Text 10957, 52 rader
Skriven 2005-04-03 01:12:14 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
-> EC>Language is such an amazing tool.  Subtle selections of words can do so
-> EC>much.  In this case you want to overlook the unrefuted testimony, under
-> EC>oath, of three different people.  That leads you to dismiss the
-> EC>conversations they were testifying about, by calling them "casual."

-> What "unrefuted?"  If you are dead and I testify to something you
-> supposedly said when only you and I were present, that would be
-> "unrefuted" would it not?  Even if it were a lie.

Good grief.  In the hearing, the other side gets to cross-examine
witnesses.  The other side gets to present evidence to refute the
witness.  The other side gets to present other witnesses to refute
witnesses.  The testimony in question was FILLED with opportunities to
refute the witnesses.  When none of those things are done, the testimony
is what one would accurately call UNREFUTED!

The family gets together at a hotel for lunch after a funeral, and they
talk at length about the deceased.  There are an infinite number of
options to deny that.  They show that she didn't go to the funeral.  Or
that she left to go home after the funeral and before the lunch.  They
call a witness who says that Terri and Scott were not on speaking terms
at that time.  They call ANYONE who was at the funeral or the lunch who
says that TErri was uncomfortable and didn't want to talk about the
deceased, that she kept quiet or talked about other subjects.  They call
ANYONE who was at the lunch who says Terri DIDN'T say what she was
claimed to have said.

Joan said that their friend has her baby's feeding tube removed.  What
if the lawyer calls even one friend of Terri's who says that at any
point Terri confided to them "I wish she wouldn't do that" or "that is
her decision but I could never do it?"  Or if the friend remembers any
occasion in the decision-making process when Terri tried to talk her out
of it.

She watched a TV show with Michael and a movie with Joan, and entered
into a serious discussion of the subject with them afterwards.  If the
shows were that moving, surely they remember the shows.  When was it?
Recall the channel?  Any details of the show?  There have been a lot of
stories blown apart in court because someone will say, for example, "I
couldn't have committed that crime because I was at home watching
Matlock at that time," only to have evidence introduced that Matlock was
preempted for the Vice-Presidential debate that night.

When evidence is not countered, denied, undermined, or otherwise called
into question, it can reasonably be called "unrefuted."  And when a
judge has three witnesses testifying to a whole series of instances that
sound plausible, and there is nothing to diminish them or to
counterbalance them in any way, that is pretty solid proof.


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)