Posted on 03/27/2005 6:31:02 AM PST by gesully
If you want to put it that way....fine. Like I said both sides have ginned up there side a bit dont you think? I am relying on the same sources you are and I have found a bit of BS on both sides, that is all I am saying. If you want to make more of it, so be it. I have been called and accused of worse regarding this case. Go for it.
Thanks for the link.
I bookmarked it for later read.
Do you have those eyes opened? ;-)
What has he done to make him like Peterson? Oh, the accusation that he tried to murder her? Spare me the documentation or lack therof I have read it all.
Sure do and you? Look so far this thread has been very dignified lets keep it that way. I am not accusing you of being otherwise, you have been very kind, I just hope this does not disinigrate into name calling like the other threads. :-)
his philandering, having children out of wedlock, lack of therapy. these are not hearsay -like insulin etc
does this sound like a devoted husband.
also if he deserved to sue doctors for not diagnosing her alleged bulimia- isn't he at least partially at fault?
So what? I may not approve, but that does not make him a murderer. Insulin? That is nothing but rumor and innuendo. Lack of therapy? From what I have read in the record, not only did he aggresively persue therapy, but according to her care givers, he was annoyingly so. As far as the bulimia, she and she alone is responsible for it. If he is to blame for anything it is the fact that once her parents went public, he should have fought harder in the PR war.
No need for paranoia. Did you not see my winking face symbol at the end of my remark?
Lighten up, it's Easter.
i did not call him a murderer. but his actions make him quite suspect in determining what TS would have wanted.
i mentioned insulin to distinguish objective fact from hearsay
Believe me Sea, I am not being paranoid, but anyway yes, I did back at ya. Say, your name, is that referring to Bobby Darin? Just askin.
I don't see any grey....Michael et al wants her dead, her family wants her to live.
I choose life.
Oddly enough so do I. Life, I am afraid is always gray in most situations and I see this as one of those times. They dont want her dead, If this was a case that she would someday jump up and say hello, This would not be happening. But, sadly this is not going to happen.
Simpler than that: Michael, Felos, and King George all know that if Michael loses guardianship, a new guardian would be required to audit records that show a clear and unmistakble conspiracy to murder a concious and aware woman.
Prior to the "malpractice" trial, Michael wanted to appear for the jury to be a devoted husband. As soon as he won the malpractice judgement, Michael ceased to be a devoted husband.
Do you have any evidence that the benificent behaviors you are attributing to Michael in fact continued after 1993?
What are you talking about? You and others here are the ones taking accusations and other vile things as face value. There is no, zero evidence that this man has done anything wrong. I have read enough regarding this case to stand by my claim.
Her parents love her just as she is. Just as I would still love my children if, God forbid, they became brain damaged. Her parents have NEVER said they expect her to be perfect.
I would never starve a loved one to death....including a dog or cat.
Felos was a board member of that hospice shortly before Terri entered it, before he 'stepped down'. Usually people own part of something they become a board member of. It would be safe to say, and someone could check this out, if he does own part of the hospice, then what part of that $5,000 does he get? Multiply that for every bed they fill in that hospice. I'd be willing to bet that we got a good old conflict of interest going on here.
Why do you suppose Michael refuses to have Terri examined using any of the recognized current methods of diagnosis?
A PVS diagnosis by a doctor who is predisposed to give one is worthless. There are protocols by which a doctor who is predisposed to find a patient cognitive may be able to prove absolutely that the patient is cognitive if they are, but would be unable to tender such proof if the patient was in fact PVS [i.e. the test would filter the subject's actions from the doctor's wishful thinking]. Why has Greer insisted on a "majority rules" method of diagnosis rather than using some honest protocol to ascertain whether the findings of the non-PVS doctors were truthful?
If five cops conduct a drug raid, and two of them find drugs and three don't, does the fact that more cops didn't find drugs than did mean there were no drugs present?
You're flat wrong. There's sworn affidavits by attending nurses -- that's direct eyewitness testimony; there's circumstantial evidence, i.e., the testimony that he was angry with Terri, the appearance of bruises, coupled with the fact that he had the opportunity the night the accident occurred.
You may not be convinced by that evidence, but you're wrong not to acknowledge that it IS evidence.
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.