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.

@WickedWitchOfTheEast87
There are many qualifications now in the U.K. Not so much in 1997. Ofsted didn’t even form until 2002. Ofsted registration for childminders is very recent. My dd is a young teen and the current regulations were introduced when she was little. CRB checks, now superseded by DBS also weren’t introduced until 2002. So nothing would have been regulated here either. My relations used childminders for a younger cousin in the 80s and early 90s and left their child with them for long hours. So I think the mentality here was relatively similar at the time amongst some parents.

[quote user1481840227]@Thethreecs
Where is that statement?[/quote]
They showed it in the programme, one highlighted it with highlighter.

[quote mathanxiety]@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).[/quote]
I was referring to UK qualifications, we don't have associate degrees, or 4 year degrees - well we do but don't call them that.

In order to teach in the UK you would need a teaching qualification as well as the degree (unless you do a degree with QTS).

@Thatsplentyjack

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.

I'm the same age. I remember seeing it on morning television then talking about it at lunchtime at school.

Yes, she absolutely did it! Don't forget that this wasn't just shaken baby syndrome diagnosis (which has been controversial in the past). The baby had a fractured skull and a recently fractured wrist. Part of the reason that she got off so lightly was because the judge downgraded her sentence to involuntary manslaughter, accepting that she was 19, unqualified and in another country. She looked younger than her age too and that she had acted out of frustration. It was a very odd decision. She was only tried for murder in the first place because her legal team was appointed by the Nanny agency (who were trying to avoid a civil lawsuit for their incompetence in failing to train nannies properly), so they didn't want her on trial for manslaughter, which would reflect badly on them and open them up to a claim. But then it was strange for the judge to downgrade to involuntary manslaughter and let off with such a light sentence. She was responsible for the baby's death. The court accepted that. She should have served a much longer sentence.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@WickedWitchOfTheEast87
There are many qualifications now in the U.K. Not so much in 1997. Ofsted didn’t even form until 2002. Ofsted registration for childminders is very recent. My dd is a young teen and the current regulations were introduced when she was little. CRB checks, now superseded by DBS also weren’t introduced until 2002. So nothing would have been regulated here either. My relations used childminders for a younger cousin in the 80s and early 90s and left their child with them for long hours. So I think the mentality here was relatively similar at the time amongst some parents.[/quote]
Oops. Just read that back. I meant au pairs.

@Theblacksheepandme
I think the comparison is being drawn as they are reported to have sedated 3 preschoolers then left them to sleep in an unlocked room with direct access to a road.

I was shocked at some of the house rules the parents applied when I watched the show. Most were common sense but the bit where it said she wasn’t allowed more than 5 minute phone calls seemed harsh for a 19 year old, in a tough job, in an unfamiliar country all alone. On top of what I assume were pittance wages, and the long hours i felt sorry for LW.
I’m not sure what to make of the case itself yet, but this took me by surprised

I think it’s ok to compare them to the McCanns, there are similarities, for a start if this family were not professionals it probably wouldn’t have made top news and if they were working class the finger would have been pointed more at the parents.

When I child die like this all possibilities should be looked into, anyone who has had contact with that child should be a suspect. We have recently seen how police in the uk deal with such a case when there is more than one person in contact with that child (Baby Teddie for example). Sometimes it’s almost impossible to prove which person has inflicted injuries to a baby when there are several people in daily contact with that child?

I always assumed that a au pair is not a qualified nanny, I assumed that they offer a small amount of child care in return for free accommodation and experiences in another country. I thought they tend to do more cooking, cleaning and basic childcare? I doubt she was getting much of a wage as she was getting accommodation and meals?

Hi @nettie434 - thank you, it was horrific.

Ironically, years later I met a paediatric pathologist who gave me some real insight into the issues involved, and that helped enormously.

I had no idea Sally Clarke had died. That whole trial was appalling, and all the others.

I had to stop following any of it, just too much.

I always assumed that a au pair is not a qualified nanny, I assumed that they offer a small amount of child care in return for free accommodation and experiences in another country. I thought they tend to do more cooking, cleaning and basic childcare?

In my understanding an aupair is a young person who is given ‘pocket money’ and accommodation in return for very light ‘help’ around the house. This might be some light childcare (but not solo care of a small baby daily) and help with housework. You should really think of it as if you have (for example) an 18 year old daughter who still lives at home. That type of help. It is more like a cultural exchange where they help as much as an extra family member, including some help picking children up from school or cooking family meals rather than an employee.

