• Louise's Panorama interview: Tell us what you think Please include details of your name and country.
  

• More reaction
  

Thank you for broadcasting the interview and giving Louise the chance to speak freely. I believe she is innocent. A news show here in the States broadcast an interview during the trial with the parents. Their behaviour, especially the unemotional reaction of the mother, seems to me to indicate that Louise was a scapegoat.
S Derouet, Pittsburgh, PA USA

Give the Eappens a live interview to tell their side of the story. Or is the BBC only interested in Woodwards.
J Mann

I am very comfortable with Judge Zobel's decision to reduce her charge to "involuntary manslaughter". However, I feel that the time she served in jail was a lot less for the crime she committed. She can make money crying on the TV/magazines but to me she is a criminal who got away for less.
Sameer Dubey, India

I am a woman in my 50's with grown children who came to this country 25 years ago from Europe. I believe this enables me to be more objective than either the British or Americans. I think Woodward is right. She got a rotten deal. Normally, a person should not be convicted if there is reasonable doubt. All the evidence in her case was strictly circumstancial and very questionable. Had I been on the jury I could not have convicted her of manslaughter, much less of murder. The fact that Woodward was convicted on this flimsy "evidence" and O.J. Simpson was freed inspite of all the DNA evidence at the crime scene makes a statement about the US justice system which requires no further comment. Furthermore, as this case has shown, latent bigotry and prejudice against anything and anyone who is not American seems to run deeper than anyone could have imagined. Just read the comments about Woodward in the paper, on the internet, on the streets. Had this been an American teenager, the outcome would have been different, especially if the parents had not also been the "All American yuppie couple and a pair of doctors to boot". There was a conspircay working against Woodward from the first minute she called police - by the interrogating officers, the medical community, the press, and all those career mothers who place their careers ahead of family and then want to place blame elsewhere when something goes wrong. Sorry, I have no compassion for the Eappans. Woodward got a raw deal. Thank God for Judge Zobel. If I were in her place, I probably would do everything in my power to assert my innocence again and again. What is more, if my job prospects were in danger of being ruined, I would definitely gain compensation for the ordeal I was put through by selling my story. It is a small payment for what she went through if she was indeed innocent, which I believe she was. At the most, it was an accident and should have been treated as such, and if the Eappens were a little more forgiving and admitted that perhpas they did something wrong, I would have compassion for them as well.
L.Bell

It should never be forgotten that Louise Woodward is felon, tried and convicted for the second degree murder of an innocent baby. She is not some heroine, or some celebrity, or even a victim of a flawed system of justice. She was the beneificiary of a misguided judge's decision to extend more mercy than was wise toward a heartless young woman who put on a show of "Why me? I am only 19!" Please, let us not forget that Mattew Eappen was only 8 months old and was totally helpless. Nothing more can be done about her in court, so why doesn't the press just leave her alone and allow her to sink in fact into what she is in truth, a convicted baby killer deserving only of the scorn and contempt of civilized society.
Joan Heller

I am a UK citizen living in the USA and was able to see the majority of her trial as it took place( in particular I did see her testimony), and was able to view the interview online this morning. I think that Louise believes that she did nothing wrong and in no way caused the death of Matthew, and on the whole I do believe that she did not cause the skull fracture that eventually caused his death. However, both last night and in court, whenever Louise was asked a question that she did not want to answer or where the record showed that her lawyers version of what took place differed from that of the police, Louise simply answered that she did not remember. This gives me the impression that she was hiding something. In some respects concerning the media, I disagree with her concerning the conduct of the national press in the USA. I do not live in the Boston area, and therefore cannot comment on the conduct of the local press. The reports of her arrest and arraignment did not appear to be widely publicized nationally until her trial was taking place. In fact I knew nothing of her circumstances until I returned home to the Wirral in June of last year for a short stay. It was at this point that I began to take an interest in her predicament. Cameras in the courtroom in the USA are there totally at the discretion of the presiding judge, and trials are in fact televised on a special Court TV network. It is only when the "Press" get involved that most people even bother to tune into the network. Many of my American friends have approached me this week to ask me my feelings on Louise's return home. The people that have spoken to me are of the opinion that Louise did not cause Matthew's death and that she was wrongly accused. Some have even ventured to suggest that sibling rivalry may have played a part in the cause of the injuries, and that further investigation into the habits of the household in warranted.
John Hilton

Watched with interest the interview. After extensive media coverage here in Canada, on our TV etc. but also being bombarded from the States with it I still have my doubts as to whether she is innocent. After all, most convicted people deny, deny, deny! However, not only do I have my doubts about her but I think the parents expected far too much from an 18 years old. I don't suppose she was even especially trained by the agency. Louise said in the interview that both parents seemed guilty about leaving the children for such long periods - well, why did they do it? Particularly with such a young person. People with their qualifications should surely know better and should have engaged someone with more experience to look after the children. Also, with two so young, what was the mother doing out at work anyway? They can't be hard-up! The early years of children are so precious really to parents and fly past so quickly, the mother should have put her career on hold until both children were older. I am quite sure an optometrist can pick up where she left off without too much inconvenience. I could add, but its not nice, that the rate people are using computers and will in the future, her services in connection with people's eyesight will be more and more required, she will be sitting on a gold mine. But, she had the kids, she and her husband were perhaps "cheap" and also irresponsible leaving such young boys with an 18 years old. That's all - thanks for letting me spout off. Incidentally I thought watching the programme on my comp. was just great - what a marvel Internet is.
Marion Andrew (a 72 years old ex-Yorkshire lass, living here in Ontario, Canada for 42 years, but still oh so British!)

I have been very interested in this case and was looking forward to seeing this interview. I do believe that Louise got the verdict she deserved she should consider herself very lucky that judge Zobel had the heart to let her go home. Louise you should now put all behind you and get on with your life don't go chasing this hope of being cleared because as you said yourself you know the American legal system. I wish you all the best for the future.
Niamh O'Sullivan

I watched the interview last night (c/o BFBS Cyprus). I found the whole thing totally tasteless and ill-conceived. Woodward, at times, looked like the cat that had got the cream, not a young girl traumatised by a tragic incident. I am still not convinced of her innocence or guilt, but feel that the Panorama interview was not a suitable vehicle for receiving her versions of events. The setting, and staging actually made me quite hostile towards her, and her manner and attitude were so polished and considered that I felt I was watching a carefully rehearsed performance. I think that both the BBC and Ms Woodward have made an error of judgement in creating this documentary.
Mrs Patricia Dobson, Limassol, Cyprus

What a performance! She seems to me a very cunning young woman that knows exactly what she is doing. She showed absolutely no remorse at all for what she did. But I guess that we are wrong for watching it and making her believe that anyone actually cares what she thinks.
E James, England

I have not seen the interview myself, but simply judging from the reaction of the general public, which seems very mixed, there is doubt about Louise Woodward's guilt, even of manslaughter. I feel that the intensive coverage of the trial hasn't helped either, with the U.S. press screaming about her guilt even before the trial was finished. It seems to me that the injuries the child suffered had to be caused by either Louise Woodward or the child's parents, if it wasn't Louise Woodward it must have been the parents, but no would accept that such a respectable middle class American couple could do something like this, so a young foreign national, Louise Woodward, had to be convicted instead. I believe there has been a lot of prejudice involved in this, with the American public and the jury almost bullied into believing Louise Woodward guilty by the American press, and now a refusal to admit that the court got it wrong. This is no longer about Mathew Eappen's death, but whether or not a young woman has been falsley convicted because the interaction between the American press and legal system is fundamentaly flawed.
D Fish, England

I watched almost all of the interview, and felt compelled to believe Ms. Woodward. It's very hard to imagine that one would volunteer to be interviewed on national TV, speak with such seeming integrity, and be lying so coldly. She sounded thoroughly convinced of her innocence. I realize that that isn't proof enough. I wouldn't want to have to judge her, though, since only she and the possible other perpetrator actually know for certain of her innocence. I'd just hate to see an innocent woman have to bear such a burden and stigma for the remainder of her life unduly.
Lee Page, Orlando, FL USA

Having watched the interview I'm still convinced Woodward should not have been convicted. How Matthew's injury was sustained is, and will probably remain, a mystery. But after reading Judge Zobel's and the higher court's decisions, and other reports, I'm certain there's more than a reasonable doubt about whether Woodward was responsible for the death. Watching the interview my impression was that Woodward was more intelligent and sensible than I had imagined, and that what she said had the ring of truth about it. Whether she was wise to do the interview is debatable. But she will be criticised whatever she does, and her desire to get her side of the matter heard is understandable.
Stuart Duncan, Christchurch, New Zealand

It is astonishing that the British people and the British media, including the BBC, have chosen to glorify the return of a convicted child killer. I do not understand why the people do not show respect to the verdict handed down by a jury who has a chance to hear all the evidence and Louise's own denial. The fact still remains that the jury convicted her of murder and the judge reduced the conviction to manslaughter. Congratulations! BBC, by broadcasting the interview of a convicted child killer, you have joined the ranks of other sleezy media around the world. Finally the BBC has demonstrated to the world and particularly USA that it is no longer a responsible and respected news medium. I wish someone in the British press would point out that there are no winners in the case. One child is dead and a convicted teen is being glorified by the British people and the media, thus denying her a chance to seek help, and express remorse over her despicable actions.
Alok Maskara, Albuquerque, NM. USA

Americans hate to admit failure. They hate to see someone they perceive as "less" than themselves hold a kind of respect over them. I personally believe that Ms. Woodward did not kill that baby. The parents were busy making too much money to take personal care of their baby. If the autopsy revealed that the dead baby had fractures on his skull not caused as a result of any shaking done by Woodward, who else are we to believe? Americans, mostly, hate to own up to defeats. The British lady is guilty. The only way we will learn the truth is the day the Eappen family have a personal vendetta against themselves. Then, the truth will come out in Ms. Woodward's favour. This young lady should be allowed to live her life freely and with good conscience. If the same justice system that the Eappens took Woodward to failed to find her guilty, why take the fight outside the court. This lady is not guilty and the issue should remain at that. All this hollering will amount to nothing. Let the Eappens forget and move on with their lives. God has been faithful he even gave them another baby so soon! They should remain grateful to God, continue with their lives and leave Louise alone for goodness' sake.
Taiwo J, California

I feel that it was altogether inappropriate for her to have given an interview at all, let alone to blame the grieving parents. I don't know who was to blame, and as she pointed out, someone had to be responsible, whether it was she or the parents of baby Matthew. I believe she should just be grateful for the better than expected results after her conviction, and have the dignity to keep quiet and let everyone get on with their lives. I hope that the Woodward family never has the "cheek" to try and profit any more than they already may have from this altogether sad affair.
Thomas Dungan, Londonderry, NH, USA

I saw the Louise Woodward Panorama interview last night. Before the interview I was of the opinion that she was probably innocent. I thought she was a victim of the hype surrounding the trial, and parents who were just trying to come to terms with their own feelings of guilt at employing an au pair instead of a nanny. Now I am not so sure. She came across as someone who was more concerned with calling her friends during the day-time and enjoying herself, than someone whom one would entrust with the care of a small child. I expect that the realities of being an au pair did not meet with her expectations. I know I wouldn't like being stuck in the house with two small children to take care of, and I am a lot older than she is. I can see how she might have lost her temper and shaken the baby through sheer frustration, without any intention whatsoever of causing any harm. It is a shame that au pairs are often expected to look after small babies. In spite of this, I don't blame the Eappens, they sound like responsible parents who really did not want to leave their children in the care of an au pair. Even though they are both doctors they are probably still paying off large student loans and may not have been able to afford a live-in nanny. It is a tragedy where Louise Woodward should be grateful that she only served 9 months, which after all isn't a long time when one considers that a child in her care died in such suspicious circumstances. I don't think she is malicious or would hurt a child on purpose, she was just too young and inexperienced to have had such large responsibilities. I hope she just gets on with her life and that the Eappens can do the same.
Ms. Emmerson, UK

After the interview I feel much as I felt before ... which is that Louise may well have killed baby Matthew by shaking him, but so may either of his parents (or anyone else there). Either way it was a ghastly, tragic accident. HOWEVER, I have changed my mind about one thing. Before the interview I believed it was a genuine accident for which Louise must necessarily feel remorse and guilt. After the interview, I am surprised by how little emotion Louise seemed to feel about anything. She says "I loved that baby" in the voice of Robbie the Robot. She is either still suffering from shock or she is a particularly cold blooded individual who really does not care that Matthew is dead, only that we should believe that she cares. I watched some of the trial on TV and think the only genuine emotion she ever displayed was when the jury pronounced her guilty .... and that was emotion for herself. We will never know whether or not she killed Matthew and, to be fair, given the nature of his death Louise may not know herself.
Fiona, London, England

I have worked in the field of child abuse prevention for 15 years. Most of my work has been non-punitive, helping abusive parents to understand why they resort to physical abuse and how they can change. There is no doubt in my mind that Louise did unintentionally kill the baby under her care. The "shaken baby syndrome", or "whiplash shaken infant syndrome", frequently results in serious injury or death even though the abuser did not understand the consequences of their actions. Louise fits the pattern: she is young, immature, and likely lost control and in a fit of anger shook the baby hard enough to kill (it only takes 20 seconds of shaking to inflict serious brain damage). The real problem I have is with her continued denial.
Andrew Kogerma, US

It's hard to know where the truth lays, but given the history of United States, I do not believe there is justice for many accused within the US legal system, and would consequently give the benefit of the doubt to Louise over a faulty US legal system that seems more concerned with its television image than fairness and justice for accuseds.
Paul Robertson, Korea

Louise Woodward is not a well rehearsed actress. She is a person who freezes under stress and doesn't show emotions. Anyone who has been observing her over the months should have noticed that she always looks composed. She can't help it. Joe Public thinks anyone who avoids eye contact and doesn't show feelings is cold, calculating and guilty as hell. Nonsense! Any number of people have appeared distraught who were later proved to be murderers. If she were a good actress, she would show more not less feelings. Whether she caused Matthew's death we will never know but most legal professionals would admit that there is enough reasonable doubt in the evidence to make a conviction marginal.
Michael Heath, Southampton UK

I am thousand of miles from Massachusets and the UK but as an American Police Officer of 19 years. I am appalled with the news accounts of persons living in the Village of Elton celebrating the return of Louise Woodward. It looked as if she was treated as a hostage returning from Iran or some other Middle East country. Now she is being treated with the same celebrity status as Princess Diana. It is frightening. The only other time I have been so dissapointed in my fellow man is when I witnessed Black Americans celebrate the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. I can only say to the British people please watch out for Ms. Woodward and do not let such a heinous act happen again.
Bart Terrell, Dallas, Texas USA

Being an American, I have only been able to see portions of Louise Woodward's interview. I found all of her remarks to be consistent with someone who was falsely accused and convicted of murdering a child. While I believe that Ms. Woodward received a fair trial, I also believe that the jury made a terrible mistake - it does happen, sometimes. At least one alternate juror also believes them to be in error and he would have prevented the guilty verdict but for the random selection that made his judgement inconsequential. It is important to note that Judge Zobel and the Court of Appeals did not reaffirm the jury's (mis)interpretation of the evidence, they merely deferred to it as the law required.
Roger Cohen, US

How dare you give Louise Woodward the time to say anything. This person killed a human being that could not defend itself and you guys act like it's the second coming of the Beatles. There is no feeling for her here in America except in the fact that she should have spent some time in prison. If the judge in the case had any guts she would be in prison but our system failed in this case to do justice and this judge should be removed from office. People in England find joy in the fact she's home and yet a baby died by this woman's hand. With all your pomp and royal attitude that seems to sustain you in to thinking that somehow she has been maligned, perhaps you'll find the time to talk to the baby's parents, talk to the police officers. So pop champagne, celebrate her homecoming, speak badly of the American justice system, say that her conviction is an injustice, but when all is said and done she is what she is. I've never had anything against the English people, but now I find that you are full of it, and take yourself far too serious in the course of human events. Don't judge us Americans or our system of law, we saved your butts twice in world wars, but I as an American will say on Louise our system of justice failed. She should be spending life in prison period.
Dominic Faletti, US

There is only one salient point which needs consideration at this stage as it covers every issue from subsequent financial gain to Miss Woodward's freedom. Very simply, the perpetual discussion and debate highlights the fact that there is a reasonable doubt as to her guilt. In western law, this is grounds for dismissal of a prosecution and must underpin the final verdict, firstly from the judge and now from the appeal. The irregularity of the sentence and the verdict are a matter for the American judicial system.
James Fletcher, UK

It's disgusting that a convicted child killer should be granted an interview to air her personal grievances. The fact that she blamed the child's parents is even more hideous. If the Boston police thought the parents were responsible wouldn't they have been arrested and charged? And wouldn't social services have removed their other children from them? I am an ex-British police officer living in the States and have found the American Justice system far better than the British Justice system and I feel that this case was dealt with correctly. I think Louise Woodward is a bare faced liar and the BBC ought to be ashamed of themselves for giving her this opportunity. We mustn't forget about the baby Louise murdered and the parents who have been left to suffer.
Karen Mortensen

Regardless of the content of the interview, the comparison of Louise Woodward with Princess Diana is sickening. Miss Woodward's dark suit was smart and sombre - she could not have worn anything more appropriate for the occasion. Princess Diana was not the first person to wear a dark suit and she won't be the last. Miss Woodward's pose was a classic interview pose and I am sure she was coached on how to hold herself. Princess Diana was not the first person to sit like that and she won't be the last. The world did not begin with Princess Diana and, with the understandable exception of her grieving family, it certainly did not end with her. As many astute American commentators said shortly after her death - history will show Princess Diana to be a romantic curiosity: nothing more. And as for Louise Woodward, responsible journalists should concentrate on what she has to say, what Matthew Eappen's family has to say and what medical evidence shows.
Rachel Webb, British now linving in the US

I thought LW's performance was too polished and rehearsed. She was only back in England a few days and instead of being grateful to be back with her family, she's appearing on TV with her new hair-do and smart suit. Doesn't she realise how inappropriate her whole image was? Her coldness and self-assured answers were particularly unnerving. One thing I found particularly condescending of her though was when she said the "lay" people in the jury didn't understand the doctors' descriptions of the baby's injuries. Her arrogance is amazing.
Jane Wheatley, Belgium

The BBC has in my and others' opinion stooped to a new low. The BBC has not only insulted the people who watched the Panorama programme but hurt feelings of all who tuned in to Princess Diana's lnterview with your Bashir. The similarity in set-up was astounding. Louise was set up to look very innocent, angles of the camera were deliberately set up for that. That monster was a baby killer. Do not lend legitimacy to her false cause. The BBC is no more an organ of integrity that it has claimed over the years. ln my opinion, damage control is out of the question.
Alnoor Velji, Toronto, Canada

Why should Louise not be able to tell her side of the story? Whether she is innocent or guilty (and I personally don't think she is guilty of murder or manslaughter, but may have been irritated with a crying baby - as many 18 year-olds would) she is surely entitled to give her ideas and to defend herself without being terrified that something that she says will be picked up and used against her - as was her saying that she had 'popped' Matthew on the bed! Everyone is entitled to be able to have their say - Louise and the Eppens both. I feel for both sides, as I have two children (now adults) and can remember how awful it was when they cried and cried for no apparent reason - and they were my own children, and I was in my late twenties and had a lot more experience than Louise! One of them almost went to America as an au pair - I'm VERY glad that he didn't!!
Sue Walsgrove, Stourport-on-Severn

The release of Louise Woodward from jail was a travesty. Let people remember that the American Medical Association (AMA) issued a statement refuting the claims of the defense lawyers, based on the medical findings in baby Matthew's autopsy. Babies simply do not develop cerebral damage, as was seen, on their own. And it's not something that can be done and have its repercussions felt several weeks later. The facts are there in the coroner's office. Louise shook Matthew to death. As a mother, I understand the frustration one may feel when a baby is crying and you cannot get it to settle down - but most of us have a maturity that keeps us from doing harm to the child. Perhaps the point can be made that Louise was too young and too immature to care for a baby. Certainly, however, she would have gained that maturity spending several years in prison instead of being treated like a heroine. I predict that the young lady has learned nothing from her trials and will always view any ill in her life as the fault of others. She is a spoiled little girl who knows naught of responsibility - I fear for any child that she may have in the future.
Stephanie A. Richer, Santa Ana, California, USA

I wish you all would drop this story. It doesn't deserve the media attention that it's receiving. I think it's revolting. It seems to me this is a typical case of an immature person being caught in a bad situation and not being able to take any responsibility for her actions. Unfortunately, this is too often true of young people today. The truth in this case will probably never come out and I think that the responsibilty lies in several places.
Mary-Anne Helms, USA

A Princess Diana style presentation of a convicted murderer has tainted the glory of the world's most respected news agency. It shows inability and unwillingness to recognize personalities as social elements. What a shame.
Valsan

I have no doubt in my mind that Louise Woodward is guilty, the jurors and the Supreme Court have no doubt. Why on this earth was she allowed home? I watched the trial everyday and I saw her eyes and her face that she was obviously guilty and so did the jurors. When I saw the Panorama interview it seemed so obvious that she was guilty and I bet the interviewer knew that too. She could not look him in the eyes and say that she did not kill that poor baby. As the coverage continues in this case, I see more and more that this woman is cold hearted. She has no sympathy for the Eappen family or for that poor dead baby.
Louise McKenna

I have watched this case with immense interest over the last year and find it difficult to see how a jury could have reached a guilty verdict. I am a parent of three children, one of whom sadly died at a young age, and can understand the trauma felt by the Eappen family. However, it seems obvious that Judge Zobbel realised that the overwhelming evidence pointed to a not guilty verdict, and his overturning of the jury's verdict clearly pointed to that. I have no doubt that Loiuise Woodward will eventually be cleared, and I hope that the Eappen family will be as apologetic then, in contrast to the current vitriol emmanating from that quarter. It seems odd that a family that wants to start a new chapter in their lives should rush to the civil courtroom within hours of the SJC ruling. It is also an act which in itself will probalby force Louise Woodward to sell her story, and possibly ensure that she profits from a crime that she never commited. What a sad scenario.
Bryn Davies, England

As a child health professional, I watched the interview with interest and was struck by how emotionally cold Louise was. She showed no emotion about the baby's death, or her time caring for him. Her account was detailed in places, and remarkably forgetful in others; her immaturity was at the forefront of much of her dismissal of her responsibilities as an au pair. By the end of the interview I was firmly convinced that she was responsible for the death of Matthew Eappen.
Dr A Davies, UK

As a mother who lost a son in infancy in a horrific accident I can sympathize with the parents of baby Matthew. As a mother whose 20 year old daughter took a nannying job to three small children from a wealthy family, and was expected to do housework and schoolruns as well as caring for the children, I sympathize with any young girl expected to care for tiny babies and all the relevant responsibilities. The greed, ambition and sheer idiocy of any professional leaving their child in such unsuitable hands is beyond my comprehension. However, they are left with the sadness of their loss. What Louise should have been left with is a contrite, sincere sense of atonement. What we saw was a contrived, rehearsed, polished and manipulative sleek cat. Her cynical exploitation of this whole bleak and sorry mess fills me with horror. Shame on you BBC - there is no excuse for this glossy type of interview, it showed and revealed nothing except that Martin is inept, you are letting us down by being manipulated and we are left with the disgust of a "fatuous film star type treatment" of no depth or moral fibre.
Sheila Papa

I don't think she intentionally went to kill the child. The whole story now has gone on too long and has been over glamorised.
Maria, UK

Having watched the Panorama interview last night, I am still not convinced as to Louise's guilt. Her performance was polished, and her responses well rehearsed - as you would expect having gone through a media orientated legal process lasting over two years. No new evidence was presented last night. However, I am glad that Louise was given the opportunity to air her views in the UK - we seem to be under an almost daily barrage of arguments, claims and views from the Eappen family and their supporters. The medical evidence will no doubt be contested ad infinitum by 'experts' acting on behalf of both parties. My understanding of this leads me to believe that any person in contact with baby Eappen in the days prior to the hospital admittance could have caused the original injury - which was probably exacerbated when Louise tried to resuscitate him. It is clear that both parties in this sad affair have suffered a great deal - both have lost a loved child, and both have suffered by going through the courts. The Eappens claim that last night's interview caused a setback in their recovery - yet they are adamant in bringing about another civil court case, so perhaps this complaint should be ignored. Surely, it's about time that both parties put this incident behind them - they've both had their opportunities to put forward their views. The case has been closed. All appeals have been heard and finalised. So apart from money, what is there to be gained?
Ian Duckfield, UK

As a licence fee payer I believe the BBC made a big mistake interviewing LW so soon after her conviction for manslaughter. As usual there will be many out there who believe that LW had every right to state HER point - sadly she failed to achieve this in HER well rehearsed and pre-planned 45 minute denial. I trust the BBC will now ensure Panorama once again meets the high standards it is known for and cease the search for sensationalism that the tabloid media pedal.
Robert Prior, UK

