Alex wrote:
"Galileo does not have sufficient delta-V capability (either propulsive or by gravity assist) to be put into a "stable" orbit. In fact, at distances where the gravitational affects of Jupiter and the Galileans would not be significant, then solar perturbations would dominate."

I write:
Here's a quote from your blessed report, "Another option is to take advantage of the gravitational interactions between Galileo and Jupiter and its large satellites to engineer a controlled ejection into a heliocentric orbit. The latter possibility, though intriguing from a technical perspective, might mandate a nuclear-material, launch-safety review of the type Galileo underwent prior to leaving Earth in 1989. The reason for this is the very small, but nonzero, chance of eventual impact with Earth." Now look carefully, here's the really good part, "The anticipated cost of such a review is so great—in excess of Galileo's current annual operations budget of some $7 million—that NASA has no option but to dispose of the spacecraft within the jovian system."

So the Galileo probe can be put into a heliocentric orbit (that's stable enough for me), but the bureaucratic "review" "might" cost over $7 million (Whoopee! they give more than that away at Publishers Clearing House) and so it's pencil pushers worrying over a non-event, not velocity, that's going to force Galileo into Jupiter.

Alex wrote:
"if you are not aware, spacecraft hardware and operational capability actually do cost money."

I write:
Which is why I propose saving the probe until some later date when it can be retrieved, because the money put into building the craft would be better spent.

Alex wrote:
"You're looking at more than just "decades."

I write:
So be it. The longer it takes the more valuable a time capsule it'll become.