Tuesday, March 22, 2005

CNN Bombshell: "We Didn't Know What Terri Wanted, But This Is What WE Want"

Analysis of Michael's Freudian Slip on CNN's Larry King Live reveals that Michael Schiavo instituted the death order, not Terri. 

Rudimentary analysis of CNN's Larry King Live interview with Michael Schiavo reveals Terri Schiavo could not possibly have approved the death order as Michael claimed on ABC's Nightline three nights earlier.

Viewers watching the Larry King Live interview were braced for yet another episode of Same Spiel, Different Day. Except this time,
Michael Schiavo got caught telling the truth:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
KING: Have you had any contact with the family today? This is a sad day all the way around, Michael. We know of your dispute.

M. SCHIAVO: I've had no contact with them.

KING: No contact at all?

KING: Do you understand how they feel?

M. SCHIAVO: Yes, I do. But this is not about them, 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...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The truth is tinged in red. (By the measure of what he said the rest of the comment has to be fiction.)

This is simply not to be believed. Do we realize what he just said?

As argued in an earlier post, he has now incriminated himself beyond reason. After admitting on ABC Nightline he would turn down $10 million if necessary in order to kill Terri - meaning that he was either a really noble guy or a very guilty one - we learn that her "wish to die" wasn't hers but HIS. (And whomever "WE" refers to, presumably the attorney.) And it gives us the answer to our rhetorical question:

Q: Who needs her dead so badly - Terri or Michael?

A: Now we know it's Michael. If it were Terri he wouldn't have slipped and said what he did, for reasons I'll clarify in a later post.

So Michael tacitly admitted he has no reason other than ulterior motives to give up the $10 million. All his self-righteous strutting, his brave defiance of the Federal courts, his heroic sacrifice of a fortune for his precious girl's wish to die, his lawyer's pandering to the cameras (and to the news polls supporting her termination 70% to 30%) - all of it was B.S. Three days later, a Freudian slip of the tongue brings it full circle: Terri Schiavo's constitutional right to die has been invalidated on national television by the messenger himself.

It's possible that the $10 million was a media scam; perhaps the money was "pledged" by an attorney who never expected to pay up. (Is anyone certain?) Or maybe there's a responsible citizen somewhere who wanted either to save Terri's life or call Michael's bluff. Well guess what: either way, Michael just shot himself in the foot. (Wonder if the dart's dipped in hemlock.)

KING: You're not -- it didn't cost you anything. This is not something where you're looking to save money?
M. SCHIAVO: No. There's no money involved. We need to move on from that question.

I believe him. ;) And I agree with him. There's something much more at stake to this man than money, and now we know it ain't Terri's wishes. He turned down $10 million (or so he says) and says he doesn't want to dwell on the question. Good idea. Let's dwell on this for a while instead shall we? (Slips are habit-forming.)


Blogger Maggie said...

I had another look at those two interviews. With the ABC interview there is an inconsistency because Michael changed the details about when Terri allegedly stated that she wanted to die rather than be attached to life support.

During this interview he stated that it was after watching a movie and it concerned a dying uncle of Therese.

When I had another look at the CNN interview, I saw yet another inconsistency (not just the one that we all discovered that finally tells the truth).

If you look before Michael made that blunder, Felos has tried to cover up the other blunders by stating that Terri made the same statement at various times. Suddenly, it is not one statement that was uttered. Suddenly there are allegedly more occasions on which the statement was allegedly said.

I am at a loss as to how this can be deduced when the alleged statements were supposed to have occurred three years before Terri collapsed. How is it that Michael did not remember that she said these things until something like 10 years after the fact (of the hearsay testimony)?

How many people are able to remember with such clarity what someone said when they were watching a movie?

Ok I am going to break my own rule of projection again. In 1959 my family was involved in a near fatal car accident. My sister ended up in a coma for two weeks at the time of the accident. I had a minor head injury, my brother had a broken collar bone, and for all intents and purposes neither of my parents looked as though they had any injuries. My own head injury caused me to have concussion. What was unknown was the fact that my father had received a head injury (it showed up on his brain scan after his first stroke). My mother had received soft tissue injury that had affected her back, and it too had gone unnoticed. Now, I can remember some detail before the car accident, and afterwards, but there is a blank from the time of the accident until when I woke up in the country hospital. I can give quite a bit of detail about what happened afterwards, but anything to do with the crash is a blank. I have a good memory but there are some blanks in that memory. I cannot remember every single conversation that I had even two weeks ago, let alone remember a conversation that happened 10 years ago. I have gone through a lot of trauma at the hands of others, but I cannot remember every single detail of those traumatic events. I would only have remembered if I had already taken notes so that I would not forget the work place harassment, and the other abuses that I have suffered.

I do not believe that Michael Schiavo ever had such a conversation with Theresa and I do not believe that she begged him to kill her in this way.

It is a gross miscarriage of justice when hearsay evidence is being allowed to decide the life or death fate of a cognizant brain injured woman.

6:12 PM  
Blogger bethtopaz said...

A thought and a question: The hospice is now giving Terri morphine for the pain. If she is PVS, and has no consiousness and feels no pain, why the morphine? Is this to drug her into the "beautiful, peaceful state she is in" so Michael and his accomplices can feel good about killing her?

6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is very interesting site... » »

3:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work xanax info effects of without prescription buy xanax online from Saab 9 3 1.8i alloy wheels Net bikini Jeep commander srt

10:31 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home