Dr. Teresa Sievers - Motives and Theories (Including MS speculation)

[Stopwatch]

I recently saw a reputation management professional speak. He said that 65% of Americans take "no comment" to mean a person is hiding something. It has become a caricature of evasiveness. There is always a better phrase that can be used; but I imagine attorneys prefer it because it is easy to remember and a person won't accidentally go off script.

Yes, the media can be relentless and obnoxious. But, if MS is innocent, why would he feel the need to say, "no comment"? Even if something he said were to cast suspicion on him, could it be any worse than it is now? And if he is innocent, wouldn't it be OK to say, "I'm just so shocked, I don't know what to say" or "I can't believe that SOB scum betrayed me like that" or "I'm devastated at the news that my trusted friend may have had a part in my wife's murder" or "Can we just have some privacy? Just leave me alone!"

But "no comment"? Sounds like he is more worried about keeping himself out of jail than he is about solving the murder of his wife.

And staring the reporter straight in the eye without answering feels to me like a purely aggressive move, like saying, "You can't make me talk." If he doesn't have what it takes to answer, why bother to hold a stare. Why not just look away and avoid him completely after making the "no comment" statement. Or answer the reporter with "Of course not! Why are you doing this? Why would you suggest such a thing?"

Of course, nothing I'm saying is conclusive, but there is a science behind body language and behavior, and IMO, this suggests the behavior of someone with something to hide.

"NBC2's Trent Kelly caught up with Mark as he walked to his car. Kelly asked Mark if he was friends with Wright and if he knew Rodgers. He said 'no comment.'
That's when Kelly asked the very question many viewers have been writing into our newsroom about: Did Mark have any involvement in his wife's death?
Mark looked Kelly straight in the eye and didn't say a word as he got into his car and drove away."

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29946319/murdered-bonita-doctors-husband-no-comment#.Vg3HwZdss-U

 

[FightTheOstrich]

I recently saw a reputation management professional speak. He said that 65% of Americans take "no comment" to mean a person is hiding something. It has become a caricature of evasiveness. There is always a better phrase that can be used; but I imagine attorneys prefer it because it is easy to remember and a person won't accidentally go off script.

Yes, the media can be relentless and obnoxious. But, if MS is innocent, why would he feel the need to say, "no comment"? Even if something he said were to cast suspicion on him, could it be any worse than it is now? And if he is innocent, wouldn't it be OK to say, "I'm just so shocked, I don't know what to say" or "I can't believe that SOB scum betrayed me like that" or "I'm devastated at the news that my trusted friend may have had a part in my wife's murder" or "Can we just have some privacy? Just leave me alone!"

But "no comment"? Sounds like he is more worried about keeping himself out of jail than he is about solving the murder of his wife.

And staring the reporter straight in the eye without answering feels to me like a purely aggressive move, like saying, "You can't make me talk." If he doesn't have what it takes to answer, why bother to hold a stare. Why not just look away and avoid him completely after making the "no comment" statement. Or answer the reporter with "Of course not! Why are you doing this? Why would you suggest such a thing?"

Of course, nothing I'm saying is conclusive, but there is a science behind body language and behavior, and IMO, this suggests the behavior of someone with something to hide.

"NBC2's Trent Kelly caught up with Mark as he walked to his car. Kelly asked Mark if he was friends with Wright and if he knew Rodgers. He said 'no comment.'
That's when Kelly asked the very question many viewers have been writing into our newsroom about: Did Mark have any involvement in his wife's death?
Mark looked Kelly straight in the eye and didn't say a word as he got into his car and drove away."

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29946319/murdered-bonita-doctors-husband-no-comment#.Vg3HwZdss-U

Great post! I think MS tries to play the big shot. According to Skinner he was brushing up on law before his wife was killed. He probably thought his response was sophisticated and savvy. When in reality his body language and statement make him look guilty as sin.

