Terri Schiavo's (Flat?) EEG

[Rouser2]

Did this nurse report these serious crimes (attempted murder) to anyone at the time?

At the very least you would have expected her to inform her superiors and the police.

If she did not, what does that say about her credibility as a witness?

She reported her suspiciions to both the nursing home and the police and was promptly fired the next day.

 

[kookbreaker]

>>He also based it on the fact that the Schindlers' claims about what Terri said about living were from her at age 11 or 12 and thus were not relevant.

Yeah, right. And that's just one of Judge Greer's many errors of fact upon which he allegedly based his decision. The witness said the year was 1982 when Terri made the statement, not 1975 when Greer erroneously believed Karen Quinlin died. Thus, on the prompting Mr. Felos, presumed she made the statement in 1975. But of course Karen Quinlin did not die in 1975, but 8 years later.

Once again, you arrogantly assume you know better than the judge. This is explained in the courts findings.

Had what you said been true, the appeals should have brought it out. But it was not true!

>>And yes, judges do have to weigh the evidence of testimony. More than mere pregant pauses, Greer found other errors.

Judge Greer made other errors.

And yet, the Schindlers went 0 for 17 on the appeals process! Maybe you don't know as much as you think you do.

>>Judges have to judge. If you don't like his decision, you are allowed to appeal. The Schindler's got plenty of appeals. But "I don't like the way that works" is not a good way to make an appeal. And arrogance over the whole system isn't a convincing arguement.

An innocent life exterminated by the ignorance and arrogance (or perhaps worse) of a backwater judge. That's a convincing argument. [/B]

Wheras yours is: "I know better than the entire court system of the US what this womans' wishes were"

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

She reported her suspiciions to both the nursing home and the police and was promptly fired the next day.

Really? And yet it supposedly happened "about" FIVE times on her shift.

So why did she not report it immediately the first time it happened, which she clearly did not based on the quote YOU posted?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that a nurse DID NOTHING on the first FOUR occasions when she thought someone had tried to murder her patient?

Notice also the use of the word "about" - people trying to murder patients under her care was obviously so commonplace that not only did she not bother to report it, but she can't even remember how often it happened.

And you can't see why she would not make a compelling witness?

 

[Rouser2]

You're right, of course. Flat-Earthers find no evidence for a flat earth but that doesn't mean the Earth isn't flat.

Jebus Jumpin' Judas Priest, Rouser2, 89 investigations over a four year period in the most intensively scrutinized case in memory and no evidence for wrong doing is found and you are not convinced? Wow. BTW, you're not a Flat-Earther, are you?


So, a husband wanting to spend time private, alone with his incapacited wife is grounds for suspicion? I suspect this puts millions of loving couples under suspicion.

And exactly who suspected a scheme of poison by insulin injection? Oh, Nurse Iyer. OK, who else? Corrobrating evidence? None. Iyer can "suspect" all she wants, but that is EVIDENCE of nothing.

You then appended this paragraph to you post. I presume it is the words of Nurse Iyer:


My emphasis on the last phrase.

Did you get that last phrase, Rouser2? She has NO evidence. Her opinion is just that - an opinion. It carries no evidentiary value whatsoever.

I enjoy this discussion, Rouser2. It is fascinating to watch how preconceived notions can trump evidence at a truly colossal scale. It is, for me, a cautionary tale for my own life. It reminds me that I must mistrust myself most when I so trust myself.

In her live radio and television interviews nurse Iyer disclosed that she did indeed find empty vials of insulin in the waste basket shortly after an MS visit, as welll as needle marks all over Terri's body.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In her live radio and television interviews nurse Iyer disclosed that she did indeed find empty vials of insulin in the waste basket shortly after an MS visit, as welll as needle marks all over Terri's body.

And she then promptly called the police who secured the area as a potential crime scene?

Or did she tell NOBODY about these and allow evidence of attempted murder to be put out in the trash and then "remember" the details years later when someone paid her for an interview?

 

[Rouser2]

Really? And yet it supposedly happened "about" FIVE times on her shift.

So why did she not report it immediately the first time it happened, which she clearly did not based on the quote YOU posted?


And you can't see why she would not make a compelling witness?

It's a weak and a cheap shot. If she had reported suspicions after only one visit and one reading of her glucose, that would have been presumptive, especially given the notorious innacuracy of today's digital medical equipment.

 

[Rouser2]

And she then promptly called the police who secured the area as a potential crime scene?

Or did she tell NOBODY about these and allow evidence of attempted murder to be put out in the trash and then "remember" the details years later when someone paid her for an interview?

Another cheap shot. Nurse Iyer reported her suspiciions to the police but they did nothing. All she got for her actions was to get fired from her position. You know, there are some people in the world who do not have an "angle" or ulterior motive, but are only motiviated by doing what is right.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Another cheap shot. Nurse Iyer reported her suspiciions to the police but they did nothing. All she got for her actions was to get fired from her position. You know, there are some people in the world who do not have an "angle" or ulterior motive, but are only motiviated by doing what is right.

And there are some who are motivated by fame/money.

Now, into which category would I put someone who ignored supposed attempted murders at the time but "remembered" details about them (suitably vague and not subject to checking - after all she can't even remember how many so-called attempted murders there were) years later when there were TV stations and newspapers with pages to fill and chequebooks to wave?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It's a weak and a cheap shot. If she had reported suspicions after only one visit and one reading of her glucose, that would have been presumptive, especially given the notorious innacuracy of today's digital medical equipment.

Some would suggest a cheap shot would be editing out part of the post you are quoting while giving no indication you had done so.

Of course if those points undermined your position entirely as they pointed out that the witness you introduced couldn't remember certain key information (such as the number of times she had to treat her patient as a result of attempts having been made on her life) and hadn't bothered to report these attempted murders to the police, you can understand why you would want to try and ignore the facts.

But then again, you ALWAYS want to ignore the facts.

 

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]


>> quote:Originally posted by Rouser2 Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]

>>He also based it on the fact that the Schindlers' claims about what Terri said about living were from her at age 11 or 12 and thus were not relevant.

Yeah, right. And that's just one of Judge Greer's many errors of fact upon which he allegedly based his decision. The witness said the year was 1982 when Terri made the statement, not 1975 when Greer erroneously believed Karen Quinlin died. Thus, on the prompting Mr. Felos, presumed she made the statement in 1975. But of course Karen Quinlin did not die in 1975, but 8 years later.

>>Once again, you arrogantly assume you know better than the judge. This is explained in the courts findings.
Had what you said been true, the appeals should have brought it out. But it was not true!

The Courts of Appeal do not review facts, only process. And the fact is, Greer got the dates of Karen Ann Quinlin's deaath completely wrong. Read Greer's ruling. He got it wrong.

" Mrs. Schiavo's former friend, Diane Meyer, recalled watching a movie about Quinlan in the summer of 1982 after they graduated high school.

'I remember one of the things she said is, "How did they know she would want this? How did they know she wouldn't want to go on?"' Meyer testified.'

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/08/Tampabay/Schiavo_s_wishes_reca.shtml

St. Petersburg Times, 11/8/03

* * *

"In Terri's right to die trial five years ago, a family friend, Diane Meyer testified that in 1982, Terri said she did not approve of Karen Ann Quinlan's parents' efforts to remove Karen from life support.

David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents who are fighting to block the removal of Terri's feeding tube say Meyer's testimony was wrongly discounted in 2000.

Gibbs says Judge George Greer claimed Quinlan died in 1976, and that the 1982 conversation must have taken place earlier, when Terri was too young to express an reasoned opinion on a right to die.

But Quinlan died in 1985, after nine years on a respirator, and Gibbs says the Judge's error could have changed the outcome of the case."

Tampa Bay Channel 10 News
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=12392

 

[kookbreaker]

]The Courts of Appeal do not review facts, only process.

Wrong again Rouser. The 2000 Motion did include this fact. Trouble for you is, it had no bearing.

From abstractappeal:

Judge Greer acknowledged the factual inaccuracy but he ruled it had no material impact on his decision. He stated that he reviewed the witness's testimony and his order, and he previously found the testimony less than credible based on additional reasons not impacted by the date of Karen Ann Quinlan's death.

That you do not like the way the decision was made is irrelevant. It is the way the law works. Witnesses have to have credibility, the Schindler's witnesses failed to establish such.

Don't like it? Start working to change to judicial system, but don't expect a lot of help. In the meantime, quit griping about Greer doing his job the way he is supposed to.

 

[kookbreaker]

And she then promptly called the police who secured the area as a potential crime scene?

Or did she tell NOBODY about these and allow evidence of attempted murder to be put out in the trash and then "remember" the details years later when someone paid her for an interview?

More to the point, the Schindler's certainly had access to her duriong the earliest trials but apparently refused to use her. We may never no why, but a sworn affidavid means nothing to a court without cross examination. Without here being in the trial, we have no way of knowing any other weaknesses in her case beyond the ones already stated by Greer.

This has the stench of that loser who "confessed" he was Faulkner's killer and not Mumai Abu Jamal. It gives the true beleivers a warm fuzzy, but even a simple glance at the facts finds massive inconsitancies.

 

[Rouser2]

Wrong again Rouser. The 2000 Motion did include this fact. Trouble for you is, it had no bearing.

From abstractappeal:



That you do not like the way the decision was made is irrelevant. It is the way the law works. Witnesses have to have credibility, the Schindler's witnesses failed to establish such.

Don't like it? Start working to change to judicial system, but don't expect a lot of help. In the meantime, quit griping about Greer doing his job the way he is supposed to.

Bottom line, contrary to you own assertions, Greer admitted he was wrong about the dates. But, of course, being a member of the Imperial Judiciary, he simply covers his *ss with another pompous assertion. Greer's ruling was riddled with inaccuracies, upon which none of the Appellent Courts reviewed as to accuracy.

Now then, time for the ultimate question: Do you have any idea as to what the standard rate of error is in diagnosis of PVS patients? Or do you give a damn????

 

[kookbreaker]

Bottom line, contrary to you own assertions, Greer admitted he was wrong about the dates. But, of course, being a member of the Imperial Judiciary, he simply covers his *ss with another pompous assertion. Greer's ruling was riddled with inaccuracies, upon which none of the Appellent Courts reviewed as to accuracy.

Once againt, your arrogance is not on what the courts base their issues. There was plenty of chances for this issue to be covered in appeal, yet the Schindlers were utterly unable to convince any judge of its relevence. That is telling, whether you like it or not.

You are not a lawyer and certainly are not a judge, so you have little to no business telling Greer how to do his job just because you don't like the verdict he hands down.

Now then, time for the ultimate question: Do you have any idea as to what the standard rate of error is in diagnosis of PVS patients? Or do you give a damn???? [/B]

Irrelevant. Any misdiagnosis figure would be relevant in the early stages of the condition. But after 15 years and several neurologists, one can safely say that the chance of a misdiagnosis is minimal. You can froth about that, but it doesn't change anything.

 

[SezMe]

In her live radio and television interviews nurse Iyer disclosed that she did indeed find empty vials of insulin in the waste basket shortly after an MS visit, as welll as needle marks all over Terri's body.

She "disclosed" this in press interviews??? Why not in court testimony?

So, let's suppose Michael was attempting to kill Terri. First, would he inject insulin "all over Terri's body"? Then, would he leave the empty vials in the waste basket?

He would, but only if he was as extraordinarily stupid as you.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by kookbreaker [/i]


>>Once againt, your arrogance is not on what the courts base their issues. There was plenty of chances for this issue to be covered in appeal, yet the Schindlers were utterly unable to convince any judge of its relevence. That is telling, whether you like it or not.

There was not chance to present the issue on appeal. You just don't understand how the system works. Courts of appeal do not address facts, only process. Get it???

Nah!

>>You are not a lawyer and certainly are not a judge, so you have little to no business telling Greer how to do his job just because you don't like the verdict he hands down.

I am a sovereign citizen. Judge Greer is a public servant. In the state of Florida, he is a servant of the people and a oath-taker of both the Florida and the Federal Constitutions.

>>Any misdiagnosis figure would be relevant in the early stages of the condition. But after 15 years and several neurologists, one can safely say that the chance of a misdiagnosis is minimal. You can froth about that, but it doesn't change anything.

Terri S was never PVS. Not for one year; not for 15 years. But your head-in-the-sand reaction to possible error in the case, is noted, and predictable.

 

[Rouser2]

She "disclosed" this in press interviews??? Why not in court testimony?

So, let's suppose Michael was attempting to kill Terri. First, would he inject insulin "all over Terri's body"? Then, would he leave the empty vials in the waste basket?

He would, but only if he was as extraordinarily stupid as you.

So you are saying that if there is no evidence, then he didn't do it, but if there is evidence, it can't be believed????

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow. (And look: FOUR question marks!)

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Boy, this dead horse has not been flogged enough?

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain/

you do not need an MRI to tell you how severely the brain in the pictured CAT scan is damaged, nor do you need to see more slices than the one depicted here. This single image shows a very severely damaged brain. The large “blue blobs” in the middle are ventricles, also present in healthy brains (you can see the two little dark crescent shapes in the brain on the right) that have expanded to such a large size because the overall brain volume is so low. Cranial space that would otherwize have been filled by gray matter is now filled with cerebrospinal fluid. And yes, that’s what the blue space is: cerebrospinal fluid that is filling up space left behind by necrotic brain tissue that has been scavenged and removed by the body. The white squiggly things are white matter - connective tracts that have the loose, uncoiled look about them that they do because, again, the grey matter that once compressed them is no longer there, so they “float” loosely in CSF. The gigantic ventricles, expanded white matter, and undifferentiated blue space in that scan all point to the same thing: massive loss of grey matter in the cerebral cortex. You don’t need an MRI to tell you that, it’s clearly visible in the CAT scan.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/schiavo_ct_scan.jpg

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/CT scan.png

The scan shows "catastrophic" injury to the cerebral cortex, the part of the brain that controls all higher functions.

Ronald Cranford, a University of Minnesota neurology professor who examined Schiavo at her husband's request and testified about her in 2002, said her EEG was flat, showing no electrical activity. That's worse than 95 percent of people in a persistent vegetative state. "A flat EEG is incompatible with consciousness," he said.

http://www.med.miami.edu/communications/som_news/index.asp?id=453

There is no evidence that Terri was anything but malnourished (bad diet), and that was her own doing, and that led to the heart attack that ended up with a damaged brain.

All this conspiracy hogwash is a huge waste of time.

We should be focussing on the issue of why Terri had an eating disorder. The pressures on women to be "thin" or whatever. This is not her husband's fault, but society's. What diet was she following?

 

[King of the Americas]

I think...

....that "Rouser2" has been listening to too much talk radio, because within this post he has spouted EVERY piece of mis-information they have peddled...

Moreover, he seems just as willing and able to ingore those points of contention which destroy his standing ground.

"Rouser2":

I have but ONE point to make. "IF" Terri had made ANY attempt to point or motion toward her mouth, lean or look longingly toward the glass of water that was in the room, the attending doctors or nurses would have been obligated to re-insert the tube, period.

The Courts decided that Terri didn't want to 'exist' by artifical means, or by her own words, "She didn't want to live connected to a bunch of tubes." In laymen's terms, they called for a halt to the "force feedings"... Indeed Terri COULD swallow, but she had NO control over the action, and if one of those protesters HAD made it into her room with a bottle of water or a spoon full of food, they would have sentenced her to a more immediate death, in their application.

Terri did NOT try to tell anyone in the room that she was thursty, or that she was hungry. That is because she wasn't aware of the fact. In order to live the ONLY thing she would have been required to do is lift a single hand to her mouth, ONCE, or look longingly at the glass of water that was within arms reach.

In the end Terri did neither.