I agree. In cases where there is conflict, I believe the judge should hear all the testimony, review all the evidence, then make a decision only if he has "clear and convincing" evidence as required by Florida law. And that's exactly what Judge Greer did.
May I present you with a few facts that it looks like you're missing? Michael's sworn testimony (that Terri expressed a verbal desire not to live like that) in front of Judge Greer was only one of three. His brother, Scott, and Terri's best friend, Joan, also testified under oath in front of Judge Greer to the same desire by Terri. It was not just "Michael's opinion".
Second, Terri's mother (her blood family) also testified at the same hearing. Under cross examination, she admitted that she was incorrect as to when Terri made her statement, and that she was probably 11 years old when she made it.
Third, as with Terri's mother, another of Terri's friends testified. Her testimony, also, was discredited in that Terri had to have been much younger when making that statement.
At this January, 2000 hearing, this life and death hearing (literally), these five were the only people who testified. Where, I ask, were the others? 18 months later they were on Larry King and Good Morning America and in USA Today ... Where were these friends and caregivers when it counted?
IMO, it's one thing to tell Larry King. It's another to face a judge, under oath, subject to cross examination, under penalty of perjury, and tell him the same thing.
You know what? I don't know the answers to your questions. Frankly, I don't know who to believe on both sides. From what I've heard, they were all in collusion together when they were trying to get a malpractice settlement for money to take care of Terri. I sort of gather that all of them were guilty of making untrue remarks because in their minds, it was for Terri.
Later, after the money was awarded, things seemed to deteriorate between the two sides. My point is that none of that matters. You say she died back years ago, that her brain did. I must disagree with you. I've seen & heard enough from Terri herself to personally disagree with that statement. She responds to people, maybe on the same level my cat or dog responds to me, I don't know, only God knows what went on during the conversations in Terri's mind all this time.
You seem to have standards for life that I don't. Are you saying if a person can't feed or take care of themselves, they are not alive? That doesn't make sense to me.
I don't know about these Larry King guests but it is my understanding that Greer refused to admit most evidence or accept affidavits of those contradicting MS's testimony. An attorney for the Schindlers who was involved early on was complaining about Greer's knee jerk rejection of any such testimony or videos that would dispute MS's statement about Terri's wishes OR dispute the finding of PVS.
While what you say is technically correct, you left out the part where Greer recently admitted his finding that Terri was 11 at the time she made the statement was incorrect. Did you omit that on purpose?
Starving/dehydrating someone was NOT an option when Terri was injured. Why should it apply retroactively?
She could NOT have expressed a desire to be killed in such a way.