I’m > 99.99% sure Lucy is innocent. I use Bayes’ theorem starting with reasonable prior odds for serial killer nurse in UK maternity unit vs. another scandal in an NHS maternity unit. I then bring in likelihood ratios for 7 years police investigation finds no proof of any murder; no evidence of psychopathy; spike explainable by spike in acuity.
People who do not know Lucy, have never met her, especially if they have no relevant degree, should refrain from calling her neuro-divergent, autistic, suffering from Munchausen syndrome, whatever. It seems she is just one of those who are not good at reading a room. And with all the hindsight, people are now remembering her actions in a certain light - after eight to ten years.
I also wonder if we are all not watching too much television, and thus have gotten ideas about how people should behave, how scenarios should play out. As a society we might be more tolerant, but have we maybe become less tolerant to unexpected individual behavior ?
P.S. ‘if you’re driving along talking on your phone and you run over somebody, that is unexpected’. NO. That can be very much expected, because talking distracts.
I don't agree with diagnosing these conditions at all, let alone at a distance. It is all subjective. No one is expert on the mind, we don't even know for certain what the mind is. As someone who has been diagnosed and 'treated' by the system myself, I know how shrinks themselves repeatedly make (often wrong) assumptions about people. As for people on social media diagnosing someone they have never met - utterly ridiculous, whatever their profession. Lucy came across differently to different people which many people do and it means pretty much nothing. Just because someone reacts in a way that somebody else does not expect or understand, it doesn't prove anything about that person. People's experiences in life determine how they react.
I’m > 99.99% sure Lucy is innocent. I use Bayes’ theorem starting with reasonable prior odds for serial killer nurse in UK maternity unit vs. another scandal in an NHS maternity unit. I then bring in likelihood ratios for 7 years police investigation finds no proof of any murder; no evidence of psychopathy; spike explainable by spike in acuity.
yes weighing up all i have read and deduced including the obvious motives for a witch hunt, I agree
This is an excellent article Cally, thanks for posting
People who do not know Lucy, have never met her, especially if they have no relevant degree, should refrain from calling her neuro-divergent, autistic, suffering from Munchausen syndrome, whatever. It seems she is just one of those who are not good at reading a room. And with all the hindsight, people are now remembering her actions in a certain light - after eight to ten years.
I also wonder if we are all not watching too much television, and thus have gotten ideas about how people should behave, how scenarios should play out. As a society we might be more tolerant, but have we maybe become less tolerant to unexpected individual behavior ?
P.S. ‘if you’re driving along talking on your phone and you run over somebody, that is unexpected’. NO. That can be very much expected, because talking distracts.
I don't agree with diagnosing these conditions at all, let alone at a distance. It is all subjective. No one is expert on the mind, we don't even know for certain what the mind is. As someone who has been diagnosed and 'treated' by the system myself, I know how shrinks themselves repeatedly make (often wrong) assumptions about people. As for people on social media diagnosing someone they have never met - utterly ridiculous, whatever their profession. Lucy came across differently to different people which many people do and it means pretty much nothing. Just because someone reacts in a way that somebody else does not expect or understand, it doesn't prove anything about that person. People's experiences in life determine how they react.