Smijer notes the silence in certain circles regarding the autopsy:
The rest of the pretend-doctor-and-make-believe-detective-o-sphere seems to be silent for now. I’m sure they will append their apologies just after Bill Frist takes the Senate Floor to make his own.
They are waiting for the usual supects to round up some ‘experts’ that refute the autopsy. Takes time to dig up dirt on a coroner. Give ’em some time- they will have a coordinated message of sheer silliness by this time tomorrow, insisting earnestly and vigorously that Terri was abused, she was still conscious, and that everyone else who says otherwise is evil. I predict that it will probably start with a Peggy Noonan piece in the Wall Street Journal, or something like that.
Am I jaded and cynical? You betcha.
And while we are at it, how about all the irony that all the folks who demanded an autoposy because “Michael was engaging in a cover-up” are now claiming the autposy doesn’t prove anything. You can’t keep up with all the nonsense from this crowd.
*** Update ***
As to why Dean Esmay thinks this post was about him, the only reason I can think of involves a Carly Simon song. I don’t remember Dean running around calling those who disagreed with him as followers of a culture of death. I don’t remember Dean running around loudly trumpeting everything the that Randall Terry et. al. threw up. I don’t remember him attacking Judge Greer and every other judge who had the temerity to not rule in favor of the Schindlers. I don’t remember Dean running around claiming Michael Schiavo didn’t have his wife’s best interests at heart or that Michael Schaivo stood to gain financially or that Michael Schiavo abused his wife. I don’t remember Dean doing any of that. And I certainly didn’t have Dean in mind when I wrote this post, so, if you would, Dean- stop accusing me of claiming you owe an apology.
I do think that the people who smeared Michael Schiavo relentlessly, including the congressmen who tried to ruin him on the floor of the House and Senate, owe him an apology. And I think there are a number of bloggers who owe him an apology. I think Nat Hentoff owes him and\ apology. But I don’t for a minute think that Dean does…
Brad R.
I predict that it will probably start with a Peggy Noonan piece in the Wall Street Journal, or something like that.
You seem to have forgotten about a li’l show we call SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY ;-)
Brad R.
Btw, John- have you ever heard of Renew America? It’s Alan Keyes’ website, and it’s the #1 destination of unintentional comedy on the Internets. Check out this classic column by Cynthia Janak, “Gays are not Gays!”
ppgaz
I can keep up with their nonsense; I just scan the press releases coming out of Washington DC.
It’s making head or tails of them that gets me. My rule of thumb is to take whatever the rightwing noise machine says, and assume that the exact opposite is true. This formula seems to work the majority of the time.
It’s kind of like listening to those “secret” languages we tried when we were kids, like Pig Latin. You just have to retrain the ear, and then it starts to make a kind of sense.
SeesThroughIt
I predict that it will probably start with a Peggy Noonan piece in the Wall Street Journal, or something like that.
You seem to have forgotten about a li’l show we call SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY ;-)
And you’re both forgetting about a little helper monkey named Sean Hannity. Who, I can assume based on his “moral character” his fans always bray about, will be having Bill Frist on his program so the both of them can offer extended apologies to everybody they attacked out of ignorance and spite.
It is funny watching people try to still rationalize their completely discredited beliefs. You want to see the process wherein somebody lies to themselves played out before your very eyes? Check out blogsforterri.
Sojourner
I’d like to see a public apology to Michael Schiavo from all the congress people who ripped him a new one. I’m not saying the guy is a saint but the attacks on this private citizen was shocking and should have been a wakeup call to all American citizens that their elected representatives can publicly attack anyone, even someone who has nothing to do with them.
A truly shameful spectacle.
Mike S
I just had the misfortune to listen to Sean Hannity say that the autopsy didn’t answer any questions. He now claims that all he ever wanted were answers to how she went down in the first place. He thought she should be kept alive until that was figured out.
Don’t worry though. Mark Furman in on the case. Lots and lot of conjecture but you’ll have tro buy the book, available on little Sean’s site, to get more details.
Where were those goal posts before?
Richard Bennett
Don’t forget bloggers Paprika, XRLQPBJ, and Deuce of Spades; they all took extreme anti-Mike positions and are now totally impeached.
John Cole
Paprika?
John Cole
Where were those goal posts before?
There weren’t any- they refused to admit they were playing a political game. They were trying to save an innocent life, and you and I were trying to help Michael Schiavo murder his wife.
Remember?
Mike S
That’s right, I forgot. We’re a part of “the culture of death.”
Thanks.
Jon H
I note that CodeBlueBlog, which was really big on the “bone scans prove abuse” thing, hasn’t updated since April, with no explanatory goodbye message.
John Cole
Yeah- CodeBlueBlog’s credibility was pretty well shot after he thoguht the platinum stints that showed up in a brainscan were signs of abuse or perfidy.
Of course, the stints were put there when Michael flew Terri to California to try an experimental therapy, but hey- they have a revolution to fight and CodeBlueBlog was but a foot soldier for the cause.
Gary Farber
Here’s Judith Weiss. Let’s you and her fight.
;-)
Richard Bennett
“Paprika” is also known as “Patterico”; real name is John Patrick Frey.
He’s back-pedaling now.
Patterico
Bennett goes around lying about me on every blog that mentions the Schiavo issue. He has repeatedly asserted that I claimed Michael Schiavo abused Terri Schiavo and caused her predicament. I don’t have time to engage in the usual silly back-and-forth with him. Suffice it to say that you can safely assume every derogatory comment he makes about me is a lie.
Jon H
John Cole writes: “Of course, the stints were put there when Michael flew Terri to California to try an experimental therapy, but hey- they have a revolution to fight and CodeBlueBlog was but a foot soldier for the cause.”
But remember, just because there’s clear evidence that Michael sought therapy for her, it doesn’t mean that Michael sought therapy for her.
Richard Bennett
Paprika didn’t come out and say “Mike abused Terri”, he linked approvingly to several pieces where Nat Hentoff made this allegation. Paprika is a slippery devil.
Patterico
Note the lack of links to substantiate the characterizations of “approvingly” and “several.” I recall linking several Nat Hentoff pieces arguing that the tube should be left in, including linking (not “approvingly” but without comment) one that discussed the abuse issue. When I have expressed an opinion on the issue, I have said repeatedly that I am not making that argument. For example, when the autopsy was announced, I said: “I hope that the autopsy is thorough enough to address any allegations that Michael Schiavo may have put Terri Schiavo in this condition to begin with. I have never advanced that argument, but if it
Dean esmay
Come on John. One of the cheapest rhetorical tricks out there is to note the “strange silence” of people you disagree with when the news is only hours old. I just found out about it myself, and already I’ve got hate mail in my inbox.
Dean Esmay
Pat: Don’t mind Richard. He’s often a nice guy but he’s got a nasty troll streak whenever someone has the temerity to disagree with him. Goes right to ad hominem whenever it happens. Maybe lithium would help.
Patterico
Dean,
It’s hard not to mind a guy who goes around the Internet lying about you. The proof is actually in one of your comment threads.
I’ve looked at his blog. His opinions are often sensible. But he is absolutely psychotic on this issue, and it manifests itself in nasty, childish, and dishonest attacks on folks like me. Again, that’s hard to ignore.
Dean Esmay
Oh I know. I get ’em from him too. He’s called me “venal” amongst other things.
Somehow I wind up liking him anyway. Go figure.
John Cole
Dean- The people I had in mind were posting all day and never even broached the subject.
Somehow I wind up liking him anyway. Go figure.
Because he is generally a likable guy, maybe?
Richard Bennett
Paprika is trying to play both sides of this issue, and I’m not falling for it. He completely trashed Judge Greer, the Florida appellate courts, the federal district judge, and the circuit for finding that all the i’s were dotted and the t’s crossed in this case. He insisted that Greer got the facts wrong, and he linked to articles accusing Michael of abusing the poor woman. He said Michael had a “conflict of interest” (whatever that means in this context) that precluded him speaking honestly for Terri, and called him, essentially, a bigamist.
Now he’s pretending that none of that ever happened and he’s as pure as the driven snow. It’s bullshit and anyone who read his obsessive post-after-post-after-post on Michael Schiavo’s character knows it.
Paprika and his crowd have been impeached, period.
John Cole
Dean- Not sure why you are taking umbrage at this post- were you making things up and pretending she was not in a PVS? Did you spend the entire month of March claiming Michael Schiavo had beaten his wife and had to gain financially? Did you spend the entire month attacking Judge Greer? Did you do any of those things? I don’t remember it.
I know who I was thinking of when I wrote this post. Think Michelle Malkin. Think LaShawn. Think the virtual littany of bloggers who threw their self-respect out the window and repeated gleefully any of the bullshit Randall Terry had to offer up.
I had a lot of people in mind, but you weren’t one of them.
Patterico
Let’s see.
Greer *did* get the facts wrong, regarding the most critical credibility call in the case.
I have written extensively as to why I think the federal courts got this one wrong. I know the crowd here doesn’t want to hear it, but I think there was unseemly rush to decision that overlooked at least one of the principal arguments made by the Schinders’ lawyers.
Michael Schiavo had plenty of conflicts of interest, both emotional and financial. I am not a fan of the guy. Never have been. Never will be.
I have never wavered on those points.
But:
I *never* argued that he put Terri Schiavo in that condition, Richard Bennett, you liar.
Take Dean’s advice and take some lithium.
Patterico
I don’t remember [Dean] attacking Judge Greer and every other judge who had the temerity to not rule in favor of the Schindlers. I don’t remember Dean running around claiming Michael Schiavo didn’t have his wife’s best interests at heart or that Michael Schaivo stood to gain financially or that Michael Schiavo abused his wife. I don’t remember Dean doing any of that. And I certainly didn’t have Dean in mind when I wrote this post, so, if you would, Dean- stop accusing me of claiming you owe an apology.
I do think that the people who smeared Michael Schiavo relentlessly, including the congressmen who tried to ruin him on the floor of the House and Senate, owe him an apology. And I think there are a number of bloggers who owe him an apology. I think Nat Hentoff owes him and\ apology. But I don’t for a minute think that Dean does…
Wow. This autopsy report is a lot more extensive than I had previously thought. Apparently it establishes that all of the judges who screwed up the (in my considered opinion) federally mandated standard issue of “clear and convincing evidence” of Terri Schiavo’s wishes actually got it right. Apparently it establishes that Judge Greer *didn’t* screw up the factual findings regarding the date of Karen Ann Quinlan’s death. Apparently it establishes that Michael Schiavo *didn’t* stand to benefit financially from his wife’s death.
I gotta read this thing more carefully. For some reason I thought it was just a pathological examination of Terri Schiavo.
Okay, I’m being sarcastic, but you get the point. All of a sudden you guys were right about everything — the legal issues, the conflict of interest issues, *everything* — because of this report?
I think Bill of INDC has a lot more balanced perspective. The moral issues are still in play.
This report just serves to undercut the silly arguments that most of us hadn’t relied on anyway.
John Cole
Patterico-
The one ‘mistake’ you appear to have blogged about that I can find appears to be a disagreement about one witness that Greer found not credible.
Andthere you go again, despite your protestatikns to Richard above, smearing Michael Schiavo with that hoary old ‘he had financial incentive to kill her’ bullshit.
Of course the moral issues are still in play- that is something for each individual to grapple with- their own end of life decisions. For some reason, you choose to believe that someone other than the individual or their spouse gets to make those decisions. I disagree.
Patterico
There is no despite about it. I have always said that, once Michael Schiavo had collected on the lawsuit, he had a financial motive to come forward (for the first time) with hearsay evidence of her wishes.
I have never said that he put her in that situation.
It’s not the same goddamn thing.
For some reason, you choose to characterize my position even though you clearly have no idea what it is. My position is that any person should be able to decide these issues for themselves. I simply have have concerns about whether the courts got it right on that issue.
We can have an honest debate without your bolstering your side by mischaracterizing others’ positions. I know it’s emotionally satisfying to do that and then get on the soapbox, but when you do that, you’re going off to Bennett-land. I think you’re better than that and I’d ask you to be careful not to. It’s bad enough that I have some lunatic (Bennett) going around willfully telling lies about my position on this thing.
Patterico
Now, you’ll have to excuse me if there is an eerie silence of several hours in response to your next comment (or Bennett’s inevitable continuing slanders). See, I have to go to work.
Patterico
One last thing before I go: why did you put the word “mistake” in scare quotes? The judge made an actual mistake of fact that affected his credibility analysis. Why do you act as though it wasn’t an actual mistake?
Jon H
Patterico writes: “Michael Schiavo had plenty of conflicts of interest, both emotional and financial. ”
But exactly how were these any different from anyone else in a similar situation?
Anyone in the position of making an end-of-life decision for a spouse, or a parent, may be in a position to gain by the person’s death. Instead of being able to keep the proceeds of a malpractice suit, perhaps they’ll inherit a large amount of money, or a home that could be quickly sold for a large profit, or a business.
It seems silly to be taking this Jessica Fletcher, amateur detective, stance in what is surely an everyday situation.
Anyway, the ultimate decision was not made by Michael Schiavo; he turned it over to the courts and let them make an impartial decision.
So conflict of interest doesn’t really come into it.
DougJ
I find the arrogance of the doctors who did the autopsy stunning. They CLAIM that Terri Schiavo was blind but the videotapes CLEARLY show her making eye contact with those who speak to her.
Obviously, these autopsy doctors have an agenda. Either that or they are blinded by their own arrogance.
Jon H
As I mention elsewhere…
Terri wasn’t blind, she was seeing with her Jesus Eyes.
Rick
There is no despite about it. I have always said that, once Michael Schiavo had collected on the lawsuit, he had a financial motive to come forward (for the first time) with hearsay evidence of her wishes.
Precisely the point of seeking a review of the judges finding of fact. Just have another party review the circumstances to either affirm or overturn Greer.
But holding forth for such a review just drives some folks bat-sh*t, plainly.
Mustn’t cross Godwin’s Law…mustn’t cross Godwin’s Law. But damned if there aren’t some valid parallels.
Cordially…
John Cole
There is no despite about it. I have always said that, once Michael Schiavo had collected on the lawsuit, he had a financial motive to come forward (for the first time) with hearsay evidence of her wishes.
I have never said that he put her in that situation.
It’s not the same goddamn thing.
You are right- you never said he beat her and strangled her. You just said he got rich off her and then chose to kill her.
My bad.
Geek, Esq.
Ugh, this myth about Michael Schiavo’s financial interest, again?
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf
“Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate.”
“Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.”
However, Michael Schiavo DID have a large financial incentive–to turn his wife over to her family:
http://www.earnedmedia.org/ga0310.htm
“If Mike Schiavo agrees to transfer the legal right to decide all of Terri’s current and future medical desicions to Terri’s parents, then Mr. Herring will pay Mr. Schiavo the amount of 1 million dollars (subject to court approval of Terri’s parents as her conservators or guardians).”
However, Michael Schiavo does have the opportunity to sue irresponsible pundits like Henthoff and Malkin for defaming him.
Rick
That *may* be the case. The appearance is there, but the system resolutely refused to consider it with any care. Finding of fact/end of argument.
Works for some.
Cordially…
John Cole
Geek- If there had never been a lawsuit settlement, the same folks would claim the financial interest would be getting rid of the burdensome cost of care.
SeesThroughIt
“Obviously, these autopsy doctors have an agenda. Either that or they are blinded by their own arrogance.”
Replace “autopsy doctors” with “right-wingers who can’t let it go and admit they were wrong” and you’d really be onto something. In the meantime, it’s funny to watch the far right’s cognitive dissonance in action yet again.
Geek, Esq.
John–
Ya. It’s also worth noting that folks like Dean Esmay did demonize Michael Schiavo and repeatedly heaped personal insults upon him, but apparently read up on their defamation law and avoided making any factual allegations.
John Cole
Ya. It’s also worth noting that folks like Dean Esmay did demonize Michael Schiavo and repeatedly heaped personal insults upon him
For some reason I didn’t remember him doing that, but maybe that is just because I like him.
Rick
…the same folks would claim the financial interest would be getting rid of the burdensome cost of care.
John,
My position has been stated clearly, I hope. In your hypothetical situation, I would not–did not–blame M. Schiavo for moving on, or attempting to move on.
I haven’t heard speak or read anywhere of anyone that was bothered by that.
Of course, another thing I haven’t heard or read is *you* dealing with the chronology of found money + recovered, years-late memory (butressed by blood relatives’ alleged corroboration).
I’m not being unfair to you; perhaps you disposed of this “appearance of impropriety” with some deft reasoning. In that event, I missed it.
But that was the crux of the entire circus, the finding of fact was the pivot of all the legal reviewing that you tout.
Instead, you dwell on brain physiology, and obscure bloggers hinting at dark, slanderous deeds. Which, I must tell you, is entirely BESIDE THE POINT of the last-ditch effort. All caps, because I’m hoping to hear the point address, after all these weeks.
Cordially…
Patterico
I’m not really interested in having this whole debate again, but since everyone is so high on their own correctness and self-righteousness, let me remind you that Michael Schiavo’s financial interest in the guardianship estate is not the only financial interest involved, as he personally collected cash from the lawsuit. Wolfson said he didn’t have a financial interest; an earlier guardian ad litem thought he did.
He argued to a civil jury that he wanted to care for Terri Schiavo for decades. Shortly after receiving the money, his statements regarding her wish to die emerged for the first time.
I don’t suggest it was all about money with him. I think emotions played a larger part: resentment of the parents (some of it no doubt justified, given their apparently baseless accusations), a new loyalty to the mother of his new children, and plain stubborn pride (which certainly would have prevented him from accepting a huge cash award late in the game, which would have made him a national pariah).
I fully recognize that he didn’t make the decision on his own. But I have doubts about how the court system handled the case.
Bottom line: there were plenty of rational arguments favoring the federal law. Apparently, however, it’s more emotionally satisfying for many of you to pretend otherwise, assume the mantle of exclusive reasonableness, and caricature your opponents’ arguments.
Cut it out already.
Nash
Esmay and Patterico are sure defensive for people who were entirely even-handed and nonjudgmental about this debate.
Rick
Cut it out already.
Patterico,
Rotsa ruck, and the last, and on getting any acknowledgment about the basis of the Schindlers’ effort.
A good deal of this blog and its congregation is every bit a fundamentalist church–in its weird, slightly necrolatrous way.
Oops, charicature. That certainly isn’t encouraged in these environs. Nope, not here.
Cordially…
Geek, Esq.
Esmay’s comments:
“I think he’s a cruel, heartless man–and don’t wave that crap in my face about how 8 or more years ago he was very kind and caring. This is BS: the man could give Terri’s parents custody and walk away free and clear, and let them persue whatever thread of hope for therapy they have. There is absolutely no reason to be putting them through this. And no, I don’t buy the “Michael is her family, period” baloney. It’s total baloney. He walked away years ago and hasn’t been her “family” in a long time.”
And
“Michael Schiavo is and always will be a titanic asshole in my view. So are his slimy weasel lawyers.”
“although at some point I’d seen enough and decided that Michael Schiavo was an uncommonly cruel man.”
“I have no sympathy for Michael Schiavo. I do not hate him, I just do not see him as in any way deserving of sympathy–and I do not buy one word of the “loving husband” bullshit his defenders try to peddle.”
John Cole
How about the crazy scenario the guy loved her?
That he refused to accept it was over, and engaged in rigorous attempts at treatement, including flying to California to have experimental treatment, including platinum shunts inserted into her skull. That he did everything he could to get her back.
And he was pissed. Pissed at the Doctor’s for not adequate care, and sued. And eventually won.
And then, after time, he came to accept facts. He came to understand that, as the Doctors have been trying to tell anyone who listens, recovery chances diminish greatly over time. He came to recognize that he would never get her back, and that it was over.
And then he grappled with what Terri would have wanted. They were young and invincible, so they never made specific plans. So he thought about their conversations, thought about what he knew about Terri, and decided she would not have wanted to live like this- with no hope. All he had to go on was what they had talked about and what he knew about her, and, as her husband, we should assume he knew the most about her.
And he tried to let her slip away quietly, as he believed she would have wanted. It was no fun for him, and he did not want it to be this way, but there was nothing he could do.
Sure, her parents disagreed- but you didn’t hear me smearing them or claiming they had financial interests, did you? You didn;t hear me claiming it was all about pride with them, or that they were just being stubborn.
They went to court, and the judge determined that Michael Schiavo was right, and you know how the rest played out.
So how bout it, Rick?
How about the only scenario that REALLY makes any damned sense- the guy loved her and did the best he could. Instead, as Patterico just did, we are treated to every imaginable ulterior motive for Michael Schiavo behaving the way he did other than giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Rasther than the scorn and venom, Michael Schiavo deserves sympathy. He lost his wife. Everyone else lost a pawn in the abortion wars.
Geek, Esq.
The fact is that Michael Schiavo never had a financial incentive to end his wife’s life. The funds from the malpractice suit went directly into her guardianship trust.
Patterico
Everybody’s hero “Mike” Schiavo had to be ordered by the court to tell the parents where he was going to inter Ms. Schiavo’s ashes. The last I heard, he was violating that order. Classy.
So don’t tell me I’m trying to claim the guy is pure as the driven snow. I think he’s a prick.
I think the same about Randall Terry, btw.
John Cole
So don’t tell me I’m trying to claim the guy is pure as the driven snow. I think he’s a prick.
Yeah, because if my inlaws had spent five years telling people I was trying to kill my wife for money, had maybe put her into a PVS, and the like, I wouldn’t harbor any anger at all towards them.
It would be nothing but happy funtime with hugs and sugar cookies and smiles all around.
I don’t agree with not telling them where her ashes were going to be interred, but I can understand it.
Patterico
Can you understand violating a court order?
Geek, Esq.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/nation/11907794.htm
“He also said that Michael Schiavo had decided to release to the public some of the autopsy photos, though he did not know when. He has not decided yet what to do with his wife’s ashes.”
Can you blame him? The last thing he wants, and the last thing his wife would have wanted, would be for her final resting place to be a damn shrine for the Randall Terry nutjobs to use as a political prop. You can bet that when she finally is buried, the Schindler’s will be there holding another one of their press conferences, accompanied by their ghoulish entourage.
And, can anyone blame him for not cooperating with them, after they’ve done everything possible to destroy him over this controversy?
Geek, Esq.
Btw, if he hasn’t made up his mind, he’s not violating a court order.
Unless the court ordered him to make up his mind about what to do with his wife’s ashed, which seems implausible.
Jon H
“Everybody’s hero “Mike” Schiavo had to be ordered by the court to tell the parents where he was going to inter Ms. Schiavo’s ashes. The last I heard, he was violating that order. Classy.”
The Randall Terries would probably dig her up if they knew. And I’m not sure the parents wouldn’t try.
At the very least, a disgraceful spectacle would almost certainly take place.
Patterico
John,
The scenario you paint is possible. I remember hearing that she was thinking of leaving him just before this happened, so I’m not sure it’s as rosy a scenario as you paint.
The reason that I bring up his emotional and financial conflicts of interest is because I have always considered those relevant to the factual determination that the court made. I can tell you haven’t read much of my writings on the subject, but I think that the determination should have been made according to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard by a jury, rather than by a single probate judge according to a clear and convincing evidence standard. The conflicts issue is relevant to me mainly in that it demonstrates (for me) the inadequacy of the current system.
Patterico
Jon H.,
Don’t you think the court was aware of that? All of a sudden following court orders is not so important when you disagree with them, eh?
Sojourner
Actually, she was trying to get pregnant when it happened.
Geek, Esq.
Patterico:
You know, just because someone SAYS that a court order was violated doesn’t mean it was violated, right?
Do you have a source stating that he’s in violation of the court order that didn’t believe that Terri was looking at the nice pretty balloons? Blind faith indeed.
Nash
Patterico, you came over here to call Bennett a liar and instead, you are proving him to be rather prescient.
Patterico
How’s that, Nash?
You have evidence that he was correct on the point where I called him a liar? Let’s see it.
Of course, you don’t. That was just a cheap potshot, taken in a forum where most of the people will back you up.
I hope that one day someone goes around the Internet lying about you. If you think it’s fun, you’ll find out differently.
Geek, it’s been documented that the court ordered Schiavo to tell the Schindlers where the remains will be interred, and that he has not done so. I have never read that he has been found in formal violation of the order. I should make that clear. It would have been more accurate for me to say that I read there was an order in place and last I heard he had not complied with it — and the family claimed he was in violation (the reporter didn’t bother to tell us whether they were right, but confirmed the existence of the order, and had no denial of that allegation from Schiavo or his attorney). But it strikes me as more than a little disingenuous to say that he’s still “thinking about it.” How long does it take? Is there no room to consider the interests of the family??
Richard Bennett
Well, Paprika, you’ve certainly been busted here. You say Mike Schiavo killed Terri for money and that some suggest he messed her up to begin with.
But the facts are that she wasn’t abused, there was no hope for improvement in her condition, and Mike turned down a million dollar offer to transfer guardianship to the parents, who’ve been proved crazy by the autopsy.
What office are you running for, anyway?
Patterico
“Esmay and Patterico are sure defensive for people who were entirely even-handed and nonjudgmental about this debate.”
That’s a nice trick, Nash. You guys gang up on me and mischaracterize my arguments, and then when I point out what my argument really is, you call me defensive.
This is all rhetorical trickery and bullshit. For all the self-congratulation, there’s way more interest here in painting the other guy as irrational than there is in rationally discussing the facts.
Sojourner
It is not at all unusual for months or even years to pass before a family chooses what to do with the ashes of a loved one. My aunt kept her son’s ashes for decades before finally having him buried near his step father/her husband.
Perhaps Schiavo is waiting for the hate to die down on the Schindler side. It may very well be decades before that happens since the Schindlers remain unwilling to deal with the reality of their daughter’s condition.
I certainly can’t blame Michael Schiavo for being totally fed up with his former in-laws. I certainly am and I’ve never met them, let alone been subjected to their libelous and insane behavior.
Nash
Good grief, Patterico, in spite of your protestations, you are not quite the lone abused soul here that you claim.
Everythings a “yes but” for you, isn’t it? You justify slandering Terry Schiavo on the basis of some personal doubts you have and then get all upset when someone gets snarky with that approach.
Quit whining like an unreconstructured twit and grow up. If you are going to spout opinions that people disagree with, don’t be so virginally surprised when they disagree with you and respond with less-than-polite words. Sheesh, grow a skin, why don’t you.
Rick
John,
Nice try. Really, there’s plausibility there.
Could be it would’ve persuaded another court/judge. Pity the court system had such contempt for the public, and the legislative branch that they wouldn’t dare risk finding otherwise.
Because the recovered memory AFTER the cash award is what gives the odor to M. Schiavo. Well, some mutual friends have spoken, and contradicted your scenario.
The court should’ve checked up on Greer, is all.
Cordially…
Nash
As to some legitimate specifics you raise, I’m genuinely interested in two things:
Was Judge Greer’s error of fact indicative of something truly important?
So, if Schiavo hasn’t complied with an order to notify his in-laws about the place of interrment, is it logical or fair to use that to back justify slandering him about his wife’s condition and care? On the face of it, that seems to be your approach.
Nash
John, could we get a ruling from the judge (you) here?
Did the “cash award” go to Michael Schiavo? Did he use the lawsuit award for anything other than his wife’s care?
Patterico
No, I don’t say that “Mike” Schiavo “killed Terri for money” and you can’t deal with the arguments I actually do make.
Nash, there is a difference between lying and being less than polite. Your language is certainly less than polite. Bennett, by contrast, is a liar. He went on Dean Esmay’s blog weeks ago and said:
That was a lie, and he has not only refused to take it back, he has tried to make a case for it ever since, never mentioning that I have repeatedly said that I am not and have never made that argument.
So I want to know: who here supports other people lying as long the liar agrees with their position? Evidently Nash is fine with it. How about the rest of you? I want to find out exactly what kind of people I’m dealing with. Is there one single person here who can say: yes, even if I disagree with you, Patterico, it’s total bullshit for someone to blatantly lie about your position.
And if you support Bennett lying about me, then I fervently hope the same thing happens to you, so you can go around wasting a bunch of goddamn time you don’t have refuting other people’s libels.
Kimmitt
I’m totally uninvolved with this, but it is of course wrong to deliberately mischaracterize another’s position.
Patterico
“As to some legitimate specifics you raise, I’m genuinely interested in two things:
Was Judge Greer’s error of fact indicative of something truly important?
So, if Schiavo hasn’t complied with an order to notify his in-laws about the place of interrment, is it logical or fair to use that to back justify slandering him about his wife’s condition and care? On the face of it, that seems to be your approach.”
I’ll answer the first question, since it’s not rhetorical bullshit.
Just read this post for an analysis of the error. It was absolutely central to the case. Imagine a jury convicting a defendant of murder based largely on a clear mistake of fact like this . . .
Patterico
Kimmitt,
Thank you.
Nash
Actually, no, I’m not– I agree with you and Kimmitt on that.
Nash
I’ve read your link, Patterico, as well as the link contained in it to Greer’s 8 March, 2005 “response”.
I do not agree with your contention that his explanation isn’t convincing. I can see why you feel that way, but it sure looks like it’s reasonable to think the other way too. Of course, I just called myself reasonable.
So, does that make me a liar?
Patterico
Nash, you said I came on here to call Richard Bennett a liar and proved that he was prescient. You basically seconded his lie without evidence. You can see what he claimed about me. Can you acknowledge that you have seen zero evidence that it’s true?
In any event, I appreciate your attempt to get back to the issues above. As part of that, I’d like to present my of why the federal courts should have re-inserted the tube.
I think my post destroys the myth that only wild-eyed irrational lunatics think the federal courts got it wrong.
I am willing to debate that with anyone who cares to actually engage the issues. Be warned: it’s lengthy and necessarily legalistic.
If your argument is “x number of judges disagree with you and they’re smarter” then save it. I’ve already been through that fourth-grade level debate with Bennett at Esmay’s blog (see the link above) and feel no desire to revisit it.
Patterico
“So, does that make me a liar?”
No, of course not, and it’s pissing me off that you continue to fail to see the distinction between an opinion and a knowingly false assertion of fact. Bennett made a knowingly false assertion of fact, which I quoted above. I called him on it, he failed to provide evidence of it, and he has never taken it back but rather continues to try to justify it. I believe that is because he is pathologically incapable of admitting error; in any event, the psychological reasons for it are irrelevant. The lie speaks for itself, and you continue to trivialize it because you disagree with me.
Nash
Well, no, to put a fine point on it, I said you (meaning your behavior HERE) was proving him prescient. As you said before, it’s not the same damned thing. But okay, I’ve been seen to unfairly accuse you and for that I apologize.
Now, I am extremely disappointed in your total veracity on one important thing though. That is, you very selectively stop Greer’s account of Meyer’s testimony just before he adds further strong information why he didn’t fully credit her testimony.
Am I allowed to say you haven’t presented all sides of the Greer made a fatal mistake argument you are advancing?
Patterico
Nash,
Imagine that a jury is hearing a death penalty case, and rejects the testimony of the key alibi witness because they mistakenly believe that a certain historical event happened in the wrong year.
Would that disturb you?
Of course, the jury could always give other reasons for having disbelieved the witness, as Greer did in his original order: the wit’s memory was better at trial than in a depo. That’s a legitimate credibility consideration, no doubt. I have no quarrel with that. *But* so is the fact that all of the Michael Schiavo wits. waited years to report on Terri Schiavo’s alleged wishes. For some reason, Greer discounted *that* credibility issue, but gave great weight to the “recovered memory” issue for Meyer — even though there could be an innocent reason for her improved memory: she had thought a lot about the case since the depo.
I think that it’s clear from his original order that the *primary* reason he rejected Meyer’s critical testimony was because of a mistake in the dates. In a death case, that would disturb me greatly; it’s no different here.
I know I’m not going to convince you of the rightness of my position. My only goal here is to convince people who minds are open at least a crack that there are plenty of us who had good reasons for our arguments on Schiavo. There is such a prevailing attitude that every person who argued for the tube to remain was some kind of irrational Christian-right nut. It’s just not true. I am not a very religious person, personally. And I have thought a lot about this case, and don’t think I deserve to be lumped in (as Bennett does) with the lunatics like Randall Terry.
Patterico
You’re allowed to say anything you like; your argument would have a lot more merit if I hadn’t linked his order containing that explanation. I believe that the mistake was *largely* based on the error — not completely.
Patterico
Some of my comments are crossing with yours; I posted the longish comment above before reading your comment immediately before it.
Nash
Gonna give you reason to be angry with me again here Patterico.
You are being an arrogant asshole. Only you, and exclusively you, have the Key to All Truth. You are permitted to make broadbrush statements about anyone else’s (my) willingness to approach something with an open mind, but if anyone turns the tables and suggests the converse, well, there’s hell to pay.
That’s some good hypocrisy and arrogance you have going for you there.
Patterico
I’m probably going to have to bow out here, at least for a while; I really can’t afford the time. There’s not a lot I can add anyway. Those who see me as irrational will continue to do so; those who have lied about me will continue to do so; those who can see reason and are fair can take my comments above for what they’re worth.
Nash
His explanation went to the respondents’ point, that of the “error of fact” concerning whether Quinlan was dead or not in 1982.
But to me, his 11 Feb 2000 order is as gentle a statement as one could offer that he thought Meyer was not telling the truth, and thus, all her testimony was suspect. Isn’t that what a jurist is supposed to do–weigh both the evidence and the believability of those offering it?
Nash
You really don’t see that you are being hypocritical, do you?
Patterico
“You are being an arrogant asshole. Only you, and exclusively you, have the Key to All Truth.”
You are misreading my comment, and/or it was poorly phrased.
Of course I think I’m right on the issues. Of course you think you’re right on the issues. I am not going to change that.
When I used the phrase “rightness of my position” I was simply contrasting our views on the *issues*, which views aren’t going to change, with our views of whether someone can rationally hold an opposing view.
I absolutely believe that someone can rationally hold an opposing view, and if my comment was read to suggest otherwise, then it’s probably primarily the fault of my poor wording.
My point is exactly yours in reverse: it seems to me that most of the commenters here have taken the position that nobody can rationally disagree with *them”. For example, Bennett has explicitly argued that in comments on this blog, and yes, I can back up that charge if need be. My hope is that I can convince those of you whose minds — while not completely open to my view, are at least not slammed shut like his — that someone can disagree with you on this controversy with reason, and still be a rational person.
*That’s* what I was trying to say, however inartfully. And if we each try giving the other the benefit of the doubt, such misunderstandings will descrease.
Okay, I really gotta go. Read my post on the federal courts, if you’re interested, and let me know what you think.
Jon H
Nash writes: “Did the “cash award” go to Michael Schiavo? Did he use the lawsuit award for anything other than his wife’s care?”
My understanding is that there was a “loss of consortium” award to *him*, of a few hundred grand.
Presumably, he would have received that if she died before the case was hashed out in court, so for that part there would be no motivation to keep her alive just long enough to collect.
I believe there was a larger sum of money for her, intended for her care. I don’t know the details about the rest.
I think the “loss of consortium” money was the money that supposedly caused the rift between Schiavo and the parents. Allegedly, the parents came to Schiavo seeking a share of the money.
Nash
It is most definitely inartful to state to someone you are arguing with that if they disagree, it is because they are incapable of thinking openly about a subject. It is more than inartful, it is arrogant.
And that got my goat, because (don’t tell Rick) I fancy myself one of those people who *can* be convinced of an argument.
I will indeed read your analysis of the federal courts’ role.
Rick
Haaaahhh, Nash. I found out anyway.
Cordially…
Geek, Esq.
I’m not going to get into the squabble between Bennett and Patterico, but I will comment on the latter’s legal analysis.
Interesting, but flawed.
1) No discussion of injunctive relief and “likelihood of success on the merits?” Oy.
2) The whole discusson of C&C evidence is more than a bit thaumatropic. Due process claims are procedural claims. It is not a procedural claim to ask the court to find that state court arrived at the wrong result.
Patterico
I wasn’t writing a comprehensive legal opinion. I figured the analysis was long enough and that people were generally familiar with the relevant standards. Basically, given the strength of the other factors, “likelihood of success” is not the right standard; it’s “some likehihood of success.” For more detail, consult Judge Tjoflat’s dissent, linked in my post.
Given the lengthy materials in the case, it was not possible for the court to make an independent analysis of this issue in tiem. So it was incumbent on the courts to grant a stay just to prevent the case from becoming moot while the issue I discuss in the post was litigated.
It absolutely is a procedural claim to ask the court to find that the state court improperly applied a federal standard mandated by the Due Process Clause. The cases I cite in my post demonstrate this. It’s like when a federal court reviews a criminal case on habeas review to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found that the federally mandated reasonable doubt standard could have been met given the evidence presented at trial. It’s a purely procedural question.
Geek, Esq.
1. This wasn’t a criminal case. One can’t just extrapolate requirements and standards from criminal to civil cases.
2. The bottom line is that the Schindler’s didn’t like the result of the proceedings, and wanted those reversed. What you’re discussing is not a procedural reversal, but rather a reversal on the merits and substance. “The state court got it wrong” is not a procedural argument. It’s a substantive argument.
Patterico
What I am advancing is a procedural due process argument, that the federally mandated standard wasn’t met. You’re just wrong to say that an argument for a standard of proof is substantive. And it has nothing to do with its being a civil vs. criminal case. The Supreme Court has mandated standards of proof in civil and criminal cases, and the federal courts’ responsibility to review evidence under federally mandated standards is clear in either context, as a matter of procedural due process.
Read the cases I cite in my post and you’ll see I’m right on both counts.
Jon H
Personally, I get more worked up over ill-considered court judgements that effect people who aren’t vegetables.
There’s more than enough of those to keep anyone pissed off for decades.
Patterico
Indeed. To hell with the vegetables. Sloppy judicial reasoning regarding *their* rights is fine and dandy, so long as it comports with my personal view of the substantive issues.
Sorry . . . channeling the self-righteous attitude of the reasonable moderates. Makes one a little glib — but it sure is a nice shot in the arm for your self-esteem, no?
Geek, Esq.
Patterico:
Under your ideosyncratic interpretation of the constitution, the Federal Courts were required to reevaluate the state court’s evidentiary fact-finding. You state quite plainly that they were required to second-guess the state court’s conclusion that the evidence was C&C.
As far as your de novo argument, adhering to that in a maximalist manner would have invalidated the entire bill, as it would have meant that Congress had intervened in a private family affair and legislatively invalidated a state court proceeding. That is obviously unconstitutional.
Nash
Patterico, I have read and digested your post on the federal courts. I am impressed by the force and sincerity of your arguments.
At the same time, and not being myself a lawyer, I’m inclined to lean more on the expertise of Justices Carnes and Hull when they found that Due Process Clause standards were met and that appellate courts may not second-guess credibility determinations, essentially in total disagreement with Justice Tjoflat, whom you are backing.
Nash
And Jon H, thanks for the information. If that is correct, doesn’t that deflate the financial interest argument into a limp inner tube?
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Schiavo case is how much the buckshot argument style that people in the culture-of-life brigade used parallel those made by people justifying the Iraq war, in advance as well as in the rearview mirror. In each case, any argument that seemed to support their position was acceptable because it added weight to their “side.” Fine enough. But, also, in each case, as argument after argument was proven to be incorrect, wrong or in some cases a lie, the expected converse effect, that the sum total of the argument was therefore correspondingly weakened did not follow.
It’s like throwing feathers in a pile. They claimed that each one they threw on made for a much softer mattress. But when feathers started to fly away on them, they quickly claimed that these feathers never amounted to anything in the first place.
Lousy metaphor, but I still think there’s an unremarked connection here, showing a propensity to dishonesty in debate. I’m reality based enough to say that the result of such dishonesty is a lessening of my ability to believe the *next* claim.
Patterico
“Under your ideosyncratic interpretation of the constitution, the Federal Courts were required to reevaluate the state court’s evidentiary fact-finding. You state quite plainly that they were required to second-guess the state court’s conclusion that the evidence was C&C.”
Yes, and I quite plainly provided authority for that proposition, which neither you nor anyone else has disputed.
“As far as your de novo argument, adhering to that in a maximalist manner would have invalidated the entire bill, as it would have meant that Congress had intervened in a private family affair and legislatively invalidated a state court proceeding. That is obviously unconstitutional.”
No, it would have provided for federal review of federal claims, which is quite common in both civil and criminal contexts. You’re not engaging my argument as to why there was a specific federal right at issue. Neither is Nash, who chooses simply to rely on the arguments of the judges who ruled his way on the policy issue. Even though I showed specifically how those judges’ arguments are logically insufficient. Nobody wants to engage me on the actual issues. I can understand it in one sense, for Nash, since they are complex legal issues that probably do require some legal training to fully understand. You, “Geek Esq.,” don’t have the same excuse of not being a lawyer. How would you have ruled on the claim presented to Judge Whittemore that the clear and convincing evidence standard is required by the federal Constitution? What say you to my specific criticisms of the logic of the majority panel judges?
If you don’t want to specifically answer me, that’s fine. But remember that next time you’re tempted to say that federal intervention was supported only by wingnuts with no logical arguments.
Nash
Patterico, you talk too much and listen far too little.
Nowhere did I say they ruled in [my] way. I said that their reasoning made sense to this non-solicitor’s eye. It’s just one of several reasons why I add you to the list of people I talk about above who argue dishonestly. There is no backdown, no demurral, no acknowledgment that any other interpretation of the same set of “facts” is possible.
You have approached every part of this argument with an arrogant certainty of your own perfection, which you comically attempted and failed to conflate with the idea that everyone *believes* in their own arguments. You make repeated statements that mirror this:
When the correct conclusion is that you have *shown* nothing of the sort…you have made a claim and you have done an admirable job of backing you claim. But, here’s the news, that falls short of being dispositive for most modestly less arrogant humans in an argument. It certainly falls short of being convincing for a lot of other legal minds who obviously disagree with you. Most people would think it acceptable to weigh your authority against that of jurists sitting on an appeals court and not automatically conclude that you are the more informed.
Your position that something is a fact and you have proven it because you *said* so, when in truth it is a challengeable interpretation, is a classic example of the pundit’s fallacy.
Never before in a blog thread have I engaged in such a meta-discussion of how something was argued. Never before, however, have I run into such a level of pure arrogance as yours.
No, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not qualified to engage you deeply on those legal matters. But I *am* qualified to sit in judgment of the honesty you bring to this debate, which is next to nil. I find that your overweaning self-righteousness is reason enough to find you full of it.
Next case.
Jim Rockford
Geek – I’m going to ignore your legal pseudo-analysis, except to say that anyone who thinks that habeas/due process review in capital cases is limited to non-sibstantive rview hasn’t read enough opinions. I will also observe that there is a very good reason why you will never see Micahel Schiavo sue anyone for anything they say about him – he does not want to be subjected to discovery and fact finding in another, nonGreer forum. As the months go by, and Michael does nothing in response to these “monstrous allegations,” ask yourself what that shows.
Geek, Esq.
Patterico:
You’ve cited one case from the limited field of habeas criminal jurisprudence. That case is the EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
The rule is: Procedural claims evaluate the PROCEDURE used, not the ultimate results of the case.
As the federal courts have pointed out, your argument that C&C evidence is required is MOOT. The Florida court used that standard, so on a PROCEDURAL level there was no possible objection.
The objection, rather, is to the RESULT of that procedure. Whether evidence is clear and convincing is a determination to be made by the fact-finder, not courts reviewing a record on appeal.
Geek, Esq.
And you have not shown “specifically how those judges’ arguments are logically insufficient.” What they refused to do was extrapolate a habeas criminal case to civil litigation and to erase the distinction between procedural and evidentiary review.
Seriously, you need to re-read the Erie cases to get a better handle on this.
Patterico
Nash, I had hopes for your being somewhat open-minded. But instead you are calling me dishonest — not because you have a single example of alleged dishonesty, but because I argue as though I believe the things I am saying are true.
“Dishonesty” is too serious accusation to make as recklessly as you have. Guess what? If you can’t back it up, you shouldn’t say it.
You go around accusing people of being harsh in the way they argue, while being twice as harsh all the while. “Dishonest? “Perhaps not. I won’t throw around that accusation so irresponsibly as you have. But irresponsible? You betcha.
Thanks for helping to prove that the tube-yanking crowd has no shortage of overemotional people who are thrilled to take unsubstantiated cheap shots at anyone they disagree with.
Goodbye. It was nice *trying* to reason with you for a while, at least.
Nash
*snicker*
FWLIW, there is a fundamental difference between believing that what you argue is true and insisting that everyone else agree that it is true. You are simply not good enough of a rhetorician to pull that off.
Completely incapable of self-awareness:
Yes, none of your speculations about Michael Schiavo were unsubstantiated or cheap.
I still find it revealing, though hardly surprising, that this paragon of virtue went completely silent in response to John’s stinging criticism on this very point way up thread.
Patterico
Went silent? What the hell are you talking about? I haven’t counted my comments on this thread and others on John’s site, but it has to be a record of some sort. I haven’t gone silent about a damn thing. But at some point, you get tired of it.
What supposedly stinging criticism did I go silent on?
And where was I “dishonest”? I note that you *still* fail to substantiate that claim. The longer you refuse to take it back, the more it looks like the one being dishonest is . . . you.
Patterico
And, while I like John, I have to say that the entire premise of this particular post is probably the biggest load of crap I have ever seen him post. The people that he accused of being “silent” because they hadn’t posted about the autopsy within hours — and he named them above as LaShawn Barber and Michelle Malkin — all posted the same day or the next. John would boost his integrity by taking back the original silly accusation of silence. It was bogus to begin with and is totally untrue now.
Patterico
You know what? It’s Father’s Day, and I can’t believe I got sucked into this crap. If you aren’t taking back your unsubstantiated accusation of dishonesty, then you aren’t worth my time. I have lots better stuff to do, like spending time with my children. This is my last comment here.
Nash
QED.
You sucked yourself into it, putz, just like I did as well.
BTW, reading through the entire of your blog post that you wanted me to read as well as that of your commenters and your responses, I have a better feel for how much of a pissing match the entire thing is for you guys. Piss away.
Patterico
We’re both liars. I lied when I said that was my last comment. And you lied when you said I hadn’t responded to that criticism. In fact, when I did, you called me “defensive.”
I’ll leave it to the readers to decide which lie is worse.
Nash
Good on you. If you see the whole exercise as some appeal to an outside authority for validation, you have my pity.
John Cole
patterico-
Email me, I have an article I think you would like. I couln’t find your email on your site.