Question:
In her first interview after finally being allowed to go home, the young english girl {nanny] asked why the parent's were overlooked as the possible source of the injury or abuse suffered by the infant Matty Eppen! These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take notice of anything wrong for so long a time? Good question Louise! This young baby sitter was jailed for almost ten months, taking the rap for the parents lack of time and concern for their child. It was obvious to everyone with at least half a brain that the adult parents who are trained doctors, were very, very negligent in the care of their infant son. If the parents did not have something to feel guilty about, why did they avoid finding a problem with the infant? Why was it the nanny who noticed a problem and immediately called emergency medics? All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would have been the one to find the problem and report it! It appears to me that the parents either did not spend enough time with and care for this child to find such a problem, or they did it [cause the fracture] and allowed the nanny to take the blame. After having five children and three grand children [so far], I can tell you that the daily ritual of checking each child over from the day they came home as an infant, was one of our required chores.

Answer: Eight month old babies who get their head hit against some immovable object also gets a depressed fracture, not a linear fracture such as this baby did. Also, a baby slammed against an object has neck trauma and bruising on the outside, again, symptoms this baby did not have. never forget the baby had been in distress that morning before Louise took over. Louise was told by Ms. Eappon that he had been constipated all weekend and crying. There is no dispute to a three week old wrist fracture. again, they went for what was perceived as the easy conviction instead of trying to find out the truth. the parents were part of the medical team that worked on the baby. They were NEVER investigated. Their testimony was only scrutinized by the Defense, and that was during trial, where the defense would be making a major mistake to do anything but be kind during cross examination. Considering this case was another rush to judgment, mistakes were made. Does anyone really want convictions based on incomplete information just because they are easy??? Would anyone want to be judged in this manner????????? I don't think so. This child deserved to have complete information and a complete investigation before anyone was arrested. We all know how police stick together, it is the same with doctors. In most child injury cases the parents are supposed to be investigated as well, not be part of the treatment plan. Add to this, forensic evidence disappearing. Something is very wrong in Massachusetts.

There is no evidence of a prolonged interval of lucidity between the injury and the onset of symptoms" in children with such severe head injuries . . . "an alert well-appearing child has not already sustained a devastating acute injury that will become clincially obvious hours to days later . . . there is no evidence that traumatic acute subdural hematoma, particularly that leading to death, occurs in otherwise healthy infants in an occult or subclinical manner." Rather, the evidence suggests that after a truly severe head injury, there is an "immediate or rapid onset of neurological symptoms."

The authors cite a San Francisco study in which 95 children died of accidental head injuries. All but one "had an immediate decrease in the level of consciousness." The one exception suffered a different kind of injury than Matthew Eappens and died of surgical complications.