TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #48

[lonewanderer]

I agree with those who say that the perp is a man. I see no possibility that it is a woman based on watching the video. He looks like he could be intoxicated or high on something, but I wouldn't say that unequivocally.

In my opinion, there is no logical train of thought that would suggest that Missy was targeted. All of the evidence taken together says that this guy was surprised by Missy and that he was there for another purpose such as looking for the cash from the Sunday donations (which wasn't actually there to take), vandalizing, or just role playing as part of some fantasy.

The first option is the most likely one because a dumb criminal would think, "The banks are closed on Sunday, so the money must still be there!" not realizing that there are after-hours deposit boxes at most banks or that most people don't make large donations in cash any more.

If it was actually the second or third scenario, then the perp could have been very young, either a teenager or a twenty-something.

The idea that Missy was targeted can be dismissed at this point. It was a baseless theory floated by the police early on, when they knew next to nothing. Targeted murders are more common than random killings, so they were probably just playing the percentages.

I must respectfully disagree that this was random, AT ALL.

The perp got there at a very specific time, knowing she would be alone, and had an escape route planned out that no one could see them leave. I believe they dressed themselves that way to conceal their identity and to add protection.

There is at least 3 very good groups of suspects that had motive to eliminate Missy, and in addition to those three groups, there was the LinkendIn mystery stalker.

There are many, many more reasons I find it absurd to think this was random. I have been wrong before and we do not know so I guess time will tell.



There is

 

[JnRyan]

I haven't ruled out the targeted scenario. I tend to believe this was a teenager or young man on some break-in for thrill purposes, but all scenarios are on the table for me. Regarding Missy announcing that the event would be inside that day instead of cancelled, it was on FB. So was that FB page set so only the participants could see it? If so, I think that decreases the likelihood that the killer knew. In fact, if he (or she) knew about the weekly event they may thought it was cancelled due to weather.

I've often wondered about the touching of the wall. Just something the person does and not because of anything else? Under the influence of drug or alcohol? Or coupled with that walk they may be handicapped or recently injured and were steadying themself while walking? Any of which could be significant when calling in a tip.

 

[Ozoner]

I must respectfully disagree that this was random, AT ALL.

The perp got there at a very specific time, knowing she would be alone, and had an escape route planned out that no one could see them leave. I believe they dressed themselves that way to conceal their identity and to add protection.

There is at least 3 very good groups of suspects that had motive to eliminate Missy, and in addition to those three groups, there was the LinkendIn mystery stalker.

There are many, many more reasons I find it absurd to think this was random. I have been wrong before and we do not know so I guess time will tell.



There is

With all due respect, I see confirmation bias in this analysis of the evidence, as follows:

1) It does not make sense to say that the killer arrived at a particular time in order to attack Missy. In fact, the killer arrived quite a while before Missy did.

2) It was happenstance that Missy arrived alone; others were expected around the same time (and in fact arrived not too long after Missy).

3) There is no evidence that the killer had an escape route planned. Few people were up and about at that time, so there was a low risk of being seen regardless of what escape route was used. It is probable that the killer simply used took the most direct route to his vehicle, if he had one, and then drove straight home or that he took the most direct walking route home if he was on foot.

4) A criminal would be motivated to dress in such a way as to conceal his identity from security video regardless of what crime was being committed. The disguise fits a planned property crime just as much as it does a planned murder.

 

[JnRyan]

With all due respect, I see confirmation bias in this analysis of the evidence, as follows:

1) It does not make sense to say that the killer arrived at a particular time in order to attack Missy. In fact, the killer arrived quite a while before Missy did.

2) It was happenstance that Missy arrived alone; others were expected around the same time (and in fact arrived not too long after Missy).

3) There is no evidence that the killer had an escape route planned. Few people were up and about at that time, so there was a low risk of being seen regardless of what escape route was used. It is probable that the killer simply used took the most direct route to his vehicle, if he had one, and then drove straight home or that he took the most direct walking route home if he was on foot.

4) A criminal would be motivated to dress in such a way as to conceal his identity from security video regardless of what crime was being committed. The disguise fits a planned property crime just as much as it does a planned murder.

