Thanks for the info. I did check out some of the Nobel Prize links. I'm still unclear about the official nomination process, though. No doubt, making such a misleading claim (if that was the intent) casts doubt on his personal credibility and could (justly or unjustly)impact his professional credence as well. Pretty poor vetting of a witness, at the very least.
I have read the court decisions and I did not agree with the decisions. Throughout, many critical points were omitted. For instance, Florida State Law guarantees a disabled adult the right to counsel. They did address the guardian ad litem issue and, although she had representation (at times by the court itself) for some of the proceedings, she did not have independent councel working on her behalf during some critical periods in the case.
Like I said, I'll check out some of the links on your page. Thanks.
I need to gather stuff about hammesfahr together. i'll ping or freepmail you when I have, if you'd like.
You can't appoint counsel to someone who is incapacitated and cannot consult. That's why they use GALs. I agree that she should have had one all along. What they did was appoint one at times when a decision needed to be made- like (p---) in the 93 or 4 guardianship challenge, in 98 (pearce) to do decide about what would become the 2000 trial (I think they appointed a replacement, but they've removed the links), and in 2003 to report to Bush (Wolfson).