Investigators have come to a conclusion regarding Terri Schiavo and have determined she WAS NOT abused in any way, shape, or form:
State investigators in Florida have found no clear evidence that Terri Schiavo was denied rehabilitation, neglected or otherwise abused, according to documents released yesterday by the state’s Department of Children and Families.
The agency completed nine reports of abuse accusations made from 2001 to 2004, including neglect of hygiene, denial of dental care, poisoning and physical harm. The accusations, which have been widely reported, focus on Michael Schiavo, the husband of Terri. Ms. Schiavo died on March 31, nearly two weeks after her feeding tube was removed.
Let me be the first to extend a big MIDDLE FINGER to all the amoral scumbags who spent the previous month tarring and feathering Michael Schiavo with bullshit slurs. Schiavo should be allowed to sue Tom DeLay and the rest of those jerks.
And don’t tell me “the story said there was no CLEAR evidence,” with the emphasis on the word clear. That was the NY Times reporter’s phrasing, not the investigators. Besides, there is no such thing as ‘unclear evidence.’ Unclear evidence is what we usually call suspicion, innuendo, etc. There was plenty of that – but there is NO evidence Schiavo abused his wife or neglected her.
Maybe, just maybe, Michael Schiavo actually loved his wife. You guys ever try to fit that one into your thought processes?
You guys know who you are. You should be ashamed of yourselves, but shame is a human emotion.
(via Dean Esmay)
Mona
I completely agree. I also wonder whether that blowhard Paul, at Wizbang, will be trumpeting this news?
Michael Schiavo has my deepest respect and also my profoundest sympathy. He has been turned into a monster by the Randall Terry brigades and a complicit media that loves Jerry-Springer-like hysteria.
KC
John, just wait until Hannity et al. get their hands on this little gem from Howard Dean (www.latimes.com):
“We’re going to use Terri Schiavo later on.”
Of course, they probably won’t focus on his next sentence:
“This is going to be an issue in 2006, and it’s going to be an issue in 2008,” Dean told about 200 people at a gay rights group’s breakfast in West Hollywood, “because we’re going to have an ad with a picture of Tom DeLay saying, ‘Do you want this guy to decide whether you die or not? Or is that going to be up to your loved ones?’ ”
Dean’s choice of words was unfortunate, but his meaning is clear. I’ll be surprised if the religious absolutists and their friends don’t latch on to it though.
John Cole
If I were to name the bloggers who claimed abuse and neglect, I would be here all night. Half my damn blogroll went off the deep end on this.
fauxreal
If the “religious absolutionists” want to make an issue of Dean’s words, they better be ready to talk a long time about they way they said this very thing… and worse… and then the way the right wing bloggers ran with the rumor about Dems being the source…and then Hannity can talk about his moment in the sun, too.
And, btw, just in case anyone who is not part of the Talibornagains doesn’t yet get it, yes, they have declared War on Democracy.
They are enemies of the United States govt…they oppose it. They are fascists who use “American Christianity” as a form of nationalism.
This has been information available for years, (via Reason Magazine, among others) but reasonable people have denied it becauase they have a hard time believing that others could be so unreasonable.
Until Bush, and the gerrymandering (for which both parties bear blame), they haven’t had enough power to “come out” with their direct demands… called payback for the election.
Strange that Rolling Stone is a source of more honest information than either CNN or Fox lately. They also wrote recently about the issue of affordable oil depletion.
The talibornagain deny this with claims of “abiotic” oil…oil as a renewable resource because God is all-powerful.
In other words, they are claiming “intelligent design” for natural resources, as well as other areas of science.
This is not the same as the far left. These people have control of two branches of govt, and are posturing to control a third.
It’s not enough that this nation has to deal with nutcase fundies from other nations…we also have to deal with the ones in our own nation.
Al Qaeda may be able to do harm to Americans, but they cannot bring down the American govt….but the American Talibornagains can..and that is there stated goal.
When I hear Republicans denying this crowd is a danger, it reminds me of the conservatives who thought they could control Hitler, as I said here before.
If the Talibornagains succeed in their judicial jihad, that’s it for me. Time to start looking for jobs elsewhere, and take my family with me. I want my children to live in a democracy.
