Posted on 02/25/2005 10:28:40 AM PST by Hildy
It all ends right here, as far as I'm concerned. If the parents are hopeful, and the husband is not let Michael Schiavo hand over custody to the parents. Let him go on with his life and marry his mistress and make legitimate his children.
But he could have been "off the hook" a long time ago.
What ought to grab you, Hildy, is how much this guy wants someone dead.
Can you really credit the notion that it is out of regard for Terri? Seriously? Then, what else is at work?
Why has Schiavo already planned a cremation?
I'm supposed to respect the same gang of judges that turned Fla into chaos in 2000?
I'm pro-death penalty. I also see no reason to hurry to execution after a verdict. Let appeals be exhausted.
What's the rush?
One doctor disagrees and it is not unanimous, which is what the judges were claiming. Dr. Maxfield and Dr. Webber seem to disagree as well. According to the following article, 14 doctors offered sworn statements that Terry is not in a PVS:
http://www.theempirejournal.com/021005bci_bush_could_intervene_i.htm
The only debate between the doctors is whether she has a small amount of isolated living tissue in her cerebral cortex or whether she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex.Clear enough???
Clear, but untrue. Drs. Hammasfher, Webber and Maxfield disagree. Other doctors were also ready to offer sworn testimony that Terri was not in PVS, but were refused.
None of the doctors claim she has no living tissue in her cerebral cortex. Dr. Cranford claimed that she had no living neurons in her cortex. On cross-examination, he admitted there might be pockets of viable neurons as "a remote possibility", but even he does not describe them as "isolated". Dr. Greer might agree, but if he does, he didn't say so.
Here is the exchange with Dr. Bambakidis on this issue:
8 Q. Now, is there any brain matter left in
9 Terri Schiavo's cerebral --
10 A. Oh, there is. Yes.
11 Q. -- cerebral hemispheres?
12 A. Yes, there is.
13 Q. And, in your opinion, would any of that
14 tissue be glial cells?
15 A. Yes.
That is all. Michael Schiavo's lawyer creates the impression that Dr. Bambakidis is confirming Dr. Cranford's claim that all of the neurons in Terri's cortex were replaced by glial cells, but that is a false impression. What Dr. Bambakidis actually said is trivial, *everyone* has glial cells in his cortex.
Dr. Bambakidis does say that Terri is in PVS, but the court has made a stronger claim, and claims it to be unanimous medical opinion, on the testimony of one doctor.
And they did not go by "the testimony of one doctor."
It was the diagnosis of every Dr who has actually seen Terri over the last 14 years, except for the 2 her parents hired.
I have already said Matt was not lying about the court ruling; although he was telling the truth about what the court said, what the court said was false.
With regard to my quote, you need to read it again, the 40% refers to the cortex.
Please name one other doctor in this supposed debate who claims that Terri has no living neurons left in her cerebral cortex. In the court transcript, I saw no one but Dr. Cranford making this claim. It is clear that Drs. Hammasfher and Maxfield do not believe Terri has just "a small amount of isolated living tissue ... or no living tissue in her cerebral cortex", so the court was simply wrong when it said these were the only opinions doctors hold. I would guess that Dr. Bambakidis does not believe this either, based on the testimony I quoted in #303.
The word "isolated" matters because if indeed her cerebral cortex consisted of patches of living neurons separated by scar tissue, her prognosis would be worse if there were no synaptic connections between cells in different patches. The court seems to be going beyond the testimony offered by its five experts.
The ONLY reason you won your "case" [this travesty of justice] is because your "drone" i.e. Judge Greer, disallowed the testimony in 2000 of Terri's friend who's testimony regarding Teri's expressed concerns about supporting life at ALL turns. The reason? Friviously - because the testifier used "present" tense verbs at times when relaying to Terri's opinion about how WRONG she thought it was that Karen Ann Quinlin would have been taken off life support. Karen Ann was on a respirator. Our Terri is not!!! You and your "Kavorkian" friends WILL NOT WIN this! You have lied, Mister. You know it. Be man enough to not play the martyr! Keep warm with your money!!!
.
Ms. Campbell, the attorney for Terri’s parents in her opening statement she praised Mr. Felos’ opening statement:
Pg.16
20 MS. CAMPBELL: Mr. Felos has already
21 very eloquently and accurately set forth a lot of
22 the history in this case going over the dates and
23 times of the testimony dictated here in the next
24 week. Our differences where we come is as to what
25 the Court will find and also the credibility of
Pg.17
1 the witnesses.
Later in her opening, Ms. Campbell actually admitted the second crucial issue of the case:
Pg.17
12 …We do not
13 doubt she's in a permanent vegetative state.
Mr. Felos did a masterful job of trying the case. During his direct examination of Michael Schiavo for the purpose of establishing a foundation for the later testimony of Michael’s brother, Felos asked about a conversation that took place at Michael’s grandmother’s funeral. This was Michael’s response:
Pg.23
4 …I vaguely remember a conversation that
5 happened, but my brother, Scott, had the
6 conversation. He would know better about the
7 conversation.
Later in the direct examination Michael recounted a conversation he allegedly had with Terri while on a train. They had decided to move to Florida for the warm weather. Terri was supposedly concerned about her grandmother who was ill. Referring to the possibility that her grandmother might be disabled and not be able to care for her son, Michael testified to a statement that Terri allegedly made while they were traveling on the train:
31
1 …She says, "If I ever have to be a burden
2 to anybody, I don't want to live like that."
Michael testified that while watching television, he could not relate any specific time or place, but Terri allegedly again expressed her desire not to be maintained on life support system.
Ms. Campbell did not object to the following testimony although Mr. Felos failed to qualify Michael as an expert witness:
Pg.39
21 Q What is Terri's condition as a result of
22 the incident that occurred on February 25, 1990?
23 A She's in a chronic vegetative state
24 anoxic encephalopathy due to cardiac arrest.
Despite the fact that Michael had taking a course in a community college in respiratory therapy, he was not called as an expert witness. He testimony in this regard was incompetent. Nevertheless, since there was no jury present, presumably Judge Greer did not consider this testimony in reaching his final decision. This exchange between Felos and Michael was followed by a long list of leading questions, and while arguably they were harmless, they were technically improper and Ms. Campbell raised no objections to them.
What followed next was several pages of testimony by Michael that was legally incompetent since he gave medical opinions which should only be permitted for an expert who has been qualified by the judge. Even though Mr. Campbell did not object it is surprising that Judge Greer allowed the testimony. What followed was this exchange:
Pg.45
21 Q Do you know of any treatment method or
22 drug or thing that can be done which will improve
23 Terri's condition?
24 A No. I don't.
25 Q Has any doctor informed you there is any
Pg.46
1 treatment method, drug, or thing that can be done
2 to improve Terri's condition?
3 A No.
Not only did the forgoing exchange between Felo and Michael constitute inadmissible testimony because Michael is not an expert witness, but Ms. Campbell failed to object to the hearsay that no doctors informed Michael about treatment options. If the statement is being offered to prove that in fact there were no other options, the statement is incompetent, objectionable on the grounds that the statement is an out of court statement made by a witness or witnesses who were not under oath and not subject to cross examination. This is a classical example of simple hearsay and this testimony should not have been admitted into evidence.
In her cross examination of Michael Ms. Campbell challenged him on the actual date of the trip to Florida in which Terri allegedly made a statement about not wanting to be on life support, but the dates remained unresolved. Apparently the reason Ms. Campbell raised the issue is to discredit Michael’s testimony. Michael and Terri were living in her parents condominium but the lease was in Michael’s name. What Ms. Campbell hoped to gain by asking Michael why the lease was in his name is not clear, but the first rule of cross examination is not to ask a question if you do not know the answer and have proof to rebut any misstatement of fact. Incredibly when Mr. Campbell asked why the lease was in Michael’s name this was the answer:
Pg.83
6 A Because Mr. and Mrs. Schindler went
7 bankrupt and they could not get credit.
Ms. Campbell in her opening statement promised the judge that she would show that Michael’s testimony would be tainted by a conflict of interest because of his desire to inherit Terri’s money. Not only does it appear that apparently Ms. Campbell did not expect the answer, but the suggestion that Terri’s parents could not get credit and were participating in a scheme was left unexplained. If in fact as Michael testified, he signed the lease under false pretences, Ms. Campbell did not explore that avenue.
Just wanted to reply to all. I hope all of you are hoping that her wishes are being met, and not just trying to fight for what you think is right. I personally could never find a reason to be in that state and have everyone in the world arguing over me. I would rather look forward to Heaven. How can so many religious people fight so badly for ties to this earth? She is only alive due to science and medicine, two of the most inperfect things on earth. It's sad, because our perfect God wanted to make everything perfect for her and let her experience her eternity in pure happiness. We take that away everytime we put a machine on someone. Stuck here on earth, stop being selfish, she deserves what everyone else deserves at that time. Happy memories and a path to the white light. What's next? Cloning? Wait...we are already there. God bless you, God hasn't forgotten about you! Just keep holding on.
That conversation is the clearest indication of Terri's beliefs. Karen Ann Quinlan was in worse condition then than Terri is now, but Terri said she shouldn't be killed.
Judge Greer said “The court is mystified as to how these present tense verbs would have been used some six years after the death of Karen Ann Quinlan”. Judge Greer was confused. He thought Quinlan died in 1976; in fact she died in 1985, three years after the conversation between Schiavo and Meyer. Meyer's testimony should have been taken into account. Terri desperately needs to have a judge look de novo at the facts.
ping
bump for review.
I see God did not answer your prayers and you are pissed.
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.