FL - Dr Teresa Sievers, 46, murdered in home, Bonita Springs, June 2015 #4

[creepingskills]

Very good question. Many of us agree they know who did it. For some reason (strategic) they have not made public who the POI is (or multiple POI's). In the mean time, LE is probably recreating the scene of the crime, putting all of the evidence together (most Sheriff has EVER seen in his career) and building their case. Previous posts suggested that first degree muder charges must go to a grand jury, in which case it will take a while for them to review all of that evidence. We have to be patient.

I hope this is not the case, but I wonder if this information lockdown is because a grand jury failed to indict the POI based on the evidence at this stage in the investigation. If LE is trying to gather just a little more evidence on the unsub, IMO, it makes sense to say "we have no POI". The unsub will feel safer talking to LE, checking in on the investigation, and hopefully will be caught in a lie, voluntarily.

 

[No it's not]

Let's just assume there are certain complications surrounding this case, one of which may be related to the abundance of evidence collected at the crime scene.
Sheriff Mike Scott did indeed emphasize several times (in 3 different interviews with NBC-2, Wink News and FOX4now) that he has never seen so much evidence in his career, but that yet the case was complicated (many intricacies) and fascinating at the same time. He was also saying there was some connectivity here, and that some connections are going to start playing out.

Set aside the choice of words, when is a case with lots of evidence equally complicated and fascinating?

What is connectivity in a case?

What kind of connections can start playing out after a crime has been committed?

I like to hear your thoughts. Let's keep it general, so we can talk about different theories.

-Nin

So let's listen to the Sheriff again:

http://www.news-press.com/videos/news/crime/2015/07/08/29870571/

 

[No it's not]

And here:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29494119/sheriff-doctors-murder-isnt-random#.Vc1T1ZWFMkk

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

I hope this is not the case, but I wonder if this information lockdown is because a grand jury failed to indict the POI based on the evidence at this stage in the investigation. If LE is trying to gather just a little more evidence on the unsub, IMO, it makes sense to say "we have no POI". The unsub will feel safer talking to LE, checking in on the investigation, and hopefully will be caught in a lie, voluntarily.

Very possible.

-Nin

 

[creepingskills]

Very possible.

-Nin

Vaguely speaking, if this was a financially motivated murder, in some scenarios, it could take more time than expected to 'follow the money'. For example, if the money trail is difficult to prove, intentionally delayed, how long until someone cashes the check? LE could be waiting them out.

 

[No it's not]

Vaguely speaking, if this was a financially motivated murder, in some scenarios, it could take more time than expected to 'follow the money'. For example, if the money trail is difficult to prove, intentionally delayed, how long until someone cashes the check? LE could be waiting them out.

I can definitely see that. Good thought!

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Complications can mean lots of circumstantial evidence or too much evidence from too many people. Involvement is difficult to prove or to assign.

-Nin

 

[Riversinthedesert]

Complications can mean lots of circumstantial evidence or too much evidence from too many people. Involvement is difficult to prove or to assign.

-Nin

With so many people having access to the home, that lends itself to "complications"...at least as far as sorting out all of the evidence.

 

[Plumeria5]

And here:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29494119/sheriff-doctors-murder-isnt-random#.Vc1T1ZWFMkk

-Nin

Ok, I watched both videos. I was thinking about the door with the split near the striker. My husband is a carpenter and I asked him if it was possible to do that type of damage by using the claw of a hammer. He said a bar would be easier but some of the newer hammers do have a straighter claw that might be able to pry the door open. I didn't see where it was said that she opened the door to someone but let's say she did and then saw who it was and quickly shuts the door and locks it. POI then uses the hammer to force the door open. Theoretically she could have opened the door voluntarily and that would explain the damage on the door. Who would she have connections with that she would trust to open the door to but then something happens that she shuts the door on that person. One thought is there were 2 people. One person who could have talked to her through the door that she trusted with another person she feared. A woman with a man?? Hope this makes a little sense. I am just thinking out loud. I didn't hear the sheriff say there wasn't a POI but that he didn't want to comment.

 

[concernedmother]

Someone paid the perp? That would be a connection.

 

[concernedmother]

One thing I wonder about. Did she frequently come home alone from a trip or was the the first time?

 

[Matlacha]

One thing I wonder about. Did she frequently come home alone from a trip or was the the first time?

