The Dogs

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

gngr~snap

gngr~snap

Verified Pediatric Nurse Georgia
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
14,380
Reaction score
15,493
I think they might be her dogs. The one one the right looks like it's been shaved from the ribs to rump. That tail indicates it has long fur. Maybe she had him clipped to keep him cooler in the heat?
I think most police dogs have some sort of vest or special collar to visually ID them, maybe not. Here's a screen shot.
 

Attachments

  • uploadfromtaptalk1438026421576.png
    uploadfromtaptalk1438026421576.png
    114.6 KB · Views: 379
That's the name of the Bonita Springs Dog Park located at 11075 E Terry St. The park is in direct walking distance to the Sievers house. It took me about 4 minutes to walk from the house to the park - without a dog.

When you google the park and click on street view, you will notice a marked police car (great coincidence!) parking in a more secluded area underneath some trees. That is a good spot (and further behind it) to leave a car and walk to the Sievers house.
Without indicating that this is was actually happened, it offers a viable possibility for a getaway.

Also, the park is self- monitored and is open from dusk to dawn. The rules of the park are displayed here:


https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=city+of+bonita+springs+bar+n%27+play+dog+park

There are 3 separated dog parks on the property: For small dogs (under 20 pounds), medium dogs (20 - 45 pounds) and for large dogs (over 45 pounds).

From the rules I notice that aggressive dogs ( among others) are prohibited in the park and that dog bites need to be reported. I can see many issues possibly leading to conflicts between dog owners. Just throwing it in as additional angle.

Here is a video from the Dog Park opening. Lot's of dogs and proud owners here. In addition you will meet K9 Officer "Ruger" from the LCSO. Very interesting video, if you like dogs!

http://www.cityofbonitasprings.org/15693/beautiful-bonita-the-dog-park-bark-and-play/

-Nin
 

Attachments

  • Dog-Park-Rules.jpg
    Dog-Park-Rules.jpg
    72 KB · Views: 444
No it's not said:
That's the name of the Bonita Springs Dog Park located at 11075 E Terry St. The park is in direct walking distance to the Sievers house. It took me about 4 minutes to walk from the house to the park - without a dog.

When you google the park and click on street view, you will notice a marked police car (great coincidence!) parking in a more secluded area underneath some trees. That is a good spot (and further behind it) to leave a car and walk to the Sievers house.
Without indicating that this is was actually happened, it offers a viable possibility for a getaway.

Also, the park is self- monitored and is open from dusk to dawn. The rules of the park are displayed here:

View attachment 79319
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=city+of+bonita+springs+bar+n%27+play+dog+park

There are 3 separated dog parks on the property: For small dogs (under 20 pounds), medium dogs (20 - 45 pounds) and for large dogs (over 45 pounds).

From the rules I notice that aggressive dogs ( among others) are prohibited in the park and that dog bites need to be reported. I can see many issues possibly leading to conflicts between dog owners. Just throwing it in as additional angle.

Here is a video from the Dog Park opening. Lot's of dogs and proud owners here. In addition you will meet K9 Officer "Ruger" from the LCSO. Very interesting video, if you like dogs!

http://www.cityofbonitasprings.org/15693/beautiful-bonita-the-dog-park-bark-and-play/

-Nin
Click to expand...

I wonder if they have cameras set up around the business.
 
I wonder if they were looking for marks from the dogs. When were the dogs swabbed in relation to CWW being brought in the 1st time? I feel that his arrest for this case was after the dogs were swabbed? IMO

Thanks Mods for the new threads! I love having everything all in one spot but separated by topic :)
 
lstiff said:
I wonder if they were looking for marks from the dogs. When were the dogs swabbed in relation to CWW being brought in the 1st time? I feel that his arrest for this case was after the dogs were swabbed? IMO

Thanks Mods for the new threads! I love having everything all in one spot but separated by topic :)
Click to expand...

Swabbing dogs for DNA and obtaining bite impressions from the dogs would be 2 different things, imo. i cannot see how obtaining doggie dna days or more after the murder can reveal anything about the killer. DNA is used to include/exclude and doesnt change. If the dog bit the murderer the DNA from the murderer is not going to be found in the doggie saliva days later. More likely, there was doggie dna found in all the blood at the scene and they are just being sure the DNA belongs to TS' dogs and not a different dog. JMO
 
wondering25 said:
Swabbing dogs for DNA and obtaining bite impressions from the dogs would be 2 different things, imo. i cannot see how obtaining doggie dna days or more after the murder can reveal anything about the killer. DNA is used to include/exclude and doesnt change. If the dog bit the murderer the DNA from the murderer is not going to be found in the doggie saliva days later. More likely, there was doggie dna found in all the blood at the scene and they are just being sure the DNA belongs to TS' dogs and not a different dog. JMO
Click to expand...

A dog bite is nasty.
Could someone have been bitten and they were comparing TS's dog's DNA to the bite?
To rule in or out her dogs?

I don't know how long that type of evidence would be found in a bite...
 
wondering25 said:
Swabbing dogs for DNA and obtaining bite impressions from the dogs would be 2 different things, imo. i cannot see how obtaining doggie dna days or more after the murder can reveal anything about the killer. DNA is used to include/exclude and doesnt change. If the dog bit the murderer the DNA from the murderer is not going to be found in the doggie saliva days later. More likely, there was doggie dna found in all the blood at the scene and they are just being sure the DNA belongs to TS' dogs and not a different dog. JMO
Click to expand...

I do not recall ever reading that JR was ever KNOWINGLY AND PRIOR TO DR. TERESA'S MURDER in or even at the Sievers' home. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Jumping off that, if JR was reportedly never at the Siever home prior to his alleged presence during the murder, yet dog hair or other DNA from the Siever's dogs was on the jumpsuit or in JR's vehicle, that might be important.
 
relay said:
I do not recall ever reading that JR was ever KNOWINGLY AND PRIOR TO DR. TERESA'S MURDER in or even at the Sievers' home. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Jumping off that, if JR was reportedly never at the Siever home prior to his alleged presence during the murder, yet dog hair or other DNA from the Siever's dogs was on the jumpsuit or in JR's vehicle, that might be important.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, JR said he didn't know them, so if dog hair was found around him, I expect that would require some explaining
 
wondering25 said:
Swabbing dogs for DNA and obtaining bite impressions from the dogs would be 2 different things, imo. i cannot see how obtaining doggie dna days or more after the murder can reveal anything about the killer. DNA is used to include/exclude and doesnt change. If the dog bit the murderer the DNA from the murderer is not going to be found in the doggie saliva days later. More likely, there was doggie dna found in all the blood at the scene and they are just being sure the DNA belongs to TS' dogs and not a different dog. JMO
Click to expand...

BBM: Dog dna in saliva that was on the clothing of anyone at the murder scene will still show up after it has dried. What if it was dog saliva mixed with blood? Would you then agree if that blood is from a dog bite of the murderer that it will connect the dog and the murderer?

*Have you ever noticed that when a dog is angry or even excited that it salivates more than normal?
 
wondering25 said:
Swabbing dogs for DNA and obtaining bite impressions from the dogs would be 2 different things, imo. i cannot see how obtaining doggie dna days or more after the murder can reveal anything about the killer. DNA is used to include/exclude and doesnt change. If the dog bit the murderer the DNA from the murderer is not going to be found in the doggie saliva days later. More likely, there was doggie dna found in all the blood at the scene and they are just being sure the DNA belongs to TS' dogs and not a different dog. JMO
Click to expand...


Does anyone know if the dogs were hurt?
 
Eileen730 said:
Does anyone know if the dogs were hurt?
Click to expand...

That is a good question.
Truly, I have never seen it confirmed that the dogs were actually there.
Based on hearing of a dog walker etc., I have assumed they were home
 
LaLaw2000 said:
BBM: Dog dna in saliva that was on the clothing of anyone at the murder scene will still show up after it has dried. What if it was dog saliva mixed with blood? Would you then agree if that blood is from a dog bite of the murderer that it will connect the dog and the murderer?

*Have you ever noticed that when a dog is angry or even excited that it salivates more than normal?
Click to expand...
Yes, that makes perfect sense..BUT the jumpsuit was found very recently, the doggie DNA was done weeks ago. I do wonder if the dogs were just included in the dna etc in case at a later date that could be used if they found something from the killers and could match it up. That would make sense to me.. also, i wonder if bite impressions of the dogs were done. MOO
 
LaLaw2000 said:
BBM: Dog dna in saliva that was on the clothing of anyone at the murder scene will still show up after it has dried. What if it was dog saliva mixed with blood? Would you then agree if that blood is from a dog bite of the murderer that it will connect the dog and the murderer?

*Have you ever noticed that when a dog is angry or even excited that it salivates more than normal?
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. The shirtless photo .. if it was taken the end of August is one thing ( and i think it would be much harder to link any marks to the crime without dental impressions from the dogs matching up.) Doggie DNA or hairs on a jumpsuit would be a reason to take DNA from the dogs. I do not think taking a mugshot of CWW without a shirt was about any marks. Do you see any on his picture? i dont. Separate photos of the individual marks are done for that, AFAIK. Did TS have CWW or JR's DNA under her fingernails? A quick DNA run would have zeroed in on that a lot sooner, imo. They both had prior felony records. LE would have RUN to Missouri to witness the bite marks, scratch marks etc if there was DNA under her nails that matched either of the perps that had to be alreaqdy on file.. JMO

all speculation and IMO only.
 
Dmacky said:
That's my question too! We haven't heard anything about the Siever's dogs. I pretty sure there are 2?
Click to expand...

My thinking g is they found dried or splatteredblood somewhere and had to rule out it being given hers or the dogs.

Can't they tell right away it's animal?
Why would they need dog dna?
 
I cannot imagine the need of comfort at this time for the family, and the cruel separation.........and it makes me so so so sad that I have heard (no msm, but discussion here) that the dogs are not with those that would benefit most in giving loving solace and companionship to ones who need it at their time in their lives.

I recall when I was younger, my dogs were my go to for tragedy times... I just cannot fathom that they are not with those that need them and are still at the house without the family.

WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (if this is indeed true)

(Trying to post my feelings within TOS iykwim)

SieverDogs.JPG

www.scrippsmedia.com/fox4now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 241 (members: 90, guests: 151)

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
151
Total visitors
241
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,561
Messages
18,241,297
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top