Posted on 06/19/2005 6:04:50 PM PDT by wagglebee
:-)
I don't see any indication here that the bone scan was available to the Schindlers until this testimony, something like twelve years after the fact. (Does anyone? Did I miss something?) As I noted elsewhere, those words "over time" are slippery. He should have given actual dates. The question has not been settled.
Hopefully, Mark Furhman's new book will remedy that! I think it'll be out in a week or two.
"I don't see any indication here that the bone scan was available to the Schindlers until this testimony,"
It's in the court docs posted a multitude of times.
"I see posted and hear it said"
Been visiting the DU underground? They have a lot of hear-said too.
Everyone is living -- but at different levels. Why so low yours?
But, but...that would mean that people actually have to READ the court documents. And we can't have that; too much work don't you know.
What does it say? At best that the father -- like any decent dad -- would do near anything to keep his kid alive. Don;t join up with the cold and callous. Know what a good father is.
Excellent!
Ah yes, hey sinkspur! Are you still believing the suicide in the park fantasy?
We seem to be addressing different questions. Never mind, I'll check it out later. No more time now.
I'd say you were caught misrepresenting what was really going on or said on alleged "court documents" even at a place that you recommend. I can't recommend it since I don't know if it's a reliable, trustworthy place or not. It's just another place on the internet.
I can tell you they get their faxes from Greer at Kinko's though.
If the Schindlers testified in court before 2001 that they had seen all the medical reports, they might have *thought* they'd seen all of them but really hadn't.
What you sent us to clearly said that the court conceded that the Schindlers hadn't known about the bone scan, though some of her attorneys over the years *might* have or had it in their possession.
And if the Schindlers hadn't been given the bone scan prior to 2001, then they are perfectly truthful in saying that it had been withheld from them. No matter who might have withheld it from them. Even if it was one or two of their own lawyers.
That lady lawyer (Anderson?) sure doesn't seem to have known about it until Felos handed it to her.
I see in a later post, #838 I believe, that you have posted something else to change the subject. I glanced over it and can already see some problems with it.
I'll address that later when it's cooler. I just got in from a long hot 96 degree day.
Yes, it was a hypothetical question and it's absurd to make anything of it. But note in passing, one of our great Freepers lost three limbs in an accident many years ago. There's nothing hypothetical about him, and he's one of the most cheerful souls in the Free Republic. He gets around well with his artificial limbs, lives a good life and cheers up everyone he's around.
Yes -- I remember seeing him at the MFJ. He was a jolly fellow, iirc, full of zest.
"Why so low yours?"
Huh?
Still takes the drug every day, and every muscle moved is voluntary -- a conscious thought to drive it. Hard to walk and talk at the same time when you have to think about every placement of the tongue and vocal cords, but he can do that too.
A man of great will-power, used well.
You aren't dieing. You are alive. Live! L'chaim!
You would think Limbacher would know not to start with this by now: "Dr. William Hammesfahr, nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work in Medicine ..." Someone needs to quietly notify Limbacher that Ham was behind his own 'nomination'. Leave that out of his CV and he still is impressive and probably a darn good MD.
Do you have source for that?
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.