Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
As to the Larry King Live interview, you misread that the same way you miread Michael's testimony and his interview with Keith Olbermann. Earlier in that same Larry King Live interview there was this exchange:
"KING: If she's not in pain and the parents want her to be alive and you're no longer involved, so what? Why not keep her alive?"
"M. SCHIAVO: Because this is what Terri wanted. This is her wish."
So, believe what you will.
From the same interview:
KING: Do you understand how they feel?
M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want...
Your own source in The DAILY HOWLER is a hostile editorial (blog), and the writer is far from expert in the case. TDH warned you, right in the masthead: "Caveat lector." That means, "Let the reader beware." You don't do fact checking in a partisan broadside.
For instance, it says, "What are the two Americas? If you read the Washington Post, you read about a woman who had a heart attack and suffered brain damage in the process..."
This writer and the Washington Post are 100% wrong on that -- a point that could easily have been checked. That in turn gives them a false -- indeed untenable -- view of what happened to Terri in the first place. Terri never suffered a heart attack -- which was known at the ER in 1990. It was, of course, confirmed in the autopsy fifteen years later. Her heart was still fine. Hammesfahr got it right.
Look at the two lines you underscore. The first says, "She never pulls it off [responds] again, or anything remotely like it." The second admits that, yes, she did pull it off again. Judge Greer says he saw at least a "few actions that could be considered responsive..." The two statements you underscored actually contradict each other. Perforce, one of them is wrong.
And look again at the second line you emphasized: "The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions."
"Few"? How many is that, from this person who meticulously "counts"? How many responsive actions did a medically untrained, blind, biased judge see? The fact that he admits to any is remarkable. It is what lawyers call "an admission against interest." Here again, from Greer himself, we hear that Terri did indeed respond to sound. He played the responses down, in keeping with his own persistent bias, but he couldn't deny them.
>> Terri was deaf. Terri was blind. She could no more comprehend what she was hearing than she could follow a balloon with her eyes.
-- Greer admitted she wasn't deaf, and this conforms to heaps of medical records, anecdotal evidence and sworn testimony. You said earlier that Cranford said she was deaf. I don't recall that he did and find it puzzling. Let's check the facts.
-- Her supposed blindness is an open question. It need not be controversial. Hammesfahr and, if I recall, Baden found her to be severely sight-impaired but not blind. The M.E. asserted she was cortically (not optically) blind, which is an untestable opinion. If he was right, the difference can still be explained by extra cortical damage by dehydration. If he was wrong, she wasn't blind.
-- What she could comprehend, you most assuredly do not know, nor does anyone else. Science has no tool to determine that.
>> You are either ignorant of the facts of this case or you believe I am. Either way, you're making a mistake.
I was misinformed on one point, admitted it, and thanked you for the correction. We all make mistakes, and those of who seek the truth must be grateful to those who call errors to our attention. I call attention to your mistakes in the same spirit.
I know, of course, but they should be treated with courtesy and accordingly to the rules of this forum as long as JimRob allows them to be here.
They never seem to realize that they are personal representatives of, and salesmen for, the philosophy they espouse. The more they trash-talk, the more repulsive their view is to all observers.
And a biased judge selected whatever he wished. This is kid stuff. The whole thing was flagrantly dishonest.
In any event, Judge Greer's court is adjourned in the matter. His authority is no more. You routinely base the bulk of your arguments on Greer rulings and on an extremely dubious claim of due process in the case. But that's looking backwards. To cite Greer at this point is to beg all the questions. The question today and for the futre is not how he ruled (which we all know), but did he rule rightly? Most of us here believe that he did not.
In any case, and regardless of any individual's wishes, it is George Greer and his rulings that are in the docket now, in a much more rigorous court -- the court of history. The questions will not go away. The legal fictions and chicanery will melt away. He can't be excused forever.
Two things. One, where's your source(s)? You have yet to provide anything but your biased and incorrect opinion. Perhaps if you provided a source rather than repeating the gossip you hear you wouldn't make these simple "mistakes" to begin with.
Two, is the information contained in this "hostile" editorial incorrect? If so, address it. If not ... well, you know what to do.
"Here again, from Greer himself, we hear that Terri did indeed respond to sound."
He does not! He says he saw "a few actions that could be considered responsive...". A few actions that could be considered responsive. He didn't consider them to be.
177 commands and questions, and there were "a few" actions. That's your proof that she could hear. Get serious.
"Her supposed blindness is an open question."
God, you're funny. Terri's blindness is an open question, but Judge Greer's "blindness" is a fact. I'm done with you. This is like arguing with a child. You have no facts whatsoever -- all you have is rumor, gossip, innuendo, lies, distortions, and character assassinations.
And you don't care! You just vomit these accusations without thinking. It's natural to you.
Get some facts. Comment on your own links for a change. Until then, you add nothing.
"God, you're funny. Terri's blindness is an open question, but Judge Greer's "blindness" is a fact. I'm done with you. This is like arguing with a child. You have no facts whatsoever -- all you have is rumor, gossip, innuendo, lies, distortions, and character assassinations.
And you don't care! You just vomit these accusations without thinking. It's natural to you."
Yep. Evil and antagonistic.
Tell me tomorrow. The death of Al-Zarqawi is enough good news for today.
YOU APPROVE!?!
You're not calling this murder? What if it turns out that he was on life support in that safehouse? What if he was on a feeding tube? Would you still think it's good news?
It looks like our troll omitted that from the evidence. Reminiscent of what Judge Greer did.
No, he went a step further than that. Name me another case that reflects his last ruling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of the nutrition and hydration tube from the Ward, Theresa Marie Schiavo, at 2:00 p.m. on the 15th day of October, 2003.
February 25, 2005
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration, from the Ward, THERESA SCHIAVO, at 1:00 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.
If you don't get it, the change in the nutrition and hydration order from Greer included anything oral as well. Some folks call that murder.
I apologize Twit for leading you astray on that video. Your last sentence is still correct however. Here is the REAL Dr. Cranford video that shows him talking to Terri and acknowledging her responses.
Here is where I think she went blind Twit.
"Here now was a person, who for thirteen days had no food or water. She was, as you would expect, very drawn in her appearance as opposed to when I had seen her before. Her eyes were open but they were going from one side to the next, constantly oscillating back and forth, back and forth." - Fr. Frank Pavone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640705/posts?page=16#16
Yes, Twit would support Adlof Hitler if he was on a feeding tube. The only person you are trying to fool is yourself at this point.
Investigating this, I came across numerous references to Dr. Cranford doing essentially the same thing in a different video -- with Terri being able to track visually. That is doubtless where the confusion arose. Incidentally, Dr. Hammesfahr criticized Cranford for issuing commands to Terri much too quickly. Brain-damaged patients process information slowly. Cranford didn't give her enough time. For all that, Terri did respond to both audio and visual stimuli from Cranford. Not bad for someone who's blind and deaf
It turns out that other brain specialists studied these videos and offered their professional opinions. I read several of their depositions saying that Terri was responsive and showed some higher mental function, and that she was not PVS. There are many more to read. I think I should quote some of those, but not now.
I'll get to your video shortly. Thanks for posting it.
Sure it meant something, that is why Paulson didn't post it for us : )
Dr. Cranford gives her a voice command, though she can't hear, to follow a light with her eyes. But this woman is blind! Does he think she can hear and SEE? It is batty.
"...You see that, don't you, huh? You do follow that a bit, huh? ... OK, that's good!"
Dambetcha. Adlof was Adolf's lovable and blameless cousin.
I won't know the answer to that until Paulsen sets us straight.
Opps, I forgot to ping you to #298.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.