North Country Gazette



Lauren Richardson Case Eerily Similar To Schiavo

Posted on Thursday, 1 of May , 2008 at 9:18 am

By June Maxam

© The North Country Gazette

The clock is ticking away the life of Lauren Marie Richardson, a 23-year-old woman who suffered an anoxic brain injury as the result of a heroin overdose in August 2006.  A decision is due any day whether Lauren lives or dies. She has been sentenced to death by dehydration and starvation by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscock III by granting guardianship to her mother who wants to remove Lauren’s feeding tube which will result in her painful and agonizing death, in the same manner as Terri Schiavo.

Lauren’s father, Randy Richardson of Newark wishes to take her home from the Arbors Nursing Home in New Castle and care for her. He is seeking legal recourse to appeal the Jan. 24 court order that will allow the removal of Lauren’s feeding tube.

While Lauren is disabled, she is not terminal. She is not on life support and according to her father and family members, reacts to stimulation and is steadily improving.

She has given birth to a healthy baby during her incapacitation. However, her mother, who has been declared her guardian and has temporary custody of the child, has so far refused to allow the mother and daughter to see each other.

Three years after the world watched the court ordered dehydration death of Terri Schindler Schiavo at the behest of her estranged husband as her parents unsuccessfully and desperately fought to save her life, a similar battle is being waged in the state of Delaware between Lauren’s parents. As with Terri, Lauren’s fate rests in the hands of one person, an individual playing God who unfortunately, doesn’t have and doesn’t seem to want all the relevant data and details.

Unlike the Schiavo case, the mainstream media is avoiding the case, even the bloggers are somewhat silent. The court has in essence placed a gag order on Randy Richardson. Glasscock apparently seeks to control all public information about the case and as in the Schiavo case, seeks to hide the truth, just as Pinellas County probate court judge George Greer did in the Schiavo case.

On Feb. 4, after a video had been released showing how responsive Lauren is, the court appointed guardian ad litem in the case, Jason Powell, sought and obtained an injunction prohibiting the distribution of any photographs, videotapes or other recordings of Lauren taken after Aug. 26, 2006, the date she suffered the brain injury. He claimed it was invading Lauren’s right to privacy.

Richardson said he was upset by the order and said that Powell was more concerned about what Powell deemed Lauren’s privacy rights than he was about protecting and saving her life. As in the Schiavo case, Lauren is being isolated from the public by court order.

As directed, the video was removed from the website created to inform the public about Lauren’s case at www.lifeforlauren.org but it was memorialized by others outside the case and appears at You Tube along with another video about Lauren’s life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ZRWn-gE5g and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scS7ALCKWOw

Lauren had struggled with substance abuse but had been clean for 10 months prior to Aug. 28, 2006, when she overdosed on heroin, resulting in damage to her brain due to oxygen deprivation. In an interview with Hannity and Colmes of Fox News on Feb. 1, Lauren’s father said that she had “developed a situation with a boyfriend where the heroin addiction did play a part” but that she had not been on heroin for 10 months.He says the one time relapse came a time when she and her boyfriend “had a problem” and she learned she was pregnant. Randy said she had a conversation with her mother who was “pleading with her to abort and she said no”. That by itself indicates that Lauren’s wishes to the right to life. Lauren’s parents had divorced when she was an infant and both have since remarried.Because Lauren’s parents knew that she wanted to give birth to her child, they agreed on medical treatment of Lauren during her pregnancy.

Lauren’s daughter Ember Grace was born in February 2007, and she is a healthy little girl, currently in the custody of Lauren’s mother Edith Towers who so far has refused to allow Lauren to see her child. After Ember’s birth, Lauren was taken off a ventilator and tracheostomy and much to the surprise of her doctors, she began breathing on her own.

Her father says that at the time Lauren was in the hospital prior to the baby’s birth, everyone had been in agreement that Lauren would remain on full life support. But he said within days of the baby’s birth, he was served notice that his ex-wife was seeking guardianship and was seeking to remove Lauren’s feeding tube that would result in her death by dehydration and starvation.He says that she would have had to apply weeks in advance of the baby’s birth in order for him to have been served so quickly after his granddaughter’s birth. During that time, he says his ex-wife never articulated any statements purportedly made by Lauren that she wouldn’t want to live that way. He then filed a cross petition for guardianship.  Mrs. Towers, who has a recorded history of depression and emotional issues for the past 15 years including one alleged suicide attempt, wants to stop Lauren’s tube feeding, which would lead to her death because she apparently personally believes that Lauren would not want to live in her condition. She has refused to allow Lauren to receive any therapy or rehabilitation for the past 13 months since the baby’s birth, acting much the same as Michael Schiavo did in denying treatment to Terri for more than a dozen years preceding her death.As in the Schiavo case, the crux of the issue is hearsay testimony. Lauren had left no living will, no advance directive. Randy says that at no time prior to the baby’s birth did his ex-wife ever bring forth any claims that Lauren had allegedly made prior statements that she would not want to live “like Terri Schiavo”.

But then at the time of the evidentiary hearing conducted last July, he says Towers made unsubstantiated, unwitnessed claims that Lauren had purportedly told her she would not want to be kept alive by live support if anything happened to her.

Lauren’s father strongly disputes such hearsay statements his ex-wife claims his daughter made. He says that Lauren has shown steady improvement. He wants to take her home and provide ordinary care for her such as tube feeding, basic medications, and cleanliness, but no extraordinary care. He says that he has been told by a neurologist that Lauren can swallow and with therapy, could be sustained by natural food and water.

He says that the Chancery court hearing became “orchestrated” and that his ex-wife allegedly committed perjury during the hearing. He says that while she testified that Lauren and she had a “wonderful relationship”, it was in fact “very rocky”. He says that his ex-wife had worked in the health center at the school which Lauren attended and that her mother, Edith Towers had been allegedly involved in an affair with the school’s vice principal which he says embarrassed Lauren.Glasscock issued his final report on Jan. 24, granting guardianship to Lauren’s mother claiming that there was “clear and convincing” evidence that Lauren would not want to live and giving substituted judgment to her mother and the right to refuse to medical treatment for Lauren.Randy has appealed this decision which has in effect stayed Glasscock’s decision and joint guardianship is still currently in effect. He is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Arizona.“ADF continues to aggressively defend Lauren’s life”, Greg Scott, ADF director of National Media Relations told The North Country Gazette.

“No human being, disabled or not, deserves to be starved and dehydrated to death.  Lauren’s life is as precious as yours or mine and should be treated that way.  ADF prays the court will agree that Lauren belongs at home with her loving dad to care for her as she recovers.”

The ADF was involved in helping Terri Schiavo as early as 2001.  More recently, the group was successful in defending the life of Jesse Ramirez, who after having food and water removed by order of his wife a mere 10 days after a horrific car accident, walked out the hospital on his own two feet in October. For a long period during Jesse’s case, like in Lauren’s case, ADF was ordered by that judge to limit media exposure. 

“Believe me, we are aggressively defending Lauren’s life as we did for Terri and Jesse, and employing the best strategy for the desired outcome.  That outcome, of course, is Randy taking Lauren home”, Scott says. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/10/23/jesse-ramirez-living-proof-of-pvs-misdiagnosis/ 

The briefs filed by Lauren’s father ask to submit new evidence in the case concerning Lauren’s physical condition, seek a further medical evaluation of Lauren and seek to take the matter to trial. Randy says that the medical testimony submitted at the July 2007 hearing and on which Glasscock based his decision is outdated. He says doctors who have most recently examined Lauren have found that she is not in a persistent vegetative state as the court has decreed but rather in a minimally conscious state.”

She is aware of her surroundings”, her father says. “She’s vocal. If she wants or needs something, she makes noises to tell the aides and nurses. It seems that everything we do is not enough to give her a chance at life. I feel like they all have a big comraderie (the doctors, judge and lawyers), they all do the same golf game”.

He says one of the doctors on whose testimony the judge based his decision, deeming Lauren PVS isn’t even a neurologist but rather the head of the respiratory department at the hospital. “He hasn’t seen her in 13 months”, Randy says. “He’s going by a 15-month old diagnosis. Lauren is getting healthier, she’s steadily improving. Why are they being so vindictive about it”, he asks. “No one is giving Lauren a chance”.

Richardson and family members spend 12 to 14 hours a day with Lauren at the Arbors Nursing Home but he says the care there is minimal. “They keep no logs about her care”, he says. “If she has a fever, they give her Tylenol but she isn’t given any antibiotics for urinary tract infections. He says she is attended by male nurses, some of whom don’t speak English.

Lauren’s father says he has been rebuffed by some disability rights groups in seeking help for his daughter, saying they don’t want to get involved. He says that although Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner is a member of the Advisory Board of the Brain Injury Association of Delaware, he has been unsuccessful in obtaining assistance from the group. He says the response from the Governor’s office has been that “it’s in the judicial system and when it’s over, we’ll do the right thing”.

Randy said he has been stonewalled by the Disabilities Law Program which is a special project of the Community Legal Aid Society Inc. and has been designated by the Governor as the Protection and Advocacy agency in Delaware. This program provides advocacy services to Delaware residents with physical or mental disabilities.

He said that he had tried about a month ago to mediate with his ex-wife rather than go through the court system to argue about guardianship but that she refused to meet with him, saying it was a private matter.

He says he has tried to take it out of the court system, trying to reach a negotiated agreement that he would take Lauren home to care for her the rest of her life with dignity with Towers taking care of the granddaughter but he says there has been no reply to his efforts.

Instead of attempting to find a common ground in the best interest of Lauren and her child, Randy says Towers has brought California attorney Jon Eisenberg into the case, representing her pro bono.

Eisenberg is a California attorney who jumped on the Michael Schiavo bandwagon in 2004, presumably pro bono, in opposing Terri’s Law and Gov. Jeb Bush. Eisenberg filed an amicus curiae brief in the Florida Supreme Court in the Schiavo case, presumably on behalf of 55 bioethicists and a disability rights group.

Eisenberg claims he became involved in the Schiavo case because of the death of his cousin who had a stroke and was placed on a feeding tube. He says she had told him she wouldn’t want to be kept alive if she couldn’t communicate and so he pulled the tube. Wasn’t pretty, he said, took her nine days to die. The difference is, Terri didn’t want to die and there’s simply no clear and convincing evidence that Lauren would want to die, just hearsay testimony such as in the Schiavo case.

It took Terri 13 days to die—that alone a testament to her will to live. And her death was horrific—barbaric.

In Florida, self-serving hearsay testimony is inadmissible in court hearings. Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by a person while testifying at trial, that is used to prove the truth of the statement. It is generally not admissible because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the statement maker at trial (the person who allegedly made the statement—such as Lauren is not at the hearing or trial).

As in the Schiavo case, it appears that Eisenberg is once again trying to draw publicity to himself in hopes of promoting himself in yet another book. His book about the Schiavo case was published in September 2005, six months after her death followed by another book capitalizing on the Schiavo case in September 2006.

The Delaware Court of Chancery is a non-jury trial court that serves as Delaware’s court of original and exclusive equity jurisdiction, and adjudicates a wide variety of cases involving trusts, real property, guardianships, civil rights, and commercial litigation. The chancellor and vice chancellors must be learned in the law and must be Delaware citizens. However, they—including Glasscock—-are not judges. Appeals from the Court of Chancery may be taken to the Supreme Court.

Chancery Court is a court of equity, as opposed to a court of law. Most states don’t separate the types of legal remedies available to litigants into equity and law the way that Delaware does. An equity court is the type that can issue temporary injunctions, and declaratory judgments.

In his decision, Glasscock wrote that “Either of her parents is qualified to serve as guardian, and I am convinced that both of these individuals love their daughter deeply and wish what is best for her, in accordance with what they believe to be her wishes and in light of their own beliefs”.

He appointed the Office of Public Guardian, in the person of Jason Powell, as guardian ad litem for the limited purpose of scheduling visitation between the various family members.

The medical treatment as dictated for Lauren is apparently based on the decision of three physicians including Dr. Michael Carunchio of Newark, a neurologist chosen by the GAL to conduct an “independent” neurological examination of Lauren which was done on Aug. 29, 2007. A follow-up examination was done by the same physician on Oct. 17, 2007.

Lauren had what was described as her father as a “traumatic” trip by ambulance to Dr. Carunchio’s office and was back at the nursing home in a couple hours.

“All the medical evidence submitted by the physicians—by the independent neurologist and by L.’s own doctors—is in agreement: L. is not in a coma but is in a persistent vegetative state. A large portion of her brain was destroyed by lack of oxygen following the heroin overdose of August, 2006. She is unable to communicate or experience consciousness”, Glasscock wrote.

In addition to Carunchio, testifying about Lauren’s medical condition were Dr. John Goodill, a pulmonary care specialist at Christiana Care where Lauren was hospitalized; and Dr. Paul Melnick, board certified neurologist.

However, Lauren’s father says that he was not allowed to present contradictory medical evidence at the hearing and points to the studies which show a high rate of misdiagnosis and inaccuracy in patients deemed to be in a persistent vegetative state. Researchers say that the findings are grounds for “extreme caution” in decisions that might “limit the life chances” of patients, according to a report issued in News-Medical.net.

The latest study conducted by Belgium researchers released last year indicates that around a quarter of the patients in an acute vegetative state when they are first admitted to the hospital have a good chance of recovering a significant proportion of their faculties and up to a half will regain some level of consciousness, Belgium researchers have determined.

Another study shows that around 40% of the patients were wrongly diagnosed as in a vegetative state when they in fact registered the awareness levels of minimal consciousness. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/06/21/study-pvs-misdiagnosed-40-of-time-extreme-caution-urged/

In addition to this, scientists are developing new technology that takes better images of brain function. Much to the surprise of researchers some of these images taken of persons that were thought to be oblivious to their surroundings show that they have some level of consciousness.There have also been a growing number of persons diagnosed as being in “vegetative” conditions, predicted by doctors to never to regain consciousness, who have unexplainably awakened.  As Edith Towers was with Glasscock in Lauren’s case, Michael Schiavo and his attorney, euthanasia advocate, George Felos, were successful in having Judge George Greer label Terri Schindler Schiavo as being in a persistent vegetative state with no hope for recovery, a diagnosis her parents and many neurologists and physicians disputed, saying that Terri was in a minimally conscious state. 

Greer repeatedly refused requests by Terri’s parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, for new testing of their daughter.

The court and perhaps even the attorneys on both sides are trying to dehumanize Lauren, wrongly labeling her as “brain dead”, a “vegetable” with no chance for recovery, existing in body only. Such was a fallacy in Terri’s case, it’s a fallacy in Lauren’s case. There is credible medical evidence that people like Terri and Lauren may have been misdiagnosed as PVS do have brain activity, are aware and can communicate in their own way, that they are not a “vegetable” but a human being, a person who deserves to live and establish their own quality of life.

Regrettably, it will never be known if such testing and treatment could have aided in the recovery of Terri Schiavo due to Michael Schiavo’s refusal to provide her with rehabilitation and therapy for over 15 years, even trying to withhold medical treatment from her, trying to cause her death by septis.

Up to half of the patients in an acute vegetative state regain some level of consciousness, the Belgian study found. Chances of recovery are known to depend significantly on the patient’s age, with younger patients usually having a better prognosis and patients with traumatic injuries have a better chance of recovery.

Glasscock wrote that “Her continued existence is dependant upon tube feedings and hydration”, but he has failed to take into consideration the possibility that she could learn to swallow with therapy and that she could be sustained naturally. “She suffers from recurring infections, which have required two hospitalizations following her initial discharge to the Arbors nursing home following the birth of her daughter. She is at risk of skin breakdown and pressure sores. Given her current level of medical intervention, she could continue to survive for a number of years. No improvement in her condition can be expected. Both parties have accepted the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state”. http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(k05aq045wgy1vq45kttshvyh)/download.aspx?ID=102560

Such statement in the court decision that no improvement can be expected is irresponsible and it is patently untrue that both parties accept the diagnosis of PVS as her father believes she is in a minimally conscious state, supported by the finding of a neurologist.

Terri Schiavo wasn’t terminal, she wasn’t in a coma, she wasn’t on life support machines, she wasn’t brain dead. She was disabled, incapacitated by a severe brain injury sustained in unexplained circumstances 15 years prior to her untimely death.

Neither is Lauren Richardson terminal, she’s not in a coma, she’s not on life support machines, she’s not brain dead. She is disabled, incapacitated by a severe brain injury.

