Terri Schiavo: Please explain something to me...

[irishgrl]

badum PUM!

thanx for posting the anonymous memo and subsequent letter......geez, the juggernaut will stop at nothing

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

badum PUM!

thanx for posting the anonymous memo and subsequent letter......geez, the juggernaut will stop at nothing

They are evil.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503230001

CNN, Fox featured ex-Schiavo nurse whose affidavit was dismissed as "incredible" by judge

On March 22, both CNN's Live From... and Fox News' Fox and Friends aired interviews with Carla Sauer Iyer -- a former nurse for Terri Schiavo who in 2003 submitted an affidavit with inflammatory accusations against Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo -- but failed to report questions about Iyer's credibility. Judge George W. Greer, the Florida circuit judge who has presided over several aspects of the Schiavo case, dismissed Iyer's allegations as "incredible" and noted in a September 17, 2003, order that not even Terri Schiavo's parents sought her testimony in the case.

In both appearances, Iyer was presented as a former nurse for Terri Schiavo. Fox introduced her as a "registered nurse in Florida" who "cared for Terri for more than a year between '95 and 1996." In addition, on-screen text described Iyer as "Carla Sauer Iyer; Cared for Terri Schiavo." On CNN, Iyer was introduced as a "nurse who says that she cared for Terri Schiavo [for] more than a year in the mid-1990s." As with Fox, CNN's on-screen text described Iyer as "Terri Schiavo's former nurse." Another on-screen text line presented on CNN stated that Iyer "testified about Terri Schiavo's physical state." However, according to Greer's September 2003 order, Schiavo's parents had not subpoenaed Iyer to testify.

In both a 2003 court affidavit (posted on the website operated by Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler) and her March 22 cable appearances, Iyer maintained that Terri Schiavo was constantly "alert and oriented" while under her care, "saying such things as 'mommy,' and 'help me.' " She claimed that "Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused on Terri's death. Michael would say 'When is she going to die?' 'Has she died yet?' and 'When is that bitch gonna die?' " The affidavit also included her claims that Michael Schiavo expressed the desire to "accelerate" Terri's death, that when Terri was sick and looked as if she might die, "He [Michael] would blurt out 'I'm going to be rich,' " and the assertion that "[i]t is my belief that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin" to intentionally make her sick. She claimed in her affidavit that "I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day."

Greer dismissed Iyer's charges, noting that they -- along with a similar affidavit given by Heidi Law, another nurse who formerly took care of Terri Schiavo -- were "incredible to say the least" and that "[n]either in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo." From Greer's decision:

The remaining affidavits deal exclusively with events which allegedly occurred in the 1995-1997 time frame. The court feels constrained to discuss them. They are incredible to say the least. Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." The affidavit of Ms. Law speaks of Terri responding on a constant basis. Neither in the testimony nor in the medical records is there support for these affidavits as they purport to detail activities and responses of Terri Schiavo. It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges.

I read about her credibility problem after I posted the comment that you mentioned. Clearly if the woman was credible, the Schindlers would have had her in the 2000 hearing.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

I read about her credibility problem after I posted the comment that you mentioned.

And yet, you never said anything. Why?

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And yet, you never said anything. Why?

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue and only mentioned her in that one post.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue.

Neither did Judge Greer by the looks of it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue.

Yet it was easy enough to impugn Michael Schiavo's intentions on her word.
Weren't you cautioning The Tower earlier in the thread about getting too caught up in the media?
This isn't the first time I've read your impugnity of Michael Schiavo's intentions either.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Because that comment was an afterthought after seeing information on CNN. I did not consider this woman an integral part of the issue and only mentioned her in that one post.

thats not the impression you gave when you posted that bit?

it seemed to be part of your argument against Michael? Im just saying...

[Mad4stevie]

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations.

Well, there's no doubt in my mind that Michael is just as much of a puppet as the Schindler's are for various ideologies and groups. This whole situation is very Citizen Ruth-ish, if you ask me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

Did you see the interview with Terri's acutal court appointed guardian, Jay Wolfson?

I found it compelling that all parties were about ready to agree to do specific testing for Terri, and Schiavo's lawyer pulled out at the last minute, not because it was the best thing for Terri, but because he wanted to make the argument that the guardian was unconstitutional. That tells me something about his motivations.

you make me wish I had cable, but then on the other hand, maybe Im better off not getting my news from tv...anyway, which parties were ready to agree? just curious...

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Yet it was easy enough to impugn Michael Schiavo's intentions on her word.
Weren't you cautioning The Tower earlier in the thread about getting too caught up in the media?
This isn't the first time I've read your impugnity of Michael Schiavo's intentions either.

Well, I have issues with his intentions because of all the other reasons that I have already stated. Her testimony is collateral to the issue and if it was primary in my concern, I would certainly have stated it more over the many pages that this thread has run.

I did not make mention of this woman other than that post, so based on all the other reasons that I have listed, I dont' see how you can say this information was what I was basing my opinion on.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

thats not the impression you gave when you posted that bit?

it seemed to be part of your argument against Michael? Im just saying...

No - I just wondered where the woman came from. People do come out of the woodwork all the time for the attention. I get that. I did not base my opinion of Michael on this woman. I based it on all the other things that I have already stated about the timing of the case, etc.

[Mad4stevie]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

you make me wish I had cable, but then on the other hand, maybe Im better off not getting my news from tv...anyway, which parties were ready to agree? just curious...

The parties - Terri's parents and Michael. Until Felos steps in. Goddamn lawyers.

Did you look at the link about Felos regarding the book that he had written? Interesting commentary about the book at the bottom of the page. So if we want to look at people's intentions in pushing this case forward, why not look at Felos and the fact that he has received over $400,000 in fees from Terri's malpractice settlement among other possible motivations.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Mad4stevie

The parties - Terri's parents and Michael. Until Felos steps in. Goddamn lawyers.

Did you look at the link about Felos regarding the book that he had written? Interesting commentary about the book at the bottom of the page. So if we want to look at people's intentions in pushing this case forward, why not look at Felos and the fact that he has received over $400,000 in fees from Terri's malpractice settlement among other possible motivations.

Felos is a nut. That book scared me, to be honest. But I'll have to read it before passing total judgement on it. That bit about him wanting to chop his wife into pieces made me gag a bit, though. Nice lawyer you've got there, bub.