TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #32

Cannonball3804 said:

Midlothian Police Department was asked today on their FB page via FB message to clarify what entrance MB used. They confirmed it was the covered entrance. Here is the screenshot:

Click to expand...

There ya go. All that has ever mattered is what we in Texas mean by awning. There may be fancier words for it, but that's one word we use for overhangs extending off a building.

x_files said:

Any locals that know if this case has grown cold? any news locally? and why isn't the media covering it? It's a bizarre crime, it should garner some interest at least locally if not nationally.

Click to expand...

The local media doesn't want to work for their news gathering. They wait on MPD to schedule a press conference or issue a press release.

MPD isn't disclosing much, either, even when pressed for it. They are relying on that opinion from the AG that they don't have to.

IMHO, either MPD is going to have to release more info out of desperation if and when the trail grows colder, or else the media outlets will have to band together and file a lawsuit where several outlets share in the costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it's not said:

I am seriously considering an additional small hallway right here ( I respectfully cropped Jethro4WS's excellent layout (It's not mine) to show my point):

It is possible MB was killed in room #2, then moved into one of the bathrooms via small hallway (lime green/ red), then perp fled through porch door (lime green) to the outside. Or- she was killed in the bathroom, then moved into #2. In any scenario, this is the only way I can come up with the attack not being captured on camera, the victim being seen moving towards the location of the assailant, an opportunity of cleaning up the crimescene (?) without being seen on camera, and with a quick getaway and not being seen on camera. Unless - the perp was seen moving back towards the kitchen area. That point is still muddy to me. Again, if someone knows about any hallway in the back there, enlighten us please.

-Nin

Click to expand...

I like to reiterate my post adding, that there is much more space between the porte cochere door and the covered porch, than seen in jethro4WS' plan.

Perhaps jethro4WS can chime in?

The porch with the door:



The space between the Porte Cochere doors and the porch:

Jethro4WS' layout:

Possible hallway (jethro4WS layout respectfully cropped by me):

I did not reflect the additional spacing in the cropped version.-Nin

The below is my proposed explanation that accounts for everything we know, with a map. It has her entering SW corner, cam losing sight of her as she goes farther down the hallway, her body being found in the "southwest corner of the interior of the building" in various possible meanings of those words, and it allows for an unseen-by-cam path to the kitchen door exit.

1 MB enters the SW doors under the awning area, as noted by blue arrow.
2 As she does, she is picked on cam, first by the cam noted as c1 which has a peripheral view all the way into the vestibule itself.
3 As she steps further northward up/down the main hallway, she is picked up by cam c2 which is looking over her shoulder.
4 Perp is lurking ahead, in one of the locations noted (P1, P2, or P3), having been seen by the cams earlier but not seen by MB as she enters and takes that stroll.
5 P1 - a guess at a possible location of the perp when MB entered the halls - would be in a recessed area into the doors into the auditorium (same with P3 area).
6 As she moves further up/down the hallway, per the arrow, the cam c2 loses sight of her movement and stops recording, and sometime shortly after that perp attacks.
7 Perhaps as he attacks, he pulls her out of the hallway. Perhaps she is first subdued then dragged to a spot, perhaps not.
8 Ultimately her body ends up in one of the places marked by an X, or maybe at P1 or P2 location, all generally in SW corner of the building's interior.
9 From any of those spots, an unseen-by-cam exit could have been possible out the kitchen door on N side of building, as LE believes.
10 The theorized places noted, where the body might have been found, have an important element - they allow an exit unseen by cam, yet out the kitchen door, as LE says happened.
11
A red line shows an unseen-by-cam path from one proposed body location, to the kitchen door.
A purple line shows an unseen-by-cam path from another proposed body location, to the kitchen door.
12 Camera c3, in far right end of northside hall (NE corner of building), shows where the closest known cam is in that northside hallway. I'm theorizing it didn't detect motion that far away, and thus didn't record, when perp exited.

Jethro4WS said:

That room is on the east side of the building. Because of the window configuration seen on the east side - as seen in the drive by videos. I strongly suspect it to be the room I have labelled E4. That is because the distance between the first window to the north on that side is too far from the second window down. The other configurations continuing down are too close together. Leaving the south end. I believe that room to be 38 to 42 feet from north to south 28 feet west to east.

I am pretty sure you have the pictures with the trees next to the doors. The one where you can't see the number is probably across from room 12 (NS), the one SP enters at the very end of the video.

As for where room 10 actually is, I believe it can only be South side of the stage (SS), any of the rooms below room 12 (E2, E3, E4 but only if there is a second door to that room)

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the room depicted in the photos I use is not Room 10. Is that correct?

Batbrat said:

Yes this is why the SW door as her point of entry doesn't fit with the rest of what LE has stated. If she walked away from the cameras toward the suspect's location, how did the body end up back in the SW corner without either of them being seen again on camera? Maybe it was the restroom area. LE must have footage of the suspect heading into SW corner area before she appeared in order for LE to have known she was heading toward his location. That, or she wasn't found in the SW corner.

Click to expand...

CORRECT. LE stated that from studying the video, they were able to determine that MB headed in suspects direction. They never said if they saw both of them on video at the same time.

Cannonball3804 said:

The local media doesn't want to work for their news gathering. They wait on MPD to schedule a press conference or issue a press release.

MPD isn't disclosing much, either, even when pressed for it. They are relying on that opinion from the AG that they don't have to.

IMHO, either MPD is going to have to release more info out of desperation if and when the trail grows colder, or else the media outlets will have to band together and file a lawsuit where several outlets share in the costs.

Click to expand...

Lawsuit? For what, why? On what basis?

Cannonball3804 said:

The local media doesn't want to work for their news gathering. They wait on MPD to schedule a press conference or issue a press release.

MPD isn't disclosing much, either, even when pressed for it. They are relying on that opinion from the AG that they don't have to.

IMHO, either MPD is going to have to release more info out of desperation if and when the trail grows colder, or else the media outlets will have to band together and file a lawsuit where several outlets share in the costs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Does seem to be a lack of journalism nowadays! If I was local I'd be covering this on a blog. I've been searching for any locals blogging about it and it seems no one is discussing it anymore.
Nancy Grace of all people you'd think press for the scoop.

Jethro4WS said:

I believe that the one with Breakaway ministries could be a different room than the ones with the tables. This is another big room if it is and that would mean that there are only 3 rooms on the east hall. This could be Room 10 because, if I had to hazard a guess there is another door to the right of the photographer and that door would be the other open door we see at the end of the long MPD video. I am going to try this configuration.

Click to expand...

So you believe the Breakaway sign resting against the wall in the room with the tables is just out of its normal location?

Cannonball3804 said:

AFAIK, what we've been told is that she walked toward the suspect location...that the murder is not captured on video... And finally that neither she nor the perp are caught on video again.

So I don't think it's clear as to the REASON she stops being recorded. Could be she gets far enough away that the camera shuts off. Or could be that she leaves the field of view by turning a corner or going into a room.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

yes, yes,!!! not that complicated right? thanks for the backup.

Jethro4WS said:

The second photo is back stage, I am inclined to believe it is the South side (SS)

Click to expand...

The photo with the waterfall was labeled Project Pointe on the FB page. And as you can see the sign under the 10 next to the door says Project Pointe.

These issues are why I had so much trouble with that room. Appreciate your thoughts.

ETA: I agree with the things you've pointed out. That black wall seems like it's probably the back side of the stage wall. I just can't reconcile it with what appears to be windows and a structural column in the VBS pic and the sign labeling Room 10 as Project Pointe.

Removed; asked and answered.

SteveS said:

Lawsuit? For what, why? On what basis?

Click to expand...

I'm not giving an opinion on whether the lawsuit would have merit or whether they would win it. I'm just saying it's a possibility they might explore. I'm sure there are cases in which media organizations have sued under FOIA / open records acts in which they claim something is an open record that the public is entitled to have now, and the governmental entity says it isn't an open record.

Keep in mind, no items other than the FB SW affidavits have ever been sealed in this case... That we know of. They're acting solely on the AG's opinion. That doesn't mean a judge would necessarily agree with that opinion. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Maybe it will never be pursued anyway. Who knows.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cannonball3804 said:

I'm not giving an opinion on whether the lawsuit would have merit or whether they would win it. I'm just saying it's a possibility they might explore. I'm sure there are cases in which media organizations have sued under FOIA / open records acts in which they claim something is an open record that the public is entitled to have now, and the governmental entity says it isn't an open record.

Keep in mind, no items other than the FB SW affidavits have ever been sealed in this case... That we know of. They're acting solely on the AG's opinion. That doesn't mean a judge would necessarily agree with that opinion. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Maybe it will never be pursued anyway. Who knows.

Click to expand...

You may not be aware that Texas law exempts from FOI requests evidence gathered by LE for an active criminal investigation. A lawsuit to look at LE's files and evidence would be a total waste of money, and would almost certainly be dismissed in a summary judgment.

SteveS said:

You may not be aware that Texas law exempts from FOI requests evidence gathered by LE for an active criminal investigation. A lawsuit to look at LE's files and evidence would be a total waste of money, and would almost certainly be dismissed in a summary judgment.

Click to expand...

You are painting with a wide brush, though. A lawsuit could be based on certain items that are not cut and dried.

The remainder of the video footage, for instance. LE has stated that the rest of the footage just shows more of the same type of movements as what's on the two minutes. They say it doesn't show anything useful to you, so take our word on that and we are not going to give it to you.

A lawsuit could, in theory, go after just that footage. Or it could ask that a 911 call be redacted and then released, to cure the concerns LE stated for not releasing the full audio.

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=lr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it's not said:

Thank you. Does anyone have a picture of the doors located on the Southern end of the East side of the building?

(picture enhanced)

Sources:

• http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/midlothian-church-raw_Dallas-Fort-Worth-376091081.html
• MLPD video

-Nin

Click to expand...

There are drive by videos that capture that area. You can probably grab a still from that or maybe I can later. But it looks just like the other one does except the doors are mounted to the north side of that covered area (and they are apparently not broken). The ones on the other side are mounted to the south side. In that Southeast side there is a door in that area on the left hand side before getting to the doors that make up that vestibule.

DeDee said:

Jethro's post is from the last thread, #31.





conundrum ~ love that word :dance:
I believe they only made one mistake in the church

Let's make it a rule that we cannot mention mistakes the SP made without revealing to the rest of us what that one mistake is. TYIA for informing us.



LE overlooked a glaring obvious piece of evidence.

Let's make it a rule that we cannot mention mistakes the SP made without revealing to the rest of us what that overlooked glaring piece of evidence is. TYIA for informing us.

Please do not keep secrets from us unless it goes against TOS. :loveyou:

Justice for Missy

Click to expand...

Okay. But very briefly I believe that the SP did not think they would be seen on camera and what they were doing after leaving the door from room 12. That combined with the item in their left hand creating additional motion and bad timing on their part it was all actually caught on video. But here comes the long winded version. It is long.

The one mistake, I believe was the last piece of the long video MPD released. I don't believe that they thought they would be seen on video. And it is my belief that instead of simply smashing the glass inward on the door they were breaking they were cracking it and making a small hole and then pulling the glass back into the hall they were standing in. We saw them simply break a similar window in the main hall without getting any glass in the hall and in less time (even though MPD did slow the video at the end).

I believe that if they had not been standing left of the window they were breaking and they especially did not have that item in their left hand moving about they wouldn't have been seen on that camera because there wouldn't be enough movement to get the camera to start recording.

The way these kinds of cameras are set up is by defining the field of view to "watch" for "movement". That is usually done by having a view of the empty hall as it should normally appear when you don't expect anyone there and then drawing a rectangle across the view of what the camera sees and setting a threshold for "movement". The problem is rectangles have straight lines and right angles. There is a white line across the floor from left to right in the view of that camera just past the door the SP comes out of. If the camera was straight that line would also appear straight but as you see in the video it angles from the left "up" to the right. So if you were to take a still shot of that and bring to a drawing program and place a rectangle, or square across it you will see that the camera can "see" behind the line but only to the right of the camera and only if there is enough movement. Incidentally, that is why it appears SP moves leftward out of that door even though they are going straight across the hall.

