The Search for Justice in a Media Age

Reading Stephen Lawrence and Louise Woodward

Siobhan Holohan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351145381
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Derecho
• Subtopic: Conflicto de leyes

What can we learn from the legal cases of Stephen Lawrence and Louise Woodward? How do the legal system and the media contribute to a collective understanding of class, nation, race and gender? In this book, Siobhan Holohan explores media representations of law and order in the context of notions of multi-culturalism and victim-centred politics. Two high profile cases - the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the US trial of the British au-pair, Louise Woodward - are examined. Holohan argues that the stories built up around Woodward and Lawrence - the organization of public discourse around a sacrificial figure - have contributed to exclusionary patterns of social order. The book offers a perceptive account of what makes some criminal legal cases prone to scrutiny and spectacle and provides a vivid illustration of the presence of power relations in legal decisions. In conclusion, the author draws on the model of the Macpherson report to propose a more inclusive form of social and legal judgement that takes into account social inequalities.

Part I
Gender and Power

Chapter One
The Family as Moral Centre of Social Organization

In the autumn of 1997 the British public were alerted by a television documentary¹ to a murder case being tried in the Massachusetts courts. The Big Story: Presumed Guilty featured the story of Louise Woodward, a British teenager working as an au pair for Sunil and Deborah Eappen in their suburban Newton Highlands home, just outside Boston. In February that year Woodward had been charged with murder after the suspicious death of the Eappens' eight-and-a-half month-old son, Matthew, who together with their older son had been in Woodward's care. The broadsheet press in this country and the American news media had been following events since the case began. However, the airing of The Big Story a few days before the trial commenced ensured that the British tabloid press and their readership (presuming her to be innocent) championed Woodward's cause with a zeal that provided a nationalist backdrop to a case that had already engendered debates about the state of working families, childcare, and perhaps more surprisingly the apparent divisions between a British and American sense of justice. The ensuing trial that played out in the courts, in the American and British news media as well as on Court TV (known in America for its live coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial two years prior to this event) for a time captivated two nations caught up in the unfolding drama.

In much the same way that the O.J. Simpson trial took place under the constant glare of the media's gaze, the Woodward case began to take the form of media spectacle discussed by writers such as Debord (1967/1994), Baudrillard (1983), and Postman (1986).² For example, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman shows how any socio-political motives underlying an event discussed by media institutions become subsumed by the spectacle that claims to represent them. As a consequence the audience is far more aware of the narrative of the story than the political debates surrounding it. This highlights a fascination with the judicial process in media-saturated cases such as Louise Woodward's trial, which underlines an understanding of the fictional mechanisms at play, rather than any concern with the notion of truth content. Thus, much like the on-going storyline of a soap opera, as the case unfolds parallel narratives develop, characters emerge, and allegiances are formed.

In this chapter I will read the Woodward case against narratives of familial fragmentation that developed in its wake. Referring to media articulations of the case I want to present a picture of how the Woodward case became subject to symbolic re-ordering. In terms of a theory of the spectacle it is necessary to outline the events that led up to Woodward's trial and subsequent conviction for second-degree murder. As such, I will elaborate on the socio-political significance of the media representations in greater detail in the next chapter. In this section I will show how the media representation does not articulate a debate in the process of being decided but rather an argument that has been given meaning retrospectively. In other words, the debate is 'closed off' to certain readings because its outcome has already been decided (Baudrillard, 1995). Furthermore, I will describe the public sphere debates that emerged as a direct result of the media exposure of the case and relate this to Judge Zobel's reduction of the charges and sentence - these being the events that, I will argue, became pivotal points in the 'shaken baby' media spectacle.

