Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
The movements were not random, no. Read Gimon's affidavit. Or, stay tuned. There will be more affidavits from medical professionals. We don't need to get our information from a blogger unfamiliar with Terri's medical history.
So you have doubts. Fine. Why do you doubt his findings? What have you read or heard to make you doubt it? Please point out a link to what you've read that causes you to doubt his report.
" the discrepancy between cortical blindness at autopsy and observed visual capacity ... can be explained by the dehydration."
This was in the autopsy report? Where did you read this? Which doctor stated this? Who said that dehydration was the reason? I need a link to your proof.
"I stand by my point that nobody thought she was blind before her death."
But you now admit that she was blind. Which means those who said she could see were lying.
You character assasinate everyone involved. The Judge is blind and corrupt. There's no due process. Michael is a murderer. Cranford lies.
Now, in this post, Felos is a "death lawyer".
The facts of this case bother you, admit it. They go against all your evil gossip. I've pointed out your lies -- Michael never testified, or told Keith Olbermann, or told Larry King it was his idea. Three lies of yours right there that you've never addressed. You change topics, attacking someone else.
Also contribute the legal maximum to death judge's political campaign.
And I know you know exactly how much that "legal maximum" was. But you're embarrassed to say it aren't you? You'd rather leave it vague -- leave people guessing. It's so small, it's STUPID to say or imply anyone would possibly be influenced by such a sum.
Tell us how much Felos contributed.
I already did. He's not qualified and he never physically examined Terri.
"There will be more affidavits from medical professionals."
Hopefully, at least one of them is A) a medical doctor and B) has actually examined her. Don't bother linking me to any affidavit where the individual doesn't meet both those criteria.
A PhD in neuropsychology is superbly qualified. That's not even debatable.
And, yes, actually he did physically examine Terri. Much medical examination, including internal, is done on camera. Have you ever had a colonoscopy and seen the results on TV? It ain't the doc in there examining.
>> Hopefully, at least one of them is A) a medical doctor and B) has actually examined her.
Many doctors examined her. They examined medical records as well as videographic material made available at an evidentiary hearing. This is a legitimate and medically ethical investigative method. Were it not, none could have submitted an affidavit without professional censure.
Remember who else looked at videos and made medical judgments from them? George Greer. Now there was a guy practicing medicine without a license, yet you held that up as the gospel truth. You can hardly complain about physicians and other medical specialists doing so with far more material and far better training.
Question, question, question, question, question. Answer your own questions.
That's not true.
Take two martinis and call us in the morning.
OK. And I bet I'm very close to the truth.
Why do you doubt his findings?
T'wit: Because I don't want to believe them
What have you read or heard to make you doubt it?
T'wit: Absolutely nothing. (Other than gossip on the Terri-bot web sites.)
This was in the autopsy report?
T'wit: Not at all.
Where did you read this?
T'wit: Nowhere. I'm inventing this out of whole cloth because it's what I want to believe.
Which doctor stated this?
T'wit: Like I would rely on anything a real doctor had to say.
Uh-oh. The author is going to catch hell from the rest of the Liberal Media Smart Set for not working in at least two mentions of the fact that the law in question was signed by then-governor George W. Bush.
Robert Paulsen: And I know you know exactly how much that "legal maximum" was. But you're embarrassed to say it aren't you? You'd rather leave it vague -- leave people guessing. It's so small, it's STUPID to say or imply anyone would possibly be influenced by such a sum.
Tell us how much Felos contributed.
I have some doubts that you will actually get an answer to that question; however, if it is an honest answer, then it will also include acknowledgment that George Felos' campaign contribution to Judge Greer's 2004 reelection campaign was not the "legal maximum" that T'wit stated.
On 5/7/04, George Felos made a $250 contribution to Judge Greer's 2004 reelection campaign. This was .15%--that's one and one-half TENTH of one percent--of the total of $161,067.36 in cash contributions to Judge Greer's reelection campaign (additional "in kind" contributions were also received by the campaign).
The "legal maximum" contribution in Florida to the campaign is/was $500. While George Felos didn't make that level of contribution, 171 (23.1%) of the 739 persons making contributions to Judge Greer's 2004 reelection campaign did.
Summary:
--the "legal maximum" contribution was $500
--George Felos' contribution was $250
He's a glorified psychologist, for crying out loud. There's no behavior for him to assess. Terri is PVS.
He may indeed be qualified, but not to evaluate Terri. And certainly not via a review of video tapes.
"And, yes, actually he did physically examine Terri."
He never got within 10 miles of her.
"This is a legitimate and medically ethical investigative method. Were it not, none could have submitted an affidavit without professional censure."
What type of doctor would submit an affidavit on a patient he's never even seen? Their affidavits and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee.
The Terri-bots would rather leave the amount of the contribution vague, thereby allowing them to imply that Felos "bought" Judge Greer -- without ever actually accusing him of that. It's a conspiracy, don't you know.
What possible good does it do to say that Felos contributed $250. to Greer's campaign? Who's going to think that piddly amount means anything?
Oh my, how terrible that is, but what type of judge would submit a death order on an innocent person that he's never seen?
I didn't actually know that, but it does seem to be improper that Greer would accept even 1 dollar with the case still at his disposal.
You're welcome.
What possible good does it do to say that Felos contributed $250. to Greer's campaign? Who's going to think that piddly amount means anything?
I think the real question is: what possible good does it do (for anyone, regardless of their cause) to engage in such false statements and hyperbole, especially about such a completely meaningless statistic?
Let's see if you can be less vague. How much did Greer get in 1998 and how much did he get in 2004?
I know, only the death doctors opinions count, and I know you got yourself covered when you call the other two that disagreed quacks. What's new? I still say you bear a striking resemblance to Judge Greer.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
If Judge Greer had even attempted to visit Terri you would have screamed bloody murder that he wasn't qualified to form a direct medical opinion.
And you would have been right.
Golly, I am going to keep my eyes closed when this happens to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.