Greer's orders and the opinions of the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals are a good window. I've been able to sort through the various contentions here on FR regarding testimony that was excluded (e.g., Terri's friend's testimony that Micahals said "How the hell would I know what she would want? We never talked about that") or found not-believeable (e.g., Terri's mom relating a conversation that she and Terri had when Terri was 18, but the court concluded Terri was 11, so mom's testimony was not believable). Those points also appear in the court records. The extraneous information (e.g., the timing of Michael's recollection, withholding of therapy, and so on) is not really in dispute, even though it isn't part of the testimonial record.
All in all, it's an easy call for me, that Greer blew the finding of fact. Terri would not want to die as long as she was comfortable; and she would likely prefer staying alive in discomfort if her life brought love and joy to her siblings and parents.
But, the law is the law, and it reached the opposite conclusion. Once a finding of fact is reached in a civil matter, the burden of proof shifts to the losing party. Not a big deal when all that hangs in the balance is money, e.g., contested will. A bigger deal when the issue is custody, e.g., who gets to keep the kids. ANd an irreversible deal when life hangs in the balance.
From the discussion in the appellate record about Terri's wishes, it's far less clear to me that it was established by clear and convincing testimony despite those rulings.
My best guess on that matter is that Terri had no clear intentions in that regard. Few women in their 20s do, at least until this case made the news. I didn't even address the issue until I reached my 40s and was facing major surgery.
I think Schiavo and Greer winged it on a couple of conversations that might not even have occurred and found clear and convincing evidence. There's something obviously wrong with that.