Talk:Louise Woodward case

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Louise Woodward case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150916215736/http://www.retroreport.org/video/the-nanny-murder-trial to http://www.retroreport.org/video/the-nanny-murder-trial/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Additional source

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

Add (currently missing) citation to the following sentence to the second paragraph in the 'Aftermath' section of the article: "Matthew's parents filed a civil lawsuit to prevent Woodward from earning any profits from selling her story."

Cf2022 (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022

• I see this on p25 of the source. But there's only mention of a preliminary injunction. I'm not sure this is worth including unless we can tell the reader the final disposition of the action. Any sources on that? EEng 05:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

She lost the case by default, therefore she was banned from profiting from her story: see page 99 of this paper. Ferkijel (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

American or British English?

This article can't seem to make up its mind whether it uses American English or British English. I'm seeing both "defense" (US) and "defence" (UK), for example. A user unilaterally tagged the page as en-UK without explanation (I'm removing it pending consensus), and changed one "defense" into "defence". There's also the date order: at top it says DDMMYYYY, but in US custom it's MM/DD/YYYY. I realize it's complex because both sides have ties to the topic, but since the article is about the case, which took place entirely in the United States, and not about Ms. Woodward herself, I would suggest switching this page to American English. Paris1127 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The person at the centre of this article is a British citizen, living in the UK for the vast majority of her life, therefore, British English should be the overall default language of this article. However, it is very important to use American English for those specific parts which refer to the deceased child and the subsequent legal trial(s) - the court case was conducted in the USA under American law. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Matthew's parents filed a civil lawsuit..."

Which Woodward didn't defend, citing insufficient funds for further legal representation.

It may be argued that the consequence of the Eappens win by default was that Woodward 'accepted' guilt but to say that the judgement prevented her from 'profiting' from the child's tragic death is obviously false. The civil court's jurisdiction extended only to Woodward's activities within the United States (and probably some minor dependent US territories). The judgement plainly couldn't have denied Woodward earnings from publishing, giving interviews and so on OUTSIDE the United States.

Reference 15 hasn't been properly quoted - in particular the comment from Louise Woodward's parliamentary representative in the UK, MP Andrew Miller, member for Ellesmere Port constituency, who said: "A judgement may be made against her but it's unenforceable. She's not in the US and she's not under their jurisdiction."

So actually a pyrrhic victory for the Eappens. The ruling didn't really affect Louise Woodward except as regards book royalties in the US - in any case, trying to suppress publications in individual countries in the free world or prevent media from making remunerations and similar in foreign countries has never proved successful.

Wikipedia is shot through with pervasive 'victorious American' exceptionalism trumpeting. It's almost as if everyone should really understand that everyone, everywhere in the world is answerable to all forms of American justice - and the corollary: That Heaven help any foreign court that DARES to assert jurisdiction over a single American citizen.2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:91CB:303C:93D0:11B5 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)