Schiavo Autopsy Released

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 22 2005, 08:59 PM

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

Okay, I'll help you out.

You said,

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

That is false. The autopsy did not show that she had 'no eating disorder to cause a chemical imbalance.' In truth the autopsy simply so no evidence for it. Lack of evidence is not evidence for...

You said,

Dishonest? There you go again.

Right back at you fella.

That is a blatant accusation that I am dishonest. In fact I said nothing dishonest.

I didn't make any of that up. Those are direct quote cut and paster from what you wrote. Now--- do you want to tell me what I was reading into your posts?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 22 2005, 12:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 22 2005, 12:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 21 2005, 06:37 PM

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.

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

The very next post I posted.

Dishonest? There you go again.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 22 2005, 12:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 22 2005, 12:40 AM)</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!

The same thing could be said right back to you here.

You are playing with words and you know it so cut the dishonest stuff.

You said

THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

I said

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.

Tell me what the difference is here. Where is the dishonesty?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 22 2005, 09:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 22 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 22 2005, 12:40 AM

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!

The same thing could be said right back to you here.

You are playing with words and you know it so cut the dishonest stuff.

You said

THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

I said

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.

Tell me what the difference is here. Where is the dishonesty?

Personally I'm not buying the dumb confused act. You know perfectly well that I never claimed that the autopsy proved no abuse and later changed it to the autopsy showed no evidence of abuse the way that you first claimed the autopsy showed no eating disorder and later, when caught, changed it to be that no evidence was found.

So when you imply or state that I was dishonest you are doing so without any substantiation. But, like I said, I'm not buying the confused, dumb act so I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 23 2005, 12:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 23 2005, 12:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 22 2005, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 22 2005, 12:40 AM

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!

The same thing could be said right back to you here.

You are playing with words and you know it so cut the dishonest stuff.

You said

THe autopsy simply produced no evidence that would show that she had such a disorder.

I said

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.

Tell me what the difference is here. Where is the dishonesty?

Personally I'm not buying the dumb confused act. You know perfectly well that I never claimed that the autopsy proved no abuse and later changed it to the autopsy showed no evidence of abuse the way that you first claimed the autopsy showed no eating disorder and later, when caught, changed it to be that no evidence was found.

So when you imply or state that I was dishonest you are doing so without any substantiation. But, like I said, I'm not buying the confused, dumb act so I'm sure I don't need to explain that to you.

Thanks! You have just made my night. Do you mind if I have this FRAMED?

Sweet Dreams!

Psyche!

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 15 2005, 06:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 15 2005, 06:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM

"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's Pinellas-Pasco County, told a press conference.

ŵhe brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he added.

Is it no wonder?

Terri was starved and dehydrated to death. I would think that anyone of us who was tortured the way she was would have lost some mass to our brains along with other organs in the body.

I know that I am a lone soldier on this message board about this but I do not believe that Michael¡Çs motives were pure as he and his attorney make him out to be. Not that it matters, but I also believe that Michael belongs in the same category as some other high profile cases i.e. O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson.

I am happy that Terri is no longer suffering at the hands of her monster of a ¡Èhusband¡É

You don¡Çt have to dispute this, these are my feelings and because they are my feelings it is true for me.

May Terri rest in peace.

Thanks.

Yep, this web page http://slate.msn.com/id/2121020/ hits the nail on the head. People believe what they want to believe. And you, Ms. Fields, are no exception.

Feelings do not equal TRUTH. Feelings cannot verify TRUTH.

BTW, just because YOU FEEL something is true, doesn't make it true, even for you. It makes you deluded, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

'nuff said. . . . . .

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by bizabra+Jun 28 2005, 08:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Jun 28 2005, 08:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 15 2005, 06:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM

"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's Pinellas-Pasco County, told a press conference.

ŵhe brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he added.

Is it no wonder?

Terri was starved and dehydrated to death. I would think that anyone of us who was tortured the way she was would have lost some mass to our brains along with other organs in the body.

I know that I am a lone soldier on this message board about this but I do not believe that Michael¡Çs motives were pure as he and his attorney make him out to be. Not that it matters, but I also believe that Michael belongs in the same category as some other high profile cases i.e. O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson.

I am happy that Terri is no longer suffering at the hands of her monster of a ¡Èhusband¡É

You don¡Çt have to dispute this, these are my feelings and because they are my feelings it is true for me.

May Terri rest in peace.

Thanks.

Yep, this web page http://slate.msn.com/id/2121020/ hits the nail on the head. People believe what they want to believe. And you, Ms. Fields, are no exception.

Feelings do not equal TRUTH. Feelings cannot verify TRUTH.

BTW, just because YOU FEEL something is true, doesn't make it true, even for you. It makes you deluded, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

'nuff said. . . . . .

Just WHO do you think you are? When YOU have walked EVEN A MILE in MY shoes, then, and only then, may you tell me what is right or true for me.

BTW, the above WILL NEVER HAPPEN so who is DELUDED now MS. BRA?

'nuff said...

[Lindy]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jun 28 2005, 07:10 PM

Yep, this web page http://slate.msn.com/id/2121020/ hits the nail on the head. People believe what they want to believe. And you, Ms. Fields, are no exception.

Feelings do not equal TRUTH. Feelings cannot verify TRUTH.

BTW, just because YOU FEEL something is true, doesn't make it true, even for you. It makes you deluded, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

'nuff said. . . . . .

Hi Biz...question for ya.....so if feelings are not equal to or verify truth as we know it .... than the love, respect, admiration, and honor that we have towards someone has no truth to it?

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 28 2005, 07:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 28 2005, 07:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -bizabra@Jun 28 2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by -Strawberry Fields@Jun 15 2005, 06:02 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM

"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's Pinellas-Pasco County, told a press conference.

ŵhe brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he added.

Is it no wonder?

Terri was starved and dehydrated to death. I would think that anyone of us who was tortured the way she was would have lost some mass to our brains along with other organs in the body.

I know that I am a lone soldier on this message board about this but I do not believe that Michael¡Çs motives were pure as he and his attorney make him out to be. Not that it matters, but I also believe that Michael belongs in the same category as some other high profile cases i.e. O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson.

I am happy that Terri is no longer suffering at the hands of her monster of a ¡Èhusband¡É

You don¡Çt have to dispute this, these are my feelings and because they are my feelings it is true for me.

May Terri rest in peace.

Thanks.

Yep, this web page http://slate.msn.com/id/2121020/ hits the nail on the head. People believe what they want to believe. And you, Ms. Fields, are no exception.

Feelings do not equal TRUTH. Feelings cannot verify TRUTH.

BTW, just because YOU FEEL something is true, doesn't make it true, even for you. It makes you deluded, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

'nuff said. . . . . .

Just WHO do you think you are? When YOU have walked EVEN A MILE in MY shoes, then, and only then, may you tell me what is right or true for me.

BTW, the above WILL NEVER HAPPEN so who is DELUDED now MS. BRA?

'nuff said...

Well, Ms. Fields, YOU are not the only person to have hardship and trials in life. Yes, what happened to your boy is sad and tragic, but others experience pain and suffering in other ways that you can't even begin to imagine. So, drop the martyr act, YOU are not an expert on pain, you are just another person experiencing life and the things that happen in life. "Stuff" happens, it's just part of being an organic life form on this planet.

What happened with the Schiavos is a tragedy all around, pain and suffering was experienced by ALL the participants. YOU ALSO HAVE NOT WALKED A MILE IN MR. SHCIAVOS SHOES, SO YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO JUDGE HIM. Eat your words or turn them on yourself, what you THINK happened you cannot KNOW happened, so stuff a sock innit, willya?

Sheesh! The compassion and love that Jesus purportedly taught is surely well demonstrated by your words of condemnation for a man and situation YOU HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF! It is always interesting to me when a good "christian" can't wait to throw stones.

Get over it and stop acting like your situation makes you some kind of expert on pain and tragedy. Show some kindness to this poor family, ALL OF THEM, and stop proclaiming Mr Schiavo to be some murderous monster. YOU SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTS AND SHOULD, AS A GOOD FOLLOWER OF CHRIST, SUSPEND JUDGEMENT AND ACT WITH COMPASSION.

