Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kozokey
orientation (r--en-tshn) 1. The recognition of one's temporal, spatial, and personal relationships and environment.

Carla Iyer was right of course. Terri at times could be alert and orientated. This video shows she watches the lights. Then follows her father when he puts them down.

Then her father reminds her of an event from the past and she goes "huh"? Her father responds and she laughs. Not bad for a person that had no therapy for 10 years or so and was in a cage for a couple of years (hospice) at the time of this video. Shame on you people.

http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri

1,629 posted on 07/14/2007 4:00:38 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1627 | View Replies ]


To: bjs1779
Carla Iyer was right of course. Terri at times could be alert and orientated.

Terri Schiavo could give her name, name the place that she was, and give the date? I've seen that claim nowhere else, and I know of no neurologist who examined her that said that. Can you link to an examining neurologist to back that up?

1,630 posted on 07/14/2007 4:52:33 PM PDT by retMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies ]

To: bjs1779; kozokey; retMD; T'wit
The term “alert and orientated” is standard medical terminology used throughout the country. The definitions provided by retMD and kozokey are entirely correct and accepted by all in the medical profession. Because of it’s commonly understood definition, it is also used in legal cases to describe a person’s condition when that is an issue in the case, such as Schiavo.

No one with a medical background, such as Iyer, would use this terminology to describe Terri. She was either lying or grossly mistaken in her assessment of Terri’s condition. We will never know, because Iyer was never cross examined about this or other portions of her affidavit. Can you now understand why courts give little to no credibility to affidavits when the affiant does not testify in open court and is subject cross exam. All these affidavits the Schindlers used at the end are basically legally worthless. I ask again, Why were the Schindlers so afraid of having their witnesses subject to cross examination. These affidavits relate to facts alleged to have occurred prior to the trials. Are you or any of your cohorts ever going to answer this threshold question?

BTW, if Iyer had testified at trial with the same argument you and twit have employed on this thread, her entire testimony would have been entirely discredited.

1,632 posted on 07/14/2007 5:01:56 PM PDT by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1629 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson