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

[Razz]

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!

I believe they were able to establish TOD as she was wearing a watch that showed her heart rate.

 

[FromGermany1]

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.

I believe, he wasn't a member or employee, but a brazen (or drunk) perp, who looked at least at one point directly into the camera, although he could have avoided it with ease. At that time he stood before a closed door and seemed to use another tool out of his vest, trying to open the door - if I remember right. The pic of his head/eyes, which I had saved, is gone meanwhile.

Murder By DisguiseâââThe Death of Missy Bevers

In the early morning hours of April 18, 2016, as an intruder broke into Creekside Church of Christ dressed in a police costume resemblingâ¦

quinnzane.medium.com

First image sequence.

 

[Ozoner]

I believe, he wasn't a member or employee, but a brazen (or drunk) perp, who looked at least at one point directly into the camera, although he could have avoided it with ease. At that time he stood before a closed door and seemed to use another tool out of his vest, trying to open the door - if I remember right. The pic of his head/eyes, which I had saved, is gone meanwhile.

Murder By DisguiseâââThe Death of Missy Bevers

In the early morning hours of April 18, 2016, as an intruder broke into Creekside Church of Christ dressed in a police costume resemblingâ¦

quinnzane.medium.com

First image sequence.

Many, many property crimes are the result of someone trying to get money for drugs, so I would not be at all surprised if he were more than drunk.

 

[Detective Willy]

IMO this clearly was a personal murder and not an accidental shooting to avoid being caught for a burglary.

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."

If Missy was shot plus she also sustained mutiple puncture wounds on her head and her chest from the "pick" like object this is "overkill".

The perpetrator wanted to make sure Missy died and is a classic sign that they knew Missy and this was very personal.

Attacked with multiple objects multiple times - how could this be accidental?

Also, nothing was stolen to my knowledge so I just cant see how anyone could believe it was a burglary gone wrong?

 

[SteveS]

IMO this clearly was a personal murder and not an accidental shooting to avoid being caught for a burglary.

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."

If Missy was shot plus she also sustained mutiple puncture wounds on her head and her chest from the "pick" like object this is "overkill".

The perpetrator wanted to make sure Missy died and is a classic sign that they knew Missy and this was very personal.

Attacked with multiple objects multiple times - how could this be accidental?

Also, nothing was stolen to my knowledge so I just cant see how anyone could believe it was a burglary gone wrong?

1 (a) It doesn't say MB was shot PLUS wounds from a pick.
(b) It doesn't say she was attacked with multiple objects.
(c) It doesn't say she was wounded by a pick.
(d) Obviously perp was carrying a gun throughout the building - must have been, since he used it.
(e) A gun is a "tool" for shooting things, if we want to be technical and mislead a bit in saying it that way. (Local LE never would answer how MB was killed, despite being asked multiple times. Still hasn't said.)
(f) Bullet holes puncture the skin, technically are "puncture" wounds if they pierce the skin, and would be "consistent with" a handgun being carried.
(g) "Handgun" was the ONLY cause of death per the FBI.

2 Re whether it was a burglary or not: it's a question of what was intended. And a burglary interrrupted -- cut short before the robber has found or gathered the goods -- is still intended to be a robbery. Without talking to the perp and asking what he was thinking, we can't really know whether he intended to be ...
1 a ROBBER (who went around the church looking for things to steal, but before he had found or decided what to take, was interrupted by MB and killed her for some reason), or
2 a KILLER (who got to the church early, wandered aimlessly for a while and looked in rooms for what he might grab while he was there, at times far from where she would be entering, then killed MB as he intended).

Both of those look alike. Both fit what we saw. But no way to know what was on his mind.

 

[somequestions]

I think understanding the information surrounding this case is very important in forming an opinion about the crime.

For example, let's start with the manner of death. I am starting to think that maybe Missy was struck with some type of puncture instrument, but that the burglar brought a gun with them to make sure she did not survive.

The church is also interesting. For example, I did not know that Creekside Church was not Missy Bever's church. It was only the gathering place to hold the gladiator workouts.

Then there is the way the crime took place once Missy entered the Creekside Church that morning. It would be interesting to know what a career burglar would think about a crime like this. I cannot understand why someone who is completely covered from head to toe would risk murder unless the victim were trying to tackle them for burglary. I cannot understand why Missy Bevers would do that if she knows she has a handgun in her vehicle.

I wonder how many burglaries out there fit the MO in this case. The police tactical uniform is interesting. It did not have to be a police tactical uniform. But the police uniform increases the speculation that it may have been targeted even though there is no proof of that.

If you take into consideration for a moment that maybe the perpetrator knew they would be on camera, it is understandable in my opinion that people might think it could be a woman. And the theory would be the woman chose the police uniform for a reason, as an indirect way of saying they are handing out justice. But there is nothing on the surveillance video that suggests to me that it is a man or a woman. It could be either.

 

[Pink2017]

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.

You make a great point, the outfit wasn’t wet!

 

[Ozoner]

IMO this clearly was a personal murder and not an accidental shooting to avoid being caught for a burglary.

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."

If Missy was shot plus she also sustained mutiple puncture wounds on her head and her chest from the "pick" like object this is "overkill".

The perpetrator wanted to make sure Missy died and is a classic sign that they knew Missy and this was very personal.

Attacked with multiple objects multiple times - how could this be accidental?

Also, nothing was stolen to my knowledge so I just cant see how anyone could believe it was a burglary gone wrong?

No one ever suggested that the killing was accidental. That sounds like a straw man argument.

Anger during the killing doesn't mean that the killer had to have known Missy prior to that day. If Missy confronted the killer or tried to prevent him from getting away, then rage towards her could have developed in the moment.

The last statement is illogical, in my opinion. If the perp was interrupted during a burglary and committed murder, a much worse crime than he had planned, it makes sense that he would have simply wanted to get the hell out of there. He was probably after cash but didn't find any prior to being interrupted by Missy.

There was one item that he had removed from its original location and may have intended to steal but ended up leaving. In all likelihood, once it went from being an object of minimal value that he might be able to fence—so he didn't have to walk away completely empty handed—to being an object that would connect him to the scene of a murder, he no longer wanted it (of course).

 

[Detective Willy]

No one ever suggested that the killing was accidental. That sounds like a straw man argument.

Anger during the killing doesn't mean that the killer had to have known Missy prior to that day. If Missy confronted the killer or tried to prevent him from getting away, then rage towards her could have developed in the moment.

The last statement is illogical, in my opinion. If the perp was interrupted during a burglary and committed murder, a much worse crime than he had planned, it makes sense that he would have simply wanted to get the hell out of there. He was probably after cash but didn't find any prior to being interrupted by Missy.

There was one item that he had removed from its original location and may have intended to steal but ended up leaving. In all likelihood, once it went from being an object of minimal value that he might be able to fence—so he didn't have to walk away completely empty handed—to being an object that would connect him to the scene of a murder, he no longer wanted it (of course).

I disagree very strongly.

IMO if a burglar was interrupted - the first objective would be to get out of the building ASAP and not be caught - not to kill someone. They would incapacitate a witness (knock them out or hit them hard once or twice to render them useless) then run.

The person in the SWAT gear is strolling around the place way too slowly and it seems like bad acting for the cameras to me. They had plenty of time to steal things before Missy got there and took nothing and the outfit is highly suspicious too.

How many other Burglars have been caught on CCTV wearing a SWAT outfit?

Wouldn't a standard black tracksuit and balaclava hide your identity sufficiently?

This is a set up that was planned out very carefully IMO.

 

[somequestions]

The POLICE tactical uniform this person wore inside the church is unique. If they wore the uniform to the church, they took some risk. This person would probably want to make sure the car they were driving was in excellent working condition. They would also want to follow all traffic laws. If they get stopped by police, wearing that uniform is going to make police think they are someone driving around pretending to be a police officer.

After the murder, they may have wanted to get that uniform off as soon as possible. Even changing in the car would be ok as long as it were a place they knew would be closed without surveillance cameras.

It is hard to tell, but I do not see any raindrops on the helmet this person was wearing inside the church. Maybe they brought the POLICE uniform with them to the church. Then they changed once they were inside?

But that does not make any sense.

 

[FromGermany1]

The POLICE tactical uniform this person wore inside the church is unique. If they wore the uniform to the church, they took some risk. This person would probably want to make sure the car they were driving was in excellent working condition. They would also want to follow all traffic laws. If they get stopped by police, wearing that uniform is going to make police think they are someone driving around pretending to be a police officer.

After the murder, they may have wanted to get that uniform off as soon as possible. Even changing in the car would be ok as long as it were a place they knew would be closed without surveillance cameras.

It is hard to tell, but I do not see any raindrops on the helmet this person was wearing inside the church. Maybe they brought the POLICE uniform with them to the church. Then they changed once they were inside?

But that does not make any sense.

Either the SP could have changed clothing (from civil to Swat gear) in the kitchen or he could have dried his Swat gear in the kitchen. However, the person stayed in the kitchen for some time. If the SP brought his Swat gear with him in a little gym bag, I wouldn't wonder. Why not? He had time enough to spend, and he knew it. Just like he knew obviously, that the outdoor surveillance wasn't intact and that there was no camera in the kitchen. IMO

 

[SteveS]

Just like he knew obviously, that the outdoor surveillance wasn't intact and that there was no camera in the kitchen.

He KNEW those things? How do we know what he knew, or didn't know? Couldn't he have been clueless about those things, and many others? I think we assume that a criminal knows all and plans precisely, when instead they might know very little and just take things as they come, during their hour of crime.

 

[FromGermany1]

He KNEW those things? How do we know what he knew, or didn't know? Couldn't he have been clueless about those things, and many others? I think we assume that a criminal knows all and plans precisely, when instead they might know very little and just take things as they come, during their hour of crime.

So, I assumed a professional, knowing every trick in the book. You maybe right: perhaps he wasn't/isn't.

 

[somequestions]

So, I assumed a professional, knowing every trick in the book. You maybe right: perhaps he wasn't/isn't.

It would be surprising if this person was a professional burglar. In the SWFA surveillance footage, they even have license plate illuminator lights on their car. It seems strange someone would go to so much trouble to disguise themselves but not their car? Unless the car had bad license plates on it or was stolen, all it took was better cameras and police would probably have a serious person of interest to look at.

I do not know what to think about this case the more I read about it. Was it personal and targeted or just a burglary gone wrong that because of how uncharacteristic it was for a burglary, makes a lot people think it was personal and targeted?

I still find it strange there were no raindrops on the helmet in the Creekside Church footage. But if police found a wet towel or damp paper towels in the garbage, then that would change my opinion. The more information you find out in a case like this, the more it influences how you look at the case as a whole.

 

[Ozoner]

It would be surprising if this person was a professional burglar. In the SWFA surveillance footage, they even have license plate illuminator lights on their car. It seems strange someone would go to so much trouble to disguise themselves but not their car? Unless the car had bad license plates on it or was stolen, all it took was better cameras and police would probably have a serious person of interest to look at.

I do not know what to think about this case the more I read about it. Was it personal and targeted or just a burglary gone wrong that because of how uncharacteristic it was for a burglary, makes a lot people think it was personal and targeted?

I still find it strange there were no raindrops on the helmet in the Creekside Church footage. But if police found a wet towel or damp paper towels in the garbage, then that would change my opinion. The more information you find out in a case like this, the more it influences how you look at the case as a whole.

The cops have no idea whether the car seen at the gun store was connectecd to Missy's murder.
The long period of time between the two events argues againt any connection, in my opinion.

 

[somequestions]

The cops have no idea whether the car seen at the gun store was connectecd to Missy's murder.
The long period of time between the two events argues againt any connection, in my opinion.

I agree with you about the time gap between the SWFA footage and the Creekside Church footage. If that person in the SWFA footage was involved, what were they doing over the next 2 hours? Going directly to the church at around 2 am would probably have been better than around 4 am because I think it would be even more isolated with less chance of anyone showing up.

Did the car, possibly a Nissan Altima, drive around trying to case out other businesses to see whether they would be good burglary target locations before deciding on Creekside Church?

I have a theory that has no basis in fact, but is only opinion. I think maybe if this person were local to the Midlothian area, they left their home or apartment at around 1:30 am to go over to SWFA to see if that would be a good location to change out of the POLICE tactical uniform in their car after the murder. This theory is based on the crime being targeted at Missy. Maybe once they were inside the parking lot they noticed the surveillance cameras or that there could possibly be workers there, even at 2 am, and decided against that location as a place to change out of the tactical gear after the murder. Then they went home to wait until closer to the time Missy was expected to show up at Creekside.

It is a theory. I agree with you that if you are following the factual evidence in this case and logical reasoning it appears to be a burglary gone wrong. But you have to check out every possibility.

 

[Ozoner]

I agree with you about the time gap between the SWFA footage and the Creekside Church footage. If that person in the SWFA footage was involved, what were they doing over the next 2 hours? Going directly to the church at around 2 am would probably have been better than around 4 am because I think it would be even more isolated with less chance of anyone showing up.

Did the car, possibly a Nissan Altima, drive around trying to case out other businesses to see whether they would be good burglary target locations before deciding on Creekside Church?

I have a theory that has no basis in fact, but is only opinion. I think maybe if this person were local to the Midlothian area, they left their home or apartment at around 1:30 am to go over to SWFA to see if that would be a good location to change out of the POLICE tactical uniform in their car after the murder. This theory is based on the crime being targeted at Missy. Maybe once they were inside the parking lot they noticed the surveillance cameras or that there could possibly be workers there, even at 2 am, and decided against that location as a place to change out of the tactical gear after the murder. Then they went home to wait until closer to the time Missy was expected to show up at Creekside.

It is a theory. I agree with you that if you are following the factual evidence in this case and logical reasoning it appears to be a burglary gone wrong. But you have to check out every possibility.

I suppose anything is possible, but I don't see that as probable.

What is the area like around the church? Are there any houses or apartments? I heard of many cases of breaking and entering that were committed by perpetrators who were on foot—junkies who didn't even have transportation, etc.

One theory early on was that the perp could have been somebody who wanted to make the church leaders think that needed more security—somebody who wanted to sell them a security system or get hired as a security guard. The thinking was that the person hoped to return to the church later in some such capacity and went to great lengths to be unrecognizable on video for that reason. It's probably a far-fetched theory, but I can't say that it's impossible.

 

[Silvablue]

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before if it as I apologise for not being thorough but maybe it wasn't about Missy or burglary but about the fact she was doing the workouts at the church maybe they thought it was disrespectful just a thought

 

[Laughing]

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before if it as I apologise for not being thorough but maybe it wasn't about Missy or burglary but about the fact she was doing the workouts at the church maybe they thought it was disrespectful just a thought

Suggested & discussed, none of the locals heard any sub-current of this that I recall.

jhmo ymmv lrr

 

[somequestions]

What I see in the Creekside Church surveillance video is someone who is wearing knee high police motorcycle patrol boots. I think this could be what causes the gait to be a little more unusual. But like so many cases that have video evidence, each of us might see something different.