TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #42

[Heather301]

It's like that old saying - even the devil goes to church.. We are all sinners. The only difference in people that go to church is that they admit they need someone to guide them and direct them in the right way to go. No religion is to blame only the person commiting the sin. There are no big or little sins - they are all bad and we are all guilty of sinning. I really wish something would happen in this case to find Missy's killer and bring much needed justice. It's so heartbreaking that the murderer is allowed freedoms to spend the holidays with family while Missy will never be with her girls again. 💔 All I want for Christmas is justice for Missy!

 

[SteveS]

I think people use their religion to justify their behaviors...not that their religion encourages/condones, however you want to say it. I think that’s the point others are trying to make...JMO

Someone could feel such strong convictions about what someone else is doing, that they justify their actions in “handling it.” But yet, it’s a double standard because their faith may tell them murder is wrong...MOO

I understand the claim being made - but I just don't think it's anything more than wild accusation deriving from no foundation. Where are we seeing such murders and motivations for murders, to make this some sort of somewhat-common thing to EXPECT in this case? We aren't. It's not a thing, in Midlothian, in Ellis County, in this specific church, in this type of church, or in any other context surrounding this case, to see some sort of church-motivated thing that has been leading people to murder someone.

So I think this is just a caricature being painted (intentionally or unintentionally) by the anti-faith, anti-God people, partly out of bias and partly out of a failure to understand people who are not like them. "People who have religious views probably would go around and murder people who don't do right, to teach them a lesson, based on those religious views" is an extreme absurdity to even speculate, if you know people of faith and go to church.

 

[SteveS]

We are all sinners. The only difference in people that go to church is that they admit they need someone to guide them and direct them in the right way to go.

No religion is to blame only the person committing the sin. There are no big or little sins - they are all bad and we are all guilty of sinning.

Thanks. I certainly agree with this. Anyone can choose to sin, even murder. That includes people who go to church. But their sin doesn't come from the views they are being taught at church, but from their own desires and their willingness to do otherwise.

 

[Moshimo]

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2005/03/btk-killer-and-church-board-president-one-and-the-same.aspx
People aren't always who they widely appear to be. My point being that you cannot weigh or measure someone's faith, you can only judge it by how that person projects their faith. Even if it is convincing, that doesn't mean your assessment is correct. Nor is faith a binary condition.We see time and again where people who claim and project strong faith and have a record of such commit acts seemingly against their nature. So saying, "Old Joe wouldn't do that, he is a good (insert faith)" just doesn't make good sense in an out of the ordinary situation such as this. We seem to be looking for the exception, not the rule. Also, saying someone who is truly of Joe's faith wouldn't commit a crime is like saying good people wouldn't commit a crime. Or hot people don't freeze to death. Kind of an irrelevant argument of semantics that seems to be straying from the topic somewhat, in my opinion.
(I used the name Joe as an example, it represents no actual person)

 

[SteveS]

http://www.beliefnet.com/news/2005/03/btk-killer-and-church-board-president-one-and-the-same.aspx
People aren't always who they widely appear to be. My point being that you cannot weigh or measure someone's faith, you can only judge it by how that person projects their faith. Even if it is convincing, that doesn't mean your assessment is correct. Nor is faith a binary condition.We see time and again where people who claim and project strong faith and have a record of such commit acts seemingly against their nature. So saying, "Old Joe wouldn't do that, he is a good (insert faith)" just doesn't make good sense in an out of the ordinary situation such as this. We seem to be looking for the exception, not the rule. Also, saying someone who is truly of Joe's faith wouldn't commit a crime is like saying good people wouldn't commit a crime. Or hot people don't freeze to death. Kind of an irrelevant argument of semantics that seems to be straying from the topic somewhat, in my opinion.
(I used the name Joe as an example, it represents no actual person)

I certainly agree, and this echoes what I was just saying very explicitly in the post immediately preceding yours.

The question isn't whether apparently "religious" people can do wrong things. They certainly can, and do, and I have never argued otherwise.

The argument here has been over the wild claim that church, faith, religion is the one the perp would have been following when they choose to do evil, including murder. As you note, those sinning are going AGAINST their faith/religion/teachings, which would mean the evil they might do would be against their "religious views," not following them, and would instead be following personal, selfish, sinful whims and desires.

Unless someone can demonstrate that churches, religions, pastors, faiths, etc in this area that the perp might have been a part of have been teaching people to go out and kill others, this certainly wasn't a murder committed due to a religious view. Nor have I heard of any such teaching and see no evidence in actions being done, among the good work of churches and faiths here.

 

[WannaBDetective]

The number of murders committed for:
-Sex/Jealousy
-Revenge/Anger
-Drugs
-Money/Greed

Outnumbers the number of people killed in America because of religion about 1,000:1. And I might be low on that.

Even the Southerland church mass murder was initially thought to be about religion. But in the end I think they concluded he was incensed by his ex-wifes mother.

Look at the above list as much more likely than anything religious.

 

[Cannonball3804]

I respectfully suggest a change of subject. For those who have seen the layout of the church that was posted here, I would like to know your speculation on something. Based on what you know from the church video, the signs of break-in and exit, and the area in which MB was found, what path did the perp follow inside the building? In what order? Back up your assertions with references to the video and to the room's/hallways as identified on Jethro's map.

 

[PurpleRalwus]

I could be wrong, and this all has been debated at length here, but I believe "religion" was only mentioned in a sort of Machiavellian / end justifies the means way - not to say that religion itself teaches one to, or condones murder. A disturbed, mentally unbalanced and misguided individual can do horrible things ("in the name of religion") if they believe the end result to be for the better good. They may not see the hypocrisy, and may interpret "an eye for an eye" to suit their own actions. <<oops - and happy to go on to another topic!>>

 

[Cannonball3804]

New podcast with new statement from BB, and a round table discussion with several guests discussing the case.

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/12/...nd-is-done-talking-about-missy-bevers-murder/

 

[TenaciousTBacon]

Cannonball, what are your thoughts about this statement? Thank God, most of us have never faced this decision. But, how do you decide that a free killer is no existing threat to your children? I don't know if I could just turn my back on that.

 

[Cannonball3804]

Cannonball, what are your thoughts about this statement? Thank God, most of us have never faced this decision. But, how do you decide that a free killer is no existing threat to your children? I don't know if I could just turn my back on that.

While BB doesn't mention it in his statement itself, NG says her team has become aware in the past weeks and months that BB now believes it was an untargeted hit.

I think that is what is influencing his statement. He thinks that all this speculation does nothing but hurt his family, and he thinks it's useless anyway because what can you really speculate if the person had no connection to MB?

With that said, BB is horrible at public relations. His statement is going to get the side-eye from most people, who think he should not rest until his kids' killer is caught.

 

[Heather301]

Cannonball, what are your thoughts about this statement? Thank God, most of us have never faced this decision. But, how do you decide that a free killer is no existing threat to your children? I don't know if I could just turn my back on that.

I think he either wants it to go away because he knows who is responsible and doesn't want to see them exposed or he is involved in some way. This is just my honest take on the situation.... Just my opinion and I could be completely wrong. I am basing it on how I would feel if someone I love was brutally murdered. I would do everything in my power to make sure they found the person responsible. If talking about it kept pressure on the investigators I would not shut up! In the Holly Bobo case if her parents hadn't hired a private investigator and kept her story in the media the case might have never been solved. Just one example of what talking to the media can do.

 

[Cannonball3804]

BB's complete statement as given to CrimeOnline:

“My family’s story….

Well, we all have good days, and bad. The children are not terribly fond of apprehending this person. They don’t want to revisit those emotions-they have told me this. They see/hear the daily anxiety I have in finding this person, and I think they are tired of the mentality this puts our day to day life in. They want normalcy, and happiness. I want justice, but I too fear the reality of bringing this case/person to trial and the emotional uncertainty that may go with it.So you have to ask yourself, do you bang your head on the wall everyday with this? Do you allow the unsolved aspect of this to infiltrate your thoughts- put yourself in a foul state of mind every day when you have three kids to focus on?

Starting 2018, I’m done allowing this uncertainty to control me this way. I will leave the head banging, and brain rot to the investigators. Trust me when I say they are qualified. I have spent most of this time feeling my responsibility to Missy was to find this person- That’s just not realistic. My duty to Missy is to memorialize her life, and that is exactly what I will do for her, and the children’s sake. She deserves this for all that she has contributed in our lives. I’m done talking about this investigation, theories, etc… I wish all of the whack job social media stuff would go to hell. Why do these people not realize they have left a door open for my children to peer into one day? How damaging could this be? No factual basis for all of the speculation whatsoever!

This behavior has not left Missy the real legacy she deserves- particularly in my children’s eyes.From this point forward, the only thing I will discuss is “who” Missy was. Her contributions to my life, the children, this family, and numerous other people that she loved. You bet I loved her. I know without a doubt she loved me. Don’t you see the real value in this? There is no value in discussing events that led up to her murder, or to speculate if she was targeted and why. What if the perp enjoys listening to all of this rhetoric? What this person needs to hear is “who” they took from us. The Mother, The Wife, The Daughter, Sister, Friend, etc…

These topics are more relevant and purposeful than anything else as far as logic is concerned.The activity surrounding this investigation is best left to the investigators. They have way more concrete information that isn’t up for discussion, or for sale.

