hard to know. it has been one person's word against another's. I am not for or against Michael Schiavo. he claims that Terri would have never wanted to end up the way she did her parents say she never would say such a thing. I was not there to witness anything. about this family.it is all he said she said. to bad it all had to end up the way it did.

I really don't know if HE did,but the media and politicians sure abused this poor woman and her family.

Continuing dialog with Eschew: No it is NOT sworn testimony nor is it under oath. Scroll to the very bottom and look near the signature. It says this testimony was taken under / not under oathneither are circled. Also, isn't there a reason this hasn't been brought up in the media; like the fact that it is obviously biased beyond being useful, and much more importantly: it is completely rediculous. UPDATE2: Wow, I encourage everyone to visit Eschew's reference. It is an affidavit NOT made under oath as was claimed and is the most biased laughable piece of evidence I have seen in this case. Further more, it IS NOT sworn testimony UPDATE: When I said you were absolutely wrong I was referring to these statements you made: He has not divorced her because by doing so he would forego what's left of Terri's $700,000 from the malpractice suit. / The sooner she passes away, the more money he gets. / ...Michael will move on to his next family with Terri's money. Hopefully that will clear up your confusion. You did say that the evidence on both sides is anecdotal; then you proceeded with an argument that was clearly aimed at making money appear to be Michael Schiavo's motive (which it is not) and completely ignored factual evidence in opposition to your opinion in the process. That is the weakness of what you assert. So, let me address your first quote (He has not divorced her because...). You say because it would forego some significant amount of money. Below, I give reference to his public statement saying he would give up the money if the Schindler's would drop the appeal. So he was willing to GIVE UP the money for his wife's right to die. GIVE UP, not keep. If he were to divorce her, there would be no way to follow through with the case because he would lose legal guardianship. He doesnt want to lose that guardianship because he is dedicated to see this through. NOT because of the money, he would have given it to charity. GIVEN, not kept. Now I ask why is he so intent on seeing this through? Options are limited. First of all we can rule out her money as a motive, unless of course several published articles regarding his public statement dont convince you. Second, he is insane and just wants to murder his wife. Or last, he knows that she did not want to live this way. Now I would like to address a question you raised: If he were truly willing to give Terri's money to charity (which offer I regard with suspicion) why did he not offer to divorce Terri and marry his (then) common law wife? Because, first of all, he would receive no money unless they dropped the appeal first(which they would not). Secondly, it wasnt about the money anyway, and divorcing Terri and marrying another woman would only negate his guardianship and leave him with no say in her care, thus accomplishing nothing. Next, another outrageous claim that you raise: I have heard that included in the sworn testimony is a statement by one of Terri's primary care nurses, that Michael once said, is that bitch dead yet? Really have you? Who lied to you Eschew? Shame on them. Of course, the moment you provide a transcript or link to one that authenticates this quote, Ill retract the last 5 sentences and apologize to you personally. Think about it, why would he ask this question while visiting her? It would be easier to check her pulse and determine for yourself. I leave you with an excerpt from the Second District's first decision in the case: Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.

What??? Any evidence??

In my state if the vet tells me my dog has something he cannot cure and will die at some point in the future and I go home and starve him to death I can be arrested. If the police arrest someone for killing ten children and he's convicted and sentenced to die its against the law to starve them to death. The judge in this case ordered the murder of an innocent woman, period!

My two cents, as a trial attorney. The affidavit is a sworn affidavit according to its language. The notary's jurat doesn't affect that. That being said, the fact that an affidavit is made or testimony is given under oath does not make it true. It comes down to the issue of credibility. Looking at Ms. Iyer's affidavit, it seems like it is more of an attack on Michael Schiavo and fabrication of facts, which was, apparently, dismissed by the trial court and appeals courts as lacking credibility due to its transparent bias. The whole idea that Michael Schiavo abused his wife also seems absurd and is unsubstantiated. It was just another of the parents' last-ditch efforst to forestall their daughter's wish to die with dignity. Oh, and there are some scary right-wing evangelical types making psychopathic statements on this thread about killing judges. Very scary.

Maybe. Maybe not. Mike doesn't seem like a nice guy. Mike, in fact seems like a greedy bastard. It does not follow that Mike abused/assaulted Terri. Understand, I'm not defending the guy, who is clearly no prince, but it doesn't follow that he's a killer. With due respect to Eschew, the fact that people swore an affadafit, does not mean they swore to the truth. I don't know they lied, and I'm not saying so, but it wouldn't be the first time someone swore a false affadafit.

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: I stand by the veracity of the affadavit. An affadavit IS sworn testimony. Nice try, DEATH. For anyone interested in such an affadavit, go to: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aff2-terri.pdf. Thanks for compelling me to do more research. This is sworn testimony, not a reporter's slanted re-telling of part of a story. Tell me again what a great, altruistic guy Michael is. ORIGINAL COMMENT: There is as much anecdotal evidence of this as there is about Terri verbalizing to him her wish to die. He has not divorced her because by doing so he would forego what's left of Terri's $700,000 from the malpractice suit. The sooner she passes away, the more money he gets. Like most situations, follow the money. I don't know if he did this but innocent, helpless people should be able to rely on the US Court System to protect them from a situation like this. Terri will pay for that failure of justice with her life, Michael will move on to his next family with Terri's money. UPDATE: mR. DEATH (how ironic), I'm not sure what you think I'm absolutely wrong about. I think I stated that the evidence both ways is anecdotal, and that I don't know if he did this. I read the articles you've referenced and there is nothing which in any way proves anything about this guy, his motives or his character. I'm left with this: it is a website about opinions. I'm happy to entertain your opinion, which I think is neither right nor wrong, but uniquely yours (though you have your supporters on the site), and in reading the articles you have referenced, I remain skeptical about this guy's altruistic characterization and lack of greed. If he were truly willing to give Terri's money to charity (which offer I regard with suspicion) why did he not offer to divorce Terri and marry his (then) common law wife? It's just strange that he had to stick around and make sure she was dead. He's so convinced that Terri would not want to continue living, that he's simply hanging around until she dies, then he can move on with his life? Sorry, skeptical. I have heard that included in the sworn testimony is a statement by one of Terri's primary care nurses, that Michael once said, is that bitch dead yet? If that were verified, it would be really tough to convince me off my stance. Eight years after her brain damaging incident is the first statement that by her husband that she had made a statement about living by artificial means. Eight years later. Sorry, skeptical.

I'm really disgusted!! I believe the judges that ruled against her should be put to death! They are murders!!!!!

If this were true, apparently there is no proof of it. I do think it odd that he didnt remember or mention Terris wishes in regard to death until after the lawsuit awarding the big settlement was decided. But, as they say, money talkseven when people cannot.

Smoke but no fire. No proof. Pick another witch hunt.

Probably not...at least in the conventional sense. There are many who would argue that his constant fight to remove Terri's feeding tube, which would ultimately lead to her death of course, is a form of abuse but that's a far more complex issue.

He just seems way too anxious to end her life.Her parents have offered to take full responsibility for her care and he refuses.He has his own life, he does not love this woman anymore, why is he so hell-bent on her dying?

I don't think he looks like the kind of guy who would do that to his wife. You never know.

I've done quite a bit of studying on this and I would have to say probably not, but there is not really any evidence to support one claim or another. Only years old allegations.