Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen

"Why not add the truth, "but a verbal directive". "

There was NO 'clear and convincing" evidence of an oral directive -- the best even Mike S, his borther and wife could come up with is some offhand comment Terri made, according to them, the when watching TV and after their 84 year old Mother died, she MAY have said "I wouldn't want to live like that" AND a lot of other testimony from Terri's close friends, who testified to the opposite, that Terri treasured life, any life. And MS only remembered that "Terri wouldn't want to live like that", 7 years after Terri's collapse, AFTER he collected the $2M malpractice award, half of which was given to take care of Terri for the next 50 years, her presumed life expectancy at the time.

Would you like to be put to death on flimsy, contradictory, hearsay evidence like this? If they executed criminals based on such evidence the country would revolt, but it's OK to kill a defenseless woman on this much "evidence"?


618 posted on 04/02/2005 9:36:05 AM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies ]


To: FairOpinion
"There was NO 'clear and convincing" evidence of an oral directive"

The judge heard the evidence and concluded there was.

How can you say that? Or is that merely your opinion?

623 posted on 04/02/2005 9:47:32 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson