FREE ESSAY ON THE NANNY MURDER CASE

THE NANNY MURDER CASE

Massachusetts v. Woodward
Louise Woodward, a British Nanny, was hired in November of 1996 by Sunil and Deborah
Eappen, for their sons, Matthew and Brendan. On February 4, 1997, the Massachusetts
police received a phone call from Woodward stating that Matthew Eappen was having trouble
breathing. When the paramedics examined Matthew, they said he had a 2-? inch skull
fracture. His eyes were bulging, which is a sign of the "shaken baby syndrome." Before
Matthew Eappens death, he spent four days on life support. 
After the event, Woodward was jailed without bond. Supporters from Massachusetts and
Britain argued that she should not have to stay in jail on grounds that she is a
foreigner and did not understand the U.S. legal system. She was kept in a states women's
prison and had to stay because prosecutors felt that she might flee the country if she
was freed on bail.
Prosecutors said that Woodward admitted to harming Matthew. They said she shook him,
dropped him on the floor, and then tossed him on the bed in order to quiet the baby.
Prosecutors argued that Woodward was so frustrated with Matthews uncontrollable crying,
that she began to violently shake him to stop the crying. Medical examiners said that
Matthew must have hit the floor with the "force equivalent to a fall from a second-story
window." Naturally the injuries from the fall along with the shaking caused Matthews
death. 
Forensic expert, Barry Scheck, who took part in the O.J. Simpson trial, was recruited to
help Woodward's defensive argument. The defense stated that a pre-existing medical
condition might have killed Matthew, not the supposed mistreatment. The defense attempted
to find genetic disorders that could have affected his bone strength and development or
could have caused brain hemorrhages, by requesting DNA tests on Matthew. The defense also
tried to put the blame on Matthews's two-year-old brother, Brendan, for the injuries,
since he was the only other family member home that night. Prosecutors immediately argued
that a boy of such a young age isn't capable of inflicting that serious of physical
trauma on an infant. 
Louise Woodward was sentenced to death. After many appeals, and different attorneys, her
defense argued that during the original trial, the defense was unable to have full access
to the medical evidence that the state collected. Woodward was eventually acquitted and
returned home to Britain. 
My personal opinion of the trial and the outcome is negative. I find that Louise Woodward
not being imprisoned for her crime is ridiculous. It is obvious that she is responsible
for Matthew Eappens death and Woodward's acquittal is absurd. If she can get away with
such a horrible crime and be free to walk the streets, then I am sure there are people
accused of equally severe crimes who have also been acquitted. 
Bibliography
www.courttv.com