Letter: Louise Woodward
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Stephen Jakobi (Letters, 4 November) regrets the "loose-or- noose" option chosen by Louise Woodward. But if the juror Stephen Colwell is telling the truth, then Louise was not convicted because she chose "loose-or-noose", but because the jury culpably denied her that option.
Colwell says (report, 4 November) that if other charges had been available "then potentially manslaughter may have been the verdict" implying a reasonable doubt of murder, which should have led to acquittal. He says, "There's no way we could . . . say `We think she did it, but we're going to let her go' ", implying a prejudice in favour of conviction, regardless of the charge.
Whether Louise's option was a proper one or not, the jury never gave it to her. Instead they allowed themselves the most impermissible option of all. They tried Louise Woodward for manslaughter and then convicted her of murder.
JOHN HEAWOOD
York
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments