hmm. On a break. I saw this story last night and hadn't commented as I thought these were records released by Schiavo's attorney not DCF, whose deadline is Monday. But I am not sure of this, as I am very swamped this weekend and in a class that has nothing to do with that deadline to boot. It's unclear which 30 allegations it was that were not unfounded that they wanted to investigate.
But. The abusive relationship checklists, like them, love them, or hate them, are not of my making. They are out there and they are used as screening tools all the time. They are based on studies that are in the peer-reviewed journals Larry loves so well, except when they don't fit his view of things. One of the studies I posted a link to has been cited 81 times. This sounds pretty well-respected to me. As for projection, I have wondered something similar. Why is it acceptable (apparently) to hold the opinion that Michael Jackson is guilty of abuse, but not (apparently) Michael Schiavo. I have to question the level of hysteria in this thread, I really do. Class is starting again, but to summarize -- if Cindy Shook's testimony were discredited, or the other woman's... if someone were to show me a reason why you might refuse to allow a woman you love to see out her window or go outside or even out of her bed, or why you would refuse to allow treatment you have been given money in trust for, I might consider revising my opinion. It would help if some explanation where given for the broken bones and it were shown that she had in fact received dental care. Dana On 4/17/05, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is no evidence supporting a claim of abuse in the Shiavo case, > at least according to Florida's Dept. of Family and Children: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59521-2005Apr16.html > washingtonpost.com > Reports Cite No Abuse of Schiavo > Florida Welfare Agency Investigated Dozens of Complaints > > By Maya Bell > Orlando Sentinel > Sunday, April 17, 2005; Page A07 > > ORLANDO -- In the four years after Michael Schiavo won the right to > remove his wife's feeding tube, the state's social welfare agency > investigated 89 complaints of abuse but never found that he or anybody > else harmed Terri Schiavo, records released late Friday show. > > The state Department of Children and Families repeatedly concluded > that Michael Schiavo ensured his wife's physical and medical needs > were met, provided proper therapy for her and had no control over her > money. They also found no evidence that he beat or strangled her, as > his detractors have repeatedly charged. > > The 45 pages of confidential abuse reports made public by court order > show that despite the litany of complaints, investigators never found > that Terri Schiavo had been abused. > > That raises what Michael Schiavo's attorney said is a key question: > Why, during her last weeks of life, did DCF twice try to intervene in > the seven-year dispute between Terri Schiavo's husband and her > parents? > > "The answer is obvious," said attorney Hamden Baskin III. "From the > get-go, this was nothing but a political intervention. There was and > continues to be no reason for them to have been involved." > > DCF spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez would not address the charges of > political interference directly, saying only, "The reports speaks for > itself. . . . We have a duty to protect the vulnerable and investigate > allegations of abuse." Reports on the 30 allegations of abuse raised > between March 18, when Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, and March > 31, when she died, have not been completed. > > Schiavo had been kept alive by the feeding tube for 15 years, but > courts ruled that she was in a persistent vegetative state and had not > wanted to be kept alive artificially. Her parents, Robert and Mary > Schindler, countered that she responded to them and wanted to live, > setting off an international debate over right-to-die issues. > > The records show that DCF took seriously its duty to investigate abuse > allegations, which became familiar fodder on the Internet: Terri > Schiavo was dirty and unkempt. She did not receive proper dental care > or rehabilitative therapy. She was kept in isolation. Her husband beat > her and broke her bones. He wanted her dead for her money or to > remarry. He pumped her full of insulin, hoping to kill her. He often > asked, "When will (she) die?" Her lips were cracked and dry. > > The names of the complainants were blacked out under Pinellas County > Circuit Judge George W. Greer's orders. > > But DCF investigators looked into the charges and closed them as > unfounded with such comments as "the spouse has always been courteous > and very compassionate toward his wife" and "all her needs being met." > > In at least one case, the caller found the evidence of Terri Schiavo's > alleged abuse on the Internet. In January 2004, a female caller > reported that Terri Schiavo had an infection on her stomach, at the > site of her feeding tube, that was not being treated. But, when > questioned, she said she had no first-hand knowledge. She "stated that > her information on current infections and lack of treatment was from > Yahoo chatline," the report said. > > In another instance, Terri Schiavo's parents were the subject of a > complaint by a caller who alleged the Schindlers were exploiting their > daughter by selling videotapes of her on the Internet for $100. That, > too, was ruled unfounded. > -- > > Given Dana's extremely tenacious attacks on Michael Shiavo as an > abuser, and her defense of extremely unreliable "checklists", at this > point I'm wondering how much of this is more of a matter of > projection on her part than anything else. > > larry > > > On 4/17/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dana wrote: > > > have said is an opinion and I really don't know why it bothers you so > > > much :) > > > Can I convince someone of this who really seems to have some sort of > > > stake in believing otherwise? Probably not. > > > > > > > Apologies - I didn't realize that you'd retracted your statement about > > Mr. Schiavo fitting a profile. As to what I think about his guilt: > > > > I don't know and I have no stake in it either way except to ensure > > that when somebody is accused of something that there's actual > > evidence to support the claim. That evidence shouldn't be things that > > can be explained by 100s of other causes. For example, the bone > > fractures seem meaningless by themselves. > > > > Everyone has a right to their opinion of course, but I think we need > > to be very careful when we make accusations; especially when they're > > as serious as spousal abuse, child abuse, or really anything that > > could harm someone's character such that they could have trouble > > finding work or just living. > > > > I guess I want to be a dissenting voice because if the media and > > populace were attacking me, I'd want someone to stick up for the > > benefit of the doubt (because I'd know I'm not guilty). > > > > I agree with looking at the totality of the evidence and to > > speculating about what it suggests, but if there's no probabilistic > > profile that we know for a fact he fits, then I don't think we should > > say so - that's hanging the accused before the trial and everybody > > should be against that. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154298 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
