Schiavo case is back! [Archive] - Page 2 - Crime Library Message Boards

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

Well, I feel that it's nothing but words.
How are you doing what you claim you are doing, exactly?
The proof is in the pudding.
Just to say that you will continue to do this and that means nothing to me.
How exactly you are working with the political system, do tell?
And what is it do you think I am not doing that you are doing?
JMO.

I've been politically active since I was old enough to vote, politically aware since long before that Mystery.

I choose the candidates I support carefully and actually know what they stand for and support.

I belong to organizations that support like minded goals and donate to charities as well as political organizations that work toward those goals.

You've already explained, you don't have any intention of doing anything. Therefore anything I do, is more than you.

If you insist on pressing for more detailed personal information, I'll need to take action on that matter as well.

However if you've somehow come into a state of awareness I strongly suggest you start with your own state. Does it have a state sponsored health care system? One funded by tax dollars from cigarette sales or the like? If not, get moving.

Where do your state and local officials stand on these issues of equal access to care and treatment?

Have you supported monetarily or otherwise a candidate that opposes such? If so, let him know you don't approve.

Do you have state officials already in office holding and voting on views you oppose, write them a letter.

Do you even know who your local reps are?

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

I've been politically active since I was old enough to vote, politically aware since long before that Mystery.

I choose the candidates I support carefully and actually know what they stand for and support.

I belong to organizations that support like minded goals and donate to charities as well as political organizations that work toward those goals.

You've already explained, you don't have any intention of doing anything. Therefore anything I do, is more than you.

If you insist on pressing for more detailed personal information, I'll need to take action on that matter as well.

However if you've somehow come into a state of awareness I strongly suggest you start with your own state. Does it have a state sponsored health care system? One funded by tax dollars from cigarette sales or the like? If not, get moving.

Where do your state and local officials stand on these issues of equal access to care and treatment?

Have you supported monetarily or otherwise a candidate that opposes such? If so, let him know you don't approve.

Do you have state officials already in office holding and voting on views you oppose, write them a letter.

Do you even know who your local reps are?
Oh, boo-hoo.
Yes, I know who my local reps are-and I am sure my letters will really get them going. Not.
And yea, I vote. I vote in every election. Little good that it does me, or anyone else.
JMO.

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Old Joe
:seeya: Ring-o-Fire

Dear Friend! So good to see you!! :patriot:

:hat:

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

Oh, boo-hoo.
Yes, I know who my local reps are-and I am sure my letters will really get them going. Not.
And yea, I vote. I vote in every election. Little good that it does me, or anyone else.
JMO.

You vote! Wowza!

You put in that whole 3 minutes every election Tuesday huh?

Well no one could expect you to do more than that, could they?

Keep posting Mystery! Try not to strain yourself dear. :rolleyes:

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

You vote! Wowza!

You put in that whole 3 minutes every election Tuesday huh?

Well no one could expect you to do more than that, could they?

Keep posting Mystery! Try not to strain yourself dear. :rolleyes:
So, did your little diatribe make you feel good?
Yes, I vote.
That's more than a lot of citizens of US do, in case you didn't notice.
What's the turn out, less than 50%?
Yet you feel the need to admonish me for doing my civic duty.
Does it make you feel good to put others down?

peak oil

07-04-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by peak oil
Does anyone recall CodeBlueBlog. It is now inactive but. there is still extensive archived discussion.The doctor also posted at Courttv.
The link for codeblueblog Scroll down for Schiavo.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

So, did your little diatribe make you feel good?
Yes, I vote.
That's more than a lot of citizens of US do, in case you didn't notice.
What's the turn out, less than 50%?
Yet you feel the need to admonish me for doing my civic duty.
Does it make you feel good to put others down?

Only when they in their ignorant bliss choose to dictate me which of my rights they intend to trample and somehow feel justified.

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

Only when they in their ignorant bliss choose to dictate me which of my rights they intend to trample and somehow feel justified.
So, when somebody has a different opinion from you, that means that person has to be ignorant and intends to trample over your rights?
Your opinion can not possibly be wrong?
You are always right?
Nice going there.
The feeling of moral superiority must be overwhelming.
Don't choke on it.
JMO.

Daxxie

07-04-2006, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by peak oil

The link for codeblueblog Scroll down for Schiavo.
http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/

I remember..........interesting that his blog basically died after the Schiavo autopsy proved that all of his claims were false. If I recall, he once made the claim that Terri's anoxia didn't result from the lack of oxygen during her SCA and the resucitation, but because she fell at the hospital!

He was a pip, allright.

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

So, when somebody has a different opinion from you, that means that person has to be ignorant and intends to trample over your rights?
Your opinion can not possibly be wrong?
You are always right?
Nice going there.
The feeling of moral superiority must be overwhelming.
Don't choke on it.
JMO.

No mystery, that's the entire point.

I don't presume to be right, in a position to dictate to others, nor do I seek to do so.

I only presume to allow all the same opportunity to make their own decisions, right or wrong.

You on the other hand have decided you know what's right for Terri and everyone else. You have appointed yourself the dictator.

Matters of medical care, access, and refusal of care are private family matters. It's not your place to force your opinion on me, Michael, Terry W, Baby Daniel, or anyone other than your NOK.

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

No mystery, that's the entire point.

I don't presume to be right, in a position to dictate to others, nor do I seek to do so.

I only presume to allow all the same opportunity to make their own decisions, right or wrong.

You on the other hand have decided you know what's right for Terri and everyone else. You have appointed yourself the dictator.

Matters of medical care, access, and refusal of care are private family matters. It's not your place to force your opinion on me, Michael, Terry W, Baby Daniel, or anyone other than your NOK.
Unbelievable. ****** unbelievable.
I did exactly the same thing as you-posted my opinion about Terri.
Yet somehow I am forcing it on others, and appointed myself the dictator, while you are simply expressing your own opinion?
Nice going there-not.
It boggles my mind.
It really does.
How is it I am forcing my opinion on you, while you are simply expressing yours?

:rolleyes:

peak oil

07-04-2006, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Daxxie

I remember..........interesting that his blog basically died after the Schiavo autopsy proved that all of his claims were false. If I recall, he once made the claim that Terri's anoxia didn't result from the lack of oxygen during her SCA and the resucitation, but because she fell at the hospital!

He was a pip, allright.
There were many great posters. And some not so great. My favorite was Dr. Kate Killebrew. She had an excellent explanation for the bilateral hot spots on the nuclear bone scan.-----------------------------

CodeBlueBlog: CSI MEDBLOGS: CODEBLUEBLOG ANALYZES TERRI SCHIAVO'S ...Posted by: Kate Killebrew, MD | April 01, 2005 at 10:37 PM. Another question. Did Michael Schiavo's "beating" that you accuse him of giving Terri cause her ...
codeblueblog.blogs.com/codeblueblog/ 2005/03/csi_medblogs_co_1.html - 149k - Cached - Similar pages

User Posts Free Republic Home | Forum | Log In | Register Posts by ...Posted by: Kate Killebrew, MD. | Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies. DCF: Schiavo Not Abused Or Exploited. Posted by Trinity_Tx to Cboldt On ...
www.freerepublic.com/~trinitytx/in-forum - 124k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

CodeBlueBlog has some questions regarding Terri Schiavo's CT Scan ...#1.1 Kate Killebrew , MD (Link ) on 2005 -04 -01 18 :28 (Reply ) ...

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

Unbelievable. ****** unbelievable.
I did exactly the same thing as you-posted my opinion about Terri.
Yet somehow I am forcing it on others, and appointed myself the dictator, while you are simply expressing your own opinion?
Nice going there-not.
It boggles my mind.
It really does.
How is it I am forcing my opinion on you, while you are simply expressing yours?

:rolleyes:

No dear, I'm actively working toward insuring you don't get to force your opinion on me.

I'm the one knocking on doors at capitol hill and campaigning for candidates that understand the difference between church, state and the courts.

You're just the person sitting on your arse signing internet petitions giving the Terry Randall's of the world the facade of actual numbers.

