2015.12.02 Discovery Documents - Batch 1

[beach]

I bet that line was left over from a different subpoena request and someone forgot to change it for this subpoena.

So...based on that dropped clue, I would say that TS's AmEx card was used after her death.

I thought the Amex was just 'lifted' from its usual place but found near TS?:dunno:

See AZ's observation above. Maybe that will help clarify? IDK, I'm behind on all this now. :sigh:

 

[creepingskills]

See AZ's observation above. Maybe that will help clarify? IDK, I'm behind on all this now. :sigh:

Thank for clarifying, Beach! What a catch AZ!

I have more questions, NIN pointed out Capital One's return receipt was included after the "items purchased with the subject's credit card" reference, is it possible that the credit card used to purchase "the items" was TS's Capital One card?

Amex or Capital One, I wonder if "the items" were the burner phones.

ETA:
This is the wording that has me all confused and now that I'm rereading, I see it doesn't expressly state that the AMEX was left at the scene.

Bates #2 "the decedent's wallet littered around the immediate area. The wallet was opened and the contents appeared to have been molested. There is a single American Express card which was apparently lifted from within its usual pocket within the wallet. All other rooms and living areas appeared to have been unmolested."

 

[creepingskills]

This credit card information has thrown me for a loop. What if MS took out credit cards in TS's name? This probably wouldn't be too difficult as her husband, the office manager. Could the mail found in CWW's possession in Missouri have been a credit card statement addressed to TS? Surely MS wouldn't want LE looking at his trash if there were statements showing unusual purchases in TS's name.:scared:

 

[dmac55]

See AZ's observation above. Maybe that will help clarify? IDK, I'm behind on all this now. :sigh:

the first part is about TS's American Express card
my thinking is that since they know she used an American Express card at the airport...
"which was apparently lifted from within its usual pocket within the wallet"
i think the above means it should have been in her wallet at the scene but it was not
jmo
i am not sure thought - that is just how i am reading it at this moment



Discovery Documents
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B717FUtKwdU8NmpNd2dEbTFWRWM&usp=sharing
Page #2
Scene Observation

...In addition to this, there were multiple receipts, liquid containers and the decedent's wallet littered around the immediate area. The wallet was opened and the contents appeared to have been molested. There is a single American Express card which was apparently lifted from within its
usual pocket within the wallet.


Bates #3067

Detective Nolen contacted Lee County Port Authority and requested video and stills of Teresa Sievers at the airport, which were later supplied. The Port Authority advised_that Teresa Sievers airplane arrived in Fort Myers from Laguardia on Sunday, June 28, 2015, at about 10:30 p.m. Airport cameras captured Teresa at the concourse terminal at about 10:43 p.m. Teresa was documented as paying via American Express at the parking lot ticket booth at 10:5l p.m.

-------------------------------------------

the following are items related to a Anglea (Wideman) Wright's Mastercard:
(as it relates to this line from a subpoena: "It will prove who purchased the items using the subject's credit card.)

Bates #2742
July 22
subpoena: Fifth Third Bank

...Any and all certified records for checking account number and credit card accoun o include but not limited to, all account holders~ signers on the account, signature cards, transaction htstory ot all deposits and or withdraws from June 19, 20 J 5 through June 28. 2015, any and all digital images of instruments deposited into or withdrawn from the accounts



Bates #2745

Angela Wideman
Mastercard Application (approved)
Fifth Third Bank



Bates #2959
July 24
subpoena

7. HOW DOES THE INFORMATION REQUESTED RELATE TO THE INVESTIGATION:
It will prove who purchased the items using the subject's credit card.





Bates #2741
July 28

to: Lee County Sheriff's Office to
from: Records Custodian Clerk, Fifth Third Bank
re: subpoena

Please find enclosed statements, checks and deposits with offsets and ssignature cards
for the following accounts.
Checking account
Credit Card account

 

[dmac55]

Thank for clarifying, Beach! What a catch AZ!

I have more questions, NIN pointed out Capital One's return receipt was included after the "items purchased with the subject's credit card" reference, is it possible that the credit card used to purchase "the items" was TS's Capital One card?

