US Court of Appeals denies Schiavo appeal

[flashback]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

This is nothing but hearsay. Her husband doesn't have proof that she told him that. Also, if what darkladyraven said is true he has a motive for wanting her dead. Recently, there have been nurses who came forward and stated Michael Schiavo said to them "when is that b!tch gonna die?" "Is it possible to quicken her death?" when they were taking care of Terry Schiavo. If that is true Michael Schiavo doesn't have best interests of his ex wife in mind.

Also, can you define what "gone" means? From what I've seen on film she doesn't look like she is in a vegetative state. She can react to her surroundings and is only fed through a tube. It's not like she is on life support or lying there in a coma.

Wow. I can see how this gets emotionally charged so quickly. So, her husband doesn't have proof that Terri said that, so you don't believe him. Do you (or anyone else) have proof that he called her a "*****", etc.? But you choose to believe that, anyway? Isn't that a little... inconsistent?

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

This is nothing but hearsay. Her husband doesn't have proof that she told him that.

Ok, so hearsay bothers you. Understood.

Also, if what darkladyraven said is true he has a motive for wanting her dead. Recently, there have been nurses who came forward and stated Michael Schiavo said to them "when is that b!tch gonna die?" "Is it possible to quicken her death?" when they were taking care of Terry Schiavo. If that is true Michael Schiavo doesn't have best interests of his ex wife in mind.

Oh, so hearsay DOESNT bother you. Got it.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by flashback

Wow. I can see how this gets emotionally charged so quickly. So, her husband doesn't have proof that Terri said that, so you don't believe him. Do you (or anyone else) have proof that he called her a "*****", etc.? But you choose to believe that, anyway? Isn't that a little... inconsistent?

How is this getting "emotionally charged"? No one is flying off the handle here.

Well, considering there was more then one nurse who said this and they have no connection to the case and no motive whatsoever I would tend to believe their comments over Michael Schiavo's. That isn't inconsistency...

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

Ok, so hearsay bothers you. Understood.

Oh, so hearsay DOESNT bother you. Got it.

look above

[flashback]

Do these nurses have names? Was this testimony? Are they quoted in the press?

Sorry, I'll need more than just your word for it. That would be hearsay

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

look above

I looked above. Pure hypocrisy. What of it? You can't explain it away due simply to your PREFERENCE on the matter, which is in fact what you are doing, whether or not you realize it.

[Thiebear]

did you say what was their names? did you say was some of it documented?

Originally posted by flashback

Do these nurses have names? Was this testimony? Are they quoted in the press?

Sorry, I'll need more than just your word for it. That would be hearsay

Nora Lynn Wagner

Carla Sauer Iyer

Heidi Law

Sure its only hearsay but Baretta got off for less...

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by flashback

Do these nurses have names? Was this testimony? Are they quoted in the press?

Sorry, I'll need more than just your word for it. That would be hearsay

you asked for it...

http://www.patterico.com/2003/10/26/re-start-the-clock-mickey-kaus

Perhaps the most dramatic affidavit is from Registered Nurse Carla Iyer. Here are some excerpts:

One time I put a wash cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her fingers from curling together, and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.

Terri’s medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as “mommy,” and “help me.” “Help me” was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word “pain” when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like “pay.” She didn’t say the “n” sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying “pay” and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper and scooted in bed on her bottom.

When I came into her room and said “Hi, Terri", she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying “Haaaiiiii” sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a “hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound being only a second or two long. When I told her humorous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart. Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri’s, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri’s rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri’s responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurse’s job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patient’s condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that.

Here is the most amazing part of the nurse’s affidavit:

Throughout my time at Palm Gardens [one of Ms. Schiavo’s nursing homes], Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri’s death. Michael would say “When is she going to die?,” “Has she died yet?” and “When is that ***** gonna die?” These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include “Can’t anything be done to accelerate her death - won’t she ever die?” When she wouldn’t die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as “Make sure the parents aren’t contacted.” I recorded Michael’s statements word for word in Terri’s chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn’t to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.

Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, or pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die. He would say something like, “Hallelujah! You’ve made my day!” He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out “I’m going to be rich!” and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.

Certified Nursing Assistant Heidi Law:

During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I have heard her say “mommy” from time to time, and “momma,” and she also said “help me” a number of times. She would frequently make noises like she was trying to talk.

The only stimulation she had was looking out the window and watching things, and the radio, which Michael insisted be left on one particular station. She had a television, and there was a sign below it saying not to change the channel. This was because of Michael’s orders.

As a CNA, I wanted every piece of information I could get about my patients. I never had access to medical records as a CNA, but it was part of my job duties to write my observations down on sheets of paper, which I turned over to the nurse at the nurses station for inclusion in the patients charts. In the case of Terri Schiavo, I felt that my notes were thrown out without even being read. There were trash cans at the nurses stations that we were supposed to empty each shift, and I often saw the notes in them. I made extensive notes and listed all of Terri’s behaviors, but there was never any apparent follow up consistent with her responsiveness.

Certified Nursing Assistant Carolyn Johnson:

I remember seeing Michael Schiavo only once the entire time I worked at Sabal Palms [another of Ms. Schiavo’s nursing homes], but we were all aware that Terri was not to be given any kind of rehabilitative help, per his instructions. Once, I wanted to put a cloth in Terri’s hand to keep her hand from closing in on itself, but I was not permitted to do this, as Michael Schiavo considered that to be a form of rehabilitation.

I cite this evidence only because I find it interesting, and because I find it reassuring that the right thing has happened. I don’t expect to convince people on the “kill her” side of this issue. Their minds are made up, no matter the evidence.

For example, I was in a debate with some people at one particular internet site in which a woman named “Anne,” who had read the above affidavits, discounted them because they were all notarized by the same notary public! Here is a direct quote from Anne: “Who is Patricia J. Anderson, Notary Public? What is her interest in all of this.”

I don’t mean to say that there aren’t rational arguments on both sides of the issue. I think there are. But people like Anne are in OJ-land. The above evidence won’t change their minds, because no evidence on earth could.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

I looked above. Pure hypocrisy. What of it? You can't explain it away due simply to your PREFERENCE on the matter, which is in fact what you are doing, whether or not you realize it.

Hypocrisy my arse.

I believe the nurses over Michael Schiavo because there are more then one of them saying the same thing and they have no personal interest in the case. That isn't hypocrisy. It's trying to use some sort of deductive reasoning.

You better go look up hypocrisy and understand what it means before coming at me with that crap.

[wskin44]

Wow! If what these nurses say is true, well I wonder why their story is not being told in the mainstream press. Something is totally wrong here.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Hypocrisy my arse.

I believe the nurses over Michael Schiavo because there are more then one of them saying the same thing and they have no personal interest in the case. That isn't hypocrisy. It's trying to use some sort of deductive reasoning.

You better go look up hypocrisy and understand what it means before coming at me with that crap.

Don't get angry because you were caught. Be angry at yourself for allowing yourself to be so inconsistent.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

Don't get angry because you were caught. Be angry at yourself for allowing yourself to be so inconsistent.

There is no inconsistency whatsoever. I simply hold the nurses testimony over Michael Schiavo's because of the reasons I already mentioned. Like I said before, if you don't understand what hypocrisy means don't use it...

[wskin44]

The authenticity of the nurses' statements couldn't be verified. No one seems to know if these statements are actually part of the court documents or not. Regardless I believe that they should be fully investigated immediately. The web page blogger writes:

"I have expressed frustration at my inability to access the original Schiavo court documents. However, I have recently found what purports to be copies of many of those documents – including affidavits from a nurse and two nurses’ aides. This material is contained here, deep within a huge document that appears to be a call to action by activists writing before the Legislature acted."

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

There is no inconsistency whatsoever. I simply hold the nurses testimony over Michael Schiavo's because of the reasons I already mentioned. Like I said before, if you don't understand what hypocrisy means don't use it...

Denial won't help you save face. You engaged in the absolute epitome of hypocrisy. You denigrated Michael Schiavo's testimony because it is hearsay, and yet you immediately thereafter use hearsay to support your opinion. Hypocrisy, pure and simple. It is inarguable.

Feel free to try to explain it away, however. Failing that, you might have to make use of old TV tricks such as going "look over there!", and running away when the person turns aorund.

[Maywood Cavalier]

The judge totally discredited the affidavits.

From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

Denial won't help you save face. You engaged in the absolute epitome of hypocrisy. You denigrated Michael Schiavo's testimony because it is hearsay, and yet you immediately thereafter use hearsay to support your opinion. Hypocrisy, pure and simple. It is inarguable.

Feel free to try to explain it away, however. Failing that, you might have to make use of old TV tricks such as going "look over there!", and running away when the person turns aorund.

Blah, blah, blah...

Your logic is lame at best. The only thing you can do is make grandiose statements about me because you have nothing of substance to say. Save it for someone who cares.

I guess you have a hard time understanding what hypocrisy means. So, I guess I'll have to explain it to you. Hopefully you will finally understand and end your pathetic ranting.

~hy•poc•ri•sy

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Now, if I were to believe the hearsay of one person over another in the exact same circumstances then that would be hypocritical.

HOWEVER, that isn't the case here. The affidavits off three nurses who took care of Ms Schiavo and have no known motive bias isn't the same as one Mr Schiavo who might have a motive or bias.

Got it? Good...

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Maywood Cavalier

The judge totally discredited the affidavits.

From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

If that is the case, why would three nurses make up the same thing? What motive do they have for doing that?

Also, I would like to know what testimony the Judge is talking about???

[Joe Sick]

Hypocrisy!

I love this topic. :laugh:

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

Blah, blah, blah...

Your logic is lame at best. The only thing you can do is make grandiose statements about me because you have nothing of substance to say. Save it for someone who cares.

I guess you have a hard time understanding what hypocrisy means. So, I guess I'll have to explain it to you. Hopefully you will finally understand and end your pathetic ranting.

~hy•poc•ri•sy

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Now, if I were to believe the hearsay of one person over another in the exact same circumstances then that would be hypocritical.

HOWEVER, that isn't the case here. The affidavits off three nurses who took care of Ms Schiavo and have no known motive bias isn't the same as one Mr Schiavo who might have a motive or bias.

Got it? Good...

You do realize that you didnt say anything just now, don't you? That you are just responding to respond, so it looks like you have an answer? You have done absolutely nothing to refute the charge of hypocrisy regarding hearsay. All you've said here is that you like some hearsay better than other hearsay. That has no bearing on your rejection of Schiavo's testimony BECAUSE it was hearsay. You continue to contradict yourself.

My logic is lame? If by lame, you mean rock solid and irrefutable, then yes, I agree with you.

And beyond the hypocrisy, your grounds for the distinction are completely nonsensical. You have absolutely no knowledge as to motive or lack thereof on the parts of the nurses involved in the case. Utterly absurd.

[Predicto]

People do lie, even people that you do not know their motivations for doing so. Religious ferver, perhaps? How about undisclosed financial gain? Hope for celebrity?

This nurse's "testimony" has been around for years. Everyone knows about it. It was discussed in at least one of the the judges' decisions. The problem is, it is not credible or consistent with any other information anyone has. Not even the parents bought her nonsense until just recently, when they got desperate.

Johnny, about those videotape clips you keep seeing... they are highly edited for maximum effect. Doctors spent hours and hours and days and days with her, trying to obtain responses from her, and failing to do so. Only one doctor says different, and he was hired by the parents.

There's nobody there anymore. This is not a conspiracy where dozens of evil judges and doctors want to kill an innocent person for some unfathomable reason.

[flashback]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

If that is the case, why would three nurses make up the same thing? What motive do they have for doing that?

Also, I would like to know what testimony the Judge is talking about???

I think the concern over the veracity of the documents includes whether or not the affidavits were actually written by the nurses named in them.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Zen-like Todd

You do realize that you didnt say anything just now, don't you? That you are just responding to respond, so it looks like you have an answer? You have done absolutely nothing to refute the charge of hypocrisy regarding hearsay. All you've said here is that you like some hearsay better than other hearsay. That has no bearing on your rejection of Schiavo's testimony BECAUSE it was hearsay. You continue to contradict yourself.

My logic is lame? If by lame, you mean rock solid and irrefutable, then yes, I agree with you.

And beyond the hypocrisy, your grounds for the distinction are completely nonsensical. You have absolutely no knowledge as to motive or lack thereof on the parts of the nurses involved in the case. Utterly absurd.

oh boy,

You really have a hard time with this don't you?

~hear·say

Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Can Mr Schiavo verify his wife's wishes? Nope. Did the 3 nurse verify by signing an affidavid and testifying what they witnessed and heard THEMSELVES? Yes.

What part of this don't you get?

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by flashback

I think the concern over the veracity of the documents includes whether or not the affidavits were actually written by the nurses named in them.

Well, that would be easy to find out. Just ask them.

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by Johnny Punani

oh boy,

You really have a hard time with this don't you?

~hear·say

Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Can Mr Schiavo verify his wife's wishes? Nope. Did the 3 nurse verify by signing an affidavid and testifying what they witnessed and heard THEMSELVES? Yes.

What part of this don't you get?

I get all of it. I get the part that with every post you make, you are literally arguing against yourself. To what end, I dont know, but it is very amusing.

[Johnny Punani2]

Originally posted by Predicto

People do lie, even people that you do not know their motivations for doing so. Religious ferver, perhaps? How about undisclosed financial gain? Hope for celebrity?

This nurse's "testimony" has been around for years. Everyone knows about it. It was discussed in at least one of the the judges' decisions. The problem is, it is not credible or consistent with any other information anyone has. Not even the parents bought her nonsense until just recently, when they got desperate.

Johnny, about those videotape clips you keep seeing... they are highly edited for maximum effect. Doctors spent hours and hours and days and days with her, trying to obtain responses from her, and failing to do so. Only one doctor says different, and he was hired by the parents.

There's nobody there anymore. This is not a conspiracy where dozens of evil judges and doctors want to kill an innocent person for some unfathomable reason.

Yeah, that might be possible but I would like to know why the Judge dismissed them. What were the grounds for his choice? I can't seem to find that out...