From MSNBC:
In a victory for Michael Schiavo, a coroner who performed an autopsy on Terri Schiavo reported Wednesday that she suffered from an irreversible brain injury and would not have recovered as her parents insisted was possible. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.
“Her brain was profoundly atrophied,” Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida’s Pinellas-Pasco County, told a press conference. “There was massive neuronal loss, or death. This was irreversible and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.”
“The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain,” he added.
Thogmartin was joined by Dr. Stephen Nelson, who described her condition as “very consistent with a persistent vegetative state,” which is what Michael Schiavo and most doctors had contended was the case.
More here.
****
update: proof that not all self-styled conservatives agree.
Well then I guess he and that slew of doctors were telling the truth after all and he’s not the lying murderous bastard they made him out to be… He’s owed an apology from someone… There wasnt anything ambiguous about her situation.. The doctors knew half her cranium was filled with fluid (not brain).. Maybe George should apologize on national TV…
Hmmm.
The only thing I have to say about this is:
The medical examiner refused to have any family or independent observers during the autopsy and conducted the autopsy alone.
My understanding is that in such similar situations, where there is a great deal of conflict and litigation, that independent and plaintiff’s observers are routinely welcomed.
But now her remains were cremated so there’s no way either to refute the autopsy or confirm it.
Alpha, I think for many it was a question of tests that were not run before her feeding tube was pulled. Much of the ambiguity of her situation could have been resolved (and I will grant that for some it would never be resolved) by simply running a few tests that her husband steadfastly refused to approve. Instead she had to die before anything was confirmed.
This doesn’t get us back into epistemological whatevers again, does it?
I don’t think the President owes anyone an apology, Alpha. I’ll let the constitutional lawyers such as yourself argue about separation of powers and all that. What I saw from Bush was a concern for a woman’s life, regardless of what she may or may not have contributed to society in the future. I’m proud of him for that.
MSNBC describes this as a victory for the husband. I don’t see how anyone won anything. She’s still dead, and he’s still someone I wouldn’t trust with the care of a sick inchworm.
ed,
If I remember correctly, the Schindler family and Michael Schiavo agreed that the state-mandated autopsy was satisfactory to both parties and that independent observer’s wouldn’t be needed. I remember that because I was surprised the Schindler family agreed; I was positive they’d want their own examiner.
That should be “observers” not “observer’s”. I r a college graduate, I swear.
So – I guess she would’ve made a fine second base after all, huh?…
Hmmm.
“I remember that because I was surprised the Schindler family agreed; I was positive they’d want their own examiner.”
They attempted to get Dr. Michael Baden, forensics expert who is often on FoxNews, to be an observer but were refused by the medical examiner.
That’s the last I heard.
Love the email Lopez got. Take all those points together and I’m pretty sure we’d never pull the plug on anyone. Especially if we gave a plug-pullin’ veto to any family member.
You may be right, ed. I quit reading the articles right after she died, but I could swear I read one that alluded to them agreeing.
There was also no sign of an eating disorder. What signs of strangulation would still be evident 10 years later? My guess – none.
The autopsy report said what most everyone thought it would say- she didn’t have a lot of her brain left. It can’t prove or disprove that what grey matter was left was nonfunctioning, though. I think it’s – a tad bit intellectually dishonest to say that this is a “victory” for Michael. That he (and those on his “side”) will claim it as such, was expected.
Oh Christ, not again.
I think the Medical Examiner was wise to allow no third party to observe the autopsy (besides those on his own medical staff). Given the nature of the biases on both sides of the argument, the spindoctors could’ve kept the controversy going in perpetuity.
Is this where someone accuses you of being a Christophobe? I don’t remember exactly how the “debate” is supposed to go…
snort. I’m not going to start up. I’m just gonna ignore this – unless people get in my face telling me that Michael was vindicated. It was an awful event, and I’d like to just forget it.
Let’s list the “victories” for Michael:
1. He was accused of strangling her into this state. No proof of that.
2. He was accused of abusing her while she was vegetative, he didn’t.
3. Her family and supporters claimed she just need therapy. Her brain was half gone, she was blind, and she was never going to get better.
