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 do find it odd that the baby’s old injuries weren’t spotted by his parents as they were both medically trained.
@Cameleongirl
Do people automatically suspect a broken rib, wrist, or fractured skull when a baby is 'not quite himself' and they can't see any signs of an injury such as obvious pain when touched in the injured spot?

I have a nephew who sustained a fractured skull and two broken ribs. It was spotted at a pediatric appointment, having been missed by his grandfather, who was a surgeon and had seen him several times while he was injured. By the time the injuries were seen they were a few weeks old.

Nobody knows with 100% certainty how the injuries happened. The grandmother was very inclined to push the theory that one of the baby's older siblings had done it (aged 3.5 and 2.5). This was because the alternative was her son, who was a sahp.

Surgeon grandfather, while admitting he had missed the injuries - but the baby was not yet mobile and had spent his time on his mother's knee and in a sling while visiting - said no, that it takes a lot of force to inflict a fractured skull or to break even a young baby's rib.

My nephew had a full head of dark hair as a baby, making bruising or swelling on the head very hard to spot.

It might not be common but it could easily have been caused by an accident.
@Kanaloa
Again, you would have to exert considerable force to fracture a skull. Babies fall off couches and beds, some more than once, and parents sometimes even drop them accidentally. They are not like porcelain knick-knacks. If they were, hospitals would be full of injured babies.

Yes that’s why I said ‘it’s not common but could have been an accident.’

While babies are not fragile knick knacks they’re also unpredictable humans like all of us. Sometimes accidents happen. I did follow it up by specifically saying realistically nobody will ever know because if the parents or Louise did do it there’s very little chance of them suddenly admitting it after getting away with it.

And yes hospitals are not ‘full of injured children’ but these things do obviously happen. I recall a thread on here not so long ago where a mum was in hospital with her little baby who had a fractured skull after some sort of accident? Possibly had occurred after slipping off a changing table, I don’t fully remember.

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.
@Kanaloa
There is no problem in the 'system'. The 'system' works. Thousands of babies and small children are perfectly happy and safe in the care of so-called 'unqualified' nannies all across America. This one particular young woman had zero interest in taking care of babies and small children but managed to bamboozle the agency with her claims to love children, which she even repeated at her trial.

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.

Frankly, if a potential au pair isn't aware of the possible working conditions, then maybe she isn't smart enough to do the problem anticipation and avoidance she will need to be able to do while looking after children.

People who are old enough to contemplate spending a year abroad are old enough, represent themselves as mature enough, and should be smart enough to research and understand what they are getting themselves into.

Nobody 'took advantage' of Louise Woodward, a young woman who wouldn't get up in the morning and wanted to spend her nights at entertainment venues, ignoring the requirements of her job. Any advantage taking here was on the other side.

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

Au pairs are paid pocket money rather than wages. It is pocket money because au pairs are not expected to take sole care of children for great swathes of time whilst the parents work out of the house all day. It is classed as pocket money as it is below minimum wage in the U.K. and I believe the same is true of the US.

This pocket money in the US is $195.75 per week for up to 45 hours. That’s $4.35 an hour. The amount paid in the U.K. as wages is lower as it is based on a 30 hour week. But a quick calculation puts both at about the same hourly rate.

LW was fed up and overwhelmed. We don’t know how she would have done had she been doing the job she was paid for as she was doing a job she was not paid for. Perhaps she would also have not been up to the job either. However, one thing is clear, she was not a nanny despite being expected to fulfil this role and despite being portrayed to the world as such.

The Eappens (and many other parents) were and are exploiting teenagers to care for young children and babies. Very sadly on this occasion, disaster resulted whilst baby Matthew was in LW’s care. We do not know if this was a result of something LW did either accidentally or neglectfully, if it was the older brother whilst she was not paying attention or if it was something, which happened whilst in the care of the Eappens.

As for the assertion that we would only have cared for the case as LW is British. This is categorically untrue. People care because it’s people. The U.K. publishes high profile crimes and live streamed other trials such as that of Oscar Pistorius, OJ Simpson etc. When a poster comes to MN for advise or comfort, posters are there for them them regardless of nationality. Including the odd thread from an exploited au pair.

