Louise Woodward The Killer Nanny. did she do it?

[HeckinMiffed]

This was such a huge case when I was younger. Anyone else watching?
I always thought she didnt deliberately kill the baby.

That older juror was quite sinister. She was doing enough smirking and narrowing of her eyes for everyone.
She said she didn't really want to do the interview and I wonder about her motive for taking part other than to reiterate just how guilty she thought LW was.

My dd has said she would like to spend some time in USA like I did I have suggested the Disney College program or camp America instead and not somewhere she will be left alone with children

It was just her smugness - they thought they had a good case they didn’t. She was almost relishing her role in it all.

The whole trial seemed loaded and like a foregone conclusion.

At the time i thought she was a sacrificial lamb. I remember thinking the parents seemed odd.

I don't think we will ever know what really happened,maybe Matthew did bang his head that day and exacerbated an old injury who knows .

But I definitely don't think the prosecution,proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.

I binge watched all three last night. My thoughts are that there is no way that case would have got to court nowadays.

I think the police Officer was shameful and had decided guilt without investigating properly.

Jurors also shameful. Admitting they didn't understand the medical evidence

Demeanor of LW was understandable ti me. Trying to keep it together, fear, loss of composure at the prosecutors theatrical 'break' in his voice.

In my opinion she didn't do what she was charged with.

There are certainly unanswered questions, I am staggered that medical parent missed signs of abuse (or did they) and if LW did previously handle the baby roughly or was negligent on duty she has certaiy paid the price. If she was completely innocent then she has my deepest sympathy.

@Pastryapronsucks

I binge watched all three last night. My thoughts are that there is no way that case would have got to court nowadays.

I think the police Officer was shameful and had decided guilt without investigating properly.

Jurors also shameful. Admitting they didn't understand the medical evidence

Demeanor of LW was understandable ti me. Trying to keep it together, fear, loss of composure at the prosecutors theatrical 'break' in his voice.

In my opinion she didn't do what she was charged with.

There are certainly unanswered questions, I am staggered that medical parent missed signs of abuse (or did they) and if LW did previously handle the baby roughly or was negligent on duty she has certaiy paid the price. If she was completely innocent then she has my deepest sympathy.

Yes I agree about the police officer ,he had decided she was guilty in the first instance,I have watched all three episodes too ,I think the female member of the defence team was a loose cannon.

@mathanxiety
That’s interesting about the American culture but bears little similarity to the British. I didn’t babysit a child until I was 16 and this was a school aged child so much easier than a baby and was in my mid 20s before I changed a nappy. My dd is 13 and I don’t know anyone, who would need babysitting or anywhere she could learn these skills or start by being mother’s help. Not that I would allow her to babysit at this age. I don’t think my experience is terribly uncommon here.

@Pastryapronsucks
I agree with what you’ve said. The police officer doesn’t seem to have a clue that he came across very badly. And the juror. Just awful. But not the part about LW potentially hurting him. I always thought she was innocent and remember being devastated when she was convicted.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@Pastryapronsucks
I agree with what you’ve said. The police officer doesn’t seem to have a clue that he came across very badly. And the juror. Just awful. But not the part about LW potentially hurting him. I always thought she was innocent and remember being devastated when she was convicted.[/quote]
My gut feeling is that she didn't hurt the baby too, but we had no access to any evidence to support or disprove.

As a former teenager and parent to teenagers my hypothesise is that any injury to the baby in her care is more likely to be due to negligence, for example not keeping a close eye on the toddler or allowing baby to fall of a sofa and then not telling the parents. What I am saying is if there was any guilt, the time served I a high security USA prison, the trial and the (ongoing) public interest would be punishment enough. Poor girl has a life sentence innocent or guilty.

I agree but I also think the police officer misinterpreted Louise,s terminology ,so assumed she was rougher with the baby then she actually was ,I agree Louise may not have been as vigilant as she could have been ,but if that was the case it was an accident not malicious ,I guess we will never know .

@ENoeuf

It was just her smugness - they thought they had a good case they didn’t. She was almost relishing her role in it all.

I did riot see any signs of smugness. I saw a terrified teenager who was treated appallingly within a system not fit for purpose.

I have been a nanny in North America though fortunately treated well. But the role is notorious for exploitation of vulnerable young women.

I have also been a court reporter and to me LW is very unlike most defendants (in most cases the guilt is glaringly obvious) and very much a sacrificial lamb. The justice system is a service for the wealthy and powerful, and very little to do with what is "just".

