Skip to comments.Still Waiting
Posted on 02/02/2007 3:49:53 AM PST by 8mmMauser
I don't know about anyone else, but I am still waiting for Michael Schiavo to make a correction on his blog about what "actually" took place in Colorado when he went there (to the debate) to supposedly ask Congresswoman Musgrave one question and she and her staff supposedly tried to have him removed. He called it, "My unreal night in Colorado - with radio link" (Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 08:05:14 PM PST). I'll say (from what I read) that it was his "unreal night".
As I said before in "Standing up and Admitting a Mistake: Not Schiavo's Style?", if four uniformed officers were around my seat, I would have some idea of what was going on. I certainly wouldn't be sitting in "duh mode" to only be told later of what took place right there around me, as Michael suggests he was. If Michael's account is realistic -- his response and reaction is not. Nor is his response appropriate now that he has "learned" what he was "allegedly told" is not what took place. One would think if he can't get the words out that he was mistaken, he could at least have removed the inaccurate entry from his blog.
He has done neither.
I'm also still waiting to read about, "Also, maybe tomorrow I'll post about my election-eve rally with Bill Clinton in Florida." (A real election impact by Michael Schiavo, Thu Nov 09, 2006 at 10:40:34 AM PST). Indeed, I would love to read that story by Michael, since I read it was not possible. Not if he was implying it was the Bill Clinton that is the former President of the United States. Will be interesting to see what he says about that if he ever does.
If Michael couldn't get it straight what happened at the Musgrave debate or even if he spent election-eve with former President Bill Clinton -- do you suppose he might have gotten Terri Schiavo's wishes mixed-up as well? (He does claim to have a bad memory from what I read.) Makes one wonder. At least makes me wonder. Whatever...
I'm still waiting for the corrections if not the explanations!
Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.
What was the most likely scenario for that fateful night? I am trying to recall the scene of that night, but do not have all the details at hand this moment.
I recall she was upset at his treatment, his obsession with her odometer and was in otherwise fine health until she was found on the floor.
"Their father is the father of lies."
Then I'm sure they feel right at home when they meet him.
I was thinking last week when the person in Sacramento died from water intoxication after the radio contest that Mikey would probably try to resurrect the "she drank several gallons of iced tea" nonsense.
That's precisely why civil rights attorney Wendy Murphy deemed him to be a "fraud on the court" in 1993. She called the Greer court's integrity into question for even listening to him later.
Only years later, at the autopsy, did some people learn people that the basis for the 1992 malpractice suits -- the doctors' supposed failure to diagnose bulimia -- was fraudulent too. The medical examiner ruled out bulimia as the cause of Terri's so-called collapse. You have to read the autopsy report because you won't hear it from the media. (This was not a mystery. Long before the autopsy, we ruled out bulimia here, too. It made no medical sense)
In other words, knowing that Terri had never suffered from bulimia, Michael sued innocent doctors for malpractice and collected a multi-million dollar settlement. I don't believe the MSM have ever reported this.
One other detail worth mentioning. Bulimia was Michael's only alibi. Now he has no alibi.
It's very hard to drink too much iced tea when you're asleep. (Michael did confirm that she was asleep.)
He no longer needs an alibi, he's like OJ he got away with it and no longer needs to concern himself with consequences. Actually, he's even worse than OJ in one regard, Schiavo killed his wife while the entire world watched and many of them applauded him for it.
Her husband was Michael Schiavo. It is best to know how to spell the protagonist's name when you discuss the case with more knowledgeable people.
You are mistaken about his rights in the matter, too. The guardian may not make medical decisions for his ward. Neither guardians nor judges are qualified or licensed to practice medicine. (There are certain exceptions if the guardian is a physician but they do not apply here.) Also note that a ward (Terri) is under state protection. The laws do not permit guardians to make decisions that would cause death or harm to the ward.
So he may think. He sees himself, justly enough, as under the protection of the one-track media. But the media can be a fickle mistress. They can turn on you in an instant. He hasn't learned that part yet.
Meanwhile, he has no alibi in the court of history. That court is in session even now, and will be hearing the evidence centuries after his media shills and the rest of us are gone. (People do not forget great injustices.) In the court of history, Michael is literally damned forever. His only way out is repentance and confession.
That's his only way out before God, too, needless to say.
Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
I suppose that's what caused the compression fracture of her spine, the broken ribs, the bruised femur, trauma to her knees and ankles, and a pressure injury to her neck.
There's a perfectly good fascist explanation for that -- her injuries were self-inflicted.
That could well be all her fault in his eyes. Maybe he said, "See, look what you made me do."
You know if they made Terri's story one of these "Lifetime Original Movies" and changed the names, the feminazis would be up in arms about what a monster Michael is.
Thanks for the fantastic commentary!!!
I guess the courts disagreed with you.
You mean a single judge who didn't follow the law and then had the audacity to ignore a Congressional subpoena?
I find it extremely ironic that FReepers who in all other areas seem to be aware of judicial activism/misconduct had no problem lining up behind Greer's utter disregard for the law.
The case was based on privacy rights, not on the guardian's right to make decisions for his ward as you wrongly explained it.