Schiavo Autopsy Released

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 02:06 PM

...I don't think that the autopsy stated that Terri was never abused....

I disagree with you there SF. The article Outshined posted said this:

...It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused....

...Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter’s condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney’s office did not turn up evidence of abuse...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

M.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 21 2005, 04:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 21 2005, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 02:06 PM

...I don't think that the autopsy stated that Terri was never abused....

I disagree with you there SF. The article Outshined posted said this:

...It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused....

...Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter’s condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney’s office did not turn up evidence of abuse...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

M.

I did read what you and Outshined posted.

There are many forms of abuse that would never show up on any autopsy report.

Emotional abuse

Denial of Rehab services

Light depravation

Adultery

Death by dehydration

Burial plot secrecy

etc.

[Outshined]

Now, the accusations were that he physically abused her, including the accusation that strangulation caused her stroke. That has been proven false. No signs of abuse, contrary to what has been claimed.

no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused

No proof of emotional abuse, physical rehab would be useless according to the autopsy, she was blind (so light deprivation wouldn't enter the equation), I don't know how her burial plot constitutes abuse as she's dead...etc, etc... I'd keep it secret too with that kind of animosity aimed at me.

Regardless of how you've decided to judge him, the autopsy proved that he is innocent of the abuse he was accused of. If he were to be asked to return the money from the lawsuit, he'd also be free to sue those who slandered him.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jun 21 2005, 04:36 PM

Now, the accusations were that he physically abused her, including the accusation that strangulation caused her stroke. That has been proven false. No signs of abuse, contrary to what has been claimed.

no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused

No proof of emotional abuse, physical rehab would be useless according to the autopsy, she was blind (so light deprivation wouldn't enter the equation), I don't know how her burial plot constitutes abuse as she's dead...etc, etc... I'd keep it secret too with that kind of animosity aimed at me.

Regardless of how you've decided to judge him, the autopsy proved that he is innocent of the abuse he was accused of. If he were to be asked to return the money from the lawsuit, he'd also be free to sue those who slandered him.

The words used is no evidence that she was strangled...

If Rehab wouldn't have help Terri then why did the courts award 700,000 for Rehab?

I didn't know that we as a society and as a faith had become so numb to the actions of an Adulterer. Fortunately there are those who don't believe that Michael’s actions were to Terri's benefit and thus he is still being investigated.

Why keep the burial site a secret. He has seen that all evidence has been destroyed with cremation, which is very much against Terri religion. Michael has never been interested in what Terri's wishes were his actions are purely self serving.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 04:03 PM

Why keep the burial site a secret.....

For some reason, Mr. Schiavo decided to bury his wife in Florida instead of Pennsylvania. The burial site is not a secret, it's just not where her parents expected it to be:

Michael Schiavo had said her ashes would be buried at a family plot in Pennsylvania. But on Monday his attorney, George Felos, said in a statement that the service and burial had taken place at Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park in Clearwater.

The statement did not explain why Schiavo, who lives near Clearwater, decided to keep his wife's remains in Florida. He did not return a phone call seeking additional information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/21/...ain703187.shtml

He has seen that all evidence has been destroyed with cremation, which is very much against Terri religion.

I am assuming, because I can't remember, that Terri's religion was Catholic - therefore I recommend reading this:

Cremation:

New Options for Catholics

by Fran Helner

In 1997 the Holy See granted permission to U.S. bishops to allow funeral Masses in the presence of cremated remains. This practice had been available in Canada and a few U.S. dioceses for some time. In this Update we'll look at the reasons behind the permission and the ritual changes that will soon be available in many U.S. dioceses. We'll also explore why the Church continues to prefer burial over cremation....

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletter...s/CU/ac1097.asp

M.

[Outshined]

The words used is no evidence that she was strangled...

Exactly, so why insist that she was? You don't know them, do you? With no evidence of strangulation, it makes no sense to cling to such a claim. Her cremation destroyed no "evidence"; the autopsy has already been done, and found no foul play on his part at all. There is nothing to hide.

[StrawberryFields]

It is my opinion that after 15 years and dehydration that the evidence would be hard to find IF he was physically abusive with his wife. I don't know either. I do know that someone would have to be pretty insensitive to the disabled not to feel that at least SOME of Michael’s actions were out of line.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen+Jun 21 2005, 05:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jun 21 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 04:03 PM

Why keep the burial site a secret.....

For some reason, Mr. Schiavo decided to bury his wife in Florida instead of Pennsylvania. The burial site is not a secret, it's just not where her parents expected it to be:

Michael Schiavo had said her ashes would be buried at a family plot in Pennsylvania. But on Monday his attorney, George Felos, said in a statement that the service and burial had taken place at Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park in Clearwater.

The statement did not explain why Schiavo, who lives near Clearwater, decided to keep his wife's remains in Florida. He did not return a phone call seeking additional information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/21/...ain703187.shtml

He has seen that all evidence has been destroyed with cremation, which is very much against Terri religion.

I am assuming, because I can't remember, that Terri's religion was Catholic - therefore I recommend reading this:

Cremation:

New Options for Catholics

by Fran Helner

In 1997 the Holy See granted permission to U.S. bishops to allow funeral Masses in the presence of cremated remains. This practice had been available in Canada and a few U.S. dioceses for some time. In this Update we'll look at the reasons behind the permission and the ritual changes that will soon be available in many U.S. dioceses. We'll also explore why the Church continues to prefer burial over cremation....

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletter...s/CU/ac1097.asp

M.

Thanks Maureen for the update.

I had not read that now, months later, Michael shared with us where Terri's ashes had been put to rest.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 04:00 PM

It is my opinion that after 15 years and dehydration that the evidence would be hard to find IF he was physically abusive with his wife. I don't know either. I do know that someone would have to be pretty insensitive to the disabled not to feel that at least SOME of Michael’s actions were out of line.

Okay fair enough - what specific experience or expertise do you have with dehydration and forensic investigation? And, what specfic information do you possess that indicates that abuse took place?

Oh never mind, I already know the answers.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 19 2005, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 19 2005, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jun 17 2005, 10:08 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1700350_pf.html

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband found her and when he called 911.

Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo. "It's a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up," Bush told reporters.

I've always been a Bush supporter but in the Schiavo case he has been mostly a big flipp'n idiot.

A flipp'n idiot because he doesn't agree with you on this? Now that is just silly.

I could care less if he agrees with me. In this case he is a big idiot because he and his meddlesome cronies have lost EVERY SINGLE COURT BATTLE in the Schiavo case, now it is a done deal and they are still beating a lost cause. His efforts are nothing but a religiously motivate misuse of public funds. Additionally he is a real big idiot because he is dishonest. He is calling for an investigation of wrong doing by the husband and then incredibly, and not recognizing how idiot he sounds, he says that it is not meant to suggest wrong doing. It's like he thinks everyone is stupid.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 21 2005, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 21 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Maureen@Jun 21 2005, 04:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 02:06 PM

...I don't think that the autopsy stated that Terri was never abused....

I disagree with you there SF. The article Outshined posted said this:

...It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused....

...Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter’s condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney’s office did not turn up evidence of abuse...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

M.

I did read what you and Outshined posted.

There are many forms of abuse that would never show up on any autopsy report.

Emotional abuse

Denial of Rehab services

Light depravation

Adultery

Death by dehydration

Burial plot secrecy

etc.

Ya, and for all you know Terri Schiavo was guilty of all of them but others, not knowing, refrain from reckless and disingenuous accusations.

[StrawberryFields]

A Snowy are you done now?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 21 2005, 06:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 21 2005, 06:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 04:00 PM

It is my opinion that after 15 years and dehydration that the evidence would be hard to find IF he was physically abusive with his wife. I don't know either. I do know that someone would have to be pretty insensitive to the disabled not to feel that at least SOME of Michael’s actions were out of line.

Okay fair enough - what specific experience or expertise do you have with dehydration and forensic investigation? And, what specfic information do you possess that indicates that abuse took place?

Oh never mind, I already know the answers.

I do know that our bodies are mostly water and dehydration would change things a bit don't ya thing?

Slow down a bit when you read my posts will ya? I said IF he was physically abusive. I even said IF in caps to make it stand out for ya. B)

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 21 2005, 06:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 21 2005, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 19 2005, 09:26 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Jun 17 2005, 10:08 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1700350_pf.html

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Friday that a prosecutor has agreed to investigate why Terri Schiavo collapsed 15 years ago, citing an alleged time gap between when her husband found her and when he called 911.

