Louise Woodward
It is disgusting to hear criticism of the American legal system from the British press and public (“British Au Pair Is Found Guilty of Killing Baby,” Oct. 31).
Louise Woodward was given more rights and individual protections in Cambridge, Mass., than she could have ever had in Cambridge, England. For example, the exclusionary rule, a rule designed to bar introduction of evidence obtained through unconstitutional means, does not even exist in Britain.
Much has been made of the fact that results of a lie detector test were not admissible. Let us not forget that members of the jury were able to administer their own lie detector test: They listened to Woodward’s testimony in her own words. The jury heard her testify, watched her demeanor and did not find her testimony credible after they had deliberated for three days.
SANDEEP S. SHETH
Sherman Oaks
*
Barry Scheck’s presence on Woodward’s defense team was relevant to the verdict. The world watched Scheck spin obvious lies in Lance Ito’s courtroom for months. Why should that be forgotten when he claims to be telling jurors the truth in another case?
Why should lawyers be allowed two sets of standards, “telling the truth” in one case but merely “doing their job” in another?
Woodward’s lawyers weren’t thinking like real citizens when they decided to stand next to the tainted Scheck in front of a jury; they were thinking like lawyers.
JOSEPH BRUTSMAN
Los Angeles
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
