Bible Prophecy

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Bible Prophecy. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Bible Prophecy paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Bible Prophecy, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Bible Prophecy paper at affordable prices!

Bible Prophecy

Israel's Role In Biblical Prophecy

A Covenant of Hope

Genesis 1

Cheap University Papers on Bible Prophecy

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will shew thee

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brothers son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

Hebrews 8

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people

Genesis

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Matthew 1

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

Matthew 1

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon

1 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

1 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Revelation 7

1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,

Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.

6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.

7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.

8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

Genesis 11

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech.

8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth and they left off to build the city.

Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Genesis 1

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fathers house, unto a land that I will shew thee

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Genesis 15

And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

Genesis 15

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Genesis 15

7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

1 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

1 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Genesis 8

10 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran.

11 And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.

1 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

1 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

Genesis 50

4 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

5 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

Genesis 15

1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

And Abram said, LORD God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

1 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

1 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

Genesis 46

6 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacobs sons wives, all the souls were threescore and six;

7 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.

Exodus 1

1 Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob.

Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah,

Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin,

4 Dan, and Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls for Joseph was in Egypt already.

6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.

7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we

10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

1 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.

1 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour

14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour.

Exodus

4 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

Exodus

6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Exodus 4

5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.

Exodus 6

8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage I am the LORD.

Exodus 1

5 And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.

Ezekiel 47

1 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel Joseph shall have two portions.

14 And ye shall inherit it, one as well as another concerning the which I lifted up mine hand to give it unto your fathers and this land shall fall unto you for inheritance.

15 And this shall be the border of the land toward the north side, from the great sea, the way of Hethlon, as men go to Zedad;

16 Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim, which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath; Hazarhatticon, which is by the coast of Hauran.

17 And the border from the sea shall be Hazarenan, the border of Damascus, and the north northward, and the border of Hamath. And this is the north side.

18 And the east side ye shall measure from Hauran, and from Damascus, and from Gilead, and from the land of Israel by Jordan, from the border unto the east sea. And this is the east side.

1 And the south side southward, from Tamar even to the waters of strife in Kadesh, the river to the great sea. And this is the south side southward.

0 The west side also shall be the great sea from the border, till a man come over against Hamath. This is the west side.

1 So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel.

And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 48

1 Now these are the names of the tribes. From the north end to the coast of the way of Hethlon, as one goeth to Hamath, Hazarenan, the border of Damascus

Ezekiel 48

northward, to the coast of Hamath; for these are his sides east and west; a portion for Dan.

And by the border of Dan, from the east side unto the west side, a portion for Asher.

And by the border of Asher, from the east side even unto the west side, a portion for Naphtali.

4 And by the border of Naphtali, from the east side unto the west side, a portion for Manasseh.

5 And by the border of Manasseh, from the east side unto the west side, a portion for Ephraim.

6 And by the border of Ephraim, from the east side even unto the west side, a portion for Reuben.

7 And by the border of Reuben, from the east side unto the west side, a portion for Judah.

8 And by the border of Judah, from the east side unto the west side, shall be the offering which ye shall offer of five and twenty thousand reeds in breadth, and in length as one of the other parts, from the east side unto the west side and the sanctuary shall be in the midst of it.

The oblation that ye shall offer unto the LORD shall be of five and twenty thousand in length, and of ten thousand in breadth.

10 And for them, even for the priests, shall be this holy oblation; toward the north five and twenty thousand in length, and toward the west ten thousand in breadth, and toward the east ten thousand in breadth, and toward the south five and twenty thousand in length and the sanctuary of the LORD shall be in the midst thereof.

11 It shall be for the priests that are sanctified of the sons of Zadok; which have kept my charge, which went not astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray.

1 And this oblation of the land that is offered shall be unto them a thing most holy by the border of the Levites.

1 And over against the border of the priests the Levites shall have five and twenty thousand in length, and ten thousand in breadth all the length shall be five and twenty thousand, and the breadth ten thousand.

14 And they shall not sell of it, neither exchange, nor alienate the firstfruits of the land for it is holy unto the LORD.

15 And the five thousand, that are left in the breadth over against the five and twenty thousand, shall be a profane place for the city, for dwelling, and for suburbs and the city shall be in the midst thereof.

16 And these shall be the measures thereof; the north side four thousand and five hundred, and the south side four thousand and five hundred, and on the east side four thousand and five hundred, and the west side four thousand and five hundred.

17 And the suburbs of the city shall be toward the north two hundred and fifty, and toward the south two hundred and fifty, and toward the east two hundred

Ezekiel 48

and fifty, and toward the west two hundred and fifty.

18 And the residue in length over against the oblation of the holy portion shall be ten thousand eastward, and ten thousand westward and it shall be over against the oblation of the holy portion; and the increase thereof shall be for food unto them that serve the city.

1 And they that serve the city shall serve it out of all the tribes of Israel.

0 All the oblation shall be five and twenty thousand by five and twenty thousand ye shall offer the holy oblation foursquare, with the possession of the city.

1 And the residue shall be for the prince, on the one side and on the other of the holy oblation, and of the possession of the city, over against the five and twenty thousand of the oblation toward the east border, and westward over against the five and twenty thousand toward the west border, over against the portions for the prince and it shall be the holy oblation; and the sanctuary of the house shall be in the midst thereof.

Moreover from the possession of the Levites, and from the possession of the city, being in the midst of that which is the princes, between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin, shall be for the prince.

As for the rest of the tribes, from the east side unto the west side, Benjamin shall have a portion.

4 And by the border of Benjamin, from the east side unto the west side, Simeon shall have a portion.

5 And by the border of Simeon, from the east side unto the west side, Issachar a portion.

6 And by the border of Issachar, from the east side unto the west side, Zebulun a portion.

7 And by the border of Zebulun, from the east side unto the west side, Gad a portion.

8 And by the border of Gad, at the south side southward, the border shall be even from Tamar unto the waters of strife in Kadesh, and to the river toward the great sea.

This is the land which ye shall divide by lot unto the tribes of Israel for inheritance, and these are their portions, saith the Lord GOD.

0 And these are the goings out of the city on the north side, four thousand and five hundred measures.

1 And the gates of the city shall be after the names of the tribes of Israel three gates northward; one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.

And at the east side four thousand and five hundred and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.

And at the south side four thousand and five hundred measures and three gates; one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun.

4 At the west side four thousand and five hundred, with their three gates; one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali.

Ezekiel 48

5 It was round about eighteen thousand measures and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.

A Vehicle of Promise

Genesis 8

14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

Leviticus 6

14 But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments;

15 And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant

16 I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it.

17 And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you.

18 And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

1 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass

0 And your strength shall be spent in vain for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.

1 And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate.

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me;

4 Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.

5 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

6 And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied.

Leviticus 6

7 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me;

8 Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.

Deuteronomy 8

58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;

5 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

60 Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.

61 Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

6 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.

6 And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Leviticus 1

4 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt I am the LORD your God.

Joshua

1 And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlots house, named Rahab, and lodged there.

And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country.

And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house for they be come to search out all the country.

4 And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were

5 And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark, that the men went out whither the men went I wot not pursue after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them.

6 But she had brought them up to the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had laid in order upon the roof.

7 And the men pursued after them the way to Jordan unto the fords and as soon as they which pursued after them were gone out, they shut the gate.

Joshua

8 And before they were laid down, she came up unto them upon the roof;

And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you.

10 For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed.

11 And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.

1 Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my fathers house, and give me a true token

1 And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death.

14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee.

15 Then she let them down by a cord through the window for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall.

16 And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned and afterward may ye go your way.

17 And the men said unto her, We will be blameless of this thine oath which thou hast made us swear.

18 Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy fathers household, home unto thee.

1 And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him.

0 And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear.

1 And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed and she bound the scarlet line in the window.

And they went, and came unto the mountain, and abode there three days, until the pursuers were returned and the pursuers sought them throughout all the way, but found them not.

So the two men returned, and descended from the mountain, and passed over, and came to Joshua the son of Nun, and told him all things that befell them

Joshua

4 And they said unto Joshua, Truly the LORD hath delivered into our hands all the land; for even all the inhabitants of the country do faint because of us.

Ruth 1

1 Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons.

And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.

And Elimelech Naomis husband died; and she was left, and her two sons.

4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth and they dwelled there about ten years.

5 And Mahlon and Chilion died also both of them; and the woman was left of her two sons and her husband.

6 Then she arose with her daughters in law, that she might return from the country of Moab for she had heard in the country of Moab how that the LORD had visited his people in giving them bread.

7 Wherefore she went forth out of the place where she was, and her two daughters in law with her; and they went on the way to return unto the land of Judah.

8 And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mothers house the LORD deal kindly with you, as ye have dealt with the dead, and with me.

The LORD grant you that ye may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them; and they lifted up their voice, and wept.

10 And they said unto her, Surely we will return with thee unto thy people.

11 And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters why will ye go with me? are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?

1 Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have an husband also to night, and should also bear sons;

1 Would ye tarry for them till they were grown? would ye stay for them from having husbands? nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the LORD is gone out against me.

14 And they lifted up their voice, and wept again and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

15 And she said, Behold, thy sister in law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods return thou after thy sister in law.

16 And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God

Ruth 1

17 Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried the LORD do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.

18 When she saw that she was stedfastly minded to go with her, then she left speaking unto her.

1 So they two went until they came to Bethlehem. And it came to pass, when they were come to Bethlehem, that all the city was moved about them, and they said, Is this Naomi?

0 And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara for the Almighty hath dealt very bitterly with me.

1 I went out full and the LORD hath brought me home again empty why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?

So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter in law, with her, which returned out of the country of Moab and they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of barley harvest.

Esther 8

17 And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the kings commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

Ezekiel 47

And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger sojourneth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord GOD.

Zephaniah

1 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.

0 At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the LORD.

A Child of Promise

Genesis

8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering so they went both of them together.

1 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.

Hebrews 11

1 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

A Nation Restored

Romans 11

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 11

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Jeremiah 5

11 And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.

Daniel

4 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

Romans 11

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in for God is able to graff them in again.

5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 11

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

1 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

1 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office

14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

1 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

0 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear

1 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in for God is able to graff them in again.

4 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

5 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,

Romans 11

until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

6 And so all Israel shall be saved as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob

7 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

8 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers sakes.

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

0 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief

1 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Exodus 1

4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles wings, and brought you unto myself.

Jeremiah 1

1 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

4 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Ezekiel 6

5 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

6 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

7 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Ezekiel 6

4 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

5 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Ezekiel 7

8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above but there was no breath in them.

14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD.

Zechariah 1

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Ezekiel 6

1 Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

Notes

Please note that this sample paper on Bible Prophecy is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Bible Prophecy, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Bible Prophecy will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from Live Paper Help

and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

I dont Really Care

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on I dont Really Care. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality I dont Really Care paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in I dont Really Care, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your I dont Really Care paper at affordable prices!

The Life of LOUIS PASTEUR

Louis Pasteur was born on December 7, 18, in Dle, a small town in France. He grew in a humble family and his father was a tanner. He graduated in 1840 from the College of Arts at Besancon and entered the prestigious Ecole Namale Supervieure, Paris, to work for his doctorate degree. He chose for his studies the then obscure science of crystallography, which was to have a great influence on his career.

Pasteur entered the scientific world as a professor of physics at the Lycee of Tournon and started his research on the optical properties of crystals of tartaric acid salts. He found the two forms of this acid which could rotate the plane of polarization of light, one to the right and the other to the left. This was his first important discovery in crystallography, the phenomenon of optical isomers. Paradoxically it incited him to abandon the field. But it won the acclaim of the French Academy and Britains Royal Society. Thus Pasteur became famous at the age of 6.

Pasteur soon began researching the complexities of bacteriology. The prevalent theory of life at the time was spontaneous generation which states that certain forms of life such as flies, worms, and mice can develop from non-living matter such as mud and decaying fish. Pasteur disproved this theory with a simple experiment. He showed that microorganisms would grow in sterilized broth only if the broth was first exposed to air containing spores, or reproductive cells. His findings led to the development of the cell theory of the origin of living matter which states that all life originates from preexisting living material.

Order Custom I dont Really Care paper

In 184, Pasteur became professor of chemistry at the University of Strasbourg, where he began studying fermentation, a type of chemical breakdown of substances by microbes. He served the rest of his career as Dean of Sciences at the University of Lille. Soon after his arrival at Lille, Pasteur was asked to solve the problems of the local industries, vinegar and silk manufacture.

A producer of vinegar from beet juice wanted to know why the product was sometimes spoilt. On examining the juice microscopically, Pasteur observed that the contaminant, amyl alcohol, was optically active. This gave clear evidence that it was produced by a living organism. Pasteur then proposed a biological interpretation of the process of fermentation. He demonstrated that when no contamination by living contagion took place, the process of fermentation or putrefaction did not take place. Thus the celebrated techniques of Pasteurization, came into being, it could not only preserve wine and milk but drastically cut inflation in the surgeons operating table. Today pasteurization follows closely the early techniques of Louis Pasteur. In the case of milk pasteurization, the milk is heated to 161°F for 15 seconds followed by a rapid cooling to 50°F or lower. This process removes any unwanted bacteria, but also kills any beneficial bac!

teria and reduces some of the nutritive property of milk.

The Franco-Prussian War opened an avenue to press his microbial theory of infection, he got the grudging agreement of the military medical corps to sterilize instruments and steam bandages. As a result, thousands of lives were saved. In 187, Pasteur was elected to the French Academy of Medicine, a spectacular achievement for a person without a medical degree.

Pasteur was now ready to move from the simpler forms of life in the microbial world to the diseases of the higher animals. The opportunity came through a devastating outbreak of anthrax, a killer plague of sheep in 1876. Pasteur tried to produce pure cultures, his objective was to fight the disease and not just to describe it.

Pasteur had accidentally forgotten in a corner of the laboratory a culture of fowl cholera and noticed that it had lost some of its virulence. Then he vaccinated some chicken which resisted the disease. The same technique, after improvement, was applied against bacillus anthracis sheep inoculated with the vaccine survived and the non-vaccinated ones died. A scourge that had crippling economic effects was brought under control. Simultaneously, the principle of immunization or the protection of the body through vaccines was discovered.

In 1865, the silk industry of France faced an economic ruin by an epidemic among silkworms. He proceeded to the south of France and set up an improvised laboratory. He isolated the pathogens causing the disease and after three years of intensive work, he suggested suitable remedies. This achievement coincided with personal tragedy in his life his two daughters died of typhoid fever in 1866. In 1868, he suffered a set back in health, his left arm and leg being permanently paralyzed. Nonetheless, he continued with grim determination, his study of silkworm diseases, which he perceived, will help control diseases of higher animals, including man.

Pasteur then started work on rabies, the disease of animals, particularly dogs. The causative agent was a virus, an entity not capable of growth in scientists broth, which nurtured bacteria. Pasteur worked for five years to isolate and culture the pathogen. Finally he prepared a vaccine for injection. Animals could now be saved but the effect of trying out on humans had to wait.

On July 6, 1885, Joseph Meister with 18 bites from a rabid dog, was brought to Pasteur. He treated him over a 1-day period with the vaccine and the boy was saved.

Pasteur is remembered for his innovative work as a teacher. He introduced changes every year in the material he taught in his class, as his main concern was to present an image of science open to debate and discussion rather than based on fixed notions. All along his career, Pasteur maintained a meticulous record of his laboratory work, in which he noted every day all his observations description of experiments, new projects, notes on techniques of brewers, wine growers, sericulturists, drafts of letters, papers to scientific societies. Due to the extreme rigor and care with which Pasteur used to write his notes, they became an essential work tool.

Pasteurs seventieth birthday in 18 was celebrated in a unique way, by being observed as a national holiday in France. His address on this occasion carried a thoughtful message You bring me the greatest happiness that can be experienced by a man whose invincible belief is that science and peace will triumph over ignorance and war.... In the long run the future will belong not to the conquerors but to the saviors of mankind.

Pasteur, honored by the world but unaffected, died on September 8, 185, he was buried in a crypt in the Pasteur Institute.

In 140, the conquering Germans came to Paris. A German officer demanded to see the tomb of Pasteur, but the old French guard refused to open the gate. When the German insisted, the guard killed himself. The latter was Joseph Meister, whom Pasteur had saved from hydrophobia.

Louis Pasteur made many valuable contributions to the fields of chemistry, medicine, and industry with findings and research still applicable today. In making discoveries concerning the spreading of diseases he was able to prevent the loss of many lives. Pasteur was a remarkable scientist who put his basic discoveries to use in everyday problems in health and industry.

Search for biographies termpapers!!!

Please note that this sample paper on I dont Really Care is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on I dont Really Care, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on I dont Really Care will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

Form

If you order your custom term paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Form. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Form paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Form, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Form paper at affordable prices!

When looking at a completed work of art, one sees the piece as a whole. It can be easy to forget the intricacy involved in creating a piece of art. An artist starts with a rough draft or message they wish to convey. From there, they must determine what form they want their piece to take on. Once they have decided these two things, the artist must then break these concepts down even further in order to convey the message to their audience. In reviewing Elizabeth Catlett's piece, entitled MOTHER AND CHILD, found on page 01, we will see how creating art is like putting together a puzzle. You must make sure all the pieces fit.

The first part of the puzzle is figuring out what medium you want to use, and what form you want it to take. In Catlett's piece, she chose to use wood to create an open form carving. At first glance one could mistake it as closed form, however the opening created between her chin and her elbow depicts a relationship between the mass and the open space, similar to the relationship created by Henry Moore's RUCUMBENT FIGURE, found on page 47.

