Posted on 03/22/2005 5:31:52 PM PST by GLDNGUN
"MICHAEL SCHIAVO, Terri Schiavo's husband, finally went on national television last night to tell the world his side of the story. Appearing on "Larry King Live," he strived mightily to play the loving husband. Until more than half way through the interview, when King got around to tentatively asking Schiavo whether or not it is true that he has a girlfriend. (King, who must have known the answer, somehow failed to mention that Schiavo has already sired two children with this woman, who he calls his fiancé.)"...
"So how could Terri's father make any money off the case? Schiavo's story is that once Schindler became Terri's guardian, he would get her a divorce, and then he would stop her food and fluids. The alleged point of such a scheme being that as next of kin, the Schindlers would inherit their daughter's money."
If that really Shiavo's story? That he thinks the parents will do what he's doing and been trying to do for years if they get custody? If so, then the REAL question is, "So, which is more important to you, Michael, the MONEY or Terri's wishes? You state that Terri did NOT want to be kept alive. Well, if you are certain the parents will kill her as soon as they get their hands on her, then why fight them? If that's their true plan, wouldn't she have been dead years ago if you had just given them custody? Why not let them kill her and let it be on their conscience? It's NOT the money...right, Michael?"
Michael never said that. I watched that interview. This has to be the most poorly written vanity of the day. And we've had more than a few.
Never said what?
Are you sure this is not an internet rumor??
Bump for a great article. It poses and answers some of the key questions that people didn't ask and should have.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/306hhsrh.asp?pg=1
"(1) Why did Schiavo tell a medical malpractice jury in 1992 that Terri would live a normal life span? After Terri's collapse, Schiavo sued for
medical malpractice. Under civil law, the longer Terri was expected to live, the larger the verdict would probably be. This fact of legal life could explain why Michael presented evidence to the malpractice jury not only that Terri would likely live a normal life span but also that he intended to be a good and loyal husband and care for her for the rest of his life.
(2) Why did Schiavo have a rehabilitation expert testify in front of the malpractice jury to present a detailed plan of therapy for Terri? Schiavo and his lawyer claimed that Terri is incapable of improving physically, but during the 1992 trial, a rehabilitation plan and its anticipated undertaking provided one of the underpinnings for the jury's $1.3 million award. Of that money, Schiavo received $300,000, lawyers' fees were paid, and about $750,000 was put in trust to pay for Terri's rehabilitation.
(3) Given that the jury awarded $750,000 to be used in part for Terri's therapy, why hasn't Schiavo provided any rehabilitation for her since 1991? When asked by King about the issue of rehab, Schiavo described some early efforts to help Terri, such as an experimental surgery in 1990. But he never identified when this rehab took place. "
You remember exactly what he said in an interview 2 years ago? Besides, the article doesn't say he said that during the interview. Rather it is a list of questions that LK SHOULD have asked but didn't. If you are right, that Shiavo didn't say this during the interview, it wouldn't be surprising since LK asks only softball questions. That's the point of the article. Your point makes mine. Thank you.
He never said this:
From the poster: If that really Shiavo's story? That he thinks the parents will do what he's doing and been trying to do for years if they get custody
Are you sure this is not an internet rumor??
I'm going by the Daily Standard article. It doesn't say that Shiavo stated this specifically during his 2003 LKL interview. In fact, the author is criticizing LK for NOT asking about issues such as these. THAT'S the whole point of the article. The author, though, DOES say that Michael Schiavo's story is that the parents want custody so they can kill her and take her money. Read it for yourself. That's why I asked if this is indeed his theory. Internet rumor? I dont' know. You'll have to ask the author of the piece, but I would hope he uses better sources than "internet rumors".
When? During a LK interview in 2003, or ever?
If that is the case, this is mere speculation on the author's part.
Will have to read the article later as I am on the move.
Actually, Michael knows full well that the Schindlers will not let Terri die.
They testified under oath that even if Terri gets diabetes and needs multiple amputations as a result of poor blood circulation, they would not remove the life saving tube.
They testified under oath that even if they knew that Terri did not wish to be kept alive by a tube this way, they would not remove the life saving tube.
Michael said something like "that's enough". I know that even if my husband divorced me, he would never let me be subjected to that. Even if I couldn't feel and have no cognitive abilities, he would never let anyone do that to me.
So your hypothetical does NOT work.
What is my hypothetical? I've only asked if Michael Shiavo's story is that he believes the parents want custody so they can pull the plug on Terri and collect a payday. I then stated what questions should be asked of him if that's what he truly believes. I'm sorry you are so confused, but I'm not sure how to make this any more clear.
You tell me. The article says it's Shiavo's story, but it doesn't say he said it on LKL in 2003. Again, THAT'S the point of the article, that LK didn't ask him the tough questions.
Good. But what does that have to do with another poster stating that MS never said Terri's parents wanted custody so they could pull the plug and let her die?
And didn't I tell you I know that's not what he believes? Because he has court testimony from the Schindlers that tells him, that tells all of us, the lengths to which the Schindlers are willing to go to keep Terri alive, regardless of their wishes, they admitted in court.
They testified under oath that even if they knew that Terri did not wish to be kept alive by a tube this way, they would not remove the life saving tube.
Uhhh, if their motive was money, they could very well lie in court. MS convinced a jury that he needed a huge financial malpractice settlement because Terri needed rehad and had every reason to live out her life. Then he got the money and said "oh, by the way, there will be no rehad and, oh, by the way, Terri didn't want to live out her life, so I'll kill her now. Just like she wanted". But those were lies, obviously, proving that people DO LIE in court when money is at stake.
Ahem. You seem to not understand that it was five years after he got the malpractice money that he gave up hope and asked to have the life saving tube removed.
Also, did you not know that he got $300,000 for loss of consortium and the rest of the money is handled by the court for Terri's care?
Try this on for size. What MS "believes" and what he "says" could be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You see, THAT'S why LK should have probed more, to test his story. Does he REALLY think Terri's parents would immediately kill her and go cash her check? No, I think he KNOWS better. That, however, does NOT mean that that is his story. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? Sometimes, people say one thing when they don't mean it. For example, when MS told the malpractice jury that he needed a huge payday to fund Terri's rehab and that she would live out her life exptantancy. On the othe hand, he supposedly KNEW that Terri didn't want to live, so he wanted the jury to believe something (rehab, life expectancy) that he KNEW wasn't going to happen. Not if he had anything to do with it.
You are ignoring court testimony. MS, and all of us now, KNOW what the Schindlers would do to keep Terri alive. There was no need to ask that question. It's a matter of public opinion. Michael knows it. He was there in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.