Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton





Made with NoteTab

April 12, 2005

Mae Magouirk: Setting the record straight

It's really odd that in spite of drastic efforts doctors at the UAB medical center went to to restore Mae Magouirk's health after almost being starved and dehydrated to death by her granddaughter and the LaGrange Hospice -- people seem to want to dismiss the whole episode as of no significance. Let me repeat -- doctors had to do two days of intensive rehydration therapy to get Mae Magouirk back to the level of health that she needed in order to be treated for her aortic dissection -- that is not something to ignore.

Greg at CatScape blog has a horrible “rundown” of myths, he's apparently swallowed whole. Since his is so far the most outrageous distortion I'll use it as a sounding point to explain the facts:

...he lets the story propagate that Mae has had a feeding tube removed because he’s savvy enough to know it will get attention and rally the already-assembled Terri army.

(This is actual a quote he takes from RW Conspiracy) I was first notified about Mae Magouirk by Cheryl Ford. In the email I received the only inaccuracy is that part about Gaddy ordering the feeding tube removed. The hospice stalled Mae's brother and sister when they ordered a feeding tube, while Gaddy was lying to Judge Boyd to get the authority to euthanize her grandmother. Gaddy then revoked the order for the feeding tube. It seems a trivial matter to quibble about CONSIDERING MAE ALMOST DIED!!! The point all along has been that Gaddy has forbade a feeding tube, which Mae needed desperately. This nonsense of “never removed” is semantic silliness.

At the end of the day it appears that (a) Mae Magouirk was never connected to a feeding tube (b) that nutrition and hydration were not withdrawn (c) that her life was in danger at the hospice because she was not receiving treatment for her aortic dissection.

And this is supposed to make Ken Mullinax look bad? Whether Mae was never connected to a feeding tube is irrelevant -- one was ordered by her family, but it was withheld by the Hospice until Gaddy could complete her false claims to Judge Boyd and gain the authority to euthanize her grandmother. The statement “nuitrition and hydration were not withdrawn” is idiotic -- THEY WERE NEVER OFFERED!! She was also in immediate danger of dehydration and malnutrition -- a fact Greg as well as Judge Boyd seem to be too obtuse to grasp.

Next Greg joins the moonbat patrol as he quotes an idiotic piece at “JustOneMinute” blog:

And there may be more than the usual enmity between Mr. Mullinax and Republicans - in the last week of the 2004 race, Dem candidate Bill Fuller's house (which doubled as campaign HQ) caught fire.

I spoke with Ken Mullinax on the phone. He told me that he did at one time work as a top aid in the office of a US Congressman. The party affiliation didn't come up, because obviously there were more important issues to discuss. I am a very Conservative Republican, and I see no reason to use Ken's party affiliation as any sort of viable factor in determining his legitimacy and accuracy. To do so is irresponsible, especially given the issue at hand.

Now, as for Judge Boyd's letter...

From Blogs for Terri:

I am Probate Judge Donald W. Boyd and I am about to tell you the real
story. On March 31, 2005 one of the grand children of Mae Magouirk called me very upset saying that the brother and sister and cousin
(mullinax) were threatening to remove Ms Magouirk from Hospice and they were afraid of what would happen to Ms Magouirk if this was attempted. I asked if they had medical power of attorney and they stated, (we thought we did but have found out we have not) I told them the only way they could make decisions was to become her guardians. On Friday, April 1, 2005, I came to work at 8:00 am and Beth Gaddy and her brother along with their attorney (Danny Daniel)were waiting for us to open and explained the situation and after hearing the explanation from the grand children and the attorney I felt someone should be appointed Temporary Emergency Guardian until we could have a hearing and determine who that
person should be. The grand children and their attorney filed a petition for emergency guardianship of a gravely incapacitated adult. I ordered that Beth Gaddy become Temporary Emergency Guardian until we could hold a hearing to see who the permanent guardian would be. I scheduled a hearing to be held on Monday, April 4, 2005 at 9:00am.

I'm assuming that at this point Beth Gaddy has withheld vital information from Judge Boyd. She failed to inform him that she has ordered the Hospice to withhold food and water, and that her intensions were to allow her grandmother to die. Obviously if Judge Boyd knew that (one would hope) he wouldn't have taken her pretense “worry” about “what would happen to her” seriously. Beth Gaddy made a fool of Judge Boyd. There's no way around that fact. She lied to him and dragged him into this mess.

Monday-April 4, 2005 at 8:00 AM I received a petition from the brother and sister and their attorney(Kirby).The brother and sister filed a petition to become guardian and a petition objecting to the appointment of Beth Gaddy as emergency guardian.

Monday April 4, 2005 the hearing began at 9:10 am with ALL parties present, except Ora Mae Magouirk. She was represented by attorney (guardian ad-litem) James Thornton.

After hearing the opening statements and about 2 hrs of testimony the
attorney for the brother and sister requested a break. We adjourned for a 15 minute break and was to start the hearing back at 11:15 am. When I came from my office back to the hearing, ALL the attorneys and some of the family members informed me that they had a possible settlement agreement and wanted a few more minutes. The attorneys came in a few minutes later and announced they had an agreement.

According to Ken Mullinax the Alabama family could see right off that Judge Boyd was siding against them. Whether Boyd actually was, because of the lies Beth Gaddy had told him -- or his demeanor wrongly construed that attitude, the Alabama family offered the compromise as their only hope in keeping Mae alive. I find it hard to believe that after two hours of testimony Judge Boyd would not have known Beth Gaddy's intentions. That she wanted to euthanize her aunt would have been the main issue Mae's brother and sister would have tried to get across to Judge Boyd - yet he still maintains that he had no idea that that was her desire or that she was already doing it. Judge Boyd's explanation begins to fall apart at this point.

The attorney for the brother and sister proposed to the court that they would withdraw their petition to become guardians and would withdraw their objection to Beth Gaddy becoming guardian and would consent to appointing Beth Gaddy as guardian, provided that she would agree to follow the medical advice recommended by and agreed upon by 2 of three doctors (all heart specialists). The 3 Doctors were named and agreed to by all parties. The court ordered that the three doctors evaluate Mae Magouirk within 24 hours (or as soon as possible) as time was of the essence. The court told ALL parties they were not to have contact with any of the doctors to try and influence their decision. Everyone agreed and the family was laughing and hugging one another and I thought everything had been worked and I felt the right decision had been made and I thought it was great that the family made that decision and I didn't have to. The attorney for the brother and sister, Jack Kirby, drew the order up for the Court.

In other words he washed his hands of the matter. In spite of ordering the examination and report within 24 hours it was almost 123 hours between his decision and Mae being airlifted to the UAB medical center. In spite of ordering proper care and nourishment for Mae Magouirk, Beth Gaddy continued the order for no feeding tube and no IV. At this point Boyd is exposing himself as an incompetent judge, when he fails to ensure his orders are acted upon.

Then on Thursday all of these half-truths and lies started across the
internet started by Mr. Kenneth Mullinax. I have nothing pending in my court and I had nothing pending in my court, yet I have been accused of starving a grandmother, murder, called everything in the book and all I want is to get the truth out.

When the family...and their attorney perceive the judge as so callous to their arguments that they make such a risky compromise (the doctors could easily have been the pro-euthanasia quacks that abound so much) then why would they think returning to that judge would matter? The questions still remains as to how Judge Boyd could have heard two hours of testimony, yet not know Beth Gaddy intended to euthanize her grandmother.

Also, I have read all of what Ken Mullinax has sent out -- I can find no half-truths or lies in any of it. Seems that Judge Boyd has just exposed himself to a libel suit. Ken told me that Judge Boyd left a message for him on his answering machine, but was afraid to return the calls fearing the impropriety of ex parte communications. If Judge Boyd was willing to take the effort to phone Ken Mullinax in an effort to avoid being cast in a bad light -- why wasn't he willing to phone the family's attorney to ensure his court order was being carried out -- especially given that he had more than adequate reason to suspect that it wasn't?

I am answering any e-mails as fast as I can and I have not refused to talk with anyone. I called a news conference to explain my side. I will talk to anyone, anywhere, anytime about this matter.

He hasn't responded to my email, but then he may not have gotten around to it. I sent it yesterday morning with a copy of the blog entry I posted then.

It concerns me that people and so-called news agencies will print things that are not true or half-true and not bother to seek the truth. Please consider this in the future before you jump to conclusions you need to verify the story.

Regards,
Probate Judge Donald W. Boyd
Donald W. Boyd

Yet he still hasn't pointed to one single item that was printed or posted that isn't true or that is a “half-truth”. The news media have either ignored the story or have reported it with a skeptical tone, other than WorldNetDaily.

Judge Boyd and Ken Mullinax are supposed to be on the Glen Beck show. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say. I was surprised that Ken hadn't thought of Judge Boyd's need to issue a contempt citation when I mentioned it to him. I'm sure he'll bring that up.

Coverage: WizBang, HyScience, BlogsforTerri (also here, here and here), bLogicus, Cait's Oz Blog, ProLifeBlogs (also here), Great Beyond

Hat Tip for CatScape: Civilization calls

Posted by Danny Carlton at April 12, 2005 08:43 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jacklewis.net/cgi-bin/mt/jl-tb.cgi/902

Comments

Just where did you find that anyone at the UAB medical center claims Mae was being starved? I've seen mention of lack of proper hydration due to Mae's unwillingness to accept water, but that's it. She should have been properly hydrated and that's the only problem there that needs looking into, beyond the real reason why she was admitted into the hospice in the first place.
The claims of starving seem to be utter and complete fiction.

Furthermore, Beth does not have the authority to tell the hospice to withhold either water or food. The only way that can happen is through court order which didn't happen.

Ken was the first one to hint that Beth might have ulterior financial motives, but is now acting like he never said it and is appalled by the very idea.

Ken also went to great length to point out failings in the judge and assert that his next cause would be an attack on the judiciary system. All the free publicity he's getting right now as the righteous man fighting the evil granddaughter will certainly help with that.

So far the only thing that points irrevocably towards Beth's intention to euthanize her grandmother is the "time to go to Jesus" quote, which seems to be quite of a myth, considering it's something Ken alleges Beth to have said at one point or another and is offered completely out of context.
I guess hearsay *is* evidence as long as it comes from the side you're willing to defend at all cost.

Ken unleashed Beth's personal information upon the whole of the internet, and if that in any way guided her decision to withhold visitation rights (which you only have Ken's word for) then I would say it's fair game for her to do.

As far as the feeding tube goes, it's a lot more than just mere back and forth about semantics. Given that he had time to discuss all of the above in great detail, I can only conclude that it was a deliberate and premeditated attempt to rile everyone up and portray himself as the Schindlers.
His claim of her being starved is false, regardless of the whole discussion of the feeding tube. Noone besides Ken has given any indication to think she was, including the UAB medical center.

In the end, if Beth stands to gain financially upon Mae's death, then Ken stands to loose financially upon her death. If money is in any involved, then neither side will be holy and innocent.

I'm also surprised to notice that the only one who has been described so far to have cared for Mae is Beth. Even if she did do no more than her grocery shopping, it means frequent and regular visits. Ken was quick to downplay his own involvement with his aunt as far as I can tell, and I don't for a second believe that's an oversight.
Until I read somewhere that he was more involved in caring for Mae than she was on a day to day basis, there should be no question about her motives.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 12, 2005 10:11 AM

Lemme guess, you're a friend of hers, right.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at April 12, 2005 11:01 AM

"Just where did you find that anyone at the UAB medical center claims Mae was being starved?"

I think it's safe to say that if someone can only take what appears to be a small amount of jello over an indeterminate # of days, yes, they are being starved. This is also supported by the fact that because she is dehydrated she is unable to eat. And it has nothing to do with one's "unwillingness to accept water or [food]." It's because dehydration makes one feel so damn awful, so weak, they are unable to eat or drink.

"I've seen mention of lack of proper hydration due to Mae's unwillingness to accept water, but that's it."

Lack of standard medical/nursing care led to Mrs. Magourik becoming dehydrated. A person is ill, they are medicated, they are in unfamiliar surroundings, they can't hop out of bed every time they need a drink of water or are hungry, they are dependent on other people's schedules, they are subjected to a battery of tests requiring them to be npo, and when they return to the floor, they are lucky to get a cold food tray, and then it's npo again. It happens all the time -- especially to the elderly.

And, no it doesn't have to be as a result of the above scenario (which by the way, is a common occurence). It can happen due to much less. If you are in pain you can't take care of yourself. That is why you are in a hospital. It is their job to make sure you are properly hydrated and receiving adequate nutrition -- not the patient's. The elderly easily become dehydrated. As this happens they no longer want to eat or drink. It was not Mrs. Magourik's unwillingness to accept water, it was substandard medical care by all involved, that allowed her to slip into a physical condition where she could not eat or drink. Offering someone food or drink when they are severely dehydrated is a meaningless gesture.

I can't believe you are trying to blame Mrs. Magourik for this condition. It's absurd.

Posted by: l.l. at April 12, 2005 01:32 PM

He said, I said, She said, They said????????
How come there has not been a better investigation into this by news organizations on the ground in Georgia? If the media would start giving us facts instead of ducking and dodging it, we could write more informed posts. Instead we are stuck with the task of deciphering info coming from two bitterly opposed sides. I can't tell who is 100% truthful in this, and I certainly do not take Judge Boyd's word as the gospel. Mostly because he was very evasive and accused everyone in the blogosphere of spreading lies and half truths, but did not tell us what the truth was! Is he saying Mae was never starved and was never dehydrated? No, but he did not say she was either! Thanks for an email full of nothing Judge Boyd. Until I see responsible, dependable reporters do a first hand story, I will continue to support and believe Ken and Mae's siblings. After all, if we support Ken & family and they are lying, the worst thing that happens is that Mae goes on living. If we support Beth and they are lying, Mae will die a horrible death! I think I'll take my chances with life!
PS. Jack, you have a wonderful place here, I can tell that it has been blessed and I am blessed every time I read it! Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Ken at April 12, 2005 01:43 PM

Judge Boyd has told the truth and I think it's about time some folk dispensed with the unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and defamations. The fact is that Aunt Mae was assessed by three cardiologists as per the family agreement and Judge Boyd's subsequent orders and was taken to UAB. Most of the other so-called facts are wild speculations. I think it's time it ended. By engaging in this kind of wild defamation we can only harm the case for a proper investigation into the Schiavo affair. Do we want established and legitimate concerns dismissed because we're making ourselves look like an undisciplined bunch of conspiracy theorists? Let's get some perspective and do what needs to be done to ensure Aunt Mae's welfare and leave the reciminations and unsubstantiated allegations where they belong.

Katrina

Posted by: Katrina Maguire at April 12, 2005 05:31 PM

Except...the fact remains that Mae was severely dehydrated, thus proving that Beth Gaddy defied Judge Boyd's court order, yet no contempt of court citation has been issued that I know of. The fact also remains that Gaddy's intention was to cause the death of her grandmother, and it is unclear whether Judge Boyd knew this or not. It's hard to imagine that he didn't, given that he heard two hours of testimony.

What I saw with the Schindlers was some simple people abused by a legal system they didn't comprehend. What I see here is a man who was able to quickly protect his aunt's life because he refused to allow that same system to be used against her and as a result being accused of being deceitful. If you don't act you get screwed, if you do, you're called a liar. Meanwhile one woman is dead and another almost was.

I fail to see how babying Judge Boyd serves future victims. There are still too many questions that need to be answered.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at April 12, 2005 06:39 PM

Katrina:

I think people like you should stop calling other people conspiracy theorists and falsely accusing them of defamation. Until you actually know the legal definition of defamation and what is required to prove it in court, it's better to keep your mouth shut.

Posted by: l.l. at April 12, 2005 06:40 PM

Let's keep it about the subject and not make it personal. It seems that everyone would agree that emotions and attitude whether on the part of Ken Mullinax or Donald Boyd or both are a major factor in the way Beth Gaddy was able to almost kill her grandmother in spite of the efforts of both men. Getting your opponent to emote rather than think is a useful strategy, one that we shouldn't allow ourselves to become the victim of, agreed.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at April 12, 2005 06:56 PM

If you had been paying close attention, or bothered to read the available court documents, you know that Ken & co's opposing petition contained quotes of things Beth allegedly said (the "time to go to Jesus" being the most thrown around) to indicate that she wasn't acting in Mae's best interest and to allege that there was potential financial fraud involved.
In the ruling on April 4th it clearly states that the only testimoney that was heard before recess was that of the examining doctor and Beth's. Since during recess all of them came to the agreement, Ken & co's testimoney was never heard as they voluntarily withdrew their opposition.
They original intented to argue that Beth was determined to let Mae die, but then withdrew it as part of the compromise. Given that it never came up and the petition was withdrawn, there wasn't anything for the court to rule on possible abuse.

I don't fault Ken for opposing Beth's temporary guardianship. I fault him from trying to turn it into a media circus by lieing and twisting facts.
IF Beth was indeed denying Mae adequate food and water, he should have gone to the police or back to the judge to make sure the court order was being followed. Instead he choose the avenue of raising a fuss and getting his name all over which did Mae absolutely no good.

If Beth is denying them visitation rights, why make it public, wait several days and only then ask who and why and file a petition in the court to force their right to visit?
If Ken is honestly that concerned with Mae's condition he would first do anything possible to get it done and as a last resort speak out in public.

As it stands, with him unwilling to check up on Mae's condition, I wouldn't be surprised if he's hoping she'll die because that will give him more leeway to pursue his next cause, he made so sure to mention in his very first email.

If he talked to Beth's lawyer first, then went to the court and there was denied visitation rights and as a last resort decided to scream out in the media, I wouldn't have any problem with him what so ever.
But Ken's doing the exact opposite. He's making sure he's in the spotlight first, waits to milk his statement for maximum compassion and only then tries to actually change the situation.
It's either that or their lawyer is beyond incompetent.

As for your response to my first comment: nice spin to focus on the fact that I did say it's important to know why she wasn't properly hydrated in the hospice.
But that's an awful far leap from the way Ken put it with her being denied everything and being starved to death.

If you knew from day one that Ken agreed to keep Beth as guardian, that he agreed to be held to the opinion of three doctors they themselves picked to determine whether Mae should indeed by moved to a proper hospital and that they were just awaiting their decision and that he made no attempt to get Mae hydrated properly, don't you think everyone's opinion would be vastly different from what it is now?
Ken lied to get the compassion people had for the Schindlers and the contempt for Michael towards Beth. Only then did he supply the real facts, but by that point, it didn't really matter anymore.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 13, 2005 05:55 AM

Some think you are Beth herself, Vanessa. I kinda doubt it. I think you're probably a buddy of hers that refuses to believe she do something like thing -- in spite of all the undeniable evidence that says she has.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at April 13, 2005 05:07 PM

I didn't respond because there is little point in trying to have a reasonable arguement with people who are paranoid and obsessed with seeing conspiracies everywhere.

My sole criticism has been of the way Ken has been behaving himself, something that you apparantly refuse to see.
I don't consider him a trustworthy source and so far beyond the court documents, he's been the single and only source of anything and has proven himself to be less than truthful.

Since I don't have an objective account of what Beth did or did not do, or did or did not say, I can't critize her actions or inactions. If you think that me questioning Ken's motives is jumping to her defense, then you can go right ahead and see whatever conspiracy that you like.
If you somehow think that people are either completely good or utterly evil then you have a rather warped and limited view of the world.

Ken's first email alleged that Mae was being *starved* by Beth and the hospice. In the interview yesterday he said "she wasn't given substantial nourishment or fluids".
The first is an outright lie, the second is accurate and appears to be what really transpired.
But besides rant about it in interviews, phone conversations and emails, he didn't actually try to do anything about it.
There was an order to keep Mae properly fed, there was an order to give Mae whatever medicial treatment she provided, he stated he had doubts she was getting all she needed and he did nothing about it.

That puts red flags all over his intentions for me and beyond your paranoid personal accusations towards me, I don't see you actually either refuting that point or invalidating it.

If Ken and the others were so sure that Beth was honestly determined to kill off Mae than there would have been no way they would have consented to keep her as guardian, but yet they did.
They dropped their own petition, they dropped the allegations of financial abuse, they dropped the allegations of Beth trying to murder Mae and actively agreed to the fact that she should be Mae's guardian.
That's not something that was decided for them on April 4th, it something they specifically agreed to.

I see no plausible arguement anyone could make why you would agree to hand over a relative you care for to another family member you are convinced is trying to kill her.
It is precisely that fact, that Ken dropped his opposition to Beth becoming guardian, that makes me believe that his claims are unsubstantiated.

His coming out to the public also has had zero effect on this case. The decision as to whether or not Mae would be airlifted to a hospital was already a fact. It does seem to have taken longer then anyone would have wanted, but then it was Ken's duty to go back to the judge and demand that his original decision be upheld. But he didn't, he stood by and mailed around instead.

As far as I'm concerned, the system worked as it should have. The hospital screwed up with Beth's alleged guardianship which had Mae ending up in a hospice. As for Beth's intentions, I don't know what they are since there are no facts to judge on. If the quotes in the opposing petition are at some point in the future confirmed by a court, I can take them into account, but until then they are nothing but claims by a biased party.
I'm personally inclined to go with the scenario that the doctors at the first hospital painted a negative for Mae's future and that Beth made a decision based on that. As others have pointed out, it's reasonably since the first hospital didn't have the necessary expertise or experience.
Ken and others objected and asserted that Mae would have a chance if she was airlifted to another hospital and they took that before the court.
They worked it out with Beth during the hearing and presented the judge with an agreement and he accepted it.

Up until this point I have zero objections to Ken in the slighest bit. I have no doubt that at this point his motives were pure and justified.
Mae shouldn't have been in the hospice and her condition was treatable.

It's only once he started emailing around distorted versions of the truth that I take issue with his behaviour and start to question what his real agenda and motives for doing so are.

Now, as far as Beth is concerned. If Ken had been truthful from the very beginning I could form an opinion about her, but at the moment I can't since I have no way of knowing which claim is true and which is an exaggerated twist.

If they have sufficient reason to think she was abusing Mae's finances than they should bring it up to the court and get her financial and temporary full guardianship instantly revoked, along with other charges.
The whole incident with how Mae ended up in the hospice need to be examined. If it was Beth and Beth alone that pushed for that, than that's also grounds for revoking temporary and denying full guardianship. If it was the result of a doctor(s) then they should be reprimanded and investigated.
That's it.

The only true difference between me and you is that you're willing to blindly believe everything a single person tells you and based on that you'll judge and sentence everyone involved.
My point of view is that if Beth is truly as malignant a person as he claims, then he needs to stop parading in front of the cameras or radio shows and get into court and take action.
Guilt is still established in a court room, not by public opinion or a media interview.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 14, 2005 11:42 AM

Vanessa,

Your questioning of why Ken & Company drop their case to allow a potential murderess with custody was fully answered by Ken Mullinax himself. As a next best thing, they actually added stipulations to Beth's guardianship, realizing that Judge Boyd was bent on giving Beth custody. See Ken's explanations on this link:
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/mae_magouirk_up_1.php

Danny Carlton agreed with Ken's position. I do too. Ken was in a bind. All evidence was pointing to the Judge favoring Beth Gaddy during the first 2 hours of testimony. Judge Boyd's refusal for Kirby's cross-examination of the Beth's hired doctor showed he's not going to hear why that doctor was wrong.

I don't see much sense to repeat Danny's position. If you want to read mine, which are almost similar in thoughts with Danny, please go to this link:
http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/04/blogsforterri_e.html

Ken Mullinax recently provided an update to Mae's condition. She is doing better and asked his Mom where she's been all this time. (I hope she truthfully answered that Beth Gaddy prevented her from seeing Mae until now. But the answer was not part of Ken's update.) It seems Mae wants to go home with her sister. You can read it here:
http://www.blogsforterri.com/archives/2005/04/ken_mullinax_on_1.php

Posted by: Joseph at April 15, 2005 05:02 AM

I know about Ken's statement but his first email also goes into detail about his distrust of the judiciary system and about how it's his next cause so it's rather hard for me to take his opinion of the judge as objective.

Also, I can't find the logic in it: if Beth, as Ken says and people believe, was trying to murder Mae, and she was facing a judge who was so obviously going to rule in her favour, why did she accept the agreement?

If on the other hand Beth was handling under the mistaken impression that Mae had little or no chance of recovery, then I do see the logic in her accepting the agreement.

So far all that I'm reading in recent develoments points to the latter and not the former. Also with the transcript I read of Ken's interview stating something along the lines of (and I'm quoting from memory, not literally) "I don't think she has ulterior motives but is acting on false information" seems to point in that direction.

That doesn't make what she did right, and Ken did do the right thing by objecting and because of that Mae's alive now.
But put everything what he has said from beginning to end in emails, articles and direct interviews together and there are large contradications which I personally believe were premeditated and deliberate.

Posted by: Vanessa at April 15, 2005 12:30 PM

I know about Ken's statement but his first email also goes into detail about his distrust of the judiciary system and about how it's his next cause so it's rather hard for me to take his opinion of the judge as objective.

Because he's critical of bad judges he shouldn't be trusted? Right.

Also, I can't find the logic in it: if Beth, as Ken says and people believe, was trying to murder Mae, and she was facing a judge who was so obviously going to rule in her favour, why did she accept the agreement?

She'd be too obvious if she didn't, and there's a good chance that given that she'd lied to the judge refusing the compromise would expose her and shift the judge's opinions.

If on the other hand Beth was handling under the mistaken impression that Mae had little or no chance of recovery, then I do see the logic in her accepting the agreement.

When someone is alert and talking — they shouldn't be starved/dehydrated to death. How much intelligence does it take to understand that?

So far all that I'm reading in recent develoments points to the latter and not the former. Also with the transcript I read of Ken's interview stating something along the lines of (and I'm quoting from memory, not literally) "I don't think she has ulterior motives but is acting on false information" seems to point in that direction.

He said that about judge Boyd. Given Beth's history of stealing money from Mae, it's pretty clear what her motives were.

That doesn't make what she did right, and Ken did do the right thing by objecting and because of that Mae's alive now. But put everything what he has said from beginning to end in emails, articles and direct interviews together and there are large contradications which I personally believe were premeditated and deliberate.

I have read through his emails and releases and there are all completely truthful. I can find no contradictions.

Posted by: Danny Carlton at April 15, 2005 02:14 PM

The case of Mae Magouirk has troubled me greatly. I have read everything I can find on the case and it is still very difficult to believe that Beth Gaddy has so boldly plotted and schemed to murder her own grandmother. I really hope that Mae gets well and makes someone else her heir and her POA. As for the "hospice", they should be sued and shut down. You have to wonder how many other "Mae Magouirks" they have killed.

Posted by: Pattie7242 at April 18, 2005 09:30 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.