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.

If Brandon had hit him, Matthew would surely have been roaring and obviously injured? I feel one of the adults must know something considering the extent of injury..

I think you can only go so far with a three year olds testimony it's very subjective and the parents if they had anything to hide( and I'm not saying this is the case) may have influenced his memories ,my son was eight when he was questioned by the police about a crime ,the police wouldn't allow either myself or my dh in the room ,I asked if my dad his grandad or my sister his aunt could go in but they wouldn't allow that either ,children's memories can be sketchy at best

@9ofpentangles

Oh, I didn't know that. Was that in the documentary (if so missed that bit) or did you read it somewhere?

Not in the documentary. I was working in NYC when the trial was on, and it was in the newspapers and discussed at the time. I remember it because I had previously worked as an au pair in America a few years before and the DGM of the family had warned me to never leave the baby (14 months) alone with the 4 year old, even though the parents hadn’t ever said anything, and the 4 year old didn’t seem violent.

If LW didn’t have much experience of kids, she probably wouldn’t have seen much of a problem with briefly leaving the boys together.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@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.[/quote]
Wise move. It often attracts young women from challenging backgrounds keen to make a fresh start or at least experience life in a nice house with two parents. In other words, very vulnerable teens.

From the small parts of the defence evidence in the documentary I had a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version of events. They said the injury had occurred that day in Louise's care.

The defence had several medical witnesses saying the skull fracture was old, and the prosecution pathologist himself said Matthew died from the skull fracture (not shaking).

So how did that occur? It could have been the parents, it could have been an accident, the older brother, or Louise.

Is it possible Louise was responsible? Yes. But I think there was still reasonable doubt. The jurors they spoke to seemed to have weighed up which case seemed "stronger" rather than applying the test of reasonable doubt.

@x2boys Yes but some 8 month olds are very mobile ,before he could crawl or walk my oldest used to roll across the floor from one side of the room to another! One of mine was like that, he was too young to crawl but could definitely get around, he would roll all over the room or lie on his back and sort of plant his heels and drag himself. I had very active boys, their sister on the other hand was quite happy to just sit and watch what was going on and she got mobile quite late.

I think the dangerous time is the first time they do it and you aren't ready for it.

DE worked minutes away so no commute and as an ophthalmologist perhaps more definite hours.

She worked three days a week, eight hours per day, but sometimes came home for lunch.

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

That is both untrue and very nasty, and sadly that begrudging attitude toward the Eappens - based perhaps on envy, certainly on an irrational antipathy toward people who were educated professionals - has 'informed' may of the comments on this thread.

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.

The Eappens had voiced their unhappiness to LW about her poor performance and had already got rid of a few other au pairs who didn't work out. There is no reason to believe they wouldn't have got rid of her and found someone else.

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

Babysitting several nights per week since you were about 13, taking care of babies and children of all ages, is an excellent preparation for working full time with two small children. You learn to deal with crying babies, tantrumming toddlers, children who don't want to go to bed. You do it well and efficiently or you don't get asked back.

Sitting in a classroom studying child development with a few carefully curated placements is not.

And the Eappens relied on the references from the au pair agency, which people tended to do back in the days before the internet. LW didn't come completely sight unseen.

@mathanxiety I don't think it is envy. I certainly know someone who totally exploited their Au Pair and just saw them as cheap childcare and openly said this.

Someone on this thread said that references were very often not even called for by the agency. I would certainly want to see them if I was hiring an au pair.

References for an Au Pair tell you nothing. They will be babysitting or personal references. Anyone could get those from friends or parents friends.

Babysitting several nights per week since you were about 13, taking care of babies and children of all ages, is an excellent preparation for working full time with two small children. You learn to deal with crying babies, tantrumming toddlers, children who don't want to go to bed. You do it well and efficiently or you don't get asked back.

Personally, I think it would be poor parenting to allow your 13-year-old to babysit babies and children of all ages several nights a week. It's far too much responsibility for a child of that age, because their charges are too vulnerable and often non-verbal. My DD (16) hasn't babysat a child under three yet and I don't want her to, it's a huge responsibility to ask of a child.

I'm not sure why you think people are envious of highly educated parents because they question their childcare choices, I haven't seen that anywhere on this thread.

@Cameleongirl I was working full time in a nursery at 16 years old.

[quote AllThePogs]@Cameleongirl I was working full time in a nursery at 16 years old.[/quote]
I had a baby at 16 and worked in nurseries not long after. Not sure what that has to do with the appropriateness of leaving a 13 year old babysitting a small child alone. If nurseries are following good practice apprentices (and all staff) shouldn’t be left alone.

And I must say I’m not at all jealous of families who use aupairs as full time childcare. I’ve often thought if we had the room and the money I’d love to offer an aupair over here to hopefully teach my kids a second language but I’m not whatsoever jealous of families who think it’s a good and fair childcare arrangement.

Moot point as I’m afraid I simply couldn’t afford to pay an aupair! But if I could I would realise that pocket money payment gets pocket money work.

But you weren't alone in that setting with very young children, were you? You had trained adults with you? I wouldn't let DD (16) babysit someone's baby/toddler on her own, because she's had no childcare training and wouldn't know what to do if they were crying uncontrollably, for example. I certainly wouldn't leave a 13 year old with a baby!

She helps out in a preschool summer camp for 3-5 year olds, however, has done since she was 14. There are two qualified teachers there all the time.

And regardless it’s totally irrelevant that some American teens might have tons of babysitting experience at 13. This specific person obviously didn’t and there’s a world of difference between allowing a young woman you know personally and are aware has babysitting experience to watch your kids for an evening and hiring a young woman from another country who you have never met to do full time sole care of your two babies for less than minimum wage.

@Cameleongirl there were others in theory about. In practice I had a lot of responsibility and cared for babies and toddlers without much input from anyone else.

And at 16 I did know what to do if a baby was crying uncontrollably. I was surprised when becoming a mum how little lots of new mums knew about taking care of babies.

@AllThePogs Personally, it makes me really uncomfortable that you were treated in this way. I'm sure you did a great job, but it was a huge responsibility to dump on a 16-year-old - you couldn't drive, vote, legally drink, etc., but you were responsible for the safety and wellbeing of other people's babies and toddlers day after day!

Personally, I think it would be poor parenting to allow your 13-year-old to babysit babies and children of all ages several nights a week. It's far too much responsibility for a child of that age, because their charges are too vulnerable and often non-verbal. My DD (16) hasn't babysat a child under three yet and I don't want her to, it's a huge responsibility to ask of a child.

Well there's the difference between UK and American culture. Americans tend to believe that teenagers develop maturity, a sense of responsibility, and a solid sense of self esteem through work. I personally think that British teens are babied to a large degree, or treated as pond scum if they come from poorer backgrounds.

With responsibility come privileges, like driving at sixteen.

And regardless it’s totally irrelevant that some American teens might have tons of babysitting experience at 13. This specific person obviously didn’t and there’s a world of difference between allowing a young woman you know personally and are aware has babysitting experience to watch your kids for an evening and hiring a young woman from another country who you have never met to do full time sole care of your two babies for less than minimum wage.

@Kanaloa
Again, let me remind you that there was no internet searching possible back when the agency referred LW to the Eappens, and people on either side of the Atlantic knew very little about how the other side lived.

The relevance of mentioning American teenagers babysitting from a young age is that the Eappens probably assumed that someone expressing a love for children and clearly looking to work in childcare would have had lots of experience and enthusiasm, just as a 19-year old American expressing similar sentiments would have had.

There was no way they could have anticipated that what they would get was someone lying through her teeth in hopes of a free extended holiday in the US with spending money provided.

Okay. I mean I’m never going to agree with you. I don’t think the girl (or any aupair) is getting a ‘free holiday with spending money provided.’

And for all your talk about the amazing privileges these aupairs get through work, it’s a shame a living wage and employee rights isn’t one of them if they’re working 45 hours per week.

Again not that I’m saying the Eappens were in the wrong or bad people, but I simply would not and could not support a system that advises hiring young women, paying them under the living wage, and expecting them to have sole care of very small children as a childcare solution because you ‘assumed they would have lots of experience and enthusiasm.’