Mona
John indeed, a very deep end. Lately, that Schindler atty, Gibbs, claimed that when the court ruled Terri’s feeding tube was to be removed, she “sobbed in her mother’s arms.” This is utterly absurd.
I work with mentally retarded adults, some of whom have an IQ of about 20. Thinking that any of them could comprehend that a feeding tube was necessary to their survival, and the implications of a court order for its removal, is preposterous in the extreme. (And NO — I do note believe these people should be killed; they have minds, however low-functioning.) Terri Schiavo had no measurable IQ. The lie — which so many eagerly lap up — that she was distraught and sobbing upon learning ANYTHING is simply outrageous.
The myths, conspiracy theories, and all the general hysteria in this case — fomented by many in the religious right — preclude rational discourse. And, as you note, all too many bloggers contribute to it.
fauxreal
btw, the reason I posted my comments on this thread is because the Schiavo case was an opening salvo in whipping up hysteria in order to justify killing the fillibuster and to gain support for the “Constitution Restoration Act.”
This “act” is straight out of The Handmaids Tale. Richard Shelby claims the talibornagains have enough votes for passage.
This, combined with provisions of the Enabling Act, uh, I mean, Patriot Act essentially put the Constitution in a coffin, unless Americans fight against this.
Paraphrasing what Sinclair Lewis said, when fascism comes to America it will be holding a Bible and waving an American flag.
Jay
Wow. Americans who happen to be conservative and Christian being called fascists. Being compared to the Taliban (I missed where Jerry Falwell wanted to fill a stadium up with men and then bring in women to execute for fun) and making them out to be as dangerous as Hitler.
Why not compare them to a few serial killers and be done with it? Twit.
And Mona, rational discoures goes both ways. Sorry, but having guys like John and others take the same sort of language that Fauxrealidiot up there is taking, they weren’t exactly innocent in all of this with their rhetoric.
Sav
Dean’s choice of words was unfortunate, but his meaning is clear.
Right. He’s going to try and make political hay out of the issue. Something tells me he won’t go after the Dems in the Senate or House who voted as Delay did though. Just a guess on my part.
fauxreal
Jay, call me what you want, because, frankly, it does not change what these people have stated as their objective.
I will assume you are unfamilar with the situation. Denial is also a first reaction. I know, because I had the same one.
You are part of the problem if you do not take these people seriously. I would advise you to read up on their stated objectives and while you’re at it, read up on totalitarianism.
Dominionism and Christian Reconstructionism are not conservatism. No one is labeling all conservative Christians as fascists.
However, those two groups are.
If you can’t tell the difference between conservative Christians and those two groups, then you have a problem.
I could care less what you think about me. I do, however, care about my country.
John Cole
I didn’t call anyone a fascist, so don;t put words in my mouth, Jay.
I called Dobson and terry and his ilk theocrats. Sue me.
Allthis post is about is all the assholes who ran around smearing Michael Schiavo, calling him an abuser, charging him with neglect. That is what this is about.
Kimmitt
Something tells me he won’t go after the Dems in the Senate or House who voted as Delay did though.
While the Senate bill passed by a voice vote, the House bill was passed with the yea votes of 156 Republicans and 47 Dems. Only 5 Republicans voted against. Your point is well taken; the Dems did not do a good enough job of making this an exclusively Republican clown show. But it’s not hard to assign partisanship to these issues.
Mona
fauxreal is completely justified in his concern; folks, the religious right, I could disagree with, but civily, one American to another. But they have been increasingly infiltrated and are embracing the the Xian Reconstructionists — even a decade ago the RR was trying to distance themselves. No more
Randall Terry is one of these theocrats. So are the people Phyllis Schlafely and others are inviting to symposia on how to “take back the judiciary.” Bill Frist was sponsoring a captol tour hosted by one of the *true* theocrats, that is, a Xian Reconstructionist.
As fauxreal notes,Reason magazine took a look at them in 1998, and identified Terry as CR. Reason writer Walter Olson assesses and quotes from their leading lights thus:
—-
Intellectual liberty (where secularists fit in department): “All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans,” explains Rushdoony. “When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state–then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate…those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed,” wrote Bahnsen.
On ultimate goals: “So let us be blunt about it,” says Gary North. “We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
–
Rest of article here
Look, this is not snarking at folks like Hugh Hewitt, whom, I continue to read. Bush’s religiosity does not bother me. The Xian Reconstructionists are ACTUAL Taliban, and they are now openly embraced by some on the “mainstream” RR. And a U.S. Senator!
Mona
David Gibbs, the Schindlers’ lead atty, spoke at the Confronting the Judicial War on Faith, organized by Schalfly a few days ago in D.C. So did many others, including Xian Reconstructionists.
Roussas Rushdoony is their founder, and he calls for the abolition of the Constitution and imposition of Levitical law; death for gays and unchaste women. A quote from a Salon article:
–
One conference speaker was Howard Phillips, the hulking former Nixon staffer who helped midwife the new right. Years ago, Phillips, along with Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, recruited a little-known Baptist preacher named Jerry Falwell to start the Moral Majority. Though he was raised Jewish, Phillips is now an evangelical Christian who told me he was profoundly influenced by the late R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. “Rushdoony had a tremendous impact on my thinking,” Phillips said. As time goes on, he said, Rushdoony’s influence is growing.
Christian Reconstructionism calls for a system that is both radically decentralized, with most government functions devolved to the county level, and socially totalitarian. It calls for the death penalty for homosexuals, abortion doctors and women guilty of “unchastity before marriage,” among other moral crimes. To be fair, Phillips told me that “just because a crime is capital doesn’t mean you must impose the death penalty. It means it’s an option.” Public humiliation, he said, could sometimes be used instead.
Herb Titus, another Rushdoony follower, also spoke. He was the former dean of the law school at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. As Sara Diamond, a scholar of the conservative movement, wrote in her book, Not By Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right: “In the early 1990s, at a time when Robertson was seeking academic accreditation for the law school, Titus was forced to resign when he refused to renounce his belief in Christian Reconstructionism.”
—
I’m sorry, no link, as I was sent this without one by email, and posting the whole thing would be a copyright violation. But I strongly encourage all who think we secularists are just snarking at religious conservatives to investigate the Reconstructionists, how prominent and influential they are becoming, and how the Schiavo hysteria has energized them. THIS is something to be justifiably worried about.
k
I worked in a Christian bookstore for a few years during my college career (I haven’t been a member of the faith for a while now). One experience that I had there that will always stick out in my mind was this one: I brought a book I had to read for school into the bookstore so I could read it during break. The book was On the Divine Images, by John of Damascus, an early church writer, and was a defense of using icons in church. Well, a girl at the bookstore saw me reading it at lunch, told other employees, and I was raked over the coals by her and other employees for a week. They weren’t interested in what the book was about, why I was reading it, or even its history, they were angry that I would be reading it at all. Had I realized I would get into so much trouble for bringing that book to work, I would have never brought it in. But, the experience always sticks out in my mind when I look at what is going on in politics now.
Dave Wanderal
I have always voted Republican and will make sure I don’t for at least two election cycles to make sure this faction of extremists is cleaned out of our party so that it’s the party of Ronald Reagan once again.
ben
Right on.
tom scott
There is no clear evidence that OJ murdered Nicole. Therefore, OJ is innocent. Lack of clear evidence is proof of innocence.
Yeah, right.
Mona
tom scott: There was plenty of evidence OJ murdered Nicole. The problem in the criminal trila was the JURY. That case was largely lost at the point of jury selection.
Further, OJ lost the civil trial, and has had to pay Nicole’s surviving family.
By contrast, after investigating *89 complaints* DCF could not find evidence to substantiate any of them. Moreover, the 2003 Guardian Ad Litem report says Michael took excellent care of Terri, to the point where he was making the staff at the nurinsdg home find him to be a pain in the @ss in his high standards. But if many wish to continue in certainty that Miachel Schiavo is a monstrous man, based on nothing but rumor and speculation, hey, that’s the delusion and madness of crowds thing.
John Cole
Tom:
There was a bloody glove at Oj’s house.
Blood in Oj’s house.
Blood in his SUV.
There was, as Mona pointed out, plenty of clear evidence that OJ murdered Nicole, and as Mona stated, the trial was lost as soon as Gil Garcetti moved the trial for PC reasons.
The jury then engaged in jury nullification. By your logic, no one can ever be declared innocent or free of guilt because OJ got free.
tom scott
What I was trying to illustrate was your extreme leap of logic when you concluded that because he was found not guilty that he was innnocent. I used OJ because most people are familiar with that case. By your logic all that are found not guilty are innocent. Very illogical. Im just saying-to counter your statement-that lack of evidence is not proof of innocence.
John Cole
Nonsense, Tom.
When an accusation is made, and theree is NO supporting evidence, the clear indication is of innocence.
OJ was not found not guilty because of a lack of evidence, but because of jury nullifiction. In other words, they ignored the evidence.
In this case, accusations were made, there is nothing to support them, so we must consider them to be false. You can go ahead and pretend that Michael Schiavo is guilty of abuse anyway, just you don;t have any evidence and you want us toi all pretend along with you that because you really think he is guilty, despite a lack of evidence and any corroboration of the charges, we should play along and say he ‘might have’ abused her.
Try it this way:
Tom Scott has anal sex with his mother and his children.
I have no prooff it, and in fact, an investigation turned up no evidence to bolster that claim, but that doesn’mean he isn’ doing it anyway.
Charming world you live in, Tom.
Joe
k – What exactly is your point? That you worked for some idiot who happened to own or manage a “Cristian” book store (and who I assume was Christian) and therefore Christians are intolerant? Please.
John – Glad you’re prepared to place such unflinching faith in Florida DCF. This organization is the equivalent of those across the country that are rubber stamping homes and parents where children are being literally starved, beaten, sexually and physically abused, and even LOST.
Mona
Ok Joe, you don’t think DCF is credible to clear Michael Schiavo of any neglect or abuse of Terri, you apparently don’t buy the findings of the Guardian Ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush who also cleared Michael, and you also apparently don’t think Judge George Greer’s repeated findings that Michael Schiavo did no wrong are convincing. So, who do you think is credible, Internet speculation and Randall Terry?
Really, what WOULD convince you?
S.W. Anderson
Tom Scott demands cosmic certainty. Sorry, but that’s God’s province.
Here on Earth, in the U.S., people are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherswise. That’s critically important. Any day, you, I, John or anyone could find ourselves in a situation where we might appreciate how important it is in a very personal way.
Blanket assumptions the judge is crooked, the DCF is made up of incompetents or crooked people, the caregivers at the hospice were all in cahoots with Michael Schiavo along with some dark underworld forces that were cheering death on border on sick obsession.
The sad, very unfortunate truth is that Terri Schiavo was broken beyond repair. Her so-called life was more a biology experiment than what the rest of us, including most handicapped people, know as living a human life.
very well qualified, capable and decent people, professionals in several disciplines, spent many years working with and evaluating Terri Schiavo. They also had plenty of chance to interact with Michael.
The facts are the facts. There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no abuse, no grubbing for a money windfall. There was a hopelessly damaged remnant of what had been a fine, bright young woman. There were parents deluded by love for their daughter and by denial. The family’s delusions were reinforced, no doubt, by hangers-on, political ax grinders and a quack. That, too, is tragic.
Terri’s in a better place. Michael no doubt realizes that no matter what he says or does, whether it’s fair or not, the rest of his life will be lived under a cloud of suspicion by many people, and no amount of laying out facts and findings will satisfy them of his innocence.
Tom, if you feel you’re motivated by compassion in the Schiavo controversy, as an exercise in compassion, try walking a mile in Michael’s shoes.
Lady Liberty
Oh, I’m sure it won’t be long before one of these “Culture of Life (but only when it suits us)” thugs mugs Michael Schiavo and steals his shoes.
tom scott
I worked in law enforcement for 5 years and corrections for 12 yearss. All I’m saying is that of all the court paperwork I’ve read I’ve never found one that found a defendent innocent. It has always been a finding of guilt or not quilty. And OJ was found not guilty. There was no finding in the adjudication of “jury nullification.” Did the court disposition say “Not guilty by reason jury nullification.” Someone please tell me what OJ’s dispo read. And I think it’s good that Mona brought up OJ’s civil trial. In a criminal trial the guilt is 100%. All twelve jurors must agree as to guilt. In civil trial all that is required is a proponderance of evidence. That means 51%.
I’m not saying that Michael Schiavo is guilty or innocent. I am saying that he was acquitted and that does not mean that there was a finding of innocence.
S.W. Anderson says, “Tom, if you feel you’re motivated by compassion in the Schiavo controversy, as an exercise in compassion, try walking a mile in Michael’s shoes.” In this thread I am trying to SEPARATE myself from compassion. I’ll leave that to Oprah and Balloon Juice. I merely want an acknowledgement that an acquittal or not quilty finding does NOT mean a finding of innocence. You may shout to the heavens that Michael Schiavo was acqutted or found not guilty. I will not argue with you. But if you suggest he was found innocent I will ask for a link to the findings of innocence.
John Cole says, “Tom Scott has anal sex with his mother and his children.”
John goes on to say in his post, “You should be ashamed of yourselves, but shame is a human emotion.
I’ll leave that incongruity for you to ponder.
John Cole
You are the one who brought up OJ, in a feeble attempt to conflate a guilty man who went free and an innocent man who is being unfairly accused with guilt. I am sorry you can’t understand the difference.
But, since you have been a court employee, you will understand this much- there isn;t even enough evidence to CHARGE HIM, to INDICT HIM.
Why? Because there is no evidence. Period. Yet you and your compadres want to run around saying off the wall stupid shit like- “Just because they found no evidence doesn’t mean he didn’t abuse her or neglect her.”
And spare me the humorous grasp aty victim status. I didn’t say that you do those things, I was making an example. However, if it did offend you, perhaps you should sit down and reflect how you would feel if you were Michael Schiavo, and people like, say, Tom Scott were running around accusing you of neglecting and absuing your wife, with no evidence, reason, or anything.
Either you recognize this man has been smeared unfairly, or you are part of the damned problem.
John Cole
I guess in your world, Tom, the old saying is:
“not guilty and worthy of savage abuse until proven guilty.”
Lee
John, as usual you lefties make me laugh. first, as a Christian, i need to head out with my gun and smoke a few liberals… islam’s not the enemy–WE ARE. damn. now, I hope michael schiavo finds comfort and solace in a new life and a new woman…oops, he already has. he couldn’t let her parents make that decision? and can people disagree without being labeled/slandered? we have local democrats that supported keeping terri alive. you guys (and msm’s) agenda to ‘get delay’ is kinda transparent.
John Cole
I am a lifelong Republican, and, in fact, have voted for men named Bush for President four times. I am no lefty.
Second, Islam never was the enemy. Radical Islamists who want to impose Sharia and racial Islamist beliefs were. Likewise, Christianity is not the enemy. Radicals masquerading as Christians like the folks I have railed about are, in fact, the enemy.
Your third part is exactly what folks like you would do- ignore the fact he has been found clear, and, as I stated, instead now focus on him ‘abandoning’ his wife and fathering ‘bastard’ children.
Talk about unChristian behavior. You folks need to read the damned bible and then look in a mirror.
Kimmitt
Lee has to be a troll.
bago
What, expect absolutionists to achieve the level of cognitave dissonance required to form abstract thought? Perish the notion.
J. Caesar
Interesting comment here… “What I was trying to illustrate was your extreme leap of logic when you concluded that because he was found not guilty that he was innnocent.”
I just find it interesting because a fundamental American value is the Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
So clearly this guy is out of touch with American mainstream values.
Sav
Radicals masquerading as Christians like the folks I have railed about are, in fact, the enemy.
So specifically who are these radicals, John? Anyone who didn’t believe a woman should be dehydrated to death? Just those who did so and have Christian beliefs? What about atheists who were opposed to her death such as the Village Voice’s Nat Hentoff? Are they less despised for taking the same position w/out a belief in God?
I ask this in all seriousness.
John Cole
Nat Hentoff actually comes in for a greater amount of scorn than most, because as an investigative reporter, he should have known better, and should have found something better to do than to keep trumpeting the idea that Michael Schiavo’s beatings caused Terri’s condition. Go see Mark Kleiman.
