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

[Scout]

Thanks Scout!
RBBM, now on this part, we (public) do not know what the K9 went inside the building for on such a beautiful day. It wasn't to go to the restroom, I feel sure of that.

On another note, I did some research yesterday and not finding exactly what looking for. May have to go back through some video of Maddox Kilgore & Company to find my new start... On MB cellphone, it was unprotected password wise and was not listed on the SW as being in her truck. Unless it was in her purse in the truck, JMHO I think she had it with her. Could LEO look in it without a SW prior? Extraction wasn't executed until Wed iirc although SW was signed late Tues afternoon. Thanks
View attachment 110148

This may have already been answered by someone more knowledgeable, but I believe they'd need a search warrant or consent to look at anything on her phone. There is an expectation of privacy for the contents of her phone even without password protection. I'm not sure if Brandon would have legal authority to give consent for them to search Missy's phone. He might. Nevertheless, proper protocol for handling of it as digital evidence should have been followed. It wouldn't be proper for them to just open it up and look at things contained therein. It should have been handled much like a computer, with specialized tools/software for extracting the data without altering the phone's contents.

 

[arkansasmimi]

This may have already been answered by someone more knowledgeable, but I believe they'd need a search warrant or consent to look at anything on her phone. There is an expectation of privacy for the contents of her phone even without password protection. I'm not sure if Brandon would have legal authority to give consent for them to search Missy's phone. He might. Nevertheless, proper protocol for handling of it as digital evidence should have been followed. It wouldn't be proper for them to just open it up and look at things contained therein. It should have been handled much like a computer, with specialized tools/software for extracting the data without altering the phone's contents.

Thanks, I believe that your correct. I am reading an Appeal that one of the issues is cell phone in another case I followed but it is different than what I was speaking of. They did get a SW to extract the iPhone. Just wasn't sure if they could look at prior.

In the Ross Harris case, that is exactly what they did they looked in it first. Thanks again.

 

[gliving]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news...to-her-killer-turn-yourself-in-do-whats-right

May 25th

"Missy Bevers was found unresponsive in the Creekside Church of Christ on April 18. She died of a head wound. A warrant issued the day after her slaying stated that Bevers’ wounds “are consistent with tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building.”

Pretty please, a link to this search warrant. tia

 

[arkansasmimi]

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news...to-her-killer-turn-yourself-in-do-whats-right

May 25th

"Missy Bevers was found unresponsive in the Creekside Church of Christ on April 18. She died of a head wound. A warrant issued the day after her slaying stated that Bevers’ wounds “are consistent with tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building.”

Pretty please, a link to this search warrant. tia

That would be the SW for iPhone & iPad... That SW was written by Corporal Cody Moon, who was at least at the time the Primary Investigator on the case *only SW he wrote. (Primary Investigator was stated in the FB affidavit to have sealed) Link to SW iPad & iPad is on first page of ea thread, first post here a ss

ETA and see they couldn't even get that right! That SW said "multiple puncture wounds found on her head and chest are consistent with the tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building." The Truck SW issued the day of murder said "deceased from head wound" These are the only 2 SW that speak of injuries and was prior to autopsy. All but the Exigent SW were signed off late in afternoon or night. JMHO the iPhone & iPad SW was written prior to the autopsy, and signed later on Tues. These Investigators were working around the clock. but anywho sorry to ramble

iPhone & iPad
Ford F150

 

[arkansasmimi]

Tomorrow will be 10 months since Terri Leann "Missy" Bevers life was tragiclly taken from her ... and her precious daughters, Mother, brother and husband and extended family. You could tell she was so proud of those precious daughters and their accomplishments big and small. Precious memories...And a gazillion friends and friends who were like family it seems.

Maybe today 2/17/17 will be a good day for all, if even just a small way. An arrest is something everyone but the Murderer wants to happen. I have faith that MPD is working hard for that to happen. I want and expect them to do no less that the best in their Investigation and by the book. So when the State does go to the GJ, get an indictment and have a solid case. It will be one where a Defense Attorney will be getting a lot of name exposure for sure. And that person will work hard to defend his/her client. As they should. I have respect for both LEO and Defense Attorneys.. Never know when any of use will need either one, at anytime.

Praying for Missy's Family! I like this photo because it shows MB with her Bible and as a lady with a radiant glow about her, full of life, a Mommy next to her daughter - not just a fitness coach who was murdered. That is how I am sure her family wishes her to be remembered. JMHO

 

[Jethro4WS]

Has anyone come across a close up of the handle to the hammer/ breaching tool that SP used?

These are just brightened frames from the video - enlarging them makes them worse because MPD enlarged this part of the video. Are these what you are talking about?

 

[Elley Mae]

These are just brightened frames from the video - enlarging them makes them worse because MPD enlarged this part of the video. Are these what you are talking about?

From appearances it looks like a hultafors.

