Ah, but Michael and his lawyer are MUCH TRICKIER than that, and you don't think they figured that out?
Here's what Michael testified: he and Terri were watching a movie, and she said that she wouldn't want to go through what the character in the movie went through.
So it was not a direct assertion of her wishes -- it was an indirect reflection of her state-of-mind based on her experience of watching the movie.
Providing just enough indirection to avoid the heresay objection -- and just enough proof to provide idiot Judge Greer to reach the conclusion he did.
An artful dodge, if I must say so, but not so diffucult for a psychopathological husband.
Good points. I thought the context of her alleged statement is that she wouldn't want to be kept alive if in the state of one of her grandparents, who I think was terminal and being kept alive by other means, not food and water.
I hadn't heard about the movie. I don't believe it. Especially when she told her friend that Karen Quinlan shouldn't have been allowed to die because "where there's life, there's hope". That statement is far more weighty and on point than some supposed movie.
Judge Greer and M. Shiavo have tag-teamed to kill Terri, that is clear.
Actually in February, 2000 Greer ruled that he did not have to decide on Michael Schiavo's statements since he had the testimony of Scott Shiavo and Joan Shiavo. He found nothing unreliable in them and that they were not impeached on cross examination. He also heard from from an expert witness who said that their testimony was consistent with statements made by people of Terri's age group at the time and that Americans want to "try it for a while" but they do not wish to live with no hope of improvement. He then proceeded to discount any other testimony as non-reflective of what she would do. He considered the quality of marriage questions to be a collateral issue.
For those who continue to defend this judicial process I say beware.