"Movement" is detected by determining the number of pixels that have changed from some reference image of that hall and if enough of them have (perhaps as a percent) you meet the threshold to begin the process of detecting movement. After that there is a series of these comparisons to see that not only that the change from the reference meets the threshold but that the parts of the reference image that have changed are different from image to image i.e motion. Having done that it has to meet one more threshold which is some defined period of time - a few seconds - over which this occurs to have the camera decide there is "movement". Only then will it start sending frames of video over the cables in the building to the machine that records it. When the amount of movement no longer meets that threshold the camera will stop sending the frames. These cameras usually have a few seconds of stored frames that get sent to the recorder after the movement ended.

So, when we see SP in the opening sequence of the long MPD video they are last seen at a kitchen door - in my opinion attempting to enter it. However, we only see that because it was part of the few seconds after last movement was detected. That is, somewhere before that SP was out of range. When they are in the south hall and go to the door after the dutch double doors recording stops after a few seconds because the open dutch doors (that are no longer moving) are effectively blocking the movement detection. We know that camera "sees" farther because when they appear coming back down the hall they are about 10 feet or so further down the hall than the location of the door they previously were at.

At the ending sequence we notice that the camera already is recording before the SP comes out of the door. How can that be? Well, only if there had been prior movement and it was long enough for the camera to determine it should record but that when it did all it saw was an empty hall - it was already just sending the last few seconds stored - until SP came out of room 12. If SP had been probably 2 seconds or so later opening the door of room 12 into the hall the camera would have already stopped recording and already have sent the last few seconds and the camera would have had to start the process all over again.

I know, long winded, but almost done. Since I believe that the burglary gone wrong scenario was staged, SP needed to have MPD believe that they broke through the door (at the end of the long MPD video) heading out after the murder - not before it. Seeing the SP breaking into that door, and making sure the glass was in the hall rather than inside the room behind that door allows MPD to know it was staged to look that way. The outer doors of the Northeast rear vestibule were smashed - all of them to one degree or another since they were all boarded up. No way to know where the glass was unless MPD tells us but my expectation is that it was mostly outside on the concrete.

We never see SP come towards the camera we see in the opening sequence - the vestibule doors smashed are right behind that camera. Nor do we see them come toward the camera we see at the end of the video - the vestibule doors are right around the corner to the right. So, when did those doors get smashed? I believe that was the point of entry and the point of exit. I base that on the fact that at the end opening sequence we see SP starting to enter a kitchen door. If they had entered through the kitchen in the first place, why go back there? MPD stated that the SP spent some time in the kitchen. That must be based on how long it was from when they entered the kitchen until we see them again in the main hall. Otherwise, how would they know? I truly don't believe that we are seeing the video out of sequence.

Cannonball3804 said:

You are painting with a wide brush, though. A lawsuit could be based on certain items that are not cut and dried.

The remainder of the video footage, for instance. LE has stated that the rest of the footage just shows more of the same type of movements as what's on the two minutes. They say it doesn't show anything useful to you, so take our word on that and we are not going to give it to you.

A lawsuit could, in theory, go after just that footage. Or it could ask that a 911 call be redacted and then released, to cure the concerns LE stated for not releasing the full audio.

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=lr

Click to expand...

In theory, yes it's true that anyone can sue anyone over anything. But like it or not, once we get outside the classroom and into the real world, money matters, as your linked article emphasizes. That cost has to be weighed against the relative importance of the info - is it worth the financial risk to have a chance to gain it - and also against the likelihood of success in pursuing it.

In this situation, there is mild curiosity. But there's not even a compelling story at the end of the rainbow. And LE certainly has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to allow the public in general to look over its shoulder in a murder investigation and help.

No it's not said:

I like to reiterate my post adding, that there is much more space between the porte cochere door and the covered porch, than seen in jethro4WS' plan.

Perhaps jethro4WS can chime in?

The porch with the door:

The space between the Porte Cochere doors and the porch:

Jethro4WS' layout:

Possible hallway (jethro4WS layout respectfully cropped by me):

I did not reflect the additional spacing in the cropped version.-Nin

Click to expand...

No. If you look behind the reporter you will find see that light up on the wall to left of him. That is the first one you see against the left wall in your first photo. The second one you see in your first photo is the one just to the left of the vestibule doors. You can just see the bottom of it just over the reporters right shoulder.

Scout said:

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the room depicted in the photos I use is not Room 10. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

The one with all the kids with the tables is probably not room 10. The other one with the Breakaway stuff very probably is - considered that is where jr/sr high kids go according to the bulletins.