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Old Joe
What's wrong with you mystery. Can't you be civil on any board? Ring-o-Saturn is one of the nicest and polite posters on CTV. There is no excuse for anyone not to get along with her.:punch: SHAME:chicken:
Dear old granny.
Look who is talking.
:lol:

mystery101

07-04-2006, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

No dear, I'm actively working toward insuring you don't get to force your opinion on me.

I'm the one knocking on doors at capitol hill and campaigning for candidates that understand the difference between church, state and the courts.

You're just the person sitting on your arse signing internet petitions giving the Terry Randall's of the world the facade of actual numbers.
Oh boo-hoo.
Didn't you just accuse me of not beling politically active enough for your tatstes?
What if I was, but I supported candidates different from you?
Would I be appointing myself a dictator, and trying to trumple all over your rights, then? Isn't it just as my right to support whoever candidate I want as it is your right to support whoever it is you want to support?
:shrug:

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by chuckles

If Michael had gotten divorced would you concede his right to decide would not exist? In my mind when a man lives with another woman and has two kids with her..he is no longer married..If the courts ruled otherwise..I disagree...which is my right as a free person.:shrug:

This point has been addressed repeatedly. I'll refer you back to the many links and posts already provided.

Jodi wasn't in Michael's life when the case started.

The Schindlers encouraged & approved of Michael dating, going so far as meeting with his dates.

The Schindler's had no problem with this arrangement until it became clear Michael wasn't buying them a house or paying off their debts.

These are the points that caused the court to be underwhelmed by the argument, finding once again no cause to remove Michael as guardian.

Your inability to take in the facts would be why you'll never be in a position to make such a ruling.

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by chuckles

How pompous and self righteous of you. You get define yourself and the poster you disagree with...

Perhaps a more objective opinion would achieve a higher level of objectivity and the credibility that should ensue..:tongue:

How foolish and once again uninformed on your part.

You could consider reading back to find the exchange & basis for the post, but why start something new?

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

Oh boo-hoo.
Didn't you just accuse me of not beling politically active enough for your tatstes?
What if I was, but I supported candidates different from you?
Would I be appointing myself a dictator, and trying to trumple all over your rights, then? Isn't it just as my right to support whoever candidate I want as it is your right to support whoever it is you want to support?
:shrug:

That would be the political system working as it should.

I don't give you much chance of success, I happen to have the Bill of Rights on my side, but have at it.

You're so concerned for everyone elses lives I would think you'd start with Terry W. As I said, he can't get therapy now that he's regained verbalization. He doesn't meet the criteria.

But, I don't expect you'll actually do anything but continue posting & signing internet petitions. Of course I could be giving you too much credit to assume you'd do even bother to find and sign an internet petition.

mystery101

07-04-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

That would be the political system working as it should.

I don't give you much chance of success, I happen to have the Bill of Rights on my side, but have at it.

You're so concerned for everyone elses lives I would think you'd start with Terry W. As I said, he can't get therapy now that he's regained verbalization. He doesn't meet the criteria.

But, I don't expect you'll actually do anything but continue posting & signing internet petitions. Of course I could be giving you too much credit to assume you'd do even bother to find and sign an internet petition.
I am no more concerned about everybody else's lives than you are.
I simply do not understand why you feel
the need to direct all that anger and venom toward me, simply because I have an opinion that is different from yours.
I simply expressed my opinon about this particular case-about Terri.
I have not shared my political views with you. You immediately jumped to conclusions, without even bothering to figure out what my views actually are, and I doubt you care what my views actually are.
Just as long as you can put them down.
Why?
:shrug:

jenmito

07-04-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Tracian

HI JEN :)

ohhhhh...Terri had ability, the ability to be a money maker for her parents...

The ability to have her image paraded about for some twisted religious agenda, just like Audrey Santos.

Oh, yes, Terri had ability...to be exploited; Michael just loved her too much to allow that to happen.

JMHO

BB HI TRQCIAN! :seeya:

Yes, that is all true. Sad but true. I'm so glad it's over and she finally gets to rest in peace.

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

I am no more concerned about everybody else's lives than you are.
But I am concerned about you.
All that anger and venom directed at some poster on a message board for no appaent reason-that can not be healthy.
I simply expressed my opinon about this particular case-about Terri.
I have not shared my political views with you. You immediately jumped to conclusions, without even bothering to figure out what my views actually are.
All that anger-it can not be healthy.

:shrug:

Yes mystery, when people presume to interject themselves in anyones right to make private family decisions; Think that it's OK to second guess the courts; Attempt to blur the separation of political branches; Approve of "emergency bills" aimed at impacting one citizen and one citizen only; those things tend to raise my passions.

Not anger mystery, passion. You should be wary of my political passion. It's a very powerful thing, it actually takes the form of action.

This was a private family matter, the RTlifer's with the help of Terri's greedy parents chose to make it a political issue. When you make public comment on political issues, you're expressing your political views. Expect a response, and if it's from me it will be an informed response.

jenmito

07-04-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by jenmito
HI TRQCIAN! :seeya:

Yes, that is all true. Sad but true. I'm so glad it's over and she finally gets to rest in peace. Hmmm...although that spelling of your name looks quite cool if you ask me, I'd like to correct it and say hi to you, TRACIAN! :D

mystery101

07-04-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

Yes mystery, when people presume to interject themselves in anyones right to make private family decisions; Think that it's OK to second guess the courts; Attempt to blur the separation of political branches; Approve of "emergency bills" aimed at impacting one citizen and one citizen only; those things tend to raise my passions.

Not anger mystery, passion. You should be wary of my political passion. It's a very powerful thing, it actually takes the form of action.

This was a private family matter, the RTlifer's with the help of Terri's greedy parents chose to make it a political issue. When you make public comment on political issues, you're expressing your political views. Expect a response, and if it's from me it will be an informed response.
Yes, I will second guess the courts.
I don't think I have to blindly accept the decision of the court.
As for Mr. Schiavo, he had a girlfriend and two children.
I believe someone's own parents would have that person's interest in mind, more so than a man with a girlfriend and two children. Blood is thicker than water.
JMO.

Daxxie

07-04-2006, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by chuckles

I don't know his real motives. There was some talk if she regained consciousness..she would accuse him of being responsible for her condition. Do you really believe that Terri's parents and brother and sister did not love her more than he did.?

When in doubt I defer to flesh and blood. They brought her into the world..their love created her..

If Michael had stayed true to her..like many husband and wives do in similiar situations.....I would not be so damn suspicious.

And that's all it ever was......talk. The autopsy, on the other hand, said there was no proof of any kind of physical trauma, and it was noted on the original police report that there was no signs of any physical trauma.

I think that her family loved her..........but you know, when people stand up and declare that they wouldn't abide by her wishes, even if she had told them herself, if they were contrary to what they wanted.......well, it makes me wonder about their motives. I also have big questions when they say he was wonderful, great, the best son in law ever, took wonderful care of Terri, they couldn't do it without him and on and on............until the money was awarded and they didn't get any.

There is no guarentee that "blood" means that you love someone more, or even have their best intrests at heart. As for Michael meeting someone else.......all he ever had to do, if that was really what this was all about, was to sign a piece of paper. The fact that he didn't, that he put up with all the lies and accusations for all of those years, tells me, that he loved her. IMO, he upheld his vows, he never abandonded Terri, when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to just walk away. And many husbands and wives in the same or similar situations find someone that can provide all the things that their stricken spouse no longer can......companionship, warmth, support, love, and continue to care for their spouse. These were all things that Terri could no longer provide. She couldn't interact on ANY level. And since none of us are in that position, thank heavens, we can't know how or what we would do. I think the fact that he was always her most frequent visitor says a lot about the love that he had for her.

JMO

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

Yes, I will second guess the courts.
I don't think I have to blindly accept the decision of the court.
As for Mr. Schiavo, he had a girlfriend and two children.
I believe someone's own parents would have that person's interest in mind, more so than a man with a girlfriend and two children. Blood is thicker than water.
JMO.

Once again: Jodi was not part of Michael's life when the case went to the courts & depositions taken.

The Schindler's approved and encouraged Michael to date, going so far as meeting his dates.

The Schindler's had no problem with this arrangement until it became clear Michael was not buying them a house or paying their IRS debt.

All of this information presented to the court & on which the court decided there was no cause to remove Michael as guardian. Therefore leaving the decision Michael's.

The court of appeal is the place to question a lower court ruling. That was done, to the highest court of the state and the ruling upheld.

Millions of spouses over the centuries have stood by their institutionalized other half, while taking companions and moving on to find some form of normalcy in their lives. TB & mental illness would be just two of the reasons.

It by far would have been easier for Michael to turn his back and walk away.

What part of this information are you having difficulty with?

Given your stated basis for your concern, exactly what is it you feel Michael "got" by remaining married and seeing the matter through the courts?

Right up until the end, Michael could have left this a wealthy man, if only he would walk away. Yet he didn't. Why do you think that is?

Do you not have any problem with the fact the Schindler's didn't have any problem with Michael, praised him in fact, until they became aware he wasn't buying them a house or paying their debt.

Do you not have any problem with them exploiting their daughter releasing videos in exchange for $100.00 donations? Terri, their daughter who was stricken because of her vanity, yet they'd release those videos to anyone willing to turn over a greenback. That's disgusting.

jenmito

07-04-2006, 08:14 PM

Don't look for any answers to your perfectly valid questions, Ring-o-Saturn. You've been making great points throughout this thread that have gone unanswered.

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by jenmito
Don't look for any answers to your perfectly valid questions, Ring-o-Saturn. You've been making great points throughout this thread that have gone unanswered.

From you jenmito, that is the greatest compliment, TY.

I have become accustomed to the sudden disappearances. lol

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 08:17 PM

mystery101

07-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Daxxie

And that's all it ever was......talk. The autopsy, on the other hand, said there was no proof of any kind of physical trauma, and it was noted on the original police report that there was no signs of any physical trauma.

I think that her family loved her..........but you know, when people stand up and declare that they wouldn't abide by her wishes, even if she had told them herself, if they were contrary to what they wanted.......well, it makes me wonder about their motives. I also have big questions when they say he was wonderful, great, the best son in law ever, took wonderful care of Terri, they couldn't do it without him and on and on............until the money was awarded and they didn't get any.

There is no guarentee that "blood" means that you love someone more, or even have their best intrests at heart. As for Michael meeting someone else.......all he ever had to do, if that was really what this was all about, was to sign a piece of paper. The fact that he didn't, that he put up with all the lies and accusations for all of those years, tells me, that he loved her. IMO, he upheld his vows, he never abandonded Terri, when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to just walk away. And many husbands and wives in the same or similar situations find someone that can provide all the things that their stricken spouse no longer can......companionship, warmth, support, love, and continue to care for their spouse. These were all things that Terri could no longer provide. She couldn't interact on ANY level. And since none of us are in that position, thank heavens, we can't know how or what we would do. I think the fact that he was always her most frequent visitor says a lot about the love that he had for her.

JMO
I don't think it was love. I think it was control.
As for money awarded to him-did he not tell the jury he needed the money to take care of her? Why didn't he mention she didn't want to "live that way" to the jury?
Do you call that love?
My opinion, of course.

jenmito

07-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

From you jenmito, that is the greatest compliment, TY.

I have become accustomed to the sudden disappearances. lol Thanks, R-O-S! :flamemad: (blushing wildly)

Yeah, I've seen MANY of your posts left unanswered. Not just this thread, either. :seeya:

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 08:22 PM

Daxxie

07-04-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by mystery101

I don't think it was love. I think it was control.
As for money awarded to him-did he not tell the jury he needed the money to take care of her? Why didn't he mention she didn't want to "live that way" to the jury?
Do you call that love?
My opinion, of course.

And she was taken care of, given every treatment that there was,he fought to get her into re-hab hospitals that the insurance didn't want to pay for, therapy for four years, etc, etc. There is no therapy or medicine out there that will re-grow atrophied brain tissue........and once the therapists say that they can't do anything else for you, that you've shown no improvement after a certain amount of time, well....you are SOL. And Medicare won't pay for it either.

As for why he didn't mention it, it was a med-mal trial, why would he? I can't imagine that it had any bearing..........and the lawyers for the doctors certainly never brought it up that I ever heard of, so it seems that it wasn't an issue for them either. And I imagine, that like most of us, at first he didn't want to believe that she wasn't going to get better. Would you have taken her off of life support right away, or would you wait a resonable amount of time? I think that most people would have done the same thing that he did........wait and see, try everything that there is to try, and when it becomes clear that nothing is going to work, you make whatever decisions need to be made. JMO

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 08:47 PM

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by jenmito
Thanks, R-O-S! :flamemad: (blushing wildly)

Yeah, I've seen MANY of your posts left unanswered. Not just this thread, either. :seeya:

My questions don't get answered either...:shrug:

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Daxxie

And she was taken care of, given every treatment that there was,he fought to get her into re-hab hospitals that the insurance didn't want to pay for, therapy for four years, etc, etc. There is no therapy or medicine out there that will re-grow atrophied brain tissue........and once the therapists say that they can't do anything else for you, that you've shown no improvement after a certain amount of time, well....you are SOL. And Medicare won't pay for it either.

As for why he didn't mention it, it was a med-mal trial, why would he? I can't imagine that it had any bearing..........and the lawyers for the doctors certainly never brought it up that I ever heard of, so it seems that it wasn't an issue for them either. And I imagine, that like most of us, at first he didn't want to believe that she wasn't going to get better. Would you have taken her off of life support right away, or would you wait a resonable amount of time? I think that most people would have done the same thing that he did........wait and see, try everything that there is to try, and when it becomes clear that nothing is going to work, you make whatever decisions need to be made. JMO

Too bad Mr. Schindler didn't give his mother a chance...

Daxxie

07-04-2006, 09:06 PM

Originally posted by Not Telling

Too bad Mr. Schindler didn't give his mother a chance...

You know, you'd think that would be a sticking point........Mr. Schindler had his mother taken off of life support. If he was so dead set against it, then why did he do it? Wasn't his mother alive......so wasn't there hope? As far as I know, the only thing wrong with her was old age and kidney failure...........and one can live for quite a long time on dialysis...........I know someone that lived for several years, going to the hospital several times a week to get dialysis while waiting for a kidney. She was breathing, she could think, talk, feel...........but removing her support was OK. Why was it OK for her..........but not Terri???

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by blueberri
Here is an example of what I mean by being in it for the "long haul" : "Tom and Melissa Gallant sat in their car at an intersection outside Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, one early summer evening in 1992. After a decade of romance and adventure, they were at a crossroads in their lives. Melissa wanted to settle down and start a business. Tom wanted to sail their schooner around the world. They had decided to go their separate ways. As they entered the intersection, one notorious for brutal accidents, their car was hit by a bus. When Tom woke up in the Fisherman's Memorial Hospital and asked about Melissa, all anyone could say was, "It doesn't look good." She was in intensive care in Halifax. She was in a coma, being kept alive by machines.

This is the story of what happened in the months that followed. It is also the story of a love affair full of high seas adventure and romance, of life lived far from the conventions of polite society. It is the tale of two lives shattered in an instant, forever changed by an unmerciful twist of fate. Melissa's brain had suffered a catastrophic trauma. When she woke from the coma, she would not know who she was or who Tom was. She would be unable to talk, walk or feed herself.

Theirs was a love facing the greatest of challenges. This is a book about redemption conferred by accepting the hardest things in life with an open heart."

Well, after a hot and sunny day and a very enjoyable 4th of July it appears the fireworks tonight will be those made by mother nature. We are having very strong thunderstorms so I guess I will have to enjoy A Capitol Fourth and catch up with you all.

I'm not sure what your story really has to do with the Schiavo case. It is horrible they had an accident, and it is wonderful they had a life together. And what does that have to do with putting your medical care wishes in writing?

A coma is not what Terri had. And you just can't have a romantic notion of what the long haul is, who decides it and whether or not something needs to be in writing. Tell me what harm it would have done this couple if they had done a living will? What would have prevented parents or siblings from coming in and interfering and causing legal problems? In 1990 and earlier not many people did living wills, especially young people. That has changed which I think is for the best jmo

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Not Telling

My questions don't get answered either...:shrug:

We've noticed, truly we have!

And we love you for your tenacity NT!!

:patriot: :seeya:

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by chuckles
If Terri had put her wishes in writing...there would be no controversy.:shrug:

No controversy if Terri had put her wishes in writing AND they were what the Schindlers wanted....

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by chuckles
If Terri had put her wishes in writing...there would be no controversy.:shrug:

As stated, in 1990 that would have been rare for anyone, rarer still for a young woman.

There is no controversy. Michael was Terri's next of kin. The Schindler's never showed cause to have him removed.

All that remains is the whining of the RTlifers who didn't get their way.

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 09:32 PM

Various thoughts on this whole issue and thread.

Why is it not one person who supports the Schindlers has anything to say about Nurse Iyers and how the Schindlers late in the case started using her comments to raise money.

Why is it that early in the case the Schindlers didn't know what Terri's wishes were, but wouldn't honor them if they knew and they were different from theirs. And then by 2005 they were absolutely positive Terri wanted to live. They even tried with the lawyer to convince a judge that Terri was saying that. Not one person who supports the Schindlers asks where their proof of this is, or demands that it should be in writing.

And while doing that, they don't ever mention something Mr. Schindler said in testimony. He said that if Terri were aware of her condition she would be tortured by it. Now, that is telling me that Mr. Schindler knew Terri would not want to be in the condition she was in.

No one can give a reason why Terri would want to have stayed in the condition she was in, but then some people don't think that should be a problem.

The money/ the feud. The courts, the GALS and anyone who had all the facts stated that the feud was about money. Specifically Michael's money. That is why they didn't speak since 1993. In testimony Mr. Schindler said he expected to get part of Michael's money. In a letter he wrote he spoke of the house Michael was suppose to give he and his wife. Yet, in public, Mr. Schindler flat out denied it was about his wanting money. And despite the facts till this day people believe him and think Michael wanted the money.

The feud is why the Schindlers went from praising Michael to outright hatred and a public smear campaign. This wasn't just two sides in a tragedy disagreeing with a huge decision. This was an outright war meant to completely destroy a persons name and reputation. Based on lies and rewritten history. Amazing how in 1990,91,92 Michael was the best husband. And hey he had a girlfriend then. And then all of a sudden, they remembered all these terrible things about Michael. So just when were they lying? They had no problem with the morals of the situation until after they didn't get money.

Just why is Jodi and the children harped on as the reason Michael should have been removed. Yet, his testimony and his actions to follow Terri's wishes can be documented in 1993. Well before Jodi and certainly the children were in the picture. And certainly well before the 1998 the Schindlers still put out.

Just why is it okay for the Schindlers to lie repeatedly. To say things in the media that aren't true, and could not be used in court. Why was it okay for them to hire Terry to run their media campaign.

Why do people still think it should have been about what the Schindlers wanted. It wasn't and it isn't. jmo

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

We've noticed, truly we have!

And we love you for your tenacity NT!!

:patriot: :seeya:

Thanks and the feeling is mutual!

Honor is very important to me... And I believe, if you don't respect someone's end of life wishes, you are not being honorable... People who believe they have the right to force their wishes on someone (or everyone) against their will, with no regard for their individual circumstances and feelings is NOT HONORABLE... And at the end of the day, what do you have if you don't have honor?

jmo

Ring-o-Saturn

07-04-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by MercedesV
Various thoughts on this whole issue and thread.

Why is it

(respectfully snipped)

Why do people still think it should have been about what the Schindlers wanted. It wasn't and it isn't. jmo

Promise me, you will never get banned.

If I have to save all these posts to hard drive (because they're all too good to lose) I'm gonna need a bigger hard drive.

Good Night All!

Be Good, Be Well & I hope you all enjoyed your holiday!:seeya:

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by MercedesV
Various thoughts on this whole issue and thread.

Why is it not one person who supports the Schindlers has anything to say about Nurse Iyers and how the Schindlers late in the case started using her comments to raise money.

Why is it that early in the case the Schindlers didn't know what Terri's wishes were, but wouldn't honor them if they knew and they were different from theirs. And then by 2005 they were absolutely positive Terri wanted to live. They even tried with the lawyer to convince a judge that Terri was saying that. Not one person who supports the Schindlers asks where their proof of this is, or demands that it should be in writing.

And while doing that, they don't ever mention something Mr. Schindler said in testimony. He said that if Terri were aware of her condition she would be tortured by it. Now, that is telling me that Mr. Schindler knew Terri would not want to be in the condition she was in.

No one can give a reason why Terri would want to have stayed in the condition she was in, but then some people don't think that should be a problem.

The money/ the feud. The courts, the GALS and anyone who had all the facts stated that the feud was about money. Specifically Michael's money. That is why they didn't speak since 1993. In testimony Mr. Schindler said he expected to get part of Michael's money. In a letter he wrote he spoke of the house Michael was suppose to give he and his wife. Yet, in public, Mr. Schindler flat out denied it was about his wanting money. And despite the facts till this day people believe him and think Michael wanted the money.

The feud is why the Schindlers went from praising Michael to outright hatred and a public smear campaign. This wasn't just two sides in a tragedy disagreeing with a huge decision. This was an outright war meant to completely destroy a persons name and reputation. Based on lies and rewritten history. Amazing how in 1990,91,92 Michael was the best husband. And hey he had a girlfriend then. And then all of a sudden, they remembered all these terrible things about Michael. So just when were they lying? They had no problem with the morals of the situation until after they didn't get money.

Just why is Jodi and the children harped on as the reason Michael should have been removed. Yet, his testimony and his actions to follow Terri's wishes can be documented in 1993. Well before Jodi and certainly the children were in the picture. And certainly well before the 1998 the Schindlers still put out.

Just why is it okay for the Schindlers to lie repeatedly. To say things in the media that aren't true, and could not be used in court. Why was it okay for them to hire Terry to run their media campaign.

Why do people still think it should have been about what the Schindlers wanted. It wasn't and it isn't. jmo

Excellent questions, Mercedes! :beer:

Too bad there aren't any excellent answers...

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

Promise me, you will never get banned.

If I have to save all these posts to hard drive (because they're all too good to lose) I'm gonna need a bigger hard drive.

Good Night All!

Be Good, Be Well & I hope you all enjoyed your holiday!:seeya:

Sweet dreams, RingO...
Thanks for your great posts!
:seeya:

jenmito

07-04-2006, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Not Telling

My questions don't get answered either...:shrug: I noticed. They have a "cut and run" strategy around here. ;)

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Ring-o-Saturn

Promise me, you will never get banned.

If I have to save all these posts to hard drive (because they're all too good to lose) I'm gonna need a bigger hard drive.

Good Night All!

Be Good, Be Well & I hope you all enjoyed your holiday!:seeya:

You are too funny, thank you for the compliment. I will try hard to be a good poster and keep my name. jmo

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Not Telling

Excellent questions, Mercedes! :beer:

Too bad there aren't any excellent answers...

In all seriousness I wish someone who did/does support the Schindlers would answer. I'm not trying to bash or bait but it really boggles my mind. I can't see how some things can be ignored. I wish someone could tell me how they feel about these things and still support the Schindlers.

Neither side was perfect, there are no saints in this story. Both made mistakes. But to me there are mistakes, and then there is a hate campaign.

I just don't know how you support the Schindlers and justify some of these things. I guess the question about Iyers really boggles me. And that is something there has been dead silence on.

I just wish someone who truly believes in the Schindlers would honestly explain how the feel about these things. But, they have been continually ignored. And it is more of the Michael is evil, the Schindlers loved Terri. And besides he was with Jodi as if that is all the answer needed. After all this time I just wish I could understand the position. jmo

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 09:53 PM

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by jenmito
I noticed. They have a "cut and run" strategy around here. ;)

Well...you know what they say....

If you can't say something cr*ppy about Michael, don't say anything at all... ;)

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by chuckles

You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Notice no links. When exactly did Michael make Terri's so-called wishes known. Look it up. :shrug:

Yeah, that's right...
Mercedes is making things up, just like I made up the list of Terri's physical ailments...

I notice you were quick to say something cr*ppy about it and accuse me of making it up or hearing voices, but when I provided you with the link to the autopsy report, you had nothing to say... So typical!

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by MercedesV

In all seriousness I wish someone who did/does support the Schindlers would answer. I'm not trying to bash or bait but it really boggles my mind. I can't see how some things can be ignored. I wish someone could tell me how they feel about these things and still support the Schindlers.

Neither side was perfect, there are no saints in this story. Both made mistakes. But to me there are mistakes, and then there is a hate campaign.

I just don't know how you support the Schindlers and justify some of these things. I guess the question about Iyers really boggles me. And that is something there has been dead silence on.

I just wish someone who truly believes in the Schindlers would honestly explain how the feel about these things. But, they have been continually ignored. And it is more of the Michael is evil, the Schindlers loved Terri. And besides he was with Jodi as if that is all the answer needed. After all this time I just wish I could understand the position. jmo

I just can't understand it, either... For as much time and energy they put into bashing, you'd think at least one of them could come up with a reasonable and rational explaination...

c_biscuit

07-04-2006, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by chuckles
If Terri had put her wishes in writing...there would be no controversy.:shrug:

If her family had accepted the LAW, there would be no controversy.

The law is, next of kin makes the decision. Their wishes do not have to be in writing.

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by blueberri
Mercedes, she was not "just" in a coma, she died several times while in ICU, and was brought back, the doctors wanted to place a DNR on her, hubby said no. When I said "died" those are her husband's words. I thought how different he handled the situation compared to Michael, their wives may not have had the exact same brain damage, but the husbands had the same choice, Tom Gallant is still taking care of his wife. The first line in his book is "Life would have been easier had I let her die", or very similiar words. Tom and Melissa were only married a short time, had no children, he could have moved on, in fact he had planned to, but after the accident he wanted to be there for her. This, in my opinion, is what you do when you really love someone, or divorce and let others that love you spouse look after them. The wife of man who recovered after nineteen years didn't have to kill him to move on with her life and Michael didn't have to force Terri to dehydrate to death, he had other options. JMO

See, I think Michael gave Terri the same kind of dedication. He didn't run away from the responsibility which would have been easier. Unlike this man's wife, Terri had no chance to recover.

But that doesn't change the fact that we have evidence that Terri would not have wanted to be kept in that condition. Michael could have gone against his wife's wishes and continued keeping her in limbo, he could have deserted her, or he could do as he did. Giving her care over to people he could not trust, who didn't care about her wishes, and who used and abused her was just not an option. I think that was honorable and every bit as dedicated as the man you speak of. jmo

Not Telling

07-04-2006, 10:59 PM

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by blueberri
Well, Mercedes, your idea of an honorable, dedicated man and mine are different, so that ends that discussion. I am still waiting to see if the conversation Joan said she had with Terri about the baby is actually in Michael's book. :shrug:

As I haven't read the book I can't answer that for you.

Do you believe the Schindlers acted in an honorable manner? What do you think about Iyers?

peak oil

07-04-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by blueberri
I agree with you mystery, and I doubt anyone will ever know how much money Michael actually recieved because some of his lawsuits were settled on the condition that the amounts never be disclosed.

Where did you get this information? Were there multiple lawsuits? Do you have a link?

ProxyUser

07-04-2006, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

Actually, the guy you're speaking of was Austian, but hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story! (Not that I believe you ever would...)

No comment chuckles?

ProxyUser

07-04-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

Wrong again, Mr. History. It wasn't the courts, but the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 that counted non-free persons as "three-fifths."

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

This was largely the result of white northerners who feared that the large number of slaves in the south would give the southern states too many representatives in the new Congress. Rather than counting each black, or non-free, person as three-fifths of a person, it counted their entire population as three-fifths of its total. Same result, but a nuanced difference.

So your post is wrong on the history. If you hate the courts and want to illustrate bad court decisions, that's great, but at least don't waste our time with historical fiction.

Bumped to try to get Chuckles to answer....

ProxyUser

07-04-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

You are right on the money! Instead of a divorce, all Michael had to do was:

1. Injure Terri so badly that she'd never be able to communicate ever again, but not actually kill her

2. Make sure that all attempts to improve her condition met with abject failure

3. Visit her thousands of times over the course of 15 years

4. Convince her family that he's a great guy anyway

5. Win a medical malpractice case

6. Turn Robert Schindler against him by not givng him any money

7. Get sued by Schindler and win

8. Win every appeal, up to and including the US Supreme Court

8. Turn down a million or two dollars to divorce her

9. Face down the state of Florida, the US Congress, and President Bush

10. Fool (or pay off!) the medical examiner and autopsy consultants

11. Accomplish all of this in spite of being so stupid that he couldn't even hold a job, and manage to hide his dastardly deeds from multiple investigations

I might be missing something, but even if I am, all this was so much easier than a divorce - probably cheaper, too.

Since they had no children, and Terri was working, a divorce might have cost him a couple of hundred bucks a month, at least until she remarried! Think of what he saved! Maybe enough to buy a really nice watch!

Blueberri - I'm so disappointed that you didn't answer. Cat got your tongue?

ProxyUser

07-04-2006, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by jenmito
Exactly. If it doesn't go their way, it's an "activist court" with "unelected judges" who "got it wrong."

And they are "legislating from the bench"!

ProxyUser

07-04-2006, 11:50 PM

jenmito

07-04-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

And they are "legislating from the bench"! :lol: That's right.

mystery101

07-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

If you'd like to stop voting, that would be fine with me...
LOL. But it won't be fine with me.
:rolleyes:

MercedesV

07-04-2006, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by blueberri
I have no problem with the Schindlers, in fact, my heart goes out to them, but we went through all this before on other threads Mercedes, so why are you asking me again? I don't have any use for some of the people who spoke out for them, but then again I have no use for Judge Greer either, he wouldn't even visit Terri before handing down his death sentence, which he was required by law to do. As for Iyers, all I know is what has been posted on here and I what I read recently in a couple of US newspapers. If you want to post a link I will read it.

So you have no problem with the Schindlers lying and changing their stories? You have no problem with them not visiting Terri in her last days but giving press conferences? You have no problem with them encouraging Michael to date? You have no problem with them demanding money? They hired Terry and gave him carte blanch. He didn't just speak for them.

Judge Greer most certainly was not required to visit Terri. There most certainly is no law that requires or even encourages him to do so.

As to Iyers, her affadavit was discussed on the board and the link for the affadavit was there as well. She stated in a signed, notorized affadavit that the Schindlers eventually presented to Judge Greer that Michael had done various bad things to Terri. But the kicker is, the last part of her affadavit is her stating she had called the Schindlers and told them all about it. The Schindlers went on to use this "heroic" nurses affadavit, minus the part about them to attack Michael and raise money. Don't you have a problem with the Schindlers doing that. Doesn't that really tell you they aren't credible. That they were willing to sink to any level. I don't have the link saved but it was also included in the judges ruling I believe. I know he clearly addressed that affadavit because to accept the affadavit you would have to believe the Schindlers had been involved in a coverup to harm Terri.

I just wonder how people who used such awful tactics can seem credible. jmo

Susan43

07-05-2006, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by ProxyUser
Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next.

Wouldn't you just know it? I leave for a few days and something happened on the Schiavo front.

I do hope that lying nurse gets her license pulled. I find it very strange that you can't call a hospital and get information on someone without being a relative but she was able to go on the air and tell millions what was going on with Terri.

Thanks for the info, it perked up my holiday.

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by mystery101

Yes, I will second guess the courts.
I don't think I have to blindly accept the decision of the court.
As for Mr. Schiavo, he had a girlfriend and two children.
I believe someone's own parents would have that person's interest in mind, more so than a man with a girlfriend and two children. Blood is thicker than water.
JMO.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something that Michael's supporters might not agree with.

Michael's relationship with Jody and their children did give the other side some ammunition that they used very effectively, as is reflected in many of the posts here. It could be argued, and was, that he somehow cared less for Terri by virtue of his "new family." That he had "moved on." My arguement in support of Michael would be so much easier if Jody was not in the picture, because I would not have had to fight this straw man instead of the real issues.

This line of thought would have been better supported, however, if he had abandoned Terri in favor of Jody, which he did not do. I marvel that Jody accepted that Michael loved Terri so much that he was unwilling to let his care for her end. She somehow understood his ultimate loyalty to her. I believe that if she had given Michael an ultimatum, "It's Terri or me." Michael would have said, "Goodbye."

I have yet to see how his care for Terri suffered as a result of his relationship with Jody. Certainly, there is no evidence that it did in the myriad of court papers filed by the Schindlers.

It's important to remember, that Michael could have divorced Terri at any time, especially after he met Jody, yet he chose not to. Everything would have been easier for him personally if he had done so. He might have even accepted a million dollars to just walk away, and yet he didn't. And how did he benefit? He didn't, at all. Instead, he chose to carry the scorn of millions of people as he continued to make sure that Terri's wishes, as she expressed to him, were carried out. How unselfish is that?

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by chuckles
If Terri had put her wishes in writing...there would be no controversy.:shrug:

That's the truth!

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by MercedesV
Various thoughts on this whole issue and thread.

Why is it not one person who supports the Schindlers has anything to say about Nurse Iyers and how the Schindlers late in the case started using her comments to raise money.

Why is it that early in the case the Schindlers didn't know what Terri's wishes were, but wouldn't honor them if they knew and they were different from theirs. And then by 2005 they were absolutely positive Terri wanted to live. They even tried with the lawyer to convince a judge that Terri was saying that. Not one person who supports the Schindlers asks where their proof of this is, or demands that it should be in writing.

And while doing that, they don't ever mention something Mr. Schindler said in testimony. He said that if Terri were aware of her condition she would be tortured by it. Now, that is telling me that Mr. Schindler knew Terri would not want to be in the condition she was in.

No one can give a reason why Terri would want to have stayed in the condition she was in, but then some people don't think that should be a problem.

The money/ the feud. The courts, the GALS and anyone who had all the facts stated that the feud was about money. Specifically Michael's money. That is why they didn't speak since 1993. In testimony Mr. Schindler said he expected to get part of Michael's money. In a letter he wrote he spoke of the house Michael was suppose to give he and his wife. Yet, in public, Mr. Schindler flat out denied it was about his wanting money. And despite the facts till this day people believe him and think Michael wanted the money.

The feud is why the Schindlers went from praising Michael to outright hatred and a public smear campaign. This wasn't just two sides in a tragedy disagreeing with a huge decision. This was an outright war meant to completely destroy a persons name and reputation. Based on lies and rewritten history. Amazing how in 1990,91,92 Michael was the best husband. And hey he had a girlfriend then. And then all of a sudden, they remembered all these terrible things about Michael. So just when were they lying? They had no problem with the morals of the situation until after they didn't get money.

Just why is Jodi and the children harped on as the reason Michael should have been removed. Yet, his testimony and his actions to follow Terri's wishes can be documented in 1993. Well before Jodi and certainly the children were in the picture. And certainly well before the 1998 the Schindlers still put out.

Just why is it okay for the Schindlers to lie repeatedly. To say things in the media that aren't true, and could not be used in court. Why was it okay for them to hire Terry to run their media campaign.

Why do people still think it should have been about what the Schindlers wanted. It wasn't and it isn't. jmo

I'd love it if the Schindler supporters would answer any of these reasonable questions!

Susan43

07-05-2006, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something that Michael's supporters might not agree with.

Michael's relationship with Jody and their children did give the other side some ammunition that they used very effectively, as is reflected in many of the posts here. It could be argued, and was, that he somehow cared less for Terri by virtue of his "new family." That he had "moved on." My arguement in support of Michael would be so much easier if Jody was not in the picture, because I would not have had to fight this straw man instead of the real issues.

This line of thought would have been better supported, however, if he had abandoned Terri in favor of Jody, which he did not do. I marvel that Jody accepted that Michael loved Terri so much that he was unwilling to let his care for her end. She somehow understood his ultimate loyalty to her. I believe that if she had given Michael an ultimatum, "It's Terri or me." Michael would have said, "Goodbye."

I have yet to see how his care for Terri suffered as a result of his relationship with Jody. Certainly, there is no evidence that it did in the myriad of court papers filed by the Schindlers.

It's important to remember, that Michael could have divorced Terri at any time, especially after he met Jody, yet he chose not to. Everything would have been easier for him personally if he had done so. He might have even accepted a million dollars to just walk away, and yet he didn't. And how did he benefit? He didn't, at all. Instead, he chose to carry the scorn of millions of people as he continued to make sure that Terri's wishes, as she expressed to him, were carried out. How unselfish is that?

I have read Michaels book and he tells of a time towards the end when the death threats got to her where she did do something like that. But reconsidered. The book was mostly about how things were from his point of view, not much legal info, but he recommends a book that an attorney wrote about the legalities. I've just moved and I'm not sure where his book is but if you are interested I will send you the title.

I bought my copy of his book from him while I was in Vegas at the convention. He looks much better now that he has had some rest. It was nice to meet such a courageous man, and that is exactly what I told him.

Nightowl

07-05-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
If Michael had divorced Terri he just may have found himself paying for her care for the rest of her life, as in spousal support.

OMG, let's see, so if he's married, he's not responsible for any of her bills. But if he divorces her, he is??? :lol:

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
The doctors won't do kidney transplants after a patient reaches a certain age, I am not sure what it is where you are, but here it is mid-sixties.

The post you responded to said nothing about kidney transplants, so why bring up transplants? Why do you find it so hard to just answer an honest question?

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something that Michael's supporters might not agree with.

Michael's relationship with Jody and their children did give the other side some ammunition that they used very effectively, as is reflected in many of the posts here. It could be argued, and was, that he somehow cared less for Terri by virtue of his "new family." That he had "moved on." My arguement in support of Michael would be so much easier if Jody was not in the picture, because I would not have had to fight this straw man instead of the real issues.

This line of thought would have been better supported, however, if he had abandoned Terri in favor of Jody, which he did not do. I marvel that Jody accepted that Michael loved Terri so much that he was unwilling to let his care for her end. She somehow understood his ultimate loyalty to her. I believe that if she had given Michael an ultimatum, "It's Terri or me." Michael would have said, "Goodbye."

I have yet to see how his care for Terri suffered as a result of his relationship with Jody. Certainly, there is no evidence that it did in the myriad of court papers filed by the Schindlers.

It's important to remember, that Michael could have divorced Terri at any time, especially after he met Jody, yet he chose not to. Everything would have been easier for him personally if he had done so. He might have even accepted a million dollars to just walk away, and yet he didn't. And how did he benefit? He didn't, at all. Instead, he chose to carry the scorn of millions of people as he continued to make sure that Terri's wishes, as she expressed to him, were carried out. How unselfish is that?

The Schindlers did use Jodi to an advantage in the court of public opinion. It didn't work in the court of law. Perhaps one of the most dispicable acts was when a Schindler spokesperson gave out Jodi's personal information to the media.

I think the reason they stuck to the obvious lie that Michael never mentioned Terri's wishes till 98 was to try and bolster that issue. The fact that in testimony in 93 he spoke of Terri's wishes is ignored. Like many facts in this case are ignored.

I think Jodi must be a heck of a woman, she certainly was put thru the ringer. And she stayed in the background. I imagine having her children threatened and called names had to be absolutely horrible and frightening for her.

If the Schindler had a court case like they had a media campaign imagine how different things would have been. But of course, in court there are laws and evidence and facts count. In the media they just told whatever version of things suited them at the moment. And with Terry running the circus, there was no limit to how low, how vile, how evil that would be. jmo

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
A lot to reply to Mecerdes, LOL. First, as for Iyers, no need for the link, I recall some of the story. If a nurse who worked at a hospital where my daughter was a patient witnessed my son-in-law abusing her during visits, or if my son-in-law was lying about her condition, I would certainly appreciate a call from the nurse to tell me what was going on, and I would encourage her to let others know. Would you actually not want to know if your son's wife was lying about his condition and treatment, just because you are not his NOK you still love and care about him don't you? If, the nurse is lying, then of course she should lose her license to practice. I just don't think that every single person who spoke up for Terri, her friends, co-workers and care givers were lying, some hadn't even met, but told the same story. JMO

Thank you Blue for responding. There are rules about these things for a reason. But this isn't my real stumbling block. Iyers says she called the Schindlers and told them these things. Back in 95 and 96. Now are we to believe she called and the Schindlers did nothing? Because if you believe Iyers that is what you have to believe.

And second, the Schindlers broadcast to the media a whole lot of what Iyers said as if it were proven fact. They however didn't mention the fact that included in Iyers information is that fact she called them.

Do you see where her credibility is a huge problem. And the Schindlers? Not to mention that investigations were run and Iyers was not right in what she said.

The Schindlers called her heroic, but then why did they do nothing to help Terri in 95,96 when these things allegedly happened. Why didn't they call her to trial? Because they either knew she was full of BS, or it never happened. I have a problem with someone using lies to promote an agenda and raise money.

I appreciate your answering. Truly, I don't understand how someone reconciles all the things the Schindlers did. I am trying to understand the thinking. jmo

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
Why don't you just go back to playin' the blues?

I never stopped....
Why don't you answer the questions?

Susan43

07-05-2006, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by MercedesV

Thank you Blue for responding. There are rules about these things for a reason. But this isn't my real stumbling block. Iyers says she called the Schindlers and told them these things. Back in 95 and 96. Now are we to believe she called and the Schindlers did nothing? Because if you believe Iyers that is what you have to believe.

And second, the Schindlers broadcast to the media a whole lot of what Iyers said as if it were proven fact. They however didn't mention the fact that included in Iyers information is that fact she called them.

Do you see where her credibility is a huge problem. And the Schindlers? Not to mention that investigations were run and Iyers was not right in what she said.

The Schindlers called her heroic, but then why did they do nothing to help Terri in 95,96 when these things allegedly happened. Why didn't they call her to trial? Because they either knew she was full of BS, or it never happened. I have a problem with someone using lies to promote an agenda and raise money.

I appreciate your answering. Truly, I don't understand how someone reconciles all the things the Schindlers did. I am trying to understand the thinking. jmo

Not only all of the above but she went on TV and repeated all of the allegations, to millions of people. This must be against the medical code. I just can't see how this would be legal.

And Mercedes, wasn't she the nurse that said she fed Terri Jello? It seems to me that since Terri had written orders "nothing by mouth" her signing an affadavid saying she fed Terri would be grounds for revocation of her license.

But the autopsy showed that everything she originally said was lies. All lies. It's just disgusting.

ProxyUser

07-05-2006, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
The statement I replied to: " As far as I know, the only thing wrong with her was old age and kidney failure...........and one can live for quite a long time on dialysis...........I know someone that lived for several years, going to the hospital several times a week to get dialysis while waiting for a kidney." What do you suppose the person waiting for the kidney was going to do with it, make a steak and kidney pie?

Looks like it's about dialysis to me. I wonder why Mr Schindler didn't want his Mom to get dialysis.... inheritance maybe?

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
Iyers could have been lying, I have no way of knowing. But I do know, from dealing with lawyers when I was involved in a friend's very nasty custody battle, that they will tell you when and what to say. Do you think that every single person who told how Michael treated Terri was lying? You didn't answer my question, if it was your son, how would you feel if what the nurse said was true, even though you are not his next of kin?

To answer you, if it were my son I would want to know. And frankly, I don't think Iyers problems were from allegedly telling the Schindlers things. It was stated in testimony that they had been given information all along. Her problems were from going on TV and giving out the information. And there is no excuse for that.

I will say this. If it were my son, and Iyers called me and told me things were wrong, I damn well would have done something. I would not have ignored it, waited several years and used it to make money. Now, that may have broke the rules but that is not what has got her in big trouble. Her troubles stem from the TV interview among other things.

I do not think Michael ever abused Terri. I think he made sure she had excellent care and probably was very demanding of staff. I'm not sure what people you are really referring to. The one friend who testified changed her testimony and waffled on things. She, I believe, was trying hard to help the Schindlers by saying things she thought would help. And ended up hurting things instead of helping. You can't make it up as you go along. jmo

LisaM22

07-05-2006, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Jessie Hylton

I pity those who criticized Terri's parents. They have no clue as to what love really means. Sad.

you have no idea what you are talking about :shrug:

btw, didn't her dad also deny life support to his mom :rolleyes:

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Susan43

Not only all of the above but she went on TV and repeated all of the allegations, to millions of people. This must be against the medical code. I just can't see how this would be legal.

And Mercedes, wasn't she the nurse that said she fed Terri Jello? It seems to me that since Terri had written orders "nothing by mouth" her signing an affadavid saying she fed Terri would be grounds for revocation of her license.

But the autopsy showed that everything she originally said was lies. All lies. It's just disgusting.

Hello Suzy Q how are you.

I'm not sure if Iyers was the jello queen or if it were one of the nurses aides that did affadavits. They had such a load of malarkey in them it is hard to remember specifically which one did it.

I remember the alleged nurse who wrote a blog and among other things said Terri could dance. At least she didn't make that claim under oath. jmo

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
So if any nurse observes abuse or lies, because of the confidentially code they should not say anything?

Of course they should say something. They are required to report it. They have a protocol for that. They cannot get on TV and report it, that isn't part of the protocol. Any abuse observed needs to be addressed and not ignored. Any reputable nurse would do so. It doesn't mean report it to reporters, or make phone calls to whomever they choose. It means report it to the appropriate authority and if need be the police or social services. jmo

Susan43

07-05-2006, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by MercedesV

Hello Suzy Q how are you.

I'm not sure if Iyers was the jello queen or if it were one of the nurses aides that did affadavits. They had such a load of malarkey in them it is hard to remember specifically which one did it.

I remember the alleged nurse who wrote a blog and among other things said Terri could dance. At least she didn't make that claim under oath. jmo

I'm doing OK, just moved so I'm still in a state of turmoil LOL. I hope you had a nice holiday.

I just went and read her affidavit and she wasn't the one that said she had been feeding her jello. So I guess they are just going to get her for the TV appearances.

Here's a link to the affidavit in case you'd like a good laugh.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1006944/posts

Did you watch the interview at Crooks and Liars on Hannity and Colmes? I notice that when she started to say the the police had tampered with her statement they cut her off. LOL I guess that was going a little too far even for that show.

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by jenmito
I noticed. They have a "cut and run" strategy around here. ;)

AKA..... The "lop and lope" strategy...:D

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
FYI, these posts are on every posters hard drive.

FYI... There is a difference between the posts being permanently "saved" on your hard drive, (which is what R-o-S was concerned about)...and Temp Internet Files "on" your hard drive which are not permanently saved and are automatically overwritten in time...

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
He was married and they had a daughter, his wife divorced him and remarried, instead of screwing around and insisting he said "I wouldn't want to live that way". She had a lot more integrity in her little finger than MS had in his whole body. JMO

There weren't just two options...either insisting he wouldn't want to live that way, or divorce... She also had the option of staying married to him...They already had a daughter, so she didn't have the reason of not wanting to be childless, if she stayed with him...

Where is the proof she had more integrity in her little finger than MS had in his whole body? How do you know she left him out of integrity, instead of just abandoning him? How do you know she didn't leave him (despite that little "in sickness and health" thingy) because she wasn't strong enough and couldn't handle it? How do you know she didn't leave him because she was too young to spend the rest of her life in a loveless, affectionless marriage and without basic companionship to someone who wasn't even aware she existed? How do you know she didn't leave and remarry because she couldn't or didn't want to support herself and daughter? Where is the proof that the reason she divorced him was based on integrity, rather than cutting and running?

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
If Michael had divorced Terri he just may have found himself paying for her care for the rest of her life, as in spousal support.

How could he be made to pay spousal support if he was too stupid to keep a job as you have repeatedly suggested...????

Daxxie

07-05-2006, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Susan43

I'm doing OK, just moved so I'm still in a state of turmoil LOL. I hope you had a nice holiday.

I just went and read her affidavit and she wasn't the one that said she had been feeding her jello. So I guess they are just going to get her for the TV appearances.

Here's a link to the affidavit in case you'd like a good laugh.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1006944/posts

Did you watch the interview at Crooks and Liars on Hannity and Colmes? I notice that when she started to say the the police had tampered with her statement they cut her off. LOL I guess that was going a little too far even for that show.

Yep, it was that other nurse, I think actually an aide, that claimed she fed Terri jello. Iyers is the one that claimed that Michael was trying to kill Terri with insulin injections.........her proof was that her sugar levels were so low that they didn't register on a glucometer. Of course, she didn't save the readouts showing this, or the insulin vial she claims to have found, or I guess the police or nursing home staff "tampered" with them. She also made the claim that another nurse was trotting around and offing the other patients.........so I think that her credibility is pretty well shot. JMO

Daxxie

07-05-2006, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by ProxyUser

Looks like it's about dialysis to me. I wonder why Mr Schindler didn't want his Mom to get dialysis.... inheritance maybe?

I've put blue back on ignore......I don't know why I took her off.......put it down to a burst of optimism.

Anyway, yes the point was about dialysis.......my friend (a police officer from Texas, BTW) lived on that quite nicely for several years before he finally received a kidney. The point is that Mr. Schinders mother might have done the same..........but Mr. Schindler made the decision to not go that route.

Now, to be clear, I absolutely support his right to make that decision........what I have a problem with is the hypocrisy that allows him to remove her life support, but then turn around and declare that removing support under any conditions is murder, and against his religious beliefs..........when it would benefit him monetarily to do so. And like it or not, if they had gained guardianship of Terri, they would have also gotten Terri's money. So, he had the exact same motive as Michael did, and some rather large debts to pay off, and from what I've heard, the IRS makes loan sharks looking for repayment seem kind and considerate. So, yes, that makes me seriously doubt his claim of wanting the money to take care of Terri...........that and the fact that when they did have her under their care, they sent her back after just a few weeks because they couldn't handle the amount of care that she needed.

And the question that never gets answered is WHY was it ok for Mom but not OK when it was Terri........in fact, then it was murder.

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by blueberri
Iyers could have been lying, I have no way of knowing. But I do know, from dealing with lawyers when I was involved in a friend's very nasty custody battle, that they will tell you when and what to say. Do you think that every single person who told how Michael treated Terri was lying? You didn't answer my question, if it was your son, how would you feel if what the nurse said was true, even though you are not his next of kin?

You're still completely missing her point! If nurse lyers, called and notified the Schindlers of all the dastardly deeds Michael was doing to Terri way back in 1995 - 1996...WHY DIDN'T THEY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT???? WHY DID THEY SILENTLY ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE FOR YEARS??? If you found out that someone was abusing your incapacitated daughter or son, would you simply keep your mouth shut, do nothing, and allow it to continue for years? The Schindlers were so quick and eager to make false allegations against Michael that they had no way or no one to back them up, why didn't they speak up about this abuse that Carla could have backed up? Why didn't they have her testify in court about the abuse? According to nurse lyers, THE SCHINDLERS KNEW ABOUT THE ABUSE, AND YET THEY DID NOTHING ABOUT IT until 2003!! If nurse lyers was lying, why did the Schindlers, knowingly, start using her false statements in 2003 against Michael and to raise more money?

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 07:52 AM

So some of you can get your facts straight...

Here is a link to Michael's deposition taken on NOV. 19, 1993 in which he states in response to the question,

"How do you determine what she would want?"

18 And her uncle was in a coma for awhile and emerged a man

19 that she never knew anymore. He was disabled. He can't

20 walk. He can't do things for himself. His kids are his

21 Power of Attorney now. We got into discussion about that

22 and she said to me, I would never want to live like that.

23 I would want to just die.

http://www.nevin.net/1993_ms_depo.htm

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 07:57 AM

FOR MERCEDES...

Greer comments about Carla Iyers credibility....

"Regarding Iyer's claims, Greer wrote that they were "incredible to say the least" and that "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15 month cover-up (April 1995 through July 1996) which include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the guardian ad litem, the medical professionals, the police, and believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had Iyer contacted them (in 1996) as her affidavit alleges." To date there have been no records presented to the courts of any police reports filed in Iyer's name."

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by chuckles

Wanna buy a bridge?? :tongue:

Excuuuuuuuuuse me??? Haven't you been posting your little fingers to the bone that Michael never mentioned Terri's wishes until 1998 and have repeatedly denied that he stated her wishes as early as 1993 in a deposition??? Haven't you demanded a link to the 1993 dep?

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by chuckles

er..no..:confused:

But now that you mention it..she was in her conditiion in 1990..three years before this deposition which i don't believe, anyway:shrug:

Originally posted by chuckles

You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Notice no links. When exactly did Michael make Terri's so-called wishes known. Look it up. :shrug:

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by chuckles
Don't pull my plug..I want to live...don't listen to any of my girlfriends especially if my death works out to be convenient for them...

This might seem silly but it is more documentation than Terri left..:shrug:

I can certainly understand why you would be worried about this....
If I were you, I sure would be, too!

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:40 AM

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by chuckles
:lol:

I asked when..look i up..now that gets turned into all that other stuff i never said at all..Figures.. If you don't have the facts on your side..make it up..:lol:

YEP! Just like I made up the list of Terri's physical problems...right? You accused me of making it up or hearing voices... I supplied the link to the autopsy report which backed up what I posted...

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 08:54 AM

Speaking of making things up...

Originally posted by chuckles

He lived in a common law marriage with another woman. They had two kids. If you want to talk "legalese". I believe he is a bigamist who should not have had those rights..:shrug:

There is no common law marriage in Florida...therefore, Michael can't be a bigamist...

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 09:15 AM

Thank you NT for the links and the quotes. I didn't have the information right at hand.

This of course was gone over many times before, and ignored as it will be now. Get accused of making up facts, show the facts, get ignored and attempts to insult.

I guess it is not possible to support the Schindler position with the facts so you ignore them and go back to the same story line. jmo

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by chuckles
:lol:

I asked when..look i up..now that gets turned into all that other stuff i never said at all..Figures.. If you don't have the facts on your side..make it up..:lol:

You seem to make up facts as you go along, or try and pass your opinion off as fact. Each time you say something isn't fact, you have been given the information to show it is a fact.

I asked you earlier, just what is it you think has been said as fact, that isn't a fact? You don't answer that, you just throw out your one liner. I see zero information to back up your claims. Why is that? jmo

Not Telling

07-05-2006, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by MercedesV
Thank you NT for the links and the quotes. I didn't have the information right at hand.

This of course was gone over many times before, and ignored as it will be now. Get accused of making up facts, show the facts, get ignored and attempts to insult.

I guess it is not possible to support the Schindler position with the facts so you ignore them and go back to the same story line. jmo

U R Welcome....:D

You'd think since repetition is a way of learning, the Schindlers would have some geniuses posting here...

MercedesV

07-05-2006, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Not Telling
FOR MERCEDES...

Greer comments about Carla Iyers credibility....

"Regarding Iyer's claims, Greer wrote that they were "incredible to say the least" and that "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15 month cover-up (April 1995 through July 1996) which include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the guardian ad litem, the medical professionals, the police, and believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had Iyer contacted them (in 1996) as her affidavit alleges." To date there have been no records presented to the courts of any police reports filed in Iyer's name."

Yes, this is the part that staggers the imagination. The fact that the Schindlers brought this affadavit into court. The fact they use part of the information to raise money and smear Michael. Treat that as gospel, but ignore the part about them knowing years before. And people buy into it. Or else ignore it as if it doesn't matter. Iyers has no credibility. But what does it say about the Schindlers who try and come across as the moral people. There was no lie they weren't willing to use, especially if it could hurt Michael and put money in their pockets. jmo

Also, I would love some interviewer to ask the Schindlers about this. And see how they explain it.

bigmikenash

07-09-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by ProxyUser
Florida, June 30, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A North Country Gazette exclusive reveals that Florida’s Department of Health has demanded the nursing license and nearly $1700 dollars in fines and administrative costs from a nurse who gave public testimony in the case of Terri Schiavo. This comes at the same time that the Department of Health has dropped action against Michael Schiavo, also a registered nurse, for falsifying his guardianship papers.

License revoked (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06063013.html)

An interview with the prevaricating nurse is also on Crooks and Liars (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/H-C-Nurselosingjob.wmv)

Now that some time has passed since the circus left town, the zealots are starting to be exposed for what they really are. Good riddance. I wouldn't want this "nurse" caring for anyone that I care about.

Maybe Hannity will be next. i wish people would let this case go to the recycling bin where it belongs........shes dead get over it who cares....