Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PetiteMericco
WC: That is why accounts of Terri's statements about not wanting to be kept artificially 'alive' were properly admitted into evidence.

PM: Really, who else made that statement besides Michael? And why were parents' statements to the contrary ignored? Which of them is lying? And how do you know?

Because you pose a civil question, I will give you the detail you seek. At the trial, 5 witnesses testified as to statements by Terri: her mother, an unnamed witness (discussed below), Michael, Scott Schiavo (Michael's brother), and Joan Schiavo (Scott's wife and Michael's and Terri's sister-in-law). (Her father did not report any statements from Terri.)

The mother said that Terri said, during news reports of the Karen Anne Quinlan matter, that they should just leave her (Karen Anne Quinlan) alone. She said Terri was 17 to 20 years of age at the time. However, when shown the dates of Karen Anne Quinlan's ordeal by newspapers, she admitted under cross-examination, that Terri would have been only 11 or perhaps 12 years of age.

Then the parents' lawyer produced a witness which the decision does not name. This woman said that Terri told her a bad joke in 1982 (when Terri was 19) about the Karen Anne Quinlan case evidencing her view that Karen should have been left alone. Unfortunately, for this unnamed witness, she said that the joke was in the present tense, when Karen had already been dead for several years. Her testimony was obviously contrived.

Michael gave explicit testimony of several conversations with Terri (which I am sure you would discount).

However, most persuasive to Judge Greer was the testimony of Scott and Joan. The judge noted that neither appeared to try to shade their testimony and included unfavorable points within their testimony. Neither were impeached during cross-examination. Terri's statements to Scott and Joan reflected values of independence, quality of life, not wanting to be a burden and not wanting to be 'hooked to a machine'.

In short, the mother's accounts at the time of the Karen Anne Quinlan situation were discounted because Terri was only 11 years old, whereas her comments to Michael, Scott and Joan were made when she was an adult.

So, one can see why Judge Greer would give greater weight to the testimony of Scott and Joan than to that of the mother.

By the way, one need not assume that the mother was 'lying', the statements of Terri she recounted would be consistent with the immature statements of an 11-year old and could be true. But the important point is that, as an adult, Terri did not want to be kept alive artificially (as she is now). That is why Judge Greer could make that finding by clear and convincing evidence.

757 posted on 03/20/2005 10:38:38 AM PST by winstonchurchill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies ]


To: winstonchurchill

"This woman said that Terri told her a bad joke in 1982 (when Terri was 19) about the Karen Anne Quinlan case evidencing her view that Karen should have been left alone. Unfortunately, for this unnamed witness, she said that the joke was in the present tense, when Karen had already been dead for several years. Her testimony was obviously contrived"


Karen was still quite alive in 1982.


Date of Birth: 03/29/1954
Date of Death: 06/11/1985
Age at Death: 31

Cause of Death:
Pneumonia




If that "fact" is an error, how much of the rest is credible?

"Michael gave explicit testimony of several conversations with Terri "

Which only he heard and the other party to the conversation has been kept conveniently non-communicative due to a lack of speech therapy or other methods of expressing herself.
Michael's ability to "recall" her death wish so many years after the fact is highly suspect, IMO.
Especially since he'd just been handed a wad of cash big enough to choke a horse.


760 posted on 03/20/2005 12:35:03 PM PST by Salamander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies ]

To: winstonchurchill
"Because you pose a civil question, I will give you the detail you seek. "

I didn't ask you for details. I asked you how you know the truth. Florida courts think it can be found through testimony that must be "clear and convincing" which what you posted is not.

In your fumbling attempts to sound educated and lawyerly, you forgot that not all witnesses tell the truth, and you have also forgotten that not all judges are good.

http://www.penraker.com/ March 20th 2005

761 posted on 03/20/2005 4:30:41 PM PST by PetiteMericco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson