No it's not
that simple
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 4,364
- Reaction score
- 4,918
So if the perpetrator did not leave the hammer, then either the murder weapon is not confirmed or the information was purposely leaked by LE. There is also the possibility that the hammer had been located outside the house and/or the property.
In any way, I am trying to understand why the hammer was used to begin with. Here are my thoughts:
It would not be impossible that Dr Sievers was attacked and fought, and that as a result she fell and hit her head for example. She may or may not have been deceased at that time. All theory of course, but using the hammer afterwards could have possibly helped to cover up prints/ footprints on the floor and in the surrounding area. It is a very gruesome thought, but the hammer may have been an afterthought. It could account for the time discrepancy of two witness statements ( 5am and 6am, if indeed the 'shrill' and the 'man arguing' came from the victims' house).
-No it's not
In any way, I am trying to understand why the hammer was used to begin with. Here are my thoughts:
It would not be impossible that Dr Sievers was attacked and fought, and that as a result she fell and hit her head for example. She may or may not have been deceased at that time. All theory of course, but using the hammer afterwards could have possibly helped to cover up prints/ footprints on the floor and in the surrounding area. It is a very gruesome thought, but the hammer may have been an afterthought. It could account for the time discrepancy of two witness statements ( 5am and 6am, if indeed the 'shrill' and the 'man arguing' came from the victims' house).
-No it's not