And the smears against Michael Schiavo continue unabated, this time by the Governor of Florida:
Refusing to give up on the Terri Schiavo case, Gov. Jeb Bush has asked Pinellas prosecutors to sort out time discrepancies Michael Schiavo has provided regarding the hour he found his wife unconscious 15 years ago.
State Attorney Bernie McCabe has agreed to review the time elements in the case, his chief assistant, Bruce Bartlett, said Thursday.
“We are going to look into the circumstances surrounding the times,” said Bartlett, who declined to label the review an investigation. “The governor has expressed concern over that aspect of the case.”
Michael Schiavo has said he called 911 immediately after finding his wife collapsed on the floor of their home on Feb. 25, 1990. Though medical records indicate he called 911 about 5:40 a.m. that day, he told the Medical Examiner’s Office recently that he found his wife about 4:30 a.m.
The detail fueled suspicions by Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, that Michael Schiavo had some wicked connection to their daughter’s collapse and may have delayed his call for help.
“I think this is a very troubling gap in time,” Schindler attorney David Gibbs III said Wednesday. “Michael Schiavo needs to step forward and explain.”
Yeah. That David Gibbs. There is a special place in hell for assholes like Gibbs. Of course, the usual suspects will hide behind their rhetoric, saying things like “If he is innocent, what does he have to hide?” Or, “Why do you have a problem with a prosecutor investigating a possible murder?” It is pretty clear this is nothing more than another politcially motivated assault on Michael Schiavo:
Florida Governor Jeb Bush announced that he has asked a Florida prosecutor to open an investigation into 1990 collapse of Terri Schiavo that left her in a persistent vegetative state.
Bush claims there may be a time gap between the time Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, claims to have found his wife collapsed and unconscious and the time he first called 911 to get emergency help.
Bush’s announcement comes just two days after an autopsy report was released showing that Terri Schiavo had significant brain damage consistent with being in a persistent vegetative state and was likely blind as a result of the injuries she suffered after her collapse. Bush had intervened in the case on numerous occassions in an attempt to prolong Terri Schiavo’s existence including passing a specific law that had her feeding tube reinserted after a Florida judge had ordered it removed.
‘It’s a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up,’ Bush insisted during a press conference with reporters in Tallahassee.
Good press conference fodder. Just out of curiosity, how often do Governors call for investigations like this? Some significant answers to significant questions:
The St. Petersburg Times asked an outside expert, Dr. Amyn M. Rojiani, a pathology professor at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, to examine the autopsy results.
The report says that paramedics began treating Schiavo at 5:52 a.m. after finding her not breathing and in ventricular fibrillation.
A pulse was documented at 6:32 a.m. and a measurable systolic blood pressure at 6:46 a.m. Getting those vital signs back after such a long time was an accomplishment, Rojiani said. When asked if Schiavo could have been revived if her heart had stopped more than an hour before paramedics arrived, he said he didn’t think so.
No doubt Dr. Rojiani is a member of the culture of death. Probably believes in evolution, too.
And XRLQ, I don’t take anything back about what I said about the ring-leaders of the “Hang Michael” posse. Maybe you just feel a little persecuted because you have been a one-man smear machine, but I never singled you out nor, until recently, paid any real attention to you or your opinions on the Schaivo case. You sure have hoisted yourself and others who I was paying no attention to on this issue up upon the cross for some reason. But, then again, maybe it is your conscience, because I am not the one who said this:
Maybe the scorecard is premature, but I seriously doubt it. Unlike the Schindlers, God bless
Geek, Esq.
Why not just lynch the guy?
Seriously, that’s the mentality here.
Richard Bottoms
And what part of this sorry episode is a surprise? The hysterical right has been at it since Vince Foster and get shriller and more crazy each year.
The only good news is it may finally be sinking in to the average American what a nutsack the Republican party has become.
SeesThroughIt
“Why not just lynch the guy? Seriously, that’s the mentality here.”
Why not indeed? I know of just shy of 20 Senators–all Republicans–who would look the other way. Those Republicans love them some lynching.
OK, so the above was a political cheap shot based on a deliberate distortion of truth. What can I say? I’m a Bush-in-training
Shawn
I really feel for Michael Schiavo! He is being hounded and persecuted. He will never be able to have a normal life. These people aren’t going to stop until he’s been ground under the heel of their righteously fervent indignation.
Then who will they turn on next?
Sorry for the gloomy, pessimistic post. But this makes me feel, well… gloomy and pessimistic.
Jon H
Michael Schiavo ought to just move north, to where people are sane.
Quiddity
Jeb is amazing. Almost pulled Terri Schiavo out of the hospital. Now this.
It looks like leading Republicans think that they must be 100% with the religious right. And only after that, go for the rest of the electorate. There’s no other explanation.
Chris Owen
If you think that’s bad, try this unmitigated piece of dreck from the badly-misnamed intellectualconservative.com: “Terri was left to rot in a bed for 15 years with no medical care or any efforts to rehabilitate her … With an extensive brain injury and no therapy for 15 years it is not inconceivable that Terri’s current blindness may have happened suddenly, or as a result of a gradual downward progression of her overall condition, or as a result of the dehydration.” – http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4408.html
These people are just flat-out lying, period. It’s shameless.
Stormy70
Please, no more Terry stuff, I beg of you! The whole affair is sordid. Thank God, the courts handled it since the emotions on both side are getting beyond tiresome. It is why I opted out of the argument from the beginning. Too many unknowables, and the legal process was the best way to get through it. It is done, lets get to important stuff like movies. ;)
Kimmitt
This is revenge for making Jeb look bad.
Rick
Well, here’s a little nugget, if this website/blogger/whatever it is has got it right:
Judge Greer is one highly overturned-on-appeal jurist.
Just something to consider in re: his finding of fact.
Cordially…
AWJ
Wow. Zero to “left-wing media death squad elitists” in one sentence. That’s some real intellectual conservatism there.
scs
John, why is a proper investigation surrounding the collapse and eventual death of a young woman a smear?
This investigation is something that should have been done a long time ago. The fact that the govermor wants to seek knowledge and maybe justice for a dead young woman is admirable to me. If Michael did nothing he will have nothing to worry about. I know you want to cannonize Michael Schiavo, but his behaviour over the last 10 years has been nothing but dubious (detailed by me in past posts). And lets use our heads here. What is the more common cause of death for a previously healthy 25 year old woman. Death by a potassium imbalance, or death by the hands of husband? Statistically hands down it would be her husband. You act like its an impossible fantasy that her husband could ever harm her. Their are thousands of murdered women out there, dead by the hands of her husband who would beg to differ.
And ss the autopsy said, she had no history of using diet pills or bulimia. If she had suffered from potassium imbalances she would have probably have had symptoms such as severe muscle cramps, that she would have probably mentioned to her doctors she was seeing. Even if she HAD been bulimic, it is still very rare to die from a potassium imbalance.
The fact that Terri was contemplating divorce and had told her friend she had had a big fight with her husband that day and was afraid to go home that night raised some red flags for me. Let’s at least not be blinded by our love of the right-to-die issue to try to gloss over and ignore the situation and the individuals here. Lets think about justice for Terri first before we think about our pet causes.
John Cole
The autopsy did not say she didn’t have bulimia. Period. Quit the damned distortions and lies.
Patterico
John,
What you just said is the complete and honest truth about what the report says.
But gee . . . why is it so important for you to point that out, John? “I know what you’re really saying”: Terri Schiavo was morally responsible for her own death. It couldn’t have been an accident or something beyond her control. She did something most of us find morally repugnant, so we should have less consideration for her.
When you read between the lines, it’s clear why the lack of finding on bulimia appears to be the one thing you have chosen to emphasize from a 30+ page report.
I, for one, have had it with such smearing of Terri Schiavo’s character such as your blatant resorting to the facts and findings of the actual report. I now feel entitled to dance around the Internet, smearing you and your good name, and making up all sorts of false claims about what you have really said.
Sure, you’re just reporting objective facts and resorting to the truth. That’s a lawyerly, hair-splitting defense.
I know what you’re really trying to say.
John Cole
Nice try, Patterico. I never brought up the bulimia in regards to the autopsy. I didn’t choose to focus on it, because it is irrelevant at this point. I am reacting to a commenter, as I am with you.
Now, your point?
Jon H
Patterico writes: “She did something most of us find morally repugnant, so we should have less consideration for her.”
Is that how you see it? You see it as “morally repugnant”? As if bulimia is something like pedophilia, and not just an eating disorder?
Sheesh, get a grip, guy. You have a seriously screwed up point of view.
Bulimia has no no more of a moral taint than, say, diabetes, or alzheimers’ disease.
I’m not sure why you’ve convinced yourself that it’s a vile slander to suggest that Ms. Schiavo had an eating disorder. The fact is, there’s no moral element to it at all. It’s just an illness.
scs
John, you may have to improve your reading skills, and fast. This is what I wrote…
“And as the autopsy said, she had no HISTORY of using diet pills or bulimia ”
The catch word here is HISTORY, John. Get it? She had no HISTORY, ie, documented evidence, of bulimia.
One word can change a meaning of a sentence. If you ever studied for your SAT’s you probably would have learned that. Did you pass the that part? You need to treat your writers with a little more respect to actually take the time to try and comprehend what they wrote before you call them liars. It’s your page but it doesn’t give YOU the right to lie either.
Jon H
scs writes: “The catch word here is HISTORY, John. Get it? She had no HISTORY, ie, documented evidence, of bulimia.”
What makes you think she would be open about it?
Patterico
I am running out the door, but I came back to my computer to post the following:
“In case any of your readers missed it, that last post was not serious. It was satire. John understands what I mean, but I felt I should say it for the rest of you.”
I *think* you understand it was satire . . . but then, do you understand it wasn’t directed entirely at you? It appears not.
You aren’t the one lying about me, John. You’re just one of the people reading way too much in the comments of people like myself who have tried to accurately relay what the report says.
I don’t recall “focusing” on anything relating to the abuse when I posted about the autopsy. I’d better check to make sure . . . Okay, just did. Nope. Didn’t focus on that. If I focused on anything, I focused on the lack of evidence of bulimia and of myocardial infarction, for the purposes of showing how the LA Times had incorrectly assumed the widely reported facts to be true regarding these controversies. You obviously don’t read my site much, until perhaps lately, but that’s what I do for the most part: criticize media distortions, especially with the LAT.
And notice that, in an earlier thread on your blog, when I made the exact goddamn point you just made, reacting to a commenter as you just were, I had my comment Dowdified and offered as “proof” of my libel of Michael Schiavo.
I’m not mainly upset at you, though it is irritating that you don’t seem to get the fact that people who don’t make argument x, aren’t making argument x.
I can just as plausibly make that argument about your claims regarding the evidence in the report regarding whether Terri Schiavo was bulimic. Such an argument would be really stupid — as I just demonstrated by making it for satirical purposes.
Despite the lies some have told about me, I have not had some kind of obsessive focus on whether Michael Schiavo put Terri Schiavo in the coma (though I’ll agree that I have engaged in plenty of factually based criticism of other aspects of his behavior).
It’s the same thing, John. “I know what you’re really saying.” You keep engaging in it, every day, and it’s bullshit whether it’s applied to you or to me.
The satire post would make a nice post, though. Perhaps if I have time tonight . . . it’s mostly written anyway. But probably not . . . I really have to go study. Test is tomorrow morning.
Sorry for rambling. As the saying goes, I didn’t have time to make it shorter.
scs
By the way John, if you are a man of honour, you would apologize to me here, publicly, for calling me a liar.
scs
Jon, I am just repeating in my own words what I read about the autopsy. The autopsy comments that the bulimia is not proven, because there was no real evidence to support it. Obviously it does not mean she did NOT have bulimia. Just that there were no signs or symptoms noticed by anyone, and hence a diagnosis we can not make now, years later as a cause of her collapse.
John Cole
The sum total of what I have written about you is:
I understand that there are those, like Patterico, who think that there were legal injustices done.
Clearly I must repent.
IF you want to play along with these guys, go for it. They clamored for an autopsy because they were sure it was going to prove Michael abused her and they were sure she was misdiagnosed.
The autopsy comes through, and what do they do? Get worked up because the media might be making Michael look too innocent- got to make sure the record is cleared and we know that she didn’t have bulimia and that there is no way to prove he didn’t abuse her- even though the autopsy really says no such thing.
And if you are going to hold me accountable for my commenters, you might start looking at some of the idiotic things XRLQ is saying on your web site. Sheer knee-slappers like this:
The autopsy report says she was blind when she died; it doesn
John Cole
And ss the autopsy said, she had no history of using diet pills or bulimia. If she had suffered from potassium imbalances she would have probably have had symptoms such as severe muscle cramps, that she would have probably mentioned to her doctors she was seeing. Even if she HAD been bulimic, it is still very rare to die from a potassium imbalance.
The autopsy stated:
Oh, go read it yourself.
You state that the evidence she has no history (meaning, recorded evidence or eyewitness accounts of behavior) means that she was not in fact bulimic.
That is, in my estimation, a distortion of the autopsy report.
John Cole
Damnit- You guys post too damn comments too damn fast.
You are not a liar, but there is real evidence to suggest she had bulimia if you read the report. That is what this statement means:
“If her initial serum potassium is to be regarded as reliable, then multiple etiologies are possible given her nutritional history. Bulimia Nervosa involving binging and purging would be high on the list of different diagnoses.”
So no, years after the fact, you can not look a corpse and tell whether or no someone is bulimic.
Now what are we arguing about, SCS?
scs
“And ss the autopsy said, she had no HISTORY of using diet pills or bulimia”
John Cole! Wake up! Maybe you are getting a little PVS yourself there. I did not say that she did NOT have bulimia! Again, I said she had no history of it.
The second part of that paragraph,
If she had suffered from potassium imbalances she would have probably have had symptoms such as severe muscle cramps, that she would have probably mentioned to her doctors she was seeing….
is me my writing my own ideas. Perhaps you confused the first sentence with the second. If so I apologize for my sloppy writing. Let me rephrase so that you are not in a state of confusion there.
The revised version….
And as the autopsy said, she had no history of using diet pills or bulimia.
AND IT IS MY BELIEF THAT, if she had suffered from potassium imbalances she would have probably have had symptoms such as severe muscle cramps, that she would have probably mentioned to her doctors she was seeing. Even if she HAD been bulimic, it is still very rare to die from a potassium imbalance.
IS THAT BETTER NOW?????
Patterico
Christ.
I have been correcting media distortions on the bulimia *and* the abuse findings (or lack thereof). Read an agenda into that.
If you want to read an agenda into my corrections on the abuse, then by God I’m going to do the same with your corrections on bulimia. I’ll do it satirically, of course, because it would be a goddamn stupid thing to do it seriously.
No, I am not holding you accountable for your commenters. I could ask: why the silence? but I won’t.
No, I don’t believe that bulimia is morally reprehensible, but some do. And I think there is a real proclivity on the part of many in the tube-yanking crowd to highlight that and make Terri S. less sympathetic. And when you deny that the report debunked the bulimia myth, you . . . oh, sorry. I slipped into John Cole “I know what you’re really saying” mode again.
From the Treo; sorry so inarticulate.
sidereal
I recommend a battery of SAT tests all around. Putting the #2 lead pencils where the mouths are, as it were.
John Cole
Christ.
I have been correcting media distortions on the bulimia *and* the abuse findings (or lack thereof). Read an agenda into that.
I dont think I have ever read an agenda into anything you have said, and never even started talking to you about the Schiavo case until you and Bennett had a feud in another thread.
And again, other than a few links to you when you caught the LA Times doing something idiotic and the quote I listed above, I never have read into anything you have writeen.
yet, here we are.
John Cole
SCS-
My apologiges. Not PVS- scotch.
John Cole
Apologiges is apparently scotch for apologies.
Patterico
So why must you clearly repent, then? What makes you say I am running with those guys.
And I read your post as including three of us in the group you were criticizing. No?
scs
Okay Scotch boy, just to make everything clear, this is where I get my info. If I am a liar then the coroner is a liar.
excerpts frpm The New York Times…
Schiavo Autopsy Says Brain, Withered, Was Untreatable
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: June 16, 2005
…
But the autopsy left unresolved the mystery, which haunted not just her husband and parents but ultimately much of the nation, of why Ms. Schiavo’s heart stopped beating late one night when she was 26. The ensuing brain damage left her able to breathe on her own but not, most doctors said, to think or to have emotions.
“The only diagnosis that I know for sure is that her brain went without oxygen,” said Dr. Jon R. Thogmartin, the medical examiner who led the autopsy in Pinellas County, where Ms. Schiavo had spent her final years in a hospice. “Why? That is undetermined.”
…
But Dr. Thogmartin stopped short of that conclusion. (bulimia) He said that while Ms. Schiavo had a low potassium level after her collapse, a symptom of an eating disorder, there was no EVIDENCE of her taking diet pills or laxatives or BINGING AND PURGING. (caps mine)
“You end up with a 26-year-old that used to be heavy, that now lost the weight, is reveling in her thinness now, enjoying her life, and doesn’t want to gain the weight back,” Dr. Thogmartin said. “And if that’s a bulimic, there’s a lot of bulimics out there. It’s just not enough.”
He added that Ms. Schiavo’s potassium level could possibly have dropped immediately after her heart stopped, perhaps during resuscitation efforts. Or, he said, Ms. Schiavo’s habit of drinking excessive amounts of caffeinated tea might have even caused the deficiency. But unless new evidence comes to light, he said, no one will ever know for sure.
John Cole
“You end up with a 26-year-old that used to be heavy, that now lost the weight, is reveling in her thinness now, enjoying her life, and doesn’t want to gain the weight back,” Dr. Thogmartin said. “And if that’s a bulimic, there’s a lot of bulimics out there. It’s just not enough.”
His point was that, in and of itself, does not constitute evidence for bulimia. That does not mean that you disregard the potassium level in her serum, which, if you looked at it, would lead you to belive that a diagnosis of bulimia would not be out of order.
That is markedly different from Malkin’s interpretation, and now someone is going to claim that I said she did have bulimia. I quit.
Patterico- Your last post leads me to believe that I don’t even know what the hell you and I are debating (if that is the word) anymore.
scs
OK, fine Scotch. Yes maybe she did have bulimia, maybe she didn’t. That was my point too.
You’re right. Why are we still arguing? Lets kiss and make up and run off happily ever after in blogland.
John Cole
You’re right. Why are we still arguing? Lets kiss and make up and run off happily ever after in blogland.
I thought we did already. I did, after all, offer you my ‘aplogiges.’
scs
It’s a deal.
Jon H
Seems to me that an eating disorder is far more likely than abuse or foul play. There’s more evidence for the former than for the latter.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if the pro-lifers start calling for the conviction and execution of Michael Schiavo.
Jon H
Oh, wait, sorry, I missed the group hug while I was writing.
Never mind.
Patterico
“Patterico- Your last post leads me to believe that I don’t even know what the hell you and I are debating (if that is the word) anymore.”
Let me make it as clear as I can. Unless you have zero respect for someone, don’t accuse them of making an argument they have never made, and that they deny they have ever made, by “reading between the lines,” when there is a plausible alternate interpretation.
It’s illustrated well by this statement of yours:
“That is markedly different from Malkin’s interpretation, and now someone is going to claim that I said she did have bulimia. I quit.”
What? It’s frustrating to contemplate the idea that someone might falsely accuse you of holding a position you don’t really hold? Because you’re pointing out that that position has not been conclusively refuted by available evidence?
Yeah, that would be frustrating. Imagine that.
Yet you do it every day lately. And it’s the same exact justification that Bennett uses to flat-out lie about me.
One related point:
“I dont think I have ever read an agenda into anything you have said, and never even started talking to you about the Schiavo case until you and Bennett had a feud in another thread.
“And again, other than a few links to you when you caught the LA Times doing something idiotic and the quote I listed above, I never have read into anything you have writeen.”
Well, it sounded to me like you were saying that I have “smeared” Michael Schiavo relentlessly, when you said in your post:
“I understand there are people who, like Josh Trevino, have a consistent position on life. I understand that there are those, like Patterico, who think that there were legal injustices done. But that doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to smear Michael Schiavo relentlessly.”
“Smear” implies falsehood. Am I wrong to think that language applied to me?
It’s more accusations of falsehood. Again, that’s what you do with someone you have no respect for. That’s what Bennett does with me. I tend to be very careful about calling people liars, but I feel like you called me one in the post, with the smear comment.
Perhaps it wasn’t directed at me. I dunno. Only you can tell me, ’cause it looked like it was.
That’s what *I’m* still talking about, anyway.
John Cole
Patterico- Jeebus. I understand now.
That was meant to read “There are people out there who have legitimate positions, and I understand it. However, it is inappropriate for anyone to smear Michael Schiavo relentlessly.”
I understand now how that could be interpreted to mean that I think you are smearing Schiavo. I will fix it.
Why didn’t you just come out and say that in the first place?
John Cole
And if you think it is bad now, wait until the Furman book comes out. I understand there are people who, who like Josh Trevino, have a consistent position on life. I understand that there are those who, like Patterico, think that there were legal injustices done. But that doesn’t give others, or, for that matter, anyone, carte blanche to smear Michael Schiavo relentlessly.
There. That is clearer. Like I said the other day somewhere, if shitty writing was a crime, I would need Johnny Cochran backfrom the grave anda hefty defense fund.
Patterico
I appreciate it. But you didn’t address my other point.
When you make an argument like this:
“It’s ok to to run around smearing Michael Schiavo, as long as you (and this the general you, not XRLQ in particular) are smart about it. You don’t just come out and say he abused his wife- you ‘reasonably’ discuss the possibility. You attribute his motives for ‘killing’ his wife to stubbornness. You rationally discuss that he has ‘conflicts of interest,’ and claim you don’t undertsand why he is ‘murdering’ his wife. You posit that he is ‘finally’ going to be ‘successful’ in the ‘slow motion murder’ of his wife, but you never quite come out and accuse him of abuse. You subtlely point out that the autopsy you clamored for to search for signs of abuse doesn’t show any signs of abuse, but that it doesn’t rule it out.”
It’s a “read between the lines” argument. I could make the same argument about your choosing to emphasize that maybe she really had bulimia; the report doesn’t rule it out.
If someone who you respect has not made the argument, has denied making the argument, and there is a plausible explanation for what they have argued, the “read between the lines” argument is an insult. It is telling the person he is a liar when he says he hasn’t made that argument.
I think you should be very careful about using it. Yet you, and Bennett, and the Commissar have all gone hog-wild with that kind of logic over recent days.
It’s a form of argument that could easily be turned on you. As you recognized when you said: “[N]ow someone is going to claim that I said she did have bulimia. I quit.”
That’s my other point.
Now I really gotta study.
Sojourner
scs:
Consistent with your request for proof of bulimia, how about providing some proof that her husband caused her injury. Also, please explain why NO evidence of a crime was found when she was admitted 15 years ago. Certainly, it’s part of the protocol to examine comatose patients when they’re brought in by ER staff. Why was nothing found?
As much as you dislike the implication that bulimia was the cause without substantive proof, it is, arguably, even more serious to accuse a living person that he caused the death of his wife. Idle speculation is not enough for claims of this magnitude.
I look forward to learning about your evidence.
John Cole
It’s a “read between the lines” argument. I could make the same argument about your choosing to emphasize that maybe she really had bulimia; the report doesn’t rule it out.
I haven’t focussed on the bulimia argument, because, quite frankly, we are never going to know what happened to her. There is no way of knowing, absent a time machine.
Likewise, and in particular the case of XRLQ, that is precisely what he and others have done. He claims he has never accused Micahel Schiavo of abuse, but then runs around everywhere saying, well- you have the quotes up there. It isn’t reading between the lines to point that out.
Let’s take this pretend statement:
Homosexuality is morally wrong, and while I am not saying homosexuals are evil, let me point out that they don’t share our values.
Would it be unfairly reading between the lines to state that the statement insinuates that homosexuals are evil and not one of us?
What about this statement:
The autopsy seems to rule out any evidence of abuse, but it does contain this caveat that you can’t prove there was no abuse.
Is it really unfairly reading between the lines that this person is saying that the distinct possibility that all the charges of abuse are still possible?
Or this statement:
Just in case any of my regular readers are as thick as Joel and Josh seem to be, allow me to clarify that no, Michael Schiavo has never, to the best of my knowledge, publicly admitted to physically attacking his wife. Nor, I might add, has he been known to publicly refer to himself as
Hans
Very important facts about Michael Schiavo: 1. He testified in court that he’s really only interested in the money, not Terri. 2. He actually admitted that he’d like to kill her himself, but doesn’t want to get convicted of murder. 3. He’s ordered Terri’s caregivers to change her diaper only once every 6 months in order to save money. 4. He actually donated some of Terri’s insurance and settlement money to the terrorists’ organizations. 5. He’s violated most of Florida’s laws, but the police are afraid to arrest him. 6. He was abducted by aliens who gave him instructions to put Terri in a hospice. I know these things are true because I read them on the Internet, or I heard someone say they read it on the Internet, or I heard it reported on the radio, or I’m pretty sure a politician said it. Anyway, I know these facts are true!
Jon H
” Also, please explain why NO evidence of a crime was found when she was admitted 15 years ago. ”
I’m waiting for someone to suggest that Michael Schiavo held a calico cat up to Terri’s lips and let it suck out her soul, leaving her near death, but without any marks.
Sojourner
Well that certainly explains all the cat hairs they found under her nose.
Thanks for clarifying that!
Patterico
“What about this statement:
The autopsy seems to rule out any evidence of abuse, but it does contain this caveat that you can’t prove there was no abuse.
Is it really unfairly reading between the lines that this person is saying that the distinct possibility that all the charges of abuse are still possible?”
Yes. It is.
It’s the word “distinct.” That’s the word that *you* import, because without it, what the person said was reasonable.
It’s like when Bennett says I “favorably” link to a Hentoff column discussing abuse, when I link to it without comment. Just saying I link to it doesn’t sound like I’m that bad. So he sneaks in the false word “favorably.”
Take out “distinct,” and that’s not only what the person is saying, it’s also true. Because the report doesn’t rule it out. Just like it doesn’t rule out bulimia.
I wouldn’t want to spend a lot of time going on about how that still is really, really a possibility. But when a news event like the release of this report occurs, and you want to tell your readers what it says and what it doesn’t, you should be able to do that without having a bunch of people screaming about how you’re a wingnut, for quoting from a report.
