The FACT is that he never mentioned it during the previous litigation where he said the exact opposite - that he needed the money to take care of Terri "IN THE STATE SHE WAS IN" for a lifetime. He needed enough money to do that. The statement that she never wanted to live like that would have been extremely damaging to his prospects of getting a lot of money during that trial. However it would have been extremely relevant in that case - yet he failed to mention it. So he either "forgot" it or did not think it would help his case for getting the money. Either way he can not during one case say she would need enough money to be taken care of for a lifetime and then turn around the next year after receiving the money and say that she would not want to be kept alive like this. Can you not see the dishonesty involved?
When was that trial, 1992? Is was possible, though not likely, that Terri could have regained some awareness. If she did, Michael would have needed every penny to care for her in that condition.
As it was, he didn't do anything until 1997, five years after the trial and one year after that 1996 CAT scan which showed that her cerebral cortex was gone and that there was no hope of recovery.
Now, to say that Michael "forgot" what Terri had told him, then suddenly "remembered" in 1997, is pure horse$hit and you know it.