Bush said his request for the probe was not meant to suggest wrongdoing by Michael Schiavo. "It's a significant question that during this ordeal was never brought up," Bush told reporters.

I've always been a Bush supporter but in the Schiavo case he has been mostly a big flipp'n idiot.

A flipp'n idiot because he doesn't agree with you on this? Now that is just silly.

I could care less if he agrees with me. In this case he is a big idiot because he and his meddlesome cronies have lost EVERY SINGLE COURT BATTLE in the Schiavo case, now it is a done deal and they are still beating a lost cause. His efforts are nothing but a religiously motivate misuse of public funds. Additionally he is a real big idiot because he is dishonest. He is calling for an investigation of wrong doing by the husband and then incredibly, and not recognizing how idiot he sounds, he says that it is not meant to suggest wrong doing. It's like he thinks everyone is stupid.

Snow if anyone disagrees with you you resort to some how slamming them or calling them dishonest. Why do you do that?

Apparently to take a stand on something you don't agree with is meddlesome.

He doesn't need to suggest whether Michael did any wrong doing or not, the investigation should answer that.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

The autopsy report did not say that Terri had never been abused my Michael. The autopsy just simply produced no evidence of abuse.

Come on, I mean REALLY!

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 21 2005, 06:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 21 2005, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by -Maureen@Jun 21 2005, 04:06 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 02:06 PM

...I don't think that the autopsy stated that Terri was never abused....

I disagree with you there SF. The article Outshined posted said this:

...It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused....

...Over the years, the Schindlers had sought independent investigation of their daughter’s condition and what caused it. Abuse complaints to state social workers were ruled unfounded and the Pinellas state attorney’s office did not turn up evidence of abuse...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/

M.

I did read what you and Outshined posted.

There are many forms of abuse that would never show up on any autopsy report.

Emotional abuse

Denial of Rehab services

Light depravation

Adultery

Death by dehydration

Burial plot secrecy

etc.

Ya, and for all you know Terri Schiavo was guilty of all of them but others, not knowing, refrain from reckless and disingenuous accusations.

I think this is evidence that you might need a little rest.

[Lindy]

I am not offering any opinion on this subject....just been reading the thread and think it's time to jump in and offer my services as a target for Snow.... I think SF has had enough already.

I have opinions of my own on other issues....doesn't make me wrong. I think that SF has made it clear that, her opinion is her opinion, just as mine is mine and yours is yours. How small this world would be if we all had to think alike.

[Maureen]

SF (and anyone else who's interested) - I was snooping on the web to see if I could find some objective information regarding the "Terri Schiavo" case. I happened to come across this website:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

There's lots to read, so it will take time to peruse everything, but I highly recommend this site if you haven't come across it yet.

M.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 22 2005, 04:04 PM

SF (and anyone else who's interested) - I was snooping on the web to see if I could find some objective information regarding the "Terri Schiavo" case. I happened to come across this website:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

There's lots to read, so it will take time to peruse everything, but I highly recommend this site if you haven't come across it yet.

M.

Thanks Maureen. I am reading but my time is such that I will take bite size pieces at a time. Never the less I appreciate your link.

I will be the first to say that I don't know everything about this case. I think everyone knows that I have a great interest about brain injury because of my son's accident almost a year ago. Admittedly I knew very little before his injury and I would thoughtlessly throw out insensitive terms such as brain dead and vegetable when describing someone who was severely brain injured. Now I know that much can be done with the proper help. I also look at people who have a disability with a new set of eyes and a greater understanding of what this does to the individual and their families. Let me tell you that the pain is immense.

Not only do I feel for Terri and her family but I also think of her having no voice about her future. Certainly we don't want to get to the point as Americans that we see disabled people as being disposable and that is why I fight so passionately in this particular case.

That¡Çs enough for now. I will read more from your link.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 21 2005, 10:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 21 2005, 10:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

The autopsy report did not say that Terri had never been abused my Michael. The autopsy just simply produced no evidence of abuse.

Come on, I mean REALLY!

Yeah Strawberry,

You can say I am dishonest but unless you can show how I have been dishonest, the accusation is wrong and dishonest itself.

