I realize Michael is a liar.
Where's the harm in asking him questions from a new point of view and watching for his response?
He'll be making public appearances and reporters' questioning the"grieving" husband about his guilt will be considered tacky.
I admit that it would take a brave reporter to ask a "lame" question about the possibility of an intruder.
But, you'll have to admit, it sure is an "attention-getting" question.
Even if it gets mocked, the question gets noticed.
No, it isn't. It is a puny little fairy story with no relation to known evidence or motive. It won't hold up to examination. It sounds like one more sycophantic reporter handing Schiavo one more untenable alibi.
If you want to grab attention, go for the truth. Ask the questions a real homicide investigator would ask. Probe the shifting alibis that Schiavo tried to use in his testimony, and question him about inconsistencies.
In the Autopsy Report, one gets just the new evidence needed in order to ask Schiavo tough questions about what actually happened. The M.E. confirmed that Terri never had a heart attack. The damage she suffered when she was deprived of oxygen was not global, either. No organs were affected below her head. So, we may safely deduce that Terri didn't "collapse" at all. Something happened to her from the neck up.
A real investigator would certainly want to dig into this. The insurance companies might want to pursue it too because Schiavo's malpractice suit(s) were fraudulent.
The autopsy revealed one other surprising detail that may be the final piece in the puzzle: the damage to Terri's brain was primarily in the front areas fed by the carotid arteries. That gives us the probable cause of her injuries. Somebody put enough pressure on her carotid arteries, for long enough, to leave her all-but lifeless on the floor.
Now as before, there is only one suspect.
FYI: The answer may be in Tampa.