Skip to comments.Reborn (Schiavo supporters may have been right.)
Posted on 09/16/2006 8:44:44 AM PDT by Jawn33
Perhaps the last word should go to Pat Flores, the mother of George Melendez, the 31-year-old coma patient who reassured his parents that he wasn't in pain after taking Ambien, as zolpidem is known in the US. He was starved of oxygen when his car overturned and he landed face down in a garden pond near his home in Houston, Texas, in 1998. "The doctors said he was clinically dead - one said he was a vegetable," says Pat. "After three weeks he suffered multi-organ failure and they said his body would ultimately succumb. They said he would never regain consciousness."
He survived and four years later, while visiting a clinic, Pat gave him a sleeping pill because his constant moaning was keeping her and her husband, Del, awake in their shared hotel room. "After 10 to 15 minutes I noticed there was no sound and I looked over," she recalls. "Instead of finding him asleep, there he was, wide awake, looking at his surroundings. I said, 'George', and he said, 'What?' We sat up for two hours asking him questions and he answered all of them. His improvements have continued and we talk every day. He has a terrific sense of humour and he carries on running jokes from the day before.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
The whole purpose of the hearsay rule is to prevent the misreporting of statements made by those who cannot be present in court to testify and be subject to examination by the parties' attorneys and the court.
The rule looks not to the speaker, but to the person whose statement is being reported. It doesn't matter that Michael Schiavo was a party to the litigation; his out of court statement was not in dispute. I suppose you could argue that Terri Schiavo was a nominal party, but she was not present or available to testify. Therefore her statement could not be explored or challenged through her examination by the lawyers and the judge.
So the "admission of a party" exception to the hearsay rule doesn't apply here.
Am I? Or am I forcing you to look at the fact that Terri wanted this and her parents were going to disregard her wishes?
Yes, this is a sore subject for a lot of people. I for one am glad that Florida law makes it very clear who can, and cannot, make these decisions. With all of the appeals through all of the state and federal courts, this had to be the most reviewed case on record. Amazingly enough I only found one time where a decision was overturned on appeal. Seems to me that the legalities where all covered very carefully. So statements that "there was other evidence" is pure bunk.
Michael had already "moved on". He was sleeping with another woman out of wedlock and had children with her.
Oh, you mean the woman that the Schindler's introduced to Michael, encouraged him to date, regardless of the fact that Michael was still married to their daughter? -Traveler
How do you know Terri wanted this?
is that all your worth? 78 bucks?? :)
kinda too late to say "Schiavo supporters may have been right" at this point. There are no winner in this situation. That actually is a ridiculous thing to say.
It was good testimony. It did not have the stench of interest that tainted the Schiavos' testimony. It was not limited to Terri's family, but included her friends and her priests. And, it made sense. After all, Terri was a practicing Catholic who believed that taking her own life was a sin. She did not have a suicide wish.
It was Scott and Joan Schiavo's testimony that is open to the suspicion of lawyer tampering. Scott admitted under oath that the didn't recall the long-ago and long forgotten memories of Terri until he had had a personal meeting with George Felos. Joan Schiavo also met with Felos before having miraculous memory recovery.
Starving and dehydrating an otherwise healthy patient who has close relatives willing and able to care for them is despicable and evil.
You say Terri wanted to be starved to death, but the only one who said so was Michael.
This is the man who was heard by a nurse to say "When is this bitch going to die?"
Now if I believe Michael that Terri said she wanted to be starved to death years after the statement, why shouldn't I believe the nurse days after Michael's statement?
Hearsay works both ways, and that's why it isn't good evidence.
Since Michael's statements are not good evidence, the court should have decided that erring on the side of life was the prudent course.
He parents would have responsibility for her and Michael could be off living his own life.
No, Michael's own testimony. Heaven knows, we've published it often enough.
Wolfson is a biased source, and proved it lavishly by his appearance at a death cult meeting at the University of Pennsylvania. He shared the dais with Michael Schiavo, Dr. Ronald "Humane Death" Cranford and Judge Greer -- all the heavy hitters (except Felos) on the kill-Terri team.
bjs1779, do you remember where you posted MS's testimony? It's the segment where he also admitted stealing his wife's wedding rings and killing her cats.
It's not a strawman at all. It cannot be argued that Terri was some other life form than animal. The law allows no exceptions.
The lesson is larger, however. Terri Schiavo was treated in a way that violated the letter and spirit of animal CRUELTY laws. Do you suppose she could not feel the pain? Her medical records for fifteen years are full of notations about her experiencing and being treated for pain. Her doctors and nurses knew she could feel pain. She wasn't merely put to death. She was tortured to death.
With a dose of Ambien, Terri might have been able to say what happened to her on February 25, 1990. None of her detractors will give us any answer on that. What did happen? How did a healthy young woman, mostly likely asleep, suddenly end up on the floor, face down, nearly dead, soon after her husband got home late one Saturday night?
Healthy young women do not keel over that way. No natural cause was found. Bulimia was ruled out. For the most obvious possible cause of Terri's injuries -- domestic violence -- there is only one suspect and he has no alibi.
The irony, in all such cases, is that atonement (whether religious or psychological) can only come through contrition. If someone does something wrong, trying to pretend it's right will not make it okay; it will just magnify the wrongdoing by aiding and abbetting those who do likewise. For a person to recognize that they did something wrong is not a black mark--actually, it's a good mark because it suggests the person may be wiser next time.
He confessed to having tried to kill her in a 1993 deposition. That's less than four years.
aw rats! shift-five not shift-four
True, but my point was that hearsay in any case is considered very weak evidence.
"And your medical information comes from where??"
From reading less biased sources than your Wolfson report.
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.