JimH wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-


One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially

since

he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was
there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all
responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations
be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there
by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order*
one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body
alone
whether I'd done anything or not.


Nope. Michael says no. Circuit Judge George Greer says no.

I wonder why? What is the harm?



What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same
question
still apply?


Nope, especially if not signs of physical abuse were observed on her body.



There were x rays in 91, and bruises and minimal bone damage was
attributed to the fall and the efforts of the EMTs

Been there -- done that.