FL - Dr Teresa Sievers, 46, murdered in home, Bonita Springs, June 2015 *ARRESTS* #7

[Sunkist]

This is crazy, the Alarm needed to be off for JR and/or WW to access home, now we find out it was indeed off, but not by the the perpetrators. HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS OFF? They wouldn't have made the trip down, and just hope by mere chance that the alarm would be unintentionally turned off.

Exactly. And CWW didn't just bring JR along on a routine trip & then they happened to end up committing murder, because JR told his girlfriend in advance that he would be making $10,000.

This piece of the puzzle really throws me off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eileen730]

But the motive may wow me.

-Nin

Like what?
An affair? That's not wow.

I still think this is all entirely CWW................
He hired JR to do the dirty work.

This is how the man is RETIRED.

 

[SeesSeas]

Or accidentally left unarmed by dog carer?

Duntulum wrote "It was not intentionally disarmed" - -

If the alarm was "accidentally left unarmed" by the dog sitter, I would say that the alarm was intentionally disarmed, and then the alarm was accidentally not reset.

 

[wondering25]

"It was not intentionally disarmed" - -

Perhaps simply a terribly tragic coincidental malfunction of the alarm system.

Whether it was disarmed or not people still lock their doors, right? So a disarmed alarm doesn't help the perps get into a locked house. So, either the signs of forced entry on the door we saw on the news were real ( not staged) or in addition to the disarmed alarm the doors were unlocked. Disarming all or any part of an alarm system doesnt unlock the doors.. it just keeps the alarm from going off in that particular zone. JMO

 

[pat1234]

I'm assuming its obvious to the intruder(s) that there was a security system in place..
Wouldn't they be risking the alarm blaring...how would they know the alarm was shut off?

 

[gngr~snap]

So after 30 to 40 plus years of knowing each other, the recently married CWW wanted MS all to himself? I thought about a possessive idolistic relationship due to the looks also, but I think it would have reared its head long before this

The recent marriage bugs me. What are the laws about a spouse testifying in Missouri? I wonder if that was a calculated move on his part. I'm not implying his new wife would have any clue at all.

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[travelbug]

Kings have given up crowns for the women they love. i agree with everything you said about self worth, financial ruin etc. But men and women do it all the time. I wonder about the nature of the insurance policy beneficiary.. Perhaps TS recently changed the beneficiary from her husband to her 2 children? OR, maybe, the beneficiary designation was changed by "someone" having a POA from the 2 children to the husband. Now you would need a witness to change a beneficiary ( i know, i just did it). I wonder if there is a clue there somewhere? TS may have taken some steps prior to a split if one was even contemplated. Maybe she did change her beneficiary from MS to someone else( like a trust for the kids) and he found out? Sadly, money is a big motivator and with the solicitations it appears it certainly is front and center in this situation. JMO

There are several possibilities regarding motive and mastermind. The two that stand out in my mind are; 1) Spouse did it (for any of the many reasons we've noted) or 2) Someone wanted to set MS up and get him convicted. The big question is, if not the spouse, who would benefit the most (and not just monetarily) if TS was dead and MS was in prison for life? I know we're limited in speculation by TOS, but what person(s) would benefit the most in that scenario? Were CWW and JR chosen precisely because they would lead back to MS? jmoo

 

[No it's not]

[url]http://www.scrippsmedia.com/fox4now/news/Lee-County-sheriff-speaks-out-on-Dr-Sievers-murder-case-323782231.html


[/URL]

 

[Dushi]

I have thought about a set up but don't know who would benefit or how

 

[nancydrew71]

Did they ever say WHAT was in those safes in their home?? If it was money, did CWW know about it through MS or TS?

 

[gngr~snap]

I've considered that, but if that were the case:

1. Wouldn't she sever ties with him immediately (fire him, cut off his computer access)?

2. Wouldn't she tell MS? And if she did, wouldn't MS have alerted LE to a disgruntled employee right away?

3. Wouldn't someone else in the office have known? With TS focused on treating patients, it seems likely that someone else would have been more likely to discover illegal practices.

Could she have discovered money problems on her trip? We know she had rented a house, but didn't end up staying there. Didn't the step brother die during her stay? So why didn't they stay in the rental? Could her credit card have been denied or something similar?
Thinking out loud here...
Moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

 

[Dushi]

Could she have discovered money problems on her trip? We know she had rented a house, but didn't end up staying there. Didn't the step brother die during her stay? So why didn't they stay in the rental? Could her credit card have been denied or something similar?
Thinking out loud here...
Moo

Sent from my LG-D801 using Tapatalk

Why do you think she didn't stay in the rental?

 

[Riversinthedesert]

Just a general thought

Throughout this entire case things turned out to be different than they seemed.

Who would have expected 2 career criminals from MO to be arrested for Dr Sievers's murder? Some locals, some folks from the same county or from neighboring counties for example, some co workers, yes, but two new players (from the outside, possibly both not new to MS) form another state not even bordering Florida?

Wow, I would not have expected that at all. That was a "wow" we have all already expressed in one way or another.

At this point I would not be surprised - I am trying not to plan being surprised - if in the end we are looking at a much more grande scheme of things.

Mike Scott said (10pm FOX4 interview last night) the envelope is getting broader and who knows, it may involve husband, sister, other family members etc. .That was quite a statement, in case you missed it.

The motive for this crime has to outweigh the risk, otherwise why committing it to begin with. We may be really looking at something big here.

If family members in general don't communicate, than either the communication is cut on both ends or on one end only. In that case the information would be " I left several messages and soandso is not responding."
That's not what is being said. I have to wonder now if no-communication is based on the possibility that someone may be intercepting(..)?

Sorry, but everything is possible at this stage. I am waiting for another "wow"..

-Nin

Nin, who could be intercepting...LE? Wouldn't they just monitor communication? I think we can expect more twists and turns to come or as Sheriff Scott said, " a BIG DEAL."

 

[No it's not]

Did they ever say WHAT was in those safes in their home?? If it was money, did CWW know about it through MS or TS?

It was not disclosed.

-Nin

 

[Matlacha]

I'm assuming its obvious to the intruder(s) that there was a security system in place..
Wouldn't they be risking the alarm blaring...how would they know the alarm was shut off?

Any system that works with a remote, a phone, or an app could surely be hacked--especially if the hacker had access to the victim's computers. I've also seen online a hacker's device that unlocks a padlock in quick order--there may be something similar available for other kinds of locks (over and above standard lock-picking tools).

 

[kammiemc]

Or accidentally left unarmed by dog carer?

I'm sure this has already been brought up, but it seems CWW would have the digital expertise and home security expertise to disarm the alarm ahead of time in a way that would look like a malfunction or like someone (dog carer) accidentally didn't turn on.

Of course, maybe the dog carer dropped off the dogs on the day TS was coming home and either the alarm was disarmed for that or reason, or if was armed, maybe the dog carer accidentally didn't reset it. Hmmmm.

 

[SweetT]

I bet the sheriff told the life insurance company to hold out on cutting that check since they are not done with mark yet.

So if mark was the beneficiary and charged with her murder. Does the insurance company still cut a check to the kids. Or to their guardian. Or not at all.

I'm going to guess it all depends on what the policy states. If there is no other beneficiaries then I would assume the insurance company would not have to cut a check if the only one on the paperwork was a spouse who was accused of murdering the victim...So there could possibly be no check. I mean insurance companies aren't going to go out looking for someone to give the money to if they don't have to. So I guess a check would go to whomever was in the policy to receive it, unless that person KILLED the insured. If no other beneficiary is listed, then no check

Wanted to add, there is usually a time period that the insurance company has to pay out the claim. If there is an active investigation going they can probably extend the time period for pay out. At this time there are no charges etc against MS and we don't have access to the policy to know what the payout time is etc...

 

[TTF14]

Me too

unintentionally disarmed, not intentionally disarmed

Or unintentionally not re-armed when whoever was in there last (i.e. letting dogs out) left? Did the hired killer really just luck out like that?

 

[Dushi]

I have never thought that the jimmied , broken door was to throw LE off
I have always believed it was the point of entry

 

[wondering25]

I certainly wouldn't go to my best friend

Why not? Your best friend can be trusted with your 'secrets". A stranger might be a cop in plain clothes! Of course you would have to think your best friend was capable of committing a homicide..JMO Also, we could "pretend" that MS confided in CWW and said he was unhappy and CWW offered to do the job. MOO The whole thing makes me sick.

As to something else.. someone asked about husband- wife testimony (spousal privilege). You can invoke that and not be forced to testify against your spouse.. but you can always testify against them if you want. I don't think states have individual laws about it. i think it is part of "law" in the US. Like priest/ penitent and lawyer/client. JMO