judgements as to the likely reaction or
response of another to to questions. Demeanour also appears to be of the
utmost importance.
Which promts me to enquire whether your preparation or considerations in a
defense be any different in case where there is a jury to one where is no
jury.
BTW I saw reported in todays paper that the Judge in the Woodward trial had
at sometime or other defined the jury system as ' asking the ignorant to
use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable'.
Regards.
esemais
Marshall Rice wrote:
>
> In article <63nun8$jpv$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, Michael Zarlenga
> <zarl...@conan.ids.net> writes
> >Jaap Lucassen (luca...@euronet.nl) wrote:
> >: A video made by Matthew Eappen's mother could help secure the freedom of
> >: jailed nanny Louise Woodward.
> >: The tape reportedly shows Deborah Eappen trying to coax her surviving
> >: son to say that Woodward is a killer.
> >: loved Matthew, the New York Post reports.
> >: The tape was not used in the trial but may be used by Judge Hiller Zobel
> >: as he decides 19-year-old Woodward's fate.
> >
> >her.
> >
> >I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
> >mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
> >
> >woman?
>
> No. Watching her on T.V. *smirking* over the conviction made me feel
> decidedly uncomfortable.
> --
> Marshall Rice
Isn't there something about the Eappens appearing on CNN's
Larry King show?
Anyone know?
Anna
T Bruce Tober
>mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>
>Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>woman?
not by a long shot. many of us have had that feeling for some time now.
I began to wonder about her when she went on the tv chat show the day
before the jury delivered its verdict.
tbt - Very happy to announce the launch of his new website:
<http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/>
--
|Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832|
| Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |
|pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. Website - http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/ |
T Bruce Tober
In article <x5btzy8...@world.std.com>, Barry Shein
<b...@world.std.com> writes
>
>>> What relevance does the dimension of the paper it's printed on have here?
>>
>>States, refers not just to the dimensions of a paper, but to the
>>perceived quality of its journalism. The papers that report on UFOs
>>and Elvis sightings get called tabloids. The New York Post is
>>presumably a step or so above that, but that's the analogy being made.
>
>In fact the word "tabloid" has no relevance to the dimensions of the
>paper.
In fact it most certainly does. Though that meaning has been broadened
in recent years to include side issues such as content (Elvis spotted on
the Moon, My three headed baby is a hermaphrodite).
>The term "tabloid" is a reference to an easy to swallow pill
>introduced and popularized early in the century, and became a slang
In one of its definitions, yes.
Charles Demas
In article <x5btzy8...@world.std.com>,
Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>>> What relevance does the dimension of the paper it's printed on
>>>have here?
>>
>>In case there's a language difference here, a "tabloid," in the
>>States, refers not just to the dimensions of a paper, but to the
>>perceived quality of its journalism. The papers that report on UFOs
>>and Elvis sightings get called tabloids. The New York Post is
>>presumably a step or so above that, but that's the analogy being made.
>
>In fact the word "tabloid" has no relevance to the dimensions of the
>introduced and popularized early in the century, and became a slang
>news in an easily swallowed form (lowered reading level, etc.)
>
>It's not, as is sometimes erroneously believed, a reference to some
>sort of "tablet" layout (whatever that means, it doesn't mean anything
>I don't think), and then attributed to papers like the NY Daily News,
>Post, London's Globe, etc. They all happen to be "tabloids" in that
>they tend to cater to populist tastes, in apposititon to, eg, the NY
>or London Times, Le Monde, etc.
>
>But as a counter-example, USA Today is a "tabloid" in the same paper
>format as the two Times.
It turns out the definition depends on whether "tabloid" is a noun
or an adjective. I looked it up on line through:
WWWebster Dictionary - Search screen
http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
Here's what I found:
| Main Entry: 1tab·loid
| Pronunciation: 'ta-"bloid
| Function: adjective
| Etymology: from Tabloid, a trademark
| Date: 1901
| 1 : compressed or condensed into small scope <tabloid criticism>
| 2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of tabloids; especially :
| featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a
| sensational manner
|
| Main Entry: 2tabloid
| Function: noun
| Date: 1906
| 1 : DIGEST, SUMMARY
| 2 : a newspaper that is about half the page size of an ordinary
| newspaper and that contains news in condensed form and much
| photographic matter
So, I guess you're all correct, in some measure. %^D
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Jaap Lucassen
esemais wrote:
>
> Marshall Rice wrote:
> >
> > In article <63nun8$jpv$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, Michael Zarlenga
> > <zarl...@conan.ids.net> writes
> > >: A video made by Matthew Eappen's mother could help secure the freedom of
> > >: jailed nanny Louise Woodward.
