[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

R: Harris-Lewis's at it again




----- Original Message -----
From: Theresa Lee <tjoyce@mit.edu>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 6:48 PM
Subject: 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.
> >
> I'm an italian fan who completely follwed what happened after our Reggie's
sad death, but I have to completely agree with you. Hurts to see a woman not
able to protect and enhance the memories we have of his husband....
However, as a matter of fact, Reggie was a calm, poised and low profile
champion. Perhaps his wife isn't at his level, and we must accept it.
Fabio
anderle@tiscalinet.it