And do you consider the evidence in question to have been hearsay?
A valiant effort, but you are wasting your time trying to reason with these people.
The legal terminology is very specific as to how that evidence (which is most commonly referred to in laymen's terms as "hearsay") is dealt with. Some statements are admissible, and some are not. Judge Greer allowed inadmissible evidence, and blocked admissible evidence. Even if you overlook that, the inadmissible evidence that he allowed was not clear and convincing. When you weigh it against the admissible evidence that Greer wrongly blocked, it is revealed as most likely false. Even if you overlook that (we're doing an awful lot of overlooking here) and pretend the evidence shows she actually made those statements, the statements she is alleged to have made do not constitute a request to be euthanized, even through acts of omission. And if you continue to overlook the facts, and go on to pretend that she really made those statements, and they really meant something that no reasonable person could interpret them as meaning, and she really would have wanted to be euthanized if she was ever PVS (which goes against everything she stood for in her public and private life), she wasn't PVS.
I don't have time to completely rehash the whole case for you, but the fact remains, Terri was murdered in the legal and moral sense.