Questions swirl around husband of brain-damaged Florida woman

Chicago Tribune ^ | Thu, Oct. 23, 2003 | BY MICHAEL MARTINEZ AND PATRICK KAMPERT

[Saundra Duffy]

"He doesn't want this to be public; he wants it to be private."

How odd. This is about as public as anything could be. WHY IS HE HIDING?!

[Saundra Duffy]

No matter what he does, Michael Schiavo just cannot seem to pull off the murder of his wife. MAYBE HE SHOULD JUST GIVE IT UP ALREADY! Now that the whole world is watching, he'll have to mind his P's and Q's.

[Saundra Duffy]

I think Hospice needs an investigation to find out what the hell is going on in these places. Have they become killing fields?

[Saundra Duffy]

Felos is channeling for the devil. Michael Schiavo IS the devil.

[leila]

According to Sarasota County Court Records: On October 14, 2002, a Marjory Schiavo had a deed to property located at 2424 Terry Lane, Sarasota, Florida 34231

[exDemMom]

he'd then be hounded for alimony to be used to pay for her 24/7 care.

So, to save himself having to pay some alimony (as if Terri is capable of demanding it), he's incurring how many thousands of dollars in legal fees? Yeah, like THAT makes sense. No, he's after the malpractice money, the money that was supposed to be used to care for Terri.

[Greybird]

Keep this on-line innuendo-and-slander campaign going long enough, and some of us are going to start feeling sympathy for Michael Schiavo.

(He's perfectly capable of initiating a libel action against individual posters, FreeRepublic LLC, or both, by the way. Be careful where you're treading here. Material being in the public domain, including a court record, especially if it's inaccurate, is no bulletproof defense against libel.)

Do YOU, any of you, want court proceedings second-guessed this much if you or your family members must turn to them in similar circumstances? Think about it.

[Bellflower]

Do you or anyone else have "any" idea what is really motivating this man? If the money is gone and all he really wants to do is get on with his life we ALL know he could just as well let her parents take care of her. I know he supposedly heard Terri say she didn't want to live if she was near death or in a coma. But I cannot at this point believe that would be driving him to desire her death so ferociously. So, my thoughts are that something/someone else has a motive in all of this. An agenda. Perhaps he is a satanist? Probably not. Maybe he is being used as a case setter just like Norma McCorvie was in Roe vs. Wade back in the early 70s. Something outside of himself must be driving him. To get all these doctors, hospice administrators, lawyers and so called specialists helping him out is just too unreal. Something else is going on here. I'm sure of it. Maybe the death of Terri is just one more nail in the coffin of the death culture that is trying everything it can to dominate our society. Whether it's children, unborn babies, elderly, handicapped, or christians, jews, or just anybody that is not wanted by an amoral self-centered power hungry culture. Someone is footing the bill or putting money in an account for him. I'm sure it wouldn't be much money. Just enough to keep him hanging in there. Norma didn't get anything out of it. She was just used by the liberal left to pursue their agenda. Period. Any ideas. I know I rambled.

[Golden Gate]

JEB BUSH just said "It was the right thing to do. Proud of the legislature for responding." - Yes!

[ambrose]

I think Palpatine came up with the alimony angle. It make snese though.

[onyx]

It's brilliant, that's the reason.

CP this is for you also.

To: ambrose

LIGHTS ON! Thank you, Ambrose! I never thought about the "alimony" angle.

That's the answer to the question repeatedly posed here: "why not just divorce her?"

Bee-eye-n-gee-o.


57 posted on 10/23/2003 10:28 PM PDT by onyx

[Graymatter]

What if the Schindlers made this offer to MS?

A. We get guardianship of Terri. After 1 year you can petition for guardianship if she is no better off, in the opinion of two independent physicians chosen blind from a combination of your choices and ours.
B. You get total immunity from civil liability, criminal prosecution, and alimony. We will not seek divorce on her behalf. You keep all the malpractice award money, and remain beneficiary of any existing insurance policy.
C. We will never make another public statement about you, write or cooperate in any account of the case, factual or fictionalized.

If they make this offer very publicly, how can he refuse without looking guilty? He can take the high road and spin himself into sainthood, without any opposition from them. If he never abused Terri he has nothing to fear. If she's hopelessly PVS as he says, they'll have to admit it after a year, and let the court decide her fate.

Most likely he'd refuse. But make it public, and people will understand the implications.

[alexandria]

Why the #%@*&!! is Felos using an "analogy." Why isn't he telling exactly what was alleged to have happened?

Also add to that, "where in this "analogy" of what happened are the brother/sister-in-law that supposedly ALSO heard this?"

[First Amendment]

He is on record as refusing to say whether he has a life insurance policy out on her or not (do the words "double indemnity" mean anything to you? I know nothing about insurance so they don't to me).

(Is your screen name Bellflower apples? They are a really good old fashioned variety of apple - had some old old trees growing near Aptos CA years ago!)

[CHUCKfromCAL]

I find the Schindler family, especially Terri's father, lacking in credibility. They are prone to making unproven accusations against Terri's husband. According to them, he caused her brain damage, he misspent the money, he wants to murder her, and he is hiding the money.

The courts have ruled in the husband's favor on every occasion for 13 years. The Schindlers have not been able to prove any of their allegations against the husband.

This is a sad case of a husband trying to do what he thinks is right and a family that thinks they are right - when there is no "right" answer.

[AmericaUnited]

I know that the illegal hospice admittance is a relatively minor crime but once investegators get a GENUINE CHARGE against him of any kind then they have probable cause for looking at all the other stuff as well.

Ditto! Ditto! I believe Scumbag is hiding because he is getting VERY nervous that his criminal activities are getting to get exposed. Humpty Dumpty is about to fall off the wall.

[The Red Zone]

The findings of facts have always devolved back on Greer in the end. Greer has a bent: he chose to accept as "neutral" the word of Dr. Cranford, one of the pro-death pro-euthanasia pioneers, disregarding the most renowned physician in the group, Dr. Hammesfahr, who said he thinks Terri is non-PVS and can be rehabbed somewhat.

[AmericaUnited]

(He's perfectly capable of initiating a libel action against individual posters, FreeRepublic LLC, or both, by the way. Be careful where you're treading here. Material being in the public domain, including a court record, especially if it's inaccurate, is no bulletproof defense against libel.)

Know the law and sleep easy my fellow Freepers. California State Court has ruled 99.9% of what is posted here as protected speech. Here is a snippet from Barrett vs. Rosenthal:

However, as Rosenthal points out, the boundaries of permissible public discourse have evolved significantly in the last half century and as her Reply aptly summarizes it:

"Although it may have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old witch in 1955 (Opp. 8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief" and a 'liar' in a public debate has been held to be constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole. (Rosenaur V. Sclzerer (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 280.)"

The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka PUSTEDAGAIN4O (C.D.Cal. 2001) 132 E.Snpp.2d E26l, 1267, A269-1270 [holding critical comments about Plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and rhetoric. Also see Gregori' v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.Sd 596, 601: "[Where potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use of epithets, fiery' rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of opinion.")

Hi Micheal! You're a scumbag of the lowest form. So sue me!

[Bellflower]

I know nothing about insurance either. The dictionary says that double indemnity is a clause in a life insurance policy by which a payment of double the face value of the policy is made in the event of accidental death. What does that have to do with not feeding her? Or does it go back to the original event that put her in the hospital to begin with? And no bellflower has nothing to do with apples. I just read on another thread that her doctor has resigned. That could also speak of foul play. There is definately an agenda going on here. Much more than a husband wanting to pull the plug(feeding tube) on a handicapped woman they are calling comatose. CNN or Comatose News Network. Ha Ha

[Greybird]

Whether he ultimately has a case or not, Schiavo could bring one that is not likely to be dismissed outright for lack of merit. Many posters here have gone far beyond "rhetorical hyperbole."

At least one thread on this subject was closed by the moderators for "excessive threats of violence" against the husband and his lawyers, something I've never seen before at Free Republic. Insinuations in this thread about his presumed business dealings or possible aliases have already flirted with impugning his character -- on matters sometimes well removed from those involving his long-suffering wife.

Even if a case is ultimately tossed out for lack of merit or muddled grounds, it can be horrendously costly to mount a defense. Just ask Jim Robinson. After the LAT/WP debacle, I'm surprised that so many are recklessly endangering this site with their invective against Michael Schiavo -- who very well might not qualify as an exempt target out of being a "public figure."