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. :)

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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?

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.

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?

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.