Terri Schiavo and our Moral Confusion

MARS HILL AUDIO Journal ^ | April 01, 2005 | Ken Myer

[robertpaulsen]

First of all, if took 3 years just for Judge Greer to make his decision. Second, after the decision, it was contested in the courts for five years.

Was the Hugh Finn case contested this vigorously?

[supercat]

Was the Hugh Finn case contested this vigorously?

No, it wasn't. And had Terri's father not managed to smuggle in a video camera and shoot some footage of Terri, her case wouldn't have been contested this vigorously either, and Michael et al. probably would have gotten about $500,000 from the trust fund.

I see no reason that Michael would have believed, in 1997, that he would have to spend over $500,000 of "Terri's" money in legal fees to get his wife killed. Thus, I see no reason to believe that money could not have motivated the Schiavos' testimony about Terri's supposed "wishes".

[robertpaulsen]

"I see no reason that Michael would have believed, in 1997, that he would have to spend ..."

No reason?

His feud with her parents began in 1993 when they demanded half of his $400K loss of consortium award -- that should have given him one good reason to think there'd be a rough road ahead.

"Thus, I see no reason to believe that money could not have motivated the Schiavos' testimony about Terri's supposed "wishes"."

As I said before, without further proof of conspiracy I'm going with "possible", not "plausible". Just not enough there, supercat.