Exactly my point. Michael Schiavo presented less than credible evidence, contradicted himself repeatedly, and Greer regularly ignored better evidence from the Schindler's side in favor of Schiavo. This is so well documented here on FR it's not worth rehashing.
Schiavo didn't have any more of a case than this woman had. So to be consistent, Judge Greer should have decided against him.
Well, you may think it 'documented' on FR, but isn't it strange that the parents' lawyer didn't 'document' it during the trial? Why do you think that is? Were they controlled by the 'end-of-life' lobby in FL too?
You see the problem is that the only evidence Judge Greer had was that put on by the respective lawyers in court as to Terri's desires. On that score, he had three (3) separate conversations which Terri had with (i) Michael, her husband, (ii) Scott, her brother-in-law and (iii) Joan, her sister-in-law in which she indicated that she didn't want to be maintained artificially. Then the parents' lawyers put on the mother who recited a contrary conversation which the mother said she had with Terri at age 11 or 12.
Now you contend that Michael's lawyers presented "less than credible evidence" [than the parents did], but how is that so? Three conversations as an adult on one side versus one conversation as a pre-teen girl. If the content of those conversations were reversed, wouldn't it be obvious that it would be a miscarriage of justice to accept the conversation of the pre-teen girl against the three separate adult conversations?
The fact is the only reason you contend the evidence accepted by the Court was less credible is because you don't like the outcome. Too bad, Judge Greer is a Christian and a Republican and not one of those result-oriented liberal judges you seem to like so much. Then he could have looked for the 'desired' outcome and picked the parents' highly suspect testimony.