FL - Dr Teresa Sievers, 46, murdered in home, Bonita Springs, June 2015 #3

[Sparky]

I spoke to my daughter who has been a Vet Tech for many years at the UF Animal Hospital. She said, LE may have been looking for fleas or ticks. They both feed on blood.

Read page 558, the paragraph starting with Fleas. Especially the sentences after Figure 18.28. Standard laboratory testing.........


https://books.google.com/books?id=H...-Ch3bqgJU#v=onepage&q=forensics fleas&f=false

 

[Dushi]

I spoke to my daughter who has been a Vet Tech for many years at the UF Animal Hospital. She said, LE may have been looking for fleas or ticks. They both feed on blood.

Read page 558, the paragraph starting with Fleas. Especially the sentences after Figure 18.28. Standard laboratory testing.........


https://books.google.com/books?id=H...-Ch3bqgJU#v=onepage&q=forensics fleas&f=false

Wow!! Complicated but facinating

 

[No it's not]

Remember there were 2 different interviews, where Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott is giving an update ("books & movies") about the case.



This is the NBC-2 interview with Kelly Burns. Mike Scott talks about the complexity of the case and Kelly Burns
mentions in the end Scott said that "books and movies" would be written about it:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/29494119/...m#.VaK7AJXbKZM


The other interview is with Sam Smink from WINK NEWS. The video has been taken down by now. However, there was no mentioning of the "books and movies" in the video. Here the written version:


http://www.winknews.com/2015/07/07/l...s-murder-case/


-Nin
​

 

[No it's not]

I spoke to my daughter who has been a Vet Tech for many years at the UF Animal Hospital. She said, LE may have been looking for fleas or ticks. They both feed on blood.

Read page 558, the paragraph starting with Fleas. Especially the sentences after Figure 18.28. Standard laboratory testing.........


https://books.google.com/books?id=H...-Ch3bqgJU#v=onepage&q=forensics fleas&f=false

I just hope that wasn't the case, because it would not hold up in court. Fleas can come from anywhere. Anyone could have brought them in. Even the detectives going from house to house and interviewing the neighbors.

It would further cast doubt, if they really had a solid lead by now. Just saying.

The idea is great though! Perhaps they did check in the very beginning of the investigation for critters?

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

So LE was back and combing through the property last week again. Why?

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Where are the dogs staying?
Did LE take the dogs out of the house to do the testing last week?
Are the dogs living there?
It doesn't make sense that they would be brought there to be tested
If they are living there, why bring them to a front yard to test?

The dogs are and have been staying at the house. Read the posts.

-Nin

 

[Dushi]

The dogs are and have been staying at the house. Read the posts.

-Nin

I read the post.
I am asking the questions because people are discussing contamination.
If the dogs are living there, why bring them outside to take samples?

 

[Scout]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but, in my opinion, you guys are overthinking the latest report.

Fleas and bite marks and drugs and cross-contamination. No.

Hair samples and saliva are for comparison to evidence of hair and saliva that's been previously collected. What neighbors perceived as collection of saliva could possibly be oral swab for DNA. Bringing the animals out front was probably due to limitations of their warrant. Thus the need for Mark's presence. Mark could bring them out or allow or accompany animal control officers to enter and bring them out. Investigators would not enter the premises.

Another possibility is that investigators had a warrant to search the home again for other evidence. Therefore, take the animals outside to collect hair and buccal swabs from them while techs collect other evidence from within the home.

The only cross-contamination they'd be concerned with is in bringing the animals outside to take samples. That's why they put them on a sheet instead of directly on the ground.

http://www.vetdnacenter.com/canine-collection.html

 

[No it's not]

I read the post.
I am asking the questions because people are discussing contamination.
If the dogs are living there, why bring them outside to take samples?

It could have legal reasons. For example, it could be easier to obtain a warrant taking samples outside the house than inside.

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Ah, scout beat me to it.

-Nin

 

[Dushi]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but, in my opinion, you guys are overthinking the latest report.

Fleas and bite marks and drugs and cross-contamination. No.

Hair samples and saliva are for comparison to evidence of hair and saliva that's been previously collected. What neighbors perceived as collection of saliva could possibly be oral swab for DNA. Bringing the animals out front was probably due to limitations of their warrant. Thus the need for Mark's presence. Mark could bring them out or allow or accompany animal control officers to enter and bring them out. Investigators would not enter the premises.

Another possibility is that investigators had a warrant to search the home again for other evidence. Therefore, take the animals outside to collect hair and buccal swabs from them while techs collect other evidence from within the home.

The only cross-contamination they'd be concerned with is in bringing the animals outside to take samples. That's why they put them on a sheet instead of directly on the ground.

http://www.vetdnacenter.com/canine-collection.html

So you don't think samples were taken of the dog and cat before?

Taken from the house, the body?

 

[Sparky]

I'd like to Thank everyone for the nice discussion and staying within TOS. It's very much appreciated!

:tyou:

 

[Dushi]

But when Christian suggested that animal control officers collect saliva from a neighbor's dog, Lucky, to see if it could be genetically linked to hair found in Cody's mouth and claws, she was met with bewilderment.

"They kind of acted like, 'Well, you've been watching a little too much 'CSI,'" Christian recalled with a laugh.

Christian eventually paid $500 for the evidence to be tested at the Veterinary Genetics Lab at the University of California at Davis, which has the largest database of domesticated-animal DNA in the country.

The result? A one in 67 million chance the hair belonged to any animal other than Lucky.


http://www.nwitimes.com/lifestyles/...cle_65b47dc4-f531-5bb4-b1c5-3168dde56e51.html

 

[FelicityLemon]

So you don't think samples were taken of the dog and cat before?

Taken from the house, the body?

Good point. They may have found hair or fur that's different from the Sievers pets and now need to come back and take definitive samples to compare and rule out. I mean, that at first glance, any fur on TS body and clothing looks the same and is assumed to be the pets, but during the deeper examination, they found some that looks not quite like the majority.

As to why outside in the front in full view? I still think it was to invoke something in somebody who could see it including reporters who would report to the public. They could have done this in the backyard. I could be wrong and this is the way it should be done and will be done from now on. Maybe it's always been done this way and never reported on before?

 

[mckazpm]

I don't mean to offend anyone, but, in my opinion, you guys are overthinking the latest report.

Fleas and bite marks and drugs and cross-contamination. No.

Hair samples and saliva are for comparison to evidence of hair and saliva that's been previously collected. What neighbors perceived as collection of saliva could possibly be oral swab for DNA. Bringing the animals out front was probably due to limitations of their warrant. Thus the need for Mark's presence. Mark could bring them out or allow or accompany animal control officers to enter and bring them out. Investigators would not enter the premises.

Another possibility is that investigators had a warrant to search the home again for other evidence. Therefore, take the animals outside to collect hair and buccal swabs from them while techs collect other evidence from within the home.

The only cross-contamination they'd be concerned with is in bringing the animals outside to take samples. That's why they put them on a sheet instead of directly on the ground.

http://www.vetdnacenter.com/canine-collection.html

I totally agree, Scout. This it's being overthought. Anything that I posted was said to be seen from the street. It was not a parade, but a meticulous process. DNA (period). Hair, hair, hair...sticks to clothes and anything else. Doesn't have to be a bite. So each animal would need a profile that identified that they were family pets and would be expected to be found at the scene. Anything else found would be suspicious and further investigative work would ensue. All of the testing is taking time and honestly, it's to be expected...BUT, if I were a resident, close to that crime scene, I'd be asking for media to come while I rallied the entire area to demand something!!! I would not feel safe!!

 

[Dushi]

I don't see any point in an unsolved murder as being over thought, maybe thats just me.
Hair does stick to everything and that is why I find it hard to believe that samples weren't taken when processing the scene, then, not weeks later

All JMO

Its apparent that LE was looking for something
Who knows what
Anyway, maybe we will find out someday

 

[lakshmi]

Scout, our favorite pastime around here is, drumroll please :drumroll: ................ OVERTHINKING! :takeabow:

 

[mckazpm]

I don't see any point in an unsolved murder as being over thought, maybe thats just me.
Hair does stick to everything and that is why I find it hard to believe that samples weren't taken when processing the scene, then, not weeks later

All JMO


Its apparent that LE was looking for something
Who knows what
Anyway, maybe we will find out someday

You're right as well Dushi! I guess there really is no over thinking this case! My personal opinion is just that taking additional samples the other day would not seem too odd. I just don't know.

 

[SurfieTX]

:shutup:

 

[No it's not]

:shutup:

:boohoo:-Nin