In May 2019, the nanny had contacted emergency services, stating that a child under her care was in a coma after waking up from a nap and vomiting. The infant died the following morning.
At the trial held on Monday at the Paris Assize Court, a 63-year-old nanny faced a demand for eight years of imprisonment. She is accused of shaking an eight-month-old baby, who died the next day from internal injuries.
“We know, because Augustin’s body spoke, that he was shaken. We know that she (the nanny) took the child and shook him,” argued Prosecutor Philippe Courroye during his closing statement on Thursday, basing his argument on both “chronological” and “medical” evidence in the case.
An “incoherent” and “panicked” speech
The 63-year-old nanny, hired in January 2019 by the family and a couple of neighbors living in the same Parisian building, is being pursued for violence resulting in the unintentional death of a child under the age of 15.
On May 22, 2019, at 11:58 am, the woman, who was taking care of the two infants at the victim’s home, contacted emergency services. Described by the medical dispatcher as having an “incoherent” and “panicked” speech, she claimed that Augustin had vomited after waking up from his nap and was now in a coma. The baby was urgently transported to the hospital and died the following morning.
Various medical examinations carried out on site and after the victim’s death indicate a “compatibility” between the infant’s injuries and shaken baby syndrome.
The “benefit of the doubt”
At the stand, the accused once again denied the allegations. “I cannot say something I did not do,” she briefly stated.
During previous interviews, she described the child as exhibiting unusual behavior, crying, and being particularly agitated on the day of the incident. The accused also mentioned suspicious behavior from the victim’s father and shifted blame onto the couple and a fall that occurred under their supervision several days prior.
“I am not certain about the shaken baby theory, just as I am not certain about the opposite,” argued her lawyer, Bernard Benaiem.
He pleaded for his client’s acquittal based on the “benefit of the doubt” that, according to him, remains in regards to both the nature of the actions responsible for the baby’s death and the timing of those actions.
Top Articles
