I'm pretty sure there are ways. Initial case assignments are usually made on some sort of rotation; someone who was in cooperation with the right bureaucrat could easily have their case put in proper 'sequence'.
Otherwise, though, I have to ask if there isn't something wrong with the fact that a plan like the above would have any reasonable chance of success at all. The observable facts of Terri's case are consistent with someone carrying out such a plan, and I would think everyone should be frightened if such a plan could be carried out successfully.
I don't think there's any doubt that Michael came to the conclusion about 10 years ago that he needed to terminate Terri's life. I imagine he'd admit it if he was asked.
He has systematically set out to do that and he's fairly close to accomplishing it.
The question I still have is whether it matters. I haven't seen any persuasive and compelling evidence that settles the question of whether Terri is still inside her body or not.
Yes, I've viewed all the videos, but I've also read the reports submitted to the court. I just don't know. To his credit, Michael hasn't offered videos of Terri NOT responding to stimuli, but he could. I have no doubt that my wife could shoot video which "proved" I was dead.
I believe that we should always err, if ever, on the side of life. The case hasn't been made to me, at least, that Terri should die. But without recent testing and evaluation, how can we know? If Terri isn't in there anymore, then all I have is a sense of sadness as her body dies.
Before we allow that, we need to know whether Terri, the person, is still in that body and aware of what's going on.