Louise Woodward Trial : Guilty or Not Guilty : Your views : London Net : News Features regularly updated news from the coolest city on the planet
Contact | Personals | Classified | Opinion
Feedback | About Us | Advertising | Links
London's Pulse
Keeping you in touch with Londoners, London and LondonNet
Features 
Latest news | Guilty or Not Guilty? | Links
Guilty or Not Guilty?
Do you think Louise Woodward did it? Has she had a fair trial?
Have your say...email us at: louise@londonnet.co.uk
Guilty
Guilty as charged? These people reckon so...
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 14:32:41 -0800
From: "vunovick@ix.netcom.com" <novick1@ibm.net>
Subject: GUILTY WITHOUT MALICE
I think she did "something" violent in a fit of pique, without intending to hurt the baby. I think she should have admitted that she got very upset and did something.
I also think that her defence is at fault for REFUSING to include the lesser charge of "manslaughter" and forcing the jury to find her guilty or acquit her. There is some talk that the _real_ reason the defence talked her into it was because the Au Pair agency, which paid the bills for the defence, could be found liable for neglegence IF Louise had been found guilty of manlaughter.
Varda
Subject: Justice has prevailed
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 12:21:32 -0800
Louise may not have intended to kill the child but she definitely abused the child to the extent that it resulted in death. Justice has prevailed in this instance and I am very thankful for a jury smart enough to discern the truth from hocus pocus defense tactics. If Louise had shown half the emotion over Matty's death that she showed over her own conviction she may have garnered a little more sympathy from myself and from her jury. But she feels no remorse and never intends to accept responsibility for what she has done. She is now where she should be......thinking it over in a cell designed to separate those who can get along in society from those who cannot.
sherry mc donald
From: UserID@intonet.co.uk>
Subject: louisewoodward
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 14:19:38 -0000
guilty
LondonNet Comment: We guess that's a guilty vote then?
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 21:02:42 -0800
From: HABFAN@netcom.ca
Subject: Re; Gerry & Maureen Whelan's comments.
While I can truly understand that the majority of the people in Great Britan want to believe that Louise is completely innocent of little Mathew's death, however, we all have to be objective, no matter what race, nationality, etc. Watching the trial, particularly Louise's testimony, I had a great many concerns.
1) Matthew Eappan appeared to be healthy in every way up until
Feb.4th.
2) Louise clearly felt that her "job" interfered with
her social life.
3) When asked "How many evenings did you stay home during
your first month of employment?" She replied that she was
unable to recall -she was asked ; 1 day? 5 days? 30 days? REALLY!!!!
4) After the paramedics left the house, she watched a video with
the other child! If any type of accident occurred while a child
was in my care, I would be totally distraught, whether Ithought
it was my fault or not. She is way too cool for me.
5) She had a disciplinary meeting less than a week prior, yet
continued to break all agreements between herself and the Eappans.
6) This was not an individual that "loved children"
as her defense lawyer stated in his closing arguments; she would
hear this little child crying in the morning, yet refuse to leave
her room to accomodate him or these two working people. The Eappans
certainly seemed to accomodate her in terms of her vegetarianism,
paying her tuition for acting classes, transit pass, etc.
I am quite convinced that she committed this terrible act, albeit not premeditated, however, I do not think that if I were a juror, I could convict her to life in prison, based on the tangible evidence. Although, in my heart and in my experience, I think she is guilty. But, as the prosecutor said " there are only 2 people who really know what happened that day.....". Mathew can't tell us and the only other person is going for an Academy Award. I hope she wins, because she really deserves it.
Maureen Russell
LondonNet comments: As you seem to be aware Maureen if you don't believe the act was premeditated, you must find her not guilty of murder in the first and second degree.
Not
Guilty
These people have a reasonable doubt and they want to tell you about it!
Louise Woodward Menu
Latest news | Guilty or Not Guilty? | Links
Check our LondonNet News Headlines for the latest on the verdict.
Register with LondonNet now! Start receiving your free newsletter packed full of the latest info on London direct from the LondonNet team