Governor to close Schiavo inquiry [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

St Petersburg Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | DAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCHDAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCH

[summer]

LARGO - In what could be a final chapter in the legal saga of Terri Schiavo, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe says he could find no evidence that Michael Schiavo caused his wife's collapse 15 years ago.

In a June 30 letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, McCabe suggested ending the state's inquiry into the case.

Bush responded Thursday in a two-sentence letter to McCabe: "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed."

Bush asked McCabe last month to investigate Schiavo's collapse on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990. He cited questions left unanswered by an autopsy and inconsistent statements from Michael Schiavo about the time he found his wife on the floor of their apartment.

McCabe appointed two of his most seasoned prosecutors to review the evidence. They found nothing to indicate Michael Schiavo hurt his wife....

[ContraryMary]

I meant to type: would have NO bearing on you at all...

The law is not meant to solve the personal problems of every member of society. "Conservatives" who want to create laws to deal with personal problems of individuals are acting in the same manner as liberals. That's why today we live in the overly regulated, overly litigious society that we do. I'm surprised at the pseudo-conservatives on Free Republic who wamt to pass a law granting people who have no legal standing -- in this case parents -- the power to seek a divorce on behalf of their child.

Bad things happen to good people. That's an unfortunate fact of life. However, expecting government to solve all of people's problems is not the answer -- even for Terri Schiavo.

[summer]

Caring for the disabled is a noble goal and concern. As I am disabled and may become more so, I am glad people are concerned about those who are in worse shape than I am.

Patty, as I said before, if you left written directions, this suggested law would have no impact on you. I suspect such a law would tend to impact younger people, like Terri S, as younger people often mistakenly think they are immortal and as a result, they do not spend time writing directions for what to do if they become disabled or incapacitated through a car accident, etc., which is something that can happen anytime.

I disagree with your assertion that "parents" are a class of people without legal standing to their adult children who become incapacitated. I quoted Judge Sandar Day O'Connor earlier on the thread, as she, too, recognizes parental rights. Whether she would recognize it in this unique situation we are discussing, I can not say, but, it would not be a leap.

Also, as I said at the beginning of the thread, it was other parents who made this point to me - and, I happen to agree with them.

You had said something earlier in the thread, to the effect that if your husband killed you, that would be OK with you, too, due to your religious beliefs. And, I said something like, well, that situation is one others would not want, and I know of no religion that supports your position (though I respect your right to believe what you want).

You're right that not every problem in life has a solution, and that not every problem has or should have a government solution.

But I think the questions raised in Terri's were profound, in that she was unable to speak, her wishes were not known in writing, she had parents willing to care for her -- and yet, look what happened. It seems to me common sense that a husband now living with another woman, fathering children with another woman, and having no divorce from his wife, no written directions from his wife as what to do, should have been more open to the pleas of his wife's parents and sibling. He wasn't, and the courts ruled in his favor everytime.

But I am not convinced he was on such solid ground in this matter. Nor that his wife would not have preferred the care of her parents. It is a private matter; I agree; but it is also a situation where the civil rights of that disabled person to obtain a divorce if she wanted ont, and the fundamental rights of parents, were totally ignored. That is troublesome.

If the husband in a similiar situation abandoned his disabled wife, abused her, and committed adultery, how would you then feel about the disabled wife not being able to file for a divorce? Your view seemed clear to me, as you said your husband can kill you and that is OK with you. So, it seems to me you would not be troubled by lesser evils as I have just described. But others do not agree with your point of view, as evidenced by this thread.

[annalex]

FR posters do it every day by posting "mainstream" media articles. This is how FR operates.

[bvw]

Summer grabbed grabbed off a lie found in the subheading and threw it up into the headline. He put it in [editor's note: brackets mark an added comment] brackets which indicates it as his own remark. When asked directly to deny his own ownership of that lie, he affirmed that, gee, he agreed with it. Like Dan Rather never could deny the Air Guard memos for the tale they told (a false tale, a lie). He found pleasant to be the bearer of a lie and still does except for the public shame it has deservedly come to bear.

[summer]

You're being ridiculous. I posted the title of the article. That's it. If you have a gripe with the title, write to that newspaper. I did not write the title nor endorse it. I just posted what was there.

Haven't you anything better to do?

[patriciaruth]

You had said ...earlier in the thread,...that if your husband killed you, that would be OK with you, too, due to your religious beliefs

you said your husband can kill you and that is OK with you.

I beg your pardon...WHERE did I ever say that?

Here is what I have said:

"I would not want my mother (my only remaining parent) interfering in my husband's decisions, even if he chose the worse (not the better) and decided to let me die."

"I would not want the bond between my husband and myself broken by a parent, even if I believed my husband was making a bad, even a sinful, decision."

"If I was in an irreversible coma or unable to give any caring to my husband, I would not feel my husband had "abandoned" me if he started another relationship. I would forgive him for this."

I still don't understand what your objective is, and why I have to write a living will to prevent you from mandating a forced divorce from my husband if I go into a coma. I'm sure this isn't what you mean, but that is what it sounds like you are saying.

If one of the four goals I wrote you previously isn't the goal you have in mind, please clarify what your goal is? I want to help you achieve that goal without forcing divorce on married couples.

[summer]

Uh, I wasn't the only one who noticed what you said:

To: patriciaruth

In my religion, only adultery is an accepted excuse for divorce, not murder. It's till death do we part, even if my husband kills me.

Thank you, that's a very good example of...well, never mind, it's a very good example though. :)

60 posted on 07/08/2005 7:28:01 PM EDT by Graymatter

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

-------

Let's just agree to disagree. Have a nice night.

[patriciaruth]

There is a long standing joke in many Christian churches:

When asked whether he had ever considered divorce, the husband replied, "Divorce?... no. Murder? ...yes"

That statement was an allusion to that old joke, and was a bit tongue in cheek.

Divorce is viewed as a big no-no, like murder.

That is why I do not understand why divorce has to be part of your plan to prevent husbands from turning off life support.

Because I view divorce as a sin against a promise made to God.

[Gondring]

Actually, you are the one messing with the definition of sanctity. Some people believe that the sanctity of marriage is co-equal with the sanctity of life, and don't feel that "sanctity" is something that can be downgraded and compared.

And in fact, if you look at how Christians practiced in the first few centuries after Christ's life, death, and resurrection, you'll find that they gave their LIVES before giving up their MARRIAGES. You can put your modern twists on things all you want, but remember that not everyone believes that modern society has a better handle on things than back then.

[Gondring]

Let's just agree to disagree. Have a nice night.

I always wonder at that phrase. If I were to advocate the creation of a gestapo that might haul you off in the middle of the night, could we just "agree to disagree"? Yet you are advocating legislation to interfere in people's marriages and seem to not have a clue what you're suggesting. I mean, I'm still curious how someone can serious suggest such a leftie notion on FR, so I hope you'll continue the discussion.

[Gondring]

>>>The law is not meant to solve the personal problems of every member of society. "Conservatives" who want to create laws to deal with personal problems of individuals are acting in the same manner as liberals. That's why today we live in the overly regulated, overly litigious society that we do. I'm surprised at the pseudo-conservatives on Free Republic who wamt to pass a law granting people who have no legal standing -- in this case parents -- the power to seek a divorce on behalf of their child. <<<

>>>Bad things happen to good people. That's an unfortunate fact of life. However, expecting government to solve all of people's problems is not the answer -- even for Terri Schiavo.<<<

I couldn't have said this better. I am amazed, frankly, at the number of pseudo-conservatives.

[Gondring]

Then it is okay to repeat a lie, unremarked?

In the context, yes.

I suppose you expect actors to give a disclaimer every line they deliver in their movies, huh?

[Gondring]

The law is not meant to solve the personal problems of every member of society. "Conservatives" who want to create laws to deal with personal problems of individuals are acting in the same manner as liberals. That's why today we live in the overly regulated, overly litigious society that we do. I'm surprised at the pseudo-conservatives on Free Republic who wamt to pass a law granting people who have no legal standing -- in this case parents -- the power to seek a divorce on behalf of their child.

Bad things happen to good people. That's an unfortunate fact of life. However, expecting government to solve all of people's problems is not the answer -- even for Terri Schiavo.

Super-Size, couldn't-have-said-it-better-myself BUMP!

[bvw]

You edited it in. You reached into the subheading to put in that part of that subhead that is a flat-out lie.

When asked -- directly - if you agree with that lie, you said yes, you agreed with it.

[bvw]

Are you Scott Peterson posting from Death Row? You must be! Such a view of the sanctity of marriage! One Scott would and did certainly share.

Have a mistress, kill you wife -- but never ever divorce her.

You've caught a moral sickness.

[summer]

yet you are advocating legislation to interfere in people's marriages

When someone is incapacitated the marriage is not quite the same as it was before. Certainly there are devoted married couple who care for each other in such a cirucmstance. But what if one spouse, after years of caring for his incapacitated spouse, now decides he would rather get a new spouse? Can he divorce his current spouse? Who does he serve papers on? Or can the incapacited spouse divorce him if her religious beliefs do not include pulling the plug, which is the next step in the exhausted spouse's view? What is the mechanism by which the right of an incapacitated spouse to divorce in these extraordinary circusmstances, when that spouse's immediate family wants to care for that incapacitated spouse? Can they go to court and obtain legal gaurdianship from the other spouse, who now wants to pull the plug? Are their written directions from the incapacitated spouse? And if there are no such directions, is the right of a family to care for an incapacitated family member important? Is their right equal to or greater than the right of the other spouse to pull the pl - without written directions? There are a lot of question that came up in Terri's case. Other conservatives agreed with me on this thread that my suggestion had merit. You didn't. That's OK. You said it's OK if your husband kills you. So, OK. I accept your position. Others don't.

[summer]

Sorry, I thought you were patriciaruth when I wrote my response!

[summer]

You're the one who did not acknowledge my point that a devoted spouse's willingness to care for an incapacitated spouse may change over the years. I thought that was a crucial point. You ignored it. And, I still think it is a crucial point, that a spouse's desires for a new spouse may alter the situation and necessitate a change of legal guardianship, while a parents' desire to care for their incapacitated adult child may be less likely to change, since they are not trading in this child for a new child.

[annalex]

There is no shame in shortening the subtitle, with all the lies therein, to fit, and nothing even remotely comparable to Rather's use of fabricated memos.

[RS]

"In these special circumstance cases extra consideration should be given to outside testimony."

Given the amount of judges and courts that it was brought before, I would say that quite a bit of extra consideration was given in this case. Wasn't there something like 15 judges involved alltogether ?