In days of old, people had multiple wives, and loved them all.
In fact, polygamy is still practiced in one state.
He pulled her tube because she is brain dead, and doesn't want her to suffer any longer. That verdict has been out there since 1990.
There is no money motive, because there is no money.
He moved in with another woman, see above, and big deal. His wife is dead, he has needs. It doesn't mean he doesn't and didn't care for her.
It was her father who started the litigations at first.
The doctors say she is not concious, her cerebral cortex is missing, he believes them as well, and based his actions on it.
No amount of saying she is aware can overide the fact that you need a cerebal cortex to transmit signals from any brain bit which could still be there (but isn't)
That is what he based his actions on.
I guess the autopsy will prove the doctors right, then what?
I guess we will see soon enough.
No amount of speculation is going to resolve anything, so there is no point in hashing over the same stuff day after day.
NOBODY said she was "brain dead".
If she WAS brain dead, she wasn't "suffering".
Not legally.
There is only question for me: Is Michael telling the truth when he says she didn't want feeding tubes? Here's what the entire case turned on:
[ Hold off on the links today they are overloading and locking up!]
REPORT TO CIRCUIT COURT, GUARDIAN AD LITEM PEARSE - 12/29/98
[Concerning Michaels representation of Terri's "intent"]
"In the opinion of the undersigned guardian ad litem, Mr SCHIAVO'S credibility is also adversely affected by the chronology of this case. For the first four years (approximately) following the ward's accident, he aggressively pursued every manner of treatment and rehabilitation conceivable, as well as lawsuits to compensate the ward for her injuries in connection with he presumably argued that she would require substantial funds for future care and treatment. At or about the time the litigation was finally concluded, he has a change of heart concerning further treatment..."
( p. 12, par. 2 ) LINK
TRAIL/CIRCUIT COURT, JUDGE GREER - 2/11/00 DECISION
[How to make your decision appeal proof: make it based on demeanor ]
"The court has had the opportunity to hear witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word."
( page 3, paragraph 3 )
[How to arrogantly brush aside a conflict reported by your own guardian ad litem: "hardly worthy of comment" ]
"It has been suggested that Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years to file the Petition which is under consideration. That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued."
( page 4 - paragraph 3 ) LINK for both
APPEALS COURT, JUDGE ALTENBERND - 1/24/01 DECISION
[How to defer to the trial judge and still call it a full appeal]
"Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her."
( 2nd to last paragraph )LINK
The Shindlers didn't break with Skeevo until he had "change of heart" after he got the money.
Skeevo didn't remember that Terri didn't want the tubes till he hired the ghoul Felos in 1997...
You're right about the autopsy probably not proving anything either way. But, I think a Mark Ferman or another independent investigator will publish a blockbuster exposing the corruption in Pinellas County that lead to this result.
Not legally but don't let that stop you, eh? You really will say anything to justify the bad acts of Michael Schiavo won't you?
Well, DUH! What parent wouldn't "start the litigations first" in order to save a child from a dastardly husband bent on murdering his wife in a most foul way?
Sheesshhhh!