Burden of Proof: The Killing of Terri Schiavo

Washington Dispatch ^ | October 24, 2003 | Judie Brown

[NYer]

In a court of law, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. They must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually did commit a crime.

In the court of public opinion, it is frequently the case that individuals who are accused of a crime are judged guilty regardless of the facts. Some call that bias; others label it as nothing more than ignorant.

In the case of a severely disabled woman whose starvation death was ordered by a Florida judge, the court of law has not determined her guilt or innocence, because she committed no crime. The court has preferred to arrogantly deem it compassionate to put her out of her alleged misery by sanctioning an act of murder.

Murder is defined as the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought. Such a definition applies in this case. However, no human court is going to find this particular judge guilty of a crime, and no human court is going to query this woman’s husband regarding why he thinks she should die. That has already been taken care of through an arduous five-year court battle that may yet end with this woman’s tragic death — a death resulting from court-approved removal of food and water.

As one attorney recently wrote, if a judge or a state governor were to order the execution of a serial killer on death row by means of withholding food and water, a variety of courts would intervene at once to block that order, which would amount to constitutionally-prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. But in the case of Terri Schiavo, who is not terminally ill, and was not near death until the starvation process began, it has been ruled that her life is not worthy to be lived. Thus others were willing to impose on her a slow, agonizing death by starvation. That is murder according to the natural law; but according to the Florida judicial system, it is an exercise in compassion. So much for human justice!

The Terri Schiavo case is currently receiving widespread media coverage. The callous disregard for her human dignity is being exposed in many venues – but only at the eleventh hour. Over the past five years, however, as this case has been unfolding, nary a word could be found describing the barbaric nature of what some were proposing should be done to her.

Perhaps the most appalling aspect of this woman’s plight is rarely noted. Terri Schiavo is a Catholic who, one would hope, would have been staunchly defended in every conceivable way by the Catholic hierarchy in her state. After all, she is vulnerable, she is totally dependent on others to speak for her, and she is a human being with the gift of human dignity that God bestows on each of us.

The sad reality is, however, that Florida’s Catholic bishops have been virtually silent. These bishops joined together in a public statement begging Gov. Jeb Bush to spare the life of convicted killer Paul Hill, a man who murdered two people. The prosecution in the Hill case did its job. Yet the bishops publicly pleaded that his life be spared. But two days after defending Hill’s life, these same bishops said the Church could not make a decision regarding whether Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. These bishops urged that more time be given prior to Terri’s imposed death by starvation so that “greater certainty as to her true condition” could be reached.

How much more certainty does one need that a living, breathing human being will die if he or she is denied access to food and water? The burden of proof in Terri’s case must ultimately be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who, for whatever reason, have chosen to cautiously stand aside and allow the courts to wield their power, even if the result will be the death of an innocent human being who never had the opportunity to defend herself. What crime did Terri Schiavo commit, I would ask the bishops that drove them into equivocating about whether or not she had a right to life?

Americans who care about this young woman have mounted campaigns to pressure Gov. Bush into doing all he can to save Terri’s life. Others have stepped to the forefront and applauded Florida state lawmakers who, after nearly six full days had passed in which Terri was denied nutrition, approved legislation to stop the starvation from continuing. Still others have offered legal opinions providing the governor with ammunition and exposing the reality of the situation: Terri Schiavo was being executed, pure and simple.

Yet nowhere in this flurry of last minute, desperate activity, do we find the Florida Catholic Conference. There has been a number prayer vigils held outside the hospice where Terri resides. To our knowledge, not one bishop has attended. There have been numerous public demonstrations of support for Terri’s parents, who are courageously doing all they can to defend their daughter’s right to life as her husband, her legal guardian, continues his quest to see that her food and water is denied. Not one bishop has offered Terri’s parents his public support. There is a courageous priest who has tried to provide Terri with Holy Communion. His efforts were thwarted by police officers who banned him from giving the Eucharist to Terri. As far as we can tell, not one bishop spoke out at such an outrage or applauded the commitment of this priest to be a true shepherd for Terri in what appeared to be her final days.

As the moments continued to pass, and the very life ebbed out of this lovely young woman at the center of this storm of controversy, one could only wonder what it really means to be innocent until proven guilty. To my mind, as I reflect on the burden of proof that never evolved prior to Terri’s death sentence, it occurs to me that some day, the most important Judge of all will have to deal with certain people who were aware of the travesty but chose to avoid a controversy because “difficult cases” are a bother. At that time, He will have amassed a burden of proof with regard to their culpability in the case of Terri Schiavo. In His court, justice will be done.

[sisterjforteri]

Good points, Robert! Yes, they managed to buy Terri more time for her case to be looked into, I agree. But I do think Johnnie Byrd is especially dedicated to Terri's situation because he had said on one news program that we were watching the other day/night that if this law didn't work, he had something else in mind. I think they were being cautious how they worded everything so that the Judge wouldn't be offended and not pass it. I think we all may see another law/bill suddenly arise with more of a positive, definite effect in it for not only Terri, but all people in her situation. If you watched the legislators via the internet the night that the House first passed the bill, alot of them were even crying in there - they were very touched by Terri's situation, so, I don't think it was all just to try and gain votes necessarily, but that's just my viewpoint. I know we gave our parish priest the terrisfight.org website address. He is very sweet, from India actually, has a sister back there who is currently suffering from a crippling form of arthritis, and of course, he is a big fan of Mother Theresa, who was just beatified, as you probably know. The more the word on Terri gets out, the more Michael's side is not going to be able to get away with his antics. I tell everyone I know because there is power in numbers, as we all know. I'm glad those 3 doctors came forward on Friday, and I heard that there is also some guy who was involved in Sunny Von Bulow's case who said that he believes she was hurt by someone, after examing her medical records. I think his last name was Baden or something like that.

[Tax-chick]

Think of the parents of disabled children....you know they're wondering, "What will happen to my child after I pass away?"

Ten years ago when I worked in an estate law practice, I remember putting together a will for a wealthy couple with a retarded adult son. They were doing everything possible to ensure that he was taken care of after their death ... trusts, with strict rules and multiple potential trustees ... letters filed detailing the environment they expected for him, including his favorite music and TV shows ... purchase of property for him to live, and money set aside for caregivers ... But they still couldn't be sure it would all work. They kept asking my boss, "Is there anything else we can do?"

And that was before these more recent cases of simply killing the disabled. We definitely all need to look at our legal documents very carefully, but we also need to be aware that all our preparations can be taken down by out-of-control courts (among other possibilities ...)

Scary, less for oneself perhaps than for disabled dependents, if any.

[JulieRNR21]

NewsMax on Media Bias:

Media Distortions in Schiavo Case

Some of the most biased reporting we've ever seen came this past week with the coverage of Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion.

"Governor of Florida Orders Woman Fed In Right-to-Die Case" was the headline in the New York Times. Wire services and other media leaders also called the fight over Mrs. Schiavo's fate a "right-to-die" case.

To her husband and the euthanasia movement, yes, it is a right-to-die case. To her parents and the pro-life movement, it is a right-to-live case. Yet the mainstream media refuse to call it that.

We caught several newspapers, wire services and other members of Big Media falsely describing Mrs. Schiavo as "comatose." One wire service was good enough to stop this deceit after NewsMax.com wrote an article about the error.

"What's your position on the forced feeding of the Florida woman?" asked a poll we spotted on the legal Web site FindLaw, as if food were being stuffed down Mrs. Schiavo's throat against her will.

Notably absent was a poll asking "your position on the forced starvation" she was suffering before Florida's Legislature and governor intervened.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Well NL admitted its deceits at #210 by saying its efforts all filtered down to it wanting us to answer its single question.

Well, if that were all NL was after, why didn't it just ask at its first appearance? Why did NL choose, instead, to muddy the waters by 1)asserting that Terri was in misery and 2) also asserting that our side delighted in her condition? And then go on to additional extraordinary characterizations (3,4,5,6,7) of our side? Well, one reason appears to be that NL delights in imitating a troll for our benefit.

[Lion in Winter]

When a person, like YOU, inserts his opinion of what he wants done to himself in case of a serious illness, into a debate about somebody else's illness... well, bub... that person's opinion becomes fair game for a flamin' and to be put to ridicule.

In other words, you gave us YOUR idea of what YOU think the ideal life is.... I LET YOU KNOW... you are not SOOOO special that we should care WHAT YOUR OPINION OF LIFE IS.

Deal with it, pup!

[Theodore R.]

Bulletin: Eleanor Clift calls for Terri's death!!!

Popular "Newsweek" columnist and panelist on PBS's "McLaughlin Group" this weekend called for immediate death for the stricken disabled FL woman Terri Schindler Schiavo. The fact that Clift, who started with "Newsweek" 40 years ago as a fact checker, endorses the "right-to-die" is no surprise. What was surprising was her vehemence that Terri be immediatley starved and deydrated again. Clift considers her a distasteful "vegetable."

John McLaughin, a former Catholic priest and former husband of Reagan's Labor Secretary Ann McLaughlin, should have fired her on the set for a lack of the "compassion" that she has long claimed to represent. It could have been like that time many years ago (I read about it, didn't see it) when Arthur Godfrey fired Julius LaRosa on the air.

Panelist Pat Buchanan opposed death for Terri, but the segment ended before he could elaborate on his coments.

I am sending this to other Terri threads to get maximum exposure.

[Theodore R.]

Employees of churches are usually the last to want to rock the boat. Why? Their conscience hears a small voice saying "Your funding might be jeopardized"!

[nickcarraway]

BUMP

[NYer]

What was surprising was her vehemence that Terri be immediatley starved and deydrated again. Clift considers her a distasteful "vegetable."

Were those her words .... distasteful vegetable? I'm glad I missed this! Can't afford to buy a new TV right now and my fist would have rammed her face right through the tube.

Perhaps we can organize a freeper 'email' campaign to both McLaughlin and Clift.

"Clift and her husband, Tom Brazaitis, Washington columnist for the (Cleveland) Plain Dealer, are co-authors of the book, "Madam President: Shattering the Last Glass Ceiling," (Scribner 2000), which tracks the rise of women in politics and looks ahead to the day when there will be a woman on the national ticket. "

That says it all! She's a Hitlary supporter.

Here ya go, freepers!! Tell Eleanor what you think of her statement calling Terri a vegetable.

E-mail Eleanor Clift at: "eclift@newsweek.com"

[Theodore R.]

No, "distasteful vegetable" was my expression in summarizing her attitude. I think she did say "vegetable," which I put in quotation marks.

Probably Eleanor Clift has never favored the execution of a single condemned criminal, but she sure wants Terri dead NOW.

[Normally a Lurker]

It cuts both ways fool.

[Theodore R.]

Eleanor Clift is a determined critic of the late Adolph Hitler. She is too blind to see that she is in many cases endorsing Hitlerian policies!

[NYer]

Probably Eleanor Clift has never favored the execution of a single condemned criminal, but she sure wants Terri dead NOW.

Want some IMMEDIATE gratification? This link will take you to the McLaughlin web site. Scroll down and there is a RATE THE PANELISTS button. Start clicking away!

RATE ELEANOR CLIFT

[firewalk]

Thanks for the ping

[Lion in Winter]

Normally a Lurker thinks that when somebody doesn't think he or his opinions are special, that they are , and I quote... a " fool".

He is certainly feels himself to be better than the rest of us on this thread who disagree with him... ON EVERYTHING he stands for.

[pc93]

Jeb,

Terri should NOT be in hospice right now. Terri should be receiving
intensive medical care after her 6 day dehydration/
starvation "attempted murder" ordeal. Terri is bloated today. She should be
in intensive care being monitored right now.
You should have provided protection against Michael and Felos controlling
her as part of your Executive Order. Why the
half measures? Terri's rehabilitation should have been stipulated. A
restraining order against Michael Schiavo and George
Felos and Co. is in order. Now Micheal / Felos / ACLU are coming in for the
kill.This is truly sick! Please put a stop to this.
Terri deserves proper medical care, rehab. and Michael/Felos and Co. need to
be yanked completely out of her life. Terri
never said "No tubes for me" as Felos claimed in Oct. 10th Federal court
hearing (he has claimed this countless numbers
of times.. see the court record!).. he lies. Felos is known to have been
involved in ammendment of law allowing pulling of
feeding tubes. How convenient for him to stipulate Terri said "No tubes for
me!" This is an outrage. The people of the world
are watching. Michael was preparing for Terri's death over 3 months ago.

Regards,

Juan Schoch
Concerned Florida Resident
United States Citizen

---

I am on a short schedule today, but here is some of the information
I pieced together, from a substantial amount received from another
forum member for review, regarding Richard Pearse, Attorney at Law
who was Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Terri Schiavo at one time. Late
tonight I will address all this information in full - Ed

---

In Short - WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!:

Everyone is talking about a new appointed GAL, when the previous
GAL's findings were totally ignored. What is this, a "fish until
you win" venture on the part of George Felos and his client Michael
Schiavo!?

GAL Richard L. Pearse, Jr., Attorney at Law was suddenly dismissed
after filing his report in which he stated that it was his opinion
that

(1). Michael Schiavo was not a suitable guardian due to his
standing to gain financially and

(2). The possibility of rehabilitation for Terri was too great to
advocate any kind of Exit Protocol.

George Felos is the one who asked for a GAL in the first place!
Felos doesn't like what he hears so he gets Judge Greer, who is
legally blind per news reports, to totally quash this experts
testimony. THIS IS CRAZY!

ATTORNEY PEARSE NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY - HE IS EASY TO
CONTACT PER BELOW:

October 24, 2003 - News Article

An independent guardian has not served in the Schiavo case since
1999, when Clearwater attorney Richard Pearse Jr. issued a report
recommending Michael Schiavo not be allowed to disconnect Terri
Schiavo's feeding tube among a number of other matters.

PEARSE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW LAST WEEK HE MADE THAT DETERMINATION
BECAUSE MICHAEL SCHIAVO STOOD TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM HIS
WIFE'S DEATH BY INHERITING ABOUT $750,000 IN A MEDICAL TRUST FUND.

---

HERE'S SOME PIECED TOGETHER INFO: - Some information is repetitive

--
RICHARD, L PEARSE, JR - FLORIDA ATTORNEY AT LAW,

GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR TERRI SCHIAVO - AT ONE POINT IN THIS
LITIGATION

In June 1998, soon after Michael asked the court for permission to
remove Terri's feeding tube, the court appointed Richard L. Pearse,
Jr. Attorney at Law as Terri's Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). Pearse's
job was to investigate the facts of Terri's case and represent her
interests in court. He issued a 10-page report in Dec. 1998 on his
finding, and also in January 2000 testified on his findings before
Judge Greer.

Ironically, at the beginning of the case in 1998, it was Attorney
George Felos who requested an independent guardian for Terri
Schiavo and recommended Richard Pearse Jr, Attorney at Law.


At a January 2000 trial, Pearse concluded that he had not found
clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life
support. He said she should be kept alive and questioned Michael
Schiavo's credibility.

Pearse urged in no uncertain terms that the petition for removing
the feeding tube be denied. He made it clear that he did not
believe Schiavo's sudden recollection of Terri's wishes.

Pearse stated: "Regarding the pending petition filed by Mr. Michael
Schiavo to withdraw the gastric feeding tube which sustains the
ward (Terri), (ward = Terri throughout) Mr. Schiavo claims that the
ward (Terri) told him after their marriage that she would not want
to be kept alive artificially."

Pearse wrote, "Mr. Schiavo indicated strongly to me (Attorney
Pearse) that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to
do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would
inherit upon the ward's (Terri's) death as her sole heir-in-law."

Pearce continued: "The only direct evidence probative of the issue
of the ward's (Terri's) intent is Mr. Schiavo's hearsay testimony
regarding removal the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably
result in her death" However, his credibility is necessarily
adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him in the
event of her death while still married to him. Her death also
permits him to "get on" with his life, as Mr. Schiavo stated during
questioning."

Per Attorney Pearse's Report - "Since there is no corroborative
evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only
witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will
realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's
death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the
evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions developed by the
investigation, DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD."
<-VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED

In his report, Pearse said Michael Schiavo was not a credible
witness to his wife's end-of-life wishes because he waited years
before coming forward with the claim that she wanted to die. Pearse
also noted that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially from her
death and be able to "move on with his life" in Mr Schiavo's words.

Pearse stated that after Michael Schiavo received the malpractice
settlement, "HE HAS A CHANGE OF HEART CONCERNING FURTHER TREATMENT
OF HIS WIFE." Pearse, noting that Schiavo would benefit financially
if his wife died, recommended that the feeding tube remain.

That Michael Schiavo's attitude and actions changed as soon as the
money from the malpractice suit was in the bank (Feb. 1993) was not
lost in Pearse's Expert Court Appointed Review. - (News Report
Comment)

Per Attorney Pearse - "From that point forward, the ward's husband
has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one
occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for a
urinary tract infection (in the hopes that she would die), and,
ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for
the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently
known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during
the ward's illness," he said.

Attorney Pearse said he was "troubled by the fact that Michael
waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even
though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he
waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire
to take care of her into old age".

Pearse continued: As her husband, Michael would inherit what is
left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held
in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund
is sealed. BUT MICHAEL'S LAWYER, GEORGE FELOS, SAID MOST OF IT HAS
BEEN SPENT ON LEGAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CUSTODY DISPUTE.

Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony
credible.<<<<<<<<<<<<<

* * INTERESTING - By the time the case came to trial in Jan. 2000,
Michael Schiavo had found two witnesses to corroborate his version
of Terri's wishes: Scott Schiavo, his brother, and Joan Schiavo, a
sister-in-law. When Pearse initially became involved in 1998
Michael had NO OTHER WITNESSES TO HIS STORY * * .

Pearse stated "One of the interesting and ironic aspects of this
case is that all of the parties have portrayed themselves as
representing her interests," he said. "It's always desirable that a
person in Terri's position have an independent representative who
has no particular interest in the case other than Terri." (THIS IS
STANDARD JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES LIKE THIS - PARTICULARLY WITH
THE LACK OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. - Ed)

Pearse recommended that a guardian ad litem (not necessarily
himself) be appointed to protect Terri's interests on a go-forward
basis.

Charging Pearse was "biased", Felos promptly had Pearse removed as
guardian ad litem. No one was appointed in his place by Judge
Greer.

GEORGE FELOS RECOMMENDED A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
FELOS DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY PEARSE HAD TO
SAY, THEN HAD JUDGE GREER REMOVE PEARSE AND NULLIFY THIS EXPERT
WITNESSES TESTIMONY - IS THIS DUE PROCESS AND PROPER ETHICAL
STANDARDS REQUIRED OF A FLORIDA JUDGE ?! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE! -
ED

Greer accepted their testimony as "creditable and reliable."
.......(This is inferior to "clear and convincing" required in
Attorney Pearse's expert report, and clearly would have been the
prudent requirement under Florida Law for the Judge to require in
these unusual circumstances - Ed.

Judge Greer also dismissed the criticism that "Michael Schiavo has
not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years" to file his
petition. "THAT ASSERTION HARDLY SEEMS WORTHY OF COMMENT," GREER
SAID.

GREER RULED IN MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S FAVOR.


Other Added Info:

---

Pearse stated in this report: "Since there is no corroborative
evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only
witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will
realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's
death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the
evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the investigation,
DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD."<- THESE ARE VERY
IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told
them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would
want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought
the Schindlers some time.

And with it, they found Trudy Capone.

A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May
9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri
... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes
were."

Attorney Patricia Anderson, who began representing the Schindlers
in 2001, said the failure to replace Pearse has hindered the
parents' case because Michael Schiavo, as Terri's legal guardian,
controls her medical care and even her visitors.

The parents' hands are tied in terms of what evidence they could
present," she said, "because they didn't have access to Terri.
They're not even permitted to know if she's been running a
temperature. If a guardian ad litem had been appointed, it would
have been a different story."

[pc93]

Looking for help. Can anyone host 2.1gb of movie data, sound, etc. of Terri etc? need decent bandwidth.

[stands2reason]

possible or even probable this would be against their wishes.

My guideline is "clear and convincing" evidence for putting people to death. And I find it horrid to do it by starvation---if we're going to go that way, why not lethal injection? It's much more humane.

[stands2reason]

The main point of my question was this----Do you feel there's ever good reason to starve a human being to death?

[Normally a Lurker]

I agree, but the law does not allow that.