Text 11326, 173 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 05:59:28 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Kommentar till text 11317 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
11 Apr 05 01:53, Ed Connell wrote to John Hull:
EC> Hey, John.
EC>>> Hey, EARL.
EC>>>> Since the Florida law specifically allows oral declarations as
EC>>>> to one's wishes, it would not be possible to throw out all
EC>>>> testimony as to her oral declarations.
EC>>>> But the testimony was not "hearsay" in the sense you mean.
EC>>>> Let's say that you say OJ kill someone with a knife. You later
EC>>>> tell me that you witnessed it. If he goes to trial, you can be
EC>>>> called as a witness based on what you say. But I cannot testify
EC>>>> as to what you saw. Why? You might have been mistaken. You
EC>>>> might have been lying 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
EC>>> that these people's testimony as to what she really desired right
EC>>> now leaves a lot to be desired. Who knows, she might have just
EC>>> been going along with the consensus of that group of
EC>>> conversationalists. Did she state to these people that her words
EC>>> were to be remembered and that the report of her words were to be
EC>>> taken in lieu of a written declaration because she just didn't
EC>>> have time to write such a declaration?
JH>> Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's wishes.
EC> You believe that she had in mind when she said those words that
EC> they would be legally binding. I'd hate to be legally bound by each idea
EC> that I expressed.
I doubt that she thought about the legality at all, nor do most people. Most
people still believe their word counts for something. I still believe that she
expressed what she really believed and expected, perhaps naively, that should
it ever come to that, her wishes would be honored. I also think that, like
most people, she did nothing else about it because she couldn't conceive of
such a thing happening to her. Most people at that age can't.
JH>> Whether or not anyone else chooses to go along and honor them is
JH>> another subject altogether.
EC> Her life is more important than the casual interpretation and
EC> motivation of her dinner guests.
I wouldn't call the first hand testimony of three people casual interpretation,
especially when her husband was saying the same thing. Do you think there was
some kind of conspiracy going on between Michael and those three girlfriends of
Terri's?
JH>> As far as the written side of it, we both know that young people
JH>> seldom think of things involving death in relation to themselves in
JH>> anything approaching a responsible way. Twenty-somethings are only
JH>> slightly less invulnerable than teenagers, and both groups can't
JH>> conceive of not living forever. It wasn't a matter of forgetting
JH>> to write down her wishes, as much as it was just not something that
JH>> high up on the list.
EC> Then she was not thinking in those terms?
EC>>>> In the matter of the hearing on Terri Schiavo's wishes, as best
EC>>>> I can tell from the stories on it, there was no hearsay evidence.
EC>>>> No one passed on any second-hand testimony of her intent (such
EC>>>> as someone saying "I never met her, but a friend of mine said
EC>>>> that she 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
EC>>>> the 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?
EC> I didn't say that. What I'm wondering about is even if they are
EC> completely honest, do they know in their heart of hearts that she was in
EC> her own mind stating something that she thought would be binding upon
EC> her.
They can't know that, any more than you can say that she didn't really mean it.
Nobody can. That leaves those left behind with the unenviable task of
speaking on her behalf, and society has established rules for such things. The
three girlfriends gave first hand testimony, as did Michael. That leaves the
court little choice but to honor what appears to be her wishes.
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
EC>>>> changing their minds. So, since she changed her mind, she ->
EC>>>> never did sign the forms. So how does this judge know what she
EC>>>> wants now? -> It seems to me that her more current wishes are
EC>>>> more important than what mentioned to someone years ago.
EC>>>> That's why the judge put far greater weight on what she said as
EC>>>> an adult as opposed to things she might have said when she was 10
EC>>>> or 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
EC>>> 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
EC>>> changes one's mind, one can modify the words on the paper too and
EC>>> one knows where and what to change. Her comments to these third
EC>>> parties were considered binding by her, do you think?
JH>> Oh, come on, Ed. How many times have relatives hauled kin into
JH>> court to contest a clearly written and specific will when they
JH>> didn't get what they wanted from the deceased? It happens all the
JH>> time.
EC> That is another question. The issue is were her words binding
EC> upon her legally, and did she have that intention when she said them?
EC> Did she then continue her life with the belief that this one possible
EC> future issue for her was settled by her conversation. If not, then if she
EC> wanted something else, she didn't know that she had to look up these
EC> persons and give them the new info.
Are you prepared to undermine the entire judicial system? Because there are a
whole lot of people in prison right now convicted on what they said and what
was testified to by first hand witnesses. If that can now be second guessed,
and ignored then all those people should be let out of prison.
JH>> Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith. She married that rich
JH>> old guy, who then changed his will and gave most of his estate to
JH>> her. When he died a year later, his son and other relatives tied
JH>> things up in court for years. It still isn't over, by the way, and
JH>> its the better part of a decade since it started.
EC> Yeah, but that is similar, but not helpful to your side in this
EC> case.
JH>> That's why I am so adamant about following the rule of law, the
JH>> state statutes, in cases like this. Seems to be the only way there
JH>> can be ANY semblance of fairness on either side. Not everybody is
JH>> going to come out happy in such cases, no matter how delicately one
JH>> steps.
EC> I am questioning the validity of this law in condemning a United
EC> States citizen to death. These are issues that should have been looked
EC> at by federal judges while they were doing the more important thing -
EC> giving the finger to the president, to congress, and to the people.
Was this case handled poorly from the start? You bet. Is Michael a jerk or
worse? Without a doubt. Did her parents have a legal leg to stand on? The
courts said no for nearly 15 years. The media blew this all out of proportion,
and both sides handled it badly, but the bottom line is that the law was
followed. Now, I think its a good thing that people are upset, because maybe
now there will be enough impetus to rethink and revise the law so that it is
more flexible. Without the law, however, we would have anarchy, and this case
is just a tiny example of how it would start.
John
America: First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.
--- Msged/386 TE 05
* Origin: (1:379/1.99)
|