Posted on 03/27/2005 9:22:01 AM PST by First_Salute
The bone scan report
A copy of the March 5, 1991 bone scan radiologist's report, is part of the parent's lawsuit introduced in federal court, dated August 30, 2003. This bone scan report is available as a JPEG document, here, at terrisfight.org, and also here, at the Christian Communication Network.
Here, also, is a text version of the report; copied from "Exhibit 'A'" of that August 30, 2003 lawsuit:
3/5/91
BONE SCAN
Indication: Evaluate for trauma
Procedure and findings: Multple gamma camera images of the
axial and proximal appendicular skeleton in the anterior and
posterior projections were obtained, following 21.1
millicuries of Technetium 99m HDP. There are extensive
number of focal abnormal areas of nuclide accumulation of
intense type. These include multiple bilateral ribs, the
costovertebral aspects of several of the thoracic vertebral
bodies, the L1 vertebral body, both sacroiliac joints, the
distal right femoral diaphysis, both knees, and both ankles,
right greater than left. Correlative radiographs are
obtained of the lumbar spine and of the right femur which
reveal compression fracture, minor, superior end plate of L1
and shaggy irregular periosteal ossification along the
distal femoral diaphysis and metaphysis primarily
ventrally. The patient has a history of trauma, most
likely the femoral periosteal reaction reflects a response
to a subperiosteal hemorrage and the activity in L1
correlates perfectly with the compression fracture which is
presumably traumatic. The presumption is that the other
multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous
trauma. Additional possibility would be neoplastic bone
disease, widespread disseminated infectious bone disease or
multiple bone infarcts from abnormal hemoglobin.
CONCLUSION
Multiple areas of abnormal scintigraphic accumulation some
of which are radiographic for differential as discussed
above.
W. Campbell Walker. M.D./mjt
Dictated 3/5/91
Transcribed 3/5/91
The bone scan report "translated into plain English"
From Dr. Walker's deposition of November 21, 2003, available in total, here, at hospicepatients.org, and also, it was posted, in complete, raw form, here at Free Republic, on February 3, 2004. In raw form, the document is quite long, so I edited out the bulk of the legal-layout and reduced the overall size to these excerpts, which still leaves a lengthy page, but it is much more revealing of Dr. Walker's thoughts about the bone scan. The excerpts:
DR. WALKER'S DEPOSITION-----11/21/2003
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY
PROBATE ACTIONIn Re: The Guardianship of
THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,
Incapacitated,
FILE NO.: 90-2908GD-003[snip]
EXAMINATION
BY MS. ANDERSON [for Robert Schindler]:[snip]
Q Explain to these lay ears what a bone scan is.
A Okay. The patient is injected with a small amount of a radioactive material which acts the same as calcium and phosphate and bone. So metabolically this material exchanges with the normal bone material. So the body thinks it's the same as bone material and processes it the same way as bone material. And wherever there is an increase in bone turnover in the skeleton, this material will go as would normal bone material.
Q Bone turnover, what does that mean?
A Well, the cells of your bones are always being exchanged. The calcium is being absorbed and then redeposited. That's a normal thing. And that gives us a normal background pattern of activity on a bone scan. If the bone is abnormal, then it often is involved in abnormal bone turnover. Either lots of bone is being removed and not too much is being put back or, on the other hand, more bone is being deposited than is being removed. So it's a dynamic process.
Q Is the bone scan then done over a period of time? You take a series of images?
A Well, no. It's pretty much done all at once. You inject the patient, you wait three hours typically. And that may be variable for different institutions, but three hours is typical. And then you place the patient under the imaging camera, it's called, and the radioactive material is slowly decaying and giving off radioactive particles which are detected by this camera, and that's recorded on film.
Probably I should say at this point to clarify also, there are different kinds of imaging cameras. At the time that this was done, you couldn't fit the whole body under the camera all at once. So the images -- you do record several images over a period of a few minutes, one that has the head and neck typically, the skull; another that has the shoulders and rib cage; another that has the pelvis and hips; another that has most of the legs.
It wasn't customary when you had to do those multiple images to include the hands or sometimes even the forearms and sometimes not the feet. So I want to clarify that. There are other imaging systems where you can get the whole skeleton in there from head to toe and then you have all the bones.
[snip]
Q Okay. At the top right under the date appear the words "Bone Scan, Indication: Evaluate for trauma."
A Correct.
Q What does that line indicate?
A Well, in the best of all possible worlds when we are asked to produce an imaging study, there's a question that's been asked for which we are being asked to provide an answer. And in medicine there are many, many different questions that can be asked, and the examinations are tailored to answer those questions. And the report we want to tailor to bring up those possibilities which would most likely relate to the question that's being asked.
So if somebody comes in with a history that says "closed head injury," belongs to Dr. Carnahan, for example, who's a known rehab doc, and the indication that was given to us is "evaluate for trauma," then our mind-set is to look for those things that are most likely related to trauma and to possibly give some additional possibilities if we don't see something that fits what we expect.
[snip]
Q Okay. "These include multiple bilateral ribs." What would that mean to you?
A Well, you know, there's left ribs and right ribs. And that would mean that more than two ribs on each side were involved.
Q Would it necessarily mean that the first rib, left and right, as opposed to the first rib on the left side and say the fifth rib on the right side?
A No. There wouldn't be any meaning of that nature. Typically if it's one or two ribs, we'll actually specify, you know, rib approximately the second on the left. If you have large numbers of areas of activity, then it's superfluous to label each one in the report. And we would say "multiple."
Q And by "bilateral," you mean on each side of the sternum?
A It would be, yes, on each side of the body's midline.
Q Right. What does the word costovertebral mean?
A That's where the posterior part of the rib joins the spine. The rib on each side comes out from the spine and joins the spine by an articulated joint. And so that refers to where the ribs butt against the spinal vertebral bodies.
Q "Several of the thoracic vertebral bodies, the L1 vertebral body, both sacroiliac joints." These are all areas that were abnormal on the scan?
A That's what this indicates, yes.
Q "The distal right femoral diaphysis," what area of the body is that?
A That would be the right leg, the upper part of the right leg.
Q Distal?
A Above the knee.
Q Okay. What is the diaphysis portion?
A That's the shaft of the bone.
Q And distal is?
A Away from the center of the body. So that would be near the knee part of the leg, the upper leg. Femur is the upper leg.
Q So on the thigh bone above the kneecap but not involving the joint?
A That's what that particular thing says, but I think somewhere in there also, it mentioned that both knees --
Q Right. Right after that.
A Right after that. So that's different from the knee activity.
Q And, "Both ankles, right greater than left." Those are two additional areas that showed up as abnormalities on the scan?
A That's correct. Correct.
Q Okay. "Correlative radiographs are obtained of the lumbar spine and of the right femur which reveal compression fracture, minor, superior end plate of L1 and shaggy irregular periosteal ossification along the distal femoral diaphysis." And what is that next word?
A Metaphysis.
Q "Metaphysis primarily ventrally." What is the metaphysis?
A The metaphysis is that portion of the bone which is closer to the joint than the diaphysis. The diaphysis is the shaft, and then the metaphysis is a continuum from the diaphysis to the epiphysis, which is just below the joint.
Q Now, that sentence contains a reference to "correlative radiographs." What are radiographs?
A Those are typically called x-rays.
Q X-rays. So in addition to the bone scan, the nuclear imaging, you also did x-rays?
A That would be what would be indicated by this report, yes.
Q Would that have been a step that you would have taken had the bone scan been normal?
A We do not normally do x-rays of normal bone scan areas.
Q Are x-rays done to provide additional information to what you have seen on the bone scan?
A Correct.
Q Is it of a confirming type of information?
A It refines the diagnosis.
Q What kind of information does the x-ray give you that the bone scan does not?
A Well, the bone scan is based on the body's metabolism.
Q Okay.
A And an x-ray is a shadow of the bone at a given moment which doesn't involve metabolism. It's just a picture.
Q Now, because of the sentence structure, I'm not sure if there is a single compression fracture at L1 or a second compression fracture also in the femur.
A What this says is there's a compression fracture of the lumbar vertebral body at L1 and an additional radiographic abnormality, irregular periosteal ossification along the femoral bone. Periosteal ossification is not a compression fracture. It's a different kind of abnormality.
Q And the ossification referred to in the femur is primarily ventrally?
A Ventral is that surface of the body related to the belly. Ventral is belly. Dorsal is back.
Q So it was on the front side of the femur?
A Correct.
Q The abnormality was?
A It would be on that side facing closer to you if the patient was standing in front of you looking at you.
Q Okay. And by "shaggy irregular periosteal ossification," you are speaking there of the information you got from the bone scan or from the x-ray?