> > >: The tape reportedly shows Deborah Eappen trying to coax her surviving
> > >: son to say that Woodward is a killer.
> > >: But three-year-old Brendan repeatedly insists she was a good nanny who
> > >: loved Matthew, the New York Post reports.
> > >: The tape was not used in the trial but may be used by Judge Hiller Zobel
> > >: as he decides 19-year-old Woodward's fate.
> > >
> > >The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
> > >her.
> > >
> > >mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
> > >
> > >Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
> > >woman?
> >
> > decidedly uncomfortable.
> > --
> > Marshall Rice
>
> Isn't there something about the Eappens appearing on CNN's
> Larry King show?
> Anyone know?
>
> Anna
Yes CNN (Europe) transmits it at 14.00 GMT this afternoon.
Jaap L
Don Hamilton
Barry Shein <b...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<x5btzy8...@world.std.com>...
>
> >> What relevance does the dimension of the paper it's printed on have
here?
> >
> >In case there's a language difference here, a "tabloid," in the
> >States, refers not just to the dimensions of a paper, but to the
> >perceived quality of its journalism. .
>
> In fact the word "tabloid" has no relevance to the dimensions of the
> paper.
According to my dictionary;-
Tabloid - A newspaper with pages about 30cm (12 inches) by 40cm(16
inches).
from ealier 'Tabloid' a trademark for a medicine in tablet form
>
Paul C. Dickie
>Jaap Lucassen (luca...@euronet.nl) wrote:
>Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>woman?
No.
--
< Paul >
< Louise Woodward is *innocent*, despite the results of the show trial >
Paul C. Dickie
In article <01bce9d4$f280d800$LocalHost@default>, Don Hamilton
<Don.Ha...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>It's been reported that the Judge saw the tape before the trial commenced
>and ruled it inadmissable. Which prompts me to wonder what was the purpose
>of of making the tape.
It was reported that the intention was to use the tape in the
prosecution or, at least, to try to bolster the prosecution's case.
But Brendan Eappen refused to play such games and so it didn't work.
>I'd be loth to jump to any hasty conclusions. Given the time I could
>probably figure out in some way that the Pope was responsible.
That, at least, would make a change; normally, the Masons are blamed.
Paul C. Dickie
In article <bL9lOSAA...@swarb.demon.co.uk>, David Swarbrick
<Da...@swarb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>It seems clear that the defense took the view that it was not for them
>to attack the Eappens; and that that might well prove counter-
>productive. To do so would take away from the strong point they felt
>they could make and needed to make.
It seems interesting, then, that Mrs Eappen has latterly taken to
claiming that the defense team had taken to digging up whatever they
could find on them, the poor, bereaved parents...
I wonder if that was meant as a reference to the video tape?
Janelle Rhea
My husband said that the "smirking" look on Matthew's mother's face was
one that unmistakingly says, "I got you back!" There's definately more
to this story than is being told!
--
_____________________________________________________________
| Jan Rhea - jdr...@ida.net |
| |
| to reply via e-mail remove the SPAM from my e-mail address. |
| To Reply Via E-mail Remove The SPAM From My E-mail Address. |
| TO REPLY VIA E-MAIL REMOVE THE SPAM FROM MY E-MAIL ADDRESS! |
|_____________________________________________________________|
Chris Eastland
h...@world.std.com (H.Selvitella) writes:
>On Thu, 6 Nov 1997 04:48:02 GMT, b...@world.std.com (Barry
>Shein) wrote:
>>
>>>> What relevance does the dimension of the paper it's printed on have here?
>>>
>>>In case there's a language difference here, a "tabloid," in the
>>>States, refers not just to the dimensions of a paper, but to the
>>>perceived quality of its journalism. The papers that report on UFOs
>>>and Elvis sightings get called tabloids. The New York Post is
>>>presumably a step or so above that, but that's the analogy being made.
>>
>>In fact the word "tabloid" has no relevance to the dimensions of the
>>paper. The term "tabloid" is a reference to an easy to swallow pill
>>introduced and popularized early in the century, and became a slang
>>term for newspapers which catered to those who wanted or needed the
>>news in an easily swallowed form (lowered reading level, etc.)
>>
>>It's not, as is sometimes erroneously believed, a reference to some
>>sort of "tablet" layout (whatever that means, it doesn't mean anything
>>I don't think), and then attributed to papers like the NY Daily News,
>>Post, London's Globe, etc. They all happen to be "tabloids" in that
>>they tend to cater to populist tastes, in apposititon to, eg, the NY
>>or London Times, Le Monde, etc.
>>
>Well----not exactly. :--)
>Production styles and costs, in Britain certainly, were
>significant considerations not only in the adoption of the
>tabloid a' la Americaine genre but in design as well: sheet
>size, column width, typography and the relatively new
>photo-halftone. But see Hutt, Allen "Newspaper
>Design"(London 1960) pp 44-45 'The Tabloid Revolution'.
>Content departed, as you say, towards a wider market but the
>form it took enhanced and is identified with the
>exploitation of it between the wars. Any departure from
>tradition is risky.
The London evening paper "The Evening Standard" is a tabloid but
also quite a serious newsaper. It's read en masse by commuters
who find it easier to read while crammed into train, bus or tube.
David Swarbrick
In article <01bcea01$2f2741a0$LocalHost@default>, Don Hamilton
<Don.Ha...@btinternet.com> writes
>
>
>Various of your postings re Louise Woodward have opened my eyes to the
>number of variables whch can affect the outcome of a trial.
>
>Which promts me to enquire whether your preparation or considerations in a
>defense be any different in case where there is a jury to one where is no
>jury.
Yes. The defendant has to be very much more careful about his demeanour
and appearance. Understand however that the number of times an English
lawyer would get the opportunity to throw this level of resources at a
trial is very few. Most of us get no more than the opportunity to tell
the client to turn up in a tie and make sure it is straight.
>
>BTW I saw reported in todays paper that the Judge in the Woodward trial had
>at sometime or other defined the jury system as ' asking the ignorant to
>use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable'.
Yes, the poor judge's history is coming back haunt him. It is a splendid
quote; well worth keeping long after LW has left prison and disappeared
into a longed for anonimity. It doesn't mean that I think other systems
are likely to be much better.
David Swarbrick
In article <FAPI9LA+...@msrice.co.uk>, Marshall Rice
>>The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
>>her.
>>
>>I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
>>mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>>
>>Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>>woman?
>
>No. Watching her on T.V. *smirking* over the conviction made me feel
>decidedly uncomfortable.
We may feel it is unproven that LW committed a murder; that is an awful
long way from saying that anyone else knows the real truth or is hiding
it. She has lost her child. However it happened, she is being torn apart
from the inside whether through grief, or grief and guilt, only she
knows, but the grief will be enough to make it extremely difficult to
put on any sort of face let alone a brave one or a caring one or a
tearful one or whatever any one of the millions watching think she ought
to be feeling at this very moment.
I urge great caution. One person's smirk is anothers grimace and
another's wince. Facial expressions alone are a very poor guide to
underlying emotions. You can sometimes tell the difference between
someone laughing and the same person crying only when you hear them.
There are also cultural differences. Some have suggested the Americans
may mis-interpret LW's stillness because of where she comes from. We
cannot make the same mistake in reverse.
Ask yourself how you would you advise somebody to react to such news
when being watched by many millions.
H.Selvitella
esemais
Jaap Lucassen wrote:
>
> esemais wrote:
> >
>
> > Isn't there something about the Eappens appearing on CNN's
> > Larry King show?
> > Anyone know?
> >
> > Anna
>
> Yes CNN (Europe) transmits it at 14.00 GMT this afternoon.
>
Missed it, so I'll see if they've got the transcript.
Anna
H.Selvitella
>My husband said that the "smirking" look on Matthew's mother's face was
>one that unmistakingly says, "I got you back!" There's definately more
>to this story than is being told!
Its consistent with the "Don't get mad, get even!" mode. And
that's consistent with a sense of personal injury. And that
manifestation is exculpatory. She can't be insensitive to
the recriminations. Funny.
Wm. Scott Cranston
David Swarbrick wrote in message <1ExRVGAL...@swarb.demon.co.uk>...
>Yes. The defendant has to be very much more careful about his demeanour
>and appearance. Understand however that the number of times an English
>lawyer would get the opportunity to throw this level of resources at a
>trial is very few. Most of us get no more than the opportunity to tell
>the client to turn up in a tie and make sure it is straight.
>
Here's something I've wondered about. I've heard in said by English news
reporters: she never would have gotten such an effort in her defense in the
UK. Why is that? Is the defense restricted from calling witnesses on the
defendent's behalf or using expert testimony in his/her defense? If
somebody was willing to pay for it, why couldn't this have been done in the
UK?
Just curious.
-- Scott
zamy karimjee
T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
: In article <63nun8$jpv$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, Michael Zarlenga
: <zarl...@conan.ids.net> writes
: >I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
: >mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
: >
: >Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
: >woman?
: not by a long shot. many of us have had that feeling for some time now.
: I began to wonder about her when she went on the tv chat show the day
: before the jury delivered its verdict.
: tbt - Very happy to announce the launch of his new website:
: <http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/>
: --
: |Bruce Tober, octob...@reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832|
: | Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more |
: |pgp key ID 0x9E014CE9. Website - http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/ |
--
I am glad to read that I am not the only one who feels that Debbie Eappen
is covering up something. She gives me the creeps. At every turn she
brings down Louise and Barry Sheck. For those of you who missed Louise on
the stand, on the evening of 4th February, the Eappens
rang up their friends who had gone to their house and asked Louise to
leave as the Eappens did not want her there. So she got some black bin
liners and dumped her stuff in them and was picked up by the Au Pair
Agency around 9-10 pm. Then the Eappens on the Larry King show can't
understand why Louise did not visit baby Matthew in hospital! Louise was
then passed around staff in the agency until the police arrested her.
Why were the Eappens in a hurry to judge her? I think we should ask Debbie
Eappen what she knows - she is also keeps mentioning her *healthy* baby.
To admit that the injuries were old would be admitting neglect or ....(?)
particularly when Sunil is a paediatrician and would have been an
obstetrician if he hadn't become an anaesthetist (Larry King show). The
whole thing smells and the police were too ready to blame the easiest
person with the help of the parents.
Before any of you have a go at me, I too have lost a child and know how it
feels (are you reading this, Sunil?).
Z Karimjee | e-mail: z.kar...@brighton.ac.uk
T Bruce Tober
In article <63v5st$m...@saturn.brighton.ac.uk>, zamy karimjee
<z...@bton.ac.uk> writes
>T Bruce Tober (octob...@reporters.net) wrote:
>: In article <63nun8$jpv$5...@paperboy.ids.net>, Michael Zarlenga
>: <zarl...@conan.ids.net> writes
>is covering up something. She gives me the creeps.
Likewise.
>At every turn she
>brings down Louise and Barry Sheck. For those of you who missed Louise on
>the stand, on the evening of 4th February, the Eappens
>rang up their friends who had gone to their house and asked Louise to
>leave as the Eappens did not want her there. So she got some black bin
>liners and dumped her stuff in them and was picked up by the Au Pair
>Agency around 9-10 pm.
Thanks, I've been asking about that but not heard an answer before now.
>Then the Eappens on the Larry King show can't
>understand why Louise did not visit baby Matthew in hospital!
Which is why I've been asking. In addition, my understanding is she was
arrested and taken into custody the next day. She'd no oppty to visit or
phone.
>obstetrician if he hadn't become an anaesthetist (Larry King show). The
>whole thing smells and the police were too ready to blame the easiest
>person with the help of the parents.
Agreed.
>Before any of you have a go at me, I too have lost a child and know how it
>feels (are you reading this, Sunil?).
And I've lost a much loved wife very young and am estranged from one of
my kids. So, yes, I too know what it's like.
Jane Lumley
In article <3460031C...@usa.net>, Becky S <Fost...@usa.net>
writes
>Most definetly not the only one who thinks we might find out later tht
>she did it. Every time I see her I feel like I am looking at the
>embodiment of evil. She makes me ill.