It was a good objective interview. The trial was obviously fair. The judge made an excellent decision. No one will ever know the truth The parents seem to have over-reacted out of a sense of guilt. What would have happened if the parents were at home that day ? They certainly wouldn't be convicted of murder.
Malcolm Turnbull, UK

I'm very glad Louise Woodward agreed to give the interview which I think was conducted well. Now I feel quite sure that Louise was guilty, not of murder but of manslaughter. It is time that she stopped lying and admitted her guilt. I also feel that the Eappens should have known better than to entrust their child to such a naive and unexperienced young girl.
M Hannavy, UK

The fact that the BBC broadcast this interview is a disgrace. Louise Woodward has been found guilty of killing Matthew Eappen by an American Court. She got a fair trial in a democratic country. A country in which it is far harder to convict than in Britain. I honestly could not even bear to watch the programme. Not because of any religious or moral stand point, but because I kept thinking of the parents of that baby watching this programme. If the table's were turned, and an American nanny had been tried in England and released to America, there would be outrage over an interview like this. And rightly so.
Stephen Devlin, Northern Ireland

She gave a good interview and certainly didn't 'sound' guilty. She made a good point about the need to 'blame' and make someone pay. It is worth remembering that just because a person has been convicted of a crime in a court of law, it doesn't necessarily follow that they are guilty. OK, I understand that our own prisons are full of 'innocent' people, but there have been many serious cases in this country where the wrong people have been imprisoned - this in itself is a terrible crime. I don't know if Louise is innocent or guilty - I don't even know if anybody has committed a crime in this case. I do know that whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for the Eappen family over the loss of their child, it is usually the case that the best person to look after a child is its mother or father - particularly where one of them has a good enough job to allow this to happen. This case is a reminder to all parents that paying and expecting someone else to look after your child (especially a teenager) is not really the best way to meet your responsibilities.
Paul Smith, UK

Before the BBC interview, as I listened to Louise Woodward, I wondered how long it had taken her to memorize her spontaneous speech. She and her attorney made it very clear how stupid everyone was not to take the word of their hired guns. "They didn't understand my evidence." Oh? Gretta Van Susteran, the highly respected legal spokesperson on CNN, said that Louise Woodward was one of the luckiest defendants to pass through our criminal system.
John E Smith

It is disappointing that the Panorama programme didn't show anything new regarding the case. I believe the body language was edited out of the programme. In the THIS MORNING programme, there was a picture of LW touching her lips which was not present in the programme. Furthermore Louise Woodward avoided eye contact most of the time during the interview when she denied any incriminating actions. I think it was far more likely that Louise banged the baby's head which leads to the baby not breathing, than the account given by her that she tried to resusucitate a choked baby. Regardless of what actually happened, ultimately Louise Woodward was responsible. She should have guarded the children when they were under her care. A choked baby by any definition points to failure of care, so is an accidental fall leading to any harm. Especially when somebody should be watching a baby. So, whether the injuries happened a few weeks ago is irrelevant. If the parents were present during a fall, the first thing they would have done was either to take the baby to hospital or to observe the baby closely. The alleged deterioration of the baby's mood in the preceding 48 hours would not be missed by the parents. The defence expert witnesses' account received disproportionate publicity. It is a shame that the expert account from the prosecution was not publicised enough. The baby was kept alive on a ventilator for a number of days. Surely that would have allowed some healing to take place which was interpreted, and hammered by the defence as indicating an old injury. Looking at any tissue specimen in isolation can only lead to misintepretation. An expert review in the recent issue of New England Journal of Medicine indicated that "Shaken-Impact Syndrome" is uniformedly associated with an acute deterioration rather than a baby capable of leading a normal life for weeks. In the case of LW, lying paid off. If she was honest, she would have been in jail much longer. It is ironic isn't it?
Pitt, UK

This Woman/Girl killed a human being, why are we giving her the press, and therefore glorifying her "accomplishment". My God, this is so ridiculous, it defies imagination. All of you people that will want to participate in her "money making" scheme of this travesty, (as she should realise) are truly a joke. Hopefully you are from another country, but as history has proven, you are all from the same "club" / "fraternity" whatever.
Randy