TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #43

[arkansasmimi]

:what:

Arkansasmimi: I am saying there was only ONE person in SWAT gear and this one person was the only one wandering the halls. The person who committed the murder was never seen on camera because SP let him/ her into the front foyer where there were no cameras. SP may never have witnessed the murder as they went back to the car while the other person murdered MB.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

I am only speculating. And since I think the murder took place in the center foyer and there is no video of the murder, I am speculating by all I have seen and heard, that the main foyer camera was not working. Just speculating. But I believe that's how SP escaped w/out being seen and why a possibly bigger person may have switched with SP there and murdered MB. And perhaps the only reason for the SWAT outfit was to totally disguise
who this person was. And maybe the bigger person was wearing a hat and gloves. So no DNA. Just speculating!

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

Wait now you have me confused. First post says no camera in West entry area, then that you heard the camera not working? That's why I personally try stick to stuff I seen as proof and links.

Also just because someone were to have a hat and gloves, does not mean no DNA as fact. MB could have clawed and got under fingernails, DNA from skin cells or even body hair fell on MB body. Sorry killer wore that SWAT so that any of that would not happen. Too planned out. Jmho

 

[Razz]

:what:



Wait now you have me confused. First post says no camera in West entry area, then that you heard the camera not working? That's why I personally try stick to stuff I seen as proof and links.

Also just because someone were to have a hat and gloves, does not mean no DNA as fact. MB could have clawed and got under fingernails, DNA from skin cells or even body hair fell on MB body. Sorry killer wore that SWAT so that any of that would not happen. Too planned out. Jmho

Nevermind. Sorry you are confused.


Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[Razz]

Nevermind. Sorry you are confused.


Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

But I'm really hoping someone out there "gets it."

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

I was looking back at some earlier threads and was reminded some members felt the SP was a gamer who was acting out their fantasies from a popular game they played.

Does anyone recall those discussions? It was also mentioned on one of the threads that the SP was fairly young, maybe in their 20s or so. I've always considered it to be an older person, maybe one who wanted to role play at being a cop. How much validity should we place on these two options:

* A gamer
* A wanna be cop

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[lstiff]

I was looking back at some earlier threads and was reminded some members felt the SP was a gamer who was acting out their fantasies from a popular game they played.

Does anyone recall those discussions? It was also mentioned on one of the threads that the SP was fairly young, maybe in their 20s or so. I've always considered it to be an older person, maybe one who wanted to role play at being a cop. How much validity should we place on these two options:

* A gamer
* A wanna be cop

Thank you for your consideration.

I have seen a few theories here of people who have thrown this idea around. Most of it was in the beginning IIRC but the threads moved SO fast back then, it's time consuming to go back and find the exact posts.Hopefully the ones with this current theory will chime in. I'm still not 100% sure what my theory is almost 2 years later. Sigh.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

But I'm really hoping someone out there "gets it."

I do understand your thesis, which is
1 SP was just a decoy, and was the only person ever seen on camera, whose job was to be seen on cam and then eventually let an unseen killer (or, perhaps, killers) in the building to do the murder
2 The "actual killer" (or killers) were another person (or persons) who were let into the building by SP, never seen on cam or detected, took their own precautions to keep from being detected for DNA and prints and cam, and who were lurking until MB got close enough to be grabbed and killed, all in an area never seen on camera

But I don't buy it, because
1 It's overly complicated, with absolutely no evidence to support it.
2 It doesn't "solve" anything being asked. Instead, it just inserts one or more magic "no evidence of them ever being there" people into the mix.
3 It doesn't have any relevance to the idea that people think they see multiple SP's on cam. We could also theorize there were more people outside the building, like a cleanup crew, or any number of other things - but problem is, if we just make up boogeymen with no evidence (and there is no evidence for this idea), it's just a flight of fancy.
4 It's hard to imagine (and perhaps impossible) to theorize where such a person or persons could have been waiting to be CERTAIN to be able to attack, yet not be seen in advance by EITHER the cams or by MB
5 More people means more secrets, and easier to get caught by something on the other end leaking out.
6 There's no "need" for other people, as we have no reason to think SP could not have been the killer, and SP was in the building and perfectly positioned to do so.

And I seriously wonder who in the world would want to volunteer to be the one to take the blame (SP) for a murder being plotted. Because in this theory, if anyone is caught, it will be SP, while the mystery person or persons are able to escape, with no evidence to say they ever existed. All the risk is on SP.

 

[Razz]

I do understand your thesis, which is
1 SP was just a decoy, and was the only person ever seen on camera, whose job was to be seen on cam and then eventually let an unseen killer (or, perhaps, killers) in the building to do the murder
2 The "actual killer" (or killers) were another person (or persons) who were let into the building by SP, never seen on cam or detected, took their own precautions to keep from being detected for DNA and prints and cam, and who were lurking until MB got close enough to be grabbed and killed, all in an area never seen on camera

But I don't buy it, because
1 It's overly complicated, with absolutely no evidence to support it.
2 It doesn't "solve" anything being asked. Instead, it just inserts one or more magic "no evidence of them ever being there" people into the mix.
3 It doesn't have any relevance to the idea that people think they see multiple SP's on cam. We could also theorize there were more people outside the building, like a cleanup crew, or any number of other things - but problem is, if we just make up boogeymen with no evidence (and there is no evidence for this idea), it's just a flight of fancy.
4 It's hard to imagine (and perhaps impossible) to theorize where such a person or persons could have been waiting to be CERTAIN to be able to attack, yet not be seen in advance by EITHER the cams or by MB
5 More people means more secrets, and easier to get caught by something on the other end leaking out.
6 There's no "need" for other people, as we have no reason to think SP could not have been the killer, and SP was in the building and perfectly positioned to do so.

And I seriously wonder who in the world would want to volunteer to be the one to take the blame (SP) for a murder being plotted. Because in this theory, if anyone is caught, it will be SP, while the mystery person or persons are able to escape, with no evidence to say they ever existed. All the risk is on SP.

But there would be no evidence against SP. He would have escaped before the murder took place therefore no blood or DNA on SWAT outfit. Police have been looking for a SWAT outfit with blood on it. They won't find it because the actual murderer wore something entirely different. Disposal of the murderer's items would have been a cinch as no one was looking for what he was wearing.

If they somehow ID'ed SP, the only thing they get him for is breaking and entering, vandalism, and trespassing.
They won"t be able to match him to the murder. No blood and no DNA.

If the 2 got a nice chunk of change for this murder, why squeal on the other because right now, everyone is clueless and probably will remain so.

Thanks SteveS. You did get it....most of it anyway. [emoji4]

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

But there would be no evidence against SP. He would have escaped before the murder took place therefore no blood or DNA on SWAT outfit. Police have been looking for a SWAT outfit with blood on it. They won't find it because the actual murderer wore something entirely different. Disposal of the murderer's items would have been a cinch as no one was looking for what he was wearing.

If they somehow ID'ed SP, the only thing they get him for is breaking and entering, vandalism, and trespassing.
They won"t be able to match him to the murder. No blood and no DNA.

If the 2 got a nice chunk of change for this murder, why squeal on the other because right now, everyone is clueless and probably will remain so.

If you think about it, your whole idea is based on the premise that some mystery person is going to kill MB, but SP is willing to set himself up to be the one they are looking for, putting their neck in a noose if LE can identify them.

Who volunteers for or accepts such a role? No one.

Nothing in your scenario gets SP off the hook for murder if he's identified, unless if (and only if) there is blood and DNA of the killer that has been collected and left behind. But obviously in the planning stage, the point of having a "mysterious real murderer who is never seen" is to prevent anything to identify them, which means a plan to avoid real murderer blood, DNA, prints, or anything else being left to identify. (And from what we know, there was none of that left at the scene to work with.) Again, the only person that can be caught is SP.

Let's assume they find SP. Then what? Is SP going to admit being in the building, or not? If SP tells a story of "someone else did it," no one will buy it. It's a boogeyman tale. And in telling it, SP has to admit being in the building, and plotting to kill MB, and being there when it happened and so on, which is either not believable, or an admission that leads to death row (as part of the plot to murder MB).

Take it one step farther. SP is on trial, has admitted to being in the building, but says someone else killed MB that morning while he was there. You're on the jury, and there's no evidence whatsoever of the presence of someone else - no cam, no prints, no blood, no DNA, nothing. All that's known is SP was there, and MB was killed. Just a story by SP with nothing else. Do you vote Not Guilty and let SP walk, or do you make him pay for MB's murder? I could never buy that tale.

 

[Jethro4WS]

I got a new picture from Creekside yesterday. This is the SW covered awning (porte cochere) entrance, where Missy parked that morning just outside the double doors. I have to admit, it doesn't look like I envisioned. Some thoughts:

1. It's really open. I think I envisioned it being more walled off. Inside the second set of doors is a men's bathroom that is on the same plane as the main doors. Then after that, there is a water fountain with a clock above it. You can't see beyond that, but I am told the women's bathroom is next, followed by classroom 4. So if SP attacked Missy at these bathrooms, he didn't do it from a place of hiding unless he was IN the bathroom.

2. The two surveillance cameras are visible. One is above the Exit sign and the other is on the (8 ft?) drop ceiling. These cameras are not concealed in light fixtures. They're the same cameras in the same locations as 2016.

Does anyone notice anything else?

Do you have a larger, original version of this photo?

 

[Cannonball3804]

Do you have a larger, original version of this photo?

No that's it. He sent it in Messengercand I saved it.

 

[Razz]

If you think about it, your whole idea is based on the premise that some mystery person is going to kill MB, but SP is willing to set himself up to be the one they are looking for, putting their neck in a noose if LE can identify them.

Who volunteers for or accepts such a role? No one.

Nothing in your scenario gets SP off the hook for murder if he's identified, unless if (and only if) there is blood and DNA of the killer that has been collected and left behind. But obviously in the planning stage, the point of having a "mysterious real murderer who is never seen" is to prevent anything to identify them, which means a plan to avoid real murderer blood, DNA, prints, or anything else being left to identify. (And from what we know, there was none of that left at the scene to work with.) Again, the only person that can be caught is SP.

Let's assume they find SP. Then what? Is SP going to admit being in the building, or not? If SP tells a story of "someone else did it," no one will buy it. It's a boogeyman tale. And in telling it, SP has to admit being in the building, and plotting to kill MB, and being there when it happened and so on, which is either not believable, or an admission that leads to death row (as part of the plot to murder MB).

Take it one step farther. SP is on trial, has admitted to being in the building, but says someone else killed MB that morning while he was there. You're on the jury, and there's no evidence whatsoever of the presence of someone else - no cam, no prints, no blood, no DNA, nothing. All that's known is SP was there, and MB was killed. Just a story by SP with nothing else. Do you vote Not Guilty and let SP walk, or do you make him pay for MB's murder? I could never buy that tale.

Well, whoever killed MB is a mystery person. We don't know who it is. I can't help but think if they found any DNA of the murderer, there would have been an arrest by now. And without any DNA, there won't even be an indictment.

Say you already live a shady life and a person you know comes up to you and says, "Care to make a quick 5 grand?
All you have to do is wear a SWAT outfit keeping your identity safe and walk the halls of the church and knock out a couple of door windows and I'll do the rest".

So, what some believe now is:

1). It was a burglary gone wrong

2). It was a kid getting his jollies by cracking some windows but became frightened and killed MB.

3). It was someone angry with MB for a myriad of reasons and wanted her dead

4). It was a hired hit.

So find the SWAT outfit and we find the killer. Right? But....any SWAT gear they find will come up empty and the same with the tools because they weren't part of the actual murder.

And as far as we know any SWAT outfits that have possibly been seized in a SW have come back negative for the decedent's blood or any DNA.(or certainly there would have been an arrest.

The killer on the other hand may have been wearing a "meth suit" or something similar. One that he/she could easily strip off before entering the car, turning it inside out and into a trash bag. Throw it out in a trash bin somewhere. LE won't be searching for it because they're looking for a dang SWAT outfit.

This theory makes as much sense as the 4 listed above. As far as we know, the murder wasn't"t caught on tape. Neither SP or MB were seen again once she walked down the hall. So, how did SP and in this particular theory, a person separate from SP escape without being seen? How do we know SP didn't"t let someone else in? We don't.

Just thinking outside the box.









Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[TenaciousTBacon]

I see all the speculation about SP having taken tools with them to use to kill MB, in lieu of a gun, and mention that LE is still looking for tools like that, and I feel like it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Why did SP have those tools? It was to break in, and to use to access areas that he anticipated might be locked and in need of a hammer, a crowbar, and so on. So logically that's what he happened to be carrying when he encountered MB entering the building, and at the moment of interaction decided (or felt forced) to kill for some reason, rather than simply flee. You bring the tools you need for the reason you are there, and the reason the perp had hammer and crowbar and so on rather than a gun was because his tools were break-in tools, not murder tools.

That hints at "wrong place wrong time" murder, and other things fit too.

The deliberate wandering in the building? Looking for things of value. He thought he had plenty of time. He didn't even know she would be there. He expected to be alone for several more hours. The feeling the walls? It was dark and he was somewhat feeling his way the first time down a hall. Why would he think a church had something of value to steal? The better question is, if they did or didn't, how would he know otherwise. He would only have to THINK they had retained a hefty offering there somewhere (and for all we know, maybe they did) in order to motivate him to break into this very secluded large church in the middle of nowhere on the night after Sunday services.

I've never quite bought the targeted idea because it assumes that someone is motivated to murder over a connection so slight and so unobvious that LE can't even find it. If this was targeted, it was someone who went to great lengths to do so, which infers very strong motivation, not just some aggravation. Sure, it's possible someone can murder for the tiniest of reasons, but that's not a likely occurrence. This was not a video game where someone crosses you so the easy answer is to kill them - people don't jump to murder that easily in real life.

Why did he leave without taking anything? Because his search for value was abruptly interrupted, and the risk of staying and looking further (with a dead body on the ground) was suddenly way too high. And if one person (MB) had come, then maybe more were to follow. Gotta go, and save the robbery for a different place instead.

bbm

Steve I think you've (perhaps inadvertently) made a perfect argument against a random intruder. A rando would take off running or push her down and flee. Petty criminals don't normally kill someone with a hammer causing head and chest wounds because they were interrupted while vandalizing. And if they were scared because they took the helmet off in the bathroom, as some have suggested, why is there no DNA? Not a hair? Not a drop of sweat or blood? I just don't see the random stranger argument.

 

[MittenScarpetta]

I think it’s quite the contrary when it comes to DNA. We don’t know that this person has ever committed a felonious crime before. If this person has no other crimes, DNA is worthless because their DNA would not be in any internal system. Therefore, the murderer would not be caught by DNA. Also, if LE has DNA wouldn’t it be safe to assume they would have gotten warrants for the DNA of all the POI’s? Just my thoughts

Well, whoever killed MB is a mystery person. We don't know who it is. I can't help but think if they found any DNA of the murderer, there would have been an arrest by now. And without any DNA, there won't even be an indictment.

Say you already live a shady life and a person you know comes up to you and says, "Care to make a quick 5 grand?
All you have to do is wear a SWAT outfit keeping your identity safe and walk the halls of the church and knock out a couple of door windows and I'll do the rest".

So, what some believe now is:

1). It was a burglary gone wrong

2). It was a kid getting his jollies by cracking some windows but became frightened and killed MB.

3). It was someone angry with MB for a myriad of reasons and wanted her dead

4). It was a hired hit.

So find the SWAT outfit and we find the killer. Right? But....any SWAT gear they find will come up empty and the same with the tools because they weren't part of the actual murder.

And as far as we know any SWAT outfits that have possibly been seized in a SW have come back negative for the decedent's blood or any DNA.(or certainly there would have been an arrest.

The killer on the other hand may have been wearing a "meth suit" or something similar. One that he/she could easily strip off before entering the car, turning it inside out and into a trash bag. Throw it out in a trash bin somewhere. LE won't be searching for it because they're looking for a dang SWAT outfit.

This theory makes as much sense as the 4 listed above. As far as we know, the murder wasn't"t caught on tape. Neither SP or MB were seen again once she walked down the hall. So, how did SP and in this particular theory, a person separate from SP escape without being seen? How do we know SP didn't"t let someone else in? We don't.

Just thinking outside the box.









Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

Edited for typos

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Razz]

I think it’s quite the contrary when it comes to DNA. We don’t know that this person has ever committed a felonious crime before. If this person has no other crimes, DNA is worthless because their DNA would not be in any internal system. Therefore, the murderer would not be caught by DNA. Also, if LE has DNA wouldn’t it be safe to assume they would have gotten warrants for the DNA of all the POI’s? Just my thoughts





Edited for typos

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You missed a crucial point.

I was also speaking about blood from the decedent.(MB) No mystery there. You find her Blood or other DNA on a SWAT outfit and you've got your man or woman. And my theory is they won't find her blood or DNA on any SWAT outfit because it wasn't SP who bludgeon her to death.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[MittenScarpetta]

You missed a crucial point.

I was also speaking about blood from the decedent.(MB) No mystery there. You find her Blood or other DNA on a SWAT outfit and you've got your man or woman. And my theory is they won't find her blood or DNA on any SWAT outfit because it wasn't SP who bludgeon her to death.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

I didn’t miss a crucial point. I read every word you said. It’s pretty clear that this person pulled of this crime with some precision, I’m assuming that swat outfit is long gone. Destroyed. Burned and no longer exists. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[darring21]

bbm

Steve I think you've (perhaps inadvertently) made a perfect argument against a random intruder. A rando would take off running or push her down and flee. Petty criminals don't normally kill someone with a hammer causing head and chest wounds because they were interrupted while vandalizing. And if they were scared because they took the helmet off in the bathroom, as some have suggested, why is there no DNA? Not a hair? Not a drop of sweat or blood? I just don't see the random stranger argument.

These three guys were robbing a house when the owners came home - so they tied them up and killed them.

Wonder if they were originally from the Midlothian area?

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/spring/news/article/Suspects-in-brutal-murder-of-Spring-couple-held-12506888.php

Investigators said three men were caught on surveillance cameras crawling under the gate that surrounds the Northgate Forest community. Police believe the Lams arrived at their $800,000 home after dinner on Jan. 11. After they pulled into the garage, the burglars, who were already inside, confronted them and forced them into the house. Richard Lam found the wealthy couple two days later, tied and shot to death execution-style in the master bedroom.

 

[Razz]

I didn’t miss a crucial point. I read every word you said. It’s pretty clear that this person pulled of this crime with some precision, I’m assuming that swat outfit is long gone. Destroyed. Burned and no longer exists. JMHO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok. Speculating.....But supposing this person (who committed the murder) was known to have a SWAT outfit and then for whatever reason didn't. That would raise a few red flags, I'd think.

It would be more compelling if the police confiscated a SWAT outfit only to find no matches of any kind on it. It sure would take him/her off the hot seat.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

 

[Oregonmama]

Ok. Speculating.....But supposing this person (who committed the murder) was known to have a SWAT outfit and then for whatever reason didn't. That would raise a few red flags, I'd think.

It would be more compelling if the police confiscated a SWAT outfit only to find no matches of any kind on it. It sure would take him/her off the hot seat.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

Honestly, I think too much credit is being given to the sp. JMO, the sp entered the church , played with the camera and then waited for his prey for their own reasons and the sp is an average person with high intellect. But the sp will slip eventually because lies can not be held forever and it will take just one person to remember something while they were away......

 

[Cannonball3804]

Do you have a larger, original version of this photo?

Jethro, try this:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9egt65etqgojwik/SW entrance.jpg?dl=0

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Ok. Speculating.....But supposing this person (who committed the murder) was known to have a SWAT outfit and then for whatever reason didn't. That would raise a few red flags, I'd think.

It would be more compelling if the police confiscated a SWAT outfit only to find no matches of any kind on it. It sure would take him/her off the hot seat.

Sent from my REVVLPLUS C3701A using Tapatalk

I understand what you’re saying. However, considering the time that has passed or really any length of time outside the immediate time frame of the murder (days, weeks even) I believe the hope of finding DNA becomes severely diminished the more time that goes by. It would be compelling if the police confiscated a SWAT outfit fairly soon after the murder, say within days, and there be no DNA on it. However, if a SWAT outfit is confiscated, let’s say hypothetically 6 months or more after the murder and there’s no DNA, the person could have made sure any and all DNA was destroyed. It’s all speculation as we truly have very few verified facts in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk