Killer Nanny - Did She Do It?

[duchy]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

She has a dance school in Wales I think it is now, so must be a bit peed off with all these programmes.

See more...

I imagine she uses her married name so isn’t instantly identified.

[duchy]

Originally Posted by Stella11

I think she did it.

See more...

With or without the evidence ?

[Stella11]

Originally Posted by duchy

With or without the evidence ?

See more...

Based on the fact she admitted shaking the baby, 'tossing' him on the bed and being rough with him. Of course that baby died because of her. She likely didn't mean it. But for her, Matty would be alive.

[Scotsmomma2]

I followed the case and watched all the coverage at the time(hard to think how long ago it was)I thought she was innocent.
It must be awful for her having it all dragged up again.It's not hard to find out where and what she's doing now,no matter what name she's using.

[scottishmum]

I followed the case at the time and watched the case on tv.
Seen a pic recently online of her with her daughter, she’s not changed a bit .
I think she went on to study law or something similar.

Not sure if she did it, but it’s a coincidence that she “gently shook” him that day and dropped him as she said.
Isn’t that a bit much of a coincidence if that he didn’t have his horrific injuries.

[sam7]

Finished watching it yesterday. I remember watching the case at the time but don't remember it. Now I am really on the fence. I am leaning more to her doing 'something' than not. Even he had older injuries who is to say she didn't cause them too? Only she knows for sure.
Just read that she had a placement before the Eappens, which she left after 3 months 'due to the 11pm curfew'.

[RachelM]

Did she do it? I'm not sure.
Should she have been found guilty? No.
In my mind, if I had been a juror ( based on what we see ) I couldn't have said guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
It's very interesting that on if the prosecution Dr's for the prosecution has now recanted his evidence.

[duchy]

Originally Posted by sam7

Finished watching it yesterday. I remember watching the case at the time but don't remember it. Now I am really on the fence. I am leaning more to her doing 'something' than not. Even he had older injuries who is to say she didn't cause them too? Only she knows for sure.
Just read that she had a placement before the Eappens, which she left after 3 months 'due to the 11pm curfew'.

See more...

I wouldn’t see leaving a placement after three months due to employers having a curfew for an adult as unreasonable, certainly not a reason to assume guilt.
It’s not uncommon to find it hard to keep a nanny because living conditions are intrusive or restrictive.
I’ve not watched it, did the parents and how their other children fared feature?

[Lindaelaine]

Originally Posted by scottishmum

I followed the case at the time and watched the case on tv.
Seen a pic recently online of her with her daughter, she’s not changed a bit .
I think she went on to study law or something similar.

Not sure if she did it, but it’s a coincidence that she “gently shook” him that day and dropped him as she said.
Isn’t that a bit much of a coincidence if that he didn’t have his horrific injuries.

See more...

That's exactly what I thought, what has completely thrown me was also the smile and little laugh that she did when asked a serious question, I am so torn but keep thinking if she had done it why would she admit to shaking him and dropping him, that incriminates her, but on the other hand that could be why what the defence called an "old injury" suddenly brought on the symptoms and eventual death of the baby.
I wouldn't have wanted to be a juror as I couldn't possibly have found her guilty of murder.
I also found the mother a bit strange and think she knows more than she is letting on.