What Drove the NYC Nanny to Kill?

I often analyze contemporary events from view points that don’t ignore the obvious, but largely unsaid, factors contributing to said event. As many of you have heard by now, a nanny stabbed two kids of her employer to death before trying to commit suicide. A number of media outlets are trying to demonize the nanny and try to convince you that killing the children of a rich white couple was an especially inhumane. But is that really the case?

Let us first summarize what we know about the ‘killer nanny’ at this time. Firstly, she (Yoselyn Ortega) was originally from the Dominican republic but had lived in the USA for over a decade. It is interesting to note that Yoselyn had worked for the Krim family for over two years and they had no real issues with her until she killed their two kids. To me, this suggests that the nanny was not intrinsically evil or diabolical. We then have to ask the next question- What drives a 50 year old woman who had worked in child care for many years to stab to death the very kids she was supposed to care for?

One of the first clues about what drove her actions comes from reading between the lines of an article about whether financial problems contributed to the murders.

A source told the Post that “Ortega, a Dominican who has been an US citizen for 10 years, complained of money troubles, and her employers, Marina and Kevin Krim, had given her more hours of work. They even hooked her up with a family they knew for a baby-sitting job on the side — but the family turned her down after an interview because she was, ‘a little too grumpy,’ a law-enforcement source said.”

I cannot but help wonder why her employers were so unwilling to give her enough money to live a half-decent life in NYC. What is the harm in paying your employees enough to live a decent life?

However, the person Ortega was renting the apartment from returned and kicked her and her son out, sending them to live with her sister. The Times adds, “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… Ana Bonet, 40, a neighbor, said that besides her nanny job, Ms. Ortega sold inexpensive jewelry and makeup to neighbors. Others said she also earned money by cooking rice and chicken dishes for parties.”

So, she was not paid enough to be able to afford renting an apartment with her presumably adult son. She (and her son) ended up moving in with her sister inspite of caring for the kids of people who had thousands of times more money than her. Her financial situation was so tight that she was concerned about making 100$ more from selling makeup. Did I mention that she also worked catering gigs.

What type of society pays people so badly that even a hard-working person with multiple jobs can barely make ends meet? Does such a society even deserve to exist?

How would you feel if you were struggling for a couple of hundred bucks while the rich assholes who employed you to take care of their kids did precious little to help you. Words of sympathy don’t pay bills or the rent. Does a society which pretends to care about you while screwing you at every turn deserve to exist? How long will people take such abuse before making their tormentors hurt?

Now there are those of you who might agree with me about the systemic mistreatment part but say that killing her employers kids was still not the right thing to do. In my opinion the killing of her employers kids was the most rational response because only something as irreversible as the death of their own children can hurt people to the same extent as a life time of systemic socio-economic abuse. In any case, these kids would have grown up to be consummate parasitic plutocrats just like their parents. We don’t mourn the death of baby parasites, just because they are not adults.

I see her actions as far more rational than most people who keep up taking such abuse without striking back at their oppressors. What is the point in taking abuse if you have no better future to look forward to? What is the point in letting assholes live just because they are well dressed whites? What is the point in letting life long anger and depression at your mistreatment only hurt you?

If systemic abuse, deprivation and depression are the rewards of playing by the rules- why not share these rewards with others? If fucking someone over for years builds the characters of poor people, won’t it do the same for rich people?

What do you think? Comments?

  1. EvilOne
    October 27, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    If fucking someone over for years builds the characters of poor people, won’t it do the same for rich people?


  2. October 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    She should have tried her trick in Saudi-Arabia.

    The kids would have been still dead.

    Also I hope that the ‘charming’ people of that country cease to exist in the future.

    • May 27, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      One Filipina already did that, stabbing a couple’s four-year old daughter to death (with a pen, if memory serves correctly). She claimed she was physically and even sexually abused by her employer, but they still executed her.

