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

[kammiemc]

Yes, to prevent the dogs from contaminating the crime scene. Cross transfer of dna is probably one of many reasons why they wouldn't introduce the dogs to the house.

I thought they released the house back to MG. This is not a challenge, just curious: wouldn't they have the same issue with people as they might with dogs cross-contaminating inside?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sparky]

Thinking outside the box doesn't hurt, neither does over thinking. Happy Sleuthing!

:beagle::cat:

 

[No it's not]

The case is too complex to "under- think" it. ;--)

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

There is a public announcement on FB, where a business called "Wilson's Wellness" announces to donate a % of the patients' visit towards the education of "upcoming" doctors.

You can look it up on Facebook under the company's business name.

-Nin

 

[No it's not]

There is a public announcement on FB, where a business called "Wilson's Wellness" announces to donate a % of the patients' visit towards the education of "upcoming" doctors.

You can look it up on Facebook under the company's business name.

-Nin

If you look up the page and scroll down, you will also find comments and publicly posted contact info for a former employee from Dr Sievers.

-Nin

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

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

The perp probably GAVE the pets fleas... :cat:

(Sorry... Couldn't resist...:blushing

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Thinking outside the box doesn't hurt, neither does over thinking. Happy Sleuthing!

:beagle::cat:

I like your style, Sparky! :seeya:

 

[Scout]

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

Taken from the house, the body?

LE doesn't do unnecessary forensic work. They can't afford to and they don't want to overload the lab. They would not take samples from the pets unless and until there is some evidence to compare said samples to. They would wait until evidence had been processed for hair/fiber and DNA evidence so that they know where to go from there.

My best guess is evidence from TS's body or from the clothing of a suspect we are not yet aware of.

Also possible it's hair/fiber from the crime scene. If that's the case, it does boost my confidence that LE is close to solving.

 

[Dushi]

Monday, we asked the Lee County Sheriff’s Office for an update on their investigation. They said there would be no updates or interviews.

Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers tells us there have been three to four new tips in the Sievers case over the last week.

http://winknews.com/2015/07/27/4-weeks-later-and-no-arrest-made-in-dr-teresa-sievers-murder/

 

[Dushi]

LE doesn't do unnecessary forensic work. They can't afford to and they don't want to overload the lab. They would not take samples from the pets unless and until there is some evidence to compare said samples to. They would wait until evidence had been processed for hair/fiber and DNA evidence so that they know where to go from there.

My best guess is evidence from TS's body or from the clothing of a suspect we are not yet aware of.

Also possible it's hair/fiber from the crime scene. If that's the case, it does boost my confidence that LE is close to solving.

I expect the crime scene is not released until they have finished processing it.
I appreciate you view on this.

 

[Mimi SWFL]

If you look up the page and scroll down, you will also find comments and publicly posted contact info for a former employee from Dr Sievers.

-Nin

Here is the message "I am so blessed to have the opportunity to work with such an amazing medical talent and a gracious open arm practice my patients will feel right at home!"

 

[Dushi]

I expect if you work within the medical field,all clients are referred to as patients regardless of your position
A receptionist may say "our patients..."

 

[Scout]

LE doesn't do unnecessary forensic work. They can't afford to and they don't want to overload the lab. They would not take samples from the pets unless and until there is some evidence to compare said samples to. They would wait until evidence had been processed for hair/fiber and DNA evidence so that they know where to go from there.

My best guess is evidence from TS's body or from the clothing of a suspect we are not yet aware of.

Also possible it's hair/fiber from the crime scene. If that's the case, it does boost my confidence that LE is close to solving.

Quoting myself because I noticed an error in last paragraph. It should have read "doesn't boost my confidence..."

 

[Scout]

I expect the crime scene is not released until they have finished processing it.
I appreciate you view on this.

I'm not sure I follow, Dushi. As I understand it, the crime scene was released at one point, and then investigators returned later, putting crime scene tape up again. If I'm not mistaken, this is when they took the side door and Toyota van. More recently, they returned to take hair and DNA samples from the family pets. It's not clear from reports if they took additional evidence from the home at the same time.

In general, a crime scene can be processed and released but then returned to later because analysis of the evidence or investigative developments make it clear that more can be gained from the scene that wasn't previously apparent. Such returns may or may not be productive depending on the type of evidence sought. If it's transitory or easily altered or destroyed, it may not be possible to get reliable evidence by returning after the crime scene has been released.

 

[creepingskills]

I thought they released the house back to MG. This is not a challenge, just curious: wouldn't they have the same issue with people as they might with dogs cross-contaminating inside?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The video of the dogs in front of the home with LE is dated July 2. http://www.hlntv.com/video/2015/07/02/doctor-teresa-sievers-murdered-home-family-out-town I'm not sure when the house was released back to MG.

Re: the report from neighbors that investigators were back taking samples from the dogs last week, I wonder if evidence of something other than dog hair (dog poop?) is at issue now whereas on July 2, there was no reason to swab for saliva. On a personal note, I lived in an apartment complex that required DNA swabs for all pets in order to deter people from not picking up their dog's poop. Dog waste that was not disposed of would be tested against the saliva samples, and the offending owner would be fined once a match came back. I'm inclined to think that the search of the dog park is related to dog poop/DNA as well.

 

[Mimi SWFL]

If you look up the page and scroll down, you will also find comments and publicly posted contact info for a former employee from Dr Sievers.

-Nin

I expect if you work within the medical field,all clients are referred to as patients regardless of your position
A receptionist may say "our patients..."

The 2015 Florida Statutes
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0400-0499/0456/Sections/0456.057.html
Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 456
HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

456.057 Ownership and control of patient records; report or copies of records to be furnished; disclosure of information.—
(1) As used in this section, the term “records owner” means any health care practitioner who generates a medical record after making a physical or mental examination of, or administering treatment or dispensing legend drugs to, any person; any health care practitioner to whom records are transferred by a previous records owner; or any health care practitioner’s employer, including, but not limited to, group practices and staff-model health maintenance organizations, provided the employment contract or agreement between the employer and the health care practitioner designates the employer as the records owner.

(2) As used in this section, the terms “records owner,” “health care practitioner,” and “health care practitioner’s employer” do not include any of the following persons or entities; furthermore, the following persons or entities are not authorized to acquire or own medical records, but are authorized under the confidentiality and disclosure requirements of this section to maintain those documents required by the part or chapter under which they are licensed or regulated:

(a) Certified nursing assistants regulated under part II of chapter 464.

(b) Pharmacists and pharmacies licensed under chapter 465.

(c) Dental hygienists licensed under s. 466.023.

(d) Nursing home administrators licensed under part II of chapter 468.

(e) Respiratory therapists regulated under part V of chapter 468.

(f) Athletic trainers licensed under part XIII of chapter 468.

(g) Electrologists licensed under chapter 478.

(h) Clinical laboratory personnel licensed under part III of chapter 483.

(i) Medical physicists licensed under part IV of chapter 483.

(j) Opticians and optical establishments licensed or permitted under part I of chapter 484.

(k) Persons or entities practicing under s. 627.736(7).

 

[mckazpm]

LE doesn't do unnecessary forensic work. They can't afford to and they don't want to overload the lab. They would not take samples from the pets unless and until there is some evidence to compare said samples to. They would wait until evidence had been processed for hair/fiber and DNA evidence so that they know where to go from there.

My best guess is evidence from TS's body or from the clothing of a suspect we are not yet aware of.

Also possible it's hair/fiber from the crime scene. If that's the case, it does boost my confidence that LE is close to solving.

So, if it's a hair from her seat on the plane, that explains why it's taking so long :tantrum:

 

[FelicityLemon]

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

Appreciate the article - thank you! It's interesting and good to know what's possible on our own if LE can't or won't do it. I'd do it in a heartbeat to prove or disprove who harmed any of my animals I think pet necropsy should be more available for this reason, too.

 

[Sparky]

Mod Reminder

*Rumors and gossip are NOT allowed on WS. If you read it on Facebook, leave it on Facebook.

*Unless LE indicates that an individual is a POI/suspect, that individual is OFF LIMITS to sleuthing and speculation. Please keep your suspicions to yourself.

*WS holds to a "victim friendly" policy, so the above applies even more strongly to family members, particularly parents and spouses, who in most cases are innocent, and suffering terribly when their loved one is missing or murdered. The last thing we want to do is add to their pain. Therefore, they always are granted the benefit of the doubt.

*Brainstorming theories is encouraged, but must be based on fact. For our purposes, "fact" refers to information published in the mainstream media (MSM) or other acceptable sources, such as academic and professional publications.

*When you state something as "fact", you must back it up with a link to an approved source.

*If you can't link it, you can't post it.

*Social media is a nightmare in terms of rumors. You can summarize information from an original post on a LE or MSM FB page. No copy and paste, no screenshots, and you must include link.

*Comments and posts by the general public are considered rumor, and therefore, off limits. Again, leave them where you find them.

*Mods have the right to edit and delete posts at their discretion if deemed inappropriate, or in violation of TOS. Complaints, questions and concerns should be addressed in a private message to a mod or admin. DO NOT post them in the thread.

*If at any time, you have questions or need assistance, the mod team is happy to help you. Please use the pm system to contact us.

The above is only a partial list of rules. You'll find others at the link provided. Please check them out, it is your responsibility to know them.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iquette-amp-Information&p=8364858#post8364858

:tyou:

Sparky

Bumping for those who may have missed my post the other day.

:tyou:

 

[concernedmother]

http://winknews.com/2015/06/30/race-for-lee-county-sheriff-heats-up/
Sgt. Eller is a 15-year veteran in the Lee County Sheriff’s Office, but announced Tuesday she will retire soon to take on Sheriff Scott.

She criticizes the office for not releasing more details about the murder in Bonita Springs.

“It doesn’t appear that they have even told the citizens ‘you have nothing to worry about, you’re safe, we believe this is an isolated incident.’ Or, ‘lock your doors, we’ve got a madman on the loose.’ The people need to know one of those two things,” said Eller.

Scott replied, saying Eller, who used to work in public information, should know better.

“If there’s a crazy, raged killer on the loose, or some wild, catastrophic, unstable event going on, of course we want to communicate that,” said Scott.



This was June 30 when Scott was being criticized for not talking much about the case. Trying to figure out why he has gone mute. No more interviews or updates.