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.

@IWasHotInTheNineties

The documentary reminds me of Tiger King in the way that everyone on it was SO weird.

The childhood friend’ who only met her on a weeks holiday but did interviews for 25 years.
Her parents who seems dead behind the eyes.
Baby Matthews parents, also dead behind the eyes.
The juror who was very snarky and almost thrilled to find Louise guilty.
The lawyer who got caught drunk driving and most likely said Louise was dishonest to a few different people when she was sozzled.
The police offer who met her, judged her, found her guilty all in two minutes (in his mind) and smugly buggered off on his boat into the sunset.
The village people who raised money and awareness, decorating the village with yellow ribbons, desperate to bring their Angel Louise home, turns out they didn’t even know her and then decided they didn’t like her and she was a danger to children.
And Louise herself who acted very strangely the entire time.

Yes your right ,it's all just not quite right somehow ,and nobody comes out of it looking very good .

^^ this is so true. Everyone is a little off

@IWasHotInTheNineties

The documentary reminds me of Tiger King in the way that everyone on it was SO weird.

The childhood friend’ who only met her on a weeks holiday but did interviews for 25 years.
Her parents who seems dead behind the eyes.
Baby Matthews parents, also dead behind the eyes.
The juror who was very snarky and almost thrilled to find Louise guilty.
The lawyer who got caught drunk driving and most likely said Louise was dishonest to a few different people when she was sozzled.
The police offer who met her, judged her, found her guilty all in two minutes (in his mind) and smugly buggered off on his boat into the sunset.
The village people who raised money and awareness, decorating the village with yellow ribbons, desperate to bring their Angel Louise home, turns out they didn’t even know her and then decided they didn’t like her and she was a danger to children.
And Louise herself who acted very strangely the entire time.

That is an excellent summary. The police officer on the boat-he was very strange indeed. Elaine just came across terribly. Nobody looked good at all. Perhaps Barry Sheck, he seemed normal enough in the way he spoke about things 25 years later. I don't think unless they start reopening cases the definitive truth will ever be known.

Bottom line is, would you let your kids round her house for a play date?

@LucozadeGirl

Bottom line is, would you let your kids round her house for a play date?

Is that really the bottom line?

@LucozadeGirl

Bottom line is, would you let your kids round her house for a play date?

She has her own child ,now ,if there were any concerns about her parenting ,then I'm sure they would be involved?

[quote ancientgran]**@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.[/quote]
Mine was just crawling and I went from living room to kitchen to put the kettle on. I came back to find her half way up the stairs! I nearly had heart failure. When they want to they can bloody move!

Although there was a lot of focus on shaken baby syndrome being bogus science, what about the skull fracture? Surely that would have killed Matty even without the alleged shaking? Listening to what happened I originally wondered if she dropped him after the bath (slipping), but then they said it would require a lot more force than that.

I agree that it would have been more useful to have experts look at the medical evidence again, but maybe that wasn't possible.

A drop after a bath surely wouldn't cause that.. A paediatrician told me that a trauma to the head would be a baby from a counter top or a toddler from a man's shoulders. It is high. The idea of a fall down a stairs makes sense, but even if she hid originally z why on earth wouldn't she have then said it? My own baby at 4m fell from his carseat clicked into buggy onto concrete... A moment of utter carelessness by me... He was observed but sent home within two hours... Wasn't even xrayed.. So something massive surely must have happened that small boy, who was much bigger and sturdier than mine. (I am still traumatised by that moment ten years on

Apparently when I was a baby my mum dropped me on the mantle piece I must have been over six old and was wriggling ,this was in the 70,s so mantle pieces were very solid,she panicked and rushed me to the GP who was just across the road, appeerently they said I was fine but my poor mum was a mess, sometimes though freak accidents do happen .

yes, i remember my son wriggling out of my arms, i dont' know where he was trying to go. I was holding him too low down on his body and he hit the floor head first, at a slowed down speed because I was still holding on to him but it was like he flung himself at the floor. I know this happened but I wouldn't have like to have had to explain it if he'd had a head injury.

