Why Would a Nanny Dismember the Parents of Infant Who Died in Her Care?

There are many worrying aspects of trusting one's child to third party caregivers, but most parents probably don't expect to be murdered and dismembered by their nanny. Yet that was the gruesome fate of a mother and father in France whose child died while asleep under the watch of 34-year-old Chinese woman, Hui Zhang.

The Guardian reported that on Tuesday, Zhang confessed to killing the parents in what she claims was self defense. According to Zhang's account, the parents attacked her and her boyfriend, Te Lu, with a knife after learning that their child was dead. "Trying to cover her tracks, Hui then chopped up the two bodies in the bathroom with an electric saw," the Guardian reported, adding that Zhang ran the washing machine to mask the sound. "She then wrapped the body parts in bin bags and scrubbed her apartment." Though Lu claims he was knocked unconscious mid-fight, he admits to helping Zhang dispose of the dismembered bodies of the deceased family.

Dr. Melanie-Angela Neuilly is a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Washington University. In an interview with Broadly, Dr. Neuilly explains that it is important to consider whether or not Zhang was held responsible for the death of the baby before going further into the dissection of this case. "The French criminal justice system decided not to even consider [the possibility that Zhang killed the child]," she notes. "The death of the infant's parents was prompted by the fact that the perpetrator wanted to reach some sort of a settlement so that the parents would not report their infant's death as having occurred while under the perpetrator's watch."

As far as we know, Zhang is not a career criminal. "What we see here seems to be a classic combination of heat-of-the-moment reaction (whether in self-defense or not) with ex post facto rationalization," she says. "While dismemberment may be considered abnormal, one has to remember that upon realizing that one has killed, erasing all evidence of the crime can sometimes appear like the only viable option for the perpetrator(s). In other words, the killing happens almost out of the perpetrator's control, and the dismemberment is an attempt by the perpetrator to regain control of the situation by trying to make the homicide go away."

It's not hard to imagine a series of unfortunate events that could lead to an impulsive, poorly conceived action that could cause someone else's death, but the laborious, time consuming, and methodical act of dismemberment seems far less plausible without premeditation. "It is definitely very time consuming and labor intensive," Dr. Neuilly explains. According to the professor, a psychic shift that can occur after murder. Such crimes can function as a terrible boundary that, once crossed, can send someone places they never thought they'd go. "Individuals—particularly if they see themselves as rational and generally caring—can sometimes feel like they have crossed over to some 'dark side' by committing the murder, and that all boundaries have thus been crossed and they might as well go all the way into what most would consider extremely gruesome, in order to cover up their action."

Dr. Neuilly would not describe an act of dismemberment as self defense, but explains that it may be "an act of defense of the self" in Zhang's mind. "By attempting to get rid of the evidence, [someone] attempts to preserve themselves from a) the consequences of their actions, and b) having their public self altered by their actions. People such as the perpetrator who are described as always being in control can feel like they can deal with the guilt internally on their own while keeping face to the rest of the world."

According to Dr. Neuilly, many people take comfort in believing that they are inherently different than the perpetrators of heinous crimes like homicide. She notes that there's a popular idea that "there is somehow something inherently different between those who kill and those who do not." However, while there may be evidence to suggest that the most extreme killers do exhibit "different neurological and cognitive/emotional structures from law-abiding citizens," she explains that "the reality of 'normal' homicides point to much fewer differences."

If Zhang is sane and an otherwise rational human being, if she truly acted in self-defense when she killed, does that mean that other people who live so-called normal lives could, too, find themselves committing brutal, violent acts? "The reality is that most people do not kill," Dr. Neuilly says. "But when asked if they have ever considered killing someone, more than 90 percent of men and more than 80 percent of women respond yes, and then go on to explain who and how. So, yes: We definitely have it in us to kill, but we do not do it. It is possible, however, that we do not do it because we are never put in a situation to do it."