damnum absque injuria

June 15, 2005

Michael Schiavo as Innocent as Jacko

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 12:34 pm

Today’s non-news dressed up as big news is that Terri Schiavo’s autopsy uncovered no evidence of abuse by Michael Schiavo. Unfortunately, it didn’t seem to offer much evidence of anything else, either. While the Ass. Press reports on the lack of evidence of abuse and leaves it at that, FoxNews’s account is more comprehensive,* and shows the lack of evidence to corroborate any other explanation of Schiavo’s collapse, either:

The autopsy revealed there was no conclusive evidence that Schiavo had an eating disorder. Thogmartin said Schiavo reportedly drank a lot of tea and caffeine could have led to her collapse in 1990, but is unlikely.

“No one observed Mrs. Schiavo taking diet pills, binging or purging, or consuming laxatives,” Thogmartin told reporters.

Thogmartin said a review of hospital records of her collapse showed she had a diminished potassium level in her blood. But he said that did not prove she had an eating disorder, because the emergency treatment she received at the time could have affected the potassium level.

In other words, as best we can determine, Terri Schiavo’s tragic 1990 collapse was not caused by strangulation, an eating disorder, a caffeine overdose, or anything else. It just happened for no reason whatsoever, or at least, none we’ll ever know.

*Yes, Tim Lambert, my use of the word “comprehensive” does mean I am one of John R. Lott, Jr.’s “sock puppets.” It also means that Lott and I personally murdered 100,000 Iraqis with our own bare hands while anonymously reviewing their books on Amazon.

UPDATE: Patterico has more. If Patterico were some kind of jerk, he’d probably get mad at me for linking to his post and sending a trackback ping, but he’s not so I’m sure he won’t.

27 Responses to “Michael Schiavo as Innocent as Jacko”

  1. Patterico Says:

    I’m not mad at you. I’m not even mad about the fact that our favorite nutjob is telling lies about me in comments at my blog –because those lies are going into moderation, and aren’t getting posted. Much more peaceful that way.

    I’ll e-mail you the comments later for your amusement.

    He’ll no doubt start whining about it soon, and I’m certain he’ll repeat the lies elsewhere (hopefully not here). But for now, it’s a pleasure to be able to silence the guy.

  2. La Shawn Barber's Corner Says:

    Death Culturalists Say Michael Schiavo ‘Vindicated’

    According to Terri Schiavo’s autopsy report, she was severely brain-damaged. OK.

    For me, the whole tragedy surrounding Terri and the people who wanted her dead didn’t hinge on how severely brain-damaged she was. She was alive, and her husband’s c…

  3. Right Side of the Rainbow Says:

    Examiner releases Schiavo autopsy

    Associated Press (via Yahoo News): LARGO, Fla. – The autopsy released Wednesday on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding she was severely and irreversibly brain-damaged and blind as well. …

  4. Xrlq Says:

    Oh yes, he’s out whining to anyone willing to listen. He’s even accusing us of censorship – presumably because you haven’t unbanned him for being a troll, and I haven’t sent him an email asking him to please, please, pretty please start commenting on my blog again (he’s banned here too, of course, but AFAIK he hasn’t even tried to comment today).

    Then again, maybe we shouldn’t single out Mr. Cabeza. It’s not as though John/Juan Cole, Moderate Boy or the Commie are handling this any better. To these guys, as with Mr. Cabeza, all the autopsy does is “prove” what was already “proven” in their minds a long time ago.

  5. Patterico Says:

    I didn’t get to look at it much, but doesn’t it provide pretty good evidence that there was no abuse causing the injuries? It may not be new evidence, or from the autopsy, but it’s there. Of course (contrary to our hosehead friend’s claim) I have never made that accusation anyway. But it seems that those who did should take account of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence, as documented in the report.

  6. Xrlq Says:

    I’m not sure what “good” evidence is when it comes to proving a non-occurrence. The only new information I’ve been able to glean from the autopsy is that the examination of her neck did not detect any signs of remote trauma, and that was coupled with a statement that “with such a delay, the exam was unlikely to show any residual neck findings. Even bony anomalies would have likely resolved.”

    If there is anything more conclusive than that, I’ve not seen it.

  7. John Cole Says:

    It’s not as though John/Juan Cole, Moderate Boy or the Commie are handling this any better.

    Umm, I’ll stick with John Cole, if you don’t mind.

    To these guys, as with Mr. Cabeza, all the autopsy does is “prove” what was already “proven” in their minds a long time ago.

    You mean that all the doctors except a few quacks who were conjured up ast the last minute to just say anything were still wrong, and you and Bill Frist remain accurate on your diagnosis?

    You mean the Guardian ad litem report stated pretty much everything that would be found in the autopsy.

    You mean the fact that I looked at all the evidence, even *gasp* reading the reports and the guardian at litem and the court records, and believed there was sufficient evidence that she had received a fair day in court.

    You mean the fact that there is, and remains to this day, no evidence that Michael Schiavo abused his wife?

    You mean the fact that the spliced video tape of her tracking a ball was simply motor function but not someone actually cognitively aware and responding to anything?

    You mean the fact that I said she was essentially brain dead (but not technically) and had been for years and would never recover?

    You mean the fact that I said that she would never learn to swallow or drink on her own and that she could not be trained to do so?

    If you mean all that and more, well, I guess you are right. The autopsy does add another layer of confirmation to what I already felt had been sufficiently proven.

    And if you want to slander me by calling me Juan Cole, at least have the nuts to come do it on my own site or send me an email. A pretty nasty insult, if you ask me.

  8. Patterico Says:

    I’m talking about contemporaneous medical records not showing any sign of it.

  9. Xrlq Says:

    I know, but as you noted, those are not new. I’m not sure they’re conclusive, either, as the Schindlers did not suspect Michael Schiavo of anything at the time. Then again, if signs of trauma were too obvious back then, presumably some doctor would have noticed that on his own. Presumably.

    In any event, your nuanced argument isn’t the ones the Kill-Terri fanatics are advancing, namely, that today’s autopsy report proves there was no abuse.

  10. Xrlq Says:

    You mean that all the doctors except a few quacks who were conjured up ast the last minute to just say anything were still wrong, and you and Bill Frist remain accurate on your diagnosis?

    I can’t wait to hear what you think “my” diagnosis was, Juan … um, I mean, John. If you don’t like being mixed up with your near namesake, don’t talk like him. More than anything, it’s your self-righteous tone and know-it-all attitude on this isasue that I object to, not your conclusions.

  11. John Cole Says:

    More than anything, it’s your self-righteous tone and know-it-all attitude on this isasue that I object to, not your conclusions.

    You know, if self-righteous tones really bother you, you ought to check your own archives. How many times did you refer to me as a member of the judicial supremacy faction of the “Kill Terri” crowd? How many times did you attempt to engage in casuistry by ‘rationally’ discussing the fact that Michael Schiavo may or may not have abused his wife. You may not have alleged it, but you made damned sure all those claims got a ‘fair’ hearing. How many times did you just throw up for discussion that there was ‘reasonable doubt’ that Michael Schiavo was not acting in Terri Schiavo’s best interests?

    So, after all is said and done, please excuse me for thinking that my ‘self-righteous tone’ wasn’t the real issue that sticks in your craw.

    And could you at least come up with something more clever than Juan Cole? Goodness. If we can’t agree on anything else today, can we at least agree that he is a raving moonbat?

    BTW- for some reason you are not on my blogroll, but I knew you once were. I have fixed that- my apologies.

  12. Dean's World Says:

    Schiavo Triumphalism

    Some months ago I received mail from family members of Terri Schiavo asking for help. I looked at what they had to say, contemplated it for a while, and decided to follow my conscience; it did not appear that the justice system w…

  13. Septeus7 Says:

    Quote: You mean the fact that I said that she would never learn to swallow or drink on her own and that she could not be trained to do so?

    Wrong! Dr. Thogmartin said in the press conference that with feeding tube removed, she would have been able to eat and drink by mouth. Stop picking and choosing your facts. I guess your are then gonna to quibble about the meaning of “on her own.”

    Fact 1: Cause of collapse is unknown.

    Fact 2: Questions of about the unknown cause of said collapse should have put the appropriateness of Michaels sole guardianship in serious legal jeopardy.

    Conclusion 3: With the appropriateness of the guardianship being uncertain of the case for removing the feed tube doesn’t exist everywhere except in the minds of those who prefer to error on the side of death.

    This is the irrefutable truth.

  14. Xrlq Says:

    How many times did you refer to me as a member of the judicial supremacy faction of the “Kill Terri” crowd?

    Only once that I recall, though I suppose it may have happened other times. You did seem a bit overly deferential to the judiciary in the entry that I linked to. Was I wrong on substance, or are you merely objecting to my crass terminology? After all, your side was the side that wanted to kill Terri, was it not?

    How many times did you attempt to engage in casuistry by ‘rationally’ discussing the fact that Michael Schiavo may or may not have abused his wife. You may not have alleged it, but you made damned sure all those claims got a ‘fair’ hearing.

    Attempt to engage in casuistry? Never.
    Rationally discuss a possibility that I believed in good faith to be possible? A few times, but each time I was careful to address it as a possibility, not as a statement of fact, the only exception being one occasion where I used language so flip any idiot could tell I was being sarcastic – but at least two idiots failed to, nonetheless. And when then-new evidence surfaced indicating that that Michael probably hadn’t abused Terri, I pointed that out, too.

    You are right on one point, though; I do tolerate far more self-righteousness on the part of of the don’t-kill-Terri cause than I do coming from the kill-Terri cause. The reason, quite frankly, is that I can’t for the life of me figure out WTF your side is so pissed off about. If we were wrong in one direction, the State of Florida sanctioned a grisly, slow-motion murder of a woman who had never even been suspected of any crime. If we were wrong in the other direction, we foolishly but harmlessly kept a corpose pumping blood and breathing oxygen for 14 years for no good reason. So friggin’ what?! I hope that’s the worst kind of mistake our society has ever made.

    Last and least, we can agree that Juan Cole is a raving moonbat, and John Cole isn’t. The reason I accidentally-on-purpose mixed up your names is because I felt that on this particular issue, you have argued in a moonbatty fashion that is generally beneath you. In the highly unlikely event that the tables are ever turned, and I catch Juan Cole saying anything uncharacteristically non-moonbatty, I suppose I’ll have to “accidentally” call him John, for the same reason.

    UPDATE: I said last but I lied. Between my entry and the rest of the one’s cited here, can you at least admit you were wrong to prattle about the “silence” of those of us Schiavo supporters who had the unmitigated gall to actually wait an hour or two before weighing in in the nonstory du jour?

  15. John Cole Says:

    Rationally discuss a possibility that I believed in good faith to be possible?

    There is no good faith when you are accusing a man of trying or wanting to murder his wife. Good faith goes out the window.

    You are right on one point, though; I do tolerate far more self-righteousness on the part of of the don’t-kill-Terri cause than I do coming from the kill-Terri cause.

    I am not in the Kill Terri crowd. If I were Michael Schiavo I would have let her parents take care of her. But I am not Michael Schiavo, and neither are you.

    The reason, quite frankly, is that I can’t for the life of me figure out WTF your side is so pissed off about.

    The lying about the medical record. The lying about and attempts to villify Michael Schiavo. The smearing of anyone who disagrees with you as in the ‘Kill Terri’ crowd (adequately represented here). And so on and so forth.

    If we were wrong in the other direction, we foolishly but harmlessly kept a corpose pumping blood and breathing oxygen for 14 years for no good reason. So friggin’ what?!

    You were wrong about her condition, everyone told you, but instead of listening, you continued to damn everyone who disagreed with you as a bloodthirsty adherent to the culture of death.

    I hope that’s the worst kind of mistake our society has ever made.

    Society shouldn’t have to make that decision- families should be allowed to, but I agree with the spirit of it.

    I said last but I lied. Between my entry and the rest of the one’s cited here, can you at least admit you were wrong to prattle about the “silence” of those of us Schaivo supporters who had the unmitigated gall to actually wait an hour or two before weighing in in the nonstory du jour?

    Umm, right now I am channeling Carly Simon for some reason. I know who I had in mind when I wrote the post. I was thinking of Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber and a few others… Not you.

    And how is it a nonstory? Do you really honestly believe that there would not be a cloud over Michael Schiavo had no autopsy been performed?

  16. Xrlq Says:

    There is no good faith when you are accusing a man of trying or wanting to murder his wife. Good faith goes out the window.

    Huh? For one thing, I never accused him of that. For another, your definition is downright nutty. Do you honestly believe that every prosecutor who goes after a person accused of murdering his wife is acting in “bad” faith, by definition? Or is it only “bad” faith if the prosecutor thinks he did it but John Cole disagrees?

    The smearing of anyone who disagrees with you as in the ‘Kill Terri’ crowd (adequately represented here).

    It’s not “smearing” if the shoe fits. Your side advocated that Terri be killed. That is the pure, unvarnished truth, not a “smearing” by any stretch of the imagination. I advocate killing, too, under some circumstances, just not this one. If you pegged me as part of the “Kill Saddam” crowd, the “Kill Mumia” crowd, the “Kill Robert Mugabe” crowd or even the “Hurry Up And Kill Kevin Cooper Already” crowd, it wouldn’t even occur to me to take offense at that.

    If I were Michael Schiavo I would have let her parents take care of her. But I am not Michael Schiavo, and neither are you.

    Well, then. If it makes you feel any better, next time I revise the categories, I promise to move you out of the “kill Terri” column and into the “husbands should get to kill their wives if they want to” column. Happy?

    You were wrong about her condition, everyone told you, but instead of listening, you continued to damn everyone who disagreed with you as a bloodthirsty adherent to the culture of death.

    I’m still waiting for your documentation of “my” diagnosis or what “my” statements about her condition supposedly were. You’ve already correctly noted that I had you pegged as part of the judicial supremacy wing of the “kill Terri” crowd, but apparently you’ve forgotten the point of that post, which was to distinguish that relatively large group from the smaller group, including the likes of George Felos, Jack Kevorkian and Richard “duty to die” Lamm, for whom the phrase “culture of death” is actually warranted. Not only did I not accuse you of being part of that smaller group, as you are now claiming; I actually went the extra mile and specifically pointed out that you were not. You’re welcome.

    Umm, right now I am channeling Carly Simon for some reason. I know who I had in mind when I wrote the post. I was thinking of Michelle Malkin and LaShawn Barber and a few others… Not you.

    Well, duh. For one thing, I never said you were talking about me, did I? For another, if you specifically did have LaShawn in mind, then that only makes your original statement sound even stupider than I thought. LaShawn wasted no time weighing in on the autopsy report.

    And how is it a nonstory? Do you really honestly believe that there would not be a cloud over Michael Schiavo had no autopsy been performed?

    If Michael Schiavo had suceeded in preventing an autopsy from occuring, then yes, that fact would have created a real cloud over him. But seeing as he didn’t have that option, and actually did a pretty good job of making it look as though had voluntarily agreed to it, that wasn’t really an issue anyway. So yes, the bare fact that there was an autopsy is a real story, but that was a much older story, not yesterday’s. Yesterday’s, which was the content of the report, tells us some interesting things about Terri’s condition, but it doesn’t reveal a f’n thing about Michael’s character, or about his state of mind at any point between November 1990 and March 2005, so it shouldn’t (and, I suspect, won’t) affect anyone’s perception of him. Show me anyone who thinks yesterday’s story “vindicates” Michael Schiavo, and I’ll show you someone who had already made up his mind beforehand.

    Still, I do have to backpedal a little on my statement about yesterday’s news as non-news. It is newsworthy in one key respect: it makes the Schindlers’ continued insistence that Terri could have been rehabilitated look increasingly pathetic. That was never my view, but it was held by enough of my fellow pro-tubists to be noteworthy nonetheless.

  17. Cindy Swanson Says:

    I just wanted to let you know that I was able to interview Schindler family attorney David Gibbs III for my radio show today, and I posted a transcript of the interview on my blog at this link:

    http://cindyswanslife.blogspot.com/2005/06/my-interview-with-schindler-family.html

    Hope you’ll take time to read it!

  18. tgirsch Says:

    Xrlq:

    But what if the autopsy report had shown signs of abuse? Sociocons would have been all over that like flies on shit. It seems that the autopsy was a no-win situation for Mr. Schiavo from the conservative can’t: It couldn’t vindicate him, and it could only (potentially) damn him.

    Why is the autopsy report so important? Because it’s yet another thing that could have conceivably proven the allegations of abuse, but which failed to do so. But fortunately for conservatives, there’s no way you could ever conclusive prove that he didn’t abuse her, so they can continue to hide behind that fact saying “this doesn’t prove anything” and continue to imply that he was abusive.

    There is literally no way that Michael Schiavo can prove his innocence here, so conservatives will happily go on presuming his guilt.

  19. Xrlq Says:

    But what if the autopsy report had shown signs of abuse? Sociocons would have been all over that like flies on shit.

    And rightly so, I might add. However, given that the report doesn’t show signs of abuse, but also explains why such signs probably wouldn’t have been detectable anymore if it did happen, I fail to see how the autopsy tells us anything in that regard. At most, it suggests that sociocons who previously believe this was a state-sanctioned murder should now revise their positions and say the State of Florida committed a state sanctioned attempted murder and desecrated a corpse instead.

    I won’t speak for other conservatives, but speaking only for myself, when have I said anything that can reasonably be interpreted as presuming Michael Schiavo is guilty of physically abusing Terri? Or are you taking the John Cole / Dick Cabeza line, which seems to be that even discussing the possibility is tantamount to accusing?

  20. John Cole Says:

    I won’t speak for other conservatives, but speaking only for myself, when have I said anything that can reasonably be interpreted as presuming Michael Schiavo is guilty of physically abusing Terri? Or are you taking the John Cole / Dick Cabeza line, which seems to be that even discussing the possibility is tantamount to accusing?

    I might not have said you are being a petulant ass about this, but I can point to a few links of people who have, and I will point out the definite possibility that you are one. That is how this game works, right?

    I would go on, but I really don’t want to waste the time- yours and mine.

  21. Septeus7 Says:

    Quote: But fortunately for conservatives, there’s no way you could ever conclusive prove that he didn’t abuse her, so they can continue to hide behind that fact saying “this doesn’t prove anything” and continue to imply that he was abusive. There is literally no way that Michael Schiavo can prove his innocence here, so conservatives will happily go on presuming his guilt.

    The spin here is incredible. The report says nothing that would contradict the abuse allegations which were promulgated not only by conservates but some liberals as well but nice try Tgirsch. I think even John will take you to task on the idea this is a conservates vs liberals issue.

    Quote: Page 4 of the M.E.’s summary:
    Autopsy examination of her neck structures 15 years after her initial collapse did not detect any signs of remote trauma, but, with such a delay, the exam was unlikely to show any residual neck findings.”

    The report doesn’t undermine the allegations one single bit. But the report destroys Michael Schiavo’s crebility by proving he lied about bulimia-related low potassium level as the cause of her initial collapse.

    So you can continue to believe Michael’s lies or you can believe the Schindler’s lies. But ask yourself which of the lies makes more sense? Michael’s lie about bulimia from which he profited or the Schindlers lie that Terri could have recovered?

  22. tgirsch Says:

    Septeus7:

    Why does it matter? What ever happened to presumed innocent until proven guilty? That’s the biggest thing I’m saying. There has never been any solid evidence that Michael Schiavo abused Terri, and this report could have presented some but didn’t. Of course, absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence, as you point out, but when there isn’t a shred of evidence that he ever abused her, at some point you have to say enough is enough.

    If you don’t like Schiavo’s stance in the whole affair, that’s fine, but it’s no reason to perpetuate what look for all the world to be baseless allegations against him.

    Xrlq:

    I won’t speak for other conservatives, but speaking only for myself, when have I said anything that can reasonably be interpreted as presuming Michael Schiavo is guilty of physically abusing Terri?

    Gee, maybe it started when you likened Schiavo to Jacko. Somehow I seriously doubt your intent with your choice of headline was to make a point about Jacko’s innocence. For me, it looks for all the world like you were saying “just because we can’t prove he’s guilty doesn’t make him any less guilty.”

  23. tgirsch Says:

    Septeus7:

    To clarify on what I said above, it doesn’t matter what undermines the allegations against Mr. Schiavo. What matters is what supports those allegations. And the answer to the latter is “almost nothing.”

  24. Xrlq Says:

    Gee, maybe it started when you likened Schiavo to Jacko. Somehow I seriously doubt your intent with your choice of headline was to make a point about Jacko’s innocence.

    You’re reading too much into the analogy. The point was not to guess as to who is innocent or guilty of what, let alone to peg one individual’s guilt vs. innocence on that of the other, but rather, to point out that yesterday’s report does no more to clear Michael Schiavo’s name in the minds of his accusers than Jacko’s acquittal does to clear his name in the minds of his. In either case, if you thought a week ago that the guy was innocent, you’re probably a little more sure of yourself now, but if you thought a week ago that he was guilty, you’re more likely to think he got away with it than to think he didn’t do it.

    For me, it looks for all the world like you were saying “just because we can’t prove he’s guilty doesn’t make him any less guilty.”

    That’s a strange way of putting it, but given that the corner clearly stated that the evidence would never have been available in any event, it is true. Of course, to level the charge in the first place, there’d better be something. So I suppose that if there’s a rare bird out there who previously suspected Schiavo of abuse but based this assumption entirely on his unfounded assumption that this report was going to prove abuse, then yesterday’s report was a watershed moment indeed.

    Just for the record, I don’t pretend to know whether either individual is guilty or innocent of anything. If I had to guess, I’d say Jacko is probably guilty and Schiavo is almost certainly not. But the reason I picked Jacko is because I think there is a reasonable doubt as to guilt. If the point of my analogy were to convict Schiavo by association, I’ve have used O.J. in the example, instead.

  25. tgirsch Says:

    Of course, to level the charge in the first place, there’d better be something. So I suppose that if there’s a rare bird out there who previously suspected Schiavo of abuse but based this assumption entirely on his unfounded assumption that this report was going to prove abuse, then yesterday’s report was a watershed moment indeed.

    I fail to see why expectations for what the autopsy would show are relevant here. The allegations of abuse have been parrotted far and wide by Mr. Schiavo’s detractors (including you, I might add), rarely with anything other than hearsay to back them up. The autopsy report is important because if abuse had occurred at some point, there was a decent chance that some evidence of it would show up there. Instead, there was no such evidence, which we can add to all the other non-existent evidence of abuse. But we still have to listen to the whole “he still could have abused her” line of reasoning. If it’s not now acceptable to tell those people to shut up and come back when you have something of substance, when will it be?

    Of course, now the attention will shift to a 15-year-old 911 call, given that the Florida governor refuses to let this die.

  26. Xrlq Says:

    The allegations of abuse have been parrotted far and wide by Mr. Schiavo’s detractors (including you, I might add), rarely with anything other than hearsay to back them up.

    So now you’re telling me what I said? Great. A link or two would be nice. As to anyone who actually did make the charge, if they really did so with no basis in fact (as I suspect, but unlike you, do not claim to know), then of course they should be criticized for that. But that has nothing to do with the content of the autopsy report.

    The autopsy report is important because if abuse had occurred at some point, there was a decent chance that some evidence of it would show up there.

    The report says exactly the opposite. Who am I supposed to believe, you or the coroner?

  27. tgirsch Says:

    So now you’re telling me what I said? Great. A link or two would be nice.

    Why should I link when you could just scroll up? You’ve been arguing this entire thread that the autopsy report proves nothing, and that it’s still quite possible that Schiavo committed abuse. As far as I can tell, the only time you bothered to point out that it was unlikely that he actually had done so was all the way down in comment #24.

    But then your style of argumentation seems to be quite different from mine. If I’m addressing a questionable allegation, even in the context of saying “X doesn’t disprove the allegation the way you think it does,” I make it a point to note that the allegation is suspect. Particularly if we’re dealing with an emotionally charged issue such as this.

    The report says exactly the opposite.

    Actually, it doesn’t. If you read carefully, it’s specifically talking about neck trauma as a result of attempted strangulation. (Page 4, per your above cite.) The report is silent as to whether evidence of any other sort of trauma might be detectable in an autopsy; it simply points out that there’s no evidence of other trauma, and that there hadn’t been any such evidence on initial exams years ago, either. In fact, by page six, the report goes on to say that postmortem findings support (rather than just not contradicting) diagnoses made from a 1991 bone scan. So it appears to me, at least, that bone damage could still be visible 15 years later. It does go on to note, however, that any evidence of such damage would have been much more apparent on the 1991 scans than in the postmortem examination.

    A bit more on this:

    The point was not to guess as to who is innocent or guilty of what, let alone to peg one individual’s guilt vs. innocence on that of the other, but rather, to point out that yesterday’s report does no more to clear Michael Schiavo’s name in the minds of his accusers than Jacko’s acquittal does to clear his name in the minds of his.

    I read the headline the way I did in large part because you seem to be far more critical of Schiavo’s defenders than you are of his accusers, making it not at all unreasonable to assume that you’re more inclined to agree with the accusers. And I was thinking you picked Jacko over OJ simply because that’s fresher in everyone’s mind. :)

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.