Mark Sievers Trial General Discussion Thread

[debbiegarcia36]

Thanks for jumping in as you made an excellent point there that I didn't even think of because I was so shocked about 3 hammers being on the nightstand!!
Perhaps they are mementoes. After all, he held on to the jumpsuit for a while afterward.
Evil, pure evil.

Too bad the state wasn't able

Am I dense or not seeing the big picture. I cannot connect any of this questioning that is a rehash of JRR trial to Marks involvement in the murder. Am I missing something

Agree. I didn't watch ASA Hunter's opening statement but it would have been helpful to the jury if ASA Hunter explained how he was going to present his case. For example, if he said, first we are going to slowly and methodically walk you through the witnesses statements to establish that the trip to Florida to murder TS was carefully planned by CWW and then we are going to present evidence that connects it all back to MS. Basically it would help if he told the jury upfront what he is trying to establish. JMO.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

Thanks for jumping in as you made an excellent point there that I didn't even think of because I was so shocked about 3 hammers being on the nightstand!!
Perhaps they are mementoes. After all, he held on to the jumpsuit for a while afterward.
Evil, pure evil.

Too bad the state wasn't able

Am I dense or not seeing the big picture. I cannot connect any of this questioning that is a rehash of JRR trial to Marks involvement in the murder. Am I missing something

Deleted by me - duplicate post.

 

[Katharine]

Prosecution: What was the discussion like between you and Mr S while you drive over to the S' home?
Dr P: (describes the voicemail and short conversation held with MS while driving) ... He had wanted me to just go into the house and go check on her and I didn't think that was appropriate and I was telling him that I would knock on the door first before I would go into the house.

Dr P: ...The first thing I did when I left the house was I called MS directly and asked him where the girls were. I did that before I called 911... he said that they were with him and I told him that he needed to come home now and that I would call him back.
Prosecution: Did you tell him why he needed to "come home now"?
Dr P: No I did not.
Prosecution: Did he ask you why he needed to "come home now"?
Dr P: No he did not.
Prosecution: Did you tell him what you had seen in the house?
Dr P: No I did not.

Prosecution: Did you have another opportunity to talk to MS about what had happened to Dr Sievers in the house?
Dr P: Yes after I got off the phone with 911 I called MS to talk to him further about what had happened. The main premise behind that was to find out information because I knew that the police were going to be asking me: Where was she, where was she coming home from and whatever and so I was asking MS about her flight arrangement and things like that.
Prosecution: Did you tell him at that point that Dr Sievers was deceased?
Dr P: No, I did not
Prosecution: Why not?
Dr P: I didn't feel it was my duty or responsibilty. I told him that something terrible had happened and that she was hurt. I didn't say what I had found when I went in the house.
Prosecution: Is that something you would have done on the phone?
Dr P: No.
Prosecution: During that, or any conversation that day, did he ask how his wife was hurt?
Dr P: He didn't ask specifically but he asked, "Was it a robbery?" He didn't ask how she was hurt, where she was hurt, where she was going to or being taken to

Prosecution: On the weekend immediately prior to Monday the 29th, did you get any other phone calls or voice messages from MS?
Dr P: Yes - the night before I found her which would have been a Sunday night, I got a voicemail message from him saying that he was "checking in on me" for some reason, and wanted to know if I was okay and that Teresa was going to be coming home that night.
Prosecution: Was that something that MS frequently did? Did he frequently call to check on you and see how you were doing?
Dr P: No, we never really had much conversation about travel plans and things like that. We didn't have that kind of relationship.
Prosecution: So how would you describe the fact that he called and left you this message the night before, checking on you? How would you describe that?
Dr P: It was very odd, just - very strange that he did.

Voicemail messages:
First message:
Hey M, this is also M. I'm just calling to check on you - see how you are doing. I was texting with M and she said you already made it back safely. (inaudible) Anyway, you got the idea. I will talk to you later. Teresa comes back tonight, and then the girls and I will be back on Wednesday night. Just wanted to say hello and see how you're doing. Take care, M. Bye.
Second message:
Hey M, this is M. I called yesterday just to check on you - now I'm calling you today to see if you can check on Teresa. *giggles* I know it's early: 9.30 in the morning and you're probably at work and that's okay. Teresa's not at work yet and the office is calling and texting and we can't get through to Teresa so I just thought maybe if you were not at work, you could possibly swing by the house. And the garage code is 1-3-1-3, enter, and the door opens up. Anyway, if you get this message, great, otherwise I'll call my Mom and have her come over and check on Teresa. Maybe she's just sound asleep. It's just not like her (inaudible) to be a half an hour late for work. And not answer her phone. Actually, (inaudible) ...is normal for me, but not being late for work. I'm rambling. I'll talk to you. Thanks, M

Prosecution: During your discussions with MS, did he indicate to you, at all, how he knew Dr S was at home?
Dr P: Yes, so when I was driving to their house, we were talking on the phone and he had told me that he had traced the phone to the house, that he knew she was there. He went on to say that he didn't know why she wasn't answering, because the phone was dead. We engaged in conversation about that because I said "How can you find a phone when the phone is dead?" He said he knew that she was in the house and he wanted me to just go in.

(Regarding suspects and CWW being named as a suspect. Dr P was aware through conversation about CWW's link to the S family, and is describing the conversation he had with MS about CWW being named as a suspect)
Prosecution: Firstly, what was the tone of that conversation?
Dr P: Well, I guess I was angry that his friend was arrested for it. I called him and asked him about it and the response was that, "Oh, he didn't do it. They have no evidence on him. They're picking away at my friends, trying to get to me." Which I still cannot figure out why he wouldn't be mad if somebody was arrested for killing your wife.
Prosecution: Were you surprised at his response?
Dr P: Yes I was, very much so.

Source:

Thank you so much! This for me if I was a juror is hugely important. Dr. P. was a very credible witness. He never even was flustered by the defense attorney Mummert's questions. He was just like he would be in the operating room as a surgeon. He was set up by Mark but was very smart in his conversations with Mark. The very fact the two did not have a relationship is very telling. He was a perfect witness the morning of June 29. Mark Sievers goofed. MOO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hello,

First Subscribing.

Second ... ... I have a lot of catching up to do here !

 

[Alice253]

Just gotta say, I think any WS member who has followed this case from the beginning could put on a better, more cohesiveJ case than the prosecution has so far. I'm really disappointed, especially after the Frazee trial that was so well laid out and cohesive. If the prosecution does not do a bang-up job on closing, I am worried that Mark will walk. JMO, for the moment anyway.

 

[Curious Me]

Too bad the state wasn't able


Agree. I didn't watch ASA Hunter's opening statement but it would have been helpful to the jury if ASA Hunter explained how he was going to present his case. For example, if he said, first we are going to slowly and methodically walk you through the witnesses statements to establish that the trip to Florida to murder TS was carefully planned by CWW and then we are going to present evidence that connects it all back to MS. Basically it would help if he told the jury upfront what he is trying to establish. JMO.

Opening was done by ASA Cynthia Ross. She said it was like putting a huge thousand piece puzzle together. It sounded to me as though they were going to include very little of what we thought they could use. Hence, a smaller puzzle. This is a Death Penalty case? I'm sorry, but I'm disappointed so far.

 

[IQuestion]

Just gotta say, I think any WS member who has followed this case from the beginning could put on a better, more cohesiveJ case than the prosecution has so far. I'm really disappointed, especially after the Frazee trial that was so well laid out and cohesive. If the prosecution does not do a bang-up job on closing, I am worried that Mark will walk. JMO, for the moment anyway.

ALICE253, I am usually a positive person and dumb as a rock when it comes to courtroom procedures, but I could tell something went terribly, terribly wrong. I was watching and thinking this is as a bad as a football player making an interception and then running to the wrong goal post! Suddenly you realize the only thing that can happen is for his own team to tackle him because he is going to score for the other team. "Defeat snapped from the jaws of victory??"
Let's hope they have DrP testify again, and then say "The prosecution is done."

 

[Bobbywoo]

So, does everyone think they are going to side step around the toxic points of the marriage? IMO, if they don't address it and prove that a divorce was imminent they are not proving motive. Because, after all, TS was worth more to MS alive instead of dead. UNLESS, she was going to leave him. So many dropped balls by the State. Not sure what their motive is regarding this unless it's to keep TS from being dragged through the mud. But would TS rather be dragged through the mud to ensure her murderer go to prison? Or look squeaky clean and have her murderer go free?

 

[Oregonmama]

Mark is not going to walk. Medicare fraud charges still can be filed against him when this trial is done. Am I happy so far with this trial, NO!!, but we still have witnesses such as Carrie Kain, Tay Sho and others. CK will nail Mark's coffin for freedom shut for good!! CK will be able to tell the jury her interaction in the house of horrors after T's death and the amount of times (17) that Mark said she was hit is the slam dunk. No one except LE , ME and the killers knew that fact!! Mark can continue to enjoy his honey buns behind bars for the rest of his pathetic life!!! JMO

 

[Curious Me]

This is the State's Opening Statement.

 

[Marysmith]

Just gotta say, I think any WS member who has followed this case from the beginning could put on a better, more cohesiveJ case than the prosecution has so far. I'm really disappointed, especially after the Frazee trial that was so well laid out and cohesive. If the prosecution does not do a bang-up job on closing, I am worried that Mark will walk. JMO, for the moment anyway.

I agree completely. It’s frustrating. Been involved in a similar case and the way the prosecution presented and the things they didn’t ask still bothers me sooo much and a full conviction was not secured.., not even close. Honestly for victims the crime is horrific but the trial can also be very traumatizing.

 

[ChicagoChic]

Court TV keeps showing the video of CWW's testimony and it is so repulsive as to be unbearable. I think that CWW is a liar. No way should he be given a lesser sentence after what he did-- when he recounts the hideous bludgeoning of that lovely woman, he speaks about his "weak shoulders" and that he couldn't strike a really powerful blow to her head--and that he "tried two more times but thinks that it got her arms and not her head" and then goes on to say that Rodgers was beating her again and again and again and that he asked him to stop?! Yeah sure....CWW is a big fat liar. I don't believe his version of events. Nope. Sick, depraved loser who isn't even a human being.

 

[Marysmith]

Court TV keeps showing the video of CWW's testimony and it is so repulsive as to be unbearable. I think that CWW is a liar. No way should he be given a lesser sentence after what he did-- when he recounts the hideous bludgeoning of that lovely women, he speaks about his "weak shoulders" and that he couldn't strike a really powerful blow to her head--and that he "tried two more times but thinks that it got her arms and not her head" and then goes on to say that Rodgers was beating her again and again and again and that he asked him to stop?! Yeah sure....CWW is a big fat liar. I don't believe his version of events. Nope. Sick, depraved loser who isn't even a human being.

Agree. He is DISGUSTING and EVIL.

 

[ChicagoChic]

I wish that the prosecution would read our posts to get a better idea of public opinion on their plea deal. Taking the death penalty off the table should have been the only concession. He deserves life in prison--no less. Never to feel the grass, smell the flowers, hear the laughter of his family....he is a MONSTER. I don't understand how ANYONE could do something like this.

 

[Marysmith]

I wish that the prosecution would read our posts to get a better idea of public opinion on their plea deal. Taking the death penalty off the table should have been the only concession. He deserves life in prison--no less. Never to feel the grass, smell the flowers, hear the laughter of his family....he is a MONSTER. I don't understand how ANYONE could do something like this.

All 3 of them do!! So disturbing that these 3 found each other and butchered someone without a second thought!

 

[ChicagoChic]

Agreed. I think that Dr Petrites is the most important witness thus far against Seviers.....Mark's phone call to him the night before like they were close buddies and then calling him the say of the killing is extremely telling. Bizarre behavior. It would have made sense if he would have asked his mother to look in on his wife when she came to feed the dogs. Asking his mother or the office worker would have made sense.

