Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: keats5
No, it doesn't make him a criminal. But it sure zaps his credibility as the sole witness to have heard him wife state she wanted to die in this type of situation.

He's not the sole witness to her statements. In the timeline on the Terri Schiavo page at Abstract Appeal, there are links to the actual court documents for each of the trials. The first one is the judge's order after the trial in January of 2000. Five people testified about statements Terri had made regarding maintaining life support. Mrs. Schindler and another witness testified that Terri commented about the Karen Ann Quinlan case that the father shouldn't remove life support from Karen. The court found inconsistencies with both witnesses. Michael Schiavo, his brother, and his sister-in-law testified about statements Terri had made about independence, quality of life, not to be a burden, hooked to a machine, etc. The court found no inconsistencies with the testimony of these witnesses. The court discounted the Karen Ann Quinlan statements, since Terri made them at the age of 11 or 12 and they were statements about what she would do for someone else rather than about herself in the same situation. The other statements were made when she was an adult. When her grandmother was in intensive care, she said that "if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that." While she and Michael watched a TV show about people on life support, she again said she would not want to live like that. At her grandmother's funeral, she said to Michael's brother Scott, "If I ever go like that just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine." And while watching a TV movie about a man in a coma, she said to Scott's wife Joan that she wanted it stated in her will that "she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her." That court document is here, and I find the Schiavo statements to be much more credible than the Schindler statements. How about you?

72 posted on 03/23/2005 2:31:53 PM PST by Tarantulas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: Tarantulas
I'm sorry. I just don't find Michael, his brother and his sister-in-law's statements to be credible, because I simply think Michael had reason to lie. And many brothers and their wives would also lie for a family member. His lies might have fit the legal test more exactly, but were they true? When judging the credibility of a witness, you don't just look at the witnesses' statements. You have to look at the witness himself, especially his propensity or his motivation to lie. That's one reason why issues of facts (vs law) are not "rejudged" on appeal. The witnesses aren't present, so you can't tell how they appear when speaking.
125 posted on 03/23/2005 3:42:33 PM PST by keats5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson