Everyone else seems willing to accept that Michael is the devil and the Schindlers angels with no possibility that anything else could be the case. I think there is plenty of bad action to go around, and unfortunately we seem to be missing the real points in all the noise:

1. Is Terri Schiavo cognitive, and capable of communicating, eating and expressing herself or not? If so, then a lot of witnesses, doctors, experts, lawyers, judges and others have committed perjury or worse. If not, then the Schindlers, their doctors, lawyers and witnesses have committed perjury to keep her "alive." The trial court heard evidence and found that she was NOT responsive, in the absence of some proof that the trial judge intentionally lied to murder this woman, I am not sure why we should ignore that, particularly since the appellate courts have universally upheld the trial court.

2. If she is not cognitive and is in fact in persistent vegetative status and will not recover (as the court found), then did she clearly express here wishes not to be kept alive in these circumstances? I actually think this is the trickier part of the equation. Based on the testimony taken by the court, I would find it hard, if I were the judge to buy the Michael Schiavo story. The fact that two other witnesses also testified would possibly be convincing, but personally, I would have a hard time finding sufficient evidence of her intent to allow her to die based on what I have seen in the testimony and evidence. I have gone to great links this week to correct the falacious information that ONLY Michael said she preferred to die; but I have also said I don't believe him either. I do think it is possible that he first held hope that she would recover and did not want to end life support and treatment until he realized she would not recover, at which point he began the quest to fulfill her wishes. Maybe he just decided to kill her to get on with his life. We don't know and never will. Some of the conspiracy speculation and demonizing of Michael Schiavo coming from people who have no way of knowing is wrong, and I have tried to correct it by providing facts that have been covered up by many but which do present a different perspective and possibility.

It would be easy if there was a living will, but most 26 year olds don't have one and neither did Terri when she had her attack. (Side note: if you don't want to someday be Terri Schiavo and carrying your family through legal hell, and if you don't want to be sustained under these circumstances, fill one out today!)

Unlike most of us, the trial court heard these witnesses, looked them in the eye and came to the conclusion that she had properly expressed her desires not to be kept alive under these circumstances. We may agree or disagree with the court's ruling, and that is one reason why the court of appeals is there to grade the trial court's papers. They have not overturned the ruling of the trial court. Nor has the state supreme court; nor the U.S. Supreme Court. Now a federal trial court has reviewed the case, and a federal appeals court will now review the case as well.

Do I think the courts are always right. Nope. I thought the OJ case (criminal version) was totally wrong, for example. But what is our alternative as a society founded upon the rule of law? Ignore the rulings we don't like? Should a few of us lynch OJ since we disagree? Or should we pray for the family, and try to structure new legislation that might avoid this sort of tragic circus in the future? Should we talk about the policy implications of letting families decide (and how they should decide) when there is no written directive from the patient? Should be ban all termination of life support EXCEPT when there is a written living will? To me, our focus should be on what the policy should be for ALL of us, not just for Terri Schiavo. Yet the Congress passed a bill that only applies to her, and that seems extraordinarily wrong to me - legally and morally.

If the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court decide to order that the federal trial court conduct a new trial and check Terri out for itself and review the two issues I raised above with testimony and expert medical witnesses that would be great. If it is then found that she is NOT responsive, can't laugh and smile and communicate, and that this whole circus is based on lies and misrepresentations of her condition by her parents and the pro-life organizations and lawyers who have claimed she could do those things, then they should be forced to pay all the costs associated with the process and go to jail for perjury and obstruction of justice. If it turns out she CAN do all those things then the parents should be provided guardianship, the trust fund monies to keep her alive and to seek to rehabilitate her, and Michael Schiavo, the lawyers and pro-death organizations who have lied about her condition should go to jail for perjury and obstruction of justice. Someone, or a lot of someone's have not been honest in connection with this case. Terri may pay with her life, but others should pay too, perhaps with their freedom.