Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CHARLITE
"on the basis of a quick, superficial remark I might have made when I was 22."

She made five (5) similar remarks to three people on five different occasions. All three testified under oath, in a court of law, under penalty of perjury, and subject to cross examination, to that effect.

25 posted on 06/19/2005 10:30:04 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: robertpaulsen
But they can't speak to her state of mind 22 years after the fact. People can and do change their minds and the rebuttable presumption should ALWAYS be to err in favor of life.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
28 posted on 06/19/2005 10:32:53 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
She made five (5) similar remarks to three people on five different occasions.

Don't you have a teensy bit of curiosity why all three testifiers had the last name "Schiavo"?

30 posted on 06/19/2005 10:48:03 PM PDT by syriacus (1st Michael couldn't stand to live without Terri. Then he couldn't stand to live with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen
"She made five (5) similar remarks to three people on five different occasions:

All were Schiavo's who "suddenly" remembered these remarks seven years AFTER Terri's mysterious collapse and AFTER her husband got the money. All those suddenly remembered remarks were casual, passing comments which were NOT uttered after serious reflection and consideration.

Two other people, one who had NO conflict of interest, testified to casual remarks Terri made which stated the exact OPPOSITE position. You NEVER mention them. Quite disingenuous of you.

51 posted on 06/19/2005 11:27:15 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Off the cuff comments are NOT CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: robertpaulsen

She made five (5) similar remarks to three people on five different occasions. All three testified under oath, in a court of law, under penalty of perjury, and subject to cross examination, to that effect.

___Basically unconfirmable testimony. The judge simply decided to accept those views. He could have easily ruled another way.

I regard this as a test case for
true conservative values. Anyone who supports the Michael Schiavo position is a not a conservative, in my opinion, because when there is doubt, such a decision should be resolved in favor of life.


57 posted on 06/19/2005 11:50:03 PM PDT by Bushbacker (f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson