[pollywog]

They have to go by the rule of law...they have to consider the new evidence (which is really old evidence that was thrown out by Greer)which will include statements from others that said Terri's wishes were opposite what Michael said they were...if they let Michael's in but not Terri's side, that would show a bias...this whole thing is mainly about Terri's alleged wishes...if there is a dispute as to that, and there is, this judge needs to set a jury trial and should have to put tube in so the plaintiff can be alive during proceedings and i am sure if tried in front of jury, we'd win. If this is not granted, I want to see for what reason, you cannot enter hearsay evidence on one side and then toss the same type of evidence for the other.

actually I don't think they listened to the witnesses for Schindlers. They sat for 2.5 hours without being called and I heard that the Judge was really curt with Gibbs over calling this murder!! Doesn't sound good to me. Sounds courrupt!!

[longtermmemmory]

letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law.

It seems whitmore is going to go point by point to condemn the new evidence and then run out the clock. It is going to go up to the 11th then get re rejected and then reject the enbanc. (which is very very common btw) and then the USSC will again reject it.

If whitmore was serious he would have ruled first then issued the followup order.

[LegalEagle61]

This was the evidentiary hearing, this is not the de novo which will be a trial with a jury and testimony etc...this is to get the tube back so that Terri can get her trial but be alive for it as well...the statute provided that we get a trial de novo, without the court referring to any of the old record and especially not to consider the opinion of Greer.

[Theodore R.]

Yea, I suspect that Whittemore just wanted some more media exposure for himself while the irons were still hot. There is no way he will support the Schindlers. He sounds like an employer teasing a job offer to an applicant in need.