Your own source in The DAILY HOWLER is a hostile editorial (blog), and the writer is far from expert in the case. TDH warned you, right in the masthead: "Caveat lector." That means, "Let the reader beware." You don't do fact checking in a partisan broadside.
For instance, it says, "What are the two Americas? If you read the Washington Post, you read about a woman who had a heart attack and suffered brain damage in the process..."
This writer and the Washington Post are 100% wrong on that -- a point that could easily have been checked. That in turn gives them a false -- indeed untenable -- view of what happened to Terri in the first place. Terri never suffered a heart attack -- which was known at the ER in 1990. It was, of course, confirmed in the autopsy fifteen years later. Her heart was still fine. Hammesfahr got it right.
Look at the two lines you underscore. The first says, "She never pulls it off [responds] again, or anything remotely like it." The second admits that, yes, she did pull it off again. Judge Greer says he saw at least a "few actions that could be considered responsive..." The two statements you underscored actually contradict each other. Perforce, one of them is wrong.
And look again at the second line you emphasized: "The court saw few actions that could be considered responsive to either those commands or those questions."
"Few"? How many is that, from this person who meticulously "counts"? How many responsive actions did a medically untrained, blind, biased judge see? The fact that he admits to any is remarkable. It is what lawyers call "an admission against interest." Here again, from Greer himself, we hear that Terri did indeed respond to sound. He played the responses down, in keeping with his own persistent bias, but he couldn't deny them.
>> Terri was deaf. Terri was blind. She could no more comprehend what she was hearing than she could follow a balloon with her eyes.
-- Greer admitted she wasn't deaf, and this conforms to heaps of medical records, anecdotal evidence and sworn testimony. You said earlier that Cranford said she was deaf. I don't recall that he did and find it puzzling. Let's check the facts.
-- Her supposed blindness is an open question. It need not be controversial. Hammesfahr and, if I recall, Baden found her to be severely sight-impaired but not blind. The M.E. asserted she was cortically (not optically) blind, which is an untestable opinion. If he was right, the difference can still be explained by extra cortical damage by dehydration. If he was wrong, she wasn't blind.
-- What she could comprehend, you most assuredly do not know, nor does anyone else. Science has no tool to determine that.
>> You are either ignorant of the facts of this case or you believe I am. Either way, you're making a mistake.
I was misinformed on one point, admitted it, and thanked you for the correction. We all make mistakes, and those of who seek the truth must be grateful to those who call errors to our attention. I call attention to your mistakes in the same spirit.
Two things. One, where's your source(s)? You have yet to provide anything but your biased and incorrect opinion. Perhaps if you provided a source rather than repeating the gossip you hear you wouldn't make these simple "mistakes" to begin with.
Two, is the information contained in this "hostile" editorial incorrect? If so, address it. If not ... well, you know what to do.
"Here again, from Greer himself, we hear that Terri did indeed respond to sound."
He does not! He says he saw "a few actions that could be considered responsive...". A few actions that could be considered responsive. He didn't consider them to be.
177 commands and questions, and there were "a few" actions. That's your proof that she could hear. Get serious.
"Her supposed blindness is an open question."
God, you're funny. Terri's blindness is an open question, but Judge Greer's "blindness" is a fact. I'm done with you. This is like arguing with a child. You have no facts whatsoever -- all you have is rumor, gossip, innuendo, lies, distortions, and character assassinations.
And you don't care! You just vomit these accusations without thinking. It's natural to you.
Get some facts. Comment on your own links for a change. Until then, you add nothing.
Here is where I think she went blind Twit.
"Here now was a person, who for thirteen days had no food or water. She was, as you would expect, very drawn in her appearance as opposed to when I had seen her before. Her eyes were open but they were going from one side to the next, constantly oscillating back and forth, back and forth." - Fr. Frank Pavone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640705/posts?page=16#16