Terri

[dilloduck]

Yes there are many more ways....but sometimes a stern fuck can be very useful.

LOL I'll second and third that !

 

[OCA]

did you mean for that to come out the way it did? Are you saying a "stern fuck[ing]" is useful now and then?

Both! But the "fucking" needs to be more now than then!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What still bothers me so much about this is the mistaken notion that all these judges looked at the whole case and gave her due process, and arrived at their decisions based on that.
Judge Greer was the first to look at the case so he decided what evidence was to be looked at and what he could leave out. Problem is he decided to leave out a lot of testimony from very credible people whose testimony conflicted with Michael's, and he essentially dismissed it all as nonsensical fodder. So subsequently the case that made it's way around to the other courts like a bouncing ball contained only the evidence Greer allowed in. These other judges never saw any of the other evidence by the nurses, other doctors, etc. It was almost as if he just couldn't be bothered and was annoyed that his ruling was being appealed so much. If those are the kind of judges making life or death decisions then we are all in trouble.

And boy did Terri pay for her decision to marry that bastard!
Ladies choose wisely who you marry!!

Right, the fact that 18 other judges reviewed the case did not help Terri because the case was delineated from the start and any evidence that might have been pertinent to the case never got past first base because one judge dismissed it. This is why it is just wrong for one judge to decide on such an important issue such as the LIFE of a person.

In such cases, where there is such disagreement among the family, there should be a "trial" where both sides can present ALL their facts and have a jury decide the outcome of the family battle. This would have given Terri all the due process that she should have had, no matter which side you were on. When a life is at stake, I think this is the only way to go.

If there had been a jury, do you think she would've been put to death?

 

[dilloduck]

Right, the fact that 18 other judges reviewed the case did not help Terri because the case was delineated from the start and any evidence that might have been pertinent to the case never got past first base because one judge dismissed it. This is why it is just wrong for one judge to decide on such an important issue such as the LIFE of a person.

In such cases, where there is such disagreement among the family, there should be a "trial" where both sides can present ALL their facts and have a jury decide the outcome of the family battle. This would have given Terri all the due process that she should have had, no matter which side you were on. When a life is at stake, I think this is the only way to go.

If there had been a jury, do you think she would've been put to death?

With all 12 agreeing???? no way

 

[MissileMan]

Right, the fact that 18 other judges reviewed the case did not help Terri because the case was delineated from the start and any evidence that might have been pertinent to the case never got past first base because one judge dismissed it. This is why it is just wrong for one judge to decide on such an important issue such as the LIFE of a person.

In such cases, where there is such disagreement among the family, there should be a "trial" where both sides can present ALL their facts and have a jury decide the outcome of the family battle. This would have given Terri all the due process that she should have had, no matter which side you were on. When a life is at stake, I think this is the only way to go.

The testimony and affidavits were all entered into the record. All Judge Greer did was discount them as unbelieveable when he was reaching his decision. That is his job afterall; weigh the evidence and reach a decision. This is just more of the same BS that's been thrown around here. You have no actual evidence of impropriety in the way Judge Greer handled the case so you keep throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks. The fact that you disagree with the decision does not mean that it was reached in error or improperly.

And if you think a jury trial would have reached a better decision, you only need to look at the OJ trial to see how easily a jury can reach a bad decision.

 

[dilloduck]

The testimony and affidavits were all entered into the record. All Judge Greer did was discount them as unbelieveable when he was reaching his decision. That is his job afterall; weigh the evidence and reach a decision. This is just more of the same BS that's been thrown around here. You have no actual evidence of impropriety in the way Judge Greer handled the case so you keep throwing shit against the wall hoping something sticks. The fact that you disagree with the decision does not mean that it was reached in error or improperly.

And if you think a jury trial would have reached a better decision, you only need to look at the OJ trial to see how easily a jury can reach a bad decision.

Even THAT jury erred on the side of life !!!!

 

[Shattered]

What still bothers me so much about this is the mistaken notion that all these judges looked at the whole case and gave her due process, and arrived at their decisions based on that.
Judge Greer was the first to look at the case so he decided what evidence was to be looked at and what he could leave out. Problem is he decided to leave out a lot of testimony from very credible people whose testimony conflicted with Michael's, and he essentially dismissed it all as nonsensical fodder. So subsequently the case that made it's way around to the other courts like a bouncing ball contained only the evidence Greer allowed in. These other judges never saw any of the other evidence by the nurses, other doctors, etc. It was almost as if he just couldn't be bothered and was annoyed that his ruling was being appealed so much. If those are the kind of judges making life or death decisions then we are all in trouble.

And boy did Terri pay for her decision to marry that bastard!
Ladies choose wisely who you marry!!

One of the first major mistakes Greer made was to disallow the testimony f Terri's best friend in high school. He stated she would have only been 10 years old when discussing another very similar situation during a movie which was based on a true story (I forgot the woman's name, however).. He was WRONG - he stated this woman died in the mid 70's, when she actually died during the id 80's, which is when Terri and said friend were having this discussion.

Supposedly (tho I haven't seen anything MORE on this), when confronted with his error in dates, he stated "It's too late now - my decision has been made." I don't know if that's true, or if it's heresy, but I do know that nothing in his decision changed due to his own mistake.

 

[Annie]

Shattered, that woman would be Karen Anne Quinlan:

http://www.nandotimes.com/nt/images/century/photos/century0136.html

 

[Shattered]

Yeah.. That's her.. Thanks.

 

[Shattered]

Here, OCA..or, isn't this good enough, either?

Michael brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury that he would provide Terri with rehabilitation and care for her for the rest of his life. The jury in 1993 awarded $1.3 million in damages, approximately $750,000 of which was set aside to pay for her care and rehabilitation. But once the money was in the bank, Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab. Moreover, within months, he had a do-not-resuscitate order placed on her chart.

Had she died then, Michael would have inherited all the money. But he denies having a venal motive, claiming that the trust fund money is now exhausted. If true, this is bitterly ironic. For the past three years he has been in litigation, opposed by Terri's parents and her other relatives. Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much of it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care.

Michael's second conflict of interest is deeply personal. He is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancée, with another one on the way. The couple would like to marry, but Michael's wife, inconveniently, is still alive.

Michael Is a Criminal According to Florida State Law:
798.01. Living in open adultery
Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.

 

[freeandfun1]

Check this out...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=264995&postcount=1

 

[Bonnie]

One of the first major mistakes Greer made was to disallow the testimony f Terri's best friend in high school. He stated she would have only been 10 years old when discussing another very similar situation during a movie which was based on a true story (I forgot the woman's name, however).. He was WRONG - he stated this woman died in the mid 70's, when she actually died during the id 80's, which is when Terri and said friend were having this discussion.

Supposedly (tho I haven't seen anything MORE on this), when confronted with his error in dates, he stated "It's too late now - my decision has been made." I don't know if that's true, or if it's heresy, but I do know that nothing in his decision changed due to his own mistake.

I have heard that he did say that, additionally he said something like ( Paraphrasing here) 'Im sick of this case already, my decision is made'. To me this just sounds like arrogance, which is something many associated with this case have said he has. He essentially dismissed these witnesses, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and advocates as if they were ginned up lunatics because he doesn't like to be second guessed or contradicted? Poor baby! He used the actual testimony of one court appointed doctor, Michael's doctor, and Michael's brother and sister in-law. To decide the fate of a womans life. Very sad.

Does it strike anyone as rotten that Michael insisted on cremation for Terri, instead of letting her parents bury her? It was like his way of getting in that last bit of power over them or the one last insult.

 

[freeandfun1]

I have heard that he did say that, additionally he said something like ( Paraphrasing here) 'Im sick of this case already, my decision is made'. To me this just sounds like arrogance, which is something many associated with this case have said he has. He essentially dismissed these witnesses, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and advocates as if they were ginned up lunatics because he doesn't like to be second guessed or contradicted? Poor baby! He used the actual testimony of one court appointed doctor, Michael's doctor, and Michael's brother and sister in-law. To decide the fate of a womans life. Very sad.

Does it strike anyone as rotten that Michael insisted on cremation for Terri, instead of letting her parents bury her? It was like his way of getting in that last bit of power over them or the one last insult.

I saw her family on H&C tonight and they said he still will not tell them where her remains (ashes) are.

 

[sitarro]

Check this out...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=264995&postcount=1

I think that we will probably see al lot more of this . It is part of the "monkey see , monkey do" mentality we see so prevalent in todays society . I am amazed at how little individuality there is anymore .
Great research free , that proverbial "slope" is getting slipperier all of the time. :cof:

 

[OCA]

Here, OCA..or, isn't this good enough, either?

Michael brought a medical malpractice case in which he promised the jury that he would provide Terri with rehabilitation and care for her for the rest of his life. The jury in 1993 awarded $1.3 million in damages, approximately $750,000 of which was set aside to pay for her care and rehabilitation. But once the money was in the bank, Michael refused to provide Terri with any rehab. Moreover, within months, he had a do-not-resuscitate order placed on her chart.

Had she died then, Michael would have inherited all the money. But he denies having a venal motive, claiming that the trust fund money is now exhausted. If true, this is bitterly ironic. For the past three years he has been in litigation, opposed by Terri's parents and her other relatives. Rather than the funds going to pay for medical therapists to help her, as the jury intended, much of it instead paid lawyers that Michael retained to obtain the court order to end her care.

Michael's second conflict of interest is deeply personal. He is engaged to be married and has had a baby with his fiancée, with another one on the way. The couple would like to marry, but Michael's wife, inconveniently, is still alive.

Michael Is a Criminal According to Florida State Law:
798.01. Living in open adultery
Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.

Nope still not good enough. In order for a financial motive to be viable one must have profited, clearly he didn't. The litigation he paid for is all on account of the morbid parents.

My guess is at first he filed the lawsuit because even he wanted toi go against her wishes and try and save her, when that became apparent that it was impossible he then decided to carry out her wishes.

You guys can keep up this liberal style assault on his character but its getting you nowhere.

 

[OCA]

I saw her family on H&C tonight and they said he still will not tell them where her remains (ashes) are.

On account of religous zealots making a spectacle of the place, let her rest.

 

[no1tovote4]

On account of religous zealots making a spectacle of the place, let her rest.

He is under court order to tell the family of the placement of the ashes. Why is it one court order has your full support but this one does not?

 

[OCA]

He is under court order to tell the family of the placement of the ashes. Why is it one court order has your full support but this one does not?

Where is the promise of a non spectacle at the burial site? Until that happens he has my full support to tell them to go fuck theirselves.

 

[dilloduck]

Nope still not good enough. In order for a financial motive to be viable one must have profited, clearly he didn't. The litigation he paid for is all on account of the morbid parents.

My guess is at first he filed the lawsuit because even he wanted toi go against her wishes and try and save her, when that became apparent that it was impossible he then decided to carry out her wishes.

You guys can keep up this liberal style assault on his character but its getting you nowhere.

Are you denying "morbid people" they're right to due process? Vincent Price will haunt your ass. :dev1:

 

[ReillyT]

He is under court order to tell the family of the placement of the ashes. Why is it one court order has your full support but this one does not?

My guess is that the court order requires him to tell the parents where the remains will be put to rest (which I think he did - burial plot in PA). It probably doesn't require him to tell them where the ashes are at any particular moment prior to that. I haven't read the order, but I am just guessing that this issue (the location of her ashes at particular times prior to burial) was never presented to the judge.