  3. October 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Murdering two children was the ‘most rational response’? Your I’m-such-a-contrarian trolling is cranked into overdrive today. It would be offensive if it weren’t such an obvious phony pose.

    You have a better idea that does not involve poor people suffering more?

    There is something to be said for your point that the economic position of nannies is not the greatest and the situation merits re-examining. Unfortunately for your thesis that hers was a natural economic reaction however, about a zillion nannies exist in the same conditions in NYC and manage not to slit the throats of their charges. One case in a zillion does not bode well for your psychological theory.


    The clue to the real problem lies in your (crocodile tear, you-care-so-much) complaint that nannies don’t get paid high enough wages to live decently. Ever ask yourself: why would they? Why would we even expect that one person with a (more or less) normal job should ever be able to hire another person full time and pay them out of their after-tax salary? How could that ever even work mathematically anyway, except for the ultra rich?

    Keep living in your ‘work to live’ (arbeit macht frei) world. It is unlikely to exist much longer- one way or the other.

    So you’re right, the only way nanny economics makes any sense at all is if the nanny is low paid. Duh. If the standard nanny salary goes too high then it makes no sense for the 2worker family because the lower waged spouse is working just to pay the nanny! (and maybe their salary, after marginal taxes, doesn’t even cover that). What’s the point? Just have that 2nd parent stay home. No nannies in the first place. They can just stay in their Third World paradises instead of being oh so cruelly exploited (i.e. given a job) by evil Westerners who have jobs and yet, selfishly, also don’t want their children murdered.

    Actually I hope for the non-existence of humans- all humans.

    Sounds good to me. You on board?

    • October 28, 2012 at 8:44 am

      It’s like you didn’t read my comment at all & are just spewing out canned one-liners. Are you a bot?

      ‘Arbeit macht frei’? What I’m saying (if you’d read it) is that most of these couples just shouldn’t bother working 2 jobs, they should work only one. You are the one who (apparently) thinks that a married couple should work two jobs and yet pay a third person’s (generous) full-time salary out of their after-tax money, a salary so high it eats up that second job’s gain and then some. If you’re saying anything (doubtful), that’s what you’re saying. Apparently you think arbeit will macht white married couples frei.

      How many peoples’ salaries could you afford to pay out of your after-tax salary? If you had to do so, how generous do you think that salary would be to hire an unskilled person to watch soap operas, hang out in the park, and heat up cans of soup? Yeah, sure, you’d totally pay someone $100k for that service right? That makes total sense and I totally believe your sincerity and concern for poor nannies.

      But wait, if you ‘hope for the non-existence of humans’ then why do you give a rat’s ass if one nanny out of a zillion was unhappy. What’s the difference. Oh, but of course you don’t *really* believe that. That’s just you being ‘courageously’ ‘provocative’ and ‘contrarian’ and ‘dissenting’ again, to get a reaction. Mission accomplished, well done.

      • anon
        October 28, 2012 at 10:01 am

        If you can’t afford to hire a nanny (and give her a payment that doesn’t approximate slavery), then don’t hire a nanny. Stay home with the kids, if that’s what it takes.

      • October 28, 2012 at 10:15 am

        That’s exactly what I’m saying. But to clarify, these people (and many more) *can* afford to hire a nanny. But you guys are whining about the salary (not that you guys have any freaking clue what they were paying LOL). So my solution is they (and many other couples) just shouldn’t hire these poor oppressed ‘slaves’ at all. Problem solved.

        Do you actually think (if my advice were followed) that would help all these skill-less third world women?

        The first world-ers could be made to die and that is far more easier than you realize.

  4. October 27, 2012 at 7:11 pm


    what’re ya gonna do when your bastard child hunts you down?

    y’know the one that was an oopsie when the condom broke of the prostitute you banged…

    she couldn’t afford the abortion cause she had to pay her student loans and buy her drugs….

    systematic ineqaulity’s a biatch….

  5. EvilOne
    October 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Such sexism… shouldn’t the child hunt down the mother first?

