Yep, although well, well I was going to mention Gibbs again, but people don't like me mentioning Gibbs, so I won't mention Gibbs. The whole thing is a tragedy. There really did need to be a new trial with the whole world watching. It would help clear the air, and also be educational. But it is not to be. No, I won't mention Gibbs again.
IS the purpose of the law "process" or is it justice. Why would not the appeals court justices push Gibbs in the right direction in the interest of justice?
It's interesting to read the polemic by Dr. Cranford,
http://pekinprattles.blogspot.com/2005/03/schiavo-dr-cranford-offers-reply.html
and this item on the same day. Clearly, Dr. Cheshire has spent a good bit of time in the library sorting out the recent literature, and sufficient time observing Terri objectively to form a firm clinical opinion on the ambiguity of the diagnosis in this case. In my learned opinion, he blows Cranford out of the water, on the very issue of ambiguity. Legally, I suppose, the certainty of the diagnosis of PVS is absolutely critical here. His reviews and observations post date Greer's hearings, and are current.
Mind that his report is not an exhaustive evidentiary treatise, but written as a recommendation to APS, by which he was commissioned. So from your point of view it may be lacking but is very powerful and sufficient to justify administrative action.