Even your cited evidence does not support the charge. The bone scan may show some kind of injury, but it does not show how it occurred.
Don't be so sensitive. It was not an accusation, it was a heads up. As in, if Michael Schiavo wanted to sue you for falsely accusing him of a crime, he could. And to assert truth as a defense, you'd have to prove the crime. Not the injury, mind you, but the crime.
I wouldn't worry too much about Michael suing. That would mean all the evidence he is suppressing would have to be brought out and looked at in the light of day.
A few things lugsoul: A 1991 Bone Scan report conducted by Dr. Campbell Walker, MD, showed thirteen fractures and listed "repeated trauma" among the text within that report. Terri Schiavo was initially diagnosed as having a "Stiff Neck" at the time of her entrance into Humana Hospital. Dr. Hammesfahr, a board-certified neurologist listed "possible strangulation" in 2002 as the reason for Terri's neck injury, which is permanent, Lugsoul. Michael Schiavo, litigious enough to sue Terri's gynecologist for millions of dollars, never uttered a word to anyone for over a decade in the 1992 malpractice trial nor anywhere else concerning that bone scan report. An innocent Michael would have shouted this report from the rooftops! So, you see, Lugsoul, also, last November, Michael's lawyer filed a protective order, barring ANY discussion of said Bone Scan report by Dr. Walker. Schiavo had the report, Schiavo concealed the report, and he's STILL attempting to hide that report!
A dozen years after the lawsuit in 1992, a doctor starts asking some questions. Bulimia, causing a heart attack, depriving Terri's brain of oxygen was the cause of her injuries? At least Grimm's Fairy Tales usually have a happy ending. Terri's teeth were never acid-eroded, Lug, Terri never had muscle cramps, Lug, Terri's potassium was out of whack, but so were a bunch of other levels. Do a little research, Lug, look up who the defense attorney of Pru was: Yes, John Charles Lenderman, name ring a bell? As in, John Charles Lenderman, Greer benchmate, as in husband of another Lenderman, on the board of Suncoast Hospice? This story stinks to holy high heaven!
This country allows for its citizens to sue for just about anything, so yeah, Schiavo could ostesibly sue someone, or perhaps file a class action suit against who knows, half the free world, that regualarly discusses this sleazeball. Unfortunately, if our hero Michael Schiavo is idiotic enough to file a lawsuit for libel or slander, protesting statements made about him all over the nation by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, he would be in an interesting position. In order to prove slander or libel, the burden of proof falls on the accused bringing action to prove the statements untrue. At least the records would need to be discussed. You see, opinion is opinion, Lug, and the public is not a court of law. Within a court, certain rules need to be followed, like a person is always innocent until proven guilty. When you have such blatant and obvious judicial activism, cronyism, bias, and favoritism as in this case, when foolish decisions by a judge not fit to decide what color wallpaper should go up in his living room let alone allow oral and unsubstantiated statements to pass for "clear and convincing" evidence, when you see how flawed of a history that this judge has, how he sent a woman to death because of his faulty judgement, well, the public doesn't have to wait for a slick, cadaver-chasing lawyer to find loopholes for his client and the law, in order for the public to know that something is up.
I would assume that if the ACLU is latching on to the FREEREPUBLIC, it is no surprise since the ACLU is defending Michael's lawsuit against the state of Florida. I suppose that they want to keep their client looking clean.
There isn't enough Dawn Detergent and Lysol to get the smell of fish off this guy.
Did you even read the few words you quote? Who is defamed? Who was accused? There is no name. Nobody is accused of anything.
While we're at it, what kind of crime was it?
This, from a law definitions web site: "Defamation definition – an intentional false communication that injures another person’s good name or reputation."
I added the italics to emphasize these two tests: A) It has to be intentionally false, not just "false," which is a different argument. A view that is merely mistaken is not defamatory. Akin to the Sullivan rule, there has to be something like malice at work -- intent to falsify and harm. B) It has to cause injury. If Michael Schiavo claims to be the unnamed person in the above quotation, and sues, he still cannot point to any real injury.