« Terri's Ashes were Buried Today | Main | Bobby Schindler Responds to Schiavo Grave Inscription »


June 21, 2005

Terri's Tombstone

Topics: News
ass4.jpg

Here is an image of Terri's tombstone that Tim wrote about in the previous entry.

I just find it plain disgusting not to invite Terri's real family to the burial. It was one thing to inscribe "I kept my promise" and to inscribe that Terri's death was in Feb. 2005, but to not have Terri's mother, father, brother, and sister really turns your stomach.

Posted by Ian at June 21, 2005 9:59 AM


Articles Related to News:

Comments

Michael Schiavo forgot to inscribe "BELOVED DAUGHTER, BELOVED SISTER" out of respect for her family. Then again, he has no respect for human life, never mind for her parent's feelings. He is a disgrace to the human race.

Posted by: Bella at June 21, 2005 10:24 AM

How about a grave stone set up for Michael with the date of his birth and then Feb 25, 1990... "the day he sold his soul to the devil"?

It's a shame how most people who come to the website don't really know the whole story and think Michael was doing as Terri wished. Baloney. If she had really HAD said she didn't want to live disabled, he would have never filed that malpractice suit, and won all that money, but then again, all these years of lack of therapy and rehabilitation really made her condition worsen and she regressed, making it easier for him to "prove" she wasn't going to recover, thus making it easier for him to legally kill her.

"Beloved Wife". What a crock of you know what.

Posted by: Sirena at June 21, 2005 10:50 AM

What was that promise? When was it made?

The promise that was really made: "I am going to kill you"

That is the promise he made on the morning that Terri collapsed and choked from asphyxiation. So yes he did keep his promise to murder his wife.

The tombstone should be engraved with the extra wording. My promise to you was that "I will see you dead"

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 21, 2005 3:25 PM

Maggie4life,
I'd like to add to that.
" I will see you dead before I will
let you be divorced. "

Posted by: lynaqua at June 21, 2005 9:16 PM

Michael kept what promise? To honor his wife? Ha ha ha ha!!! I bet Terri said to him, "Michael, if I get all brain-damaged and stuff, would you please honor me by flipping off my parents, and would you please move in with another woman and have children with her??? Plus, I'm begging you to not give me food or water, once you win a million dollars off of doctors for medical malpractice of an eating disorder that I NEVER HAD. I know THEN, you will truly have my best interests at heart!" Yeah, that's an honorable husband.

Posted by: Lorraine at June 22, 2005 1:09 PM

Lorraine,

great sentiments that are well expressed.

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 22, 2005 9:51 PM

Maggie4Life: There is a forum on www.sptimes.com which has discussions on Terri. However, I am appalled and disgusted to see that pretty much all on the forum is in agreement with what Michael Schiavo did to Terri - that it was his right to dehydrate her. We need Terri supporters on that forum to fight back and let those wackos know that it was morally wrong what Michael Schiavo did to his wife. You should see what is written on this forum, no compassion whatsoever. It makes me sick.

Posted by: Bella at June 23, 2005 8:35 AM

Maggie,

It's not just the St. Pete Times Forum; the Bay News 9 comments section was inundated with posts that were commending Michael for what he has done for Terri. Gag me with a stinkin' fork! The "Dumbing Down of America" is complete, and Pinellas County is the poster child. Wow, makes ya wanna come here and vacation, doesn't it?

Posted by: Lorraine at June 23, 2005 11:18 AM

Thanks for the heads up Bella! I'll check out the Times Forum.

Posted by: Lorraine at June 23, 2005 11:20 AM

That St. Pete Times forum needs to have Terri supporters and put these sickos in their place. Glad I could be of some help.

Posted by: Bella at June 23, 2005 12:01 PM

Bella,

It appears to me that these people posting on the Times Forum don't want to hear the truth. Not one of them has stated any facts in their posts, yet they insist that the pro-lifers do so. I see a lot of people who are screaming that people should stay out of Michael's business, but a good portion of them live in another state. Huh??? Name-calling (Schwindlers) is another tactic of someone who doesn't have truth; it's a diversion.