>
>Becky
>
Hold it right there. This is sheer lunacy. You know nothing about this
woman and you are in no position to judge her int his way. Be ashamed
of yourself.
it's one thing to regret carelessness over childcare arrangements, and
another to engage in fantasies of this kind.
--
Jane Lumley
Marshall Rice
In article <9kzT9OAB...@swarb.demon.co.uk>, David Swarbrick
<Da...@swarb.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <FAPI9LA+...@msrice.co.uk>, Marshall Rice
>
>>>The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
>>>her.
>>>
>>>mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>>>
>>>Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>>>woman?
>>
>>decidedly uncomfortable.
>
>We may feel it is unproven that LW committed a murder; that is an awful
>long way from saying that anyone else knows the real truth or is hiding
>it.
Others have said that; I have not. What I have said is that there is
something about her which makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable -
something unnatural.
>She has lost her child. However it happened, she is being torn apart
>from the inside whether through grief, or grief and guilt, only she
>knows, but the grief will be enough to make it extremely difficult to
>put on any sort of face let alone a brave one or a caring one or a
>tearful one or whatever any one of the millions watching think she ought
>to be feeling at this very moment.
I would have thought so too, but she still felt able to make quite a
number of T.V. appearances.
>I urge great caution. One person's smirk is anothers grimace and
>another's wince. Facial expressions alone are a very poor guide to
>underlying emotions. You can sometimes tell the difference between
>someone laughing and the same person crying only when you hear them.
I do realise that, David. I based my comment on having watched, and
listened to, the mother being interviewed at length on T.V. To my mind,
there was a decided smugness about her.
>There are also cultural differences. Some have suggested the Americans
>may mis-interpret LW's stillness because of where she comes from. We
>cannot make the same mistake in reverse.
>
>Ask yourself how you would you advise somebody to react to such news
>when being watched by many millions.
I would advise her to decline to be interviewed.
--
Marshall Rice
Ron Newman
In article <x5btzy8...@world.std.com>, b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
wrote:
> >> What relevance does the dimension of the paper it's printed on have here?
> >
> >In case there's a language difference here, a "tabloid," in the
> >States, refers not just to the dimensions of a paper, but to the
> >perceived quality of its journalism.
> In fact the word "tabloid" has no relevance to the dimensions of the
> paper.
Barry, many dictionaries will disagree with you, as will people in
the printing industry. Here, for instance, is what the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary (1971) says:
tab.loid, n. 1. A newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide,
are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page:
left flat after printing rather than being folded horizontally
at the middle as is a standard-sized newspaper. 2. A small
newspaper concentrating on sensational and lurid news, usually
heavily illustrated. 3. a short form or summary; condensation;
synopsis; summary. -adj. 4. compressed or condensed in or as
in a tabloid; _a tabloid article_; _a tabloid account of the
adventure_. 5. sensational, esp. when marked by vulgarity.
[TABL(ET) + -OID]
Tab.loid, n. Pharm., Trademark. a compressed medicinal tablet.
In your own home town, Barry, is a newspaper called the _Brookline Tab_,
part of a chain that also includes the _Newton Tab_, _Boston Tab_,
_Cambridge Tab_, and so forth. The folks who named those newspapers
didn't call them _Tab_ to indicate that the paper's contents are
sensational and lurid (they aren't); they called them _Tab_ to
distinguish them from their competitors that were printed in
"broadsheet" format, such as the _Cambridge Chronicle_ and
_Brookline Citizen_ .
(Now, of course, both the broadsheet and tabloid suburban weeklies
are mostly owned by the same company, Fidelity Investments, but
that wasn't true when the _Tab_ first started.)
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Paul C. Dickie
In article <63nhus$a...@lorne.stir.ac.uk>, Sam Nelson <s...@cs.stir.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <345F45...@ultranet.com>, Hadija Roberts <hrob...@ultranet.com>
>writes:
>| Let's assume that Brendan refused to say that Louise harmed Matthew.
>| What does that show? Nothing! It may just mean that Brendan didn't
>| see it happen. It may also mean that he didn't have the maturity to
>| comprehend that Louise was harming Matthew. Remember we are talking
>| about a then-2-year old here.
