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 didn’t watch the programme but I came across it when trying to Google for more information after listening to a true crime podcast about the case. The expert for the prosecution’s side has since the case changed his stance regarding the Shaking Baby Syndrome, going so far as to say that he wouldn’t give the same testimony now. Also, according to the podcast, Louise wasn’t allowed to see her mother on the day of the trial and she was already shaken and distraught. Much of the jury took what was said during the police statement etc and her words like “popped him on the bed” etc were misunderstood and so on. Also, it was said that Matthew had injuries predating Louise entering the house not to mention the fact that had she been abusive and whatnot, baby Matthew’s parents would have noticed especially seeing as they were doctors. So I do feel as though that there is more to it than meets the eye.

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.

Yeah, not in the US. And while you can do a course in early childhood care and education in a community college in the US, I personally wouldn't see the certificate you earn as proof that you know much about small children.

We are talking about the US here.

@GoodnightGrandma

Why not ? It’s no different to any other death being discussed. I thought it was only discussions about the Radfords that weren’t allowed on here.

Who are the Radfords and why can’t they be discussed on here? Never heard of them.

I feel sorry for Louise’s children, having this brought up.

One of the Drs for the prosecution has said he would give different evidence now.

At the time I thought she was not guilty because of the CS fluid. CS fluid is usually clear, if it isn't clear then this can indicate (but is not diagnostic) of a number of things.

It can work n a similar way to a bruise and in the same way you can see a bruise and know that something has happened but not how or why.

But there is a time delay, the chemicals released need time to get in to the CS fluid to change its colour.

I can't remember the exact details but the fluid indicated an old injury.

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

A degree in early childhood studies is a fairly good indicator that a person is trained.

A school leaver is a fairly good example of someone who isn't trained.

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.

Au pairs are different of course. I had neighbours from a certain European country who chose au pairs so that their children would be able to speak the parents' language constantly. It's not a language you would find in the average nanny pool.

The nannies I have observed in the area where I live are almost exclusively Spanish, Ukrainian, or Polish-speaking. Fluent English is a rarity.

I am not convinced Louise is the killer.

I believe the injury happened before Louise was hired.

@sashh

People with bachelors degrees in early childhood education (4-year university) usually go into formal early childhood education, teaching at a formal preschool or in kindergarten, maybe even up to grade three in either a public or private school.

People with associates degrees in early childhood studies (2-year qualification earned in a community college) usually work in daycare settings where they can often get benefits like health insurance or paid time off (usually limited to about a week but depends on years of service).

@alienalan

I think my demeanour would also be 'off' if i was the accused in a murder trial (a baby's murder) in the states aged 19

I was about to say this. Everyone looks guilty in court. And people will say it after the fact too - oh he LOOKED guilty. She SEEMED off. Fact is, most of us would it could look off in such a situation because it’s so far outside of what you expect to have to deal with in your life.

It’s sad that it’s being dragged over but these cases always will be. And the fact that she’s living won’t change that. I expect children or family of murderers and their victims probably feel the same when yet another documentary or crime drama based on their real life tragedy comes out.

@WatchMyChops

I didn’t watch the programme but I came across it when trying to Google for more information after listening to a true crime podcast about the case. The expert for the prosecution’s side has since the case changed his stance regarding the Shaking Baby Syndrome, going so far as to say that he wouldn’t give the same testimony now. Also, according to the podcast, Louise wasn’t allowed to see her mother on the day of the trial and she was already shaken and distraught. Much of the jury took what was said during the police statement etc and her words like “popped him on the bed” etc were misunderstood and so on. Also, it was said that Matthew had injuries predating Louise entering the house not to mention the fact that had she been abusive and whatnot, baby Matthew’s parents would have noticed especially seeing as they were doctors. So I do feel as though that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Yes I noticed that - we’ve family in the Midwest and if they say they ‘popped’ someone they usually mean hit/smacked etc. So you might say one of the kids ‘popped his brother’ to mean he hit him.

Language differences can so often confuse cases like this.

Just finished watching the 3 episodes, I do believe she's guilty. I know the scientific evidence said there was old injuries, what I think is, she had previously hurt him. I don't believe that she only shook him that one time, she had many days where she was tired etc and I think it's extremely likely she lost her cool with him on more than one occasion.

Her statement that she gave twice said she tossed him onto the bed, her court evidence said she popped him onto the bed. Both very different things. She also said in her statements that she threw him onto the bathroom floor, but again in court said she placed him. All of these things are not the actions of a calm person. While she admitted in her statements of shaking, tossing and throwing him, what else happened that we don't know, I honestly believe that there was other times she was rough with him.

Her laughing when asked if she slammed him against anything was chilling. I don't believe it was nerves like the prosecution said, if you're on trial for murder and your life is on the line, you don't laugh with nerves, you should actually be sick to your stomach and upset if innocent.

This baby died due to a build up of physical abuse. The old injuries were caused by her, she lived in that house, she spent the majority of her time with that baby, if she felt the parents were responsible then she should/would have said but nothing from anyone interviewed ever mentioned the parents thinking they were responsible. That baby suffered physical abuse on more than one occasion. There were no bruises on the day because the damage was already done, the baby was in pain from previous abuse and damage and her shaking, throwing and tossing on the last day together was the final nail in his coffin.

@Thethreecs
Where is that statement?

I don't believe it was nerves like the prosecution said, if you're on trial for murder and your life is on the line, you don't laugh with nerves, you should actually be sick to your stomach and upset if innocent.

Not necessarily disagreeing because realistically I don’t have a clue if she did it or not - but you can’t say you don’t do x from nerves. If anything when it’s an extreme situation you can’t control a nervous reaction if the nerves are what’s causing it.

When I found out DH elderly relative (who I liked a lot and was a nice person) died I laughed. Genuinely didn’t find it funny it’s just something I do when I’m extremely stressed ever since a child. I think my body tries not to freak out/cry and I end up laughing/smirking but I do not find it funny at all. It stems from not wanting people to see or watch me trying to process my emotions.

But yeah it’s pretty impossible to say in this situation you should react in this way. Everyone will react very differently dependent on their own experiences. Plus if someone cries in court people will often call it ‘crocodile tears’ or similar.

I do think it’s odd that nobody picked up on the child’s long term injuries. It’s an awful situation and you can see why it got so much press. There was another similar case which for the life of me I can’t remember of a woman (nanny I think) accused of possibly trying to kill her baby charge with a fire? Or something similar, and someone said it got so much press because it really ignited the fears many mums already have about leaving their child with someone. Obviously not that they’ll kill them but it’s like a mum’s worst nightmare situation.

@mathanxiety

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.

Yeah, not in the US. And while you can do a course in early childhood care and education in a community college in the US, I personally wouldn't see the certificate you earn as proof that you know much about small children.

We are talking about the US here.

Some one who has done a course in childcare may well know far more than a first time mother.

My nanny spotted something of concern about my son which a GP missed.

That's rather a sweeping statement isn't it? There's no such thing as a trained nanny, or if there is, their training doesn't amount to much.

She was a couple of years older than me at my school, so we all followed it closely at the time. Pretty sure she didn’t do it. She was out of her depth and set up, and didn’t come across well. But there was a lot dodgy in the family and at the time I remember thinking the dad did it.

Having watched all 3 I am not completely sure that she is completely innocent mainly because of the way she has acted since the convictions
If I had been convicted of a crime and was innocent I wouldn’t want to talk about and definitely wouldn’t want to make money out of it.

@Pixxie7

Having watched all 3 I am not completely sure that she is completely innocent mainly because of the way she has acted since the convictions If I had been convicted of a crime and was innocent I wouldn’t want to talk about and definitely wouldn’t want to make money out of it.

See comments like this drive me mad. You cannot possibly know how you would behave after enduring a terrible event. And you especially annoy know how another person would react.

She'd have had a lot of bills to pay, extreme pressure from the papers, and a good way to manage that is to do a couple of interviews and draw a line under it. The alternative is that stuff gets invented and attributed to you, and it's just a farce.

There's no such thing as a trained nanny, or if there is, their training doesn't amount to much.

That's not true. Norlund nannies get a degree or a diploma and it is very competitive entry.

One thing that has really changed since Louise Woodward was convicted is the amount of early years qualifications that people can obtain. As sombody said upthread, she was an au pair not a nanny. Or at least, I don't remember her having any relevant qualifications or experience.

I din't see the programme but saw several trailers last night. The trailer emphasised that they had new evidence. I do remember at the time how polarised reactions in the UK were, ranging from those who felt she had been asked to do a job for which she was totally unprepared, to those who believed she had injured the child deliberately.

As somebody else said upthread, forensic knowledge and knowledge about child safeguarding has increased tremendously. Reading this thread has made me think I will watch it. It was definitely a cause célèbre at the time which attracted huge media interest.

iborgia

I have friends who lost a baby to SIDS, they were never given a more precise diagnosis and the coroner's view differed to the hospital's. The mother was so upset by Sally Clark's death. She said all she could think of was how traumatised she would have been if she'd been treated like Sally.

@chestnutSquash

If I was leaving my baby and toddler in the care of someone full time I would make sure they had more than a first aid certificate. If it is true that no qualifications are required in USA that is pretty shocking. I was under the impression that childminders and nannies in the uk do have to be trained and registered.

@ChestnutSquash I don't know about the US but in the UK Childminders legally have to register with Ofsted and the requirements are strict. You have to under go training in Paediatric First Aid, Fire Safety, Health and Safety in the home and outside of the home, Food Hygiene and Safety, along with a DBS check and every adult in your home must have a DBS check, an Ofsted Inspector has to come out and check that your home meets the criteria before they can pass you off. Also the Childminder has to gain the appropriate qualification in Childminding and you have to update your training and qualifications every 2-3 years in order to meet the Ofsted requirements and criteria and you must have liabilty insurance. Childminders also have to keep a profile of the children's development including observations, activity planning etc thats why Childminders charge a fortune because it costs a lot of money to do training and preparing your home to meet the requirements.

Nannies don't legally have to register with Ofsted however the majority of families these days ask that their Nanny be Ofsted registered and they have to have Paediatric First Aid Training and the minimum Ofsted will accept is Common Core Skills (Nanny training) however its good practice for a nanny to hold Childcare qualifications. I have a Diploma Level 3 in Childcare and Education which qualifies me to work in private nursery, as a TA and of course as a Nanny. I'm surprised nannies don't legally have to register to be honest because when you work in someone's home you're very vulnerable if something happens to the child if I went to work as a nanny now I'd ask for cameras or nanny cams as they're called to be installed to cover myself from allegations its a risky job to do.

Personally I don't think Louise Woodward is guilty, I think the parents exploited her, it goes on more than you'd think I used to teach Safeguarding and Child Protection and I've met a lot of nannies who have told me their experiences and the way parents have treated them and its shocking. I've had one or two experiences with difficult parents who tried to bully me i.e. wanting me to do extra babysitting but not wanting to pay me or increasing my hours without paying and these were highly professional people who earn more than I could imagine. Some parents really resent having to pay for Childcare and take the piss its one of the many reasons I left Childcare.

There isn’t one piece of physical evidence that ever connected Louise and how is it that the parents didn’t notice these old injuries? I don’t believe she is guilty.

I went to NY as an au pair during my summer break from university. The family I connected with were lovely but I remember this case very well and as a result I wouldn’t even consider any families with kids under 6. There was allot of exploitation going on at the time as you would get to chatting with other nannies/au pairs at the playgrounds etc.

I watched it last night. I found the mum a bit strange when she described her son. She used the words fat and lazy in court. Amongst cute and happy I think she said but it was a bit strange to say that.

@chestnutSquash

You would think a couple of doctors would have a little bit of common sense. A little bit of an idea of the responsibility of looking after a tiny baby and a toddler. It just seems really odd.

I have a cousin in the US who is a doctor - for many years while her kids were young, she used a totally unqualified very young nanny for long hours. As did many of her doctor friends and colleagues.

It is a bit of a cultural thing - sorry to say that many people from the Indian subcontinent don't seem to feel like early years childcare is important and in the US it is also not uncommon generally

I think that this is awful for the poor woman who has been trying to get on with her life and people saying that they didn't like her aura or her body language. I think most people who'd been accused of killing a baby while working in a foreign country and who was innocent would be demonstrating all sorts of odd reactions. We don't know what happened and this sort of speculation is just very unwholesome.

I'm not sure......... I think the parents are more culpable than they want to face up to, both doctors and having the resources to get better childcare than an 18 year old. It's quite shocking. 2 very young children left in the care of one unqualified 18 year old.

@Pixxie7

Having watched all 3 I am not completely sure that she is completely innocent mainly because of the way she has acted since the convictions If I had been convicted of a crime and was innocent I wouldn’t want to talk about and definitely wouldn’t want to make money out of it.

I don't know anything for certain but to be accused of something so awful and have to defend yourself for your freedom at 18 is going to have an effect on your personality I think. I'd go through life feeling like I was ''in the dock''. I'm pretty sure (but don't know) that I'd be defending myself even when there was no charge. constantly worried that everything I said or did would be given a negative interpretation. I think LW has come across more calm than I would have managed.