In almost every case that gets to trial, you have people on one side telling one story and people on the other telling another story. It is not necessarily that some are lying, though they sometimes are, but rather that both sides actually believe the version of events they are telling - and it is the job of the court, whether the jury or the judge, to assess the credibility of the testimony. So, for example, when a doctor who gives testimony is exposed as touting bogus credentials (like a "Nobel Prize nomination"), it gives the court a basis for questioning the credibility of the witness. Also, anyone whose ever heard testimony knows that you just can't know if a witness is credible until you hear them on cross. No one on this thread has heard the nurses on cross. No one here has heard the Schindler's so-called experts on cross. No one here is in a position to credibly substitute their judgment on who is telling the truth for the judgment of the court.
I do know that Terri's own lawyers, one of whom was appointed by Jeb, found no basis for the abuse allegations. Terri's own lawyers practically begged the Schindlers to present medical testimony more credible than what they relied upon (one even wondered why the most qualified doc they hired [Webber, I think?], whose affidavit was used to actually get a new hearing, did not provide testimony at the hearing).
We also know that the Schindlers conceded FOR YEARS in the court process that Terri was PVS. That didn't change until some of the more questionable characters in these events got involved.
You mostly talked about PVS in that post, which is irrelevant to the beef I expressed. I believe the court failed to correctly discern Terri's wishes to a standard of clear and convincing. I don't base that on innuendo, rumor or supposition. Oh, you also brought up a bunch of rumor and innuendo. I don't understand why, but hey, it's your keyboard.
That being said, my beef is also irrelevant, since the courts have the power to weigh the evidence and render judgement.