>|
>Well, precisely. So, what was the point in attempting to make the tape? I
>have children of 5 and 2, and you can cause them to say just about anything
>you want them to.
Yet she couldn't. That's the significant detail...
Paul C. Dickie
>For those of you who missed Louise on
>the stand, on the evening of 4th February, the Eappens
>rang up their friends who had gone to their house and asked Louise to
>leave as the Eappens did not want her there. So she got some black bin
>liners and dumped her stuff in them and was picked up by the Au Pair
>understand why Louise did not visit baby Matthew in hospital! Louise was
>then passed around staff in the agency until the police arrested her.
Which is almost diametrically different from the tale now being peddled
by Deborah Eappen. Quote from the Larry King interview:
===========================> cut here <=============================
On CNN's "Larry King Live" last night, Sunil Eappen said he was struck
that Woodward never tried to find out how Matthew was.
"She never came to the hospital, she never called, asked how Matthew was
doing," he said. "If something had happened to someone that you were
taking care of, that would be paramount."
Deborah Eappen said, "Her response was to flee."
===========================> cut here <=============================
So, Deborah Eappen declared that Louise Woodward wanted to flee, whereas
the *truth* is that the Eappens evicted her.
For some strange reason, I am irresistably reminded of the legal maxim,
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnes"; for the benefit of American readers
and anyone else who doesn't know much Latin, I'll tell you that it means
that if a person can be shewn to have told one lie, one is entitled to
regard all their testimony as consisting of lies.
Admittedly, the Larry King show isn't a court and she wasn't on oath
but, if she really is so economical with the truth, one might perhaps
begin to wonder about the veracity of her other pronouncements.
>Why were the Eappens in a hurry to judge her? I think we should ask Debbie
>Eappen what she knows - she is also keeps mentioning her *healthy* baby.
Methinks the "lady" doth protest too much!
>To admit that the injuries were old would be admitting neglect or ....(?)
>particularly when Sunil is a paediatrician and would have been an
>obstetrician if he hadn't become an anaesthetist (Larry King show).
Really? There's more money in gas passing?
So how did a paediatrician fail to notice Matthew's fractured wrist --
which was fractured some *six* weeks before his death?
mtw...@escape.com
Marshall Rice (Mars...@msrice.co.uk) wrote:
: >The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
: >her.
: >
: >I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
: >mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
: >
: >Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
: >woman?
:
: No. Watching her on T.V. *smirking* over the conviction made me feel
: decidedly uncomfortable.
What about the nanny positively GRINNING when she was asked if she hurt
the baby. What was THAT about?
mtw...@escape.com
Janelle Rhea (jdr...@ida.net) wrote:
: My husband said that the "smirking" look on Matthew's mother's face was
: one that unmistakingly says, "I got you back!" There's definately more
: to this story than is being told!
Boy, you should have gotten your husband in touch with Barry Scheck. He
could have testified as a Facial Expression Expert. Maybe even scored
some quick cash.
Chief Engineer
In article <642i9h$sg8$1...@news.stealth.net>, mtw...@escape.com writes
What was the name of the nanny - just need to know and verify everything
that Marshall advances as true.
--
Chief Engineer
Chris Eastland
mtw...@escape.com () writes:
>Marshall Rice (Mars...@msrice.co.uk) wrote:
>: >The more I see Mrs. Eappen, the more I grow suspicious of
>: >her.
>: >
>: >I wouldn't be surprised at all if we eventually find out the
>: >mother caused the injuries that killed Matthew Eappen.
>: >
>: >Am I the only one getting bad gut feelings from watching this
>: >woman?
>:
>: No. Watching her on T.V. *smirking* over the conviction made me feel
>: decidedly uncomfortable.
>What about the nanny positively GRINNING when she was asked if she hurt
>the baby. What was THAT about?
She wasn't grinning. That was your interpretation. I should think about
that if I were you. Yes, yes, I know. Others had the same interpretation.
Most however didn't see it that way. You did, cuz you are a zealot.
Andrew Nichols
In article <wsVZMuAm...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
<p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> writes
>For some strange reason, I am irresistably reminded of the legal maxim,
>"falsus in uno, falsus in omnes"; for the benefit of American readers
>and anyone else who doesn't know much Latin
causa, cui bono melior linguae Latinae doctus esse sit!]*
*to enlighten Mr Dickie, who might benefit from having been taught Latin
better. :-)
--
Andrew Nichols
To reply: change 'nospam' to 'solicit' in domain name
See http://www.nospam.demon.co.uk for 'nospam' information
Jaap Lucassen
Andrew Nichols wrote:
>
> In article <wsVZMuAm...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
> <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> writes
> >For some strange reason, I am irresistably reminded of the legal maxim,
> >"falsus in uno, falsus in omnes"; for the benefit of American readers
> >and anyone else who doesn't know much Latin
> ..."falsus in uno, falsus in omnIBUS" - [illuminationis Pauli Dickie
> causa, cui bono melior linguae Latinae doctus esse sit!]*
That's what I would have thought. But our dictionary of expressions
gives
"Falsum in uno, falsum in omni" : Untrustworthy in one thing,
untrustworthy in everything. The "omni" does not sound right, but
usually a dictionary does not contain many errors.
But "Departimus in tangentibus", which should be medieaval Latin for:
We are going off in tangents (from the videotape of Debbie Eappen)!
rykko
On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:11:19 +0000, Andrew Nichols
<An...@nospam.demon.co.uk> proclaimed thus :
>In article <wsVZMuAm...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
><p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> writes
>>For some strange reason, I am irresistably reminded of the legal maxim,
>>"falsus in uno, falsus in omnes"; for the benefit of American readers
>>and anyone else who doesn't know much Latin
>..."falsus in uno, falsus in omnIBUS" - [illuminationis Pauli Dickie
>causa, cui bono melior linguae Latinae doctus esse sit!]*
>
>*to enlighten Mr Dickie, who might benefit from having been taught Latin
>better. :-)
>--
Paul.
"Illegitimi non carborundum."
--
http://homepages.enterprise.net/rykko
The Home of the Mechanical Engineering Students Resource Page
& Other Assorted Stuff.
Louise Woodward Is Innocent.
David Swarbrick
>Andrew Nichols wrote:
>>
>> In article <wsVZMuAm...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
>> <p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >For some strange reason, I am irresistably reminded of the legal maxim,
>> >"falsus in uno, falsus in omnes"; for the benefit of American readers
>> >and anyone else who doesn't know much Latin
>> ..."falsus in uno, falsus in omnIBUS" - [illuminationis Pauli Dickie
>> causa, cui bono melior linguae Latinae doctus esse sit!]*
So it was Mrs Eappen wearing falsies on the Clapham omnibus?
Paul C. Dickie
In epistula <4GaWgHA3...@solicit.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Nichols
<An...@nospam.demon.co.uk> scribebat:
>..."falsus in uno, falsus in omnIBUS" - [illuminationis Pauli Dickie
>causa, cui bono melior linguae Latinae doctus esse sit!]*
caput tuum in ano est.
--
< Paulus >
< Louise Woodward *innocens* est, tamen sententiae Zobelis>
rykko
On 8 Nov 1997 20:32:49 GMT, mtw...@escape.com () proclaimed thus :
>What about the nanny positively GRINNING when she was asked if she hurt
>the baby. What was THAT about?
It looked to me like a very strong attempt to prevent bursting into
tears.
--
http://homepages.enterprise.net/rykko
The Home of the Mechanical Engineering Students Resource Page
& Other Assorted Stuff.
Louise Woodward Is Innocent.
Freedom First, Exoneration Now!!!
Paul C. Dickie
In article <346dea6c...@news.enterprise.net>, rykko
<ry...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:11:19 +0000, Andrew Nichols
><An...@nospam.demon.co.uk> proclaimed thus :
Certe, non sineo nothi me opprimebunt.
--
< Paul >
< Louise Woodward is *innocent*, regardless of Zobel's opinions>
Andrew Nichols
In article <3ug4cDA7...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>, "Paul C. Dickie"
<p...@bozzie.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Sun, 9 Nov 1997 09:11:19 +0000, Andrew Nichols
>><An...@nospam.demon.co.uk> proclaimed thus :
>>"Illegitimi non carborundum."