I don;t think there is a natural connection between Christian beliefs and radicalism- if you do, Sav,m so be it. I do think most people can tell the difference between someone who thinks that Terri should have been on life support in perpetuity and Randall Terry. I think most people can tell a difference between someone who may worry that Terri should not be allowed to die and some whacko who lets his son be arrested carrying Terri a glass of water she would drown on if they poured it down her throat.
You can too, can’t you?
Sav
I’m still not clear as to who you’re defining as “radicals masquerading as Christians.” We know you dislike Terry and Dobson, but you certainly aren’t getting bent out of shape over two people. And you clearly have not shown the anger towards secularists or lefties supporting Terri Schiavo’s continued existence.
Why do you differentiate between Randall Terry and others both on the left and the right who believed she should have lived since they all wanted the same thing. Are you saying only Terry and his supporters are acting in a theocratic manner and not the others who wanted the same outcome. And if so, why? Who is this instance qualifies as a phony Christian and who doesn’t?
John Cole
You caught me Sav. I am talking about you.
If you believe that your religious beliefs and your concept of life trumps the law of the country as decided by our elected officials and adjudicated fairly by conservative judges, I am talking abuot you.,
If you think that the sanctity of marriage only means something when it is stopping homosexuals from marrying, I am talking about you.
If you want to replace creationism (opr intelligent design or however it is packaged) alongside evolution in the same science class, as if there was some scientific evidence to creationism, I am talking about you.
If your support of the death penalty boils down to the bible stating ‘an eye for an eye,’ I am talking about you.
If you think that your moral code and your religious beliefs entitles you to call the FCC and try to shut down programs I pay to listen and hear, I am talking about you.
If you think your religious beliefs entitle you to tell me what sexual practices I engage in in the privacy of my own home with another consenting adult, I am talking about you.
If you think that a woman who has been brutally raped and impregnated by an evil thug she has never met should carry a child to term and should be denied a safe and private abortion, I am talking about you.
If you think that government licensed pharmacists have a right to refuse to provide birth control pills to women because it is aginst their moral beliefs, I am talking about you.
IS that clear enough, or do you need more? The reason I have spent more time attacking the religious zealots in the Schiavo case is because they are front and center, not because I hate religious people. Most religious people are rather moderate in their views, I am not worried about them- they are just good, normal, decent people. I am worried about people who want to use the government as an instrument of their morality.
Now quit playing your damned word games- you know exactly who I am talking about.
over it
***Stands up and cheers!!!***
John, I believe that you have been abundantly clear in your views. Some people just don’t want you to have them. Keep fighting the good fight.
Sav
i I am talking about you.
Did I say that? You’re being a wee bit too defensive.
i you know exactly who I am talking about.
No I didn’t, and I wish you wouldn’t speak for me. I want to know why you’re more hostile to those you claim acted like “theocrats” than those who took the same position for reasons other than religious fervor. You say they weren’t front and center. Okay, so I ask, do those people deserve equal scorn for wanting the same thing as Randall Terry and company but for non-religious reasons?
By the way, everyone uses government as an instrument of their morality. The bases from which people get their morals might differ, but they definitely use them in politics. Habitually.
Kimmitt
If you believe that your religious beliefs and your concept of life trumps the law of the country as decided by our elected officials and adjudicated fairly by conservative judges, I am talking abuot you.
Here’s my issue — I do believe this, and I believe it fervently, which is why I wholeheartedly embrace the concepts of civil disobedience and nonviolent protest as means of awakening the sleeping decency of the majority.
I just also think that we ought to have a Constitution with Judicial Review, which is where I and the Schiavo-idolaters disagree.
scs2005
See this is why I am a feminist. John Cole says: Let me be the first to extend a big MIDDLE FINGER to all the amoral scumbags who spent the previous month tarring and feathering Michael Schiavo with bullshit slurs.
Yes, how dare we even question the husband’s motives? We should be ashamed, he says. Now that the Florida agency cleared Michael, he is now officially an awesome guy.
