I suppose you have a better way to resolve the case? Care to share with the class?
Or do you restrict yourself to simply poking fun at other's attempts to resolve the issue?
I suppose you have a better way to resolve the case? Care to share with the class? Well, for starters, I would suggest that oral statements should generally not be "clear and compelling" in the absense of anything to authenticate them (such as a videotape, etc.) It is trivial for an unscrupulous person to attribute to people things they never said. There may be a few cases where an oral statement could constitute clear and compelling evidence, but only if all of the following apply:
- The statement is heard by enough independent people who would have no motive to invent it, that a conspiracy to invent would be implausible.
- There is consensus about what was said and what was meant, the statements were clearly intended to serve as a living directive, and the claimed meaning is plausible.
- There is a logical reason why the person making the statement was unable to personally put it into tangible form.
- The statement is disclosed to people who can officially record it as quickly as practical.
An example of a case where purely oral statements might constitute clear and compelling evidence would be a train wreck, where an injured passenger tells others of his wishes prior to losing conciousness. In such a case, if the other passengers were to report what the passenger said as quickly as practical to officials, I would say such statements could be regarded as 'clear and compelling' evidence:
- Unless the other passengers conspired to cause the crash, they would seem an unlikely group to conspire to invent a story.
- There would be little confusion about the person's statements or the purpose thereof.
- The person's decision to give the statement orally rather than writing or recordig it would be clear and logical given exigent circumstances.
- The witnessess to the statement would be able to report it in timely fashion.
As you can see, I wouldn't outlaw all non-recorded oral statements, but I would only allow them in places where there would be no reason to doubt them. Let's see how Terri's "wishes" stack up:
- Her wishes were heard by an openly-adulterous husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law. One of them had a very clear and obvious conflict of interest, and conspiracy by the others is highly plausible.
- The three people witnesses Terri's claim that Terri spoke to each of them at a different time; there is thus zero corroboration. There is no particular reason to believe Terri's statements--if she made them--were meant to be enforceable as a living will. At the time Terri's statements were made, hydration by any means was not considered life support and therefore a claim that she intended them to justify the removal of same would seem implausible.
- There is no logical reason why, if Terri wanted her supposed wishes carried out, she could not have written them down.
- The statements were not recalled until seven years after Terri's 'collapse'--long after they were supposedly made.
Do you think my criteria for accepting oral statements are too rigid? Terri's siblings' hearsay testimony fails all of them.