Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Exactly how is this a "money-issue?" HER Guardian at Law has said that there is NO money, it's been exhausted trying in court and the trust set up to pay for her medical expenses has been exhausted. There is no money, but don't let fact get in the way of your opinion. 283033[/snapback] NO MONEY? There may be no money left from the settlement, but you have conveniently ignored that she has a LARGE insurance policy that he stands to make a windfall on. Facts suck.
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Which do we believe? 283031[/snapback] I'll answer that by quoting one of my earlier posts: Either way, it's a personal and private matter and frankly, is none of your (or mine) damn business.
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 NO MONEY? There may be no money left from the settlement, but you have conveniently ignored that she has a LARGE insurance policy that he stands to make a windfall on. Facts suck. 283036[/snapback] Plus how much money does he get from movie and book deals, once it is all said and done. yet another reason not to divorce since he will have the rights to sell her life story.
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 NO MONEY? There may be no money left from the settlement, but you have conveniently ignored that she has a LARGE insurance policy that he stands to make a windfall on. Facts suck. 283036[/snapback] Ohhhh, I'm sorry JSP. The correct answer is "HER Guardian at Law (a man with a PhD and a JD, appointed by the Fla legislature) says that there is no life insurance policy." BTW - Facts only suck when they prove you wrong.
John Adams Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I can not for the life of me understand why people don't see this issue for what it is: a MONEY issue. 283020[/snapback] How do you know it's a money issue? I stand to benefit financially if my wife dies, but I know that she wants to die- not be held captive by machines- if she's ever in a PVS. And if her parents opposed that, I would fight with them to a bitter end, like Michael Schiavo. And it wouldn't be because I wanted the life insurance payout. It would be because I know her wishes. For those who don't want to be kept alive in a PVS, make VERY sure to execute a living will.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Ohhhh, I'm sorry JSP. The correct answer is "HER Guardian at Law (a man with a PhD and a JD, appointed by the Fla legislature) says that there is no life insurance policy." BTW - Facts only suck when they prove you wrong. 283045[/snapback] Link?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 How do you know it's a money issue? I stand to benefit financially if my wife dies, but I know that she wants to die- not be held captive by machines- if she's ever in a PVS. And if her parents opposed that, I would fight with them to a bitter end, like Michael Schiavo. And it wouldn't be because I wanted the life insurance payout. It would be because I know her wishes. For those who don't want to be kept alive in a PVS, make VERY sure to execute a living will. 283051[/snapback] The guy ignores his vegetative wife for years and now returns after his settlement money has run out? I'm sorry, and maybe I'm a cynic, but I KNOW human nature. This guy is in it for the money.
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I'll answer that by quoting one of my earlier posts: "Either way, it's a personal and private matter and frankly, is none of your (or mine) damn business." 283038[/snapback] I agree except for the fact that no investigation into alleged abuse has been done. Everyone has been clinging to the husband stating that this was Terri's wish but yet he contradicts himself on national television. He has also done other things which look suspicious. There is no question that whether the tube stays in or is removed is strictly a family decision and has no business in the public domain. The only thing I am interested in is an investigation into the alleged abuses. Instead of having the body cremated immediately, at least do an autopsy. I do not think that it is too much to ask to investigate allegations of a crime. That is withing jurisdiction of the public via law enforcement (and the courts if there is evidence of a crime).
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Link? 283053[/snapback] I saw her Guardian at Law on NightLine for the full 30 minutes last night. I watched it, but if you feel you need to read it yourself, try google, maybe you'll find a transcript of the program.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I agree except for the fact that no investigation into alleged abuse has been done. Everyone has been clinging to the husband stating that this was Terri's wish but yet he contradicts himself on national television. He has also done other things which look suspicious. There is no question that whether the tube stays in or is removed is strictly a family decision and has no business in the public domain. The only thing I am interested in is an investigation into the alleged abuses. Instead of having the body cremated immediately, at least do an autopsy. I do not think that it is too much to ask to investigate allegations of a crime. That is withing jurisdiction of the public via law enforcement (and the courts if there is evidence of a crime). 283061[/snapback] And this is the issue that has me most in knots. If this bastard gets his way, she gets turned to ash IMMEDIATELY, thereby hiding any possible evidence of abuse on his part. Then it's an easy road to cash and a new life. He stinks. His whole argument stinks.
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Plus how much money does he get from movie and book deals, once it is all said and done. yet another reason not to divorce since he will have the rights to sell her life story. 283041[/snapback] Now that's a bit of a reach, afterall, he could write a book about it today. Her parents could do the same. Big deal. But it is fun to watch more and more tenuous arguments spring up while people continue to backpedal - instead of just recognizing that there may be important information that they either didn't know or didn't consider.