How quickly some forget. We only have 15 years of questionable behavior from Michael Schiavo to go on. I believe now is a good time to review why it is that some of us feel the way we do about Michael. All of this below comes from the media, feel free to cross check.
Shortly before her collapse, Terri tells many that her marriage is unhappy but she is afraid to leave Michael. The day of her collapse, she tells a good friend that she had had a huge fight with Michael that morning and is afraid to go home that night. Michael tells differing stories of how and where he found Terri’s the night of her collapse. He calls her parents instead of 911 first. The emergency room doctors write that Terri was admitted with a “stiff neck”, apparently a medical term used to describe the effects of strangulation. They also report that Terri had normal heart enzymes, as a heart attack would usually show abnormal heart enzymes.
About 5 years after her collapse, Michael files a medical malpractice suit and states at the trial he needed 20 million dollars because he wants to care for Terri and try to rehabilitate Terri
Amazed
scs2005,
Your post is so riddled with misinformatin and blatent untruths that its nearly impossible to address in any meaningful way.
But I’m willing to take a shot at it.
First of all what sworn testimony exists anywhere from anyone that Mrs Schiavo ever made claims of abuse? It doesn’t exist because it never happened. What sworn testimony from anyone exists that Mrs Schiavo ever discussed divorce? It doesn’t exist because it never happened- its just another lie that the Schindlers perpetuated. Some aquiantance that worked with Mrs Schiavo made claims that she had talked to Mrs Schiavo about divorce and marital discord but no sworn testimony was ever taken from this person and she the ONLY person outside of the Schindler immediate family to ever make such a claim and it would appear she came forward many years later and only after all the media attention. Given that fact it would appear this work acquaintance was interested in 15 minutes of fame and nothing else.
But ultimately the fact that Mrs Schiavo was seeking fertility treatment in an effort to have her husbands child speaks directly against these fabrications about divorce and marital discord. What woman in her right mind would seek to have the child of her abuser? What woman in her right mind would be seeking fertility treatment at the same time she was supposedly telling friends and family she wanted a divorce? Its the most ridiculous hogwash ever perpetrated by the Schindlers in their no holds barred attempts to get their own way despite all the legal rulings against them.
Here is yet another example of the blatent no holds barred attempts:
“In March-April 2004, there were a series of complaints after a purple plastic object was found on the floor of Schiavo
Amazed
As I left this out and I know it will be your next claim:
No she was NOT drugged prior to being strangled as her tox screen was negative at admission. ANd no she was not bashed over the head and knocked unconcious prior to being strangled- her immediate post admission CT Scan was reported as NORMAL. No no depressed skull fracture or skull fractures of any kind were found.
In fact the conspiracy theorists point to this “normal” CT Scan as evidence of some kind of cover up because how could she have severe brain damage and a normal CT Scan ?
The answer is that it takes time for the structures of the brain to change after anoxia. The CT Scan was done immediately post admission in order to rule out mechanical trauma (skull fractures, depressed skull fractures, etc) and to rule out hemmoragic or vascular obstructive stroke or congenital abnormality, tumors or a number of other causes for her coma and seizure activity.
scs2005
To Amazed:
I don’t know if you’ll see this as it is an old posting. However, I was away and just read your reply. So in response:
Just because their is no court case saying Terri told her freinds she was unhappy in a marriage doesn’t mean it wasn’t true. If a tree falls in a forest and the court doesn’t declare it, did it really fall?
She told her brother and another work freind too I believe. And Terri wouldn’t be the first unhappy woman to have children with their spouse. They may be intimidated or want to please their spouse
Then, if a young person is strangled, and perhaps incompletely strangled, the cartilage in their neck can be flexible and not always show damage, a person surprised might not struggle.
The bone scan of broken bones were taken one year after she entered the hospital. Hardly enough time to develop osteoporosis (I believe anyway, I’m not a doctor)
The low blood sugar condition disappears very quickly as the body readjusts. By the time they took her to be examined it would have gone away and we have only the word of the nurse. I heard that injection sites WERE found though, but detractors thought they were just marks from tubes and such.
Anyway, I am just going by what I heard on the media. I wasn’t there for heaven’s sake. I just think where there is smoke there is fire, ad Michael was fire in my opinion.