Posted on 11/04/2005 3:24:09 AM PST by 8mmMauser
That makes me think, even more, that Mikey may have had extra keys made.
One of those visitors (or a friend of the visitor) could have let themselves into Terri's place that night. Maybe it was arranged for Michael to be at work when that person confronted Terri.
Michael may have been in shock, when he arrived home and he realized she was injured, yet alive. He would have needed extra time to think over his alibi.
I wonder if it is possible that Terri's "collapse" lasted 6 hours or more.
Michael may have been threatened by the fact that Terri was gaining confidence in her attractiveness. Maybe he was hoping to make her jealous of him, by subtly letting her know other women were willing to have affairs with him.
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a "Bill of No Rights".
ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
BUMP to #878
Bill of Lefts, or is the opposite of Right Left or Wrong?
I can think of executions more cruel than the Old Sparky, thinking of the kindnesses recently visited on Crip Tookie.
Would dehydrating be too cruel?
8mm
Cruel? It's painless and merciful. You just drift happily away. You look beautiful. You are at peace. We heard all of these assurances in glowing terms from Horse Felos and Horse Schiavo.
Actually, Schiavo handed out three extra apartment keys -- one to Ted Bundy, one to O.J. Simpson and one to a shadowy figure named "Tookie." Does this help your theory that Mikey didn't do it?
Not at all. It's euphoric!
That's the question I spoke to. Once, we all knew what "dead" meant. But in the 1960s, with organ transplants becoming possible, a committee at Harvard proposed that "brain death" (irreversible coma) was the same as "dead." The whole point of this new definition was to allow them to carve up people with still beating hearts -- people who were NOT dead by the older and universal understanding -- in order to harvest healthy organs. That, of course, stopped the beating heart.
It's a kind of cannibalism. The people who do it can rationalize the morality by saying, "OK, we kill a hopeless patient, but it is to help another patient, or several, who have a chance to recover." That sounds good enough if one believes "any means to an end" is moral. I disagree completely. The Commandment says "Thou shalt not kill," not "Hey, killing people is OK if you're doing it for a good cause and making a lot of money for the hospital."
Now, I have never personally seen the definition of brain dead used to include someone who still had brain wave function(A layman might say so, but a doctor knows the difference between someone being really brain dead, and someone just being in an irreversible coma)...an irreversible coma would not necessarily be the same thing as brain death...I have taken care of people in irreversible comas, or in vegetative states...no doctor would ever call them brain dead...
Usually to be declared 'brain dead', there must be complete cessation of brain wave function(even minimal brain wave function indicates life)...unless you are saying that people with minimal brain wave function are being used as organ donors, which would of course be wrong...
But people who really are brain dead, can be placed on a ventilator, and the ventilator will keep their heart beating...the ventilator does what the dead brain can no longer do...now, ventiltors serve a purpose for those who need assistance breathing...but if someone is actually brain dead, the ventilator does nothing more than keep a heart beating in a person who is actually 'dead'...
If someones brain is completely non-functioning,(no brain wave activity), then that person is dead...the ventilator used to keep their heart beating, will never ever cause them to become 'alive'...
Someone who is truly brain dead(absolutely no brain wave activity, ever), is dead...nothing anyone does will ever make them live again...someone who has minimal brain wave activity, is not dead and should not be called dead...
But once someone is brain dead, harvesting their organs will not make them any more dead...they were already dead...harvesting the organs of someone who still has brain function would be murder...harvesting the organs of someone who is really 'brain dead', would not be murder...
I, too, used to think that logic prevailed in the medical community. Your logic is sound. What is faulty is the belief that your logic is not routinely violated.
I guess they forgot to tell CONDI about TERRI.
Remember Terri told her girlfriend that she was going to go to bed and pretend to be asleep with HINO came home. Does that fit with your scenario?
We know otherwise. They took better care of the popcorn machine on fire than they did when Terri was on fire from lack of fluids.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/15/D8EGT8A80.html
Excerpt: "Howard Simon is executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida."
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/12/schiavo_truth_a.php
Thanks for the link to the great column, floriduh voter. I'm adding it to my bookmarks.
Michael would not want to be seen standing in the way of people trying to determine what really happened to Terri. Michael can't object to a little bit of investigation, if the investigators are trying to find out if his "beloved" Terri was harmed by other humans.
Michael and his cohorts insist he didn't do anything to Terri, so why not start there and ask if anyone might have harmed Terri?
I'm not saying Michael isn't involved. I'm saying that a few "outside of the box" questions might shake up the stalemate.
Nor would I, but this isn't investigation. It's making up stories without an ounce of evidence. This one -- the old "mystery intruder" story that we've all heard a dozen times from the likes of O.J. Simpson -- is painfully lame.
It's also preposterous on the face of it. We are to believe the Mystery Intruder took a healthy young woman out of bed without waking her husband, killed her silently out in the hall, and vanished before her husband -- awakened by the very sound of her fall -- rushed to her side?
Right. Try that one in court and hear the laughter.
You start your story from things Michael has said, but he's the suspect. He's not to be believed. He changed his account every time he testified about it. That is a liar at work.
I realize Michael is a liar.
Where's the harm in asking him questions from a new point of view and watching for his response?
He'll be making public appearances and reporters' questioning the"grieving" husband about his guilt will be considered tacky.
I admit that it would take a brave reporter to ask a "lame" question about the possibility of an intruder.
But, you'll have to admit, it sure is an "attention-getting" question.
Even if it gets mocked, the question gets noticed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.