Oh I thought @ENoeuf was talking about sinister jury lady.

So did I…

I honestly don't know what to think.

I would sway towards innocent if it wasn't for the detached retinas. The injury's to Matthews eyes can't be explained with the re-bleed theory, or underlying conditions. Retinal haemorrhage alone can point to underlying conditions but along with the other symptoms points to injury. Falling from a bed, even dropping a baby to the floor wouldn't cause that extent of injury presenting with those symptoms.

A lot of the studies the defence experts use in their testimony is flawed in the sense that the controls aren't lifelike - using piglets, baby models not having similar mechanics to real babies etc.

I don't think the evidence was enough to convict her beyond reasonable doubt but I do believe something occurred that day whilst Louise was responsible for Matthew.

Extremely difficult and very much a trial by media. I do think the judge made the right call with overturning her conviction because it absolutely wasn't pre-meditated.

For anybody more interested in the subject, the below make for good reads:

ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/Abusive-HeadTrauma_NDAA-1.pdf

www.dontshake.org

@Eeiliethya

I honestly don't know what to think.

I would sway towards innocent if it wasn't for the detached retinas. The injury's to Matthews eyes can't be explained with the re-bleed theory, or underlying conditions. Retinal haemorrhage alone can point to underlying conditions but along with the other symptoms points to injury. Falling from a bed, even dropping a baby to the floor wouldn't cause that extent of injury presenting with those symptoms.

A lot of the studies the defence experts use in their testimony is flawed in the sense that the controls aren't lifelike - using piglets, baby models not having similar mechanics to real babies etc.

I don't think the evidence was enough to convict her beyond reasonable doubt but I do believe something occurred that day whilst Louise was responsible for Matthew.

Extremely difficult and very much a trial by media. I do think the judge made the right call with overturning her conviction because it absolutely wasn't pre-meditated.

For anybody more interested in the subject, the below make for good reads:

ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/Abusive-HeadTrauma_NDAA-1.pdf

www.dontshake.org

Matthew had no bruising I don't understand that bit I do agree something may have happened but I don't think she attacked him ,an accident maybe .

I binge watched it all last night too and at the end I still have no idea what really happened or whether it was a fresh or an old injury.

What is interesting though is that back in 1997 I was sympathetic to LW, as a young British woman accused of a terrible crime and facing a long prison sentence in a foreign country. Watching the documentary now though, I concluded that she was probably responsible for the involuntary manslaughter of Matthew Eappen. She admitted handling him roughly and I'm sure she downplayed how rough she was, because she was in deep shit and she knew it, so she was bound to minimise anything she'd done.

Having said that, I think Deborah and Sunil Eappen were completely irresponsible to leave their two DC in the care of LW. She had already shown herself to be a terrible au pair. She was out partying til all hours, didn't get up for work in the mornings, was on the phone for hours a day when they'd asked her to limit calls to 5 mins - they shouldn't fired her. No way should such a young, inexperienced and self-centred woman have been left in charge of two such little DC, one of them a baby. They should've used daycare. With two salaries, they should've been able to afford it and daycare is open 7am-6pm and surely LW wasn't working longer hours than that? What possessed them to leave their DC with such an unsuitable person I can't think, as they were clearly well-educated people.

Oh and I don't believe she shook him - more like she banged his head. If she'd shaken him then surely there would've been bruises where she'd gripped his body.

I was reading Reddit last night and it was mentioned that there was an au pair before Louise who left because she felt she couldn't keep the children safe and the elder boy's behavior was very difficult. I found that very interesting.

I would be interested to know if the mother was questioned in a similar manner to Louise- was she tired and inpatient with a grizzly baby after a long day at work? She made a big thing about how 'easy' he was.

Sparklingbrook

Oh I thought @ENoeuf was talking about sinister jury lady.

I was!

@ENoeuf

Sparklingbrook

Oh I thought @ENoeuf was talking about sinister jury lady.

I was!

I agree she was relishing it. I don't know whether it's because they couldn't show her whole face that I found her so creepy. But even her eyes were giving her emotions away.

The defence taking the manslaughter option off the table was a big mistake

@PinchOfVom

The defence taking the manslaughter option off the table was a big mistake

Do you think that if it was still an option and they chose it she would still have been released? Would it still have been just the 279 days do you think?

All this has done is raise questions.
The parents- were they questioned about possible old injury?
If Louise didn't shake him (which I don't think she did) then what happened to him?