Page 2 | Louise Woodward could have her conviction overturned

edam · 18/02/2007 21:57

Good point Caligula.

Jenk, has always puzzled me why the parents didn't just get a bloody nanny if they wanted one, rather than exploit an au pair. Who is not trained, qualified or paid to take sole charge of a tiny baby, let alone baby + toddler.

Caligula · 18/02/2007 22:43

I think there was some kind of linguistic confusion going on, wasn't there? LW would never have been called a nanny in Britain, because she wasn't qualified, and I think now we all assume that the word "Nanny" implies a piece of paper which proves that she has been trained. Whereas in the USA, "nanny" was any childcarer, so the distinction between a trained professional and a young glorified babysitter, just didn't exist in the language to the same extent.

KathyMCMLXXII · 19/02/2007 14:48

I think the parents may not have been as rich as people assume, because though they will have had huge salaries, they will also have had huge debts to pay off.

I was staying with an American boyfriend in the US when Woodward was tried and I was shocked by the viciousness of people's attitudes to her - newspapers saying 'Woodward should fry' etc.

It also all got tangled up with race issues: people were arguing that she was going to get off purely because she was white and British and had killed a black baby (I hadn't even realised the baby was black). It seemed very hard for anybody there to look purely at the evidence.

I remember the language thing, too - at one point in her evidence she said she had 'popped' the baby on the table. I then heard a woman on a tv phone-in say very self-righteously, 'I don't know what 'popped' means but it doesn't sound like the sort of thing you should do to a young baby.

Have always thought she was innocent....

Whoooosh · 19/02/2007 14:57

I think the parents should have been tried for neglect.
I never thought she was guilty but, two well paid professionals leaving an 18 yr old with a baby and a toddler for 16hr days sometimes was criminal.

FluffyMummy123 · 19/02/2007 14:58

Message withdrawn

FluffyMummy123 · 19/02/2007 14:59

Message withdrawn

WanderingTrolley · 19/02/2007 15:00

With a criminal conviction, can she practise as a lawyer?

Or maybe she just loves da salsa?

Whoooosh · 19/02/2007 15:01

And so what if she did?

Are people not allowed to have a change of career direction?

I know plenty of peole who have had grants,doen degrees and never used them in their career.

FluffyMummy123 · 19/02/2007 15:01

Message withdrawn

Incodnito · 19/02/2007 15:03

Yeah but would you let her look after your children??

madmarchhare · 19/02/2007 15:03

lol @ change of career direction

Whoooosh · 19/02/2007 15:04

I can think of far greater wastes of taxpayers money but let's not get into that one

Would I let her look after my children-no becasue my dd is only 22mts old and she doesn't have the relevant experience I wouls insist on.

If she did then I would.

FluffyMummy123 · 19/02/2007 15:05

Message withdrawn

Tinker · 19/02/2007 15:05

30 per class at £5 each. hire hall for £25 = 625 at 5 lessons per week - not bad for 10 hours work per week

FluffyMummy123 · 19/02/2007 15:06

Message withdrawn

expatinscotland · 19/02/2007 15:06

Salsa dance teacher?!

Haaahaaa.

Why do I find this funny?

Beetrootccio · 19/02/2007 15:07

when was 18 I was a nanny to a professonal coupl ei nLondon and was paid £30 pr week. I had bugger all chaild care experience - and I was a crap nanny - I just wanted a room in London. Thank god I only stayed 3 months

sassy · 19/02/2007 15:07

I have no idea whether she shook the baby or not, only she knows that.It seems plausible that she may have given him a little shake in frustration, though nothing like the prolonged, incredibly violent shaking the prosecutor demonstrated in court (remember that?)
Whatever happened, she was badly advised by her legal team.She decided to opt for a charge of 1st degree murder (what we would call murder, as opposed to 3rd degree murder, our manslaughter) at the last minute.This seems to suggest that her lawyers felt she had a better chance of getting off if she was up for the more serious charge. In fact, the jury found her guilty of this (wrongly imo) and she should have got life. (The judge then stepped in, reduced the charge to 3rd degree and sentenced her to exactly the time she had already served while awaiting trial, so she was free to go.)

sassy · 19/02/2007 15:09

I knew about the salsa thang - she was in some crappo mag like Closer or summink with her boyf - her teaching partner. Weird!

harpsichordcarrier · 19/02/2007 15:10

I watched the trial at the time and IMHO she was not guilty of anything but being extremely shafted. eighteen years old no experience miles from home in sole charge of an eight month old and a 2 year old. dear god those parents should be ashamed of themselves
Jimjams iircthe word she used was "popped" - I "popped" the baby on the bed. which they made a huge thing out of, but clearly means nothing sinister whatsover to an English person but doesn't translate.

expatinscotland · 19/02/2007 15:12

I remember that trial and I thought it was a crock, too. A lot of people did. A lot of people really thought the parents had no business leaving such young children in the charge of a very inexperienced young girl - and they knew how inexperienced she was, too.

I'd take salsa dance lessons from her any day .

BandofMothers · 19/02/2007 15:45

I was also a nanny in America at the time LW was being tried.
In most people's opinions she was guilty before the trial even started. She said she popped the baby on the bed. The problem the Americans had with that is that to pop someone is to hit them!!
I was 19 when I went to America and that is the norm with au pair agencies. If you are over 26 you can't go with most agencies.
They hire such young women from abroad so they can pay them nothing. Most of them totally take the piss, which is why there are stipulations that you can not work more than 45 hrs a week.
Though now as a mother I would think very carefully about hiring someone so young. Thank goodness I don't need to as I am at home. But I am some what offended by the assumption that her age meant she obviously did a bad job.
I think I was a pretty good nanny. I nannied in the U.S for 6 years, and came home when I was 25. I never had any formal qualifications. They don't seem to think much of being a nanny in the u.s. It isn't a well thought of job.
At the time I got many comments along the lines of, "Oh you're a British nanny; killed any babies yet?"
Very poor taste.

Aloha · 19/02/2007 16:01

I saw a documentary about this case several years ago and it became very clear that it was a huge miscarriage of justice.
If she has a conviction for murder she couldn't practise as a lawyer, but anyway, thousands of degree-educated people do jobs that have nothing to do with their degree.

Caligula · 19/02/2007 16:06

I don't think it's reasonable to say she might have given the baby a little shake in frustration.

I wouldn't have given a baby a shake at the age of 19 - or even younger. I don't really know why you should be considered a nutter just because you're young. Shaking a baby has been known to be dangerous for a long time now - at least a couple of decades, surely? I know I knew about it when I was babysitting for kids at the age of 15, and I would never have done it. So I think it's safe to assume that any normal young girl wouldn't do it either, particularly one who is working with young children. Even if you only want the job because it's in America, surely you acquaint yourself with the basics of childcare?

And LW did come over as a perfectly normal young girl. The only reason she was arrested, is because she was the one who was in the house with the baby when he fell ill. If anyone else was in the house, they'd have been arrested. Wrong time, wrong place.

Jimjams2 · 19/02/2007 16:30

oh popped makes even more sense (my mother told me it was plonked- but popped is even less likely to mean roughly).