Posted on 03/30/2004 4:38:13 AM PST by MindBender26
In 7:25 break, anchor reported "Terri Schiavo was rushed to a Pinellas County emergency room last night after nursing home staff noticed puncture wounds on her arm. The wounds appeared to be caused by a hypodermic needle! Toxicology tests were conducted but the results are not available yet!"
This could open a huge new round in this case. What did tests reveal? Who was last person in room? When was husband there? Was staffer trying the Angle of Death routine?
This will be developing hard all day!
A puncture wound? From a needle? On a woman who needs constant medical monitoring in a nursing home?
Unbelieveable!!! It MUST be foul play!!! I mean, it couldn't be from a blood test that was mischarted or anything like that, could it?
I bet it's that evil evil hubby, sneaking in like a ninja in the night with a syringe full of liquid plumbr!
/sarcasm
What has been happening to Terri and to her family are beyond my comprehension. Look at today's developments, the inconsistency -- and after Terri's parents were blamed for the injuries:
Schiavo's marks still a mystery
'"It could be that the skin was broken, maybe by someone's fingernail or jewelry," said Schiavo's physician, Dr. Stanton Tripodis. "There was just an unusual appearance to these marks."'
-- VS -- 'Tripodis, Schiavo's doctor, was called to examine her. Tripodis said the marks were fresh puncture wounds "consistent with little needle marks."'
An old (spring 1991, I believe) St. Pete Times article announced a "Terri Schiavo Day".
Michael talked about fundraisers in the 1992-3 depositions pc93 posted last page -- with publicity given by the St. Pete Times & local radio stations.
Surely there is community goodwill toward the Schindlers that can be tapped into. Not this silence and indifference I've seen when I was there! When I talked to people one-on-one in the local Wal-Mart, they understood, they got it -- they were NOT indifference.
Indifference -- perceived or real -- will kill Terri -- I'm convinced.
My understanding is that Michael and Jodi are "Catholics" and want to marry in the Catholic Church -- which they can't do until Terri is dead. The cohabitation and out-of-wedlock children seem to be a minor detail that can be swept away with a quickie trip to the confessional.
"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts."
Question 1: Does the law allow a person to serve as guardian another if there exists a conflict between the interests of guardian and ward?
Question 2: If a person has openly stated his intention to marrying the mother of his bastard children as soon as his wife is dead, but he cannot marry that person until he either divorces his wife or she dies, and he refuses to divorce his wife, would this not pretty clearly indicate a conflict of interest between the husband and wife?
Question 3: How is it possible that Terri could have made any legally binding request to be starved and dehydrated, when such requests could not be legally made until after she'd been incapacitated for years?
No. However, that conflict of interest must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. The Schindlers have failed to meet this standard.
Question 2: If a person has openly stated his intention to marrying the mother of his bastard children as soon as his wife is dead, but he cannot marry that person until he either divorces his wife or she dies, and he refuses to divorce his wife, would this not pretty clearly indicate a conflict of interest between the husband and wife?
Not in and of itself.
Question 3: How is it possible that Terri could have made any legally binding request to be starved and dehydrated, when such requests could not be legally made until after she'd been incapacitated for years?
An interesting question. And an irrelevant one. Schiavo has guardianship; for all legal intents and purposes, he IS Terri Schiavo.
I haven't seen the marks in question to know whether they could plausibly have been mistaken for 'puncture wounds', but I have a sneaking suspicion that Michael/Felos were expecting puncture wounds. This actually reminds me somewhat of a funny little detail about Mount Carmel Center in Waco.
Many of the bodies that were recovered from a single-story concrete storage unit were described as having been been hit by large amounts of falling debris. This would have been sensible if the roof of that structure had collapsed, but it didn't. It did, however, have an odd hole right next to the main support beam, that looked as though it might have been produced by a shaped charge.
If the blast had been a foot or so to the side, the roof probably would have collapsed and the 'buried by falling debris' report would have been accurate. Since the roof didn't collapse, though, it seems suspicious. Why would it be reported that these people were buried by falling debris unless either (1) they were [which they weren't], or (2) they were supposed to be?
No. However, that conflict of interest must be demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence. The Schindlers have failed to meet this standard.
Actually, the Schindlers haven't managed to get the matter heard in court since Michael moved in with Jodi and fathered children by her. They've filed for a hearing in September of 2002, but Judge Greer has continuously postponed it.
Question 2: If a person has openly stated his intention to marrying the mother of his bastard children as soon as his wife is dead, but he cannot marry that person until he either divorces his wife or she dies, and he refuses to divorce his wife, would this not pretty clearly indicate a conflict of interest between the husband and wife?
Not in and of itself.
Interesting. Someone who has an obvious and overt personal interest in seeing another person dead can be presumed to be acting in that person's interests when seeking to have the person killed?
If I might be so bold, what would you suggest might be examples of cases where a guardian would have a conflict of interest with a client that would be strong enough to be worthy of a court's notice?
Question 3: How is it possible that Terri could have made any legally binding request to be starved and dehydrated, when such requests could not be legally made until after she'd been incapacitated for years?
An interesting question. And an irrelevant one. Schiavo has guardianship; for all legal intents and purposes, he IS Terri Schiavo.
First of all, Michael's guardianship is irrelevant to the question. If it weren't for the claim that Terri personally made statements about her wish to be starved and dehydrated prior to her incapacitation, Michael's desire to starve and dehydrate her would be irrelevant--he'd be forbidden from doing so.
Judge Greer has declared that the testimony of Michael and his relatives that Terri made some statement not wanting to be hooked up to machines like Karen Ann Quinlan constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence that she would want to be starved and dehydrated. At the time she would have had to have made such statements, they could not have been used to justify her starvation or dehydration. I see no evidence whatsoever that what she meant was "In the event that the legislature decides to allow people to be starved and dehydrated, I'd like that to happen to me." Michael doesn't claim she said any such thing, and I see no evidence whatsoever--much less "clear and compelling" evidence that she meant such a thing.
And have they used the various legal avenues available to get said hearing expedited? (My guess: no.)
Also, consider this: the Schindlers have gone with some quack doctors and "therapists" (Google the Galaxy Wave Group) in their effort.
Believe me, this stuff gets into the evidentiary record--and the court can and does take note of it when considering motions by both sides.
Interesting. Someone who has an obvious and overt personal interest in seeing another person dead can be presumed to be acting in that person's interests when seeking to have the person killed?
That's the problem: you have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that said condition actually exists.
You merely engage in arm-waving.
One also has to demonstrate that granting guardianship to the Schindlers is likely to generate significant benefit to Terri Schiavo. This is where the Schindlers' continuing associations with quackery clobber them, every time.
First of all, Michael's guardianship is irrelevant to the question.
It is entirely relevant.
If it weren't for the claim that Terri personally made statements about her wish to be starved and dehydrated prior to her incapacitation, Michael's desire to starve and dehydrate her would be irrelevant--he'd be forbidden from doing so.
But, as the guardian and the husband, he has a much better position to actually make his claim than Terri's parents do the contrary.
Judge Greer has declared that the testimony of Michael and his relatives that Terri made some statement not wanting to be hooked up to machines like Karen Ann Quinlan constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence that she would want to be starved and dehydrated.
This is an area where some of the moves made by the Schindlers hurt them very badly.
The Schindler's video snippet looks good--but when the entire tape is played, it shows as an extremely atypical moment. The Schindlers worked night and day to generate the impression that the snippet was a reflection of the totality of the tape.
It wasn't. The rest of the tape shows Terri not reacting in the slightest to a wide range of stimuli.
Bottom line: Michael Schiavo suddenly looks more credible in the eyes of the court than the Schindlers do. If he says "Terri said..." and the parents say, "She couldn't have said..." the judge is going to listen to Michael, because the parents have destroyed their credibility. When a witness impeaches himself, he has one hell of a time reversing the process.
At the time she would have had to have made such statements, they could not have been used to justify her starvation or dehydration.
True. However, they can now be used to justify it.
I see no evidence whatsoever that what she meant was "In the event that the legislature decides to allow people to be starved and dehydrated, I'd like that to happen to me."
You may not see it. But Michael Schiavo--the man with more credibility in the court, because he hasn't been caught misleading the court--claims to see it, and the judge is going to pay more attention to it.
Michael doesn't claim she said any such thing, and I see no evidence whatsoever--much less "clear and compelling" evidence that she meant such a thing.
Your perception of the evidence is irrelevant. The judge's perception is the relevant perception. And the Schindlers blew their chance in front of the judge.
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.