Posters including myself have already commented upon the amount of accrued debt. American financial reality does not absolve two adults in their 30s from holding any accountability for what happened to their child. The Eappens chose to live in a relatively large house in an expensive neighbourhood. They could have bought a more modest home in a less affluent neighbourhood and bought suitable childcare. No one should be exploiting teens or indeed anyone, regardless of their nationality.

Au pairs are supposed to be a family member, to be treated as an older child. This put LW at a disadvantage when she was 1000s of miles from home and there is no doubt of the power dynamic. She couldn’t just walk out of the job and go home. The Eappens house was her home, which made her vulnerable and easy to exploit. The Eappens knew LW was not able to take care of her children yet they still left them in her care.

How is it possible on the one hand to assert an immature 19 yo away from her family, friends and home should have known better but these 30 yos were a slave to their circumstance?

Okay well that’s your opinion. Your certainly entitled to think it’s a good and fair system that works for everyone. I’m entitled to the opposite opinion too.

As I said I’m not attacking those who use aupairs. I just feel it’s an area that would benefit from a massive overhaul and stricter guidelines.

*you’re

@mathanxiety

Au pairs have set terms of employment and specific visas in the US, including work hours, rate of pay (and room and board are provided so that factors into the pay equation). Au pairing is generally seen as a cultural exchange programme, with agencies providing cultural immersion experiences, language class enrollment in local colleges. I know people who hired a series of au pairs when their girls were young so that they could speak the dad's first language daily. The au pairs all stayed for one year.

Louise didn't seem to have any of that - no agency, no cultural immersion - so I would call her a nanny.

Louise was definitely an au pair. She was brought over by the agency EF Au Pair.

Presumably the parents interviewed her, so they knew what childcare experience she had, rather than just assuming that all teenagers do babysitting.

I'm sure if the parents had been willing to pay more, they could have attracted an older, experienced American woman, perhaps a SAHM with school aged children.

An au pair would have been ok for mornings and evenings, but is not appropriate for long hours sole care of a baby and a toddler. I hope American parents are no longer using young foreign girls in this way.

Maybe on paper looking at the job LW thought ‘we’ll that seems doable’ but what was presented wasn’t actually what the job turned out to be when she got there.
I don’t know whether the au pairs could reject a job or ask to be matched with children of a particular age or anything. Or whether they’re matched and that’s that. I wonder if EF checked in regularly with their au pairs to see how things were going?

I have an NNEB qualification. I have worked as a nanny for 40 years. My son has a level 2 in childcare - he has worked as a nanny and in nurseries. We are very different to au pairs. Mathanxiety - you have no clue about the uk system and talking total rubbish. au pairs are not supposed to do hours and hours of childcare, especially with infants. These parents took the cheapest childcare. This girl was exploited

@Mummyoflittledragon

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

Au pairs are paid pocket money rather than wages. It is pocket money because au pairs are not expected to take sole care of children for great swathes of time whilst the parents work out of the house all day. It is classed as pocket money as it is below minimum wage in the U.K. and I believe the same is true of the US.

This pocket money in the US is $195.75 per week for up to 45 hours. That’s $4.35 an hour. The amount paid in the U.K. as wages is lower as it is based on a 30 hour week. But a quick calculation puts both at about the same hourly rate.

LW was fed up and overwhelmed. We don’t know how she would have done had she been doing the job she was paid for as she was doing a job she was not paid for. Perhaps she would also have not been up to the job either. However, one thing is clear, she was not a nanny despite being expected to fulfil this role and despite being portrayed to the world as such.

The Eappens (and many other parents) were and are exploiting teenagers to care for young children and babies. Very sadly on this occasion, disaster resulted whilst baby Matthew was in LW’s care. We do not know if this was a result of something LW did either accidentally or neglectfully, if it was the older brother whilst she was not paying attention or if it was something, which happened whilst in the care of the Eappens.

As for the assertion that we would only have cared for the case as LW is British. This is categorically untrue. People care because it’s people. The U.K. publishes high profile crimes and live streamed other trials such as that of Oscar Pistorius, OJ Simpson etc. When a poster comes to MN for advise or comfort, posters are there for them them regardless of nationality. Including the odd thread from an exploited au pair.

Posters including myself have already commented upon the amount of accrued debt. American financial reality does not absolve two adults in their 30s from holding any accountability for what happened to their child. The Eappens chose to live in a relatively large house in an expensive neighbourhood. They could have bought a more modest home in a less affluent neighbourhood and bought suitable childcare. No one should be exploiting teens or indeed anyone, regardless of their nationality.

Au pairs are supposed to be a family member, to be treated as an older child. This put LW at a disadvantage when she was 1000s of miles from home and there is no doubt of the power dynamic. She couldn’t just walk out of the job and go home. The Eappens house was her home, which made her vulnerable and easy to exploit. The Eappens knew LW was not able to take care of her children yet they still left them in her care.

How is it possible on the one hand to assert an immature 19 yo away from her family, friends and home should have known better but these 30 yos were a slave to their circumstance?

Brilliantly put.

@mathanxiety you make very valid points about the cultural differences between the UK and the US and the mismatch between the Eappens' expectations and the reality of a British au pair who had supposedly been vetted by a reputable agency. They, not unreasonably from their POV and life experience to date, almost certainly expected that the au pair they employed would be a young woman with experience of looking after DC, who enjoyed looking after DC, and who was up for the challenge of caring for two pre-schoolers five full days a week.

The likely reality though was that Louise Woodward just wanted to spend a year in the US having fun and adventures and that working as an au pair was one of the few ways she could do that at the age of 19 and with no qualifications.

The Eappens were VERY unlucky. Thousands of young women (and probably a few men), work as au pairs in foreign countries every year and it is extremely rare for any real harm to come to the DC in their care. I think the system is wrong though to expect 45 hours of work per week from them though. I worked as an au pair in Europe and I did after school care (about 4 hours per day), and a couple of evenings babysitting per week. That is the norm in most countries. The Eappens needed a nanny, not an au pair. They were only doing what millions of other families do/have done in the past, but that doesn't make it right.

@mathanxiety

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.

Well if I was looking for solid experience I wouldn't be recruiting an 18 year old from another country who I'd never met. If I did do that and I was unhappy with them I'd find someone else.

Babysitting is not the same as working fulltime with two small children.

I completely agree that this documentary has raised more questions than it's answered. Given the amount of child murder cases featured in the press and on television recently and advanced in medical research, you'd think they'd have been able to give a fresh insight into Matthew's injuries. They'd be able to pin point the exact time frame the bleed occured. And if it was indeed it was an intentional injury. Even if people do suffer from spontaneous bleeds to the brain. The retinas of a baby don't just detach themselves for no reason. Their skulls don't just split open.

I agree @GruffaloSolja I thought maybe someone up to date would be looking at the medical evidence now with all the advancements in medical science. But maybe that’s not permitted? Would they have to reopen the case?
If someone reviewed the whole thing and confirmed exactly the time frame then what?

The American legal system is a farce, or at least it was back then. This whole trial was a performance. It was never about getting justice for Matthew. It was all about who could put on the best show. Evidence and facts meant nothing in this case. Several times throughout the documentary it was mentioned how well Louise had been coached. And that sums it up perfectly in my mind, that anyone can be trained on how to wipe their face in the correct way to make the tears look genuine. How to give the right answers and to admit to just enough ambiguous guilt to cause doubt and confusion.

And the way the people in the pub where cheering at the reduction in sentence. That woman was right - they were cheering like she'd won gold. But it wasn't the Olympics. It was the trial for the murder of an 8 month old baby boy.

Gerry Leone in particular put in an extremely dramatic performance.

@Sparklingbrook

I agree *@GruffaloSolja* I thought maybe someone up to date would be looking at the medical evidence now with all the advancements in medical science. But maybe that’s not permitted? Would they have to reopen the case? If someone reviewed the whole thing and confirmed exactly the time frame then what?

Under the American legal system I don't think they'd be able to do anything if it confirmed Louise did it. She's already been tried and convicted of that offence. Under the law of double jeopardy a person can't be tried for the same crime twice. I guess if it proved she couldn't have done it due to time frames or it being the result of an undiagnosed medical condition then maybe they could re open the case and Louise could have her conviction quashed.

