Did you read Mark Fuhrman’s book?
He wasn’t able to “prove” anything with any certainty.
At the end he described 2 or 3 different scenarios that seemed to be plausible explanations for the night Terri was injured.
The book was really good for understanding the personality and character of Michael.
Even the guys own mother confirmed she was worried he was going to do something hurtful.
Michael will never confess. Never never never.
But character rarely changes without hard work.
Eventually he is going to show everyone what he is like...and stalking this politician is one of those moments.
I cannot imagine what it is like to have him for a husband or a father.
Yes. I was not very impressed. Or perhaps I should say, I expected better from him. He was in too much of a hurry, did not even wait for the autopsy, did not do deep research. Perhaps he got bad advice from a publisher to be the first on the market with a book about the case. But that's cheap. You can't expect quality work. Diana Lynne's book is far better, imo.
>> Michael will never confess. Never never never.
I agree, he'd rather eat glass, but things happen. He did sin, and if ever he is moved to make peace with God, he has a confession to make. There are other circumstances that might pry a confession out of him a little less gently. One is for somebody else to cave in and start talking, and have Michael and others involved go down like dominoes. Another is, given his violent and manipulative nature, he commits another crime. After that, who knows what would come out?
These discussions keep the heat on the whole rat pack. Who knows what will break :-)
IMO, Michael flunks any kind of test for sociopathic personality. You can find all sorts of material or tests about it on the 'Net. With the reams of information that have come about his behavior for years, we have a lot to go on for such testing.
When I was reading a book about the Scott Peterson case, I pulled out a legal pad and started taking notes. If I found TWO references to a given sociopathic trait, I checked him positive for that trait. He scored 14 out of 17 on the scale I was using. Michael Schiavo scores a perfect 17 so he is actually higher on the sociopathic scale than convicted murderer Scott Peterson.
The following from Wikipedia (just because that's a quick and easy reference).
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental and behavioral disorders, defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
Can we pass Michael Schiavo on even one point? I don't think so. We do pass Scott Peterson on #3. He is a meticulous planner, not impulsive.