Re: Question for all you “Americans”
dried up from whose end? her or kids parents side? either way so she was let go only bcos there was not enough money left to continue the trial? thats pathetic. how different is this from pak where justice is only for the rich. poor can go to hell.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
No she went back to England and hoped to raise money to finance an appeal against her conviction, but could not do so.
At any rate, her sentence was reduced because of evidence that the injury leading to the death had been inflicted several weeks before the child died, and it could not be proven who had inflicted the injury.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
Black Jack Sensi - she was convicted of murdering the eight month old son of Dr. Sunil and Deborah Eappen. Convicted doesn’t mean found not guilty.
BTW - here’s her defense’s, the only one’s she had. Lame, right?
source: http://www.courttv.com/trials/woodward/
Mad_Scientist - he was eight months old, how much further back did that baby have to have his head cracked before he eventually died of it? That was lame, the jury thought it was lame and convicted her, the judge (an idiot) overturned the verdict.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
A murder conviction which was later overturned when evidence emerged that the child had sustained a serious head injury several weeks earlier, by a person who’s identity could not be proven.
Re: Question for all you "Americans"
Mad_scientist - that isn't true, I provided a link, look it up
[QUOTE]
He stepped in in some ways, and created in his decision a whole scenario that was never argued by anybody, was certainly never presented and which even today the defense says, "We don't agree with that." So to the extent that he's followed his own conscience, that may be, but it's a decision that it seems to me is outside what the jury rejected.
[/QUOTE]
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
^
a child is dead. she is scott free and real killer is still out there. i feel sorry for her for going through such hardships for something she never did. 
for her.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
Everything I say is always true, becomes I am always right and never wrong, for I am mAd_ScIeNtIsT !!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1998/woodward/114456.stm
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts ruled that the judge in Woodward’s trial was right to quash the jury’s second degree murder verdict and replace it with one of manslaughter.
Re: Question for all you "Americans"
Black Jack - You are entitled to any opinion you wish to have, even one made out of ignorance of the facts.
Mad_Scientist - tell you what? I'll find an American one and we'll do the hokey pokey and turn ourselves about, k? BBC is based where?
EDIT: even they said that she shoke and slammed the baby down, but said she "may have aggravated a pre-existing condition". One of the reasons that the defense wouldn't accept the verdict, they needed a not-guilty because of the civil suit pending.
Re: Question for all you "Americans"
Am I mistaken or does this mean it was because there was no evidence of prior abuse from this nanny? Just this one killing of this eight month old infant.
[QUOTE]
NOTICE: This slip opinion is subject to formal revision and will be superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, Room 1407, Boston, MA 02108; (617) 557-1030.
SJC-07635
COMMONWEALTH vs. LOUISE WOODWARD (and a companion case). Middlesex. March 9, 1998. - June 16, 1998. Present: Wilkins, C.J., Abrams, Lynch, Greaney, Fried, Marshall, & Ireland, JJ.
Although evidence of a single blow to a child of tender years may be sufficient to support a jury finding of malice, Commonwealth v. Starling, 382 Mass. 423, 426 (1981), such an inference is not necessarily required by evidence even of repeated blows to a young child. Commonwealth v. Vizcarrondo, ante 392, 397-398 (1998). In all the reported murder and manslaughter convictions in Massachusetts involving the battery of young children there was compelling evidence of multiple injuries from repeated instances of caretaker abuse, not death caused by a single fatal blow. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Day, 409 Mass. 719, 720-721, 723-726 (1991) (manslaughter conviction reversed on erroneous admission of "profile" testimony); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 395 Mass. 568, 573-575 (1985) (murder in the first degree affirmed). (15) The Commonwealth did not claim that Woodward had ever abused or injured Matthew prior to the fatal injury. (16) Where there was no evidence in this case of repeated caretaker abuse, the judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the jury verdict of murder was not proportionate with convictions in other cases, including those cases resulting in convictions of manslaughter rather than murder. See Gaulden, supra at 556 (whether jury verdict is "markedly inconsistent" with verdicts returned in similar cases is appropriate consideration in deciding rule 25 ** [2] motion). (17)
[/QUOTE]
Re: Question for all you "Americans"
MQ (my habibeti #2):
I'm not overly familiar with the Nanny Murder case but did some quick (and very minimal) reading to familiarize myself with what happened from a legal system perspective.
To my understanding, the following things happened:
1. She was indicted by a grand jury (i.e. charged with a crime) on a charge of 2nd degree murder.
2. She was tried by a jury and found guilty of 2nd degree murder.
3. After being convicted of 2nd degree murder by a jury, the judge threw out the 2nd degree murder conviction and entered a verdict finding her guilty of manslaughter.
4. The minimum sentence for the 2nd degree murder was, I think, 15 years.
5. By reducing the conviction to manslaughter, the sentence was reduced to time served (less than a year).
Without trying to get too technical, there is a concept in American law called "lesser included offense." Effectively, "lesser included offenses" are subsets of some other more major offense. If you are found guilty of the major offense, by definition, you would also be guilty of the lesser included offense. Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of 2nd degree murder. Stated differently, 2nd degree murder = manslaughter + a heightened state of intent to kill.
In the Nanny case, the Defense could have asked the judge to give the jury instructions that would have allowed the jury to find the Nanny guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of 2nd degree murder. However, the Defense didn't believe the jury would convict the Nanny of 2nd degree murder and therefore did not want the jury to have the opportunity to find her guilty of manslaughter (which is the easier crime to prove). Essentially, the Defense gambled and went for an all or nothing verdict. The Defense lost their gamble.
What the judge did is permitted. If a judge believes that no reasonable jury could have convicted a person of the crime charged based upon the evidence presented at trial, the judge can overturn the verdict. In this case, the judge examined the evidence presented at trial and concluded that this was not a reasonable jury. He concluded that no reasonable jury could have found that the Nanny had the intent to kill that is required for a 2nd degree murder charge based upon the evidence presented at trial. Because manslaughter is a lesser included offense of 2nd degree murder, in finding the Nanny guilty of 2nd degree murder, the jury must necessarily have concluded that the Nanny was also guilty of manslaughter. The judge found that part of the verdict to be reasonable which is why he reduced the crime upon which she was convicted to manslaughter.
This kind of thing is not common but not so rare as to be shocking either. Judges don't normally bail the Defense out after the Defense has made a strategic blunder. If the Defense believed that it was likely or probable that the jury would have convicted the Nanny on the 2nd degree murder charge, it would have asked for the jury instruction on manslaughter and pleaded with the jury in final argument to find the Defendant not guilty of anything BUT if they were going to convict, do it on the lesser charge. Usually, if you go the all or nothing approach and lose, you're SOL.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
Well yes your input was quite helpful. Im glad I didnt have to google for the answers. 
So basically assuming that the family of the murdered person is unhappy with the trial, there is nothing they can do about it after the judge has made his decision?
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
That’s correct. Victims and families of victims don’t really have a say in the process. The exception is that once a verdict of guilty is entered, there is a later hearing at which time the prosecution and the defense can put on witnesses and argue about what sentence to impose. Victims and families of victims often appear at sentencing hearings to tell about the terrible impact of the crime. Family members of the guilty party often show up to talk about how great a kid the guilty person was and about the wonderful things the guilty person will do in the future if only the sentence is short enough to allow him/her to become a functional member of society again.
Re: Question for all you "Americans"
^
The family can go on and file a civil lawsuit, which they did and won by her no-show as she hot-tailed it out of the U.S.
Re: Question for all you “Americans”
Sure. But we are talking about the criminal justice system and punishment here not about imposing civil liability.