Judge Reduces Louise Woodward's Murder Conviction; Au Pair Walks Free After 279 Days

06:21 AM, 12/06/2025

The 1997 case of British au pair Louise Woodward drew international attention after 8-month-old Matthew Eappen died of severe brain injuries while in her care. A jury convicted Woodward of second-degree murder, but on November 10, 1997 Judge Hiller Zobel reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter and sentenced her to the 279 days she had already served. Zobel wrote that her actions appeared to stem from "confusion" and "immaturity" rather than proven malice. The ruling divided public opinion and the case remains a touchstone for debates over medical evidence and legal standards in child-injury cases.

1997 Case That Gripped Two Nations

In February 1997, British au pair Louise Woodward was arrested after 8-month-old Matthew Eappen was found "barely breathing" in her care in Newton, Massachusetts. Doctors at Boston Children's Hospital diagnosed a skull fracture, a subdural hematoma and retinal hemorrhaging. Matthew was taken off life support on February 9; Woodward was arrested on February 5 and later charged with first-degree murder in March.

Trial, Conviction And Unexpected Turn

The trial divided public opinion. Prosecutors argued Woodward had acted violently and with malicious intent, while the defense presented medical testimony suggesting some injuries may have been older and possibly accidental. On October 30, 1997, a jury convicted Woodward of second-degree murder, a verdict that carried a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility after 15 years.

On November 10, 1997, Judge Hiller Zobel overturned the jury's verdict. In a detailed 16-page opinion he concluded the evidence did not establish malice and reduced the conviction to involuntary manslaughter, sentencing Woodward to the 279 days she had already spent in custody awaiting trial.

Judge's Reasoning And Reactions

Judge Zobel wrote that the record suggested Woodward acted out of "confusion" and "immaturity" rather than deliberate intent to kill. He quoted Woodward's testimony that, frustrated by an inconsolable baby, she had been "a little rough with him" — conduct the judge found tragic but not proven to be murderous.

The decision sparked strong reactions. Supporters in Britain rallied to Woodward's defense, while many in the United States, especially those close to the family, said the reduced sentence denied justice for the child. Matthew's maternal grandmother told reporters the community felt deeply disappointed by the court's outcome.

Aftermath And Legacy

Woodward has consistently maintained her innocence. In later years she gave a rare interview, worked as a salsa dance instructor, married and — according to reports — had a child in 2014. The case remains widely cited as an example of the legal and medical complexities that arise in prosecutions involving injuries to infants: contested expert testimony, sharply divided public opinion, and the judicial responsibility to weigh whether evidence proves criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why It Still Matters

The Woodward case highlighted how medical evidence, legal standards and public sentiment can collide in child-injury prosecutions. It continues to be studied and discussed in legal and medical circles as a reminder of the difficulties of attributing intent and timing to injuries in very young children.