Advocating perjury?
The Judge has already advocated perjury by accepted only Michael Schaivo's contradictory hearsay testimony.
Testimony #1, during civil litigation to collect money: Michael said HE WANTS TO TAKE CARE OF TERRI FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. He's so clear and convincing, he gets $1.2 MILLION for his testimony.
Testimony #2, during guardian case: Michael says TERRI WOUDN'T WANT TO LIVE HOOKED UP TO TUBES (the same predicament she was already in during testimony #1).
Which one of MICHAEL SCHAIVO'S TESTIMONY IS PERJURY? # 1 or #2?
Why would it be perjury? Do you know she never said it? Maybe she saw a movie or TV show about someone lost in the desert, dying from thirst. Perhaps she said that she would hate to die that way. How horrible a death that would be!
Michael isn't the only one that had conversations with Terri. He's the only one that gains monetarily from her death, though.
Let's review:
Michael schiavo has said that Terri responded to a film about a disabled woman by saying she'd never want to live that way. His whole "pull the tube" case rests on this being a real conversation, and on said conversation meaning that she would prefer to be starved to death.
So...when someone says, "All we need is to have one of Terri's friends testify she said X while they were watching a movie," do you think they're advocating perjury or being sarcastic?