Misinterpretation and misrepresentation, part II

I’ve read over Judge George Greer’s order, dated February 11, 2000, granting Michael Schiavo’s petition to have Terri’s feeding tube removed. (The order also addressed the Schindlers’ petition to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem). I'm sure that by now most of the blogosphere has seen it. It illuminates the judicial process as well as the judicial power wielded in this particular case, as has been noted. Greer’s words are quite revealing.

I’d like to point out a few specifics, beginning with Greer’s discussion of the Schindler/Schiavo rift. This rift was apparently founded on a dispute over use of the money both Michael and Terri’s estate were rewarded from a malpractice suit.

A change in outlook on the part of Michael Schiavo surely preceded the money dispute. For several years, Michael and Terri’s parents worked together towards Terri's recovery. But after treatments failed to yield the desired effects, Michael apparently gave up on desiring even basic maintenance for Terri.

Michael Schiavo told Larry King,

Her father and mother came into the [hospice] room. And they closed the door. And they asked the big question, How much money am I going to get? And I told them I wasn't going to get any money.

Note: He received $300 000, according to Greer’s order. (p. 2)

KING: Out of the malpractice?

SCHIAVO: Out of the malpractice suit. Then he argued with me for a little while. And then he pointed at Terri in the wheelchair and says, How much am I going to get from her money?

And I said, you have to go talk to the courts about that.


...he's always wanted the money. He always wanted money out of this. He even testified in the first trial that he was angry that he didn't get any money.

According to Fr. Rob Johansen, Schindler has said: "I never asked him for money, ever." Schindler did admit to reminding Michael that they had previously discussed pursuing a certain course of treatment for Terri. It seems unclear whether Michael had actually promised to use the settlement money for this treatment. Schindler seemed to have thought he had.

Greer’s order states:

While the testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. ... Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides. The Guardian Ad Litem noted that Mr. Schiavo’s conflict of interest was that if Terri Schiavo died while he is still her husband, he would inherit her estate. The record before this court discloses that should Mr. and Mrs. Schindler prevail, their stated hope is that Mr. Schiavo would divorce their daughter, get on with his life, they would be appointed guardians of Terri Schiavo and become heirs at law. They have even encouraged him to “get on with his life.” Therefore, neither side is exempt from finger pointing as to possible conflicts of interest in this case. (p. 2)

It’s possible that Schindler did not actually ask Michael for money while communicating desire to have some say in how the settlement money, especially the $700 000 that Terri’s estate received, was spent. And perhaps he did hope to receive that $700 000, but there is no good reason to assume he would not have used most or all of it for Terri’s care. Did he and Mrs. Schindler have any other significant source of funding for her care, had they received guardianship? And would they have done an about-face, upon being named guardians, and petitioned to have Terri’s feeding tube removed?? Surely the Judge didn't anticipate such a scandal!

It’s clear, though, that if Terri died as result of having her feeding tube removed, Michael would receive Terri’s estate (as he in fact has) and would most certainly not spend it on Terri (except for post-mortem procedures), since Terri would be dead. How Greer failed to see or mention this, when mentioning the “potential conflict of interest that went both ways,” I cannot understand.

I also couldn’t help noticing (and maybe I read with a bias, though my intent was to not do so) that Judge Greer repeatedly and at length expressed a disdain for the testimony of the Schindlers and their witnesses, which he found to be of dubious credibility. He wrote several sentences regarding oddities in a witness' (Terri's friend) testimony, the main "oddity" of which can be explained by the fact that he was wrong about the year Karen Ann Quinlan died! (As has been noted by other bloggers.)* Greer thought that Terri’s friend's consistency in repeating the same “odd” tense usage throughout examination and cross-examination was not to her credit.

The Judge also questioned the fact that Terri’s friend had much better memory at trial than at the deposition, and appeared distrustful of her testimony that things had come back to her upon reflection. I don’t see the great unlikelihood of this happening. A friend of Terri’s wouldn’t necessarily be a “professional” witness. Greer just seems to have set the bar awfully high for Schindler testimony.

He didn’t, however, have a problem with the fact that Michael’s testimony to what Terri said about being “hooked to a machine” was corroborated only by his own family members. Greer stated that they did not appear to be “slanting” their testimony by excluding “unfavorable comments regarding those discussions” – whatever that means. And that their testimony of Terri’s phraseology lined up historically with what people “in this country in that age group” typically said about the issue. (p. 6)

I’m not aware that language regarding life support, or being “hooked up to a machine,” has changed in the last 20 years. But then I’m not exactly “hip” so maybe I missed something.

The judge also made a completely arbitrary suppostition as to why Michael Schiavo waited eight years to petition to have Terri’s feeding tube (or “life support,” as Greer refers to it) removed:

...he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued. (p. 4)

As if that was the point...

If, as Greer stated, there was admittedly “potential conflict of interest” regarding money on both sides, why did he so readily give Michael the benefit of the doubt? Because of other testimony, yes...George Felos is a shrewd lawyer.

Greer also stated that it was

also interesting to note that Mr. Schiavo continues to be the most regular visitor to his wife even though he is criticized for wanting to remove her life support. (p. 4)

He did not mention, however, the evidence for his statement.

If a judge must always assume that witnesses, being under oath, are giving honest testimony, why did Greer so readily accept the Schiavos’ testimony but not the Schindlers’? He admitted that he has complete freedom to decide, on his own, who’s credible and who’s not:

The court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word. (p. 3)

But, really, how many individuals can truly “read” others without error, especially those others they don't really know? Do all judges possess superior social and logical acumen?

Why is a single individual allowed, by law, to decide whether another person lives or dies?


*Whoever typed the order didn't even know how to spell "Quinlan" -- though that's irrelevant to my point. I just find it interesting.