Also similar to Moore's piece was how she used concave and convex surfaces. The curved, smooth and glossy surface used in conjunction with the natural lines of the walnut and cypress wood serves to draw the viewer's attention upwards. This causes the viewer to focus on the point of emphasis, which is the position of the mothers arm across her forehead. The position of her arm like this leads to a very important part of the puzzle, the message or content.

One can see by how the mother is holding her child close to her that she feels great love and responsibility for her child. She is holding the child so close that it is only the subtle separations created by the curvature of the wood that keep them from being one being. The placement of her arm across her forehead leads one to believe that this responsibility appears to be wearing heavily on her. As the text brings out, it could be because of the struggles she knows the child will face. It is also portraying the huge task ahead of her. In our society it falls heavily upon the mother to rear a child and to guide a child in the right direction in life. That is no small task, and as Catlett depicts here, can cause a woman to have a serious moment of reflection.

Catlett chose to use all the right pieces to the puzzle, including her use of color. She used different values of one color, with it being darker on the bottom. This, along with the position of the gallery lighting in the picture, helps to draw the attention upwards, again towards the point of emphasis. She chose not to involve motion or time, which was appropriate. It was appropriate because the struggle depicted is one all women have gone through and will continue to go through.

Elizabeth Catlett succeeded in using all the right pieces to create a beautiful piece of art. By choosing the right form and design elements, she effectively conveyed her message to her audience. The intricacy involved created an amazing work of art.

Please note that this sample paper on Form is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Form, we are here to assist you. Your cheap custom college paper on Form will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from Live Paper Help

and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

Review of George Orwell's 1984

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Review of George Orwell's 1984. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Review of George Orwell's 1984 paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Review of George Orwell's 1984, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Review of George Orwell's 1984 paper at affordable prices!

In our society we think of relationships generally as a good thing. When a person forms new relationships with people that they respect or admire, then we expect their lives to change for the better. In George Orwell's 184 Winston's relationships with Julia, O'Brien, and Mr. Charrington create the conflict in the story.

Winston's hate for The Party is what fueled his relationship with Julia, because when he was with Julia he felt that he was spiting the party and rebelling against it. After Winston and Julia formed their relationship the two risked being seen in public together to plan their next rendezvous. They also risked venturing into prole neighborhoods, where they did not belong, to be together. During Winston and Julia's secret time together they also did many other things that were prohibited by the Party such as sex, and eating and drinking foods and drinks that they were not allowed to have. As their relationship continued along they began to see each other privately more frequently, and for longer amounts of time in Charrington's upstairs room in his shop. Winston's love for Julia made him do things that he knew were irrational, risky and ultimately lead to his demise.

Winston took many walks into prole neighborhoods, probably to many for his own good, in the very limited spare time he had. On one of his walks into the Prole neighborhood he discovered a peculiar shop. The shop intrigued him very much because it seemed to represent the world as it was before the revolution. It contained products that party members could never dream of owning. The shops owner was named Charrington. Winston formed what could be best called a friendship with the elderly man. As Winston began to visit the shop on more and more occasions, he would talk to Charrington, ask him about items the shop contained, and ask when they were used before the revolution. Winston began to trust Charrington enough to hold he and Julia's meetings together in the room above his shop. But Charrington turned out to be something very different than what Winston had thought he was. And eventually playing a large, if not the largest, part in Winston and Julia's capture by the Thought Police, which Charrington was a part of.

Winston also formed a relationship with a man named O'Brien was a member of the inner party that drew Winston's attention because of a secretly held belief that Winston thought and hoped O'Brien had that his political orthodoxy was not perfect. Later in the story O'Brien invited Winston to his quarters which excited Winston more than anything in the story had. When Winston went to O'Brien's quarters with Julia it seemed that all of Winston's wishes come true, O'Brien did not believe in the government in which they followed. And more importantly there was a Brotherhood of rebellion that existed. The next time Winston and O'Brien met it would be in the Ministry of Love after Winston's capture, where he discovers that O'Brien is part of the Thought Police. While being held in the Ministry of Love Winston is tortured and brainwashed into accepting Big Brother and the ways of the Party. The person in charge of torturing and brainwashing Winston was O'Brien himself. Even while O'Brien would bring tremendous pain and spit upon Winston's ideals, Winston still admired O'Brien and even still considered him a friend.

Order Custom Essay on Review of George Orwell's 1984

In a short amount of time Winston was able to form new relationships with people he believed to be like him in one way or another. Winston formed a romantic relationship with Julia because she was a beautiful woman who hated The Party as much as he did. While he formed a friendship with the old shopkeeper, Charrington. Thinking that Charrington was a link to the past, and that he also disliked the Party, but on a different level than why Winston hated the party. Then thinking that he could trust a member of the Inner Party solely on a few glances that O'Brien seemed to be making towards Winston. Who then actually became Winston's torturer while being imprisoned.

Living in a world where you are not allowed to be able to do what you like, and to think freely would truly be horrible. Winston was blessed with the knowledge to realize that the world he lived in was corrupt and wrong. But his blessing almost seemed to be a curse in the end, leading him to be held captive, being tortured and brainwashed. If he had not formed these relationships he would more than likely never have been caught. Proving that in George Orwell's 184, Winston's relationship's with Julia, O'Brien, and Charrington create the conflict in the story. N/a

Please note that this sample paper on Review of George Orwell's 1984 is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Review of George Orwell's 1984, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Review of George Orwell's 1984 will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward

If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service!

On Feb. 4, 17, Louise Woodward called the police and said that Matthew Eappen was having difficulty breathing. Woodward had been hired by Sunil and Deborah Eappen to babysit their sons in November 16. When paramedics arrived at the Eappen household, they found that the baby had a two-and-a-half-inch skull fracture. Matthews eyes were also bulging, a possible sign of shaken baby syndrome. The baby spent four days on life support before dying on Feb. . The autopsy revealed that in addition to his fractured skull, young Matthew was also suffering from a month-old wrist fracture.

Prosecutors said that Woodward admitted to shaking Matthew and to dropping him on the floor and tossing him on a bed. They alleged that Woodward became so frustrated with Matthews uncontrollable crying that she began shaking him violently to stop the crying. In addition, state medical examiners said Matthew hit the floor with the force equivalent to a fall from a second-story window. The injuries from the fall and the shaking allegedly caused Matthew Eappens death.

Woodward was imprisoned without bond after the incident, and that caused controversy. Supporters of Woodward in both Massachusetts and her homeland of Britain had argued that Woodward should not be kept in a state womens prison with hardened criminals because she is only a teenager and was foreign to this country. Woodward supporters claimed she does not understand the U.S. justice system and should have been given the opportunity to be released on bail from prison. Prosecutors countered by saying that Woodward would likely flee from Massachusetts if freed on bail.

A Genetic Disorder?

Help with essay on The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward

The defense had recruited Barry Scheck, the forensics expert who helped O.J. Simpsons defense team during his trial, to help Louise Woodwards defense arguments. Woodwards defense claimed Woodwards alleged mishandling of the baby did not cause Matthew Eappens death; instead, a pre-existing medical condition may have killed Matthew. Reportedly, the defense asked for DNA tests on Matthew in an apparent attempt to find genetic disorders that could have affected his bone strength and development or could have caused brain hemorrhages.

In addition, according to reports, the defense had also hinted that Matthews two-year-old older brother, Brendan, may have had a role in the baby suffering his injuries because he was the only other family member home that night. But, prosecutors argued, no two-year-old could have inflicted such physical trauma on an infant.

The 1-year old au pair was then sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 15 years.

Judge Zobel will hear a three-part motion from the defense on Tuesday, November 4. The motion consists of first, setting aside the verdict and dismissing the case; second, setting aside the verdict and holding a new trial; or third, reducing the charge to manslaughter.

If the they lose this motion, defense attorneys have stated they will appeal the conviction.

October 7

The jury heard opening statements from the prosecution and the defense and saw the prosecutions first five witnesses come to the stand. In his opening statement, lead prosecutor Gerard Leone, Jr. described Louise Woodward as a live-in nanny who was much more concerned with enjoying Boston night life than providing proper care for the sons of Sunil and Deborah Eappen, two-year-old Brendan and the infant, Matthew. Frequently, Woodward had difficulty waking up in the morning to care for the boys after late-night partying with friends. During an incident in late January, Sunil Eappen came home from work one night and allegedly found Brendan and Matthew unattended. This caused the Eappens to make an ultimatum to Woodward either do a better job of watching our sons or youre fired.

Five days after the ultimatum, on Feb. 4, the alleged shaking incident with baby Matthew occurred. But Leone refrained from saying that Woodward had planned to kill Matthew.

We are not saying to you that the defendant woke up on February 4 specifically intending to kill Matthew Eappen, Leone told the jury. What were saying the case is about is that on February 4, the defendant, in a frustrated, resentful, unhappy attitude, slammed the baby into a hard object and shook him, causing his death--actions that anyone would know would result in death. In this Commonwealth, that is murder.

Lead defense attorney Andrew Good responded to the prosecutions opening statement by saying that Woodward never violently shook the baby or slammed his head onto a hard surface. Good told the jurors that he would present head trauma and biomechanics experts who will support the defense theory that baby Matthew suffered a skull fracture prior to the Feb. 4 incident. Matthews parents were not aware of this injury, which, Good claimed, really caused the infants death.

The state brought two police officers who responded to Woodwards 11 call the night of the incident. Both testified that they found Matthew lying on his back on the floor, with his arms pointing stiffly towards the ceiling and making periodic jerking movements. Both also said that Woodward told them Matthew had vomited. One officer, Hugh Downing, described Woodward as detached from the situation. The other officer, Eric Braceland, testified that Woodward told him the baby would not stop crying the entire evening. Matthew refused to eat his food, had vomited, and at one point was choking on his vomit. According to Braceland, Woodward told him that she had tried to clear the vomit out of Matthews airway. Braceland also observed that Matthews pupils were dilated and that he was breathing hard.

Key testimony came from Dr. Kenneth Mandl, the doctor who treated Matthew Eappen in the emergency room at the hospital. He said that the infant was unresponsive and comatose when he arrived in the emergency room. Matthews pupils were enlarged, fixed, dilated, and there was evidence of retinal hemorrhaging. According to Mandl, these were all signs of severe head trauma.

Mandl was then cross-examined by defense attorney Barry Scheck, who made the doctor admit that he found no evidence on Matthew body that indicated that he had been shaken. Under Schecks examination, Dr. Mandl testified that he found no bruises on the babys arms, shoulders, ribs or neck and that there was no swelling on the back of the victims head. Scheck also asked the doctor whether he observed anything that supported the prosecutions assertion that Matthews head had been slammed down with the force of dropping a child 15 feet onto hard concrete. Mandl responded, There were no findings to specifically indicate that, no.

Mandl also conceded to Schecks theory that the baby may have suffered from what Scheck called talk, deteriorate, and die head injuries. (This refers to instances in which a person suffers a head injury, appears to recover from the injury, but then suffers a rapid decline in health after a later, possibly slight, head injury.) Scheck was trying to build support for the defense theory that the infant really died from a previously unknown head injury prior to the Feb. 4 incident with Woodward. However, despite his concession, Dr. Mandl maintained that Matthews symptoms that night indicated that his injuries more likely came from violent shaking.

Court recessed soon after Dr. Joseph Madsen, a pediatric neural surgeon who reviewed Matthews CAT scan, began testifying about the infants brain swelling, the circumstances that caused the swelling and the surgery that was required to relieve the pressure on the brain. Madsen was scheduled to return to the stand the next morning.

Trial

October 8

Dr. Joseph Madsen, the pediatric neurosurgeon who performed brain surgery on Matthew Eappen on the night of the alleged shaking incident, returned to the stand. Madsen said that the infants head injuries had caused his brain to swell like a loaf of bread rising in an oven. According to Madsen, he and his surgeons were afraid that Matthew would die on the operating table. Based on the extent of the infants brain damage, Madsen said Matthews chances of survival were grim. Dr. Madsen testified that Matthews brain injuries came from more than a gentle shaking; he also said that the brain injuries did not come from what the defense claims was a prior, chronic head injury.

I think they [the injuries] were non-accidental, said Madsen. I think there would have had to have been at least two types of mechanism involved, such as a severe blow of the head against a blunt surface and an additional swinging or shaking of the head in some fashion. I think they would have most likely occurred in relation to each other.

Defense attorney Barry Scheck challenged Madsens opinions during cross-examination. Madsen appeared to retreat from his widely quoted analogy that Matthews injuries were consistent with those suffered during a 15 foot drop onto concrete; he said he had only made that comment in response to a very specific question during grand jury testimony. Scheck also suggested impropriety on part of Dr. Masden because the doctor did not preserve a blood clot he surgically removed from Matthews brain for pathological analysis. (The guidelines in Childrens Hospital in Boston say that this procedure should have been done.) Masden responded to this allegation by saying that the clot was not salvageable.

When asked by Scheck about the defenses theory that Matthew suffered the head injury weeks before the incident with Louise Woodward, Masden agreed that such a head injury could bleed internally and spontaneously hours, days, or even weeks after its original occurrence. And head swelling, crankiness, unusual crying, vomiting, and lethargy are the symptoms of such these kind of head injuries in infants. (Matthew Eappen showed all these symptoms the day of the alleged shaking.) In addition, Madsen agreed that baby Matthews skull fracture resembled a fracture that could have been suffered three weeks prior to the alleged incident with Woodward.

After Dr. Madsen finished his testimony, Dr. Robert Cleveland, a consulting radiologist to the Child Protection Team at Childrens Hospital, took the stand and analyzed Matthews X-rays in front of the jury. He said that the babys skull fracture appeared to be no more than three or four weeks old. When asked about an apparent wrist fracture that X-rays also revealed the night of the incident, Dr. Cleveland said that injury was approximately two-and-a-half to four weeks old.

The last witness of the day was an expert in pediatric radiology and child abuse, Dr. Patrick Barnes. He explained the brain swelling and other abnormalities the CAT scans detected in Matthew. Dr. Barnes testimony was scheduled to continue the next morning.

October

Dr. Patrick Barnes, an expert in pediatric radiology, returned to the stand and testified that Matthews Eappens head injuries were characteristic of those suffered by infants through violent shaking. Barnes felt that Matthew could not have suffered the injuries from the a gentle shaking or from being tossed onto a bed.; he also said that he saw no evidence of a prior head injury suffered by the infant.

The pattern of injury is suggestive of non-accidental trauma, Barnes told the jury. My opinion is that this is a classic picture of the acute or hyper-acute shaking impact injury seen in non-accidental trauma. Barnes also testified that he thought Matthews head injury occurred hours before his CAT scan and that the baby was a victim of shaken baby syndrome.

Then, Dr. Barnes examined a mark on CAT scan of Matthews skull. During the previous days testimony, he said that the mark was a second fracture suffered by the baby. However, today he changed his opinion, saying that the mark indicated a stretching of the brains sutures (the division between the plates of the human skull). This testimony seemed to support the defenses theory that Matthew had suffered a brain injury prior to the alleged incident with Louise Woodward.

Defense attorney Barry Scheck tried to undermine Dr. Barness testimony about Matthew Eappens injury when he made the doctor admit that he had not read all the medical reports about the case, including the infants medical history. Barnes claimed that he did not want his opinions to be influenced by other data. However, Barnes still maintained that the infant suffered the head injuries from being slammed against a surface while being shakened. Still, Barnes would not support the prosecutions theory that Matthew was shakened violently for about a minute.

Im saying that this is shaken baby impact syndrome, Barnes said. I cant say how many shakes and how many impacts.

After Barness questioning ended, Dr. Gerald Feigin, who performed the autopsy on baby Matthew, took the stand. He testified that he saw no evidence of a prior head injury in Matthew and no evidence of prior bleeding within Matthews skull. Feigin said Matthews skull fracture had very sharp angles, which indicated that his fatal injury had been suffered recently. In Feigins opinion, the baby died from head trauma and the subsequent swelling it caused in the brain.

However, during cross examination, Dr. Feigin conceded that the autopsy findings did not support the prosecutions theory that Matthew was shaken violently for about a minute. (He said it would have been physically difficult to shake a -pound baby violently for that amount of time.) Feigin also said that he was mistaken when he had told a grand jury that Matthews head injury was the equivalent of one suffered from a 15-foot fall onto a hard surface. According to Feigin, the babys skull fracture could have resulted from a fall of only two to four feet. Besides the fracture, no other complications, such as brain damage, should arise from such a fall.

The last witness to be called for the day was Dr. Umberto DiGirolami, who examined Matthews preserved brain in March 17. DiGirolami testified that he found that the baby had suffered from a traumatic head injury. The doctor also found no signs of a prior head injury. Dr. DiGirolami was scheduled to return to the stand the next day.

October 10

Dr. Umberto DiGirolami, a forensic neuropathologist who examined Matthew Eappens preserved brain on March 11, 17, returned to the stand. DiGirolami testified that all the bleeding he observed in Matthews brain had been caused by an injury suffered no earlier than one week prior to the childs death on February . The doctor saw no signs of any prior bleeding, lesions, or underlying diseases that could have caused Matthews death. According to DiGirolami, an older injury would have been a different color than what he observed in the infants brain.

DiGirolami told prosecutor Gerard Leone, Jr. and the court that, in his opinion, Matthew Eappens death was caused by the large area of disruption of brain tissue, due to an acute traumatic injury.

During cross examination by defense attorney Barry Scheck, Dr. DiGirolami said that he was unable to support the defense hypothesis that Matthew Eappen suffered a head injury two to three weeks prior to his alleged February 4 incident with Louise Woodward. (The defense claims that a subsequent, much milder head trauma on February 4 caused this theoretical injury to bleed again internally. This, the defense claims, led to Matthews death.) However, DiGirolami also said that he was unable to support the prosecution contention that Matthew was the victim of violent shaking for about a minute.

You could not come here to the jury today and say I have evidence that can corroborate the hypothesis of shaking?, Scheck asked the doctor. DiGirolami responded, I agree with that.

Much of Schecks cross-examination of DiGirolami focused on the defenses allegation that portions of Matthew Eappens dura (the fibrous membrane surrounding the brain) are now missing. (These portions might support the defense theory that Matthew had a prior injury that ultimately caused his death.) During a September 4 hearing concerning this issue, Dr. DiGirolami seemed to support that allegation. At that time, DiGirolami recalled that he had cut holes in the dura during his examination of the infants brain, and that despite a court order that all forensic evidence in the case was to be retained, some of the dura apparently had been thrown away.

However, Dr. DiGirolami told a different story during todays testimony. He said that after his previous testimony, he began to wonder about his recollection, and attempted to account for all of the dura specimens. After speaking to his colleagues and attempting to locate all of the samples of Matthew Eappens dura, DiGirolami concluded, with the exception of some minuscule brain tissue, all of Matthews dura was accounted for. Under careful questioning by Scheck, Dr. DiGirolami maintained that his testimony during the September hearing was wrong. DiGirolami even dismissed a defense photo of Matthews dura that appears to show two large sections missing. He explained that when the duras sections were fully displayed and pieced together, one could see that no segments were actually missing.

Then, Dr. Lois Smith, an opthamologist at Childrens Hospital who examined Matthews opthamology exams, took the stand and testified that Matthew died from shaken baby syndrome. According to Dr. Smith, the retinal hemorrhaging observed in Matthews eyes was caused by the eye being slammed back and forth against its bone socket. The force of the shaking ripped the retina apart.

Retinal hemorrhages are thought to be almost pathomonic of [or unique to] child abuse, Smith said. There are some other conditions in which they can be found, but the degree of retinal hemorrhage indicates the amount of force that is used. The combination of the retinal hemorrhages and this fold [behind the eye] indicate trauma X, or shaken baby syndrome and really rule out any other causes.

Smith concluded her testimony for the day by dismissing the defense theories about the cause of Matthew Eappens death. She told the juror that the infants eye and brain injuries could not have been caused by what Woodwards defense alleges was a prior chronic head injury, gentle shaking, or a genetic condition. Dr. Smith will return to the stand for cross-examination when testimony resumes on Tuesday, Oct. 14.

October 14

Dr. Lois Smith, the opthamologist who reviewed Matthew Eappens eye examination and autopsy report, returned to the stand. She continued to maintain her belief that the infants injuries could not have been caused by anything other than shaken baby impact syndrome. According to Smith, the force of the shaking and the impact with which the infants head allegedly slammed against a hard surface was the equivalent of a truck hitting an infant in a baby carriage. Smith also said that the injuries that caused Matthews death were inflicted between minutes and hours before he was admitted to Childrens Hospital in Boston.

During his cross-examination of Dr. Smith, defense attorney Barry Scheck suggested that a drawing of Matthews eyes done at the time of his examination does not show the retinal hemorrhaging that Smith had said resulted from violent shaking. In a major concession, Smith admitted that if this drawing is correct, then her theory about the infant dying from shaken baby syndrome is wrong. However, Smith preferred to characterize the drawing as incomplete rather than inaccurate.

Then police detective William Byrne, who interviewed defendant Louise Woodward on the day of the incident, took the stand. Byrne quoted Woodward as saying that she had been a little rough with Matthew. Woodward also allegedly told Byrne that the baby had been cranky the entire day and that she was angry and frustrated by his non-stop crying. According to Byrne, Woodward said that at one point during the day, she had tossed Matthew on a bed.

Later that day, while preparing Matthews bath, she dropped him onto a towel on the bathroom floor, and Woodward said that he may have struck his head on the lower side of the tub. In spite of this, Matthew seemed fine when Woodward put him down for a nap. However, Byrne testified, when she checked on Matthew, he was unresponsive and not breathing. Woodward tried to perform CPR on the infant, but then she decided to call 11. Byrne noted that Woodward seemed perfectly calm during her interview and never asked about Matthews condition.

During cross-examination by Woodwards other attorney, Andrew Good, Byrne admitted that during a meeting with his supervisor, he did not mention Woodwards alleged dropping of the infant on the bathroom floor. Byrne also said he never examined the bathroom floor or towels for any signs (such as Matthews blood) of the infants fall. He even suggested to a friend of the Eappens that Woodward may be a borderline hero because of her attempt to revive Matthew.

After Byrnes testimony, Dr. Stacey Linwood, Matthew Eappens pediatrician, testified that Matthew seemed to be a normal, healthy baby with no unusual injuries. However, Linwood, who was the babys doctor since he was two-weeks-old, said that Matthew suffered a subdural hematoma during birth. (A subdural hematoma is a mass of clotted blood that forma in brain tissue as a result of a broken blood vessel.) But, Linwood said, this injury was common among infants, and Matthews subdural hematoma healed within a month after his birth. During cross-examination, Linwood admitted that she had last examined Matthew when he was six-months-old. (Matthew was eight-and-a-half-months old when he died.) Linwood was not scheduled to examine the baby again until he was nine-months-old, and she said she did not know what he experienced between his last examination and the time of his death.

The days testimony ended with two family friends of the Eappens coming to the stand. They both testified that Matthew Eappen appeared to be a normal, healthy baby. One friend, Paula McCue, testified that Louise Woodward told her that she panicked when she realized Matthew was not breathing. McCue quoted Woodward as saying, I picked him up, and I shook him a little bit.

October 15

Dr. Eli Newberger, a pediatrician who examined Matthew Eappen at Childrens Hospital on the day of the alleged incident with defendant Louise Woodward, testified that he firmly believed that Matthew was a victim of shaken baby syndrome. Newberger said that the injuries the infant sustained were inflicted and that none of the injuries could have occurred accidentally.

My opinion is that this child was violently shaken for a prolonged period, Newberger said. This shaking was to such a violent degree that it would have required as much energy as an adult could muster, sustained over a period of time up to or exceeding a minute, possibly delivered in intervals.

According to Newberger, Matthews was grim and that he would have become comatose almost immediately after the infliction of his injuries.

There was effectively no neurological function...I believe his [Matthews] condition was irreversible, Newberger told the jury. I believe that on February [the day the infant was removed from life support] this child was brain dead as a result of neurological trauma. My opinion is that all of the injuries are attributable to child abuse.

Defense attorney Barry Scheck challenged Newbergers theories during cross-examination. Dr. Newberger refused to change his belief that the force needed to inflict Matthew Eappens head injuries would be the equivalent of a child falling out of a second story window onto concrete. Newberger said that Matthews injuries occurred shortly before he arrived at the hospital.

However, Newberger did admit to Scheck that he is not an expert in radiology, opthamology, or biomechanics. Much of the cross-examination exchange between Newberger and Scheck appeared confrontational, with Newberger at times accusing Scheck of distorting his testimony. And, despite his certainty that Matthew suffered from shaken baby syndrome, Newberger told Scheck that he would change his opinion if there was neuropathological evidence that the infant suffered from head injuries weeks before his February 4 incident with Woodward.

Then, the mother of Matthew Eappen, Deborah Eappen, an opthamologist, took the stand. Deborah and her husband, Sunil Eappen, hired Louise Woodward as a nanny in November 16. From almost the beginning, the Eappens and Woodward disagreed over whether Woodward should have a curfew. Mrs. Eappen said that Woodward complained of having to following her previous employers curfew and that she did not want a curfew. So, the Eappens agreed to give Woodward a one-month trial period without a curfew. However, Mrs. Eappen said, the no-curfew policy did not work; frequently, Woodward would come home late at night after going out with friends and would not be able to wake up on time in the morning to care for Matthew and his brother, two-year-old Brendan. Mrs. Eappen also claimed that Woodward would seem lazy and unresponsive to her sons. On January 8, the Eappens told Woodward that she would have to follow a curfew if she was to remain employed.

Mrs. Eappen said that her baby appeared normal and healthy in the days leading up to the incident. But on the afternoon of February 4, Mrs. Eappen was paged by Woodward, who told her that Matthew was breathing abnormally. According to Mrs. Eappen, Woodward said that the infant had been screaming and screaming. She heard him stop crying [after leaving him alone to go into the bathroom], and when she came back, his eyes looked glazed over. Woodward allegedly told Mrs. Eappen that she had not dropped Matthew or treated him roughly. (This testimony contradicts what Woodward allegedly told police detectives.)

When Mrs. Eappen saw Matthew in the hospital and examined his eyes with a special instrument, she saw extensive retinal hemorrhaging, a sign of shaken baby syndrome.

I knew what that meant, Mrs. Eappen said. I was shocked...I couldnt believe it.

The most emotional testimony part of Deborah Eappens testimony came when she described her sons five days in the hospital on life support and his last moments alive after being removed from life support.

We [members of the Eappen family] all took turns holding Matthew, she said. We played childrens music. We lit my grandmothers candle, and we prayed...And then Matty died.

During cross-examination by defense attorney Andrew Good, Mrs. Eappen conceded that she and her husband had a generally good relationship with Woodward and that Woodward seemed in good spirits in the days leading up the incident. Mrs. Eappen also acknowledged that Woodward received a good recommendation from her previous employers.

Good suggested to Mrs. Eappen that she prematurely assumed that Woodward was responsible for Matthews injuries when she asked her about the exact chronology of the days events leading up to the alleged shaking. (Mrs. Eappen told Woodward that the hospital wanted to know about the events; the hospital never made such a request.) When asked whether she had misled Woodward with her questioning, Mrs. Eappen admitted, Yes...I wanted to know how long he [Matthew] had been like that.

October 16

Deborah Eappen, the mother of Matthew Eappen, returned to the stand for cross-examination by the defense. She agreed that the notes from an interview she gave to police indicated that her son was crying when she went to work the morning of February 4 (the day of the alleged shaking incident with Louise Woodward). Mrs. Eappen also testified that she had no idea that Matthew had suffered a broken wrist sometime before February 4 and that the baby never showed any signs of the injury. (The autopsy on the baby showed that he had broken his wrist a few weeks before the alleged incident with Woodward.)

Defense attorney Andrew Good focused on notes Mrs. Eappen had made when she spoke to Woodward over the phone after Matthews admission to Childrens Hospital. Mrs. Eappen knew about the extent of her sons head injury and asked Woodward to tell her about the events leading up to his hospitalization. Mrs. Eappen said that Woodward told her that Matthew had taken an unusually long nap that morning and that he had to be awakened for lunch. Woodward also allegedly told Eappen that Matthew had not fallen that afternoon and had not bumped his head on the side of the bathtub during his bath. (This contradicts prior police testimony that Woodward told investigators that Matthew accidentally hit his head on the side of the tub.) However, Mrs. Eappen said that Woodward told her that the baby had fallen over on the stairs the previous day and suggested that he may have struck his head then. Woodward also never told Mrs. Eappen that she may have been rough with Matthew.

Then the prosecution brought Kathleen Sorabella, an avid theatergoer who went to see the musical Rent 40 times during its run in Boston, to the stand. She and her husband regularly saw Woodward standing on a rush line for tickets to Rent. (A rush line is a special line in which people wait for $0 tickets to extra seats available in the first two rows of the theater.) Sorabella said that on one occasion in December 16, she and Woodward had a conversation while they were waiting on line, and Woodward told her how much she disliked her job. Sorabella claimed that Woodward said the Eappens were very demanding and always told her when to come home at night. Woodward also allegedly complained that the boys she cared for were spoiled and constantly cranky. She allegedly described baby Matthew as a brat. (Sorabella approached police with this story after she had read about the Woodward case in the newspaper this past February.)

During cross-examination, defense attorney Good tried to cast doubt on Sorabellas credibility by suggesting that she was a Rent groupie who was jealous of Woodwards social relationships with several of the musicals cast members. Good also pointed out several discrepancies between Sorabellas employment and financial history and the information she provided on an application for automobile financing. However, Good did not challenge the specifics of Sorabellas story about Woodward.

Ruhana Augustin, another English au pair and Woodwards best friend in Boston, also came to the stand. Like Woodward, Augustin came to work in the United States as a live-in nanny in June 16. She went with Woodward to see Rent several times, and they enrolled in a drama class together. Augustin and Woodward went out together every night and had daily phone conversations.

According to Augustin, Woodward had an on again, off again relationship with Deborah Eappen and that Woodwards biggest complaints about the Eappens was their concerns about her curfew and that they gave her too much work to do. Woodward sometimes complained that Matthew cried a lot and that the infant and his brother annoyed her. However, Augustin said, Woodward generally liked the boys and would show her friends pictures of them.

On the day of Matthews alleged shaking, Augustin said that she and Woodward spoke on the phone for about an hour and a half. Augustin did not remember hearing Matthew crying in the background. During the evening, after the infant was hospitalized, Woodward allegedly told Augustin that she gently shook the baby after she realized something was wrong with him. Regarding the testimony of the previous witness Sorabella, Augustin remembered meeting her on the rush lines. But she did not recall overhearing Woodward talk to Sorabella about her job and the Eappens.

Woodwards previous employer, Harris Komishane, testified that he and his wife had hired Woodward to take care of their child when she first came to Massachusetts. Although Komishane was initially concerned about Woodwards lack of experience and confidence in handling his baby, he said that she improved and did a good job. However, the Komishanes 11 p.m. curfew on Woodward was the reason she left them. Woodward complained that curfew did not allow her to enjoy Boston night life. (And the Komishanes lived too far from Boston for Woodward to commute conveniently to and from home.)

The final witness prosecutors called was Sunil Eappen, an anesthesiologist and father of Matthew Eappen. He mirrored his wifes account of their battles with Woodward over her curfew.

I cant remember a single evening when she [Woodward] was home, Mr. Eappen said. The mornings after were a problem. (The Eappens claimed that Woodwards inability to get up to care for their children the morning after a late night out was a constant problem.)

Mr. Eappen said that Matthew was behaving normally in the days leading up to the February 4 incident. He tearfully described the day he received the phone call at work telling him that his son was in the hospital. Then, the father slowly described the moment he and his wife decided to take Matthew off life support.

We prayed, got communion, and we decided wed all hold Matthew, Mr. Eappen said. And we stopped the ventilator, and just held him. Matthew died while I was holding him.

Mr. Eappen also claimed that he did not know about Matthews broken wrist that apparently occurred weeks before the shaking. The prosecution rested its case with Sunil Eappens testimony. The defense will begin presenting its case the next morning

Louise Woodwards defense began to present her case today by bringing various character witnesses to the stand. Two of Woodwards former teachers from England said that Woodward was a good student, recognized by her peers as honest and non-violent. In addition, a former assistant at the Childrens Museum in Boston (where Woodward sometimes volunteered) said that the defendant was enthusiastic and showed patience while working with children.

All these character witnesses characterized Woodward as a gentle, responsible person who could not have caused the head injuries that led to Matthew Eappens death. Until today, jurors had seen only the prosecutions portrait of Woodward as a disgruntled teen nanny who was not as responsible as she should have been towards the Eappen boys. According to prosecutors, Woodward was only interested participating in Boston night life. The defense, however, tried to give jurors a different picture.

After the testimony of the character witnesses, defense attorney Barry Scheck called forensic neuropathologist Jan Leestma to the stand. Dr. Leestma said that the infant did not die from injuries the prosecution says came from shaken baby impact syndrome. Describing microscopic photos of Matthews brain, he testified that the baby suffered from a head injury approximately three weeks before the alleged shaking incident with Woodward on February 4 and that he died from those prior injuries. Dr. Leestma believed that the prior head injury went unnoticed and began to spontaneously bleed within the brain. This led to the formation of the subdural hematoma which put pressure on Matthews brain. According to Dr. Leestma, this pressure caused Matthews restless and subsequent comatose state on February 4. Dr. Leestma testified that the alleged shaking incident did not happen. He said that Matthews prior injury could have been inflicted but also could have occurred accidentally. Dr. Leestma also said the infants skull fracture and subdural hematoma could have resulted from a fall of only inches (as opposed to the prosecutions estimate of 15 feet).

During a lengthy cross-examination, prosecutor Martha Coakley tried to refute Dr. Leestmas theories. Coakley asked Dr. Leestma about Matthews retinal hemorrhages, which is a symptom of shaken baby syndrome. The doctor claimed that the hemorrhages did not change his opinion that the babys injuries did not come from violent shaking. But, Dr. Leestma said, he had discovered no evidence suggesting the presence of retinal hemorrhaging prior to the alleged shaking incident.

Coakley also questioned Dr. Leestmas expertise in child abuse cases. The doctor admitted that as a neurologist, he has dealt mostly with the tissues of corpses, not living children, and that he is not an expert in biomechanics. Dr. Leestma also admitted to the prosecution that the facts of the Eappen case, as first presented to him, resembled a child abuse case.

Under careful prosecution questioning, Dr. Leestma insisted that he had seen and read about cases of children suffering head injuries similar to Matthew Eappen from falls of only three feet. However, the doctor could not specifically name these cases. Dr. Leestma also conceded that he had never seen or read about other cases where a child suffered retinal hemorrhages from a falls of two or three feet.

Dr. Leestma was scheduled to return the stand when testimony resumes Monday, Oct. 0.

October 0

Under heavy questioning by prosecutor Martha Coakley, forensic neuropathologist Dr. Jan Leestma continued to defend his position for the defense that Matthew Eappen did not die from injuries caused by shaken baby syndrome. Instead, Dr. Leestma again told the jury, the baby died from the delayed effects of a head injury he suffered three weeks before his death. (Dr. Leestma said that he could not tell whether the prior injury was accidental or inflicted.)However, in contrast to his testimony on October 17, Dr. Leestma said he could not determine for sure whether the babys fatal injury was caused by violent shaking. Despite his hesitancy to completely rule out violent shaking, the doctor refused to concede that the infant could have been shaken for even as long as only 0 seconds.

Dr. Leestma also believed that it possible for Matthew to not show any signs of his prior head injury before his hospitalization on February 4. Prosecutor Coakley tried to undermine the doctors theory by saying that his published writings on infant head trauma contradicted his verbal testimony. The doctor, however, responded that he probably had not stated his theories as well as he should have in his writings. Regarding the retinal hemorrhaging found in Matthews eyes, Dr. Leestma said that it was caused by a sudden increase in intercranial pressure induced by a rebleeding of the prior head injury, not by violent shaking. (The prosecution claims that the retinal hemorrhaging indicates that Matthew was a victim of shaken baby syndrome.)

The defense also brought two more character witnesses to the stand who said that Louise Woodward had a reputation as a law-abiding citizen and generally enjoyed working with children. Testimony today ended with a defense neuroradiologist and head trauma expert, Dr. Alisa Gean, testifying that she could not find evidence that Matthew was a victim of shaken baby impact syndrome. Dr. Gean based her opinion on that fact that she did not observe any swelling of Matthews soft scalp tissue at the time of his hospitalization. (A swelling of soft scalp tissue and broken blood vessels are two signs of a recent skull fracture.)

According to Dr. Gean, this lack of swelling indicates that the babys injury could not have been inflicted, as the prosecution claims. Dr. Gean testified that Matthew had suffered a head injury weeks before his admission into Childrens Hospital. His condition was caused by pressure on his brain, which was caused by a rebleeding of the prior injury. Dr. Gean also told the jury that the effects of a head injury on an infant can go unnoticed for several weeks. She also supported Dr. Leestmas earlier testimony about the cause of retinal hemorrhaging in the infants eyes. Dr. Gean ended her testimony by telling jurors that the clear fluid that doctors observed in Matthews brain during his surgery was not spinal fluid. Rather, Dr. Gean said, the fluid was really layered remnants of old blood from the babys prior head injury. Dr. Gean will return to the stand for cross-examination by the prosecution the next day.

October 1

Dr. Alisa Gean returned to the stand for cross-examination by the prosecution. Dr. Gean maintained her theory that Matthew Eappen died from the effects of a head injury he apparently suffered three weeks before the alleged shaking incident with Louise Woodward. According to Dr. Gean, Matthew suffered a skull fracture and subdural hematoma after falling about inches. The baby died from intercranial pressure caused by a rebleeding of the prior injury. Dr. Gean also said that rebleeding in the brain occurs more easily in babies than adults and adolescents. In addition, she told the court that the characteristics of the brain membrane one would indicate a chronic hematoma in Matthew can be easily overlooked during visual examinations. Therefore, Dr. Gean contended, the brain membrane may have been overlooked during the Matthews emergency surgery on February 4, and the doctors may not have realized that he had suffered a prior head injury.

However, Dr. Gean conceded to prosecutor Martha Coakley that the infant indeed could have been shaken at one point before or on February 4. However, Dr. Gean did not believe the babys injury came from shaking. Dr. Gean also admitted having no opinion on whether Matthews injury was accidental or inflicted. Nonetheless, in her medical analysis on Matthews injury before the trial, Dr. Gean had written that the presence of retinal hemorrhaging left little question about malicious intent. (The doctor had testified that the retinal hemorrhaging was caused by intercranial pressure, not violent shaking.) When confronted about this contradiction, Dr. Gean said she would have written her medical analysis differently and not insinuated that the injury was inflicted. Dr. Gean admitted that a chronic hematoma can be confused with a recent hematoma but insisted that that mistake did not happen in Matthew Eappens case.

Then biomechanics expert Dr. Lawrence Thibault took the stand for the defense. A former Chief of the Department of Bio-Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Thibault is the co-author of a 187 study on shaken baby syndrome (which other witnesses have widely referred to during this trial). He further supported the defenses theory that Matthews fatal head injury was pre-existing. Dr. Thibault did not think that shaking caused the babys injury. Rather, the injury could have come from a fall of about inches, not 15 feet like the prosecution originally contended.

Dr. Thibault testified that the baby did not have the injuries to his neck and spine injuries that would be present in victims of shaken baby syndrome. The doctor also dismissed the prosecutions claim the retinal hemorrhaging found in Matthews eyes came from the back-and-forth movement of the eyeballs within the eyesockets during violent shaking. Dr. Thibault believes that this was not possible. The space between the eyeballs and their sockets are too densely packed with muscle and other tissue to allow such back and forth movement.

The eyeballs couldnt get to the sockets, Dr. Thibault said. There is no slamming against the orbit.

When asked about the broken wrist that the autopsy reports showed the baby suffered shortly before his death, Dr. Thibault said that it was possible that Matthew could have fractured his skull when he broke his wrist. The doctor explained to the court how Matthew could have fallen and simultaneously fractured his skull and wrist.

October

Susan Woodward, the mother of the defendant Louise Woodward, came to the stand. She testified that Louise was the eldest among her siblings and cousins back in her home in England, and Louise often had to look after her younger cousins. Louise seemed so responsible that her mother said that she did not feel a need to impose a curfew on her daughter back home. Mrs. Woodward visited her daughter in Boston in December 16 and said that Louise seemed happy with the Eappens. Mrs. Woodward also said that Matthew Eappen was a beautiful child who seemed normal and healthy. She did not see Matthew fall at anytime during her visit with Louise and did not see him mistreated in any way. Mrs. Woodward testified that when Matthew was not being held or sleeping in his crib, he normally sat in a bouncy chair. Mrs. Woodward also said that Matthews two-year-old brother Brendan played with him while he sat in the bouncy chair. (The defense has not officially accused Brendan of causing Matthews injuries in court. Defense lawyers so far have only hinted at Brendans possible aggression during cross-examination on Matthews mother, Deborah Eappen.)

Under cross-examination, Mrs. Woodward admitted that Louise never talked to her about any problems she had with the Eappens, particularly the meeting in which the Eappens gave her an ultimatum (to either start adhering to a curfew or find another place of employment). Mrs. Woodward also said that she told her daughter that she was lucky to work for a family as nice as the Eappens.

The defense also brought two more experts to the stand, neurosurgeon Ayub Ommaya and pediatric neurosurgeon Ronald Uscinski. Both Dr. Ommaya and Dr. Uscinski testified that Matthews fatal head injury originally occurred about three weeks before the alleged February 4 shaking incident with Louise Woodward. Both doctors also further supported the defenses theory that Matthews injury was not caused by shaking. Mirroring previous testimony, the doctors said Matthew did not have the neck injuries indicative of shaken baby impact syndrome. And Matthews retinal hemorrhaging was caused by intercranial pressure on his brain, not violent shaking. Dr. Ommaya and Dr. Uscinski also noted that a clear yellow fluid that was present in Matthews brain during emergency surgery was older blood from the infants three-week-old injury. The blood had lost its color and indicated that the injury had rebled since its original occurrence.

During cross-examination by the prosecution, both doctors had to defend the basis of their theories. Prosecutor Martha Coakley asked Dr. Ommaya about his original contention back in July, that Matthews injury had occurred only 48 to 7 hours before his hospitalization. Dr. Ommaya denied ever limiting the age of the injury to 7 hours; he said that, based on the evidence he had at the time, he only knew that Matthews subdural hematoma was an old injury. Dr. Ommaya also said that he did not base his theory about the infants death solely on research and medical slides of previous defense witness Dr. Jan Leestma but on other findings as well.

Prosecutor Coakley challenged Dr. Uscinskis ability to recognize shaken baby syndrome, saying that its characteristics suggest child abuse. However, Dr. Uscinski refuted this argument, claiming that the characteristics of shaken baby syndrome are consistent with but not diagnostic of child abuse. The doctor said that signs of shaken baby syndrome are the same in both accidents and instances of child abuse. Dr. Uscinski ended his testimony by saying that an increase in intercranial pressure from Matthews prior head injury eventually cut off the flow of oxygen-rich blood to his brain. The infants body shut down, and he died.

October

Forensic pathology expert Michael Baden further supported the defenses theory that Matthew Eappens fatal head injury originally occurred three weeks before the alleged shaking incident with Louise Woodward. Dr. Baden said that the baby did not die from a recent injury inflicted by violent shaking; rather, the infant succumbed to complications from a chronic subdural hematoma caused by a prior head injury. During cross-examination by the prosecution, Dr. Baden was confronted with the fact that his original opinion at the beginnning of the case was that Matthews injury had occurred between 1 and 48 hours before his hospitalization on February 4. However, the doctor replied his opinion was preliminary at that point and later evidence made him revise his original theory about Matthews death.

Then, in a highly anticipated moment, the defendant Louise Woodward came to the stand. Woodward began her testimony by describing her life back in England and how she had joined an au pair (live-in nanny) program so that she could be exposed to American culture. Almost immediately after Woodard began her testimony, her lawyer, Andrew Good, asked her whether she had ever shaken, struck, or dropped Matthew Eappen. Woodward quietly denied that had ever happened.

Woodward proceeded to claim that her relationship with her first live-in family, the Komishanes, was a good one and that the Komishanes thought that she took good care of their children. The only gripe Woodward had with her first employers was that they imposed a curfew on her. This, and the fact that the Komishanes lived far away from the Boston area, restricted Woodwards ability to enjoy Boston theatre and nightlife. Woodward eventually sought employment with another family, and in November 16, she started working for the Eappens.

In the beginning, Woodward asked the Eappens not to impose a curfew on her. (Woodward had never experienced a curfew back home in England, and she felt her social life would not interfere with her responsibilities as a nanny.) The Eappens agreed to a one-month trial period without a curfew. However, Woodward acknowledged that the arrangement did not work out because of her failure to wake up in time in the morning to care for the children.

The most emotional testimony of the day came when Louise Woodward described the day Matthew was hospitalized. Woodward said that the day before his hospitalization, the baby had not moved his bowels at all, and his mother, Dr. Deborah Eappen, had instructed Woodward to feed him fluids. On February 4, Woodward said that Matthew did not seem to be himself. When Woodward awoke that morning, Matthew was crying. The baby was still crying as his mother left for work that morning. According to Woodward, Matthew remained uncomfortable, crying incessantly. He refused to eat anything.

Woodward then said that she decided to give Matthew a bath. She described how she prepared his bath, and placed him on his back on a towel on the bathroom floor to undress him. Woodward said that Matthew did not strike his head at any time during his bath. However, the bath did not soothe Matthew. Woodward then said she placed Matthew in his crib.

After talking with her friend and fellow nanny Ruhana Augustin, Woodward checked on Matthew in his crib. She tearfully testified that the baby seemed unresponsive, his breathing sporadic and his eyes glazed. He didnt look right...he was off-color, [turning] kind of blue, Woodward said between tears. Woodward admitted that she panicked, yelled Matthews name and shook him slightly to see if he would respond to her. The baby also vomited on Woodward. Despite Woodwards actions, Matthew remained somewhat unresponsive. Woodward said she frantically (and unsuccessfully) tried to reach the Eappens before she called 11. Soon after the call to police, Woodward finally reached Mrs. Eappen and told her about Matthews condition.

According to Woodward, Mrs. Eappen asked her whether Matthew had struck his head at any time in the past two days. Woodward said that Matthew may have hit his head on the stairway the previous day. (Woodward said that she was tending to Matthews brother Brendan when Matthew tumbled while her back was turned. Because, Woodward did not actually see him fall, she was not completely sure that Matthew had struck his head. That was only her speculation.)

Woodward denied telling police that she had been rough with Matthew. The nanny claimed that she told them that because Matthew was crying during his bath and she was rushing to finish his bath, she may not have been as gentle as I could have been with the infant. Woodward concluded her direct examination by her attorney by reiterating that she never hit or slammed Matthew against a hard surface.

Prosecutor Gerard Leone, Jr. began his cross-examination of Louise Woodward late in the day and asked her about her motivation to become involved in the au pair program. Leone also asked Woodward about her decision to become the Eappens nanny and about Brendan Eappens interaction with his younger brother.

Please note that this sample paper on The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward, we are here to assist you. Your cheap research papers on The Trial and Conviction of Louise Woodward will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!

John locke

If you order your essay from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on john locke. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality john locke paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in john locke, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your john locke paper at affordable prices!

John Locke was probably one of the most influential thinkers and philosophers of the late 1600's. John Locke's views about government and politics are expressed in his Second Treatise of Government written in 160. Locke advocates God-given rights for all human beings and that government is established to protect these individual rights. He argues that government exists by the consent of the governed. Locke also talks about the individual rights to property given by God for the use of the people. He discusses the possibility of tyranny in the government as well. Throughout his Second Treatise of Government, Locke's view is that sovereignty rests with the people and not with the government.

In chapters one through three of his Second Treatise of Government, Locke explains how God gave all human beings individual rights. He says the power resides with the people and not with the government or a monarchy. Locke says "…yet the knowledge if which is the eldest line of Adam's posterity being so long since utterly lost…" (pg.). Locke is implying that even if Adam was given political power over the people by God, his heirs have been lost in the races of mankind. The Divine Rights of kings were understood to be the right of a king to rule directly from God. Locke argues that since there is no proof that the kings were directly related to Adam, political power is solely in the hands of the people. Locke says, "…we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is a state of perfect freedom…" (pg.). Government, by nature, has no rule over man, man by nature seeks freedom, not authority, however, government is established to protect individual rights.

Locke believed that the right to private property, which is an individual right, originated from God when the earth was created. God wanted man to make use of all the things on the earth. God also gave man the ability to reason, to take full advantage of what the earth had to offer and use it for their own benefit. Locke says "whatsoever then he removes out of the state of nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property"(pg.1). He explains that once a person removes something out of its original state of nature, applies his own labor to it, the object becomes his own property

To be in a place where there is no government or jurisdiction and all the freedom in the world, seems like a good idea. This kind of freedom will allow you to do as you please, without the consent of anyone. It gives you the right to punish those who have committed crimes against you, as you may see fit. You are endowed with all the God-given rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This would seem as the perfect place to live. But if one were to carefully examine this type of living, one would realize the importance of a government.

Write my Essay on john locke

This type of environment is discussed in John Locke's, Second Treatise of Government. In the state of nature, there is perfect freedom, no one is controlling others and no one is being controlled, everyone is equal. Locke comes to say that the only way someone can rule over us is if we let them. There is no need for a central authority figure to govern the actions of people, in the state of nature, for it is the people, themselves, who impose the "peace and preservation of mankind". Freedom can be obtained as long as one does not bother others in their state of nature. In this state, superiority and jurisdiction does not exist, whereby, men have the power to punish those who offend him. This element in the state of nature, where men are their own executioners of their offenders, can cause problems. The executioner can be more lenient on a person he prefers, and harsher on someone else, who committed the same crime. While all men are in charge of their own will according to the Law of Reason in which they are born, some men do, in fact, break or reject this law, which causes them to enter into a state of war with the others. People reject the law of nature for many reasons, especially when their ideas and opinions differ. One of two things may occur when people reject the laws of nature. The first is that one could enter into a state of war with someone else, and the other is that one could choose to enter into a state of society. It is reason that ultimately leads a person into the state of society through a social contract. The rights to punish others as they see fit is given up by men, when he leaves the state of nature and conforms to society and government. Instead, the social contract exists to protect people from those who transgress by inflicting punishment to offenders through the force of the government.

A further significant point that Locke made in his Second Treatise of Government was tyranny. A tyrant government often violates the rights of the people and abuses their power. Consideration of individual rights and freedom of the people are not cared for. Locke discusses how in such a government, the ruler works for themselves, and not for the benefit of the people, in which dissolution can occur. If the leader or the government neglects its obligations, the government is probable to failure. However Locke says that the conditions for dissolution are not likely to occur, "…such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs" (pg.70). Due to the ability that God has given us to reason, Locke is implying that revolts are infrequent. He is saying that since humans are capable of thinking and rationalizing, revolts do not occur for every minuscule problem the people may have with the government. Conditions for dissolution are based upon long term abuse by the government. Locke argues that dissolution creates a state of nature because a government would not be present. The tyrant puts themselves in a state of war with the citizens. In a state of nature, you give up the right to be protected by the laws and legislation. Civil Society differs in that you have a higher authority to seek protection or defense from. When the people's liberties are dissolved, they are forced to establish a new government. Locke says, "…in these and like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative…" (pg. 67). The pervious chapters in Locke's Second Government of Treatise, he discusses the individual rights given by God. The chapter of tyranny can be linked to the other chapters because it totally disenables these God given rights.

John Locke's views seem to be clear. Locke supports the idea that all human beings have individual rights given by God and government is constructed to protect these rights. He establishes that the power resides in the hands of the people. Locke says that the government exists only by the consent of the governed. John Locke believes that with his ideology of individual rights and the government, a better life is achievable. Although, the absence of government seems like a good idea, it is still necessary. Government exists to protect the individual rights of human beings. It allows you the opportunity to prove your innocence if falsely accused, unlike in the state of nature.

Locke often refers to religion in his Second Treatise of Government, and is the foundation upon which most of his theories are built. The bases of Locke's theories are constructed from the idea that all human beings have natural God-given rights. In further exploring with John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, I would focus on his religious aspects of individuality, private property, and the state. I would also discuss how and why people have natural right to property and the impact it has on the ruler or government.

Please note that this sample paper on john locke is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on john locke, we are here to assist you. Your essay on john locke will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!