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

[Matlacha]

My "intuition" told me to go to Facebook. An odd comment on August 9th. hmmmmm

And on August 13.

 

[creepingskills]

There has been some confusion as to who found Dr. S. but see text and links below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-two-murdered-Florida-home-family-away.html

Police visited the home on Jarvis Road, owned by Teresa and Mark Sievers, after dispatchers received a call raising concern for Sievers's whereabouts at 9.45am Monday.

The welfare-check call from from staff at Sievers' Estero office who became concerned that she didn't show up to work, despite having scheduled appointments.

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-doctor-laid-rest-found-murdered-home-article-1.2283403

When she failed to come into work the next morning her body was found by an unidentified individual who then called 911 at around 9:45 a.m., the sheriff’s department said.

Do not have links but recall that an employee who was interviewed on MSM went to the house but LE was already at the scene. IMO the office called LE who went to the house and found TS deceased. Perhaps the wording from the LCSO report about being called in reference to a deceased female was incorrect if this chronology is accurate. Any thoughts on this?

Interesting. We have two conflicting reports but police records seem to confirm the second scenario; "when she failed to come into work the next morning her body was found by an unidentified individual who then called 911 at around 9:45 a.m., the sheriff’s department said"

LCSO Update
*** Original Post - June 30, 2015 ***
On Monday, June 29, 2015 at approximately 9:45am, Lee County Sheriff's Office deputies responded to 27034 Jarvis Road, Bonita Springs in reference to a deceased female.

Of course, I could be completely wrong again, but my guess is that "Incident Type" is the caller complaint portion of the form (what the caller complains of, what is dispatched); "Disposition" is the result of LSCO's dispatch to the scene. You'll see examples of Incident Type: DISTURBANCE Disposition: REPORT TAKEN / GONE ON ARRIVAL / ARREST / HANDLED BY DEPUTY.

http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/in...identSearchForm[address]=jarvis+rd&yt0=Search
And here, if you look at the earlier unrelated death investigation (for comparison) further down the page, the disposition is "report taken". IMO, someone in the earlier example called 911 at 9:30AM to report a death, LSCO is dispatched, takes report. One record (incident no.) for a natural death investigation. Is there any record of a 'well being check' request? Does this auto update to death investigation despite being called in as something else?

I have no idea. On the bright side, LE definitely has a copy of the 911 call that is either from (1) the office requesting assistance, the well being check, OR (2) an individual reporting a death from the scene. Scenario (2) is the most consistent with information released by LE.

 

[SeesSeas]

That's been one of my questions all along - how could the first incident be listed as "reference to a deceased female" unless someone else had already found Dr Sievers deceased? Also, why would the initial call have a higher incident number than the incident showing it had been turned over to another agency? It's all very confusing IMHO.

There are two Incident Numbers reflected on LCSO website for the DEATH INVESTIGATION at 27034 JARVIS RD on 06-29-2015 at 09:43:24.

My thoughts.... but I have no idea how LCSO assigns Incident Numbers: The initial Incident Number assigned was 15-268297. Disposition on this incident number is listed on LCSO website as TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. I think this incident was likely closed at the date and time it was 'turned over to other agency'.

The other Incident Number 15-268513 (higher number) was assigned after it was determined the case would be TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. Any detail obtained after the case was 'turned over to other agency' would be logged in this separate Incident Number 15-268513.

This way, LCSO knows exactly the data that was TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY at the date and time of the disposition to this other agency because all of that data would be in the first Incident Number 15-268297. And any data logged after the case was 'turned over to other agency' would be in the second Incident Number 15-268513.

Occured Date	Incident Type	Address	City	Disposition	Incident Number
2015-06-29 09:43:24	DEATH INVEST	27034 JARVIS RD	BONITA SPRINGS	TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY	15-268297
2015-06-29 09:43:24	DEATH INVEST	27034 JARVIS RD	BONITA SPRINGS	REPORT TAKEN	15-268513

http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/ind...vis&yt0=Search​

 

[creepingskills]

There are two Incident Numbers reflected on LCSO website for the DEATH INVESTIGATION at 27034 JARVIS RD on 06-29-2015 at 09:43:24.

My thoughts.... but I have no idea how LCSO assigns Incident Numbers: The initial Incident Number assigned was 15-268297. Disposition on this incident number is listed on LCSO website as TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. I think this incident was likely closed at the date and time it was 'turned over to other agency'.

The other Incident Number 15-268513 (higher number) was assigned after it was determined the case would be TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. Any detail obtained after the case was 'turned over to other agency' would be logged in this separate Incident Number.

This way, LCSO knows exactly the data that was TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY at the date and time of the disposition to this other agency because all of that data would be in the first Incident Number 15-268297.

