Original subtitles

Did you ever hit Matthew eappen?

No.

Did you see Matthew eappen's head become injured?

No.

And did you slam Matthew eappen?

No.

Assess the aspiring little actress over there

and whether or not she told you the truth

when she said she did absolutely nothing to Matty eappen

on February 4th to cause his injuries.

Make your way through this high-priced defense production

and do one thing -- just find the truth.

Because the truth is

Louise woodward is responsible for killing Matty eappen.

It sent shock waves around the world,

and the repercussions are certain

to be felt for years to come.

When the children started talking about

robes and candles, you could see that it had to be satanic.

We are continuing to examine evidence,

following up on...

Wanted by the FBI

as a criminal instead of a victim.

...the shocker, it was stunning.

I have seen ambulances.

I cannot tell you if there have been any injuries.

It was an evil act of terror.

Deb and I met as undergraduates in college,

dated for six or seven years,

got married our fourth year of medical school.

We moved to Boston, started our residency.

We lived in a small house -- three-bedroom, one-bath house.

Two kids. Matthew was six months old.

Our other son, Brendan --

two years older than Matthew was.

We had an au pair that was not working out,

and we went into what they call transition.

We interviewed Ms. Woodward in November,

and she began with US, I believe, it was November 18th.

And we thought she looked like a great candidate.

She seemed to love children.

She had a lot of experience with a large family.

She seemed very lively.

Around 3:30 on February 4th,

I found him unresponsive in his crib.

He seemed off color.

His eyes were half closed...

And he wasn't breathing properly.

He was gasping for breath.

I tried to help him myself, tried to give cpr,

and then I called 911.

I was actually at work in somerville.

I got a page to our home number, followed by 111,

and that was a sign to call right away.

Louise answered.

She said, "Debbie, it's Matthew.

I think he's choked on his vomit."

I was totally stunned.

I -- I thought, "gee, we had just talked about cpr

and we had just talked about choking."

And, "did you do the abdominal thrust

and the back thrust like we talked about?"

And she said no.

Debbie called me and told me

that Matthew was gonna be brought to children's

and it looks like something's happened,

we're unsure as to what it was.

And I ran over there.

I actually beat the ambulance into the bay.

Matthew eappen had pressure on the brain,

and so this operation was performed on Matthew eappen,

the craniectomy, where they literally,

to relieve the intracranial pressure,

they penetrated the side of his head.

And there was one very telling thing that happened --

out spurted yellow serum.

It is written right there in the medical records,

"yellow serum."

That was a really telling piece of evidence

because the serum shows that it --

you know, it's an old injury.

That's extremely important.

But Matthew eappen was also suffering

from subdural and retinal hemorrhages --

what was known as the triad.

At the time, there was a belief,

and that is, if you had all these symptoms

in similar ways to Matthew eappen,

this meant that baby was shaken,

what they called shaken baby syndrome,

with the head snapping back and forth

for about a minute and a half.

This was supposedly all backed up by scientific studies.

And then, finally, there was a skull fracture

that supposedly must have come

from somebody slamming the baby's head

against a fixed, hard surface prior to the admission.

She never asked me how the child was doing.

She told me that she may have been a little rough with him,

or she was rough with him.

I distinctly remember her saying

the part that she was rough with the child.

She absolutely, absolutely told me

that she'd dropped that child.

That seemed to me as child abuse.

I couldn't believe it.

I couldn't believe that this woman that has been living

with US for three months could possibly do such a thing.

Whose mother had come and stayed with US,

whose parents were planning on coming back

and staying with US again.

You can't possibly imagine that someone can do that.

I mean, it's hard to look at the raw facts.

It's horrible.

18-year-old Louise woodward came here

from england in June.

Since November, she has cared for

two children of a Newton couple.

This morning, she was arraigned

for assaulting one of those children,

9-month-old Matthew eappen.

The doctors have indicated that it is absolutely

an inflicted injury that this child has suffered.

He has massive brain injury.

It is unclear at this point whether or not he will live.

He is in critical condition as of this morning.

We knew after surgery

that there was no way he could live.

We were being told that night that our baby was gonna die,

but he lived for five days.

He was -- he was unresponsive.

He was being kept alive by a ventilator.

Basically, the doctors pulled the tube.

Yeah, we were all there, and we all...

We all took turns holding him and just hugging him,

and then I just held him until he died.

I mean, he -- until his heart stopped.

They indicted her for first-degree murder.

If she suddenly flipped out

and slammed the baby's head that hard

against a fixed, hard surface

and shook the baby so hard

that the head was snapping back and forth

for a minute and a half --

if that were true, sure.

That would be an appropriate criminal charge to bring.

But that never happened.

In Boston, a childcare worker is behind bars

and a family is in mourning.

Nbc's rehema Ellis has a story

that should make parents think twice

about who's minding their children.

Louise woodward is accused of an unthinkable crime.

The 18-year-old British au pair is charged with the murder

of 9-month-old Matthew eappen.

The district attorney's office says woodward,

who was home alone with the baby and his 2-year-old sibling,

told police she was frustrated

because Matthew was cranky and fussy.

Woodward has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

I want to maintain my innocence

and say that I would never have hurt Matty,

that I never did hurt Matty,

and I don't know what happened to him.

I'm not responsible for his death.

I remember the details of the autopsy.

I've done over 25,000 autopsies in my career.

Certain ones stand out. This one does.

There was a fresh skull fracture in the back of the head.

People kept saying, "shaking, shaking, shaking."

And I kept saying, "you can't shake a skull fracture.

It's blunt head trauma.

Why are you complicating things?"

Anything that bad, a 2 1/2-inch skull fracture, that's it.

It's lights out. It's over.

As soon as it's inflicted,

a child will not be able to function properly immediately.

There's no lag at all.

And in this case, there was only one person

who could have done it, and it was Louise woodward.

And she killed this child, and that's it.

I met her at the institution

where she was incarcerated at the time, awaiting trial.

I found her to be perhaps a little bit withdrawn.

She was -- you know, she was in a very bad situation.

First question was, on February 4, 1997,

did you hit or strike Matthew on the head?

Her answer was no.

Second question -- on February 4, 1997,

did you deliberately hit Matthew's head

against a hard object or surface?

Answered no.

Third question -- other than trying to arouse him

on February 4, 1997,

did you injure Matthew by forcibly shaking him?

Answered no.

And the last question --

did you deliberately inflict the injuries

that resulted in Matthew's death?

Answered no.

Based on the polygraph,

the numerical scoring scale is such

that plus six or higher would be considered truthful,

and she obtained a score of plus 12.

So, she certainly passed the test

and appeared to be telling the truth.

The British are here.

Numerous journalists representing London-based media

here to report on the British au pair

facing charges of first-degree murder.

Every single one of the British television networks is here.

Every single one of the British newspapers is here.

In 1997,

I was the sun's New York correspondent,

and this case had a number of key elements to be a big story.

First of all, there is shaken baby syndrome,

and this was pretty strong stuff.

Using a doll, Dr. Robert Reece demonstrates

how severe shaking can cause terrible injuries

to a tiny, fragile brain,

the condition called shaken baby syndrome.

People who would never think of punching a child

would become so enraged that they could shake a child

and think that that's causing less damage.

Experts describe violent shaking as an insidious killer,

not well understood.

Because babies' neck muscles are so weak

and their brains so fragile,

just one forceful shake can do permanent damage or even kill.

At the epicenter of this huge story,

you've got two women in torment,

Deborah eappen and Louise woodward.

And, generally, in most big news stories that run and run,

you will have a woman in torment.

I think it is terrifying for anyone

that someone who looks "normal" or friendly

or, I hate to use stereotypes,

but a young, soft-spoken, British accent, intelligent girl

could harm your child.

It is terrifying to people, when in fact,

people who abuse children

look just like everybody else in the world.

They're not scary-looking.

Louise was born in a town in england called Elton,

near cheshire.

She had a pretty ordinary life.

Her dad was a carpenter,

and her mum, Susan, worked at a local college.

And Louise dreamed of getting to america.

So she joined a u.S. Agency called e.F. Au pair.

They gave her four days' training,

then placed her with a family, the eappens outside Boston.

And Louise was pretty much hired on the spot.

When Louise moved to Boston,

it was like she'd reached the promised land.

She loved the show "rent,"

which she went to see over 20 times with her mates.

She got a fake I.D., and she was partying pretty hard.

She's out till 12:00, 1:00, 2:00,

and that's leaving her pretty shattered the next morning.

So, this was causing the parents some consternation,

and they had a lot of scraps about it.

Deborah eappen also wasn't happy

that Louise was on the phone to her friends

and on the Internet and having showers

when she should have been looking after the kids.

I think what happened was

that she did get angry, and she was upset.

At something?

Well, a lot of things, not just Matthew.

But she was angry at US because we wanted her

to come home at a reasonable hour.

She was angry at US

because we didn't want her to be on the phone

for more than 10 minutes or 15 minutes

when she was at home with the kids.

You know, whatever irrational sort of reasons

that she was angry at US about,

she took it out on Matthew.

Enter into the proceeding

attorney Barry scheck of New York,

a specialist on DNA who Rose to fame in Los Angeles

in the celebrity trial of the century

as a member of the o.J. Simpson defense.

I met Louise when she was in prison.

She is so totally down to earth and normal.

A very bright, very gentle, very loving 19-year-old.

It made no sense whatsoever that she would suddenly,

you know, slam a child's head against a fixed, hard surface.

We all 100% believed her.

It was not even a close call, right?

And I had to go back to the drawing board

to understand the science and to prove

that the prosecution's theory of what happened was wrong.

It wasn't until I started seeing the news reports

of what was happening.

Then I thought, "well, this is a bit unfair."

One of the newspapers called her "the killer nanny,"

and I just thought she couldn't really get a fair trial.

We started doing the fundraising.

We were just inundated with just money --

money, letters...

Just letters and money just kept pouring in.

The primary purpose was to send Gary and sue to america

to be with their daughter.

What was a village campaign originally

has become a worldwide campaign in less than 24 hours,

and the response is quite overwhelming,

and we're not quite keeping up with it at the moment.

There's a sack full of mail here

that's literally just been delivered by the royal mail.

We've got journals being printed

by a group of young 19-year-olds.

There's a national newspaper

that have taken this up as a campaign

and have already donated a large sum of money.

I believe the fund currently, in less than 24 hours,

stands at over $100,000.

We've got people, total strangers, just coming in,

throwing money into our hands.

I didn't envisage that so much money would pour in.

It was phenomenal how much money came in.

What do we want? Justice!

When do we want it? Now!

And I must say, I think it was about $180,000.

I arranged for security core to come.

That's to collect the money to take to the bank every day.

Louise woodward looked as though she might have been

on her way to school or the mall,

except for the handcuffs and leg shackles.

The English teenager now faces life in prison

if a jury in Massachusetts agrees with prosecutors here

that she killed a 9-month-old baby in her care.

What we are saying this case is about is this --

on February 4th, the defendant, in a frustrated...

Resentful, unhappy attitude, due to a little baby crying,

forcibly slammed him against a hard object,

severely shook him until he was neurologically devastated,

causing his death.

Yesterday was an emotional day in a Massachusetts courtroom

at the murder trial of a young British nanny.

Nbc's pat Dawson reports.

Dr. Deborah eappen came to court

as a witness for the prosecution.

An interesting thing happened during the course of the trial.

You and your husband and your careers

became the focus of many people's attention.

At the time, how many days a week

was Debbie working, your wife?

Routinely, three days -- Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

Did you and your husband have to work that way?

Yes, we did.

You were portrayed, or interpreted, by some

as sort of yuppies who cared more about your careers

than your children.

In many ways, you and your husband were put on trial.

I think it's a way for people to say,

"this couldn't happen to US."

It's a way to say, "we're safe.

Something this family did caused this to happen to them."

I mean, I don't want to justify all our choices,

but I can say that we thought very carefully

about what we were doing

and who we were selecting to take care of our children.

The expert witness

that the prosecution used to rely on all the time

for pulling together all of the scientific evidence

in these kinds of cases was Dr. Patrick Barnes.

All morning, the doctor explained every frame

of Matthew eappen's cat scan results --

the swelling, the hemorrhaging, the tearing of blood vessels,

all of it irreversible brain damage done,

according to Barnes, deliberately.

My opinion is that this is the classic picture

of the acute or hyper acute shaken impact head injury

seen with non-accidental trauma.

Barnes was emphatic, making that point several times.

Were you there?

Easy.

Were you there, doctor? -Hey!

In my opinion, the hemorrhage --

doctor, I know what your opinion is.

Barry scheck exploding,

totally frustrated by prosecution expert

Dr. Patrick Barnes,

who wasn't budging an inch about anything,

including how much time he spent on this case.

Give me an estimate.

Maybe four or five total.

You put four or five hours of study into this?

Yes, and 20 years of experience.

Scheck's sarcastic, confrontational cross-examination

could not rattle the pediatric neuroradiologist.

Dr. Barnes, famously, has said

that during my cross-examination of him,

I asked him the question, "Dr. Barnes, were you there?"

And he didn't forget it.

He thought about it,

because these are all unwitnessed events,

and he said something extremely important.

But it was after the verdict in the woodward case.

My opinion is, is that all of the injuries

are attributable to child abuse

for this child to receive

the concomitant occipital fracture

as part of one of the intervals of this shaking assault

and impact to be exerted

in approximately the following fashion.

Powerful testimony from

one of the foremost pediatric experts in the country.

Newberger said the shaking and blunt trauma to Matthew eappen

occurred at the same time and that it was no accident.

As Louise woodward's father looked on,

newberger testified that eappen's head was struck

with enormous force.

This...shaking was of such a violent degree

that it would have required

as much energy as an adult could muster.

There was next-to-no doubt in my mind

that this infant was a victim of shaken baby syndrome.

It was a very powerful image.

Suddenly, the whole thing is much more comprehensible

to the jurors.

They can say, " this is what happened."

This guy seemed like america's leading expert

on shaken baby syndrome,

and if he says that's what happened to him

and he's giving you this amazing demonstration

of how a baby can be shaken to death,

then you are likely to believe him.

We knew the cause of death had to do with the skull fracture,

but the entire defense case said that this was an old injury,

about three weeks old.

I mentioned earlier

this operation performed on Matthew eappen,

the craniectomy, where the serum comes out,

which shows that it's an old injury.

That was just the first step.

Using cat scan results,

the defense's head trauma expert told the jury

Matthew eappen's brain injury was three to four weeks old.

Matthew eappen did not suffer a violent impact to the head,

and certainly not on February 4th.

It is weeks old.

I can't be very precise about it,

but two weeks or more.

And from a fifth defense expert,

the same opinions,

the neurosurgeon explaining the fracture was old

because the baby's head was already forming new bone.

I testified in the case,

and after a journalist said to me,

"can you summarize your thoughts about the trial

in a couple of sentences?"

And I said, "we gave them science,

and the prosecution gave them hysteria."

The skull fracture was pivotal to the defense case

because if it had not happened

on the day that Matthew went to hospital,

then Louise had no case to answer,

because it could have happened any other time,

and anyone could have done it,

from the parents to a family friend.

And so that was all the defense needed to prove,

that this skull fracture had not happened on her watch.

They claim that Louise woodward

took Matthew eappen and shook him,

shook him, shook him for a full minute.

Shook him.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is less than 10 seconds.

That never happened.

We had scientific evidence --

very, very strong scientific evidence --

that proved Dr. Newberger and the pediatricians

completely misunderstood the paper

that led them to believe that there was shaking.

And what happened during the course of this trial

is that we were fortunate enough

to have the money to go back and review this

with all the scientists that wrote the seminal papers.

So Dr. Ommaya came in and said it was ridiculous

to say that the baby had been shaken for a minute and a half,

with the neck snapping back and forth.

Testimony from the most impressive defense expert yet,

rhodes scholar, neurosurgeon,

pediatric brain injury specialist ayub ommaya.

This is my opinion, that this is a solid finding

of an older fracture.

And, ommaya added,

the baby was not violently shaken.

Essential part of shaking, if shaking is in place,

is damage to the neck.

Were there such injuries in this case?

There were no injuries in this case.

If you don't see those injuries to the neck,

you know, you really can't say that there's a mechanism of,

you know, severe shaking like this.

It's expected the defense case will now take a sharp turn

from days of dry medical testimony

to the trial's most dramatic witness,

the defendant herself.

One of the general rules

that criminal defense lawyers follow

is the best way to lose it

is to put the client on the witness stand,

because notwithstanding all that scientific evidence,

"do we believe her or not" becomes the only question,

right?

We had reached the conclusion as a defense team

that she shouldn't testify.

But she wanted to get on the stand and say what happened,

and so she did.

I call Louise woodward, your honor.

If you could just stand right here and face the jury.

Raise your right hand.

Mr. Carter.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony...

Shall be the truth,

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,

so help you god?

Step over here. Please be seated.

She had a habit of smiling at inappropriate times,

and it almost looked like it was

some sort of secret joke that she was having.

Did you ever...Hit Matthew eappen?

No.

Did you see Matthew eappen's head become injured?

No.

And did you slam Matthew eappen?

No.

And did you do anything to hurt Matthew eappen?

No, I didn't.

Her smirking,

certainly, it all falls within the prosecution's narrative,

really, that she's a schemer

and occasionally she lets her guard down

and you get a glimpse of this monster beneath,

where, you know -- who's smirking

that she's grilled about this baby's death.

Didn't you tell the Newton police officers,

specifically sergeant byrne that night,

that you dropped Matthew on the towels?

Didn't you tell him that?

Absolutely not.

Never used the word "drop"?

I did not.

Louise woodward held on to her story

that she never did anything to hurt Matthew eappen.

She also denied the baby's continuous crying

got the best of her.

Were you aggravated that you had to give

a fussy, crying baby a bath

on a day that wasn't your bath day?

No.

It didn't bother you at all?

No.

Remaining composed

as prosecutor Gerry Leone pressed her,

woodward's voice quivered only

when he went over her testimony about how she panicked

when the baby started gasping for breath as he went limp.

So you're waving, trying to get him to respond,

waving in front of his face, right?

Yes.

Screaming to him,

you're clapping in front of him,

trying to get Matthew to respond.

Yes.

And you panicked at that point,

so you shook Matthew, right?

Yes. You were in a panic.

You were panicking at that point, right?

Yes, I really was.

And the shake was a controlled shake of Matty,

very slow, right?

No, it wasn't like that.

Well, show US again.

It was kind of like that.

And you weren't angry or frustrated

with his crying that day?

I wasn't angry at him, no.

When Louise showed how she shook the baby,

it was quite a powerful moment

because, actually, what you think you're seeing

is this girl in the act of murdering the child.

This is how she did it.

You know, she was telling the truth.

She was a good witness.

She's a wonderful person. She's really smart.

But if she had never testified,

I think the chances of an acquittal

would have skyrocketed.

With only final arguments left,

judge hiller zobel gave Louise woodward

a difficult choice --

let the jury consider a lesser charge

of voluntary manslaughter,

or face charges of first- or second-degree murder,

which, while they carry the possibility of life in jail,

require the tougher standard of proving malice aforethought.

We explained to her

what the strategic considerations there were,

and she made the decision.

Woodward chose to accept the tougher charges,

hoping the jury will find reasonable doubt

that she willfully killed 8-month-old Matthew eappen.

Innocent people,

even when a case is going terribly,

they keep on thinking, "well, I'm innocent,

so, you know, I'll get acquitted."

They feel confident that,

if forced with the all or nothing,

the jury will have no choice but to say,

well, then, it's nothing.

But, yeah, it is a gamble. It's always a gamble.

Assess the aspiring little actress over there

and whether or not she told you the truth

when she said she did absolutely nothing to Matty eappen

on February 4th to cause his injuries.

Make your way through this high-priced defense production

with all the big blow-ups

and do one thing -- just find the truth.

Because the truth is,

Louise woodward is responsible for killing Matty eappen.

And then the jury went out,

and they were out for a very, very long time,

three days.

And the longer they were out,

the more you're thinking, "this is bad."

What do we want? Justice!

When do we want it? Now!

What do we want? Justice!

We were not supremely confident by any means.

We just knew that we had a very strong scientific case.

But the problem was that it was complicated

and it was all about brain science.

Members of the jury, how is your verdict,

as recorded by the court in indictment number 97433-001,

commonwealth vs. Louise woodward?

Is the defendant guilty or not guilty?

Wo guilty.

Guilty of what?

Guilty of murder in the second degree.

And it's like, "wow!"

And there's a few seconds' pause,

and I will never forget it.

It was the sound of Louise screaming.

Is this jury unconscious?

What trial were they watching?

They couldn't have been watching this trial.

We are obviously pleased and satisfied with the verdict.

I'd just like to underscore one point,

and that is this -- that my concern remains the same

as it was the first day I took this case over,

and that is with Debbie, sunny, and Brendan eappen,

that they're able to recover from all of this.