3xVictory = Vindication
JWebb: “.. the spindoctors could’ve kept the controversy going in perpetuity”?
COULD’VE?
Carin, K-Lo, and many others are already finding enough new spin to power a class 4 hurricane.
Biting fingers. I’m done with this subject. I think I have a poopie diaper here to change.
Yay, vindication for me, too! Vindication all around!
Xcept for this – I’m not spinning – the pro-Michael camp is. They declare his innocence is NOW A DEFINITIVE fact. What, when they opened her head, did moths fly out?? No – she had less brain. But given that the brain that was there was … DEAD – how could total non-function be determined??? Plus – I just asked the question – what sign of abuse ten years later could be found? Soft tissue (injuries don’t last long (if such was what one was looking for.) Of course nothing could be found. Duh. It’s spin to say it was NEVER there. Ok. I’m done. I’m just irritated that I’m being accused of spinning.
I don’t understand why the pro-tube crowd demanded an autopsy so loudly and blasted Michael’s decision to have Terri cremated as an attempted cover-up. Now that the autopsy has been performed the crazies dismiss it as fraudulent and the rest are saying it proves nothing since PVS can’t be determined post-mortem and evidence of decades-old abuse would have faded.
If you get irratated at accusations of spinning then stop spinning.
My sentiments exactly.
So this autopsy shows that the claims made by over the top righties to accuse Michael of spousal abuse and murder had no medical evidence to support them, but it’s not a victory for him because the autopsy didn’t definitively disprove those groundless accusations? And if you think otherwise it’s intellectually dishonesty? OK.
Jeff G, I call out from my digital grave to say that you are a MORON!
– The Ghost of Irascible HundredPercenter Toady BetteAnne
I’m gonna stop watering my houseplants. It’s what they want, take my word for it. When they die I shall declare victory. Postmortem examination will reveal that I did not uproot nor over-prune them. Vindication!
Understand where I’m coming from. I have never accused Michael Schiavo of putting Terri Schiavo into the state she was in. I think the weight of the evidence favored a PVS diagnosis. I never thought she was going to get up and walk out of the bed; I wondered whether she might be able to swallow on her own. And I was unconvinced that her wishes were known with as much certainty as so many have claimed.
But I am also suspicious of the media, which reported time and time again that this woman had a heart attack caused by bulimia—both conclusions that are not supported by the report.
I think it’s best to try to read the report itself to reach one’s conclusions. From the brief skimming I have gotten to do, I didn’t get from the report that it “backed” the PVS conclusion. It looked to me as though the report said it couldn’t come to a conclusion on that issue, because such a diagnosis has to be made while someone is alive. However, the state of her brain was (while not “liquified” as many had claimed) not encouraging.
My quick read indicated to me that the report certainly provides evidence that Michael Schiavo did not abuse Terri Schiavo, although the evidence appears to be mostly contemporaneous medical documents rather than anything learned through the autopsy itself. Anyone who accused Michael Schiavo of causing her condition (I never did, myself) should acknowledge this.
Also, the finding of cortical blindness appears to contradict a lot of the claims of Ms. Schiavo following objects. (Does the report say when the blindness set in?)
Jeff, your “Christ, not again” comment to Carin seemed unnecessarily rude. Some of the things she said (e.g. there would not be evidence of strangulation 10 years later) are straight out of the report. I almost hesitate to mention that because I don’t want people (like your cretin friend whose name I won’t speak) falsely accusing me of accusing Michael Schiavo of abuse. I’m not saying that. But take the report for what it is, not what the media might make out of it.
I don’t really want to get into another full-fledged Schiavo debate; just noting a couple of thoughts.
Plantophobe: if your houseplants were previously a golden retiever, now rendered houseplant-like due to severe brain injury, I say go for it. It’s not like they’re gonna play fetch very well anymore anyway, no matter how much therapy you give ‘em.
Patterico— My “Christ, not again” comment was directed at the idea of revisiting the entire debate yet again here in my comments section, not to any person in particular.
I quoted the story with no editorial comment. If such actions brand me as rude, so be it. I’m a jerk.
Jeff,
Gotcha. I had interpreted it as “oh no not another wingnut” response to Carin, whose comments didn’t seem to merit such a response. I agree with her that there’s spinning going on, though obviously both sides are doing it.
I think Bill from INDC has it just right. This report doesn’t settle the moral debate. But it should (for those paying attention and willing to see reality) put to rest some of the more outlandish factual claims. All I’m saying is, let’s not overstate what the report actually says, especially based on Big Media reports.
“Gotcha”?
Howsabout, “sorry I jumped to conclusions and accused you of being rude”?
Nevermind. Skip it. I’m over it.
Sorry I jumped to conclusions and accused you of being rude. I’m used to people being emotional about this issue and very dismissive of people who disagree with them; I’ve experienced a lot of that today from your pal who is predictably off lying about me on other blogs (and will no doubt be by here soon to do the same). Your comment read to me like you were bagging on that lady. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. Apologies.
I’m not spinning. I’m changing a poopie diaper.
Well, not to interrupt the half-her-brain-proved-gone-finding glee but look at the other findings. No evidence of strangulation—as already mentioned, soft tissue injuries ten years old are hard to prove so really no proof either way. No evidence of eating disorder—OK. No evidence of heart attack—all my medical training is from Bruckheimer TV but I thought a heart attack left evidence always. Where’s the heart attack the hubby avowed led to the tragedy? Anyway this autopsy interests me most because there’s no evidence that *anything* caused half of this brain to disappear. Anyone here interested in that? And BLT, I’ll celebrate the death of my houseplants as I damned well please thank you. No these plants never barked or pooped on my lawn but they did cause my ex-girlfriend to smile and feel all warm inside and she did enjoy tending to them. I never got that about her so good riddance to all of them. I see no reason for outside interference as there is no slight chance that pro-abortion nor anti-abortion forces will feel threatened and endeavor to extend influence.
My “Christ, not again†comment was directed at the idea of revisiting the entire debate yet again here in my comments section, not to any person in particular.
If you don’t want a fire, don’t provide the tinder.
In case anyone’s wondering, that was how I took it, and what I was agreeing with in my previous comment.
“If you don’t want a fire, don’t provide the tinder.”
Okay, you’ve got your wish, Pappy. This site is now defunct.
Carin:
The autopsy determined not only the size of the withered brains (it’s a paired organ, like lungs and kidneys, you know), but also found that the remaining cells were what they call “glial” cells, not neurons. I’m assuming this means that there were no longer any spark plugs to make the engine turn over.
And as for trauma, I’m not sure but I think they looked for skeletal damage and found none.
I don’t want to rehash the case again, either; but I am glad that Michael has been vindicated. It’s as close to a happy ending as this sad case is likely to have.
I was in the “a pox on both your houses” camp back in the day, but I have to say that the we-were-right-to-starve-her glee fest strikes me as a little unseemly.
Well, I have no glee about Terri dying. I am happy that the “Michael Schiavo is evil and shouldn’t get a say” crowd got proven wrong.
That she was never going to get better was the closest thing to a happy ending we could get. So it’s not glee for me, it’s relief.
Okay, you’ve got your wish, Pappy. This site is now defunct.
No, no. I’ll go ‘defunct’. Why ruin the half-time show because I’m marching out of step?
Turing word: closed. Appropriate.
To clear up some medical things:
She didn’t have a “heart attack” or myocardial infarction… that’s typically the result of an acute arterial blockage in a coronary vessel, and would have been clearly visible on autopsy (even 15 years later). She did have a “cardiac arrest”… typically caused by an arrhythmia (a rhythmn disturbance), in her case reportedly brought on by hypokalemia (low potassium). Some Bulemics make themselves vomit so much that they can literally deplete their body’s stores of potassium. Very high and/or very low serum potassium levels are both equally notorious for producing life-threatening rhythmn disturbances… nearly-fatal in her case.
The post-mortem path report on her brain simply backs up the rest of the less-invasive testing done while she was alive; MRI would have added nothing. She had massive cortical atrophy and a flat cortical EEG, ie. there was no electrical/neuronal activity in her cerebral cortex. She may have had some glial cells left (glial cells are simply support cells for the neurons and don’t otherwise provide any function), but the neurons were dead.
