Mark Sievers Trial General Discussion Thread

New Posts

This whole case is so tricky when trying to connect it to MS. CWW gave minimal details about both accomplices. For MS the links that could an should be made, IMO, are:

CWW knew when TS was coming home. There is no evidence that says TS would have told him. The only link is MS who knew when she would arrive home.

CWW had no money. But, MS sent him checks to help finance the trip.

Burner phones were bought within x number of days of each other and destroyed/discarded around the same time.

JRR told his gf that he was going to come into 10k (the pay for the job). CWW didn't have the cash for it. MS had access to money.

MS asked Dr. P if it was a robbery? Why ask that? TS could have committed suicide or fallen in the tub or drown in the pool.

After the crime:

We have MS who refuses to believe his friend did it.

MS wanted CWW to get remote access to the network from jail.


What else?

I am not sure that this will fully link him but maybe if we generate a list of the linkage then the case won't look so dire.
 
kaen said:
This whole case is so tricky when trying to connect it to MS. CWW gave minimal details about both accomplices. For MS the links that could an should be made, IMO, are:

CWW knew when TS was coming home. There is no evidence that says TS would have told him. The only link is MS who knew when she would arrive home.

CWW had no money. But, MS sent him checks to help finance the trip.

Burner phones were bought within x number of days of each other and destroyed/discarded around the same time.

JRR told his gf that he was going to come into 10k (the pay for the job). CWW didn't have the cash for it. MS had access to money.

MS asked Dr. P if it was a robbery? Why ask that? TS could have committed suicide or fallen in the tub or drown in the pool.

After the crime:

We have MS who refuses to believe his friend did it.

MS wanted CWW to get remote access to the network from jail.


What else?

I am not sure that this will fully link him but maybe if we generate a list of the linkage then the case won't look so dire.
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t CWW have access to her work calendar? That’s one way he’d know when she’s returning without involving MS.

The checks could’ve been for work done, or just to help a friend.

I don’t know. There’s so much that it “could be” and without the state proving or linking MS definitively, I don’t see how they’ve completed their burden.
 
ChicagoChic said:
Wow. I really think that the defense scored some points today. I think it is really wrong that Lee County has been subsidizing TS. That is an obscene amount of money--only her travel expenses and lodging should have been paid for--why are they paying for her life? Its so wrong. It diminishes her credibility. Bad move. Lots of people struggle with their living expenses--she shouldn't have been rewarded monetarily for cooperating with the police. I am stunned.
Click to expand...

They arrested her sole source of support for her and her children. I can't think of a more deserving person eligible for the Witness Assistance Program. Florida established that program for people just like her. She wasn't rewarded for cooperating with the police. She was subsidized for housing when they arrested her sole source of support and was pregnant.

My goodness, you sound like you work for the defense.
 
kaen said:
This whole case is so tricky when trying to connect it to MS. CWW gave minimal details about both accomplices. For MS the links that could an should be made, IMO, are:

CWW knew when TS was coming home. There is no evidence that says TS would have told him. The only link is MS who knew when she would arrive home.

CWW had no money. But, MS sent him checks to help finance the trip.

Burner phones were bought within x number of days of each other and destroyed/discarded around the same time.

JRR told his gf that he was going to come into 10k (the pay for the job). CWW didn't have the cash for it. MS had access to money.

MS asked Dr. P if it was a robbery? Why ask that? TS could have committed suicide or fallen in the tub or drown in the pool.

After the crime:

We have MS who refuses to believe his friend did it.

MS wanted CWW to get remote access to the network from jail.


What else?

I am not sure that this will fully link him but maybe if we generate a list of the linkage then the case won't look so dire.
Click to expand...
As to the bolded ones, I worry that some of these can be explained away with creative defense testimony.

CWW had remote access to the work computers. I assume TS could have told her staff when she was arriving home? Even approximately.

As for the checks that MS sent CWW for the trip---testimony was that MS owed him 500 for past few months of work on computers. The defense will use that to negate the claim that MS paid for the trip.

The defense will have creative explanations for the burner phones. The insurance fraud or drug/pill dealing or sexual shenanigans, etc.

MS not believing his friend did it---very common and that can be reasonably explained away. Most of us are shocked if our closest friend is accused of a brutal crime.

Same with the request for remote access---MS will claim that CWW was needed to help keep the computer system working correctly, etc.

I really wish they had something more damning and more solid than what has been shown so far. UGGHHHH
 
beach said:
They arrested her sole source of support for her and her children. I can't think of a more deserving person eligible for the Witness Assistance Program. Florida established that program for people just like her. She wasn't rewarded for cooperating with the police. She was subsidized for housing when they arrested her sole source of support and was pregnant.

My goodness, you sound like you work for the defense.
Click to expand...


I might be wrong, but I think she meant it as to why they’re STILL paying her. Yes, I could understand paying for her return flights and lodging, and some initial move in/living expenses, but after 4 years she should’ve been able to find her own source of employment.
 
ChicagoChic said:
Wow. I really think that the defense scored some points today. I think it is really wrong that Lee County has been subsidizing TS. That is an obscene amount of money--only her travel expenses and lodging should have been paid for--why are they paying for her life? Its so wrong. It diminishes her credibility. Bad move. Lots of people struggle with their living expenses--she shouldn't have been rewarded monetarily for cooperating with the police. I am stunned.
Click to expand...

Taylor gave up much more, than she is getting now. She basically gave up the life she knew and the father of her child. LCSO threatened her -as they would threaten anyone else- if she does not tell the truth and thus she could be viewed as an accessory. How does that diminish her credibility?

ALL IMO

-Nin
 
ChicagoChic said:
Wow. I really think that the defense scored some points today. I think it is really wrong that Lee County has been subsidizing TS. That is an obscene amount of money--only her travel expenses and lodging should have been paid for--why are they paying for her life? Its so wrong. It diminishes her credibility. Bad move. Lots of people struggle with their living expenses--she shouldn't have been rewarded monetarily for cooperating with the police. I am stunned.
Click to expand...
She was a struggling single mom, being asked to turn in the sole breadwinner, and someone she was very afraid of.

It is NOT the DA nor the PD that is paying her. It is Victim's Assistance, which is made for cases such as this. I dont see it as a bad or shocking thing. JMO
 
Who are going to be the 4 plus 1 witness (the one who can be called at any time)?

We know the medical examiner will have to testify. Number 1.

Who is the witness, that can be called at any time? Mary Ann Groves, Teresa's mom..? Possibly Number 2.

Angela Wright as Number 3..?

Who could be number 4 and 5? Kaen? How about the aunt up in CT (Dr TS side), that Mark tried to get the kids to the night before the murder, although they were scheduled to visit her on one of the next couple of days or so ? From my collection it was late and the aunt was not expecting guests anymore. Mark was pushing for it - knowing he would not be able to see her the next day..Either Anne Lisa talked about it or the aunt. Not sure.

Who else?

ALL IMO

-Nin
 
No it's not said:
Taylor gave up much more, than she is getting now. She basically gave up the life she knew and the father of her child. LCSO threatened her -as they would threaten anyone else- if she does not tell the truth and thus she could be viewed as an accessory. How does that diminish her credibility?

ALL IMO

-Nin
Click to expand...

ITA... And I wish the word "threat" wasn't used. They were simply informing her of what the consequences might be if she was found to be an accessory after the fact. Same things that would happen to anyone.

Loved the "pervert" comment. Tell it like it is, Taysho.
 
I'm not sure where to post, so I'm landing here.

After the testimony of the friend of hers, Danielle, I now think this is absolutely positively going to be a hung jury or he gets off. I think a hung jury.

Her testimony was pretty much of what he did after Teresa passed away. Which is what many people in the State of Florida do. The jury is many people who are retired and have gone through what they have done when people die. Which is call the insurance company immediately, call the credit card companies, get the family together and do it all at once together. I've been there. And I'm sure many other jurors have, so what she is saying is not unusual. I just don't understand what she had to offer?

She said he was not focused on the investigation, she said he was focused on the children. Well, isn't that to be expected?

So many things that she was saying was odd, is what many of us who live in Florida that have had Parents pass away do. We focus on closing down their accounts, we get the family together and focus on their financials, and we do this when we are all together. Been there, done that. It's not unusual.

I don't understand what this witness had to add, other than what I have been thinking before, as that the prosecution witnesses are better for the defense. This is another one of them. Big time. And especially with a strong-willed family of Teresa, when something happens, they want to get stuff done.

My heart aches for the family, is this was another one for the defense. The prosecution has not had any home runs. And this one actually was one for the defense I think.

ETA that she sent information to the prosecution last night at 10 p.m., doesn't help. And that came into testimony today . SMH
 
Last edited:
katydid23 said:
You wouldn't get that sense in here because we know so much of the discovery details already. We know what a psychopath Mark is and how he set up this brutal cold-blooded murder, and told so many lies in preparation.

But does the jury understand any of that? I am not sure they do.....
Click to expand...

I cut and BBM'd from your post what I want to address:

You said it EXACTLY!

This is so easy for me to forget as I get angry and talk (sometimes yell) at the TV and I wonder if trial attorneys sometimes forget this, too. It's hard to un-remember facts. It must be so frustrating to forget that sometimes we assume everyone knows what we know. We've seen, heard and read hundreds of pages of information via Websleuths, watched and listened to police interviews, etc. and I will forget that not everyone is as interested in this case (or Jessica Chambers' murder, and more) or even aware. I assume that there really are people in Lee County who haven't paid attention to or even been aware of Teresa Sievers' murder. So many horrible things in the news and time has passed. There could be jurors who don't know anything about the case except the names of the victim and accused and whatever the lawyers bring out during the trial. For better or worse, but it's frustrating all the same.
 
ScotAng said:
Mummert's going to (try and) go for Taylor, he cannot sit still. Ohh ... she just said she tried to avoid MS because he acted like a 'kind of a pervert'.
Click to expand...

That was AWESOME! She is a really good witness - sincere, honest, uncensored and spontaneous. "Pervy". Mummert didn't get it and asked her to repeat it, lol. Laughter in the court.
 
No it's not said:
Taylor gave up much more, than she is getting now. She basically gave up the life she knew and the father of her child. LCSO threatened her -as they would threaten anyone else- if she does not tell the truth and thus she could be viewed as an accessory. How does that diminish her credibility?

ALL IMO

-Nin
Click to expand...
I wrote my honest opinion. When I didn't know that she was being paid 20,000 for her testimony, I felt that she was more credible. It puts a different spin on her motivation. She didn't know JRR very long before all of this and she had other children who weren't his that she was caring for--so many people are struggling and I have compassion for them--there are other ways that she could have received aid that weren't connected to her being a witness in this case.
 
ChicagoChic said:
I wrote my honest opinion. When I didn't know that she was being paid 20,000 for her testimony, I felt that she was more credible. It puts a different spin on her motivation. She didn't know JRR very long before all of this and she had other children who weren't his that she was caring for--so many people are struggling and I have compassion for them--there are other ways that she could have received aid that weren't connected to her being a witness in this case.
Click to expand...

SHE WAS NOT PAID FOR HER TESTIMONY.

It came from a State approved & subsidized Witness Assistance Program. Participation requires meeting a hardship criteria. You’re free to have an opinion but you are not permitted to keep characterizing it as something it is not to further your narrative.
 
Cut most so I could respond in Bold to some comments. Not everyone behaves the same, certainly not everyone sees things the same, so please, no disrespect intended.

After the testimony of the friend of hers, Danielle, I now think this is absolutely positively going to be a hung jury or he gets off. I think a hung jury. I see it as the opposite. Her testimony was very clearly damaging to him by showing his manipulative behavior. He "sounded" like he was hysterically crying and he was "visibly shaking his body", but when she saw his face, it was dry, no tears, no red eyes, no runny nose.

Her testimony was pretty much of what he did after Teresa passed away. Which is what many people in the State of Florida do. The jury is many people who are retired and have gone through what they have done when people die. Which is call the insurance company immediately, call the credit card companies get the family together and do it all at once together. I've been there. And I'm sure many other jurors have, so what she is saying is not unusual. It is unusual for as many people as it is business as usual. I've been there, too. Three times and most definitely not everyone does this immediately! I just don't understand what she had to offer? She offered excellent insight due to her long-term relationship with TS and her first-hand, in-person interactions with MS at that time. (referenced above and below)

She said he was not focused on the investigation, she said he was focused on the children. Well, isn't that to be expected? MS was calculating and manipulative. He was trying and successfully did maneuver her into "reminding" him that he had told her the girls would be "very well off". As if he'd forgotten he had five insurance policies totaling over $4,000,000 on his wife. NOBODY forgets paying high premiums on FIVE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES on their spouse.

Of course it's natural to focus on the children, but also on finding who, how and WHY their mother was so brutally murdered. A loving father wouldn't tell the girls days after the murder of their mother that they should forgive the murderer. A loving father wouldn't take children back to the murder house for a pool party days after the murder.

He paid those premiums while letting the house be threatened with foreclosure, owing the IRS money, etc. Gotta make sure those life insurance premiums are made before all else...
 
FelicityLemon said:
Cut most so I could respond in Bold to some comments. Not everyone behaves the same, certainly not everyone sees things the same, so please, no disrespect intended.

After the testimony of the friend of hers, Danielle, I now think this is absolutely positively going to be a hung jury or he gets off. I think a hung jury. I see it as the opposite. Her testimony was very clearly damaging to him by showing his manipulative behavior. He "sounded" like he was hysterically crying and he was "visibly shaking his body", but when she saw his face, it was dry, no tears, no red eyes, no runny nose.

Her testimony was pretty much of what he did after Teresa passed away. Which is what many people in the State of Florida do. The jury is many people who are retired and have gone through what they have done when people die. Which is call the insurance company immediately, call the credit card companies get the family together and do it all at once together. I've been there. And I'm sure many other jurors have, so what she is saying is not unusual. It is unusual for as many people as it is business as usual. I've been there, too. Three times and most definitely not everyone does this immediately! I just don't understand what she had to offer? She offered excellent insight due to her long-term relationship with TS and her first-hand, in-person interactions with MS at that time. (referenced above and below)

She said he was not focused on the investigation, she said he was focused on the children. Well, isn't that to be expected? MS was calculating and manipulative. He was trying and successfully did maneuver her into "reminding" him that he had told her the girls would be "very well off". As if he'd forgotten he had five insurance policies totaling over $4,000,000 on his wife. NOBODY forgets paying high premiums on FIVE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES on their spouse.

Of course it's natural to focus on the children, but also on finding who, how and WHY their mother was so brutally murdered. A loving father wouldn't tell the girls days after the murder of their mother that they should forgive the murderer. A loving father wouldn't take children back to the murder house for a pool party days after the murder.

He paid those premiums while letting the house be threatened with foreclosure, owing the IRS money, etc. Gotta make sure those life insurance premiums are made before all else...
Click to expand...


Respectfully, I will agree to disagree with how some people react and what they do after somebody dies. I know our family did everything within 48 Hours as to shutting down credit cards, and contacting Insurance Etc.

That said, I'm only saying these things because I'm wanting to throw something against the wall because I want him to be convicted. And I'm just pointing out in my opinion that so many things may seem so normal too many folks and they will discount when the prosecution seems to make a big deal out of it. That to me is an issue in Trials, when the prosecution makes a big deal about something that goes on and on, that many of us say we have been through and that is how we would react also.

I just so much want the prosecution to slam this home! And I just don't see it happening
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,370 (members: 193, guests: 3,177)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,177
Total visitors
3,370
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,163
Messages
17,964,397
Members
228,706
Latest member
mhenderson
Back
Top