FL - Dr Teresa Sievers, 46, murdered in home, Bonita Springs, June 2015 #2

[Paulas88]

From my point of view,the roof thing is getting old. Whether you think its odd behavior or not,to have 10 year old girls playing on a roof,it has NOTHING to do with this murder. It might say something about the parenting skills of the individuals but it did not cause TS to lose her life. I'll check back in tomorrow and hopefully everyone is "off the roof"

OMG I 100% agree with you. I keep checking in hoping the ROOF conversations will end, it's ridiculous.

 

[FelicityLemon]

A neighbor who was annoyed at barking dogs (or other history) and went over to shut them up. Maybe thinking the family was still away, neighbor was so angry, took a hammer to break in, found TS in bed and started yelling at her. She responded as we could reasonably expect knowing what little we know about her personality. Neighbor continues ballistic and ends up killing her.

 

[nervous_nellie]

I wasn't aware of that. Can anyone clarify please?

Thanks!

-Nin

I thought that "insider" meant that someone is an inside player in an investigation or has firsthand knowledge. Not someone who knows someone who knows someone....but I have not read the definition in a long time...then for a time I thought the verification process was done away with and now its back again so I am not sure at all...

 

[nervous_nellie]

Usually anyone who is passing along information not presented in MSM is considered to be providing "insider information"

no it is not. it is dependant on the info being passed. seeing someone on their roof does not make them part of the investigation.

 

[Sparky]

Mod Alert

Stop with the bickering. Scroll and roll. The ignore feature can be your best friend!

If you don't like a post, hit the alert button or pm a mod.

 

[wfgodot]

Always good to have handy: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?159-The-Rules

 

[No it's not]

I thought that "insider" meant that someone is an inside player in an investigation or has firsthand knowledge. Not someone who knows someone who knows someone....but I have not read the definition in a long time...then for a time I thought the verification process was done away with and now its back again so I am not sure at all...

Can you say this again please..?

-Nin

 

[nervous_nellie]

I vow to never speak of the roof again. ever.

 

[CoolJ]

I wasn't aware of that. Can anyone clarify please?

Thanks!

-Nin

Verified / Professional Posters

We are lucky enough to have posters from all walks of life with a broad spectrum of expertise. Some may have special inside knowledge about a case or be directly related to a player in the case. This is all extremely valuable information for the forum. However, we like to make sure that anyone posting as a professional in a specific area (doctor, lawyer, search and rescue, etc.), or as someone with inside information, truly is what/who they claim to be. Verification is 100% optional. No posters are required to become verified unless they wish to post inside or professional information. If you wish to become verified, please contact the owners at [email protected] with your Websleuths name, your real name, the case, and your phone number and a good time to call. If you have any questions, contact a moderator.

 

[FelicityLemon]

If so, not too intuitive on the intuologist's part.

:drumroll: :thinking: :silly:

 

[Sparky]

Let's stop with the roof and move on. I'm sure there are other things re: the case you can discuss.

Thanks!

 

[CoolJ]

no it is not. it is dependant on the info being passed. seeing someone on their roof does not make them part of the investigation.

I would say presenting information as fact about a victims family would be considered inside information and the rules state, in order to post that info, you must become verified.

Maybe I am interpreting the rules wrong.

 

[Deleted member 134862]

Let's stop with the roof and move on. I'm sure there are other things re: the case you can discuss.

Thanks!

So you prefer us not to "raise the roof"? Sorry I could not resist.:truce:

 

[wfgodot]

So who did this? -- speaking generally and not naming names. No more roofies -- who, and why?

I'll go with the disgruntled patient wildcard guess.

 

[nervous_nellie]

So who did this? -- speaking generally and not naming names. No more roofies -- who, and why?

I'll go with the disgruntled patient wildcard guess.

I am leaning more toward a private personal relationship that went south ...

 

[nervous_nellie]

So who did this? -- speaking generally and not naming names. No more roofies -- who, and why?

I'll go with the disgruntled patient wildcard guess.

Also considering she endorsed more that a few non-regulated supplements, what if she wanted to pull her endorsement of one or more? I wonder what kind of financial chaos that could cause someone?

 

[indianwin2001]

So who did this? -- speaking generally and not naming names. No more roofies -- who, and why?

I'll go with the disgruntled patient wildcard guess.

I am going to go with a "love interest" and I don't know on who's part. I believe the why is,if its true, the hammer is up close and personal.

 

[nervous_nellie]

I am going to go with a "love interest" and I don't know on who's part. I believe the why is,if its true, the hammer is up close and personal.

so would this be someone that she was involved with or someone who wanted to be involved with her or someone who wanted her out of the way?

 

[indianwin2001]

so would this be someone that she was involved with or someone who wanted to be involved with her or someone who wanted her out of the way?

Yes either of those three. I thought from day 1 that this was a romantic entaglement on someone's part.

 

[human]

I asked this question before and I believe I got no answer.

There were cameras and there was not one on a door.

Does the security company advise where cameras should go? Are four a lot more expensive than three?