Note: her entire brain wasn’t dead, otherwise she wouldn’t have been breathing. Even so, realize that breathing, heartrate, blood pressure, etc are all brainstem functions… everything above that (sight, sensorimotor functions, ability to initiate movement, any consciousness) was gone.
No matter what, she’s still dead, Michael’s still an ass and I’m not sure how much you can really learn about cause of death 15 years later. I’m not convinced he didnt have something to do with her demise but admit thats speculation without any evidence. Its the old “he seems like a shit, he acted like a shit, he must be a shit” mentality.
Personally, I’m ready for this issue to hit the road and keep walking.
Also, Jeff you seem to be unusually caustic the past few days- I think your stint at smalldeadanimals has embittered you =x
I hesitate to add this, since the above seems like a well neigh perfect last comment. But not so much that I won’t.
I didn’t, and don’t, doubt that the PVS diagnosis was right, or close enough. I didn’t, and don’t, think Michael Schiavo was responsible for Terri’s PVS. But I will begrudge him, till I forget his name, his spending fifteen years fighting his mother-in-law in court, to have her child put down.
I don’t see her cremation as a big cover-up, just another thumb in the eye to Terri’s mother. I don’t claim to know why he’s bent on hurting her, but I can’t see a resonable, unmalicious, explanation for his behavior.
Of course. I was refering to TheNewGuy’s comment, when I called it well neigh perfect as a last comment to this thread. Matt’s comment is fine, just not the one I meant. Shouldn’t have assumed three hours dormancy meant the thread was dead (and therefor safe for me to comment in). Is there a lesson in that? No.
p.s. YOU FLAMING CHRISTOPHOBE!!! WHY DON’T YOU JUST MARRY A MAN AND OPEN AN ABORTION CLINIC?!
”…not again!”, said the guy that brought it up.
Yes. Because if I hadn’t linked to it with no editorial comment after following the story when it was in the news before, it WOULD NOT EXIST.
I AM TO BLAME!
Y’all got no idea when to quit. Jeff linked to the autopsy results, thinking this would settle the argument to the satisfaction of both sides. Then he found out he was wrong, there are some wing-nuts out there that will believe Michael Schiavo is a death-loving wife beater no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
So just keep pushing buttons. I’ll make sure to come after you when Jeff takes 18 months off again.
But where is
[url=”http://www.hundredpercenter.blogspot.com”]
100r;s[/url] take on this outcome? The happy-go-lucky link dumper seems too busy with geeky IT stocks to trouble himself with Terri anymore.
Mr. Moore,
Fuck you, and your straw-man, too. Did I call him a death-lover? Did I call him a wife beater? I did not. I don’t believe either of those accusations. Do I believe he spent fifteen years bravely standing up for his wife’s wishes? No, I don’t. Do you? How many years would you fight your mother in law to have her child put down? What would it take to make you do it for fifteen years, if you were sure that your wife, in her current state, couldn’t care? Literally, was incapable of caring? As for coming after me; well, I’m your huckleberry.
Hey Matt and Hubris,
My ass could use a good licking, so drop by when you finish up here.
Do I believe he spent fifteen years bravely standing up for his wife’s wishes? No, I don’t.
Why not? You think he instead spent fifteen years trying to knock her off for no good reason?
How many years would you fight your mother in law to have her child put down?
If they interfered in our private concerns trying to disrupt my ability to do what I thought was best for my wife? As long as it damn well took.
What would it take to make you do it for fifteen years, if you were sure that your wife, in her current state, couldn’t care?
A sense of honor, perhaps. Love. Or of believing or knowing that it is what she would want, perhaps. We humans are funny like that.
Were I in Terri’s state, no hope of recovery, not “there” at all, I hope my wife would be allowed to pull the plug and get on with her life.
Tell me, when you die, do you care if we just dump your body in the city dump and let birds peck at it? How about we plastinate you and turn you into a pin-the-tail-on-the-commenter game? Or do you want something more dignified… even though you’ll be gone?
If you don’t mind, forget I asked; most of us are different.
Horseshit.
I think he must have had a good reason to spend fifteen years in the way he did; you and I aren’t privy to it.
Every part of my body worth anything at my death will be donated to anyone who has any use for it. But, if I can arrange it, I’ll have my cock sent to you for sucking.
Horseshit.
I think he must have had a good reason to spend fifteen years in the way he did; you and I aren’t privy to it.
We’re not privy to it, and yet you say “horseshit” to my suggestions? I’m sorry that love or honor or concern or caring apparently are “horseshit” to you. Must be quite the life you lead.
Every part of my body worth anything at my death will be donated to anyone who has any use for it.
Unless your parents decide to get in the way.
But, if I can arrange it, I’ll have my cock sent to you for sucking.
Fantastic! I’ll send you a penny to cover postage!
If her parents had gotten their way, her organs might have been harvestable at some point. The noble and honorable way in which she was put down, however, prevented that.
What sort of honor is it, that makes a man fight his wife’s mother in court for fifteen years? You’ve already posted how keen you are to have your wife put you down, if you’re severely and permanently brain-damaged. Would you want your wife to fight your mother for fifteen years over it? Is that the sort of thing you’d hope your wife would inflict on the rest of your family, even if it truly represented your last wish, and even if the rest of your family was misguided? Would you even ask your wife to spend fifteen years of her life in that way?
Save your penny; you can come by right now and suck it.
The funniest part of this whole autopsy discussion is John Patrick (“Patterico”) Frey’s playing the victim. This is the guy who said Mike couldn’t be trusted to make an end-of-life decision for Terri because he had a financial confict with her being alive, and now he’s running around pretending he never said it.
What a poser.
AND I EXPECT YOUR COCK-SUCKING TO BE CARING AND HONORABLE, BUSTER!
Ah, damn it. Sorry, Richard Bennett. Wasn’t directing that at you; I have to start refreshing right before posting.
Is that the sort of thing you’d hope your wife would inflict on the rest of your family, even if it truly represented your last wish, and even if the rest of your family was misguided? Would you even ask your wife to spend fifteen years of her life in that way?
If she felt is was important enough to her and to me, yes. If not, why should I bother even making her executor of my estate and the one in control of my care according to a living will? Why should I give a shit about much of anything, since I’ll be dead?
Sorry, that’s really what your entire position boils down to; we’ll have to agree to disagree.
And, do stop by, wee little pincers are at the ready.
I also realized that it would have been better to make the penny joke and then say there would be postage leftover for your brain, but, oh well, the moment is gone.
Hey, bokono, I wasn’t talking to you, so how ‘bout you tone down the vitriol. You kiss your cousin with that mouth?
If you are married to a woman for whom you have any affection, you couldn’t possibly want her to spend fifteen years that way. If you have no affection for her, but any for your parents, you wouldn’t want her to spend fifteen years that way.
I won’t argue that fine Christian (etc.) burrial is no more honorable than becoming dumpster-vulture feed. I don’t think that’s what was at stake here. What was at stake was an emotional crutch for a family with misplaced hope. Do you suppose Noble Mr. Schiavo takes so much pleasure in having had that crutch knocked out from under the Schindler family as you do?
I invited you by to suck me off. You don’t respond directly to my invitation, but insist that I come to you if I want to come on you? You sir, are no gentleman.
Stoopid me, misinterpreting “Y’all”. I don’t kiss my cousin, at all, I AM IGNOBLE, DISHONORABLE, UNCARING, AND UNCONCERNED.
AND MY COCK AND BRAIN CAN BE SENT THROUGH THE MAIL FOR LESS THAN A PENNY!
Y’all meant those that were pushing buttons, mainly Munger. Seems perfectly reasonable that y’all could mean “every commentor above this point.”
Actually, no it doesn’t. You’re an ass.
AN IGNOBLE, DISHONORABLE, UNCARING, AND UNCONCERNED ASS, WHOSE COCK AND BRAIN CAN BE SENT THROUGH THE MAIL FOR LESS THAN A PENNY!
Thanks for helping. Any more?
And now the time has come for my apologies. First to Jeff for making this comment thread uglier than it needed to be. Second to Matt Moore, who is obviously right; you could have been more clear (I don’t think “y’all” can be expected to obviously mean “mainly munger”) but you didn’t need or deserve my vitriol.
I regret nothing I wrote to andy, only the place in which I wrote it, which wasn’t mine to pollute.
“The funniest part of this whole autopsy discussion is John Patrick (“Patterico”) Frey’s playing the victim. This is the guy who said Mike couldn’t be trusted to make an end-of-life decision for Terri because he had a financial confict with her being alive, and now he’s running around pretending he never said it.”
Bennett can’t open his mouth without lying. *Sigh* Here we go again. Provide your link to prove your lie, or shut the fuck up.
As always, you have none, because I still believe the guy had both financial and emotional conflicts that made him an unreliable witness to her wishes. So I wouldn’t deny saying that, because I still think it.
Which is not the same as saying what you claimed at Dean Esmay’s blog. You falsely claimed:
This was a bald-faced lie. You know it, and I have repeatedly challenged you to retract it or prove it, and you have retreated into contortions about how I might have once linked an article that referred to the possibility. Meanwhile, you conveniently omit the numerous times that I have made it clear that I never made the claim that you so clearly and explicitly accused me of making.
While I initially found it annoying that you have repeated this lie so often, I am starting to enjoy this. See, your lies are documented, as is your ignorance. Everywhere you repeat lies about me, which are so provably false as this one, I can just provide the link where you lied about me and wouldn’t take it back. And people learn about you.
You know what you are, Bennett? You’re my HundredPercenter. And you have exactly as much credibility as that guy. And people are starting to realize it.
Good.
I’m going to look to Jeff for wisdom on this, since he knows what it’s like to have someone going around the Internet lying about him.
Jeff: what is the best response to that sort of behavior? How did you handle HundredPercenter—and how would you handle it differently (if at all) now?
Paddy, you played the Little Green Footballs game of serving up a nasty link and letting the commenters rip it up like so much raw meat, and you made no effort to moderate them. You linked to a series of articles by Nat Hentoff claiming Mike had beat Terri into a coma after reciting your litany of charges against him, essentially to the effect that he killed her for money. Against that allegation, the fact that you did or didn’t *explicitly* endorse the articles by Hentoff you linked has very little significance.
You may as well accept the fact that you’ve blown your chance for a political career over this issues, and you’re not going to recover it by trying to blame your intemperant character on me, you sad bastard.
Oh, no! Whatever shall I do, now that I have blown my chances for a political career?!
Your lack of links to back up your story pretty much speaks for itself. No need to rehash it all here. It’s thoroughly covered in the Dean’s World link I gave above, for anyone who cares, which I can’t imagine that anyone does. The key fact is that when I demanded a specific link from you, you gave a link to this post of mine, in which I said:
(Emphasis added.) That was your support for the assertion:
Nice evidence. Exactly the opposite of what you claimed.
Richard Bennett: liar? HundredPercenter? CHRISTOPHOBE? You be the judge!
Sorry Paprika, but you’re not Jesus. He died a long time ago and you’re (unfortunately) still with us.
The quote you supplied is a fine illustration of the lawyerly way you smeared Mike Schiavo.
Here’s a fun exercise. Let’s complete Paprika’s sentence:
I have never made that argument ______________________.
a) but I believe it.
b) because I’m afraid of being sued.
c) because others have done it better than I can.
d) because I prefer to use even more vicious slanders against the dude.
e) because I’m a pussy.
f) (your choice)
I’m sure Jeff appreciates having his bandwidth used for this. And I’m sure his other commenters are equally thrilled.
You brought it in here, scumbag.
Can’t we all just get along?
Why sure, everybody likes me and I’m easy to get along with, being a real easy-going guy who’s tolerant of everybody’s point of view and all that. But when it comes to the whispering campaign that these toads are waging against Mike Schiavo I have to draw the line. Just today the imbecile Jeb Bush announced he’s got a DA to open an investigation into Mike’s conduct on the night that Terri’s heart stopped, so the harassment continues. I hold those involved in the whispering campaign responsible for this.
How noble. And that justifies lying about people. Gotcha.
Reading between the lines isn’t lying, moonbat, it’s interpretation.
Mr. Bennett,
If he (1)never said it, and has (2)repeatedly said, since you started accusing him of having meant it, that he didn’t mean it (as evinced by his never having said it), and (3)now prefaces everything he says saying he doesn’t mean that, when does it stop being ‘reading between the lines’ and start being an unhinged vendetta?
Why are so many people who take your position so insistant that every person who doesn’t, secretly thinks that Michael Schiavo murdered his wife? What is that? If you want to have that fight, why don’t you have it with someone who deserves it? Are you just picking on the biggest name willing to engage you?
Patty launched an attack on me in his post on the autopsy, before I’d even commented on it; I’m just pushing back.
There is no need to speculate that Patty “secretly” believes that Mike killed Terri – he’s admitted as much in his “conflict of interest” language where he accuses Mike of doing it for the money.
His position is plain to see, even in the statements he’s posted here. He’s just one of many thugs piling on the innocent Mr. Schiavo, not particularly noteworthy except by his fanatic devotion to playing the victim.
You’ve been shown the facts, make up your own mind about it. I will grant you that his prose is sufficiently defensive and opaque that others may interpret it differently than I have, but I’m comfortable with my exegesis of the text at hand.
I don’t have it in me to play forensic detective, but I read the 10,000 word thread over at Dean Esmay’s from three months ago. I can understand why you’d still hold a grudge: I hadn’t heard of andy till yesterday, and I kinda want to rape and kill him. Anyway, no victims, only volunteers, and all that; I know I’m one.
I don’t know how to respond to “conflict of interest”=murder motive. Perhaps it’s shabby to point out that Mr. Schiavo stood to benefit (in a paltry way, IIRC) from his wife’s finally dying. But unless Patterico really is a code-speaker, that’s not an accusation of murder.
I don’t think it’s sufficient to say ‘close enough’ when accusing someone of murder, or when accusing him of accusing someone else of it. We agree, it seems, on the first point, but not on second. Anyway; your fight not mine. But would you do me a favor? Don’t call him Paddy, again. I don’t know if he’s Irish, and I don’t suppose you meant it as an Irish slur, just a variation on his name? Still.
I can understand the Irish not wanting any association with John Patrick (“Patterico”) Frey; I wouldn’t either.
It’s a little psychotic that Bennett thinks it bothers me for people to know my real name. I just had a piece published in the LA Times that had both my real name and my blog name. Does that sound like I’m trying to hide it? Yet he goes around announcing it everywhere with the pride of an infant who just pooped in the potty for the first time.
By the way, Richard, I go by Patrick. If you really want people to recognize my name, leave off the John. People who know me won’t necessarily recognize my name with it.
bokonon42, I appreciate the voice of reason. It’s kind of appalling that anyone actually waded through that Dean’s World thread. But it’s not surprising that someone who actually did would understand why I believe this man has made a false accusation.
Since you brought it up, my main point in pointing out Michael Schiavo’s financial (and emotional) motives is to show that the court, which was required to determine her wishes by clear and convincing evidence, should not have given much weight to his claims regarding her wishes, which were revealed only after Schiavo had collected on the judgment. I do think the guy is capable of being a heartless jerk, as evidenced by his behavior towards the family: not allowing them to be present when she died, hiding the location of the interment of her ashes, etc. To me, the main relevance of this is that it frightens me to think that the court gave weight to testimony from someone like that. If you think that pointing that out is “shabby,” so be it. But that’s my take, for what it’s worth.
I can’t believe we’re still discussing this . . .
That will probably do it for me. Lie away, HundredPercen—er, Bennett . . .
Oh: the fact that I’m outta here means I’m slinking off with my tail between my legs. That’s what Bennett the Psychotic always says when I get fed up with endless threads. But you know that—you read the Dean’s World thread.
I’m a kind of appalling person. 8^)
I understand your point about the money, or I think I do, at least. If there were some reason to suppose he particularly needed what was left of her estate, or if her estate were substantial, this would be a more compelling argument.
No explanation of Michael Schiavo’s behavior yet, makes sense to me. And I’m an appalling person; he should be right in my wheelhouse. There’s something missing, and it’s bad enough for both sides, that neither side put it out. People don’t spend fifteen years in court fighting about things like this. There are parents who never get over losing children–who just don’t accept it. So the Schindlers make a sort of sense. But Mr. Schiavo just doesn’t. Greed doesn’t make sense; murder cover-up doesn’t; HONOR, CARING, and CONCERN don’t.
Anyway, I don’t know to whom I’m talking, if you’re leaving too. Plus, there’s Jew-baiting on the top thread!
I don’t see that Michael’s motives or purpose are in any way complicated or underhanded. He loved Terri enough to marry her at some point in his life, and when she fell into the PVS it became his responsibility to see that her life came to an end in the manner that she would have wanted. He was opposed by her parents and siblings, but it’s obvious that none of them is playing with a full deck. So he had to dig his heels in to keep them from steamrolling him and what he was trying to do for Terri. And when they got the scum of the earth involved in the case, and they started smearing him on national TV, he got a little testy with them. It’s a natural human reaction. And BTW, he passed on some pretty lucrative financial offers to turn the custody over to the parents, one from a Gloria Allred client for a cool million bucks.
The motives that warrant questioning are those of the scum who’ve sought to profit by smearing him, and we all know who they are.
Perhaps Michael’s ultimate plan is to enrich himself by winning about a thousand defamation suits. If that’s the case, he’s earned every penny and more power to him.
I agree with Richard.
Oh shit, I agree with Richard Bennett. But really, I do. Why is it so hard to imagine that Michael actually loved his wife and that this is what she would have wanted?
Because he spent fifteen years doing it, knowing just how the rest of her family felt about it. No matter how certain he was that his wife wouldn’t have wanted to live, it is out-of-this-world bizarre for anyone to spend fifteen years in court, fighting his mother-in-law over it.
TS wasn’t being tortured, or left in the open for vultures. It isn’t particularly dignified to sit in a hospital bed being catastrophically brain-damaged, I suppose. But weigh what might possibly be gained by putting her down, against the absolutely certain misery her family would suffer because of what would be required to have her put down. He didn’t make a resonable choice.
Ooh! I know, I’ll pose a super-cool thought experiment. Suppose you’re 25 and in a PVS. You have two choices: (1)spend forty years in that state, completely unconscious, not capable of boredom, and in no pain, or (2)spend only fifteen years that way, but know that your husband and family will go through exactly what the Schiavos and the Schindlers have.
Who picks number two? It seems likely that TS wouldn’t have wanted to live in a PVS–most people don’t. But I don’t believe she was so opposed to being permitted to live that she would authorize the nuclear war her family had with itself.
I thought about it, over a cigarette, and decided–suprise!–my thought expirement wasn’t fair. Ignore it, and suppose this instead: you’ve been in a PVS for fifteen years (making this impossible, but let’s suppose your having a one-time-only moment of magical coherence). Your family has been fighting over what to do with you for ten-ish years and the fight is almost over. You never wanted to live in a PVS, and you still don’t. Your husband has made a life with a new woman, but is still fighting tooth and nail to have ‘your wishes’ honored. Your parents haven’t gotten over your PVS, as no one should expect they could have; they look at your body and still see you. Who do you want to win? If your husband wins, you get what you wanted. If your parents win, they get what they want (and you have to assume that they benefit by getting it; that they’re comforted), without any quantifiable damage to you. Who do you want to win?
I included the point that the husband moved on not because I begrudge his having moved on, but because I think it’s a fair point to consider, here. He has a new life. He has kids, and a common-law wife, and all the trappings of a fine new life. The parents don’t; and whether having a daughter in a PVS is empirically preferable to having one die (I’m not convinced, but what does that matter?) they’ve convincingly shown which they’d prefer.
Anyway, my point is, I don’t think Terri Schiavo in particular, or any normal person generally, so opposes living in a PVS that she would wish on her family what was required here to spare her having to. And I don’t think that a normal man would spend fifteen years in court fighting his mother-in-law to see to it that his wife’s wish (so important to her that she never commited it to paper) be honored, in the face of the destruction and agony doing so required.