 

[debbiegarcia36]

ALICE253, I am usually a positive person and dumb as a rock when it comes to courtroom procedures, but I could tell something went terribly, terribly wrong. I was watching and thinking this is as a bad as a football player making an interception and then running to the wrong goal post! Suddenly you realize the only thing that can happen is for his own team to tackle him because he is going to score for the other team. "Defeat snapped from the jaws of victory??"
Let's hope they have DrP testify again, and then say "The prosecution is done."

Well said IQ! There is so much more to this case. I thought Dr. P would mention him overhearing the conversation about Medicare fraud between MS an TS. I havent watched much of the testimony. Was the state able to say how many messages, phone calls were exchanged between CWW and MS on their burner phones?

 

[scapa]

I agree with those posters concerned about the overall thrust of the prosecution case. It seems to offer an unclear, unfocused, and at times almost shorthand account of the crime without paying proper attention to background, timeline and the nexus of motives that drove the planning and execution phases, more of a recap or précis than step-by-step narrative, including all possible whos, wheres, whys and hows.

Not sure if this is because of the cascading effect of the CWW/JRR trials, but if I were a juror who knew nothing of the case or this earlier trials I would feel underprepared by the crown's case at this point -- sort of like a tour guide who pushes you through the palace at a trot because s/he's already handed out the pamphlet. Their job, surely, is to frame and interpret evidence in the best possible order so that the jury can weigh and decide the case. I just don't feel at this point that that framing has been optimized -- still plenty of time, of course.

 

[Marysmith]

I agree with those posters concerned about the overall thrust of the prosecution case. It seems to offer an unclear, unfocused, and at times almost shorthand account of the crime without paying proper attention to background, timeline and the nexus of motives that drove the planning and execution phases, more of a recap or précis than step-by-step narrative, including all possible whos, wheres, whys and hows.

Not sure if this is because of the cascading effect of the CWW/JRR trials, but if I were a juror who knew nothing of the case or this earlier trials I would feel underprepared by the crown's case at this point -- sort of like a tour guide who pushes you through the palace at a trot because s/he's already handed out the pamphlet. Their job, surely, is to frame and interpret evidence in the best possible order so that the jury can weigh and decide the case. I just don't feel at this point that that framing has been optimized -- still plenty of time, of course.

Yes. You said it perfectly. That’s how I felt about the trial I referenced earlier- that if you were a juror there were so many gaps and unanswered questions out there. I understand the not guilty verdict in that case...

 

[beach]

I’ve been sitting on my hands because I am furious. Only getting more furious every day. This is the most disjointed piece of crap case in chief I have ever witnessed. Frankly, it’s a disaster. Let’s be real - they’ve barely entered any evidence or testimony that ties directly to Mark. And we all know it’s there. They just haven’t called the witnesses that can link him. Unfortunately, I fear the reason why they haven’t is even more disgusting. I hope I’m wrong but every day is seems more apparent.

So....here goes my worry/concern...

The day before Teresa’s funeral there was a private family viewing/memorial. The family went back to Bonnie’s house afterward. More family & friends were arriving from out of town to gather there. However, Mark insisted on leaving the family to meet with a woman at the beach. A friend who was so distraught that she was contemplating dropping out of law school, so he said. Mark said he needed to talk her out of it. That woman was Michele Petrites, Dr. Petrites’ wife. He returned 4 hours later. Sunburned. I’ve waited for over 4 years for her statement to be released. Ever seen it? Nope, me either. Ever heard a single word from her? Not me. Wonder why, don’t y’all? You’d think surely the State would want her statement. Why haven’t we seen it? Baffling.

Fast forward to 2018. She’s graduated law school apparently because she is now employed by the State of Florida as an Assistant State Attorney in a neighboring county. I’m not going to post her profile but it’s out there. (Please don’t post it if you find it. I’ve got screenshots if it disappears.) Is the State protecting this woman for professional reasons? Someone needs to do some explaining.