When Louise Woodward was awakened from her sleep on Tuesday and told by her father that she was free to return to Britain, she probably thought she could pack her bags and it would all be over.
She had spent seven long months waiting for the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Boston and, while she will be branded forever as a "convicted felon" responsible for the death of Matthew Eappen, Ms Woodward no doubt believed the court's decision was the end of a long nightmare.
The headlines in yesterday's British press will have told her in no uncertain terms that it is in fact the start of another nightmare. "Woodward free - at a price," the Guardian declared, while the Sun was adamant: "Don't let Louise near a baby again."
The line from the British press, so far, is that Ms Woodward and her family should not be paid for their story. But will the Press Complaints Commission be able to enforce its own code of practice banning payments to convicted criminals except "in the public interest"?
The decision by Drs Sunil and Deborah Eappen to file a civil lawsuit against Ms Woodward, accusing her of causing the wrongful death of their son, which, if successful, could amount to at least £47,000 in damages, and an interim ruling seeking to prevent her from profiting in any way from Matthew's death by selling her story, came on the back of the court's opinion that Ms Woodward and her associates should be prohibited from profiting from her crime.
Both lines of attack may prove difficult to uphold in the UK, since the courts in Boston only have jurisdiction to enforce any judgment in the US. The fact that the Woodward family does not have any visible means by which they could pay compensation to the Eappens - which they would be entitled to if the civil suit is successful - and the fact that it is unlikely the Eappens would fight Louise Woodward in the British courts, lends weight to the belief that Woodward cannot be bound by a US judgment in the UK.
The best the Eappens can hope for is that the civil suit for damages, which could take two years to clear the US courts, will be enforceable in the UK, according to the barrister, Mr Fenton Bresler. "On the injunction in some way blocking selling her story, I think it extremely unlikely it could be enforced in the UK."
The opinion of the "dissenting minority" of judges that Ms Woodward and her associates must not benefit from selling their story "cannot be enforced in the UK," he says.
That leaves the injunction lodged by the Eappens seeking to block Ms Woodward or her family from making money by selling their story to the newspapers. Her lawyers already have moved to quash speculation that she has signed a deal for her story, insisting that she would not be going into hiding "at the behest of any national newspaper or media organisation". But speculation is already mounting in Britain that the Daily Mail at least is considering a deal with her. While the newspaper has denied paying Ms Woodward any money, it quoted her directly in yesterday's editions as saying after the court's decision, "I feel very flat," and her father, Mr Gary Woodward, describing his mood as "numb".
The PCC's code of practice prohibits payments to convicted criminals and their associates except when it is in the public interest to do so - but it has told editors that they must make up their own minds as to whether they should pay Ms Woodward for her story. Despite the extreme pressure on editors to get her exclusive story, the media commentator, Mr Roy Greenslade, says he believes they will resist.
"My view is that they won't pay her for her story because it would be a very public snub to their own code of practice. Everyone is watching everyone else like a hawk and in a way they are policing each other. But there is no doubt they are thinking of a way around it."
A civil action preventing Ms Woodward and her family from selling their story would not be enforceable in Britain, says Mr Greenslade, but the real issue is preventing newspapers from buying the story. Indeed, one of the ways around the issue for the editors might be if Ms Woodward co-operated on a book about the case and the newspapers bought the exclusive rights to serialise the story.
This was done in the recent cases of Mary Bell and Sean O'Callaghan. And in the event that a defence of public interest failed or if there were any complaints about the story, the newspapers would only be compelled to print an adjudication.
Louise Woodward and her family have gone on record to say they will not seek to benefit financially from Matthew's death. One of her lawyers, Mr Barry Scheck, who defended O.J. Simpson, has said that while he felt assured she would present her side of the story in the "near future", it was his understanding that neither she nor her family planned to sell their story.
However, it is beyond doubt that the appeal fund set up in her name is struggling to meet spiralling legal fees - the donations amount to a reported £76,000 - and with the immense media interest in this young woman, the pressure on editors will increase to sign her up. We must wait and see.