[Dave S]

Why should she not be given the benefit of the doubt?

How many courts have been involved in this already? Seems that she has been given benefit of the doubt and the family didnt prove the case.

[shhrubbery!]

Seems that she has been given benefit of the doubt and the family didnt prove the case.

The jury didn't think the case was proved against OJ, either.

You think all judges are infallible and incorruptible? Especially Florida judges?

If the judge here is wrong, the sentence is irreversible.

[agrace]

Their video hasn't been admissable. The judge refused to view most of it. He himself has NEVER gone one single time to see her. He fired a court appointed independent guardian who recommended that Terri receive therapy and who dared suggest that Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest. He allowed Michael to spend her medical trust on lawyers fees used to fight her family. He allowed hearsay to carry the same weight as a written document such as a living will.

And besides all that, why should the parents have to PROVE that Terri is alive? Shouldn't Michael Schiavo have to prove that she is brain dead?

How can you say she was given the benefit of the doubt if she has never been allowed therapy? What, in your opinion, constitutes being given the benefit of the doubt?