Maybe so! Man, this one strains legal theory, though, doesn't it? The first try was sort of an accident, then at the end it was mercy killing....... But let's look deeper.
If my theory of Terri's injuries is right, and if Carla Iyer's observations are correct that he tried to kill her with insulin as many as five times, plus we all know about the time in 1993 he tried to withhold life-saving medicine -- that is up to seven covert efforts to kill her. Then we had four open and legal efforts to kill her with court permission.
Eleven attempts at her murder!
I think the question of premeditation is pretty well solved :-)
I would think that if it could be proven that his claims about Terri's "wishes" were a fraud upon the court, that would prevent him from using any resulting rulings as justification for starving her to death.
Certainly any murder prosecution would end up being dominated by arguments about what a jury could or could not be told, and the resulting verdict would depend more upon what information was withheld and upon the jury instructions than upon any real facts of the case. To my mind, the proper question for a jury would be whether it was plausible that Michael's efforts to have his wife dehydrated were at least 51% predicated upon a bona fide desire to carry out her wishes, rather than upon craven motives including, but not limited to, the concealment of evidence, the acquisition of her trust fund, revenge upon her parents, etc. Nearly all of Michael's actions should be fair game in ascertaining that.
Maybe even 12. As in 1993, the law about withholding life saving drugs never changed. Just because they straved and dehydrated her doesn't mean that they can ingnore life threating infections. The question is, who ordered that Terri not be treated with antibiotics?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The autopsy also revealed Terri had a treatable urinary tract infection and pneumonia at the time of her death."