Of course there is evidence. Consider even one item, from post #1311
“Jackie Rhoades, testified at the 1996 guardianship hearing that she knew Terri was being abused, that she frequently saw her with bruises on her arms and legs, and that Terri was afraid of Michael. Jackie further stated that Terri intended to divorce Michael, and that she and Terri were making plans to get an apartment together. Also, Terri’s brother Bobby also testified to his knowledge of Terri’s abuse, and corroborated much of Jackie’s testimony.”
Do you doctors ignore bruising on a woman in a troubled situation? A confirmed fight between husband and wife? A history of domestic strife? A looming divorce? Do you ignore Terri's phone call with a friend that night when she was so afraid of Michael's threats that she burst into tears and the friend offered her shelter?
Do you doctors ignore the only suspect's lies afterwards to police? You yourself usually make a big deal about lies or perceived lies. Why does a suspected assailant get a pass from you?
I have not read any of the testimony about this. As I repeatedly said, I'm interested in the medicine. However, I find the GAL report a good source of impartial information. If the testimony is as you say it is, he didn't find it persuasive:
Of Michael Schiavo, there is the incorrect perception that he has refused to relinquish his guardianship because of financial interests, and more recently, because of allegations that he actually abused Theresa and seeks to hide this. There is no evidence in the record to substantiate any of these perceptions or allegations.
Funny thing about this. I can't find Jackie Rhoades testimony from a 1996 hearing. All I can find is her testimony from a 1/26/2000 hearing. And nowhere in that testimony does she mention signs of physical injury, such as bruises.