Posted on 03/21/2005 7:50:03 AM PST by Pendragon_6
Lets see, first Michael Schiavo beats and strangles his wife Terri, leaves her lying unconscious on the floor until her family arrives to get her to the hospital.
Then Michael Schiavo sues the hospital for $20 million because he needs the money to get his poor wife therapy.
Then Michael Schiavo pockets the money, denies his wife the care he said she needed and finally, claims she really wants to die.
Michael Schiavo killed his wife Terri's cat, melted down her wedding ring and then took up with his girlfriend and lives with her today with their children. Does this sound like a loving husband who really cares about his wife's wishes?
And what do we get on the tube every hour on the hour: “persistent vegetative state” as though any of the talking heads who ghoulishly proclaim Terri's life isn't worth that of a convicted serial killer sitting on death row (for 20 years, while due process goes on).
Michael Schiavo's supporters claim he loved his wife Terri enough to take a nursing degree so that he could take care of her. I think he got that nursing degree so he could inject her with insulin and hasten her death and his complete claim to all the money he won in litigation.
Just take a gander at the sworn testimony of an attending nurse: Carla Sauer Iyer (affidavit* below) but let me save you some time and report a quote of Michael Schiavo's after visiting his still living wife: "When is that bitch gonna die?"
Hmmm. Loving husband or man so afraid of not only not getting the money (what's left of the $20 million) but the prospect of facing a jury for his attempted murder, a charge which is possible as long as Terri lives. Sounds like motive to me.
Michael Schiavo says Terri said she never wanted to be kept alive on machines. Okay. Even if that was her statement (which there is absolutely no corroborating testimony and quite the unusual statement coming from a young, newly married woman still in her twenties and full of life); Terri is not being kept alive by machines!
Terri has a feeding tube from which she gets food and water. Had she had the care and therapy she was entitled to, there is every chance today Terri would be divorced from that louse and feeding herself just fine.
About that “loving husband” crapola: what husband do you know evinces his marital fidelity and love by living with another woman, having children with that woman and dumps his wife in a hospice while waiting for her to die? What loving husband kills his sick wife's pet? What loving husband denies his wife's family visitation?
I ask these questions because the media morons are still stuck with their new term: “persistent vegetative state” and are oblivious to the actual facts of this tragic case.
Continued
Please enlighten me as to the proof. The only things I heard was that he dyed his hair and sold a car. Last time I checked, people dye their hair and sell cars all the time without murdering anyone.
By any means that is open to me yes I would. And you and anybody else have no right to interfere with that decision. I have gone as far as obtaining a lawyer to make sure that my directives are carried out period.
I passed along the affidavit which many of us have seen, presumably by Carla Sauer Iyer. Is it FAKE or real??
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aff2-terri.pdf
My sister, a notary public (not in FL), came back with the following:
"Please do not believe everything you read. This supposed notarized document is not legal…it is missing the county in which the notary resides, along with her name printed, typed or stamped beneath her signature. In addition, there is no record of a Patricia Anderson with that commission number listed with the state of Florida. In other words, like most of the stuff you get via email, IT IS A HOAX designed to get you to believe something that is completely fabricated. I hope you forward this information to the same people to whom you sent the original email."
Forgive my unsureness with posting. I hope I have put things in the right place in this post.
So... I throw open the subject to those more knowledgeable than I - is it fake? One thing I noticed and questioned, even before receiving my sister's e-mail, was the neither the "did/did not" was circled at the end of the document. I found that very strange.
BB62
Sorry, my spelling sucks. I must be tired.
How do you even know he really said this? Is there proof or only hearsay?
"Letting her live isn't torture, dehydrating her to death is."
i disagree.
Said what? That his wife wanted to die if she was brain-damaged? Only hearsay -- belated hearsay.
I'm sorry you had to go through that. Some people are insensitive idiots. They fail to appreciate how painful those decisions are.
And All: Great discussion, however I must do my errands and pick up my daughter and granddaughter.
God Bless all of you, and pray for both parties in this case.
Those other courts are meerley appellate courts, ruling on very narrow legal issues rather than on the facts of the case.
Agreed and thank you.
The "misunderinformed" cite chapter and verse......only problem is that it's from the wrong tome. If you were to write it out for them on a marker board that was as long as a city block....they still wouldn't get it.
The "loony libertarians" are those select ones that tell you exactly what you have said......even though their version of what you have said is usually different, AND, then they proceed to tell you exactly what you should say in the future......
Heaven help us if folks like these ever get to power.....wait, there are folks like these in power......vote for good, honest, conservatives.....it's the safest way to go.
True.....It might take 30 or 40 years or so...But perhaps Michael and his Lawyer partner would by that time be in wheel chairs and wouldn't be able to have their mistresses and such.
No, no, no. Not you. Everything between the demarcation lines was my response to a FReeper who says, in his description page, that he IS a knuckle dragger. Go to MonroeDNA for verification.
The only parts that were not from that previous post were above the first line, and below the second line.
Sorry about the confusion. I should have been more clear.
Maybe, but don't lump us all together.
Just to clarify, I am a conservative (examine my posts over the past four years). It is true "I sing my own tune in a choir" from time to time on certain issues (drug legalization, prostitution legalization), but I do so out of my belief in the supremacy of one's FREE WILL.
I don't believe governments have the right to legislate morality and to determine whose harmful addictions are legal and tolerated and whose must be prohibited.
I started out hostile towards Michael Schiavo but the more I studied the situation, the more I sided with him. Go figure.
I may have misspoke (if so, it isn't the first time). All I know is he won 11 court cases. I don't know how many were in the same court or how many different courts there were.
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.