You're saying because he initially spent time trying to cure her he's incapable of abuse. I'm saying there's a legal investigation to charges of abuse. But you want to dismiss all 89 charges without even knowing what they are because he took her to California in the early 90's. Can't you accept the fact that if charges are made there's a possibility he's guilty? Even if it's a small possibility, it's still there. Like Dana says, it's very hard to tell who's an abuser but if someone has charges against him or her, let's have a look. Still innocent until proven guilty, but you seem to be saying there's no way he could be an abuser. And again it's not my charge it's the DCF.
But we've covered this many times already. On 4/14/05, Gruss Gott wrote: > > Sam wrote: > > Because the Judge won't allow the info to be released to the public. > > Why are we still talking about this? > > > > Because I'm trying to figure out the grounds for Dana's abuse charges > against Mr. Schiavo. I contend that there is not enough evidence > against him to make the charge and no profile to say he fits. > > Judging by your posts you seem to think Mr. Schiavo does merit the > charge of spousal abuse and I've just said your evidence, as > presented, is so thin as to be irrelevant; which makes your charge of > abuse irresponsible. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154110 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