 

[Mistree]

These are just brightened frames from the video - enlarging them makes them worse because MPD enlarged this part of the video. Are these what you are talking about?

Yes,,,,,, thank you very, very much.

 

[Cannonball3804]

LOL my kids tell me Pictures or it never happened :silly: but I do know that MPD has been very kind and professional and only question did not clarify, I respect . It's only been one. Thanks again Ardenmost!I PS I am not a computer wiz either lol But some on here have helped me a lot! If have problems posting someone will be glad to help you figure out how.

I think they've only failed to answer one of mine, too. I tried to keep the question general, and asked if there were any inoperative interior cameras - told them I wasn't asking how many or in what locations, just a yes or no. Didn't get a reply.

 

[Cannonball3804]

This may have already been answered by someone more knowledgeable, but I believe they'd need a search warrant or consent to look at anything on her phone. There is an expectation of privacy for the contents of her phone even without password protection. I'm not sure if Brandon would have legal authority to give consent for them to search Missy's phone. He might. Nevertheless, proper protocol for handling of it as digital evidence should have been followed. It wouldn't be proper for them to just open it up and look at things contained therein. It should have been handled much like a computer, with specialized tools/software for extracting the data without altering the phone's contents.

I'm not sure you're correct in the part about privacy. The privacy expectations granted to a person under the 4th Amendment do not extend past a person's death. You have to have standing before the court in order to object to a warrantless search - the dead person does not have standing.

But there's also the possibility that the phone was in BB's name. If he is listed as the account owner, or if he and MB were jointly listed on the account with the service provider, then I would think he would have had legal standing to give permission if asked.

Every minute counts in the early going of an investigation. My guess is that they looked thru it right there at the church to see if there was something immediate that they could glean from it. They got a SW eventually, to cover their bases and allow for more in-depth extraction and to get records from the service provider.

 

[nearsouth]

Quick question... Hope this isn't something obvious, but can't seem to find it easily - but what are the forum rules for showing image enhancements on this forum?

I ask this b/c I believe there is certain enhancements from the Altima video that many of you have likely seen on SM sites, but no one here has really tackled it aside from looking at the plates on the car itself.

 

[Cannonball3804]

Quick question... Hope this isn't something obvious, but can't seem to find it easily - but what are the forum rules for showing image enhancements on this forum?

I ask this b/c I believe there is certain enhancements from the Altima video that many of you have likely seen on SM sites, but no one here has really tackled it aside from looking at the plates on the car itself.

This will probably answer your question:

stills from the video are welcome but members need to explain what processes have been used if they have been enhanced, how so.

In others words has it been blown it up, dialed down or up the contrast, altered to black and white, saturation dialed down or up etc etc etc.

If you have stills you wish to post and discuss please provide a description of how they have been enhanced and a link to source for each.

Thank you,

tlcya

 

[Jethro4WS]

I'm not sure you're correct in the part about privacy. The privacy expectations granted to a person under the 4th Amendment do not extend past a person's death. You have to have standing before the court in order to object to a warrantless search - the dead person does not have standing.

But there's also the possibility that the phone was in BB's name. If he is listed as the account owner, or if he and MB were jointly listed on the account with the service provider, then I would think he would have had legal standing to give permission if asked.

Every minute counts in the early going of an investigation. My guess is that they looked thru it right there at the church to see if there was something immediate that they could glean from it. They got a SW eventually, to cover their bases and allow for more in-depth extraction and to get records from the service provider.

Yes. Though with cell phones it may be the case of the limitations that exist within the so-called Homicide Scene exceptions such as plain view versus looking in drawers and such. That is, going through a cell phone might be considered similarly to rifling through a file cabinet, which likely would not be allowed. Since the cell phone itself, not including the contents found within it, is seizable then I think a warrant would be necessary since the exigency kind of goes out the window since it takes removing the phone from the scene to a place where the forensic extraction can happen and the extraction itself also takes time.

I wonder if they would have gone through her phone at the scene considering some of the apps that exist that destroy content if the user of the phone does a particular action - especially if the phone has been jail-broken which may not be apparent to the officer handling that phone. There is a risk to losing evidence in such situations.

 

[Cannonball3804]

...I wonder if they would have gone through her phone at the scene considering some of the apps that exist that destroy content if the user of the phone does a particular action..

snipped for brevity

Do you think MPD would be on the ball like that? I don't. First murder in a decade there. I think they grabbed the phone and scanned through it in the hopes that there would be a text message or recent call that would lead them straight to the killer. They wouldn't have thought about killer apps.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Yes. Though with cell phones it may be the case of the limitations that exist within the so-called Homicide Scene exceptions such as plain view versus looking in drawers and such. That is, going through a cell phone might be considered similarly to rifling through a file cabinet, which likely would not be allowed. Since the cell phone itself, not including the contents found within it, is seizable then I think a warrant would be necessary since the exigency kind of goes out the window since it takes removing the phone from the scene to a place where the forensic extraction can happen and the extraction itself also takes time.

I wonder if they would have gone through her phone at the scene considering some of the apps that exist that destroy content if the user of the phone does a particular action - especially if the phone has been jail-broken which may not be apparent to the officer handling that phone. There is a risk to losing evidence in such situations.

Cannonball3804
snipped for brevity

Do you think MPD would be on the ball like that? I don't. First murder in a decade there. I think they grabbed the phone and scanned through it in the hopes that there would be a text message or recent call that would lead them straight to the killer. They wouldn't have thought about killer apps.

I have been really thinking and reading on this. I also read some things on "Homicide Scene exceptions" but those were referencing the Suspect in the case, not the victim, so still unsure on that one.
:thinking: they would most definitely have put it on airplane mode immediately (learned that in BC murder case at trial) so that if it got near wifi someone couldn't log into the phone and mess with stuff. Doesn't matter if it was murder scene or not, Standard. *from what I understand BUT also they probably would have dusted it or whatever for prints (depending on where it was located- near body, in pocket, dropped and away from body... did Campers move it? Did Campers use it to call BB?). CSI processing could also be one reason for the delay of getting extracted. We also do not know the shape of the iPhone (cracked/bloody) * just lots of :thinking out loud on the cell phone stuff.

Also
IIRC, all SW except for the extigent ones & Sealed 2, were signed late afternoon/evenings, Dry Cleaner SW being after 8pm. Would LEO be able to look into the phone to get BB phone number? Even IF any LEO knew the number for sure would be a legit way to "look in phone" to get ICE (in case of emergency number) Would be able to see last calls. JMHO

 

[Seriously?]

I'm not an attorney and do not know the answers to the warrant questions. Thinking about the sequence of events, could this be a possibility?

The truck warrant was inclusive of property inside the truck, and was signed 04/18 ~ 6:00PM. However, the list of property inside the truck does not include the iPhone.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/He...-Seized-Search-Warrant-376599651.html#warrant

Since the iPhone warrant was signed a full 24 hrs later on 04/19, is it possible the iPhone went with her body and was not discovered until ME started their process?

Just a random thought...........

 

[Jethro4WS]

snipped for brevity

Do you think MPD would be on the ball like that? I don't. First murder in a decade there. I think they grabbed the phone and scanned through it in the hopes that there would be a text message or recent call that would lead them straight to the killer. They wouldn't have thought about killer apps.

Don't know. They probably would have had some training related to cell phones, particularly in light of the court decisions across the country that assert a warrant is required as well as the risks of evidence being destroyed. But the way this case has gone, it would not surprise me in the least if they had gone through it.

There are also inherent risks in just looking at regular apps like iMessage or even the call history and such because those apps use SQLite databases and those databases will remove and overwrite stored pages of data upon opening the app if certain trigger conditions are met. Such as in the case where numerous messages or entire conversations were deleted in a prior session using those apps. So, in general the safest thing to do with a found phone is to do nothing and get it to a phone forensics person so evidence is not irretrievably lost.

 

[Cannonball3804]

Don't know. They probably would have had some training related to cell phones, particularly in light of the court decisions across the country that assert a warrant is required as well as the risks of evidence being destroyed. But the way this case has gone, it would not surprise me in the least if they had gone through it.

There are also inherent risks in just looking at regular apps like iMessage or even the call history and such because those apps use SQLite databases and those databases will remove and overwrite stored pages of data upon opening the app if certain trigger conditions are met. Such as in the case where numerous messages or entire conversations were deleted in a prior session using those apps. So, in general the safest thing to do with a found phone is to do nothing and get it to a phone forensics person so evidence is not irretrievably lost.

Most of the recent court decisions that I'm aware of are related to the phone of the suspect, not the phone of a homicide victim.

https://www.policeone.com/investiga...ll-phone-searches-3-things-cops-need-to-know/

If LE went into MB's phone warrantless at the scene, then LE did not violate someone else's rights. If an arrest is made and the suspect tries to object to LE searching MB's phone, it will likely be denied.

Courts are pretty consistent in saying that a person who wants to exclude evidence needs to be the "victim of search or seizure, one against whom the search was directed, as distinguished from one who claims prejudice only through the use of evidence gathered as a consequence of search or seizure directed at someone else." Jones v. United States, 363 U.S. 257 (1960)

 

[Oregonmama]

POLL: 1. grand jury is in session and they are hearing about the case
2. No grand jury and LE is stumped
3. LE has tons of evidence, they are just waiting to get all the ducks in row

 

[zigster58]

POLL: 1. grand jury is in session and they are hearing about the case
2. No grand jury and LE is stumped
3. LE has tons of evidence, they are just waiting to get all the ducks in row

I say Number 3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk