"Theocrats" for Terri Schiavo

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | April 1, 2005 | Lawrence Auster

[the invisib1e hand]

In Honor of Terri Schiavo.

Please let load -- it's 11 mb.

Have headphones or sound on.

[Future Useless Eater]

>> Why was only one man, Judge Greer, the determinant of the FACTS in Terri's case?

Thanks LOC1, you're the first person I see pointing that out besides me. Contrary to the ugly liberal talking heads saying that DOZENS of judges and courts reviewed this, it was only Greer that decided the two supposed 'facts' that killed Terri. Greer, and ONLY Greer, decided Terri was in PVS based on a slight majority of the evidence. Greer, and ONLY Greer, decided Terri WISHED to starve to death rather than live with an inconspicuous feeding tube, OR to get swallowing therapy. Greer decided Terri's wishes, based on just a slight majority (in his mind) of the evidence. I would also like to see post-mortem legal changes do away with the 'preponderance of evidence' standard for life and death cases. "Beyond ALL reasonable Doubt" is the ONLY way to go. And Habeus Corpus (trial de novo's) make sense too; As long as serial killers can have 'em, then why not innocent disabled citizens with family members still wanting to care for them!!!

George W. Greer

[Ohioan from Florida]

Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!

[supercat]

If you read them, it will quickly become obvious that the premise of your question is deeply flawed.

I acknowledge that some early fact-finding was done by Judge Shames. And Judge Quesada did some fact-finding (in the Schindler's favor) before an appeals court decreed that Judge Greer was the only qualified fact-finder. But what other judges have heard so much as a single witness?

[supercat]

I would also like to see post-mortem legal changes do away with the 'preponderance of evidence' standard for life and death cases. "Beyond ALL reasonable Doubt" is the ONLY way to go.

Clear and compelling is already supposed to be the civil equivalent of 'beyond a reasoable doubt'. Nonetheless, it might be good to be more explicit about the few circimstances where hearsay might reach a 'clear and compelling' standard.

[reposting from another thread]

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:

1. The statement is heard by enough independent people who would have no motive to invent it, that a conspiracy to invent would be implausible.
2. 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.
3. There is a logical reason why the person making the statement was unable to personally put it into tangible form.
4. 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:

1. Unless the other passengers conspired to cause the crash, they would seem an unlikely group to conspire to invent a story.
2. There would be little confusion about the person's statements or the purpose thereof.
3. The person's decision to give the statement orally rather than writing or recordig it would be clear and logical given exigent circumstances.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. There is no logical reason why, if Terri wanted her supposed wishes carried out, she could not have written them down.
4. The statements were not recalled until seven years after Terri's 'collapse'--long after they were supposedly made.

What do you think of these criteria? Terri's siblings' hearsay testimony fails all of them.