Originally Posted - November 14, 2006

return home

Why does it seem that whenever and wherever there's a controversy involving Michael Schiavo, his version of events come into question?

And why does it always seem to center around self-serving hearsay?

Can it be that Michael Schiavo is the only one telling the truth and everyone else is wrong?

He claimed that he told the truth about his wife's injuries, care and death in "Terri: The Truth" but that book can't even recite sworn testimony from transcripts correctly and in one spot, Schiavo and his co-author even attempted to rewrite actual testimony.


Now there's his story about attempts by staffers of Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave calling police to have Schiavo removed from a debate in Colorado.


In his dreams.

Schiavo's blog attack on Musgrave relied on hearsay, obviously designed for optimum hype and political value, to divert the spotlight from the Congressional race to himself, to maliciously attack Marilyn Musgrave, obviously highly irritated and deeply agitated that she rebuffed his advances and attempt for a showdown.

Could there be any comparisons in this to the night of February 25, 1990 when his 26-year-old wife Terri mysteriously collapsed following a day of argument?

It was hearsay, self-serving inadmissible hearsay, that he and his family members "remembered" 10 years later that delivered the death penalty for the brain damaged Terri Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo's versions of what happened the night of Terri's collapse keep changing. His times change, his actions change and perhaps that's why he's managed to dodge depositions since the 2000 trial.

Is it a bad memory on the part of Michael Schiavo or clear and convincing fraud on the court and public which resulted in the death of an innocent disabled woman.

And then there's his book.

"Terri: The Truth" should be removed from the book shelves as it's so replete of documented false statements and misrepresentations, it is wholly unreliable and void of credibility as is Michael Schiavo.

Not only did he totally fabricate the testimony of his sister-in-law Joan Schiavo that he relates in his book, he has also fabricated and changed the testimony of his brother, Scott Schiavo, the two witnesses that claimed to know Terri's wishes. Schiavo told NBC's Matt Lauer that the book "settles some scores", showing even more of Schiavo's vindictive nature.

Lie after lie after lie is exposed in Michael Schiavo's book, "Terri: The Truth", leaving the tome totally absent of credibility and establishing grave doubt about any of the statements and testimony that Michael Schiavo has ever made over the past 16 years about the sudden collapse of his wife, particularly about Terri's end-of-life wishes.

And his lack of credibility, integrity and honesty continue---in an attempt once again for his own goals. It's always about what Michael Schiavo wants.

Schiavo maintains what he calls his diary on a political blog. However, its questionable if Schiavo himself writes it. More likely, it's written by his "political consultant" Derek Newton. After all, Newton has to do something to warrant hauling in $3,000 or more per month from TerriPAC.

There's no doubt that Michael Schiavo went to Colorado in late October to the debate between the candidates for Musgrave's congressional seat (Musgrave won reelection). A Newsweek article for which Schiavo for which bragged about being interviewed says that "last week Michael Schiavo took a seat only 15 feet away from Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave---all the better to taunt her".

And that's exactly what he had in mind, to stalk her, intimidate, bully and taunt.

The news reports of the event indicate that it was rather calm, not the unruly scene that Schiavo later reported in his blog posting.

The Fort Collins Weekly said that "Despite the presence of Schiavo and other highly emotional supporters-on both sides-the debate went well. No screeching mics. No unruly attendees. No dramatic outbursts and subsequent removals by security guards".

"Prior to the debate, Schiavo said he planned to confront Musgrave to demand an apology for what he characterized as using his wife's death as a political pawn", the newspaper reports. "Throughout it all, however, Musgrave remained characteristically poised, keeping her attacks on her opponents comparatively minimal, seemingly satisfied with stating her positions and letting their contrasts speak for themselves".
http://www.fortcollinsweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=305&Itemid=35

Does that sound like the mad woman that Schiavo painted Musgrave to be? Schiavo wrote "But just minutes after taking my seat, I noticed a flurry of activity around my seat including about four uniformed police officers who were - I would learn later - called in by Musgrave staffers and asked to remove me from the building".

He claims that "After the police talked with obviously irritated Musgrave staffers and the debate organizer, the Musgrave campaign complained that my seat, next to the timekeeper, was inappropriate because - get this - Marilyn Musgrave would have to look at me. In an effort to appease the Musgrave camp, the debate organizers moved the timekeeper to the other side of the stage - about 15 seats away".

However a blogger who was closely following the Musgrave campaign says she her informed sources tell her that what Michael Schiavo related wasn't true, that it "just didn't happen". She indicates that her source is "in the local media".

The source says that he had emailed Schiavo about the statements he made in his diary but that Schiavo hadn't responded. "Someone is misinforming him about what happened before the debate. No one, including the Musgrave campaign, tried to have him removed from the debate. It just didn't happen. There was concern from the Musgrave folks about any disruption to the debate but as you noted. Michael was calm and nothing happened. The Musgrave folks didn't want the timekeeper sitting next to Schiavo because they thought that could be a distraction to their candidate so they moved the timekeeper. That, in a nutshell, is what happened. Things got a little tense between me and the Paccione campaign folks because I was concerned the debate could get derailed, but never with Schiavo or the Musgrave folks".
http://musgravewatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/musgrave-attempts-to-have-michael.html

And that is from a reporter who was present.

In this particular case, we'd believe the media before we'd believe Michael Schiavo. After all, by making up a story such as it appears he did, he got a whole lot more press coverage about his candidate while trying to portray Musgrave in a negative light and once again, try to play his "woe is me" violin.

In a forum in The Coloradoan, the editor, who is the same source as cited above, says "To be accurate, Mr. Schiavo in his blog said he "later learned" that the Musgrave campaign asked that he be "removed" from the debate. As the organizer most directly involved will all three campaigns in the time leading up to the debate, I can say that Mr. Schiavo was misinformed if someone told him that there had been a request he be removed from the debate. There was no such request from anyone, including the Musgrave campaign. And no one would have suggested he be arrested". http://forums.coloradoan.com/viewtopic.php?t=1572&start=0

Schiavo told an unfounded story, based on unreliable, untrue hearsay.

Another poster said "there weren't four police officers and there wasn't a "flurry of activity". In fact, Michael Schiavo wasn't involved in anything which is why he said he "later learned" this. A Paccione staffer was occupying a seat next to the timekeeper. He was reserving the seat for Mr. Schiavo. The Musgrave campaign didn't want Mr. Schiavo sitting next to the timekeeper because of the press release the Paccione campaign had issued saying he planned to confront Ms. Musgrave. The Paccione staffer was asked by me if he would give up the seat so we could ensure the debate would proceed and he declined. Some of the other Paccione staffers got involved at this point and things got a bit heated. So I brought over one Windsor police officer to help calm the situation between the Paccione staffers and me. (As a condition of the hall rental, debate organizers were required to provide security and we hired two off-duty Windsor officers). When I retuned with the officer, things calmed down quickly, Mr. Schiavo was in the seat, we moved the time keeper a few seats over and the situation was resolved. That was it. My role was to create an environment in which all candidates felt comfortable in participating. That was what we were able to do".

There was not and has been not any corroboration of Schiavo's statements. "No one has stepped forward to back this up", the blogger says of Schiavo's version. "And after speaking with my source that was involved in the incident, I can see why.

"Because it didn't happen that way".

Which leads one to question Michael Schiavo's version of what occurred the night of February 25, 1990.

Because it didn't happen that way. 11-14-06

© 2006 North Country Gazette