1344 users online (340 members and 1004 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 70 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1040
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    36,893

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

    Mystery as doctor is killed in her Florida home while her husband and children were out of town
    June 30, 2015





    Teresa Sievers, 46, was found dead in her Bonita Springs home on Monday after staff at her Estero office became concerned that she didn't show up to work, despite having scheduled appointments.
    Sievers had been in Connecticut with her husband, Mark Sievers, their children and sister Anna Lisa prior to her death, but flew home alone on Sunday.

    Thread #1
    Last edited by Coldpizza; 07-10-2015 at 10:40 AM.
    Just my opinion, of course.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CA always, FL now
    Posts
    17,731
    Deputies chasing tips in Bonita doctor's murder
    Jul 09, 2015



    LEE COUNTY SHERIFF SCOTT BREAKS SILENCE ON SIEVERS MURDER CASE

    BONITA SPRINGS, Fla.- For the first time, WINK News is hearing directly from Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott on a murder case that’s terrified the community.

    Dr. Teresa Sievers was brutally killed in her home more than a week ago, and the sheriff’s office has been tight-lipped about the case ever since.

    Tuesday, Sheriff Scott told WINK News this was not a random crime.
    Last edited by Coldpizza; 07-10-2015 at 10:15 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Dushi View Post
    I do
    I questioned it early on
    Why did a security company have access to a crime scene?
    My guess is they were asked to come out and inspect the equipment to see if it was working properly. I also think they probably could tell it had not been turned on, but LE wanted to see if that was because she actually hadn't turned it on (i.e. equipment was working, just not activated) or that she thought she turned it on, but was not working or had been tampered with in some way. They'd have to be suited up because of DNA evidence.

  4. #4
    LadyL's Avatar
    LadyL is offline Sleuthing for Lonzie Barton & All Victims.
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    8,617
    Quote Originally Posted by TTF14 View Post
    People with house alarms do not even always use them. To me, whether she had a house alarm or not has no bearing on this case.
    well, clearly police think it does since they called the alarm co. in & even gave them protective gear to go inside a crime scene

    it matters if she disarmed it or someone else disarmed it or it wasn't working properly & didn't go off when the house may have been broken into

    it matters for a whole bunch of reasons IMO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyL View Post
    well, clearly police think it does since they called the alarm co. in & even gave them protective gear to go inside a crime scene

    it matters if she disarmed it or someone else disarmed it or it wasn't working properly & didn't go off when the house may have been broken into

    it matters for a whole bunch of reasons IMO
    Agree

    also, was it set and disarmed because she knew who was at the door?
    ~ let the storm wash over you, because somewhere beneath, there is your balance and wisdom ~


    Rosemadderlake

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyL View Post
    well, clearly police think it does since they called the alarm co. in & even gave them protective gear to go inside a crime scene

    it matters if she disarmed it or someone else disarmed it or it wasn't working properly & didn't go off when the house may have been broken into

    it matters for a whole bunch of reasons IMO
    Well, that's true. What I meant was if she never armed it, she never armed it, so the alarm would then have nothing to do with it. I'm leaning toward her never arming it and the company coming out to make sure it was working properly (i.e. she didn't "think" she armed it and it didn't work.). When I've had systems before, the company can tell remotely if it's totally unplugged from the wall, and not just unarmed. They would call to tell me it had become unplugged and ask if I was aware of it. So, if they could tell from their office she did not arm it, they probably wanted to check to make sure it was working correctly.

    IMO, she disarmed it when she got home (if it was armed on vacation) and either forgot or didn't bother to arm it again.

    I wonder who was responsible for watching the dogs.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC transplant to rural PA
    Posts
    2,668
    The reason to not accept insurance for most regular doctors is simply put, more money. I have an ongoing normal medical issue, including diagnosis, surgery and follow up treatments. I monitor all the bills sent to my insurance company and what is getting paid out. I have a good, company paid for insurance plan. So my situation is pretty average all around.
    My point is that if an office visit charge is 250, my insurance pays out around 20 dollars, plus my co-payment.
    If a surgery runs 17,000, my insurance pays out around 7000. And so on.

