Lawyer discusses controversial Schiavo case in Great Falls

Judged:

Gibbs says haunting questions over the case still linger. "Why wouldn't the husband, if he didn't want the responsibility, why not just let the parents take care of her? Why insist that she had to die?"

A lot of people would like to know the answers to those questions...

Gues Who

Riverview, FL

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

Gibbs says haunting questions over the case still linger. "Why wouldn't the husband, if he didn't want the responsibility, why not just let the parents take care of her?

Most likely because of the Schindlers’ attempted character assassination and vilification of Michael Schiavo after they petitioned the court for the guardianship and loss. He may not have trusted the Schindler motives.

Janice Sanford wrote:

Why insist that she had to die?"
A lot of people would like to know the answers to those questions...

Why would you wish to keep Terri Schiavo’s body alive?
For what purpose? In the Schindlers case to make money.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

Gues Who wrote:

<quoted text>
Most likely because of the Schindlers’ attempted character assassination and vilification of Michael Schiavo after they petitioned the court for the guardianship and loss. He may not have trusted the Schindler motives.
<quoted text>
Why would you wish to keep Terri Schiavo’s body alive?
For what purpose? In the Schindlers case to make money.

you seem to have problems understanding difference between a person[human] is is alive and one who is dead....Note how guess who skipped right over the orginal wuestions put out by David Gibbs...

Amazed

Janice Sanford wrote:

Gibbs says haunting questions over the case still linger. "Why wouldn't the husband, if he didn't want the responsibility, why not just let the parents take care of her? Why insist that she had to die?"
A lot of people would like to know the answers to those questions...

So all these years later the Schindlers foremost attorney still understand and still doesn't know why he was in court or what laws were relevant and applicable in the case he was arguing or even what his clients were fighting for or why opposing counsel was so successful time and again against him?

No wonder he never accomplished anything for his clients.

Half failed lawyer and half preacher apparently add up to one big zero.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
So all these years later the Schindlers foremost attorney still understand and still doesn't know why he was in court or what laws were relevant and applicable in the case he was arguing or even what his clients were fighting for or why opposing counsel was so successful time and again against him?
No wonder he never accomplished anything for his clients.
Half failed lawyer and half preacher apparently add up to one big zero.

Actually, by the time the last of the Schindler attorneys got in the picture, someone had managed to hide a lot of important document beneath tons of court documents....

hornback12

AOL

Janice Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, by the time the last of the Schindler attorneys got in the picture, someone had managed to hide a lot of important document beneath tons of court documents....

wasn't it pam anderson that didn't find documents in her file for three years

Amazed

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, by the time the last of the Schindler attorneys got in the picture, someone had managed to hide a lot of important document beneath tons of court documents....

More of your misinformed and uninformed bigoted opinions Janice?

Apparently Mr Gibbs would beg to differ with you- not only did his tithe fueled firm have a more than adequate budget it also had the manpower to review the legal record that had spanned more than a decade prior to his involvement. As he states it was possible for his staff to review the entire decade worth of legal documents in 48 Hours.

Of course he mentions his NINE senior partners but doesn't mention all the support staff for those NINE senior partners: the junior lawyers, paralegals and administrative assistants. It also appears he leaves out the legal services houses that provide document scanning, conversion and indexing at the rate of hundreds of pages per hour.

http://www.law.duke.edu/magazine/2005fall/pro...

On taking the case, he and the other nine attorneys at Gibbs Law Firm, just a few miles from Schiavo's Pinellas Park hospice, cancelled all appointments and worked around the clock for two days, reviewing a legal record that spanned a decade. After a direct appeal to Governor Jeb Bush to get involved, they worked with Florida legislators on what came to be known as “Terri's Law.” Florida's Supreme Court struck down Terri's Law late last year.

Svaha

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

Gibbs says haunting questions over the case still linger. "Why wouldn't the husband, if he didn't want the responsibility, why not just let the parents take care of her? Why insist that she had to die?"
A lot of people would like to know the answers to those questions...

Because Mrs Schiavo's HCS said that's not what Mrs Schiavo would have wanted for herself. The haunting question that lingers is WHY the Schindlers always made the whole thing about what THEY wanted.

Joined: Oct 2, 2006

Comments: 9476

AOL

Judged:

Joined: Oct 2, 2006

Comments: 9476

AOL

Judged:

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/28/natio ...

PINELLAS PARK, Fla.— A spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents said Sunday that their court battle to keep her alive was over, and as their daughter began her 10th day without food or water after her feeding tube was removed by judicial order, a family lawyer said she was past the "point of no return."

"Terri is declining rapidly," lawyer David C. Gibbs III said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We believe she has at this point passed where physically she would be able to recover. They've begun giving her morphine drip for the pain. At this point, we would say Terri has passed the point of no return."

OMG, another lie. The autopsy said that Terri had only two minimal dose moriphine suppositories.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/schiavo8.ht...

She received two morphine suppositories -- one on 2005-MAR-19 and one on MAR-26 -- 12 and 5 days before her death. There was no trace of morphine in her body when she died.

http://www.rangelmd.com/index.php/2005/06/16/...

Despite media claims, Mrs. Schiavo was not given a morphine infusion (drip) in the last few days before her demise. According to medical records she was given two separate doses of 5 mg morphine suppositories (low dose) during this time and nothing else. No detectable morphine was in her blood at the time of death and acetaminophen (Tylenol) levels were nontoxic (opiates are often used as formulations that combine them with Tylenol). Why give a painkiller to a patient who is said to be not capable of consciousness? It is common practice in hospice programs to give patients analgesics even if it is uncertain if they are having any discomfort or not. The rational is to err on the side of treating any potential discomfort. Unofficially it makes the nursing staff feel as if they have done at least something for the dieing patient.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

questions still unanswered...but ty for sharing your opinions....

Joined: Oct 2, 2006

Comments: 9476

Williston, FL

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, by the time the last of the Schindler attorneys got in the picture, someone had managed to hide a lot of important document beneath tons of court documents....

The Schindlers had lawyers into the case since 1993. How could records have been hidden?

Now some medical records are removed after either seven or ten years, but that's normal routine cleaning of medical records.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

Peppermint Patti wrote:

<quoted text>
The Schindlers had lawyers into the case since 1993. How could records have been hidden?
Now some medical records are removed after either seven or ten years, but that's normal routine cleaning of medical records.

You mean the Schindlers never had an attorney before 1993....?interesting...

Joined: Oct 2, 2006

Comments: 9476

Williston, FL

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the Schindlers never had an attorney before 1993....?interesting...

Oh, I'm sure they did, for the bankruptcy and all :-)

Just not for Terri.

Amazed

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

questions still unanswered...but ty for sharing your opinions....

Seems the important question of whether the Schindler family of origin were liars was answered when their sworn pretrial despositions didn't match with their sworn trial testimony.

Also seems the important question of whether Mr Gibbs was a liar in media interviews was fully answered by the medical record and the autopsy report since Mrs Schiavo never had an I.V. line placed and therefore couldn't possibly have been on a "morphine drip" :

Peppermint Patti wrote:

http://articles.latimes.com/20 05/mar/28/nation/na-schiavo28
PINELLAS PARK, Fla.— A spokesman for Terri Schiavo's parents said Sunday that their court battle to keep her alive was over, and as their daughter began her 10th day without food or water after her feeding tube was removed by judicial order, a family lawyer said she was past the "point of no return."
"Terri is declining rapidly," lawyer David C. Gibbs III said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We believe she has at this point passed where physically she would be able to recover. They've begun giving her morphine drip for the pain. At this point, we would say Terri has passed the point of no return."

Perhaps Mr Gibbs didn't realize that the inflamatory fantasy image he painted of it being necessary to have a "morphine drip" to control pain would mean he was also painting a picture that included an I.V. line being in place with fluids and a infusion pump to carefully regulate and control any dosing.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

http://www.hospicepatients.org/euth-acct-four...

Some Hospices are known for killing their patients

IL2BCIB

Hershey, PA

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

Gibbs says haunting questions over the case still linger. "Why wouldn't the husband, if he didn't want the responsibility, why not just let the parents take care of her? Why insist that she had to die?"
A lot of people would like to know the answers to those questions...

From what I recall, the parents were quite clear that they did not care what the late Ms. Schiavo wanted. They simply wanted to keep her alive for their own reasons -- reasons that had nothing to do with her wishes. I have been in very similar situations recently, on both sides of the fence.

So my guess would be that the husband wanted to follow what he felt his wife wanted -- or would have wanted -- and was less concerned about propitiating the parents. The parents disagreed.

I can sympathize with both sides. It can be very difficult to cast aside your own needs and wants to respect the wishes of another -- especially if you disagree with said wishes, and doing so will cause you pain. It is easy to empathize with why the parents would have wanted to keep their daughter alive -- even against her wishes.

But it wasn't about the parents... or about the husband. This is something that many seem to forget, as various ad hominem attacks have been leveled against both the husband and the parents.

Unless there is clear evidence to the ccntrary -- not merely conjecture, speculation, and innuendo -- it seems to me the husband was just trying to carry out his wife's wishes after he came to grips with the situation. The parents remained in denial, which is not uncommon.

Amazed

Judged:

Janice Sanford wrote:

http://www.hospicepatients.org /euth-acct-four.html
Some Hospices are known for killing their patients

Proof of nothing but that anonymous allegations contained in bizarre stories are enough "evidence" and "proof" to convince any nutter.

And proof that any nut with a cause and an axe to grind can put together a web site or form a club.

Janice Sanford

Judged:

IL2BCIB wrote:

<quoted text>
From what I recall, the parents were quite clear that they did not care what the late Ms. Schiavo wanted. They simply wanted to keep her alive for their own reasons -- reasons that had nothing to do with her wishes. I have been in very similar situations recently, on both sides of the fence.
So my guess would be that the husband wanted to follow what he felt his wife wanted -- or would have wanted -- and was less concerned about propitiating the parents. The parents disagreed.
I can sympathize with both sides. It can be very difficult to cast aside your own needs and wants to respect the wishes of another -- especially if you disagree with said wishes, and doing so will cause you pain. It is easy to empathize with why the parents would have wanted to keep their daughter alive -- even against her wishes.
But it wasn't about the parents... or about the husband. This is something that many seem to forget, as various ad hominem attacks have been leveled against both the husband and the parents.
Unless there is clear evidence to the ccntrary -- not merely conjecture, speculation, and innuendo -- it seems to me the husband was just trying to carry out his wife's wishes after he came to grips with the situation. The parents remained in denial, which is not uncommon.

Welcome doc buster....You know Terri Schiavo wasn't terminal..... but to admit that wouldn't help your movement a bit would it?

Janice Sanford