Opposing lawyers share thoughts on Schiavo case

Palm Beach Daily News ^ | October 1, 2005 | Michele Dargan

[8mmMauser]

Thanks Wampus SC and BykrBayb for keeping this on the front burner.

Help Jimmy Chambers

8mm

(this includes Ohioan from Florida's ping list, update to 9/30.)

[8mmMauser]

More to watch, this first from Doctor Raoul and thanks to Coleus.

Research Thread

Second is from Mr. Silverback

Death Parties

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Looks like the brunt of Wilma went a bit south. Hope you are safe and well.

St. Pete Times mentioned this little hurricane today.

Commission members also wanted to know how the prospective judges viewed Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer's handling of the Terri Schiavo case and whether they would be able to withstand similar heat from the national media. Greer ruled Schiavo would not want to be kept alive with a feeding tube and ordered it removed.

"He called a factual shot and then followed the law," said Jac k Helinger, a private attorney and former prosecutor in Pinellas. As a judge, "there will be long, hard nights. There will be difficult times. I accept that."

24 plead cases for three new judgeships

8mm

[8mmMauser]

Sun Sentinal says Dem candidate Davis tries to rally dems.

Along with South Florida Democrats in Congress, he battled attempts by Washington to intervene in the Terri Schiavo end-of-life case.

"I have yet to meet one Floridian who says, `I've got a living will and at the end of my life it says please call some politician or Tom DeLay and ask him what to do,'" Davis said to loud applause from a predominantly senior crowd at the Kings Point Democratic Club in Tamarac.

Davis brings message of hope to Democrats weary of defeat

8mm

[Dante3]

I am convinced Terri would not have wanted to be killed by such barbaric means as starvation and dehydration. In fact, no evidence exists that she would have wanted to die.

I saw Michael Schiavo's statement that he had no idea what she would have wanted. And then there is his sworn testimony in the lawsuit. Only after the money was awarded and he had a live-in mistress, did he suddenly "recall" Terri wanted to die.

Of course, Michael is a sadist. His own words and actions reveal it. Not even allowing flowers in Terri's room, keeping her parents from visiting with her, trying to hide her grave from her family. These are only a few examples that reveal his perverted dark side.

[Dante3]

Yes, Michael Schiavo is a sadist as revealed by his own words and actions. And who would want to die by such a slow and barbaric means? This this was permitted horrified me. The method used to kill Terri isn't permitted for the worst of criminals or mad dogs. And Terri never even had a lawyer.

This is not a right to die issue (and no evidence existed that this is what Terri wanted). Supporters of Terri included pro-choice groups, Wiccans, liberals and conservatives (e.g. Gloria Allred), etc.

One readily available source on many of the facts is "Silent Witness" by Mark Fuhrman.

[clyffehall]

Good morning, AnimalLover, and thank you for your thoughtful post.

First let me come clean about my age: I'll be 50 in a couple of months--not old enough for WWII, but no college kid either! I can see where you might get the impression that I have only heard one side of this story, but let me assure you that is not the case! Besides having lurked for months on the FR Schiavo threads, I post on several other boards where it was a hot topic of discussion. I have read the Schindlers' website, and Cheryl Ford's. I have even forced myself to plow through June Maxam's horrendous prose at the Empire Journal. On the other hand, I have also read all of the actual court transcripts and medical reports I could get my hands on--I'm talking here about the actual official documents, not the so-called "affidavits" at the Schindlers' site, though I read those, too. After weighing all the evidence, and having many online and offline discussions about the matter, I came to the conclusion that the Schindlers were simply not believable. There were many, many reasons for my arriving at this belief, with which I will not bore you at this time, but the quick version is the Schindlers were caught in many provable lies; they employed quacks to examine Mrs. Schiavo (the main one is even listed on QuackWatch) and represented those opinions as expert; they took a 4-hour video and deceptively edited it; they sold the list of good people who sent them money; they slandered and libelled Mr. Schiavo while protraying themselves as xtian;, the case was more litigated than any other of its type in history, and every single court ruled in Mr. Schiavo's favor; and, finally, Occam's Razor led me to the simplest explanation making the most sense, i.e. that the only reason Mr. Schiavo persisted through all the grief the Schindlers put him through was because he believed with all his heart that his wife would not have wanted her body to continue to exist under those circumstances.

If you haven't read any of the official documents, at least read the report of the Guardian ad litem. Much of what I believe is based ultimately on that document.

I understand that people feel strongly about this case, but I don't believe that anyone is well served by hyperbole and bombast. I found your post quite refreshing, and thank you again for it.

Peace to you,
Clyffe

[clyffehall]

Wow, hostile much?

I do not feel impelled to refute your distortions of my character. I came looking for honest debate about the issues, and find no concomitant desire apparent in your posts. I do not, however, wish you to feel slighted, so will here acknowledge that I did indeed see your posts, though I found nothing therein to which I was inclined to respond.

I do find it interesting that you think being a warrior is comprised of posting insults on an internet message board.

Should you decide you would like to engage with me, in civil fashion, on the issues, I would be more than happy to oblige you. Since you profess to be so infinitely bored by that endeavour, however, I will understand if you merely skip over any posts of mine which tax you.

Peace to you,
Clyffe

[Dante3]

I was in a hurry and accidentally pushed the post buttons, that's why the muddled sentence.

[8mmMauser]

Still at the word games, I see.

Well, that settles that. You are not a college kid but are older, enough so youth can be ruled out as excuse for naive approach and there goes your defense.

You know, in church we only give the side of the Lord and do not give equal time to His opposition. Here, the issues are already well hashed out and established, as facts and truths counter to the dark side, those who value life against those who favor the contrary.

You bring your secondhand arguments to real eyewitness on the scene, who know the fine family of Schindlers for who they are, outstanding Christians, as opposed to your derisive statements echoing only what others said. Many of us have seen firsthand the evil of those who wanted Terri murdered. We have seen actual documents and we know better. You are simply following the footsteps of those who have tried detractions in the past.

You have shown no issues, merely rehashed that which has been disproven before, your loud protest to the contrary notwithstanding. What you have shown by appearing out of nowhere and focusing only on the dark side of the Terri atrocity is that you have an agenda. You are gradually exposing it. Thank you for that.

We have plenty of issues to discuss, living wills, judicial tyranny, and topics of interest to conservatives on this forum, but you are here to try to revive the old arguments long since exposed for what they are.

To steal an old phrase, "Who you are speaks so loudly we cannot hear who you say you are".

Tell us more about your motive for jumping in. Who or what sent you here?

Thanks for the bumps. I will read all your posts and will gladly respond.

[clyffehall]

Sir:

Despite your continued (though groundless) animosity, I will try to respond to you civilly.

Still at the word games, I see.

Perhaps you would enlighten me as to what it is in my post that you consider "word games". I have endeavoured to be as clear as possible. I have said plainly what I am about. If you will tell me which part is puzzling you, I will try to be more clear.

You know, in church we only give the side of the Lord and do not give equal time to His opposition. Here, the issues are already well hashed out and established, as facts and truths counter to the dark side, those who value life against those who favor the contrary.

Are you saying, then, that you do not wish to discuss the matter further with anyone who holds a different opinion than yourself? If all you desire is to join in a chorus of others who echo your own position, please say so plainly, and I will respect that and direct my comments to others. (And really, now--"the dark side"? :^D You don't live in a comic book, do you? LOL)

You bring your secondhand arguments to real eyewitness on the scene, who know the fine family of Schindlers for who they are, outstanding Christians, as opposed to your derisive statements echoing only what others said. Many of us have seen firsthand the evil of those who wanted Terri murdered. We have seen actual documents and we know better. You are simply following the footsteps of those who have tried detractions in the past.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the Schindlers, I am certainly not required to agree with you! I am sure it is true that others have made the same arguments I am making; that doesn't lessen their validity or the earnestness with which they are offered. Your arguments are scarcely unique, save in the bitterness with which they are made. Yet I am still willing to discuss with you how you came to this position.

I do not see how your having harassed people outside of a hospice facility gives your opinion more credibility than mine. And if all you are getting from my posts is that I am "trying detractions" (detracting what? from whom?), then why bother responding to me?

You have shown no issues, merely rehashed that which has been disproven before, your loud protest to the contrary notwithstanding. What you have shown by appearing out of nowhere and focusing only on the dark side of the Terri atrocity is that you have an agenda. You are gradually exposing it. Thank you for that.

Something's having been discussed before does not keep it from being an issue. I disagree that the issues I have raised have been disproven; disputed, yes; disproven, no

. I suppose most people when they first begin posting can be said to have appeared out of nowhere, but that's really rather nonsensical, isn't it? I mean, before one makes one's first post, one has not been on the board. If one is posting on the board, one has already made that first post. Round and round you go, but it doesn't make any more sense. As for focussing only on "the dark side" (ooo, comic book land again :^D ), I, like everyone else here, am focussing on my own viewpoint. I leave others to state their own positions, which they do, without focussing on mine. See how that works? You say your piece, I say my piece, and we compare notes. No one is compelled to make another person's argument for them.

You seem to be obsessed with the word "agenda", and since word games are another of your favorite topics, I'll play along on this one. Here's my agenda: I want to discuss these issues and find out how you came to believe the things you do, and why there is such an emotional tinge to your words. How was that? Did I play right? :^D

We have plenty of issues to discuss, living wills, judicial tyranny, and topics of interest to conservatives on this forum, but you are here to try to revive the old arguments long since exposed for what they are.

Great! Let's' discuss the topics! (Now where have I heard that before?)

To steal an old phrase, "Who you are speaks so loudly we cannot hear who you say you are". Tell us more about your motive for jumping in. Who or what sent you here? Thanks for the bumps. I will read all your posts and will gladly respond.

Since I am exactly who I say I am, I imagine you hear me pretty clearly. I don't know how much more plainly I can say why I joined the discussion here. Why does it matter to you so much?

And, if you would be so kind, please explain what's the deal with "bumps"? Why is that important to you? Do you get a prize or something for a certain number of "bumps"? Is there any way I can help you further?

Peace to you,
Clyffe

[8mmMauser]

Clyffe,

You have exposed yourself plenty. Well wouldn't you know it! I Your posts are repeated with praise by pals and redheads on clownposse who recognize you as a friend or ally, while we are ridiculed, me for example being called 8mmA******.

That tells me as much as I want to hear from you, troll.

[BykrBayb]

I came to the conclusion that the Schindlers were simply not believable. There were many, many reasons for my arriving at this belief, with which I will not bore you at this time, but the quick version is the Schindlers were caught in many provable lies;

What lies did the Schindlers tell? I have followed this very closely for a long time, and I have not seen one instance of the Schindlers lying.

Michael was caught in several lies, and you have refused to discuss those lies. Please address this issue of Michael testifying in court that he swore an oath to Terri that he would take care of her for the rest of his life. Was he lying then? Was he lying when he told Larry King that he didn't know what Terri wanted, but he wanted her to be starved and dehydrated to death? Was he lying when he said that she wouldn't want to live like a character she saw in a movie? Was he lying when he said that she wouldn't have wanted to live with her disabilities? It's not possible that he was telling the truth with all of those statements. Why do you only believe the statements that are contrary to all the evidence? Why do you believe that the only possible interpretation for the alleged statements is that she wanted to be tortured to death? Or do you believe that line about this form of torture being euphoric?

Do you have any sources for your false accusations against the doctors you have failed to name?

Do you have proof of your false allegation that the videos of Terri are not authentic? Can you explain how they made it appear that she was moving, laughing, smiling, kissing, and vocalizing?

It has been proven that they did not sell the mailing list. Can you provide proof of your false allegation that they did?

In what way did they slander and libel HINO? Do you have any sources for these false allegations?

Was there anything false about the obvious fact that Terri and her family were Christians? (They never pretended to be xtian, whatever that is.) Do you have any sources for your false suggestion that they weren't? How do you explain the blasphemous way HINO teased Terri about going to Mass? How do you explain her continuing to go to Mass amid HINO's objections?

While it is true that every court ruled against Terri, you must consider the fact that only one judge ever heard any of the evidence, and he systematically disallowed almost every piece of evidence in Terri's favor. While he did allow the videos to be shown in court, he never viewed them (he's blind and couldn't see them), and he didn't allow the sound to be on. When he appointed a GAL to "represent" Terri, the GAL actually represented her, so greer ignored the GAL's recommendations. Every doctor who examined Terri (on both sides) testified to her condition being inconsistent with a ruling of PVS under Florida's legal definitions. Greer misrepresented their sworn testimony in his own ruling. There was a lot of litigation, but Terri was never given due process.

If you haven't read any of the official documents, at least read the report of the Guardian ad litem. Much of what I believe is based ultimately on that document.

Then you know she was a living breathing human being. You know that Wolfson recommended she continue to receive food and water, and that she should be given swallow tests to determine how advanced her demonstrated ability to swallow was, and how much improvement could be achieved through proper therapy. You know that her body was not merely existing, and that she was very much alive and aware. So what about that report convinced you that she should be tortured to death?

I expect you'll continue to spread lies and refuse to answer questions. Would you care to prove me wrong?

[8mmMauser]

Uhh, uhhhhh Clyffe, where did you go???

8mm

[Ohioan from Florida]

Bookmarking a fine post! ;-)

[Wampus SC]

"they slandered and libelled Mr. Schiavo while protraying themselves as xtian;, the case was more litigated than any other of its type in history,"

"xtian" --- there's the big tipoff right there....

[Wampus SC]

"Uhh, uhhhhh Clyffe, where did you go???"

Maybe he finally reached "Nibbana"....

[8mmMauser]

So much for non attachment, he went nibbanas, just sort of not there.

8mm

[amdgmary]

For the clownposse TROLL:

[amdgmary]

Fr. Frank Pavone writes about his visit to Terri's "grave"

Blessing the Grave

I recently had the privilege of blessing the grave of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who was murdered on March 31, 2005 by dehydration. Her grave is not far from the place where she died, and where people from around the world had gathered to protest and pray.

Those who visit the gravestone, however, will notice something highly unusual. While on most graves there is an inscription of two dates - when the person was born and when he or she died - on Terri's there are three. Here's exactly what the grave says:

Born December 3, 1963

Departed this Earth February 25, 1990

At Peace March 31, 2005

The whole world knows that she died on March 31, 2005. National and global media were present at the scene for days, covering every detail. Media were present again when I preached at her funeral mass. We know when she died.

But her gravestone has become a pulpit for the euthanasia movement. Those who killed her are now using her grave as a platform for their twisted ideology. What they are trying to say is that once her brain was injured in 1990 and she was no longer functioning like most of us, she wasn't one of us anymore. She "departed this earth."

This is actually a variation on an ancient heresy, which says that we are really spirits inhabiting a body. Terri couldn't communicate normally. So, her "spirit" must have left her. The body was just a shell left behind. Those who believe she really "departed this earth" in 1990 can therefore pretend it was OK to kill her in 2005. After all, it wasn't really her. She was already gone.

This is heresy, because Christianity teaches that we are a unity of body and soul, not simply a soul "using" a body. The body matters. What we do to the body, we do to the person.

Moreover, the gravestone inscription is a deep insult to all who are disabled, and to all those who love and care for them. Should they be considered already dead, too? Are we just wasting our time caring for them? Euthanasia advocates would have us think so.

A recent news story about a disabled unborn child quoted one as saying, "There's no human life there." Isn't that the same idea? They think the baby has already "departed this earth," so they don't hesitate to abort the body.

As I blessed Terri's grave, I also prayed that God's people would be kept safe from this falsehood. And I recalled being in Terri's room the day she died. I remembered her face, dehydrated from not having had a drop of water in two weeks. I recalled seeing the flowers, inches away, on her night table. They were immersed in water. And as I left the grave, I gave a final glance to the vase of flowers that was standing by the stone.

Priests for Life