I suspect that with the litigation he is unable to proceed with a divorce. We never hear his side of the issue except the emotional ganging up accusations of neglect etc that come from those supporting her and her parents. I suspect he has a whole different version of the proceedings and I would like to see it presented if you may provide me with a link to his side of the story.
You can read his side of the story every single time you read something that the mainstream media has put out about this case since 2000. Before that I don't know. Provide yourself a link. It's called google.
It looks like you're getting lots of replies from every direction.
Bottom Line: No one would be jumping on his case about anything, if he had NOT choosen to eliminate his wife. Had he NOT started this court action, we'd all be off posting against or for political positions.
Husband wants to kill his wife. Do you advocate husbands being allowed to freely eliminate their spouses, without Family, friends or others caring or asking questions of motives?
Why do you suspect that? Seriously, I'm curious what would give you that perception. The parents have openly suggested that Michael should divorce Terri, and I can think of nobody who would have any standing to refuse (other than Michael, of course). Do you have any reason to believe the litigation is preventing Michael from divorcing Terri, other than a believe that any reasonable husband in this situation would divorce if able?
"I suspect that with the litigation he is unable to proceed with a divorce"
No. He doesn't proceed with a divorce because then the courts would be legally required to award her part of the marital estate, her parents would be able to get her some therapy and she would eventually be able to communicate that it was "dear hubby" who put her in this condition in the first place after taking out a huge life insurance policy on her which he now cannot collect on until he is allowed to starve/dehydrate her to death.
And yes, I know that's a run-on sentence but it's late and I don't feel grammatical correctness is necessary here.
I would like to hear or read it, too. However, I don't know whether it has been published; I've looked for it. If Michael has been silent through all it, then I'll say that he is in some ways more honorable than the Schindlers, who have attempted to manipulate public opinion, violated the spirit if not the letter of the Court's rulings, and in some instances distorted the facts. Neither side in this long saga has been above reproach. It is unfortunate for Terri.
The bone scans that show injuries inconsistent to the story of Terri's collapse show that Michael may have been the one to put her in this condition to begin with. If you have followed the case, you will see that while Michael was suing for money for Terri's care and rehabilitation he took her out, dressed her up, did her hair and make up, etc. Once he got the money, he miraculously remembered that she did not want to be kept alive artificially. So, she was sent to the hospice, all physical and mental stimulation therapy was stopped, she has not been outside in years, the nurses are ordered to have limited to no conversation with her, visits are at his discretion and are kept few and far between. She is not to be given antibiotics when she gets an infection. She does not get regular dental care.
Please study the whole case before you comment. There is more to it than what one sees on the surface. There are doctors who say she can learn to swallow and eat and drink on her own. A nurse has documented Terri used to eat jello before Michael put a stop to it.
IT may be possible, that Michael was abusing her the night of her collapse and went to far. The fracture to her neck is consistent with strangling. He is afraid if she recovers she will tell what really happened to her. I know that this is an assumption, but the facts are coming together more and more. I have seen people convicted on less evidence than we have here. The Florida District Attorney needs to fully investigate this, before Michael is allowed to kill Terri. Why else would he have scheduled immediate cremation with no autopsy. Could he be afraid of what might be found.
He absolutely has the ability to divorce her. In fact, the only "grounds" for divorce other than the no-fault "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" is mental incapacity of one of the spouses.
Interesting that you divorced your wife, you didn't kill her.