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

[KaaBoom]

Good point. If Missy is your target, why be complicated by dressing up as SWAT member and break into a church. Just keep it simple and drive up and shoot her. Between the early morning hours, the rain and isolation of the church you could have used a .38 Special or .45 ACP outside and few would even be awake to hear it. Those that did would likely be inside their homes and not be able to tell from which direction the shot came from.

Yes, I agree. The idea of a hitman bludgeoning a victim to death, might make sense in another country where 12 year old girls don't have easy access to semi-automatic handguns, but not in the US. And certainly not for a disabled hitman with a walking impairment. Somebody in that poor a health is certainly not going to choose to use a hand tool as a murder weapon.

 

[KaaBoom]

Respectively, do you know for a proven fact that she was or wasn’t shot?

Yes, that is a proven fact, or else investigators are perjuring themselves and falsify documents. That is what has been reported and what legal documents show. If she was shot, the documents would list bullet wounds not puncture wounds.

The warrant issued late in the afternoon of April 19 and obtained May 3, states that Bevers "had multiple puncture wounds found on her head and chest" that "are consistent with tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building."

Missy Bevers Died From Multiple Puncture Wounds to Head and Chest_ Police - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

 

[KaaBoom]

We don’t know that he didn’t shoot her and take the bullet out...and then stab her to cover the fact a gun was used. We just know there were puncture wounds to head and chest...

Yes, we do know that, or else the police investigators are perjuring themselves.

Missy Bevers Died From Multiple Puncture Wounds to Head and Chest_ Police - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worthl

 

[KaaBoom]

How many guns have you bought or seen for sale that was a dime a dozen. Please do not patronize.

If a 12 year old girl in LA can take a semiautomatic handgun to school, I'm sure the SWAT guy could have gotten one, legally or illegally.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

My point still stands, if he really wanted to kill her, the easiest way would have been to just ambush her at her car and shoot her. There would be just as much element of surprise to that, actually more. There wouldn't have been all the broken glass everywhere to tip her off. Virtually nothing could have gone wrong. if he killed her in her car. This way all kinds of things could go wrong. As you said, she would have likely just dropped the equipment. Then she could have run away. Old man SWAT guy would have been shuffling down the hall after her, and would have had no chance of ever catching up to her.

Just thinking out loud.....maybe old man SWAT guy is a very experienced paid-for-hire pro hitman that accommodates his client’s wishes? Maybe someone specified exactly their preference as to where this “hit” should take place as it had significance to them.

An easy “hit” would’ve been done with a gun either inside or just outside her home before she left for her Camp session. **BUT** the orchestrator did not want the children exposed in any way—and that should give one pause; think about it. The only other place MB went with regularity that a hitman could consider was the gym she went to but we know she was not going there often in the last few weeks.

MB’s demeanor had changed according to gym acquaintances a few weeks before her death. MB had gotten a strange message on her LinkedIn account. I believe MB was scared and knew she was being followed. The morning of her death was the last class she was going to hold at the Church before a venue change after that. The paid assassin knew that and had to make his move—he had the Church staked out. There are no coincidences.

She had no chance against him. Yes, it’s a him. He didn’t need a gun (guns leave forensics). He’s done this before & he’ll do it again but may use a different method of kill (there are many).

And this is why this case needs to be solved, regardless of anyone’s wishes to the contrary.

All moooooo, of course.

 

[Lorinda Shores]

Did she open up the church for bathroom/water breaks when the weather was nice and they had class outside? Or did she go to set up in the church because it was raining? If she only went in because of the rain I dont see how this is a planned attack. The murderer is gonna go thru with his plan based on the weather? I would think every step in his or her mind would be totally planned out beforehand.

 

[SteveS]

As I observe the back-and-forth in the last couple dozen threads, I still see the same thing: the very same "evidence" can be made to fit whatever personal bias/opinion/assumptions we want, whether targeted or not.

WHAT IS THE DEFINING DIFFERENCE? It's all about "intent" in the mind of the perp. And until we know who the perp is, we really have no way of knowing what intent was in his mind. The evidence objectively doesn't lead us other way.

For example, if we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone scared away before they could grab what they wanted to find or take. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone only there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a burglary that will take a while. But If we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the location and say it points to someone who plots a burglary in a place where others are unlikely to happen by. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the location and say it points to someone who wants to kill in a place where others are unlikely to happen by.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp waited in hiding trying to keep from being discovered and then something went awry and the killing happened. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp waited in hiding in order to kill MB.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp could certainly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp couldn't possibly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the murder is proof that the burglar felt the need to kill in order to escape or protect his identity when things went wrong. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the murder proves SP wanted MB killed.

I could go on and on, but it's all the same. We can paint the picture however we choose to.

Same evidence. But it's our bias, not the evidence, that makes us "certain" it had to be a burglary or a targeted murder. Fact is, we just can't know either way, not with the limits of what we know so far.

 

[GA_Peach]

My point still stands, if he really wanted to kill her, the easiest way would have been to just ambush her at her car and shoot her. There would be just as much element of surprise to that, actually more. There wouldn't have been all the broken glass everywhere to tip her off. Virtually nothing could have gone wrong. if he killed her in her car. This way all kinds of things could go wrong. As you said, she would have likely just dropped the equipment. Then she could have run away. Old man SWAT guy would have been shuffling down the hall after her, and would have had no chance of ever catching up to her.

While shooting Missy as she exited her vehicle may have been "easier," it would have been extremely obvious that was a targeted murder, likely a professional hit. If it were a professional hit, any "advantage" of the primary suspect(s) being out-of-town would have been eliminated. In fact, it would have cast even more suspicion their way. By staging a B&E, it leaves people questioning the motive of SP, and it vastly expands the pool of likely suspects.

As I observe the back-and-forth in the last couple dozen threads, I still see the same thing: the very same "evidence" can be made to fit whatever personal bias/opinion/assumptions we want, whether targeted or not.

WHAT IS THE DEFINING DIFFERENCE? It's all about "intent" in the mind of the perp. And until we know who the perp is, we really have no way of knowing what intent was in his mind. The evidence objectively doesn't lead us other way.

For example, if we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone scared away before they could grab what they wanted to find or take. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone only there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a burglary that will take a while. But If we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the location and say it points to someone who plots a burglary in a place where others are unlikely to happen by. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the location and say it points to someone who wants to kill in a place where others are unlikely to happen by.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp waited in hiding trying to keep from being discovered and then something went awry and the killing happened. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp waited in hiding in order to kill MB.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp could certainly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp couldn't possibly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the murder is proof that the burglar felt the need to kill in order to escape or protect his identity when things went wrong. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the murder proves SP wanted MB killed.

I could go on and on, but it's all the same. We can paint the picture however we choose to.

Same evidence. But it's our bias, not the evidence, that makes us "certain" it had to be a burglary or a targeted murder. Fact is, we just can't know either way, not with the limits of what we know so far.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this post. While your individual examples hold water, the totality of the evidence points in one direction. I did not pick a theory and force the evidence to match it. Instead, I looked at all of the evidence that has been made available to us and drew a conclusion based on that. It's easy to cherry pick a few examples where information could be used to support both sides, but when everything is taken as one body of evidence, one theory makes a far stronger case.

We obviously have incomplete information so anything is possible. However, I would be SHOCKED if this turned out to the a B&E gone wrong. I have read every post, the total number of posts being around 45,000, relating to MB's case, and I still have not seen these two questions answered. Assuming this was a B&E,

1) Why did SP not flee? Instead of simply running away, why did SP instead murder a woman? SP turned what was likely a misdemeanor stroll through an empty church into a death penalty case. Why? Most petty criminals are not okay with the massive leap to murder.

2) Why was nothing damaged in the SW corridor? SP had no problem damaging other parts of the building. In the NE and N parts of the building, SP had no problem smashing glass (both in an apparent attempt to gain entry and just for the heck of it when he was inside), ripping a handle off an exterior door, and damaging a window. When he came upon a stubborn door in the SW hall, why did SP simply move on? IMO, that is the biggest clue.

It's not about showing that any one piece of evidence could support a theory, but rather it is about looking at all of the evidence in its totality. When that is done, there is no ambiguity about which theory is more likely to have occurred.

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Yes, that is a proven fact, or else investigators are perjuring themselves and falsify documents. That is what has been reported and what legal documents show. If she was shot, the documents would list bullet wounds not puncture wounds.



Missy Bevers Died From Multiple Puncture Wounds to Head and Chest_ Police - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Bullet wounds are defined as puncture wounds. It’s not perjury or falsifying of documents to list a bullet wound as a puncture wound; it’s careful and selective wording by LE in order to protect information from the public. I’m not disagreeing that she was injured with other tools, but we also don’t know if the sp was seen on the remaining video with a gun in his hands either.

 

[whoanellie]

As I observe the back-and-forth in the last couple dozen threads, I still see the same thing: the very same "evidence" can be made to fit whatever personal bias/opinion/assumptions we want, whether targeted or not.

WHAT IS THE DEFINING DIFFERENCE? It's all about "intent" in the mind of the perp. And until we know who the perp is, we really have no way of knowing what intent was in his mind. The evidence objectively doesn't lead us other way.

For example, if we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone scared away before they could grab what they wanted to find or take. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the lack of items stolen as far as we know, and say that points to someone only there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a burglary that will take a while. But If we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the costume and say it points to someone who wants to be sure not to be identified because they are there for a murder.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we see the location and say it points to someone who plots a burglary in a place where others are unlikely to happen by. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we see the location and say it points to someone who wants to kill in a place where others are unlikely to happen by.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp waited in hiding trying to keep from being discovered and then something went awry and the killing happened. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp waited in hiding in order to kill MB.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the perp could certainly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the perp couldn't possibly have been trapped or hiding-and-discovered.

If we want it to be a burglary-gone-wrong, we say the murder is proof that the burglar felt the need to kill in order to escape or protect his identity when things went wrong. But if we want it to be a targeted murder, we say the murder proves SP wanted MB killed.

I could go on and on, but it's all the same. We can paint the picture however we choose to.

Same evidence. But it's our bias, not the evidence, that makes us "certain" it had to be a burglary or a targeted murder. Fact is, we just can't know either way, not with the limits of what we know so far.

I agree. I lean towards this being an interrupted burglary but I would not be fall-on-the-floor shocked if this turned out to be a targeted murder.
Regardless of what the truth turns out to be there are large aspects of the killer's behavior that make no sense. If it was a targeted murder why choose that location and that method of killing? It makes no sense to me. If it was a staged theft, the killer's nonchalant behavior on video makes no sense particularly if he knew he was being videotaped. He should have at least acted like he was trying to steal something. There were much easier ways of killing MB without ever being seen on video.

If it truly was a burglary then it is not clear what the killer's motivation was. He doesn't appear interested in stealing anything. Maybe he thought he had hours before anyone showed up? The killer's behavior on the video I have seen is bizarre.

There are huge holes in either theory. Its just a question of which holes one thinks are bigger. The police, if they are doing a proper job, will explore any and all theories.

 

[SteveS]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this post. While your individual examples hold water, the totality of the evidence points in one direction. I did not pick a theory and force the evidence to match it. Instead, I looked at all of the evidence that has been made available to us and drew a conclusion based on that. It's easy to cherry pick a few examples where information could be used to support both sides, but when everything is taken as one body of evidence, one theory makes a far stronger case.

We obviously have incomplete information so anything is possible. However, I would be SHOCKED if this turned out to the a B&E gone wrong. I have read every post, the total number of posts being around 45,000, relating to MB's case, and I still have not seen these two questions answered. Assuming this was a B&E,

1) Why did SP not flee? Instead of simply running away, why did SP instead murder a woman? SP turned what was likely a misdemeanor stroll through an empty church into a death penalty case. Why? Most petty criminals are not okay with the massive leap to murder.

2) Why was nothing damaged in the SW corridor? SP had no problem damaging other parts of the building. In the NE and N parts of the building, SP had no problem smashing glass (both in an apparent attempt to gain entry and just for the heck of it when he was inside), ripping a handle off an exterior door, and damaging a window. When he came upon a stubborn door in the SW hall, why did SP simply move on? IMO, that is the biggest clue.

It's not about showing that any one piece of evidence could support a theory, but rather it is about looking at all of the evidence in its totality. When that is done, there is no ambiguity about which theory is more likely to have occurred.

Respectfully, I have read as many posts as you have, fwiw. And even the questions you ask can be answered a way that would have been a burglary-gone-wrong rather than a targeted killing. (And frankly, I have seen these questions answered the other way in the various posts in this forum, but I'll do it again since you apparently read past them.)

"I still have not seen these two questions answered. Assuming this was a B&E,

1) Why did SP not flee? Instead of simply running away, why did SP instead murder a woman? SP turned what was likely a misdemeanor stroll through an empty church into a death penalty case. Why? Most petty criminals are not okay with the massive leap to murder."

-First, you probably don't realize it, but this whole line of questions works from your assumption (and one that I'm not sure is even a fact) that "Most petty criminals are not okay with the massive leap to murder." But even if we assume that is true, how would we know that this burglar was a "petty" criminal, or that this burglar was like most. Those are assumptions, not facts. Fact is, a burglar here could have been a hardcore who happened to think this church was a great place to go looking for money or pawnable equipment, or he could have been petty but still didn't mind killing to get away. We just can't know what we don't know.
-Second, you make the assumption that the burglar had the opportunity to flee without being caught if that was his preference - but again, that's just an assumption, not a fact we know. We can certainly offer scenarios in which he could have fled, but others that he couldn't. There are MANY possible scenarios in which the burglar could have been trapped or cornered, and only been able to escape with a fight.
-Third, within the above question you make the assumption that MB could only have been killed by someone who intended to kill, whereas her death could actually have started with an attempt to flee, and then a fight or a struggle in which one thing led to another, rather than a perp who was trying to kill. Maybe the perp tried to knock out MB to flee, and then hit her so hard she was seriously injured and in the moment he felt he better kill her so she couldn't talk. We can't say what was in the mind of the killer, or why they killed, because we just don't know.

2) Why was nothing damaged in the SW corridor? SP had no problem damaging other parts of the building. In the NE and N parts of the building, SP had no problem smashing glass (both in an apparent attempt to gain entry and just for the heck of it when he was inside), ripping a handle off an exterior door, and damaging a window. When he came upon a stubborn door in the SW hall, why did SP simply move on? IMO, that is the biggest clue.

You assume nothing was damaged in the SW corridor, and everything was damaged elsewhere, but we don't know that. Reports said there was glass everywhere around and even under MB's body. You assume SP simply moved on with minor effort at one SW door, but we have cams that shut on and off, with edited footage, and we don't have the time stamps so we don't know how long he took. And what would he have done if there had been glass in that door? We don't know he wouldn't have busted it, because there wasn't glass in that door like there was in the other, so he had no choice. We do see him break ONE glass elsewhere, in a door that was locked, but we don't know what he ultimately did or didn't do in lots of other places. One event does not give us a pattern.

Apparently he tried to enter at the NE (most secluded) doors, failed, and then went to the closest place from there to try, and succeeded. There was damage in the attempt to enter. It's certainly easy to see why a burglar would do that without some ulterior plan in play, but if we assume a plan then we can see (or think we see) more there. Did he have a plan that forced him to the N/NE other than an attempt to break in? We can't objectively know.

At the end of the day, I'm not saying any or all of your assumptions are wrong. They might be right. But if someone else makes different assumptions, the "evidence" then is able to be seen very differently, with just as good a chance of being right. And we have nothing objective to force us to see them either way. It's all dependent on knowing the perp's intentions, from which we can then make sense of the tiny bit we can see, but unfortunately we don't know that.

 

[whoanellie]

Bullet wounds are defined as puncture wounds. It’s not perjury or falsifying of documents to list a bullet wound as a puncture wound; it’s careful and selective wording by LE in order to protect information from the public. I’m not disagreeing that she was injured with other tools, but we also don’t know if the sp was seen on the remaining video with a gun in his hands either.

Did you read the part where it states the wounds are consistent with the tools carried by the killer?

 

[MittenScarpetta]

Did you read the part where it states the wounds are consistent with the tools carried by the killer?

I sure did.

 

[SandyQLS]

While shooting Missy as she exited her vehicle may have been "easier," it would have been extremely obvious that was a targeted murder, likely a professional hit. If it were a professional hit, any "advantage" of the primary suspect(s) being out-of-town would have been eliminated. In fact, it would have cast even more suspicion their way. By staging a B&E, it leaves people questioning the motive of SP, and it vastly expands the pool of likely suspects. I wholeheartedly disagree with this post. While your individual examples hold water, the totality of the evidence points in one direction. I did not pick a theory and force the evidence to match it. Instead, I looked at all of the evidence that has been made available to us and drew a conclusion based on that. It's easy to cherry pick a few examples where information could be used to support both sides, but when everything is taken as one body of evidence, one theory makes a far stronger case. We obviously have incomplete information so anything is possible. However, I would be SHOCKED if this turned out to the a B&E gone wrong. I have read every post, the total number of posts being around 45,000, relating to MB's case, and I still have not seen these two questions answered. Assuming this was a B&E, 1) Why did SP not flee? Instead of simply running away, why did SP instead murder a woman? SP turned what was likely a misdemeanor stroll through an empty church into a death penalty case. Why? Most petty criminals are not okay with the massive leap to murder. 2) Why was nothing damaged in the SW corridor? SP had no problem damaging other parts of the building. In the NE and N parts of the building, SP had no problem smashing glass (both in an apparent attempt to gain entry and just for the heck of it when he was inside), ripping a handle off an exterior door, and damaging a window. When he came upon a stubborn door in the SW hall, why did SP simply move on? IMO, that is the biggest clue. It's not about showing that any one piece of evidence could support a theory, but rather it is about looking at all of the evidence in its totality. When that is done, there is no ambiguity about which theory is more likely to have occurred.

I understand Steve S's point to put theories back on the objective evidence. But I agree with you that the totality of what we know leads me to strongly favor targetted hit. The meticulous planning of the SP that continues to leave LE without even a sex, no DNA, no idea who this is, are not the capabilities of the typical burglar. And anyone who was a burglar capable of all this planning would have known in advance which office held the cash money, an area SP ignored altogether. SP's meanderings look to me as attempts to make it look like a burglary gone wrong, not an actual burglary gone wrong.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I agree. I lean towards this being an interrupted burglary but I would not be fall-on-the-floor shocked if this turned out to be a targeted murder.
Regardless of what the truth turns out to be there are large aspects of the killer's behavior that make no sense. If it was a targeted murder why choose that location and that method of killing? It makes no sense to me. If it was a staged theft, the killer's nonchalant behavior on video makes no sense particularly if he knew he was being videotaped. He should have at least acted like he was trying to steal something. There were much easier ways of killing MB without ever being seen on video.

If it truly was a burglary then it is not clear what the killer's motivation was. He doesn't appear interested in stealing anything. Maybe he thought he had hours before anyone showed up? The killer's behavior on the video I have seen is bizarre.

There are huge holes in either theory. Its just a question of which holes one thinks are bigger. The police, if they are doing a proper job, will explore any and all theories.

The answer to your holes are quite simple, with all due respect; it can’t be a burglary because all reports state nothing was taken. But if it was a targeted murder then the outcome was achieved.

It’s all about the outcome.

Moo

 

[Oregonmama]

Yes, we do know that, or else the police investigators are perjuring themselves.

Missy Bevers Died From Multiple Puncture Wounds to Head and Chest_ Police - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worthl

LE doesnt have to tell the public everything. They release public info but a lot of it is blurred out so the critical facts are not known

 

[GA_Peach]

I understand Steve S's point to put theories back on the objective evidence. But I agree with you that the totality of what we know leads me to strongly favor targetted hit. The meticulous planning of the SP that continues to leave LE without even a sex, no DNA, no idea who this is, are not the capabilities of the typical burglar. And anyone who was a burglar capable of all this planning would have known in advance which office held the cash money, an area SP ignored altogether. SP's meanderings look to me as attempts to make it look like a burglary gone wrong, not an actual burglary gone wrong.

BBM

Hi, Sandy. It's good seeing you back and posting on MB's thread.

I agree with your post, especially the part in bold. A person who broke in with the intent to steal would have known where the loot was. Experienced criminals don't take their time. They want to get in and out. By spending more time than necessary at a crime scene, criminals risk running into complications such as an unexpected person showing up. The fact that I lean away from a B&E has nothing to do with the fact that nothing was taken. The activity that we see on video (and supposedly the rest of the video is more of the same) is not consistent with the activities of an experienced thief. However, I don't want to get hung up on one point because as I said above it's the totality of the evidence that points a targeted murder.

 

[Oregonmama]

If he really wanted to kill her and he knew where she was going to be and what she was going to be doing, why didn't he just hide in the bushes outside, wait for her to pull up, walk up to her car and shoot her through the window. She would have had less chance to get away from that. Nobody can outrun a bullet. Guns are a dime a dozen in this country, legal or illegal. It makes no sense for him to spend hours breaking up a church just to do a simple job like kill a woman. Trying to kill, as you point out a "physically fit" woman, with a breaking and entry tool inside instead of shooting her outside would certainly not be the best option, and makes no sense IMHO.

It is hard to get into another person's way of thinking. Whoever the sp is , they planned it according to their individual plans. Isolating a victim inside has a better outcome then jumping out of the bushes. Campers would be arriving soon, so why take the chance to hang outside in the pouring rain getting all wet.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Did she open up the church for bathroom/water breaks when the weather was nice and they had class outside? Or did she go to set up in the church because it was raining? If she only went in because of the rain I dont see how this is a planned attack. The murderer is gonna go thru with his plan based on the weather? I would think every step in his or her mind would be totally planned out beforehand.

One would assume she always held her Camp at places that had restroom facilities as Gladiators likely would need to use the restrooms due to exercising & drinking water. Therefore, MB would have to unlock the doors & turn on the lights no matter what the weather conditions.

 

[whoanellie]

The answer to your holes are quite simple, with all due respect; it can’t be a burglary because all reports state nothing was taken. But if it was a targeted murder then the outcome was achieved.

It’s all about the outcome.

Moo

Burglary does not require any thing to be taken.