You on the other hand misreported what the autopsy actualled showed. It could have been a innocent mistake but the fact that the innocent mistake bolsters the case you are trying to present, instead of being neutral towards it indicates that the deception was deliberate - just as you have deliberately tried to suggest that I have been dishonest when in fact I have not been.

[Snow]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Jun 22 2005, 12:17 AM

I am not offering any opinion on this subject....just been reading the thread and think it's time to jump in and offer my services as a target for Snow.... I think SF has had enough already.

I have opinions of my own on other issues....doesn't make me wrong. I think that SF has made it clear that, her opinion is her opinion, just as mine is mine and yours is yours. How small this world would be if we all had to think alike.

The reason that we all share our opinions here is because we all want others to know about our opinions. For us, it is not enough to simply have them, we want others to know what they are. When you go out of your way to tell us how and what you think, it is crazy to think that others won't react to how you think.

When you make boneheaded and unfounded accuations... like Michael Schiavo is similar to a double murder and suggest that he may well have been guilty of abuse before the fact, then why would it surprize or bother anyone that someone observes that the opinion is boneheaded and unfounded.

None of this makes me right and Strawberry wrong but I can rationally and reasonably defend my line of thinking while Strawberry has to resort to impausible accusation and outragous comparisons.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 22 2005, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 22 2005, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

The autopsy report did not say that Terri had never been abused my Michael. The autopsy just simply produced no evidence of abuse.

Come on, I mean REALLY!

Yeah Strawberry,

You can say I am dishonest but unless you can show how I have been dishonest, the accusation is wrong and dishonest itself.

You on the other hand misreported what the autopsy actualled showed. It could have been a innocent mistake but the fact that the innocent mistake bolsters the case you are trying to present, instead of being neutral towards it indicates that the deception was deliberate - just as you have deliberately tried to suggest that I have been dishonest when in fact I have not been.

Can you say SMOKESCREEN?

You are just like the wizard behind the curtain when you say rubbage like this.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 22 2005, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 22 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 22 2005, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

The autopsy report did not say that Terri had never been abused my Michael. The autopsy just simply produced no evidence of abuse.

Come on, I mean REALLY!

Yeah Strawberry,

You can say I am dishonest but unless you can show how I have been dishonest, the accusation is wrong and dishonest itself.

You on the other hand misreported what the autopsy actualled showed. It could have been a innocent mistake but the fact that the innocent mistake bolsters the case you are trying to present, instead of being neutral towards it indicates that the deception was deliberate - just as you have deliberately tried to suggest that I have been dishonest when in fact I have not been.

Can you say SMOKESCREEN?

You are just like the wizard behind the curtain when you say rubbage like this.

Call it rubbish if you like but you misrepresented the autopsy, got caught, implied that I was dishonest for catching it.

Me myself? If I got caught in a deception or mistake, I would own up to it and try come up with a better line of reasoning.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 22 2005, 09:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 22 2005, 09:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 22 2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 22 2005, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 21 2005, 06:41 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jun 21 2005, 08:15 AM

This report (the autopsy) tells us many things. Two things that should be brought to light that have not yet here are that she

1. Had no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance

Strawberry,

In your zealousness to express your opinion you are being dishonest. The autopsy did not tell us that she had no eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance. THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

Personally I think your opinion is wrong but you are entitled to it, I'd prefer, however that you represent the case a little more straightforwardly.

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

The autopsy report did not say that Terri had never been abused my Michael. The autopsy just simply produced no evidence of abuse.

Come on, I mean REALLY!

Yeah Strawberry,

You can say I am dishonest but unless you can show how I have been dishonest, the accusation is wrong and dishonest itself.

You on the other hand misreported what the autopsy actualled showed. It could have been a innocent mistake but the fact that the innocent mistake bolsters the case you are trying to present, instead of being neutral towards it indicates that the deception was deliberate - just as you have deliberately tried to suggest that I have been dishonest when in fact I have not been.

Can you say SMOKESCREEN?

You are just like the wizard behind the curtain when you say rubbage like this.

Call it rubbish if you like but you misrepresented the autopsy, got caught, implied that I was dishonest for catching it.

Me myself? If I got caught in a deception or mistake, I would own up to it and try come up with a better line of reasoning.

It's a pity that you have the ability to read what ever you want into my posts... things that don't exist.