Louise Woodward was the picture of an English schoolgirl as she took the witness stand eight months after being charged with murdering an infant in her care. She took the risk of exposing herself to prosecution attack despite the opposition of one of her defence lawyers, Barry Scheck, who won notoriety for his services to O.J. Simpson. But, unless Woodward self-destructs spectacularly when she resumes her testimony on Monday, the gamble will have succeeded brilliantly.

Woodward (19) took the stand in the climactic moment of a trial that has attracted immense attention on both sides of the Atlantic. The courtroom on the 12th floor of the Middlesex Superior Court was packed when she testified on Thursday morning.

For the past two weeks, the jury has seen Woodward as an impassive figure. Some callers to Court TV, the cable network carrying gavel-to-gavel coverage of the trial, described her as cold.

She came across as anything but that during some 3 1/2 hours of testimony. She broke into tears as she described her panic and her frantic efforts to save Matthew Eappen on February 4th, the day the eight-month-old baby was rushed to the emergency room.

"He wasn't breathing properly and I really panicked. I started screaming his name, clapping my hands in front of his face . . . he didn't respond," Woodward told the court.

However, she is not in the clear yet. Most of the questioning on Thursday came from her own side. Assistant district attorney Gerry Leone only managed about 30 minutes of cross-examination.

Mr Leone does have material to work with. At the beginning of the trial, police sergeant William Byrne said Woodward had told him she had dropped Matthew on to the bed, then on to the bathroom floor.

She also admitted, according to him, that she had been a "little rough" with Matthew.

On Thursday, Woodward denied dropping Matthew and demonstrated in front of the jury how she gently put him on to the bathroom floor. These are inconsistencies the prosecution can exploit. Much of Woodward's testimony consisted of telling the court how Matthew cried, would not eat his food and how "cranky" he was on February 4th.

The trial adjourned on Thursday on an intriguing note as Woodward planted the thought with the jury that perhaps Brandon, Matthew's 2 1/2-year-old brother, may have injured his younger sibling. The defence has hinted at this explanation for Matthew's 2 1/2-inch skull fracture but never pursued the theory. The prosecution opened this Pandora's box, one that could be very dangerous for Woodward.

Asked whether Brandon could be rough towards Matthew, Woodward replied: "He could be a little boisterous, he would sometimes jump on him, sometimes Brandon would make him cry."

The verdict on Woodward is that she has handled herself well. "She did superbly, she explained herself," said Linda Keeney, a criminal defence attorney.

If she holds up on Monday, she will probably escape the charge of murder in the first degree. She could face lesser charges depending on whether the defence wants manslaughter and assault and battery to be taken up by the jury as alternatives to murder in the first or second degree.

If the defence fancies its chances, it will want the jury to consider just the murder charge. That way, if the verdict is "not guilty", then Woodward walks free. The judge will have the final say on what charges will be presented to the jury.

The defence has essentially won the scientific battle thanks to Mr Scheck, who deployed the best medical experts that money could buy. These experts have argued that Matthew had a blood clot, probably three weeks old, that started to bleed again, leading to massive pressure on the brain and eventual death. They have made a plausible case, which the prosecution has failed to dent, thereby creating reasonable doubts about the prosecution's contention that Matthew was shaken violently and had his head slammed on February 4th.

The money for the defence's hired guns has been paid by EF, Woodward's au pair agency, which has a vital stake in the Woodward case. If she is found guilty, EF faces multimillion dollar lawsuits from the Eappens on charges of negligence.

The au pair business once again has come under scrutiny with the Woodward case. Interviewers in the UK for potential au pairs are dismayed at how agencies have hired applicants against their recommendations.

"It's bums on seats and damn the consequences," said one woman who used to be an interviewer for two London agencies until she gave it up in disgust.