Some cases just stick in the mind. It has been nearly 25 years since teenage British au pair Louise Woodward was found guilty of shaking a baby to death and it still shocks.
Nine-month-old Matthew Eappen was in Louise’s care while she was working as a nanny for a family in Massachusetts, US. Not only did a baby die, but what is so striking about the case is how strongly opinion remains split.
Did Louise violently shake Matthew in a rage or could his injuries have been old?
The Trial Of Louise Woodward on ITV on Thursday aimed to find out if the case still divided medical and legal experts as powerfully as it did in 1997.
The answer was absolutely yes, and the documentary – while not revelatory – was a compelling, forensic reminder of the high-profile trial.
Do you agree? Have your say in the comment section
The documentary began with the chilling 911 call in February 1997 as we heard 19-year-old Louise, from Cheshire, panicking to police that she had found baby Matthew unresponsive and gasping for breath. He died a few days later in hospital.
The ensuing trial, with Louise accused of violently shaking Matthew, which she denied, was played out on television screens on both sides of the Atlantic, causing global protests.
Experts for the prosecution and defence, as well as members of the public, ferociously disagreed.
Even the verdict was unprecedented. Louise was first found guilty of second-degree murder, sobbing in court that she was innocent as the verdict was read out.
But later the ruling was reduced by the judge to involuntary manslaughter and she was freed from jail on time served.
Whichever way you looked at it, there was outrage and confusion. The ITV programme hoped to illuminate each key step of the trial, but only served to confirm that everyone still disagrees.
Dr Gerald Feigin, the coroner who testified at the trial, insisted: “Matthew Eappen is dead because of Louise Woodward.”
While Louise’s defence lawyer Barry Scheck maintains: “What one hopes on the 25th anniversary of this case is that people will actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence demonstrated that she did not do this.”
The documentary gave a fresh perspective on shaken baby syndrome, as well as highlighting the social judgments at the time of working mothers and women on trial who were expected to be emotional.
The tension and jeopardy of the trial was gripping and the stuff of any movie. But as to the truth of the case, we are still none the wiser.
