Posted on 03/24/2005 2:51:41 AM PST by AHerald
CSI MEDBLOGS: FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF CT BRAINS TURNS UP NEW ASTOUNDING EVIDENCE
If you look carefully at this time line you will see that Terri had "NORMAL" CT's of the brain on 2/25 and 2/27...
There is categorically and absolutely NO WAY Terri could have suffered MASSIVE ANOXIC INJURY TO THE BRAIN ON 2/25 AND HAVE NORMAL CT SCAN ON 2/27...
IF TERRI DID NOT SUFFER ANOXIC DAMAGE ON 2/25 THEN THE REASON FOR HER BRAIN ATROPHY WAS CAUSED BY SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED after 2/25 namely in the hospital during February or march of 1990...
So Terri WAS HIT ON THE HEAD OR DROPPED ON HER HEAD DURING LATER FEBRUARY OR EARLY MARCH WHILE IN THAT HOSPITAL.
Ah, I was wondering what he got the settlement for.
I'm just telling you that if you're so interested in the story (which you are not), do a search of your own. You're not helpless, are you? Or do you just want to dispute the info?
Btw, Karl Rove put out those National Guard docs, got someone in dark glasses to hand them right over to the DNC/SeeBS. And old Karl also made that bin Laden tape five days before the election.
;-)
There's a grip out there, get it.
You're thinking of a more famous Smokin' Joe, (and not that darned camel, either). Last time I got in a fight with a really good boxer, I beat the heck out of his hands with my face and head. You shoulda seen the other guy! (8^D)
"What if it's just plain wrong?"
It would be a tragedy of the highest magnitude.
"I'm just telling you that if you're so interested in the story (which you are not), do a search of your own."
Just asked. Generally when someone asserts something to be true it is upon them to prove it so. Just because you're gullible doesn't mean others are...but you know that right?
"There's a grip out there, get it."
I have one. Would you like to borrow it some time? :-)
ROFL>>>>>>>>!!!! Thanks, I needed that with all this awful Terri Schiavo news.
We're in Tyler Texas for two days (just outside of Dallas) and I was shocked to see that their local TV station poll indicates 58% think she should be allowed to die!!!
Just WHO do you proclaim asserted WHAT was true?
The only thing I wrote in the earliest post was: "But, I tend to think that this (Terri report) is true." --tend to -- read that? I did not say that the report was true.
Got it, smartaleck?
People are ignorant, and it is the conscious design of the old/socialist/liberal media to try to keep them that way. The media is evil, but the people have a large grade of guilt for being so terribly uninformed too.
Wait 'til Hillary runs and see how many folks think she's great. ---- Barf Alert
"(for what it's worth, I have never heard of this site)"
"Just WHO do you proclaim asserted WHAT was true?"
I agreed with you if you think about it. Empire seems to be asserting the info is true and should offer the original. Should they not? Did you not have some doubt as to its veracity? That's what I take FWIW to be.
I didn't say YOU said it was true nor implied such. I saw you offered it "for what it's worth."
Take a breath.
The point is, if you want to try to find the veracity of the thread's words, you're addressing the wrong person. Do some work if you care. ;-)
This isn't about the law as it's written, it's about the evidentiary record.
"The point is, if you want to try to find the veracity of the thread's words, you're addressing the wrong person."
That's obvious. You seem to have formed an opinion without caring about the veracity. A lot of people have been doing that. Too bad really.
"This isn't about the law as it's written, it's about the evidentiary record."
None of the courts seem to have a problem with it. Shouldn't they know what is and what is not?
Don't you wonder why her mother, father, sister, brother, close friends and others opinions have not weighed as heavily as her husband's and his family?
bump
"Don't you wonder why her mother, father, sister, brother, close friends and others opinions have not weighed as heavily as her husband's and his family?"
As I recall from reading the testimony, one group was inconsistent and the dates they recalled were disputed or it couldn't have occurred. The the other group was consistent, seemed to have less to gain by their testimony and on the whole came off more credible. The judge judged.
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.