You said witnesses, the way you said it, it sounded like you were implying multiple witnesses to the same statement. Three different people testified to three different instances, and for none of those instances were there more than one witness -- that was because they three of them couldn't keep their story straight about the same incident, so they figured this was more convincing.
The judge is supposed to try to find out the truth, not accept the words of witnesses who all have a conflict of interest. How come that those who knew Terri for many years testified to the opposite?
At the very least, there was a great deal of uncertainty.
And in that situation, why is the judge deciding to execute an innocent person?
How absurd.
This conflict of interest applies to Michael's brother because he's Michael's brother?
And it applies to Michael's sister-in-law becaise she's Michael's sister-in-law?
How moronic.