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 had loads of experience of looking after young kids and babies at 19 years old. But the judgement of when to call a Dr is a difficult one even for someone much older. I know I was far less able to judge it back then.

N2ononoah

I think its appalling to compare Matthews parents to the mccans.

I don't think it's appalling at all.

@chestnutSquash

I do think a trained nanny would have picked up signs of head injury or previous injuries/ abuse, or would have known when to seek advice. I wouldn't expect an inexperienced teenager to have much clue. I certainly wouldn't at that age.

Especially when the parents are Drs... a paediatrician and an opthalmolagist at that. She had made a note about Matthew not being well so she had noticed something herself. Brain injuries usually show in the eyes to some degree and she didn't notice anything? Not any uneven pupils, visual disturbance, nystagmus etc?

Will watch later in the week when I have time.

I didn’t believe she was guilty at the time.l, and I’ve always had doubts about SBS. It all seemed too definite with little evidence. After all, medical researchers cannot shake babies experimentally to see what the effects are, so all the “evidence” for SBS came from contested incidents. Then after Sally Clark et al in the UK, it looked even discoed as “science”.

I also thought thought the narrative that the mother in the Woodward case was being criticised for being a “working mom” and using childcare was faux. The issue in that respect was that two doctors had chosen a cheap, untrained au pair for long hours sold care of tiny children. Not that I think that led to his death, but it was a distracted side debate.

Again, there is no such thing as a trained nanny.

And all childcare workers are paid peanuts.

There are training courses for nannies. But there is no nationally approved qualification.
And I agree all childcare workers are paid peanuts.
But as a childcare worker from 18 years old who had a lot of responsibility, it is still not an excuse to hurt a baby or child.

@Chipstick10

There was another documentary about this a couple of months back snd I was surprised to see how many Americans thought she had been framed. They thought she was innocent. There were many who demonstrated outside the court. Just on her demeanour alone I thought she was as guilty as sin

I do hope you've never served on a jury.

Yes, but that’s why you check references carefully and perhaps employ someone more experienced for such young children. Doctors earn ALOT here in the US and could definitely afford a more qualified caregiver or nursery fees.

@Cameleongirl
I'm in the US, and familiar with how much doctors make and how childcare works. I've been in the US since the late 80s.

At the time (early 90s) there was a massive amount of publicity being given to alleged satanic abuse in daycares. There were reports all over the news, all the time, various cases sensationalised to the Nth degree. Many parents hesitated to send their babies and small children to daycare facilities as a result.

There was also a massive backlash, related to the allegations about daycares, against women who could afford to he sahms but chose to work. Deborah Eappen (fwiw, an opthalmologist, not a pediatrician) was considered cold and even downright evil for 'prioritising her career over her babies' - this is how her choice to work was seen in many circles. The fact that her baby ended up dead was seen as just comeuppance for her.

And again - there were no 'qualified' nannies then or now in the US, and no way to check someone you were thinking of employing apart from references.

If a family preferred an English-speaking nanny who could read to a baby, sing nursery rhymes, etc., the pickings then as now were very slim.

At the time I was certain enough it was an injustice (as a tween/early teen) to right to the PM about it. I had a cursory response.

I was surprised to see how many Americans thought she had been framed. They thought she was innocent. There were many who demonstrated outside the court.

This was partly related to what amounted to almost a witch hunt against mothers who chose high paying careers over part time or full time SAHMing.

@mathanxiety

Yes, but that’s why you check references carefully and perhaps employ someone more experienced for such young children. Doctors earn ALOT here in the US and could definitely afford a more qualified caregiver or nursery fees.

@Cameleongirl
I'm in the US, and familiar with how much doctors make and how childcare works. I've been in the US since the late 80s.

At the time (early 90s) there was a massive amount of publicity being given to alleged satanic abuse in daycares. There were reports all over the news, all the time, various cases sensationalised to the Nth degree. Many parents hesitated to send their babies and small children to daycare facilities as a result.

There was also a massive backlash, related to the allegations about daycares, against women who could afford to he sahms but chose to work. Deborah Eappen (fwiw, an opthalmologist, not a pediatrician) was considered cold and even downright evil for 'prioritising her career over her babies' - this is how her choice to work was seen in many circles. The fact that her baby ended up dead was seen as just comeuppance for her.

And again - there were no 'qualified' nannies then or now in the US, and no way to check someone you were thinking of employing apart from references.

If a family preferred an English-speaking nanny who could read to a baby, sing nursery rhymes, etc., the pickings then as now were very slim.

Fair enough, I didn’t know about the backlash against daycare/nurseries back then. Thank goodness we have better options nowadays. Most people I know with preschool aged children either use daycare or have a nanny who, while they may not be as qualified as British nannies, are definitely not inexperienced or unable to speak fluent English. Two of my neighbors have had aupairs for slightly older preschool children and it’s worked out well.

I don’t know what to think, somebody hurt that baby. In my view she probably shouldn’t have been working as a nanny.
Wether she was guilty or not we were never really know.

@mathanxiety

Again, there is no such thing as a trained nanny.

And all childcare workers are paid peanuts.

Oh dear. There very much is such a thing as a trained nanny. I employed 2 of them. They had completed a 2 year vocational training course at a Further Education College. I'm sure they knew far more about children than I did.

I paid them the going rate recommended by the Law Society for second year trainees. Not a mega wage, but definitely not peanuts.

I appreciate this happened in the US and I am in the UK but the blanket statement "there is no such thing as a trained nanny" is just wrong.

I watched this here in the US in Court TV and always believed the baby's brother had been accidentally hurting him. The mother and Louise Woodward, maybe someone else as well, said the older brother had been playing with the baby really rough.

One thing stood out for me and that was even though both parents were doctors, neither one noticed his broken bones. He had a broken arm besides the skull fracture. Surely there would have been heat , discoloration and swelling in that arm and he would have been screaming.

Also here, the word 'pop' mean punch, as in 'I popped him in the mouth'. She told the police she popped him on the bed

@Toddlerteaplease

I thought she'd admitted it, but it was unintentional.

It seems that she admitted to shaking him lightly when he was unresponsive, but never said that she shook him before that.

@NickiMinajerie

^^Louise is married with a seven year old.
It must be horrendous for her to have this come up again and again and the paps taking her photo for the Fail.
She was served with a civil suit iirc so cannot even put her story or her experience retrospectively into print.
There are worse cases with convicted criminals - Maxine Carr springs to mind, who have more protection and are allowed to live anonymously. Louise should be afforded the same.^^
Agree.
Very unfair she cannot defend herself, she absolutely has a right to privacy.
Hopefully she can gain some compensation from the highlighted evidence, I'm not sure if that is possible.

"Louise Woodward The Killer Nanny."

No loaded language there, eh ? No need to ask what your perspective is...

I don't think she was guilty of murdering him. I can't obviously know but it doesn't seem very likely to me. I certainly don't think that the evidence showed that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

@riceuten

"Louise Woodward The Killer Nanny."

No loaded language there, eh ? No need to ask what your perspective is...

That is the name of the tv programme, not OP’s words

The judge decided to change the verdict to manslaughter I think.

Just finished watching all 3 episodes.

Some thing happened that caused the child's injuries and I'm still at a loss to understand what exactly what happened but I still think the judge made the correct call on the case. Insufficient evidence to find her guilty, definite reasonable doubt imo.

It was all so tragic, the baby, the parents insane with grief, the young au pair so far from home being accused of murder.

I believe she is innocent and I think the handling was grotesque, US law at its worst. No winners in this story.

However Louise made good of her life, studied law and married etc. Good luck to her and I wish this wasn't being rehashed.

@TheVolturi

I remember at the time I really thought that the parents had injured the baby, and then Louise had a hard morning trying to console him because he had this head injury, and the shaking him part was her trying (wrongly but in a panic) to revive him. And that it had been taken out of context. But as with all of these things we will never know. But this documentary seems very one sided.

Yes that was my take on it. She was treated appallingly by the family and the one good thing that came out of the case was the awareness of how exploited au pairs are.

@Horological

I have no idea if she is innocent or not but I really can't bear it when people decide on someone's guilt or innocence just because of photographs or short TV clips. There are so many well-known cases of women who don't behave 'correctly' when accused of crimes and are consequently judged to be guilty by the court of public opinion. Unless you have sat through all the evidence in court you really can't know for sure. We have no idea how we would behave in such strange and awful situations and there are also many people who have unusual reactions because they are traumatised or autistic. This has no bearing at all on whether they have committed a crime or not.

Agreed. And who are we to judge how anyone else should react at a traumatic time?

Everyone is different. Real life isn't like the movies where people sob and and collapse and so on. Trauma can make a person detach from feelings and go into a sort of trance like state, it can make them shut down, it can render them numb so that they are able to carry on as if nothing has happened.