Posted on 03/28/2005 6:43:57 AM PST by NYer
Just seems so vindictive. If I were his mistress, I would have had second thoughts long before now.
gotta wonder about how all this seems to work like clockwork.
gotta wonder about how all this seems to work like clockwork.
Michael Schiavo's actions are motivated by spite. He hasn't had Terri's best interest in mind from day one. It's my opinion that he thought he'd be able to pocket the malpractice money if he could just get her to die. The Schindler's threw a monkey wrench in his plans when they took steps through the courts to keep Terri alive. As time went on and Michael saw his nest egg dwindle through lawyer's fees, his hostility and anger towards the Schindler's increased tenfold. The final spiteful act, besides murdering Terri, is having her remains cremated and placed in his family's cemetery plot in Pennsylvania. Since he hasn't been a regular visitor while she's been alive, I can hardly fathom him visiting her after her death. His goal is vindictiveness by denying the Schindler's their daughter in both life and death, because they denied him his moola.
Not on their lives. He is afraid of something being found out. I will be utterly shocked if he allows this. He's going to say "OK I already gave in on the communion thing, what more do they want? They're still being unreasonable! I'm clean and pure as the wind driven snow!"
I know this is biased, but I truly believe MS is an rotten human being that needs to avoid lightening storms for the rest of his life.
Terri Schiavo's estranged husband has ordered her body immediately cremated, with no autopsy, against her parents' pleadings. Do you approve of this?
It must be clear to all by now --even to those who believe that Terri feels nothing-- that Michael Schiavo has been unspeakably cruel to the Schindlers.
Schiavo's cruelty hasn't just manifested itself now, but has been clear over the course of many years.
According to an article in USAToday, the origin of this hatred began when Schiavo and the Schindlers had a major blow-up, soon after the medical settlement money came in.
The Schindlers say that Schiavo, who had promised to use that settlement money for therapy for Terri --and had promised to use it for a house where they would all live and take care of Terri together-- suddenly reneged on those promises.
When Mr. Schindler confronted Schiavo over that, Schiavo reportedly screamed, "You'll never see your daughter again!"
Of course Schiavo was not able to completely carry through on that threat.
But he has made the primary purpose of his life the punishment of the Schindlers for daring to challenge him over their daughter.
Several family acquaintances have described Schiavo a "control freak." What an understatement.
Schiavo must bitterly regret that at least some of this situation has now spun out of his control -- if only in that the case has come under such scrutiny that he can no longer keep all of the truth from coming out.
A tiny bit of justice in this is that Schiavo will never have a moment's peace for the rest of his life.
< I suspect he just hates his inlaws, and he'd do anything and everything to spite them, including killing their daughter, and then denying them the comfort of seeing to her final rest. >
I suspect that you are exactly right.
MS is lower than pond scum. If he really is doing this out of love and commitment to Terri, does he really think that she would want her parents hurt this way? He doesn't give a flyin' fig about Terri. This is all about MS and what HE wants (whatever the reason).
< A tiny bit of justice in this is that Schiavo will never have a moment's peace for the rest of his life. >
Which is why I'm glad he doesn't have a common last name. He will be remembered and recognized.
BTW, does anyone know how long they were married when this "accident" happened?
Is there any way for law enforcement to say that they want an autopsy and be able to trump Greer's order for immediate cremation? Greer snubbed a congressional subpoena. He thinks that he is above it all. I would like to see them all in a lot of trouble for this.
Since the conflicts have been brought out in this case, primarily Felos and his firm being financial supporters of Greer. Can Felos and Greer be brought before the Bar's ethics committee and possibly be disbarred?
Because your post is addressed to me, it implies that I have said something about "polls". I have not.
In the interest of "fair-play" I always try to address a particular poster with my answer or I address the original poster if my answer is "in general".
Sorry. Forgive me. It's a pet peeve.
You were last in the list. I meant to change that to "All" and forgot. :) Wasn't directed at you specifically.
In this case, Michael has stated many times that he was offered $10 million to “walk away,” and leave Terri for her family to care for. Let’s look at this:
First, if indeed we accept that he had made some very fine attempts at caring for Terri, and finally felt he could do no more, he could have gone on with his life knowing he did his best. He had made a new life with another woman and children, he truly was not honoring all of his vows to Terri, so why hold onto some “offhanded” comment she “might have made?”
Still, no one would have faulted him and I don't know about others, but I certainly would have taken $10 million dollars, and felt that to not do so would have been senseless. After all, with $10 million the medical cost issue could have been totally resolved, and the U.S would not be paying for her care. MS could have kept $5 million for himself, and put $5 million in a trust fund for Terri’s care. Then, while with her parents as guardians and as therapy was allowed to continue, she might have regained some abilities – i.e. the ability to swallow. She no longer would be "living hooked up to machines," as Michael claimes she mentioned. She could, perhaps, exist without a feeding tube, thus the issue would have become moot. She may have lived a reduced quality of life, but she would be living. It is the feeding tube, and the fact that she (might have) said she did not want to be hooked up to anything to maintain her life that was the main issue with Michael.
The money he could have accepted certainly would have allowed for the best of care for her. Truly that amount of money could have served them both very well.
But, it seems, the thought of this either did not enter Michael’s mind, or - what seems more obvious - is that he determined not to take the chance of her recovering – for some as yet unknown reason, relating possibly to how she came to be in this state in the first place.
If, on the other hand , with her family hand-feeding her, or therapists or nurses, and with therapy she still did not regain that ability to eat, then she could have died a natural death that would have been God’s decision, and not the decision of Michael and the judge.
Also make you wonder, if the parents have no ulterior motives, why won't they respect the husband's wishes? Regardless of how you feel about the Terri Schaivo case, it is his wife and Michael has the final say. Otherwise, do you believe parents have a stronger legal voice that a spouse?
After all that has happened I doubt that Schiavo has any compassion left for his inlaws.
I understand and figured such, but, like I said, it's a pet peeve. Usually I leave it alone when no real harm is done, as in this case...don't knnow why I didn't let this one go. I really don't like it when it involves an implied attrition that I would never in my right mind be associated.
Thanks for the acknowledgement.
Methinks he just wants to make sure there is no autopsy.
I, too, have wondered about the complicity of these medical people, but have also wondered about the cops and other law enforcement people who seem perfectly willing to make overtime pay handcuffing little kids who try to cross the line to bring so much as a taste of water to the victim. Were they all pre-screened for objections based on morality and/or conscience? Or were they told that no such objections would keep them from losing their jobs? Or have we all fallen so low that people accept the notion voiced by Reverend Lovejoy on The Simpsons that, "once the government declares something to be no longer illegal, then it's also no longer immoral"?
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.