TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #47

[ElGato]

No disrespect intended -- you make reasonable points about what we think burglars do - but we don't know what we don't know, so we don't know if this was a non-burglar who took nothing, or if it was a failed burglar whose attempt to rob went wrong.

One example of what we don't know, we have no way to know what sort of time schedule SP thought he was on. That would change everything. We can paint a reasonable scenario where SP wants to rob whatever's there, and decides he needs to be out the door by 6 or 6:30, before it gets light and LONG before anyone will be there to work. He is going to arrive at 3:30, scout around the place for an hour to see what he wants to take, then start collecting and loading from 5:00 to 6:00, leaving plenty of room to spare. He's unfortunately interrupted at 4:15, long before he has decided what to take, but he's not staying.

Problem is, criminals can do it however they want. There are no rules for intended burglars. Or for non-burglar trespassers. Or for intended vandals. Or for intended killers. We can't look at the way they acted in the heat of the moment and know what was in their mind when they walked in the door, unless they tell us. Intent could have changed at any time in the process.

Most importantly, we can ask the same sort of questions about why SP, if there to kill, did this and that. Just like some of his actions would seem amiss for a burglar, others would seem amiss for someone who just came to shoot MB. He doesn't really fit there either. Only when he is caught will we find out if he was a burglar who killed, a killer who also looked for something to steal, or just someone on a lark who decided to play killer with a random person who walked through the door. The one thing we do know, it was clearly a loser, who gained nothing by being there, and who is still a loser.

It's certainly not a question of rules that a criminal has to follow, but I do believe there are consistencies in human behaviour, which entirely depend on their goal or intention.

Crime solving would be very difficult without that. If you see someone on your ring cam stealing a parcel, should you assume that quite probably they were coming to kill you, but seeing (from the parcel being there) that you weren't home, they left, taking the package to cover up their real intention...?

I agree that we can't truly know anything, and that SP's intention is unclear from their actions on camera.

But I think people can come to rational conclusions that SP did have an intention in being there, and create a credible theory about what it was.

IMO, SP's intention was to do exactly what they did do, murder Missy.

I think the disguise points to that, the lack of any other purpose for being there, and that killing a woman as a panic reaction to being surprised by her, when all you're doing is hanging around in a church in a disguise, is not credible. Hurt her, perhaps, but kill her? What would have caused such a massive over-reaction, if it was all so innocent.

JMO

 

[moslym3]

I think the disguise points to that, the lack of any other purpose for being there, and that killing a woman as a panic reaction to being surprised by her, when all you're doing is hanging around in a church in a disguise, is not credible. Hurt her, perhaps, but kill her? What would have caused such a massive over-reaction, if it was all so innocent.

JMO

That's the thing. the perp may not have been intending to murder and MB may have been alive after the altercation but she lay on the floor for almost 30 mins before being discovered. Had she been discovered within minutes of the assault, would she have survived? And if she had, would we be looking at this differently?

 

[Curious_in_NC]

<snip>
Most importantly, we can ask the same sort of questions about why SP, if there to kill, did this and that. Just like some of his actions would seem amiss for a burglar, others would seem amiss for someone who just came to shoot MB. He doesn't really fit there either. Only when he is caught will we find out if he was a burglar who killed, a killer who also looked for something to steal, or just someone on a lark who decided to play killer with a random person who walked through the door. The one thing we do know, it was clearly a loser, who gained nothing by being there, and who is still a loser.

Bravo. This sums up the burglar vs. targeted killer vs. vandal debate really succinctly.

 

[Ozoner]

the common thief doesn't usually come with a head to toe disguise ...and an unusual one too ...if its an empty church ..what was the point ? just to evade the cctv

Evading the CCTV is, in fact, the likely reason for the disguise. In my opinion, it suggests that the perp might have been known to whomever might have viewed the CCTV footage, for instance employees at the church. The perp could have been a current or former employee or a current or former member of the congregation.

 

[Ozoner]

That's the thing. the perp may not have been intending to murder and MB may have been alive after the altercation but she lay on the floor for almost 30 mins before being discovered. Had she been discovered within minutes of the assault, would she have survived? And if she had, would we be looking at this differently?

This is a very good point that isn't mentioned nearly often enough. Someone who targeted Missy for murder would have made sure that she was dead. Instead, Missy nearly lived. If she had been found more quickly, there's a very good chance that she would have lived.
That one point shows the absurdity of the targeted murder theory, in my opinion.

 

[somequestions]

This is a very good point that isn't mentioned nearly often enough. Someone who targeted Missy for murder would have made sure that she was dead. Instead, Missy nearly lived. If she had been found more quickly, there's a very good chance that she would have lived.
That one point shows the absurdity of the targeted murder theory, in my opinion.

That is a good point. Why leave a living witness? I did not know Missy Bevers nearly lived after being left for a time.

But maybe the reason for the disguise was two-fold. Maybe it was not only to fool the CCTV cameras, but also Missy Bevers. Even up close, Missy Bevers would only be able to say it was a stocky man or woman wearing a police gear suit. The gender probably would be revealed by the voice, but about the only thing anyone would know more than what was caught on CCTV would be the eye color.

This person may have known Missy and been offended by something she did without Missy realizing it. In case somehow Missy lived, police would have barely more than what they have to go on now.

Supposedly there is more surveillance video in this case. The video would really be the best evidence. For example, if the perpetrator was around the corner, cannot see Missy Bevers enter the church, and Missy Bevers enters the church, what did the perpetrator do? How did they react? If you can determine the perpetrator walked towards Missy after only hearing "someone" enter the church, I would definitely think there is the possibility of recognition there.

On the other hand, upon hearing Missy Bevers enter the church, the person walks away from the sound, that would make me think it is more possible it is someone Missy Bevers did not know. It all depends on where the perpetrator was when Missy entered the church. You could even theorize the perpetrator was going to pose as a police officer investigating a break in at the church. None of us knows because we do not know what the other surveillance tape shows when Missy Bevers arrived.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Does anyone have a link where I can read about Missy nearly surviving? I don’t recall reading that and my google searches are coming back empty. I’ve started back at thread 1 trying to find some reference to it but I’m hoping someone knows quicker where I can read about it. Tia

 

[Laughing]

Does anyone have a link where I can read about Missy nearly surviving? I don’t recall reading that and my google searches are coming back empty. I’ve started back at thread 1 trying to find some reference to it but I’m hoping someone knows quicker where I can read about it. Tia

I'm with you -- I thought we were amazed that work-out patrons didn't see the assailant, that the timing was tight?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[sandy_80]

Evading the CCTV is, in fact, the likely reason for the disguise. In my opinion, it suggests that the perp might have been known to whomever might have viewed the CCTV footage, for instance employees at the church. The perp could have been a current or former employee or a current or former member of the congregation.

a mask is def enough for that
i understand this disguise for someone robbing a bank not a church
and there is a bit of display here.. like its role playing/staging...idk

 

[sandy_80]

This is a very good point that isn't mentioned nearly often enough. Someone who targeted Missy for murder would have made sure that she was dead. Instead, Missy nearly lived. If she had been found more quickly, there's a very good chance that she would have lived.
That one point shows the absurdity of the targeted murder theory, in my opinion.

the zodiac himself left surviving victims ...and many other dangerous criminals did
in many times the victim played dead...if its true she nearly survived
its open for discussion

 

[iamnotagolem]

the zodiac himself left surviving victims ...and many other dangerous criminals did
in many times the victim played dead...if its true she nearly survived
its open for discussion

But where did “she nearly survived” come from? I don’t even see it as a rumor on blogs or FB so is it a new rumor fresh on websleuths?

 

[Ozoner]

I think the disguise points to that, the lack of any other purpose for being there, and that killing a woman as a panic reaction to being surprised by her, when all you're doing is hanging around in a church in a disguise, is not credible. Hurt her, perhaps, but kill her? What would have caused such a massive over-reaction, if it was all so innocent.

JMO

Snipped

How do explain all of the known cases—and they are legion—where someone was killed after interrupting a burglary in progress?

And it isn't true that all the perp was doing was hanging around. He was burglarizing the building (likely looking for cash that he never found and that probably wasn't even there).

 

[SteveS]

Does anyone have a link where I can read about Missy nearly surviving?

I think in this very thread it was said "what if Missy nearly survived" or "what if Missy didn't die right away, and could have been saved" and then it morphed into ****FACT!!!!!**** before our very eyes. I've never seen any thing like that mentioned, in the media or in any of these threads, and I suspect "Missy's near survival" was just the product of careless reading.

Seer posts 782 and 785 above, where I think conjecture and pure speculation began to be treated as fact.

 

[Ozoner]

I think in this very thread it was said "what if Missy nearly survived" or "what if Missy didn't die right away, and could have been saved" and then it morphed into ****FACT!!!!!**** before our very eyes. I've never seen any thing like that mentioned, in the media or in any of these threads, and I suspect "Missy's near survival" was just the product of careless reading.

Seer posts 782 and 785 above, where I think conjecture and pure speculation began to be treated as fact.

<modsnip>
If she died after the paramedics arrived, then she lived for at least thirty minutes—probably even forty minutes—after being attacked. If she survived that long, it stands to reason that survival might have been possible if she had been found immediately and medical treatment had been started sooner.
The takeaway for me is that the perp left without making sure that she was dead, which argues against a planned attack and for a spontaneous confrontation.

 

[SteveS]

<modsnip>
If she died after the paramedics arrived, then she lived for at least thirty minutes—probably even forty minutes—after being attacked. If she survived that long, it stands to reason that survival might have been possible if she had been found immediately and medical treatment had been started sooner.
The takeaway for me is that the perp left without making sure that she was dead, which argues against a planned attack and for a spontaneous confrontation.

<modsnip>

I have followed this case for years and have never seen the assertion she was alive ....and I have to depend on the precision and accuracy of whoever it is. Do we have any reason to think this site did new research? Or are they rewriting what others have said, and perhaps imprecisely?

For example, an author's sloppy understanding and/or wordsmanship can morph an LE statement that 'she was found unresponsive by a camper and declared dead after parameds arrived" into "She was unresponsive when she was discovered. Missy died shortly after the paramedics arrived" from LE's words, even though LE would not be stating when she died, or that she didn't die earlier.

Given the fact this sounds like different info from anything prior we've heard from LE/MSM, I am leery. If you have it being said by someone who WOULD KNOW, ie MSM or LE people, that would be revelatory and helpful. You are saying you have heard this over the years, so do you have it being said by anyone who would know?

 

[ElGato]

IMO if she had 'nearly survived', she would have been rushed to hospital and given heroic measures to try to save her. There can't have been any signs of life or even near-life when the paramedics arrived, they don't give up on people that quickly. Police state clearly she was killed inside the church. Not that she was wounded and later died of her injuries.

JMO

 

[moslym3]

I think in this very thread it was said "what if Missy nearly survived" or "what if Missy didn't die right away, and could have been saved" and then it morphed into ****FACT!!!!!**** before our very eyes. I've never seen any thing like that mentioned, in the media or in any of these threads, and I suspect "Missy's near survival" was just the product of careless reading.

Seer posts 782 and 785 above, where I think conjecture and pure speculation began to be treated as fact.

The point I was making in my original post is that there is around 30 minutes between the time MB is seen on CCTV entering the church and the 911 call after being discovered. We don't know her state at the end of the attack, we only know the final outcome 30 minutes later.

And I'm making this point in discussing a theory that the killer "wanted her dead" (quotes mine) -- we don't actually know if she was in fact dead when the perp left the building.

Sorry for any confusion it caused!

 

[somequestions]

This case is very strange. For example, if the SWFA car footage is somehow related to the crime, what was this person thinking? They made sure to have that police disguise for the church yet drove around a parking lot(SWFA) nearby making themselves seem suspicious by turning on and off their lights. Did they use their own car too with the correct license plates and hope the SWFA surveillance cameras would not get the license plate number?

Then there is the rain. This would keep me up all night if I were a detective on this case. Had it stopped raining by the time the perpetrator arrived at the church? Was the grass not wet outside the church?

-I do not see any rain drops on the helmet the person was wearing inside the church.

-I do not see any wet footprints in the hallway. Did the rooms have carpeting and they wiped their boots off on the carpeting before coming out into the hallway?

It is little details like this that are interesting.

 

[helix527]

Hi all, first time poster in the Missy threads. I've been going through the old threads from the past few months and appreciate everyone's perspectives.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the "burglary or trespassing gone awry" theory. There is something about the suspect's mannerisms in the video, prior to the killing, that makes it hard to believe that they are mentally preparing to commit a gruesome murder.

I think the suspect could be autistic, or on the spectrum, and is playing out a fantasy, possibly related to a first-person shooter video game. When the suspect ran into Missy, they panicked, and killed her.

 

[somequestions]

Hi all, first time poster in the Missy threads. I've been going through the old threads from the past few months and appreciate everyone's perspectives.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the "burglary or trespassing gone awry" theory. There is something about the suspect's mannerisms in the video, prior to the killing, that makes it hard to believe that they are mentally preparing to commit a gruesome murder.

I think the suspect could be autistic, or on the spectrum, and is playing out a fantasy, possibly related to a first-person shooter video game. When the suspect ran into Missy, they panicked, and killed her.

Welcome to Websleuths. That is definitely a plausible theory. It fits with another theory that this is someone who is a police wannabe who works security.

The problem I have with this being a burglary target location is the time between the SWFA surveillance video and the Creekside Church surveillance video. The SWFA video was from nearly 2 hours before the Creekside church video that everyone is familiar with of the suspect in the church. The SWFA video was from around 2 am while the Creekside Church surveillance from inside the church started about 3:50 am.

What did this career burglar do in the meantime? They had plenty of time to case out other businesses. And this is based on the assumption the SWFA video surveillance has anything to do with the Creekside Church surveillance.

It is the same as the question about whether the person on the Creekside Church video is a man or a woman? You can take guesses about it, but really there is absolutely no evidence to suggest with certainty one way or the other whether it is a man or a woman.

My personal opinion is that it is someone who is or was affiliated with either SWFA or the Creekside Church who committed this crime. But that is without any evidence whatsoever and coming to conclusions like that is like flipping a coin. It could very well be someone who came into town from the outside driving a rented car who committed the crime and drove back to wherever they came from, far enough away from Midlothian, Texas to not be noticed.

This is yet another case where even though you have a surveillance video, it is still a very difficult case to solve.

There was something I forgot to include: The other reason I think that if this was indeed a burglary at the Creekside Church it is strange was because of the video. At the end of the video you will see this person using their tool to knock out glass. At first I did not realize it, but that is actually a church door, and I think one that could have led outside.

The point is they are destroying doors from the inside of the church. Yet if they knew there was a good possibility they would be on surveillance camera why would they do that? It is almost as if they are murdering the church.