Unfortunately many take advantage of these (mostly) young girls, and hire an aupair when they expect a cook, cleaner, and nanny. I’ve seen it happen often and it makes me really cross.

Not saying it happened in this case! But I see it often on mumsnet, people complaining their aupair isn’t ‘pulling their weight’ when the tasks they describe are acceptable for a full time nanny being paid hundreds of pounds a week rather than an aupair.

[quote Mummyoflittledragon]@WickedWitchOfTheEast87
There are many qualifications now in the U.K. Not so much in 1997. Ofsted didn’t even form until 2002. Ofsted registration for childminders is very recent. My dd is a young teen and the current regulations were introduced when she was little. CRB checks, now superseded by DBS also weren’t introduced until 2002. So nothing would have been regulated here either. My relations used childminders for a younger cousin in the 80s and early 90s and left their child with them for long hours. So I think the mentality here was relatively similar at the time amongst some parents.[/quote]
@Mummyoflittledragon Yes I'm aware that in 1997 things were very different including the regulations, I was explaining to the poster how it works now. But even in 1997 Safeguarding and Child Protection were in place although it was nothing like it is now. Background checks were still in place including CRB/DBS. I read Louise found the job through an agency so they would have done a background check on her if that's true and I'm sure the US did background checks in 1997 when she applied for a visa. CRB checks were around but they changed them after Ian Huntley slipped the net, they never used to check applicant's previous addresses but after the enquiry it was realised that had he been asked his previous addresses his background would have shown up and he wouldn't have got the caretaker job that resulted in him killing Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. After that all applicants had to provide previous addresses if they had moved house within five years on their CRB checks.

@EssexLioness

I was shocked at some of the house rules the parents applied when I watched the show. Most were common sense but the bit where it said she wasn’t allowed more than 5 minute phone calls seemed harsh for a 19 year old, in a tough job, in an unfamiliar country all alone. On top of what I assume were pittance wages, and the long hours i felt sorry for LW. I’m not sure what to make of the case itself yet, but this took me by surprised

I assumed the 5 minute phone calls were when she was in charge of the children which I thought was reasonable, I hadn't thought about it being a blanket rule which would have been unreasonable.

I don't think people realise how different things were back then. There were in Britain some childcare courses, but nursery nurse training was the only formal qualification. You had to pay more than these parents were to employ a qualified nursery nurse.

But even now people hire totally unsuitable people if they are cheap.
I remember a few years ago a British woman in MN asking advice about her "nanny". It turned out she had hired a woman to care for her 3-year-old who spoke barely and English, and she and her child only spoke English.

She was an au pair,I wish they would stop calling her a nanny ,I went to Boston a week after Louise Woodward was released from prison ,to visit a friend who was also an au pair ,she was a few years older than Louise ,and the children she was looking after were 7 and 10 so far more independent,her duties were getting then up and ready for school,taking then to various activities,giving them an evening meal ,and basically keeping them occupied untill their parents got home ,she got an allowance for this and use of a car .

@Thethreecs

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.

I disagree ,some people do have nervous laughter ,I'm one of them I laughed in shock when being told of the sudden death of a family member.

I had my babies in the late 80s and early 90s in the uk. In the hospital there were nursery nurses with a NNEB qualification. They did about 2 years training if I remember correctly. 4 of the mums in my AN group employed NNEB qualified people as nannies. I occasionally employed one of them to babysit in the evening if I absolutely had to go out. The girls in the hospital said many of their fellow students went to work as nannies or in nurseries. Some worked in children's wards. So it was definitely a normal thing back then in the uk.

The laughing when they asked if she slammed him didn't look great I admit, but I took it that she was sort of laughing at what a crazy suggestion it was?

@chestnutSquash yes but they would have cost much more than an Au Pair. Au Pairs are cheap.

[quote RoyalFamilyFan]@chestnutSquash yes but they would have cost much more than an Au Pair. Au Pairs are cheap.[/quote]
Well yes. But your child is your most precious thing surely. I couldn't afford to go back to work until mine were at school, but I didn't earn much. The people who had nannies back then were doctors and solicitors.

@chestnutSquash people say their child is the most precious thing. Then entrust their kids to the cheapest person they can find.

Do people who burst out laughing when told of the deaths of others have no self control at all?