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time posting to a place where "If it Feels Good Do It" is the motto. I have better things to do than argue with the products of moral relatavism. They themselves are braindead, and trying to discuss facts with them is like throwing pearls to swine IMHO.

I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked. Psalm 26:5

Posted by: Lorraine at June 23, 2005 12:25 PM

"It appears to me that these people posting on the Times Forum don't want to hear the truth. Not one of them has stated any facts in their posts, yet they insist that the pro-lifers do so."

I checked the current thread on the topic. The thread hasn't been debating the validity of anything at all. If you want them to debate the issue, some of them will certainly do so.

Besides, what's stopping you from using your own facts and being a better person for it?

"I see a lot of people who are screaming that people should stay out of Michael's business, but a good portion of them live in another state. Huh???"

That's the stance that it was a private family matter to begin with and that's how it should have stayed.

"Name-calling (Schwindlers) is another tactic of someone who doesn't have truth; it's a diversion."

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I read something on here referring to "Michael Shitavo" or "Ghoul Felos."

"They themselves are braindead, and trying to discuss facts with them is like throwing pearls to swine IMHO."

I can virtually guarantee you that if you brought up the issue there, you might learn a few things you didn't know before. It always happens when you enter a new arena.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 23, 2005 12:37 PM

Lorraine -

Yes, trying to discuss the truth with those on the SP Times forum is dead end.

Posted by: Bella at June 23, 2005 12:51 PM

It wasn't a private matter the minute a judge became involved with the case.

That is a totally bogus argument made by many on my side of the political spectrum.

The fact of the matter is it's NEVER right to kill the profoundly disabled, and it IS a civil rights issue that's involved.

Posted by: Susan Nunes at June 23, 2005 2:50 PM

Hey George Schmoy,

you just gave yourself away. If the cap of ghoul fits then you better believe that Ghoul Felos will remain as ghoul Felos. You wanna know why?

Because George, there is something very wrong when a man describes a dehydrating woman as looking peaceful and beautiful. That was a totally ghoulish description of what was happening.

Let me put you in the picture George. According to the autopsy report Terri looked far from beautiful when she arrived at the Medical Examiner's Office.

Her death by dehydration, and that is how it is listed in the autopsy report - as a complication of her condition caused by undetermined circumstances. But hey, we know better than to believe that there is an undetermined cause.

The fact is Mikey better make sure that he can account for every single minute after he attempted to asphyxiate Terri because in the end he is going to pay for his crime and his further attempts to murder Terri.

This is a criminal case and if your good pal Bernie does not want to investigate it properly then he better turn it over to someone who will independently conduct a proper investigation.

There is a place for the wicked. I saw a good analogy of that place in a movie called revenge of the Sith. Those who travel towards the dark side deserve to get burned.

Posted by: Maggie4life at June 23, 2005 9:35 PM

Don't assume that I took the Felos description to literally mean that she looked beautiful. I'm sure she looked pale and dying as she was dehydrated. The fact remains that she was NOT AT ALL COGNIZANT AND WAS NEVER COMING BACK. Hence, what Felos was implying was that her body was at peace instead of playing the part of the Terri Schiavo shell.

Of course... nobody here really cares about that. I just want to ask one question that I just thought of.

Let's say, hypothetically, that Terri Schiavo's entire family was of the Christian Science faith. Christian scientists believe in the power of spiritual healing and therefore try to avoid medical intervention. Anyway, Terri has a heart attack or has an attempt on her life or whatever you would like to believe. Through one circumstance or another, she is rushed to the ER, she is revived, and she is in the exact position she was in real life. Would you try to stop the entire family from pulling the tube even though to leave it in would be in violation of their religious beliefs?

