TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #40

[SteveS]

3 - The person who is going to be subjected to vitriol regardless of their actions.

So true. Even now, NINE MONTHS LATER, and after everyone KNOWS that It was only DOG BLOOD, it's still lots of unfair accusations.

When they spoke, LE was working under the assumption it was human blood (see the affidavit that preceded all this), which had led to the media and community already going nuts over human blood being found on one of RB's shirts at the cleaners.

If I'm considering how I would act in that situation, I would certainly do everything I could to put out that fire pronto, going to LE (if they haven't already asked me to come), and making sure media got the full story too. Risking a less-than-perfect presentation to the press? Sheesh, how unfair, the important thing was to get the truth out there.

And the idea that they should have just sat back quietly, and let the lynch mob form and false impressions build and spread, with the entire town thinking they are a family of murderers and treating them as such for no reason whatsoever (other than a lack of accurate info), is completely nuts. I would never do that to me and my family, and I find it inappropriate to criticize someone who is just as responsible to getting the truth known for his family.

 

[arkansasmimi]

If NG gets half of a story straight, she's having a good day. :scared: Now whether it was a 2nd SP.. or a "glitch" in the camera, I couldn't tell you. It was there, I watched it several times over and over trying to figure out what was going on. It was cut out shortly afterward. It may have been the same day, or a day later, but I never saw it again.

If it was a glitch, not big deal at all.. If was "covered" by a scarf/glove, that means there were 2 SPs. So it could be pretty big issue, Media might have asked not to report certain things... I get that.

Just for the record, I've always thought there was only 1 SP, possibly with a driver waiting outside. The camera blackness remains a mystery to me.

JMHO, agree on NG
I know some have said they seen the video where "something covered camera" (paraphrasing) But I haven't so I can not weigh in on an opinion on that. But I do not see how media can report/show a video if MPD did not release it. And if they did release it, why retract it? In this internet age, I am puzzled not even a cache version of it is searchable. I do know that without having the link to time stamped version it is hard to find those so maybe those versions are out there also. :silly: PLEASE POST if come across. I will buy you lunch!

 

[KayBe]

Hi all, I'm mostly just lurking but this has been on my mind a while now and I haven't seen it discussed at all here. So here goes ...

How difficult would it be to create a solid alibi in one state (CA), but in reality, and under disguise, secretly fly back to TX, commit the crime, then immediately fly back (or drive) to the alibi state ... all well within the allotted time? If everything went as planned, they would then be able to say "It couldn't have been me ... I've been out in CA the whole time, not in TX at all."

Well, first you would have to obtain a false ID to book the flight and receive the airline ticket under the false ID's name, then perhaps that just leaves the disguise, I suppose. Everything else could have been pre-planned and prepared. The Altima car could have been rented earlier, and left sitting waiting for him right there in the airport parking garage, with the Swat gear and everything he needed, packed nicely away as to not be seen. Then, all he had to do was drive to the church, do the crime, and get back to the airport and CA before anyone suspects. Of course this would mean the wife or partner would have to know about it, but I guess it could have happened that way. If it is possible, BB wouldn't have had to do anything different than what he did, right? Just go on his fishing trip to Mississippi, as planned, then wait it out and let the chips fall where they may. All he had to worry about then was to keep adhering to the pre-prepared story or "game" as he referred to it at the press conference.

All of this is In My Opinion Only. I hope it is allowed by mods ... and please feel free to blow holes in this idea if you see any. thanks

 

[ocgrad]

So true. Even now, NINE MONTHS LATER, and after everyone KNOWS that It was only DOG BLOOD, it's still lots of unfair accusations.

When they spoke, LE was working under the assumption it was human blood (see the affidavit that preceded all this), which had led to the media and community already going nuts over human blood being found on one of RB's shirts at the cleaners.

If I'm considering how I would act in that situation, I would certainly do everything I could to put out that fire pronto, going to LE (if they haven't already asked me to come), and making sure media got the full story too. Risking a less-than-perfect presentation to the press? Sheesh, how unfair, the important thing was to get the truth out there.

And the idea that they should have just sat back quietly, and let the lynch mob form and false impressions build and spread, with the entire town thinking they are a family of murderers and treating them as such for no reason whatsoever (other than a lack of accurate info), is completely nuts. I would never do that to me and my family, and I find it inappropriate to criticize someone who is just as responsible to getting the truth known for his family.

So why take a Walmart shirt to the cleaners in the first place and being sure to tell them you are related to MB who was recently murdered? You're right to not drag your family through that so wouldn't you have just trashed the shirt?

 

[urtxtigress]

That's true unless of course you had access to private plane. I do believe this to be 4 or more people involved, not meaning family but not excluding them either as BB said.

 

[Cannonball3804]

So why take a Walmart shirt to the cleaners in the first place and being sure to tell them you are related to MB who was recently murdered? You're right to not drag your family through that so wouldn't you have just trashed the shirt?

Just because you would throw the shirt away doesn't mean someone else would. We all make our own value judgements. Some people detest the idea of throwing something away if it can be salvaged, no matter the cost. Maybe they had just bought that shirt the week before. Maybe VB is a hoarder who never gets rid of anything. Maybe they're not very intelligent. Maybe this, maybe that.

The point is, if you're looking at someone with suspicion already, you're going to find something wrong with whatever they do. Whether he smiles or doesn't smile, whether he looks at his son or not, whether he takes a bloody shirt to the cleaners or not, everything is going to be viewed through a filter that causes it to seem like something it's not.

For example, if they had thrown that shirt away while at BB's house, and if the police had gone thru BB's trash later, how would THAT have looked? Then someone could say, "Why in the world would you throw away a bloody shirt within days of a murder? Shouldn't they have known how that would look?"

 

[Mistree]

I'm stewing with Jethro4WS in the pot of the deliberate act of not using the brake lights.
Could it be possible Altima driver may have thought lights may be what triggers the surveillance at SWFA?
ARGHHHHH, doesn't make sense, what are we missing?

 

[Mistree]

I grew up around farming and I remember we use to use what we called "slickers", they were similar if not exact to the fashionable rain boots out on the market today.
My point is, IMO SP appears to be wearing "slickers", they actually go over your shoes to protect from mud or water. Kind of like a boot that you buy bigger in size so that you can just slip them on and off, easily. Maybe sometimes referred to as "waders" but not the hip kind.
Sorry ya'all, wish I knew how to post pictures on here.

 

[SteveS]

So why take a Walmart shirt to the cleaners in the first place and being sure to tell them you are related to MB who was recently murdered? You're right to not drag your family through that so wouldn't you have just trashed the shirt?

To me, that's one of the unfairest smear angles of all that's being used here. (Not saying you're doing it, but it's certainly being made into a mountain by some.)

When I buy a shirt and it gets dirty, I don't throw it in the trash. Plain and simple. And I doubt anyone else here does so either. That's such an absurd waste of money, to bypass a $2-3 cleaning bill (or maybe less - until recently I could get shirts cleaned here, not far from Midlo, for 99c) and spend $20 on a new shirt instead. Who does that? I sure don't. Isn't that the nature of how we all use clothing, where we use it and then clean it and then use it and then clean it and then use it and ....? Of course.

So the idea that he shouldn't have gone to the cleaners is just nuts. When your clothes get soiled, you clean it, and when you can't clean it yourself then you take it to the experts to do it. That's what ya do. He did what's normal to all of us - and nine months later, he is still getting crucified for it. So unfair.

And on the idea of simply hiding the dog blood -- since they knew it was nothing that really mattered at all to anything, why should they have even given it a 2nd thought? I suspect they had no idea the furor it would cause, until it did and the town busy-bodies were making it into a huge thing, and people were seeing an affidavit that said there was a shirt covered in human blood that RB was caught trying to have cleaned (with the implication he's trying to cover up someone's blood on his shirt).

 

[rcbart]

Im new to this board....been reading a lot on this case....First question I have...how did the Perp. get in the church? Was there any alarms? Cameras but no alarms?

 

[SteveS]

I'm stewing with Jethro4WS in the pot of the deliberate act of not using the brake lights.
Could it be possible Altima driver may have thought lights may be what triggers the surveillance at SWFA?
ARGHHHHH, doesn't make sense, what are we missing?

I'll say again what I've said before, and no one seems to listen to. The fact that the brake lights go out could simply be one more piece of evidence that the driver pulled into the SWFA lot because of an electrical short caused by dampness from the rain getting in the wrong place.

When they step on the brakes, it shorts out and all goes dark. Dangerous, on the highway at 60 mph in the rain.

So they pull into SWFA, where they take a slow lap, and here and there they turn lights on and off, and here and there they mash the brakes to see what happens, and finally they sit and "drip dry" for a few minutes, all in a quest to get a car that's safe to drive on the highway. Once they feel it's working ok again, off they go. That's a very benign explanation, it accounts for everything, and it has no mystery.

 

[interestedincases]

I had time to watch the Altima video in slow motion at lunch.

*It's crazy, I see NIN's pictures and for sure see what I think is a man driving. I'm not sure if he just comes more into view or if he was laying his seat back and then raising it back up.
*Passenger, last frames, I do see a woman, but until then, it's a dog/woman. I'm not really sure what I see. I can't tell as clear of motions with her/it as I can him so I'm confused as to what it is. It also seems to be sitting higher in the seat than driver. Could be reasons for this also but....I don't know.
*I looked on YouTube for comments. Someone mentions at 6:59, they see what they think is Police on the driver as he pulls off after being stopped for the 4 minutes. I cannot see this, BUT, I DO see the driver now in black! NIN's pictures, the driver looks to me in lighter clothing, pulling off to leave, black clothing.

*NIN - Any way to do that slow-mo thing from 6:57-6:59? See if we can tell anything?

But then I watch the entire video in full and I'm left even more confused again. I see a big splash from a car driving by on the highway. To me, this means it was pouring and a lot of standing water. Then I watch the car with the lights on, off, brakes on, brakes off and my mind keeps thinking of someone mentioning earlier the water could have caused a glitch in the mechanical system and driver pulled off to fix this. Seeing the video in full, I can believe this might have happened and the car was nothing more than trying to make sure they were safe to drive.

What I can't figure out, is IF there are two people, and they were there for clandestine things, he would not be messing with the headlights. IF they were doing something naughty in the car, I guess one of them could be hitting the lights on/off while doing said naughty things. I don't know where the lights are in this style of car though. In my cars, it would be the blinkers turning on and off, not the lights, lolol. So, I don't really think this is happening but it did cross my mind.

I know that doesn't really help anything other than me saying "I don't know" often :/.

 

[arkansasmimi]

My thoughts are

1) If she was meeting someone for a clandestine meeting, I would assume they would park "out of sight" just in case a camper did arrive early.

2) Now that I have seen NIN's image of the car, my second thought is that MB met someone at the church, they picked her up, they drove around for their meeting, then that person dropped her back off at church. "Car guy" either knew SP was in that church waiting for her, or, they were unaware. SP in church knew of this clandestine meeting, and knew MB would be back anytime between car ride and 4AM to set up so they just waited around for her. "Car" guy dropped her back off and left, or, parked around back and waited for SP to do the murder and took them away.

3) Camper's help to set up, they park, help, do the murder, jump in car, throw off clothes, or stash clothes somewhere, jump in car and circle around building to make it look like they came when everyone else did. If they were able to drive off before 4:35AM, then this would work. TIGHT timeframe though, I know.

I'm really leaning more towards #2 though. I've always thought it was a pre-arranged meeting but never really thought about someone actually picking her up and taking her back though. Just assumed meeting would happen at church.

RBBM, How would this work when MB truck was seen per MPD as driving into the Church parking lot at 4:16 a.m.? Also I do not understand the "meeting someone at church for a hookup" < jumping off of your post not meant towards you personally on this, but that never made any sense to me as CG campers would be arriving anytime. As we know also from MPD Updated Timeline first Camper arrived at 4:35 a.m. Not much time for any hook up as in anything much jmho unless was dropping off picking up something. JMHO Otherwise wouldn't be to private jmho

Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:16 A.M. &#8211; Mrs. Bevers&#8217; pickup truck is shown on video surveillance driving into the church parking lot.https://www.facebook.com/1950470073...241410.195047007358/10154082916172359/?type=3

 

[GA_Peach]

So question is-- are you following this line of thinking because you think RB/BB are involved with the murder but deliberately dry-cleaned a dog-blood shirt in order to create the opportunity for a press conference so they could act weird? Do you think they took the shirt to the dry cleaners to focus public attention on them, then refute it with DNA testing because they had something to do with it?

If on the one hand you believe they are acting weird (and presumably that's a clue to the murder) you can't also believe that they did this intentionally if the result was that it drew attention to them. What does their behavior (other than it being weird to you) tell you about the murder? What conclusion are you drawing from it?

Snipped by me.

I am obviously not ardenmost, but I find this interview quite disturbing. Does it prove any person's guilt? Absolutely not. However, I think that it does show that RB is not one bit upset over MB's death. With duping delight, he repeatedly says, "You better believe it!" His entire demeanor and mood do not match the events of the preceding week. Is he responsible for MB's death? Did he play a role in it? I have no idea. However, when a family has the motive and means to commit a murder, it's probably best not to gloat in front of a camera. JMO.

 

[ardenmost]

A link to the search warrant for the dry cleaning is posted on the first post of this thread. There were four shirts: men's pink, men's white, men's blue, women's white. The dry cleaner claimed that RB said the women's white shirt had animal blood on it.






http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=93873&d=1462482755

Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks so much! This SW supports my claim that only the woman's xxl white shirt was seized! RB says that two shirts had blood stains.

Perfect! If 2 shirts had blood, why would only one be seized by police? Makes NO sense and also supports my theory that RB did not state the truth.

btw, This has nothing to do with the dog blood argument and "who cares" that RB said, etc.) that a couple of people on here are poo-pooing. We all know that the blood was animal blood by now.

