Free Republic

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis144.nsf/vwLegislation/HR+75/$file/legis.html?open

Spread this far and wide and contact the Delaware Governor as well as Delaware Senators and have them support this legislation today.

http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/lis144.nsf/vwLegislation/HR+75/$file/legis.html?open

Please contact the Governor of Delaware and Delaware Senators and tell them to support this Legislation

Please make www.terrisfight.org (info@terrisfight.org) aware of this. Please make pro-life outlets aware of this.

Yes, those are really great sites. I urge everyone to visit them. They are really amazing. The value they place on their loved one is tremendous. Interestly, many the individual on those websites have many more complications than Terri or Lauren had. Nevertheless, their lives are vauled and they are treated just like any normal human being.

Feel free to leave your comments on these sites. I am sure they families will greatly appreciate it.

Lauren Richardson’s life is highly valued by many. She should not die. Despite her situation, Lauren can still have a meaningful life filled with love, compassion and understanding. For those on this board who truly value our country’s Least of These, I invite you to visit the Top Ranked list of disabled people. All of this people are very similiar to Terri Schiavo and Lauren Richardson, with one exception; instead of being starved and dehydrated to death, they cared for by their guardians with love, compassion, understanding and hope. Despite their tragic situations, they have meaningful lives with bring joy to others. I invite many to visits these sites:

1. Tori Schmanski - She lives in Utah. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. She has a very supportive and active website. http://www.pray4tori.com/

2. Chris Barnes - He lives in New York. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. His wife Koo is a super advocate - http://chrisbarnes.blogharbor.com/

3. Kathleen Davey - She lives in California. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. Web site is quite active. Her father maintains the Global Ischemia Foundation. http://www.getwellkathleen.us/index.htm

4. Michael Mobely - He lives in Florida. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. The father cares for Michael is a good advocate for the disabled. http://www.justiceformichael.com/

5. Lauren Ashley - She lives in California. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. One the best known cases on CaringBridge. http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/laurenashley

6. Justine Pesicka - She lives in California. Very similar to Terri Schiavo. The mother has cared for Justine for almost 18 years. http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/justinepesicka

7. Megan Sheppard - Lives in Illinois. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo.
www.caringbridge.org/visit/megansheppard

8. Shawna Weil - Lives in Pennsylvania. Virtually identical to Terri Schiavo. http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/shawnaweil

9. Madison - Lives in Texas. Very similar to Terri Schiavo. http://www.princessmadison.org/

10. Izzy - Lives in Oklahoma. Very Similar to Terri Schiavo. http://www.prayforizzy.blogspot.com/

11. Samantha Palumbo - Lives in California. Similar to Terri Schiavo. Her mother, Diana Palumbo in one of the strongest advocates for the disabled that I have seen. http://www.pray4samantha.com/

Buying a phone card. That is a creative idea. Long distance phone cards are really cheap. People can buy say a 60 to 100 minutes for really low cost. People then can start making phone calls to the Governor’s Office pleading to stop this process from proceeding any further. Lauren deserves to Right to Live. Phone calls are lot harder to avod than emails.

Here are some statutes and laws that would help the governor of Delaware to save the life of Lauren Richardson from court ordered starvation and dehydration:

§1. Governor to be supreme executive.

Section 1. The Supreme executive powers of the State shall be vested in a Governor.

Governor Minner has Supreme executive power. She has the power to influence the Delaware Legislature to create a “Check” in system to prevent to starvation and dehydration of Lauren Richardson.

§20. Trial by court of issues of fact in civil causes.

Section 20. In civil causes where matters of fact are at issue, if the parties agree, such matters of fact shall be tried by the court, and judgement rendered upon their decision thereon as upon a verdict by a jury

§15. Messages to General Assembly.

Section 15. He shall, from time to time, give to the General Assembly information of affairs concerning the State and recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall judge expedient.

§16. Special sessions of General Assembly; adjournment; special session of Senate.

Section 16. He may on extraordinary occasions convene the General Assembly by proclamation; and in case of disagreement between the two Houses with respect to the time of adjournment, adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, not exceeding three months. He shall have power to convene the Senate in extraordinary session by proclamation, for the transaction of executive business.

§ 2102. Request for judicial opinions.

The Governor may, whenever the Governor requires it for public information or to enable the Governor to discharge the duties of office with fidelity, request the members of the Supreme Court to give their opinions in writing touching the proper construction of any provision in the Constitution of this State or of the United States or the constitutionality of any law enacted by the General Assembly of this State. (Code 1852, § 482; Code 1915, § 402; Code 1935, § 374; 29 Del. C. 1953, § 2102; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.)

§ 4506. Special jury.

The Court may order a special jury upon the application of any party in a complex civil case. The party applying for a special jury shall pay the expense incurred by having a special jury, which may be allowed as part of the costs of the case. (66 Del. Laws, c. 5, § 1.)

For those who have a fax machine, below are some the relevent fax numbers:

Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner
Legislative Hall
Dover, DE 19901
Fax:(302)577-3118
Tel:(302)577-3210 11/00

Web Site: www.state.de.us/governor
E-mail: Contact Via ‘Web Form.’

Tatnall Bldg., William Penn St., 2nd Fl.
Dover, DE 19901
Phone: (302) 744-4101
Fax: (302) 739-2775

Washington Office:
444 N. Capitol St., NW, Ste. 230
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 624-7724
Fax: (202) 624-5495

Governor of the State of Delaware - Ruth Ann Minner
Party: Democrat
Term Expires: Jan, 2009
Spouse: Widowed
Address: Tatnall Building
William Penn Street
Dover, Delaware 19901
Phone: (302) 744-4101
Fax: (302) 739-2775
Birthdate: Thursday, January 17, 1935
Profession: Businessperson
Religion: Methodist

Mary Shivick is the following:

Mary Shivick
Dover Receptionist
Phone: (302) 744-4101
E-mail: mary.shivick@state.de.us

I doubt Governor Ruth Ann Minner read any of the letters. People need to respond to this woman and tell her that Ruth Ann Minner needs to take a serious interest in this case instead of hiding behind legal dogma.

People may also wish to email these individuals as well:

Mark Brainard
Chief of Staff
Phone: (302) 744-4101
E-mail: mark.brainard@state.de.us

Lorilee Harrison
Executive Assistant to the Governor
Phone: (302) 744-4102
E-mail: lorilee.harrison@state.de.us

Emails are also easy to ignore. People need to make phone calls, send faxes and make personal visits to the Governor’s office.

Most Importantly, the sotry has to get out. Spread Lauren Richardson’s situation far and wide. The father, Randy has been sanctioned by the court and facing an uphill battle of getting the media involved.

Everyone needs to email the governor. Thousands of people.

Everyone needs to contact disability groups. Thousands of people.

For people who take time, power is in numbers.

http://lifeforlauren.org/updates.html

Lauren Richardson is a tragic case. The father, Randy, wants to care for the daughter that he loves. However, the courts so far will not let him and have said No.

Instead the courts are moving towards to premise of allowing Lauren’s mother to remove the feeding tube and have Lauren slowly starved and dehydrated to death over a period of almost 2 weeks.

It should be noted that Lauren is not PVS. Doctors who have examined Lauren have said such.

Lauren has a good chance of being weaned off her feeding tube but the mother is nevertheless is pursuing her death.

Lauren has received no therapy in over 13 months under expressed orders of the Mother and the backing of the court (Both Randy and the mother have to agree or there is no therapy). The only therapy Lauren has received has been what little her family can give her on their own time.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1. Contact Randy Richardson and offer your support. He can be contacted at the following email address lifeforlauren@aol.com.

2. Contact the governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner and respectively ask that she intervene to protect the life of Lauren Richardson. Her email is governor.minner@state.de.us. A lot of people have been trying to contact her but she refuses to intervene. Nevertheless, the pressure is on the governor. Please foward your letters to governor to Randy as well: lifeforlauren@aol.com. Randy has already received numerous letters to the governor. It hoped that these letters may reach the governor and she will take an interest in the case.

3. Randy needs help from disability groups but has come up a bit short. Randy is counting on amicis briefs from Disability groups to help save the life of the daughter that he loves, Lauren Richardson. If you are affiliated with disability groups, please make them aware of the situation. Few disability groups have agreed ot help Randy. Please email or contact disability groups and tell them to intervene.

4. Randy has recently requested helpful donations for the medical testing and care for Lauren Richardson. Any donations would be a big help.

5. Finally, and most importantly, the story needs to get out. Randy has be sanctioned by the courts from actually talking about the case to the media. However, news of Lauren Richardson is slowly becoming known.

Please pray for Lauren Richardson.

James

Send these articles to following email addresses:

http://christiannewswire.com/news/163965818.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57488

colmes@foxnews.com
Oreilly@FoxNews.com
hannity@foxnews.com

Send these articles to following email addresses:

http://christiannewswire.com/news/163965818.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57488

colmes@foxnews.com
Oreilly@FoxNews.com
hannity@foxnews.com

Send these articles to following email addresses:

http://christiannewswire.com/news/163965818.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57488

colmes@foxnews.com
Oreilly@FoxNews.com
hannity@foxnews.com

Everything went back to the 2000 trial.

Terri Schiavo never recieved a fair trial.

Terri Schiavo got process but she didn’t get “Due Process” (Fundamental Fairness)

Some of the major problems with 2000 trial that compromised Terri’s due process were:

Terri was unrepresented. For the entire 7 years of litigation (1998-2005) Terri was never once represented by a lawyer. The court ruled that she wasn’t entilted to legal counsel. Michael was represented and the Schindlers were represented but Terri was never represented.

Terri had no GAL. GALs were appointed. However, their roles were limited and short and didn’t play the role of a GAL - A zelous Advocate for the ward’s rights and interests.

Judge Greer Served as Advocate and Adjucaticator in the 2000 trial and deprived Terri a fair trial.

A gross financial inequity existed in the 2000. Michael was allow access to hundreds of thounsands of dollars to hire right to die attorneys and experts to fight for Terri’s death.

The Schindlers were not afforded that seem right and had to settle for a green-horned, illexperienced, illfinanced lawyer who was ineffective in advocatig Terri’s right to live.

The courts ruled that Terri was not entitled to be free from cruel and and unusual punishment because she was not a convicted criminal.

TERRIÂ’S APPEAL UPDATE Summary Of Legal Events On July 5, attorneys Robert Merkle and Joseph Magri filed an "Appeal" to reverse the court ruling authorizing Schiavo to remove Terri's nutrition feeding. SchiavoÂ’s attorney then filed a "Rebuttal", citing his legal arguments against the Appeal. The last document in the appeal process is Attorney MagriÂ’s "Rebuttal Reply." The next step in the appeal process is court oral arguments, which has yet to be scheduled. Attorney Magri's "Rebuttal Reply" - On September 1, Attorney Joseph Magri filed his "Reply Brief." The document addresses issues SchiavoÂ’s attorney is protesting as invalid in the original appeal. In his reply, Attorney Magri states it is apparent that SchiavoÂ’s Attorney offers little in the way of a legal response to the appeal core issues. Essentially, SchiavoÂ’s attorney is attempting to divert the Appellate Court away from the fundamental issues by creating a buzz of sensationalism surrounding peripheral issues. Attorney Magri States: The appeal case should be about "TerriÂ’s Intent" and the procedures employed by the court in the trial should be reviewed to ensure that "TerriÂ’s Intent" was arrived at fairly and the evidence supports that finding. The appeal should be about whether the trial was equitable, balanced and fair. It should be about the court sanctioned funding, which permitted Michael Schiavo to use TerriÂ’s medical fund money to pay his legal fees. The appeal should be about whether court rulings were conducive to fair presentation of other relevant issues, such as TerriÂ’s medical condition and whether Terri was represented during the trial. It should examine whether meritorious defenses existed in TerriÂ’s behalf. Conversely, Attorney Magri Emphatically Argues: This appeal case should not be about whether any one of us, or how most Americans in general feel, in circumstances similar to TerriÂ’s condition, they would want to die **** This case should not be about whether Terri is unworthy to live, or worthy to die. **** This case should not be about whether TerriÂ’s parents think "correctly" on issues of life or death. **** The "appeal processÂ’ should not be a place to argue past peripheral issues which were previously pleaded and rejected by the court. [see footnote #1] **** This case should not be about tactical settlement discussions which was not only rejected but known before made that it would be rejected. [see Attorney MagriÂ’s comments on SchiavoÂ’s Donation Strategy.] [Footnote #1 - Prior to the trial, in June of 1998, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem to investigate SchiavoÂ’s request for the termination of TerriÂ’s life support. Based on his study, the Guardian Ad Litem filed a report with the Court recommending the request by Schiavo be denied. Shortly after the report was filed, SchiavoÂ’s attorney legally challenged the Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s report on a charge of bias.] Attorney MagriÂ’s response then refocuses on the "fundamental issues.Â’ presented in his original appeal document and addresses SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys "Rebuttal" statements. THE COURT USED AN INCORRECT RULE OF LAW It is inherently suggested by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, that "reliabilityÂ’ is the only issue, Michael SchiavoÂ’s attorney lead the court astray by ignoring the fact that "accuracyÂ’ is also an issue and more importantly, that a decision as to TerriÂ’s wishes based on oral declarations also must be made on the basis of "clear and convincing evidenceÂ’ THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY CLEAR & CONVINCING. The original appeal document states the trial courtÂ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and not supported by the evidence. A review of the testimony will reinforce this position. Michael SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - conflicted with the information Schiavo provided that is contained in the pretrial Guardian ad LitemÂ’s report. The discrepancies occurred not only in SchiavoÂ’s description of the train conversation, where Terri allegedly expressed her "oral living will", but he also omitted other conversations, which he testified to at the trial. SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence". [This is continued under the heading: Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial] Scott SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - Michael SchiavoÂ’s brother came forward and gave a version of a single corroborative comment that Terri supposedly made years prior to her seizure. However in the space of eleven trial transcript pages he describes that statement in three different ways. If his memory changed that many times in that short a period, he could not have distinctly remembered, precisely, explicitly and without confusion the statement Terri made. Scott SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot provide "clear and convincing evidence". Joan SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - A review of the questions and her answer reflects that she is not describing what Terri said. Her testimony is inherently confusing. Part of her answers devolves into what she and her husband wanted. It clearly identifies "we" as she and her husband. For sure, she does not distinctly use the term as she and Terri. As a matter of law these statements cannot rise to the level of "clear and convincing evidence". Beverly Tyler Testimony - It is absurd to accept testimony from someone who never even met Terri and use this person to corroborate what Terri said and meant, while ignoring the testimony of TerriÂ’s closest sibling, her brother. His testimony was based on a lifetime of interactions, and he stated did not believe Terri would want to die. 3. IT WAS AN ERROR NOT TO APPOINT A TRIAL GUARDIAN AD LITEM SchiavoÂ’s attorney claims the court properly exercised its discretion because the opposite positions of the litigants ensured fairness. This argument forgets that there were not just two sides to this dispute, there was an unrepresented third person, Terri Schiavo. A Guardian Ad Litem is necessary, to ensure that the ward is adequately represented in those proceedings. If one blindly accepts the result of actions conducted without Guardian Ad Litems, one would be blindly accepting results, which may be the result of a conflict of interest and is against the law. (In support, Attorney Magri lists six (6) Fla. Statutes.) Numerous Florida cases recognize, actions brought to litigation by the guardian, resulting in money going to the guardian as opposed to the ward, that a "legal" conflict of interest exists. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists three (3) Fla. Cases) Moreover decisions from courts all over this country, including many of the ones which are cited by SchiavoÂ’s attorney for other points, buttress the use of Guardian Ad Litems. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists 13 reference cases) SchiavoÂ’s attorney argues that the present case should not be reversed despite the failure to appoint a trial Guardian Ad Litem. Attorney Magri insists a trial appointed Guardian Ad Litem could have raised a meritorious defense of SchiavoÂ’s contrary positions based on his prior actual malpractice trial testimony. Attorney Magri states there is no doubt, a Guardian Ad Litem would have unquestionably resolved these issues against Schiavo. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys Fabricated "Buzz"- Much should be said about incorrect, one-sided characterizations of tangential issues and personalities of people associated with the case. About a "Statement of the CaseÂ’ which is all argument and for the most part a fanciful one. About an argument which has never been made and is being "resurrected." About edited quotes maneuvered in argument, then once again being attacked as a misstatements. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Charity Donation "Buzz" Strategy -This inadmissible settlement offer is mentioned 5 times. Never once with any evidence that Michael Schiavo is bound to that course. Yet, in SchiavoÂ’s attorneys "RebuttalÂ’ we are told that the Michael Schiavo has offered to donate the money he receives from TerriÂ’s death to charity. We are told this was part of a settlement negotiation. In a more telling vein, the charitable donation suggestion was made after both the pre trial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s concerns were known, and the parents position was known. The charitable donation was conditioned on the parents dropping their opposition to SchiavoÂ’s petition to have TerriÂ’s nutrition feeding tube removed In reality, this is an effort by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, to interject a supposed charitable donation intent, to undermine the obvious implication that SchiavoÂ’s late remembered statements of TerriÂ’s intent, have strong financial overtones. To this end, SchiavoÂ’s attorney fails to mention that no evidence exists to show this is anything other than a clever tactic. If tactic is the goal, an offer you know will be refused can suffice. You can drag. it up at trial and then on an appeal, while failing to mention the fact that you know it could not have been accepted by parents who believe what is being done is contrary to their daughterÂ’s wishes. It would have been very easy for Schiavo to set up an irrevocable trust and offer that as evidence to negate any claim that he was going to benefit financially from Tern s death. That was never done. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial - A conflict exists between statements Schiavo made regarding TerriÂ’s wishes contained in the pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s December 1998 report to the court and statements Schiavo made at the recent trial. Beyond that, there are all the other reasons why SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence" and render his testimony legally deficient. They include his financial motivations; his engagement to another woman; his discontinuance of TerriÂ’s medication for potentially fatal infections; the subsequent and late post-involvement disclosure of TerriÂ’s alleged wishes. Also, Schiavo never discussed with the pretrial Guardian Ad Litem, that there were two additional witnesses to corroborate TerriÂ’s wishes. Coincidently, the unreported witnesses, were his brother and sister-in-law. [BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Commencing in June of 1998, the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem conducted interviews with all the parties involved in TerriÂ’s lawsuit. In SchiavoÂ’s Guardian Ad Litem interview, Michael Schiavo was given the opportunity to present his evidence and statements to authenticate his request to have TerriÂ’s life support terminated. The Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s six month investigation culminated with a court filed report, in which the Guardian Ad Litem recommended Michael SchiavoÂ’s request be denied. ] Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Malpractice Trial Testimony - SchiavoÂ’s attorney makes the argument that the record is void of any reference as to what Michael Schiavo testified to at the malpractice trial eight years ago. Then SchiavoÂ’s attorney suggests that Schiavo did not need to disclose his wifeÂ’s wishes. The pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s investigation report concludes that Michael SchiavoÂ’s current position contradicts his prior malpractice trial position. In the malpractice case, Schiavo was seeking to recover damages based on the continuation of TerriÂ’s condition for a normal life expectancy. However, once the malpractice money came in, Michael Schiavo stopped further treatment for Terri. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Engagement - SchiavoÂ’s attorney states that we are misleading the court, because Michael. Schiavo did not "announce" his engagement. However, Michael Schiavo admits that a notice of his engagement to another woman was placed in the newspaper. SchiavoÂ’s attorney is debating whether a notice in the newspaper, is or is not a "announcement?" In any event, Michael Schiavo has published an engagement announcement in the newspaper. Similarly, does it matter if there is a wedding date? Obviously, as long as Mr. Schiavo is legally married to Terri he cannot marry his current fianc�. While Mr. Schiavo could divorce Tern he would not be in line to inherit when she died. As long as he wishes to inherit that money he needs to remain married to Tern and he cannot plan a wedding date. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Character - For example, there is the suggestion made by SchiavoÂ’s attorney that we are attempting to sell Mr. Schiavo as an immoral money-grubbing operative. The true fact is the court used the wrong standard and SchiavoÂ’s character was not addressed. We are raising appropriate factors that should have been considered in analyzing whether or not Mr.. SchiavoÂ’s testimony can rise to "clear and convincing evidence." Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on Dr. BarnhillÂ’s Swallowing Test Hearing Testimony - A review of the trial testimony establishes that Dr. Barnhill never reviewed TerriÂ’s medical records to determine if Terri had been tested for swallowing nor did he conduct any swallowing tests on his own to reinforce his negative assessment of Terri.

TERRIÂ’S APPEAL UPDATE Summary Of Legal Events On July 5, attorneys Robert Merkle and Joseph Magri filed an "Appeal" to reverse the court ruling authorizing Schiavo to remove Terri's nutrition feeding. SchiavoÂ’s attorney then filed a "Rebuttal", citing his legal arguments against the Appeal. The last document in the appeal process is Attorney MagriÂ’s "Rebuttal Reply." The next step in the appeal process is court oral arguments, which has yet to be scheduled. Attorney Magri's "Rebuttal Reply" - On September 1, Attorney Joseph Magri filed his "Reply Brief." The document addresses issues SchiavoÂ’s attorney is protesting as invalid in the original appeal. In his reply, Attorney Magri states it is apparent that SchiavoÂ’s Attorney offers little in the way of a legal response to the appeal core issues. Essentially, SchiavoÂ’s attorney is attempting to divert the Appellate Court away from the fundamental issues by creating a buzz of sensationalism surrounding peripheral issues. Attorney Magri States: The appeal case should be about "TerriÂ’s Intent" and the procedures employed by the court in the trial should be reviewed to ensure that "TerriÂ’s Intent" was arrived at fairly and the evidence supports that finding. The appeal should be about whether the trial was equitable, balanced and fair. It should be about the court sanctioned funding, which permitted Michael Schiavo to use TerriÂ’s medical fund money to pay his legal fees. The appeal should be about whether court rulings were conducive to fair presentation of other relevant issues, such as TerriÂ’s medical condition and whether Terri was represented during the trial. It should examine whether meritorious defenses existed in TerriÂ’s behalf. Conversely, Attorney Magri Emphatically Argues: This appeal case should not be about whether any one of us, or how most Americans in general feel, in circumstances similar to TerriÂ’s condition, they would want to die **** This case should not be about whether Terri is unworthy to live, or worthy to die. **** This case should not be about whether TerriÂ’s parents think "correctly" on issues of life or death. **** The "appeal processÂ’ should not be a place to argue past peripheral issues which were previously pleaded and rejected by the court. [see footnote #1] **** This case should not be about tactical settlement discussions which was not only rejected but known before made that it would be rejected. [see Attorney MagriÂ’s comments on SchiavoÂ’s Donation Strategy.] [Footnote #1 - Prior to the trial, in June of 1998, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem to investigate SchiavoÂ’s request for the termination of TerriÂ’s life support. Based on his study, the Guardian Ad Litem filed a report with the Court recommending the request by Schiavo be denied. Shortly after the report was filed, SchiavoÂ’s attorney legally challenged the Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s report on a charge of bias.] Attorney MagriÂ’s response then refocuses on the "fundamental issues.Â’ presented in his original appeal document and addresses SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys "Rebuttal" statements. THE COURT USED AN INCORRECT RULE OF LAW It is inherently suggested by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, that "reliabilityÂ’ is the only issue, Michael SchiavoÂ’s attorney lead the court astray by ignoring the fact that "accuracyÂ’ is also an issue and more importantly, that a decision as to TerriÂ’s wishes based on oral declarations also must be made on the basis of "clear and convincing evidenceÂ’ THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY CLEAR & CONVINCING. The original appeal document states the trial courtÂ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and not supported by the evidence. A review of the testimony will reinforce this position. Michael SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - conflicted with the information Schiavo provided that is contained in the pretrial Guardian ad LitemÂ’s report. The discrepancies occurred not only in SchiavoÂ’s description of the train conversation, where Terri allegedly expressed her "oral living will", but he also omitted other conversations, which he testified to at the trial. SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence". [This is continued under the heading: Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial] Scott SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - Michael SchiavoÂ’s brother came forward and gave a version of a single corroborative comment that Terri supposedly made years prior to her seizure. However in the space of eleven trial transcript pages he describes that statement in three different ways. If his memory changed that many times in that short a period, he could not have distinctly remembered, precisely, explicitly and without confusion the statement Terri made. Scott SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot provide "clear and convincing evidence". Joan SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - A review of the questions and her answer reflects that she is not describing what Terri said. Her testimony is inherently confusing. Part of her answers devolves into what she and her husband wanted. It clearly identifies "we" as she and her husband. For sure, she does not distinctly use the term as she and Terri. As a matter of law these statements cannot rise to the level of "clear and convincing evidence". Beverly Tyler Testimony - It is absurd to accept testimony from someone who never even met Terri and use this person to corroborate what Terri said and meant, while ignoring the testimony of TerriÂ’s closest sibling, her brother. His testimony was based on a lifetime of interactions, and he stated did not believe Terri would want to die. 3. IT WAS AN ERROR NOT TO APPOINT A TRIAL GUARDIAN AD LITEM SchiavoÂ’s attorney claims the court properly exercised its discretion because the opposite positions of the litigants ensured fairness. This argument forgets that there were not just two sides to this dispute, there was an unrepresented third person, Terri Schiavo. A Guardian Ad Litem is necessary, to ensure that the ward is adequately represented in those proceedings. If one blindly accepts the result of actions conducted without Guardian Ad Litems, one would be blindly accepting results, which may be the result of a conflict of interest and is against the law. (In support, Attorney Magri lists six (6) Fla. Statutes.) Numerous Florida cases recognize, actions brought to litigation by the guardian, resulting in money going to the guardian as opposed to the ward, that a "legal" conflict of interest exists. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists three (3) Fla. Cases) Moreover decisions from courts all over this country, including many of the ones which are cited by SchiavoÂ’s attorney for other points, buttress the use of Guardian Ad Litems. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists 13 reference cases) SchiavoÂ’s attorney argues that the present case should not be reversed despite the failure to appoint a trial Guardian Ad Litem. Attorney Magri insists a trial appointed Guardian Ad Litem could have raised a meritorious defense of SchiavoÂ’s contrary positions based on his prior actual malpractice trial testimony. Attorney Magri states there is no doubt, a Guardian Ad Litem would have unquestionably resolved these issues against Schiavo. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys Fabricated "Buzz"- Much should be said about incorrect, one-sided characterizations of tangential issues and personalities of people associated with the case. About a "Statement of the CaseÂ’ which is all argument and for the most part a fanciful one. About an argument which has never been made and is being "resurrected." About edited quotes maneuvered in argument, then once again being attacked as a misstatements. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Charity Donation "Buzz" Strategy -This inadmissible settlement offer is mentioned 5 times. Never once with any evidence that Michael Schiavo is bound to that course. Yet, in SchiavoÂ’s attorneys "RebuttalÂ’ we are told that the Michael Schiavo has offered to donate the money he receives from TerriÂ’s death to charity. We are told this was part of a settlement negotiation. In a more telling vein, the charitable donation suggestion was made after both the pre trial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s concerns were known, and the parents position was known. The charitable donation was conditioned on the parents dropping their opposition to SchiavoÂ’s petition to have TerriÂ’s nutrition feeding tube removed In reality, this is an effort by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, to interject a supposed charitable donation intent, to undermine the obvious implication that SchiavoÂ’s late remembered statements of TerriÂ’s intent, have strong financial overtones. To this end, SchiavoÂ’s attorney fails to mention that no evidence exists to show this is anything other than a clever tactic. If tactic is the goal, an offer you know will be refused can suffice. You can drag. it up at trial and then on an appeal, while failing to mention the fact that you know it could not have been accepted by parents who believe what is being done is contrary to their daughterÂ’s wishes. It would have been very easy for Schiavo to set up an irrevocable trust and offer that as evidence to negate any claim that he was going to benefit financially from Tern s death. That was never done. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial - A conflict exists between statements Schiavo made regarding TerriÂ’s wishes contained in the pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s December 1998 report to the court and statements Schiavo made at the recent trial. Beyond that, there are all the other reasons why SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence" and render his testimony legally deficient. They include his financial motivations; his engagement to another woman; his discontinuance of TerriÂ’s medication for potentially fatal infections; the subsequent and late post-involvement disclosure of TerriÂ’s alleged wishes. Also, Schiavo never discussed with the pretrial Guardian Ad Litem, that there were two additional witnesses to corroborate TerriÂ’s wishes. Coincidently, the unreported witnesses, were his brother and sister-in-law. [BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Commencing in June of 1998, the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem conducted interviews with all the parties involved in TerriÂ’s lawsuit. In SchiavoÂ’s Guardian Ad Litem interview, Michael Schiavo was given the opportunity to present his evidence and statements to authenticate his request to have TerriÂ’s life support terminated. The Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s six month investigation culminated with a court filed report, in which the Guardian Ad Litem recommended Michael SchiavoÂ’s request be denied. ] Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Malpractice Trial Testimony - SchiavoÂ’s attorney makes the argument that the record is void of any reference as to what Michael Schiavo testified to at the malpractice trial eight years ago. Then SchiavoÂ’s attorney suggests that Schiavo did not need to disclose his wifeÂ’s wishes. The pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s investigation report concludes that Michael SchiavoÂ’s current position contradicts his prior malpractice trial position. In the malpractice case, Schiavo was seeking to recover damages based on the continuation of TerriÂ’s condition for a normal life expectancy. However, once the malpractice money came in, Michael Schiavo stopped further treatment for Terri. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Engagement - SchiavoÂ’s attorney states that we are misleading the court, because Michael. Schiavo did not "announce" his engagement. However, Michael Schiavo admits that a notice of his engagement to another woman was placed in the newspaper. SchiavoÂ’s attorney is debating whether a notice in the newspaper, is or is not a "announcement?" In any event, Michael Schiavo has published an engagement announcement in the newspaper. Similarly, does it matter if there is a wedding date? Obviously, as long as Mr. Schiavo is legally married to Terri he cannot marry his current fianc�. While Mr. Schiavo could divorce Tern he would not be in line to inherit when she died. As long as he wishes to inherit that money he needs to remain married to Tern and he cannot plan a wedding date. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Character - For example, there is the suggestion made by SchiavoÂ’s attorney that we are attempting to sell Mr. Schiavo as an immoral money-grubbing operative. The true fact is the court used the wrong standard and SchiavoÂ’s character was not addressed. We are raising appropriate factors that should have been considered in analyzing whether or not Mr.. SchiavoÂ’s testimony can rise to "clear and convincing evidence." Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on Dr. BarnhillÂ’s Swallowing Test Hearing Testimony - A review of the trial testimony establishes that Dr. Barnhill never reviewed TerriÂ’s medical records to determine if Terri had been tested for swallowing nor did he conduct any swallowing tests on his own to reinforce his negative assessment of Terri.

TERRIÂ’S APPEAL UPDATE Summary Of Legal Events On July 5, attorneys Robert Merkle and Joseph Magri filed an "Appeal" to reverse the court ruling authorizing Schiavo to remove Terri's nutrition feeding. SchiavoÂ’s attorney then filed a "Rebuttal", citing his legal arguments against the Appeal. The last document in the appeal process is Attorney MagriÂ’s "Rebuttal Reply." The next step in the appeal process is court oral arguments, which has yet to be scheduled. Attorney Magri's "Rebuttal Reply" - On September 1, Attorney Joseph Magri filed his "Reply Brief." The document addresses issues SchiavoÂ’s attorney is protesting as invalid in the original appeal. In his reply, Attorney Magri states it is apparent that SchiavoÂ’s Attorney offers little in the way of a legal response to the appeal core issues. Essentially, SchiavoÂ’s attorney is attempting to divert the Appellate Court away from the fundamental issues by creating a buzz of sensationalism surrounding peripheral issues. Attorney Magri States: The appeal case should be about "TerriÂ’s Intent" and the procedures employed by the court in the trial should be reviewed to ensure that "TerriÂ’s Intent" was arrived at fairly and the evidence supports that finding. The appeal should be about whether the trial was equitable, balanced and fair. It should be about the court sanctioned funding, which permitted Michael Schiavo to use TerriÂ’s medical fund money to pay his legal fees. The appeal should be about whether court rulings were conducive to fair presentation of other relevant issues, such as TerriÂ’s medical condition and whether Terri was represented during the trial. It should examine whether meritorious defenses existed in TerriÂ’s behalf. Conversely, Attorney Magri Emphatically Argues: This appeal case should not be about whether any one of us, or how most Americans in general feel, in circumstances similar to TerriÂ’s condition, they would want to die **** This case should not be about whether Terri is unworthy to live, or worthy to die. **** This case should not be about whether TerriÂ’s parents think "correctly" on issues of life or death. **** The "appeal processÂ’ should not be a place to argue past peripheral issues which were previously pleaded and rejected by the court. [see footnote #1] **** This case should not be about tactical settlement discussions which was not only rejected but known before made that it would be rejected. [see Attorney MagriÂ’s comments on SchiavoÂ’s Donation Strategy.] [Footnote #1 - Prior to the trial, in June of 1998, the court appointed a Guardian ad Litem to investigate SchiavoÂ’s request for the termination of TerriÂ’s life support. Based on his study, the Guardian Ad Litem filed a report with the Court recommending the request by Schiavo be denied. Shortly after the report was filed, SchiavoÂ’s attorney legally challenged the Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s report on a charge of bias.] Attorney MagriÂ’s response then refocuses on the "fundamental issues.Â’ presented in his original appeal document and addresses SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys "Rebuttal" statements. THE COURT USED AN INCORRECT RULE OF LAW It is inherently suggested by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, that "reliabilityÂ’ is the only issue, Michael SchiavoÂ’s attorney lead the court astray by ignoring the fact that "accuracyÂ’ is also an issue and more importantly, that a decision as to TerriÂ’s wishes based on oral declarations also must be made on the basis of "clear and convincing evidenceÂ’ THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY CLEAR & CONVINCING. The original appeal document states the trial courtÂ’s factual findings were clearly erroneous and not supported by the evidence. A review of the testimony will reinforce this position. Michael SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - conflicted with the information Schiavo provided that is contained in the pretrial Guardian ad LitemÂ’s report. The discrepancies occurred not only in SchiavoÂ’s description of the train conversation, where Terri allegedly expressed her "oral living will", but he also omitted other conversations, which he testified to at the trial. SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence". [This is continued under the heading: Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial] Scott SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - Michael SchiavoÂ’s brother came forward and gave a version of a single corroborative comment that Terri supposedly made years prior to her seizure. However in the space of eleven trial transcript pages he describes that statement in three different ways. If his memory changed that many times in that short a period, he could not have distinctly remembered, precisely, explicitly and without confusion the statement Terri made. Scott SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot provide "clear and convincing evidence". Joan SchiavoÂ’s Testimony - A review of the questions and her answer reflects that she is not describing what Terri said. Her testimony is inherently confusing. Part of her answers devolves into what she and her husband wanted. It clearly identifies "we" as she and her husband. For sure, she does not distinctly use the term as she and Terri. As a matter of law these statements cannot rise to the level of "clear and convincing evidence". Beverly Tyler Testimony - It is absurd to accept testimony from someone who never even met Terri and use this person to corroborate what Terri said and meant, while ignoring the testimony of TerriÂ’s closest sibling, her brother. His testimony was based on a lifetime of interactions, and he stated did not believe Terri would want to die. 3. IT WAS AN ERROR NOT TO APPOINT A TRIAL GUARDIAN AD LITEM SchiavoÂ’s attorney claims the court properly exercised its discretion because the opposite positions of the litigants ensured fairness. This argument forgets that there were not just two sides to this dispute, there was an unrepresented third person, Terri Schiavo. A Guardian Ad Litem is necessary, to ensure that the ward is adequately represented in those proceedings. If one blindly accepts the result of actions conducted without Guardian Ad Litems, one would be blindly accepting results, which may be the result of a conflict of interest and is against the law. (In support, Attorney Magri lists six (6) Fla. Statutes.) Numerous Florida cases recognize, actions brought to litigation by the guardian, resulting in money going to the guardian as opposed to the ward, that a "legal" conflict of interest exists. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists three (3) Fla. Cases) Moreover decisions from courts all over this country, including many of the ones which are cited by SchiavoÂ’s attorney for other points, buttress the use of Guardian Ad Litems. (In support of this statement, Attorney Magri lists 13 reference cases) SchiavoÂ’s attorney argues that the present case should not be reversed despite the failure to appoint a trial Guardian Ad Litem. Attorney Magri insists a trial appointed Guardian Ad Litem could have raised a meritorious defense of SchiavoÂ’s contrary positions based on his prior actual malpractice trial testimony. Attorney Magri states there is no doubt, a Guardian Ad Litem would have unquestionably resolved these issues against Schiavo. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Attorneys Fabricated "Buzz"- Much should be said about incorrect, one-sided characterizations of tangential issues and personalities of people associated with the case. About a "Statement of the CaseÂ’ which is all argument and for the most part a fanciful one. About an argument which has never been made and is being "resurrected." About edited quotes maneuvered in argument, then once again being attacked as a misstatements. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Charity Donation "Buzz" Strategy -This inadmissible settlement offer is mentioned 5 times. Never once with any evidence that Michael Schiavo is bound to that course. Yet, in SchiavoÂ’s attorneys "RebuttalÂ’ we are told that the Michael Schiavo has offered to donate the money he receives from TerriÂ’s death to charity. We are told this was part of a settlement negotiation. In a more telling vein, the charitable donation suggestion was made after both the pre trial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s concerns were known, and the parents position was known. The charitable donation was conditioned on the parents dropping their opposition to SchiavoÂ’s petition to have TerriÂ’s nutrition feeding tube removed In reality, this is an effort by SchiavoÂ’s attorney, to interject a supposed charitable donation intent, to undermine the obvious implication that SchiavoÂ’s late remembered statements of TerriÂ’s intent, have strong financial overtones. To this end, SchiavoÂ’s attorney fails to mention that no evidence exists to show this is anything other than a clever tactic. If tactic is the goal, an offer you know will be refused can suffice. You can drag. it up at trial and then on an appeal, while failing to mention the fact that you know it could not have been accepted by parents who believe what is being done is contrary to their daughterÂ’s wishes. It would have been very easy for Schiavo to set up an irrevocable trust and offer that as evidence to negate any claim that he was going to benefit financially from Tern s death. That was never done. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Testimony at TerriÂ’s Trial - A conflict exists between statements Schiavo made regarding TerriÂ’s wishes contained in the pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’ s December 1998 report to the court and statements Schiavo made at the recent trial. Beyond that, there are all the other reasons why SchiavoÂ’s testimony cannot amount to "clear and convincing evidence" and render his testimony legally deficient. They include his financial motivations; his engagement to another woman; his discontinuance of TerriÂ’s medication for potentially fatal infections; the subsequent and late post-involvement disclosure of TerriÂ’s alleged wishes. Also, Schiavo never discussed with the pretrial Guardian Ad Litem, that there were two additional witnesses to corroborate TerriÂ’s wishes. Coincidently, the unreported witnesses, were his brother and sister-in-law. [BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Commencing in June of 1998, the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem conducted interviews with all the parties involved in TerriÂ’s lawsuit. In SchiavoÂ’s Guardian Ad Litem interview, Michael Schiavo was given the opportunity to present his evidence and statements to authenticate his request to have TerriÂ’s life support terminated. The Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s six month investigation culminated with a court filed report, in which the Guardian Ad Litem recommended Michael SchiavoÂ’s request be denied. ] Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Malpractice Trial Testimony - SchiavoÂ’s attorney makes the argument that the record is void of any reference as to what Michael Schiavo testified to at the malpractice trial eight years ago. Then SchiavoÂ’s attorney suggests that Schiavo did not need to disclose his wifeÂ’s wishes. The pretrial Guardian Ad LitemÂ’s investigation report concludes that Michael SchiavoÂ’s current position contradicts his prior malpractice trial position. In the malpractice case, Schiavo was seeking to recover damages based on the continuation of TerriÂ’s condition for a normal life expectancy. However, once the malpractice money came in, Michael Schiavo stopped further treatment for Terri. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Engagement - SchiavoÂ’s attorney states that we are misleading the court, because Michael. Schiavo did not "announce" his engagement. However, Michael Schiavo admits that a notice of his engagement to another woman was placed in the newspaper. SchiavoÂ’s attorney is debating whether a notice in the newspaper, is or is not a "announcement?" In any event, Michael Schiavo has published an engagement announcement in the newspaper. Similarly, does it matter if there is a wedding date? Obviously, as long as Mr. Schiavo is legally married to Terri he cannot marry his current fianc�. While Mr. Schiavo could divorce Tern he would not be in line to inherit when she died. As long as he wishes to inherit that money he needs to remain married to Tern and he cannot plan a wedding date. Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on SchiavoÂ’s Character - For example, there is the suggestion made by SchiavoÂ’s attorney that we are attempting to sell Mr. Schiavo as an immoral money-grubbing operative. The true fact is the court used the wrong standard and SchiavoÂ’s character was not addressed. We are raising appropriate factors that should have been considered in analyzing whether or not Mr.. SchiavoÂ’s testimony can rise to "clear and convincing evidence." Attorney MagriÂ’s Comments on Dr. BarnhillÂ’s Swallowing Test Hearing Testimony - A review of the trial testimony establishes that Dr. Barnhill never reviewed TerriÂ’s medical records to determine if Terri had been tested for swallowing nor did he conduct any swallowing tests on his own to reinforce his negative assessment of Terri.

After the 2000 trial, the Schindlers got a more experienced lawyer who vigorously argued the credibility and veracity of Michael’s claims. Unfortnately, Appeal court don’t really look at that these issues and basically dismissed all of the concerns. The Appeals court approached the case from prospective that did Judge Greer have substantial compantent evidence to support his decision. Since Greer had evidence from Michael, Scott and Joan, the appeals court upheld the ruling (Completely dismissing any credibility and veracity issues of the underlying testimonial evidence). Unfortunately, the is how the appeals court works.

If one reads the appeal from the Schindlers and Appeals Court ruling, one will see that most of the points argued by the Schindler’s lawyer were completely dismissed and not mentioned by the court.

The Appeals court had to answer the one fundamental standard question:

Did Judge Greer have substanial compotent evidence to make the decision that he did?

From the Appeals POV, their ruling was YES.

The Appeals Court would not take into account any credibility and veracity arguments made by the Schindlers.

Michael never filed for divorce. However, the Schindler did argue that Michael in a sense executed a de facto divorce from Terri by living with Jodi. Although, the law on this point didn’t seem to favor the Schindlers, the Schindlers did point that such an act certainly should have presented as a conflict of interest for Michael to continue being Terri’s guardian. Unfortunately, this point was arguely strongly but it was after the 2000 trial. The Schindlers had an incompetent lawyer in the 2000 trial and she failed to vigorously argue this conflict of interest. Although the GAL had serious concern about this, Judge Greer dismissed the GAL’s concerns. The Schindlers continued to raise this conflict of interest but it was too late. Judge Greer had already ruled that Terri die. Once the 2000 trial completed, the courts refused to the reexamine the credibility and veracity of Michael claims despite the mountain of evidence that the Schindlers presented.

Good Article

I hope to attend.

Don’t forget about Tori Schmanski. She is very similiar to Terri Schiavo and there is a large and growing movement for recovery in a small reagion of Utah. Tori gets lots of support.

http://www.pray4tori.com/

A good article that gets into the heart of the matter.

I think more just and proper decision would have been to allow to accept oral feeding. Even though the doctors and specialists had not actually examined Terri Schiavo, Greer could have allowed those doctors to examine Terri Schiavo and then report to the court if their conclusions were that of Dr. Barnhill. To simply deny Terri any chance at oral feeding and at very least deny an examinations from the Schindler’s doctors was indeed a travesty of justice.

This is similiar in which Greer was given evidence and allegations of abuse by Michael Schiavo. Greer said he was interested in pursuing it but since Terri had already been sentenced to die, Greer felt it did not matter if Michael had abused her or not. DCF made the same concerns about abuse regarding Michael Schiavo and wanted time to investigate and that Terri Schiavo should be kept alive longer for the this purpose. Greer said that DCF was free to investigate but felt that it was not neccessary to keep Terri Schiavo alive during this investigation.

Dr. Barnhill’s testimony was given 5 years before. Judge Greer felt despite evidence proffered by the Schindlers that he would not give Terri Schiavo the benifit of the doubt and felt it better to simply deny her oral food and water.

Actually the court made the decison and not Michael Schiavo. However, the problem with this was that the only claims that Terri wanted to die came from Michael and his family. I agree, Michael had moved with his life. Michael and his siblings produced nothing tangible other than their word that Terri wanted to die. The court used their testimony alone to determine Terri really wanted to die. The court also unsurped all testimony from the parents and Terri’s sibilings. Without something in writing or tangible, Michael’s and siblings claims should have been given no weight due to fact that he had moved with his life and was going to profit substantially from her death. Unfortunately, the 2000 trial was poorly conducted because the parents had a lawyer who was ill-financed and ill-experienced in these matters and the Michael’s conflicts of interest were not adquately brought to light and considered. Michael’s attorney was an expert in these matter and virtually steamrolled over the attorney. After the trial the parents got better lawyers and started to put forward a meritous defense but it was too late because everthing was on the legal record. This along with several judicial errors made at the 2000 trial (no lawyer or GAL for instance; Greer serving as her guradian) made overturning the facts from the 2000 trial virtually impossible.

Yes, I think that was in 2001. Bobby and Suzanna wanted to see if they could have the nurses try to get Terri to take baby food. The nurses refused and Bobby and Suzanne did have argument with the nurses over this. When Michael found what Bobby and Suzanne wanted to do, he had them banned from visiting Terri.

I agree. They didn’t want to try any attempts at oral feeding (regardless of evidence presented to them) because she might choke, get pnumonia an die. But they were pulling the feeding which was starving and dehydrating her to death.

Over 40 doctors weighed in on Terri’s PVS diagnosis. All they agreed that Terri was either MCS (not PVS) or she needed further testing to make that conclusion.

Although nearly all of these doctors did not personally examine Terri Schiavo, they did view video taped evidence of her responses and interactions. While some did make conclusions based on the short clips found on the Schindler’s website about Terri, many did fact make conclusion of the video taped evidence used in the trial that was far longer and in dept of what was on the Schindler’s website.

Many of these doctors had special expertise in the treatment of brain injured patients. Some of these doctors were also experts in the MCS diagnosis.

Neither the courts or Michael allowed these doctors to examine Terri Schiavo.

According to Pat Anderson, she put 50 to 70 affadavits in front of Judge Greer and in the end was only able to get 2 doctors to examine Terri Schiavo (Hammerfahr and Maxfield). This was not on the orders of Judge Greer but on the orders of the Appeal court who ordered Judge Greer to allow these doctors to examine Terri Schiavo.

The Best Schindler Doctors

1. Dr. Jacob Greene Ph.D. - A neurologist from Jacksonville, Florida. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. He examined Terri’s medical records (at least

some of them) and the video (from the 2000 trial) not to the so called edited ones. Disputed PVS based on the video and her medical records. Submitted

another affidavit in February of 2005 in which he Believed she was MCS (became recently known) and recommended further tests. Believed she should have had an

fMRI which Terri never received. Did not examine Terri. Dr. Greene holds a practice that specializes in the testing of brain injured patients.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Affidavit%20Jacob%20Green.htm

2. Dr. Alexander Gimon. - A PHd Neuropsychologist from Florida. Had studied the video clips presented at the October 2002 Medical Evidentiary Hearing. Gave

an in-dept analysis on each one of the videos. Also reviewed the audio recording. Disputed Terri is PVS. Offered his expert medical opinion based on the

tapes and audio clip.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/alexGimonAffidavit082503.htm

3. Dr. Richard Neubauer - A HBOT specialist doctor from Florida. - Viewed the actual video tape (From 2000 trial). Recommended hyperbaric Therapy for Terri.

Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001. Submitted another affidavit in March of 2005 and urged that Terri be given a chance at HBOT.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr.%20Neubauer%20Affidavit.doc

4. Dr. William Russell - A retired neurologist from Florida - Reviewed the medical records of Theresa Marie Schiavo, a videotape of her (From 2000 Trial),

the trial testimony of Dr. Barnhill, the affidavits of Drs. Carpenter and Young and that of Bishop Larkin filed in her guardianship court file, the motion

for rehearing, and various letters from Ms Schiavo?s family members. Disputed PVS. Believed Terri to be more aware than Ronald Reagan. Vouched for Dr.

Hammesfahr’s credibility. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/DrRussellaffidavit.htm

5. Dr. Webber - A specialist doctor from Florida - Reviewed Terri’s medical records covering the period from 1991 to 1999. Also, studied the videotape of

Terri and her mother, apparently taped in 1999 or 2000. Disputed PVS. Submitted his affidavit in May of 2001.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Affidavit%20Fred%20Webber.htm

6. Dr. James Avery - A medical doctor from Florida - Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Submitted his

affidavit in February of 2000. HE DID OBSERVE TERRI!

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Avery%20Affidavit%20-%20Swallowing.pdf

7. Dr. Cheshire - A neurologist from Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida - Observed Terri for 90 minutes, Reviewed her medical records and the video tapes

(not the edited ones). Disputed PVS. Submitted a wonderful lengthy affidavit in March of 2005 and believed Terri was misdiagnosised and was MCS. HE DID

OBSERVE TERRI!
http://www.hospicepatients.org/william-cheshire-jr-md-03-05-affidavit-re-terri-schiavo.pdf

8. Dr. John Young - A medical doctor from Florida. - Observed Terri for 30 minutes. Questioned PVS diagnosis. Recommended swallowing tests. Submitted his

affidavit in February of 2000. HE DID OBSERVE TERRI!

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/young.PDF

9. Sara Green Mele - A speech pathologist from Chicago - Reviewed Terri’s medical records along with all of her records about her therapy at Mediplex. Also

reviewed the video tapes and audio recordings. Gave an in-dept analysis of the videos. Disputed PVS. Submitted her affidavit in 2004.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Affidavit%20from%20Speech%20Pathologist.doc

10. Dr. Jay Carpenter - A medical doctor in Florida. Observed Terri for 90 minutes. Submitted lengthly affidavits to the court urging swallowing tests,

testing, therapy and disputed the PVS diagnosis. Was responsible for the initial grassroots medical movement to save Terri’s life. HE DID OBSERVE TERRI!

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Jay%20Carpenter.pdf

12. Dr. Thomas Zabiega - A neurologist from Illinois. Viewed videos of Terri and other info. Also reviewed the audio recording of Terri. Said the

following about the audio recording of Terri Schiavo: “believe she is making verbalizations on the tape. In fact, around 45 seconds, when she is asked “How

are you doing” she definitely changes her voice and says “good”. She appears to say “yeah” several times... then at the end of the tape when she is asked

“do your ears hurt” she definitely says “no”. Even if none of the words were discernible, the fact that her voice changes during the tape to different

questions suggests she is understanding what is being said to her. A patient in PVS does not respond and does not have any changes in verbal output.”

Disputed PVS. Urges for further testing. Submitted an affidavitt in 2005.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/zabeiga.PDF

13. Dr. Myra Stinson - A speech patholgist from Florida. Viewed videos from 2002 trial and audio recordings of Terri. Disputed PVS. Urged for more

swallowing tests. Stated that Terri was saying words based on the audio recordings.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Myra%20Stinson%20Affidavit%20090703.pdf

14. Dr. Mack Jones - A Florida Neurolgist. Listened to audio recordings of Terri Schiavo. Made the following comments: “She does appear to be responding

to her father’s questions and attempting to form words.”

15. Dr. William Bell - A professor of neurology at the Wake Forest University Medical School. Listened to audio records of Terri Schiavo. Made following

comments: “Did respond [to her father’s voice] as she seems to pace her vocalization to his voice and not the reverse (his voice to
her vocalizations).”

16. Tom Boderson - Pat Anderson’s legal assistant and a speech therapist. Worked with Terri for a couple of weeks. Made the following comments and

coclusions: “Terri responds to a variety of stimulii, including
responding to both her mother’s and my voices, both in person and over
the phone, by fixing her attention and frequently by laughing. When I
sang to her, she often VOCALIZED, in her best effort to sing along with
me. She recognizes and takes great pleasure in certain singers and
songs which ARE her favorites (most especially John Denver
singing “Country Roads”). She learned to love several songs I sang to
her with which she didn’t seem to be familiar with, but others she
never learned to appreciate (just not her cup of tea, obviously).”

17. Carla Iyer - Florida RN who worked closely with Terri. Reported that Terri was speaking words.

18. Heidi Law - Florida CNA who worked with Terri. Reported that Terri was responsive and speaking words.

Other Schindler Docs

19. Dr. Ralph Akenman - A psychiatrist from Ohio. Specializes in treatment of brain injured patients. Did not observe or examine Terri but says his therapy could possibly help her. Submitted her affidavit in March of 2005. Just a helpful affidavit in my opinion.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Ankenman.pdf

20. Dr. Beatrice Engstrand - A neurologist from New York. Did not examine Terri or her medical records. Did state that she could help Terri because of similar patients she has delt with. Disputes PVS. However, she did study under Dr. Plum, the pioneer doctor of the PVS state, so her conclusions may be credible. Urged for a PET scan and fMRI. Submitted affidavit in March of 2005.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Engstrand.pdf

21. Dr. Alyse Eytan - A psychairtrist from Chicago. Had followed the Terri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Sounds like a moral POV affidavit. Submitted her affidiavit in March 2005.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Eytan.pdf

22. Dr. Goldsmith - Is a regular doctor. Had not examined Terri but had seen the video clips. Questionable on PVS. Believes his therapy could help Terri. Encouraged further testing and therapy.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Goldsmith.pdf

23. Dr. Carolyn Heron. Is a regular doctor from Chicago. Had followed the Teri Schiavo case in the news. Basically a doctor offering her expert opinion based what she has read and seen. Has seen the video clips. Disputed PVS based on her expertise. Urged additonal testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Heron.pdf

24. Dr. David Hopper - A psychologist specializing in brain injury. Disputed PVS. Recommended further tests.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/drhopper.PDF

25. Dr. Lawrence Huntoon - A neurologist from New York. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputed PVS based on his expertise and knowledge on the video clips. Believed Terri to be MSC. Stood by his affidavit later by refuting the autopsy results. Is one the foremost experts on the MCS diagnosis.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Huntoon.pdf

http://www.christorchaos.com/DrHuntoonLetter.htm

26. Dr. Hyink - Speech Language Pathologist from Colarado. Did view the so called edited video clips. Offered her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urged communication therapy. This patholgist is Laura Shepherd’s pathologist, the disabled daughter of Linda Shepherd.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Hyink.pdf

27. Dr. Jill Joyce - Speech Language Pathologist. Did view the so called edited video clips. Disputed PVS based on her expertise and thevideo clips. Offered her expert medical opinion based what she knows of the case. Urges additional therapy.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Joyce.pdf

28. Dr. Phillip Kennedy PH.D. - A neurologist. Offered his expertise in the case. Urged Terri to undergo a fMRI.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20Philip%20Kennedy.pdf

29. Dr. Ricardo Senno. A regular doctor from Illinois - Offered his insight on what he has seen and his expert medical opinion. Only saw photos of Terri on the internet. Conclusions based on this sound weak. It more of moral stand he takes. Urged further testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Senno.pdf

30. Dr. Stanley Terman - A neurologist from California - Reviewed info on Terri including the Wolfson GAL Report. Recommended further testing such as fMRI.

31. Dr. Michael Uszler - A doctor from California. Questioned testing done on Terri.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Uszler.pdf

32. Dr. Richard Weidman - A doctor from Washington D.C. Disputed Terri is PVS based on what he had seen and heard. Urged more testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Weidman.pdf

33. Dr. Peter Morin - A neurologist from Maine. Studied info about the case. Raised many moral questions.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/morin.PDF

34. Dr. Peter Luca - A doctor from Michigan. Addresseed his moral POV of view regarding Terri’s situation.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/luca.PDF

35. Dr. Paul Harch - A doctor from Louisana. Sided with Dr. Neubeur to have Terri undergo HBOT treatment.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/harch.PDF

36. Dr. Peter Brunner - A speech patholgist from Florida. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim treatment.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/brunner.PDF

37. Dr. David Coulter - A doctor from Boston. Urged more testing for Terri.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/coulter.PDF

38. Dr. Kyle Lakas - A speech patholgist from Texas. Urged Terri to undergo Vitalstim tretment.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Lakas.pdf

39. Dr. Rodney Dunaway - A neurologist from Texas. Viewed video clips. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/DR.%20Dunaway.pdf

40. Dr. George Isajiw - A doctor from Pennsylvania. Viewed video clips. Disputed PVS. Urged further testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr.%20Isajuiw.pdf.

41. Dr. Leonard Rybak - A doctor from Illnois. Viewed Videos. Disputed PVS. Conferred with Dr. Hammesfarh’s diagnosis. Urged Further testing.

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/DR.%20Rybak.pdf

42. Dr. Laura Barclay - A neurolgist from Tampa, Florida. Disputed PVS based on the video clips and other information about Terri. Urged additional testing and therapy.
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Laurie%20Barclay.pdf

Still Others:

43. Dr. William Bell - A neurology professor from Wake Forest University - Doubted Terri’s PVS diagnosis. Said the following about it regarding the video clips. “I asked Dr. Bell if he thought a moan uttered after a painful blow could be a reflex. “It’s highly unlikely,” he replied. He qualified his answer by noting that he had not actually seen the video of the exam, but he believes that the description of Terri’s reaction is not consistent with a reflex. “A moan is not a reflex,” Bell said. “A wince or grimace is not a reflex.”

The Doctors and Terri Schiavo
At time of Terri’s death, the Schindlers had nearly 50 doctors on the record who stated that Terri wasn’t PVS or new testing was needed to confirm her diagnosis.

Many of these doctors relied soley on the video tape clips and their own personal experiences and expertise in brain injury and PVS.

However, several doctors did manage to examine Terri or at least observe her and many did see her medical records (at least some of them). Take Dr. Sara Mele for instance who was able see Terri medical records from Medaplex.

Michael and his confederates undercut the Schindler’s 50 docs by stating that many of them never examined Terri and only relied on the video tape clips.

However, Michael neglects one critical fact that was never pointed out; Michael would not let any doctors to examine Terri (Schinder docs).

In fact, Michael got a court order which prevented any Schindler doc from examining Terri or conducting any tests on her.

This was part of Michael and Felos’s plan to prevent the Schindlers from upsetting the PVS diagnosis (which was critical in insuring Terri’s death) and getting her treatment.

Michael could always use the defense and he did, that they didn’t examine Terri when in fact Michael prevented them from examining Terri.

Dr. Hammersfar and several docs wanted to examine Terri in 2001, but Michael prevented it and Dr. Hammersfar was only able to examine her when the Appeals Court ordered it (during that time Michael petitioned nearly 6 times to have Terri killed).

But when we examine the examination factor, we see that it is quite weak. Observe:
Dr. Barnhill - Examined Terri for 10 minutes one time and I believe for 1 hour another time.
Dr. Karp - Examined Terri for 1 hour.
Dr. Cranford - Examined Terri for 45 minutes.
Dr. Greer - Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Bambakidis - Examined Terri for 30 minutes
Dr. Gambone - Examined her for 1 hour once and 10 minutes every 4 mouths after that.
Total Time of examinations over 4 or 5 year period - A little more than 5 hours.

The earlier docs did examine her (Dr. Barras, Dr. De Sousa) much more extensively in the early years, but back then the MCS wasn’t widely known and was never revisited by those docs.

I will agree the early docs probably had great deal insight into Terri’s condition. After Dr. Barnhill, examinations of Terri were quite weak and the MCS diagnosis became much more well known. However, Terri was never given to most advanced tests to confirm this diagnosis and the autopsy (Dr. Nelson reported it) did say that Terri could have been MCS.

Several Doctors did observe her and deemed her not PVS or questionalable PVS:

Dr. Cheshire - Obeserved Terri for 90 minutes. Saw her medical records

Dr. Avery - Obeserved Terri for 30 minutes.

Dr. Carpenter - Observed Terri for 30 minutes

Dr. Young - Observed Terri for 30 minutes.

2 Doctors did run examinations on her:

Dr. Hammersfahr - Examined Terri for over 3 hours.

Dr. Maxfield - Examined Terri for nearly 3 hours. Some argue the Dr. Maxfield was a radiologist conducting a neurological examination. However, Dr. Gambone wasn’t a neurologist either and conducted a neurological examination in much less time. Both had full disclosure to Terri’s medical history.

Between Hammersfahr and Maxfield Terri was examined longer than all of Michael’s other doctors combined.

Also the following caregivers were able to make observations too:

Carla Iyer

Heidi Law

Carolyn Johnson

Trudy Capone

You also have the following people who questioned PVS:

Fr. Molnowski

Bob Schindler, Mary Schindler, Suzanne Schindler, and Bobby Schindler

Pat Anderson, Tom Boderson (speech therapist) and David Gibbs

Michael resisted any testing needed to further confirm her diagnosis even though the Schindlers pleaded adamantly that Terri needed further testing based on dozens of affidavits from doctors accross the country.

Later, Michael claimed he wanted an autopsy to prove to the world the extent of Terri’s brain damage.

Michael resisted any and all efforts to have Terri further diagnosised but after she was dead had no problem have different tests performed on her to prove her diagnosis.

In a final note, Terri was never examined again after the 2002 trial even though radical new testing had become available that could have answered many troubling questions experts voiced about her condition.

That is correct. The parents had numerous doctors and specialists who honestly believed they could work with Terri to accept natrual food and water. Greer flately refused any type of therapy or rehab for Terri and at one point told the parents they were relitigating the case. The court further flately refused that these doctors even examine Terri Schiavo or that she undergo futher testing. Even when the appeals court allowed the parents to have doctors examine Terri Schiavo, the court allowed the husband to severely limit the testing and examinations.

The lawyer for the parents claimed that she put 50 to 70 affidavits in front of Judge Greer and was only able to get 2 doctors to examine her and that was only after the appeals court ordered it.

I will agree that Terri’s brain had atrophied over time. But, I do believe the 13 day dehydration did probably make that worse.

The ME said the Terri was heavely dehydrated. In fact, he noted that it was one the worst cases of dehydration he had ever seen.

To conduct an autopsy on severely dehydrated corpse and then say that that dehydration had nothing to do with atrophy of the brain is ridiculous.

I do believe the 13 day dehydration certainly contributed to Terri’s brain atrophy.

But I will concede that Terri’s brain did atrophy quite a bit before the dehdration occured.

Of course, the ME did note that her higher thinking areas were largely intact and preserved and that the atrophy was mostly concentrated in the motor and vision areas of her brain.

Here are some of the best media files people can listen to about the Schiavo case:

http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/uploads/terri012905.mp3
An execellent interview of Ken Connor with John Sipos. He explains
some of Terri’s Law and the judicial problems with the Schiavo case.
Rating is a 10.
About 20 Mintes long.
Dated January 29,2005.

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?
rafile=wo_02182005.rm
David Gibbs and Bob Schindler are interviewed in February 2005. About
1 hour long. Bob and David answer questions from callers. Relays some
interesting facts.
Rating is a 9.
Dated February 18,2005.
Running Time - About 1 Hour

http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Issues_Etc_Mar_21b.mp3
Rita Marker talks about what Terri’s Law II was really about. Does a
good rebuttle of Rep. Debbie Wasserman’s comments.
Rating is a 10.
Date March 21,2005
Running Time - About 20 Minutes

http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues5/Issues_Etc_Apr_14b.mp3
Wesley Smith talks about the Legacy of Terri Schiavo after her death.
Relays some very interesting facts.
Rating is a 10.
Dated April 14,2005.
Running Time - About 20 Minutes

http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?
rafile=wo_06172005.rm
Bobby Schindler and Lawyer Michael Gaynor discuss Terri after she
dies and the legalities and problems with the Schiavo case. Gaynor
present an excellent Due process argument (fundemental fairness).
Callers phone in. 1 hour long.
Rating is a 10.
Dated June 17,2005.
Running Time - About 1 Hour.

http://www.christianradiomagazine.com/audio/crm20061202.m3u
David Gibbs talks about The Schiavo case on Christian Radio. He
presents a good due process (fundamental fairness) argument.
Rating is a 10.
Dated February 12, 2006.
Running Time - About 20 Minutes.

http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues6/Issues_Etc_Jun_04a.mp3
http://www.kfuo.org/mp3/Issues6/Issues_Etc_Jun_04b.mp3
Excellent 2 hour interview of Bobby Schindler on Issues, Etc.
Rating is a 10.
Dated June 04,2006.
Running Time - Over an Hour.

Yes, Terri Schiavo should never be forgotten. It was truly travesty of justice.

Here are the video clips of Terri Schiavo.

1. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-big_eyes.ram

This is probably one the best video clips that shows that Terri was aware and cognitive and some small level. The video starts out with Terri’s eyes closed. Dr. Hammesfahr (the voice) asks her to open her eyes. You can see Terri struggle to carry out Dr. Hammesfahr’s directive or command for several seconds as she attempts to open her eyes. After several attempts, Terri opens her eyes. As Dr. Hammersfahr praises Terri, you can clearly see she is aware of him and understands what Dr. Hammerfahr has asked her to do. She moves her head or body towards Dr. Hammesfahr. As Dr. Hammesfahr praises her more, Terri is very eager to please and open her eyes really wide and even wrinkles her eyebrows. I find it hard to believe that someone could write that off as reflex action. Terri clearly opened her eyes on command and reciporcated Dr. Hammesfahr’s praises by opening them wider and wrinkling her eyebrows. There was clearly some level of awareness or consciousness at work there.

2. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/ConversationWithTerri.ram

In the start of the video, Terri is silent but her head is turned and she is staring at Bob Schindler. Bob Schindler begins to talk directly to her. He talks about a funny memory in Terri’s childhood about her lazy eye. Terri responds almost right on key to Bob Schindler inquieries. It clearly shows that Terri is aware of Bob Schindler talking to her and is responding in an appropriate manner almost right on key.

3. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-music.ram

In this video, Terri responds by a short laugh after several seconds of the music playing. Brain injured patients take a long time process information. It is unknown on whether this is reflex response to Mary’s inquiry (pro-death doctors say it is.), but it seems that Terri was aware of the music. However, this video does reveal something interesting. If you watch Terri’s hands and fingers and see them move ever so slightly. The video is cut off at the fingers to determine if Terri is making some attempt at keeping up with the tempo with her fingers. However, I did see her fingers and hand move, but it is very very slight.

4. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terrimum.ram

In this video, Terri does give slight smile when her Mary touches her. The interesting point in this video is when Mary tilts Terri’s head back. It’s difficult to tell if Terri is actually helping her mom in this movement (tilting her head back.)

5. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-hows_that_cold.ram

This video is quite interesting and you can see that Terri is clearly aware of her mother’s presence. The really interesting part in this video is when Mom first approaches her and says “Hi”. You have watch really close, but Terri is aware of Mary Schindler. If you watch her eyebrow, you will see Terri raise it when Mary first says “hi” to her. I find this hard to believe the raising eyebrow would be a reflex. As Mary talks to her, Terri give low moan and seems to be responding to Mary’s inquires. Mary is not touching Terri.

In these videos, you really have to pay close attention to Terri, especially her eyes. These videos demonstrate that Terri was aware of the people were around her.

Please bear in mind the florida statute for PVS:

The definition of PVS in Florida Statute765.101:Persistent vegetative state means a permanentand irreversible condition of unconsciousness inwhich there is:(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitivebehavior of ANY kind.(b) An inability to communicate or interactpurposefully with the environment.

6. http://www.raven1.net/terriballoon.rm

In this video Terri is clearly following the baloon (Cranford testfied to it.). Not only are Terri eyes tracking it but it important to watch Terri’s eyebrows as she eyes track the balloon. Terri also moves her head from side to side. Terri was apparently aware of the balloon and was trying to follow it. Many have said that you can’t tell if Terri is following the balloon. However, she must be based on Dr. Cranford’s comments and what he further testfied to in court.

7. http://www.blogsforterri.com/video/terri-swab.rmm

In this video Terri looks half a sleep. The swab is applied and Terri clearly does not like it. Not only does Terri respond with a grimace, but she moves her arms and even her whole body to get away from the swab. The video ends, showing a very agitated look on Terri’s face.

Here is narrative from the 2002 trial which is extended version of the Open Your Eyes Video. Terri follows more commands:

22 mother. Can you look at your mother now? Say

23 something so she knows where you are.”

24 “Terry, it’s mommy. Over here, Honey. Mommy.

25 Can you look over here at mommy. I’m over here.

101

1 I’m over here. Can you look over here at mommy.

2 Over here. Now, look at me. Terry, look at me.

3 Good.”

4 Now, Terry I’m going to tap you with a sharp

5 piece of wood. This is a hammer with a sharp piece

6 of wood. If you feel it, I want to you look at

7 your mother, not at me. Look at your mother if you

8 feel it. Good. Now, look at me. I’m going to

9 hold your eyes open for a second. Can you look at

10 me? Can you look directly at me?”

11 “Look at me. Now look at your mom. Good.

12 Excellent. Terry, look at me. Right over here.

13 Terry, open your eyes up. Open your eyes. Terry,

14 open your eyes. Very good. Good. Good job. Good

15 job young lady. Good job. Now, what I need you to

16 do is close your eyes. Close your eyes real tight.

17 Close your eyes. Close them closed tight. Keep

18 them closed. Okay. Now keep them real closed.

19 Now I want to you open your eyes real wide. Open

20 them real wide. Good job. Very good. Good job.

21 Very good.”

22 “Now I want to you open your eyes real wide,

23 real wide. Open them real wide for me. Real wide.

24 Yeah, I saw that. Good job. Now open your eyes

25 real wide. Give me a real big stare. A real big

102

1 stare. Can you open them real wide for me. Terry,

2 open them real wide for me. Real wide keep them

3 moving. Okay. Give me a real wide stare. Can you

4 do that?”

Terri had severe brain damage and couldn’t respond to every cammand the Dr. Hammesfahr put to her. I doubt these responses were reflexes.

But what about the the Missing Schiavo Video???

I have always wondered what happen to the 20 minute Terri Schiavo video that was shown at the Mal Practice trial in 1992. It is interesting that that video was never mentioned again and was never used in the 2000 or 2002 trial as video evidence. The video is never mentioned again in any future affidavit or motion that I could find.

I did read that exhibits for the 1992 Mal Trial were destroyed in 1997.

The video was very important for several reasons. Based on the testimony by Michael Schiavo, it showed that Terri was alert, aware, could feel pain, and could swallow.
In it the video shows Terri swallowing at times. It shows Terri reacting to pain. And it shows Terri has feelings and is alert and aware. This all based on Michael’s testimony. Observe:

1992 Testimony

A. Right here, basically, you can see she’s dressed,

11 she’s already had her shower and everything. We would get

12 her dressed, put her shoes and socks on. I’m trying out her

13 hands there. You have to keep the inside of the hands,

14 since she’s contracted, you have to keep them dry because

15 infection can set in, and I usually do a little bit of range

16 of motion with her.

17 Q. And while you’re doing that, do you talk to her?

18 A. Yes, I am talking to her right now telling her

19 it’s okay.

20 Q. She doesn’t like that very much?

21 A. No, she doesn’t. She does feel pain.

Q. (BY MR. WOODWORTH:) Does she like that kind of

5 treatment very much?

6 A. No, she does not. Here I’m trying to bend her

7 leg.

Q. I notice, Michael, you’re holding her head back.

25 why are you doing that?

___
19

1 A. Because she’ll fall forward, and if she falls fast

2 she gets excited. It’s — I was told by a doctor she was

3 getting the feeling she’s falling.

Q. You hoping he can get her to the point where she

15 swallows?

16 A. Yes. You see here rubbing the bottom of her

17 throat, that’s, I don’t know what the word is, gets them to

18 swallow when you rub the bottom of their throat. She just

19 swallowed that time.

Q. Does she express discomfort when some of these

9 things are happening to her?

10 A. Yes. Yes, she does.

11 Q. How does she do that?

12 A. She’ll moan and groan.

I like to get her outside for fresh air.

This is a video that was never released but shown at the Mal Trial. It showed 4 things about Terri that seem to refute PVS based on Michael’s testimony.

1. It shows Terri reacting to pain.

2. It shows Terri has feelings.

3. It shows Terri alert and aware.

4. It shows Terri can swallow to some degree.

Addition, if Terri condition progressed over the years, one can assume that was because of Michael’s neglect to get Terri further therapy and rehabilitation.

Michael sarcasticly writes in his book that Schindlers went looking for doctor after doctor until they could find someone that would give Terri a chance.

Finally, Michael remarks that he would bring Terri outside for fresh air. By the time Terri arrived at hospice, Terri was pretty much jailed in her room for the last 4 to 5 years of her life.

Michael threatened to arrest anyone who attempted to bring her outside or have her attend any social function.

Of course Michael claims he was protecting Terri’s right to privacy but I don’t buy it. Michael hired a private security guard to protect Terri. Michael could have taken her anywhere and her body guard could have been there to protect Terri’s privacy.

Yes, the video definitely show that Terri is cognitive at very small level. You have watch very closely the clips or you will miss her responses. Watching her eyebrows move is one thing that shows she is aware. Her body movement of head, hands, and whole suggest cognitiveness as well.

Dozens of doctors looked at these very same clips that I posted and came to one of two conclusions: Terri was MCS rather than PVS (The response were inconstitent with PVS) or more clinical testing was needed.

Some of the Doctors were experts in neurology and the MCS state. Some of the doctors included:

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/alexGimonAffidavit082503.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/drhopper.PDF

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Huntoon.pdf

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/zabeiga.PDF

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Affidavit%20from%20Speech%20Pathologist.doc

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Laurie%20Barclay.pdf

The conclusions by these doctors were reenforced by doctors who actually examined or observed Terri in person:

Dr. Hammesfahr
Dr. Maxfield
Dr. Cheshire
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Jay%20Carpenter.pdf
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Avery%20Affidavit%20-%20Swallowing.pdf
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/young.PDF

You also have the reenforcement of numerous witnesses accounts from lawyers, the Schindlers, caregivers and priests who actually saw Terri.

The autopsy did not prove Terri was PVS.

Dr. Nelson, the neuropathologist conceded that Terri could have been MCS but there was no way to be sure since pathological conclusions on the MCS were limited. Dr. Nelson therefore conceded to the known PVS diagnosis indicating that his findings were constistent with PVS pathological readings.

Dr. Nelson, addition to conceding that Terri could been MCS also conceded that it was possible that Terri was aware and could hear and recognize her family members.

However, Dr. Nelson was very quick to defend his PVS POV.

CNN Press Conference Transcript Piece:

The question is first asked:

QUESTION: Dr. Thogmartin, what abilities did Terri have? You said she was blind. In those — near the end of her life, what would she have been able to do, feel, whatever?

Dr. Nelson is quick to defend his PVS POV.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The — again, it’s important to remember this is — persistent vegetative state is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis. The findings of Terri Schiavo are very consistent with persistent vegetative state.

Dr. Nelson is pressed:

QUESTION: Doctor, her family had said repeatedly that she believed that — they believed that she interacted with them. Are you saying that’s impossible?

Dr. Nelson concedes but is quick to defend it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re certainly not saying that’s impossible. But we’re saying based on what we know, and what is in the literature with regard to persistent vegetative state, again, that is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis that has precision associated with it.

In other words, the ME could only say that Terri had severe brain damage.

They couldn’t make any conclusions on Terri’s abilities from a dead body, but they are conceding that is not impossible for Terri to be cognitive and aware.

Many have argued, the courts as well as other parties viewed all 4.5 hours of video tapes and found Terri to be PVS.

This matter was addressed very carefully and throughly in the courts:

http://judgegeorgegreer.com/docs/021403appealofdeathorder.doc

http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/schaivobrief.html

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/pdf/schiavo.pdf

Was Terri serverely brain damaged?

Absolutely!

Was Terri going to recover to a meaning life?

Most unlikley!

Was Terri going to get up and walk around?

Probably not!

Could Terri display primitive emotional responses to family and friends and display recognition to them?

Absolutely!

Terri was severely brain damaged but she did have the capacity to recognize her family and to response to them in very small way.

The final conclusion in my opinion was that Terri was in fact MCS and as matter of law was not PVS.

Sorry, I meant to write Mitt Romney.

Reasons why Congress intervened

While I won’t deny that some involved themselves purely for political purposes, below are some of the reason why Congress felt that they should have involved themselves in the Schiavo case.

When it was discovered that an innocent, disabled young woman was going to be starved and dehydrated to death by the order of a court, Congress decided to step in. Upon entering the arena many discovered some disturbing facts that prompted Congress to create federal involvement from the court level. These reasons were discovered by reviewing the court records, talking with Bobby Schindler, and communicating with some of the Schindlers doctors.

1. Some realized that Terri wasn’t dying. She wasn’t being kept alive artificially. She was receiving the provision of food and water because she had trouble swallowing (remember she could swallow but docs feared aspiration so no attempts were made). This wasn’t a right to die case. Terri was disabled. Many looked at this from a disability POV.

2. Some looked at the video tapes claiming she was PVS, Comatosed, or brain dead. After seeing evidence of an aware person and consulting neurologists who examined her and consulting the Schindlers and dozens of doctor affidavits, Congress clearly become concerned. There was more the shadow of doubt to doubt Terri’s PVS diagnosis. This was also in face of fact that Terri hadn’t been examined for years by neurologist or had the most up to date tests such as a fMRI or a PET scan.

3. When Congress saw that a human was going to be starved and dehydrated to death and realized that death row inmates were protected from this by the 8th amendment, Congress really became concerned. They further became concerned when they realized that this act couldn’t be done to an animal without persecution (That is the act of starvation and dehydration irregardless of whether a feeding tube is involved or not.).

5. Many became concerned based on Terri’s wishes on the fact that there was nothing in writing. They became concerned when a adultorous husband was making the decision (the court based its decision on Michael Schiavo and his siblings claims alone.) and the parents only wanted to care for her. Further troubling were caregivers affidavits claiming that Michael was not as sincere as we were lead to believe. Further troubling was fact that when Michael had submitted his 1998 petition to remove Terri’s feeding tube, he poised to inherit $750,000 and was poised to marry his financee Jodi (AT THE TIME THE DECISION WAS MADE; the 2000 court order.). It was also troubling because the only evidence that Terri wanted to die came from Michael and his siblings. None of Terri’s family members, friends or neighbors ever heard Terri make any comments that wanted to die should she become disabled. This also flew in face of Michael’s sworn testimony in the Malpractice trial in which he promised to take of care for the rest of HIS life.

6. Many became concerned when they discovered that Terri had no lawyer and that Judge Greer acted as the Judge, Jury, and Executionor in the case. They realized that even death row inmates were entitled to legal representation. Terri never had any legal representation. The Schindlers were represented, Michael was represented but Terri was never represented.

7. Congress became concerned that Terri was being sentenced to death when a great deal of doubt was there concerning her condition. Some were disturbed by the cursory examintions by docs claiming she was PVS (1 hour or less). Others realized that Terri wasn’t recieving the best medical tests available (no fMRI or PET scans). Further they saw that Terri hadn’t been examined in 3 years. They also took note that Terri never had a swallowing test in over 10 years even though GAL Pearse and many others strongly urged Terri to undergo swallowing tests.

8. Some realized the care of Terri was a horrible liking being lock up in a hospice room for 3 years. This got Tom Delay’s attention.

9. Congress also realized that Terri never received a federal review or a trial by jury, 2 things entitled to all citizens under the law when judgement is made to end their life.

Just some reasons why Congress probably got involved.

In fact all of these facts were brought out in the Palm Sunday Congressional debate.

Hurray for Bobby Schindler!

Here are the video clips of Terri Schiavo.

1. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-big_eyes.ram

This is probably one the best video clips that shows that Terri was aware and cognitive and some small level. The video starts out with Terri’s eyes closed. Dr. Hammesfahr (the voice) asks her to open her eyes. You can see Terri struggle to carry out Dr. Hammesfahr’s directive or command for several seconds as she attempts to open her eyes. After several attempts, Terri opens her eyes. As Dr. Hammersfahr praises Terri, you can clearly see she is aware of him and understands what Dr. Hammerfahr has asked her to do. She moves her head or body towards Dr. Hammesfahr. As Dr. Hammesfahr praises her more, Terri is very eager to please and open her eyes really wide and even wrinkles her eyebrows. I find it hard to believe that someone could write that off as reflex action. Terri clearly opened her eyes on command and reciporcated Dr. Hammesfahr’s praises by opening them wider and wrinkling her eyebrows. There was clearly some level of awareness or consciousness at work there.

2. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/ConversationWithTerri.ram

In the start of the video, Terri is silent but her head is turned and she is staring at Bob Schindler. Bob Schindler begins to talk directly to her. He talks about a funny memory in Terri’s childhood about her lazy eye. Terri responds almost right on key to Bob Schindler inquieries. It clearly shows that Terri is aware of Bob Schindler talking to her and is responding in an appropriate manner almost right on key.

3. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-music.ram

In this video, Terri responds by a short laugh after several seconds of the music playing. Brain injured patients take a long time process information. It is unknown on whether this is reflex response to Mary’s inquiry (pro-death doctors say it is.), but it seems that Terri was aware of the music. However, this video does reveal something interesting. If you watch Terri’s hands and fingers and see them move ever so slightly. The video is cut off at the fingers to determine if Terri is making some attempt at keeping up with the tempo with her fingers. However, I did see her fingers and hand move, but it is very very slight.

4. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terrimum.ram

In this video, Terri does give slight smile when her Mary touches her. The interesting point in this video is when Mary tilts Terri’s head back. It’s difficult to tell if Terri is actually helping her mom in this movement (tilting her head back.)

5. http://www.sacramentolifechain.org/terri-hows_that_cold.ram

This video is quite interesting and you can see that Terri is clearly aware of her mother’s presence. The really interesting part in this video is when Mom first approaches her and says “Hi”. You have watch really close, but Terri is aware of Mary Schindler. If you watch her eyebrow, you will see Terri raise it when Mary first says “hi” to her. I find this hard to believe the raising eyebrow would be a reflex. As Mary talks to her, Terri give low moan and seems to be responding to Mary’s inquires. Mary is not touching Terri.

In these videos, you really have to pay close attention to Terri, especially her eyes. These videos demonstrate that Terri was aware of the people were around her.

Please bear in mind the florida statute for PVS:

The definition of PVS in Florida Statute765.101:Persistent vegetative state means a permanentand irreversible condition of unconsciousness inwhich there is:(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitivebehavior of ANY kind.(b) An inability to communicate or interactpurposefully with the environment.

6. http://www.raven1.net/terriballoon.rm

In this video Terri is clearly following the baloon (Cranford testfied to it.). Not only are Terri eyes tracking it but it important to watch Terri’s eyebrows as she eyes track the balloon. Terri also moves her head from side to side. Terri was apparently aware of the balloon and was trying to follow it. Many have said that you can’t tell if Terri is following the balloon. However, she must be based on Dr. Cranford’s comments and what he further testfied to in court.

7. http://www.blogsforterri.com/video/terri-swab.rmm

In this video Terri looks half a sleep. The swab is applied and Terri clearly does not like it. Not only does Terri respond with a grimace, but she moves her arms and even her whole body to get away from the swab. The video ends, showing a very agitated look on Terri’s face.

Here is narrative from the 2002 trial which is extended version of the Open Your Eyes Video. Terri follows more commands:

22 mother. Can you look at your mother now? Say

23 something so she knows where you are.”

24 “Terry, it’s mommy. Over here, Honey. Mommy.

25 Can you look over here at mommy. I’m over here.

101

1 I’m over here. Can you look over here at mommy.

2 Over here. Now, look at me. Terry, look at me.

3 Good.”

4 Now, Terry I’m going to tap you with a sharp

5 piece of wood. This is a hammer with a sharp piece

6 of wood. If you feel it, I want to you look at

7 your mother, not at me. Look at your mother if you

8 feel it. Good. Now, look at me. I’m going to

9 hold your eyes open for a second. Can you look at

10 me? Can you look directly at me?”

11 “Look at me. Now look at your mom. Good.

12 Excellent. Terry, look at me. Right over here.

13 Terry, open your eyes up. Open your eyes. Terry,

14 open your eyes. Very good. Good. Good job. Good

15 job young lady. Good job. Now, what I need you to

16 do is close your eyes. Close your eyes real tight.

17 Close your eyes. Close them closed tight. Keep

18 them closed. Okay. Now keep them real closed.

19 Now I want to you open your eyes real wide. Open

20 them real wide. Good job. Very good. Good job.

21 Very good.”

22 “Now I want to you open your eyes real wide,

23 real wide. Open them real wide for me. Real wide.

24 Yeah, I saw that. Good job. Now open your eyes

25 real wide. Give me a real big stare. A real big

102

1 stare. Can you open them real wide for me. Terry,

2 open them real wide for me. Real wide keep them

3 moving. Okay. Give me a real wide stare. Can you

4 do that?”

Terri had severe brain damage and couldn’t respond to every cammand the Dr. Hammesfahr put to her. I doubt these responses were reflexes.

But what about the the Missing Schiavo Video???

I have always wondered what happen to the 20 minute Terri Schiavo video that was shown at the Mal Practice trial in 1992. It is interesting that that video was never mentioned again and was never used in the 2000 or 2002 trial as video evidence. The video is never mentioned again in any future affidavit or motion that I could find.

I did read that exhibits for the 1992 Mal Trial were destroyed in 1997.

The video was very important for several reasons. Based on the testimony by Michael Schiavo, it showed that Terri was alert, aware, could feel pain, and could swallow.
In it the video shows Terri swallowing at times. It shows Terri reacting to pain. And it shows Terri has feelings and is alert and aware. This all based on Michael’s testimony. Observe:

1992 Testimony

A. Right here, basically, you can see she’s dressed,

11 she’s already had her shower and everything. We would get

12 her dressed, put her shoes and socks on. I’m trying out her

13 hands there. You have to keep the inside of the hands,

14 since she’s contracted, you have to keep them dry because

15 infection can set in, and I usually do a little bit of range

16 of motion with her.

17 Q. And while you’re doing that, do you talk to her?

18 A. Yes, I am talking to her right now telling her

19 it’s okay.

20 Q. She doesn’t like that very much?

21 A. No, she doesn’t. She does feel pain.

Q. (BY MR. WOODWORTH:) Does she like that kind of

5 treatment very much?

6 A. No, she does not. Here I’m trying to bend her

7 leg.

Q. I notice, Michael, you’re holding her head back.

25 why are you doing that?

___
19

1 A. Because she’ll fall forward, and if she falls fast

2 she gets excited. It’s — I was told by a doctor she was

3 getting the feeling she’s falling.

Q. You hoping he can get her to the point where she

15 swallows?

16 A. Yes. You see here rubbing the bottom of her

17 throat, that’s, I don’t know what the word is, gets them to

18 swallow when you rub the bottom of their throat. She just

19 swallowed that time.

Q. Does she express discomfort when some of these

9 things are happening to her?

10 A. Yes. Yes, she does.

11 Q. How does she do that?

12 A. She’ll moan and groan.

I like to get her outside for fresh air.

This is a video that was never released but shown at the Mal Trial. It showed 4 things about Terri that seem to refute PVS based on Michael’s testimony.

1. It shows Terri reacting to pain.

2. It shows Terri has feelings.

3. It shows Terri alert and aware.

4. It shows Terri can swallow to some degree.

Addition, if Terri condition progressed over the years, one can assume that was because of Michael’s neglect to get Terri further therapy and rehabilitation.

Michael sarcasticly writes in his book that Schindlers went looking for doctor after doctor until they could find someone that would give Terri a chance.

Finally, Michael remarks that he would bring Terri outside for fresh air. By the time Terri arrived at hospice, Terri was pretty much jailed in her room for the last 4 to 5 years of her life.

Michael threatened to arrest anyone who attempted to bring her outside or have her attend any social function.

Of course Michael claims he was protecting Terri’s right to privacy but I don’t buy it. Michael hired a private security guard to protect Terri. Michael could have taken her anywhere and her body guard could have been there to protect Terri’s privacy.

Yes, the video definitely show that Terri is cognitive at very small level. You have watch very closely the clips or you will miss her responses. Watching her eyebrows move is one thing that shows she is aware. Her body movement of head, hands, and whole suggest cognitiveness as well.

Dozens of doctors looked at these very same clips that I posted and came to one of two conclusions: Terri was MCS rather than PVS (The response were inconstitent with PVS) or more clinical testing was needed.

Some of the Doctors were experts in neurology and the MCS state. Some of the doctors included:

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/alexGimonAffidavit082503.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/drhopper.PDF

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Huntoon.pdf

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/zabeiga.PDF

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Affidavit%20from%20Speech%20Pathologist.doc

http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Laurie%20Barclay.pdf

The conclusions by these doctors were reenforced by doctors who actually examined or observed Terri in person:

Dr. Hammesfahr
Dr. Maxfield
Dr. Cheshire
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Dr%20%20Jay%20Carpenter.pdf
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/Avery%20Affidavit%20-%20Swallowing.pdf
http://www.terrisfight.org/userfiles/File/young.PDF

You also have the reenforcement of numerous witnesses accounts from lawyers, the Schindlers, caregivers and priests who actually saw Terri.

The autopsy did not prove Terri was PVS.

Dr. Nelson, the neuropathologist conceded that Terri could have been MCS but there was no way to be sure since pathological conclusions on the MCS were limited. Dr. Nelson therefore conceded to the known PVS diagnosis indicating that his findings were constistent with PVS pathological readings.

Dr. Nelson, addition to conceding that Terri could been MCS also conceded that it was possible that Terri was aware and could hear and recognize her family members.

However, Dr. Nelson was very quick to defend his PVS POV.

CNN Press Conference Transcript Piece:

The question is first asked:

QUESTION: Dr. Thogmartin, what abilities did Terri have? You said she was blind. In those — near the end of her life, what would she have been able to do, feel, whatever?

Dr. Nelson is quick to defend his PVS POV.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The — again, it’s important to remember this is — persistent vegetative state is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis. The findings of Terri Schiavo are very consistent with persistent vegetative state.

Dr. Nelson is pressed:

QUESTION: Doctor, her family had said repeatedly that she believed that — they believed that she interacted with them. Are you saying that’s impossible?

Dr. Nelson concedes but is quick to defend it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re certainly not saying that’s impossible. But we’re saying based on what we know, and what is in the literature with regard to persistent vegetative state, again, that is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis that has precision associated with it.

In other words, the ME could only say that Terri had severe brain damage.

They couldn’t make any conclusions on Terri’s abilities from a dead body, but they are conceding that is not impossible for Terri to be cognitive and aware.

Many have argued, the courts as well as other parties viewed all 4.5 hours of video tapes and found Terri to be PVS.

This matter was addressed very carefully and throughly in the courts:

http://judgegeorgegreer.com/docs/021403appealofdeathorder.doc

http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/schaivobrief.html

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/pdf/schiavo.pdf

Was Terri serverely brain damaged?

Absolutely!

Was Terri going to recover to a meaning life?

Most unlikley!

Was Terri going to get up and walk around?

Probably not!

Could Terri display primitive emotional responses to family and friends and display recognition to them?

Absolutely!

Terri was severely brain damaged but she did have the capacity to recognize her family and to response to them in very small way.

The final conclusion in my opinion was that Terri was in fact MCS and as matter of law was not PVS.

Terri Schiavo never got these drug therapies. Terri never got HBOT or Stem Cell Therapy. Terri never got botox therapy to help her with contractures. Terri recieved little therapy.

You can see a 12 minute video segment on 60 minutes website.

I love the inherrent bias against Terri Schiavo in the segment.

The first thing they say is that Terri Schiavo was a completely different case.

In fact, from the numerous, numerous cases that have been mentioned since her death, Terri Schiavo is always different.

Absolutely amazing!

I think the disclaimer on every article and video segment about brain injury should be

This case is completely different from Terri Schiavo.

Simply unbelieveable.

I believe Terri was MCS.

Jerri Lynn Ward is an attorney who specializes in medical cases involving disabled people.

The autopsy did not prove Terri was PVS.

Dr. Nelson, the neuropathologist conceded that Terri could have been MCS but there was no way to be sure since pathological conclusions on the MCS were limited. Dr. Nelson therefore conceded to the known PVS diagnosis indicating that his findings were constistent with PVS pathological readings.

Dr. Nelson, addition to conceding that Terri could been MCS also conceded that it was possible that Terri was aware and could hear and recognize her family members.

However, Dr. Nelson was very quick to defend his PVS POV.

CNN Press Conference Transcript Piece:

The question is first asked:

QUESTION: Dr. Thogmartin, what abilities did Terri have? You said she was blind. In those — near the end of her life, what would she have been able to do, feel, whatever?

Dr. Nelson is quick to defend his PVS POV.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The — again, it’s important to remember this is — persistent vegetative state is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis. The findings of Terri Schiavo are very consistent with persistent vegetative state.

Dr. Nelson is pressed:

QUESTION: Doctor, her family had said repeatedly that she believed that — they believed that she interacted with them. Are you saying that’s impossible?

Dr. Nelson concedes but is quick to defend it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’re certainly not saying that’s impossible. But we’re saying based on what we know, and what is in the literature with regard to persistent vegetative state, again, that is a clinical diagnosis. It’s not a pathologic diagnosis that has precision associated with it.

“At the press conference held to announce the autopsy findings, Nelson went further in lending support for the court’s diagnosis of PVS. He emphasized the pathological findings were “very consistent” with PVS, but admitted he could not rule out the possibility Terri Schiavo was in a minimally conscious state, or MCS, because there are no published studies on pathological correlations to the clinical diagnosis of MCS”

Neurologist Dr. William Hammesfahr, who served as an expert witness for the Schindlers after examining Terri for 10 hours over repeated visits in 2002, also criticized the perceived spin of the autopsy report. He emphasized the medical examiners’ own findings detract from the PVS diagnosis. Namely, large areas of Terri’s brain were “relatively preserved,” in the words of Nelson, and the critical areas were among those “relatively preserved.”

“In fact, the relay areas from the frontal and front temporal regions of the brain, to the spinal cord and the brain stem, by way of the basal ganglia, were preserved,” said Hammesfahr, adding this explained Terri’s “evident response” to her family members and others.

From Jerri Lynn Ward on Autopsy:

“The frontal temporal and temporal poles and insular-cortex demonstrated relative preservation.”

“What this tells us is that her cortex retained function and that her brain was more normal in the area that controls higher-level thinking,” said Ward

But Ward, pointing to the autopsy report, notes the brain’s frontal lobe plays a part in impulse control, judgment, language, memory, motor function, problem solving, sexual behavior, socialization and spontaneity.

“It is very possible that she remained cognizant of sounds and other things without being able to communicate,” Ward said. “It’s possible Terri was aware of everything being done to her — yet could do little to make people aware that she was there.”

Ward pointed out that major damage to Schiavo’s brain was shown to be toward the back — the areas that affect motor skills.

So the question remains, says Ward, was Terri Schiavo still a thinking, aware human being?

In fact, neuropathologist Stephen Nelson, whose assessment is included in the report, conceded there is no way of determining through an autopsy whether a person was in a persistent vegetative state.