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 think the point is that an NNEB was a nationally recognised childcare qualification in the UK ,and the young people who had one would have had a level of knowledge and experience far superior to an average au pair at the time .

I am saying the qualification would have been no guarantee of either, at the time or currently.

Personally if I had the choice of someone with an NNEB or without I'd go for with.

@mathanxiety

I think the point is that an NNEB was a nationally recognised childcare qualification in the UK ,and the young people who had one would have had a level of knowledge and experience far superior to an average au pair at the time .

I am saying the qualification would have been no guarantee of either, at the time or currently.

So a 2 year course with hands on placements and passing exams means nothing?

@Kanaloa, many posters here have explicitly stated that the Eappens got what they paid for. They have been accused of not prioritising their children.

What I see is people rushing to make excuses for an immature, lazy and entitled young woman who was clearly not able to provide services worth even what she was being paid, while heaping ridiculous criticism on the parents, showing complete ignorance of the reality of American financial reality. I don't think anyone would be defending LW or complaining about the 'system' if she wasn't British.

If it was that easy to fracture a baby's skull then hospital wards would be bursting at the seams with infants.

@mathanxiety

Nobody is saying Deborah shouldn't have worked ,pleanty of people can't afford to give up their jobs when they have children in the us and the UK ,it's the choice of childcare they used people have an issue with .

There is a very strong narrative here featuring an allegedly wealthy couple who cared so little about their children that they hired someone whose only attraction as a childcare worker was the fact they could pay her very little. In other words, their children were very low on their list of priorities. That is damning, and because the world we live in is not a fair one, it damns Deborah Eappen.

They were living in an era when there was no internet, no way to check British references unless they managed to make international phone calls to people they might or might not have succeeded in making contact with. So they relied on an agency to vouch for LW's interest in childcare and ability to fulfill the job requirements.

The job required living in, which is how au pairing works. The term means 'as an equal' and indicates you are part of the family. The au pair programme is envisioned as a cultural/educational exchange, where young people get a taste of the culture of another country, while receiving an allowance, not a salary, room and board, and the opportunity to see and enjoy whatever the area offers

Living with the family automatically ruled out the vast majority of people working as nannies, and made an au pair a very attractive proposition for the Eappens.

They did exactly what thousands of other parents did, and paid exactly what thousands of other parents paid. The only difference between them and others is that their child ended up dead by hand unknown.

There were, still are, two parents, I don't know why you are focusing on the mother.

I think all those thousands of other parents were equally negligent if they left two young children with an unqualified teenager for long hours. The fact that their children are OK isn't relevant. We don't know of LW was responsible for what happened so we can't blame Matthew's death on the choice the parents made. We can say children deserve better.

Au pairs who do the school run and a couple of hours after school with children are a different matter. Qualified nannies working all day with young children are also a different matter.

[quote mathanxiety]@Kanaloa, many posters here have explicitly stated that the Eappens got what they paid for. They have been accused of not prioritising their children.

What I see is people rushing to make excuses for an immature, lazy and entitled young woman who was clearly not able to provide services worth even what she was being paid, while heaping ridiculous criticism on the parents, showing complete ignorance of the reality of American financial reality. I don't think anyone would be defending LW or complaining about the 'system' if she wasn't British.[/quote]
Okay well we’ll have to agree to disagree. For what it’s worth you’ll often see me pop up on threads about aupairs (Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish, whatever they may be) and criticising British families for their exploitation of these young women. So I’m not ‘rushing to defend her’ because she’s British and I hate Americans and I’m using the system to excuse her killing a baby.

I’m criticising the system because I disagree with the exploitation of young childcare workers/aupairs and I think excusing it because it’s a cultural norm is both dangerous and lazy. I also think in a case like this it highlights the dangers of using an aupair as full time childcare and the massive failings of many of these agencies to act carefully in their vetting of the aupairs and their support of the aupairs.

Well we can go round and round in circles I'm not saying a NNEB meant that accidents couldn't happen but it was a recognised childcare qualification in the UK and the people that had them would have been expected to have a level of knowledge and experience ,to work independently in child care settings ,no system can guarantee anything of course ,but if needed to employ someone to look after my very young children ,a person with an NNEB or equivalent would be my choice over a person without

@mathanxiety

Lots of toddlers wallop babies heads with toys etc. Been there with my own dc

If it was the case that a wallop from a toddler could fracture the skull of an 8 month old, then hospitals would be full of babies with fractured skulls and we would bar toddlers from holding anything but small stuffed animals.

The idea that another child did this is preposterous.

It might not be common but it could easily have been caused by an accident. For example baby is sitting on the couch, brother grabs him and they tumble to the floor. These awful accidents do happen and can be exacerbated when children aren’t being properly supervised.

It’s also of course possible that someone hurt Matthew. Unfortunately we will simply never know, because if Louise or his parents did do it they’re hardly likely to confess at this point.

@Kanaloa Again, you put it so well.

I for one am certainly not singling out the mother to blame and I certainly don’t think she was wrong to work.
I do find it odd that the baby’s old injuries weren’t spotted by his parents as they were both medically trained.

Anyway, as Kamala says, let’s hope lessons have been learned.

@x2boys

Well we can go round and round in circles I'm not saying a NNEB meant that accidents couldn't happen but it was a recognised childcare qualification in the UK and the people that had them would have been expected to have a level of knowledge and experience ,to work independently in child care settings ,no system can guarantee anything of course ,but if needed to employ someone to look after my very young children ,a person with an NNEB or equivalent would be my choice over a person without

I totally agree with you. You can't say an NNEB is worthless.

