***Jury Recommends DEATH for Mark Sievers*** Penalty/Sentencing Phase

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arachne 1 said:
What is this guy smiling about?

Mark Sievers | Mug Shots | Tampa Bay Times
Click to expand...
ARACHNE:).... I am wiping spewed coffee off my computer screen....that was the last thing I expected to see this morning!! OMG....his sibling and parent did say everyone at the casino (when employed) called him "SMILEY." Maybe the gravity and permanence of his conviction is still not weighing on his conscience, yet?
 
Arachne 1 said:
What is this guy smiling about?

Mark Sievers | Mug Shots | Tampa Bay Times
Click to expand...

He is going for a ride in a car. My dog looks a little like this when we say we are going in the car.


MS is just too much. He really thought he was going to get a new trial. When he came into court, he was trying to chat with the deputy but was rebuffed. Uggghhhh.
 
Legally Bland said:
@Jake_Allen19
·
1m

"As a married couple, no. We were closer with Teresa," Petrites said.


[Mummert is struggling with this.]
Click to expand...
Legally Bland said:
Motion denied.
Click to expand...
LEGALLYBLAND (NOT!) Wonderful news, thanks LB. Man-o-man....too much excitement. But, I've got my justice pom-poms out and shaking like crazy. Any clue on what the "juror misconduct claim" was about? MM (as in Mummert)
appears to be trying to bring up stuff that he should have covered in the trial, but was constantly over-ruled because he just couldn't stay on top the questioning. BTW " de minimis" is one of my favorite adjectives!!
 
IQuestion said:
LEGALLYBLAND (NOT!) Wonderful news, thanks LB. Man-o-man....too much excitement. But, I've got my justice pom-poms out and shaking like crazy. Any clue on what the "juror misconduct claim" was about? MM (as in Mummert)
appears to be trying to bring up stuff that he should have covered in the trial, but was constantly over-ruled because he just couldn't stay on top the questioning. BTW " de minimis" is one of my favorite adjectives!!
Click to expand...
The jury misconduct was regarding a TV interview.
______________


Prejudice with Respect to Juror Misconduct

11. Pursuant to Fla. R Crim. P. 3.600(b), [t]he court shall grant a new trial if any of the following grounds is established, providing substantial rights of the defendant were prejudiced thereby.

12. More specifically, Fla. R. Crim. P 3.600(b)(4) [a]ny juror is guilty of misconduct.

13. In a recent interview with WINK News, the jury foreperson relayed that the jury decided that they believed the testimony of Dr. MARK PETRITES describing a phone
conversation after MARK SIEVERS failed to inquire as to the status of Dr. TERESA SIEVERS' condition, instead asking whether a robbery had occurred.

14. The jury foreperson also stated that the jurors found CURTIS WAYNE WRIGHT credible because, “[y]ou don't get on the witness stand and hit somebody with a hammer unless it's true.”
_______________

From:
https://matrix.leeclerk.org/Cases/Search
Docket 606. (File too big to upload).
 
Can the MS team expect that there will be any further wins on any motion if that is the strength of their evidence regarding a fair trial?

Mark never thought (with all his time in jail) about who of my FL friends would support me. He didn't think about the love and support he got from Michelle. Just pure BS. They had nothing. Still don't have anything to prove his innocence.
 
Kakidoll said:
Dr. P is not happy. I'd love to read the letters. Mrs. P was in it up to her eyeballs IMO.
Click to expand...
Here's the (or one of the) letters from the same docket (606) as above. It doesn't suggest the closeness I was expecting and concentrates on the wellbeing of the girls.
 

Attachments

  • MWP Letter (0.5mb) (1).pdf
    523.4 KB · Views: 58
I don't know about you guys, but I cringed throughout that. I can't say this without sounding mean, but it was like watching Amateur Hour.

It was ridiculous putting MP back on the stand to question him about someone else's thoughts & actions. When the Judge asked MP (rhetorically) if he wrote the letter, I squeaked a little 'boom' then cringed at myself too. Judge Kyle made up for that when he spelled out the blatantly obvious - you put the wrong one on the stand, dude.

It felt like they were out to do MP some damage, one way or another. Though that might be just my take. The good doctor will be relieved it's finally over and the last time he has to ever set eyes on Mark Sievers, convicted murderer.
 
ScotAng said:
I don't know about you guys, but I cringed throughout that. I can't say this without sounding mean, but it was like watching Amateur Hour.

It was ridiculous putting MP back on the stand to question him about someone else's thoughts & actions. When the Judge asked MP (rhetorically) if he wrote the letter, I squeaked a little 'boom' then cringed at myself too. Judge Kyle made up for that when he spelled out the blatantly obvious - you put the wrong one on the stand, dude.

It felt like they were out to do MP some damage, one way or another. Though that might be just my take. The good doctor will be relieved it's finally over and the last time he has to ever set eyes on Mark Sievers, convicted murderer.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but they needed to impeach the Dr. in order to prove that his testimony was inaccurate/false to support a new trial. If the Dr. had lied then it would have been an opening that his whole testimony was a lie. If they could have gotten the sustained questions answered, then they might have called her to the stand.
 
That letter is not what i expected. She wants to know what TERESA would want....And Mark wasn't arrested yet, so seems straight forward to me. BAD move Defense. Throwing things at walls to see if it will stick. Nope.
 
kaen said:
I may be wrong but they needed to impeach the Dr. in order to prove that his testimony was inaccurate/false to support a new trial. If the Dr. had lied then it would have been an opening that his whole testimony was a lie. If they could have gotten the sustained questions answered, then they might have called her to the stand.
Click to expand...
KAEN:) You bring up an interesting twist in MS's evil plan. Dr.P was just a nice man going to his medical office on that morning. It was MS who initiated the call to Dr. P, interrupting his schedule, and asked him to check on Teresa! Dr.P was just another disposable pawn in MS's murderous plan and NOW, yes NOW, somehow we are supposed to believe Dr.P had an agenda in MS's conviction. Frankly (apologies to anyone named Frank) the whole road trip was a waste of time. Good grief, MM even asking questioning where Dr.P sat in the court room, after he testified....uurrrrggg:mad::mad::mad:. Dr. P was a long time friend of Teresa and of course would sit near the family. Talk about grasping at straws....
should someone also mention to MM that he referred to JW as Mark's mother-in-law instead of correctly identifying her as MS's step-mother? Oh well, another de minimis error that amounted to nothing substantial....just like this hearing!
 
IQuestion said:
KAEN:) You bring up an interesting twist in MS's evil plan. Dr.P was just a nice man going to his medical office on that morning. It was MS who initiated the call to Dr. P, interrupting his schedule, and asked him to check on Teresa! Dr.P was just another disposable pawn in MS's murderous plan and NOW, yes NOW, somehow we are supposed to believe Dr.P had an agenda in MS's conviction. Frankly (apologies to anyone named Frank) the whole road trip was a waste of time. Good grief, MM even asking questioning where Dr.P sat in the court room, after he testified....uurrrrggg:mad::mad::mad:. Dr. P was a long time friend of Teresa and of course would sit near the family. Talk about grasping at straws....
should someone also mention to MM that he referred to JW as Mark's mother-in-law instead of correctly identifying her as MS's step-mother? Oh well, another de minimis error that amounted to nothing substantial....just like this hearing!
Click to expand...

I know. I wondered if MS really thought that he could get a new trial by accusing the doctor of lying on the stand. Funny though, Dr. P was threaded through most of the motions, IIRC. Jury misconduct--Dr. P factored into their decision making as he appeared to testify with credibility and stated that MS didn't ask about TS only if there was a robbery. Dr. P was not truthful on the stand as he testified that he was not close with MS --a lie outed by the dramatically found letter penned by his wife. The poor man was lured to the murder scene and MS/MM are trying to scapegoat him. What does MS have against Dr, P?
 
kaen said:
I know. I wondered if MS really thought that he could get a new trial by accusing the doctor of lying on the stand. Funny though, Dr. P was threaded through most of the motions, IIRC. Jury misconduct--Dr. P factored into their decision making as he appeared to testify with credibility and stated that MS didn't ask about TS only if there was a robbery. Dr. P was not truthful on the stand as he testified that he was not close with MS --a lie outed by the dramatically found letter penned by his wife. The poor man was lured to the murder scene and MS/MM are trying to scapegoat him. What does MS have against Dr, P?
Click to expand...


What does MS have against Dr. P? Dr. P busted his *advertiser censored* to Teresa, informing her that her billing practices (by Mark "the office manager"), were unethical and illegal (in a nutshell).

I remember the poor patient who had such a heated confrontation with MS about billing, that they had to sit in their car until their hands stopped shaking, so they could safely drive home.

Who's shaking now? How many volts are we talking about? 2,000-3,000?

I hope a team of cyber-cops rain down on MS's fraudulent medical billing network, and snag all his cohorts. Yes, Mr. Purple Truck must fry. (And I'm sure there are many others.)

Any way you look at it, he (MS) is done.
 
Last edited:
The prosecution was very careful and selective which evidence and witnesses to bring forward.
It was paying off then and it is paying off now in the appeals process. JMO

In addition, there are indeed family members, who wholeheartedly believe in MS' innocence. Not sure if they want to believe it or if they just have not followed the entire chain of evidence..

Why don't we write a book and bring it all to light? Seriously, why not..?
Title, "Side barred..";)

ALL IMO

-Nin
 
ARACHNE & KAEN Both of you have touched on the subject of "envy, jealousy & resentment" or maybe it is just me wanting to go in that direction? DrP and his wife (no matter the struggles couples often experience) have weathered this horrible storm and thrived! MS on the other hand, was going backwards in life. Messing up the billing, possibly billing fraud, bouncing checks, IRS debt, prop taxes owing, marriage floundering etc.... sabotaging others to elevate his importance and making himself "needed." Ie, The guy who "rescues you" when you are changing a light bulb, and you didn't know he was the one who kicked the chair out from under you in the first place.
Hmmm, maybe he purposely reached out to the 2 people he resented most that weekend (DrP and Ms's mother BS)....gas lighting both as some sort of emotional punishment. (MS must have been one mean teenager IMO) Notice he didn't call his StepM to feed the animals or check on Teresa, huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 227 more.
Total: 2,094 (members: 228, guests: 1,866)

Online statistics

Members online
228
Guests online
1,866
Total visitors
2,094
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,665
Messages
17,972,710
Members
228,854
Latest member
ramada.williams.gc@gmail.
Back
Top