Both Mike Schiavo's brother and his brother's wife said they heard these statements, corroborating his testimony. Since Greer recognized that Mikey might be construed as biased (Like the brother and s-i-l wouldn't be?!), he relied soley on the brother's and sister-in-law's statements.
There were, however, some of Terri's friends and family who said that Terri had commented differently about the Karen Ann Quinlan case in 1982. Greer threw their testimony out as 'not credible", mistakenly believing that Quinlan was dead in 1982 (she actually died in 1985), and, in the courtroom, stated she died in 1976. He then reasoned that because the only year Terri would have been aware of that case would have been 1976, the year he thought Quinlan died, she would have been too young (12 years of age) to form an adult opinion. (I note here that the courts have held that 12 year old girls are adult enough to get an abortion without parental notification.) He said that since she would have been too young to form that opinion, that testimony would not be heard. And since there was no other testimony to the contrary, Terri would want to die in this case.
Bit of a massive flaw in that ruling, isn't there? And because that testimony wasn't heard, it was never reviewed by any other judge.
But due process was followed, right? The law is being followed, right?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I think there is a lot of covering of backsides going on.
Am I correct that the Federal judges are reviewing only procedural things and not facts. In other words, no de novo or whatever, as Congress requeste?.
Hard to believe that blatant mistakes are just being overlooked.