Killer Nanny

I haven’t watched it, always thought she was hounded though. I didn’t think she had done it but wasnt good at putting her case, must have been so daunting for her.

Didn’t watch this, but saw a similar programme a while back, covering her case.

My own daughter au paired in the USA a little while before all this. I don’t think I would have been very keen for her to go if it had been afterwards.

Louise has turned her life around since then, but not really sure about it all, even now.

Didn’t watch it and won’t. I read that this young woman is now married and has a child. Why have the tabloids and tv dragged this all up by again? Oh, I know. Money. She will be hounded again, together with her family. The family in the USA too. As soon as I read back then that the baby was found to have an old injury which couldn’t possibly have been administered by the Nanny, well there you go.

I watched it while trying to remember the actual events (brain fog) and couldn’t make my mind up either. I did comment to my dh that there was no mention of her having trained as a nanny.
By the end of the programme I was suspicious of the mother will be watching the rest of it tonight.

Oh darn it - missed it.

Catch up tv

Ladyleftfieldlover

Didn’t watch it and won’t. I read that this young woman is now married and has a child. Why have the tabloids and tv dragged this all up by again? Oh, I know. Money. She will be hounded again, together with her family. The family in the USA too. As soon as I read back then that the baby was found to have an old injury which couldn’t possibly have been administered by the Nanny, well there you go.

I couldn't agree more. At the time Louise Woodward was a teenager left in sole charge of 2 young children every day. Something went terribly wrong but there was never any evidence that Louise had done anything to deliberately harm the baby. The judge obviously agreed, and she was released from prison and allowed to return to the UK.

Since then she has led a blameless life, working , marrying and having a child while keeping out of the limelight. In other words just trying to get on with her life and put a terrible tragedy behind her.

Raking it all up so that the usual armchair Marples and Poirots can start talking about her shifty eyes and odd demeanour and how they would have reacted differently in her situation is cruel and unfair, not only to Louise but to her little girl.

Just let the family get on with their lives.

Oh and the title of the programme is disgraceful.

I agree with the posts here. Leave her alone to get on with her life. I also feel it was completely wrong to leave a teenager in charge of two young children all day every day. I'm not saying she hurt the child as I don't think she did, but the family should have employed someone fully qualified and probably older to deal with the daily care of such young children. I know I couldn't have handled it as a teenager.

I think the title of this document drama is horrendous
I never felt strongly at the time that she had killed the baby it could have been unrealised rough handling a teenager should never have been in charge of two small children (babies)

The tv company should be held accountable for making this don’t they have to get permission of the person involved if they are alive or am I being niave

I think it very cruel to drag all this up again. I read (possibly in the Daily Mail - apologies), that viewers were "disgusted" at how cold she appeared during the trial.

Well, how on earth was she supposed to look - a young girl, in a foreign country accused of the most dreadful crime. I can't imagine how I would have looked in the same circumstances.

It is being dragged up again because it shows the beastly English being cruel to the Americans.

Televising the trial at the time was also very wrong.

Leave well alone. The girl was cleared and if now in her 40s and has her own family to think about. This is a cruel and unessary documentary with a very inappropriate title.

I remember the case very well.
I think it's dreadful that this has been made into a programme after all these years, and the title - good grief, that is disgraceful.

Louise didn't kill anyone. This should be laid to rest.

She wasn't a nanny. She was not trained. She was an au pair.

.

Exactly. She was expected to perform the duties of a nanny for an au pair level of pay.

Louise Woodward was too young and too inexperienced to be given sole responsibility for a baby and a small child on a full time basis. She was also not paid to take on that level of work and responsibility. She should have been doing light household chores and some babysitting.

The agency she was employed through should have been monitoring the situation and the parents should not have been allowed to leave their children in her care like that.

Would she not have to agree to show a film about her?
I have added it to my playlist do will take a look later.

Scentia

Would she not have to agree to show a film about her?
I have added it to my playlist do will take a look later.

I have always maintained that people should give permission for a documentary or drama about themselves but it doesn't seem to happen. The Queen has been portrayed a zillion times and The Crown is all about making money rather than respecting the truth of people's lives.

I was a bit surprised too it is being shown. She was 16 fgs. I know people have their own children at young ages but they usually have support systems in place in order to help them.

Who on earth leaves their children is sole care of another child anyway for massive amounts of time? I know within families it may happen for an hour here or two to fit around life but this was completely different. I have always felt sorry for her. I hate the daily mail too, they just hate women

JaneJudge

I was a bit surprised too it is being shown. She was 16 fgs. I know people have their own children at young ages but they usually have support systems in place in order to help them.

Who on earth leaves their children is sole care of another child anyway for massive amounts of time? I know within families it may happen for an hour here or two to fit around life but this was completely different. I have always felt sorry for her. I hate the daily mail too, they just hate women

When the revolution comes, the Daily Mail and all who sail in her will be first against the wall.

She was 16 fgs.

LW was actually 19 years old but still too young, too inexperienced and not sufficiently supported to be left in sole charge of a young child, in a country far from home. I've no idea whether she was guilty or not but she was tried and found not guilty of all charges. No good will come of raking it all up again.

I've no idea whether she was guilty or not but she was tried and found not guilty of all charges. No good will come of raking it all up again.

She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter but let go free as she had served 279 days , the judge overruled the original conviction of 2nd degree Murder.

I apologise re her age but I agree. One of my friends had a bad experience on one of these au pair schemes (what were they called? they were heavily pushed at the time)