 

[interestedincases]

I'll say again what I've said before, and no one seems to listen to. The fact that the brake lights go out is evidence that the driver pulled into the SWFA lot because of an electr4ical short caused by dampness from the rain getting in the wrong place. When they step on the brakes, it shorts out and all goes dark. So they pull into SWFA, where they take a slow lap, and here and there they turn lights on and off, and here and there they mash the brakes to see what happens, and finally they sit and "drip dry" for a few minutes, all in a quest to get a car that's safe to drive on the highway. Once they feel it's working ok again, off they go. That's a very benign explanation, it accounts for everything, and it has no mystery.

We were posting at the same time. I tend to agree with you on this. MAYBE....lol. It really does seem like this is what is happening but because I REALLY want this to be solved and there be a clue for something, I want it to be two people in that car. :facepalm:

 

[arkansasmimi]

They have footage of MB pulling into the church, so that wouldn't make sense that they picked her up from there..They know she pulled in at 4:18 (4:20-there have been variances.) Either way, I don't think she was in that Altima. JMO

Pulled in at 4:16, orig MPD stated 4:18 first seen on video walking into building. But that was first and 2nd day. On Friday they Updatetd their Timeline to say 4:20. I pm MPD last night, they have "read" it but not replied so JMHO it was not correct (4:18) and 4:20 is correct since it was posted as UPDATED and the 4:18 time was not used again in any other SW. JMHO unless I hear back from MPD.

Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:16 A.M. – Mrs. Bevers’ pickup truck is shown on video surveillance driving into the church parking lot.

Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:20 A.M. – Mrs. Bevers appears on video surveillance camera walking into the church building. https://www.facebook.com/1950470073...241410.195047007358/10154082916172359/?type=3

 

[Cannonball3804]

I'll say again what I've said before, and no one seems to listen to. The fact that the brake lights go out could simply be one more piece of evidence that the driver pulled into the SWFA lot because of an electrical short caused by dampness from the rain getting in the wrong place.

When they step on the brakes, it shorts out and all goes dark. Dangerous, on the highway at 60 mph in the rain.

So they pull into SWFA, where they take a slow lap, and here and there they turn lights on and off, and here and there they mash the brakes to see what happens, and finally they sit and "drip dry" for a few minutes, all in a quest to get a car that's safe to drive on the highway. Once they feel it's working ok again, off they go. That's a very benign explanation, it accounts for everything, and it has no mystery.

We heard you on this before, Steve. Maybe you didn't see the response?

It would be quite rare for a 2010 or newer model car to have the issue you're describing.

That's a pretty serious safety issue you describe, and it's been more or less fixed on today's vehicles from what I can tell and from what others have said. If you have proof otherwise, let us know.

Edited to Add: While most newer cars should not have an issue because they come with splash guards installed under the nose of the car, I guess it's possible that this Altima could be missing its splash guard.

Another thing - I read somewhere that a guy after a rainstorm had a problem in which turning on the headlights caused the dash lights to go out. When he turned off the headlights, his dash lights came back on. But again, this was prior to a 2010 model - it was a 2000 model Honda.

So for those who are scouring the SWFA video, maybe they could try to evaluate if there is a light change INSIDE the car at the point where the car's outside lights go out or come back on?

 

[interestedincases]

Pulled in at 4:16, orig MPD stated 4:18 first seen on video walking into building. But that was first and 2nd day. On Friday they Updatetd their Timeline to say 4:20. I pm MPD last night, they have "read" it but not replied so JMHO it was not correct (4:18) and 4:20 is correct since it was posted as UPDATED and the 4:18 time was not used again in any other SW. JMHO unless I hear back from MPD.

Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:16 A.M. &#8211; Mrs. Bevers&#8217; pickup truck is shown on video surveillance driving into the church parking lot.

Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:20 A.M. &#8211; Mrs. Bevers appears on video surveillance camera walking into the church building. https://www.facebook.com/1950470073...241410.195047007358/10154082916172359/?type=3

The timing of clandestine meeting doesn't throw me off too much because she could have planned to meet way earlier than 4AM.

BUT...you are correct. Her truck was seen at 4:16/18, I guess my thinking on this was that it was seen by the interior church camera by the awning. She could have parked anywhere in the parking lot then moved her truck up by the awning where she was seen.

BUT....lol, now I see it says it was seen driving into the lot.

My theory is still in question in my mind only because I don't know exactly where she was caught on camera. If it is at the entrance/road pulling into the church, my theory is shot. If it is only by the camera by the awning that caught her, then I still think she could she have parked out of site and then pulled under awning when time to set up. They could have met at 3AM for all we know.

 

[arkansasmimi]

That's true unless of course you had access to private plane. I do believe this to be 4 or more people involved, not meaning family but not excluding them either as BB said.

JMHO, I personally hope there is more than one person involved. Give much more possibilities of someone running their mouth.