John Adams Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 According to Michael Schaivo: "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." - CNN, Larry King Show, 3/18/05 (Emphasis added by poster) So, the husband has said two different things. Which do we believe? 283031[/snapback] I saw that interview last night. I'm not sure if you did. He was pretty clear several times that he beleived that Terri would have chosen to die in this situation, based on a few conversations. That quote was either out of context, or he misspoke. Unlike JSP, I do not think this is about the money for either side. I think this is about two groups who love her very much (husband visited her all the time/parents who love their daughter), and are at odds over what she would have wanted. It's terribly sad. No matter what side you are on, this case should make one thing clear: MAKE OUT A LIVING WILL. Direct people to keep you alive at all costs, or make your other wishes equally clear. Either way, it's a simple thing to do, and you can save people that love you a lot of heartache.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I saw her Guardian at Law on NightLine for the full 30 minutes last night. I watched it, but if you feel you need to read it yourself, try google, maybe you'll find a transcript of the program. 283063[/snapback] Now tell me: Is it POSSIBLE that it's in the best interests of this guardian at law that he present the rosiest picture as possible? is it theoretically POSSIBLE that he was asleep at the switch? I mean, you can't rule that out. I have yet to see in ANY print format a refutation of the fact that the guy stands to cash in on an insurance policy upon her death.
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 I agree except for the fact that no investigation into alleged abuse has been done. Everyone has been clinging to the husband stating that this was Terri's wish but yet he contradicts himself on national television. He has also done other things which look suspicious. There is no question that whether the tube stays in or is removed is strictly a family decision and has no business in the public domain. The only thing I am interested in is an investigation into the alleged abuses. Instead of having the body cremated immediately, at least do an autopsy. I do not think that it is too much to ask to investigate allegations of a crime. That is withing jurisdiction of the public via law enforcement (and the courts if there is evidence of a crime). 283061[/snapback] According to her Guardian at Law, she likely had an eating disorder, and through the treatments from the fertility clinic they were using, it was too much. Her heart stopped and she collapsed. She was resuscitated but only after severe brain damage occurred, and there were no justified allegations of abuse.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 According to her Guardian at Law, she likely had an eating disorder, and through the treatments from the fertility clinic they were using, it was too much. Her heart stopped and she collapsed. She was resuscitated but only after severe brain damage occurred, and there were no justified allegations of abuse. 283077[/snapback] Then how does this stirling PhD/JD account for the bone bruises about her head and neck? Maybe the tooth fairy put them there.
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 No matter what side you are on, this case should make one thing clear: MAKE OUT A LIVING WILL. Direct people to keep you alive at all costs, or make your other wishes equally clear. Either way, it's a simple thing to do, and you can save people that love you a lot of heartache. 283069[/snapback] Agreed. This case would have been over 15 years ago if that was done. I had a living will done before I got married. When Kristy and I got married, I made her get one, I revised mine to include her, and I made her parents each get one. My parents and brother have had them for years. My whole family is covered with living wills.
Terry Tate Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Cable lady, now is not the time nor the place for that. That was innapropriate. You can make your case without those types of comments ('most of America' against a 'charade' by the 'far religious right', 'zealots', etc).
Fezmid Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 According to Michael Schaivo: "But this is not about [the parents], it's about Terri. And I've also said that in court. We didn't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want..." - CNN, Larry King Show, 3/18/05 (Emphasis added by poster) So, the husband has said two different things. Which do we believe? 283031[/snapback] Well then, Michael Jackson must be innocent then, because we've heard the kids on the stand saying completely different things, and also things that are contrary to what they've said previously. And you know, they stand to benefit financially from that lawsuit, so they must be bad people! CW
Campy Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Now tell me: Is it POSSIBLE that it's in the best interests of this guardian at law that he present the rosiest picture as possible? is it theoretically POSSIBLE that he was asleep at the switch? I mean, you can't rule that out. Yes, I can rule that out. He read 30,000 pages of medical notes, reviewed all of the court cases and worked with her on a daily basis. He was required by legislation to assess her situation, ensure that she received due process, and submit a report on his findings.I have yet to see in ANY print format a refutation of the fact that the guy stands to cash in on an insurance policy upon her death. 283071[/snapback] Did you try to look for excerpts of the interview? Of course you didn't. Either way you'd attack it just because it didn't jibe with your narrow opinion (reference the quote above). I really don't care to carry on a discussion with people who are unable to consider that there may be truths other than those to which they cling. Believe what you want, your opinion is your own, and it's rather obvious that the introduction of fact to contradict those opinions are not welcome.
KRC Posted March 22, 2005 Posted March 22, 2005 Well then, Michael Jackson must be innocent then, because we've heard the kids on the stand saying completely different things, and also things that are contrary to what they've said previously. And you know, they stand to benefit financially from that lawsuit, so they must be bad people! CW 283088[/snapback]
Recommended Posts