Replies

In reading this portion of the transcript I have but one question? Was a will executed by Terri near the time the statements were made? If she had presence of mind (according to the witness) to indicate that she wanted to write a "living will" would she not have executed same?

You must be a lawyer. You say you have one question, then ask three or four. :-) Juries shudder when lawyers say, "now in closing..."

Seriously, so far as we know, Terri used the term 'will' in her discussions with Joan as a layman and without the legal distinctions of a 'will' and a 'living will'. Moreover, we don't know (from the trial court decision) when the conversation with Joan occurred relative to Terri's heart attack.

Thus, I don't know when and/or if Terri ever executed a 'will'. We know she did not execute a durable power or 'living will'.

Again, we don't have the transcript of Joan's testimony, only the judge's paraphrase of it (with the transcript in front of him). The statement is made after a TV movie as a statement of general resolve, not necessarily a statement that she intended to call a lawyer to draft a will. Remember, the probative value of a statement like this is that it reflects her state of mind.

If there was a passage of time from the statement to the incapacitation of Terri could this mean that she changed her mind?

Certainly, the passage of time means she had the opportunity to change her mind, but there is no reason to believe she did. That is the problem. You have a clear and dispassionate statement of her views and no reason to believe that she ever changed it. Why would you, in reason, presume she did?

I find that taking these statements, under the circumstances, as fact of her intent, just pure speculation.

They are surely more than that. Most people don't address such topics weekly, monthly or even annually. They are, by their nature, episodic, usually brought on, as Terri's were, by provocations, i.e. a grandmother's funeral or a TV movie or, even as with her mother when she was 11, by a news report. Most of us declaim our true feelings on these socially uncomfortable topics only when provoked by events or other stimuli. There is nothing unusual about that.

These statements were not made in a declaratory sense, but in an empathetic response to the circumstances. I disagree. It does not appear that she was empathetically supporting and agreeing with the decisions of someone else. If she had only said to someone, "Yes, you're right I agree with you." one could make your argument. But here she was contradistinguishing her views from (i) what had happened to her grandmother and (ii) what she had seen in the movie. She was not being empathetic, but insistent: "I don't want to be be treated like that." That makes her statement carry more probative value.

Would it have been better for her to have had a durable power? Surely, but most 26-year olds don't. To my mind she has already paid a terrible 15-year penalty for that 'oversight.'

Your points are well taken..however, we don't know in what context these statements were offered. Were they solicited...were they in response to a question as you state. Having been in a courtroom many times (no, I'm not a lawyer..retired law enforcement) people always paraphrase what the conversation was in their simplest terms. Since there is also evidence that she made statements to the contrary, and since the Schiavo witnesses have an interest in the outcome of the case, you decide. The point that I don't underatand that is not getting the attention of the media is the conflict of interest of Greer acting as Teri's guardian and as trier of fact.

Again,all we have is that sadist judge word about the facts. Since you don't have the transcripts you can't make your own evaluation of the facts or the reasonableness of the interpretation of same by the judge. All you have displayed on these threads the last few days is a blind and unconditional acceptance of the findings by Greer at all costs which suggests either gullibility or a vested interest in this case.