[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Harris-Lewis's at it again
I have had or had symapthy for her in the past (although it always struck
me that she seemed to have no life or identity of her own beyond Reggie),
but she has clearly crossed the line. These Worchester firefighters lost
their lives saving lives and he lost his shooting baskets after being
warned that he had a serious heart condition. How can she compare the two?
It's insulting. She received almost $10million when Reggie died. These
firefighter's families are probably worrying about mortgage payments, car
payments, insurance payments, forget their children's future educational
pursuits. This woman is living in a bubble and I pray she doesn't burst
when it does (for the sake of her children). She needs to accept reality.
She will be there every day in court, YET, she homeschools her children.
How does that help her children? How does this help her husband's memory?
This is a woman who praised Dr. Mudge for his care of Reggie EVEN after
Reggie died. What a hypocrite.
Even if the jury finds the doctor negligent, which they could, I hope they
have the good sense to award her $1 and NOT make this about money.
Theresa
>Golddigger and accomplice in her husband's death Donna Harris-Lewis is at
>it again.
>Unbelievable...
>
> What was Harris-Lewis thinking?
> by Steve Buckley
>
> Tuesday, March 28, 2000
>
> You want to believe that Donna Harris-Lewis was
>misquoted, or, at the very least,
> taken out of context.
>
> Hey, it happens. People say things. The words somehow
>get mixed up, and they
> come out all wrong. But you can spend the entire day
>re-reading the closing
> paragraph in Gretchen Voss' article in the April issue
>of Boston magazine, and
> it's impossible not to wonder: What on earth was Donna
>Harris-Lewis thinking?
>
> Harris-Lewis, we all know by now, is getting warmed up
>for the second
> malpractice trial in the death of her husband, former
>Celtics star Reggie Lewis.
> She recently gave an interview to Voss, who ended her
>Boston magazine article
> with the following quote:
>
> ``You know, I think about those firefighters in
>Worcester,'' Harris-Lewis is quoted
> as saying. ``Lots of money is being raised for those
>families, and I need to be
> taken care of, too. Everybody has to say I'm greedy. But
>I do want my money
> back this time around. Why should I lose?''
>
> She needs to be taken care of.
>
> She wants her money back this time around.
>
> Why should she lose.
>
> Yikes.
>
> This is a far cry from the woman whose purported
>mission, she keeps saying, is
> to clear her late husband's name and stop the spread of
>those rumors about
> cocaine use. Remember the night the Celtics retired
>Lewis' uniform number and
> Harris-Lewis read her little poem?
>
> ``Character is the one thing that never dies,
>
> Let's not believe these harmful lies.''
>
> And now she is comparing her plight with that of the
>families of six Worcester
> firefighters who died in the line of duty last December.
>Let's be clear on this: The
> only thing that Reggie Lewis' death has in common with
>the deaths of those six
> Worcester firefighters is that in both cases we are
>talking about children who
> suddenly, tragically, were left without a father.
>
> But the six Worcester firefighters died trying to bring
>down a warehouse fire. Two
> of them were looking for people who might have been
>trapped in the fire; the other
> four went in looking for their two missing comrades.
>
> That's how jakes make their living. Every day they go to
>work, it is with the
> knowledge that they may be called upon to enter a
>burning building and save
> lives. They understand, their families understand. It's
>all part of the job.
> Sometimes, the danger is clearly evident, as was the
>case that night in
> Worcester. The building was ablaze. Sometimes, death is
>entirely unexpected:
> On June 17, 1972, nine Boston firefighters were killed
>in the Hotel Vendome
> collapse. The fire was out; they were overhauling the
>building. The last body was
> removed from the rubble the following morning, Fathers
Day.
>
> Firefighters are not rich or glamorous. They do not
>perform their jobs in front of
> thousands of adoring fans. They do not get asked to sign
>autographs. They don't
> have agents. A goodly number of them have second jobs to
>help make ends
> meet.
>
> Firefighters are the last people you think of on a good
>day, but the first people
> you think of when you smell smoke.
>
> The six Worcester firefighters were not told by a
>``Dream Team'' of doctors that
> they had serious heart ailments and would have to stop
>doing their jobs. And
> they were not spirited away one night and taken to yet
>another doctor, who told
> them that they had nothing more than a ``benign fainting
>condition.''
>
> And the six Worcester firefighters were not quizzed by
>both sets of doctors about
> possible cocaine use.
>
> If Harris-Lewis' only point had been to raise the issue
>of young children losing
> their father, she might have been able to pull it off.
>But it is an awkward
> comparison at best, and those supporting comments - she
>wants her money this
> time around, she needs to be taken care of, etc. - make
>her sound every bit the
> ``money-hungry, gold-digging witch'' her critics have
>accused her of being.
>
> She has a right to sue. We do, after all, live in a
>litigious society. But there is a
> price to pay, and we're not just talking about legal
>fees. Once again, the lawyers
> at the other table will raise the issue of Reggie Lewis'
>alleged cocaine use, and,
> once again, the Harris-Lewis camp will be forced into
>damage control.
>
> Anyway, that's the way it was during the first trial.
>
> This time, it's even worse. Now, Donna Harris-Lewis
>wants her money, because,
> after all, didn't the families of those Worcester
>firefighters get their money?
>
> Out in Worcester, the families of those six fallen jakes
>are just trying to get on
> with their lives. Would that Donna Harris-Lewis could
>get on with her life.
>