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?
What situation? Your pissiness at being busted? You said that Michael Schiavo is a low-life for killing his wife. Unless he murdered her, this makes no sense. Weaselly word games don't change that.
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.
A burden satisfied by their testimony.
Their statement alone does not adequately carry the burden, because they are interested parties.
Your only evidence that Michael was an interested party is that he filed the motion which was his duty as her husband. Your only evidence that Scott and Joan were interested parties is that they are related to Michael. Unless you claim they had something to gain through her death, they are not interested parties in the sense in which you are using the term.
...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)?
Yes, they are irrelevant. His order was upheld.