    • October 28, 2012 at 9:27 am

      hahaha, maybe the child can hunt them both when Advipoops returns as a re-visit customer….

  6. October 27, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    Kevin Krim, the father, worked for Yahoo. Yahoo’s search engine has reprinted some horrible lies about me, including several which claim I am a danger to children. Rather than do the right thing, Yahoo can hide behind its “Section 230” immunity from defamation lawsuits, yet it is the search engines that damage one’s reputation.

    I find it so poetically ironic that a man who took money from a search engine which lied about me being a danger to children, had his own children murdered by someone who turned up clean on an internet search.

    Unless Kevin Krim wants to start speaking out against those who lied about me being a danger to children, I’ll continue to smirk when I think of what happened to his family. He sure as hell didn’t care what happened to me.

    • October 27, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      Fouling up the internet could indeed lead to retaliation.

    • P Ray
      October 29, 2012 at 2:49 am

      I’ll continue to smirk when I think of what happened to his family. He sure as hell didn’t care what happened to me.
      I’ll add to that, the people who deliberately do bad to others just to enjoy the misery they create,
      deserve all the misery that their choices bring them.
      At least 2 people I know, have had bad things happen to them and their cars.
      I’m pretty happy ’bout that.

  7. webe
    October 28, 2012 at 5:58 am

    One of the media sources you cite (Daily News) has a helpful article detailing what questions to ask to filter out nannies that match your family. One hint is to ask what they do in their spare time. Perhaps Ortega, trying to give a socially desirable answer, mentioned watching CNBC. Afterwards she felt obliged to actually watch CNBC to back fill her statement with some actual experience. Upon later learning that Kevin Krim was actually a CNBC executive, she had no alternative but to do something in protest at the appalling journalism there.

    Sometimes things turn out to be a lot less complex than they seem at first blush.

    • webe
      October 28, 2012 at 6:14 am

      The Krims spent several days with Ortega’s family in Santiago during a February vacation to the Dominican Republic. Marina Krim raved about the trip on her blog, posting photos of her kids with Ortega’s family and locals chopping down coconuts in their nanny’s sister’s backyard.
      She refers to Ortega as Josie. “We spent the past 9 days in the Dominican Republic,” she wrote on Feb. 28. “We spent half the time at our nanny, Josie’s sisters home in Santiago . . . We met Josie’s amazing familia!!! And the Dominican Republic is a wonderful country!! More pics to come!!”

      Tthe prewar, 81-unit La Rochelle — boasting white-gloved doormen and a lobby bathed in marble — is less than a block from Central Park. Three-bedroom apartments rent for nearly $11,000 a month.

      Hordes of cops stormed the building…

      Maybe she was feeling kind of stabbed, kind of a cross-cultural miscommunication about what it means to “know” people: neo-liberal logic collides with human society.

  8. October 28, 2012 at 9:26 am

    “Actually I hope for the non-existence of humans- all humans.”

    Advipoops, you are one silly attention whore….

    • Trucidator Diabolorum
      October 28, 2012 at 11:41 am

      When Advishit said this he was remembering the time when some Knight Templar raped him anally in order to open his third eye.
      I wonder how many times Advishit was raped when he was a kid?

      • Great Grimoires For Masons
        October 28, 2012 at 5:10 pm


        Trucdiator Dibabolo a.k.a. Neo has discovered secretive tapings of Illuminati butthex without Advipoop’s consent. Adivoops was initiaetd by Mason butthex and desouled by the Illuminati masters when he was 11 yaers old in a foursome with a werewolf, vampire, anbd secretive taper of butthex and someonone from the Mason Lodge.



      • Trucidator Diabolorum
        October 28, 2012 at 11:33 pm

        Hey Great Grimoires For Masons!
        When was the first time they raped and tortured you? 8? 9? 11? 13? 18? or 30?
        Are you already illuminated by now?
        I bet they are giving you special treatment with cattle prods.

      • Trucidator Diabolorum
        October 28, 2012 at 11:37 pm

        What a bunch of multiple personality retards who laugh now but cry in bed while remembering their misfortune and devising schemes to end the world and bring the rule of shit Maitreya Muhammad Husain.

  9. joker
    October 28, 2012 at 10:07 am

    Gotta love some cons. Each time a white beta male goes postal, they start screaming “Understand him, he got no women. It’s the system rigged against white males that turned that way”. When a nonwhite woman goes postal “those scum of the earth nonwhites, driven by their low IQ genes”.

    • October 28, 2012 at 6:57 pm

      That is very true, but the Left reasons in exactly the same way, but in the reverse.

  10. Ted
    October 28, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Here’s a different take:

    “CNBC article on 43 Trillion Lawsuit has been taken down just as I thought it would be. Link goes to an empty page now. CNBC Sr. V.P. digital executive two kids killed hours after being put on net. ”

  11. Matt Strictland
    October 29, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    This kind of thing doesn’t happen often as most nannies are screened and baring mental illness, people who work in that field usually are the non violent types, however these 1% types brought that on themselves.

    Loyalty even among kinsmen has a cost .Apparently these people were unwilling to pay in specie so they paid in blut-geld.

  12. November 8, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    They could afford to pay $11K in rent, but they couldn’t even bother to pay their nanny enough money for her own apartment (it costs about $1,500/month in rent and utilities to live in a Hispanic-dominated section of New York City?)

    The nanny was firmly in the wrong. In fact, I’ll say that what she did was flat-out evil. But an employer who’s swimming in money, who doesn’t care enough about their own employees to make sure that the person(s) who are taking care of their most valuable resource are themselves taken care of, brings misery upon himself.

    When I was a child, I had to spend afternoons with a neighbour (along with 6 other children of single mothers.) Despite the fact that their average salary was about $1,500/month, all of the mothers ponied up $100/child to give to the babysitter (equal to her monthly rent.) Their logic? If we can get her rent worries taken care of, she’ll have less stress *and* won’t have to worry about how she was going to pay for food (in case of late nights, where she’d feel beholden to feed us when Mommy didn’t show up.) Likewise, my mother’s boss (when his wife returned to work after delivering his first child) paid their nanny $2500/month, his logic being this: “We *could* get a nanny for $500/month, but we don’t *want* a nanny who’s bringing home drama into her job. I put $1500 in, she puts in a grand, then we know that if I have to work late and the night crew at my wife’s hospital is delayed, the nanny is going to think that her paycheck makes the inconvenience ‘worth it’.”

    If you go to the “nicer” parts of Brooklyn, you’ll see Caribbean nannies (who can speak the Queen’s English) earning $700+/month and Chinese nannies earning close to $1000/month. But this nanny, whose employers are earning twice as much as their Brooklyn counterparts, wasn’t paid enough to swing a piddling $1000 apartment? They should be glad that she didn’t pull a Metal Gear Solid move and stab them as well.

    • November 8, 2012 at 12:24 pm

      $700/week and $1000/week, not those amounts per *month*.

  13. November 8, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    “But this nanny, whose employers are earning twice as much as their Brooklyn counterparts, wasn’t paid enough to swing a piddling $1000 apartment?”

    A lot of unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations appear to be being made here about how much this family was paying this woman. It seems worth pointing out that none of you here have any information whatsoever about how much she was being paid, how much that was in relation to her peers, or anything. Meanwhile, you don’t know how much her apartment cost. You don’t know whether she had other expenses (like debts, sending money to relatives, or a drug habit) which would have made her finances difficult even if she’d been getting paid twice as much.

    In short, you don’t know jack. But it’s not stopping you from making a bunch of assumptions about this family, whose two small children were murdered, that you appear hell-bent on concluding are greedy bastards.

    What gives? Is it psychological?

  14. P Ray
    January 23, 2013 at 12:15 pm
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: