4 ms·

This seems to be a tragic tale of an overworked and understaffed hospital with a terrible track record treating patients with delicate conditions pinning the bl

This seems to be a tragic tale of an overworked and understaffed hospital with a terrible track record treating patients with delicate conditions pinning the blame on the young nurse who was just picking up more shifts so she could save for a house. If you flip a coin a hundred times there’s going to be a run of seven heads somewhere in the list. It’ll look like a pattern but it’s not. Flip it around and assume she had tried to orchestrate the deaths. There’s no coherent story about how she could, and more importantly why she would. She happened to be present at a lot of deaths. But there were a lot of deaths to be present for and she was there more often because she took more shifts. I bet a statistical analysis of her increased likelihood of being present for a death is directly proportional to the number of extra shifts she took.

lofenfew 2y ago
That's how the new yorker story presented it, yes, but there is good reason to doubt this sequence of events.
- Tao3300 2y ago
  For example...
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Interesting, could you share some? I just read the New Yorker article in detail, and it did seem like a lot of circumstantial evidence and nothing direct. It reads eerily like a misunderstanding of statistics and an old guy (the main pediatrics expert) making up conjectures and presenting them as evidence. But then I don't know much about the case so I can't be sure. Would be great to hear the counterpoints.
  - lofenfew 2y ago
    I don't know either, I'm just making a reliable statement about any piece of journalism.
    - Tao3300 2y ago
      Going from "good reason" to "because journalism" is a totally airheaded take.
      - lofenfew 2y ago
        Your original comment presented it as if you'd come up with it or evaluated it yourself, rather than merely repeating a biased story someone else wrote. This seems far more dishonest than anything I did.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  Right, that's the whole problem with this case -- that really both options are possible. It was up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented to them and they decided to find guilt in the Defendant. Obviously, in any case, if the evidence presented (especially in a closely-balanced case like this) isn't the whole picture (or a biased picture), then the jury will always be working at a disadvantage. It's defense counsel's job to make sure any exculpatory evidence is presented.
Tao3300 2y ago
Yeah, that's just the nature of work right now. Get close enough to see how the sausage is being made, and someone will freak out and pin it on you as a means to cover their ass. I wouldn't be surprised if she made the fatal mistake of voicing concern.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Bureaucratic ass-covering is basically the sine qua non of corporations and LLCs. And surprise surprise, as each lower organizational layer successively realized they'd be the ones left holding the bag, that dynamic has moved to even those who are supposed to be doing the work. "Shit rolls downhill" and all that, and in a hospital the patients are at the bottom of the hill.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ojhughes 2y ago
No, she’s a convicted serial killer. She was present 25 times when an incident occurred, the next closest person was 8 times (and that was a consultant doctor). The evidence clearly shows these babies were murdered and did not die by natural causes (eg injected with air)

lofenfew 2y ago

That's how the new yorker story presented it, yes, but there is good reason to doubt this sequence of events.

Tao3300 2y ago
For example...
rich_sasha 2y ago
Interesting, could you share some? I just read the New Yorker article in detail, and it did seem like a lot of circumstantial evidence and nothing direct. It reads eerily like a misunderstanding of statistics and an old guy (the main pediatrics expert) making up conjectures and presenting them as evidence. But then I don't know much about the case so I can't be sure. Would be great to hear the counterpoints.
- lofenfew 2y ago
  I don't know either, I'm just making a reliable statement about any piece of journalism.
  - Tao3300 2y ago
    Going from "good reason" to "because journalism" is a totally airheaded take.
    - lofenfew 2y ago
      Your original comment presented it as if you'd come up with it or evaluated it yourself, rather than merely repeating a biased story someone else wrote. This seems far more dishonest than anything I did.
qingcharles 2y ago
Right, that's the whole problem with this case -- that really both options are possible. It was up to the jury to decide on the evidence presented to them and they decided to find guilt in the Defendant. Obviously, in any case, if the evidence presented (especially in a closely-balanced case like this) isn't the whole picture (or a biased picture), then the jury will always be working at a disadvantage. It's defense counsel's job to make sure any exculpatory evidence is presented.

Tao3300 2y ago

Yeah, that's just the nature of work right now. Get close enough to see how the sausage is being made, and someone will freak out and pin it on you as a means to cover their ass. I wouldn't be surprised if she made the fatal mistake of voicing concern.

mindslight 2y ago
Bureaucratic ass-covering is basically the sine qua non of corporations and LLCs. And surprise surprise, as each lower organizational layer successively realized they'd be the ones left holding the bag, that dynamic has moved to even those who are supposed to be doing the work. "Shit rolls downhill" and all that, and in a hospital the patients are at the bottom of the hill.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ojhughes 2y ago

No, she’s a convicted serial killer. She was present 25 times when an incident occurred, the next closest person was 8 times (and that was a consultant doctor). The evidence clearly shows these babies were murdered and did not die by natural causes (eg injected with air)