Text 11317, 127 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 01:53:21 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11227 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, John.

 EC>> Hey, EARL.

 EC>>> Since the Florida law specifically allows oral declarations as to
 EC>>> one's wishes, it would not be possible to throw out all testimony
 EC>>> as to her oral declarations.

 EC>>> But the testimony was not "hearsay" in the sense you mean.  Let's
 EC>>> say that you say OJ kill someone with a knife.  You later tell me
 EC>>> that you witnessed it.  If he goes to trial, you can be called as a
 EC>>> witness based on what you say.  But I cannot testify as to what you
 EC>>> saw.  Why? You might have been mistaken.  You might have been lying
 EC>>> to me.

 EC>> Did her words to these third parties constitute a legal
 EC>> declaration or was it merely passing the time of day.  It seems that
 EC>> these people's testimony as to what she really desired right now
 EC>> leaves a lot to be desired.  Who knows, she might have just been going
 EC>> along with the consensus of that group of conversationalists.  Did she
 EC>> state to these people that her words were to be remembered and that
 EC>> the report of her words were to be taken in lieu of a written
 EC>> declaration because she just didn't have time to write such a
 EC>> declaration?

 JH> Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's wishes.

You believe that she had in mind when she said those words that they would 
be legally binding.  I'd hate to be legally bound by each idea that I 
expressed.

 JH> Whether or not anyone else chooses to go along and honor them is
 JH> another subject altogether.

Her life is more important than the casual interpretation and motivation of 
her dinner guests.

 JH> As far as the written side of it, we both know that young people seldom
 JH> think of things involving death in relation to themselves in anything
 JH> approaching a responsible way. Twenty-somethings are only slightly less
 JH> invulnerable than teenagers, and both groups can't conceive of not
 JH> living forever.  It wasn't a matter of forgetting to write down her
 JH> wishes, as much as it was just not something that high up on the list.

Then she was not thinking in those terms?

 EC>>> In the matter of the hearing on Terri Schiavo's wishes, as best I
 EC>>> can tell from the stories on it, there was no hearsay evidence.  No
 EC>>>  one passed on any second-hand testimony of her intent (such as
 EC>>> someone saying "I never met her, but a friend of mine said that she
 EC>>> heard Terri once say ____").

 EC>> Nah, you are distancing it to double hear-say.  A report on a
 EC>> report of her words.

 EC>>>  Her oral declaration, like the hypothetical murder by OJ, WAS the
 EC>>> matter in question.

 EC>> No.  Her current wish should be the matter in question.

 EC>>> The witnesses were first-hand eye (ear) witnesses.

 EC>> I can hear them now, "She said to me that..."

 JH> I take it you don't believe them?

I didn't say that.  What I'm wondering about is even if they are completely 
honest, do they know in their heart of hearts that she was in her own mind 
stating something that she thought would be binding upon her.

 EC>>> -> 2.  Let's say that one day, this woman thought that she
 EC>>> -> wouldn't certain things and talked about it to someone.  But
 EC>>> like -> suppose, the next day, -> her solutions were different.
 EC>>> Sometimes even I change my mind.  Women are -> notorious for changing
 EC>>> their minds.  So, since she changed her mind, she -> never did sign
 EC>>> the forms.  So how does this judge know what she wants now? -> It
 EC>>> seems to me that her more current wishes are more important than what
 EC>>> she -> mentioned to someone years ago.

 EC>>> That's why the judge put far greater weight on what she said as an
 EC>>> adult as opposed to things she might have said when she was 10 or
 EC>>> 11 years old.

 EC>> That seems pretty weak.  Why not say that we didn't consider her
 EC>> desires as she first began to speak.  Different degree, but same flaw.

 EC>>>  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any living
 EC>>> will, including written ones.

 EC>> True.  At least a written will is done on purpose with the intent
 EC>> that it will speak for you at some subsequent date.  If one changes
 EC>> one's mind, one can modify the words on the paper too and one knows
 EC>> where and what to change.  Her comments to these third parties were
 EC>> considered binding by her, do you think?

 JH> Oh, come on, Ed.  How many times have relatives hauled kin into court
 JH> to contest a clearly written and specific will when they didn't get
 JH> what they wanted from the deceased?  It happens all the time.

That is another question.  The issue is were her words binding upon her 
legally, and did she have that intention when she said them?  Did she then 
continue her life with the belief that this one possible future issue for 
her was settled by her conversation.  If not, then if she wanted something 
else, she didn't know that she had to look up these persons and give them 
the new info.

 JH> Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith. She married that rich old
 JH> guy, who then changed his will and gave most of his estate to her.
 JH> When he died a year later, his son and other relatives tied things up
 JH> in court for years.  It still isn't over, by the way, and its the
 JH> better part of a decade since it started.

Yeah, but that is similar, but not helpful to your side in this case.

 JH> That's why I am so adamant about following the rule of law, the state
 JH> statutes, in cases like this.  Seems to be the only way there can be
 JH> ANY semblance of fairness on either side.  Not everybody is going to
 JH> come out happy in such cases, no matter how delicately one steps.

I am questioning the validity of this law in condemning a United States 
citizen to death.  These are issues that should have been looked at by 
federal judges while they were doing the more important thing - giving the 
finger to the president, to congress, and to the people.


--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)