I can't do better.

I tried as hard as I could.

And you're asking me what went wrong.

I don't know what went wrong.

It's the worst verdict that I've ever experienced.

When I say that this jury failed Louise woodward,

what I mean is that this jury ignored the evidence

and did something that has nothing to do with the evidence.

And I don't know what that is.

It is 2:40 A.M.

At the local pub in Louise woodward's hometown

when the verdict comes down.

Wo guilty.

Shock quickly turns to anger.

It's just unbelievable.

How can they convict someone of that

when there's no evidence to suggest

that she's done anything?

I just want to maintain my innocence

and say that I would never have hurt Matty,

that I never did hurt Matty,

and I don't know what happened to him.

I'm not responsible for his death.

I hope god forgives her for what she did to Matthew eappen.

Outside the prison walls

where Louise has started her life sentence,

there's a hug from friends for her father, Gary,

as he and Louise's mother, Susan,

make their afternoon visit.

I won't stop fighting.

While I have breath in my body, I won't stop fighting for her.

'Cause she's innocent.

What we propose to do is proceed to a review

of what we regard as the unrefuted

and overwhelming scientific evidence in this case

in terms of both the required findings

and an interest of justice perspective.

Why shouldn't people respect

the opinion and the verdict rendered by this jury,

just as you urge people to respect the verdict

rendered by the jury in the o.J. Simpson case?

Well, because this verdict, frankly,

is against the weight of the evidence.

These things happen.

I've been on this program before

talking about cases that I've had the experience of

in the last four years.

32 of them were people who were convicted by juries,

a number of people on death row,

and subsequently science overturned those convictions.

Justice!

Wo when do we want it? Now!

Wo what do we want?

What about the baby?

Justice for that baby!

Everybody forgot about that poor baby.

"Louise, Louise, Louise."

There was a lot of speculation

about what was going to happen

and was this girl really gonna be facing 15 years inside?

Dan, good morning.

Let's quickly review the judge's options.

Well, the judge can order a new trial,

the judge can throw out the verdict altogether,

and the judge could let the verdict stand, of course,

and he could lower the charges.

That's the most realistic scenario for the defense.

That's what they're hoping for here,

is that the judge will reduce these charges

from second-degree murder to manslaughter.

And if that's the case, she could go free.

That's possible. She could get probation --

anywhere from probation to 20 years

if convicted of manslaughter.

If judge zobel does take some kind of action

and doesn't let this conviction stand,

how unusual will that be?

It would be unusual, but not unheard of.

At the heart of today's hearing --

how much discretion the trial judge has

in changing the decision of a jury.

One of the toughest choices in the law --

balancing the jury's choice and justice.

Judge zobel said that he'd deliver his judgment --

it was gonna be the first time this had ever been done.

He was gonna deliver his judgment on the Internet.

Zobel's order implied that the original indictment

of the English teenager

for first-degree murder was excessive.

And the judge clearly saw a different series of events

leading to the infant Matthew eappen's death.

While prosecutors accused Louise woodward

of shaking and slamming the child in a rage,

he said that while the girl's actions showed "confusion,

fright, and bad judgment," they were, "not malice."

The judge, in his opinion today, in his sentence,

indicated that he was ending this matter in a way

that he felt consistent with the law and the facts

and in the spirit of judicial compassion and conscience.

We have great respect for what he did

and the courage he showed today.

The most difficult thing I've had to do

is try to justify to sunny and Debbie eappen

how a jury can find Louise woodward guilty

of killing their son,

how a judge can also find her guilty of killing their son,

but how a judge can then justify

having the killer of their son

serve approximately the same amount of time

as the days that Matthew spent with his mother and father.

There are so many other causes of these findings

that there are entire chapters in child abuse textbooks

on what they sometimes refer to as the mimics of child abuse,

and they run the gamut from coagulopathies,

that is bleeding disorders,

to infection,

congenital disorders, childhood stroke,

accidental trauma, short falls, choking.

I mean, the list -- the list goes on.

Some of them are controversial, and some of them are not.

So it's a very wide-open, complicated field.

And the doctors, the scientists,

are learning more and more about this every day.

My opinion is that this is the classic picture

of the acute or hyper acute shaken impact head injury

seen with non-accidental trauma.

Were you there?

Easy.

Were you there, doctor? -Hey!