Criminy sakes, woman!

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by lindy9556+Jun 29 2005, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lindy9556 @ Jun 29 2005, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bizabra@Jun 28 2005, 07:10 PM

Yep, this web page http://slate.msn.com/id/2121020/ hits the nail on the head.  People believe what they want to believe.  And you, Ms. Fields, are no exception.

Feelings do not equal TRUTH.  Feelings cannot verify TRUTH. 

BTW, just because YOU FEEL something is true, doesn't make it true, even for you.  It makes you deluded, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

'nuff said. . . . . .

Hi Biz...question for ya.....so if feelings are not equal to or verify truth as we know it .... than the love, respect, admiration, and honor that we have towards someone has no truth to it?

People "love, respect, admire, and honor" others everyday who do not merit the feelings that are showered on them. People feel love for someone, yet still will beat them, or hurt them, or belittle them. Just because you feel LOVE for another person, doesn't mean that they deserve that love.

I don't know how a personal feeling can ever demonstrate TRUTH anyway.

[StrawberryFields]

Dear Little MS BUSY BRA,

Try going back to first grade, there they will teach you how to read. You will learn to recognize simple works like IF which I used in the above posts.

I do know that it was Terris' husband who fought for her life to end after he had won a lot of money to care for her. It was because of him that she died a horrible death that is illegal to subject an animal too. It was him who wanted to keep power over Terris' outcome while he was creating a family and committing adultery with another woman. Maybe you would like the same consideration given to Terri from a man you had married.

As far as me being an expert on pain and tragedy...yes I do believe I am.

Your personal attacks on me overshadow any rational point you could ever care to muster.

BTW, Do you know them personally? Willikers!

Your hole awaits you...

[Guest bizabra]

....snicker..........

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jun 30 2005, 01:54 PM

....snicker..........

B)

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 30 2005, 12:53 PM

...It was because of him that she died a horrible death that is illegal to subject an animal too.....

SF - This is really just your opinion, because the court records regarding Terri's situation and the medical community who are authoritative in regards to the "permanent vegetative state" disagrees with you.

If you were able to read the Abstract Appeal link that I posted you would have come across that.

M.

[begood2]

If Michael's intentions were so honorable in Terri's case ... why did he:

1. Move in with another women and have children by her?

2. Refuse to allow most of the money that he won for her medical malpractice suit be used to try rehab?

3. Fight to keep other specialist from examining Terri and using more precise medical tools such as an MRI?

4. Terri was Catholic, it is not against church law, but the preferred form of internment is burial not cremation. So why was cremation chosen?

5. Michael won the court case to have the feeding tube removed and got custody of her remains ...so why did he feel that it was necessary to have the burial service without informing the parents , when and where it was going to be?

6. Why did he feel that it was necessary to make Terri's gravestone marker a political statement with the wording he had inscribed on it?

When they make a movie and write a book about Terri ... I wonder if the political statement on the grave marker will be shown?

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jun 15 2005, 07:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jun 15 2005, 07:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jun 15 2005, 02:13 PM

"Her brain was profoundly atrophied," Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Florida's Pinellas-Pasco County, told a press conference.

ŵhe brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain," he added.

Is it no wonder?

Terri was starved and dehydrated to death. I would think that anyone of us who was tortured the way she was would have lost some mass to our brains along with other organs in the body.

I know that I am a lone soldier on this message board about this but I do not believe that Michael¡Çs motives were pure as he and his attorney make him out to be. Not that it matters, but I also believe that Michael belongs in the same category as some other high profile cases i.e. O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson.

I am happy that Terri is no longer suffering at the hands of her monster of a ¡Èhusband¡É

You don¡Çt have to dispute this, these are my feelings and because they are my feelings it is true for me.

May Terri rest in peace.

Thanks.

The Jews have their Holocaust Memorials to help people to never forget the atrocities of war: and, this for the purpose--not to make people remember them (the Jews, themselves)--but of the fact that people will, over time, forget the horrific things that their ancestors did, whether in the name of religion or at the command of an empire-building mindset [you may now think of Nazi Germany and other "empires" and "empire-builders", if you wish.]

What does this have to do with that profoundly disabled woman who the "state" allowed to die?

Just remember--emphasizing the word remember--what was done, in Europe, in the 1930s and 1940s, to profoundly disabled people, like Terri. (I believe I recall that the preferred method included the use of a "Lugar").

At any rate, I am encouraged that we don't still just "discard" new-borns who are born profoundly retarded: that we still

care for them, without passing a death sentence, upon them!

That the courts honor "the Law" above life, itself, is a sad commentary worthy of consideration.

(Next time you read Victor Hugo's Les Miserábles you will see this fact manifested, very clearly: if you don't put your mind into a sort of disconnect mode, that is!)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Jun 30 2005, 12:53 PM

Dear Little MS BUSY BRA,

Try going back to first grade, there they will teach you how to read. You will learn to recognize simple works like IF which I used in the above posts.

I do know that it was Terris' husband who fought for her life to end after he had won a lot of money to care for her. It was because of him that she died a horrible death that is illegal to subject an animal too. It was him who wanted to keep power over Terris' outcome while he was creating a family and committing adultery with another woman. Maybe you would like the same consideration given to Terri from a man you had married.

As far as me being an expert on pain and tragedy...yes I do believe I am.

Your personal attacks on me overshadow any rational point you could ever care to muster.

BTW, Do you know them personally? Willikers!

Your hole awaits you...

Hey, MS. Fields, I would like to know just exactly HOW I "personally attacked" you in any of my posts. I did not call you names or attack your character, I did say that although you may THINK and FEEL something is TRUE, it doesn't make it TRUE but that it might make you deluded. I also admit that I insisted you are not the only "expert" on pain and suffering , and that I thought you ought to drop the martyr act, but I made no PERSONAL ATTACKS on you.

YOU, however, distort my pen name into a slur, and tell me I need to go back to the first grade, as you suppose I cannot read or understand the word IF.

Hmmm.... I wonder just WHO is guilty of "personal attacks" here?

So, please show me how I attacked you as a person.

Thank you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by begood2@Jul 1 2005, 08:04 PM

If Michael's intentions were so honorable in Terri's case ... why did he:

If Michael's intentions were so honorable in Terri's case ... why did he:

1. Move in with another women and have children by her? If by honorable you mean carrying out the wishes of Terri Schiavo as he understood them and acting responsibly as her legal agent, then his desire to have a wife and family - after Terri - have nothing to do with honor - additional honor is demonstrated by him never abandoning his duty even though his personal life had moved on.

2. Refuse to allow most of the money that he won for her medical malpractice suit be used to try rehab? It appears that the answer is that he did not believe that further rehab would be effective - as it turns out, all indications are that he was right.

3. Fight to keep other specialist from examining Terri and using more precise medical tools such as an MRI? Because he and his/her doctors had decided it was pointless. As it turns out - he was right.

4. Terri was Catholic, it is not against church law, but the preferred form of internment is burial not cremation. So why was cremation chosen? Because that was his or her preference. It has nothing to do with honor.

5. Michael won the court case to have the feeding tube removed and got custody of her remains ...so why did he feel that it was necessary to have the burial service without informing the parents , when and where it was going to be? I don't know but if they had been demonizing him and lying about him or at least making horrible innuendo about him and making his life a living hell for years then he might have been more courteous towards them. What comes around, goes around I guess.

6. Why did he feel that it was necessary to make Terri's gravestone marker a political statement with the wording he had inscribed on it? <span style='color:blue'> He didn't make a political statement so you are asking the wrong question. It said "I kept my promise." The Schindlers are so self-centered that they think that is a personal dig at them. It sounds like a statement of honor to me. Through all the digusting crap the Schindlers put him through, he still had the honor and principle to do the right thing - as he understood it.

[Guest bizabra]

Hear, Hear, Snow! I'm with YOU on this issue.

[Snow]

Originally posted by bizabra@Jul 3 2005, 09:20 AM

Hear, Hear, Snow! I'm with YOU on this issue.

Yes and it's a good thing that you are...

... else I might ask for all my Debbie Gibson and Gilbert O'Sullivan albums back.