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

[Tippy Lynn]

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

I hope this isn’t how ECSO has handled the entire case.

 

[janesmith787]

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.

I’m not too familiar with FOIA, so thank YOI for clarifying! I was off on my timeframe too, but just trying to think positively. So many questionable things! JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ezrah]

They did the same thing with the documents that one media guy did and then when Cannonball applied back in May 2016. 2 media individuals requested right after the murder. They sent to AG for an Opinion, then they released the SWs on May 3rd that were told to release. Then the 3rd media guy requested same and his went to the AG for Opinion just as the first 2 did, and then they had the explanation. Then Cannonball made his/her request and he was sent the same document that the 3rd media individual was sent.

So jmho it is the way it goes.

I can’t believe that the position of the body would be released to anyone outside the investigation. We haven’t heard a 911 call, seen MB in video, told the condition of her body when found, etc...IMO it was either released by mistake or obtained in an unconventional manner. All JMOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

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

RBBM, All that info in in SW and or media.
And as far as leaks, there were allegedly many "leaks" from beginning, well I say that because so many have stated stuff that were suppose to "be in the know" and local. I guess some just choose to believe what they want. Not meaning to be snarky

 

[arkansasmimi]

I hope this isn’t how ECSO has handled the entire case.

Entire case? MPD is who has jurisdiction over MB murder case.

 

[Jethro4WS]

If you use Google Earth and look at the church from above, the plumbing deals (not their technical name) would suggest that bathrooms are in all 4 corners. The SW corner, the offices at the SE corner, and then at NW and NE corners.

From the looks of things the plumbing stacks at the NW are likely for the kitchen. The SW for sure has bathrooms and based on the image previously there will be bathrooms at the NE corner. In the opening of the MPD video that side of the hall is cut off by the area MPD reserved for their logo but it is clear that there is a hall that extends north on the east side of Room 8. On the map I have you should notice that I have always had the NE corner in red but it is divided into a "room" and a short hall - you will see the black separator line. Without an image there I can't draw anything in there other than the rough shape that is there. In the office area there should be a bathroom. While I depict two side by side it is quite possible that there is only one and a storage closet or there are two and they are smaller and there could be a storage closet. The space occupied by the bathrooms on the map are in a space that was left over after accounting for other office rooms and based on the plumbing stacks there had to be something there.

 

[Jethro4WS]

Permission to share:
"If I pulled into that parking lot in the far, I wouldn’t have seen a vehicle parked around by the kitchen entrance.
Immediate structure is well lit. Anything 3 rows or further back fades into darkness. Rainfall would limit the view even more. It’s like she walked into a trap. "

:thinking: Random thinking out loud and JMHO (except what we know from SW)
Remember there was rain that dark morning so visibility would be somewhat not as clear. But I am told it has been raining there now as it was then, so it gives us some prespective. Notice in the helicopter photos later that morning how concrete parking lot dried quickly and where water ran off to.

Church closer to 287 than prior photos appear.
Not as blackout dark as thought prior. The lights on were on the building April 18, 2016. Not sure if they were on or tampered with to make it dark. :thinking: darn sure could be seen messing with door if lights were on like now.

Even the area where Suspect busted kitchen window and tore up the handle on the metal Kitchen door is lit up.

A passerby from 287 could very well have seen someone leaving.

JMHO I think very possible depending upon where the 1st camper parked possible to have seen a car leave. BUT if parked over in parking spots near rear of MB truck, would not have if drove out and turned onto 287 to the right - not crossing over to go towards SWFA

"The front passenger door and truck bed lid was open" We don't know if the 1st Camper got out first (seen MB truck open so knew she was there jmho) We do not know how long it was until the next campers arrived on scene. While timeline say certain times there are other times listed in the SW affidavits. Like 4:18 entered/4:20 and various wordings by Johnson/document make me think she may have went in than came back out 4:18 then 4:20. That is kinda up in air. But in the SW it says 5:06 is a 911 call. JMHO I think they round off some times and use approximately.

The remark from MPD about car being seen on surveillance camera, they clarified that came from a SWFA camera. "There’s one surveillance camera where you can see the car in the far corner of the frame, parked in the distance." So that car seen was NOT there once first responders arrived. Possible even when other campers arrived. POSSIBLE it left after the campers all went in but jmho that vehicle hauled butt out of there. I am thinking to be seen by SWFA car had to be parked on that NE corner not on the North side near kitchen doors.

I had made several videos of the view of the church taken from the SWFA video that had been released. For those videos I isolated the church by cropping the church area from the larger frames. There are several versions of the video, such as enlarged, brightened, 3x slower, etc. The names of the files should tell you what each is. The videos are in a folder on my Google Drive.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bx0LL2gY_Aorc1ZMLUJMcjBLNFk

 

[Jethro4WS]

This case is so strange on so many levels.

MB truck is sitting under the awning, "the front passenger door and truck bed lid were open". So it was like that from at least 4:20 and even so at 4:35 when " Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:35 A.M. – Participant in Camp Gladiator arrives at location" https://www.facebook.com/Midlothian...95047007358/10154082916172359/?type=3&theater

Not accusing anyone as I don't know what the Paul Harvey version is (the rest of the story) But the doors had to be unlocked for the campers to find MB unresponsive.
Updated Timeline:
• Monday, April 18, 2016: 3:50 A.M. – Suspect first appears on video surveillance camera at Creekside Church of Christ
• Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:16 A.M. – Mrs. Bevers’ pickup truck is shown on video surveillance driving into the church parking lot.
• Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:20 A.M. – Mrs. Bevers appears on video surveillance camera walking into the church building.**truck passenger door open and bed lid open

Dec 2016 BWH SW 4:30 A.M. passerby sees a dark suv wagon (paraphrase) leaving CCoC

• Monday, April 18, 2016: 4:35 A.M. – Participant in Camp Gladiator arrives at location

• Monday, April 18, 2016: 5:00 A.M. – Two 911 calls received from location
• Monday, April 18, 2016: 5:07 A.M. – Fire Department arrives at the location
• Monday, April 18, 2016: 5:10 A.M. – Officers arrive at the location
When did other campers arrive?

So did the CG participant get out or wait til they saw MB come out (but she didn't) then other campers show up and they all go in. Did participant know if the session was moved inside? Or is that still an assumption that it was being moved in. We were told it was that date. But JMHO if it was, wouldn't this participant have went in, as again the door was unlocked, MB truck was wide open... If person had no way they would not have called 911 jmho. OR maybe they freaked and went back out but they would have all entry on video.

:worms: :findinglink: ullhair:

Just think MPD has tons more info and evidence than us and they haven't gotten far either, starting back from scratch :thinking:
Only thing is if things were missed (FACT we do not know the extent or anything about the crime scene processing )
They had lots of people (we know now) that wasted their time. So their going back to scratch is a good thing to me at this point. Hopefully no confirmation bias .

Hopefully when they do this restart they work the case completely backwards starting from the autopsy report to the photos of the scene where Missy was and then the cameras backward in time all the way to the first activity. This hopefully would eliminate any assumptions and presumptions that may have been introduced very early in the investigation and to allow MPD to account for each and every action that occurred as part of the crime. If anything was missed the first time it should turn up. I still believe that barring a confession the only chance MPD has of getting toward an identity of the killer is to fully understand the crime flow and each and every part of it, no matter how seemingly insignificant it is. Understanding the crime flow and the activities should allow them to construct a profile of characteristics that SP has that SP can't hide from others.

 

[Jethro4WS]

Just to to clarify. Pretty sure the white van in this picture is a LE vehicle. The front of MBs truck is seen under the awning in this photo.

Yes, that is an LE vehicle. Under the awning you see the rear of Missy's truck - it is parked facing West. Other video and images show the front of her truck.

 

[kkdj]

Keep checking in periodically. I do not think this murder will ever be charged and go to court. Just saying!
I wish I too knew how to commit the perfect crime! Guess I would have to be in LE, FBI, CIA, politics, or something related. And have some very good friends or relatives! Just saying! I do not think the general public needs to fear.

 

[Jethro4WS]

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.

The AG only had 10 days to respond to Ellis County. You should have received something from Ellis County and that also should have included the response from the Assistant AG handling the exception request. If you did not receive those you should contact Ellis County and advise them that you did not receive either. It is required that your request be handled properly under the law and one of the requirements is that you receive the Ellis County response that includes the AG ruling on any claimed exceptions.

 

[MittenScarpetta]

The AG only had 10 days to respond to Ellis County. You should have received something from Ellis County and that also should have included the response from the Assistant AG handling the exception request. If you did not receive those you should contact Ellis County and advise them that you did not receive either. It is required that your request be handled properly under the law and one of the requirements is that you receive the Ellis County response that includes the AG ruling on any claimed exceptions.

I will be calling this morning because I have received absolutely nothing. 10 days I’m assuming is 10 Business Days, but even then they’re still past 10 Business days. Perhaps they could have received their response from the AG but have not forwarded the response to me yet?

 

[MittenScarpetta]

The AG only had 10 days to respond to Ellis County. You should have received something from Ellis County and that also should have included the response from the Assistant AG handling the exception request. If you did not receive those you should contact Ellis County and advise them that you did not receive either. It is required that your request be handled properly under the law and one of the requirements is that you receive the Ellis County response that includes the AG ruling on any claimed exceptions.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/how-to-request-public-information#decision_issued

This states 45 days as a “general” rule. Is there somewhere else you’ve seen that states 10 days? Either way, I’m still not sure why it was sent to the AG since the AG would have already reviewed and approved these documents in a prior request. It just confuses me as I’ve never seen an already approved request handled this way before. Typically, once the AG gives a decision of approval , I was under the impression that decision would be applicable to all duplicated requests.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Entire case? MPD is who has jurisdiction over MB murder case.

I said ESCO since the discussion was in regards to their response to the records request. Like most of my posts, I didn’t word it very well. I was just saying, I hope this isn’t how the entire case has been handled, “entire case” meaning all who are involved with the investigation and case, not just ESCO.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/how-to-request-public-information#decision_issued

This states 45 days as a “general” rule. Is there somewhere else you’ve seen that states 10 days? Either way, I’m still not sure why it was sent to the AG since the AG would have already reviewed and approved these documents in a prior request. It just confuses me as I’ve never seen an already approved request handled this way before. Typically, once the AG gives a decision of approval , I was under the impression that decision would be applicable to all duplicated requests.

ESCO had 10 days to seek a decision from the AG and the AG has 45 days to respond.


If the governmental body wishes to withhold information from you, it must:
Seek an attorney general decision within ten business days of its receipt of your request and state the exceptions to disclosure that it believes are applicable. The governmental body must also send you a copy of its letter to the attorney general requesting a decision within ten business days. If the governmental body does not notify you of its request for an attorney general decision, the information you requested is generally presumed to be open to the public.

https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/how-to-request-public-information

 

[Tippy Lynn]

As of right now, these are my thoughts are regarding the records.

1. ESCO released the records and have since decided against releasing future requests without AG decision. (I’m not sure if this is legal or not)

2. A third party named in the records requested to stop the records from being released. (I’m not sure if this is legal or not)

3. The released records were obtained illegally.

4. The released records weren’t authentic or were altered. ( I know that’s a stretch and illegal)




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

ESCO had 10 days to seek a decision from the AG and the AG has 45 days to respond.


If the governmental body wishes to withhold information from you, it must:
Seek an attorney general decision within ten business days of its receipt of your request and state the exceptions to disclosure that it believes are applicable. The governmental body must also send you a copy of its letter to the attorney general requesting a decision within ten business days. If the governmental body does not notify you of its request for an attorney general decision, the information you requested is generally presumed to be open to the public.

https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/how-to-request-public-information

<modsnip>
2/2/18 date Requester letter received
2/5/18 letter from DA to inform you has asked for a decision from TX AG (1 pg)
2/5/18 letter to TX AG requesting Opinion (2 pg)
2/9/18 Tracking number shows delivered Feb 9, 2018 at 8:31 am Delivered to Austin TX 78711

<modsnip>
10/3/17 date received request
10/6/17 letter to <modsnip> from DA informing has asked for a decision from the TX AG (1 pg)
10/6/17 letter to TX AG requesting Opinion (3 pg)
10/13/17 Letter from AG re Opinion (4 pgs) and says 3 requestors
1/12/18 payment for documents


Going back and looking at the Request from the 3 media individuals that all requested the various information, MPD Attorneys sent a request for a decision from the AG all 3 times. JMHO from looking at the actual documents that were given https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...T-gear-18-Apr-2016-26&p=12612388#post12612388 and by going over each one. JMHO it also has to do with information requested. On the May 2016, each diff request was listed by different exhibit letters. https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...T-gear-18-Apr-2016-29&p=12649279#post12649279

 

[arkansasmimi]

As of right now, these are my thoughts are regarding the records.

1. ESCO released the records and have since decided against releasing future requests without AG decision. (I&#8217;m not sure if this is legal or not)

2. A third party named in the records requested to stop the records from being released. (I&#8217;m not sure if this is legal or not)

3. The released records were obtained illegally.

4. The released records weren&#8217;t authentic or were altered. ( I know that&#8217;s a stretch and illegal)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think it would be legal to not release the ones that were prior released.

I would think they would have to give some sort of follow up as to response from the AG. As they did in the May 2016 that was sent to <modsnip>, with the statute/reasoning as to why not. Just going by the other documents

 

[MittenScarpetta]

ESCO had 10 days to seek a decision from the AG and the AG has 45 days to respond.


If the governmental body wishes to withhold information from you, it must:
Seek an attorney general decision within ten business days of its receipt of your request and state the exceptions to disclosure that it believes are applicable. The governmental body must also send you a copy of its letter to the attorney general requesting a decision within ten business days. If the governmental body does not notify you of its request for an attorney general decision, the information you requested is generally presumed to be open to the public.

https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/og/how-to-request-public-information

So, they’re following protocol to withhold information from me. Information that I know has previously been released. Am I understanding that correctly? :sorry: brain fog today from too little sleep last night :yawn:

 

[Tippy Lynn]

So, they’re following protocol to withhold information from me. Information that I know has previously been released. Am I understanding that correctly? :sorry: brain fog today from too little sleep last night :yawn:

ESCO requested a decision from the AG within 10 days, so they followed protocol. The AG has 45 days from the time they received the request from ESCO to respond with a decision.

ETA:
ESCO followed the same process with the request that was released and shared previously. The AG made the decision to release the previous request within 45 days. If the AG denies your request or doesn’t respond with 45 days that’s when your request would be different and suspicious.