Text 11327, 110 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 06:18:28 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11318 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
11 Apr 05 02:05, Ed Connell wrote to EARL CROASMUN:

 EC> Hey, EARL.

 EC>> -> Nah, you are distancing it to double hear-say.  A report on a 
 EC>> -> 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, 
 EC>> testified as a direct witness to an event.  That event happened to 
 EC>> be an oral declaration, but the fact remains that they were each 
 EC>> first-person eyewitnesses.  If the event had been her signing a 
 EC>> living will or signing a contract, and they had been witnesses to 
 EC>> her act of signing, that too would not have been hearsay.  
 EC>> Different example: if someone bicycles up to a Bush motorcade and 
 EC>> shouts out a threat on his life, that is illegal.  Every person who 
 EC>> hears that shouted threat is a witness to a relevant event.  Every 
 EC>> one of them can testify in court. They would probably not be 
 EC>> allowed to testify about anything the guy said the day BEFORE 
 EC>> (planning the action) or the day AFTER (bragging about the action).  
 EC>> There is a huge difference between being an eyewitness to an event 
 EC>> (an oral declaration, a written contract, a stabbing, or whatever) 
 EC>> and being a witness to what someone SAID about an event.

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

 EC>> ->  EC>  Her oral declaration, like the hypothetical murder by OJ, 
 EC>> ->  EC> WAS 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 
 EC>> by looking at what she said repeatedly when she was capable of 
 EC>> having and expressing wishes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're forgetting two big things here.  One, Michael was legally responsible
for her, not her parents.  Her parents gave up any legal right to intervene
when she got married.  Two, the part of her brain that is necessary for
cognition, personality, intelligence - all those things that together were
Terri Schiavo - no longer were present.  There is ample proof of that.  And
that brings you right back to the law, and who has the legal right to speak on
her behalf.  

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)