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

[No it's not]

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.

Thank you for clarifying. Your theories are as good as any. We are hoping for a break soon.

-Nin

 

[TheContinentalOp]

You're welcome. All cases need cracking. And trying to solve them is a pleasure.

 

[TheContinentalOp]

Thank you for clarifying. Your theories are as good as any. We are hoping for a break soon.

-Nin

You're welcome. All cases need cracking, and trying to solve them is a pleasure.

 

[TheContinentalOp]

A straight claw hammer (versus standard curved claw hammer) would work angle-wise, meaning one could wedge it into the door/frame gap. However, a flat crowbar ( they come in different thickness and sizes) seems to best fit into a tight gap and also seems to match the damage, that was done to the material. The tool left a very straight looking depression behind. Look at the wood:

View attachment 79623

One can pretty much estimate the approximate width of the tool-base.

Nice analysis on the tool marks left at the scene. I think crowbar would be the best way to break in, since it's more practical that way, based on its purpose to pry. Seems to me that the break-in story may be true, or it could be a blind. Only the facts can tell.

 

[LightShineOn]

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

Good post, oceanblueeyes and count me as another odd person out, also. I especially agree with your thoughts as to the Sheriff. In addition to what you said, he's also facing a re-election and imo, we're seeing a bit of political play going on. Who knows for sure what's actually going on, due to our very limited knowledge of factual information in this case. Anyone's opinion could be right on or not, and that's really all we can do at this point...state our opinions and look at possibilities. I for one, have enjoyed reading the opinions of all who have posted here. Many have been very thought provoking!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

Of course it is reasonable to believe LE is continuing to investigate the case thoroughly but I am not sure they are honed in on anyone but they will continue to run down leads and investigate like all LE does in every case.

I believe if they had a suspect he/she/they would be charged with first degree murder plus a charge of breaking and entering which may make it a felony murder since she would have been killed during the commission of another crime.

Every LE should say the same thing and the DA too. They cant be cocky/arrogant and say they have the evidence that will result in a conviction because they all know that determination is based solely on what the jury determines and not them. So his comment is very typical and inline with others in LE. There is no such thing as a slam dunk.

I don't know how many injuries she sustained if she was hit in the head with a hammer but I have seen several DAs prove the murder was first degree due to multiple repetitive blows being done against the victim. Each time the suspect wielded the weapon it showed they had a premeditated mindset to murder the victim and not just assault them. Its similar to DAs proving premeditation if the victim has been shot multiple times instead of once. So proving that it was first degree isn't that hard to prove. Now if they only struck her once that may be a second degree but I really doubt that happened to Dr. Teresa. Either first degree or felony murder would be qualified for a capital case. That is why the courts have ruled that premeditation can be formed in seconds and doesn't have to be a long carried out plan.

I really haven't researched how often murders like this happens in that county but if it is uncommon there is nothing stopping the DA from convening a special grand jury to hear the case. Usually a GJ is subject to be called back during the six months window before another new grand jury is empaneled. My husband was on a GJ at the first of the year and for two days they heard cases and decided whether to true bill them or no bill. But about two months later he was notified that his services were once again needed to decide two additional cases. One a murder case and one a child molestation case. Then about at the end of the six months he was called back to hear another case.

I really don't think a GJ would take this long. They are mindful that murder cases are of most importance in the communities they live in along with any type of abuse of a child.

I don't think a GJ has been empaneled to hear anything about this case. Has there been in links where the reporters have said a GJ has been convened concerning Dr. Teresa's case?

Most of the time the suspect does know a GJ has been empaneled to hear a case where he/she is the suspect. Talk travels and those who are witnesses can say they have to testify in a GJ on a particular case but they cant discuss what evidence/testimony was presented during it.

In fact I have seen cases where the defendant is arrested and after then the DA goes to the GJ to get the indictment. I am trying to think of a case where the suspect was completely unaware of a GJ concerning them and they didn't know it and am drawing a blank at the moment. The suspect can even testify in a GJ proceeding if they wish to do so but their attorney has to remain outside of the GJ room.

