Well, there is hearsay/declarative evidence that she "changed her mind" (wanted to live) after. Had Michael allowed Terri to be examined by truly impartial doctors and made unedited videotapes available to all for impartial observation, perhaps she could have been asked what she wanted. I know you claim she was braindead yadda yadda yadda, but that claim is hardly beyond dispute. The CT scans show significant but not total cortical damage, and clinical observations were inconsistent with the legal definition of PVS.
Of course, in today's legal climate it's possible for a patient to clearly and unambiguously state a desire to receive food and water and have it denied on the basis that they're supposedly not competant to overturn their earlier "living will".
OK, two questions. (i) What is that 'hearsay/declarative' evidence? (BTW, stop playing lawyer and pretending that hearsay is some lesser type of evidence. Either it is properly admitted as evidence or it isn't.) (ii) Why didn't the parents' lawyers put this 'evidence' in at the 2000 trial? Some conspiratorial act on their part too?