Posted on 03/22/2005 8:22:03 PM PST by CHARLITE
"Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness; it is the one crime in which society has a direct interest.”
- W. H. Auden
This is the story of two discontent husbands. Both of them had become tired of standing by their vows to love, honor and cherish the women they had married, and so each became involved in an adulterous affair with another woman.
Both men had the option of simply divorcing their wives and moving on with their mistresses, but for some reason neither was inclined to do so. Instead, both men decided to murder their wives, collect whatever financial benefit ensued from their deaths and then live happily ever after.
The first man chose to commit his crime in secret. Since his young wife was pregnant, he decided to kill her before the baby was born. After killing his wife and unborn son, this man disposed of the evidence by discarding the remains in a bay several hours from their home. He then told his wife’s family and the authorities that she had simply disappeared.
When the authorities found the evidence and arrested this man for the murders, his lawyer claimed that the wife and son were the victims of crazed Satanists or some other evildoers. His client had gone fishing on Christmas Eve, the night the woman disappeared. That was his alibi.
A jury of this man’s peers didn’t believe a word of it, and convicted him of two counts of murder. A judge sentenced him to die and sent him to death row in a prison overlooking the very bay where he had disposed of his wife’s body.
The second man decided to commit his murder right out in the open. Instead of hiding his actions and thereby incurring the suspicion of the authorities, he would use the courts to help him commit his crime.
A suspicious incident years earlier had caused a mysterious chemical imbalance in his wife’s brain, thereby rendering her unable to speak or to receive food by mouth. She was not on a respirator; in fact, her breathing was completely normal. She laughed and tried to communicate with her parents when they came to the hospital to visit her; but because she was unable to chew or swallow solid food without choking, she was dependent on others for sustenance.
For several years, she received her nourishment through a feeding tube. Her husband had received a large sum of money from a medical malpractice settlement, which was to be used for her care, but none of it was ever spent on her rehabilitation.
Though he steadfastly refused to file for divorce and turn his wife’s care over to her loving parents, he callously entered into a relationship with another woman, even fathering children with her as his wife lay helpless in the hospital. Meanwhile, because he had grown tired of waiting for his wife to die, he enlisted the help of a judge to kill her. The judge obliged, ordering that she be starved to death because her husband claimed she would want it that way.
Therein lies the tale of two murderers. Both were tired of being married. Both wanted to continue their adulterous relationships with other women. Both decided to kill their wives rather than divorce them. One went to prison; the other was never even charged with a crime. One, though he was a sociopath, still somehow instinctively knew that no one gets away with murder unless it is done in secret. The other was arrogant enough to believe that if he solicited the help of those who were sympathetic to his selfish agenda, he could get away with homicide in full view of the whole world and become a hero to the pro-death movement in the process.
As the condemned Scott Peterson sits in San Quentin, he must wish that he had taken a lesson from the very clever Michael Schiavo.
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a speechwriter, policy advisor and communications director for federal, state and local candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet websites. Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com.
Hey, Phil. We need your graphic, stat!
Exactly as was the case with Scott Peterson. Remember that he told Amber Frey that "by January 21st we'll be together.......and forever."
That utterly self-absorbed clown actually thought that the story wouldn't go farther than a column or two in the local Modesto paper. He thought also that he had weighted down the bodies so well that they would never come up.
I remember hearing a friend of his telling one of our KFI 640AM radio talk show hosts here in L.A., that "they can't arrest me, because they don't have anything, and if they don't have anything, then how could they arrest me?"
The joke was on him. The day after they "had something" (actually two bodies), they arrested him. But his thought processes were the same as Michael Schaivo's. Neither one of them imagined in their wildest dreams that their stories would be known to anyone but their immediate circle of friends and family. Hence, no one would care, and they would be in the clear.
Both of them miscalculated.
Yeah, I wonder how she can even live with herself, let alone him, after this whole thing.
Yep. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.
I think accused is the right word here. If he really did what the nurse said and was stupid enough to leave the insulin bottle behind with his fingerprints on it why isn't he in prison? If he strangled her in 1990 as someone on this site intimated why wasn't he tried and found guilty? If I understand what I have read correctly all the court appointed investigators have determined that Terri is in a vegetative state with no chance of improvement. I realize there is no living will, but it has been stated under oath that she made her wishes known on the subject while talking to not only her husband but 9 family members after a funeral. Why do people keep talking about her due process when her case has been heard by a number of courts, the Fl legislature and most recently the US Congress? Just because you don't like the rulings doesn't mean due process has not been carried out.
I am as intensely prolife as anyone on this site. If you don't believe me look up some of my old posts on abortion. I have experienced the horrors of abortion and dealt with the suffering of losing a father and wife to the slow agonizing death of cancer. So I know what the principals in this case are dealing with. This is why I would like to ask her parents the following questions. Do you believe in a just and loving God, do you love your daughter, do you think she is a good person, do you think upon death that she will take her place in heaven? If their answers to these questions is yes then I would have to ask them why they are working so hard to extend her suffering?
Sadly this whole issue has been turned into a national mania and has become more a battle between the parents and the husband than a battle for what is best for Terri. I don't pretend to know why Michael is so adamant about staying married to Terri. Obviously his living with another woman and having kids by her makes him look pretty pathetic, but maybe, horrors of horrors, he loves her and after 15 years is tired of seeing her suffer, or maybe he is just a jerk. But I am always suspicious when one side resorts to demonizing the otherside. If he has done half the things he has been accused of on this site and others then whether in this world or the next he will pay. I know I will get flamed royally for be so insensitive as to question the motives of anyone other than the devil incarnate Michael Schiavo but so be it. Flame away.
You betcha they did.
Amen.
Here's a link: http://www.whiskeycreekpress.com/chapters/InDefenseOfLiberty_ChrisDavis.shtml
This whole thing is rotten. Period. And the dirt will surface.
Who is stalling for time? The district court ruled on March 22nd when the lawsuit was filed on March 21st. The Circuit Court is already hearing the case. It seems to me that the judiciary is acting with great speed.
What does the Lord have to say about slander?
Well why don't you dig her up and destroy her life with malicious gossip too.
A religious catholic would never allow her body to be cremated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.