I think a better idea would be to get a good investigative journalist and pair him up with a filmmaker to create a documentary. We need people to do a "Michael Moore" type production, except use integrity and carefully present facts from this case so that people can know the TRUTH.
Terri's right to life is being denied based upon LIES. Unfortunately, those who have made the lies may have covered their tracks so well, that our "law" will never expose them for what they are. But at the very least, we can expose the underlying agendas of people like Felos and all the ironies involved here. Make people realize that a real miscarriage of justice has taken place, and then maybe they will start to realize how, as a society, we let it happen!
The bottom line, I think, is that if the case of Terri Schindler had been presented to a jury rather than a judge, she would be being fed right now. There is a reason why in America, we have trial by jury for serious capital offenses rather than trial by judge. ONE MAN should not have the right to decide the fate of someone's life. Juries have more moral clarity in interpreting evidence and the law since they look beyond their understanding of precedent and semantics, and instead look at each case afresh, unbiased by the mindsets produced from law schools and Ivy League education.
In fact, only a judge/lawyer would appreciate the semantical difference between "deciding whether someone should live or die" and "deciding whether someone intended to live or die to decide whether someone should live or die". Judges are not allowed in this society to kill me because they think I'm guilty. They are HOWEVER, allowed to kill me because they think I want to die.
The semantical difference breaks down when you realize that in both cases, a judge is making a subjective determination that effects whether someone will live or die. Judges should NEVER be allowed to make those decisions by themselves...the fact that this case had been in court so many times is mute when you consider that every decision had been made by a judge.
Suppose on the otherhand that you had a lone judge deciding whether someone should be put to death for committing a murder. It would not matter if the case was appealed a hundred times without success! I think the majority of this society would consider justice to be unserved because the process used is wrong. People need to see that the same situation is occurring here!!!
Otherwise, why do we have juries and the notion of "without a doubt" in the first place?
You have a lot of good logic here. To all ... please post your ideas of scenes and post pictures that could be used or links to evidents to support this case.
I like your idea of a jury, but I think from the Bible and based on the Great Throne era Revelation 20:11-15 I think the jury would have to be the twenty and four elders.
Witnesses must testify by the old testament standard of Deuteronomy 17:1-7.
Please... anyone can add to this thread ideas on how to do this. But let's stay with The King James Version (Authorized) of thew Bible.
I think a good way to open would be a scene showing Terri's grave and a voice whispering "How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?" .
But I really do want them to end with the righteous walking over the ashes of the destroyed guilty.