Typically in a court of law hearsay statements are not admissable. Only three people aknowledged hearing this statement from Terri, Michael, who stood to profit from her death, his brother and sister-in-law.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo. I see yet another judge classifing a group of citizens as second class, based upon the flimisiest of evidence. It is important to take into consideration the representation each side could afford. Michael spent money intended for his wife's rehabilitation on legal counsel. Her parents weren't so dishonest and had significantly inferior representation.
Hearsay? How so? Third party testimony is hearsay, second party isn't.
I have read the court documents, just as I have read the court documents for Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, and Kelo.
These cases have nothing to do with this, try reading John F Memorial vs Bludworth (Fla 1984) and Guardianship of Estelle M. Browning (Fla 1990) for a clearer picture.
There were as many hearsay statements that contradicted what Michael was saying, and they had maintained that from the beginning, Michael changed his story when money became available.
This statement tells me that you did NOT read the court documents.
-Traveler