Well here's one pro guilt fool who always as a sign of respect tries to refer to Dr Stefanoni with the same title her countrymen do.
A few things about the above arguments seem rather incongruous and utterly inconsistent to this...uhhhh... pro guilt fool.
1) Is it not a bit odd that arguments here now contain such childish glee when someone *suggests* (with nary even a cite for their own team member, Mary), that Dr Stefanoni *may* not have a PhD, MD, EdD, JD, or other degree justifying use of Dr *in the USA*
What is the truth here then? I have wondered aloud here and elsewhere just what Stefanoni's qualifications and title constitute. In this case she's out on the scene 'supervising' the sloppy collection of samples, failing to measure the body temperature, and wandering around with a gift-wrapped mop at the site, leaving the business end uncovered as she meanders into the murder room. This suggests to the casual observer she doesn't know what she's doing. Fair enough if she's out of her element, however it also suggests there's no way she was unaware of the method in which those samples were collected.
2) This when literally hundreds of the 59,000+ posts here have argued endlessly that one does not need *any* degree to make absolutely dogmatic authoritative pontifications and pronouncements about how to determine such rather scientific things such as Time of Death.
In fact these repetitively regurgitated asinine arguments here unequivocally have stated that a library Card and Google de gook abilities **are actually often superior to any type of academic degree**
I don't think that's it, I suspect it's more along the lines of wondering just why with her wondrous title she can't seem to understand the same basic prohibitions and procedures that can be found in a casual glance through books and papers now coming to us online via the computers like the one you're sitting in front of admonishing us for using in the pursuit of knowledge, as opposed to just...say...admonishing people.
It's not like that was
all the argument rested upon either. Regarding the DNA work a bunch of
people with
papers Piled
higher and
Deeper than Stefanoni's papers said so too. Now those people were called 'bleeding hearts' who were such big weenies they'd do surgery on a cockroach, and as such couldn't be trusted to fairly evaluate scientific information and would pervert their profession to help a caged 'animal' overseas, and the only ones who could be trusted on this was Stefanoni and her boss.
Except when people looked into it they found all those pissed DNA forensic specialists were right, and one couldn't get past the first chapter of a textbook, or find a single paper or presentation defending her methods, implying just how wrong Stefanoni and her boss were. Then when the new judge appointed scientists who didn't have to use google to read Italian, they sounded even more outraged than the ones accused of copious cockroach care. So the question some might have is do you think the seven DNA experts, and all the literature and presentations posted in the previous pages you meticulously compute before every post, was a better predictor of the C&V report than the 'groundswell of contempt for cockroach coddlers' argument elsewhere?
Regarding ToD, the Massei Report itself included testimony from those
People with
higher
Degrees
on this very subject and it was found that the ToD decided on in the trial exceeded the longest estimate, and Massei just mumbled 'many factors' as many times as he could, as many ways he could think of, to pretend he didn't really hear them. Since some were skeptical of Massei the second time he said something resembling 'possible means probable if I need to cage college kids,' and it was realized he wasn't just being a smart-ass like me, it was found those experts were being damned generous in their estimates, and in reality by the time one got to even the longest estimate of four hours it was pretty much certain Meredith was dead. In fact with cool charts the odds of it being after about an hour and a half went down a ski slope, and it was near to the bottom already that we knew Meredith was still alive.
That meant a new ski slope could be created showing the diminishing probabilities that Meredith was alive after 9:00 PM. With a number of things showing she did little after she returned home, that her phone was highly likely well away from the cottage by 10:13, and before that went curiously silent and unused as would be expected from previous behavior and the condition of her mother, it suggested the Massei Court might have made a massive error regarding when Meredith died. It just so happened the most likely time, which corroborated all those other factors as well, the two on trial for their lives were still snuggling elsewhere as per the computer records.
As I recall it, the rebuttals amounted to things like 'unlikely makes almost impossible probable so we can fit in the smack-fiend anyway,' 'we like t-1/2 better because the numbers are bigger even though they're not relevant' and 'that means Sophie Purton and friends must have killed Meredith and covered it up.' After a while it seemed some either didn't understand the argument or weren't playing fair. However, unlike the Establishment where one is condemned without reprieve after the first sieve-like trial in a three trial system, here the mandatory appeals process is reflected as it can be re-opened and better arguments made.
Seeing as though outside the
rabbit hole not only do Amanda and Raffale get appeals, and the properties of science conform to those observed in the rest of reality, why don't you see if you can stir up discussion about what kind of case can be made if one doesn't tenaciously cling to the mistakes of the Massei Report that Hellmann threw in the dumpster the moment he finished reading it, just like Machiavelli told you all a year ago he would? Is it really more interesting suggesting Italian Courts are xenophobic and handbagging sources that say the same thing as all the rest do?
3) Finally,why all this flurry of worry here about a proper respectful title for Dr Stefanoni and her academic degrees.
Pilot, has it occurred to you the sparser her education the less culpable she is? The more titled she is, the less one can infer she is simply incompetent and not corrupt. If all those PhD's disputing her in court, in letters to the court, in the review of her work by the Italian experts and in all those papers and presentations posted previously in this discussion are right, then she is wrong and the relevant question is why. The truly odd thing is her mistakes were so basic in nature guys like me can notice it, and even point out how everyone else disputes it and even discuss it.
Just within the very recent past here these, ever so respectful titles were used:
A) Posters here repeatedly used such terms of endearment when referring to Dr Stefanoni as Byitch(sp), and/or worse
B) Posters here said she needs to crawl back into a cesspool
C) Posters here called Dr Novelli a male prostitute
D) Posters here called Prosecutor Mignini a Pig
E) Posters here repeatedly called all the Italian Law Enforcement people nincompoops or worse.
And now you are arguing that just maybe you should not have to refer to her as Dr just because the incompetent conspiratorial Italians find proper to do so.
Overall, a nice piece of communications engineering, Marriott quality arguing, intended I presume for gifted elementary middle school level students, but BTW still leaves this pro guilt fool completely unimpressed.
I see what you're getting at, however there is one difference. There are places where Amanda
and Raffaele are called similar pejoratives, as is everyone related to them, or disputing their conviction, despite the fact they are still considered innocent under Italian law. The strangest thing is that those self-same kittens and bunnies can't seem to defend the argument they are deserving of incarceration outside that which amounts to...calling people nasty names too, nor will they allow anyone who does so in their little hole to defend whether those designations are fair.
I don't recall specifically using any of those terms, but will certainly admit to the "or worse" on some of them. However when I say I think Mignini is a 'vengeful kook' I'm not just
being mean I actually think that accurate, and will defend it with evidence and argument, you can try to convince me and others what a swell guy he is and no one will stop you.
I'm just kidding when I say he 'blows goats' though.
and the police didn't.
