Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Stabbin' NYC nanny was pissed parents asked her do housework

They bent over backwards for their nanny, and she repaid them in blood.

The parents of two butchered Upper West Side kids asked their financially strapped nanny to do simple housework as a way to earn more money — but all that did was enrage the woman, law-enforcement sources told The Post.

“She said something like, ‘I’m paid to watch the children, not clean up and do housework,’ ” a law-enforcement source said of Yoselyn Ortega’s statements to cops after she woke up from a medically induced coma Sunday.

“There was friction between her and the family.”

In Ortega’s brief statement to police, she said her employers had arranged to give her an extra five hours a week in housekeeping work to help her make more money, law-enforcement sources said.

But she griped that the new schedule interfered with her doctor’s appointments. “They were asking her to clean, to do housework. She was unhappy about that,” the source added.

And her work was suffering.

Marina and Kevin Krim were concerned about Ortega’s job performance in the month before the Oct. 25 murders and told the nanny they trusted like family that she had to improve or they would need to replace her, sources said.

“She was told that if she didn’t improve her work, she would be let go,” a law-enforcement source said.

The woman also asked cops about her own family after waking from the coma, but not Lucia, 6, and Leo, 2, whom she is accused of slaughtering, sources have said. Ortega, 50, fell back under sedation before she could be interviewed further, and soon after the family contacted a defense lawyer.

by Anonymousreply 35603/08/2013

Ortega cared for the children for two years and became so close with the Krims, they brought her on a family vacation to her native Dominican Republic.

The family stayed with Ortega’s sister, Miladys, in Santiago and they even talked about buying a home there. And Ortega treated the children as if they were her own, neighbors and relatives said. Her son, Jesus, 17, felt like a brother to them.

Miladys Ortega said her sister gave no indication that anything was wrong when they spoke days before the massacre.

But the nanny’s neighbors said the woman had appeared gaunt and troubled in the weeks leading up to the killings, and sources said she was struggling with money issues.

She also told people she planned to see a psychologist, cops said, though it’s not clear if she ever did so.

The day of the murders, Marina Krim and her surviving daughter, Nessie, 3, had planned to meet Ortega and the other two kids at a nearby dance class around 5 p.m., but the nanny never showed up.

Marina came back to the luxury West 75th Street apartment in the La Rochelle building and found her children slashed to death in the bathtub. The nanny, who had slit her wrists, then plunged a kitchen knife into her own neck as the horrified mother walked into the grisly scene, cops said.

Ortega stabbed herself with such force that she fractured a vertebra in her neck.

Ortega has not yet been charged in the killings, though she is expected to eventually be arraigned from her hospital bed.

by Anonymousreply 111/02/2012

[quote]They bent over backwards for their nanny, and she repaid them in blood.

Some Lifetime Movie tag lines write themselves.

by Anonymousreply 411/02/2012

The poor nanny was obviously extremely disturbed. So they're like 'family', but her work suffers for a while because she is ill and they threaten to FIRE her ass? Would they fire one of their kids for fucking up? Sure. Parents put up with unbelievable activity from their own spawn, up to murder and beyond.

by Anonymousreply 511/02/2012

OLD NEWS.

[italic] [bold] NEXT! [/bold] [/italic]

by Anonymousreply 711/02/2012

R6 = Republican values.

by Anonymousreply 811/02/2012

Well that makes total sense. No wonder she killed those kids

by Anonymousreply 1011/02/2012

How was the nanny swindled?

by Anonymousreply 1111/02/2012

R6 who was the asshole who was swindling her?

by Anonymousreply 1311/02/2012

[quote]I knew this nanny was not criminally insane, she's just angry and took it out on the kids, so she is just a criminal.

Bullshit, freakshow. The nanny is obviously mentally ill. Her mental-health crisis probably both contributed to and was aggravated by her problems at work, and the job issues may have helped to push her over edge--but bottom line, she murdered two kids because she's sick, not because she didn't want to clean their house!

by Anonymousreply 1411/02/2012

Yeah, I gotta say that while I agree with R14, I disagree that she should be able to get off for mental illness unless more is revealed.

by Anonymousreply 1511/02/2012

R13 She was swindled out of her home and lost some money so she had to move in with family, the woman was very stressed out over this but who wouldn't be in her position? It's still no excuse for murdering little kids, she took her anger and frustrations out on children who couldn't defend themselves.

If you read the original thread on this case there is a link explaining Ortega's financial difficulties.

Anybody excusing this woman's murdering of children because of class warfare is a sociopath.

If I had money I would hire all sorts of people to do things for me, but I don't and that does not make me hate those who have more than I do, I just want them to be taxed at a higher percentage rate and I would like to see capital gains taxes raised as well since that's how the rich really make money.

Fuck you r12 it's obvious you are a sick troll.

by Anonymousreply 1611/02/2012

[quote]... I disagree that she should be able to get off for mental illness ....

People don't "get off for mental illness".

A verdict of "innocent by reason of insanity" means that the defendant isn't legally responsible for having committed anti-social acts the way a sane person would be. Therefore, she's not punished the way a sane person would be, but neither is she permitted to return to society & endanger others.

Instead of being incarcerated in a prison, she's committed to a mental health facility (an asylum) until & unless she's restored to sanity -- theoretically, she receives treatment toward that end.

by Anonymousreply 1711/02/2012

Ah yes, let me get out my evil stethoscope. She has copious amounts of evil in her system...

by Anonymousreply 1911/02/2012

This is bullshit. Who cares how annoying the yuppie parents are, who cares if the nanny didn't get paid enough, who cares if she was asked to clean in addition to be a nanny, who cares if the mom had a frau blog. These kids did not deserve to be butchered and the family does not deserve to lose their dear children. PERIOD.

by Anonymousreply 2011/02/2012

Sorry, r14, but NOPE. She was cognizant of her actions and she stated her motives. They were vengeance and anger. She may have been under stress, but her actions were not beyond her control. She waited for the opportunity to inflict a great deal of pain on people she perceived as enemies and attempted to avoid any repercussions with a failed suicide attempt. This woman is more evil than crazy.

by Anonymousreply 2111/02/2012

Just because one is crazy does not make them not responsible. Too bad there is no death penalty. She needs to be executed.

by Anonymousreply 2211/02/2012

[quote]the luxury West 75th Street apartment in the La [...] building

There's a La E-f-f-e-m-i-n-a-t-e Building in New York? Bit much.

[quote]So they're like 'family', but her work suffers for a while because she is ill and they threaten to FIRE her ass?

[quote]This family cared enough about the nanny that even though they realized she was having issues all they did was warn her

These are her reports. Why do you choose to believe them so uncritically? She's supposed to be crazy and delusional and all drugged up...

I dunno. I find something fishy about this report. If she was lawyered up as the papers suggest, why did they allow her to make statements as to motive like this and almost provide an open and shut case to prosecutors? This leaves her in a very unfavorable position.

by Anonymousreply 2311/02/2012

[quote] they brought her on a family vacation to her native Dominican Republic. The family stayed with Ortega’s sister, Miladys, in Santiago

That sounds like they both benefited- the family got a free babysitter while on vacation and a free place to stay - the nanny got a free trip home.

She's obviously going through a mental health crisis. And no one with any brains tells a person responsible for their childrens' lives and safety that she may get the sack and then keeps them in charge of the children That's just stupid or vain. You can discuss improving or changing work performance without the threats.

by Anonymousreply 2411/02/2012

" And no one with any brains tells a person responsible for their childrens' lives and safety that she may get the sack and then keeps them in charge of the children That's just stupid or vain."

Why wouldn't you do this, r24? Because double homicide would be the logical and likely outcome? Because you would have totally seen this coming?

by Anonymousreply 2511/02/2012

Don't hire illegals

by Anonymousreply 2611/02/2012

Read, R26.

by Anonymousreply 2711/02/2012

The assumption of many Americans is that anyone with an accent is illegal.

by Anonymousreply 2811/02/2012

I've never even heard the woman speak, R28. But I have a sneaky suspicion....

by Anonymousreply 2911/02/2012

You'd be disabused of your suspicion if you'd just bothered to read. Really.

by Anonymousreply 3011/02/2012

[quote] Why wouldn't you do this, [R24]? Because double homicide would be the logical and likely outcome? Because you would have totally seen this coming?

It's not about double homicide. It can be anything from little things to big things. Even just not taking as much care as they should could be harmful. Not taking care what they eat or what they watch on TV. I can think of a dozen things that could result from such threats to fire a nanny and then keeping that nanny respinsible for your child's saftey and emotional well being. Why couldn't the parents? It's their fucking kids.

Some people are so self absorbed they really don't see beyond their own needs and that includes parents who loudly and bloggily proclaim their parenting skills and love for children.

by Anonymousreply 3111/02/2012

r25, you don't do that because the person may become irrational and do something petty. Same reason people get fired on the spot. I had a job where I was fired and given a weeks notice. I didn't kill anyone or do something illegal but I did screw them over. ;)

r17, what sounds better? Being found insane, taken to a treatment center and released after you got said treatment, or going to jail with no possibility of returning to normal once you realize what you did was wrong and promise not to do it again?

by Anonymousreply 3211/02/2012

R31, I am going to forsake any further bitchiness and just plainly say I disagree. If you have an employee whom you like, then you give them a chance to improve. The risks, in 99.9% of situations, are minimal. A few weeks of candy before dinner or r-rated movies? Fine. It's worth that to give an employee whom you'd like to keep the chance to improve. What are the other options? You can either fire immediately or hope the problems improve without ever addressing them.

by Anonymousreply 3311/02/2012

She knew what she did was wrong. She waited to stab herself until after she saw the mom's reaction. She knew what she was doing.

by Anonymousreply 3411/02/2012

R25/33, I'm not trying to be bitchy to you so sorry if it sounded like that. I don't disagree that you can give someone a chance to improve. My entire point is that you don't turn it into a threatening situation. That creates unnecessary stress on a poorly performing employee and hardly likely to lead to improvement. Employees are routinely corrected for misdeeds or encouraged to improve without being threatened with the loss of their livelihoods. THAT is the issue.

Some people are not very good at being an employer.

by Anonymousreply 3511/02/2012

Her Hispanic background must've confused them. She was a nanny, not a fucking maid. Funny how this couple is doing quite well, but instead of giving the nanny a raise or an extra hour every day of the week, they see her taking on more responsibility as the answer. What the hell did the mom have to do with a nanny/housekeeper if she wasn't working? Oh, I forgot, blogging is DAUNTING.

by Anonymousreply 3611/02/2012

[quote]The nanny is obviously mentally ill.

Uh huh. More likely drugged up. That would explain the weight loss and money troubles as well.

by Anonymousreply 3711/02/2012

I hope they fry her fucking ass. Is NY a death penalty state?

by Anonymousreply 3811/02/2012

I don't believe this story. No, I don't believe the nanny killed the children. She is a scape goat.

by Anonymousreply 3911/02/2012

WTF, R36? You don't give and underperforming employee a raise because you're "doing quite well" and they're cash strapped. People in service jobs are ALWAYS strapped for cash, no matter how much you pay them.

They paid her a competitive wage and even tried to help her by giving her extra work that they really didn't need. What should they do? Give a lazy, unskilled shitty worker $100k per year simply because they can afford to? Why? When they can get easily get someone better to do the job for the same $15/hr she's bitching about.

If this couple were less compassionate and more business like, they would have fired her ass and hired a new, better nanny without the stank attitude...and their kids would be alive.

by Anonymousreply 4011/02/2012

Is the Post the only paper reporting this? Because it sounds very odd that her lawyers are allowing her to incriminate herself so freely and easily in a sedated state. What kind of counsel would do that?

Why does everybody believe this?

by Anonymousreply 4111/02/2012

I would have had more sympathy with her if she'd actually killed herself instead of just making a half-hearted stab at herself when she heard somebody coming.

by Anonymousreply 4211/02/2012

It would seem better to hire a nanny who is a college student or a college graduate in her 20's or a young woman in her 20's supporting herself or a young woman from a european country.

That way the social class and economic inequities would not be as likely to be a source of hostility and/or anger.

Someone like Elin Norgren (before she married Tiger Woods) who was from Sweden and made a living as a nanny for a golf professional in the U.S.

by Anonymousreply 4311/02/2012

R43= horny guy whose wife has cut him off from sex and thinks his transparent rouse is invisible.

How does only half of everything you own now look as your inevidable future, harddick.

by Anonymousreply 4411/02/2012

R42, she deserves ZERO sympathy. What would possess you to have any sympathy whatsoever for her? She butchered and slaughtered two human beings.

You thinking is skewed if you think for even a second that she deserves any sympathy.

Evil sick criminal butchers deserve no sympathy, no matter what they circumstances are.

by Anonymousreply 4511/02/2012

Don't cry for me Argentina!

by Anonymousreply 4611/02/2012

Previous thread:

by Anonymousreply 4711/02/2012

Is this going to be one of those trials that is televised live, discussed everywhere in the media, and everyone has to take sides and hate each other?

by Anonymousreply 4811/02/2012

The examples at R43 could also be in their 30's, not just 20's.

Just not being a 3rd world immigrant would help the inherent social and economic inequities.

by Anonymousreply 4911/02/2012

It's one thing to refuse to clean, but she sure contributed to the mess around that place.

by Anonymousreply 5011/02/2012

[quote]I would have had more sympathy with her if she'd actually killed herself instead of just making a half-hearted stab at herself

heh heh heh

by Anonymousreply 5111/02/2012

So, mid/upper class white nannies are best for mid/upper class white kids. Do I have that right, R49? Just say it. No need to beat around the bush.

by Anonymousreply 5211/02/2012

She stabbed herself hard enough to break a vertebrae, R42. Not that it makes her more sypathetic...

by Anonymousreply 5311/02/2012

Yes, R52, true. The social and economic inequities of having a 3rd world immigrant as one's nanny are too great.

by Anonymousreply 5411/02/2012

If I had kids, I'd probably go insane wondering about who's looking after them if I had to put them in daycare or something. But that's just me. Blame my mother.

by Anonymousreply 5511/02/2012

Look, I was a nanny in NYC to put myself through college. Sure, some of the families were jerks at times, but I would never, under any circumstances, harm one hair on a child's head. If they treated me badly, I gave my two weeks and I quit, or I didn't accept their offers of work, and moved on to other jobs that I liked better. Pretty simple. There is no excuse for murder. This woman was severely disturbed.

by Anonymousreply 5611/02/2012

Like these 1% jackasses would have missed the money by giving her a raise. " you're a member of our family." "Your son is my son." "You need help to pay your bills to help your son's education? Scrub the floors!"

Ortega needs to spend her life in prison, but the parents aren't exactly innocent.

by Anonymousreply 5711/02/2012

Even if your premise is correct there's nothing in that to justify butchering two young children in a bathtub. Nothing.

by Anonymousreply 5811/02/2012

Good help is so hard to find now days!

by Anonymousreply 5911/02/2012

"She butchered and slaughtered two human beings. "

And, yet, male killers always get cut some slack.

by Anonymousreply 6011/02/2012

So sad that the parents didn't just fire the nanny rather than threaten to fire her.

What a wrong decision.

Of course, they could not conceive of the consequences because the consequences were so outlandish and unfathomable.

The parents especially the mom probably didn't want to go to the trouble of finding a new nanny.

by Anonymousreply 6111/02/2012

What slack, R60? What a bizarre statement

by Anonymousreply 6211/02/2012

Well said R12 !

by Anonymousreply 6311/02/2012

Since when do the working poor have to pay one dime for education? They get it all for free. It's the middle class kids who are getting the short stick on that front.

Oh yeah, and a raise, even $5/hr which would be outrageous, isn't going to pull someone out of deep financial trouble anyway. She needed someone to blame for her shitty life. Being around a rich family caused extreme envy that sent her over the edge.

by Anonymousreply 6411/02/2012

R57 How are the parents not innocent?

Last I checked they helped YO by giving her a job, paying for her trip to DR, giving her more hours, they introduced her to other prospective parents and they gave her gifts and she repaid the kindness by butchering the families toddlers.

How the hell do you pull out of your ass that the parents are somehow responsible?

by Anonymousreply 6511/02/2012

No one has yet responded to R41, although I have to say that his/hers is the reaction I had immediately upon reading this "report" as well...

by Anonymousreply 6611/02/2012

I dunno... extra duties at work always make me feel kinda stabby.

by Anonymousreply 6711/02/2012

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the nanny a trained accountant? Not to excuse her actions in any way, but you can kind of see why an older person with formal professional skills might feel cheated being forced by circumstance to perform menial housekeeping chores. It's horrible to feel that the harder you work, the poorer you get.

Anyone who ever watched the old Upstairs, Downstairs knows that nannies, like lady's personal maids, occupy a higher rung on the servant's ladder than scullery and parlor maids and charwomen.

by Anonymousreply 6811/02/2012

It almost sounds like one of the posters is PR for the family.

Look no one says it's okay to stab 2 toddlers - for any reason. But looking at what might have fueled the event is not excusing the nanny or saying the parents killed their own children. Why must this be pointed out to posters? We dissect events - big and small. That's what we do here. Think of it as a continuing CLE on how to avoid life's obstacles - like having your babies murdered or swept from your arms as you foolishly venture out into the worst storm seen in a century.

by Anonymousreply 6911/02/2012

There is something very wrong with this whole story but the nannie will die and be blamed for murders she never committed. I blame a very lazy police department...liars and pigs. Normal cops.

by Anonymousreply 7011/02/2012

The stuff about the bookkeeping or accounting degree is odd. How long ago did she get it? Was she able to keep jobs in that field?

Lots of unanswered questions.

by Anonymousreply 7111/02/2012

You seem to be confusing discussing events with successful reasoning. Then again, you did invoke the paid poster argument, which is always an early refuge for the true crime minded.

by Anonymousreply 7211/02/2012

The only thing that was mentioned in the news articles was that the nanny had a 'degree' in accounting.

That could mean a variety of things.

If the degree was obtained in the Dominican Republic, perhaps it was not equivalent to a degree in the U.S.

Or if obtained in the U.S., maybe it was only a one-year degree or a two-year degree. Or maybe it was a mere correspondence course thru the mail or an online degree.

And the questions posed at R71 are very pertinent.

by Anonymousreply 7311/02/2012

Good amount of misinformation by the news media in this case.

First reports erroneously said the mother of the two children is a pediatrician which is completely wrong.

by Anonymousreply 7411/02/2012

I'm claiming "Stabbin' Nanny" as the name of my new emo band.

by Anonymousreply 7511/02/2012

They wanted her to be like "La Nana", but instead of hiring extra help when she got sick they offered her more work. Remember what La Nana did when given the extra responsibility to look after that kitten.

by Anonymousreply 7611/02/2012

I totally agree with the majority here! Ppl who take care of your children should be paid substandard wages! The working class should have to take time away from their children working extra hours paying for their chdren's pvt school because the neighborhood public schools are horrible. We have expensive dog foods to buy!

by Anonymousreply 7711/02/2012

I found this about her employment background. No time frames provided. The account comes from her sister in the DR:

She said Yoselyn is the youngest of six siblings, most of whom live in the United States. Her sister emigrated to the United States in the early 1980s after graduating from accounting studies at Santa Ana College in Santiago.

Yoselyn Ortega worked as the manager of a print shop in Manhattan, until she separated from the father of her child. She returned to Santiago for a while, but then went back to the U.S., her sister said.

Miladys Ortega said that when her sister got back to New York, she couldn't find an accounting job and decided to work as a nanny because she loves children.

During her last conversations with Yoselyn, her sister didn't say anything that seemed unusual.

"Yoselyn always was a normal person. When she was a child, she played, always played a lot. We would go into the countryside," she said. "As an adult, she dedicated herself to working. She was always working."

by Anonymousreply 7811/02/2012

[quote]Look, no one says it's okay to stab 2 toddlers - for any reason. But looking at what might have fueled the event is not excusing the nanny or saying the parents killed their own children. Why must this be pointed out to posters?

Nice job twisting the truth, R69. Reread the thread. There absolutely ARE posters here saying the parents are to blame, at least partly, for their kids' deaths because they didn't pay this crap employee, who should have been fired, not given a raise, more money. Disgusting.

Here, I'll make it easy for you since you seem to be ~confused. This is from the fucktard @ R57:

[quote]Like these 1% jackasses would have missed the money by giving her a raise. " you're a member of our family." "Your son is my son." "You need help to pay your bills to help your son's education? Scrub the floors!" Ortega needs to spend her life in prison, but the parents aren't exactly innocent.

by Anonymousreply 7911/03/2012

Perhaps those in need of a surrogate parent should make it a condition that the employee have no dependent children of her own. The employers' children should be the only kids whose needs are of immediate concern to the nanny.

Posters here who criticize parents for hiring nannies forget that there are lots of people who need those jobs and who do them well.

by Anonymousreply 8011/03/2012

[quote]These Yuppie parents and their 'need' for a nanny is getting absurd.

so true. I know a woman with 3 kids (15, 17, 19) no job, one kid at college, and yet she has a nanny.

by Anonymousreply 8111/03/2012

omg Lupe Otiveros is dead!!!

(was just casting the Lifetime movie....)

by Anonymousreply 8211/03/2012

It's so bizarre that anyone would look at this and think that the nanny is perfectly sane.

She butchered two toddlers and then stuck a knife in her own neck so forcefully that she almost severed her vertebrae. These are not the actions of a sane person.

Imagine yourself doing this. Is there any circumstance, any amount of stress, anything a boss could do, anything that would make you so angry, any fit of despair, ANYTHING that would make you decide to kill a couple of toddlers in a bathtub and then stab yourself in the throat so hard that you almost take your own head off?

No. There is NOT anything that would make you do that because it is fucking insane. Insane. There is no question about it. It is totally obvious insanity, right there in front of you.

And for the girls going on about "evil" and all that George W. Bush sub-adult bullshit - shut the fuck up. Seriously.

by Anonymousreply 8311/03/2012

It was someone else who came into the apartment while she was giving the kids a bath. The police just wanted a easy ending to this murder case and the further they got into it, the more they had to lie.

by Anonymousreply 8411/03/2012

R84, the two kids were found completely clothed. They had all of their clothes on. So they were not taking a bath.

I suppose under your theory they could have been murdered right before they intended to take a bath.

by Anonymousreply 8511/03/2012

I think the nanny is BOTH evil and insane.

The two are not always mutually exclusive.

by Anonymousreply 8611/03/2012

The Nanny is fucked up and the non-working fraus should take heed & just raise the children themselves!

by Anonymousreply 8711/03/2012

Why a fucking hispanic immigrant nanny??? YOU fail family!

by Anonymousreply 8811/03/2012

In a corrupt society, the wealthy are often presumed corrupt, or indirectly profiting from the corruption.

It's not like the wealthy are activists for changing the system. Those who believe they have suffered injustice will grow to resent them.

Thta's class warfare 101.

by Anonymousreply 8911/03/2012

This woman was obviously in a great deal of mental distress. The fact that she chose to kill the two children she took care of in the way that she did shows that she had a tremendous desire for revenge. It is very possible that this woman felt like her life would never improve and blamed her employers. Perhaps they were, in a way, responsible for why her life was not improving. We still don't know how much they paid her. Was it $15 an hour, as was reported early on? Was it less?

This woman clearly felt trapped and hopeless and blamed this family, for some reason.

It was a grave error on the parents' part to threaten the woman's job and continue to allow her to care for the kids. I am convinced that most people are idiots as parents.

by Anonymousreply 9011/03/2012

Not all nannies are downtrodden.

My father and his current wife (#4)'s nanny clears $2000 a month, lives on the premises (rent free, of course) in her own room/bath/tiny kitchenette (it's a "mother-in-law" deal on the far side of a pool), and works only M-F. She sends nearly all her cash to her home country, which she intends to return to after my half-bro reaches 12. (She's been his nanny since birth.)

She refused to do housework during the day while he's at school, so they hired a weekly maid. She threatened to quit if they didn't get rid of their dog, so they went on a massive search to find a family who would raise it.

I have no idea how other people interact with their nannies--and I didn't grow up with one--but I think the relationship is rather ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 9111/03/2012

R91, your father is fucking the nanny.

by Anonymousreply 9211/03/2012

r91 I do think your father is fucking the maid and the nanny.

by Anonymousreply 9311/03/2012

R90. Two things. 1. No, the parents were not "responsible" for this woman's life circumstances. She was not a enslaved. If her job wasn't working out for her, she was free to quit. And 2. It is not a "grave error" to give a verbal, then written warning to someone whose job performance is sub-par. It's good business practice and the proper disciplinary action to take. When someone is given fair warning that their work needs to improve, they can either step up or quit.

If Stabbin' Nanny was unhappy with the work arrangement, it was her own fault. She should have quit and found something better paying. Nanny jobs pay what they pay. You don't get to stomp you feet and have a temper tantrum because your bills are mounting up and then whine to your employer that you need $100k/year to make ends meet.

This is what a lot of unskilled workers don't get. They aren't performing brain surgery. Employers can get 100 others to do what they do--cheaper and with a smile.

by Anonymousreply 9411/03/2012

"Perhaps they were, in a way, responsible for why her life was not improving."

Poster,

Have you ever had an employer who felt responsible for your life not improving? Who felt obliged to help you out of financial trouble by handing you more money?

by Anonymousreply 9511/03/2012

You nasty so-and-sos,

The nanny is a 60 year old obese woman with mostly gold teeth.

My father spends most of the year abroad working.

by Anonymousreply 9611/03/2012

r95, I'm not that poster but I will share that I have not had an employer like that. However, I also never had an employer refer to me as a family member or vacation with me and visit my family while on vacation.

There was a much different dynamic at work here than there normally is in most employer-employee relationships.

by Anonymousreply 9711/03/2012

Poor people can not just quit, especially illegal or just poor 3rd worlders. She would not qualify for unemployment insurance. Frankly, I think unemployment insurance should be extended till you get a job and you should be able to get it if you quit. I am also not a socialist if you're wondering.

by Anonymousreply 9811/03/2012

But this is not really a new problem--upper class people have had nannies for centuries (millenia?), and the line between being just an employee or something like family has always been vague. And I think the mother took the wrong approach with visiting the family, etc. But none of that excuses what happened.

by Anonymousreply 9911/03/2012

The nanny was not illegal: she was a citizen.

by Anonymousreply 10011/03/2012

[quote]I think unemployment insurance should be extended till you get a job and you should be able to get it if you quit. I am also not a socialist if you're wondering.

Uh, yes you are.

You do know that people would just never work, right? Or, they'd work for a little while, quit to collect and then not do anything about finding more work. You do know that right?

by Anonymousreply 10111/03/2012

r101 actually they do this in Germany. Are you saying Germans don't work?

by Anonymousreply 10211/03/2012

Germans have a strong work ethic, R102. If it works there, great. It would be a disaster here. Most Americans are lazy bitches and proud of scamming the system.

by Anonymousreply 10311/03/2012

P101,

Could you clarify what they actually do in Germany?

I have heard that German companies pay into a trust fund--a sort of solo unemployment insurance--that then pays the employee if his hours are cut, but the aim of this is to keep the employee tied to the company so they don't have to re-train someone else when they have more business.

by Anonymousreply 10411/03/2012

R96, I think your dad just posted as R105.

by Anonymousreply 10611/03/2012

R94 and R95 are very rigid thinkers. No one said it's wrong to give a verbal and written warning to an employee. But my god, are you such fools to think that every fucking person IN THE WORLD understands the employer/employee relationship the way you do? And that they know and accept their share of responsibility in that relationship? They don't. This is why people walk into their offices and blow their coworkers away.

Do you honestly think that employees walk away after a reprimand saying, "you know, my boss is right. I do suck and I better step it up before I lose my job. By golly, I will knuckle down and show them my worth!"

It is a rare employee who can take a step back and see their failings and then own up to them, especially when they are in the midst of financial and life crises.

These parents were damn fools for threatening the livelihood of a woman they still entrusted with their children's lives. Maybe they did the right and correct thing as employers.

They did not do the right thing as parents. And anyone who can't see that is blind. I am sure the parents see that, now.

by Anonymousreply 10711/03/2012

What Germany does is explained here in the link.

I can't vouch for it, all I know is that a German friend of mine quit her job, had to wait 3 months to get UI and got it then gets it for as long as she likes. She does work off and on, they don't let you starve in Germany.

by Anonymousreply 10811/03/2012

Poster 106, ha ha!

Poster 108, thanks for the link! I have been meaning to learn more about the German economy--and work policy, since I watched Clinton's speech at Davos last year. What are they doing right that their Germans have 6 weeks vacation, generous unemployment and pension benefits, and still a bustling economy?

If you have any books to recommend, I would be obliged.

by Anonymousreply 10911/03/2012

R94/101/103/et al sure has some anger issues as well as issues with immigrants. I love her praising the character of the German people.

And it is going completely over her head why it is inadvisable - nay, dangerous - to threaten to fire your financially desperate nanny and THEN allow her to stay in charge of your children's welfare. Stupid stupid stupid.

The nanny also reportedly slit her wrists before the mother got there and was in the process of stabbing herself in the neck as the mother walked in. THAT is desperation.

I can't believe that there weren't troubling signs - I'll bet it didn't go unnoticed by the older kids. Just unnoticed by what seems to have been a rather self-involved parent.

by Anonymousreply 11011/03/2012

God, some of you people are crazier than that Nanny.

Newsflash:

Hiring a nanny when you could do without one might mean you're lazy, spoiled, and possessed of a false sense of entitlement, but it doesn't mean you deserve it if the nanny goes bonkers and MURDERS your kids.

Warning your nanny to step it up when her job performance begins to slip may or my not be the most appropriate way to deal with the situation, but no one could reasonably be expected to predict that such a warning might lead the nanny to KILL the kids. It's not like these things happen all the time, for fuck's sake.

The nanny may have been upset that her job was in jeopardy and pissed off about being asked to do housework--and those stresses may have helped push her over the edge--but in the end, she killed those kids because she was mentally ill and having a psychotic episode, OBVIOUSLY. She was not some evil, but perfectly sane, bitch out for wildly overblown revenge on a shitty boss. Good lord.

by Anonymousreply 11111/03/2012

Once again, I ask why this NY Post article is believed at all. One day this very same paper is reporting that she's heavily "lawyered up" and not talking, but a few days later she's singing like a canary to the police, giving them the motive for the slayings and implicating herself? Really?

All other articles I've found cite this Post article.

Oh, please DL. I thought people here were smarter than this. It's a freaking Murdoch paper stoking the fires.

by Anonymousreply 11211/03/2012

I think the family underpaid her. The mother is lazy & should not have had 3 children if she can't handle the job of it - ALONE.

Nanny goes nuts. Not the first time, won't be the last time especially when you hire someone who is illiterate and low paid from a 3rd world country and is barely eeking out a living.

by Anonymousreply 11311/03/2012

Go back the the original thread about the murders where that was discussed ad nauseum, R113. You'd fit in better there among your own kind with your analytic skills, such as they are.

by Anonymousreply 11411/03/2012

[quote]Nanny goes nuts. Not the first time, won't be the last time

Oh, really? Why don't you provide some links to the many other cases of a nanny going nuts and stabbing her charges to death, then?

Oh, right--because in reality, events like this are extremely rare. Kids are far more likely to be killed by their own parent than by a nanny.

[quote]especially when you hire someone who is illiterate and low paid from a 3rd world country and is barely eeking out a living.

Again, how about some links to back up this statement? The one other killer nanny I can think of offhand is Louise Woodward, who's English. BTW, I've seen nothing to suggest that that the UWS killer nanny is illiterate.

by Anonymousreply 11511/03/2012

God, R111, is your skull ten inches thick?

For the umpteenth time - no one said it was wrong to ask the nanny or any employee to step up their work or try to improve. People are pointing out that you do not THREATEN TO FIRE THEM. That is what the mother did. Get it? Criticizing is okay. Asking to do something better or faster or in an improved manner is okay. Threatening to FIRE her is NOT OKAY.

Seriously do you just not read other posts at all or do you have some kind of visual impairment that prevents you from seeing letters and words that don't support your own stubborn self.

by Anonymousreply 11611/03/2012

What's to analyze? Most of us here were on the original thread. Can't take the heat here, leave!

by Anonymousreply 11711/03/2012

[quote]People are pointing out that you do not THREATEN TO FIRE THEM. That is what the mother did.

Uh, yeah, nutter at r116, I got that. And my point is that while threatening her job (if that even even happened) might not have been the smartest or most sensitive course of action, no one could have predicted she would KILL the children in response (not that that's likely what actually happened, either).

by Anonymousreply 11811/03/2012

[quote] People are pointing out that you do not THREATEN TO FIRE THEM. That is what the mother did.

How do you know this?

Personally, I have doubts about this unnamed sourced quoted by a tabloid. As many people here have pointed out, that information is all sorts of suspicious. She came out of her coma just long enough to thoroughly incriminate herself, then demanded a lawyer? Uh-huh.

And no other news source has reported these "facts." Odd, don't you think? I mean, the nanny's side of this story makes for pretty juicy stories -- but one else has reprinted any of this.

Even if they did OMG THREATEN TO FIRE HER, it's in no way a logical leap to think that they'd be risking her entering a psychotic episode and murdering their children. People are told to shape up and or seek employment elsewhere every single day, everywhere. How often do they retaliate by slaughtering preschoolers?

by Anonymousreply 11911/03/2012

I don't believe she did it, unless she had a history of mental illness, I simply don't believe she did it.

by Anonymousreply 12011/03/2012

Most workers want to do a good job and be recognized for their work.

If some of you are scammmers and lazy...don't judge everyone by yourselves.

by Anonymousreply 12111/03/2012

[quote]no one said it was wrong to ask the nanny or any employee to step up their work or try to improve. People are pointing out that you do not THREATEN TO FIRE THEM.

R116, have you ever managed anyone? Or even held a real job? What do you presume the outcome would be if someone was asked to improve and didn't? Fifty lashes with a wet noodle? No coffee breaks for a week? No, dear, they get FIRED. And you have to tell them so. It isn't merely a threat if it's really going to happen.

by Anonymousreply 12211/03/2012

The Krims should have simply increased her current wages, rather than pair a raise with added chores.

by Anonymousreply 12311/03/2012

They never should have said anything to her about her performance but just fired her. They never should've tried to help her in giving her additional tasks for more hours of pay. They should've fired her the moment she showed any inking of disatisfaction. Part of the problem is they tried to integrate her into the family and get to know her family. Not good because she wasn't part of their family and they didn't take her problems and make them their problems so this deal of her being treated as a part of the family was bogus. She should have been treated as an employee and nothing more than that. Don't try to make someone "a part of the family" unless you're willing to step in and act (help) as such. I suspect part of the nanny's anger towards the parents was because of this confusing role she was in. She was probably angry because the parents could see her in distress but they did nothing other than offer additional tasks so she could get more hours of pay.

by Anonymousreply 12511/04/2012

There is something seriously wrong with the freaks in here who keep going on and on about what the parents did wrong and what the parents should have done differently, as though the nanny's actions were a rational and predictable response to her alleged job grievances.

The woman is mentally ill and was clearly psychotic when she committed the murders. The parents may not be the world's greatest or smartest employers or human beings, but they did not cause or deserve their children's murder, and it is not something they could have predicted and prevented.

As for DL attitudes toward the nanny, there's also something really wrong with you if you think she stabbed two little kids to death and plunged a knife into her own throat in a cold, calculated bid to get revenge on the parents for petty salary and workload grievances. The woman had a psychotic episode! This is not something she planned and thought through.

by Anonymousreply 12611/04/2012

This is really a horrible crime. However, I know that I couldn't sleep at night if I lived in a 10k a month apt & my nanny was living in squalor. The nanny should go to jail, but a stay at home mom should either pay her nanny enough so she has a good standard of living...or not have one.

by Anonymousreply 12711/04/2012

Why couldn't she get a nickname like Maria Stabbins or the Nanny From Hell? Stabbin' NYC Nanny is just so...pedestrian.

by Anonymousreply 12811/04/2012

The parents could afford to pay roughly $120,000 a year IN RENT. They could've afforded to give the nanny a raise, especially considering the mom didn't do shit except maintain a mommy blog.

by Anonymousreply 12911/04/2012

Our evolution from a service economy to a servant economy isn't going to go smoothly.

by Anonymousreply 13011/04/2012

[quote]Why couldn't she get a nickname like Maria Stabbins

Mary Pops'em

Amaydya Beleedya

Maria Von Stabb

"Mrs. Anna" Leono-wounds

by Anonymousreply 13111/04/2012

r127 totally agree. The money they were paying her was pittance. While she was totally cray cray, I think she flipped out because of the pressures they put on her with such fucking low pay. They needed to pay her more and give her less hours or just not have a fucking nanny!

by Anonymousreply 13211/04/2012

Is it true she was paid a pittance? Everything I've read said she was paid a decent wage.

by Anonymousreply 13311/04/2012

r134 that is a very interesting interesting INTERESTING theory. I like the way you think.

I'm a centrist, not really into socialism but I do believe people need to be paid well as employees, especially "the help".

This woman did not have a dime to her name, was in debt, the "family that loved her" was trying to "give her more hours" by making her do "housework".

She flipped. Pressure. Psychotic break and all that.

Or what r134 said, some kind of "class warfare", but I doubt she sees it that way. She was one of those religious Latinas that came here to seek gold types but the dream obviously died.

These frauzillas that hire nannies when they don't work are just asking for trouble, especially hiring people for $15 an hour in Manhattan while they live high on the hog.

by Anonymousreply 13511/04/2012

can't believe that you would be blaming the parents. If this happened to you and your family you would be shattered and certainly wouldn't want this kind of hateful response. It depresses me that people like you exist.

by Anonymousreply 13611/04/2012

One of the acts of"kindness" that the Krim's bestowed upon te nanny was a te gifted Ann Taylor leather jacket. How about paying the woman enough to afford a apt? She should be put away for life, but the over privileged elite is nauseating

by Anonymousreply 13711/04/2012

Based on some of these bizarre posts one would assume that the nanny was forced to apply for the nanny position, accept the position, and keep the position. If your job causes you so much distress that your only alternative is to kill two children, maybe you should consider quiting.Someone is working overtime in this thread trying to make excuses for this nanny and I find it sick and disturbing and it says a lot about this particular poster. Obviously this poster identifies with the nanny on some level and that's their motivation for desperately trying to make excuses for her and place blame on the parents.

by Anonymousreply 13811/04/2012

R125, good points. That is how I view the whole incident. The nanny was on a downward spiral that was obvious to friends and neighbors. How could it have been invisible to her employers? It probably wasn't, not if they were offering a chance to earn additional money.

by Anonymousreply 13911/04/2012

It's an upside down world. There are poster(s) here who think the nanny is a victim and the parents are criminals. For some reason, the poor across the board are now believed to be virtuous victims and the wealthy are immoral thieves. There are poster(s) here who all but say the parents deserved it. This black/white thinking is dangerous if maintained across society and much misery to all economic classes will result from it.

by Anonymousreply 14011/04/2012

R126, how do you know she had a psychotic episode? I have yet to read that.

And I don't think anyone in this thread is "blaming the parents" for the nanny's actions. But I strongly disagree with you about the murders not being predictable or preventable. I think they were both.

IF the parents had used a legitimate nanny service that conducts background checks, etc., then they may not have ended up with an unstable, mentally ill nanny. The possibility is still there but the odds would have been greatly reduced for a number of reasons.

The incident serves as a terrible reminder that parents should be less trusting and more vigilant when it comes to the people who have access to their kids.

by Anonymousreply 14111/04/2012

[quote] But I strongly disagree with you about the murders not being predictable or preventable. I think they were both.

Oh no, a precog.

by Anonymousreply 14211/04/2012

R134 is a sick twist. Now Stabbbin' Nanny is a feedom fighter- a hero or the failed OWS movement.

When will you be stabbing yourself in the neck for the cause, R134?

by Anonymousreply 14311/04/2012

[quote]Most Americans are lazy bitches and proud of scamming the system.

None more so than the 1% who are cannibalizing a fair and just society to rig the system in their favor.

Every day American children in poverty die needlessly in desperate circumstances. To borrow a phrase from Trace Nelson, they are considered "unfortunate acceptable losses."

by Anonymousreply 14411/04/2012

[quote]Every day American children in poverty die needlessly

well it's not like they had much of a future anyway.

by Anonymousreply 14511/04/2012

There's enough scammers in all economic classes. And there are fair players in all economic classes. You can't form a stereotype based on money.

by Anonymousreply 14611/04/2012

[quote]well it's not like they had much of a future anyway.

You forgot to sign your name, Barb.

by Anonymousreply 14711/04/2012

The woman was already having mental problems. They even said her behavior changed. Then the family she works for says if she doesn't step up and improve they'll fire her. They tell her they are willing to pay her more, but they want her to do more work. She has this hanging over her. I am not justifying what she did. Not at all. But it seems they were awqare that she was becoming a problem before it happened. Did they think she would take out her stress on the kids? No.

As for vetting her thru an agency, I doubt it would matter. Sometimes people just snap. I went thru several agencies to get care for my father. At first the workers, male or female seemed fine.

But as the weeks wore on some would eventually show themselves to be unreliable, dishonest, abusive or various combinations of those. Not all of them were, but several were, and all vetted from an agency.

My father was an Alzheimer patient and we didn't want to institutionalize him. When we finally found a group home, I discovered patients who got good care were the ones whose families came to check on them several times a week. The ones who got Sunday visits, or once a month or holiday visits were treated like they didn't exist.

by Anonymousreply 14811/04/2012

[quote]barely eeking out a living

This kind of work tends to dry up once Halloween is over.

by Anonymousreply 14911/04/2012

R137 It's not the Krim's job to make sure that the nanny could afford an apartment.

How about people use they're common sense and reread the news articles. I have yet to see one post here questioning the nannies handling of her own finances. I would like to know how she thought that working part time as a nanny would pay her well enough to afford a private school tuition for her son, why not send him to public school for the time being? It's not like she was living in Kansas or something, New York is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, and she should have lived within her means like the rest of us.

For all we know the Krim's may have been unaware of the true nature of the nannies financial problems. Most people do not go around wailing about their financial problems to their employers, people tend to be embarrassed about stuff like this and keep it to themselves.

Those of on here blaming the mom because she is lazy are insufferable twats. The woman was contributing to the local economy by giving the nanny a job that she clearly needed.

by Anonymousreply 15011/04/2012

[quote] But I strongly disagree with you about the murders not being predictable or preventable. I think they were both.

You think it's predictable that the result of telling a nanny to improve her job performance (IF they even did; source is unreliable at best) is the murder of their children followed by said nanny repeatedly stabbing herself?

That's one hell of a prediction.

by Anonymousreply 15111/04/2012

If I were performing poorly at my job (including one that involved caring for children), I'd appreciate being told about it and given a chance to improve, rather than fired without any warning. But I'm not a psycho, and I doubt it ever occurred to the Krims that their nanny might be, either.

by Anonymousreply 15211/04/2012

While many times I am totally pissed off at my employer for giving me unreasonable workload, little appreciation, poor compensation etc. I realize that it is up to me to either quit the job, clearly state that I need a raise to be able to pay my expenses, or grin and bear it. I certainly don't go into the office and kill them. If the Nanny was displeased at being offered extra work hours versus a raise, she should simply have relayed that to them and made it clear to them that she needed a raise or she would need to leave their employment. Doesn't sound like she did that. Instead, she built up a lot of animosity about her failed life, her failed career as an accountant, her disposition in life versus theirs and she lashed out at them in the most inhumane and vindictive way. She was not insane. She was an extremely angry and vindictive person who wasn't taking responsibility for her life. She'd rather blame the one family that gave her a job and who had tried to find her additional employment with another family. She was resentful and angry and she intentionally and maliciously killed their two adorable children who had never done anything to her. (nor had the Krim parents)

by Anonymousreply 15311/04/2012

BTW, this Nanny has also ruined or severely damaged the remaining child Nessie's well being and life. She no longer has any siblings and she viewed her siblings lying in a pool of blood and also witnessed the nanny stabbing herself in the neck and witnessed her mother's gut wrenching and primal screams upon the discovery. The repercussions to the entire family from this trauma are incalculable. This was a defiant and intentional act on the part of the Nanny. She should be put away in prison for a life term (which is what those poor children got). The Krim family will have to endure this loss/immeasurable pain for the rest of their lives. They did NOTHING wrong. God bless them. I'm praying they can somehow find the strength to recover from this senseless and horrific act.

by Anonymousreply 15411/04/2012

Geez, women are more careful with their hair than this mother seems to have been with her kids' welfare. A woman would NEVER tell her hairdresser that if she doesn't shape up and start doing a better job on her hair then she'll fire her. You wouldn't risk angering or upsetting your hairdrsser but you'd take this risk with your children's welfare?

Please. Common sense dictates that once you piss off or hurt an employee there can be all sorts of consequences - big or small - visited upon the employer and its company. Well, in this case the "company" takes the form of your helpless children. If you can't foresee the possibility of negative consequences in this situation - ANY negative consequences - then you are too stupid to have children.

I think the mom just hadn't been able to find a replacement yet and didn't want to be without a nanny as if she really needed one. Another reason that R141 is absolutely correct about using a respected and experienced agency - of course that is more expensive. But she certainly bears blame for placing her children in jeopardy.

Again I suspect some family friend is posting here in their defense - or at least another nanny using mom. I'm looking at you Liz/153/154.

by Anonymousreply 15511/04/2012

Yeah Liz looks like an idiot frau. "God bless" ROTFLMFAO!!! Cunt, you wandered into the WRONG FUCKING SITE! Now Shoo Frauzilla!

by Anonymousreply 15711/04/2012

Yes, yes, let's not "piss off" an employee by letting them know they need to improve their work performance. We should always be aware that they could KILL us at any moment. If someone who works for you gives you a dirty look or shirks in their job duties, BEWARE.....it's time to give them a hefty raise, more hours, benefits and perks.

I sure hope you're a troll, R155. 'Cause if not you really are too stupid to live.

by Anonymousreply 15911/04/2012

I've read some different articles about this situation and a part of me does not even know what to think. Reports have varied about this situation, you know.

The mother was either a stay at home mother or worked one day a week. She had a nanny. Who the fuck cares? Her family could afford it and so screw it.

The nanny was from the Dominican Republic and moved to NYC. There is a massive Dominican presence in NYC. She earned her degree (maybe certificate) in accounting in her country. It never dawned on her to go to one of the Community Colleges of NYC or to one of the public Universities of NYC with her transcripts and degree and learn how to convert it over? In Miami people from other countries do that all the time. Hell, how can a Dominican who moves to an area of the US which has a massive Dominican presence not do this? I'm befuddled.

I think that the nanny's financial problems coupled with her maybe thinking that she was too good for the job to begin with sent her over the edge. Anyone else would suck it up and try to figure a way out of their situation, right? The nanny said fuck it all and murdered two innocent children and then tried to do herself in.

I say let the bitch fry! She's not crazy. She's not a doper who was not in their right of mind. She is a coward and a piece of shit who didn't have the guts to at least attempt trying to resolve their own personal issues at all. Fuck her. She knew what she was doing when she turned the knife on herself and this whole thing was premeditated in some way so fuck her.

Put her in general population and just see what happens from there. Jesus Christ.

by Anonymousreply 16111/04/2012

Wow. There are a whole lot of mommyfrauen in this thread. I sure hope they're increasing the number of nannycams they place around the house. You can't keep too close an eye on the help while you pursue your spiritual journey on the internet.

Also, the morons talking about "evil" need to get a grip. Insanity does not equal evil, it's just insanity.

Anyone who cannot see that this woman was completely insane when she killed two toddlers and stabbed herself in the neck is Too. Fucking. STUPID. To. Live. Please kill yourselves immediately before you fuck up the gene pool any further.

by Anonymousreply 16211/04/2012

First I want to say that anyone who would do what she did is "crazy." So that's not a defense. That woman was full of rage and probably a lot of resentment.

Second I want to say that those of you who are blaming the mother are out of line. Hindsight is 20/20. That mother was well-meaning and kindhearted and probably felt awkward with her nanny. She obviously didn't know how to be an employer.

Disgruntled employees kill supervisors or bosses all the time. It's gotten as commonplace as men killing their estranged wives.

If anything this makes the case for two things: adequate training for both parties when it comes to child care, or care for any family member. We go to drivers' ed to get a license. We have to take a test and train for it. But we need nothing to care for kids.

There needs to be strict training, established curriculum and standards, investigations that go beyond criminal background checks,psychological testing and licensing of care providers. They need to take a few classes to qualify. They need to be paid adequately. In my state, agencies charge us $30-$50, but only pay their staff $9.

As for the parents, they also need to understand how to handle an employee. That's what they are. Employees. Not family. There is a distance that needs to be maintained.

We don't expect teachers to clean toilets, well a governness or nanny is in many ways a teacher, not a housekeeper. Unless that is spelled out in the interview and the written job description. Even then, it is only light housekeeping. Clean up after the kids in the kitchen and the toilet. Keep the kids clean.

This crap gets way too personal too fast. If they had gone thru an agency, when she performed unsatisfactorily, they could have called the agency and told them she had to be replaced. They would have been kept out of it.

You're right about the trauma. That family will never heal. They hopefully, can learn to live with it, but everyone is going to be haunted by this for the rest of their lives.

by Anonymousreply 16311/04/2012

[quotes]BTW, this Nanny has also ruined or severely damaged the remaining child Nessie's well being and life. She no longer has any siblings and she viewed her siblings lying in a pool of blood and also witnessed the nanny stabbing herself in the neck and witnessed her mother's gut wrenching and primal screams upon the discovery.

Judging by the mom's blog, Nessie was her least favorite child. I think she was going to be fucked up for life even if her siblings had lived.

by Anonymousreply 16411/04/2012

One of the news stories said that the surviving child did NOT see her siblings lying dead.

It is a good thing that there is a surviving child. That will give the parents, especially the mother, a compelling reason to pull herself together and go on living. I can't imagine the torment the mother is going to have to endure.

by Anonymousreply 16511/04/2012

R136,

"Blame" depends on one's view of reality.

If I walk through a ghetto waving $5,000 in ccash, it is "wrong" to rob me, but who would be to blame if that occurred?

The one-percent has no difficulty grasping the financial realities which favor them, but incredible difficulty understaning the law of the jungle, which does not. It's not much different from the shot-up workplaces which were anal-retentive about "human resources policies" to the point of being blinded to the law of the jungle, or what people do when backed into a corner.

Was she "forced" to apply for the job? Not directly, but the survival instinct is pretty strong.

The bottom line for wealthy parents all over NYC is simple: is it more important to be "right" or to have children who aren't stabbed to death?

As the wealth gap increases, disenfranchisement will as well. What do you think brought about the New Deal? The one-percent finally got the memo that if they didn't give the public a safety net, the public would take a lot more for itself. This nanny was just a microcosm of that very old dynamic.

It's a very basic lesson in human nature that someone with nothing to lose is an extremely dangerous adversary.

by Anonymousreply 16611/04/2012

Well said, R166.

by Anonymousreply 16711/04/2012

Quote: It's a very basic lesson in human nature that someone with nothing to lose is an extremely dangerous adversary.

Very insightful comment. So true.

by Anonymousreply 16811/04/2012

R146,

Camel. Eye. Needle.

Even the "good" people who are wealthy have to keep quiet about the "bad" or they are thought traitors.

Simple example: you just spent 100k finishing law school, and got your first job with a big law firm. A year in, you notice a partner has raped one of the women with whom you work. If you speak up, you wind up fired and blacklisted, maybe even framed for disbarment.

If you keep quiet instead, are you still "good?'

by Anonymousreply 16911/04/2012

164 Quote: Judging by the mom's blog, Nessie was her least favorite child. I think she was going to be fucked up for life even if her siblings had lived.

Just curious, what did the mother say about Nessie in her blog?

by Anonymousreply 17011/04/2012

All it takes for evil to prevail...

by Anonymousreply 17111/04/2012

What did the mother say about Nessie on her blog?

by Anonymousreply 17211/04/2012

Here's the blog. All the Nessie hate that's fit to print.

by Anonymousreply 17311/04/2012

R166, the wealthy will AWLAYS find work arounds to protect themselves from the great unwashed---individual (and rare) tragedies like Stabbin' Nanny notwithstanding. All that money buys a lot of power to keep the underclass in their place. More importantly, it finances a very effective campaign of propaganda that turns the poor and disenfranchised on themselves.

by Anonymousreply 17411/04/2012

[quote]it finances a very effective campaign of propaganda that turns the poor and disenfranchised on themselves.

One way they do that is hire one segment of the disenfranchised, franchise them to a minor level, and then make them police their own.

by Anonymousreply 17511/04/2012

Well, since the one percent don't understand the "laws of the jungle" they should no longer hire the poor. Giving the poor jobs is mean and cruel. Giving them work is like waving $5,000 dollars in their face, it makes you an awful person. And for being such an awful person you leave the poor with no other choice but to kill you or your children. The poor are better off and much happier when jobless. You have to wonder about the mentality of a person who would make a child killer a martyr.

by Anonymousreply 17611/04/2012

The parents moved from California just three years ago. San Jose, I think.

I'm sure they are thinking that if only they had never moved to NYC this would never have happened.

There was a discussion in the NY Times, I think, about how difficult logistically and in other ways it is to raise children in Manhattan.

As an aside, many marriages break up when a death of a child occurs. The strain on the marriage of Krim's will be enormous.

The mother taught a weekly art class for kids at one of the museums (not a great outlay of time at all) and escorted her two daughters to various lessons (swimming, dancing, etc) Too bad she thought she needed a nanny for these small outlays of time.

by Anonymousreply 17811/04/2012

That blog brought tears to my eyes... from boredom.

by Anonymousreply 17911/04/2012

The nanny's sister who is also a nanny met Mrs. Krim at a dance or swimming class for kids and recommended her sister (the murderer) to Mrs. Krim as a possible nanny.

I wish the NY Post, NY Daily News, and NY Times would stop printing that the murdering nanny was referred to the Krim's by a 'friend'.

It was a 'friend' who gave the murdering nanny a recommendation - it was the murdering nanny's sister who made the recommendation.

by Anonymousreply 18011/04/2012

meant to type 'It was NOT a 'friend' who gave the murdering nanny a recommendation - it was the murdering nanny's sister who made the recommendation.'

by Anonymousreply 18111/04/2012

R182 and R183, I stated at R178:

"how difficult logistically and in other ways it is to raise children in Manhattan."

I agree it must be difficult to raise three small children ages 2, 3, and 6 in New York City and elsewhere.

I'm just not sure that an almost full-time nanny is the solution.

by Anonymousreply 18411/04/2012

R172, there are millions of people who have three or more children in their families.

Shockingly, they are raising these children without any nannies at all. The horror.... the HORROR.

Should we have a telethon or a fundraiser for them? We could do it at the Plaza.

by Anonymousreply 18511/04/2012

R20 wins.

How have we reached this point - after thousands of years of development (and you religious types - don't, just don't start) that when we get pissed off we can just kill...

If I hear of one more "separated" fuck who kills the kids as revenge on their partner, I'm going "cruel and unusual" on their ass....

by Anonymousreply 18611/04/2012

And may I add how unusual it is that the "poor deprived" murderers who want to "be with their babies" actually manage to off themselves after stabbing or drowning the children...

by Anonymousreply 18711/04/2012

I think it's impossible that mental illness doesn't play a part in this. Even if just at the moment where something snapped and the frenzy began, the nanny was clearly "out of her mind." That doesn't mean she will meet the legal definition of incompetent to stand trial.

And it's also impossible that class insensitivity and resentment doesn't play a role. That of course isn't to say that the parents deserved this or caused it. But I've seen and even participated (in a very minor way) in the childcare system. These privileged women (it's usually the women who deal with the nannies) convince themselves that these women they hire are "part of the family" and are instantly in love with their kids. They may be more or less generous with the help, but they are definitely condescending and they do not see them as equals or even as real human beings. "She's part of the family" is really only saying "She doesn't have her own life, and if she does, I don't want to know about it, because I want to pretend she exists only to nurture our kids." The nannies usually don't have very organized lives and don't have many other options. Adults, especially adults who have their own kids, don't "fall in love" with other people's kids. But the nannies have to pretend that they do, because that's the charade that allows them to keep the low-paying jobs they're desperate for. It's no surprise to me that this involves anger, and that once in a great while the anger ignites to psychotic rage.

by Anonymousreply 18811/04/2012

Where's the building? Anyone know? I used to live on 75th and Amsterdam.

by Anonymousreply 18911/04/2012

It's called The New Rochelle and is one block from Central Park on West 75th St.

That's all I know.

by Anonymousreply 19011/04/2012

New Rochelle

not sure why the weird brackets appeared

by Anonymousreply 19111/04/2012

weird, do the webmasters not allow the name of an apt bldg to appear?

Rochelle

by Anonymousreply 19211/04/2012

The little two-year boy, Leo, was incredibly cute and darling.

by Anonymousreply 19411/04/2012

Why the f*ck did this adult woman butcher two little little kids?!? .

by Anonymousreply 19511/04/2012

R193, she was a full-time nanny working 12 hour days.

(two of the daily hours were probably commuting, but not sure)

She just didn't live full-time in the parents apt.

Working five days a week for 10 hours each day is considered full-time.

by Anonymousreply 19611/04/2012

By the way, middle class women of middle-class economic means raise three kids close in age without a nannie all the time.

Not to mention women of lower economic means.

by Anonymousreply 19711/04/2012

Are the fucking frauen in this thread completely braindead?

Here's a clue for you girls, most families don't have a nanny. Most mothers raise their own children.

When I write "most" I mean the vast majority of families in the world. Think of it, no nannies in literally millions of families, maybe even a billion families. And - omg! - many of them live in CITIES. It is not only suburban and rural mommies who are living tortured lives in nanny-less households.

How can they possibly be surviving the physical and emotional ravages of raising their own children?

by Anonymousreply 19811/04/2012

[quote]How have we reached this point - after thousands of years of development (and you religious types - don't, just don't start) that when we get pissed off we can just kill...

Yes, humans killing humans is a new development. You're a real Einstein, eh?

by Anonymousreply 19911/04/2012

her pms did it

by Anonymousreply 20211/04/2012

R177, you make some great points. And I agree, a nanny service may not have caught Ortega's problems. But a nanny service does provide other safety measures that were not in place with an independent nanny. With a service, a nanny has an automatic support network backing her up. She has other nannies to commiserate with and to maybe help out from time to time. Also, a good nanny service WILL check in with nannies, ask them how they're coping with the children, how the family treats them, if there are any issues, etc.

Ortega sounds almost isolated when she was on the job. She had her family and neighbors, who recognized changes in her. But those observations were not relayed to anyone involved with the Krims. Imagine if she belonged to a service. All those nannies know what's going on with each other. They gossip. Surely, one of them would have reported back to the supervisor that Ortega was in distress.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and this poor couple will have to live with their choices forever. At the least, maybe some parents will learn a lesson from it. That's the only good that can come of it now.

by Anonymousreply 20311/04/2012

R190, R191, R192, the name of the building is the same as the name of the city in Westchester where Rob & Laura Petrie lived on "The Dick Van Dyke Show": New R-------.

There was a DL poster with a hyphenated name (initials D-R), which can no longer appear in print because she complained of being stalked & impersonated. The R part of her name is the same as the R part of the Petries' hometown & the R part of the apartment building where the Nanny committed the murders.

by Anonymousreply 20411/04/2012

Thank you R204. Someone else had trouble with the "R" word the other night. Now that you've explained it, it all makes sense

by Anonymousreply 20511/04/2012

The New Rohcelle

by Anonymousreply 20611/04/2012

CNBC Exec’s Children Murdered, 1 Day After CNBC Reports $43 Trillion Bankster Lawsuit

This week financial news organization CNBC gave some mainstream attention to the largest money laundering and racketeering lawsuit in United States History, in which “Banksters” and their U.S. racketeering partners are being accused of laundering of 43 trillion dollars worth of ill gotten gains.

The lawsuit is said to involve officials located in the highest offices of government and the financial sector.

Since this information was surprisingly revealed by the mainstream news organization there has been a very suspicious and deadly fallout at the CNBC headquarters.

Within hours the original page for the article was taken down, and CNBC senior vice president Kevin Krim received news that his children were killed under very suspicious circumstances.

It seems that the murder happened first and then the page was removed later.

According to mainstream accounts the children’s nanny is responsible for the murders, allegedly stabbing both children.

However, those same mainstream news sources report the highly unlikely story that the nanny slit her own throat just after committing the homicides.

Police have released very little information and although a wider plot has not been officially implicated, it seems very possible that these murders are a show of force against the press organization for releasing such damning information about the most powerful people in the world.

Here is some more information about the lawsuit from the Wall Street Journal:

“In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP — on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws — has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other “bailout money” advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress.

Because the Obama Administration has failed to pursue any of the “Banksters” criminally, and indeed is actively borrowing monies for Mr. Obama’s campaign from these same “Banksters” to finance its political aspirations, the national group of plaintiff home owners has been forced to now expand its lawsuit to include racketeering, money laundering and intentional violations of the Iranian Nations Sanctions and Embargo Act by the national banks included among the “Bankster” Defendants. “

Some of the alleged conspirators are Attorney General Holder, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, the brother in law of Defendant California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Jon Corzine (former New Jersey Governor), Robert Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and Bankster), Timothy Geitner, Treasury Secretary, Vikram Pandit (recently resigned and disgraced Chairman of the Board of Citigroup), Valerie Jarrett (a Senior White House Advisor), Anita Dunn (a former “communications director” for the Obama Administration), Robert Bauer (husband of Anita Dunn and Chief Legal Counsel for the Obama Re-election Campaign), as well as the “Banksters” themselves, and their affiliates and conduits.

It is expected that all news on this subject will be removed from CNBC, and that other news organizations will be discouraged from covering such information.

However, screen shots of the original CNBC article were taken to verify the authenticity of this story.

Assassination and brute intimidation are common strategies for the ruling class to use on people who may threaten their agenda.

This is the second situation this week in which a high level executive was the victim of a suspicious attack that seemed very much like an assassination.

The Intel Hub just reported that Nicholas Mockford, a 60 year old British executive for the oil company ExxonMobil was shot dead in front of his wife in an assassination-style killing in Brussels.

We will be keeping a close eye on both of these stories and provide more details as they become available.

by Anonymousreply 20711/04/2012

So now the Obama administration had the children murdered, r207?

And no-one from the Bush years is under suspicion for the missing trillions?

Yeah, okay.

by Anonymousreply 20811/04/2012

R174,

Nice sideswipe.

This was the sequence:

1. Someone says there are good and bad at all economic levels.

2. I point out that even the "good" people among the one-percent must stand down and keep quiet about the "bad."

3. You counter that the "bad" one-percenters will always oppress the poor.

This does nothing to refute my argument, and in fact supports it. I wasn't disputing what you said, but instead just noting that this is what makes *ALL* wealthy people "bad" to some degree. That's what came-eye-needle is predicated upon: that as one gets more money, their moral responsibility increases exponentially, to the point where anyone with that level of ethics wouldn't be motivated by money in the first place.

by Anonymousreply 20911/04/2012

"Someone with nothing to lose" is a misstatement. It's more accurate to say: " Someone who truly believes they have nothing to lose". It's what you believe or convince yourself of, not necessarily the reality.

This is an example of a well-meaning, wealthy family showing their help a lifestyle that was out of her reach, tantalizing her with it, fueling jealousy and resentment.Maybe they felt they were incentivizing her, but instead they were alienating her.

The nanny had a real life that was jarringly at odds with her work life. The duality had to stressed her out. But it's fair to ask what else was going on in her life.

Did she have man trouble? Was her 17 yr old son giving her a hard time? Sounds like she was already unraveling, and her job situation just exacerbated it.

Did she get turned down for a better job, one she was professionally trained for? Did her employers make her feel like there was no exit from their lives? You know, on one hand making her defensive about her work not being up to standards, but also inferring that she would have no choice but to remain?

Maybe there were mixed signals. Whatever the circumnstances, this woman was clearly unstable and she acted out her rage in a horrific fashion. Destroying those babies was in effect removing an obstacle, a weight from her life.

There is no way to know why she didn't transfer her accounting skills or her certification to a US educational institution.

by Anonymousreply 21011/04/2012

"The poor will always be with you"

by Anonymousreply 21111/04/2012

Oddly, the nanny had the wherewithall and finesse and calmness to call the mother right before the killings and tell the mother that she didn't feel like meeting the mother and 3 yr old bringing along the 2 yr old and 6 yr old, but would instead be taking the two kids directly home from dance lessons.

by Anonymousreply 21211/04/2012

Boy, I bet the family friend that referred Ms. Ortega to the Krims feels really guilty now.

by Anonymousreply 21311/04/2012

It was not a 'friend' who recommended the nanny.

It was the nanny's sister who recommended her. The nanny's sister met Mrs. Krim at a kid's swimming or dance lesson, as the nanny's sister is a nanny too.

by Anonymousreply 21411/04/2012

Why do these rich assholes hate their children so much? They can't be bothered to raise them, then they pay some random stranger ( who might be a violent psychopath) peanuts to be the actual parent. Shows how much they care.

If you can't raise your kids, don't have them. The rich shouldn't get a pass because they can afford to pay poverty wages to a "nanny."

by Anonymousreply 21511/04/2012

I found it interesting that the Countess on Housewives of NY has a nanny for her two kids in the house in the Hamptons.

The Countess doesn't really work except for the Bravo show.

I was interested in how the Countess spoke with the nanny. It's an awkward relationship.

by Anonymousreply 21611/04/2012

215,

Oh, how little you know...

by Anonymousreply 21711/04/2012

R212 where did youread that? I didn't know the nanny called the mother and told her she didn't feel like meeting her and was taking the kids home. It is sounding more and more like there was some conflict building between the mother & the nanny.

by Anonymousreply 21811/04/2012

R218, I read it in either the New York Post, the New York Times, or the New York Daily News.

I've been using those three to keep up on all the ramifications, happenings, and photos of the big storm, and for reading about the murdering nanny.

You can also go to news.google.com and type in the word nanny, and various articles about the nanny murderer come up.

by Anonymousreply 21911/04/2012

R218, I know, it sounded like the nanny found it an annoyance or big chore to take the 2 year old baby and the 6 year old to meet the mother at the 3 yr old's swimming lesson.

It infers maybe that maybe the mother was too demanding of the nanny and making unnecessary outings or something.

But maybe the nanny just wasn't feeling well and wanted to go straight to the Krim's home with the two kids after the dancing lesson rather than being required to meet the mom.

by Anonymousreply 22011/04/2012

R210, two misfortunes are spelled out in the articles.

She moved to a new apt where she would live alone with just her 17 yr old son, but it was apparently a sublet and person who sublet it to her returned quickly from the Domincan Republic and wanted the apt back, so the nanny and her son were kicked out, and had to move back into a very crowded apt with her relatives in the Bronx.

This upset the nanny (Mrs Ortega) terribly. It was mentioned in the articles that she had spent a good sum of money on the apt, but then lost the apt quickly.

Another article mentioned she had been 'swindled out of quite a bit of money' and that she had heavy financial problems.

by Anonymousreply 22111/04/2012

It sounds like the nanny wasn't smart about money. She got screwed over on her apartment and had to move back with her family. I'm sure she had a lot of other money problems too. The family saw her struggling and offered her extra work so she could earn some more money. She got angry. She probably felt people who can afford to live in a $10,000 a month apartment could afford to pay her more. They probably gave her financial advice and told her how to save money and she probably was very irritated by that. Her anger grew and she took it out on the kids

by Anonymousreply 22211/05/2012

Nannying ought to be a full-time position with room and board provided. One cannot expect a person to pay NYC rent on a nanny' wages. A woman with dependent children of her own is not a good candidate for the job. These unfortunate employers made a bad hire and paid horribly for their mistake.

by Anonymousreply 22311/05/2012

In the mother's LiveJournal blog (the link is in this thread) she mentions dropping the two girls off at school every morning and then having little 2-year old Leo all to herself for three hours which she loved.

So I'm wondering when the Nanny worked.

by Anonymousreply 22411/05/2012

The nanny just needed a Fallon Carrington in her life...someone willing to voluntarily point out how the rich are different.

by Anonymousreply 22511/05/2012

That's why NPH employs only illegal aliens t raise his chidren for him.

by Anonymousreply 22611/05/2012

Does NPH hire the Czech rentboys who are no longer needed by Mr and Mrs John-Furnish?

by Anonymousreply 22711/05/2012

I don't feel sorry for the Krims. You get what you paid for. Low wages to a 3rd world uneducated nanny to take care of your children when you don't work? I think NOT.

I do know a woman in the South who has 5 children, she homeschools all the kids, she runs a farm, is a cheesemaker, makes bread, makes every meal, does all the laundry, does all the cleaning, is immaculate. Her oldest son has conduct disorder which was why she pulled him out of public school. Grows all their own veggies. Her children are very well behaved in public "like ducks in a row" when they go shopping.

by Anonymousreply 22811/05/2012

[quote]Her oldest son has conduct disorder

LMAO. Is that the new bullshit diagnosis for school yard bullies? Sounds like your earth mama friend is raising the next generation of serial killers, R228.

by Anonymousreply 22911/05/2012

I viewed the full blog yesterday from the link that 173 included and I have to say... several of the negative comments that the mother made about her children on a consistent basis were rather disturbing. Also, the mother's lack of judgement in putting nude pictures of her children on-line Has she not read about pedophiles? She had absolutely no skills at controlling or disciplining her children. The kids had the control. She would constantly try to bribe the kids with sweets to get them to obey her. Not good... Quite frankly, she acts like a child herself (and a very spoiled one) While she was excellent at ensuring that they had a whole array of educational field trips and outings as well as formal education, (attending bi-lingual school, taking art classes at the met, skiing, tennis, cooking, blueberry and peach picking, traveling to exotic places with the kids, etc.) she seemed to be grossly unaware and insensitive in her attitudes and harsh comments about Nessie in particular (in a public blog!) This child will view that blog when she is older and will be really hurt by it. The mother constantly made comments about her children's perceived shortcomings. (Nessie's hair looking like a mullet, Lulu's hair looking like a mop, LEO not being interested in trucks and playing with only girl things and the inference behind that) etc. etc. As 173 pointed out in his/her earlier blog, the mother made it abundantly clear in her blog that Nessie was the least favorite of her children. It was disturbing the comments that she made about Nessie. She doted on Lulu and said how much they were alike vs. Nessie who was a "wannabee Lulu" who was nothing like her, Nessie was too loud, too demanding, too tempermental. The child always seemed to annoy her. SO sad. I wonder if she was as insensitive to the nanny's feelings. (NOT that the nanny should EVER have killed the children) That nanny should be sentenced to the max and rot in hell..

by Anonymousreply 23011/05/2012

Meant to add, the mother also had the children taking ballet and swimming lessons. While that was positive, she should NEVER have taken photos of Nessie and Lulu while they were both on the toilet seat taking poops as she put it. They are individuals separate from herself. How dare she put those photos on-line? How dare she take those pictures at all? Lulu did not seem comfortable with it. Do they have no rights to privacy? Also, the incident that really disturbed me was that the mother had Lulu who had had a 104 degree fever for 4 days already, participate in a ballet recital. The child could have died from that poor judgement on the mothers part!! The mother's comment was strictly centered on how good Lulu's photo came out considering that she had a 104 degree fever. Was she so clueless to put her daughter's well being and health/safety further in jeopardy by letting her daughter participate in a ballet recital when she was SO ill? The fifth day the child's temperature was worse and she FINALLY contacted a doctor on Lulu's behalf. Incredible... The father apparently let his wife do whatever she wanted to do...

by Anonymousreply 23111/05/2012

The nanny killed the killed the kids, it's seems like a few posters are off track here.

by Anonymousreply 23211/05/2012

I agree with R229. R228, your description sounds absolutely terrifying. Your anecdote has little (to nothing) to do with this discussion as well.

by Anonymousreply 23311/05/2012

[quote] This family cared enough about the nanny that even though they realized she was having issues all they did was warn her

No, they gave her the extra hours she asked for. But not for child care; for housekeeping. Nanny didn't like that. She didn't see herself as a house cleaner. But the family didn't need a full time nanny.

As a former Manattanite, I had a babysitter three days a week, for 4 hours two days a week and 6 hours one day a week. I worked on weekends and on Monday i slept late, because i worked late night hospital hours. So Monday was the 6 hour day.

During those hours when i was not sleeping, i did laundry (we did not have a washer dryer in our apartment). went food shopping, vacuumed, washed my windows, went to an exercise class, sometimes went to physical therapy, went to the dentist (I had long lasting dental work that was very drawn out by the semi-retired dentist), painted the bathroom and my bedroom, cooked food for the weekend.

My sitter also wanted more hours, but I didn't have a need for her and it would be a burden to pay her when I didn't need her.

The mother of the slain kids had them in classes. Swimming classes, ballet classes, etc. Sometimes she went with the kids, sometimes she didn't. But the babysitter watched the youngest kid while the mother was out with the other kid/s. That's pretty normal in Manhattan for the upper classes. (Not for me, because I couldnt afford classes AND a sitter. But lots of people can.)

They were trying to help their sitter by offering money in exchange for housekeeping ((which lets you know they did not have a housekeeper. Apparently, the mother did the cleaning)

by Anonymousreply 23411/05/2012

the fact that this story is always on top here proves that Fraus have totally invaded DL

by Anonymousreply 23511/05/2012

[quote] Nannying ought to be a full-time position with room and board provided.

As far as I am concerned, that's what a nanny is. One of my former neighbors did some nannying and her employers kept a studio apartment for her in the building next door. Another friend's niece is an au pair. She is at her employer's beck and call 24 hours a day. She doesn't like it, but that's the job she agreed to take. She lives with the family full time and has traveled to Europe, Asia and the Caribbean with them. She certainly likes the good life aspect of it, but it has its down side.

Everyone else should be called a "babysitter." Because that's what they're doing; they're babysitting for a few days or a few hours.

Most "nannies" in Manhattan are really just babysitters. They're not full time workers. They'd like to be full time, but only the super rich can afford a live-in nanny.

by Anonymousreply 23611/05/2012

[quote] Everyone else should be called a "babysitter."

That's what the mother calls her in the blog.

by Anonymousreply 23711/05/2012

The mother giving out TMI online is typical of her generation. They have no concept of privacy. They're always texting, blogging, instagramming, face booking, tweeting. Every time they fart they send a message out.

by Anonymousreply 23811/05/2012

[quote]“In the District Court lawsuit, Spire Law Group, LLP — on behalf of home owner across the Country and New York taxpayers, as well as under other taxpayer recompense laws — has expanded its mass tort action into federal court in Brooklyn, New York, seeking to halt all foreclosures nationwide pending the return of the $43 trillion ($43,000,000,000,000.00) by the “Banksters” and their co-conspirators, seeking an audit of the Fed and audits of all the “bailout programs” by an independent receiver such as Neil Barofsky, former Inspector General of the TARP program who has stated that none of the TARP money and other “bailout money” advanced from the Treasury has ever been repaid despite protestations to the contrary by the Defendants as well as similar protestations by President Obama and the Obama Administration both publicly on national television and more privately to the United States Congress.

Shit. We need a whole separate thread on this. Stat!

by Anonymousreply 23911/05/2012

WHY IS THE ABOVE POSTING IN HERE?

by Anonymousreply 24011/05/2012

I also read the mother's blog. Clueless comes to mind. It's almost a pride goeth before the fall type of tragedy.

She really did seem rather oblivious and off a bit. She complained about Nessie (as in the Loch Ness monster?) when she deliberately walked through a rain puddle - so rather than just going over and taking her hand and moving her away form the puddle as you have to do with chidren at times, the mom just kept ineffectively yakking on to the little girl. When you are become self-absorbed you fail to pick up on clues swirling around you.

I am guessing the mother will be writing a book now and maybe signing film rights.

Look if you're going to advertise and brag about your parenting to the world then expect people to analyze it and critique it.

This is a horribly sad event and no one deserves it - not even clueless parents. But tragedy strikes families all the time all over the world. You learn to deal with it and cope if not for your own sake then for your surviving child's sake. She seems like a sweet and interesting child.

by Anonymousreply 24111/05/2012

[quote]WHY IS THE ABOVE POSTING IN HERE?

Because it's a quote from R207.

by Anonymousreply 24211/05/2012

Ironically for the mother only Nessie survived and Nessie was the unloved child.

by Anonymousreply 24311/05/2012

I think Stabbin' Nanny would be a great name for an all female rock band.

by Anonymousreply 24411/05/2012

Nessie is usually short for Vanessa.

by Anonymousreply 24511/05/2012

[quote] so rather than just going over and taking her hand and moving her away form the puddle as you have to do with chidren at times, the mom just kept ineffectively yakking on to the little girl

I see this all the time.

"Stop it! You'd better stop it. I really mean it. Come on now, cut it out. Come over here now. NOW, I said! Are you listening to me? Alanna, Kaden! Stop it this minute..."

And on and on. Heres how it should go -- parent tells the child one time to stop doing something. The child continues doing it. The parent then should say, "If you don't stop doing that, I'm going to come over there and take you away from the puddle and you will have to stay in your room for one hour when we get home."

If the child continues, you follow through. Go over, pick the kid up, take him/her away from what they are doing and make them stay in their room for an hour. No tv, no computer, no electronic games.

One thing that totally makes me want to kill is having my brain invaded by a parent who continually bickers with a child. Especially in a restaurant.

One neighbor used to yell, "Be nice! I said, be NICE! Didn't you hear me? BE NICE! NICE! BE NICE I SAID!"

Her son was pummeling her daughter. He knew it was ok to do ithis, because his mom wouldn't get up off her fat ass to do anything.

by Anonymousreply 24611/05/2012

But did she tip her waiter?

by Anonymousreply 24711/05/2012

Could someone post the link for the full blog?

The link I have just gives me very partial and incomplete part of the blog.

by Anonymousreply 24811/05/2012

Is the mother from a eastern european country or from Russia?

Her name is Marina, a popular eastern european name.

by Anonymousreply 24911/05/2012

As for what hours or how much time the nanny was working for the Krims, an article or two mentioned that she was working 12 hour days and was very tired.

I'm not sure how some of you deduct that she was a part-time employee rather than a 40 hour per week employee.

How do we know which she was?

by Anonymousreply 25011/05/2012

Upper West Side Nanny Resented Her Employers, Police Say

By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM

Published: November 5, 2012

The nanny charged with stabbing to death two children she cared for on the Upper West Side told detectives that she had resentment toward the family, who she complained were always telling her what to do, a law enforcement official said on Sunday. .

The nanny, Yoselyn Ortega, 50, was interviewed in her hospital bed on Saturday by detectives at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, the police have said.

She was charged hours later with fatally stabbing the children, Lucia Krim, 6, and her brother, Leo, 2, in a bathroom in the family’s apartment shortly before their mother, Marina Krim, returned from a swimming lesson with her other young daughter.

Ms. Ortega waived her right to have a lawyer present during questioning, the official said, and acknowledged that she was in the bathroom, although she did not confess to the killings.

She told the detectives that “Marina knows what happened,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case. The police have said that Ms. Krim walked into the bathroom to find Ms. Ortega stabbing herself in the throat, with the dying children bleeding in the bathtub.

The official said that Ms. Ortega was not medicated, but that she seemed “spacy.”

The official said that while the Krim family did not have problems with Ms. Ortega and seemed to live an idyllic life, Ms. Ortega, based on what she told the investigators, had a different view.

“She had resentment towards the parents” and said “they were always telling her what to do,” according to the official.

Ms. Ortega was charged with first-degree murder in the killings.

It was not clear when she will be arraigned or whether she has a lawyer.

by Anonymousreply 25111/05/2012

Generally your employer tells you what to do, so I'm not sure what the nanny means by this.

It's becoming obvious that she killed the kids to get back at the mother, but I am not sure what the nanny perceived as being so bad that she just had to butcher these kids, there is simply no excuse for her actions.

I do not get an insanity vibe from this, she seems to be aware of what she did and why and I have maintained all along that the nanny was not criminally insane when she killed the kids.

by Anonymousreply 25211/05/2012

[quote]Ms. Ortega waived her right to have a lawyer present during questioning, the official said, and acknowledged that she was in the bathroom, although she did not confess to the killings.

Wow. So the NY Post reports that she was "lawyered up" weren't quite true.

by Anonymousreply 25311/05/2012

[quote] Ironically for the mother only Nessie survived and Nessie was the unloved child.

I read the entire blog. I don't think it's fair to say Nessie was unloved. Nessie was just viewed as different than her older sister and I think maybe unfairly judged by that comparison. She was more active and seemingly creative. The mom does comment on that and at times it is in a critical way. I think people forget these blogs are public but even still if you must vent then these are things that belong in private diaries - they aren't even things that should be shared with the extended family.

But I tend to think that the mom thought that Nessie's "difference" was somehow reflective of her in a negative way and not just that Nessie had her own personality. I didn't read anything that I thought showed Nessie as a bad kid at all. She seemed fun and interesting to me.

I did see a number of instances where the child - all of them - were allowed to continue on some course of behavior while the camera chronicled it and the situation ended up in messy situations. Like letting the little boy destroy a birthday cake with his hands so you end up with a photo that the parents think is "cute." Same with magic markers - hopefully washable and non-toxic - where the kid ends up with marker all over his mouth or face. Clearly all these things could have been stopped somewhere before they reached mass destruction.

There was an incident where the mom describes - entitled This Could Only Happen to Nessie - being at a farm and Nessie had a run in with a chicken and ended up scared, screaming & running away from the chicken falling on her butt in tears. All photographed throughout to get the money shot at the end. Excuse me but why didn't you put the camera down and remove your obviously terrified child from the situation or at least crouch down and be with her to experience it with her and allay her fears. Instead it's used to show "crazy" Nessie.

The mother refers to "Josie" as both a nanny and as a babysitter. In the blog there is a picture of a young woman stopping to visit the girls and she is called the old babysitter.

I think Marina maybe Hispanic - the little boys middle name is Hidalgo and I believe that may have been her maiden name. She's from California and she went to USC. She had a food bog before the kids when they lived in Noe Valley but while married and while pregnant with her oldest.

I am sure they adored their kids including Nessie though I am troubled by the mom's regularly negative interpretation of what seems to me like normal behavior by Nessie. Very early on there is a mention of Nessie's hips being okay now - maybe she started out in life with hip problems and restricted movement - could cause her to be more active once unrestricted and a disturbing issue for her parents.

I feel like I know these kids now from the blog and the videos in the blog. They were sweet adorable kids and it is very sad. Nessie is very beautiful and ended up being my favorite - she has a great personality - not that it matters.

Here are some comments from an article:

"As shocking new details emerge, neighbours have revealed that nanny Ortega, 50, was visibly unravelling before the heinous slayings in the Upper West Side apartment on Thursday night and appeared to have ‘aged seven years in a few months.’

Ruben Diaz, 49, said the nanny, a native of the Dominican Republic who has lived in the U.S. for 10 years, looked sick and gaunt and appeared ‘nervous’ before Thursday’s bloodbath, neighbours recounted.

She was also battling health problems, both mental and physical, and had money issues. ‘She lost a lot of weight. She looked very unhealthy. It looked like she was going through some problems,’ Diaz told The Post. ‘She had aged a lot — like seven years in a few months.’

According to police, Ortega had revealed to people that she was seeing a psychiatrist."

by Anonymousreply 25411/05/2012

R252, the "resentment" is the cop's interpretation of how the nanny felt. They are known to spin things to fit their theory of a case. Now they have come up with a motive. The nanny may have just been answering questions as to how she took care of the kids or scheduled her day and said I did what the mother told me (except stab her kids, of course).

by Anonymousreply 25511/05/2012

This story has overshadowed the Naperville nanny murders.

If the killings proved anything, it was that a parent’s worst nightmare — the slaying of small children by a person entrusted with their care — could play out anywhere, in uptown Manhattan or the streets of an affluent Chicago suburb.

At a hearing in Naperville, Ill., on Thursday, Elzbieta Plackowska, 40, was denied bail in connection with the murders of Olivia Dworakowski, a 5-year-old girl she was baby-sitting, and her own son, Justin Plackowska, 7.

The two children were found stabbed to death in the master bedroom of the Dworakowski home on Tuesday, less than a week after a nanny in New York was arrested in the fatal stabbing of two young siblings, Lucia and Leo Krim, in their Upper West Side apartment.

Robert Berlin, the state’s attorney, said that Justin had been stabbed about 100 times and Olivia, 50 times. Their throats were cut. Two dogs were also killed.

Ms. Plackowska later told the police that she had instructed the children to kneel on the floor and begin to pray, Mr. Berlin said. Justin kept saying, “Mommy, please don’t do this. I love you. I love you.” His mother responded, “You’re going to go to heaven tonight,” Mr. Berlin said, adding, “It was probably as gruesome and horrible a crime as you’re ever going to see.”

In the Naperville case, as in New York, the children were found when a frantic mother returned home. Marta Dworakowski, 32, arrived at the townhouse where she lived with her daughter on Tuesday and was unable to open the locked door. She went to Ms. Plackowska’s house but could not find her or the children and called the police.

About the same time, officers were called to an apartment where Ms. Plackowska’s adult son was staying. She had gone there, covered in blood, and told them she had been robbed, the police said.

Mr. Berlin said that Ms. Plackowska, who had been baby-sitting Olivia since the beginning of the school year, had changed her account of Tuesday’s events several times. At one point, she said that someone sneaked into the house while she was outside smoking a cigarette, then that she had stabbed the children because they were “poisoned by society” and better off dead.

Eventually, she told them she killed her young son to get back at her husband, a truck driver who was away much of the time, said Sgt. Louis Cammiso, a police spokesman.

“Her husband didn’t treat her right, and it was a form of revenge,” Sergeant Cammiso said, adding that Ms. Plackowska said she had killed Olivia because she was a witness.

After leaving the Dworakowskis’ house, Ms. Plackowska left voice-mail messages at St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church in Naperville, saying that she had done something wrong and needed help, Sergeant Cammiso said.

The authorities said they were trying to determine whether Ms. Plackowska, a Polish immigrant who came to the United States 12 years ago, was in the country legally. Illinois does not have the death penalty, but a conviction on the two charges of first-degree murder Ms. Plackowska faces would carry a mandatory life sentence. Michael Mara, the public defender who is representing her, declined to comment on the case.

by Anonymousreply 25611/05/2012

In one of Mrs. Krim's blog comments she was annoyed that one of her kids had written on the wall with one of the markers. This was almost immediately after Josey (who she referred to as the babysitter) had been hired. The mother makes an accusatory comment in the blog about "what was the babysitter doing during this time, obviously not watching her child." Did she not consider that the "babysitter" would read her blog and be insulted by this? Who knows how many other comments she may have made directly and indirectly to this woman? Considering the mess and chaos that happened on a routine basis when the mother was the only one present... (i.e. LEO smushing the chocolate birthday cake all over himself, the kids writing all over their lips and bodies in colored highlighters on several occasions or Nessie splashing in the puddles) I think it's safe to say that Mrs. Krim was not aware of her own shortcomings. I think Mrs. Krim never saw how flawed she herself was in the parenting domain. I agree with the other individual who commented that she was more focused on the "photo op" than she was in being an effective parent, teacher/guidance counselor or disciplinarian. The example that one of the bloggers provided about Nessie with the rooster chasing after her was a PERFECT example of the mother's indifference to her child's fears. Instead of the mother intervening to assist her obviously frightened child she instead was more focused on capturing the event on camera. Honestly... not only was Nessie left to defend herself, it also showed Nessie's siblings to laugh at someone else's problems and not be empathetic and not to intervene to help.

The only good news with any of this is that Nessie has learned to be strong and to rely on herself. She's had a lot of hardships to overcome at such a young age, (i.e. being in a body cast in her first two years of life, having a mother who was not emotionally attached to her, constantly being compared by her mother to her older sister who was obviously favored, etc.) Nessie is her own special, wonderful unique and creative child. I got a total kick out of her... It's surprising that no one else in the immediate or extended family thought to counsel Mrs. Krim about her many disparaging comments about Nessie in the public and private domain. She should have taken herself to parenting class... None of this gave Josey the right to slaughter the Krim children. She is guilty as hell and should get the stiffest sentence possible.

by Anonymousreply 25711/05/2012

This will absolutely become a "made for tv" movie after the trial takes place.

As for the trial, I pray that she doesn't get a jury similar to the one that was picked for Casey Anthony. I want this woman to get the stiffest penalty possible. On the upside for Josey, she will now have free board and rent for many, many years !! (albeit confined to a cell) I hope that the inmates take care of her the same way that she took care of those children. (with being brutally slain to death and left to bleed out.) That is what she deserves.

by Anonymousreply 25811/05/2012

Apparently Josey is now saying that Leo was sleeping when the onslaught began. So... I guess that means that she went after Lulu first and then Leo? I am really curious to know what transpired that day. It seems that Josey intentionally chose to not meet the mother as expected/required. She instead kept the children home and then attacked/killed them. It's really surreal and so heartbreaking. In spite of the mother's flaws, no one deserves this kind of retaliation or vindictiveness.

by Anonymousreply 25911/05/2012

This crime is so horrible that I keep having a difficult time believing it really happened.

It is one of the most horrid, heinous things that could befall parents.

by Anonymousreply 26011/05/2012

Did I read somewhere that this Nanny was 50 yrs old?

by Anonymousreply 26111/05/2012

[quote]Security was tight. The Krims said that was for their surviving 3-year-old daughter Nessie, who was with her mom at swimming class and escaped the carnage that claimed her siblings in their apartment.

[quote]“It is of utmost importance to us that she is afforded the opportunity to grow up privately, like any other kid,” the parents said.

I found this comment odd.

by Anonymousreply 26211/05/2012

[quote] She lost a lot of weight. She looked very unhealthy. It looked like she was going through some problems,’ Diaz told The Post. ‘She had aged a lot"

Meth?

It would explain weight loss, nervousness and money problems.

by Anonymousreply 26311/05/2012

I think she must carried a sleeping Leo to the bathroom so that she could stab him first in the bathtub, I guess that's why he did not have defensive wounds like his sister who fought back after seeing what the nanny had done to her little brother.

I can't imagine how terrifying that must have been for this little girl, she knew what had happened and knew she was next, that's chilling.

I hope the nanny suffers everyday for the rest of her miserable fucking life.

by Anonymousreply 26411/05/2012

[quote] This will absolutely become a "made for tv" movie after the trial takes place.

They still make TV movies?

I haven't seen one for years. Just reenactments on 48 Hours or Dateline or one of the true crime stories on Discovery ID.

BTW -- you yunguns won't believe this, but before Reagan deregulated the media so that it could be bought up by rich folk who want to dumb down the population, Dateline used to do investigative reporting on government and corporate corruption.

by Anonymousreply 26511/05/2012

The only source saying that the nanny was unhealthy, looking poorly, "unraveling" is this Reuben Diaz person.

by Anonymousreply 26611/05/2012

Is the implication that the nanny was paid to murder the two children by people involved in the bank money scandal which apparently Mr Krim exposed as an executive or employee at CNBC?

by Anonymousreply 26711/05/2012

rochelle

by Anonymousreply 26811/05/2012

Yes, R267, that seems to be someone's goofy idea. Perhaps she detoured through the Freemason symbol-laden Denver airport getting her tin foil instructions along the way.

by Anonymousreply 26911/05/2012

CNBC is in bed with banksters. They run an occasional exposé or American Greed story, but their commentators are totally in the pocket of Wall Street.

The fact that they still allow that criminal huckster Jim Kramer have his own show is a disgrace. Jon Stewart exposed him on the Daily Show.

by Anonymousreply 27011/05/2012

Why is Jim Kramer a criminal huckster? What has he done?

Not disagreeing, just wondering what he has done.

by Anonymousreply 27111/05/2012

Kramer is small peanuts compared to big crooks.

by Anonymousreply 27211/05/2012

Yes, they made a TV movie on Natalie Holloway. They also made one on Casey Anthony. They are not such a thing of the past...

Interesting that the parents have commented that Nessie should be allowed to live out her life in private. While I don't disagree with them, it's too bad that the parents didn't have that same level of awareness in the past where they allowed every moment of their children's lives to be documented on the internet for the entire world to see, hear and weigh in on. They effectively let every creepy person out there see their children naked in photos, they let every deviant know exactly what their time schedule was and where they would be the following day, etc. While the internet didn't have anything to do with how these children met their fate... it just showed the parents bad judgement.

Just thought of another nasty comment that the mother made about Nessie. She said she felt really sorry for whoever marries Nessie!!! So mean. I think Nessie deserved and does deserve a lot more love and appreciation than she's received to date from her mother. In one blog, the mother writes that both she and Kevin agree about Nessie and what a problem child she is. I doubt that the father felt that way. This mother acts like an absolute juvenile! Also, I think the mother was a social climber and was not well educated. She spelled things incorrectly quite often. (even basic words). The husband is well educated (Harvard) but the mother seems lacking in formal education, common sense, appropriate child rearing techniques, sensitivity to treating her children as individuals and respecting and valuing those differences. Perhaps now she will finally value Nessie... God bless Nessie and this entire family. They will need it.

by Anonymousreply 27311/05/2012

I agree, R273. I remember that blog entry. Why would a loving parent write something like that when their child will one day be able to google it. This concept is not something new.

I worry about sweet, fun loving Nessie. She's going to be pushed into being THE child.

by Anonymousreply 27411/05/2012

Perhaps the mother is foreign born and that's why her spelling is poor. Maybe she's Russian and grew up using the Cyrillic alphabet. I took Russian language classes in the 1990s with immigrant Russian students (they were looking to get some easy 'A's) and they were terrible spellers ... in Russian. They really didn't care and it drove my Russian prof crazy.

Young Americans aren't the only poor spellers.

by Anonymousreply 27511/05/2012

275... You can't just fabricate info. about Mrs. Krim's life. The reality is that she grew up in Manhattan Beach, California. Her parents still live there. As such, she is an American and plenty old enough to know how to spell the most basic of words. Her husband grew up in California as well. (Thousand Oaks)

by Anonymousreply 27611/05/2012

277 - Now "that" is a factually based comment versus the one from 275. Interesting re: Marina's great grandmother being from the Philippines. Definitely enough of a distance in generations that Marina should be proficient in English (especially since she was so critical in evaluating and assessing her children's aptitudes and accomplishments) Marina made disparaging comments about Nessie and Leo for not walking in the same time frame as Lula had. I believe it was all of a months difference for Nessie and Nessie had been in a full body cast for 2 years due to hip displacement which Lula hadn't. Leo took the longest to walk. Marina seemed to make it a competition in terms of who walked first, who talked first,who could get their mother's attention and praise, etc. I truly hope that she has more children but I hope that she is positively influenced by people's perceptions about some of her child rearing practices and attitudes.

by Anonymousreply 27811/05/2012

What happened to the need for privacy? She started blogging again and posting photos on her facebookk page days after the murders.

The mom also "Liked" the Facebook Memorial Page someone set up for Lulu and Leo which also prominently features a large photo of the surviving family including Nessie. See link. I figured out the mom's maiden name after I learned the great grandmother's name - the family has been in this country since the 1940s at least. They lived in Hollywood. There are pics of them on Flickr and I think of the mom as a toddler but it can't the mom - it has to be the grandmom. It's a 1958 pic and the Marina in the pic is about 2.

I'd rather not link the mom's Facebook page - it's under her maiden name. I suppose this is an outlet for her grief.

by Anonymousreply 27911/05/2012

[quote]She started blogging again and posting photos on her facebookk page days after the murders.

Something tells me that she and her husband do not communicate a whole lot. The original blog is mostly the wife talking to herself about the kids.

by Anonymousreply 28011/05/2012

Was she one of those creepy moms who just WORSHIPPED the ground her male child walked on to the detriment of her daughter? Loathe the type.

by Anonymousreply 28111/05/2012

Blogging seems to be a HUGE creative outlet for the mother.

She seems to have spent quite a bit of time on it.

I'm thinking that she needed something outside of motherhood for fulfillment and since she did not have a paying job, she focused on blogging.

(not sure if she got paid for teaching a once a week art class to kids at a museum, but if she did get paid, it probably was not much)

Being college educated (did she graduate?) she probably felt that she should have more aspects to her life in addition to motherhood.

by Anonymousreply 28211/05/2012

Nanny Killer had Epic Argument with Slain Kid's Mother Day Before Killing

Posted on Nov 05, 2012 @ 06:35PM

Yoselyn Ortega, the Manhattan nanny accused of killing the two young kids in her care, had an argument with her employer, Marina Krim, the day before Ortega allegedly brutally stabbed the children to death, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

"Yoselyn told NYPD detectives that she was involved in an epic argument with Marina Krim the day before the children were tragically murdered," a law enforcement source told RadarOnline.com exclusively. "Yoselyn also said that when she left at the end of the day before the murders, Marina ignored her when she said good-bye and this made her very, very angry. Yoselyn became extremely animated when she discussed the incident with law enforcement. Yoselyn also said she had numerous disagreements with Marina about how the kids were being cared for. Marina didn't think Yoselyn was interacting with the kids enough and was giving them junk food when she was out of sight."

As RadarOnline.com previously reported, police interviewed Ortega Saturday at New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center, just hours before the 50-year-old woman was charged with first-degree murder in the October 25 killings of 6-year-old Lucia Krim and her 2-year-old brother, Leo.

Ortega waived her right to have her lawyer with her during Saturday's discussion with investigators, police said. At one point in the interrogation, Ortega said that Marina Krim "knows what happened," the New York Times reported.

"During the interview with Ortega, which was video and audiotaped by cops, she gave a lot of detail about her life with the Krim family," the source says. "During the interrogation Yoselyn repeatedly asked about her family and asked how they were doing. She didn't express any remorse or shed any tears when talking about Lucia and Leo's murders. It was rather shocking to cops because of the gruesome crime scene that Yoselyn didn't express any emotion when speaking of the kids. Everything was just rather matter of fact."

The Dominican Republic native, who was not on medication Saturday, came off as "spacy" during the hospital room chat, investigators told the paper.

by Anonymousreply 28311/05/2012

Interesting point about the meth, r263. You have to wonder.

The blogging activity is just so weird. I wonder who read it on a regular basis. I could see blogging about one's children on a password protected page for family, but why to the whole wide world?

Poor, poor Nessie. I'm reminded of that blogger we discussed here about a year ago who said she prefers (and I mean hugely prefers) her son over her daughter and actually said if she had to choose one life over the other, she'd keep the son. I realize parents have favorites, every kid knows it, but these kinds of public declarations are so disturbing. They're practically diagnosing their own kids with a personality disorder. I always knew my mother disliked me (have no sibs -- she was disappointed to not have a son after the stillbirth of a boy), but if she said even one of the things she'd scream in my face to anyone outside the home, I'd be devastated.

by Anonymousreply 28411/05/2012

It's creepy enough when men make a big deal of preferring a son over a daughter, but it's even weirder when women do it, too.

by Anonymousreply 28511/05/2012

283... Wow... I wonder if what Radar on-line has reported is true about an epic fight that took place between Josey and the mother just one day before the murders. It sounds possible due to the detail that was provided. Particularly the way that Josey explained that after the fight when she said goodbye to Marina, that Marina did not reciprocate. She said that sent her reeling.

On the other hand... Marina never seems to hold back when it comes to providing full disclosure on line so why wouldn't she have made some comment about such a huge argument on her blog if such an argument truly took place?

I SO want to know what the heck came down here...

by Anonymousreply 28611/05/2012

The police can be such drama queens when they are looking for something. As I noted above, they may have been asking her questions and just gotten a straight answer which they are interpreting to suit their charges. I find it hard to believe she wasn't on some medication or pain killers.

The mother barely acknowledges the nanny's existence on her blog in recounting her day to day life with her children. I wouldn't expect her to put anything about an argument on her blog. Or maybe she didn't think anything of it.

But if there was some blow-up then why would you keep that person in charge of your children? Makes no sense at all.

I think Nessie said it all in this comment that "amused" her mother thinking Nessie was just being bossy:

Blog entry of May 20, 2011 9:31 pm

The World According to Nessie -

Nessie gave Josie, our nanny, these directions today while I was out with Lulu....and yes, Nessie was serious about this.... "Josie go home, Leo cuna (crib in Spanish), Nessie Escuelita (her preschool in Sept)".

This is so prescient. They should have listened to Nessie. Maybe she had Josie’s number.

by Anonymousreply 28711/05/2012

Some people become enraged over any type of criticism.

The nanny appears to be a person who cannot accept criticism nor direction.

by Anonymousreply 28811/05/2012

Sounds like the nanny had a huge chip on her shoulder. She probably felt because of her background she was too good to be a nanny, she certainly felt too good to do housekeeping.

Granted she asked for more hours but that might have been a passive way of hoping they'd just give her a raise and keep the same hours.

I agree with the poster upthread who talked about parents needing to take a realistic view. I believe they really do think that their nannies are completely in love with their children and are putting them on pedestals. Of course the nannies play along with this perception.

I see the way a lot of nannies are interacting with their charges. Some are simply awful to them but I also see some that are genuinely affectionate and adoring towards them.

If I was a parent hiring a nanny I would do more than a background check, I'd hire someone to tail them from time to time to see how they are interacting when they don't think anyone that matters is watching them.

by Anonymousreply 28911/05/2012

What the heck happened to the text in the OP?

It's interesting that Marina's criticism was that she wasn't interacting enough with the children. What was she doing? The other nannies in the building said she spent all her time cooped up in the apt. Five hours of housework a week wouldn't keep her from interacting. I can see the nanny's bubbling anger.

by Anonymousreply 29011/06/2012

[quote]I'd hire someone to tail them from time to time to see how they are interacting when they don't think anyone that matters is watching them.

For the money that cost you could pay the babysitter a better wage that might go a long way to improving her job performance.

What is eerily sad is that the soul-crushing financial problems that seemed insurmountable to the nanny probably represented a very modest sum to her employers. Yet it was likely an amount that no nanny could hope to save from her earnings while supporting herself and a son in NYC.

In hindsight, I bet the couple wish they had bought her off and made her go away forever. As little as 10K might have helped set up the nanny and her son in a place of their own, far away perhaps, and given them a head start on a new life. Even if you doubled that, what's 20K versus the lives of both kids?

by Anonymousreply 29111/06/2012

R291,

Among one-percenters, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing, not the money.

They sure showed her.

by Anonymousreply 29211/06/2012

How idiotic can you be R291? In "hindsight" the parents would give millions, everything they have to get their kids back. It wasn't their responsibility to make the murder's fucked up life better. She got paid a fair wage to do a job. Period. They had no way of knowing she'd slaughter their kids because she was a cold blooded killer.

So, R292, do you routinely pay more for things because you "can?" When you go into a store and see a a pair of shoes on sale, do you offer to pay full price because you have the money to pay more? If not.....why? You should pay more than everyone else because you have the money and can afford to. You would be helping the business be successful and improving the economy.

What if nanny needed $100k to settle her fucked up finances? What then? Should the family have paid that as well? Most people wouldn't go that far for a close family member.

They owed her nothing but a fair, competitive wage for the job. She was a shit employee and a jealous psychopath. She should have been fired, not given more money.

by Anonymousreply 29311/06/2012

Calm down, R293. I wasn't trying to suggest that the correct course of action prior to the incident was for the parents to throw money at an employee who pleaded poverty.

I was only calling attention to the cruel and hideous vagaries of money: what it will buy and what it can't buy, and how one person's fortune is another person's pin money.

It is still a weird "if only" to ponder that the parents very likely had it easily within their means to relieve the nanny of some of her woes. Giving the woman a fragment of hope rather than adding on to her despair might have made all the difference.

It crushes me to see what happened to those kids. But if I am a "retard" for showing an ounce of sympathy to the nanny, what does that make the parents who brought her into their home and trusted her with their children?

by Anonymousreply 29411/06/2012

Many if not most bloggers, r182, hope to parlay their writings into bigger things, as did "Pioneer Woman," among others.

by Anonymousreply 29611/06/2012

R295 = Yoselyn Ortega

by Anonymousreply 29711/06/2012

It's really interesting hearing everyone's take on this situation. I would not want to be selected as a juror. This would be a gut wrenching case to have to listen to and view the evidence on. Hopefully they preserved the crime scene properly. I'm still amazed that the mother applied a towel to the nannie's neck considering what this nanny had just done to her children. Maybe it was just a normal reflex reaction.

The other thing I thought of was how difficult it's going to be for the parents to sort through all of the children's things at the apt. (when they are allowed access). Clearly they are not going to remain living at that apt. Too painful and traumatic.

by Anonymousreply 29811/06/2012

Who do you think was killed first? Lulu or Leo?

Leo was supposedly asleep when the onslaught began. Somehow I got the impression from the way it was reported that perhaps Lulu was killed first but I can't really say why.

On the other hand, someone else commented that perhaps it was Leo who was killed first as he had no defensive wounds. He would certainly be an easy target if he was asleep!! What a cowardly act to kill someone while they are sleeping...

by Anonymousreply 29911/06/2012

[quote]I was only calling attention to the cruel and hideous vagaries of money: what it will buy and what it can't buy, and how one person's fortune is another person's pin money.

It is still a weird "if only" to ponder that the parents very likely had it easily within their means to relieve the nanny of some of her woes. Giving the woman a fragment of hope rather than adding on to her despair might have made all the difference.

by Anonymousreply 30011/06/2012

I belive a hired killer came in and murdered them.

by Anonymousreply 30111/06/2012

[quote]The other thing I thought of was how difficult it's going to be for the parents to sort through all of the children's things at the apt. (when they are allowed access).

Maybe they'll have Nessie do it.

by Anonymousreply 30211/06/2012

A surprised 2 year old wouldn't necessarily have true defensive wounds. IIRC he only had 2 wounds. And not all wounds described as defensive actually come from "defending" yourself. The media wants to create even more drama - as if this case doesn't have enough drama all by itself - by suggesting Lulu "bravely" fought. Maybe she did, maybe she even tried to protect her brother but it may just have been reflexive movements of limbs trying to cover her face or body.

The children were still alive when the EMTs arrived. I have no idea if survival was a real possibility but there was some time wasted when the mother first came home because the apartment was dark and she went back downstairs to the lobby to ask the doorman if he had seen the kids leave. She went back to the apt and looked through each room until she found them in one of the bathrooms. I believe it was the neighbors who called 911 when they heard the mother screaming.

You know I used to say that I would prefer to be the only real influence on my children until they were of school age so that it would be my values and mores that they were exposed to when they were first learning. I wanted them to learn their manners and how to treat others from me and not some stranger - which is what most nannies/babysitters really are.

But I didn't kids have any so there you go. Though I did realize that no one loves your children like you do and may not be willing to put them first in a life threatening situation, I must admit I didn't really think of the "keep them safe from stabbing nannies" threat. I was thinking more along the lines of exposure to poor grammar.

by Anonymousreply 30311/06/2012

[quote]I was thinking more along the lines of exposure to poor grammar.

Oh, the irony.

by Anonymousreply 30411/06/2012

As the Nanny decided to go down the criminal path... I think it would have been more productive and fruitful for the nanny to simply steal something very small and very expensive on the heals of some huge party that the Krim's had (especially if there were a lot of people at the party and even better if those people brought their children) so that it would be difficult to determine who stole it. Even better if it takes them a long time to even discover that x has been stolen.

Of course, the best alternative would have been to do an honorable thing and become the nanny of the century, fully engraciate herself with this family and then speak to Mr. Krim to ask him how she could go about getting her accounting license updated or transferred to this country and perhaps a loan in the interim. People generally like to help and it sounds as if the Krim's would have been very open to this as they tried to help her by finding her additional employment with another family and they sent her to see her family on a few occasions. She just needed to be in good standing with them and then ask them for exactly what kind of help she needed. She totally blew it. She's a mess.

by Anonymousreply 30511/06/2012

We all assume they were fabulously wealthy. They had a nice apartment which they rented and they traveled as a family on a number of occasions.

While I'm sure the father had a great compensation package we don't know if his company subsidized his expensive rent or if some of his travel was business related and they paid for the family to travel as well.

People should not try to make some equivalency argument between employing a regular worker and employing someone who comes into your home and is responsible for your children's lives. There are many things you would never do for a regular company employee but might very well do for someone like a nanny or a housekeeper. The more a part of your personal world the employee is the more careful you have to be about hiring them, handling their employment and especially letting them go.

by Anonymousreply 30611/06/2012

I say, fry the bitch.(or preferably stab her numerous time as she did the children and let her bleed out painfully like they did) We would probably would be doing her a favor to put her out of her misery. She was a miserable person with a total f'd up life. Why the heck didn't she ever do anything with her accounting degree? What irony that she had an accounting degree and yet was SO horrible at managing her finances and her life in general. She was here before the economy here the crapper.

by Anonymousreply 30711/06/2012

You guys are so stupid. If there was no history of mental illness, she did not kill these children. The last thing a caregiver would do is kill her charge. It simply would not be done, if she had mental illness, yes but otherwise, no.

by Anonymousreply 30811/06/2012

R308, then why is she giving reasons to the police about why the murders occurred if she did not do the murdering?

by Anonymousreply 30911/06/2012

R293,

You call that a competitive wage?

