Soitenly.
1. Is it true that there is very little money left (from any insurance policy on Terri) and her husband has nothing to gain from her death?
Much of the Terri's trust fund has been looted; it's unclear how much remains. On the other hand, if she ever gets another guardian that person could demand an audit of the trust fund. Such audit would land Felos, Schiavo, and possibly Greer in prison.
2. Is it true that, although her husband says it was her wish to die (if she should be in a comatose state) even though she left no physician's directive...it was just her words to her husband?
More likely it was her husband inventing such a claim out of thin air.
3. If there is no money or other benefit coming to Terri's husband at her death, why on earth should he mind if her folks took over her care?
If anyone other than Schiavo becomes Terri's guardian, Schiavo and Felos, and possibly Greer, go to prison for embezzlement. If Terri ever recovers and can remember some of the things that have happend in the hospital or hospice, Schiavo and possibly Felos go to prison for attempted murder. If it can be proven that these people committed and condoned perjury to have her killed, the go to jail for an attempted murder conspiracy.
Those seem like pretty sound reasons to me.
This is one WEIRD case!
It also highlights a major problem of the current legal system: a judge is selected before the first case dealing with a particular matter; any challenge to the selection must happen before the first case is heard. Once the selection is made, all future cases dealing with that matter go before the same judge. Appeals courts are bound to accept that judge's findings as fact, even when they are contradicted by 99.44% of the evidence.
Even before the Schindlers stepped into the courtroom for Schiavo's first custody hearing, the fix wa already in. The only reasons Terri hadn't been murdered before are (1) Terri survived earlier attempts on her life; (2) Schiavo et al. didn't think starvation would be necessary.
Something needs to be done to limit trial courts' inescapable power over cases.
Do you have any evidence of this, or is it pure conjecture?