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 24, 2005 5:48 AM

Let's say, hypothetically, your deeply religious Shmoy. ( I'll be generous, pick one you like )
You have a wife who informs the world, you've suffered a medical calamity, and you can't speak for yourself. Let's say, you are well aware of ALL your surroundings. Let's say, the wife " suddenly remembers " you wished to not live like a vegetable and wants to ' end your suffering. '

Gee.....I bet you a you'd be one HOT ITEM who'd want the people of this board, to race to your rescue!!!!!

As to your whacko HYPOTHETICAL question??
I believe, if there is already certain cases where the family denied medical care for their child based on the religious faith?
The child I think passed away....the family was charged with neglict and manslaughter.

Would you deny MY religous rights, If I believed killing you off would keep me alive until I'm 120 years old??

Hypothetically, of course.


As is typical of your ilk, you've suddenly NOT taken felos's words litterally. Gee, big amazement there. You still stay with the old, SHE WAS DEAD AND NOT COMING BACK mantra.
Glad to know, there is GODLIKE powers in you.
By the way, what AM I thinking now?? As you seem to able to read others minds.

As before, troll, you're attempting to smother the truth by the continued lie that this case is.
She was murdered, we know it, Terri went thru it, and YOU"RE trying to justify it.

When you stand on the ' right ' side of the aurgument, you have no problems. When you stand on the " left " side of the aurgument, why do you feel sullen and dirty?

Truth hurts, don't it???

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 24, 2005 2:32 PM

I'd never want anyone on this board to even try to become involved in my hypothetical plight. I would choose death in a second if I were doomed to spending the rest of my life paralyzed and unable to communicate.

Yes, LN, the Christian Science scenario has happened before. The child wasn't brain damaged like Terri was, of course.

But wait, you didn't even answer the question. Would you or would you not attempt to stop the Christian Science family from removing the feeding tube from Christian Science Terri Schiavo?

"Would you deny MY religous rights, If I believed killing you off would keep me alive until I'm 120 years old??"

What on earth are you talking about?

"As is typical of your ilk, you've suddenly NOT taken felos's words litterally."

"Suddenly?" Please. I never took them to literally mean that Terri "looked beautiful." I simply never broached the issue before.

"Gee, big amazement there. You still stay with the old, SHE WAS DEAD AND NOT COMING BACK mantra."

If you're going to dispute it using your videos and testimony and such, you can just save the effort. As a matter of fact, the videos on the whole actually serve to discredit any testimony or evidence in support of Terri being an alert person.

"She was murdered, we know it, Terri went thru it, and YOU"RE trying to justify it."

How do you "know it?" There has never been a shred of evidence to prove anything that you just said. I'm not trying to justify murder. I'm just pointing out where you are wrong on the facts, which seems to be everywhere.

"When you stand on the ' right ' side of the aurgument, you have no problems. When you stand on the " left " side of the aurgument, why do you feel sullen and dirty?"

That's sick. Are you actually making this a partisan issue? Don't you remember the polls? Opinion on Terri Schiavo's plight did not run along party lines.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 24, 2005 7:27 PM

Shmoykins

You suggest that a believer in Christian Science should have their religion respected and not have medical intervention. Well, Terri was a Catholic and that religion does not allow for what happened to Terri. Why don't you respect her religion?

Posted by: Quicksilver at June 25, 2005 8:16 AM

I didn't suggest anything. I posed a question. Answer the question: If Terri and her family were of the Christian Science faith, would you try to stop the removal of the feeding tube?

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 25, 2005 12:47 PM

Yes, Shmoykins, I would try to stop the removal of her feeding tube.

Posted by: Quicksilver at June 25, 2005 2:33 PM

Yo Shmo:

Your hypothetical argument concerning the feeding tube and the "Christian Science" religion doesn't really hold water. Why, you might ask??? Well, as a Christian Scientist, there never would have been a feeding tube. A Christian Scientist would not have taken Terri to the Hospital. A Christian Scientist would not have done anything that you are implying, so your non-sensical argument falls flat on your face.

A Christian Scientist would not have gone to court to win over a million dollars to rehabilitate Terri; A Christian Scientist would not have filed a mal-practice suit against a doctor, because they don't use modern medical interventions. Basic medical care-that's about all; they don't even take immunizations (unless they have changed their beliefs since I last discussed medical care with a Christian Scientist friend).

Forgive me, I would not interfere in their right to practice their faith--but I don;t believe there would ever have been a parallel with Terri's situation.

But if you are arguing for Religious Freedom, then you must argue that Terri's Religious Beliefs were ignored by BTK greer, and michael SHITAVO, and george feel-less. Terri was a Catholic. The Catholic Church does not condone starvation and dehydration in order to remove the handicapped from society. Unfortunately, michale SHITAVO, is not a Catholic. He's barely human, but definitely evil--so he didn't give a damn about his wife's faith, her morals, or what she would have wanted. She would never have gone against her faith--WHY, you ask, because Catholics believe and adhere to what the Church teaches. At least Catholics in conformance with the Church do. There are those who call themselves "Catholic" but aren't. Those "Catholics" who disagree with the Church are not in good standing; regardless of what they think.

So, if you want to throw hypothetical "Christian Science" arguments into the fray, then you better understand the gamut of your argument. I would not force a Christian Scientist to accept medical attention. By the same token, a Christian Scientist doesn't have the right to deny me medical attention. It works both ways....Christians have RIGHTS TOO....and Terri had the right to LIVE.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. Those who oppose Terri's right to LIVE and the right of others who are disabled, less than perfect, are EVIL. If you reverse the right to L-I-V-E, you promote death and you endorse E-V-I-L.

In that you are one of those who likes to stir the pot; and in that this is a forum of pro-life thinkers, and pro-Terri thinkers, and pro-RIGHT TO LIVE, even if DISABLED thinkers, I THINK you should go and rant on the SP_times blog. Those people are right smack dab in the black heart of anti-life, anti-Terri, and anti-RIGHT TO LIVE. Go to the EVIL thinkers and leave us alone. We don't care what you or your fellow anti-everything trolls have to say.

I believe there is a saying--"If you are not for us, you are against us" Why would we care to argue with those who are against us? It's a waste of energy. So post all you want, but it really doesn't matter, because you are insignificant on this forum. If you want to find support, go find a pro-michael site and post your love and good wishes for him and jodi and their Illegitimate kids and wish them well with the remaining funds from Terri's mal-practice settlement. They need you, we don't.

Posted by: Tress at June 25, 2005 9:19 PM

Quicksilver: Congratulations. You've just invaded on a private family matter that didn't want your opinion to begin with. Some people don't to be kept alive in a hopeless state. Deal with it.

Tress: When I first posed the question, I qualified it with "Through one circumstance or another, she is rushed to the ER." I knew that someone like you would try to discredit the question. At least your answer was respectable. Religious freedom rocks.

Your argument about "Catholics never go against their faith" is useless because the question of her devotion was never answered. Just because someone subscribes to a religion does not mean that they're absolutely never going to deviate from it. She was an individual. Just because the Catholic church says no to euthanasia does not mean that Terri would not have wished to live as she was.

You questioned why I come here. The reason I come here is because I hate to just lie down and watch facts be distorted beyond recognition while BS like those videos are spun totally out of control.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 25, 2005 10:03 PM

Lol...Schmoy.....you don't understand simple english? Let me repeat it for you then.


Would you deny MY religious rights if I believed killing you off would extend my life till I was 120 Years old??

18....and you can't understand simple english.
Amazing.

You'd choose death in a second over life in any situation. Doublely amazing. I also find that typical of your age group. Tho, highly dubious.
It does prove my point tho, that if you so STRONGLY believe that way?? What we do or don't do to keep your sorry self alive, is irrelevant.
Since, you've stated that you would have no WILL to live. You'd simply....quit.

Terri, didn't QUIT.

At 18, what would you know about life, much less about death??? Heck, you've just STARTED with your life.....tho I hope your path corrects itself before you get older.

Either way....twisting facts?? Lolol.......the pot calling the kettle black....too funny...

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 27, 2005 12:45 PM

Ohhhhhhhh...

