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
Annie, Not the first time I have been call the “V” word here. It could be the same guy but like I said his anonymity will be respected while yours was not.
Annie, I will guarantee you that sockpuppet won’t be identified. He has other names but is able to hide.
SWM, it must be abuse female liberals day on RIL. Or is that everyday now?
Jack:
I suggest that were you to assume a “gender neutral” identity, it would not disguise the misogynistic condescension in your last comment.
davidm:
I am somewhat surprised to learn that you consider yourself an expert in both long distance mental health evaluation and the Baker Act. I can’t speak to the former discipline, but the Baker Act has no relevancy to anything said by anyone on this thread. Your comment is uncharacteristically peevish and gratuitous.
Mike Appleton wrote: “… the Baker Act has no relevancy to anything said by anyone on this thread. Your comment is uncharacteristically peevish and gratuitous.”
I am not a long distance mental health evaluator, but I have worked with many people who have been Baker Acted. I do know that it is stupid to argue with a lunatic. It is foolish to debate seriously with someone whose mind is not working properly. This is the first blog I have ever participated upon that protected anonymity. I learned some things when I first arrived about anonymous speech, and I came to value the merit of allowing anonymous speech. However, I never realized that this meant that I would be in discussion with one person assuming 19 different identities. This is quite a shock to me. I feel deceived. I had assumed that while anonymous speech was protected, assuming multiple identities would not be allowed. If someone was crafty enough to slip through and engage in that, I had wrongly assumed that this was not okay with the policies of this board.
Multiply this out. I mean, how do I know that SWM is not really Annie at another location? How do I know that in reality, there are only 3 regular commenters here on disability for mental illness assuming 19 different identities each? I like getting to know the people here. I remember details about their lives that they have shared, and in that way I feel a social connection to them. Now, it is like being in a sea of misinformation. I always thought of Annie as an elderly woman with a boyfriend and a nursing background who was raised in a fundamental Pentecostal church that she now vehemently rejects. Now I’m scratching my head. Is she even a woman? What is she? What is her purpose here. What kind of obsession does she have to assume 19 identities for apparently the sole purpose of ganging up on Nick. It is like she/he/it baits Nick, until he steps in it, and then she/he/it starts calling for blog administrators to discipline him, and if that doesn’t happen, then starts whining about unequal treatment.
Who would consider a person who assumes 19 identities, considering also the the bulk of the comments being directed at attacking one person on this blog, an example of good mental health? I’m sorry, but I am starting to think of Annie like one of the many mentally ill homeless people that I help. Rarely have I seen such an obvious problem with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Maybe we need Dr. Chuck Stanley to chime in here. I would not be surprised in the least if she has already been diagnosed for mental health issues and is taking medications for it. I will treat her nicely, but now that I know all this, I think I am wasting my time trying to discuss legal and political matters with her/him/it. With 19 identities, I imagine her giggling and laughing at professional and intelligent people taking her seriously while she enjoys her game of cat and mouse. Yeah, feeling a bit foolish now, and like I should have known better.
swarthmoremom,
Why must you constantly wear your vagina on your forehead? Do you always need the “because I’m a woman” excuse?
I suggest you (and others) assume a gender neutral identity and see the response to your commentary.
Precisely SWM, we see what happens to outspoken female liberals here.
SWM – you make charges but you don’t back them up. How can we believe you? And because we have problems with just blatantly believing you we are automatically anti-female. Get a grip. When you have some supportive evidence then we can believe you. Don’t make charges you are unwilling to support. If you are unwilling to support your charges, then back down.
Annie, Just the usual misogynistic attempt to portray females that don’t know their place as crazy….nothing new here.
David, your comment is abusive as well. How dare you presume to know me or make allegations regarding my mental health. Seriously is this not seen as bullying and abusive on this blog? It’s shameful, seriously disgusting.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/dallas-hospital-waited-three-days-to-use-hazmat-suits “There’s a lot of tendency right now to hyperventilate and claim people were idiots when we were not there as events unfolded and don’t actually know all the details of what happened. But it is difficult to understand why fifty or sixty hours would have gone by when they were operating on the presumption Duncan had Ebola without taking more aggressive protective measures. This is not a case where they didn’t realize yet that he might have Ebola. They already assumed he did and had moved him to a quarantined environment.
The nurses’ account to this very non-expert ear sounds pretty awful. And it’s consistent with the records’ account which has the protective procedures waiting until the 30th when Duncan’s diagnosis was confirmed.”
I have been here for honest dialogue fo over a year now, same as you David. In fact I think I display far more honesty in my comments than you have. I suggest you search your own soul.
According to my understanding of the rules here, no one should have been outed. The attorneys seem to agree.
davidm, Only Annie has been exposed by the guest blogger. Others that use sockpuppets have not. Anonymity is supposed to be respected.
SWM – you keep going on about other sock puppeteers yet you won’t identify them. Please, at least name the sock puppets if not the puppeteers. It is the least you can do for the rest of us who are not as perceptive as you are.
swarthmoremom wrote: “Only Annie has been exposed by the guest blogger. Others that use sockpuppets have not. Anonymity is supposed to be respected.”
I would support a policy that lists all known sockpuppets. Such does not reveal the identity of anyone unless one of the sockpuppets was a real identity. If Annie and Mr. Spumoni are the same individual, I think that is pertinent information to people engaging in serious dialogue with the two identities.
Seriously, I don’t know how to operate in an environment where there are multiple identities trying to gang up on a commenter. What a waste of my time. I agree wholeheartedly with the posts made by Aridog and DBQ. They are spot on. If you want to know the sockpuppets of any user here, I think you should be given that information readily.
Annie,
It is also uncivil.
DBQ, you folks have been blaming me for that for over a year now. I am seriously sick of having to defend myself against these allegations. It’s libel and it needs to stop.
What Mespo said.
“Is everyone clear that Annie had nothing to do with Mrs. Spinelli’s unpleasant attack at Amazon?”
No. It is not clear.
The amazon troll used the very same verbiage that Annie’s other persona’s (which I will not name) at another blog used in those comment sections at that blog to attack Spinelli there. I noticed it when I went to leave a review of the books (which are very good). The exact terminology and accusations as at other places. It could be a coincidence. A really big one.
Either way. WHO CARES.
MOVE ON.
Doc,
I have told Nick many times and have told folks here that I have NOTHING to do with any issues he has with other people who may dislike him, here or on Amazon, or anywhere. He continues to repeat this as well as other statements regarding me personally. He does not know me, or my family, yet he presents fallacious ‘information’ to commenters here, which is just another way his abuse is manifested.
docmadison – I am curious to know how you know that Annie or one of her many disguises, did not make the attack on Mrs Spinelli at Amazon? Just what is your evidence? Time-stamped pictures?
You seem very familiar with the topic. Did you buy the book and did you commend Mrs. Spinelli? Did you recommend it to friends and family?
Blouise and I bought the book.