Louise Woodward the Manslaughterer
A number of Louise Woodward fans have written comments to my blog over the past few months. Woodward, for the unacquainted, was convicted in Massachusetts of killing a baby boy she was taking care of by shaking him to death because he wouldn't stop crying, which is an all too common method of child abuse inflicted by people who have no business being around children. After she was released from prison by a sympathetic trial judge for time served (over the vigorous dissent of 3 justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), she went back to her home country of England. The baby's parents then filed suit and won a civil judgment against her to ensure that she made absolutely no profits from selling her story.
And then, naturally, the English legal profession allowed her to become a lawyer, and an English law firm hired her. Even more naturally, my criticism of these two events occurring has prompted the aforementioned comments by Louise Woodward fans. I'm interested in responding to one such comment, which is the suggestion by a reader (whose comment I will soon delete because it contains ad hominem language that pisses me off) that I should apparently be either criminally prosecuted or civilly sued for calling the murderer a murderer:
Isn't that rather careless language for a lawyer? Louise Woodward is *not* "a convicted murderer", unless you have some grounds for declaring the substitution of a conviction for manslaughter to have been in some way null and void. Is there no protection under US law against being publicly and untruthfully described as a convicted murderer?
Woodward was convicted of 2nd degree murder. The jury could have originally convicted her of manslaughter but Woodward herself insisted that the manslaughter option be taken away, apparently under the belief that Massachusetts jurors would buy the fraudulent hoax that the English public obviously has, that she is a sweet little girl who deserves sympathy and is not capable of murdering a little boy and then lying about it. That gamble did not pay off. Nonetheless, her trial judge reduced her conviction to manslaughter (after acknowledging that, "[f]rustrated by her inability to quiet the crying child, she was 'a little rough with him'"). The English public would now prefer that all persons who wish to refer to Woodward refer to her as a manslaughterer (manslaughteress?), and not as a murderer. This distinction is apparently very important to Woodward fans, never mind the questionable grammatical correctness of "manslaughterer" (ironic, considering we're dealing with the English here).
But of course, the English are wrong. When I call this child-killer a murderer, I use that term in the colloquial and not legal sense. But she is in fact a murderer in both senses. The "least culpable" degree of murder under Massachusetts law requires proof that the defendant killed with an "intent to cause grievous bodily harm", or killed through an "intentional act which, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonable person would have known created a plain and strong likelihood of death". Woodward was accused of shaking this baby to death and a jury agreed. Even if I were to stick to the legal definition of murder under Massachusetts law, I personally have enough evidence in my mind to believe that her conduct arose to the level of murder and not manslaughter. But the distinction between those two terms is even less relevant in the colloquial context. The dictionary definition of murder refers essentially and simply to the "unlawful killing of a human being." Woodward was convicted of exactly that. She is a murderer. And a member of the English bar, despite showing absolutely no remorse whatsoever for what she did to the victim's family.
Labels: woodward
posted by The Uncivil Litigator at Tuesday, December 28, 2004
19 Comments:
As I understand it, she was a stupid girl who didn't know that shaking the baby could kill it. Obviously, she deserved punishing, but isn't it time to show a little mercy?
Mercy should be bestowed strictly upon the remorseful, which she is not.
Trouble is with us "English" mate...(LOL)is the sympathy vote. Which I say is wrong, facts just as you present them, no matter how cold or hard they sound, is what The Law is made up from, I felt at the time that the all or nothing approach was a cunning stroke pulled by the defence, knowing they'd convict, then also knowing the laws and rules, apply as they did successfully for the final outcome achieved...Thus winning in the long run....
If the option had been open to the jury at the time of their deliberations and the guilty verdict came back, would her sentence have been any different could you tell me please.
Our courts and laws are to old and passed it at the moment...reform is desperatly needed I feel.
Opinions on the case aside Louise is a convicted felon, and how that apparently counts for nothing when becoming a member of the profession here in the UK, well it just adds to my frustration...
It's like giving Peter Sutcliffe a job on the "vice squad". He's another posting altogether which I might do now..
Tip my hat to you uncivil litigator.. you should move to UK and become a judge, we need no holes barred deliverers of the system who don't get influenced by public outcry..