Amex or Capital One, I wonder if "the items" were the burner phones.

ETA:
This is the wording that has me all confused and now that I'm rereading, I see it doesn't expressly state that the AMEX was left at the scene.

Bates #2 "the decedent's wallet littered around the immediate area. The wallet was opened and the contents appeared to have been molested. There is a single American Express card which was apparently lifted from within its usual pocket within the wallet. All other rooms and living areas appeared to have been unmolested."

i am confused too!
my thoughts are just random musings from an old lady @ midnight so take with a grain of salt

 

[dmac55]

*oops: disregard my posts on the subject:/*
i thought i had a handle on it for about 5 minutes, and the minute i posted it, i realized nope!

this sentence:
"It will prove who purchased the items using the subject's credit card.", is on a subpoena for
The Ohio National Life Insurance Company, not the subpoena for AW's credit card

jmo
sorry for me confusing it furthur

 

[Russian Blue]

Thanks for pointing that out. While it is a little vague in nature regarding the Amex card, I think it must mean the card was still there at the scene, how else would they know that the card was missing from its spot, was it the only card all the way out of one of the slots in the wallet and maybe the wallet was open and money gone (if there was cash). How would they know at that time if it was not there that a card was missing and it was an AMEX if it wasn't somewhere at the scene.

 

[No it's not]

FYA

12-09-15 NOTICE OF DISCOVERY (SUPPLEMENTAL) FILED

Case # 15-CF-000674 Curtis Wayne Wright

http://apps2.leeclerk.org/FreeSearch/default.aspx

-Nin

 

[Batman's Mommy]

here it is:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B717FUtKwdU8NmpNd2dEbTFWRWM&usp=sharing
Discovery Documents
pages4-5
Statement #1 of Mark Sievers:

M. Sievers went on to explain that after learning of the decedent's failure to show up at work the following day, he tracked her phone and saw that it was at their residence on Jarvis Road.

After being unable to contact the decedent, contact was later made with M. Petrites who was asked to conduct a well being check,...



i just noticed it never says MS called her or texted her after learning she didn't show up for work.
jmo

RBBM

Wow. Good catch!

 

[Bobbywoo]

FYA

12-09-15 NOTICE OF DISCOVERY (SUPPLEMENTAL) FILED

Case # 15-CF-000674 Curtis Wayne Wright

http://apps2.leeclerk.org/FreeSearch/default.aspx

-Nin

Thanks NIN! What exactly does this mean? That more docs are available? Will all documents from here on out be considered "supplemental"?

 

[Dushi]

here it is:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B717FUtKwdU8NmpNd2dEbTFWRWM&usp=sharing
Discovery Documents
pages4-5
Statement #1 of Mark Sievers:

M. Sievers went on to explain that after learning of the decedent's failure to show up at work the following day, he tracked her phone and saw that it was at their residence on Jarvis Road.

After being unable to contact the decedent, contact was later made with M. Petrites who was asked to conduct a well being check,...



i just noticed it never says MS called her or texted her after learning she didn't show up for work.
jmo

Its early and Friday!

What do you think the bolded means?

 

[Dmacky]

Its early and Friday!

What do you think the bolded means?

It just means that after MS "tracked" her cellphone, it showed up that it was at their home.
After being unable to contact the decedent,
^^^^^
After being unable to get a answer from TS, he called his Dr. friend to go and check on her.
How convenient huh?

 

[beach]

Thanks NIN! What exactly does this mean? That more docs are available? Will all documents from here on out be considered "supplemental"?

Yes, it means there are more docs coming. "supplemental" just means in addition to the stuff we're already sent you. That can be for a variety of reasons: Maybe SA missed something they should have turned over in the first batch, or it could mean that some new information has been discovered or made available to them since they turned over the original discovery.

 

[Dmacky]

Yes, it means there are more docs coming. "supplemental" just means in addition to the stuff we're already sent you. That can be for a variety of reasons: Maybe SA missed something they should have turned over in the first batch, or it could mean that some new information has been discovered or made available to them since they turned over the original discovery.

Thanks beach for clarifying. Do you know the reason we were not privy to things that were said by CWW in the doc dump? As in texts, and things he said while being interrogated in Missouri?

 

[No it's not]

Yes, it means there are more docs coming. "supplemental" just means in addition to the stuff we're already sent you. That can be for a variety of reasons: Maybe SA missed something they should have turned over in the first batch, or it could mean that some new information has been discovered or made available to them since they turned over the original discovery.

That's how I took it too. Thank you, beach!

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Thanks beach for clarifying. Do you know the reason we were not privy to things that were said by CWW in the doc dump? As in texts, and things he said while being interrogated in Missouri?

Don't want to reply for beach, but a lot of the withheld info may have to do with the ongoing active investigation. We may not only looking at MS in this regards. SMS pointed towards possibly several more individuals being involved in the last NG interview.

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

Don't want to reply for beach, but a lot of the withheld info may have to do with the ongoing active investigation. We may not only looking at MS in this regards. SMS pointed towards possibly several more individuals being involved in the last NG interview.

-Nin

BBM

SCOTT: Well, we have additional information to look through. We have additional evidence to work through. And of course, Nancy, as a long-time

prosecutor, you understand that the only thing more critical to making an arrest is making the arrest appropriately (INAUDIBLE) and the defense

community.We want to make sure that we have everything right. And by the way, I realize (INAUDIBLE) primarily about Mark Sievers, but let`s not

eliminate the (INAUDIBLE) fact that there could be others, as well. I realize we`re talking about Wright, Rodgers and Sievers, with the first two

being in custody. There are other people involved (INAUDIBLE) documents, I think you can see that people have information. Perhaps

they`re not forthcoming initially. Then there are other charges perhaps on other people, as well.


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1512/02/ng.01.html

-Nin

 

[nifwor1967]

I have more questions, NIN pointed out Capital One's return receipt was included after the "items purchased with the subject's credit card" reference, is it possible that the credit card used to purchase "the items" was TS's Capital One card?

Amex or Capital One, I wonder if "the items" were the burner phones.

ETA:
This is the wording that has me all confused and now that I'm rereading, I see it doesn't expressly state that the AMEX was left at the scene.

Bates #2 "the decedent's wallet littered around the immediate area. The wallet was opened and the contents appeared to have been molested. There is a single American Express card which was apparently lifted from within its usual pocket within the wallet. All other rooms and living areas appeared to have been unmolested."[/QUOTE

i am confused too!
my thoughts are just random musings from an old lady @ midnight so take with a grain of salt

From what I gather, I think it is just a random order of these papers.
The Ohio National Life Subpoena was issued on July 24th
Capital One certified letter delivery received on July 14th

Also, maybe her AMEX was in her pocket from paying and the CWW and JR took it out, or it fell out and they placed it on the counter. I know when I pay at a booth like that at dark and I am tired, I may put the receipt and CC in my pocket until I get home and "unpack".

 

[SurfieTX]

From what I gather, I think it is just a random order of these papers.
The Ohio National Life Subpoena was issued on July 24thCapital One certified letter delivery received on July 14th

Also, maybe her AMEX was in her pocket from paying and the CWW and JR took it out, or it fell out and they placed it on the counter. I know when I pay at a booth like that at dark and I am tired, I may put the receipt and CC in my pocket until I get home and "unpack".

Or just threw the card into her purse/tossed it on the seat of the van to put it back in her wallet later. I'm picturing the booth as a drive-through type where you hand the clerk your ticket and card, and once paid they lift the barrier thing so you can drive out of the lot. LE didn't know at the time that she had used her AMEX to pay at the airport, so the card must have been there somewhere and it was probably obvious where she kept it in her wallet.

 

[nifwor1967]

After reading some of these pages again, I thought some of this info was interesting:

1. The same judge from the DCF hearing, Judge Lee Schrieber, is the judge who signed the arrest warrants for CWW and JR.

2. Also, it appears their were some prepaid cards purchased through Bancorp Bank. I wonder what those were used for?

#3070