In the long-delayed manslaughter trial of Meggin Van Hoof, the court has focused on a series of inconsistent explanations regarding the final hours of 15-month-old Nathaniel McLellan. The central question remains: Was Nathaniel’s death the result of a tragic accident or a non-accidental injury sustained while in private daycare?
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Conflicting Accounts of the Incident
The prosecution has highlighted several discrepancies in how the “fall” was described to parents and investigators:
- The Initial Call: When Van Hoof called Nathaniel’s mother, Rose-Anne Van De Wiele, she reportedly said the toddler had “fallen” and was struggling to stay awake or hold his head up.
- The Staircase Theory: A babysitter and other associates initially heard that Nathaniel may have fallen down a set of stairs at the home.
- The Garage Landing: In direct statements to Detective Constable Chris Haskett, Van Hoof clarified that the boy did not fall down stairs, but rather collapsed on a landing in the garage.
- The Crown’s Stance: Prosecutors argue these shifting stories were an attempt to mask a non-accidental brain injury that occurred while the child was under Van Hoof’s sole supervision.
Medical Evidence vs. Defense Claims
The trial, which is currently proceeding in early 2026, has reached a critical stage involving forensic evidence:
| Evidence Type | Prosecution Argument | Defense Argument |
| Brain Injury | Nathaniel suffered a fatal blow/trauma while at the daycare. | The injury could have been an accumulation of previous minor “bumps.” |
| Physical Marks | Autopsy photos show distinct abrasions on the face and head. | These marks were pre-existing or minor injuries common to toddlers. |
| Behavioral State | Nathaniel was “fine” and happy at morning drop-off. | The child may have had underlying issues that manifested that afternoon. |
