One of the stories making the news here in Italy is the arrest of Daniela Poggiali, 42, a nurse who is accused of killing at least 38 of her patients because she found them or their relatives to be annoying. She was initially charged in the death of an elderly patient and now police believe that she is a serial killer.
The case of Rosa Calderoni draw attention of the authorities because she been admitted for a routine illness and when she died there were high levels of potassium in her bloodstream. At least 10 other deaths are now being listed as “very suspicious”.
Prosecutor Rossella Materia called her a sadist who “who draws pleasure in provoking the death of the patients in her care.” One picture on her phone reportedly shows her giving a thumbs up next to when of her patients who had died seconds before. The public statements are an interesting dimension since Italy prosecutes people for criminal libel, as in the abusive case against the parents of Amanda Knox that we discussed earlier. While comments against the police can bring a charge, it clearly does not apply when prosecutors make such comments against individuals.
Even a colleague described her as a “cold person who was always eager to work.” This included the allegation from a co-worker that Poggiali would give patients strong laxatives at the end of her shift to make work more difficult for the nurses taking over.
Poggiali told police that she is innocent and the victim of a conspiracy by her enemies.
The case could prove very difficult given the length of time that has passed.
Source: MSN
“Soon it will be all right-wing nuts and they can hector, lecture, and scream to their heart’s content.” doc. Yep.
BTW everyone,
Is everyone clear that Annie had nothing to do with Mrs. Spinelli’s unpleasant attack at Amazon? Nick’s remarks at 7:46 may have some thinking that was the case since he uses the same language he uses when speaking of Annie. Now if Nick was an honorable man he would assure Turley readers that Annie was not the Amazon troll. How about it, Nick?
Also. Has Nick told you that many of the missing Turley commenters had all bought Mrs. Spinelli’s book, commended her on it and recommended it to their friends and family?
Thanks doc, I know these people from another blog. I know how they operate. They are known bullies there and now they have come here folks.
Annie – I find it fascinating that the current queen of the sockpuppet who was using them to bully Nick is now complaining about being bullied on other sites. Am I wrong or is it bad form to bring garbage from other sites to this site?
Annie,
Chin up. You’re a brave woman to contend with the brigand here. Soon it will be all right-wing nuts and they can hector, lecture, and scream to their heart’s content.
DBQ….thank for for your post at 11:04 AM today. You nailed it.
Paul C, Huh, the person does not want to identified.
It really seems that some people have no concept of what anonymous is. When you have a screen name, as do I and so does SWM and a whole slew of others, you are anonymous. Sure. People know you by that fake ID but it is not YOUR real personal identification. When some people decide to create multiple fake/anonymous IDs for the purposes of arguing with themselves (sock puppetry), inserting ideas and concepts to derail the threads, making it look like they are being attacked, attacking others in the guise of their alternate fake IDs……those are STILL anonymous. DUH. No one knows who the real live person behind all those fakeries is. THAT is anonymous.
Now, then to expose that the first anonymous name is posting in other multiple anonymous names does not breach anonymity. If the breach is to point directly to that real person disclosing their name or location or business name….then THAT is breaching the anonymity.
I don’t have other IDs on line because it is too much work, I’m not interested in creating sock puppets and even IF I were, I couldn’t do it because my writing style would not change. This is what actually outs most people who do sock puppetry and is the case in this latest tempest in a teapot. All the multiple names were obviously being perpetrated by the same person. And really…..who cares as long as the puppets are not being used maliciously to attack other people, which they were. Otherwise it is just an annoyance that can be overlooked.
I don’t use my real name because previously, I was in an industry that forbade my participation in certain types of websites (financial). I also live in a rather small town and if a malicious person were to try to find me and create havoc with my business, it would have been easy. I am retired now so I have not THAT business or clients to be concerned about. I HAVE been stalked on the internet and my husband had some unpleasant followers as well who contacted him IRL. To avoid all this unpleasantness, I just keep up with my anonymous on line persona. Nothing nefarious about it.
I would suggest we all just try to stick to the purpose of this blog and discuss the articles and the issues instead of each other.
One more thing….”sock-puppets” are the implements of children. WTF is this all about? What is the point? You’d not want me in charge of diddly squat here…because the first time I found a regular using a sock-puppet, I’d can that ISP forever. You have an identity…if you are ashamed of it, what else can I say. The anonymity bull roar is just that….I say what I think, period…and my “nick” is one I’ve used for over a dozen years…no secret ( to anyone who has contacted me on the email address posted in my profile…at least I have one, right? )..my name is Richard Thompson and “Aridog” was one of my most beloved dogs and I will use his name in honor for as long as I live.
Nothing pleased me more than hearing from demanding clients when on a family vacation. When you have your own business, that is part of the deal. The good aspects of being a small business person outweigh the bad. As I got more successful I was able to say “Ciao” to the clients who would demand attention @ inappropriate times.. The worst instance was an attorney who called me when I was @ a funeral. I had left a message to all my clients I was @ the funeral of a dear friend whose 2 year old child had died. The a-hole attorney called me on a matter going to trial in 3 weeks. I reminded him I was out of the state attending a funeral and asked if I could call him back in a couple days. He screamed, “I’M YOUR CLIENT, DAMMIT, BE PROFESSIONAL.” I can’t write what I said to this immediately FORMER client. This guy let a year or so pass and had the balls to call me and see if I would take a case from him. More balls than brains.
Annie said …
I will say no more about the matter than to say I’ve contacted JT …
Yes, I am sure you made his vacation with his wife all that much better by your “contact.” What the flip are you thinking?
I don’t need an answer.
Why on earth does anyone stay here? I mean, simply, it appears that several commenters think they know more than Professor Turley. About how to run his blog apparently. Darren has done a fine job in this interregnum and continuously before that, including weekend posts. I don’t always agree with everyone, but Darren is not on any hit list of mine…he keeps things straight. Fact is, I do NOT have a hit list, and one of the biggest complainers here knows that but refuses to admit it. So be it. Those who think they should be running things, I have a solution for your…start your own blog. Just step up.
Tyger – great post. 🙂
Paul C, It is in the past so I don’t care to name names or identify either the means or the person that proved it.
SWM – if you are not going to name names then don’t harp about it. And if you are not going to give credit were credit is due, you are a poor friend.
To those of you who spoke up in my behalf, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Annie – I proudly spoke against your behavior and would do it again.
I will say no more about the matter than to say I’ve contacted JT regarding the Civilty rules and anonymity. I am hopeful there will be clarification of the rule and no double standard will be applied. Allegations by a certain individual as to his family have NOTHING to do with me, despite what he attempts to make people here think. It’s simply more abusive behavior, but I know we cannot expect any different.
Paul C, There have been sockpuppets that have done me harm in the past but they were able to remain anonymous because of blog policy.
SWM – would you like to name those sockpuppets. I am curious. I have long thought that some on here have run dual nom de plumes to attack me, but could not prove it. How did you prove it and who was behind it?
Paul C, It is blog policy right or wrong. People have come on misrepresenting my family recently. What are their aliases? Like I have said before my attackers have always been protected by the rule and I understand that. Has the rule been changed with regards to Annie and if so why?
SWM – the arrival of the faux relatives was so odd that I did not know how to respond to them, so did not. Not sure if anyone else did either. Did they do you any harm? However, given your policy stand, they could have come on as you and there is nothing you could have done about ti.
LOL, SWM. Rant away, woman. Rant away. I just am not going to respond, I will read your rants, though. I’m not REQUIRED to respond, am I?
Well that is certainly a ticky tacky attempt to hush those that have pointed out that a poster was wronged by a guest blogger, nick.
SWM – Annie ran in the street and now she and you are complaining that she got run over. God, the gall of the two of you.
I’m not doing titty for tatty this morning, SWM. I got my titty from Dolly this morning on the Tenn. post. After that, I don’t need any tatty.