TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #44

[arkansasmimi]

Do we know if the all the guns that were stolen, sold and/or pawned from the evidence room had serial numbers?

All I know is that the MPD request for AG Opinion in May 2016 made reference to a gun with a serial number on it. They would have done a trace on that serial number if it is in evidence (re MB case) to see have a chain of custody of ownership and see if it was stolen. Could very well have been MB gun and it still would have had to have serial number in reports and a trace done on it.
JMHO. And if it were any of those they would have had a lead to something but evidently JMHO since we are going on 22 1/2/ months the gun with serial number is not big issue in MB murder as in the weapon.

JMHO the guns that were pawned and/or sold had serial numbers to them is how they connected them to the ECSO evidence property room guns.

 

[MittenScarpetta]

If anyone recalls, in the last thread I mentioned that I completed my own open records request. And I did. I also received a response to that request that I’ve been pondering over for about a month now. It’s just another thing that makes me say “hmmm”. I requested documents that assumably have already been released considering previous “snippets” shared on this forum are said to have came from the same documents that I too requested.

Any input is appreciated as to your take on this response from ECSO.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ibnqo9scdm1siba/AADD36GL6oR7KsYlhc06hEnTa?dl=0

 

[Oregonmama]

If anyone recalls, in the last thread I mentioned that I completed my own open records request. And I did. I also received a response to that request that I’ve been pondering over for about a month now. It’s just another thing that makes me say “hmmm”. I requested documents that assumably have already been released considering previous “snippets” shared on this forum are said to have came from the same documents that I too requested.

Any input is appreciated as to your take on this response from ECSO.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ibnqo9scdm1siba/AADD36GL6oR7KsYlhc06hEnTa?dl=0

The response on page 2, under number 1 is interesting. It sure does make u think hmmmmm and perhaps the doc was not suppose to be released in any way at all. perhaps it was obtained under the table. JMO

 

[MittenScarpetta]

The response on page 2, under number 1 is interesting. It sure does make u think hmmmmm and perhaps the doc was not suppose to be released in any way at all. perhaps it was obtained under the table. JMO

Thats the response that struck me as ODD. I just cannot figure out why if the requested documents have previously been released -why the same request with a different requestor would have to be again sent to the AG. I know the documents were already previously redacted (thoroughly) and released. I’m genuinely confused. As each day passes without the documents delivered to me, I’m becoming more confused. The AG is busy, it doesn’t make sense that they would want to keep reviewing the same documents for release.

I’ll say it again, lots of ODD circumstances in and surrounding Missy’s case and yet I still can’t walk away because this woman, wife, mother, daughter, sister deserves justice.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

If anyone recalls, in the last thread I mentioned that I completed my own open records request. And I did. I also received a response to that request that I’ve been pondering over for about a month now. It’s just another thing that makes me say “hmmm”. I requested documents that assumably have already been released considering previous “snippets” shared on this forum are said to have came from the same documents that I too requested.

Any input is appreciated as to your take on this response from ECSO.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ibnqo9scdm1siba/AADD36GL6oR7KsYlhc06hEnTa?dl=0

Thanks for posting the response you received regarding your records request.

ECSO wouldn’t release the records for one request and not the others, would they? I don’t see that happening. Unless perhaps they released them and now they’ve decided against releasing additional requests. Arg, I agree....hmmmmm!

I take it you haven’t heard anything back from the Attorney General?

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Thanks for posting the response you received regarding your records request.

ECSO wouldn’t release the records for one request and not the others, would they? I don’t see that happening. Unless perhaps they released them and now they’ve decided against releasing additional requests. Arg, I agree....hmmmmm!

I take it you haven’t heard anything back from the Attorney General?

No problem. I’m pretty confident that any agency cannot discriminate or pick and choose who they release information to when it comes to the FOIA. Therefore, what’s released to one has to be released to another. Once documents are released once, there’s no taking it back. Similar to what we share and post online, once it’s there, it’s always there. IMHO, if they were to decide against releasing additional requests, it’s contradictory. So yes, Hmmm (haha). Hmmm is the only thing I can come up with when I try to rationalize Ellis County’s response.

I have heard nothing back from the attorney general. Zip zero zilch. I’ve called the ECSO records phone number on the documents and was given zero answers. I just don’t understand.

 

[Razz]

If anyone recalls, in the last thread I mentioned that I completed my own open records request. And I did. I also received a response to that request that I’ve been pondering over for about a month now. It’s just another thing that makes me say “hmmm”. I requested documents that assumably have already been released considering previous “snippets” shared on this forum are said to have came from the same documents that I too requested.

Any input is appreciated as to your take on this response from ECSO.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ibnqo9scdm1siba/AADD36GL6oR7KsYlhc06hEnTa?dl=0

Yes, I agree w/ page 2 #1. Maybe the case has been sent to a prosecutor.
That probably hadn't happened the 1st time they were requested. I'm hoping that's the case, anyway.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Yes, I agree w/ page 2 #1. Maybe the case has been sent to a prosecutor.
That probably hadn't happened the 1st time they were requested. I'm hoping that's the case, anyway.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

Here’s to hoping. That would be the best news yet [emoji4] IMO, they must have had a “bombshell” come through breaking the case open for the prosecutor between January 12th when the documents were released the first time and February 2nd when they acknowledged my request. Wouldn’t you think?

 

[Razz]

Here’s to hoping. That would be the best news yet [emoji4] IMO, they must have had a “bombshell” come through breaking the case open for the prosecutor between January 12th when the documents were released the first time and February 2nd when they acknowledged my request. Wouldn’t you think?

What are your thoughts on this?

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

 

[DeDee]

The response on page 2, under number 1 is interesting. It sure does make u think hmmmmm and perhaps the doc was not suppose to be released in any way at all. perhaps it was obtained under the table. JMO

Under the table? WTH?

I have a magnifying lens if you wish to borrow it. Something tells me we're onto something good.

Where is JaneSmith when we need her slogan?

"Lady Justice rides a slow horse but she always arrive."

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Under the table? WTH?

I have a magnifying lens if you wish to borrow it. Something tells me we're onto something good.

Where is JaneSmith when we need her slogan?

"Lady Justice rides a slow horse but she always arrive."

Y’all, I think we not only need a magnifying lense but a microscope as well.

 

[Oregonmama]

Yes, I agree w/ page 2 #1. Maybe the case has been sent to a prosecutor.
That probably hadn't happened the 1st time they were requested. I'm hoping that's the case, anyway.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

Respectfully, we would think that they would be firm with a consistent answer on all requests. IF it was approved once then why go back to the prosecutor or court? Surely the courts have a system in place that allow documents that are requested in the past to get a better turn a round of producing them again for the individual that requested. JMO

 

[Razz]

Here’s to hoping. That would be the best news yet [emoji4] IMO, they must have had a “bombshell” come through breaking the case open for the prosecutor between January 12th when the documents were released the first time and February 2nd when they acknowledged my request. Wouldn’t you think?

Or.....did they get so much blowback from the most recent release that they decided it wasn't wise to do it again.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

 

[Oregonmama]

Or.....did they get so much blowback from the most recent release that they decided it wasn't wise to do it again.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

Perhaps LE was visiting WS and realized the whole world had more than they realized with the report sharing. JMO

 

[MittenScarpetta]

What are your thoughts on this?

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

Well, if I’m being honest, while my heart is very hopeful and really wants to believe that something transpired in that very short time frame, leading to the prosecutor being handed the case, my brain is very doubtful.

I received that response close to a month ago. I just can’t imagine the prosecutor would still be waiting to file charges this entire time if the case had been sent to their office. March 12th will be 2 months since the initial granted request and 6 weeks since my own still pending (or who knows where it’s at) request. That’s a very significant amount of time for a prosecutor to sit quiet on a high profile murder that’s approaching two years of being unsolved.

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Or.....did they get so much blowback from the most recent release that they decided it wasn't wise to do it again.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

Respectfully, they can’t just decide that it’s not wise to release it again. The FOIA does not work that way. If it did, it would be pointless to even have the FOIA. LE knows very well that once they release documents to one person that the said documents will most likely will be shared amongst others. I wasn’t aware there was any blowback from the initial release though. I am however very aware that we all have been talking around those documents on here.

 

[liltexans]

Reminder:

It's against TOS to discuss other WS members, even former WS members.

Thank you for your cooperation.

This post lands at random.

 

[janesmith787]

Under the table? WTH?

I have a magnifying lens if you wish to borrow it. Something tells me we're onto something good.

Where is JaneSmith when we need her slogan?

"Lady Justice rides a slow horse but she always arrive."

I’m here after an anniversary trip with no cell service![emoji322] [emoji6]

Very interesting to see these reasons. It’s not hard to find DL numbers, license plates, etc. through online databases.

Could it be that the new detective in the case is locking all info down? I feel like there’s been internal info leaked that shouldn’t have been, JMO. Not necessarily in the obtained documents, but just in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Great another twist......you just can’t make this stuff up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MittenScarpetta]

I’m here after an anniversary trip with no cell service![emoji322] [emoji6]

Very interesting to see these reasons. It’s not hard to find DL numbers, license plates, etc. through online databases.

Could it be that the new detective in the case is locking all info down? I feel like there’s been internal info leaked that shouldn’t have been, JMO. Not necessarily in the obtained documents, but just in general.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From my understanding, the new detective was assigned to Missy’s case long before the documents were first released in January though. Vaughn was already on the case and records were still released. Also, the records department handles the releases through ECSO and the detective assigned is MPD. Releases aren’t necessarily handled by LE, but processed by a specific department overseen by Attorney Little.

I am in total agreeance that info has been previously leaked that shouldn’t have been.