You still don't get it: treat waiters like shit, pay them shit, and they will spit in your food.

Calling it a "competitive wage" because others are equally underpaid is disingenuous. The one-percent loves to bully people financially, and can't stand when those they oppress fight back.

You act like capitalism is more importqant than the people it promises to enrich. When capitalism fails (thanks to the one-percent), those who are disenfranchised will shift the battle to a more primal level.

The one-percent does not wish to confront this, because it would rather think its financial privilege makes it omnipotent.

I grew up among the one-percent, and they are *all* assholes. Being civilized to the lower classes means nothing any more than a celebrity waving to a crowd. Where it counts, they aer assholes.

I grew up with a maid who often cared for me while my parents were busy earning their livi9ngs. She was paid around double the "competitive wage" of which you speak, and was worth every cent. If she had financial problems, which she rarely did, she was more than welcome to ask for help. My family understood damn well that you don't mistreat, underpay, or otherwise piss off those to whom you trust your children.

So yes, put me in the position of the Krims, and I'd make sure any "nanny" I hire is financially sound. To not do this could be tantamount to signing a death warrant for my children.

Posts like R293's sounds like some one-percenter pissed off not so much at having to spend extra money to prevent this type of blowback, but at the notion that someone else will be lifted economically. The one-percent is so sick that it not only practices financial gluttony for itself, but it actively seeks to prevent others from rising up economically.

What happens when others like Ms. Ortega decide, like the terrorists did, that sacrificing one nanny for two spoiled brats from the one-percent is the clear path to winning this financial war?

Once again, you are RIGHT. Only problem is, two children are DEAD.

As Dr. Phil would say, how is being right working for you?

Sanchez is a martyr, plain and simple, and likely the first of several who will do exactly the same thing until the "competitive wage" approaches the "living wage."

I am NOT condoning murder. I am merely explaining why this happened, and is likely to keep happening in the future. The question to every one-percenter is "do you love your money more than your kids?" Actions speak louder than words, and what most of them pay their help offers a very sickening answer.

by Anonymousreply 31011/06/2012

R305,

it is not "help" to offer additional hours to someone who is underpaid; it is exacerbating the exploitation.

I once had a fulltime job where I was paid a noncompetitive wage. It was when I began looking for a second job, that I stopped myself, and began looking for a replacement job, which I found soon after.

The nanny wasn't asking for extra hours; she was asking for a RAISE.

by Anonymousreply 31111/06/2012

No one seems to be talking about the "make up" that she was selling.

Both of these items are from the NYTimes.

[quote]Twice, Ms. Ortega asked Ms. Lajara to pray that a woman would pay her for makeup she had given her to sell. The amount, Ms. Lajara said, was about $100, and it was important to her.

[quote]Ms. Lajara said that Ms. Ortega had given someone she knew some makeup to peddle and that the woman had not come through with the money.

My Theory: DRUG DEALING.

The "make up" was a story she made up so she could discuss her involvement in drug dealing. She was dealing drugs, then gave them to someone else to peddle. This someone else stole them. Now the nanny is on the hook with the cartel.

Think about it:

WHO was this woman involved in the make up deal gone wrong?

WHY did she desperately need that $100 returned?

WHY did she lose her apartment when her nanny salary covered her rent and lifestyle just fine in the previously?

WHY did come out of the coma with extreme concern for the well being of her own family - as if they were in danger?

$100 wouldn't have changed her life. It was clearly a MUCH bigger sum. And her desperation for it tells me she gave drugs, not make up, to someone to sell and was instead ripped off. Now she owes major cash to the people / cartel that gave her the drugs in the first place.

She can't tell anyone about her circumstances. She loses weight. Starts looking like a ghost. Lies about the amount owed and what for because she just needs the prayers of others. So she concocts the makeup story.

Grows insane with rage when the Krims offer her housework for what must have felt like pennies compared to the $ she really needed to survive - and protect her family, who were probably threatened.

by Anonymousreply 31211/06/2012

R294, does that really make sense to you? You're "showing an ounce of sympathy" toward a child killer. A person who brutally murdered two innocent children in a bathtub. You see, the Krim's didn't sympathize with and offer this beast employment after she slaughtered their children. Therefore, your comparison is absurd. And R293 was correct.

by Anonymousreply 31311/06/2012

[quote]Sanchez is a martyr, plain and simple, and likely the first of several who will do exactly the same thing until the "competitive wage" approaches the "living wage."

Who is Sanchez? Shouldn't you know your saints' names? Or at least let us know who they are?

by Anonymousreply 31411/06/2012

[quote]Sanchez is a martyr, plain and simple

R310, save your OTT melodrama for someone who won't laugh at you. We're not threatened at all by the Stabbin' Nannies of the world. A tragedy like this happening is very rare. Might as well be afraid to go outdoors because you could get hit by lightening.

by Anonymousreply 31511/06/2012

R315, you better pray that the fragile US economy holds itself together. If there is ever widespread hunger and poverty, the poor are going to discover both power and safety in numbers. If one million residents of upper Manhattan with nothing to lose ever banded together and rioted their way downtown, pillaging everything in their path, there wouldn't be enough policemen or soldiers to stop them.

The idea that you have the right to keep what's yours is a polite notion that only holds firm when the basic needs of everyone else are being met. France was one of the most advanced nations on earth when its unjust economic disparity led to Revolution. The "one per cent" of Imperial Russia lived in unimaginable splendor until the Tsar plunged the Motherland into a ruinous war that ended their way of life forever.

by Anonymousreply 31611/06/2012

[quote] You call that a competitive wage?

What competitive wage? Nobody knows how much the. Krims were paying the nanny.

by Anonymousreply 31711/06/2012

[quote] And a friend of Ms. Ortega recalled how fondly that she would speak of the Krims, saying she was well paid and treated decently. Ms. Ortega said she happily put in extra hours to help Ms. Krim whenever she needed it.

by Anonymousreply 31811/06/2012

Wasn't the revolution supposed to happen last summer, R316? What happened?

by Anonymousreply 31911/06/2012

The mother looks a lot older than 38 in her photos. Early on in the story, I thought pictures of mom were pictures of the nanny until I higher resolution photos and realized the nosejob and cosmetic dentistry were out of reach of an immigrant nanny.

by Anonymousreply 32011/06/2012

Tje media is keeping a cap on this story. If the father wasn't a media Rex utive, we'd be reading about his family (parents, siblings) and mom's fame, too. Early reports said mom was a pediatrician. We isn't even know if that is true.

by Anonymousreply 32111/06/2012

That does it. I'm switching off auto correct and getting new reading glasses.

by Anonymousreply 32211/06/2012

article: "Marina Knows What Happened"

by Anonymousreply 32311/06/2012

The dollar didn't collapse last summer, R316. The dire scenario won't happen unless we fall into widespread poverty and hunger. If that happens, you know it has happened. And you should be mentally prepared for what will follow.

The rich are safely entitled to control 50% of all the wealth. They currently control 60%. That is too much of an imbalance. Unless steps are taken to make wealth distribution more equitable, it is only a matter of time before something tips the apple cart and chaos results.

by Anonymousreply 32411/06/2012

Oops, I meant to address that to R319.

by Anonymousreply 32511/06/2012

I'm pretty sure I read the mom is 34, but whoever said she looks older is right. I think it's because she appears so thin, too thin in the published photos.

by Anonymousreply 32611/06/2012

The mother is 38.

by Anonymousreply 32711/06/2012

tons of photos in article at R323

by Anonymousreply 32811/06/2012

Being "Too Thin" is the hallmark of a rich mother in the U.S. See Wal-Mart photos for how most of the rest of the country lives. On cheap food that fills you up, i.e. rice, pasta.

The mother looked like a totally rich bitch that would make a nanny's life hell. The husband looks looks like a clueless fuck.

The Nanny is insane and those poor children....terrible.

by Anonymousreply 32911/06/2012

I just read some of the excerpts provided from the memorial service and it was so moving. The song "Go On" was a wonderful selection and very poignant. They sang it at the end of the service. It speaks about how much they would have liked to tell their children but didn't have time but that they should go on, go on... They indicate that the father broke down in tears a few times, particularly when addressing the violent, senseless crime that took their little lives away from them forever. I think they are a strong family and I think that they have a lot of support from friends and family that will hopefully help them to "go on". Their slain children would want them to go on with their lives and be happy.

by Anonymousreply 33011/07/2012

R330, where did you find excerpts from the memorial service?

I would like to read the excerpts.

by Anonymousreply 33111/07/2012

"Might as well be afraid to go outdoors because you could get hit by lightening."

Oh, dear.

by Anonymousreply 33211/08/2012

h

by Anonymousreply 33311/08/2012

[quote]The mother looked like a totally rich bitch that would make a nanny's life hell. The husband looks looks like a clueless fuck.

Thank god our jury pools are wiped clean of the likes of you. (Oh, wait...)

It's weird when hatred like this makes R329, presumably a gay man, indistinguishable from the hatefully jealous female competitors for Marina Krim's place in life.

Or the flyover super-fraus who presume they could squat and cover a brood from all dangers, knowing better under all circumstances despite their ignorance and limitations. Yeah, they would have been better at keeping the kids, the nanny and the "clueless" hubby in line.

Or petulant queens who don't know any better.

Nonetheless, I'm amazed at how DL gay males share so much in common with the "fraus" they disdain.

by Anonymousreply 33411/08/2012

This radaronline story is about a new facebook page which has been created to promote the nanny's innocence.

Why would the nanny outline her grievances and tensions with the mother and other problems for police if she is not the murderer?

And why would the nanny not tell the police that she is not the murderer - something the nanny has not done according to accounts.

by Anonymousreply 33511/08/2012

If she was trying to not incriminate members of a drug cartel she was participating in.

by Anonymousreply 33611/09/2012

So she was selling drugs and the 'cartel' came in for their money and to show her they were serious they harmed the kids?

by Anonymousreply 33711/09/2012

I think the theory is that she owed money she couldn't pay, so the cartel threatened her family. She grew increasingly desperate and her desperation was sent over the edge following the argument with the mother. She thought the solution was to kill the kids and herself to throw the cartel off because there would be too much police involvment and questioning. She immediately asked about her family when she came out from under sedation and was question by the police.

I know it sounds hare-brained, but who knows?

by Anonymousreply 33811/09/2012

I forgot to ask how Nancy Grace has been handling this on her show.

by Anonymousreply 33911/09/2012

Why would that translate to her lying in her hospital bed calmly asking about her own kids, showing no remorse for Krim's kids and saying, "Marina knows what happened?"

I can't stand idiotic conspiracy theories. 99.9% of the time, the simplest, most logical explanation is the truth.

by Anonymousreply 34011/09/2012

[quote]I forgot to ask how Nancy Grace has been handling this on her show. [/quote]

I don't know, but I bet she's uttered the phrase "BOMBSHELL TONIGHT!" a lot.

by Anonymousreply 34111/10/2012

Nany Grace!

Shit, I haven't watched the Hysterial Ladies Network (HLN) in a while!

by Anonymousreply 34211/10/2012

Stabbin' Nanny was probably involved in one of those Mormon pyramid scheme businesses where you have to buy product every month -- makeup, NuSkin moisturizer, vitamin pulls, seaweed extract -- and get other people to sell it. Only it ain't selling.

Maybe the Krims warned her not to get involved in one of these "business opportunities." They told her it was a scam and she didn't listen. Then, when she came crying to them for money they said, "We told you not to do it and you wouldn't listen. We're sorry."

by Anonymousreply 34311/10/2012

Let me preface this comment by saying it is nothing more than an observation based on my own experiences. But I have known quite a few Flipinos and Latinos over the years, thanks to the military. Many of them had female relatives who worked in the U.S. in a service capacity as maids and nannies or babysitters, if you prefer. There was always a hierarchy with them. You might be a Colombian working as a maid for an American but if you could afford it, you had a Filipino housekeeper. And because of that, housework was something you just did not do. Lots of resentment and anger between the nationalities, even though they all had Latino/Hispanic roots. That is just not a unifier. One thing I noticed is that they often treated their own service workers like shit.

Marina has Filipino roots, the nanny is Dominican. Was there some real mistreatment or disrespect going on? Was there some perceived slight based on nationality or Marina's heritage? Did the nanny resent taking orders from a Filipina?

Obviously, I don't know the answers to those questions but it's something to consider. You can't underestimate the role that discrimination may have played in this crime. I'm not saying Marina was any more cruel or nasty to the nanny that she would be to anyone. But maybe it's possible that the nanny perceived that she was mistreated or disrespected and that the treatment was coming from someone with Filipino roots. And possibly that was unacceptable to her.

It's just a thought. Because it really is starting to seem like this woman was positively sane when she killed those kids.

by Anonymousreply 34411/10/2012

How do you know Marina Krim was Filipina?

by Anonymousreply 34511/10/2012

For one thing, R345, R277 says (without citation to authority) that her great grandmother was born in the Philippines -- & she looks Filipina. Not definitive proof, but it does seem plausible.

by Anonymousreply 34611/10/2012

The spic will be stabbed to deah in prison.

by Anonymousreply 34711/11/2012

I wouldn't call someone Filipina who had a Filipina great grandmother. That's only 1/8th, so pretty watered down.

by Anonymousreply 34811/11/2012

No, r344. No.

by Anonymousreply 34911/11/2012

I concur with 348. That's a total reach re: the feuding Latina's theory. It's as simple and basic as this Nanny being miserable about her failed life, resentful and extremely angry at the Krims success and lifestyle, and lashing out at the Krims kids (literally) as a way of settling that disparity. She knew exactly what she was doing and I believe she waited for the right opportunity to carry out this horrific and senseless crime. Even now she speaks with hatred about the Krims and has shown no remorse over her actions. Instead, she expects everyone to feel sorry for "her."!! They have reported that she was making $32k which they say is on par with Nanny salaries on the upper West side. She should have quit and found another job if she was so unhappy there... I hope she gets a life sentence in prison and I hope the other inmates torture her when she's there. Even criminals HATE baby killers.

by Anonymousreply 35011/15/2012

Any new info on the Stabbin' Nanny story?

by Anonymousreply 35111/15/2012

This story about $200/hour "Nanny mediators" from the Times is almost a week old, but it was mentioned in an email newsletter I received this morning and it made me think of this case. It's such an absolutely insane piece, I'm surprised it hasn't been posted here. (Not a member, but maybe a member wants to start a thread?)

by Anonymousreply 35203/01/2013

From the article,Kimberly Van Der Beek, wife of James:

[quote]"She lets Joshua just lie on the floor while she's drinking her tea. Put some pep in that step. Put the tea down." She leaned back and sighed. "I just find that if I'm around, I'm the one taking care of the kids. I like to be preventive about things. If Olivia wakes up from her nap at four, I'd like to know that there's a snack ready. There never is."

I am on record as stating my absolute revulsion with this case, but... woo. It is clear that some of these people are just completely out of touch.

by Anonymousreply 35303/01/2013

Jesus Christ. Vand Der Beek's wife is an uppity bitch, isn't she? WHat has that guy even done lately?

by Anonymousreply 35403/01/2013

Yeah, I definitely don't condone killing anyone's children, but when I read that, I couldn't help but wonder if maybe these were the types of employers the Krims were. Not that is justifies what Ortega did, she's obviously evil and crazy, but I couldn't imagine being so out of touch.

by Anonymousreply 35503/01/2013

She appeared in court today. Her now-healed wound still looks nasty.

by Anonymousreply 35603/08/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.