We disagree. If Michael caused the original physical injuries to Terri, he should be held accountable for them. There is some evidence that suggests he may have, which has made her original collapse all the more suspicious. An investigation (and there should be an investigation which would hopefully remove these suspicions from the realm of speculation one way or another)of the matter might well lead to more conclusive evidence, which is the purpose of an investigation.
However, at the moment it looks as though Michael will get away with all his attempts to kill Terri, and soon may finally succeed if someone in authority doesn't stop him.
We disagree. If Michael caused the original physical injuries to Terri, he should be held accountable for them. There is some evidence that suggests he may have, which has made her original collapse all the more suspicious. An investigation (and there should be an investigation which would hopefully remove these suspicions from the realm of speculation one way or another)of the matter might well lead to more conclusive evidence, which is the purpose of an investigation. Michael has certainly tried to kill Terri for illegimate reasons on multiple occasions. Would it make any difference whether he was prosecuted for four counts of attempted murder instead of three? Adding in the various cruelty charges, fraud charges, etc. along the way, it would seem he'd should have to be Methuselah to see the light of day as a free man, regardless of whether he's charged for an initial attempted murder the night of Terri's collapse.
Indeed, the first murder attempt would probably be the one meriting the lightest sentence, since Michael could probably argue that it was done without premeditation, and might even be able to argue that he wasn't really trying to kill Terri, but she'd said something that put him into a rage (per such an argument, had she died then, he might have been found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder; that she lived would make the charge aggravated battery, whose statute of limitations has lapsed, rather than attempted murder). To be sure, if evidence were found that showed that Michael had tried to kill Terri on that night, that may make it somewhat easier to score a conviction on the other attempted murder charges, but even without that Michael had plenty of motive to kill his wife. If a prosecutor really tries to score a conviction, there's going to be plenty of evidence to convict Michael even if the cause of Terri's initial injuries isn't established.
However, at the moment it looks as though Michael will get away with all his attempts to kill Terri, and soon may finally succeed if someone in authority doesn't stop him.
True. But Michael would need Terri dead regardless of whether he tried to kill her on the night of her initial collapse. Why speculate about the collapse as a motive, when there are other motives which are clear as day?
Continuing on my last point, imagine you were a sentencing judge and the following two separate cases came before you:
- Joe Smith got into an argument with his wife, strangling her and nearly killing her. Although he was in a daze afterward and failed to summon quick medical attention, she survived. Joe Smith failed a malpractice claim against her doctor and won $750,000 for her care. Although her condition was later judged to be a result of his attack, he had spent the money on rehabilitation for her and claims that, while he was aware the malpractice claim was fraudulent, he knew of no other way to fund the care his wife needed.
- Fred Johnson's wife was severely brain damaged because an anaesthesologist decided to take a smoke break while she was under his care. Fred Johnson initially acted like a model husband, working hard to help his wife get better, until he won a $1,100,000 malpractice award: $300,000 for himself, and $750,000 for his wife. As soon as the award paperwork was filed, he discontinued all care for his wife. A few years later, he found a lawyer and a judge who would agree to have his aware-but-incapacitated wife declared to be in a "persistent vegetative state". On three separate occasions, he was able to discontinue food and water, but on the first two occasions he was stopped by legal action, and on the fourth some National Guardsmen took his wife to a hospital where she received fluids, food, and an examination which showed the PVS diagnosis to be a total sham.
How would you regard these people at sentencing? I would think the first would receive a much lighter sentence than the second, even though the former was responsible for the wife's initial incapacitation and the latter was not.