Seeing as how I am currently expressing a desire to live and because killing me is illegal, yes, I probably would deny your religious rights because you don't have the right to kill me. Someone with a belief like that would probably be in a madhouse long before he/she got near me.

"You'd choose death in a second over life in any situation."

Not in any situation. Only if I were paralyzed and unable to communicate and if I had no chance of recovery.

"Either way....twisting facts?? Lolol.......the pot calling the kettle black....too funny..."

I'll ignore the fact that this expression implicates yourself in twisting facts and repeat that I have not twisted a single fact. I have presented them exactly as they are. I have linked to documentation. You can't even profess to offering up any facts at all.

Posted by: Shmoykins at June 27, 2005 1:35 PM

LNaranjoiv:

How many people testified under oath that Terri *did not* want to be removed from life support if she were ever in such a condition?

Also, Criminal cases rely on verbal testimony all the time. Witnesses were presented whom were deemed credible and testified under oath that these were indeed Terri's wishes. What evidence was presented to counter this?

The autopsy didn't show any evidence of bulemia no, but that doesn't mean that terri didn't have an eating disorder. It was determined that Terri's collapse was caused by an extremely low Potassium level, which caused an electrolyte imbalance, which normally points to bulemia. Doctors were the defendants of the malpracice suit (which was brought on because it was said that doctors failed to diagnose Terri's bulemia), you would think that if Terri did not have an eating disorder, the doctors (defendants) would have been able to prove it. It also was not a judge who found them guilt, it was a jury....but they were probably all in on the conspiracy as well.

LNarajoiv, if you do reply to this post, or to any of Schmoy's post, please try to make concise, educated points backed up by documentation. We're all adults here, and resulting to name calling only makes your posts look juvenile.

Posted by: no_dice at June 28, 2005 2:52 PM

I am sorry, but YOU are the one who is profoundly ignorant about the case.

You will say ANYTHING to defend that scumbag because it is all about winning some kind of "war" with the religious right.

Guess what? You are WRONG about it. Michael Schiavo has more holes in his story and a slab of Swiss cheese, and just because an incompetent judge ruled the way he did, that does NOT make MS's claims true.

I will NEVER believe him or his opportunistic lawyer. The day YOU can provide a coherent argument as to why YEARS later, long after Terri collapsed, little Mikey decided to "remember" she didn't want to live "that way."

It was all about the money, face it.

Posted by: Susan Nunes at June 28, 2005 3:45 PM

Oh, and she didn't have "bulimia," either, and probably no other eating disorder.

She lost quite a bit of weight through some kind of weight-loss program, but that was before she married Michael.

So try again with your spin. It's hard to escape the fact Mikey wanted her dead because she was a burden, and he wanted her out of the way when he got the malpractice check. It doesn't matter whether he has any money in the trust account now (though I don't believe ANYTHING he says--he's a proven liar).

Posted by: Susan Nunes at June 28, 2005 3:55 PM

The so called ' eating disorder ' was based on a Bulimia suggestion. So, that cleared the DR's. Seems like THEY TOO, need another day in court given that there is now, evidence that contradicts the first court hearing.
Again, you prove the point that Michael seems to have lied. You're trying to say NOW, that tho she didn't have " bulimia? " , that's okay, cause she MUST have had an eating disorder of SOME KIND.

Gee.....the pot calling the kettle black again?
I hear you say, it was a JURY that found them guilty?? As if, that's it! They spoke and case closed??
A jury had found a Father GUILTY of raping his daughter too, and sent the man to 25years to life for a crime. Guess what? They based their verdict on, you guess it, the daughter, who later RECANTED.
Gee....too late for the pops, cause he served half his sentence. I presume, the Jury was WRONG?!
Or do I take/use YOUR argument, that well, " he was found guilty of rape, so if it wasn't HIS daughter, it HAD to be someone elses. "

Oh yea Nodice....you're making loads of sense.
Read up on the documents presented here in this blog and from the various posts.
Find the court order from Judge Greer's own hand, where even HE admits Terri was ' responding to stimuli '.

Other than that? What you're offering is baseless....As for SCHMUCK??
Pfffffttt

As for you?? Let me again....repeat for the brain dead and walking idiots...

DID YOU ACTUALLY HEAR TERRI SAY...she never wanted to live like that?
DID SHE ACTUALLY LEAVE< written proof of her wishes/desires.

How many people Testifed, UNDER OATH, that Michael lied about his wifes wishes??
How many people, UNDER OATH, tesitified that Michael DENIED Terri basic medical care AND Examinations??
Gee NODICE......did those people lie TOO??
What was in it for THEM?? Keeping Terri alive??
What was in it for Michael's so called, witnesses??
Payoffs? Having Terri killed off??
Seeing Michael free??

Thank you NODICE, for agreeing with me on a BASIC/SIMPLE point......this case smells, and we need to retry EVERYONE, from the BEGINNING....including ALL EVIDENCE that has come up SINCE the 1990 so called, accident.

NODICE?? Pfffffffft.........no duh, more like it

That's about as CONCISE as I can get...perhaps you're just too brain dead to grasp or comprehend??
Either way, that's your problem.

My call for a retrial stands. My call for Michael to be tried for " Wrongful Death " stands...oh..and THAT suit against him?? For the testimony of witnesses UNDER OATH, that Michael Shitavo refused and/or denied Terri Schaivo basic medical care, WHICH, could have profoundly had a diverse impact on her health/recovery/comfort.
IF, such information leads to other things, such as a possible manslaughter/murder indicment??
So be it. Wrongful death won't have the amount of BURDEN of proof for the prosecution to present to a jury.
THAT, no duh....is what NEEDS to happen.
Problem is, you know it, your moronic supporters know it, and the people who've KILLED her know it.

Which is why people like YOU....are trying hard to instill into people like ME, that Terri was doomed from day one, and it's pointless to continue the debate, let it lie.

Scarred? Or worried??
Either or, CONCISE that.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 28, 2005 4:01 PM

No Dice.......at least you made SOME sense in your rebuttel. ( far better than the youngster has )
I didn't say ' afraid of death ', but if that's where your mind took you, so be it.
You have a living will....great! You're right, you HAVE stated your intentions, and there IS no error in YOUR choice as there was in Terri's.
Obviously, I'll presume you UPDATE that choice from time to time, so that it's current relevant to your personal life. Good as well.
At least you're INVOLVED.

You say " people who are religious " tend to be the most hostile?? lol....broad brush painting at best. However, even you so callled, NON religious folks, have your moments as well.

Your stance, that you DON'T BELIEVE she had a chance for change, is interesting, given the other posts you've made. Again, that's YOUR view, which is an OPINION. Different, granted, still an opinion. We'll never KNOW if Terri would have ever been able to train her brain to do anything, cause she's dead. THAT"S not in question. What IS in question, is WHY she was denied so many basic tests and/or treatments on the order of her husband, verified thru Hospital staff under oath.
If those ' people ' were lying, then take them out in court, and punish them to the fullest.
Even I would advocate that, if those same folks are/did commit perjury. ( Surprised by that? )
Metephorically speaking, parts of her brain were NOT liquid. If so, she would have been dead years ago.
As for this missing 70 minutes of time .....Doesn't brain death occur if your brain is without oxygen for 5 minutes?? I'm not totally sure, but there IS a time frame when you'd end up brain DEAD....that point, is not indispute, as being brain dead, her basic vital functions would have ceased. Terri breathed on her own, and her heart pumped its own...so that point is mute.
What IS in doubt, is the vast differences of opinion about her CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS.
Again, we are to presume she WAS unaware, tho there are many conflicts of interest to the contrary. Again, OPINION. Experts disagree.
Then what? Experts have been known to be WRONG too. Again, now what?

You are correct, I never heard her speak to me personally, of her will to live. So, without either explanation, we do what? Deny a human food and water? Convicted criminals get better treatment before they are executed. Should we hold them to the same standard?? Hardly.....we don't cause that's barbaric, no matter HOW heinous the crime they've commited. ( Please refer to the BTK killer confessions, on how he casually strangled a mother while her children were locked up in a bathroom. )While you can't " regrow a brain " , you CAN teach it to function in other ways. If you lose a limb due to an accident, do we kill you off? Or help you RETRAIN yourself to use what skills you have and to overcome your disablility? Same with the blind. Do we kill them off too, because they can't see?

Your point fissels out, when YOU describe Terri in a condition of living, for the past 15 years.
That sir, borders on giving YOUR definition of life and instilling it upon others. Can I do the same for/too you?? Can I make that decision, on whether you live or die, based upon MY definition of the quality of life??
The last people who did that? Where Germans, and they instilled it upon millions of people who didn't FIT their definition of " FIT TO LIVE ".
Horrific then, as the implications are now.

Terri's parents......interesting point. Have they made money? What purpose is that money going too?
Again,IF, they are personally profitting from their daughters misery, then again, I"d be calling on THEM to suffer as well. Unlike Michael, we've not heard/seen of them profitting from this for PERSONAL reasons. ( Then again, I could be wrong too )

You state there is little chance of Michael being criminally charged.....tho I beg to differ. There's a GREAT chance of it. Would he be convicted? Perhaps not CRIMINALLY, but DEFINATELY in CIVIL court. Negligence being one, wrongful Death being the other. Convicted?? Burden of proof requirements are NOT as strict, AND< ALL pertinant evidence gets brought in. TO INCLUDE his TV statements. All it needs, is for the family to pull the trigger, so to speak.
I've called for it, and will Continue to call for it.

Lastly, you've pretty muched summed up, what I've said here for a while, and what others have said. You've validated many points I've made, no matter how " low " I had to go to make them.

Your own words: I'm glad I'm not religious, because I have no reservations of spending my life in bed unable to eat, drink or communicate...To think people would rather live that way so they can expire when their GOD decides it's time, amazes me "

Yep.......I'm sure if you REALLY took the time to view this site, it's posts and peoples comments, you'll find that I did INDEED, adress just such a comment.

Being that your NOT religious.....and you DON"T understand how people could think that way....
Smh.....That sir, is why you'll NEVER understand.
(Not being cruel or mean here, just stating fact)

Unlike Schmuck, who seems to be only a " troller looking for a term paper to debate in his college class for next semister "....( and yes folks, when you break down the argument, the persons NET ID, that's nearly exactly what you find behind the Screen name ) YOU at least have an HONEST oppostion. ( Even Blogging Beth as well, no matter how whack she comes off at times )

Will you ever change OUR minds on this subject? Course not. Will we ever change YOUR minds on this topic?? Nope.
Would the Defense ever change the mind of the Prosecuter that his/her clients innocent?? Of course not. Could a Prosecutor ever convince a Defense lawyer, his/her clients the scum of the earth and 100% Guilty? Nope.
Both sides present an ARGUMENT. Both sides will be PASSIONATE in that argument. A Judge will keep the argument from straying too far off topic ( insert board monitors here if you will )and getting too heated, but will understand, when they DO get heated.
Juries decide.
It won't be YOU, or ME, or MAGGIE or any number of posters here. It'll be the ones we never SEE post, yet we KNOW are reading this post/blog.

There are 3 sides to every story. Your side, my side and the Truth.

I hope that's a more " civilized " explanation.

Posted by: LNaranjoiv at June 29, 2005 11:59 AM

Since the portions of Terri's brain that control awareness were intact, I would say that it is very incorrect for anyone to continue with the lie that she had no consciousness, no awareness. The autopsy has thoroughly disproved that point.

Posted by: Maggie4life at July 2, 2005 3:07 PM

I did a little digital photo edit and posted my corrected version of her grave marker at http://www.tommcmahon.net/terrischiavo/index.html

Posted by: Tom McMahon at July 3, 2005 8:45 PM