    If no insurance is accepted, I would have to pay the billing rate, not the "insurance payment negotiated rate". Thus, if my Dr bills 250 for an office visit, and does not accept insurance - he would get 250 for my visit, and i would get 20 or so from the insurance company if I filed. Very different from accepting the rate the insurance company dictates.
    I sincerely hope that people only go to a Dr that does not accept insurance when they really understand the financial realities of the difference. And I strongly hope that this does not become a trend, as it would be ruinous to our already fragile healthcare in this country. We already pay way more than other countries that have much better coverage, and better outcomes.
    And please knock off the pharma bashing. It's a for-profit industry, like any other. If people want to see them act in the interest of patients first, then socialize medical care. Otherwise, profits are the only thing that should matter to a drug company. It's the law regulating all publicly traded companies that their only obligation is to the shareholders.
    Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans. J. Lennon NYC

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,301

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,431
    Quote Originally Posted by TTF14 View Post
    Well, that's true. What I meant was if she never armed it, she never armed it, so the alarm would then have nothing to do with it. I'm leaning toward her never arming it and the company coming out to make sure it was working properly (i.e. she didn't "think" she armed it and it didn't work.). When I've had systems before, the company can tell remotely if it's totally unplugged from the wall, and not just unarmed. They would call to tell me it had become unplugged and ask if I was aware of it. So, if they could tell from their office she did not arm it, they probably wanted to check to make sure it was working correctly.

    IMO, she disarmed it when she got home (if it was armed on vacation) and either forgot or didn't bother to arm it again.

    I wonder who was responsible for watching the dogs.
    I expect the alarm company would absolutely know if it was armed or not, when it was armed and when it was turned off.. unless it wasn't operational.
    I had a problem in my home several years ago and the alarm company gave me a print out of when my home was accessed, when the alarm was turned off and back on

    The testing may be to determine if the failure(if there was one) was a malfunction or tampering
    ~ let the storm wash over you, because somewhere beneath, there is your balance and wisdom ~


    Rosemadderlake

  10. #10
    on the old thread i wanted to respond: i too was wondering if there were any strains between her and religion. getting back to the catholic religion. her husband being jewish. her office being more progressive based.
    All my posts are my property and are to remain here, unless otherwise stated. All JMO, unless otherwise stated.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dushi View Post
    Agree

    also, was it set and disarmed because she knew who was at the door?
    as someone with a brand new alarm (and the new alarm is wireless connection based, not wired via my home) i have a screen (looks like a tablet in my wall) in my kitchen. its where i can access any camera, set my alarm, disarm my alarm, alert my alarm, etc. so if the cops saw an alarm, the company would be called. my screen cannot be accessed by anyone who doesn't have my code. the alarm company doesn't even have my code, but they have a general code to access the screen. which includes saved videos, new videos, disarm times, etc.

    also, i have door sensors. and the screen tells which door was opened at what time.
    Last edited by RedHeadLouLou; 07-10-2015 at 10:47 AM. Reason: added information.
    All my posts are my property and are to remain here, unless otherwise stated. All JMO, unless otherwise stated.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,397
    Quote Originally Posted by elmomom View Post
    The reason to not accept insurance for most regular doctors is simply put, more money. I have an ongoing normal medical issue, including diagnosis, surgery and follow up treatments. I monitor all the bills sent to my insurance company and what is getting paid out. I have a good, company paid for insurance plan. So my situation is pretty average all around.
    My point is that if an office visit charge is 250, my insurance pays out around 20 dollars, plus my co-payment.
    If a surgery runs 17,000, my insurance pays out around 7000. And so on.

    If no insurance is accepted, I would have to pay the billing rate, not the "insurance payment negotiated rate". Thus, if my Dr bills 250 for an office visit, and does not accept insurance - he would get 250 for my visit, and i would get 20 or so from the insurance company if I filed. Very different from accepting the rate the insurance company dictates.
    I sincerely hope that people only go to a Dr that does not accept insurance when they really understand the financial realities of the difference. And I strongly hope that this does not become a trend, as it would be ruinous to our already fragile healthcare in this country. We already pay way more than other countries that have much better coverage, and better outcomes.
    And please knock off the pharma bashing. It's a for-profit industry, like any other. If people want to see them act in the interest of patients first, then socialize medical care. Otherwise, profits are the only thing that should matter to a drug company. It's the law regulating all publicly traded companies that their only obligation is to the shareholders.
    A couple of things...
    1) no the reason for not taking insurance is NOT more money. Dr. S took a large pay cut to go into private practice. Not to mention the extra schooling she took do be able to do so.The reason is to spend more time with your patients. It is about quality of care. If you bill insurance you roll through 50-60 patients/day. THAT is about money.
    Some health care practitioners really do care about the well being of their patients. JMO
    <mod snip>

    If folks don't believe in so called "alternative" medicine that is cool. Totally your decision. But let's stop with the ridicule. This thread is littered with ridicule towards, not only Dr. S's life and business partners, but even she is at the butt end of some of this ridicule.
    JMO
    Last edited by Tricia; 07-10-2015 at 12:06 PM. Reason: off topic

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,579
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolJ View Post
    A couple of things...
    1) no the reason for not taking insurance is NOT more money. Dr. S took a large pay cut to go into private practice. Not to mention the extra schooling she took do be able to do so.The reason is to spend more time with your patients. It is about quality of care. If you bill insurance you roll through 50-60 patients/day. THAT is about money.
    Some health care practitioners really do care about the well being of their patients. JMO

    <mod snip>

    If folks don't believe in so called "alternative" medicine that is cool. Totally your decision. But let's stop with the ridicule. This thread is littered with ridicule towards, not only Dr. S's life and business partners, but even she is at the butt end of some of this ridicule.
    JMO
    I can't figure out why the idea of a doc not taking insurance is relevant to this crime. I've gone to docs who take insurance and docs who don't take insurance. Are people saying it's mark on her character or that it has something to do with why she would have been targeted? I'm just trying to figure out the intrigue in something that seems like such a boring business detail.
    Last edited by Tricia; 07-10-2015 at 12:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    69
    I don't think it's relevant to this crime either... it is just that: a boring business detail, certainly not anything to be murdered over.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NYC transplant to rural PA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by CoolJ View Post
    A couple of things...
    1) no the reason for not taking insurance is NOT more money. Dr. S took a large pay cut to go into private practice. Not to mention the extra schooling she took do be able to do so.The reason is to spend more time with your patients. It is about quality of care. If you bill insurance you roll through 50-60 patients/day. THAT is about money.
    Some health care practitioners really do care about the well being of their patients. JMO

    <modsnip>

    If folks don't believe in so called "alternative" medicine that is cool. Totally your decision. But let's stop with the ridicule. This thread is littered with ridicule towards, not only Dr. S's life and business partners, but even she is at the butt end of some of this ridicule.
    JMO
    Not once did what I feel about either of those things enter into my post. FYI I think all medicine and pharma should be socialized. Nor did I give any value judgement about alternative medicine, or making more money off patients. Just stated facts my dear.

    My point about more money is that per patient, it IS much more money. So yes, a Dr may be able to see a patient for a longer period of time. Personally I prefer Drs who deliver, and not the touchy-feely aspects of going to a Dr. I value results not bedside manner. But my point was to say it is about the money, not about the mainstream vs alternative medicine aspect that she did not honor insurance.

    And why is this important to the case? Because I am leaning heavily to thinking that two things are germaine to the motive - ideas about making a fortune using non-mainstream medicine and assistance from someone into book and record keeping that wanted her out of the way. So I want to know everything about how the practice was making its money.
    Last edited by Tricia; 07-10-2015 at 12:08 PM.
    Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans. J. Lennon NYC

Page 1 of 70 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1033
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 05:35 PM
  2. Replies: 919
    Last Post: 09-03-2015, 12:37 AM
  3. Replies: 983
    Last Post: 08-27-2015, 03:22 PM
  4. Replies: 995
    Last Post: 07-30-2015, 02:35 PM
  5. Replies: 998
    Last Post: 07-10-2015, 10:23 AM

Tags for this Thread