Louise Woodward Trial: 1997

Although the defense began by producing several character witnesses for Louise, it was clear that this trial would be fought on medical grounds. In that respect the defense was just as well armed as the prosecution had been. Numerous defense experts testified that Matthew's injuries were inconsistent with "shaken-baby syndrome," and that they were the result of an old injury. Under Scheck's deft guidance this alternative theory gradually assumed credibility.

Then came testimony from Louise herself. Choking back tears, she described how she had tried to revive Matthew after finding him gasping in his crib. She also denied ever having told the police that she had been "rough" with Matthew. "I said maybe I was not as gentle with him as I could have been."

Louise stood up well under cross-examination, brushing aside Leone's suggestion that she had been upset with the Eappens on the day of the incident. Nor, she stated, had she told police that she had "dropped" Matthew on the bathroom floor, but rather "popped" him on the bathroom floor, explaining that "pop" is an English term that means to "lay" or "place."

Throughout her testimony, Louise remained calm. Too calm for Leone. In his peroration, he portrayed Louise as an "aspiring little actress," who told her employers "half-truths." He dismissed the "theatrical, high-priced" medical evidence presented by the defense, adding, "These injuries were caused by Louise Woodward in Matthew Eappen's own home while she was responsible for his care. To believe otherwise, you would have to believe that little falls kill little kids. They don't."

Defense attorney Andrew Good, in his summation, tried to make the defendant out to be the victim. "Louise Woodward had the colossal misfortune to be with Matthew when this old injury caused him to fall and the bleeding would not stop.… She has been vilified, she has been accused and now she has been proven innocent."

Scheck hammered home the "previous-injury" defense. Brandishing copies of X rays of the skull fracture, he argued that the absence of obvious swelling—which would have indicated that the injury was recent—destroyed the prosecution's case. "We may never know exactly how this incident occurred but, if this is an old injury—case over," he said. "It did not happen on February 4. And if it didn't happen on February 4, that's the end of the case."