While I don't agree with the premise that a GJ will indict a ham sandwich every murder case I can remember the GJ did indict and we have to remember the Sheriff said he has an abundance of evidence so he would certainly have supporting evidence for an indictment if that showed who the suspect happens to be. Having said that I think he would meet the threshold easily for the GJ to indict and send it on to a court for trial. The GJ doesn't determine guilt or innocence so the probable cause is a much lower threshold than BARD in a criminal courtroom. Once a DA takes his/her case to the GJ they are convinced they have the evidence to prove their case BARD. I don't think either LE or the DA is at that stage yet in this case.

It is my humble opinion at this time... just like he said he doesn't have a POI, and until he does a GJ will not be convened.

JMO though.

 

[Plumeria5]

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

There could have been a prearranged meeting and going in the side door was a discreet way of entering. But, when she opened the door to whomever she thought would be there someone else was with them. It was stated that she opened the door to someone voluntarily and I was trying to come up with a reason for doing that but also having the door pried open.

 

[No it's not]

Of course it is reasonable to believe LE is continuing to investigate the case thoroughly but I am not sure they are honed in on anyone but they will continue to run down leads and investigate like all LE does in every case.

I believe if they had a suspect he/she/they would be charged with first degree murder plus a charge of breaking and entering which may make it a felony murder since she would have been killed during the commission of another crime.

Every LE should say the same thing and the DA too. They cant be cocky/arrogant and say they have the evidence that will result in a conviction because they all know that determination is based solely on what the jury determines and not them. So his comment is very typical and inline with others in LE. There is no such thing as a slam dunk.

I don't know how many injuries she sustained if she was hit in the head with a hammer but I have seen several DAs prove the murder was first degree due to multiple repetitive blows being done against the victim. Each time the suspect wielded the weapon it showed they had a premeditated mindset to murder the victim and not just assault them. Its similar to DAs proving premeditation if the victim has been shot multiple times instead of once. So proving that it was first degree isn't that hard to prove. Now if they only struck her once that may be a second degree but I really doubt that happened to Dr. Teresa. Either first degree or felony murder would be qualified for a capital case. That is why the courts have ruled that premeditation can be formed in seconds and doesn't have to be a long carried out plan.

I really haven't researched how often murders like this happens in that county but if it is uncommon there is nothing stopping the DA from convening a special grand jury to hear the case. Usually a GJ is subject to be called back during the six months window before another new grand jury is empaneled. My husband was on a GJ at the first of the year and for two days they heard cases and decided whether to true bill them or no bill. But about two months later he was notified that his services were once again needed to decide two additional cases. One a murder case and one a child molestation case. Then about at the end of the six months he was called back to hear another case.

I really don't think a GJ would take this long. They are mindful that murder cases are of most importance in the communities they live in along with any type of abuse of a child.

I don't think a GJ has been empaneled to hear anything about this case. Has there been in links where the reporters have said a GJ has been convened concerning Dr. Teresa's case?

Most of the time the suspect does know a GJ has been empaneled to hear a case where he/she is the suspect. Talk travels and those who are witnesses can say they have to testify in a GJ on a particular case but they cant discuss what evidence/testimony was presented during it.

In fact I have seen cases where the defendant is arrested and after then the DA goes to the GJ to get the indictment. I am trying to think of a case where the suspect was completely unaware of a GJ concerning them and they didn't know it and am drawing a blank at the moment. The suspect can even testify in a GJ proceeding if they wish to do so but their attorney has to remain outside of the GJ room.

While I don't agree with the premise that a GJ will indict a ham sandwich every murder case I can remember the GJ did indict and we have to remember the Sheriff said he has an abundance of evidence so he would certainly have supporting evidence for an indictment if that showed who the suspect happens to be. Having said that I think he would meet the threshold easily for the GJ to indict and send it on to a court for trial. The GJ doesn't determine guilt or innocence so the probable cause is a much lower threshold than BARD in a criminal courtroom. Once a DA takes his/her case to the GJ they are convinced they have the evidence to prove their case BARD. I don't think either LE or the DA is at that stage yet in this case.

It is my humble opinion at this time... just like he said he doesn't have a POI, and until he does a GJ will not be convened.

JMO though.

Very insightful, thank you! You just confirmed something I was not sure about: If the victim was hit multiple times, does that qualify for premeditation. I understand now it does.

However, if the multiple hits are caused by an underlying emotional cause sourced in a (theoretical ) relationship with the victim (break up for example), do they still qualify for a felony or first degree murder charge, or is it second degree now? I seem to recall there is a difference this-regarding. Do you know?

MSM did not report about any grand jury convening in this case, no.

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

There could have been a prearranged meeting and going in the side door was a discreet way of entering. But, when she opened the door to whomever she thought would be there someone else was with them. It was stated that she opened the door to someone voluntarily and I was trying to come up with a reason for doing that but also having the door pried open.

I have not heard or red, that DR Sievers opened to door to someone? Who said that?

-Nin

 

[Plumeria5]

I have not heard or red, that DR Sievers opened to door to someone? Who said that?

-Nin

It was on the thread somewhere. I don't know if there was a link.

 

[No it's not]

It was on the thread somewhere. I don't know if there was a link.

Someone must have theorized Dr Sievers had voluntarily opened any door for someone. That did not happen to my knowledge.

-Nin

 

[Riversinthedesert]

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.)

Thanks for your post and welcome to WS.

 

[fancyfree]

I wonder how long it takes for death benefits to be paid out by the life insurance company? It would be interesting to know if Dr. Siever's life insurance was paid to the policy benificiary or is being held up while the murder investigation is still underway.

JMO

 

[Sparky]

I wonder how long it takes for death benefits to be paid out by the life insurance company? It would be interesting to know if Dr. Siever's life insurance was paid to the policy benificiary or is being held up while the murder investigation is still underway.

JMO

I'm not sure it's been mentioned she had life insurance. Anyone know? Jmo

Welcome to WS by the way!

 

[Luvrosco]

Fancy free, I can't quote anything specific from MSM, but from watching true crime shows it seems if the beneficiary has been cleared by LE in a homicide then they can collect. My friend's husband died unexpectally and there was no cause of death from the first autopsy report. She had to wait an extra 3 months until a more in depth autopsy was completed.

 

[fancyfree]

Thanks Luvrosco, that info helps! I guess it's not been determined if she had life insurance. It sure would help to know.

 

[No it's not]

I'm not sure it's been mentioned she had life insurance. Anyone know? Jmo

Welcome to WS by the way!

It was not mentioned in MSM or confirmed on WS, that Dr S had any life insurance. We were hoping she would have, for the sake of the children.

-Nin

 

[creepingskills]

Of course it is reasonable to believe LE is continuing to investigate the case thoroughly but I am not sure they are honed in on anyone but they will continue to run down leads and investigate like all LE does in every case.

I believe if they had a suspect he/she/they would be charged with first degree murder plus a charge of breaking and entering which may make it a felony murder since she would have been killed during the commission of another crime.

Every LE should say the same thing and the DA too. They cant be cocky/arrogant and say they have the evidence that will result in a conviction because they all know that determination is based solely on what the jury determines and not them. So his comment is very typical and inline with others in LE. There is no such thing as a slam dunk.

I don't know how many injuries she sustained if she was hit in the head with a hammer but I have seen several DAs prove the murder was first degree due to multiple repetitive blows being done against the victim. Each time the suspect wielded the weapon it showed they had a premeditated mindset to murder the victim and not just assault them. Its similar to DAs proving premeditation if the victim has been shot multiple times instead of once. So proving that it was first degree isn't that hard to prove. Now if they only struck her once that may be a second degree but I really doubt that happened to Dr. Teresa. Either first degree or felony murder would be qualified for a capital case. That is why the courts have ruled that premeditation can be formed in seconds and doesn't have to be a long carried out plan.

I really haven't researched how often murders like this happens in that county but if it is uncommon there is nothing stopping the DA from convening a special grand jury to hear the case. Usually a GJ is subject to be called back during the six months window before another new grand jury is empaneled. My husband was on a GJ at the first of the year and for two days they heard cases and decided whether to true bill them or no bill. But about two months later he was notified that his services were once again needed to decide two additional cases. One a murder case and one a child molestation case. Then about at the end of the six months he was called back to hear another case.

I really don't think a GJ would take this long. They are mindful that murder cases are of most importance in the communities they live in along with any type of abuse of a child.

I don't think a GJ has been empaneled to hear anything about this case. Has there been in links where the reporters have said a GJ has been convened concerning Dr. Teresa's case?

Most of the time the suspect does know a GJ has been empaneled to hear a case where he/she is the suspect. Talk travels and those who are witnesses can say they have to testify in a GJ on a particular case but they cant discuss what evidence/testimony was presented during it.

