The "evidence" amounted to hearsay from her estranged husband who was shacking up with a woman by whom he had two out-of-wedlock children, and whom he had promised to marry as soon as Terri died.
To state the obvious, I need documentation to get a driver's license. I need documentation to send my son to summer camp. I need documentation to get on a flippin' airplane. But an estranged husband, years after the collapse of his wife, can "remember" that she really, really wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death?
After he'd told a malpractice jury, under oath, that he'd use the substantial financial settlement to pay for his wife's therapy?
Jess. Listen. As a friend, I tell you: don't continue to argue this. You're inadvertently illustrating the phrase, "invinciple ignorance."
Invincible.
But I will continue to argue this just as I will continue to argue with democrats. Stating that the courts "didn't really look at the evidence" and that the courts killed Terri because Michael wanted to "get rid of her" is kind of like the democrats saying that the downing street memo shows a deliberate attempt to manipulate intelligence. It's just not a very bright response. It doesn't show a careful examination of the facts.