Correct. If the judge thought they were lying, their testimony would not be "clear and compelling" evidence.
Obviously, the judge believed them.
"Plausible scenario: Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife."
I'm speechless.
"Maybe because the Schindler's legal help has been less than stellar?"
I remain speechless.
I had to re-check the post. I thought it was another poster making these unsupported, tin-foil conspiracy statements.
Even if a judge has reason to think they might be lying, their evidence is no longer 'clear and compelling'
"Plausible scenario: Michael offered them $100,000 each if they'd help him get rid of his wife."
I'm speechless.
You wouldn't consider such a thing as being plausible? Why not? Many people would be willing to lie under oath for $100,000, and had Michael been able to kill off Terri he would have netted about $500,000 so giving $100,000 each to his helpers would not seem unreasonable.
"Maybe because the Schindler's legal help has been less than stellar?"
I remain speechless.
Are you implying that their legal help wasn't less than stellar (to put it very mildly)?
I had to re-check the post. I thought it was another poster making these unsupported, tin-foil conspiracy statements.
I'm not claiming that the above scenarios are true--merely that they are plausible. The proper standard for putting someone to death, absent exigent circumstances, is that there is no plausible scenario in which such action would be unjustified.
I'm not suggesting you should believe that the Schiavos are lying, but there is a very clear and plausible motive for them to do so. Stating that the possibility exists hardly makes me a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.
Hi,
I believe we've butted heads once or twice on this topic already, but I'd like to make an observation regarding your stance vis-a-vis the Schindler-Schiavo duels. Your command of the proceedings of the case is fairly impressive, but it presupposes reasonableness on part of the court and, more specifically, judge Greer.
While there is a lot of wild accusations flying around, many (perhaps even most) of which don't pass the smell test, insisting that this case is cut-and-dried because of the conclusions of the judge is akin to insisting the Bush National Guard memos were true and accurate because CBS said they were. Some of the allegations being made impeach the competence of the judge. To cite his statements as proof of correctness, therefore, does not address the key component of the allegation.
For instance, I personally have a VERY hard time accepting Michael Schiavo's statements regarding Terri's wishes regarding "artificial life support". His brother's and sister-in-law's corroboration adds little believability, in my mind. The simple fact that Schiavo's testimony changed radically almost immediately after he won the large settlement for her "care" makes the 7 year delay in his memory suspect.
Further, there have been numerous allegations in the real world that Michael consistently refused to allow Terri to be treated with any form of medical care, including the therapy that the $800,000.00 was supposed to cover. This is incongruous with his stated intent (I am unsure if he 'swore' to it) to care for her 'for the rest of [his] life'.
In short, you are trying to use the conclusions of the judge to justify trusting the conclusions of the judge.
Just my $.02
I refuse to let you frame this discussion as one's "right to die". Terri's case is all about the "right to kill".
Husband's don't have the right to kill. Judges don't have the right to kill. And Hospice certainly does not have the right to kill.
How did they assume that right in this case and how do we stop them from ever doing it again? That's the arguement.