DR W. and MR H. investigate.

We consulted our legal people, Mr H. (possibly the greatest fictional detective who ever lived) and Dr W. (his assistant). In this week's HT:Feature they look at the case of Louise Woodward, the 19 year old au pair found gilty last week of Murder Two (the sequel to the popular American TV Show, Murder One - which never really caught on after they changed the show's format). Of course, everyone knows that she is completely innocent - in fact, it is reported that 6 of the Jury admitted after the trial that they believed she didn't do it.

Some believe that this is down to a gross missinterpretation of some remarks made by the Judge... not the "What, you still can't make your minds up?" comments, but the ones where he almost said "If you think there is reasonable doubt, then aquit her of the charges." She is currently awaiting news from the Judge, as is everybody, as to whether the conviction will stand, or whether it'll be changed to the lesser charge of Manslaughter - which would most likely allow her to walk free from prison instead of spending at least 15 years (more likely 20 - as she has maintained her innocent plea throughout the trial, parole officers will take this to mean that she is not repenitant for the crime she did not commit).

Our Legal men, will now look at the aspects of the case, and point out things which really should have never led to Louise being charged, let alone brought to trial and found guilty...

Well H. I'd either arrange the working hours such that either myself, or Mrs W. was able to be at home to look after the children, or I'd hire a nanny to look after them.

Indeed. The parents in this case, decided to hire someone to look after the children. Now they are hard working, and earn a lot of money. They can hire the best nanny's available to look after their child can't they?

I can't see why not H.

Indeed. So, do they go out. Pick a reputable firm, personally interview all the nannys the firm sends - making sure to thoroughly check their credentials and qualifications, making sure that the person they pick to look after their children is the right person?

I should say so H.

Ah yes, W., but you are not these parents. They, instead, chose to go to an agency and hired a young, inexperianced Au Pair.

An Au Pair H. ?

Yes, W. a young Au Pair.

But surely H., an Au Pair, young or old - experianced or not, is not expected to perform half the duties that a qualified nanny would.

My dear W., you've hit the nail right on the head. An Au Pair is a completely different job, with different roles and responsablities. It is like hiring a maid, but expecting her to do the additional jobs of a cook, a gardener, a nurse, a babysitter and a washerwoman. The reason they hired an Au Pair, can only be for money reasons.

But H., surely that has no baring on the case in hand?

W... My dear W., don't you see. In the first case, they are responsible for not providing adequate care for their child. You do not go and hire a gardener to tile your roof do you? He may be able to do the job, but, it is not what he is supposed to do.

I think I see where you're going H.

That's good W. The game's afoot - as they say. Now, we shall look at the evidence which points to the probably cause of the infant's death.

Oh yes H. It says that he died of a fractured skull.

Indeed Dr, but what else does it say?

It says that there was also a fracture to his wrist, approximately 3 weeks old, and there were a number of previous injuries to the head.

Indeed. We also know that these must have happened while someone was watching him, because in the statements we see he was very rarely unsupervised, and him causing harm to himself, or having harm caused to him, would cause him to make no end of noise. Babies, are renouned for crying when injured - even if the injury is extremely minor. So, from this we know that whenever these injuries occured, someone would have been around, and able to detirmine both the cause, and the time.

So did anyone say anything of the sort H. ?

Apparently not Dr. Whatever cause these injuries, must have occured on one of the rare times when the baby was left unsupervised, and no-one was within earshot to hear his cries, and he obviously calmed himself down before anyone attended to him.

That is incredibly unlikely H.

I know W. My point precisely. The Au Pair, continually claimed to be innocent. If she was guilty, and she was responsible for these injuries, had only to claim that they were the cause of some accident - or perhaps the result of some play fighting between him, and his older brother.

Indeed H. Why, the older brother was reported to be a little... maybe not violent, but hyperactive.

Yes, but most children are like that. The question is, if the incident which caused this to happen, happened at a time when the Au Pair was not around, who would have been around to witness it?

Why, the parents H.

Indeed. The parents. These parents are both highly qualified doctors, like your good self. They would obviously have seen the event, and they would have examined their child to assure themselves that he was alright. They would have noticed his injuries, and attempt to take care of him until he could be taken into a hospital and be tended to.

Didn't they do that H?

No, Dr. They didn't. But this is all hearsay. If the accident happened when the parents were around, and they failed to realise he had fractured his wrist and skull, and he had later died, as he did, from the result of the injuries - what does this tell you about the parents?

That, H. , they would be guilty of neglect - and their reputation as doctors would be, obviously ruined.

Indeed W. The parents themselves, have stated, many times, that they both took their business lifes very seriously - in fact, it could be said they put their careers first, and their children second.

I think I see where you're going H.

I'm glad you can, W. I'm glad you can. We shall now look at the reasoning the prosecuting council took. They reasoned that the cause of death was due to shaking of the child by the Au Pair.

That's right H. However, you do realise H. that the child would have had to have been shook for a considerable period of time, and at some force to cause the fracture to his skull - but that wouldn't explain the wrist.

Indeed W. indeed. However, were the injury an old, healing one, the shaking would possibly kill him wouldn't it?

I would think so H. If the injury, partly healed, but still there, just a slight shaking could cause it to worsen, possibly leading to the death of the infant. It is said that the Au Pair, on the day in question, found the child to be unresponsive. Now, this Au Pair is not trained to deal with this situation. What she did, was what most people would do to possibly get a response from most people. She shook him. Possibly believing him to be half asleep, to awaken him - or at least to make him a little more alert. Of course, there is no proof of shaking - the neck muscles were not noted to be damaged in anway.

That's right W. But no further examinations can be carried out, as they have prematurely cremated the baby's body. So we must look elsewhere for our evidence. If you look at X-rays of the skull of the child, what do you see.

Well, there's a rounding of the fracture - possibly indicating that the fracture occured a reasonable period of time ago.

Exactly. Therefore, on the night in question, the Au Pair did not intentionally kill the child. Neither did she intend to hurt him, or injure him in any way.

She took a polygraph didn't she H.?

Yes, my dear W. She did. And it proved that she believed that she was innocent. But that cannot be submitted really, as the devices are prone to error. But that error is generally quite small.

There was, a video too I believe H.

Yes W. There was. A video, which could obviously not be seen by the Jury, but was reputed to have the older child being coached by his mother to say that he hated the au pair, and that she was often violent towards them. However, he is said to be saying that they (him and his brother) loved her.

So, H. What is your conclusion?

Well, W., I believe that if someone is to take responsiblity for the child's death, it is, initially the parent's who are at fault. They hired someone untrained to cope with the situations they were put in.

But H., they can't be entirely responsible for that fact can they?

I agree W. While we have no physical evidence to suggest this, I believe that the injury occured while the child was under the watch of his parents - possibly the result of the older child play fighting him - the fracture more likely to have occured from a blow to the head (with a blunt object) or from falling. Were the child to have fallen - it could go to explain the fractured wrist - however, we know from examining the wrist, that the fracture was around 3 weeks old. The parents, did not examine the child as they should - which, upon the death of the child, would mean that they would be likely to both loose business, and their reputations as doctors for failing to diagnose their child's injuries. So, they instead put the blame onto the young Au Pair. As we know, they were constantly in the American Media pouring out their hearts and painting a black picture of the Au Pair. In fact, the majority of their blaming was putting the cause of death down to the Au Pair's shaking of the child when she found him - and, a missuse of the Au Pair's statement which said "I popped him down onto the floor / bed" which they, and the prosecuting council took to be "I dropped him on the floor". During the trial, it has been said that both parents seemed to be grinning a lot - although when they noticed camera's upon them, they would act sorrowful. Their actions are really quite suspicious, and I am surprised that no-one has decided to investigate their roles in the whole affair. They look as if they have perpetuated a coverup, at the cost of the life of an innocent girl, just to save their reputations.

That is marvelous H. How do you do it?

Elementary my dear W.

1. www.xs4all.nl/~ahein/woodward.html
2. www.source.co.uk/users/home/louise.htm
3. www.sky.co.uk/louise

We recommend you DO NOT visit www.churwell.demon.co.uk as this is a LOUISE IS GUILTY, KEEP HER THERE page... which we disapprove of. We are listing it here because it has been advertised so many times on the legal newsgroup, that people may be led into believing that it too is one of the free Louise pages.

This article has been based on a comment from the usenet newsgroup uk.legal

The Hamster Times is copyright © 1997 Twin and Earth Publishing.