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 just had my second baby when this was all over the news and, at the time, felt that Louise was wrongly convicted. I had 2 babies effectively (my oldest was 2) and felt that the parents should have been investigated more. I also remember her sentence was reduced significantly after an appeal or review and she came back to the UK soon after. As far as her demeanour goes, she was 19, nervous, seemed to have a resting smiling/smug face (rather than looking serious/worried) and if I was being interrogated by that police officer I’m not sure I would have remembered to ask how the baby was either - he said he noticed her hands weren’t shaking?? So she’s guilty?? He had made his mind up already and I can just imagine how tough his ‘questioning’ was. I think the parents were involved somehow, and that the reason poor Matty was so ‘cranky’ (omg if they had said that word one more time…) was because of head injuries already sustained. He maybe already had the fractured skull and Louise caused the other injuries with her rough handling/throwing? Too many what ifs to be able to find just one person guilty.

I always (and still do) believe her to be innocent.

I remember at the time a lot of people thought the mother had caused the injury to the baby and he later died in the au pair's care.

I'm a few months younger than her. I remember the case at the time - it was pretty huge and the trial was televised in the US, as I recall.

I think she was viewed favourably on this side of the pond before and immediately after her conviction. When she was sentenced to time served and sold her story to one newspaper, it seemed that the rest of the UK press turned on her.

And then there was the whole palaver about how her parents being charged with misuse of funds (think they were acquitted).

I do remember an issue being raised over her description of "popping" the baby on the bed, which apparently in American English has different implications to what it does in British English.

@JaneJeffer

I remember at the time a lot of people thought the mother had caused the injury to the baby and he later died in the au pair's care.

There was a lot of misogynistic shite targeting the mother who had dared to pursue a high-flying career rather than stay home and look after the kids whilst the father pursued his high-flying career.

Woman, know thy place!

I had forgotten that LW had done an interview with Martin Bashir too.

I do remember an issue being raised over her description of "popping" the baby on the bed, which apparently in American English has different implications to what it does in British English

yes, i mentioned that on the other thread. Popped seem to be taken as thrown in the US.

I think she very probably did handle him a bit roughly on occasions - she was 19 and, like many au pairs, wasn’t taking the position so much out of a love for looking after babies as much as wanting to have an extended visit abroad and au pairing being one of the few ways to do that. She was left alone with a small and difficult baby for hours at a time.

But I don’t believe she did anything to him badly enough to seriously injure him: two of the key medical witnesses for the prosecution stated many years after the trial that they wouldn’t have given the same testimony as they originally did, due to new understanding of infant brain development and the symptoms associated with shaken baby syndrome. There were several jury misunderstandings relating to the differences between American and British English - such as Louise’s perfectly British testimony that she “popped” the baby in his highchair, which in US English can imply doing something violently.

And like a number of other women who have either been convicted, accused or suspected of crimes they’ve been shown to have had no part in (Lindy Chamberlain; Amanda Knox; Joanna Lees) she didn’t behave like a distraught woman is “supposed to”, which went against her.

I remember this case so well and remember feeling so sad for poor baby Matthew and so sad for Louise Woodward.

Sad for his parents, too, but they exploited an inexperienced 19yo girl for cheap labour when they should have paid for a properly qualified nanny. I remember thinking way back then that they could surely never have genuinely felt that what they were doing was appropriate.

Would you honestly and truly leave your toddler and baby in the care of an inexperienced 19yo for hours on end for days at a time as a permanent arrangement? No, of course you wouldn't. You might employ them as an evening babysitter, perhaps, or an au pair - a proper au pair, who does a small amount of childcare/chores in return for bed and board. You don't employ them as a nanny.

The Eappens are to be desperately pitied for the death of their son, you wouldn't wish that on anyone. But they also deserve judgement for exploiting a teenager for cheap labour.

And like a number of other women who have either been convicted, accused or suspected of crimes they’ve been shown to have had no part in (Lindy Chamberlain; Amanda Knox; Joanna Lees) she didn’t behave like a distraught woman is “supposed to”, which went against her.

I agree with that. And, ironically, I think Deborah Eappen also suffered the same fate in the court of public opinion.

What side please?

C4

@ItsDisneyBitch

What side please?

Channel 4

It’s interesting. Firstly the first people to attend had already 100% made up their minds she was guilty without expert information . I don’t believe some of the things the officer is saying . Very unprofessional.

I can't watch it. My dd is a baby. I've seen pics of Matthew and i just to cuddle him.

I just watched it. I was only 7 when this happened but I remember it.
I just read some really interesting things on Wikipedia about it. After reading that I don't know what to believe. The child's injuries apparently weren't consistent with shaken baby, but then he had a fracture on the skull. Apparently with the advances in technology they have now they know that some infections and even a stroke in the womb can cause the internal injuries poor little Matthew had.

Sad for his parents, too, but they exploited an inexperienced 19yo girl for cheap labour when they should have paid for a properly qualified nanny. I remember thinking way back then that they could surely never have genuinely felt that what they were doing was appropriate.

I remember them as seeming to want to paint her and her fairly typical, immature teenage behaviour in the worst possible light.

But even that seemed to backfire on them, because you were left wondering, "If she really was as terrible as you're making out, why didn't you give her her marching orders? Why did you continue to leave your very young kids with someone you held in such poor regard??"

It read like exaggeration after the fact. I'm perfectly willing to believe that LW was no Jo Frost, but also certainly not a cold-blooded, calculated child killer.

Looks like all 3 episodes are available on 4od.

I too was reminded of Lindy Chamberlain and Joanna Lees. Trial by TV is not on.
Surely the only thing the jury should decide (and what the prosecution have to prove) is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If it can't be proved that Louise was the person who wilfully caused so much damage to the child as to kill him, then she is innocent.
As a side note I was at school with a girl who went to the US as a teenager and became an an pair. A relative also did it. Neither had any experience or qualifications and both did it for many, many years.

I think there are questions about shaken baby syndrome now and it's not as clear cut as it seemed then. One of the doctors who gave evidence against her said he would not have given the same evidence today as understanding about brain injuries is much better now.

I was only a few years older than LW, living in the same region of the US at the time of the trial and remember thinking she came across as odd for going to see Rent so many times, but still felt sorry for her being in her 'nanny' job with such little life experience. More out of her depth than deliberately criminal.

On the news reports 'pop' was seen to imply 'explosive force', it was infuriating to watch it unfold, I couldn't believe it wasn't properly counteracted by her legal team as an idiomatic British usage.

@Onlinedilema

I too was reminded of Lindy Chamberlain and Joanna Lees. Trial by TV is not on. Surely the only thing the jury should decide (and what the prosecution have to prove) is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. If it can't be proved that Louise was the person who wilfully caused so much damage to the child as to kill him, then she is innocent. As a side note I was at school with a girl who went to the US as a teenager and became an an pair. A relative also did it. Neither had any experience or qualifications and both did it for many, many years.

Thing is, @Onlinedilema, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being an au pair and having no experience qualifications, as long as you are employed as an au pair, with all the sensible limitations around your remit. But there is a lot wrong with employing someone with au pair level skills and expecting them to do the work of a qualified, experienced childcarer with very young children.

@HeckinMiffed

This was such a huge case when I was younger. Anyone else watching? I always thought she didnt deliberately kill the baby.

I’ve never actually heard of this, how long ago was this?

I had forgotten about this case but seeing it now reminds me as when considering going abroad to aupair my using this as one of the negatives of going abroad as in could be used as a scape goat

@JaneJeffer

I remember at the time a lot of people thought the mother had caused the injury to the baby and he later died in the au pair's care.

Why not the father?