As the medical advances continue in the treatment of people with brain injuries, the mainstream media seems determined to try to convince America—-and itself—that killing a disabled woman without giving her treatment and therapy is okay because they have been deemed “hopeless”, in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) and with no hope of recovery, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

Nicholas D. Schiff, a neurologist at the Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, also admits that recent studies indicate that people deemed PVS have frequently been misdiagnosed as much as 40% of the time.  Schiff says the misdiagnosis results because “you have to examine them repeatedly and at different times of the day, and sometimes just changing a patient’s posture, or giving them a tendon massage, may change their level sufficiently to elicit some response”.

Such examinations have not occurred in the case of Lauren Richardson.

In naming Towers as Lauren’s guardian, Glasscock wrote that he was invoking the “substituted judgment” doctrine, to ensure the surrogate decision-maker—Lauren’s mother in this case— effectuates the decision that the incompetent patient would have made if he or she were competent.

The problem lies in the question of what decision would Lauren make in this situation if she were competent to make the decision? Her father says it would be one of hope and not one to die by dehydration.

“Evidence in this matter was presented over a period of two days. At the end of the evidentiary hearing (because the last neurological examination was several months old and because some of the lay testimony indicated a possible improvement in L.’s condition), I directed a subsequent neurological examination and report by an independent neurologist. At the suggestion of the neurologist, the examination was repeated a second time.

“I then allowed counsel, including the attorney ad litem, to make a closing argument on the evidence as supplemented by the independent neurologist’s report (who the GAL had chosen) and to submit post-trial memoranda. L.’s mother and father, the petitioner and respondent here, have set forward what they believed to have been L.’s wishes with great force and emotion. It is clear to me that both L.’s parents love L. deeply, wish to respect her life and her wishes and seek only the opportunity to do what is best for her, as each sees it. Each valiantly fought for that perceived best interest at what is undoubtedly great personal expense, not only in money but, more fundamentally, in expenditure of emotional capital”.Glasscock’s decision is based on testimony by Edith Towers who claims that “One time we were watching TV. We were watching news coverage about the Terri Schiavo case, and we both felt very sad about what we were hearing and we were seeing, and I had stated that I had a living will that stated exactly that; that, you know, that no one would have to worry about that. . . .”She says, ‘Well, I know what I want. Don’t ever, ever leave me hooked up to life support. I would not want that. I think its horrible. I think that I do not ever want to be kept on life support if the doctors say there’s no hope,’ and I promised her, and I said, ‘Promise me you won’t do that to me either,’ and it was a very matter of fact conversation. She also went into further detail talking about, ‘I know that my drug use could kill me at any time.’ She was very honest about that”.Glasscock concluded that the totally unsubstantiated hearsay testimony of Towers mother “provides the clearest window into L.’s wishes in this situation”.“Lauren’s father argues that the mother’s testimony is not credible because, according to him, Lauren was living with him during that period, and was unlikely to have been watching a television program with her mother”, Glasscock wrote. ”He also points out that he and his wife watched news coverage of the Schiavo case with L., and that L. did not make such a statement to either of them. After reviewing the evidence, it is clear to me that L. was a loving, and loved, but troubled young woman once she became addicted to heroin. As a result of the inevitable troubles between L. and her parents that resulted from her inability or unwillingness to stop her use of illegal drugs and associated misbehavior, she would move from her father’s household to her mother’s (and sometimes to her grandparents’ households, or in with friends) when relationships at her current place of abode grew too strained. However, she never became estranged from either of her parents and I do not find it implausible that the conversation L.’s mother testified to took place.

Glasscock indicates that Lauren’s father had testified that Towers “was being treated for depression during this period, and suggests that this fact makes her testimony less credible. Nothing in the record indicates to me that the petitioner was unable to perceive and understand her conversations with L., however.

Towers and her brother, Lauren’s uncle, also testified to a separate conversation in which Lauren allegedly represented that she would never want to live with her life artificially supported and that surviving on life support, with others caring for her, would be “gross.”However, that too is inadmissible hearsay in that Lauren was not present and could not be cross-examined as to establish whether such conversation ever occurred.“While less specific than the first conversation testified to by L.’s mother, (the uncle’s) testimony is corroborative of that account”, Glasscock wrote. “Finally, L.’s boyfriend, N.C., testified via deposition that L. once told him that she would not want to live on artificial life-support. He also testified, however, that she was intoxicated and depressed at the time, so I put little weight into this testimony”.On the sole basis of the highly questionable hearsay testimony of Lauren’s mother who has a known history of emotional problems, Glasscock ruled that “by clear and convincing evidence that, while a competent adult, Lauren expressed her wish not to be artificially sustained by medical treatment, including hydration and nutrition, in a persistent vegetative state. The record regarding her personality and beliefs is not in conflict with such an intent. The petitioner (Towers) has demonstrated her fidelity to her daughter’s wishes, therefore, Mrs. T. is the appropriate guardian of L.’s person”.

