Ed, et al. – Your argument is a straw man – it was never the position of the Schindlers and their supporters that the only basis for not killing Terri was that she might improve. So any “confirmation” that there was no hope of improvement does absolutley nothing to undermine their position.

I’m not sure how that makes it a straw man. At worst, it means I haven’t defeated every possible argument they made, but I didn’t claim to so that’s irrelevant. A major part of the legal argument was whether or not she could recover. They made a huge deal out of their false claim that Michael had not allowed rehab and they trotted out the incredibly dishonest Dr. Hammesfahr to claim that she could improve. The autopsy shut down those arguments entirely. From a legal standpoint, the only other argument that matters is over whether Terri had made her wishes known or not. The court ruled that she had and that ruling was upheld by multiple appeals courts. Those are the only two legally relevant arguments in the case, so to claim that conclusively disproving one of them does “absolutely nothing” to undermine their case is, well, quite silly.

I note also that Mark Furman, author and criminal investigator, has spent a number of weeks going over the totality of the records and will shortly deliver a book to the public.

Uh, yeah, Replace “author and criminal investigator” with “disgraced former cop with a penchant for racial epithets” and you’re a lot closer to the truth. We’ve already had someone go over the entire record, including every medical report, every court transcript, and spend nearly 90 hours with Terri herself, and deliver his report to the public. His name was Jay Wolfson and he was the Guardian Ad Litem appointed pursuant to the Florida legislature’s intervention. And unlike Mark Fuhrman, he was actually qualified, with a PhD in public health and a law degree, to evaluate that evidence. But please let us know as soon as Kato Kaelin publishes something about it.