We probably won't find out, unless at trial. But I don't think it's unusual for doctors to travel separately based on their schedules. My stepson and his wife are both MDs, but in very different situations (he's a sole practitioner, she works for a big hospital). When they visit us in Florida for a long weekend, she normally arrives first, coming from a medical conference in Naples, while he arrives a day or two later after seeing his last patients for the week. In the Sievers case, though he was the office manager, the phone number listed by the practice was his cell phone, so I expect his work schedule was flexible, allowing him to devote more time to the daughters. Given that the daughters might not have had much chance to see their grandmother and other relatives in Connecticut, extending a stay there in the summer doesn't seem odd at all.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If the sheriff on one hand is asking to call in for tips, but on the other hand is announcing there won't be any more updates, then he knows that any kind of tips will not lead to changing his mind. Thus, his mind is set.

They don't have a "person of interest", because they have the "person who did it"..

-Nin

I truly wished I believed that, but honestly, I don't.

I may be the odd woman out but what this Sheriff has said doesn't impress me nor reassures me they know who did this.

He brags that he has an abundance of evidence but then says he has no POI.

If he has so much evidence all of it doesn't have to be tested now if the evidence was found at the scene. Lead detectives know what looks like their best evidence when they come to any crime scene.

Lets say they found a bloody fingerprint somewhere inside of her home then that item would be the first thing sent off to be tested. Or if the perp stupidly left the hammer behind although I find that doubtful. All they have to have is one piece of evidence tying the suspect to the murder to have probable cause for an arrest. In every investigation LE continues to investigate and gather evidence after the arrest of the suspect has been made. In fact in most cases evidence is being amassed all the way up close to trial time. In the Cesar Lauren case the lab results on the crowbar wasn't even received back from the lab until 17 days before his trial even though he was arrested long before that for the murder of Maria Lauterback.

The objective in every murder investigation is to see the murderer is arrested and taken off the streets. Gathering evidence continues after then.

And I also don't put any weight into him saying this wasn't random. When he said that he would not have the evidence to support that assumption. He doesn't even have it now imo. Why some LE does this right out the gate I really don't know for many cases it did turnout that the victim was a random choice.

And he may have said that to calm the worries of the neighborhood but I assure you until this murderer is caught and identified the neighbors will still be on edge until the arrest happens.

Imo, if he knows who did it and it comes from the abundance of evidence he supposedly says exists, he would make an arrest so that the neighbors could feel safe in their own neighborhood again.

I honestly don't think he has a POI. There is nothing illegal in publicly naming anyone as a POI. He doesn't have to name them as a suspect. That can get him sued if the person turns out not to be the suspect but he can name someone a POI. At least it would let the community know he is closer to solving this case than it looks like he is right now.

For him to know who did it he would have to have the evidence in hand right now to support that. That is the only way he would know for sure who the murderer is and if he knew that he would arrest this murderer in a heartbeat. Sheriffs are elected officials and are judged by the arrests they make in order for the communities to feel safer.

IMO

 

[zencompass]

I am hoping and praying that something definite comes out of the investigation soon for the sake of everyone involved, especially for the family of this beautiful and kind woman.

 

[Hiandmighty]

There is so much we dont know and isnt getting said. There could be stuff we have no idea about.

 

[No it's not]

I truly wished I believed that, but honestly, I don't.

I may be the odd woman out but what this Sheriff has said doesn't impress me nor reassures me they know who did this.

He brags that he has an abundance of evidence but then says he has no POI.

If he has so much evidence all of it doesn't have to be tested now if the evidence was found at the scene. Lead detectives know what looks like their best evidence when they come to any crime scene.

Lets say they found a bloody fingerprint somewhere inside of her home then that item would be the first thing sent off to be tested. Or if the perp stupidly left the hammer behind although I find that doubtful. All they have to have is one piece of evidence tying the suspect to the murder to have probable cause for an arrest. In every investigation LE continues to investigate and gather evidence after the arrest of the suspect has been made. In fact in most cases evidence is being amassed all the way up close to trial time. In the Cesar Lauren case the lab results on the crowbar wasn't even received back from the lab until 17 days before his trial even though he was arrested long before that for the murder of Maria Lauterback.

The objective in every murder investigation is to see the murderer is arrested and taken off the streets. Gathering evidence continues after then.

And I also don't put any weight into him saying this wasn't random. When he said that he would not have the evidence to support that assumption. He doesn't even have it now imo. Why some LE does this right out the gate I really don't know for many cases it did turnout that the victim was a random choice.

And he may have said that to calm the worries of the neighborhood but I assure you until this murderer is caught and identified the neighbors will still be on edge until the arrest happens.

Imo, if he knows who did it and it comes from the abundance of evidence he supposedly says exists, he would make an arrest so that the neighbors could feel safe in their own neighborhood again.

I honestly don't think he has a POI. There is nothing illegal in publicly naming anyone as a POI. He doesn't have to name them as a suspect. That can get him sued if the person turns out not to be the suspect but he can name someone a POI. At least it would let the community know he is closer to solving this case than it looks like he is right now.

For him to know who did it he would have to have the evidence in hand right now to support that. That is the only way he would know for sure who the murderer is and if he knew that he would arrest this murderer in a heartbeat. Sheriffs are elected officials and are judged by the arrests they make in order for the communities to feel safer.

IMO

If the poi was to be arrested today, what would he be charged with? I think that this is the issue right now. The sheriff said in one of the interviews, that even in case of an arrest, he could not guarantee anything.

If this case was capital, they need to prove premeditation. Otherwise it would be a second degree charge. If again this was capital, they would have to go through a grand jury. The person being investigated by the grand jury would most likely NOT be notified, files/ warrants (if any) are sealed. The jury may order in anyone and any additional evidence they wish to. We did not really have any witnesses here besides the neighbors, who heard the "shrill" and the "arguing noise". Since the jury would be privy to info like the time of death, they would not necessarily call in these "witnesses". No neighbors being called in means no information will leak.

However, remember that there was indeed information, that had leaked at different times including LE asking neighbors how they would avoid the security system at the S house. Also, they went back to the house, put up the crime tape and took samples from the dogs.
This MAY all be indications of a grand jury in process. When it was suggested that a grand jury may have indeed NOT indicted the subject, then LE will gather additional evidence etc.. Arresting someone "prematurely" ( that is a term the sheriff had used himself) may again jeopardize the investigation.

Again, I firmly believe the subject(s) are being investigated while I am posting this. The case needs to move from circumstantial to "better" circumstantial or to direct evidence. All my opinion of course.

 

[No it's not]

Ok, I watched both videos. I was thinking about the door with the split near the striker. My husband is a carpenter and I asked him if it was possible to do that type of damage by using the claw of a hammer. He said a bar would be easier but some of the newer hammers do have a straighter claw that might be able to pry the door open. I didn't see where it was said that she opened the door to someone but let's say she did and then saw who it was and quickly shuts the door and locks it. POI then uses the hammer to force the door open. Theoretically she could have opened the door voluntarily and that would explain the damage on the door. Who would she have connections with that she would trust to open the door to but then something happens that she shuts the door on that person. One thought is there were 2 people. One person who could have talked to her through the door that she trusted with another person she feared. A woman with a man?? Hope this makes a little sense. I am just thinking out loud. I didn't hear the sheriff say there wasn't a POI but that he didn't want to comment.

Are you are suggesting that Dr Sievers would have opened the garage side door to let someone in at night or at the crack of dawn after they had made their way through the fence gate? How would she had known there was anyone there?

-Nin

 

[TheContinentalOp]

That maybe, with your thoughts on the charity/patient connection. It could be likely, but since we don't have all the facts to this case as of now, all suggestions are left in the open. To be, this could probably be just robbery/murder, and that would be true if some items were to be found missing at the Sievers home, or it could be just cold-blooded murder. They need to check alibis of her contacts and such, plus forensics can do the rest to fill in the pieces. However, police investigations can take up from days to absolute years, so it's only a matter of time until the police figure out the rest. (Sorry if I seem out of place. This is my first time on this website too. I might take a look at the other threads.)

 

[No it's not]

That maybe, with your thoughts on the charity/patient connection. It could be likely, but since we don't have all the facts to this case as of now, all suggestions are left in the open. To be, this could probably be just robbery/murder, and that would be true if some items were to be found missing at the Sievers home, or it could be just cold-blooded murder. They need to check alibis of her contacts and such, plus forensics can do the rest to fill in the pieces. However, police investigations can take up from days to absolute years, so it's only a matter of time until the police figure out the rest. (Sorry if I seem out of place. This is my first time on this website too. I might take a look at the other threads.)

Welcome and thank for your comment! I am not sure I am following you with your first sentence? Can you please elaborate?

-Nin

 

[TheContinentalOp]

Welcome and thank for your comment! I am not sure I am following you with your first sentence? Can you please elaborate?

-Nin

Sorry. I was trying to reply to someone with that theory in mind. He/she mentioned that she could have some hidden contacts or some charity that she was working with was responsible, or it was a former/current patient that could have committed the crime. Now that I think about it, those theories seem far-fetched, but I can't be certain unless the facts are clearly stated otherwise.