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.

I don’t know but they’re all emphasising how it wasn’t deliberate but couldn’t quite to with innocent

A not proven verdict like Scotland would have been useful here

I think she was rough and reactivated an old injury.

I think peer pressure really comes into play with jurors as well

It is fascinating. I am sort of hating myself for watching it really, but I agree there are so many unanswered questions.

Almost everyone in the programme there was something not quite right about them and what they were saying. All that stuff with the journalist and Elaine Whitfield-Sharp was a very strange tangent.

What a bizarre case. I know bizarre is not a great choice of words when real people are involved, but it's just a bit bizarre.

Did Matthew have an old skull fracture or not?
Had Matthew previously had a broken wrist or not?
Would it have been possible to shake Matthew so hard as to cause this damage without any bruising on his body?

These seemed like quite important questions to me but they were not really answered I don't think.

@Sparklingbrook

It is fascinating. I am sort of hating myself for watching it really, but I agree there are so many unanswered questions.

Almost everyone in the programme there was something not quite right about them and what they were saying. All that stuff with the journalist and Elaine Whitfield-Sharp was a very strange tangent.

Indeed ,Elaine was a very strange character I have since read about Louise,s parents and the charity money raised for Louise ....

Louise's parents were very emotionless too. I guess they had also had the memo but I can't imagine not showing a flicker of emotion hearing my DC found guilty.

I remember the case at the time, watching something about it and feeling very strongly she didn't do it. I think it was the parents and they used the young au pair as a convenient cover up

I don't remember what the program was or what was said, just how I felt about it (or if it even was a program, might have been an article)

It was 25 years ago so I was only 17ish myself at the time

I’ve just read the appeal stuff and he had a healed fracture to a wrist but lots of tissue etc was lost which could possibly have determined the age of the skull fracture. Although this wasn’t seen as hugely important against all the other evidence entered (my take on it).

It was odd that she admitted to being rough with Matthew. I didn't realise until this programme that she'd done that.

@lborgia

I was in a similar position to LW, although "just" SIDS, no signs of me or anyone else having done anything wrong. Oh, and I was a trained nanny, which made f all difference on the day.

I didn't cry, or anything at all. I now think I must've been in shock.

I was very calm speaking to the police, and everyone else, for months after.

Then someone else I knew (not very well) died about 4 months later, and it was as if a dam burst. I cried and cried and it felt as if I would never stop. The initial feelings were terrifying, and I think I couldn't even process it all.

I've no idea about her case, and no intention of watching the programme, but just wanted to say how angry it makes me when people make assumptions , as pps have said, about women who don't react enough, or too much.

After that initial 4 months this has affected every part of my life for decades. No all day, every day, but it undoubtedly changed the way I saw life, motherhood, and my own abilities as an adult. There are even some small every day moments that can make me physically sick because they happened that day too.

I've never said anything about it to anyone before, but some of the comments on here just proved some kind of last straw.

From one nanny to another.. Sending love... X

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@WickedWitchOfTheEast87
There are many qualifications now in the U.K. Not so much in 1997. Ofsted didn’t even form until 2002. Ofsted registration for childminders is very recent. My dd is a young teen and the current regulations were introduced when she was little. CRB checks, now superseded by DBS also weren’t introduced until 2002. So nothing would have been regulated here either. My relations used childminders for a younger cousin in the 80s and early 90s and left their child with them for long hours. So I think the mentality here was relatively similar at the time amongst some parents.[/quote]
Sorry.. I have to disagree.. I had 'police checks' mid 90s and Social Services checked my suitability to become a registered Childminder before 1998...

Registered childminders are not the same as nannies.

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.

@zafferana, they probably thought that even with the very obvious deficiencies of LW as a nanny, their boys were better off at home and not in daycare.

Look up the McMartin preschool trial, the Faith Chapel case, Fells Acres Daycare Center case, Little Rascals Daycare case, Wee Care Nursery school case, and the Country Walk case (and there were more) - all preschool/nursery/daycare owners and employees accused of organised, long-term, ritual satanic abuse of babies and children. There was a widespread satanic panic about ritual sexual abuse in daycares in the late 80s which persisted into the 90s. The Eappens would have been exposed to all of that.

On top of all that, there was a continuous barrage of studies and articles on terrible outcomes for children in daycare in terms of socialisation, speech and language development, and attachment, observable in kindergarten when problems had become entrenched and hard to cure.

I found the 2 jurors who were interviewed really frustrating. The charge was murder. They didn’t think Louise had killed Matthew on purpose (ie murdered) but found her guilty of murder anyway because in their view she “wasn’t totally innocent”, or words to that effect. But she wasn’t guilty of murder so shouldn’t have been found guilty of that specific crime surely?

I do think LW was “laughing” out of nerves rather than because she’s an evil psychopath but watching how emotionless her parents seemed to be when she was found guilty I wondered if maybe they were a family who don’t show emotion easily or often so Louise was struggling a bit to express herself especially as she was so young ? That’s not meant as a criticism btw. No doubt her parents love her very much.

I get all of that @mathanxiety, I really do. It's scary picking a nursery/daycare setting for your baby or young DC and there are horror stories in every country, but you do your due diligence and the answer is not to ship in some young woman from overseas who has no real experience of taking care of DC and pay her pocket money to look after the most precious people in your lives. They were two professionals who were trying to get childcare on the cheap from someone who quickly proved herself to be unreliable and untrustworthy. The day before Matthew died she spent 2 hours on the phone, when the parents had asked her to limit calls to no more than 5 mins. No way would I have left her in charge of my DC.

@GreetingsAndSalutations

I found the 2 jurors who were interviewed really frustrating. The charge was murder. They didn’t think Louise had killed Matthew on purpose (ie murdered) but found her guilty of murder anyway because in their view she “wasn’t totally innocent”, or words to that effect. But she wasn’t guilty of murder so shouldn’t have been found guilty of that specific crime surely?

I do think LW was “laughing” out of nerves rather than because she’s an evil psychopath but watching how emotionless her parents seemed to be when she was found guilty I wondered if maybe they were a family who don’t show emotion easily or often so Louise was struggling a bit to express herself especially as she was so young ? That’s not meant as a criticism btw. No doubt her parents love her very much.

I think there’s also the fact that you’re aware everyone is watching. We all know how people are judged by the public before the jury, so if you’re on trial in a high publicity case like this one that would be part of your panic. Mustn’t act ‘too emotional’ or people will say it’s crocodile tears/fake/trying to get away with it. Mustn’t be seen as flippant as then you’re clearly guilty. Mustn’t appear normal in any way because then you must be a psycho who doesn’t even care that they’ve killed a baby.

So I think it’s reasonable to assume many would try to control themselves as much as possible and not show their emotions to everyone watching. Which could easily lead to nervous outbursts.

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.

@Mummyoflittledragon
There really is a difference. It's why American candidates for nanny jobs usually come with a lot of experience and references despite the lack of formal 'qualifications'.

I have seen threads here where parents are pulling their hair out wondering how they can get out for a date together, or how they could possibly find someone to come to their house and lend a hand with children so they could get some exercise, deal with a massive pile of laundry once a week, etc.

The very obvious answer in the US would be to ask a neighbourhood teenager and pay them something between $10-$20 per hour, but there seems to be a lot of hand wringing about not knowing anyone or trusting anyone. When I had to leave in a hurry to get to the hospital to deliver DD2 I asked a girl aged 13 who lived in the same building to take care of DD1 and DS (aged 5 and 2) until exH could get back. The DCs had a ball watching Saturday morning tv and doing chalk drawings in the courtyard of the building, with a snack of string cheese and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.

I think the UK is a low-trust society in general, and also a society in which teens are not expected to develop much of a sense of responsibility or ability to get along with either adults or children younger then themselves. They are seen and treated as a tribe unto themselves and alternately coddled and vilified.

I think the attitudes toward teens are clear on this thread. LW is characterised as almost a baby herself. By age 19, most American teens of her age would either have a full time job or be away from home in university, maybe a long way from home actually, and would have part time jobs in university. Most would have a history of part time jobs plus babysitting stretching back to their very early teens. All of my DCs left for university with contact information for people they would use as references when looking for PT jobs or babysitting (most universities have job/babysitting boards and there is also the work/study programme for those who qualify based on financial need).

The attitudes toward teens and toward babysitting are colouring the attitude toward the Eappens too - how could they have hired a wet-behind-the-ears 19 year old to take care of their precious babies? Why didn't they hire someone qualified? The simple answer is that American parents hire teens to take care of babies all the time, and 99.99% of the time it works out perfectly well.

There is much about the culture of the US that is completely unknown, and if known, completely misunderstood, in the UK. The US in general tends to be a higher trust society and that makes a big difference. It's not higher trust as in gullible or naive. It's a matter of an unspoken contract.

The satanic panic was a blip in a general landscape of trust, but it had an effect on childcare choice for as long as it lasted and a few years afterwards.

Another issue I would like to point out with daycare, as so many here are asking why the Eappens didn't put their DCs in a daycare, was the fact that children couldn't attend if ill, and one or other parent would have to take time off work to tend to a sick child. D&V bugs and ear infections could take up all of a parent's paid time off and could even result in having to take unpaid time off.

For the parent trying to establish a career, especially the mother, this could be a big problem. Parents on professional career tracks, and especially parents whose careers demanded hours beyond the 7am to 6pm daycare hours (lawyers, doctors) could find themselves seriously disadvantaged and also out of pocket because daycares charge significant amounts by the minute after pick up time. Parents whose careers demanded either occasional or frequent travel would also choose a live in nanny as opposed to daycare.

That's interesting @mathanxiety. Here, for babysitting for a couple of hours in the evening if the DPs are just going somewhere locally, yes the teenage daughter of a friend or neighbour is still often asked, but for FT childcare, as LW appears to have been employed? I don't know anyone, certainly not two professional parents, who would do this. They'd use registered childcare of some kind - nursery, childminder, nanny, etc.

@zafferana, yes, she was a terrible nanny, and a very immature young woman. She had completely checked out of he role. I for one am not convinced of her innocence. It is impossible to prove what happened beyond a reasonable doubt though, and that is why she is free.

Due diligence is of course required when parents are choosing a daycare, but the whole point of the satanic panic was that hundreds of thousands of parents who had done due diligence, talked to other parents (all before the days of the internet, remember) still believed they had sent their babies and children to places where they were subjected to abuse. Recollections of abuse were drawn out by therapists years afterwards. Parents' and children's lives were turned upside down. Nobody could be sure their children would be safe in a daycare, and that was the damage done by the panic.

They would have got childcare on the cheap at a daycare too, and the quality of care even without outright abuse would have been difficult to gauge ahead of time. It would also have been hard to find a spot in another daycare if the weren't happy with what they were getting. I know women who put babies' names on waiting lists for daycare the same day they POAS.

Daycare quality still isn't great in the US. Employee turnover is high. Employee quality is usually low. There is a popular daycare in my locality where one of my DDs worked one summer and swore never again. The brochure spouts blurb about 'child-centered', 'play-based', 'loving environment' - the reality is reheated frozen chicken nuggets and baby carrots for lunch, a bunch of plastic toys that the unfortunate children fight over daily, a daily walk to a playground, no art or writing or singing. And this is an expensive and sought after place with a wait list. It is run by two women who refused to let an employee take time off to go to a grandparent's funeral in Mexico. The employee quit. Someone else was working in her place the following week.

@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.

@Mummyoflittledragon
There really is a difference. It's why American candidates for nanny jobs usually come with a lot of experience and references despite the lack of formal 'qualifications'.

I have seen threads here where parents are pulling their hair out wondering how they can get out for a date together, or how they could possibly find someone to come to their house and lend a hand with children so they could get some exercise, deal with a massive pile of laundry once a week, etc.

The very obvious answer in the US would be to ask a neighbourhood teenager and pay them something between $10-$20 per hour, but there seems to be a lot of hand wringing about not knowing anyone or trusting anyone. When I had to leave in a hurry to get to the hospital to deliver DD2 I asked a girl aged 13 who lived in the same building to take care of DD1 and DS (aged 5 and 2) until exH could get back. The DCs had a ball watching Saturday morning tv and doing chalk drawings in the courtyard of the building, with a snack of string cheese and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.

I think the UK is a low-trust society in general, and also a society in which teens are not expected to develop much of a sense of responsibility or ability to get along with either adults or children younger then themselves. They are seen and treated as a tribe unto themselves and alternately coddled and vilified.

I think the attitudes toward teens are clear on this thread. LW is characterised as almost a baby herself. By age 19, most American teens of her age would either have a full time job or be away from home in university, maybe a long way from home actually, and would have part time jobs in university. Most would have a history of part time jobs plus babysitting stretching back to their very early teens. All of my DCs left for university with contact information for people they would use as references when looking for PT jobs or babysitting (most universities have job/babysitting boards and there is also the work/study programme for those who qualify based on financial need).

The attitudes toward teens and toward babysitting are colouring the attitude toward the Eappens too - how could they have hired a wet-behind-the-ears 19 year old to take care of their precious babies? Why didn't they hire someone qualified? The simple answer is that American parents hire teens to take care of babies all the time, and 99.99% of the time it works out perfectly well.

There is much about the culture of the US that is completely unknown, and if known, completely misunderstood, in the UK. The US in general tends to be a higher trust society and that makes a big difference. It's not higher trust as in gullible or naive. It's a matter of an unspoken contract.

The satanic panic was a blip in a general landscape of trust, but it had an effect on childcare choice for as long as it lasted and a few years afterwards.

Tbf I think this is more of a recent thing ,I was a teen in the 80,s in the UK and was certainly babysitting from around 14;Louise is just a few years younger than me so it was probably much the same for her In 80,s and 90,s it was much more common for younger teens to have part time jobs in shops etc ,but I think employment laws have changed ,I don't think it would have been that common for parents to leave their very young children ,for long periods of time with unqualified teens however

The simple answer is that American parents hire teens to take care of babies all the time, and 99.99% of the time it works out perfectly well

But presumably American teens? Not teens from the UK. You have to wonder how much research was done by the Eappens before hiring LW, or a British nanny full stop. Why did they not hire an American teen if they are more experienced generally.

I have a 19 year old DS, he has a full time job, drives a car and is saving up for his own place. But he has no experience of looking after any babies or children, there haven't been any for him to look after in any case.

I've just finished all three episodes. I grew up in the US and remember my dad watching the trial on Court TV with great interest. Louise was a year or two younger than me at the time, but seemed very immature by comparison. I recall thinking at the time she was definitely guilty, not cold blooded killer guilty, but responsible for Matthew's fatal injuries out of immaturity and inexperience. The documentary made it quite clear that Louise was not up to the challenge of the responsibility of caring for two small children. Most 19 years olds would struggle with that level of responsibility. The Eappens, I think, recognized this but didn't respond until it was too late...

Yes, the Eappens were doctors and people assume they should have been able to afford better qualified childcare---but the Boston area is insanely expensive and depending on how many years out Med school they were, they would have been shouldering a tremendous amount of student debt.

@x2boys
Whatever qualifications there may have been back in the late 80s and early 90s, the Eappens may have been inclined to opt for someone who claimed experience.

I would personally not feel comfortable leaving a child with someone whose only attraction was a certificate stating she had passed a course. Leaving two children (aged 5 and 2) with a 13 year old my DCs already knew and who had demonstrated patience, kindness, friendly nature, ability to change a diaper, and basic common sense for what turned out to be six hours while I delivered DD2 was another matter.

Yes, the Eappens were doctors and people assume they should have been able to afford better qualified childcare---but the Boston area is insanely expensive and depending on how many years out Med school they were, they would have been shouldering a tremendous amount of student debt.

YY to this. They would also have been working all sorts of crazy hours, including being on call on a rotating basis.

I did a lot of babysitting in my teens in the US (with infants plus older siblings), but it was a night here or there, and in my home neighbourhood with my mother down the street if I really needed help.

Watching two small children every day all day is a whole other story. Most teens wouldn't be up to that challenge, especially in a foreign country.