[TAdams8591]

HILDY, Recently, I helped a FRIEND whose parents and siblings (one of whom was her guardian) wanted to keep her in a nursing home for the rest of her life against her will, gain her freedom. And her husband, who abandoned her, was no better than her "family." My friend as it turns out, was as selfish and self-centered as everyone else, though it goes without saying she shouldn't have been institutionalized for it.

Did I WANT to view any of the parties negatively??? No. But it became all too apparent. In the beginning, attempting to tell who was lying and who was truthful was quite a difficult task.

Thus, I have already considered the possibility that both parties in Terri's scenario could have ulterior motives. If I thought the Schindlers were about money, I would eventually see it, no matter what I wanted to believe. I just don't see it.

I am relying more on the actions of the parties to make my judgement about who to support. You seem to be depending upon words, specifically the words of Michael Schiavo to formulate your judgement about the issue.

ANY man who would STARVE his wife to death is MORALLY SUSPECT. Michael is an unusually manipulative and resourceful person who could have any one of a number of motives, and I do suspect there is more than one. HONOR, NOBILITY and LOYALTY to his wife are not among them. If Michael is an example of the modern day GOOD husband, I will remain happily single.

[the Deejay]

When the Schindlers found out they wouldn't be getting ANY of the malpractice lawsuit $$$, they DID NOT visit Terri for months & months!

No one was stopping them.

Only when they figured out to use the MSM, did they resume visits w/Terri.

It was the ONLY leverage they could use against Michael.