Innocent by birth

Louise Woodward is innocent, her supporters say, because it is Deborah Eappen’s fault. What mother, they ask, puts her work before her child? What mother leaves her child in the care of a stranger? There is also the little problem of the rather young untrained nanny; and according to Louise’s supporters this is also Deborah Eappen’s fault since it was she who employed the “young” and “inexperienced” Louise, who was after all only taking a year off between school and university. Although criticism of the Eappens’ “life-style” is rather stronger in the US, those who believe that Louise Woodward did no wrong — not even accidentally — are happy to go along with vocal American moralisers.

As the Louise Woodward trial progressed a certain sharply spoken consensus about her innocence developed. The jury’s verdict was greeted with horror and derision. Newspapers’ favourite words when describing Louise, were “innocent”, “frightened”. As the waiting game for the Judge’s decision on the verdict goes on, the system is being portrayed as cruel. One newspaper, demanding that the judge make his decision quickly, said: “This whole tragic affair has already caused her enough mental turmoil, to which is now added the physical discomfort, and danger of her incarceration in Framingham prison. Common humanity demands that she be spared any more anguish about her fate.”

Every television station worth its name has its cameras focussed on the village of Elton, where Louise is from. The Free Louise Woodward campaign, with the requisite yellow ribbon as its symbol, is their campaign, the cameras tell Britain. The unwavering belief of the 6,000-odd residents of Elton in the innocence of one of their own, is projected as the view of the country. However, in all this post-Diana national emotional bonding, the voice of reason can be heard, if you care to look for it. One columnist tersely asked if Elton was a crime-free zone and that were people innocent, by virtue of being residents of this village. Another pointed out the litany of miscarriages of justice, that have made British justice look like a worn-out rag. Several women writers have wondered loudly why, despite enough evidence to the contrary, Britain believes in the implicit innocence of British women charged with crimes abroad.

But even the rational and reasonable point to other aspects of the case which give reason for discomfort. The court procedure itself is the most significant of these. Questions are being asked about something as central to British and American law as a jury trial. While it is accepted that Louise Woodward received a fair trial, they saw this for themselves courtesy the cameras, they feel that the jury got it all wrong. One handy explanation, from Woodward’s lawyer, is that the jury decided to “play Sherlock Holmes” instead of viewing the evidence placed before them”. Some British lawyers are outraged that the Judge refused to explain to the jury what “reasonable doubt” meant, and in so failing he had allowed an injustice to be done.

Early next week, Judge Zobel, will post his verdict on the Internet. In British eyes he will decide not only the fate of Louise Woodward but also of the American justice system.

The other country is hell

Two British nurses, Lucille Maclauchlan and Deborath Parry working in Saudi Arabia have been charged with the murder of another nurse who worked with them, the Australian Yvonne Gilford. The trial conducted according to sharia law, was based on the confessions given by the two women. The women were tried behind closed doors, the trial was conducted in Arabic and the verdict was death by public beheading for one and 8 years in prison and 500 lashes for the other.

While the women maintained they were innocent, the focus was on the brother of the murdered nurse, Frank Gilford. Sharia law lays an emphasis on clemency, and in the case of murder, it is the victim’s family that must decide whether the murderer dies or lives. The nurses’ Saudi Lawyer effectively bought clemency for his clients. Frank Gilford will be paid some Å“1 million in return for revoking the death sentence. The money will come from British businessmen with interests in Saudi Arabia.

In public discussions, on television, on radio and in newspapers, before Frank Gilford accepted the deal, the general verdict was that Saudi Arabia was a barbaric country with barbaric laws, and that two British women have been found guilty without recourse to proper justice. One rational voice pointed out that British nationals working in another country accept its laws and the risks that come with it, but this was drowned by the raucous clamour of `British is best’.

Few people seem bothered by the fact that Britain was never before troubled by the state of Saudi Arabia’s justice system, and happily profited from selling it arms. Nor did they ask why Britain’s royal family, the ultimate symbol of Britishness, was happy to hobnob with the descendants of Ibn Saud, who have made public beheadings a way of life.

Fewer still were bothered by the fact that the payment to Gilford proved nothing, and that at the end of the day no one will really know if Mclauchlan and Parry are really innocent.