Lauren has not received rehabilitative treatment and therapy that could lead to her recovery. Her family and friends marvel that though Lauren was given up for dead, that she gave birth to a daughter in her condition and even after the removal of a respirator and sealing of a tracheotomy opening, she continued to live and has steadily improved, all this with only minimal medical intervention. How much further would she progress with basic rehabilitation services, they ask.

Lauren has never been allowed to see her own baby girl or been given the chance to bond with her. The presence of Lauren’s daughter brings up a question that society will have to answer, her father says. What happens when Lauren’s daughter one day asks where her mother is?”

If Lauren were to be sent to her death by imposed starvation and dehydration, and her daughter one day learned of the horrible way in which her mother died and then asks what was done to give her mother the opportunity to recover and live, what will we say?”, her family asks. “Will we hide the truth from her? How can any of us bear the idea of Lauren’s child finding out that her mother was not given the opportunity to recover so that she could know her and be involved in her upbringing? We are asking the question before it is too late:  Why isn’t Lauren being given this chance?”

Randy says he has visited several local organizations that help rehabilitate people just like Lauren. The love and patience he witnessed at these facilities gave him even greater hope for Lauren. Many of the people receiving treatment in such locations were suffering from even more severe handicaps than Lauren, and needed more care than Lauren. Yet they were receiving the love and attention they so needed. This is what Lauren should have and deserves, he says, and questions why she is being denied.

“Lauren was claimed to be PVS in the initial stages after her accident.  Since that time she has been thoroughly examined by another physician who believes that Lauren is showing signs of consciousness, which is inconsistent with a PVS diagnosis”, her father says.  “This doctor stated that Lauren might benefit from therapy and further evaluation of her possibilities.  This was all refused by Lauren’s mother.  What progress might Lauren have achieved by now if these measures were extended to her from the outset?  What might happen if they were to be implemented now”, he asks.

“We are appalled that a life like Lauren’s can be ended by what the courts call ’substituted judgment’.  Questionable testimony has been given that Lauren years ago made one or two vague and inapplicable statements, based on whcih her mother now seeks to have her life ended.  We challenge the truthfulness and relevance of this testimony, but are concerned also with a system that might use them as means to authorize Lauren’s death.  We are convinced that Lauren would want to live, improve and enjoy a relationship with her daughter.

“Lauren is not in a terminal condition and she is not dependent upon medical machines.  She is quite alive and live you and me, needs food and water to live.  Many persons in Lauren’s condition have made remarkable recoveries and we hold out hope because we know nothing is impossible for God.  We cannot understand a position of non-hope.  We believe that faith leads to hope and that we are to seek to do all that we can to help people who are disabled.

“Even if Lauren never fully recovers, because of faith we believe that life with a disability is still valuable and God has a purpose in our suffering. The most fragile and dependent among us serve a great purpose; they teach us what is really important in this life. We believe that God has a purpose for every one of us while we live, no matter what our medical condition. Lauren’s story is a call to hope. We must come back from the terrible path of hopelessness which has no other answer than to impose death in the face of suffering”, her father says.“There are so many question surrounding Lauren’s condition, so many questions surrounding what her wishes would be. Why would anyone not err on the side of life?”, asks Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo.“My daughter has endured so much abuse from the court system.  They have allowed no treatment or therapy for Lauren for over a year now.  That is very cruel and she does not deserve that treatment from our judicial system.  Judges have overlooked so many important facts”, Randy says.“She’s committed no crime and doesn’t deserve to have this death imposed on her,” her father says. “I just want the truth to be revealed in my daughter’s case, we just want to give her a chance. We’re searching for justice”. 5-1-08

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This article may not be reprinted or reproduced in any manner without the express written permission of The North County Gazette.

Category: Courts, Disabled, Family, Religion, Schiavo

COPYRIGHT 2007 - NORTH COUNTRY GAZETTE All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the express written permission of the publisher.