It’s very unlikely an 8 month old baby would fracture their skull from being dropped from arm height. Accidents happen all the time - babies are dropped/ fall off beds or changing mats and this would be highly unlikely to cause a skull fracture and severe bleed. Plus those parents / carers have an explanation for the injury whereas no one could explain what happened to Matthew.

If a young baby was found to have a skull fracture, bleed on the brain, retinal haemorrhages etc in the U.K. and the carers had no appropriate history then abuse would be considered most likely.

How does she manage to lead a normal life, with this documentary coming out again. She did admit to shaking the baby but she says only a little.

Just finished watching the doc and still feel quite firmly she caused injuries that lead to his death. Doing more than simply shaking him lightly as she tried to demonstrate in court. She was a young girl in a new country and going out partying until 1am then getting a few hours sleep before being in sole charge of a toddler and baby? Of course she’d then be ratty and short tempered on such little sleep. Then faced with a baby screaming it’s head off … I think it’s very likely she snapped. Of course only Louise truly knows. But even as a young girl watching the court case live every day after school I felt she was guilty and still do.

@IWasHotInTheNineties

The documentary reminds me of Tiger King in the way that everyone on it was SO weird.

The childhood friend’ who only met her on a weeks holiday but did interviews for 25 years.
Her parents who seems dead behind the eyes.
Baby Matthews parents, also dead behind the eyes.
The juror who was very snarky and almost thrilled to find Louise guilty.
The lawyer who got caught drunk driving and most likely said Louise was dishonest to a few different people when she was sozzled.
The police offer who met her, judged her, found her guilty all in two minutes (in his mind) and smugly buggered off on his boat into the sunset.
The village people who raised money and awareness, decorating the village with yellow ribbons, desperate to bring their Angel Louise home, turns out they didn’t even know her and then decided they didn’t like her and she was a danger to children.
And Louise herself who acted very strangely the entire time.

I've finally managed to watch this today and I agree with every word you say!

One thing occurred to me. I'm sure Louise passed a polygraph test? Not that they are admissible in court but still.

I’m not responding to the original post as I haven’t followed the LW case but have off course heard about it. My DC although an adult at the time had a basal skull fracture and bleed on the brain from fainting at work, this type of injury is usually caused by high impact accident the consultant said usually they result from high impact car accident or falling from a plane

I have started to watch Ep 2. I think things got lost in translation and perhaps got Louise off the hook. There was too much focus on the baby shaking syndrome. The facts are the poor poor baby died how could you just drop a 9 month year old like that on the floor?

Why did the parents hire a young 19 year old girl from UK rather than an experienced nanny in Boston? The parents should of let Louise go when she was coming in late... looking after your own kids is hard work but at 19 and the kids don't belong to you?

Well the story deserves to be dragged up because there is no clear answer. Crimes are often solved years later. Its very sad.

I didn't get that part. Was nannying the only job in Boston? Surely she could of left and applied elsewhere where?

Nothing like being tried by media...

There were no neck injuries to the child — injuries that would have been expected if he had been violently shaken. The prosecution had also claimed initially that his impact injuries were the equivalent of having been thrown from a two-story building, but they then equivocated over this claim as the trial progressed. The defence lawyer presented expert medical testimony that his injury may actually have occurred three weeks before the date of death, implying that his parents, Sunil and Deborah Eappen, both of whom were doctors, might be implicated in negligence or abuse of the child. He had old wrist injuries that may have been incurred before Woodward even arrived at the house.

Excellent points @riceuten

There was a podcast I listened to a few years which focused on this case. They did mention her description of "popping" the baby on the bed, which in American English had different implications to what it does in British English. Also, it’s important to note that the expert who testified in the original case has said that he would give a different testimony now etc.

I remember the case because I think in the UK we found in weird that it was televised. I thought it was a bit off to criticise the mother for not displaying a lot of emotion publicly. But I never understood why they hired an au pair to look after such a young baby instead of an experienced nanny. And why did they give her a second chance when she was out late and talking on the phone all day?