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.
The exception to the rule is Scott's adultery was treated with scorn and disdain. Michael's, however, isn't mentioned by the lamestream press. Only conservatives are all over him like white on rice.
I know. The circumstantial evidence keeps piling up. Just like in the Peterson murder. Yet, it is getting ignored. This can't be the first prosecutors have heard of this.
If Michael get his murder wish, then something will have to go forward. There's enough dirt that will surface afterwards. But it'll be too little too late for Terri then.
The State is killing Teri not Michael.
Just wondering. What did Micheal Schiavo get the settlement for. Who did what to Terri for him to get it?
And can't he be sued for lying or whatever to get the money? Because after he got it he didn't spend the money on Terri.
Michael is fighting like hell to have the State finish the job for him.
"Michael Schiavo's Second Thoughts If the federal courts do decide to look anew at the facts of the Terri Schiavo case, one of the central issues will be the credibility of husband Michael Schiavo's claim that she made clear she would want to die under the circumstances. Last night Mr. Schiavo appeared on "Larry King Live," and a comment by his lawyer, George Felos (who fielded all questions from callers, though Schiavo responded directly to questions from the host), gave further reason for doubt:
Caller: Quick comment. I'm not understanding why a blood relative wouldn't make this decision and not a non-blood relative. My question is, if this happened 15 years ago, and this gentleman and his wife decided between them that they would pull the tube and let each other die if they were in this kind of a situation, what took him eight years to make that decision and why didn't he make it in those first eight years and has now had another seven years tacked on? . . .
Felos: Sure. For those years, Michael was trying desperately to--as, I guess, he had a desperate hope that Terri would get better, despite the doctors telling him that, you know, Mike, there's nothing there, there is no hope. He refused to believe it. It took many, many years for Michael to finally, I guess, come to reality and believe that Terri was not coming back.
For eight years, in other words, Mr. Schiavo failed to carry out what he now insists--and his supporters unquestioningly assert--were her wishes. Furthermore, as we noted yesterday, after his change of heart about whether his wife could be saved, he took up with another woman, fathered two children with her and announced his intention to marry her.
Again, the point here is not that any of this behavior is blameworthy, but rather that it provides ample reason to doubt whether Mr. Schiavo can be trusted to act on Mrs. Schiavo's behalf."
I do not think he initially contemplated the perseverance of those outside his sphere of influence.
The settlement was for medical malpractice that led to her condition. In all I think the settlement was for a little over a million with $750K going into a trust for her medical costs and $300K going to Michael. I think I read her medical costs are $80K a year, some of which is paid by the state and the rest is paid by Michael.
I'm hoping that if Terri dies they begin the process of bringing her killer... Michael Schiavo .. to court. He needs to be brought to justice if she dies.
wonder why we have not heard from his mistress
Is this another of those "personal wishes" expressed to him by Terri?
Of course not. I've heard Terri's brother and father say several times in the past week, that when the medics and EMS people arrived at the Schaivo home on that night, after Terri's "collapse," they called the police. That in itself is unusual, if the medics thought that the situation really had been an "accident."
The police first wrote it down as a "HOMICIDE!" Nothing ever came of it. I just read yesterday that Michael's "common law wife's" mother works in the local sheriff's office! No wonder there never was an investigation into attempted murder!
ther must be a special hot place in hell for Michael, his lawyers and these evil judges who a acting in concert to destroy this woman - and by extension the culture.
"And all men kill the thing they love,
"By all let this be heard,
"Some do it with a bitter look,
"Some with a flattering word,
"The coward does it with a kiss,
"The brave man with a sword!"
--Oscar Wilde
Remember, the statute of limitations on attempted murder is only 4 years in FL.
He needs to be brought to justice if she dies.
There is obviously no proof of any kind that he had anything to do with her inciting event. If there were he would have been charged long ago... your charge of murder is reckless at best and likely libelous.
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.