Yes, you can share this. Its all I have to say right now.

Thank You,
Brandon Bevers

http://www.crimeonline.com/2017/12/...nd-is-done-talking-about-missy-bevers-murder/

 

[TenaciousTBacon]

Can we get a vote among us? Who now believes the murder was an untargeted attack?

 

[TenaciousTBacon]

FWIW, I do not. It's hard to imagine who did this and why. I think we're going to be surprised when an arrest comes. But I think at this point it seems more likely that her killer was a stranger to her and that's why they've been unable to identify him. I do think it's a male, and his mission was planned and targeted. This is my opinion, no citations to provide.

 

[Hatfield]

I certainly agree, and this echoes what I was just saying very explicitly in the post immediately preceding yours.

The question isn't whether apparently "religious" people can do wrong things. They certainly can, and do, and I have never argued otherwise.

The argument here has been over the wild claim that church, faith, religion is the one the perp would have been following when they choose to do evil, including murder. As you note, those sinning are going AGAINST their faith/religion/teachings, which would mean the evil they might do would be against their "religious views," not following them, and would instead be following personal, selfish, sinful whims and desires.

Unless someone can demonstrate that churches, religions, pastors, faiths, etc in this area that the perp might have been a part of have been teaching people to go out and kill others, this certainly wasn't a murder committed due to a religious view. Nor have I heard of any such teaching and see no evidence in actions being done, among the good work of churches and faiths here.

Totally agree.

I think the reason the killer was in that particular church that day was only because they knew their victim would be there too.

I may be wrong and maybe they were surprised someone showed up and they felt they had to kill them to keep any witnesses silent but I have a feeling they went their with the purpose of killing the person that was killed.

JMO of course

ETA The main reason I think the perp went there with the murder mission was the disguise they had on. If they knew they were going to murder they covered themselves head to toe in a disguise so even if cameras caught them then at least nobody could really tell who was behind the disguise.

If it was just an ordinary robbery or other vandilism then no need for the strange disguise.

And if it was just an ordinary robbery or other vandilism then even when they were spotted then all they had to do was run out the door. They had on a disguise so no need to kill someone over it. Which is why I think they went there to kill. That was the mission IMO.

 

[KaaBoom]

FWIW, I do not. It's hard to imagine who did this and why. I think we're going to be surprised when an arrest comes. But I think at this point it seems more likely that her killer was a stranger to her and that's why they've been unable to identify him. I do think it's a male, and his mission was planned and targeted. This is my opinion, no citations to provide.

I agree, but unfortunately finding a killer who is a stranger is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. I'm sceptical there will ever be an arrest in this case. The only way I can see this case being solved is if they first find the killer, and then somehow connect him to this case. If there was any evidence trail to the killer, there would have been an arrest last year.

 

[SteveS]

I agree, but unfortunately finding a killer who is a stranger is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. I'm sceptical there will ever be an arrest in this case. The only way I can see this case being solved is if they first find the killer, and then somehow connect him to this case. If there was any evidence trail to the killer, there would have been an arrest last year.

I hope you're wrong, but really don't have anything to point at that would disagree with you.

I've notice, and mentioned, that from where we sit, there is literally nothing we have discovered to narrow down the possibilities. It's almost anyone we want to imagine, with any motive we want to prefer, and almost any description.

Almost all we have is
* a person - don't know sex, height, skin color, hair color, eye color, age, or anything to distinguish -
* who was able to be at CCoC about 4:30 am that day.
* coulda lived almost anywhere, and even a long ways away given the ability to come and go by major highway.
* as far as we know, no prints of any kind, no physical evidence left behind (that we know of), just a busted in door and some windows.
* maybe or maybe not a connection to MB,
* maybe or maybe not an intent to kill (rather than there for another purpose),
* maybe or maybe not driving some sort of dark SUV (which narrows it to a million or more possibilities, I would guess)
* we do know it is someone who intended to wear a disguise, and was there on purpose, which coulda been anyone I guess

Frustrating, but really nothing definitive at all.

 

[KaaBoom]

Can we get a vote among us? Who now believes the murder was an untargeted attack?

Yes, I'm pretty certain that it was 100% random. I can't in my wildest imagination see anyone spending hours vandalizing a church just to kill a person. Typically in a targeted attack, they would have ambushed her as she got out of her car, or maybe they would have forced her car off the side of the road and killed her there. No killer is going to spend hours to do what otherwise would take two minutes. Doing so would just increase their chances of getting caught.

 

[Razz]

Can we get a vote among us? Who now believes the murder was an untargeted attack?

It was targeted.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk