Replies

But, the stretches that are made to claim he assaulted her and is afraid she'll tell, and the faith in Carla Iyer's outrageous claims... Well,, there's so much of that, it does gives the impression of an irrational eagerness to "over-demonize" him.

I'll go along with you this far: Michael's treatment of Terri constitutes clear criminal neglect. Michael may claim that Terri isn't being harmed by it because she's just a vegetable, but if she were proven to have been aware during his neglect, such a defense would go totally out the window.

The issue of Terri remembering what happened in 1991 is a red herring. Memory of her treatment in the last five years is much more probable and much more relevant.

Yup.

I mean, is there anyone out there who hasn't been told about comatose people awakening to tell what they were aware of?

Who knows what goes on inside the PVS (whatever) patient. Heck, I wouldn't risk speaking ill of someone who was all out dead, in the presence of their body. 8|

Not sure if this is what you're saying, but...
Even if she did awaken enough to speak, I don't think he would be legally charged with literally criminal neglect. He'd have the excuses of "advice of doctors", and what's (unfortunately) considered acceptable treatment...

I just think it would make his life hell to be faced with her having had abilities he denied. Can you imagine?

It would be a critical lesson for us all, really.

I think the broken bones are evidence enough to open an investigation, even if the Statute of Limitations has run out. If it turns out Michael did attempt to kill Terri, the state will have aided and abetted Michael in completing his MURDER.

That said, at this point, it is NOT a FACT that Michael physically abused Terri, but a STRONG SUSPICION. However, Michael's poor treatment of Terri these past ten years, IS a FACT. His sudden, recall (after five years), that Terri stated she wouldn't want to be hooked up to tubes, is completely self-serving and deep inside Micahel KNOWS it. Who among us hasn't made a comment while watching the news or a movie that we wouldn't want to live in a particular situation. It doesn't mean we would want to be starved to death or even that we wouldn't live in such a situation if we had to. It only means we don't WANT to. To send someone to death based on such comments (even if Terri HAD made them) is nothing less than INSANE.

Finally, there is greater evidence that Michael may have physically abused Terri, than there is evidence that Terri made that statement. Thus, the STATE may starve Terri to death based on weaker evidence, than the evidence with which the state is REFUSING to INVESTIGATE Michael Schiavo.