In fact I have seen cases where the defendant is arrested and after then the DA goes to the GJ to get the indictment. I am trying to think of a case where the suspect was completely unaware of a GJ concerning them and they didn't know it and am drawing a blank at the moment. The suspect can even testify in a GJ proceeding if they wish to do so but their attorney has to remain outside of the GJ room.

While I don't agree with the premise that a GJ will indict a ham sandwich every murder case I can remember the GJ did indict and we have to remember the Sheriff said he has an abundance of evidence so he would certainly have supporting evidence for an indictment if that showed who the suspect happens to be. Having said that I think he would meet the threshold easily for the GJ to indict and send it on to a court for trial. The GJ doesn't determine guilt or innocence so the probable cause is a much lower threshold than BARD in a criminal courtroom. Once a DA takes his/her case to the GJ they are convinced they have the evidence to prove their case BARD. I don't think either LE or the DA is at that stage yet in this case.

It is my humble opinion at this time... just like he said he doesn't have a POI, and until he does a GJ will not be convened.

JMO though.

Just want to clarify a bit regarding the grand jury process. State GJ proceedings vary, in some states an indictment must be issued against any (state) felony defendant to-be, while in other states only specific state felonies (like murder 1) require an indictment to prosecute. The jurors do not decide when to deliberate, the prosecutor has direction to continue presenting witnesses. On the other hand, I'm sure in states that use the GJ process frequently, for less involved crimes (and usually fewer witnesses) proceedings are quick.

Grand juries in any state (or at the federal level) can be convened to issue indictments, and for investigative purposes. GJs have great subpoena power and more importantly, the scope of questioning directed at the witness is different from trial procedure and allows the prosecutor to elicit broad (usually incriminating) testimony. And fairly often in criminal conspiracy cases and federal fraud cases, GJs are convened without a named target (POI). The prosecutor will examine witnesses and usually a few of these people will be prosecuted in the future as co-consipator defendants, or if they're lucky, maybe a prosecution witness at trial with a plea deal.

If the witness is represented by counsel, a good defense attorney would ask for assurances that his client is not a 'target at this time' but the prosecutor isn't required to provide much more information. Suspects may believe they're the target of a grand jury proceeding, or be tipped off (like in Whitey Bulger's case) but unless the witnesses tell the target or he testifies, he will not have notice of the proceedings and neither will the media. A named (or unsub) suspect/target definitely cannot call himself to the witness stand because he wishes testify in the grand jury proceeding. The prosecution is running the show.

Additionally, if someone testifies before the GJ and later becomes a witness for the prosecution during trial and for some reason changes/recants prior testimony, she can be charged with perjury AND the GJ testimony will likely be admitted at trial for impeachment purposes. GJ testimony can be extremely useful from a prosecutorial vantage during trial.

 

[No it's not]

Great post, creepingskills! Thank you.

-Nin

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Very insightful, thank you! You just confirmed something I was not sure about: If the victim was hit multiple times, does that qualify for premeditation. I understand now it does.

However, if the multiple hits are caused by an underlying emotional cause sourced in a (theoretical ) relationship with the victim (break up for example), do they still qualify for a felony or first degree murder charge, or is it second degree now? I seem to recall there is a difference this-regarding. Do you know?

MSM did not report about any grand jury convening in this case, no.

-Nin

Thank you Nin.

Local reporters do know when GJs are in session and I believe if that was the case they would mention it and how it could possibly be a case concerning the suspect in her case.

Imo, second degree murder would be a hard sell especially if the forensic experts are of the belief the house was breeched to gain entry. It shows aforethought and planning to gain unlawful entry into her home.

So you think someone came there that she knew that she was in a relationship with? Just going by the little facts we know I am not sure I think she was having an affair with someone. It just doesn't jive with the forced entry. Even if true and even they were upset with each other, I think she would have let him in so the neighbors couldn't see/hear him. I would expect she would want to be as discreet as possible. Plus wouldn't his vehicle have to be there or do you think he is from her neighborhood?

Yes, I have seen the DA put forth the evidence concerning multiple blows to show premeditation and it really makes common sense imo. Hitting her once? May be a crime of passion. Hitting her multiple times? That shows he did indeed want her dead. A reasonable person would know a human being cant sustain horrendous blows to the head without it killing the person. IMO