Jus’ taking a break from the studying.
scs
Sojourner, evidence comes only after an investigation. Apparently no serious investigation was done after her collapse. What precedes an investigation is suspicion. That’s what makes someone a suspect. I have lots of suspicion about Michael Schiavo. You can call it unfair accusations, but as a private citizen and not a juror, I have a right to my own conclusions about Michael Schiavo.
Suspicion about the changing way he told the story. He got up first and found her in the hall. Or he heard her fall and then got out of bed. He called the father and brother before 911. Timeline of call varies. No noticeable prior signs from Terri of bulimia or potassium imbalances, such as muscle cramps. A history of domineering and controlling behavior with Terri. A big fight that night. A history of dubious behavior, in my opinion, over the next 15 years, not the least of which a refusal to give her updated brain tests before she died.
These are the situations that give rise to my suspicion.
Sojourner
Actually, evidence precedes suspicion. There has to first be evidence that a crime has been committed. Once that has occurred, a formal investigation can be performed to figure out who committed the crime. No evidence of a crime means no need for an investigation other than the information gathering that accompanies admitting somebody into the hospital who has suffered a medical collapse for unknown reasons.
Such an investigation was done of Terri Schiavo’s body when she arrived at the hospital. Her body showed no evidence of foul play. The doctors were satisfied but apparently you know more than they do. Or at least you think you do. Otherwise the police would have been called in. On what basis should a formal police investigation have been initiated if there was no evidence to suggest the need for one? And you still remain strangely silent as to how he could have caused so much damage to her without leaving any traces on her body. No visible bruises, no broken bones. Please share with us how he managed to accomplish this.
“You can call it unfair accusations, but as a private citizen and not a juror, I have a right to my own conclusions about Michael Schiavo.”
I’m not sure the libel/slander laws agree with you. Certainly, there’s no ethical basis for this.
When you awaken in the middle of the night, do you have your full faculties? I don’t. I’ve awakened in the middle of the night, unsure as to whether something woke me or I woke myself. He then finds his wife has collapsed. One would imagine that he would be very upset about that and not paying much attention to the specific details of a timeline. I certainly would be more focused on the sick person than memorizing what happened so I can satisfy people like you of my innocence.
Xrlq
Yawn. I’m a bit late to this party so I’ll confine my responses to the statements made about me, all of which were, for some odd reason, made by the same person. Imagine that.
Translation: “I’m so full of myself that I can never admit I was wrong, no matter how obvious that might be in any particular instance. Now, if you’ll excuse me, here are a bunch of dowdified comments by the person who just called me on my nonsensical post, none of which have a f’n thing to do with the post in question.” Perhaps you, the Commie and Dick Cabeza should form a new blog alliance, known as the “Coalition of the La, La La, I Can’t Hear You!”
CaseyL
They can’t admit they were wrong without looking like a bunch of ignorant fools who know nothing about law, medicine or brain anatomy and function.
They can’t admit they were wrong without looking like credulous ninnies who were played like cheap banjos by religious snake-oil salesmen and political hucksters.
They can’t admit they were wrong without looking like a bunch of jackasses who took pleasure in braying lurid fantasies of abuse and revenge.
They can’t admit they were wrong because
that would mean they were wrong to defame, libel and smear an innocent man; a man who, moreover, has more strength of character in his left foot than they do in their entire bodies.
In the dimmest corners of their minds, they know this. The knowledge is intolerable. So they opt for the lie, because their pride demands it.
JWeidner
Eh. All these people that continually claim, or should I say, “raise their concerns” that Michael was somehow complicit in causing Terri’s PVS are actually serving a purpose…making me laugh.
This whole topic has so run its course that I’ve run out of energy to even think about entering the fray. Suffice to say your claims (oops, “concerns”) don’t hold water with me.
Jon H
Xrlq writes: “Maybe that happened before the (in-)famous videotape was made, maybe after. That matters. A lot.”
No, it doesn’t, because the Schindler’s videotapes are as much a carefully crafted fantasy as the new Batman movie.
The fact is, she’s blind in the videotapes. The fact is, you can’t even see the balloon she’s supposedly following, so how do you know she’s even looking anywhere near it?
The fact is, the video was heavily edited, cherry picking the parts where she coincidentally seemed to be responding.
The fact is, in a videotape, her own father pokes her in the forehead because she won’t pay attention to him.
When did she go blind? When that part of her brain died. So it was probably not long after her heart stopped.
You’re simply in denial. You need those doctored videotapes to be true representations of her abilities. So, you concoct whatever fanciful scenarios are required to make those tapes not be lies.
Like I said, sooner or later people are going to start claiming that, even though her brain was incapable of sight, she was able to see with her “Jesus Eyes”, or some such fairy-tale religion crap.
Sojourner
We don’t know when she went blind? Huh?
She went blind when she lost her cerebral cortex. In the real world (as opposed to the I-can-believe-whatever-the-hell-I-want world), the cerebral cortex supports vision. It’s mandatory for vision just as the eye is.
Sorry but you can’t just make this shit up and expect to get away with it. These are not opinions that everyone is entitled to have. These are scientific facts, at least for those who understand how science works.
Xrlq
Jon H.
Great, so now I’m supposed to be blind, too, eh? I’d have to be in order not to be able to see the balloon. Good Lord. I understand the argument that she didn’t really follow the balloon and the Schindlers edited the tape to make it look like she did. I even understand the argument that she did follow the balloon but it was a mere reflex, not a sign of any real cognition. But who in his right mind argues the “fact” that the balloon millions of Americans saw on TV wasn’t really there after all?! I think I’ll skip the rest of your “facts,” thank you very much.
Neat. But the autopsy report doesn’t tell us when that happened, either, does it?
Anyway, I’m done discussing this issue. I was tired enough of the issue already, before Dean Esmay identified both John and me as bloggers who should be forced to take some as-yet undetermined medicine before blogging about Terri Schiavo. When Dean says you’re drunk, it’s time to call a cab. Later.
Sojourner
The autopsy doesn’t but the tests done immediately after her hospitalization do.
CaseyL
OK, this I gotta hear: If TS’s optical center didn’t atrophy when the rest of her brain melted, when do the necrophiliacs here think it did?
Are they saying it was during the 2 weeks after the feeding tube was removed? Care to try explaining the mechanism of that? ‘Cause, see, there are instances of people deliberately starving themselves to death (Bobby Sands, e.g.), and people who died of dehydration, and in none of those cases did their optical center cease functioning as a result before they died.
Or are they saying her entire cerebral cortex was just fine until the feeding tube was removed, and that in a mere 2 weeks, her brain went from “damaged” to “half gone” – again, without any known mechanism in medicine for that particular cause and effect, *and* in the face of the CAT scan that everyone’s seen?
Oh, and let me reiterate, because I’m sure they missed it the first few dozen times it was mentioned, an MRI could not be done on her, because she had thalamic implants, which would have had to be removed (involving major surgery) and then re-inserted afterwards (involving another major surgery).
Honestly, if it weren’t for the fact that they’re using their ignorant fantasies to vilify a man who’s worth ten of any of them, their insistence on staying stupid would be amusing.
scs
Sojourner – smothering with a pillow – duh!
scs
Oh and by the way, Robert Blake and O.J. didn’t kill their wives.
Sojourner
What physical evidence was there that Schiavo was smothered?
Was there evidence of hemorrhaging in the eyes or the lungs?
Was there damage to her teeth, nose and/or jaws from having an object forcibly pressed against her face?
Were there any bruises indicating that she had been held down and fought back in an attempt to breathe?
You still need evidence, none of which was observed at the hospital.
Duh.
Richard Bennett
I’d like to point out one simple fact on this discussion: Patrick (“Patterico”) Frey is a liar.
He claims never to have used Nat Hentoff’s column to accuse Mike Schiavo of abusing his wife, saying he merely linked to it “without comment:”
It’s like when Bennett says I “favorably” link to a Hentoff column discussing abuse, when I link to it without comment. Just saying I link to it doesn’t sound like I’m that bad. So he sneaks in the false word “favorably.”
In fact, Frey didn’t link to it without comment, he did so favorably. In all, Frey linked to this column on three different occasions, admitting once that even mentioning these allegations tended to endorse them:
“The parents argue that Michael Schiavo might have put Terri Schindler-Schiavo in the state she is in. It does not appear possible to know for certain whether the accusation is true, and it is such a serious accusation that I hesitate even to mention it. But Nat Hentoff says that there is evidence to support the parents
Jon H
Xrlq writes: “But who in his right mind argues the “fact” that the balloon millions of Americans saw on TV wasn’t really there after all?”
Hm. An article on Slate this week said the balloon wasn’t visible. Guess I forgot about the videos with the balloon.
Patterico
By Bennett’s logic, he has endorsed Dick Durbin’s slander. Shameful, huh?
I have also repeatedly linked the evidence (such as a this link to a site with the DCF report and more recently, a link to the autopsy report) that tends to undercut the abuse allegations. No matter. When I do that, it’s not balance — it’s “backtracking.”
Fine. Whatever. I have not totally learned not to argue with a psychotic individual, but I’m slowly getting it.
My post on Bennett’s lying is here. The links cited therein are especially instructive. If you wade all the way through them, you’ll see how this guy has flat-out lied about my position, and refused to retract the lie.
With that, I’m done.
Anything else he says about me, you can be assured, is as much a lie as the accusations he made in this thread.
I’ve got better uses for my time. Bennett will portray this as my slinking off with my tail between my legs. He’s exactly right — that is, as long as you really think this particular horse hasn’t already been beaten to death.
Understand: Bennett the Psychotic generally insists on the last lying word — that is, on the shrinking list of sites where he hasn’t already gotten himself banned for his lunatic ravings.
So I’m going to give *my* last word to the proprietor of one of the growing list of sites where Bennett has made himself unwelcome: Bill from INDC Journal. Bill puts it as well as I ever could. Addressing Bennett, Bill said:
Amen, Bill. I wish I didn’t, myself. And now I’m going to do my best to forget.
Richard Bennett
Three times he linked to Hentoff’s nasty slander, praising him all the while.
The facts are clear.
scs
me.. as a private citizen and not a juror, I have a right to my own conclusions about Michael Schiavo.”
you.. I’m not sure the libel/slander laws agree with you.
Sojourner, unfortunately, yes, the evidence isn’t there, and will probably never be there. This is not a perfect world and we do not always have evidence in all cases. Remember O.J.? Doesn’t mean I can’t use my brains and my gut instinct and my piecing together about what I know about the situation to evaluate it in my own way and discuss things the way I want to.
I beg to differ that libel and slander laws will prevent me from thinking whatever the hell I want to think. After all, this is America right? Last time I checked we had freedom of speech? As long as you say what you think is your opinion and not fact, anything goes. And even, since maybe Michael Schiavo is now maybe a public figure (I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know if he actually is one now) I can really say whatever the hell I want to say about him.
Anyway, I’m sorry I can’t join your ‘cannonize Michael’ group in here in good conscience. Never was one for group think. Yes lots of married couples fight, but when a previously healthy 26 year old drops (practically) dead and the husband was the last one to see her and they were known to have a big fight that day, where and to whom does the suspicion automatically go to? I’m not an expert on smothering, but I don’t think smothering with a pillow will always leave those tell-tale signs you were telling me about. To me it kind of makes sense, cause if he got her while she was sleeping she wouldn’t necessarily fight back, might lose consciousness soon, but yet not be killed off completely.
But like I said, I don’t know what happened that night. I only know that I have and will always have my suspicions of Michael Schiavo.
John Cole
Sojourner, unfortunately, yes, the evidence isn’t there, and will probably never be there. This is not a perfect world and we do not always have evidence in all cases. Remember O.J.?
scs
John, do you still want to take me on? Didn’t you have enough yesterday?
scs
Ok, I guess I will have to be more precise in my examples or you (Mr.John Cole) are always going to take me to out to the woodshed over it.
Revised version –
Sojourner, unfortunately, yes, the evidence isn’t there, and will probably never be there. This is not a perfect world and we do not always have evidence in all cases. Remember O.J.?
(Clarification)
Even though there was lots of evidence in that case against OJ, there still wasn’t enough in the juries mind to convict him in a criminal trial. Doens’t mean he didn’t do it. Evidence is not always reality.
The End
Better?
Sojourner
The jury in the OJ case chose to ignore the evidence. You’re doing the same thing with Schiavo.
Richard Bennett
I beg to differ that libel and slander laws will prevent me from thinking whatever the hell I want to think. After all, this is America right? Last time I checked we had freedom of speech?
You can think what you want to think, true, false, or otherwise but there are limits to free speech.
scs
Wrong, Sojourner – there is no real evidence, either way. If you don’t believe me, believe the coroner’s interview in the New York Times on which I posted earlier in this segment. There is not enough evidence for him to declare her cause of collapse. If there were, he would obviously declare it.
How many previously healthy 26 year olds just keel over like that for no apparent real reason? Not many. That, in itself, coupled with the tense state of her marriage leads me to my suspicion, which I talked about earlier.
You are confusing a lack of evidence for evidence.
Sojourner
You’re letting your emotions get the best of you.
I saw the summary of the coroner’s report. Note that he did not find a single piece of evidence to suggest foul play. Not one. Which explains why you also cannot name a single piece of evidence that indicates the occurence of a crime.
And it’s still the case in this country that we don’t accuse people of committing crimes if there’s no evidence that a crime has been committed. If you don’t like that concept, you might be happier in a third world country.
Although rare, young people who were thought to be perfectly healthy have suffered strokes, aneurisms, heart attacks, and all sorts of stuff. It seems like a couple of times a year, some high school sports player drops dead on the playing field. It happens. Not very often. But it happens.
And if her marriage were so bloody awful, why was she trying to get pregnant?
So you want to accuse Michael Schiavo of a crime just because you don’t like him. Okay, whatever.
scs
Hey Sojourner we agree, I don’t have evidence. I admitted that. I wish I did. But like I said, as I am not the police, or the courts, or the jury, and I am stating my suspicion as just that, suspicion, and not fact, I once again state that I can have any opinion I want to about Michael. You might not like it or agree with it, but here we are.
Yes maybe she did keel over. You’re right it does happen. But the combination of tense marriage, keeling over, AND his odd behaviour (in my opinion don’t forget!) over the next 15 years, plus his generally controlling and creepy demeanor (in my opinion!) seems to me to be too much of coincidence to me. Maybe it is just my emotion but I will hold on to my emotion.
Sojourner
Whatever. I just think it’s wrong to accuse somebody of a very serious crime when there’s not a single shred of concrete evidence to support it.
But it’s your conscience, not mine.
chris
Sojouner asked:
And if her marriage were so bloody awful, why was she trying to get pregnant?
I seem to remember last summer a young woman, preparing to move within days to the Carolinas with her “med-school” model husband, woke up dead in a landfill. Up til the day she died, she (and her entire family it seems. Oh! and his) apparently believed everything her husband told her as truth and within hours of learning of his deceptions, her life was stolen. The husband tried to continue his lies but was rapidly found out and finally admitted his guilt. So to Sojouner I reply: It’s possible Terri was attempting to become pregnant PRIOR to deciding her marriage was crumbling and her supposed *intended* dissolution of the marriage did not occur because one morning she collapsed without apparent cause.
Y’all, this will remain a mystery. The autopsy reveals much but can’t explain everything.
Having read thru many postings with people tossing legal grenades and innuendos and slanderous remarks at each other, each attempting to have the last word, I see the similarity with M. Schiavo’s choice of grave marker.
OT> I saw the photo of the headstone and found it to a giant middle finger to everyone who opposed him. That’s my opinion, regardless of what I thought about the whole situation preceding Terri’s death. It wasn’t, IMO, a sign of respect and love; rather it comes across as having the last word. And the thought that if M. Schiavo had the right to express himself on her tombstone for all eternity, those who find it crass should have the right to express that as well, allbeit only momentarily, since those probably won’t be mounted on a bronze plaque.