The reason why the English press took up Woodward's case was her social class, her youth and her sex. If she were poor, black or male, I doubt if a single newspaper would have defended her. In fact, a British Asian woman was accused of exactly the same thing around the same time, and the British press blanked it. Essentially, Britain assumes that being female, young and middle class gives someone carte blanche to abuse children with total impunity. It was shocking that the world's dominant nation folded to the demands of a corrupt, outmoded third-world rock in the North Sea, which half the population understandably wish to leave. Woodward should have done time, and should never be allowed to work in a Court in any capacity.
It still seems unreal that such unrepentant scum is walking the earth...having attended university and now teaching children, of all people, dance lessons.
How she, the biased judge, or her supporters sleep at night is something that I never hope to know or understand. To Hell with Louise Woodward!
I presume you mean the UK when you talk about the corrupt rock in the north sea.
I guess you are a septic then.
At least we fairly elect our leaders rather than cheat an election like the worlds greatest mass murderer George W Bush.
Louise Woodward is innocent
Dear "Stan",
It would help if you actually read and comprehended the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore before pontificating on issues of American constitutional law... a concept that is of course foreign to a nation governed exclusively by the brute majority rule of "whatever parliament says, goes".
"I presume you mean the UK when you talk about the corrupt rock in the north sea."
Stan,
If you read the post you were responding to carefully you would have picked up on the fact that that poster is, most definately, from the UK and making a comment about bias in the UK. Anyway, thanks for your uninformed overly broad statement. It's nice to know that the UK is free from political corruption. At least that's what George Galloway told me.
Wow! This IS a host site for Nazis! (Or the nearest thing to it!)
"Corrupt rock in the northern sea" indeed. How WOULD America be described, under the same "ad hominem" conditions - festering boil on the ass of the world??
Your (s)election systems ARE indeed, a total JOKE... punchline: Diebold, and give US nationals NO right whatsoever to make *very* "Ad hominem" comments about other nations.
Incidentally: I'm glad that Louise Woodward is now a lawyer: I only found that out by accident today while Googling around another subject which reminded me of the case.
While reading another site's article on the subject, I found that there is an American (minority?) opinion who believe that the parents "done it", as in the case of JonBenet Ramsey. Some say the mother: others however sympathise with mothers in that situation and make roundabout assertions that it could have been the father, as the male parent is - in fact - the greatest statistical cause (apart from the poor medical care so many have to suffer under in your abominable system) of the death of infants.
The last poster should probably keep Googling because Louise Woodward is no longer a lawyer. She apparently couldn't cut it so she started a dance school with her boyfriend.
The suggestion that the parents did it is ridiculous. Louise Woodward confessed to the police the following facts: (1) she'd been "a little rough" with the baby on the night he was hospitalized (he died on life support 4 days later); (2) as she prepared to bathe the baby she dropped him onto a towel that was on a bathroom floor; and (3) he "may have" struck his head on the lower side of the tub. After these events occurred, it is undisputed that the baby began showing symptoms of serious head injury and Woodward then called 911. Only 5 days previous to that night, the baby's parents had given Woodward a final warning that if she didn't stop partying so late at night that she couldn't take care of the kids the next morning, she would be fired. The parents also came home one night and found their two-year old and their baby unattended and alone.
Woodward was the nanny from hell and a jury agreed.
Why don't we simplify it down to its basic essentials.
1. Someone caused the baby to die. Agree or Disagree ( I think all agree).
2. Who could have killed the baby. (Within reason of probability). Answer: Louise Woodward or the Parents.
3. If the parents had caused this kind of serious injury previously at some point, then would it not have most likely been noticed by Louise or one or other of the parents? If it had been the parents would they risk this with a potential witness in Louise Woodward? There is of course the possibility that it could have been the Grandparents or a neighbor who would have noticed this previous injury. This scenario seems unlikely to me because the two parents are highly intelligent and unlikely to have left this kind of injury open to prosecution and further more equally unlikely to have been in collusion. Collusion would have involved premeditation which means it would have been with an intention of serious harm which would most likely have been the idea of killing the child eventually.
I therefore think most people would point some kind of finger towards Louise Woodward. Howelse could it have happened?
The jury only had two options, someone did enough damage to kill the baby, someone must have known this, don't you agree? Therefore who else is most likely to have done it apart from Louise Woodward?
My point being that if it was one of the parents surely the other one would have noticed or surely Louise Woodward would have noticed?
The only other possible situation would be that one of the parents had a momentary loss of control and caused this sudden injury but didn't think it was so serious and then when Louise was with the baby it just happened as a previous wound, this part of the explanation would then rely on the doctors being able to say exactly how serious the injury would have had to have been at the time, if it could have been "unnoticeable" immediately following the injury then definitely this is a possiblity in which case it would be very difficult to say who caused it, it could have been either of the three persons.
Thats my general summary after watching an hours condensed summary of the trial.
In a situation with such uncertainty its difficult, the Jury definitely obviously felt Louise Woodward was somehow responsible but didn't have the option of any other choice apart from Murder, therefore perhaps they would have given a Manslaughter charge.....
Who would you believe?
Would you believe it was one of the parents or most likely Louise Woodward?
If there was any degree of uncertainty would you be ok to commit to Murder or Manslaughter.
If I had to convict I would go for manslaughter at the worst and aquittal at the least.
Not enough evidence for a murder conviction of anybody in my opinion. If I was to choose between pointing the finger of responsible with one of the parents and Louise Woodward I would choose Louise Woodward.
I think she was lucky she got off from the Murder rap, and I think she should count her blessings for each day of freedom she's got.
Another point I would suggest is to ask the question, would the burden of proof been enough to charge her ni the United Kingdom?
I think she would also have been charged in the United Kingdom, particularly when I think of some o f the Cot Death scenarios.
Woodward was convicted in a US court, and therefore cannot consider a career as a nanny OR a lawyer in the US. However, she was not convicted in the UK, and the UK public are not obliged to have any regard for a foreign legal system.
And we all see how well that turned out for "the UK public". After embarassing the British legal system by being allowed to become a lawyer, she decided to quit and become a dance instructor instead. Still no word on whether "the UK public" trusts her to babysit children.
Louise Woodward is a murderer. She got away with murdering that little boy. I don't know how she can live with herself. Anyone who has sympathy for her is a moron.
I spent a few hours with Louise each week, being the 'housekeeper' for the first family that Louise was a nanny for in MA. We talked about her dream of seeing the sights, visiting wherever she could go - she wanted her freedom, like any other teenager wanted. She was from another country - wanting to visit the USA to explore, grow, expand her diversity - she had other interests than being a nanny - however, that being her reason for being in the USA - to me, she was just a kid - babysitting for someone elses 'kids'....the Parents of the children she was 'nanny' to took advantage of her while she was there - stuck her with their children for many more hours than were alloted in her job description - sometimes going on vacation for a week or more at a time without her or their children - and her first Christmas away from home, she was taking care of these children while 'mom and dad' were having a hell of a time on 'vacation'!...ALONE for the first time - away from her family - at Christmas! They expected her to be 'NANNY' 24/7 with no life, no time alone for herself - to explore, to grow etc.
I cannot comfortably say she is guilty or not guilty - I was not there - but from conversations between us - there is a lot of 'not seeing the whole picture' on the parents end. A nanny - what better way to be a 'parent when I want to be?'...and the 'nanny' be the responsible one?
I might not have a judgement on HER specifically - but I did see three sides of the story - and it was sad - the "Nanny', having to be more responsible than the 'job requirement and the pay'...the "Parents' - having a built in surrogate on hand to control, decide for and 'parent' in their own way (whether good/bad or indifferent, and them actually Parenting 'the nanny' as well - she was REQUIRED by the parents to go to a parenting group to 'learn how better to 'parent' - was not allowed a car or to get her license while in the states, had a curfew...etc...)..and of course the "children'...whom are the innocence in this sad situation...each of them has a story...each of these stories are real...there are 'three sides to EVERY story....'yours/mine/somewhere inbetween'....
Judgement is not my job - I was not on the jury - I spoke my thoughts when asked during the incident - and still agree and believe that no one paid much attention to the behavior of the parents during their 'use of this nanny'...and no one paid attention to the 'life the nanny was expected to live - it being her job for part of the day/it being her 'time' visiting the USA for the other part of the day'...I truly hope all can continue on with their lives with some dignity, respect, and understanding that NO ONE is a perfect parent - nor a perfect 'babysitter/nanny'....SOMEWHERE Along the line - there was gross ignorance on MANY of the 'players' of this traumatic event.
Wow. Thank you for that insight.
There's not much I disagree with in what you've said.
I do think that people lose sight of the big picture when it comes to this case. The ultimate price was paid by a small baby named Matthew, and not by Louise Woodward by being inconvenienced with having to explain she should not be punished for causing his death. Thousands of infants every year are injured or killed by irresponsible caretakers, whether they be parents or babysitters. Shaking a baby out of anger is not an unheard-of phenomenon in our world, unfortunately. And even the kindly trial judge who set Woodward free conceded that she was guilty of exactly that: being "a little rough" with the child.
My sympathies would probably extend to Louise Woodward if she had even once expressed remorse for her role in the baby's death.
Good post. She smashed that little baby's head on the cold tile floor of the bathroom. She was angry that the parents had told her they would let her go if she couldn't get up in the morning to give the children breakfast. Louise, who liked acting, would stay out late partying.
She never got her punishment really. She was coddled and then her family was paid for benefiting from her crime by giving interviews. She is a baby killer and will always be. Louise, don't think we were fooled by your lies and smirks. I wonder how she sleeps at night.
I submitted several posts which appeared to have been accepted but then failed to appear. Then when I try to add them again or follow up, I find that the Post a Comment link is not there.
Clearly something is amiss.
One of my comments was about UL's attempts to turn this into a British v American issue by claiming (falsely) that Britain has draconian libel laws that infringe freedom of speech.
He also evaded my point about his double standards regarding his attempts to play down the four judges who DISGREED with his view as to what LW was guilty of. He also evaded my point about his use of the word "idiotic" to describe a judge with whom he disagreed.
He also claimed that 20 out of 20 impartial people disagreed with me and cited this as "proof" that I am wrong. As if one can use other people's opinions as proof of anything! As if we can be sure that they were unbiased after articles like "When a defence is indefensible" appeared in the Boston press. As if they were any less biased than the British lawyer who described the jurors as "boneheads"! (Which I admit is insulting, but no more so than calling Judge Zobel "idiotic".)
As I suspected, David is confused. Nothing is "amiss". Each of the points he made are available to the viewing public in their free, unaltered, uncensored state in the comments to my July 15, 2004 post.
The US legal system provides one of the most rigorous, cautious processes in the world for punishing criminal defendants. 12 citizens who have been carefully selected by lawyers for each side and the judge are presented with evidence and required to make a unanimous decision before someone may be found guilty. The trial judge then reviews the verdict for fairness. Then an entire round of state appellate judges each also review the trial with a fine-tooth comb, for fairness. Then, should the defendant pursue it (Woodward did not), an entire round of federal appellate judges does the same thing.
My point about 20 people is a very simple one. David stopped making arguments about evidence a long time ago, and has resorted to little more than name-calling. Which is understandable since the actual facts just don't jive with his view of the case. He thinks the trial judge was biased, but then reverses himself and thinks he was fair when I remind him that this judge ruled in Woodward's favor on the reduction in charges issue. He jumps on my anger at the divided appellate decision, gleefully wanting to use it to support his position. But he abandons them like a rat from a sinking ship when I remind him that they affirmed Woodward's conviction by a 7-0 vote. His confusion is understandable. That's why we have an organized system of justice in this country. 20 impartial people, 12 jurors and 8 judges, studied this case in far more detail than David Kessler did, and they all disagree with him. Period.
As for libel laws, again, it's not my job to educate David. I suggest he go find a law professor who is familiar with the legal standards in both countries for defamation cases, and use him to fill in his obvious gaps of information on the issue. I'm not going to argue with someone who is so obviously ignorant of the basic facts. That would be both boring and pointless.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home