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
. Paul,
Thank you for offering your insightful opinion. You can be sure we will take it under careful consideration.
Please keep them coming.
“SWM – if you know the nom de plumes of other sock puppets, I think you should give them up to the rest of us.” It is against the blog rules for me to do that.
Annie
SWM, I’m off for the rest of the day. When this place begins to make me feel ill physically, it’s just too much.
========================
You are the best Annie.
Paul C We don’t need defending but doc’s support is certainly welcome. 🙂
docmadison – I think enough of both Elaine and SWM to think they do not need defending. I think they are fully capable of taking care of themselves.
What really is the challenge of debating “Sybil” if one only engages the personality that presents a legitimate argument? We’re not trying to “cure” anyone, are we? Just focus only on engaging relevant comments and then the other personalities will become irrelevant.
Paul,
The day you don’t step in to yammer about some point or other that your friends have made is the day you can remind me that Swarthmoremom and Elaine, or as you so civility describe them – special snowflakes, don’t need defending.
Docmadison,
Poor bullied nick. Boo hoo hoo! Someone get his followers and echo chamber a fainting couch before they collapse onto the hard floor and injure themselves.
Elaine – it appears that it was Annie who ran away, not Nick.
“If you want to know the sockpuppets of any user here, I think you should be given that information readily.” david m Seems only Annie’s are available.
SWM – if you know the nom de plumes of other sock puppets, I think you should give them up to the rest of us. I would like to know. Annie was easy to pick out since she has a distinctive style and didn’t change it, regardless of the number of new names she took on.
doc, Fortunately, I have never fainted, and I am getting pretty old. Don’t spend much time on the couch either. lol
So Dusty says Swarthmoremom is fainting couch verkempt but Dusty is just disgusted by seeing vulvas. Glad she cleared up the interesting distinction.
Darren,
First of all I want to state I agree with your actions yesterday; not because a bunch of fake names were “identified” to be owned by another fake name. It’s because the problem is far more consequential to the health of the blog. I humbly offer the following opinion.
I’ve been on this blog for less than a year but it’s not difficult to see the correlation between the anonymity and incivility. If we are going to protect the former then we have to enforce the rules against the latter.
I’ve seen JT delete comments several times in one thread, for the same abuser and in each occurrence the “warning” is disrespected. I really could care less about what took place here yesterday or yesteryear except where we can improve the blog for tomorrow. To that end, we need a “redline” that’s enforced. I would begin by showing less tolerance for the “pot-stirrers” that exist on both sides of the debate; they encourage incivility and some are just unable to resist responding. And then I would begin terminating serial abusers of the rules. In my experience that encourages participation and improves the quality of the blog.
Doesn’t Nick often refer to gender while attacking, yes attacking, Elaine and Swathmoremom?
@ SWM
So you get all fainting couch verkempt over the the word vagina, yet don’t have many problems when someone is called a dick? How special. We have had vaginas shoved in our faces by the feminist for years now. Vagina monologues. Women dressing up as vulvas. It is really pretty disgusting as far as I am concerned and women are doing it.
Actually, no one should be calling names. Neither is permissible in polite discussions.
Nor should it be a place to moan about an attack on one’s wife at Amazon. It’s poisonous and vile. Clever demagoguery, though. I’ll give it that. At least it worked for Dusty.
Annie, Agree. Paul C Check the archives. It is all there. “V” word and all. 🙂
DBQ – they must faint over Cindy Sherman’s installation.
SWM – if you have something you want me to see, dig it out yourself. I am not going digging for it. You have made the claim, you get to back it up.
docmadison – the white knight to the rescue of our two special snowflakes Elaine and SWM. You do know that both are quite capable of defending themselves and attacking others?
“Why must you constantly wear your vagina on your forehead? Do you always need the “because I’m a woman” excuse?”
The vagina remark is a bit over the top, but as a woman I agree. The fall back excuse that people are being mean to you because you are a woman is offensive to me as well, whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever.
This is all the generic YOU so please don’t get into a tizzy that I am calling out anyone in particular. GENERIC.
If people are making condescending remarks about your posts and do directly say so because you are female, then I would defend the other women on that basis. But this fainting couch mentality that people are picking on you merely because you are female is such a retro and weak position to take.
Maybe people are picking on you because you ideas lack merit, lack logic, are ill founded or because….gasp……they actually disagree with you. If that is the case, then step up your game and fight back without all the woe is me, poor meeeee…emotional drama. It only weakens your case and makes the rest of the females look bad.
I had to work in a “man’s” world for years in the financial industry. The only way to compete and to win is to step up as an equal, be logical, be factual, not be all emotional…. and not fall back on the poor little woman excuses. Is there misogyny. Well. Of course. Deal with it. There is also misandry but you don’t hear many men whining about that.
SWM, I’m off for the rest of the day. When this place begins to make me feel ill physically, it’s just too much.
I am not personally a fan of anonymity, and I have explained my thoughts on that in the past. Nevertheless, anonymity is permissible on this site and should be respected by everyone-period. Second, it is no one’s place to purport to provide “background” information on a commenter for the supposed edification of new visitors. Each of us is certainly capable of evaluating an opinion without the assistance of a translator. Third, battles on other blogs should not be permitted to infect this one; RIL should not be considered a new battlefield to continue old wars.
Nothing misogynistic there, Mike. Just pointing out the obvious. My comments have nothing to do with my gender. For others, their gender is the perspective from which they view the world, provide commentary, and profess their ideals. When their comments are challenged, they almost always see it as an attack on their gender.