Posted on 03/20/2005 12:29:52 PM PST by kcvl
Per Fox News...
Well, of course his testimony is an issue, in general. The object of my recent posting was to illuminate the fact that the veracity of Michael's testimony was not before SCOTUS.
From my point of view, this case is not about Michael. It is about Terri, and the line the law draws for sufficiency of evidence when the patient is unable to communicate in combination with the line regarding "assistance" for keeping alive. Most people consider food, clothing and shelter as given. Obviously the law in Florida is that food is not a given.
To hell with science, we took a VOTE.
Who cares how she lived?
BINGO! She didn't like the fact that she may have been overweight, so she made the choice of going on a steady diet of 10-15 glasses of iced tea a day.
I'd have to see what was submitted to the USSC... but Greer seemed to think that his sworn testimony was credible. I'm not going to call the guy a liar without sufficient evidence to support it.
I think this whole situation just stinks and think the tubes should remain. But if a court decides otherwise, I may not like it but I have to abide by it.
The most you post, the more positive I am that you know nothing of the law.
The jury is the FINDER OF FACT; and they found from the preponderance of evidence that she WAS bullimic.
BTW, the OJ analogy is a low point in your posts.
"BINGO! She didn't like the fact that she may have been overweight, so she made the choice of going on a steady diet of 10-15 glasses of iced tea a day."
THAT is NOT accurate either -- more disinformation. In some medical record it said that she did that and lost a lot of weight, SEVERAL YEARS PRIOR to "the incident".
I must have missed this. She must have had very serious views on euthanasia, telling everyone under the sun that she wanted to die ASAP. For someone who never wrote anything down, that is.
I beg to disagree with you! Recovered “Vegetative State” Patient Kate Adamson Speaks Before Schiavo Rally
I confess to not having the question of law in front of me, but it is a general principle of law that appelate venues do not question findings of fact by lower courts.
You must know that in situations like that the husband would be the guardian, don't you? Or you trying to make something sinister out of that, too?
You believe a man who started dating a year after her accident, yet claimed he would never forsake his marriage vows in court testimony?
I can't prove he was lying. But, you can't prove he was telling the truth.
And his behavior is evidence of a BAD character and puts into doubt his testimony.
Can't you see that?
Okay. What's your point?
Yeah, we also have two of Michael's relatives who could have gained from Michael's financial upturn.
I'm not either. I just say he's in a circumstance that his testimony cannot be held up on its own.
But if a court decides otherwise, I may not like it but I have to abide by it.
Judges/lawyers are idiots (no 'fense, Tormeister!) otherwise they would have passed math and not had to settle for the law.
I don't have to prove he was telling the truth. A court believed him.
Peach said Michael left another career and went into nursing to help Terri. I asked what was his former career was as I couldn't remember what it was.
Ya think so? Then you haven't been reading many of my posts.
All I am saying is that OJ's jury found him innocent. Kind of like the case of the old lady who was awarded a million bucks from a jury that found McDonalds liable for serving coffee that was hot.
I might not be a lawyer but I do have common sense.
Bottom line for me is that regardless of which 'side' I believe is telling more of the truth than not, I don't want to see a human being starved to death. Long and painful, something we cannot legally do to animals. And this woman never said she wanted to be starved to death.
You sure don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.