End the charade, Michael Schiavo

(From WorldNetDaily)

David N. Bass lays it on the line: Terri Schindler-Schiavo is not in a coma. He might not be conversant with all the medical terms that describe her true condition. I am, and I continue to assert, based on Barbara Weller's narrative of her visit with Terri, that she is aphasic, not comatose or "persistently vegetative." With rehabilitation, she could be taught to communicate again.

I also say that Michael Schiavo ought not be her guardian. He has at least three sources of conflict-of-interest:

1. When she dies, he can cash in on various insurance policies and the medical trust fund for her care.
2. He is presently carrying on an adulterous affair with another woman, on whom he has already sired two other children.
3. Most importantly, although no one else is talking about it--if Terri could talk, she might be able to tell the world what happened to her, and how she wound up with her ability to talk so severly compromised. I would certainly like to know that. Michael Schiavo is the surviving spouse and the only witness to her collapse. Any seasoned homicide detective will tell you that those are automatic grounds to suspect him of attempted murder. Lawrence Sanders, famous for his Deadly Sin and Commandment novels, had an excellent phrase for it: "we play the percentages." And by that, Sanders' police sources meant that in the highest percentage of cases with the circumstances as I have described them, the cause of injury or death is foul play, and the surviving spouse is the most likely suspect.

Is Terri Schindler-Schiavo's case one of felonious assault? I don't know that, any more than does the next man. Do the police have probable cause to arrest Michael Schiavo and charge him with attempted murder? Unfortunately, no--because "the percentages" do not by themselves constitute clear and convincing evidence. But I suggest that the three reasons for conflict of interest, added to this latest demonstration of fact that is directly contrary to Mr. Schiavo's persistent assertions in case after case and at hearing after hearing, all constitute probable cause to remove him as her guardian, and to name a guardian ad litem to represent her specific interests, apart from--and, if necessary, against--the competing interests of her husband.