Here, my suggestion is that the subject's guilt of innocence is an inconsequential aside to a mechanism of regulation and sacrifice (Girard, 1986). Therefore, this chapter aims to outline the events of the Woodward case and discuss them in relation to the discourse that dominated media coverage and contributed to the public understanding of the case (i.e. family values and domestic labour). Chapter two will consider how these symbols were discursively reordered in order to resume a dominant ideological perspective. The final chapter in this section will analyse the events and debates against a theoretical framework based on a model of mimetic desire discussed by Girard. This thesis will be read against a Freudian interpretation of the structural violence of the mechanism which necessitates the obscurity, or apparent absence, of the originary sacrifice (in this case Matthew Eappen). Importantly, chapter three will show how these two perspectives illustrate the process that saw Matthew Eappen become the symbolic sacrifice through which the dominant social order was able to reassert its own self-identity.

'The Nanny Murder Trial'

The case began on 4 February 1997 when Louise Woodward made a frantic telephone call to the emergency services. A taped recording of the telephone call later revealed that she was concerned about the erratic breathing of one of her charges, Matthew Eappen, the younger of Deborah and Sunil Eappen's two children. Woodward was 18 at the time and taking a gap year between school and university. By the time the story broke she had been with the Eappens for only two months since late November 1996. Her duties were normal to the job: taking care of the children and home during the day while the Eappens went out to work as doctors in local clinics. Prior to her appointment with the Eappens, Woodward had been employed in the home of another family since June 1996. This couple had decided to 'let her go' because of differences of opinion about the late hours that she kept. The Eappens paid Woodward $115.00 (£71.00) per week to look after their two children, Matthew, and two year-old Brendan.

According to various newspaper reports in the UK (e.g. Goodwin and Wark, The Times, 26 October 1997 and Kettle, The Guardian, 31 October 1997) and evidence from witness testimonies during the Woodward trial, the Eappens were also concerned about the late hours that their nanny kept and how it might affect her ability to look after two young children during the day. They became concerned that after late nights out with her friends she would be too tired to care for the children. As a consequence the Eappens initially wanted to impose a curfew upon Woodward, but this suggestion was met with resistance. After an unsuccessful trial period, where both parties agreed to see how things went without a curfew, on 30 January 1997 Sunil and Deborah Eappen gave Woodward an ultimatum. Through this ultimatum the Eappens imposed a written list of conditions that Woodward would have to abide by or else leave their service. It was the prosecution's contention that this incident was instrumental in Woodward's actions on the 4 February. They argued that Louise was so angered and frustrated at having to live in the suburbs and take care of two young children, rather than being allowed to stay out late with friends, that when confronted with a crying baby she intentionally - that is with malice and forethought³ - shook him and banged his head against a hard surface. The prosecution claimed that this action caused Matthew's death a few days later, in hospital on the 9 February 1997, from a brain haemorrhage resulting from a two-inch fracture to his skull.

After a trial lasting 24 days, on 30 October 1997 Woodward was found guilty of second-degree murder. She had been on remand since her arrest in February and now faced a mandatory life sentence, serving at least 15 to 20 years. The trial proceedings had not only been covered by the British and American press, but were also subject to Court TV treatment, where it was being showcased as 'The Nanny Murder Trial'. Over the course of the trial the jury and media audience heard prosecution and defence lawyers battle it out for discursive supremacy. But this was not a clear cut case. Woodward denied harming Matthew. There were no witnesses to the alleged assault and no physical evidence to prove that Woodward was responsible for the child's injuries. Her defence team argued that Matthew's injuries could have been caused at a much earlier date, and attempted to attribute the skull fracture, together with an earlier undiscovered break to his arm, to a genetic disorder which causes brittle bones. They continued by arguing that this medical pathology could result in undetected accidental fractures.⁴ In contrast, the police and Eappen family lawyers concluded that as Woodward was responsible for the children and the only person around when he appeared to have suffered his fatal injuries, she must ultimately be responsible for Matthew's death.

The initial outcome was met with horror by the tabloid press in the UK. They wanted to know how the American justice system could get it so wrong. Headlines in The Sun screamed: 'Off to Hell for 15 Years' and 'We Wept at Her Screams' (Coles, 1 November 1997). However, ten days after the trial had ended, Judge Zobel stunned many by overturning the jury's original verdict to guilty of involuntary manslaughter and commuting the sentence to time served. To add to the spectacular nature of the case, Zobel's decision was initially posted on the Internet, at the time a novel medium. It would seem that this decision would appease both camps: Woodward remained guilty, but it also acknowledged her victimary position. So, what was it about this case that made it hit the headlines in two nations and cause the breakdown of proper legal practice?

The Family Values Debate

Of the competing narratives being played out across the Atlantic, and between various media sources, the family values debate was prominent. The police officers who interviewed Woodward after Matthew's death were widely seen to condemn her for her part in the death of a child. One of the arresting officers, Detective Sergeant William Byrne, later sent an open e-mail to the BBC News Online Internet site stating his assertion of what he saw as 'absolute child abuse'. He wrote:

Why is it so hard for many people to realize that this is absolute child abuse? It happens every day here in America and in England. If this girl (Louise Woodward) were a big unattractive woman with no teeth and tattoos, would the public have had a different opinion as to whether or not she was guilty? (Byrne cited on BBC News Online, 1998).

In this e-mail sent to the website after the airing of Woodward's Panorama interview (which took place upon her return from Boston in June 1998) and in his earlier trial testimony, Byrne was adamant that Woodward was guilty of murdering Matthew Eappen. Like Byrne, many commentators from the American press felt aggrieved that she could walk free after being found guilty of crimes against the family. For many it seemed that this case justified fears that the absence of mothers from the home does harm to children (Robertson, 2000). Here, one can see how Woodward became an expendable figure in the debate about family structure that has dominated the end of the twentieth century. The competing debates that surrounded the Woodward case developed into an ideological discourse that in one way or another bemoaned the breakdown of the family. It is my suggestion that for the American public the Woodward/Eappen case became a matter of civic concern with fundamental family values.

To family researchers Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers (1996), the public's attitude toward Deborah Eappen came as a surprise because it controverted much of their research on dual-income families. This research showed that public opinion was becoming much more lenient towards mothers going out to work. In an article in The Boston Globe, one of the authors of the study was asked to comment on the Woodward/Eappen case. In response to the public's undeniable hostility towards both Woodward and Deborah Eappen, Rivers stated that the backlash against working mothers was directed at both parties because it "was about more than working parents. It was class, it was who pays for what, it was how much child care should cost" (cited in Canellos, The Boston Globe, 17 June 1998). In other words, although Woodward was often represented as the evil perpetrator of child abuse, the Eappens were also condemned for economically exploiting the hired help. From this point of view they were also held responsible for their child's death. This hostile response, which was particularly aimed at Matthew's mother, Deborah Eappen, was recorded on placards raised outside the courthouse. One banner read "One Less Baby, One More Volvo" (ibid.).

