Posted on 07/06/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
Several bloggers have drawn attention to a strange lead in a Washington Post story about the Terri Schiavo autopsy results. The June 16 Post story by David Brown said that "Terri Schiavo died of the effects of a profound and prolonged lack of oxygen to her brain on a day in 1990, but what caused that event isn't known and may never be, the physician who performed her autopsy said…"
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
8mm
You said it!
By comparison,the would-be disruptors here are amateurish, disruptors in training. Their hearts are in the right(for them) place but they are like freshmen the first week of college.
8mm
You didn't hear that from me. All I have observed on occasion is that Michael is a bad liar. He can't manage his lies and has a penchant for blurting the truth. One has to judge a given remark with as much sense and as much supporting evidence as one can muster. You do that, I do that.
I think this comment was true and it fits the sheer common sense of what he told Cindy Shook -- young people as a rule never talk about such things.
Yet the rising of mere hearsay of the most informal and off-hand, ill-considered statements to the level of hard contract, an illegal contract that the outlaw legal process of Florida now recognizes as a future contract for felos-de-se (to be more specific: murder in the form of assisted suicide) is more the greater danger to us all.
Consider what hearsay is under less outlaw law,
HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others.That's from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.2. As a general rule, hearsay evidence of a fact is not admissible. If any fact is to be substantiated against a person, it ought to be proved in his presence by the testimony of a witness sworn or affirmed to speak the truth.
3. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. 1. Hearsay is admissible when it is introduced, not as a medium of proof in order to establish a distinct fact, but as being in itself a part of the transaction in question, when it is a part of the res gestae. 1 Phil. Ev. 218; 4 Wash. C. C. R. 729; 14 Serg. & Rawle, 275; 21 How. St. Tr. 535; 6 East, 193.
4. - 2. What a witness swore on a former trial, between the same parties, and where the same point was in issue as in the second action, and he is since dead, what he swore to is in general, evidence. 2 Show. 47; 11 John. R. 446; 2 Hen. & Munf. 193; 17 John. R. 176; But see 14 Mass. 234; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683, and the notes.
5. - 3. The dying declarations of a person who has received a mortal injury, as to the fact itself, and the party by whom it was committed, are good evidence under certain circumstances. Vide Declarations, and 15 John. R. 286; 1 Phil. Ev. 215; 2 Russ. on Cr. 683.
6. - 4. In questions concerning public rights, common reputation is admitted to be evidence.
7. - 5. The declarations of deceased persons in cases where they appear to have been made against their interest, have been admitted.
8. - 6. Declarations in cases of birth and pedigree are also to be received in evidence.
9. - 7. Boundaries may be proved by hearsay evidence, but, it seems, it must amount to common tradition or repute. 6 Litt. 7; 6 Pet. 341; Cooke, R142; 4 Dev. 342; 1 Hawks 45; 4 Hawks, 116; 4 Day, 265. See 3 Ham. 283; 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 3065, et seq. 10. There are perhaps a few more exceptions which will be found in the books referred to below. 2 Russ. on Cr. B. 6, c.3; Phil. Ev. ch. 7, s. 7; 1 Stark. Ev. 40; Rosc. Cr. Ev. 20; Rosc. Civ. Ev.19 to 24; Bac. Ab. Evidence, K; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. Vide also, Dig. 39,3, 2, 8; Id. 22, 3, 28. see Gresl. Eq. Ev. pt. 2, c. 3, s. 3, p. 218, for the rules in courts of equity, as to receiving hearsay evidence 20 Am. Jur.68.
Scott Peterson was not as shrewd as for all practical purposes Micheal Schiavo was. Look, if Scott had but knocked his preggo wifey unconscious and stuck her in a Sun Coast hospice he could have collected at the malpractice well some millions, moved in with Amber Frey, and had the Seminole State Sheriffs and Deputies Asembled in Mighty Force complete his dastardly deed.
After all, Scott need only say, that one evening long ago Mrs. Peterson-the-First watched some soppy Lifetime Channel make-believe drama and said -- cross his heart -- that she had whispered through the tears what he heard above the kleenex that she and Connor both would never ever ever want to live with more than one limb missing.
And then the blindly Greer enrobed would pop up from under his great judicial desk and pound his stamp down hard on the death warrant. "Hooray!" he'd shout. "Commence the official majesty of Florida Justice immediately!"
The trolls sure have come out lately. I'm thinking Fuhrman's book must be gatherin more attn which brings out the nutcase liberals to spew more death loving crap here. It won't work! Terri was murdered and no matter what they say it will not make any of us change our minds about that. I honestly think we need to starve them out as like all the other trolls that is how we got rid of them!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1438604/posts
Who has ping lists?
You continue to make stupid statements and jump to wild conclusions. I never said my opinion was part of the court case. And now you claim to know what was in Terri's mind. Calm down.
8mm
Think it Couldn't Happen to You or Your Loved One? Think again.
Got it linked and pinged.
8mm
The circumstances of Terri's collapse certainly warranted an investigation, yet none was done. That one reason why Mark Fuhrman's book is of such contemporary interest.
cool, many thanks to you
Their posts are repetitive and redundant. If they truly wanted to know the truth, all they had to do is look it up. Nope, they just like baiting us. I'm getting a little fed up with them.
There will be no grand jury:
Prosecutor: No criminality in Schiavo collapse. Bush ends inquiry
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - There is no evidence that Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago was caused by criminal activity, said a prosecutor asked by Gov. Jeb Bush to look into the case.
Bush, who asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe to further investigate Schiavo's case after her autopsy last month, responded Thursday by saying he considers the state's involvement with the matter finished.
"Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed," Bush said in a two-sentence response to McCabe. The governor is vacationing in Maine and couldn't be reached for further comment, said officials in his office.
In asking last month that McCabe look again into what put Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state, Bush had cited an alleged gap in time between when Schiavo's husband Michael found her and when he called 911 as something that remained unsettled.
McCabe said, however, that while such discrepancies may exist in the record, Michael Schiavo's statements that he called 911 immediately had been consistent.
"This consistency, coupled with the varying recollections of the precise time offered by other interested parties, lead me to the conclusion that such discrepancies are not indicative of criminal activity and thus not material to any potential investigation," McCabe wrote in a letter to Bush accompanying his report dated June 30 but not released until Thursday.
Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected despite efforts by Bush, her parents and some state national lawmakers to keep her alive. Michael Schiavo had fought to have the tube disconnected, saying his wife wouldn't have wanted to remain in such a state.
The autopsy left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's temporarily heart stopped, cutting oxygen off from her brain. Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin was thus unable to determine with reasonable certainty a "manner of death."
McCabe said there must be some fact or evidence indicating a criminal act caused the death to open a full homicide investigation in his office.
"A review of the available records, including Dr. Thogmartin's report, reveals no 'facts' or 'evidence' that indicate a criminal act ... was causative of Mrs. Schiavo's collapse or subsequent death," McCabe wrote. "There are several hypothetical theories that could be advanced, but I have concluded, though not with reasonable certainty, that the most likely hypothesis for the cause of her collapse was the one advanced during the 1992 malpractice litigation, i.e. an eating disorder.
"I realize that this review does not provide definitive answers to the questions you sought to have answered," McCabe wrote to Bush. "However, I feel comfortable in stating, without preconceptions, that these are the probable answers when one considers all of the records and reports available at this time."
Attorneys for Terri Schiavo's parents didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Michael Schiavo's attorney said he would comment after he'd had a chance to fully review McCabe's report.
The battle between Terri Schiavo's husband and parents over whether she should be allowed to die engulfed the courts, Congress, the White House and divided the country.
Bush was firmly on the side of her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and once before ordered her feeding tube reinserted. Her feeding tube was removed in October, 2003, but the Legislature passed an emergency law giving Bush the authority to step in. He did, ordering it reinserted six days later. The law that allowed him to do that was thrown out by the courts, leaving him unable to intervene when it was removed again this past March.
The attorneys in McCabe's office who did the latest investigation, Doug Crow and Bob Lewis, noted that their work wouldn't close the case in the minds of many.
"It is unrealistic to expect, considering the past decade of increasingly venomous litigation and the family members' disparate and irreconcilable beliefs as to Terri's wishes, that our office has the ability to resolve or ameliorate this long-standing dispute," Crow and Lewis wrote.
But they wrote, "It is obvious to us that there is no possibility of proving that anyone's criminal act was responsible for Mrs. Schiavo's collapse."
Not according to me, according to the Framers. The Constitution was intended to limit the federal government alone and protects you from the federal government.
The framers of the Constitution are rolling in their graves
Considering that even 'conservatives' are misusing the document to forward their agenda, in effect destroying federalism and the Republic? You can bet they are
They have to go back to their cave to find fresh things to say because their mantras are so worn out nobody listens.
Up here in Maine we have black flies, but they go away and can be repelled if we put our minds to it. Maybe it is crew shift time. Some have been at it a long time today.
8mm
You don't know stalking from shinola. The government has the power to track down every nickle and dime that you and I spend. If anyone in the government gave a hoot about perjury or murder, they'd be all over his financial records. You know, if this was a just world, MS should have to pay back the malpractice money. Add malpractice fraud to the list.
I'm not going anywhere. There are plenty of people in Florida who can handle this. This is not a conspiracy, but it is "business as usual". The Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.
But do not misread the federal Constitution to forward your agenda nationwide. The power to do so is not in there, nor was it ever.
You know I really don't know how many more ways I can put it. The power was not intended to be at the federal level
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist #45
Madison also proposed three restrictions on the states: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It is interesting to speculate that Madison may have considered these three the most critical rights. These restrictions were not approved by Congress, and thus the Bill of Rights in its original intent was to restrict only the federal government.
Thanks for interrupting? I've been on these threads for 2 years, where the hell have you been? You never answered my question regarding who pinged you to this thread.
My personal history allows me to see situations differently than others. While you and others defend MS's right to eliminate his wife with extreme predjudice, I see it as keeping her mouth shut, and raking in bucks. I am also familiar with crooked lawyers and judges. My judgement usually isn't called into question, however you have a right to your opinion. I hope you and yours never have to walk down the road I've travelled.
Thank you for the link. I added it to my favorites, and will read later.
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.