By Jamie Kanter
Arizona Daily Wildcat
November 6, 1997

It's time for the baby-sitter to go home

Arizona Daily Wildcat Jamie Kanter

Don't tell Mom, the baby-sitter's dead. Actually, the baby is dead and the baby-sitter is spending the rest of her life in prison.

The highly-anticipated verdict is in, and Louise Woodward has been found guilty of murdering the 8-month-old boy in her care. Woodward, a British au pair, was hired to watch the Eappen children while their parents worked. At some point in her tenure, however, Matthew Eappen suffered severe head trauma and eventually died in a hospital.

An investigation into the boy's death led police to Woodward, who police claim caused his eventual demise. They say that she lost her temper when the baby became fussy and shook him violently. The jury agreed. Many others do not.

The British, who have embraced this teen-ager since her trial began, are outraged by the verdict. They claim that pre-trial publicity and courtroom impropriety led to the wrongful conviction of a sweet British girl. Some Americans (including this one) think that they may be right.

Examining the facts of the case, it is difficult not to have the requisite "reasonable doubt." There are many factors that should weigh heavily in our minds about this trial. There is just no clear proof.

First of all, the medical facts of the case are inconclusive. They point to serious internal damage to the brain of this poor child, but there are no clear signs of the abuse claimed by the prosecution. Even the doctor for the prosecution ceded the point that the trauma could have been caused weeks earlier in some totally unrelated incident. But that's not really important, is it?

The prosecution didn't flinch, they just attacked the girl as incompetent because she was enjoying her time in America. They criticized her for staying out late, hanging out with her friends and drinking alcohol before the age of 21. They claimed that she placed her good time above the health and happiness of the children. By those standards, however, any one of us could have killed the baby. Irresponsibility equals guilt, fun equals murder, that's the message. You all better get yourselves to church.

As if the vague medical data and the prosecution's misguided character attacks were not enough, there is even more reason to question the validity of this verdict. During deliberations, the jury requested that the judge provide them with a record of certain medical evidence that they wanted to review. Judge Hiller Zobel refused the request, claiming that the process would just be too time-consuming if the courtroom staff had to peruse the records and find the information. That's seems like a wise, judge-like thing to do. I'm sure the evidence wasn't really important, anyway.

Basically, we have here a case where a British girl was convicted on a whole lot of smoke. Perhaps the jury was still harboring anti-British, Revolutionary sentiments (Damn that King George), or perhaps the jury acted as a modern-day Paul Revere, warning us to take arms against the invasive Brits. Either way this case smells of something funny, and it's not tea and crumpets.

This one makes me wonder about the state of the legal system in America. Are we on a guilty-at-all-costs conviction craze since the O.J. Simpson and Rodney King trials showed us how controversial acquittals can be? It seems like we convicted young Louise Woodward simply because she was the convenient answer to the question of why a child is dead. She just happened to be the easy target (and she's not American, so she must be bad, right?).

Come on, people. I like mob rule just as well as the next guy, but isn't this just a glorified witch-hunt? A tragedy occurred and a child is dead and we all feel for the child's parents. However, should we then ignore important evidence in order to punish someone, anyone, for the death? Do we want revenge that badly?

Reasonable doubt is a quirky little phrase. It implies that the jury of one's peers is, in fact, reasonable. I'm not sure that this one was. They smelled blood in the water and they swam over to tear off a piece for themselves. A "reasonable" jury may have seen the fairly obvious "reasonable" doubt in this case. Instead, the poor baby-sitter will sit in a cell for the rest of her life.

Is five bucks an hour really worth it?

Jamie Kanter is a senior majoring in Spanish and psychology.