Wrong: the 3 people claiming this a re MS, his BROTHER, and his BROTHER's wife.
Her best friend said that Terri said the opposite. She said that when Terri was 19 they were watching something on TV about Karen Quinlin who was in a coma, and whose parent had pulled the plug on life support. She said Terri said that it was wrong to pull the plug, that while there was life there was hope. The judge said that this testimony could not be true since Karen Quinlin died in 1976 when Terri was only 12 years old. So Judge Greer said the testimony was not credible. Seems reasonable, right. Wrong, Karen Quinlin had her life support plug pulled in 1976, but did NOT die until 1985. Omnipotent Judge Greer was wrong.
And how about Michael's first girlfriend after Terri's misfortune, her RELUCANT testimony (she said she was scared of MS): Regarding Terri’s care, according to Cindy Shook, Michael Schiavo said: "How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this."
He also discounted the testimony of Terri's first Guardian Ad Litem who said in 1999 that Michael's claim of Terri's death wish was not in the least credible. Judge Greer seems to have a history of bad judgment on discerning the credibility of witnesses. Surely you recall that a woman came to him asking for a restraining order on her husband, She said he was out to kill her. The good judge denied the request. Good call, for the husband that is. The woman is now dead at the hands of the husband. So keep defending him. It's possible Terri would not want to live like this (If I believed that to be the case I would support her wishes). But I think any open-minded person would conclude that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether or not Terri had a death wish.
I've seen a number of Michael supports say that Jay Wolfson, Terri's most recent Guardian Ad Litem agrees with what is happening: In his report to the court he stated "To benefit Theresa, and in the overall interests of justice, good science, and public policy, there needs to be a fresh, clean-hands start."
Nah. The stale, dirty-hands version is just fine.
If the people coming forth since the January, 2000 ruling couldn't bother to take the time to testify back then, screw 'em. They had their chance.
Why isn't your first question to them, "Where were you when Terri needed you? Where were you when it could have made a difference?"
Haven't you ever wondered about that? Could there be a reason that they didn't want to testify under oath and be subject to cross examination? And perjury charges?