TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #41

[Cannonball3804]

SP was probably only concerned with the interior Church cameras since the exterior cameras had nonworking issues.

SP could not have known the exterior cameras weren't working, unless SP attended that church and was responsible for security. And maybe not even then, because we don't know that anyone at the church was aware.

LE said that when they reviewed prior days' footage from exterior cameras, they were working. They just weren't working on that particular morning, and LE said they didn't believe it was due to tampering.

This is not an all-knowing perp. He had to assume the outside cameras worked, unless you think it's an inside job in which he somehow knew the cameras had stopped working without tampering.

 

[Cannonball3804]

ETA: Sounds like may not be anything to do with MB murder case jmho right now. Hope so, but also makes since why so many agencies vol to come in when MB was murdered. Geesh JMHO


ELLIS COUNTY (CBS11) – Ellis County’s Precinct 4 Constable Mike Jones turned himself in after a grand jury indicted him this week on the felony charge.
The indictment accuses Jones of intentionally altering or concealing data in his iPhone that the Ellis County District Attorney’s Office requested as part of its criminal investigation into Jones’ activities.
Jones was indicted last year on a misdemeanor charge of abuse of official capacity for allegedly using his county owned phone for political and private purposes.
His chief deputy, Kenneth Singleton, is also charged with intentionally altering records in Jones’ case.

Both Singleton and Jones didn’t return calls by CBS11 seeking comment

Ellis County’s Precinct 3 Constable Tyron Davis faces two misdemeanors: one involving requests for absentee ballots filed before he was elected last November.
The other charge, filed after Davis was elected, claims he was a licensed peace officer in campaign materials, when he wasn’t.
Davis entered office in January and has 270 days from then to obtain his peace officer’s license.
Ellis County Sheriff Johnny Brown is under criminal investigation by a special prosecutor from Montgomery County after a fight New Year’s Eve at a local restaurant.
Sheriff Brown declined comment.
His attorney, Richard Carter says Sheriff Brown was pleased to meet with the Ellis County grand jury this week and will make himself available if they need any additional information.
The sheriff has not been charged with a crime. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/02/10/...criminal-charges-sheriff-under-investigation/

http://www.fox4news.com/news/227169472-story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jethro4WS]

But the MPD know the time stamp of all of the wanderings around and when /where Suspect was when MB entered building. They also state no one else seen in building during time or to their knowledge, per the SW's. Not seen anything to say any different. JMHO

One thing I will say about the more than one person in the church scenario is that is possible. This is due to the security camera system Creekside had. That system very likely was limited to only one motion-activated camera recording at a time. When you look at security camera systems you find that systems that can record from multiple cameras simultaneously are more expensive. Keep in mind that this system was likely installed back in 2006 so the cost differentials for simultaneous recording systems may have been wider. What this effectively means is that while SP was on one camera moving about another person could move freely about unrecorded.

This increases the complexity of what went on in the church if this were true due to the need to coordinate and communicate movement. There does not appear to be any overt communications seen in the video. That does not mean that communications could not be performed covertly such as it being the case that the other person makes a sound - such as a rap on a door - or some other technique. But communication isn't enough because movement has to be coordinated. For example, were SP to move to trigger a camera and come into view while another person was seen way in the distance, all of the effort to try to pull something like that off would be for naught.

There is one more thing to note about the cameras that we have talked about before. If you were to stop moving completely or even very limited motion (below a threshold setting of the camera) the cameras stop recording. This is why what appears like one sequence of video in the West hall (second sequence of the long MPD video) is made up of 5 or 6 individual recordings. This effectively means that SP (or anyone else) could have used a stop-and-go technique to move around unseen within the church. That would be taking a step and then stopping for a few seconds and continuing to repeat that to go wherever they want. This would work because what the camera does when it first "sees" motion is that it checks it for a few seconds to try to determine whether there really is motion or it is a false-positive.

This stop-and-go technique can be defeated. These kinds of camera systems usually have an absence/presence recording option. So for absence, an area within the view can be defined where something is and if that thing has been moved or is gone the system will record. For presence, an area within the view can be defined and anything that wasn't there previously show up in that view recording will start. Based on what I have seen in the videos these kinds of features were not enabled.

Okay, one more thing. In many systems there is also a setting to record audio along with the the video. There is no sound accompanying the long MPD video that was released. However, the 20 second video that shows SP walking toward the Dutch Doors and opening them - this is the second video MPD released - does have an audio track. It doesn't necessarily mean that the audio track was from that camera that recorded movement. The audio track is there, so the possibility that audio exists is something to keep in mind.

So, while it does make things so much more complex it is not impossible for more than one person to be in that church during this crime.

 

[Jethro4WS]

SP could not have known the exterior cameras weren't working, unless SP attended that church and was responsible for security. And maybe not even then, because we don't know that anyone at the church was aware.

LE said that when they reviewed prior days' footage from exterior cameras, they were working. They just weren't working on that particular morning, and LE said they didn't believe it was due to tampering.

This is not an all-knowing perp. He had to assume the outside cameras worked, unless you think it's an inside job in which he somehow knew the cameras had stopped working without tampering.

Since I am on the topic of cameras this morning I might as well toss in two cents on the external cameras not working. Now, I have no idea what cameras or system Creekside has so I am only going by what I have read in camera configuration manuals and such so this is only how I have looked at this issue based on that.

One thing that the manuals warn about with camera outside that are motion activated is a scenario where a camera will end up capturing or recording useless footage. The example I have seen is where there is a tree in view of such a motion-activated camera. On a windy day with the leaves and branches moving it could result in enough pixels changing that the camera activates. The result can be that you end up with hours of recordings of that tree moving in the wind.

With this in mind what I wondered about was if there was enough perceived movement caused by the rain or water over running a gutter somewhere in view of a single camera and this activated the motion detection and recorded a few hours of rain. However, the seeming implication by MPD was that there was no external footage at all.

So what I have wondered is whether or not there is some sort of system check of sorts that says if there is too many pixels changing (above some threshold) such as when a camera view may be entirely sheets of rain that something must be wrong. And further there may be some kind of counter that if such detections keep happening then there is likely something wrong with the system - it is only software and without moisture detectors to inform it otherwise the system wouldn't know it was actually raining - and it will refuse to take recordings from any external cameras and instead maybe send a friendly e-mail to someone saying that there may be something wrong with the cameras.

Another similar scenario is if there was enough apparent motion to generate a false-positive. That is, the motion was inconsistent and did not last for a long enough period of time (few seconds). And once again there is some sort of system-wide counter with a threshold for the number of false-positives that puts the system into a non-recording mode because the system thinks something is wrong with it.

Because the system is likely scheduled to record, hypothetically on Sunday from 9pm to 6am, enough of these "faults" could have occurred on April 17th even though the scheduled time spanned into April 18th. And that would make it possible for there to be some external recordings on April 17th but not on April 18th. The key question is what exactly does MPD mean by "that particular morning"? Since midnight April 18th or even further back in time considering a schedule that spans across two dates?

Absent tampering I have no other explanation for the external cameras not operating that night other than scenarios such as I described.

Take it for what it is worth - two cents.

 

[Razz]

http://www.fox4news.com/news/227169472-story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like a mix of booze, testosterone and hubris.

But, since this happened in Montgomery county and not Ellis County, why is the Ellis County DA going after Brown for a fight that occurred in Montgomery County?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Cannonball3804]

Sounds like a mix of booze, testosterone and hubris.

But, since this happened in Montgomery county and not Ellis County, why is the Ellis County DA going after Brown for a fight that occurred in Montgomery County?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

It didn't happen in Montgomery County. It happened in Ellis County in Midlothian. They brought in the special prosecutor from Montgomery County in order to avoid conflict of interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippy Lynn]

SP could not have known the exterior cameras weren't working, unless SP attended that church and was responsible for security. And maybe not even then, because we don't know that anyone at the church was aware.

LE said that when they reviewed prior days' footage from exterior cameras, they were working. They just weren't working on that particular morning, and LE said they didn't believe it was due to tampering.

This is not an all-knowing perp. He had to assume the outside cameras worked, unless you think it's an inside job in which he somehow knew the cameras had stopped working without tampering.

The perp didn't seem to be too concerned about the interior camera's working. Could have been a lucky coincidence for the perp that the external camera weren't working on that particular morning. Evan a small kink in a cable can cause a camera to respond intermittently.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

It didn't happen in Montgomery County. It happened in Ellis County in Midlothian. They brought in the special prosecutor from Montgomery County in order to avoid conflict of interest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Midlothian is a small community, but they sure seem to have BIG issues involving LE. Around the time of MB's murder there was an incident that involved LE, guns, theft, etc., I keep being reminded of that. Makes my hinky meter go up.....JMO

 

[ShelbyGirl]

One thing I will say about the more than one person in the church scenario is that is possible. This is due to the security camera system Creekside had. That system very likely was limited to only one motion-activated camera recording at a time. When you look at security camera systems you find that systems that can record from multiple cameras simultaneously are more expensive. Keep in mind that this system was likely installed back in 2006 so the cost differentials for simultaneous recording systems may have been wider. What this effectively means is that while SP was on one camera moving about another person could move freely about unrecorded.

This increases the complexity of what went on in the church if this were true due to the need to coordinate and communicate movement. There does not appear to be any overt communications seen in the video. That does not mean that communications could not be performed covertly such as it being the case that the other person makes a sound - such as a rap on a door - or some other technique. But communication isn't enough because movement has to be coordinated. For example, were SP to move to trigger a camera and come into view while another person was seen way in the distance, all of the effort to try to pull something like that off would be for naught.

There is one more thing to note about the cameras that we have talked about before. If you were to stop moving completely or even very limited motion (below a threshold setting of the camera) the cameras stop recording. This is why what appears like one sequence of video in the West hall (second sequence of the long MPD video) is made up of 5 or 6 individual recordings. This effectively means that SP (or anyone else) could have used a stop-and-go technique to move around unseen within the church. That would be taking a step and then stopping for a few seconds and continuing to repeat that to go wherever they want. This would work because what the camera does when it first "sees" motion is that it checks it for a few seconds to try to determine whether there really is motion or it is a false-positive.

This stop-and-go technique can be defeated. These kinds of camera systems usually have an absence/presence recording option. So for absence, an area within the view can be defined where something is and if that thing has been moved or is gone the system will record. For presence, an area within the view can be defined and anything that wasn't there previously show up in that view recording will start. Based on what I have seen in the videos these kinds of features were not enabled.

Okay, one more thing. In many systems there is also a setting to record audio along with the the video. There is no sound accompanying the long MPD video that was released. However, the 20 second video that shows SP walking toward the Dutch Doors and opening them - this is the second video MPD released - does have an audio track. It doesn't necessarily mean that the audio track was from that camera that recorded movement. The audio track is there, so the possibility that audio exists is something to keep in mind.

So, while it does make things so much more complex it is not impossible for more than one person to be in that church during this crime.

I do not feel there is only one SP, and I believe they were able to communicate with each other, whether inside the church, in the parking lot, etc. If you look at the SP in the attached image you see a wire down the front of the helmet.

 

[lonetraveler]

Sounds like a mix of booze, testosterone and hubris.

But, since this happened in Montgomery county and not Ellis County, why is the Ellis County DA going after Brown for a fight that occurred in Montgomery County?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I really will not be surprised if we learn that 'What a Burger' had a problem with their security video camera that 'particular' night.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[x_files]

I think SP was familiar with the church building, parking lot, security cameras, and lights.

It has been said that not all of the security cameras worked properly. Were the cameras known not to work? If so, who knew they did not work properly, and perhaps at random times? Maybe church members, workers, or their friends knew? Or, did someone disconnect some of the cameras? If so, when were they at the church to do that?

This question nags at me also. I'd LOVE to know who has access to the security cams.

 

[x_files]

I do not feel there is only one SP, and I believe they were able to communicate with each other, whether inside the church, in the parking lot, etc. If you look at the SP in the attached image you see a wire down the front of the helmet.

I agree, possibly with the driver in the parking lot at the gun shop or at another close location.

 

[Cannonball3804]

The perp didn't seem to be too concerned about the interior camera's working. Could have been a lucky coincidence for the perp that the external camera weren't working on that particular morning. Evan a small kink in a cable can cause a camera to respond intermittently.

Right, the perp wasn't concerned about either the interior or exterior cameras. Assumed all of them were working, but didn't care. Understandable when you're covered head to toe and arrived on foot or else in a vehicle with stolen plates (presumably). And IMHO wasn't planning on committing a murder leading to the video being scrutinized by multiple agencies and the public.

 

[x_files]

I really will not be surprised if we learn that 'What a Burger' had a problem with their security video camera that 'particular' night.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

That would certainly raise red flags to an inside job or someone protecting LEO or former LEO or a family close to LE.

 

[Razz]

It didn't happen in Montgomery County. It happened in Ellis County in Midlothian. They brought in the special prosecutor from Montgomery County in order to avoid conflict of interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it. But why let MPD do the investigating? Sounds like a conflict of interest. I wonder why they decided to go forward with this. Originally no arrests were made. Did someone complain? And who decided to give the case to Montgomery county? That took some moxie imo.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[WannaBDetective]

I really will not be surprised if we learn that 'What a Burger' had a problem with their security video camera that 'particular' night.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

I think I'm getting too cynical and need a week off. "What a burger" right next to "What a murder." Nice. Feeling more and more like an inside job. The question then becomes; inside of what?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Since I am on the topic of cameras this morning I might as well toss in two cents on the external cameras not working. Now, I have no idea what cameras or system Creekside has so I am only going by what I have read in camera configuration manuals and such so this is only how I have looked at this issue based on that.

One thing that the manuals warn about with camera outside that are motion activated is a scenario where a camera will end up capturing or recording useless footage. The example I have seen is where there is a tree in view of such a motion-activated camera. On a windy day with the leaves and branches moving it could result in enough pixels changing that the camera activates. The result can be that you end up with hours of recordings of that tree moving in the wind.

With this in mind what I wondered about was if there was enough perceived movement caused by the rain or water over running a gutter somewhere in view of a single camera and this activated the motion detection and recorded a few hours of rain. However, the seeming implication by MPD was that there was no external footage at all.

So what I have wondered is whether or not there is some sort of system check of sorts that says if there is too many pixels changing (above some threshold) such as when a camera view may be entirely sheets of rain that something must be wrong. And further there may be some kind of counter that if such detections keep happening then there is likely something wrong with the system - it is only software and without moisture detectors to inform it otherwise the system wouldn't know it was actually raining - and it will refuse to take recordings from any external cameras and instead maybe send a friendly e-mail to someone saying that there may be something wrong with the cameras.

Another similar scenario is if there was enough apparent motion to generate a false-positive. That is, the motion was inconsistent and did not last for a long enough period of time (few seconds). And once again there is some sort of system-wide counter with a threshold for the number of false-positives that puts the system into a non-recording mode because the system thinks something is wrong with it.

Because the system is likely scheduled to record, hypothetically on Sunday from 9pm to 6am, enough of these "faults" could have occurred on April 17th even though the scheduled time spanned into April 18th. And that would make it possible for there to be some external recordings on April 17th but not on April 18th. The key question is what exactly does MPD mean by "that particular morning"? Since midnight April 18th or even further back in time considering a schedule that spans across two dates?

Absent tampering I have no other explanation for the external cameras not operating that night other than scenarios such as I described.

Take it for what it is worth - two cents.

Good to know for all the future burglars/fake burglars and murderers. Do your crimes in stormy rainy nights only and maybe you will get away with it!

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Lol....too busy arresting each other. I thought a Sheriff got busted around New Year's for some incident in a restaurant. Like the Wild West there!!!

http://elliscountycitizen.com/2017/...statement-about-altercation-on-new-years-day/

His initial observation was a large white male ....

I stumbled upon the large white male because of our white large driver of the Altima who had the driver's seat too far behind ....

 

[DeDee]

Transcripts for press conferences by our own AWESOME Galadriel are posted in the Media Thread (start on page 5) He/She did a few out of order as I believe started with current at time then went back and did first one. Links for review or newbies. Can watch on youtube most if not all are in the Media Thread also .

April 18 - http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12592838#post12592838
April 22- http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12581680#post12581680
May 20 - http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12581000#post12581000
May 24 - Published by FOX4 Interview with BB- http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12586070#post12586070

July 1 - (Friday) Midlothian's assistant police chief, Kevin Johnson, said in a weekly update Friday that the department had received additional cellphone service records from an April "tower dump" search warrant — adding that it would take some time to analyze the data. Johnson also released search warrants for the Facebook accounts of Bevers, 45, and her husband, Brandon Bevers.>> On Friday, Johnson said he did not see a reason to continue the weekly updates unless there is new information to release. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...death-slowed-police-say-new-warrants-released

Thank you, Mimi. I read the Press Conferences' Transcriptions again this morning. I noticed that when asked a question related to the Altima, Johnson never indicates more than just a driver being inside of the vehicle. Does that conclusively mean there is one single occupant inside the Altima?

 

[Cannonball3804]

Got it. But why let MPD do the investigating? Sounds like a conflict of interest. I wonder why they decided to go forward with this. Originally no arrests were made. Did someone complain? And who decided to give the case to Montgomery county? That took some moxie imo.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

It was in MPD's jurisdiction. City and county are two separate agencies so no conflict of interest on the face of it.

I bet they had no other choice but to give the prosecution to some other county, though. Would have been a huge outcry otherwise.