Posted on 04/02/2005 11:39:29 AM PST by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
Edited on 04/02/2005 5:10:27 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
"OH, I see what you are referring to. Apparently the DCF never interviewed MS and did not see Terri, I read somewhere that he refused access to her. I don't know that an investigation was done."
Zactly. I'm thinking the parents should have initiated the investigation BEFORE the final judgement. By not having done so they seem to have shut themselves out?
Not saying this is "right" but if there was indeed abuse going on, it should have been brought up earlier.
"I thought there were restrictions on lawyers talking with witnesses outside the presence"
That is correct in the sense that they can't "coach" the witness or tell them what to say. They can explain what it is they are going to be testifying about.....both sides will or should know this.
They said here's a list of documents we sent you. Parents lawyer says....Oh yeah. DOH
Here's one Freeper's take from looking at the timeline.
"But Michael tried to kill her as soon as he got the $" No
Look at timeline in links.
He got the $ around January 1993 - after 3 years of therapy. He did not know, when the malpractice suit was started, how much Terri would recover.
In 1994, "...Michael, in consultation with Theresa's treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a 'do not resuscitate' order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest. When the nursing facility initiated an intervention to challenge this decision, Michael canceled the orders. Following the incident involving the infection, Theresa was transferred to another skilled nursing facility."
"Michael's decision not to treat was based on discussions and consultation with Theresa's doctor, and was predicated on his reasoned believe that there was no longer any hope for Theresa's recovery."
"Ah, I see it was beyond your ability to scroll to the pages and paragraphs I cited"
No dude.....I went beyond that.
Do you know who those folks are cited as "peer review" in the summation you're relying on?
Do you see any review outside of them?
Have you read what Greer and others think of him?
"there are some that do [suggesting that Michael was indeed quite sadistic when nobody was watching]."
Would these be the same people who say he was overly aggressive when he didn't think they were giving her proper care? Revenge perhaps because he got them in trouble?
"The guilty hide things...the Innocent leave the doors open to make sure there is not issue or question left unanswered."
Does hubby have someone there?
Timeline I saw for that gave 1993 as the year. Further, in a 1993 deposition, Michael admitted to having melted down his wife's wedding rings. I don't think he said exactly when he did that, but such action clearly shows he had stopped seeking Terri's recovery.
"He has the county coroner...its quite obvious by now that the county officials are pretty much on the same page."
Pretty serious charge. Can you back it up?
"Timeline I saw for that gave 1993 as the year. Further, in a 1993 deposition, Michael admitted to having melted down his wife's wedding rings. I don't think he said exactly when he did that, but such action clearly shows he had stopped seeking Terri's recovery."
What if he melted them down and made into a mans ring he would wear forever?
If I were incapacitated and my wife had melted my wedding ring to make one for herself, I'd have felt very severely betrayed. I would expect the vast majority of spouses would.
Had my wife stored my ring in a safe deposit box and left me in the care facility with a cheap $25 one so as to avoid the risk of having the real one stolen, I would not have seen that as an affront; after all, the purpose of putting the ring in a vault would be to protect it for when I got better. Destroying a spouse's wedding ring, however, is an act with a very clear symbolic meaning. Anyone who fails to understand that is, at best, an absolute clod.
Didn't he melt them down and have jewelry made for him AND his honey? I thought it was posted here on FR, but I've got so many threads saved, I can't find it right now.
Cindie
I think his deposition just said for himself. Bear in mind that his engagement to Jodi came well after his 1993 deposition.
You've got freepmail.
Could be. However, it's odd that he denied Terri the comfort of music, outings in the sunlight for a few minutes a day, over the last years of her life - just a little simple human kindness.
This man appears to be cruel beyond words. Any criticism he gets, he brought on himself.
It was reported on the news that the report is open to general public, but not pics.
Is being "overly agressive" in such cases the mark of a loving husband or a control freak?
If one could get good treatment for a loved one by working reasonably with the staff at a care facility, that would be better for all concerned than being aggressive and obnoxious. And if one couldn't get good care by working reasonably with the staff, it would be better to move the loved one to a different facility than to badger the staff at the bad one.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/04/01/pf-978968.html
AN AUTOPSY on Terri Schiavos body will include a thorough examination by a board-certified neuropathologist, as well as routine forensic procedures and X-rays. It could take several weeks to get the report, which the law requires be made public. An autopsy could shed light on two questions that have been raised:
I'm confused here. AFAIK, MS's only wife was Terri. MS's "now dead motherinlaw" - that would be Terri's Mother right?
Or I am missing a key fact here somewhere??
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.