Text 11318, 79 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 02:05:06 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11296 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

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

 EC> No.  Let me try stating it a different way.  Each witness at the
 EC> hearing, as best I can tell from the summaries I have read, testified
 EC> as a direct witness to an event.  That event happened to be an oral
 EC> declaration, but the fact remains that they were each first-person
 EC> eyewitnesses.  If the event had been her signing a living will or
 EC> signing a contract, and they had been witnesses to her act of signing,
 EC> that too would not have been hearsay.  Different example: if someone
 EC> bicycles up to a Bush motorcade and shouts out a threat on his life,
 EC> that is illegal.  Every person who hears that shouted threat is a
 EC> witness to a relevant event.  Every one of them can testify in court.
 EC> They would probably not be allowed to testify about anything the guy
 EC> said the day BEFORE (planning the action) or the day AFTER (bragging
 EC> about the action).  There is a huge difference between being an
 EC> eyewitness to an event (an oral declaration, a written contract, a
 EC> stabbing, or whatever) and being a witness to what someone SAID about
 EC> an event.

Did these witnesses have an insight into her heart of hearts and what she 
wanted to happen?  And more importantly, did she then live with the 
understanding that she was bound by these words as reported by the 
witnesses?  I not, then if she did not feel the same the next day, did she 
know that she must go to each of these persons and tell them that she had 
changed her mind.  In the case of a written will, this much is obvious.  One 
knows that it exists and what is necessary to change it.

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

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

 EC> How would one ascertain those wishes after Feb. 1990, OTHER than by
 EC> looking at what she said repeatedly when she was capable of having and
 EC> expressing wishes?

Good question - but that does not say that she no longer had a wish.

 EC> ->  EC>  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any living
 EC> will, ->  EC> 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?

 EC> If there had been a single witness who had testified that she had
 EC> changed her mind or that she had expressed contradictory views on other
 EC> occasions, that would have drastically influenced the outcome.

Did she realize that she was legally bound and that it was necessary to take 
specific steps to avoid her being killed?

 EC> A few weeks ago I mentioned a poll that was cited by the Supreme Court
 EC> in the Cruzan ruling.  Something like 15 or 17 percent of those
 EC> surveyed had put their preferences into a written living will.  Another
 EC> 56 percent or so had left oral preferences that they passed along to
 EC> relatives and friends.  It would be profoundly wrong to ignore the
 EC> wishes of that 56 percent, just because they hadn't written it down.
 EC> It would be even more wrong to ignore ALL those wishes because maybe
 EC> their wishes somehow changed AFTER they entered a persistent vegetative
 EC> state.

It is easy for a third party to act as if she has no wishes.  When you say 
"left oral preferences" are you talking about a formal statement where they 
understand that it is legally binding upon them or potentially so?

I think we formally write important things down and that best shows the 
intentions of the individual.  Short of that, it is just a guestimate.  As 
you said, it was a difficult decision for the judge.  That right there 
should tell you something.


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