By "general claim", I did not mean in any way to downplay the accusation. Rather, I wanted to be more concise than "While there are many minor differences in the viewpoints of Terri's supporters, one thing that most of recognize is that..."
I did not wish to make the categorical statement that "none" of Terri's supporters dispute that Michael treated Terri well prior to his receipt of the malpractice award, since there are some that do [suggesting that Michael was indeed quite sadistic when nobody was watching]. The key point, though, is that there is--among Terri's supporters--almost universal recognition that Michael's outward behavior toward Terri changed when he got the malpractice award. Consequently, any statement about Michael treating Terri well prior to the award have zero relevance in assessing how well he treated her afterward.
"there are some that do [suggesting that Michael was indeed quite sadistic when nobody was watching]."
Would these be the same people who say he was overly aggressive when he didn't think they were giving her proper care? Revenge perhaps because he got them in trouble?