This is classic muddying of a clear cut case for drama only. This was infamous in the UK for the fact that there had been so many warnings about her by senior doctors, which had not been acted on until far far too late
Did you read the full article?
I read the summary in this post, and I've read enough detailed information about this case from British news sources already
Then you should read the full article. I didn't attempt to summarize the (long) article. I just pasted a couple paragraphs from the beginning. It's pretty damning. To give a partial list:
The hospital she worked in was understaffed and underfunded to the point that patient care suffered along several dimensions.
The statistical likelihood of her happening to be present when the deaths occurred is not nearly as low as it would appear. Expert statsticians have weighed in with concerns.
Their are no solid theories as to how she killed the babies. According to experts, the methods proposed by the police have major inconsistencies with the evidence available.
Everyone she worked with, including patients, thought highly of her, her skill, and her care. The suspicion began only due to the seeming impossible coincidence of her presence at so many deaths. See point two above.
The health system and politicians are loathe to blame underfunding and policy choices undermining hospital operations for the deaths. All the expert witnesses were from the NHS. The police case was initiated by an ambitious politician who used the case to catapult his career.
Her defense did not call a single expert witness to the stand.
There is no apparent motive or psychological pathologies to explain the alleged behavior.
There are at least two documented cases of healthcare workers being wrongly convicted of murder for what turned out to be coincidental strings of natural deaths.
As you can see, there is no smoking gun, succinct argument for her innocence. Funny enough, there's no smoking gun, succinct proof of her guilt either. The evidence in her favor is subtle, but extensive. After reading the article, it's clear that unless the author is ommitting some important facts or otherwise misleading the reader, there is not nearly enough evidence to justify convicting this poor woman.
Why the clickbait? Just put how she did it and save us a click
That's the funny thing. The authorities don't have a good explanation for how she did it. The case against her is shit.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/