Here's another chance. Fill in the blank:
"Scott Schiavo is a low-life for killing his wife. I understand that there is the distinct possibility that he was merely acting in accordance with her wishes, but that does not change the fact that he is a low-life. He is still a low-life for killing his wife because ______________."
Learn to read. Three interested parties gave testimony supportive of their interests. None of the three offered any evidence to support their statements, other than their word.
Which is what you would expect, since normal people do not carry tape recorders around to tape their conversations.
Since I have repeatedly mentioned all three of the interested parties, you would I hope not make the childish error of thinking I had forgotten about them.
Yes, you have made your belief in a murder conspiracy clear.
Your notion of "corroboration" would be a defense attorney's dream; when his client is accused of rape, it would suffice for the accused to assert that the victim requested to be raped--as long as his testimony was corroborated by, say, his brother, or his best buddy (who also helped hold her down, say).
I wouldn't necessarily say that it would suffice, but if it is decided that the testimony is, say "reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence" then it most certainly would suffice.
Any reply other than an apology for your original lie only exacerbates the situation.
Yes, you have made your belief in a murder conspiracy clear.
You keep shifting the burden of proof. If the burden were on everyone else to prove that Ms. Schiavo wanted to live, then the only way to carry that burden would be to prove that Mr. Schiavo and his brother and sister were part of a conspiracy to muder Terri.
However, the burden of proof is on the people trying to prove that she really wanted to die. Their statement alone does not adequately carry the burden, because they are interested parties. Having failed to carry the burden, they (should) lose and she (should) live. This does not imply that they are or aren't conspirators to murder; only that they have not proven their case adequately.
In other words, you are lying again, despite having been set straight on exactly this point already.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it would suffice, but if it is decided that the testimony is, say "reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence"...
...and the credentials of the judge are irrelevant? For example, his opinion carries ultimate weight with you even after learning that he's a complete boob who has 2/3 of all his cases reversed on appeal, and who made substantive errors of fact in his findings (for example, blowing the date of decease of Karen Quindlen)? So if a rapist and his brother agree that they were "watching Battlestar Galactica on Sci-Fi at the time," and the judge, a known boob, fails to note that BSG didn't air that night, then you'll be satisfied? Even after another witness testifies that the rapist has repeatedly claimed never to have seen BSG? And after his cable company had settled a lawsuit in which the rapist sued because he couldn't receive the sci-fi channel?
Either you believe Mr. Schiavo, or you don't think it matters whether he was telling the truth. In one case, you'd be ignoring many causes of doubt; in the other, you'd be saying that Terri should be euthenized regardless of her wishes. So in all honesty--which is it?
It's MICHAEL SCHIAVO, NOT SCOTT SCHIAVO.
because: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.