I was one of the loudest voices calling for investigation and charging Mr. Schiavo if there were some crime he committed--check out my old posts if you'd like. But I also pointed out that absent any charges, it's wrong to harass.
There have been 15 years to "investigate" or "inquire"... so why only now?
Are you trying to lay the groundwork for using the Schiavo case against others in a debate on the merits of that recent trial in Mississippi?
These things are different you know, for one thing, the Mississippi killing was very coldblooded and this killing was, well, very "methodical", is that the word? Or, can we say "organized"? How about "it was executed with finesse"? Anyway, the state did the killing here, and a private party did the deed elsewhere.
There are countries that have a legal doctrine that reserves the right to use violence to the state and the state alone. Do I hear elements of that doctrine creeping in? It's usually referred to as the "state monopoly on violence".
There are so many directions we can go with this stuff it's difficult to decide exactly what we ought to do. On the other hand, there's no doubt in my mind that the New York Times doesn't care about this particular case at all. Frankly, all those evil b*st*rds wish to do is hurt America.