 

[beach]

Admin Note:

Stop sleuthing MS's family of origin. Don't even identify them because that always leads to sleuthing.

Not cool.

The reference to "Dodge" is permitted only because it is a known fact that MS had an hotmail account using that name.

That's it. He had an email account.

 

[kammiemc]

I'm not sure, but we do know he was once engaged to AW's aunt (I think I have that right).

In the article where Angela's mother spoke (it has been posted a couple times and surely on the media thread) she said that MS was engaged to her little sister 24 years ago, so.....that would be....1991. So he would have been around, what, early 20's?

 

[kammiemc]

The simplest answer is that it was hit ordered by MS, I agree. But it's very strange to me that MS had two concerns after Teresa's body was discovered. The page and keeping the office up and running. This is extremely strange. IMO, if CWW was screwing around with the computer systems, someone else within the office was involved and MS makes the most sense.

Totally. And it makes perfect sense that someone eager to cash in on insurance policies was also interested in keeping the dough flowing through the practice and also in reaping whatever he could through the account. At this point, IMO, I am pretty convinced that MS and CWW were tied by an ongoing "beating the system" mentality. I am sure if CWW was doing something under the table at the practice, it was under MS's table, with MS's full approval, if not his direction.

 

[Webjunkie]

In the article where Angela's mother spoke (it has been posted a couple times and surely on the media thread) she said that MS was engaged to her little sister 24 years ago, so.....that would be....1991. So he would have been around, what, early 20's?

I think finding a reason why the breakup occurred, between MS and little sis 24 yrs ago, could be important. Even if to give insight to personal characteristics. Was she from a wealthy family? Was he suspicious of a pregnancy? Did someone cheat? Was someone involved in unethical practices? Was there a tie to CWW then? That type of stuff. Just thinking out loud. Wondering.

 

[lstiff]

I think finding a reason why the breakup occurred, between MS and little sis 24 yrs ago, could be important. Even if to give insight to personal characteristics. Was she from a wealthy family? Was he suspicious of a pregnancy? Did someone cheat? Was someone involved in unethical practices? Was there a tie to CWW then? That type of stuff. Just thinking out loud. Wondering.

BBM Yes, they were "childhood" friends so I imagine they were tied together when he was 20. I have no reason to believe otherwise, especially since they are tied together again years later. JMO

 

[No it's not]

I recently saw a reputation management professional speak. He said that 65% of Americans take "no comment" to mean a person is hiding something. It has become a caricature of evasiveness. There is always a better phrase that can be used; but I imagine attorneys prefer it because it is easy to remember and a person won't accidentally go off script.

Yes, the media can be relentless and obnoxious. But, if MS is innocent, why would he feel the need to say, "no comment"? Even if something he said were to cast suspicion on him, could it be any worse than it is now? And if he is innocent, wouldn't it be OK to say, "I'm just so shocked, I don't know what to say" or "I can't believe that SOB scum betrayed me like that" or "I'm devastated at the news that my trusted friend may have had a part in my wife's murder" or "Can we just have some privacy? Just leave me alone!"

But "no comment"? Sounds like he is more worried about keeping himself out of jail than he is about solving the murder of his wife.

And staring the reporter straight in the eye without answering feels to me like a purely aggressive move, like saying, "You can't make me talk." If he doesn't have what it takes to answer, why bother to hold a stare. Why not just look away and avoid him completely after making the "no comment" statement. Or answer the reporter with "Of course not! Why are you doing this? Why would you suggest such a thing?"

Of course, nothing I'm saying is conclusive, but there is a science behind body language and behavior, and IMO, this suggests the behavior of someone with something to hide.

"NBC2's Trent Kelly caught up with Mark as he walked to his car. Kelly asked Mark if he was friends with Wright and if he knew Rodgers. He said 'no comment.'
That's when Kelly asked the very question many viewers have been writing into our newsroom about: Did Mark have any involvement in his wife's death?
Mark looked Kelly straight in the eye and didn't say a word as he got into his car and drove away."

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29946319/murdered-bonita-doctors-husband-no-comment#.Vg3HwZdss-U

Good post! This is so very true. Here we have a reporter truly giving MS a chance to rectify his behavior ( I am still too shocked to comment- I am fighting tears, sorry- Thank you for all you do, in Teresa's name). Instead, the "no comment" only opens up new suspicion, new words for the press to fill in the blank on Ms' face. When he looked straight into the eyes of the reporter, that was a clear threat. I almost thought for a moment he would get physical.

-Nin

 

[Wing Ding]

I know that "no comment" is often considered an indictment against one's self, but sometimes saying "no comment" to a reporter's question means just that.

"No comment" to a reporter's questions doesn't automatically suggest the person has any personal knowledge of a crime, or has any personal involvement.

Think about this; how many times does answering just one question from a reporter lead to more questions? All the time. So what's the best way to avoid answering question after question after question from a reporter? "No comment". I mean if my wife had been killed and my best friend was suspected of killing her, I probably wouldn't feel like answering questions from reporters either -- even if I wasn't involved. Remember, these are reporters. They're not your close personal friends. You're under no obligation to open up to them.

I'm not convinced Sievers has nothing to do with his wife being killed, but until I start seeing evidence against him I'm going to assume his "no comment" was just a polite way of saying to the reporter(s) "Not only am I not going to answer just one question from you... I'm not going to answer any of your follow-up questions either".

I guess Sievers could have just as easily said "this is a private matter, we ask that you please respect our privacy at this difficult time and we have no further comment at this time", but what does that mean? Even a statement like that is open to interpretation. As is "no comment".

But do I think he's holding info back from the media? Of course. The question is... was he asked to keep quiet on the matter by L.E. or his conscience?

 

[FightTheOstrich]

Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. I get it, no one wants to be tried in the court of public opinion. But, IMO, he didn't come across as a grieving widow. And really this was the perfect time to thank LE, the public, and the media and then he could have simply asked for privacy as he sped off in Teresa's car.

Now, if he had had his children with him, his reaction would have been more appropriate or understandable.

 

[Paulas88]

Good post! This is so very true. Here we have a reporter truly giving MS a chance to rectify his behavior ( I am still too shocked to comment- I am fighting tears, sorry- Thank you for all you do, in Teresa's name). Instead, the "no comment" only opens up new suspicion, new words for the press to fill in the blank on Ms' face. When he looked straight into the eyes of the reporter, that was a clear threat. I almost thought for a moment he would get physical.

-Nin

Yeah, if I put myself in MS' shoes (and he had nothing to do with it) I would
at the least, let the public know of my complete and utter abhorrence, dismay and absolute shock, that my dear friend of many years could've done this to my beloved Wife, myself, my children, and then, make a statement that I will do everything in my power to bring justice to TS.

 

[Paulas88]

MS was best friends with CWW when Ronnie Bolin went missing in 96, RIGHT? So...
I'm betting MS must have a lot of dirt on CWW. This would be the perfect and opportune time for the LE to inquire and solicit MS' help... if MS doesn't give up any info on CWW, this would be very telling (IMO) to the LE.... I mean, if MS is innocent,
and CWW took away your beautiful wife in the most gruesome way, wouldn't you
want to tell everything you know?

 

[Momoffourboys]

MS was best friends with CWW when Ronnie Bolin went missing in 96, RIGHT? So...
I'm betting MS must have a lot of dirt on CWW. This would be the perfect and opportune time for the LE to inquire and solicit MS' help... if MS doesn't give up any info on CWW, this would be very telling (IMO) to the LE.... I mean, if MS is innocent,
and CWW took away your beautiful wife in the most gruesome way, wouldn't you
want to tell everything you know?