Thinking about all this it has to be likely LE has more footage and knows how the killer exited and his or her reactions during that time. (Of course, if this killer has a handicap or injury it would be more pronounced in running. Wouldn't that be important to generate a tip? Then again, if they didn't run but calmly walked out what would that indicate?)

I can't get over the fact that if the disguise was because of the CCTV inside, then the person would likely know about the exterior cameras that could pick up a vehicle in the lot. But the outside cameras weren't working. IIRC, this was a recent development prior to the murder. Was this common knowledge or did the church keep it quiet for security reasons? If it was the later that is a smaller group of those with the knowledge.

 

[SteveS]

I must respectfully disagree that this was random, AT ALL.

The perp got there at a very specific time, knowing she would be alone, and had an escape route planned out that no one could see them leave. I believe they dressed themselves that way to conceal their identity and to add protection.

There is at least 3 very good groups of suspects that had motive to eliminate Missy, and in addition to those three groups, there was the LinkendIn mystery stalker.

There are many, many more reasons I find it absurd to think this was random. I have been wrong before and we do not know so I guess time will tell.

I absolutely agree that this COULD HAVE been a targeted killing. Until we find out who did this, we can't say why they were there. And it did end in a killing, so it's possible that was why they came in the first place.

BUT - correlation does not prove causation. Two things happening together - loser perp being at church, and loser perp killing MB - does not mean that loser perp necessarily came there to kill MB. Or even had any idea who she was, or that she would be there. We just don't know.

Nor do we know if any of the other events that occurred involved some sort of meticulous planning, or whether they just unfolded as they did. Certainly LP came in the wee hours because that was when no one else was likely to be there. Did that mean "so he could kill MB without anyone seeing" or does that mean he didn't expect MB either and was just there to steal? We just don't know.

There are parts of the picture that may hint at "not targeted" (such as the fact the video shows no evidence of loser perp waiting for MB, but instead shows loser perp looking through the whole building apparently trying to find stuff worth taking). But until we know who did it, we just can't be sure.

As to the points you mention -
1 I do think too much is made of the fact that MB got away unnoticed. It didn't take any elaborate scheme to do that from that church setting - just get in your vehicle, in a sec you are right on the highway, and you're gone. There was no person in the vicinity that he had to avoid, since the church was so isolated. No need to do anything other than depart on a dark country highway with the further cover of rain.
2 As far as the fact that there are theoretical people with possible motive, those would also be the people LE would look at first, and most closely. The fact they've found no good suspect among those in almost 7 years is a hint that maybe LP had no connection to MB. (And if you think you have the perfect possibility, but one LE probably didn't even think of or investigate, send a letter or email to LE outlining who and why. There's big money in it, if you're right.)

 

[SteveS]

Thinking about all this it has to be likely LE has more footage and knows how the killer exited and his or her reactions during that time. (Of course, if this killer has a handicap or injury it would be more pronounced in running. Wouldn't that be important to generate a tip? Then again, if they didn't run but calmly walked out what would that indicate?)

I can't get over the fact that if the disguise was because of the CCTV inside, then the person would likely know about the exterior cameras that could pick up a vehicle in the lot. But the outside cameras weren't working. IIRC, this was a recent development prior to the murder. Was this common knowledge or did the church keep it quiet for security reasons? If it was the later that is a smaller group of those with the knowledge.

1 From all indications, multiple sources, LE had no video (or next to none) after the murder. In light of where the cams were, and where loser perp apparently exited, it is logical that there was very limited opportunity for a cam to trigger.

2 There was every reason to expect that there were exterior cams at work. There are big signs that say so, as you enter the property. BUT - Maybe perp didn't even notice, in the rain? Didn't care? Felt protected in his disguise? Maybe it was a stolen vehicle? Maybe his vehicle was "disguised" (such as removing the plate)?

I tend to discount the idea that the loser somehow knew in advance all about the cams, inside and out. From the way things were worded, I think the church leaders were not that aware or concerned about the things that were not working 100%, or the limits of their system. And anyone making inquiries about the church's cams in the weeks leading up to this would have put a bullseye on their back imo, that would have stood out in the wake of these events.

 

[Ozoner]

I can't get over the fact that if the disguise was because of the CCTV inside, then the person would likely know about the exterior cameras that could pick up a vehicle in the lot. But the outside cameras weren't working. IIRC, this was a recent development prior to the murder. Was this common knowledge or did the church keep it quiet for security reasons? If it was the later that is a smaller group of those with the knowledge.

If the perp had a vehicle, then he might have parked out of range of the security cameras or simply removed his license plate prior to pulling into the lot.

I think that a vehicle is likely because there aren't any homes super close to the church, but there are quite a few houses that are about a mile away if someone were to cut through some of the fields and wooded areas to the west of the church.

 

[Tower]

I haven't ruled out the targeted scenario. I tend to believe this was a teenager or young man on some break-in for thrill purposes, but all scenarios are on the table for me. Regarding Missy announcing that the event would be inside that day instead of cancelled, it was on FB. So was that FB page set so only the participants could see it? If so, I think that decreases the likelihood that the killer knew. In fact, if he (or she) knew about the weekly event they may thought it was cancelled due to weather.

I've often wondered about the touching of the wall. Just something the person does and not because of anything else? Under the influence of drug or alcohol? Or coupled with that walk they may be handicapped or recently injured and were steadying themself while walking? Any of which could be significant when calling in a tip.

I don’t mean to split hairs here, but my recollection is Missy posted on FB that camp would go on rain or shine. But it would not occur inside the church (where she was killed), it would occur under the porte cochere, the large, drive-up covered patio area outside. Just to distinguish between inside, where the killer encountered her, vs. outside, where they would be working out. I only bring this up because it could make a difference in some aspects of this case. Or not. Jmo

 

[Tower]

I haven't ruled out the targeted scenario. I tend to believe this was a teenager or young man on some break-in for thrill purposes, but all scenarios are on the table for me. Regarding Missy announcing that the event would be inside that day instead of cancelled, it was on FB. So was that FB page set so only the participants could see it? If so, I think that decreases the likelihood that the killer knew. In fact, if he (or she) knew about the weekly event they may thought it was cancelled due to weather.

I've often wondered about the touching of the wall. Just something the person does and not because of anything else? Under the influence of drug or alcohol? Or coupled with that walk they may be handicapped or recently injured and were steadying themself while walking? Any of which could be significant when calling in a tip.

Also, I believe her camp was daily, Monday through Friday, not weekly. Jmo

 

[JnRyan]

1 From all indications, multiple sources, LE had no video (or next to none) after the murder. In light of where the cams were, and where loser perp apparently exited, it is logical that there was very limited opportunity for a cam to trigger.

2 There was every reason to expect that there were exterior cams at work. There are big signs that say so, as you enter the property. BUT - Maybe perp didn't even notice, in the rain? Didn't care? Felt protected in his disguise? Maybe it was a stolen vehicle? Maybe his vehicle was "disguised" (such as removing the plate)?

I tend to discount the idea that the loser somehow knew in advance all about the cams, inside and out. From the way things were worded, I think the church leaders were not that aware or concerned about the things that were not working 100%, or the limits of their system. And anyone making inquiries about the church's cams in the weeks leading up to this would have put a bullseye on their back imo, that would have stood out in the wake of these events.

I don't remember what LE has stated about additional footage except that what they released is not all of it. I do seem to remember that LE stated the murder was not captured. So if continuing on past Missy maybe he wasn't seen. But if they are not familiar with the church layout and they want to leave quickly maybe they leave the way they know. I don't believe the actual entrance was captured on footage either, but rather the damage to the door was noted.

Knowing about the cameras in advance? If the reason for the selection of this church was due to no businesses or residents nearby they may have not known.

Not having been in a lot of churches I wonder how many churches have an extensive camera system. I've been to ones with an alarm system and/or an intercom at the door to request entrance during the week. Maybe due to a history of break-ins and vandalism because this church is isolated led them to install the cameras. This church apparently had no alarm system.

 

[Ozoner]

I don’t mean to split hairs here, but my recollection is Missy posted on FB that camp would go on rain or shine. But it would not occur inside the church (where she was killed), it would occur under the porte cochere, the large, drive-up covered patio area outside. Just to distinguish between inside, where the killer encountered her, vs. outside, where they would be working out. I only bring this up because it could make a difference in some aspects of this case. Or not. Jmo

To me it helps rule out the theory that Missy was targeted. No one could have known with any certainty that Missy would enter the church.

 

[JnRyan]

I don’t mean to split hairs here, but my recollection is Missy posted on FB that camp would go on rain or shine. But it would not occur inside the church (where she was killed), it would occur under the porte cochere, the large, drive-up covered patio area outside. Just to distinguish between inside, where the killer encountered her, vs. outside, where they would be working out. I only bring this up because it could make a difference in some aspects of this case. Or not. Jmo

To me that isn't splitting hairs as this would likely eliminate or at least minimize the amount of time the killer can confront her inside. Of course, if this was targeted then maybe the plan was to wait till she showed up and ambush outside her vehicle and their timing was just too late for that. Since LE does not have the murder on video that may have been the way it went down just inside instead of near her vehicle.

For a targeted killing I would have thought waiting somewhere around back and wearing a dark hoodie and ski mask. Breaking in just leaves more forensic evidence. Even if I broke in, I wouldn't pick something as distinctive as a SWAT outfit, but rather something more generic. Such as the dark hoodie and ski mask. The counter argument might be that seeing "POLICE" might cause hesitation on the part of the victim. But still, waiting for her just inside the church and shooting her with a .22 could be done before she even realizes fear.

Also, I believe her camp was daily, Monday through Friday, not weekly. Jmo

I seem to remember that she had daily classes throughout the week. I just don't know if it was M-F here, M-W-F or maybe the other 4 somewhere else.

 

[Andreee]

I must respectfully disagree that this was random, AT ALL.

The perp got there at a very specific time, knowing she would be alone, and had an escape route planned out that no one could see them leave. I believe they dressed themselves that way to conceal their identity and to add protection.

There is at least 3 very good groups of suspects that had motive to eliminate Missy, and in addition to those three groups, there was the LinkendIn mystery stalker.

There are many, many more reasons I find it absurd to think this was random. I have been wrong before and we do not know so I guess time will tell.



There is

I agree with you. IMO this was a targeted attack, and that viewpoint can certainly not be dismissed! No need to go over the many reasons for this reasoning yet again

 

[Stephen2022]

I keep checking back here. I don't comment often at all, but I think they have a perp(s) in mind too. Like you said, evidence to convict is what they need, to ensure a successful conviction.

Also I was wondering why the perp risked breaking in ie wedged open door with tool if there could have been alarm. Why not wait for missy to arrive if targeted. Perp also broke some glass windows once inside for no reason and why make noise ?

 

[Ozoner]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed >

I agree with you. IMO this was a targeted attack, and that viewpoint can certainly not be dismissed! No need to go over the many reasons for this reasoning yet again.

IMO, none of the so-called reasons for that theory are logical. Whenever those spurious "reasons" are refuted, users supporting that untenable theory ignore and deflect. Even LE is no longer stating that it was a targeted attack.

 

[Andreee]

<modsnip>

IMO, none of the so-called reasons for that theory are logical. Whenever those spurious "reasons" are refuted, users supporting that untenable theory ignore and deflect. Even LE is no longer stating that it was a targeted attack.

Just pointing out that this is all just opinions from the public based on what we know, whereas LE has much more info than we do obviously. I doubt LE has ruled out the possibility of it being a targeted attack. We don't really know what avenues they are pursuing, and if what they are telling the public is part of their strategy in that regard. Either way, let's just hope they are making progress in this case!

 

[Andreee]

<modsnip>

IMO, none of the so-called reasons for that theory are logical. Whenever those spurious "reasons" are refuted, users supporting that untenable theory ignore and deflect. Even LE is no longer stating that it was a targeted attack.

Not deflecting or ignoring on my part, lol, just IMO. I don't think any theories can be discounted completely, and who knows what LE is working on behind the scenes regardless of what they may not be saying or are saying publicly. And of course, they have much more info than we do. Let's just hope they are making progress.

 

[Ozoner]

Just pointing out that this is all just opinions from the public based on what we know, whereas LE has much more info than we do obviously. I doubt LE has ruled out the possibility of it being a targeted attack. We don't really know what avenues they are pursuing, and if what they are telling the public is part of their strategy in that regard. Either way, let's just hope they are making progress in this case!

My previous comments weren't in reference to you (or even Websleuths members specifically because I've followed this case in other forums as well).

One of the main claims that I hear for why it was a targeted attack is that nothing was stolen. The response to that claim is that if a burglar is interrupted and ends up committing an unplanned murder, it's kind of a given that he is going to flee and not stick around looking for loot and will probably abandon any loot he has out of fear of being found with anything that could connect him to the crime scene. Whenever that point is raised, the people arguing for a targeted attack usually ghost the conversation.

I don't think LE have ruled out a targeted attack, but they have backed away from their original claim that it was targeted and are now noncommittal, in my opinion.

 

[SteveS]

Targeted vs Untargeted

It makes sense LE started with the "targeted" theory. The targeting idea is more or less a LE go-to reaction to a murky murder, because it assumes a connection between victim and perp. That assumed connection then offers a way to create a pool of suspects to investigate and work from - "those who knew MB." So they start with all the peeps closest to MB, one by one, and work their way outward to see if there's someone who stands out, and they see who can and can't be eliminated.

If you have hard evidence (something like a print, DNA, etc.) then you have a path to a group of random strangers to look at, but indications are they had none of that.

But after almost 7 years, it's reasonable to figure that as they investigated that group of people who knew her well enough (and disliked her enough) to do something like this, they have come up dry from that angle.

All they really have is a stranger in a disguise.

The video itself supports that untargeted idea, even if we don't start there. We don't see loser perp in the video showing ANY awareness that MB is coming, it shows loser perp just going from room to room looking for stuff to steal (rather than lying in wait for MB), and we find loser perp didn't even encounter MB until she happened to wander all the way across the building (rather than waiting for her to walk in the door, then pounce) -- all of which is further evidence that loser perp didn't have a clue MB was on her way.

At this point, it's hard for me to see any likelihood this was done by someone who knew MB. Is it possible? Sure, in theory. We won't know for sure, until the case is solved. But we don't have anything objectively pointing us at a connection that tied MB to the loser perp.

 

[FromGermany1]

I may be completely wrong, of course, but: For me it seems so very clear, despite many arguments against it: The SP was seen on surveillance video, leisurely walking the hallways, doing some door opening or glass shredding. The video was of a longer duration than we have seen. LE said, the part of video, which wasn't made public, contained nothing important to see. After SP's strolling, breaking, looking into rooms, he disappeared from video surveillance. Because he once very clearly for several seconds looked in direction of one of the cameras, he knew, they were there and working, IMO. So I think, he also knew very well, when exactly to hide from surveillance, because the time drew near, when he expected Missy to arrive. Missy was a little late this morning, so he had to wait a little longer than he could have known. He stayed in whatever corner he was in and waited patiently (or not patiently). When Missy entered the building and was doing, what she did usually every morning under certain conditions (at church, very bad weather), he attacked her. What MB usually did at a church and before starting the session, was known by many: first one of her daughters, who sometimes accompanied her except this fateful morning, maybe her husband, maybe other relatives, the campers and who knows, who else. They would have known her routine and whether she opened the building for her campers to use the bathroom or for other reasons.
In short version: SP knew, Missy would arrive at a certain time and exactly in time he intentionally disappeared into a corner with no surveillance and waited for doing his job or mission. Why should it be a coincidence, that he just then wasn't seen any more, not even lurking around a corner or something? - As always: IMO MOO

PS: I'm thinking of someone, who is mentally very sick and now and then "needs" a thrill-kill. Years ago one day (when needing a large sum of money) he had the idea to hire himself out as a hitman. "Two birds with one stone" so-to-say.