Volume VIII, Issue VIII | December 2nd, 2008
Site Contents
Search the site:
Judicial Homicide
Article Options
Comments RSS (info)
View comments
Post a comment
Print this article
Send this to a friend
Comments RSS (info)
Click the link above to subscribe to this article's comments! Now, with an RSS reader, you can stay up on all new posts.
(Don't know what RSS is?)
(Don't know what RSS is?)
View comments Post a comment Print this article Send this to a friend
Rate This Article!
Please take the time to rate this article below:
Please take the time to rate this article below:
Score: 3.01 (83 ratings)
Rate:
Terri Schiavo's brother to speak on legalized killing of the disabled.
“Please make no mistake, this was a court-ordered murder issued by Circuit Court Judge George Greer,” Bobby Schindler says of the “right-to-die” movement’s agenda to kill the disabled. “Terri’s life ended after two weeks of suffering without food and water and without receiving ice chips to help ease some of the pain she was suffering.” Devoting his life to educating the public about end-of-life issues and offering support to those with disabilities, Bobby Schindler, the brother of Terri Schiavo, will speak on campus Wednesday, March 7, at 7:00 p.m. in Goldwin Smith’s HEC Auditorium. Hosted by the Cornell Coalition for Life, he will tell “Terri’s Story” followed by a question and answer session. With new laws defining the subjective diagnosis of the persistent vegetative state (PVS), this diagnosis is now being used to determine whose life has value to society, and more troubling still, whether or not an individual has the right to life.
The tragic story of the Schindler family began when Terri, as a young vibrant woman of 26, collapsed in her home under mysterious circumstances while she was alone with her husband. Although her husband, Michael Schiavo, won a $1.2 million medical malpractice suit stating that Terri’s collapse was caused by undiagnosed bulimia, this was determined not to be the case at her autopsy fifteen years later. After her husband collected the malpractice award which he vowed he would use for her rehabilitation, he “suddenly remembered” that Terri had once said that she would not want to live in such a condition.
This hearsay evidence from an adulterous husband with a known conflict of interest was readily accepted by the court. Living with another woman with whom he fathered two children, Schiavo refused to divorce Terri and give guardianship of her to the Schindlers who were willing and able to lovingly care for her. As Schiavo stood to gain financially from Terri’s death, he teamed up with doctors, attorneys, activist judges and the media to use Terri to promote the “right-to-die” agenda.
Bobby blames the media, in particular, for making legalized killing of the disabled acceptable to society. What the family witnessed as the barbaric and tortuous murder of their daughter and sister, the mainstream media portrayed as a peaceful act of compassion on the part of her husband who was only fulfilling the “wishes” of his beloved wife. It is a fact, however, that Terri never signed a Living Will or put any of her wishes regarding end-of-life issues in writing. None of her family or friends ever remembered Terri stating anything about the matter; in fact, her family argued in court that Terri, as a devout Catholic, would never willingly consent to death by starvation and dehydration since it was against the tenets of her faith.
Contrary to reports in the media, Terri was not terminally ill or on any means of artificial life support. She was disabled due to a severe brain injury and only needed a feeding tube to supply her daily nourishment. The media, in playing up Michael Schiavo’s compassion, never seemed to mention that after receiving the malpractice award for his wife’s rehabilitation, Terri received no therapy for the next thirteen years.
A quick search online readily exposes a bigger picture than that portrayed by the mainstream media. It is there that one finds numerous references to Dr. Ronald Cranford, the physician who diagnosed Terri with PVS, as having been one of the foremost activists in the euthanasia movement. Concerning Dr. Cranford, National Review Online states, “In published articles, including a 1997 op-ed in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, he has advocated the starvation of Alzheimer’s patients. He has described PVS patients as indistinguishable from other forms of animal life, and that PVS patients and others with brain impairment lack personhood and should have no constitutional rights.”
According to Stephen Drake, a research analyst for Not Dead Yet, a national disability rights group, “It’s always seemed to us that PVS isn’t really a diagnosis. When it comes to the hard science, no qualified pathologist went on the record saying she [Terri] couldn’t think or couldn’t experience her own death through dehydration.” National and local disability groups offered their support to the Schindler family in their effort to stave off those who thought Terri’s life held no value and who promoted her starvation and dehydration death.
The 14th Amendment specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. When the United States Congress attempted to offer Terri a review of her case, Florida’s Judge Greer ignored the subpoenas. Terri was denied the most basic right to life by those advocating a court-ordered murder because they perceived her life held no value to society, and yet, she was loved and cherished by her family and friends. Our country was founded on the premise that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; the foremost among them being the right to life. Without the right to life, any other right is meaningless.
Liz Wilbert graduated in 2007 from the College of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at emw45@cornell.edu.
Comments
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: John on 03/9/2007 at 6:01 PMI agree with this article. Terri's Right to Life was never upheld. The court had not one shred of proof that Terri wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death. The only thing court had was unproven hearsay claims from an adultorous husband and his self-interested parties. At the time of the decision was made, Terri's death would have given Michael Schiavo a $750,000 payday. As to why Michael refused future bribes.....By then it was about the agenda and too many people had become involved.
Responding to Amazed claims...
As to why Carla Iyer never came forward. That is a question to be answered by the lawyer named Pamela Campbell who in my opinion was a planted lawyer who put on a pathetic case in defense of Terri's life.
The Bone scan findings were never explained. Although, Dr. Thogmartin reports many conclusions at the autopsy regarding the Bone Scan which suggests H.O., his conclusions are simply baseless since Thogmartin reported in his autopsy reported that he never saw the actual bone scan or the associated radiographs.
Mary Schindler's comments were true in that Michael did care for Terri well during the first 3 years. However, after receiving nearly a million dollars and starting a relationship with another woman, Michael's dedication and caring for Terri was compromised. Terri was warehoused (but well maintained) until her death in 2005.
Cliams of divorce did threaten to come in the Mal Trial as indicated by Jackie Rhodes, however Michael's lawyer urged her to keep her mouth shut as it would have not helped the case.
Another little known fact that many people do not know that is quite disturbing....
In 1997, Michael's mom died. In the obituary, There is no mention of Terri. Instead, Michael mentions Jodi as his finance.
While Michael claimed that his dad wrote the obituary, this was not corrected in 2002 when Michael's dad died. Again, Jodi was mentioned over Terri.
Michael was the sole executor of his dad's estate and no doubt had access to the obituary posting and content.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Tom on 03/9/2007 at 9:04 PMBelow are some distrubing verifible facts about the Schiavo case:
Terri never had her own lawyer to speak on her behalf. The Schindlers had a lawyer and Michael Schiavo had a lawyer, but Terri herself never had any representation to protect her own interests. Terri over the years was denied her statutory right to consel. The court side stepped this violation with nonsense.
Even though Judge Greer sentenced Terri to die, he refused to visit her or even allow her to come to court. Judge Greer was asked numerous times, but refused to do so. If it wasn't for a 20 minute video admitted as evidence in the 2000 trial, Judge Greer would have sentenced Terri to death without ever even knowing what see looked like.
Congress did not interfere in private family matter. Congress attempted to give what John Ceouy (if he is sentenced to death) will get before he dies, a federal review of his case.
Terri Schiavo for almost 5 years was locked in a small hospice room. Michael denied any an all attempts to have Terri leave her room and threatened anyone with arrest if they did so. This included allowing Terri to attend a hospice bird show, visits for santa and Christmas carolors, visits to go outside to enjoy the sun, to attend her own birthday party, and to attend church services. Michael also enforced a strict visitation list to hindered Terri's right to recieve visitors.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Truth on 03/10/2007 at 9:26 PMSadly it appears the only way to support Bobby Schindler is to allow yourself to be mislead by him and the rest of the Schindler family.
In the first place the court proceedings were not criminal, they were PROBATE proceedings and the basis of the court proceeding was determining what MEDICAL TREATMENTS would be acceptable to Terri Schiavo given her circumstances.
Bobby Schindler would have the world beleive that the surgical implantation of a PEG feeding tube by cutting through the skin, fascia and muscle of the abdominal wall and then cutting into the stomache is somehow comparable to spoon feeding a baby.
Bobby Schindler and his family want to insure that the hospital and the doctor have no say in whether this SURGERY is performed. More importantly Bobby wants to insure that YOU have no choice and that I have no choice.
Bobby Schindler and his family want this invasive, scarring, risky SURGERY to be reclassified. He says "don't think of it as surgery and don't think of it as a medical treatment. Think of it as basic care, as something you wouldn't have to consent to and something you couldn't withdraw your consent for".
Anesthesia involves risk. Surgery involves scarring and the risk of infection. Leaving a tube through the skin, abdomen and into the stomache is leaving a path for infection and the risk of infection remains as long as the tube is in place.
People understand what it means to be kept alive unnaturally. People understand what it means to be kept alive by a tube. Whether it is a tube that assists your breathing or a tube from a feeding paste pump through your abdomen and into your stomache.
Americans have a right to say no to intrusive, invasive, scarring, risky, high cost, low cost or just plain UNWANTED medical treatments and surgeries.
Understand this- to support Bobby Schindler is to support giving up your right of choice, your freedom of choice, and your power to say no to unwanted medical or surgical procedures.
Simply stated Bobby and his family want to insert themselves between you, your doctor, your god and your government when it comes to your decisions about medical and surgical procedures.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Justin on 03/10/2007 at 9:53 PMLiz Wilbert opines:
"The 14th Amendment specifically states: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.When the United States Congress attempted to offer Terri a review of her case, Florida’s Judge Greer ignored the subpoenas."
But facts are facts:
By March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
I challenge anyone to find a probate case that has EVER received as much judicial review. I challenge anyone to find a probate case that has EVER garnered as much notice, attention or action from congress. I challenge anyone to find a single probate court case that has triggered federal legislation.
I think the point is clear: the Schindlers brought their best case in judicial proceedings- every reasonable and unreasonable claim they made was reviewed and considered at EVERY level of the United States legal system up to and INCLUDING the Supreme Court.
The Schindlers brought their best case to the governor of Florida.
The Schindlers brought their best case to Congress.
The Schindlers brought their best case to the United States President.
The Schindlers brought their best case to the court of popular public opinion.
Experts in law rejected their claims or found their claims insufficent.
The support of congress fell away as more facts and evidence came out.
In the end the only support the Schindlers have left comes from extremists, hysterics, alarmists, conspiracy nuts, under informed and misinformed jurists of the court of popular public opinion, far right wingers, media figures making a living off controversy and controversial positions, anti science and anti medicine activists and of course pro life (like saying "all of the above").
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Janice Sanford on 03/11/2007 at 1:13 PMReading the comments, I found it interesting that those who supported pulling Terri's feeding tube did so on legal grounds void of moral grounds. Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing human being. She was robbed of her right to life, and a fair trial, by the very system that was put in place to protect every American's right to life and due process of law.
These individuals seem to be under the opinion that regardless of whether or not a crime was committed against Terri on February 25, 1990, and regardless of whether or not Michael Schiavo was responible for Terri's brain injury, that going before Judge George Greer(a probate judge), somehow,supercedes her constitutional right to have "her day" in court.
When we,as Americans and human beings, stup to killing the disabled because of their quality of life, we had bettered stop, backup and take another look at the direction the United States is head. Without the right to life-it is not possible for any other right to exist.
As for those who attack Bobby Schindler and his family. The Schindlers have every right to tell their story. As for the facts in the Terri schiavo case they speak for themselves: http://justiceforterrischiavo.us/timeline.htm
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Janice Sanford on 03/11/2007 at 1:19 PMReading the comments, I found it interesting that those who supported pulling Terri's feeding tube did so on legal grounds void of moral grounds. Terri Schiavo was a living, breathing human being. She was robbed of her right to life, and a fair trial, by the very system that was put in place to protect every American's right to life and due process of law.
These individuals seem to be under the opinion that regardless of whether or not a crime was committed against Terri on February 25, 1990, and regardless of whether or not Michael Schiavo was responible for Terri's brain injury, that going before Judge George Greer(a probate judge), somehow,supercedes her constitutional right to have "her day" in court.
When we,as Americans and human beings, stup to killing the disabled because of their quality of life, we had bettered stop, backup and take another look at the direction the United States is head. Without the right to life-it is not possible for any other right to exist.
As for those who attack Bobby Schindler and his family. The Schindlers have every right to tell their story. As for the facts in the Terri schiavo case they speak for themselves: http://justiceforterrischiavo.us/timeline.htm
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Tom on 03/11/2007 at 6:39 PM"These individuals seem to be under the opinion that regardless of whether or not a crime was committed against Terri on February 25, 1990, and regardless of whether or not Michael Schiavo was responible for Terri's brain injury, that going before Judge George Greer(a probate judge), somehow,supercedes her constitutional right to have "her day" in court."
This is very good.
Many people do not know that Michael Schiavo has given at least 4 DIFFERENT accounts about the details of Terri's collapse. Virtually every aspect of Terri's collapse has been distorted. This is confirmed by reading all available court transcripts and interviews.
May be Michael caused Terri's collapse, may be he didn't. One thing is certain.....Michael Schiavo has yet to tell the truthful account of what happen that night.
A quick note about the bone scan mentioned in the first post.....Terri actually saw a orthepedic surgeon in 1986 regarding something.
The reason for this consult has never been revealed from what I can tell.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Tom on 03/11/2007 at 6:49 PM"These individuals seem to be under the opinion that regardless of whether or not a crime was committed against Terri on February 25, 1990, and regardless of whether or not Michael Schiavo was responible for Terri's brain injury, that going before Judge George Greer(a probate judge), somehow,supercedes her constitutional right to have "her day" in court."
This is very good.
Many people do not know that Michael Schiavo has given at least 4 DIFFERENT accounts about the details of Terri's collapse. Virtually every aspect of Terri's collapse has been distorted. This is confirmed by reading all available court transcripts and interviews.
May be Michael caused Terri's collapse, may be he didn't. One thing is certain.....Michael Schiavo has yet to tell the truthful account of what happen that night.
A quick note about the bone scan mentioned in the first post.....Terri actually saw a orthepedic surgeon in 1986 regarding something.
The reason for this consult has never been revealed from what I can tell.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Tom on 03/11/2007 at 7:27 PM"These individuals seem to be under the opinion that regardless of whether or not a crime was committed against Terri on February 25, 1990, and regardless of whether or not Michael Schiavo was responible for Terri's brain injury, that going before Judge George Greer(a probate judge), somehow,supercedes her constitutional right to have "her day" in court."
This is very good.
Many people do not know that Michael Schiavo has given at least 4 DIFFERENT accounts about the details of Terri's collapse. Virtually every aspect of Terri's collapse has been distorted. This is confirmed by reading all available court transcripts and interviews.
May be Michael caused Terri's collapse, may be he didn't. One thing is certain.....Michael Schiavo has yet to tell the truthful account of what happen that night.
A quick note about the bone scan mentioned in the first post.....Terri actually saw a orthepedic surgeon in 1986 regarding something.
The reason for this consult has never been revealed from what I can tell.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Paul on 03/15/2007 at 4:35 PMBy March 2005, the legal history around the Schiavo case included fourteen appeals and numerous motions, petitions, and hearings in the Florida courts; five suits in Federal District Court; Florida legislation struck down by the Supreme Court of Florida; a subpoena by a congressional committee to qualify Schiavo for witness protection; federal legislation (Palm Sunday Compromise); and four denials of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
And still the claims persist about due process and equal protection.
EQUAL protection?
This was the most litigated and most reviewed US probate court case in history. It has no EQUAL. No other US probate court case in history has ever approached this case in terms of the number of appeals or level of review received. It was reviewed by the US Supreme court- it doesn't get any higher.
Terri Schiavo was appointed a guardian ad litem during the course of multiple hearings. Reports were made to the governor of Florida as well as to the court.
Multiple lawyers were involved- some of the best representation in the country working toward uncovering, crafting and presenting an incredible array of the best legal arguments available.
Attorney Gibbs was passionate, well spoken and extremely knowlegeable- it is hard to imagine better representation on behalf of Terri Schiavo, the Schindler family or the pro life movement.
Still the argument is made that one more lawyer might have changed the outcome.
I am sure attorney Gibbs doesn't feel that way. I am sure he feels that he presented the best case possible.
Simply disagreeing with a court decision doesn't make the decision flawed or incorrect. The legal system in this country is great precisely because it is unswayed by the popular public opinion of the day.
Success or failure in court is not based upon the popularity of the argument and whether the majority of the public agrees or disagrees with the argument.
Cases are won and lost on the strength of the evidence, the presentation of facts that support or refute an argument, the credibility of testimony, proper interpretation of language used in writing the law, impartiality of the judge or jury and the consideration of legal precedent.
As the saying goes you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
The facts are clear: there is no basis in reality for claims that Terri Schiavo never had her day in court or that she didn't have adequate representation or that she had no representation.
Pro life mustered the best legal talent money could buy and brought forward the best legal arguements it could. Pro life waged an incredible public relations battle.
At the end of the day an individuals right to say: "no tubes for me" was upheld.
The right of personal choice. The right of individual freedom.
An adult married womans right to grow up, chose her mate, move away, reject the ideas and teachings of her parents and their church - these were all upheld.
Living free. Living on your own terms. Making your own choices.
Americans understand what it means to be kept alive unnaturally. Americans understand what it means to be kept alive by a tube. Whether it is a tube that assists your breathing or a tube from a pump through your abdomen and into your stomache.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Alex on 03/18/2007 at 8:04 AMTerri's medical case is very complicated. But a few things are clear: she had irreversible brain damage due to anoxia caused by oxygen depletion to the brain. Since the brain occupies only 2% of our body mass yet requires 50% of the available oxygen in our bodies to function, oxygen depletion of more than 20 minutes is enough to impair someone beyond hope. And in Terri's case, she suffered oxygen depletion for more than 40 minutes. Indeed, she was brain dead almost immediately upon being taken to the ER. She was also blind. Though it seemed as though she responded to her fanily and others in the video clips, these were merely instinctive reflexes. Terri's brain was less than 33% of the average adult size at death, her optic nerve was damaged and her entire neurophysiological condition was beyond repair. Thus, it wasn't murder to remove the feeding tubes. In fact, she was treated with less dignity through the machinations of many morally insensitive and political unconscionable people who could not accept the simple facts of neurophysiology. Terri's case recieved far more legal scrutiny than was warranted given the indisputability of the medical evidence. There is a social interest involved in these cases: weiging the cost of sustaining life artifically -- and allowing someone to die whose brain functions have been completed destroyed. I am a neuroscientist who does research on brain damaged people due to traumatic brain injury, ischemic strokes, brain tumors and cortical dsyplasias. We are learning that some people in a coma have some cognitive functions despite their inability to articulate (for too long the dominant view in western civilization is the presumed belife that the absence of speech signalled the absence of cognition and that lack of consciousness is equivalent to cognitive inactivity. But with more sensitive brain imaging scans (such as diffusion tensor imaging), we may soon develop a better idea to what extent people in different states of vegetation can live with a reasonable level of cognitive function to justify the millions of dollar it costs to sustain their lives under conditions of limited resources for the treatment of people with complex disorders (especially complex neurological conditions needing special attention and care). With greater knowledge of various of brain evoked potentials such as transcranial magnetic stimulation and similar techniques, in the future, it may be possible to resurrect -- so to speak, some of the dormant cognitive functions of people in semi-vegetative states. But this was simply not an option in Terri's case. She tragically passsed the threshold. That her husband decided to pursue a relationship with another woman in these circumstances is not morally suspect. He remained faithful for many years. But given the situation, I think he acted with decency. I personally would rather spend the amount of money spent artificially keeping someone's heart beating with irreversible brain damage on neonates born prematurely or on drug trials and expensive therapeutical interventions for people with neuro-degenerative diseases, epilepsy, autism, precocious puberty and cognitive rehabilitation services. I guess the final lesson of the great misfortune of the Terri Schiavo case is that adults, no matter how young, need to have medical proxies with explicit instructions for worse scenario cases. This is urgent considering that (mild) brain traumatic injuries are the leading health issues facing young adults in the US.
