Governor to close Schiavo inquiry [State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.]

St Petersburg Times ^ | July 8, 2005 | DAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCHDAVID KARP and CHRIS TISCH

[summer]

LARGO - In what could be a final chapter in the legal saga of Terri Schiavo, Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe says he could find no evidence that Michael Schiavo caused his wife's collapse 15 years ago.

In a June 30 letter to Gov. Jeb Bush, McCabe suggested ending the state's inquiry into the case.

Bush responded Thursday in a two-sentence letter to McCabe: "Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed."

Bush asked McCabe last month to investigate Schiavo's collapse on the morning of Feb. 25, 1990. He cited questions left unanswered by an autopsy and inconsistent statements from Michael Schiavo about the time he found his wife on the floor of their apartment.

McCabe appointed two of his most seasoned prosecutors to review the evidence. They found nothing to indicate Michael Schiavo hurt his wife....

[summer]

I really wish there had been a different outcome to this matter, because no one knows what her wishes would have been at this point in time, since she left nothing in writing.

I have discussed with case with others, and they are people I do not necessarily agree with on most political matters. And here is what do we agree on in this case:

Michale S should have removed removed as her legal guardian. Neither Gov Bush nor anyone else could "cancel" Terri's marriage to her husband, despite the fact Terri's wishes were unknown, her parents were alive and wanted to care for her, and Michael S had started a new family with another woman.

In light of all this, we wish a new law could be created to enable the parents of an adult married child to file for divorce when that adult child spouse can not file for divorce.

There was nothing Gov Bush could do to cancel this marriage and remove Michael S from being her legal guardian, but I honestly think that a new law should allow parents to care for their adult children when the adult child spouse is unable to express their wishes.

To me, and others, such a new law would just be common sense, and prevent this kind of tragedy, pain and suffering from happening again in the future.

[summer]

I meant to type: Michale S should have been removed...

[Flux Capacitor]

----State attorney to Jeb: Michael S did not cause wife's collapse.----

Like hell.

-Dan

[annalex]

Everyone should realize that nothing of substance regarding the murder of Terri rested on the hypothesis that Michael caused her injury 15 years ago. He murdered her, with assistance of the legal profession, last March. How Terri had gotten in her state is just as irrelevant as what precisely that state was medically.

[livius]

It is irrelevant, to a certain extent, but I think it didn't hurt to remind people that there were lots of unexamined issues in this case. The courts essentially skipped over numerous conflicts of interest (partly because the Court itself seemed to have some conflicts) and took testimony that was tainted at the start. The outcome had been decided long before by Felos and his cronies, a number of them active in the St. Pete's law enforcement and judicial world.

[summer]

Re my post #1 - I would also add that the people who agree with me on what would have been a better outcome in this matter feel this way because they, too, are loving parents to their own children, and their sympathies rested with the parents in this case. Michael S, who is now a father, might want to think about this, too.

[summer]

And, it was simply not fair that only one spouse - Michael S - could file for divorce, while the other spouse, Terri S, in her condition, did not have the same legal right. What kind of contract is that when only one party can break it?

[krunkygirl]

No justice for Terri--bad news all the way around.

[summer]

That's right -- there was not even a CHANCE for justice for Terri S. But the next Terri S deserves a better chance, jsut as Terri S did. The medical world knows people wake up from comas and brain damage and all sorts of conditions after years of not being able to do so, and medical science can not explain why. If parents want to wait for a possible miracle for their child, that is their right, and should be their right, when no other directions have been specificed by that adult child in writing and no divorce can be obtained by that spouse under current law.

[annalex]

Regarding the proposed law, -- I agree that when one spouse abuses the marriage, for example, through adultery, grounds for divorce exist, and may be explored by other members of the immediate family on behalf of the incapacitated abused spouse. Certainly, Micheal's guardianship should have been declared null and void as soon as his adultery became known.

But I think you should make it clear that when no fault is found with the spouse, the marriage remains insolvable.

[combat_boots]

And Lyndon Baynes Johnson avoided a prison term because Chief Justice Earl Warren, John McCoy, Sr, and the rest of the members of the Warren Commission decided that that guy shot himself 12 times in the back of the head with a shotgun.

So help me law.

[annalex]

Let me add that since our present divorce law is completely bonkers, the chances of your proposal are unfortunately nil. Since the courts don't recognize fault in divorce any more, they will invalidate any law that hinges on spousal fault.

[summer]

But I think you should make it clear that when no fault is found with the spouse, the marriage remains insolvable.

No, I think the new law would have to say abuse is NOT a necessary factor; the conflicting wishes of the OTHER spouse verses the parents of the spouse (with no written directive existing) is all that should be required. Because, you see, it's not always an issue of past abuse. It's an issue of WHO SHOULD BE THE GUARDIAN RIGHT NOW - when ONE spouse can NOT seek a divorce. That's when a law should ALLOW parents to step in and BECOME the guardian, if the parents want to care for an adult child - but the other spouse wants to "move on" with their life and NOT care for that spouse.

Such a new law would NOT apply in cases where one spouse remains devoted to that other spouse and TO NO OTHER. There are couples who care for each other no matter what. But Michael S was not in that group, because no one knew for certain what Terri S wanted at this point. Terri S might have wanted to divorce her husband and have her parents care for her at this point in time, if she could have said so. That's why a new law should exist. But it should NOT require evidence of "abuse" -- it's unnecessary to prove that. One spouse can not speak nor seek the same right to divorce as the other spouise-- that's the basis for the law, to restore equal rights to both spouses in the marriage contract. Terri S did not have equal rights with her husband. She could not divorce him. That was the whole key to legal guardianship here.

[ARCADIA]

Never mind, it is just Jeb pulling our chain again.

[summer]

So help me law.

I hear ya. But, there's no doubt in my mind there will someday be another Terri S.

[summer]

Re your post #14 - ???

[bvw]

The thread's added eadline in brackets is a lie. The officals only found that they would be unable to determine whether Micheal did or did not act to cause his wife's injuries. They did NOT determine that he did not cause them. I have reported the headline as abuse.

[patriciaruth]

If I went into a coma, I would not want my parent to have the right to get me a divorce.

In my religion, only adultery is an accepted excuse for divorce, not murder.

It's till death do we part, even if my husband kills me.

[livius]

The whole thing was wrong and corrupt from the start. I think this is the point Jeb is trying to make. Of course, since the entire liberal press corps combined with the loony libertarians on the talk radio circuit are against him, I don't think he has much chance of getting the message out.

[annalex]

You misunderstood me. Adultery is aready abuse.

Again:

Marriage is not solvable absent fault. It is not solvable when one spouse is sick absent fault. It is not solvable when one spouse is so sick, s/he cannot communicate absent fault.

Faults are: adultery, abandonment, physical abuse.

When there is fault, the abused (in the broad sense of being victim of the above-enumerated fault) spouse can file for divorce. When s/he cannot file because of incapacity, a parent may do so.