Yes. Unless you were there. Which makes you an accomplice. IMO

 

[bvstrish]

MS was best friends with CWW when Ronnie Bolin went missing in 96, RIGHT? So...
I'm betting MS must have a lot of dirt on CWW. This would be the perfect and opportune time for the LE to inquire and solicit MS' help... if MS doesn't give up any info on CWW, this would be very telling (IMO) to the LE.... I mean, if MS is innocent,
and CWW took away your beautiful wife in the most gruesome way, wouldn't you
want to tell everything you know?

Maybe he has told LE everything he knows, we wouldn't know that because the info hasn't been disclosed through Florida's Sunshine Law yet.

 

[observation]

MS was best friends with CWW when Ronnie Bolin went missing in 96, RIGHT? So...
I'm betting MS must have a lot of dirt on CWW. This would be the perfect and opportune time for the LE to inquire and solicit MS' help... if MS doesn't give up any info on CWW, this would be very telling (IMO) to the LE.... I mean, if MS is innocent,
and CWW took away your beautiful wife in the most gruesome way, wouldn't you
want to tell everything you know?

Interesting layer you may have brought to light.
OR on the flip side maybe this is why he was named now for a 1996 case. No way to know for sure but interesting point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Interesting layer you may have brought to light.
OR on the flip side maybe this is why he was named now for a 1996 case. No way to know for sure but interesting point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the remote possibility that MS is innocent maybe LE doesn't want to publicly say that he has been cooperating to keep him and his family safe.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[PeskySlueth]

or MS could be guilty of coordinating the hit with CWW and sing like a canary to LE about CWW. "poor me, my best friend did this to my beautiful wife blah blah"....CWW takes the fall and MS gets away with it. just my opinion.

 

[FightTheOstrich]

IMO, SMS has used the media (and WS) in this case to apply pressure. There's a reason SMS did the interview with Tricia when he did.

Consider the dog situation, LE could have glossed that one over and yet they didn't. If they believed MS was just an innocent grieving widow they would have brushed it under the carpet. Instead they're increasing the pressure.

I bet that LE asked the journalist to confront MS in the parking lot or at the very least let him know he was at the office. And if they wanted CWW and friends to believe that MS was keeping quiet for his own safety, SMS could have simply said, we have have no reason to believe that MS was involved. Instead he's included "within an envelope of suspicion".

 

[creepingskills]

IIRC, the Sievers family vacation to CT was planned well ahead of time (March) as was TS's early return. There could be a totally mundane reason (needing the money) that she couldn't have rescheduled those patients. I'm just thinking did she purposely schedule her return this way so she could consult with a divorce attorney or PI while MS was far away?

 

[kammiemc]

I know that "no comment" is often considered an indictment against one's self, but sometimes saying "no comment" to a reporter's question means just that.

"No comment" to a reporter's questions doesn't automatically suggest the person has any personal knowledge of a crime, or has any personal involvement.

Think about this; how many times does answering just one question from a reporter lead to more questions? All the time. So what's the best way to avoid answering question after question after question from a reporter? "No comment". I mean if my wife had been killed and my best friend was suspected of killing her, I probably wouldn't feel like answering questions from reporters either -- even if I wasn't involved. Remember, these are reporters. They're not your close personal friends. You're under no obligation to open up to them.

I'm not convinced Sievers has nothing to do with his wife being killed, but until I start seeing evidence against him I'm going to assume his "no comment" was just a polite way of saying to the reporter(s) "Not only am I not going to answer just one question from you... I'm not going to answer any of your follow-up questions either".

I guess Sievers could have just as easily said "this is a private matter, we ask that you please respect our privacy at this difficult time and we have no further comment at this time", but what does that mean? Even a statement like that is open to interpretation. As is "no comment".

But do I think he's holding info back from the media? Of course. The question is... was he asked to keep quiet on the matter by L.E. or his conscience?

Looks like you are of the 45% who think no comment doesn't mean someone is hiding anything!