In this instance Woodward became a cipher for all that was going wrong with American civil society at the end of the twentieth century. The case and the response to it marked a backlash against feminism that saw working mothers as one of the prime movers in the breakdown of family values. According to Barnett and Rivers' account⁵ there is no evidence to suggest that the children of working parents suffer as a result of their parents' life and career choices. On the contrary, they argue that their data supports the idea that families who retain a more conventional home life (father at work, mother at home) are more likely to be poorer, less happy, and more prone to the kind of familial crisis that overspills the boundaries of the private sphere (juvenile crime, teenage pregnancy etc). Barnett and Rivers state that their study supports the actuality of the continued and successful emancipation of women. However, I want to argue that this evidence is premised on a study that upholds the exclusionary boundaries that continue to support capitalist ideology. At the beginning of their book the authors state that: 'the couples in our study were typical Americans, not some exotic breed. They were largely white and middle or working class; this book is not a picture of the urban poor or the underclass' (1996: 4 - my emphasis). By making this statement of intent, Barnett and Rivers underwrite an ideological imperative that seeks to hide social or cultural exclusion with academic evidence. They go on to argue that the modern marriage now consists of 'collaborative couples' rather than hierarchical relationships, asking: 'Can women have it all? Yes, if "all" is defined as having a good job and a reasonable family life. The authors of this book have just that' (ibid: 243). Forwarding claims of liberal equality for some (as long as the benefactors maintain strict family and economic structures), the authors secure a position of success for some and at the same time condemn others to a life of low-wage exploitation. In other words, by claiming that there is less stress on a family when both parents are able to work (because they are economically better off), the authors unquestioningly support the capitalist ideological imperative that necessarily relies on the exploitation of low-wage home-workers such as Woodward. However, through their reflections upon such research many writers in the American news media became worried about the anti-working mother sentiment expressed in the public response to the Woodward case. They rallied to the defence of working mothers. The consequence of this counter-response was the vilification of home-workers:

Trying to blame mom is beneath contempt. The words may sound extreme, but as killer nanny Louise Woodward heads for prison, the anti-mom sentiment is widespread and alarming. These are the facts: A grown woman has been found guilty of murder - the violent shaking of a defenceless baby too young to even call out in pain. Common sense would dictate locking the killer nanny in jail, then doing everything possible to help other parents avoid entrusting their children to unstable strangers with smiling faces. But we live in a time when sense is anything but common. A time when criminals call public-relations spin doctors before dialling their lawyers. And victims of violent crimes are routinely tarred as villains who simply got what they deserved (Peyser, New York Post, 1 November 1997).

Such media intervention, which aimed to tip the balance back in the favour of working mothers, would be admirable if it did not coincide with the denigration of those already in a degraded social and economic position. However, Brian Robertson (2000) does not blame the media for advancing this position, but criticizes the authors and researchers for allowing such a skewed vision of family life to enter the debate about social relations as a truth claim. Arguing that the science of sociology should remain detached from any ideological agenda, he maintains that the politics of individualistic fulfilment in late modern society has filtered into socio-cultural consciousness to the detriment of the family. Robertson argues that feminism is symmetrical with the business world because capitalism could only benefit from the feminist programme that sought to push women out of the private sphere and into the public world of work. He explains:

From child care to marriage law, the common thread running through the policy prescriptions of the new feminists and their allies in the business world - no matter what the rhetoric has emphasized - has been the transfer of women's loyalties from family to career. This has entailed weakening the bonds of the traditional family, particularly those that provide the economic and legal security necessary for married mothers to raise children in the home. It has also meant constructing a system of incentives to encourage and reward the workforce participation of married mothers and to make the choice of nonparental childcare more feasible (Robertson, 2000: 143).

This passage shows how capitalism fractures the organization of the traditional family by creating a situation whereby mothers are too heavily reliant on wage labour to care for their own children. In this regard Robertson suggests that the economy infects the institution of the family by pushing mothers into wage labour and creating a secondary economy of low-wage domestic workers who stand in for absent mothers. However, although Robertson's examination of the debate highlights the problem of the economic condition informing contemporary home life, his thesis seems to fall back on a similarly contentious axiom of family values. In other words, Robertson's position rests on an acceptance of the idea that the ideology of capital corrupts family life by encouraging women to work. Clearly the problem with the debate between Barnett and Rivers and Robertson is that neither proposition recognizes that both positions advance an equally conservative ideology. Each pole of the argument is contained within the bounds of a wider socio-political context. Both the drive to get everybody working and the will to maintain the traditional family structure are part of an ideology that sustains itself through the dialogue which these two paradoxical positions sustain.

Within the context of this debate it is possible to examine Louise Woodward as the scapegoat created by media reporters keen to articulate a moral commentary on family structures in late modern America. However, before the reader can understand Woodward from this position there...