A The radiograph.
Q What does that word "shaggy" refer to?
A It's just a descriptor like the shaggy dog.
Q Just means that the ossification is not --
A The opposite of smooth.
Q Would you draw any conclusions from that how old the ossification was?
A You could say that it wasn't real old, because typically, as we mentioned, the bone is a dynamic structure, and it's constantly being remodeled normally. So the body tends to take away extra bone eventually to remodel it to look like normal bone. So typically old bone injuries are remodeled so that eventually they may almost disappear, particularly in young people. In the very young, a fracture you won't even see in three or four years, it will be totally erased.
Q By "young," you mean?
A Say a six- or eight- or ten-year-old. As you get older, the bone remodeling process slows down, and so those injuries may persist for longer and longer times, but it depends on the individual too. But I would say it would be more recent than less recent; same with the bone scan.
Q In an adult female in her twenties, would a bone fracture be capable of being aged by a radiologist? In other words, could you look at an image of a fracture and say is it a new fracture or an old fracture?
A I would have to refine that to say that the bone scan actually gives you more information on fracture age than a plain radiograph. A plain radiograph may give you some gross indication of age.
Q If this patient were to today have a bone scan, would there likely be traces of these abnormalities in her skeleton?
A It would depend on the cause of the abnormality.
Q And that brings us to the next sentence in the report, which is, "The patient has a history of trauma." What likely led you to that conclusion?
A As I mentioned before, the indication "evaluate for trauma" and the history of closed-head injury and the fact that Dr. Carnahan is a rehab doctor who typically works with patients who have been severely injured and need to be rehabilitated.
Q Anything else?
A Not that I could speculate on at this point in time, no.
Q Then you go on to say, "Most likely the femoral periosteal reaction reflects a response to a subperiosteal hemorrhage." Would that be a bone bruise?
A Correct.
Q Leading to ossification?
A Correct. The periosteum is a fibrous layer that covers the bone, and blood vessels run underneath that. And in certain kinds of trauma, blood accumulates between the bone surface itself and that fibrous periosteum and displaces the periosteum away from the bone. And then the body repairs that by putting more bone there to replace the blood.
Q To bridge the gap?
A Yes. Under the periosteum, the body lays down more bone, so that makes the cortex of the bone thicker. And that's what that periosteal reaction is.
Q Is that an unusual phenomenon, in your experience?
A It's the body's normal way of repairing the bone.
Q Did you see it frequently when you were practicing?
A Yes.
Q In what kinds of situations?
A Well, trauma and also in bone malignancies. The body attempts to repair the malignancy also by adding new bone to it. And in certain metabolic processes, the body also puts down new bone. So it's fairly common skeletal response to a lot of different diseases.
Q Then you go on to say, "And the activity in L1 correlates perfectly with the compression fracture which is presumably traumatic."
A That's what it says.
Q In other words, the x-ray confirmed the L1 fracture?
A The x-ray shows an abnormality at L1 which happens to correspond with the abnormal bone turnover on the bone scan at that point.
Q What is a compression fracture?
A It's a loss of the mechanical structure of the vertebral body along what we call the end plates of the vertebral body. And the end plates are those portions that are adjacent to the cartilages that separate each vertebral body, the cartilages being the body's shock absorbers.
Q Is this compression fracture, then, in common parlance, a broken back?
A Yes.
Q Is there any way to tell how old that fracture would be?
A Well, as I've alluded to, the bone scan gives some suggestion of that.
Q More recent rather than less recent?
A Correct. Typically in trauma the rule of thumb is that a traumatic fracture is not active on the bone scan after 12 to 18 months. That's the typical rule of thumb. Now, bodies being very variable, there's a lot of variation there, but that's the typical rule of thumb. So if a fracture shows up active on the bone scan, then one makes the presumption that it is relatively recent; i.e., within 18 months.
Q And after that, it becomes relatively undetectable on the bone scan?
A If it's a simple fracture not related, say, to a malignancy and if it is given the opportunity to heal, then, yes. Typically after 18 months you'll see that it's getting so inactive that you may not pick it out. So let's say you did a series of bone scans on an individual who had a simple fracture. Typically the bone scan won't be active in the first 24 hours because the body hasn't had time to start turning over the bone there to make the body repair. So the first 24 hours, you won't see anything typically on a nuclide bone scan. And I qualify that because there's other kinds of bone scans now.
Q Right.
A Then from one day to some period of time, it gets increasingly intense activity as the body lays down more and more bone. Then once the repair work is fairly finished as to laying down the bone, then the body starts to remodel that repair work to try to make it look like normal bone again. So it starts taking away some of what it's laid down.
Q Sloughing off?
A Well, it actually just resorbs it. The cells of the body -- each individual cell picks up a little bit of that calcium and takes it away. So you'll have, then, a declining activity phase as the body does that remodeling. And at some point the body decides that that's all it's able to do for that particular spot, and then the activity will typically return to normal background.
Q So the skeleton is sort of a work in progress?
A It's always turning over, yes.
Q The report goes on to say, "The presumption is that the other multiple areas of abnormal activity also relate to previous trauma."
A That's what it says.
Q And, again, that's based on the fact that Dr. Carnahan is a rehab physician, that you were asked to evaluate for trauma?
A And the pattern of activity is fairly typical of multiple traumatic injuries of relatively recent origin.
Q I realize you can't assign a cause to these injuries that you picked up in this report. But typically in your experience, what would be the causes of this pattern of abnormality?
A In somebody her age, an auto accident is by far the most typical cause.
Q Assume that she was not in an auto accident but that she had suffered an anoxic or hypoxic encephalopathy type of injury from a cardiac arrest and had been bedridden for a year at this point. What might account for these abnormalities?
A In my knowledge, that type of injury would not account for this pattern of abnormalities.
Q Now, the last sentence says, "Additional possibility would be neoplastic bone disease, widespread disseminated infectious bone disease or multiple bone infarcts from abnormal hemoglobin." Those are all other possible diagnoses to rule out?
A Correct. We typically give what we think is the most common explanation for what we see based on the information that we're given and the pattern of disease that we see, and then we'll throw out some other possibilities in case the clinical picture doesn't fit because we rarely know anything about what happened to the patient. I mean, we're peeking through the keyhole of the patient's clinical condition. So we tend to throw in a few other things that might be something to think about.
Q Might account for?
A We don't attempt to be exhaustive because there is a list of probably 30 or 40 things that could cause abnormal bone scans of this wide nature. And because the body is very variable, nothing is ever classic, which is why attorneys make such a good living at malpractice, because nothing is ever typical.
Q Nothing is ever perfect either, is it?
A Yes. I had to throw that in.
Q Thanks for doing that. Do you recall ever having a conversation with Dr. Carnahan about this patient?
A No, ma'am.
Q Now, your conclusion is, "Multiple areas of abnormal scintigraphic accumulation some of which are radiograph for differential as discussed above." What do you mean "radiograph for differential"?
A I think that sort of got butchered in the translation there. But what that attempts to say is that there are radiographic correlatives for some of the bone scan abnormalities.
Q And scintigraphic accumulation just refers to the tracer action in the skeleton?
A Correct. Scintigraphy is another word for nuclear imaging.
Q Have you done bone scans on other bedridden patients?
A I'm sure that I have.
Q Now, are you just given the images to read?
A Yes. We're just given the images. We do not typically see the patient.
Q Okay. Would you typically have called the referring physician to report this type of an abnormal bone scan?
A No. And further, when I do call a physician, it's my custom almost exclusively to annotate the report that it was called. But we typically only call for life-threatening, unexpected findings. And bone-scan abnormalities are not typically considered to be life-threatening abnormalities, particularly ones of this nature. If I saw a bone scan on a hip that was positive in somebody that we were worried about a hip fracture, then I would call, because that has implications for treatment. You don't want them walking around. You want the orthopedics to evaluate them. But in this case, no, I didn't feel that that was an emergent, life-threatening condition, so I would not have typically called it.
Q If you look at the bottom of Exhibit 2, which is probably a better copy in some regards, you see there's some notation down there in handwriting?
A Yes. I see that.
Q It says "Mediplex," and I can't read the rest of it.
A It looks like it says "Mediplex 3/91." And then I can't read the remainder of it either.
Q Is that your handwriting?
A No.
Q Do you know what that would have been put on there for?
A It might refer to the transcription department sending the report. That would be my guess, but that's just speculation.
Q Would it have been unusual, then, for you to have called Dr. Carnahan and say, "Hey, I've got this bone scan over here"?
A It would be very unusual if I didn't make a note on here. And I would normally dictate in the report, the report was called in to Dr. Carnahan at such and such a time on such and such a date. So I would not say that that was called.
Q Since you and I chatted the other day, have you had occasion to look into heterotrophic ossification?
A Yes, I have.
Q And is this bone scan consistent with what you have learned about that condition?
A I'm not sure I understand the format of that question.
Q Okay. Is this a pattern of heterotrophic ossification as reported in the literature that you looked at?
A Not typically.
Q What makes it atypical?
A Well, if I were to pick one thing, I would say the activity in the ribs is not typical. And typically heterotrophic ossification occurs around the joints because they're not being moved. And typically you will see on the radiographs calcium deposits actually sitting there. And they don't look like periosteal reaction typically either; they have a different appearance.
Q The periosteal is where the membrane that covers -- I guess that's the periosteum. Right?
A Right.
Q That covers the bone, separates from the bone?
A Correct.
Q And then calcium ossification occurs between those two?
A Correct, right. And heterotrophic ossification usually involves the actual joint and the anatomic structures in and around the joint.
Q Can you say, then, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty whether this bone scan is consistent with heterotrophic ossification?
A In my knowledge, it's not consistent with heterotrophic ossification as I typically see it.
[snip]
EXAMINATION
BY MR. SWOPE [for Michael Schiavo]:[snip]
Q And your report indicates that a compression fracture at L1 was noted on the radiographs, and Dr. Durrance's report shows no evidence of fracture.
A Well, I think that's simply explained in that this is a radiograph of the right humerus, whereas that compression fracture was in the vertebral body of the spine. So they don't involve the same area. This is the arm.
Q So this x-ray report relates to her right upper arm?
A That's correct.
Q So he's saying he didn't see any evidence of a fracture in her right upper arm?
A He's saying not only did he not see any evidence of a fracture but that the soft tissues are, quote, intact, yes.
Q Now, Deposition Exhibit 4 is an x-ray report which indicated Steven Ricciardello.
A Ricciardello.
Q Are you familiar with Dr. Ricciardello?
A I am.
Q What kind of a physician is he?
A He's also a diagnostic radiologist with a specialty in neuroradiology.
Q And his report indicates, as far as the left knee conclusion, "no acute injury," and right knee conclusion, "no acute injury."
A Correct.
Q And the date on that report?
A 2/05/91 is the date on the top on the right, which would suggest that was a date that this study was obtained. And 2/8/91 is the date below the signature line which suggests that that's when it was either dictated or transcribed.
Q Okay. Now, Dr. Ricciardello's indication that there is no acute injury in either of the knees is consistent with your findings and is not inconsistent with your findings on the compression fracture of L1. Correct?
A That's a -- I don't understand that question.
Q Okay. His indication that there is no acute injury on either of Ms. Schiavo's knees, that's consistent with the radiographic report that you issued on March 1991. Correct?
A I would have to say no, that's not consistent, because the bone scan shows that there is activity at the knees of some type. The bone scan can't be more specific than that because it doesn't show anatomy. Now, I don't know if this right-knee image included the area that we're talking about as the periosteal reaction or not. I don't know whether that includes that area or not. And the other problem with this is that these are obtained portably in the nursing extended-care facility, and these quality x-rays are typically of bad quality, "quality" being a misnomer here. So the fact that this doesn't even describe periosteal reaction doesn't surprise me, because that's a subtle finding that you probably would not expect to see in this radiograph but that I would expect to see in a hospital-based radiograph because of the different equipment and the different techniques. So this -- except to the extent that it doesn't show a big fracture -- is fairly meaningless.
Q Okay.
A I think it probably is -- it doesn't show any calcium in the joints, which you would expect to see with heterotrophic ossification. It does describe osteopenia. But, again, osteopenia is a loss of bone substance, which is a fairly judgmental call on a radiograph and depends a lot on the technique too. Osteopenia is, however, something typically seen in someone who is bedridden because the body tends to put more calcium in areas that are stressed. And if you're bedridden, your legs are not under any stress anymore, so the body tends to take some of the mineral away from those areas. So the osteopenia is consistent with someone who is bedridden. Beyond that, because I know the quality of these films because I read them at that time too, I wouldn't make a lot of judgment call on those.
[snip]
Q Do you know Dr. Alcazaren?
A The name is familiar. I don't know him personally.
Q Do you know what kind of physician he is?
A I believe he's also a rehabilitation physician.
Q Would you take a moment to read the contents of his affidavit?
A Certainly. Okay. I read it.
Q In that affidavit, Dr. Alcazaren gives his interpretation of the radiologist's report dated March 5, 1991 of the bone scan as an indication of "heterotrophic ossification, not trauma." Do you see where it says that?
A Yes, I do.
Q Would you say that Dr. Alcazaren's opinion is consistent with yours or inconsistent?
A Again, this document was produced by a physician whose area of expertise is not identical with mine. His findings are based again on clinical findings. He's not an imager. I'm not a rehabilitation physician. So I would not be able to comment on the significance of that except to say, again, that the bone scan is not typical of heterotrophic ossification. They're saying that the clinical findings, which are entirely different, may, in fact, be consistent with that. And I can't make a judgment on that because I'm not a clinician.
[snip]
Q Okay. The bone scan and radiographic report shows only one fracture. And that is a compression fracture to L1. Correct?
A Well, I should clarify that by stating that not all of the areas of bone-scan abnormality were imaged concurrently. Okay. And that's important. In other words, we didn't x-ray every area that was hot on there. A couple of typical areas were imaged but not all. Of those areas that were imaged, the only area that showed what was a clear fracture was L1.
Q Okay. So of the documents that you had the benefit of reviewing, the only fracture that showed up was a compression fracture to L1?
A You're speaking of the documents at the time that this was interpreted?
Q Correct.
A Yes. That's correct.
Q The radiographs did not show any fractures of the right femur. Correct?
A They don't show a typical fracture. They show periosteal reaction, which could be the result of a bone bruise, which is a bone injury that's not a loss of continuity of the structure of the bone. So to the extent that you define fracture as a loss of structural continuity, then, yes, that is an actual fracture as is typically described.
[snip]
Bump.
The media will ignore this, but if they were to try to explain it, they'd say that being beaten to a pulp or being strangled is "peaceful, even euphoric."
What a world. God help us all.
Added to 'Terri Bookmark Mountain'. FReegards....
http://www.freerepublic.com/~arthurwildfiremarch/links?U=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepublic.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F1371774%2Fposts%3Fpage%3D7
Fear of the abuser, is so many times covered up by the many stories of the abused, such as, "Oh he was just playing around;" and other clever fabrications of the abuser's allies.
Bump.
Bump.
Terri will be immediately cremated. I am certain Felos has a black van idling near his "hospice," so that she can be wisked away before the death is announced, and before any supoena from the state can be served for autopsy (would that Jeb has any testicles in this area).
And for extra malicious spite, her ashes will be placed in Pennsylvania, 1100 miles from her real family.
WHAT DOES TERRI'S BONE SCAN MEAN?
(enlarged view available at codeblueblog)
"It is my opinion that the most likely reason for these bone scan findings in March of 1991 is that someone either was physically abusing Terri or they dropped/mishandled her severely."
OK, someone with legal or law enforement expertice:
If Terri dies, can MS be prosecuted for murder, or is he off the hook because the tube removal was court ordered?
Thanks for posting this. Everyone should take a look at this evidence. Prepare for this to turn into another "night of the living trolls" thread, however :(
How could Greer et all ignore this?
Can't Michael be charged with felony domestic violence immediately, and have his guardianship revoked???
That would be criminal court, and Greer is Probate court. If my husband did .01% that to me, he would be in jail, I am confident.
He could, if DCF were actually allowed to investigate.
And yet, Jeb and the DCF couldn't find their way around a mere county probate judge to save her.
Thanks for the ping.
In light of the Bone Scan and other damning evidence out there, there is sufficient material for probable cause of conspiracy to committ murder which also happens to be under Federal Jurisdiction.
Both gov Bush and Prez Bush have proper authority to go in and secure Terri's safety as a material witness until the charge is sorted out in criminal court later. Serious criminal charges such as attempted murder always trumps any civil or family court rulings.
If the Bushes stands by and do nothing, their names will enter into the Hall of Shame for eternity.
Yet, if Jeb Bush can rescue the body, it would probably reveal enough bone stories to pursue.
"Terri will be immediately cremated."
He also said that the chief medical examiner for Pinellas County, *****Dr. John Thogmartin, had agreed to perform an autopsy.******* He said her husband wants definitive proof showing the extent of her brain damage. Michael Schiavo contends his wife told him years ago she would not want to be kept alive artificially under such circumstances.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=3&u=/ap/20050329/ap_on_re_us/brain_damaged_woman&sid=84439559
????????? You might want to consider the propaganda your swallowing hook line and sinker?
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.