I guess if it proved she couldn't have done it due to time frames or it being the result of an undiagnosed medical condition then maybe they could re open the case and Louise could have her conviction quashed

That would be very interesting. It looks as if we'll never know, I guess they can't go reopening cases all over because someone wants to make a documentary.

There are so many quotes within quotes that I am unsure who actually posted this...

There is no problem in the 'system'. The 'system' works. Thousands of babies and small children are perfectly happy and safe in the care of so-called 'unqualified' nannies all across America. This one particular young woman had zero interest in taking care of babies and small children but managed to bamboozle the agency with her claims to love children, which she even repeated at her trial

but it is absolute CRAP and clearly posted by someone who has neither been an au pair/nanny nor employed one.

Teenagers do not travel across the world because they are desperate to look after small children, they do it because they want to explore and they need a place to live. And it is sold as an "experience" with the promise of being welcomed, part of the family, opportunities to socialise and explore.

The reality however is that a naive young person ends up thousands of miles from home, with zero support, a very small income, and at the behest of their host family.

Looking after a baby is hard work, any of the millions of mothers in the world can attest to that. What gets you through is the love for the baby, and the support of partners and family.

LW had no familial connection to the children, could not possibly be expected to be an expert in early childhood care or education, and was without her normal support system.

That is the reality of being an au pair. It is thankless, lonely and v poorly paid work. The sort of people who employ au pairs fancy themselves as somehow deserving of slave labour yet cannot actually afford appropriate employees, they are the worst kind of people to work for.

They live their children so deeply that they palm them off to young, lonely and unqualified strangers. It is the definition of exploitation.

Properly supported LW - and all au pairs - can be fantastic but only if the family pulls their weight.

Contrary to your claim that "thousands of au pairs" do a great job, there are no records kept about this industry however those of us who have lived in that world know exact the sort of crap that goes on, Dads hitting on the au pair, absurd expectations such as FT care of v young children, nights too, vast amounts of housework and food prep, even care of animals, vehicles and grocery shopping. Workloads that are challenging for experienced parents never mind teenagers fresh out of home.

There is a massive power imbalance and if the au pair speaks up she risks losing her livelihood and home. That's why so many switch families or run away.

I have never seen an au pair being violent or even unkind, however I've met so many who are lonely, homesick, and/or grappling with exploitation.

Trying to paint them as calculating minxes is ageist, sexist and just incredibly ignorant.

@sweetbellyhigh
That was something, which math said. I whole heartedly agree with you. I wanted to be an au pair myself as I was interested in languages. But seeing and listening to what was expected by one of my family members, who employed au pairs (they were also expected to work as a nanny), I knew I wouldn’t be able to cope if I had a family, who expected me to care for a baby / toddler or both.

If you think there's no value in child carers being trained and having "fancy certificates" you are relying on them having had decent role model parents themselves, which isn't a given. I had my kids in my 30s and I knew there were some aspects of the parenting I received that I definitely didn't want to repeat, so I had to read up on alternative methods. Eg. Giving praise and attention for positive behaviour is more effective than just expecting good behaviour and then telling off/smacking for bad behaviour. If I'd gone over to America as an au pair at 19 I wouldn't have had a clue without some sort of training and I probably would have struggled, especially without the parental bond. It's hard enough bringing up your own baby and toddler. Also, what about first aid training? I did have some first aid training at a postnatal class and it came in handy when dd choked on some gripe water. I'd actually done the training the day before! I read up on sleep needs and feeding, potty training, child development. People ask about child care stuff all the time on mumsnet or google it. There's loads of useful things you can learn . You won't necessarily learn best practice through trial and error while babysitting friends' kids. It seems a bit denigrating to childcare workers to decide any old untrained bod is fine for long hours of sole care of small children for peanuts pay.

I think she did it.

@maddy68

I think she did it.

Great addition to the discussion here.

It should be obvious that an 18 year old straight out of school, with no childcare training OR experience, and often without much interest in children, would make a ridiculous candidate for a role a full time carer for a baby. I have no opinion on whether she's innocent or guilty, but I have had an aupair, and they are best employed as light child are and help duties only, plus babysitting, and of school age children. Also the level of checks on untrained foreign born aupairs is often very poor, and we have heard some unfortunate stories of one sort or another in the past.