[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]Occured Date[/TD]
[TD]Incident Type[/TD]
[TD]Address[/TD]
[TD]City[/TD]
[TD]Disposition[/TD]
[TD]Incident Number[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-06-29 09:43:24[/TD]
[TD]DEATH INVEST[/TD]
[TD]27034 JARVIS RD[/TD]
[TD]BONITA SPRINGS[/TD]
[TD]TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY[/TD]
[TD]15-268297[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2015-06-29 09:43:24[/TD]
[TD]DEATH INVEST[/TD]
[TD]27034 JARVIS RD[/TD]
[TD]BONITA SPRINGS[/TD]
[TD]REPORT TAKEN[/TD]
[TD]15-268513[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/ind...vis&yt0=Search​

Completely agree. Thanks for the logical explanation. :dance:

 

[No it's not]

There are two Incident Numbers reflected on LCSO website for the DEATH INVESTIGATION at 27034 JARVIS RD on 06-29-2015 at 09:43:24.

My thoughts.... but I have no idea how LCSO assigns Incident Numbers: The initial Incident Number assigned was 15-268297. Disposition on this incident number is listed on LCSO website as TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. I think this incident was likely closed at the date and time it was 'turned over to other agency'.

The other Incident Number 15-268513 (higher number) was assigned after it was determined the case would be TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY. Any detail obtained after the case was 'turned over to other agency' would be logged in this separate Incident Number 15-268513.

This way, LCSO knows exactly the data that was TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY at the date and time of the disposition to this other agency because all of that data would be in the first Incident Number 15-268297.

Occured Date	Incident Type	Address	City	Disposition	Incident Number
2015-06-29 09:43:24	DEATH INVEST	27034 JARVIS RD	BONITA SPRINGS	TURNED OVER TO OTHER AGENCY	15-268297
2015-06-29 09:43:24	DEATH INVEST	27034 JARVIS RD	BONITA SPRINGS	REPORT TAKEN	15-268513

http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/ind...vis&yt0=Search​

Re-posting link:

http://www.sheriffleefl.org/main/index.php?r=news/index&id=13698

Did you notice:

sl/268297
tw/268297

-Nin

 

[oceanblueeyes]

JMO - I think "disposition: turned over to other agency" means LSCO handed over the case to an other agency (FDLE?). The sheriff has referred to LSCO as an "agency" before, and the use of the word "other" makes me think that LSCO is distinguishing itself from the "other agency". If the Major Crimes Unit consists of homicide detectives working for (paid by) LCSO, they are not working for a separate state agency. There would be no "turning over" to a specialized unit within the agency.

Isn't this case in the LSCO jurisdiction? The Sheriff's department wouldn't hand over their case to another agency I wouldn't think. What they normally do is the Sheriff or whomever is over the local jurisdiction where the crime occurs has jurisdictional control of the case but may call the state agency (FLDE in this case) to assist but not take over the investigation. The same way if the FBI enters a case. They aren't the lead agency in control but assist the law enforcement agency who is.

But I may have it all wrong. It is sort of confusing to me.

Would a death investigation be done at first by the Medical Examiner's office and when they knew immediately the death was a homicide it was then turned over to the Sheriff's office?

I remember when Michael Jackson died at first the case wasn't a criminal investigation. It started off as a death investigation by the medical examiner's office who then handed the case off to the police agency once they had the MOD as homicide.

So that is one of the reasons I thought it may have been handled at first by the ME office who does death investigations.

IMO

 

[msboo]

NIN..... yes, I did notice the sl and tl in front of the 268297. What's up with that I wonder. I too remember something in that early interview with an office staff person about going to the house finding LE already there BUT how confusing as to who found her deceased body?! Looks like one account says an 'unidentified' person or individual found her? Huh?

Riversinthedesert..... yes I wonder about that too, as to if the LCSO report was worded incorrectly. "Stuff" does happen. It will be interesting to see how & when lots of things took place when this case unfolds.

 

[No it's not]

.. saying hi!

https://www.facebook.com/sheriffleefl/photos/pcb.1006733642711241/1006733382711267/?type=1&theater

-Nin :dance:

 

[creepingskills]

Isn't this case in the LSCO jurisdiction? The Sheriff's department wouldn't hand over their case to another agency I wouldn't think. What they normally do is the Sheriff or whomever is over the local jurisdiction where the crime occurs has jurisdictional control of the case but may call the state agency (FLDE in this case) to assist but not take over the investigation. The same way if the FBI enters a case. They aren't the lead agency in control but assist the law enforcement agency who is.
IMO

LSCO has jurisdiction. I'm simply using the terms LSCO used in their reports "turned over to other agency". IMO, this is LCSO's form terminology merely referring to the incident that was calling in FDLE for assistance.

 

[No it's not]

NIN..... yes, I did notice the sl and tl in front of the 268297. What's up with that I wonder. I too remember something in that early interview with an office staff person about going to the house finding LE already there BUT how confusing as to who found her deceased body?! Looks like one account says an 'unidentified' person or individual found her? Huh?

That is the current case number (268297). The letters are initials of LCSO personnel.

The information on who made the call to LE or who found Dr Sievers has not been released at this time.

According to one witness, the vehicle ("tan Chevrolet Avalanche") , that was parked "close to the garage" on Monday morning at around 9:30am. The same witness also reported that the vehicle was located inside the crime tape. The crime tape around the driveway, the front and backyard, and around the entire house was the main crime scene. The crime tape on the street was a crime scene barrier. This is an area, were personnel can park and commute, signing into a log etc., all to maintain the integrity of the crime scene.

Since the witness saw the vehicle close to the garage, but inside the crime tape, the individual who parked that car must have been at the scene prior to LE arrival. It was not disclosed, who the vehicle belonged to or who drove it there. According to source, the vehicle was photographed and finger printed, and later released. I do not think this vehicle belonged to SH, who drove by and "spoke to a deputy". She would have not been able to park in the S driveway at that time and she herself confirmed, there was crime tape up.

So it is possible, that some individual called police ( perhaps after noticing something looking through the windows or lights on, pried open door etc.). That person did not necessarily have to have entered the S house to realize something was possibly wrong.

-Nin

 

[Riversinthedesert]

In reference to the tan Chevy Avalanche parked at the house, it was reportedly cleared and released with no connection to the crime (according to NG) for whatever that is worth. Obviously the driver knew Dr. S. but sounds like LE cleared that vehicle.

 

[audreyparker]

I paid life insurance claims for several years for two different companies so I can give some general info on the life insurance issue.

We would never have paid out any life insurance claim without an original final death certificate listing the cause and manner of death. The process went something like this - the ins. company is notified of an insured's death, the company pulls the insured 's file and determines who the beneficiary is, the company sends the proper forms along with a letter regarding the paperwork needed to process the claim (death cert, completed, beneficiary forms and sometimes other things such as a copy of a trust, power of atty or funeral home assignment forms, etc...), the company pays the claim if all of the information is received and the beneficiary is not a suspect in the insured's death. There are of course, other claims where it is much more complicated.

And yes, I have worked on claims where the insured is murdered. I would normally contact the law enforcement agency or detective working the case and advise them that there was an insurance policy and who the beneficiary is. Sometimes they were unaware a policy existed, sometimes they knew about it and contacted us. The proceeds cannot be paid if the primary beneficiary is suspected of being involved. The proceeds will stay in limbo until the case is worked out. Sometimes if a case is particularly complex and/or the ins co cannot figure out who to pay, they will go to court and have a judge decide what to do.

Regarding suicide, most policies have a 2 year con-testability period and as long as the person makes it past the 2 years, the ins company pays - even if the insured commits suicide.

The companies I worked for sold personal and business life insurance including key-man insurance which the dr may or may not have carried. In that case, the beneficiary would have been the company, not a personal beneficiary because the purpose is to cover the loss of a particular person and their role in a business.

This is a very general explanation of what can be a very complex process, and I don't have any knowledge of any insurance TS may or may not have had. I also have no knowledge of what a company 's specific requirements or process would be for this case because I doubt the companies I worked for wrote a policy on TS if she even had one.

 

[Riversinthedesert]

Note the difference in the time line reported on NG (obviously not verified), and the observation that the Avalanche was driven off by the lead investigator.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/02/ng.01.html
[20:20:05]Matt Zarrell, very, very important. What can you tell me about a vehicle?

ZARRELL: Yes, OK, so we spoke to this neighbor, who says that the morning the body was discovered, there was a tan Chevy Avalanche truck in the

driveway of the Sievers`s home. The neighbor noticed it about 9:00 AM.

And the reason that`s very significant is cops were not called for 45 minutes after the car was seen. Cops called 9:45. The neighbor says the

car was parked in the driveway really close to the garage door. The neighbor had never seen it there before.

And Nancy, one thing I want to point out that`s very important. The cops, when they came, they took pictures and fingerprints of the car, and then

the main investigator on the case drove the truck away before the media was even aware that this was a crime scene.

 

[savagewoman]

Strange that the Sievers have very observant neighbors and others that thought the house was empty all the time.

 

[No it's not]

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/fox4now/news/Solving-S-322010141.html

-Nin

 

[Sparky]

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/fox4now/news/Solving-S-322010141.html

-Nin

Actor? That's odd IMO.

 

[concernedmother]

So there may not be an arrest anytime soon. If ever. jmo.

 

[No it's not]

They have nothing else to report, so they are reporting nothing else but their own thoughts. Basically the same we are doing here while waiting. LCSO is quiet, so is everyone else. They are not asking for public help.

It's almost like being in an elevator, stopping at each level, people in and out, seems endless. So let's just wave back at the folks of the Major Crimes Unit and - keep waiting while listening to the elevator music.

-Nin :seeya:

 

[Irisha]

So there may not be an arrest anytime soon. If ever. jmo.

We've already passed soon. If you're basing your above opinion on the article from the former police chief, IMO he has the same info we do. He's speculating, his opinions, he has no idea what evidence, clues they have. IMO it added nothing to the investigation or answers, space filler:gaah:. <modsnip>. :moo:

 

[makayla]

Was watching an episode of Disappeared on ID Channel - took place in Florida - when the local police found the victim's purse, they sent it off to the crime lab at FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement). I wouldn't have known what FDLE meant unless I had read it here in our recent discussions