Ace's=all schaivo, all the time.

I'm not trying to be flip, ace. I think that Michael's a complete and total asshole and cocksucker (in my opinion).

But where are we going with this? Again, I'm not trying to be bossy or a dick myself, but I'm wondering if this discussion is going to lead anywhere useful. Do you have a plan, big guy?

Is the thinking that we can get some action here to save Terri? If so, let me know how to help. If not, could you just start posting pics of Michael's face with the word "COCKSUCKER (imo)" written in 72 pt font over top? Maybe include his lawyer's face and Ron Wyden (D-Hell's back acre).

Cuz that's about how I feel. Pissed off at the mendacity of these fuckers and otherwise completely useless.

I have been asking for some time now that if Michael Schiavo was so certain about his wife's wishes why did he sue for life-long rehabilitation and personal care expenses.

Did he fraudulently mislead the jury by hiding Terri's death wish or is he now trying to end her life for even more self-serving reasons?

I also want to know why he retains the full legal responsibilities of a husband when he assuming conjugal privileges (boinking) with another woman? If he is in fact her husband his residing with and having two children with another woman is adultery. Florida law gives him the ability to divorce Terri, but he has chosen not to exercise that right, presumably to retain his power to affect her death.

Does this pass the smell test?

I understand the single-minded nature of the blog since last night.

But:

1) it's a story that has come to a crisis point. Same thing happned when rathergate broke.

2) I'd like to throw in funny links and shit, but wouldn't that seem inappropriate?

3) Is there other news going on? If so, I'd like to cover it. I'm sure there must be, but I haven't really looked all that hard, and my in-box isn't filling up with non-Terri tips.

Hobgoblin - I share your feelings on this. I think what we can do is pray for the family and take action to make sure this crap never happens again.

This judge was out of order - he's a frickin' poster boy for judical activism. First, he needs to go. Then, we need to reform the judicial system. Michael Schiavo never should have retained guardianship. There was sufficient evidence of abuse to remove him from the picture.

What are the criteria to give someone guardianship, and how can they be changed?

Ace, it's your site (I see your name up there anyway) so I presume you can post about whatever you want.

Anyway -- all this makes me glad I never married. I'm no man-hater, but what if the love of my life turned out to be a... person like this? (I can't call him a "dick" because that would insult dicks, jerks, and cads everywhere.)

Ace,

I am the last guy to tell you what to do. Really. I'm not asking for slapstick links.

And I'm not "complaining" about your monomania.

I'm honestly curious if there's a plan, that's all.

And Andrea, just because somebody's child turned out to be Courtney Love doesn't mean you get down on childbirth. There is always still hope for emotional fulfillment, as "it is not good for man to be alone." (Genesis) Or for the less religiously inclined, "only a beast or a god lives alone." (Nietzche).

Hope is a virtue, and when properly contemplated, it is never easy to hope.

Hard to think about anything else, isn't it?

Plans?

Let me approximately quote Benecio Del Torro from The Way of the Gun:

"I don't think we're 'plans' kinds of guys."

I have no plan. This just seems to be the hot topic, the main dispute, of the day. I'm not planning on turning this into Save Terri.com.

In fact, Blogs for Terri and others have been trying to get me to blog about this for weeks but I didn't because I thought there was no hope and little point rehashing.

It's just that today it's at a crisis point, the media seems to be focusing on it, there is actual movement in the story (bad movement, alas), and I really don't have the urge to get on to a different story.

Though I did put up the Nancy Pelosi piece, partly because I understand that those who are uninterested or conflicted about this issue must find the blog very boring today.

ace, stop with the "I'm sorry I'm so ugly" girlfriend stuff.

; )

The topic is topical, the blog's anything but boring, and you're doing a good job laying out your thoughts.

And I'm conflicted on the question of whether a feeding tube is extraordinary measure in the saving of a life, but not at all conflicted on the question of whether Michael Scaivo's the biggest douche in the universe.

ace, stop with the "I'm sorry I'm so ugly" girlfriend stuff.

Are you mad at me?

I dunno Ace, I say let's **do** "hang Michael Schiavo in a kangaroo cyber-court". Looks like as much justice as poor Terri is going to get.

ACE - You were wrong about money being a factor in the decision. You are also wrong that starvation/dehydration is a terribly painful way to go.

1. First, in Schiavo's case, her body has no cerebral cortex tissue still alive. That makes her a vegetable. She does not react to pain stimuli according to examining neurologists - because there is no brain tissue left that causes a body to feel and react to pain.

2. Second, as part of dying, many people naturally eschew eating or drinking. They lose all appetite and thirst. Their bodies shut off any signals for a cheeseburger or Coke on ice. But they complain about mouth dryness so many spend their last week or so of life only asking for an ice chip no and then or a moistened sponge. The medical term for this is cachexia...which is the general body-wasting condition especially in dying cancer & heart disease patients - caused by a loss of appetite or toxins suppressing appetite/ nutrition absorption. Doctors consider cachexia good for hastening a "good death" - an old folk's friend like pneumonia. Many people who have not been around the dying think starving to death or dying of dehydration must be horrific - but patients alert to the end say there is no pain from it....

Ace, gotta disagree w/ you on this one. The husband may be a total penis wrinkle, but unless someone can prove he did something wrong, (and Terri's parents have had years to prove just that in court), and as best I know, a flat line brain wave scan puts you in the same neighborhood as most passed on parots (and terri's parents haven't been able to prove otherwise in court for the last decade or so). I admit I'm as sceptical of judical power gone mad as the next guy, but it's not like there hasn't been sufficent review in this case by other judges up the line. Much as I might think her husband is a little scummy, I think he's got the right to do what he thinks is best for Terri, and I hope if I was in the same position, my wife would put me down rather than let me drift about in a brain that didn't work anymore..

Just my 2cents...

More cedarTARD lies. How does he make this stuff up so fast? I'm thinking he's projecting his brain death on to Terri.

ace, omg lol

(you know, "lol" is this new internets thingie where someone is saying they're "laughing out loud." it means they thoguht your comment was funny. kewl, huh?)

Ceadrford, just for the moment, I;m going to declare a unilateral hudna and ask you if you have any factual support for the statement that Terri Schaivo registers no pain stimulus.

Seriously.

I'd really like to know that.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/174428.shtml

Barbara Weller, an attorney for Terri Schiavo's parents, told reporters Friday afternoon that during her visit earlier in the day she told Ms. Schiavo:

Story Continues Below

"Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this will be over."

According to pro-life activist Randall Terry, who recounted the scene to radio host Sean Hannity, Schiavo tried desperately to repeat Weller's words.

"'I waaaaannt ...,' Schiavo allegedly said, in a prolonged yell that had police stationed nearby running into her hospice room.

"She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Terry said, according to Weller's account.

At that point police ejected Weller, he said.

You feel pain with your cerebellum, not your cerebrum. Terri's cerebral cortex may be damaged, but that is no reason to presume she can't feel pain.

Here are two things that confirm she can:

This woman started starving and didn't enjoy it very much. It is a painful process.

And this horrible account of what will be done to Terri suggests that there will be a great effort to remove any appearance that she might feel pain, but they are also giving pain medications.

"And Andrea, just because somebody's child turned out to be Courtney Love doesn't mean you get down on childbirth. There is always still hope for emotional fulfillment, as "it is not good for man to be alone." (Genesis) Or for the less religiously inclined, "only a beast or a god lives alone." (Nietzche)."

Er, Hobgoblin, what the hell are you talking about? I didn't even mention children. I've no interest in getting pregnant myself and never have, but I have nothing against children or pregnant people and in fact have become less and less thrilled with the idea of abortion over the years. By the way, thanks for the patronizing "you poor little woman don't give up hope you shouldn't be alone" bullshit. What the hell gives you the idea that I am living in some sort of lonely hell? Believe it or not, I do have a social life, and I also wouldn't trade living on my own for the bestest husband in Christendom.

For an objective account of what it's like to starve to death, you can also read the Outside magazine article, Death of an Innocent (Jan 1993), or book about, "Into the Wild", about Chris McCandless, both by Jon Krakauer.

"Starvation is not a pleasant way to die. In advanced stages, as the body begins to consume itself, the victim suffers muscle pain, heart disturbances, loss of hair, shortness of breath. Convulsions and hallucinations are not uncommon. "

Andrea, after your little (unprovoked) rant about kids (which I wasn't talking about) I'm glad you're not having any.

My point was "Don't let the Scott Petersons and Michael Schaivos suggest that all men/marriages are shitty."

I meant it in a spirit of lightheartedness (not patronization), but if you wish to get all uptight about it, don't let me stop you.

now, now. What's all this fussin' and fightin' about?

Wow...Hobby and Andrea taking the gloves off.

Can I call Paul McCartney as an expert witness on the subject?

He did give us all the morality tale of Eleanor Rigby who "died in a church and was buried along with her name....nobody came."

It's a shame that Beatallica never covered that...

See-dub

I have zero doubt that starvation is far, far from the peaceful fairy boat ride that the pro-death folks are talking about.

But I was serious about proof, if CF is still out there. If the body no longer registers pain, that suggests a serious brain impairment on par with allowing the natural course of death to occur. not as an end to suffering (of which the body can feel nothing at such a state of impairment), but as the ultimate end of us all.

Really, at what point does the body just stop living of its own accord? Terri's not on a ventilator, right? Her heart's beating on its own, correct?

Ahh, screw it. I'm gonna go home. I'm needing too much info and I don't have the time for it. I leave the death of this woman on the consciences and souls of the husband, lawyer, and judge.

may God have mercy all of those involved in this.

Andrea took my comment the wrong way (I suppose understandably) and I overreacted in turn.

Ain't the innernut grand?

Yeah, I should've been more tactful, and I apologize.

no offense ever intended, Andrea

"Andrea, after your little (unprovoked) rant about kids (which I wasn't talking about) I'm glad you're not having any."

GODDAMMIT. What I want to know is what in the fuck are you talking about? What "unprovoked rant"? What the fucking fuck?"

Are you hallucinating? I DIDN'T MENTION KIDS HERE. Look, here is my original comment, since your scrollbar seems to be broken:

Ace, it's your site (I see your name up there anyway) so I presume you can post about whatever you want.

Anyway -- all this makes me glad I never married. I'm no man-hater, but what if the love of my life turned out to be a... person like this? (I can't call him a "dick" because that would insult dicks, jerks, and cads everywhere.)

OK, now tell me:

Where did I mention kids?

Where did I mention kids?

Where? Did I mention kids?

Do you see anything about children there? Sprogs, rugrats, mumsie's delights, little persons, childlings, adorable munchkins -- do you see anything like that?

Jesusgivemestrength, what the hell did anything I say there have to do with kids? Or Courtney Love, for that matter? WHAT. THE. HELL. Give me a frickin' bone here.

Explain that, and maybe I'll think about your apology. See, I like apologies that are about something that actually happened. I'm funny that way.

Excuse my French, ace.

Andrea, just b/c you've used the comedy gold of "what the fucking fuck" (that always makes me lol), let me dissect the misunderstanding (since you asked for it).

You wrote in response, "I didn't even mention children. I've no interest in getting pregnant myself and never have, but I have nothing against children or pregnant people and in fact have become less and less thrilled with the idea of abortion over the years.

That just sounded defensive to me. I was intentionally comparing apples and oranges (men and children) with the Courtney Love comment. It was indeed wholly unrelated.

So, what I percieved as defensiveness in your response I called a "rant."

Again, poor choice of words/miscommunication. Now I'm not gonna grovel, but I still do apologize.

And "WHAT. THE. HELL. Give me a frickin' bone here." is also pretty funny.

Jesus Mary Chrysler in Panty Hose.

I make a statement, about something, and someone else brings up something else entirely in responding to my comment, and then when I go "Hrrnh?" responds to me AS IF I WAS THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT UP THE ENTIRELY UNRELATED SUBJECT, and then when I understandably am NOT THRILLED to be subject to bizarre nonsense, tells me I'm being defensive. Do you see why I am glad I am not married or living with anyone? I would end up in prison or the morgue because there would be barbecue forks being used in an unnatural and violent manner after one argument like this. But I am so glad I entertained you.

Hobgob -

The neurologists do formal consults that evaluate CNS damage employing board-certified procedures. Does the patient withdraw a limb or display voluntary muscular action if discomfort is applied? Like an ice cube to the underside of the foot or a "pinwheel" - something that looks like a pizza cutter with pointy knobs on it that causes discomfort to the skin but doesn't pierce it. Shiavo displays involuntary muscle contraction (like when the doc taps your knee with the rubber tomahawk), but no reaction due to voluntary muscle contraction based on processing pain and reacting to it.

Again, her whole cerebral cortex died and rotted away. Her body is beyond thinking and processing.

The neurologists also do lots of eye tests. Involuntary - pupil contracts to light, voluntary - eye consistently tracks objects....Again, involuntary reflexive brainstem reactions work well in what's left of her, but the examiners were unable to get her eyes to voluntarily track like her Schindler parents did with one of several (at least) passes of a Mickey Mouse balloon in front of her eyes.

They note her limbs move in an involuntary manner, aimlessly...

The Religious Right brought out additional doctors they typically have used before, from various disciplines. Since they weren't in the clinical exam group, their claim that she isn't in the PVS condition the examiners diagnosed her with - is solely based on their watching Schindler's edited video. They make a big deal about no MRI done. MRI is used in other vegetable cases where brain damage is slight..but enough and in a vulnerable brain are of the cerebral cortex .....to put the person in an irreversable coma.

In Shiavo's case, her brain is so extensively damaged her physician evaluators (one selected by the court, 2 by the Schindlers, 2 by Michael Shiavo) concluded there was little medical value in MRI-ing her to see if any area of the brain cortex was damaged when the CT scan found the whole cortex dead, gone, liquified away.

However, whatever happened to Cedarford's brain remains a mystery. One no one wants to solve.

Question - Does Terri's feeding tube being removed prevent her from being medevac'd to D.C. to appear before Congress? She is now hooked up to absolutely nothing - why not put her on a stretcher and get her out of the room for a quick trip to Bethesda where the Congressional Committee can observe her personally? Just a thought... not terribly practical but I'd love to see her removed from Judge A$$hat's jurisdiction, couldn't hurt and just might help.

Well, the comment board is never boring...

I was doing a little research the other day, and came across the best 'Terri' site yet. It explains the breakdown of how her money was spent, and it appears that most was spent on the legal battle to have her killed.

I swear, at this point, it almost appears that her husband is doing this out of spite for her parents.

Check out the site, it's a good one:

http://terrisfight.org/

OK,

Neurology 101:

"You feel pain with your cerebellum, not your cerebrum. Terri's cerebral cortex may be damaged, but that is no reason to presume she can't feel pain.."

Nope.

Not even close.

All of our conscious feelings are subtended, or rely upon our cortical structures. The cerebellum is part of the motor system, involved in coordination, posture, and tone.

"Again, her whole cerebral cortex died and rotted away. Her body is beyond thinking and processing.".

Nope.

If someones "whole cerebral cortex dies", they die.
As to whether Terri Schiavo is beyond thinking, I don't beleive this to be true.

It is correct, to say, that Terri Schiavo, has at least intermittently regained consciousness, as evidenced by her ability to track an object. I do not know the dates of the videos that show this, but these tapes argue strongly (if not conclusively) against the diagnosis of PVS.

"MRI is used in other vegetable cases where brain damage is slight..but enough and in a vulnerable brain are of the cerebral cortex .....to put the person in an irreversable coma."

This doesn't mean anything. Sorry, Cedarford.

"If the body no longer registers pain, that suggests a serious brain impairment on par with allowing the natural course of death to occur. not as an end to suffering (of which the body can feel nothing at such a state of impairment), but as the ultimate end of us all. "

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

Yes, if a person can no longer feel pain (and there is no evidence of spinal cord injury, for example), and does not awaken, this is compatible with severe bilateral hemispheric or thalamic injury, and or severe brainstem injury. But these states do not equate with impending death or the dying process. When this type of clinical state is prolonged, absence of consciousness (which includes the ability to perceive or respond to stimulation), often one is dealing with a state that becomes a PVS.

The permanent loss of awareness, consciousness, or cognition, is a kind of loss of who we are And that is why some people feel that to live like that would be intolerable, cruel, and horrific.

This is not to say that Terri Schiavo fits this description.

If I could advise the readers here, and everyone interested in this case, I would say it impossible to know Terri Schiavo's condition unless you examine her. First off, the neurological examination is phenomenologic, it changes with time.

Second, there is so much heresay, misinformation, and flat absurdly wrong information (see above) that it is impossible to know what is really going on.

From my experience, often I would be called to the ICU to consult on a patient there, having been given a detailed account of the patient's neurological findings, and when I got there, I found a totally different set of data, for the reasons mentioned above: wrong exam; and the exam changes.

Noting the sensitivity of Ms. Harris, I will keep my feelings out of this, but I would add the observation again, that all parties in this tragic affair, including perhaps Terri Schiavo, hold some degree responsibility for this terrible mess.

NB: I am not "blaming" Terri Schiavo. But if, as it is alleged, that she made the comments that "she did not want artificial life-support," then it was her words that have in-part, now led to these terrible consequences, or not.

Good for you...you are really rocking and rolling here with taking in a lot of information known to many of us Bloggers for Terri... I also am NOT of the Far RIght religious right...I myself before February had no idea about all the documents and the complete history... I was not quick to villify Michael Schiavo until I put all the pieces together... I now have absolutely no problem at all in calling an Ace an Ace so to speak...I resent the case being made a "right to die" case as there are numerous extenuating circumstances that have NEVER been properly investigated AND Greer is mandating her starvation based on HEARSAY.......Great blogging...and greatly appreciated ...

Ace and many others keep saying that Michael Schiavo shouldn't be the one deciding to remove the feeding tube. He wasn't. He went to the court and asked the court to decide. The court appointed someone (who, it later turned out was adamantly opposed to removing feeding tubes). He did a good job, said it came down to an incredibly close call, but thought the evidence wasn't suitably compelling. additional evidence introduced at trial seemed to be more compelling to the judge. The judge's decision was upheld several times by the appellate court, and the FSC denied the petitions to review it.

So Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to end his wife's life. He asked the court--NOT to end her life, but to make the decision for him. No one likes the decision. But he didn't make it.

Well Cal, I think you have made the most disingenuous argument of this entire topic. Congratulations.

Well, Brew, you clearly don't know the difference between a fact and an argument. Study up.

Oh! Those were facts! Then we'll just forget about the fact that he has refused medical treatment (antibiotics for an infection), dental care, adequate nursing, therapy etc. right? Because he decided to ask the court to cease 'life support' that is different then making the decision to end his wife's life? You're kidding me right Cal?

How can I forget about them? More to the point, the judge didn't forget about them. They're part of the public record. The judge, the appellate court, and the Florida Supreme Court knew all about the first fact, at least, when they made the decision that Terry Schiavo had a constitutional right to die. So they've all been taken into account. No one "forgot" to take those into account.

You, on the other hand, are "forgetting" (or probably, given the depth of ignorance you've displayed, never knew) that he is not making this decision. He's not the one removing the feeding tube. He turned the decision over to the court.

You just don't like the decision the court made. But don't delude yourself that they didn't know everything you know and a whole lot more when they made that decision.

"or probably, given the depth of ignorance you've displayed, never knew"

I have to assume when somebody resorts to ad hominem attacks they are out of ammo. But I should have expected this from somebody who thinks Michael Schiavo is the poor, misunderstood victim in this case.

p.s. Your absolute faith in the intelligence and wisdom of the court seems beyond naive. Is this Judge Greer?

The original judge ruled against Michael and ordered him replaced as guardian due to conflict of interest. His findings were overturned due to a claim, found to be reasonable, that he was biased against Michael.

As for "all judges agreeing" --

That's not quite the case. The finder of fact -- the initial judge -- has a great deal of power over a case. His findings of fact cannot be overturned unless there is clear and convincing evidence he was wrong (a fairly high threshhold, below "beyond any resonable doubt" but still quite high).

Appellate courts patrol, generally, for errors of law, not mistaken findings of fact, unless a finding of fact is egregiously wrong.

Or, just to ratchet up some partisanship, they just really want to overturn a decision due to partisan leanings, as the Florida Supreme Court did to the trial judge in Bush v. Gore.

I wouldn't say the appellate courts find Judge Greer to be right so much as they cannot find Greer to be wrong according to the high threshhold of clear and convincing evidence.

Hah! That last post was mine. I meant to address it TO Cal, not to sign it Cal.

Cal didn't say that.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, Cal.

Man, I was wondering about that.

Which "original judge" are you referring to, in which decision? The only person I can think of who was found to be biased was the original GAL, Pearse. I may have missed a decision, so which are you talking about?

I never said "all the judges agreed", did I? I thought I said several times that the appellate court upheld the court's decision. They did so repeatedly, including a virtual de novo review of all the evidence in the case of the battling experts. So they went well beyond merely affirming the process--which they also did.

Your posts up to now have all focused heavily on the suspcious motives of Schiavo, the fact that Judge Greer made all the decisions. What you haven't mentioned much is that it's normal for a judge to handle all decisions, that the Schindlers repeatedly asked that Judge Greer be removed and the appellate court just as repeatedly said that there was no reason to do so.

I don't think that judicial review is infallible. I do think that the current handwringing is completely ignoring the fact that judicial review has been extensive.

[edited by ace]

Are you seriously suggesting that the extensive court review is less reliable than a National Review article and a few pro-Terry websites?

Is it possible that the judge is unduly biased or mistaken? Sure. Is it possible that the appellate court privately thinks that Greer is murdering Schiavo for no reason and is swallowing their distaste because they can't find a legal means to overrule him? That's incredibly unlikely.

Is it possible that all the people handwringing over this situation are ignoring reality, implicitly suggesting that extensively judicial review commonly fails, and don't know what the hell they're talking about? Hell, yes. Far more likely than the judge's bias and several galaxies closer to likely than the appellate court scenario. Opponents to Michael Schiavo don't improve the odds by regularly citing issues that have been addressed by the courts.

I've read the court decisions. I'm not an expert on the law at all. But I don't think anyone can read those opinions and think the decisions were careless or hasty. I also think people would be surprised at how many of the supposedly "new facts" were dealt with in these hearings.

'But I should have expected this from somebody who thinks Michael Schiavo is the poor, misunderstood victim in this case. "

You're welcome to pull opinions out of your ass, but refrain from attributing them to me. You've done that twice, now.

Yes, I meant Pearse.

Can't respond fully now.

I edited your post... remember the old rule about not revealing stuff that was revealed in the Forum That Shall Not Be Named?

: )

Cal - I love the humor and insight at FootballFansForTheTruth. I think you gave Kerry or at least some of his camp followers ulcers.

What I don't get about this whole discussion is, why is there even an argument taking place about this? The main argument that I've heard in favor of letting Terri starve and dehydrate to death is that she's in a PVS so you "might as well" let her life end because there's no point to it and she won't suffer at all from the starvation and dehydration. But this is the thing, if this is true then she's not suffering now and there is absolutely no harm in letting her family keep her alive as long as they're willing to pay for it. If, on the other hand, the argument is that she would want to die because she is suffering then she is not in a PVS is she?

She's either able to experience pain or she isn't. If she isn't then it does no harm to anyone to let her family keep her alive. If she is able to feel pain then removing her feeding tube and letting her die by starvation and dehydration is horribly cruel and wrong. In that case, even if this could be considered a "right to die/euthenasia" case, this is still probably about the least humane way possible to end her life.

Man, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you'd gone that far back into the closet (of privacy! privacy! Not that closet). Apologies. Here's an edited version of the deleted text:

Do you really mean to suggest that an extensive judicial review is less reliable than a National Review article and a few pro-Terry websites?

Okay, Pearse. Pearse wasn't a judge. He was a GAL. That's entirely different, and given that your effort was to suggest that not all the judges came to the same conclusion, it's a non-starter.

There you have it. Cal is endorsed by cedarford. Congratulations! Lol!

Cedarford--thanks! I hope you still check the site out occasionally; we have fun with it.

In fact, to lighten things up, I offer: 10 Reasons to Marry Scott Peterson.

Cal said "He went to the court and asked the court to decide. "

And Cal said "So Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to end his wife's life. He asked the court--NOT to end her life, but to make the decision for him. No one likes the decision. But he didn't make it."

I could cut and paste more of your Michael Schiavo apologia but I think that's sufficient. So cal, i didn't pull anything out of my ass, I pulled it out of yours.

That last one was mine. Sorry.

Cal,

I didn't read it carefully enough to understand that Pearse was not a judge. My apologies.

Still, he was court-appointed magistrate, I take it (still not sure; maybe I ought to cut my losses...?).

Whatever he was, he was appointed by the court as a neutral finder of facts and found Michael too conflicted to be a guardian.

"Whatever he was, he was appointed by the court as a neutral finder of facts and found Michael too conflicted to be a guardian."

Yes. And he freely admitted to the court that he was not neutral and that he had not notified the court of this before he was appointed. The judge still chose to use his findings, but separately decided that he hadn't had access to several witnesses. Pearse agreed that if he had had access to these additional witnesses and found them credible, he might have leaned the other way. As it was, he found it a very close call.

The judge did take Pearse's finding that Michael Schiavo's word was not enough to take on its own, and he didn't.

You're wrong, though, that he found Schiavo "too conflicted to be a guardian". He wasn't investigating Schiavo's guardianship, but on Terry Schiavo's right to die. He recommended that the judge not take Schiavo's unsupported word for Terry's wishes (and as I said, the judge didn't).

So the one person that you've brought up (even given your not quite certain cite and occasional error) didn't have access to evidence that the judge did, and even with that determined that any decision would be a very close call. It certainly wasn't an open and shut case in favor of "Michael Schiavo is a wife-murdering scum) even without that additional information that the judge used to rule that Terry Schiavo had a right to die.

But again, the GAL (which is what Pearse was) is someone who reports to the judge. The judge is the one who makes the decision. So back to my original point: the Schindlers have had any number of days in court, and they've raised every issue that you find so compelling in a court of law. Why is it that you are more prepared to believe an NRO article in favor of numerous court decisions and appellate review? Especially given that you don't seem to have read the court decisions yourself?

"I could cut and paste more of your Michael Schiavo apologia "

Again with the whole confusion between opinion and fact. Grok more, drink less.

Cal,

You are indeed a stranger in a strange land.

I know what to do, let's all write letters and Easter Cards to Michael, and ask him in his own words for his side of the story, and let him know how we all feel:---------------------------------------------------------------------

MICHAEL SCHAIVO, 2807 MARRIE COURT, CLEARWATER, FL 33761-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No threats, no violence...just ask him in writing to justify his actions, and prove he's not what we think he is...

Or send him a card, letting him know that you are praying for his wife, and for him to ask forgiveness for his sinful life!

His address is PUBLIC RECORD, because of the court battle, and the aleegations of abuse filed...look it up!

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/terri_michael.htm

This is nothing more than legalized murder. Slowly starving that woman to death is cruel and unsusal punishment. We treat convicted murderers better than that! Speaking of that, I keep hearing about her husband receiving death threats. Do these people not realize that if they are thinking about killing him, they need to do it before she dies? If custody reverts to her parents, this could all be over. What he is doing amounts to murder. When he moved on with his life and had a family with another woman, he gave up any right to make decisions about her life. Didn't I hear something about a life insurance policy he will collect? Sounds like motive for murder to me.