Posted on 03/20/2005 12:43:41 PM PST by supercat
It's very obvious.
Double sheesh
That is my interpretation. MS should not be so dumb when he has been saying for years that she told him she wanted to die in this context, to then just suddenly blurt out that the royal "we" did not know what she wanted. He was referring to the parents. That is my ruling. I banging down my gavel on it right now.
If he was then he would've used the word they.
He was referring to the parents, not himself.
Yes, that's what Schiavo is saying her family said in court.
Look, I'm not advocating one side or the other in the argument, but pointing out the plain meaning of what was said in this interview.
It does no good to twist meanings and does not advance your position.
I have seen the testimony but I have so much stuff on my computer, I can't locate it all very quickly. Some of the stuff I have saved is no longer on the pages where I used to have links to it.
However, Michael's lawyer put forth that Terri's expected life span was 51 more years, and the jury agreed. The jury only awarded enough to care for Terri for 17 years, because they felt that she was partially at fault for her condition.
He was quoting the parents as it were.
Did you click the link to read the transcript?
All those transcripts were posted here on the Terri threads.
His main arguement was that Terri told him she would not want to live this way.
The *this way* part is what snowballed into all the expert testimonies and facility changes concerning the stage of her physical abilities.
Can you rephrase that?
ping
He's referring to the Schindlers.
You may want to brush up on your grammer structure. 'We' is not 'they,' unless where you went to school 'we' the students (of course, meaning you) ran the school instead of 'they' the staff.
The English language can get mangled only so far, and no further...
But you do get a B- for the attempt.
Hence is why I said 'nurse her back'
He's referring to the Schindlers. You need to read it again.
What indication is there for the pronoun shift? His previous sentence was "And I've also said that in court.". Sounds like his next sentence, if he was going to quote anyone, would quote himself. Had he said something like "And those parents always whine. We don't know what Terri wanted, but this is what we want" then it would be reasonable to infer a pronoun shift. But I see nothing in Michael's statements to suggest anything other than the standard straightforward parsing.
Your ruling is based on the fact that you don't think Michael is dumb enough to slip up and blurt out the truth? I'm not even sure you're wrong, but to give this guy the benefit of the doubt when his own words apparently contradict the very reason he's been given the right to decide whether this woman lives or dies is a bit presumptuous, considering what's at stake.
I agree!! How has no one not listened to his admission of perjery?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.