The Trial of Louise Woodward

[purpleme12]

Did anyone watch this?
I'm watching it now
It seems they suddenly changed the options for convicting for murder or manslaughter or not guilty to murder or not guilty?
I don't know how the American system works
Why did they do that?
Why can they decide to take away one option midway through?
It then says they've gone through all the trial with 16 people on the jury but then they take 4 people out so they can't vote?! I don't understand

It's on ITV hub

I was an au pair in the US around the same time in care of a 3 month old from 7 - 6pm. There were so many issues between families and au pairs at the time.

"seems people just want to believe shes innocent cos she was a young scared female but there has to be some big reason the baby "

Im undecided what I think . It likely was her but it could also have been the parents couldn't it?
They couldn't prove precisely when the injury occurred so it wasn't obviously the day she was in sole charge

I remember this case too. I will watch the new documentary to see f there’s anything new added.
If they couldn’t prove exactly when the injury occurred, then it’s hard to say who done it.
Louise didn’t come across well in the trial, but who knows how we would react, 18yr old charged with something so serious, away from family and friends etc.
There was a lot of support for her back here in the uk. Lots of fundraising going on.

Whether she should have had charge of children that young is immaterial , she knew what was expected if she didn’t like it she could have left . To me that is not a defence to shaking a baby .

From Wikipedia:

Patrick Barnes, a paediatric radiologist at Stanford University, was a key prosecution witness in the trial, but in 2011, said he would not give the same testimony today. He said there had been a revolution in the understanding of head injuries in the past decade, partly due to advances in MRI brain scanning technology: "We started realizing there were a number of medical conditions that can affect a baby's brain and look like the findings that we used to attribute to shaken baby syndrome or child abuse",[26] such as infections and in utero strokes

@Floralnomad she was 18 years old, away from home, with little or no support around her. She could not have just left.

I was an au pair in the States and I had an unbelievably amazing year. But it was hard work. I couldn’t have just left.

So it isn’t immaterial whether she should have been left in sole charge of a toddler and baby. If you need someone to look after your very young children, you don’t get an inexperienced, young 18 year old to do it and pay them about $100 a week

@EnjoyingTheSilence , I’m not condoning the parents using cheap childcare what I’m saying is that because you are cheap childcare doesn’t excuse you shaking a baby to death . From what I’ve read / seen the family were very close to sacking her anyway as they’d had lots of issues with her wanting to party all night and not get up in the mornings . I can’t see why she couldn’t just leave , you just get a plane home , borrowing money if necessary .

I do remember supporters in the UK being filmed watching some part of the trial and erupting in cheers at one point and just thought, that's completely inappropriate, a baby died.

@PermanentTemporary

I do remember supporters in the UK being filmed watching some part of the trial and erupting in cheers at one point and just thought, that's completely inappropriate, a baby died.

Yeah, I remember that too. They had to have a spokesperson go on tv to say they were sorry about the baby dying.

@Floralnomad not everyone can borrow that kind of money

Well maybe watch this programme Floralnomad - or at least reference the one you watched..
She didn't shake the baby to death, he died from a rebleed of a previous injury and there's not a shred of evidence she was responsible for any harm to him.
He had none of the injuries associated with shaking, like bruising to his wrists or torso and there were no injuries to his neck.
The science behind the 'triad' of injuries that at the time were thought to be exclusively caused by 'Shaken Baby Syndrome' has been disproven, and one of the prosecution experts (Patrick Barnes, mentioned above) has changed his opinion.
Also, she wasn't out 'partying' - she liked to go to the theatre in Boston.
I agree that the scenes of people celebrating the judge's decision were distasteful but that's nothing to do with her.

I was in Boston with a similar age child at the time of this trial. DH had worked with the baby's parents. If Louise Woodward was pilloried, then by god the mother was too.

Extra jurors are regularly empanelled in case someone gets sick. At the end of the trial the judge announces which jurors do not have to deliberate - you don't know in advance whether you will be a deliberating juror or not but are warned you might not get to deliberate.

The US system is very very like the UK system - and I don't think judging a witness by their demeanor is just an american thing.

At the time of her trial, the medical evidence would say that the baby's bleed had happened when she was in sole charge. Medical opinion has changed a lot about shaken baby syndrome since then.

If I remember correctly, her defence didn't want the lesser charge of manslaughter to go before the jury - calculating (wrongly as it turned out - but it was a reasonable decision) that the jury would not want to convict her of murder so might acquit instead. I think the judge made the right call in the end. Horrible case. That baby would be the same age as my eldest if he lived.

The programme I watched was called The real prime suspect . It was a couple of years ago I think , they spoke to a few people who were involved with the case .

I’ll give it a watch over the weekend on the hub. I vaguely remember parts of the trial back when it happened; they really went at her over her British terminology “popped him on the bed”. I didn’t realise at the time that “popped” means something else in America, so was very confused about how they weren’t understanding!

I'd forgotten how much support Louise had in America as well. There were protests outside the court most days. It was just so sensational that a jury convicted her and then the judge chose to reverse that conviction and free her almost immediately.

I imagine Louise chose not to appeal her conviction because it would have meant going back to America and she was probably pretty scared to do that with no guarantee that she wouldn't end up back in prison.

If she's innocent I just find it frightening she could still be in jail now because the science back in the day was not good enough to prove her innocence.

Where can I watch this ?
Completely anecdotally but I went to Boston a week after Louise Woodward was found guilty to visit a friend who was also an Au pair ,she watched the entire trial as it was televised and felt the older brother / toddler may have accidentally hit Matthew on his head .

Just because the family shouldn’t have left her alone with the baby doesn’t mean she isn’t responsible for her actions. Whatever they were.

Maybe not but the parents were two Doctors they would have had money to pay for proper child care ,who in their right mind would leave a toddler and an eight month old baby in the care of an 18 year old au pair ?

I also seem to remember Matthew had older injuries ?

@NiellyNoFive

They have such a weird legal system over there it was probably the best way to get her out of prison and back to the UK which is ultimately all you'd want as an 18 year old going through all that.

Yes. My memory is that the elderly male judge did his best to help her avoid prison. A lot of people both sides of the Atlantic thought the parents were negligent in employing her as cheap labour instead of employing a Nanny. I think they were medics as well. I don't fancy watching a dramatisation of it. It made me realise that children were precious and shouldn't be 'farmed out'.

I have just caught up with this documentary ,I never thought she was guilty ,,the pathologist said Matthew died from his head being hit with a blunt instrument ,there are so many different scenarios ,that could have happened ,eight month old are generally quite mobile ,my oldest son used to roll across the room from about six months before crawling ,he might have banged his head, his toddler brother might have accidentally hit him who knows .

au pair in the us can very well mean being in sole charge of a tiny baby. it's a different scheme to europe wrt working hours and responsibilities.

I was an au pair in us at the same time as louise and my youngest (of 3 under 5!) was 3 month old when I started.
mum went back to work full time a week after I arrived.

the case was shocking at fhe time to me. could have easily happened to me.

A lot of people both sides of the Atlantic thought the parents were negligent in employing her as cheap labour instead of employing a Nanny. I think they were medics as well. I don't fancy watching a dramatisation of it. It made me realise that children were precious and shouldn't be 'farmed out'.

Yes this is exactly the kind of thing the grieving parents got all the time in the aftermath - but mostly the mother. it must have been such a comfort to them. Extra points for the "farmed out".