This whole documentary is very frustrating to watch. It's not really brought anything new to the table. Everyone involved in the case seems to be maintaining there original position on the case. Apart from that one expert witness. It would be interesting for independent experts to reassess the medical evidence and give their opinion using updated knowledge of shaken baby syndrome. And I would have like to hear a psychiatrists observations on her behaviour in the dock. At the end of the day she was found guilty, she wasn't innocent. Whether or not Matthew had a pre existing condition or injury, the judge and jury believe Louise did something.

@Cameleongirl

I certainly hope so, and hope the agency have taken on some measures to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately I fear they probably haven’t because a lot of these agencies just don’t care.

And of course I wouldn’t single out the mother. I mentioned the mother once just in the context of how frightening it must have been at the time for working mums to have this extra worry when you’re already stressed at leaving your baby. I don’t think anyone is really blaming the mum or saying she’s at fault of the baby’s death. Just that it’s a tragic situation that involved all round failings.

It does seem to have raised more questions than it answered. Not sure it warranted 3 hours and some of it was just bizarre.
Don't really know why there needed to be a documentary just because it was 25 years ago either.
But it's got us talking...

People love these documentaries though don’t they. Would have been nice if it had brought literally anything new to the table - does anyone else feel like many crime documentaries now leave them more confused than before they watched them? I remember having to go and stand in the garden after watching the Cecil hotel one because I was literally so confused. I felt like they’d dragged out a bunch of nothing then come to zero conclusion.

Yes, while watching the 3 parter about LW on All4 they kept advertising yet more crime documentaries like the Joanna Lees outback one. I haven't gone down the crime documentary rabbit hole just yet.

The jury did think louise had done something and tbh we will never know ,it's a frustrating case as there are so many complexities ,but the jury said they didn't think LW had murdered Matthew but they thought something had happened in her care to cause his death , it was a straight guilty of murder or aquit,so either she was guilty of murder or she wasn't??
I think in hindsight the judge made the right call .

@Sparklingbrook

Yes, while watching the 3 parter about LW on All4 they kept advertising yet more crime documentaries like the Joanna Lees outback one. I haven't gone down the crime documentary rabbit hole just yet.

It gets addictive my favourite channels are sky crime and crime and investigation..

I'm not sure about watching them knowing that no new information will appear, no follow up etc. Maybe a case that I know literally nothing of would be better.

I think the essential problem with the arrangement is that the young women coming to the US to look after children was that they were doing that as a means to an end.They weren’t necessarily passionate about children- it was a chance to see another country. That might be ok for school aged children where the young woman can get some time to herself but looking after two young children is very different and is even harder when you have no social support. I wouldn’t want my dcs to be looked after by someone in that situation. I’m not blaming the Eappens at all. They probably felt under a lot of pressure to push on with their careers. Also, I brought up my own dcs abroad and away from my family so I appreciate how hard it is. Not everyone has that experience. I would never let my dcs do Camp America or anything like that.

I was working as a nanny at the time the case was in court. It was HUGE. Every London cab driver brought it up in conversation. One cab driver told me he'd recently visited Italy and it was reported very differently there to England. He thought she was innocent.

I think she's innocent. I think the child sustained a head injury, while
in the care of his parents, and then Louise shook him, to rouse him, when he appeared unwell.

I do wonder whether the outcome (in terms of the massive jail time reduction) would have happened if Louise was from a different ethnic background...

If something accidental had happened surely she would have said that?!

There were, still are, two parents, I don't know why you are focusing on the mother.

I think all those thousands of other parents were equally negligent if they left two young children with an unqualified teenager for long hours. The fact that their children are OK isn't relevant. We don't know of LW was responsible for what happened so we can't blame Matthew's death on the choice the parents made. We can say children deserve better.

Au pairs who do the school run and a couple of hours after school with children are a different matter. Qualified nannies working all day with young children are also a different matter.

@ancientgran
First, why does this phrase 'qualified nanny' keep on cropping up?
There is no such thing in the American context. American parents are not looking for 'qualifications' in a nanny. They are looking for solid experience, and the fact that so many hundreds of thousands of children emerge unscathed from having a nanny is absolutely relevant. The preference for experience among American parents is due to the parents' observation that experience shows both sustained interest in childcare and a realistic understanding of what it entails.

Most professional American parents of the 1990s would have done lots of babysitting themselves as teens, and they would have observed a difference between themselves and those of their peers who did not when it came to ability to work with children and interest in working with children.

I am focusing on the mother because at the time all of this happened, the relentless focus was on Deborah Eappen and the message she received loud and clear was what a terrible mother she was, what a greedy yuppie. It appears from this thread that nothing has changed when it comes to opinions.

And fyi, au pairs in the US can work up to 45 hours per week. They do not just do the school run and afternoon babysitting.

It appears from this thread that nothing has changed when it comes to opinions.

Of course something has changed. Nobody here is saying the mother was greedy and is to blame for this tragedy. They’re simply looking at a system that (due to this tragic incident) has been exposed as unsuitable.

You can criticise the system without criticising the individual players. I often speak out critically about aupairs and childcare apprentices - in my own experience the apprentice system is hugely exploitative and is nothing but a way to take advantage of young women, paying them half of minimum wage to do the same work as everyone else. I think the system needs a HUGE overhaul.

Do I think the managers of nurseries where I work are nasty selfish people akin to modern day slavers? No, I don’t. Many of them are nice people. But I can still say the system is wrong and needs looking at because it is exploitative despite being the ‘norm’ in nursery work and how most of us got into it.

And as for American parents looking for ‘solid experience’ over qualifications - surely that’s just another flaw exposed in this system. The agency did not match someone with experience of full time sole care of a baby and toddler to this family who had a baby and toddler. So it’s problematic.

And just because aupairs can work 45hours in America doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. Again, not a nasty criticism of this particular couple - just a point that some businesses and areas take blatant advantage of employees and it’s noticeable in cases like this.