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: marcrwood@rogers.com on 03/31/2007 at 1:35 PMHow can a civilized people starve and dehydrate a 'human being' ?
Isn't it illegal to do the same to an animal? I repeat the question,
isn't illegal to starve a dog?
Our North American society embraces the 'choice' to kill babies as we continue down the road of the 'culture of death'. We should all be afraid, very afraid.
Marc Wood
Ottawa, Canada
(Reply to this)
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: kadamson on 04/6/2007 at 10:20 AMFirst and foremost this was never a "right to die" case. That moniker was applied by the media. It was tried as a "right to privacy" case. A "right to die" case would imply a terminal illness. Terri Schiavo was never terminally ill. The case was brought to court by Michael Schiavo's lawyer as a "right to privacy" case.
Secondly, I worked for a couple of years at a state school for the mentally retarded (what it was called then). There were many non-responsive patients who received direct care that included feeding tubes and physical therapy. I’m sure they had no living will. They definitely had no money - no future - only the present. I can’t imagine at the time someone taking a look at them and deciding that these people probably preferred death and therefore food and water would be withheld so that they could die by starvation and dehydration.
How times have changed in twenty years.
By the way, it is not legal to do this to puppies. It is considered inhumane.
(Reply to this)
Post a Comment
Re: Judicial Homicide
By: Amazed on 03/9/2007 at 2:03 PMInteresting spin on the events and the facts. Such spin is obvious wherever an author is passionate about describing the events as viewed through the distorting lens of their own personal point of view.
The fact of the matter is that the Florida probate court was acting to determine what medical treatment would be acceptable to Terri Schiavo and what medical treatment she would refuse for herself given the circumstance.
The Schindlers had every opportunity to present their best witnesses and to bring forward their best case for the court to consider in determining what medical treatment Terri Schiavo would accept or reject.
This court case was not about determining human worth with or without disability.
This court case was not about determining the value of human life with or without disabilities.
The court case was about upholding the right of American citizens to medical self determination.
It was about upholding the right of Americans to decide what medical treatments are acceptable and what medical treatments or surgeries they would reject as being unwanted, unnecessary, too invasive, too scarring, too intrusive or whatever reason - in fact it shouldn't be necessary to provide a justification for your choice.
The right of privacy begins with your body. The right to be unique and make personal medical decisions without need of consultation with family, friends or spouse and without interference from family, friends, church or state.
Society appoints the court to stand in the place of those unable to represent themselves and directs that the court use the tools of evidence and testimony to get at facts, then to dispassionately decide based on the law.
Those unwilling to abide by the courts decision turn to special interest groups, powerful lobbyists, public relations experts and the court of popular public opinion in their efforts to circumvent Americas beloved system of justice and system of government.
The Schindlers claim that many things remain unexplained.
I would agree and I invite Bobby Schindler to explain why the Schindler family did not bring RN Carla Iyer with them to the crucial court hearing- even though Carla would later swear under oath that years prior to the court hearing she had called the Schindlers to inform them of her suspicions that Michael had attempted to murder their daughter.
I would invite Bobby Schindler to explain why his family pointed to the infamous BONE SCAN as evidence of domestic abuse and trauma when it was clear they knew why the scan was ordered (assist the rehab physcian to evaluate an inflamed and resistive knee joint during rehab therapy) and that it revealed only H.O. (heterotropic Ossification- or bone degeneration as a result of contractures and resultant immobility)
I would invite Bobby Schindler to explain how it was that his mother would testify under oath at the medical malpractice trial that Michael Schiavo was a wonderful person and son in law but years later the entire Schindler family would claim that Terri talked of divorce and that they suspected she was abused.
(Reply to this)