I doubt that a few facts will slow you up, but try the following: (i) no one restricted the evidence presented by the parents in the trial, yet (ii) the parents presented only two (2) witnesses: the mother and Diane Meyers. The mother testified that Terri's comments to her occurred when Terri was 11 or 12 years old. Diane placed the same statements much later (but the judge felt they were most consistent with the circumstances of the mid-70's -- the same time frame as the mother's testimony).
Of course, the other side had three separate statements at separate times from Terri to Michael, to Scott and to Joan; all as an adult. But it was just like that terrible, awful Judge Greer to give more weight to an adult's thoughts than to her comments when she was a pre-teen. Why that sounds like "pre-teen-ism" -- discrimination against the serious opinions of pre-teens.
So, I suppose the most piercing question is: If there was all this "good evidence" out there, why didn't the parents' lawyers present it? Wait a minute. They must have been in league with that terrible, awful Michael. That's it. Sure. Boy, why didn't I think of that sooner? Those parents' lawyers, they're just part of the 'culture of death?' Yup, that's it.
OK, forge on with your frothy diatribe.
All you are doing is quoting Judge Greer's 'facts' to me from the subset of court records that he accepted. I KNOW all that cr@p. His reasons and rationale were sick, and I don't need to hear them again from you.
Greer was wrong. A life should not have been snuffed out based on the opinionated 51%-of-the-evidence (after his filtering), judgement of fact by a single man.
Serial Killers get a much better deal with a unanymous jury of 12, and proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Do you know how Judge Greer arrived at that decision concerning that time frame concerning Diane? Based on what?