So much of what we do here is a Rorschach-like exercise in projection, but I am left with four main thoughts:
1. To quote Novelist Susan Isaacs, adultery results in recriminations and useless garter belts far more often than in homicide. At the same time, I am well into middle age and I've been on all three corners of a love triangle in my lifetime. know from personal experience that extramarital affairs can drive otherwise law-abiding middle-class people into criminal behavior. I am aware of all the arguments in favor of a burglar/dumb LARPer, but if we hypothesize that this was targeted then I think adultery supplies adequate options for motives, including some that would not be immediately apparent. Spurned lover, spouse of lover, jealous third party (e.g., someone who had crush on lover), vengeful defender (i.e. someone who thought they were "protecting" Missy's husband), angry in-law: there are lots of options, not all of which are rational to the outside observer.
2. If a person wants to commit premediated murder and is not a hunter, marksman, ninja, or Special Forces, it's probably going to look like what happened to Elizabeth Barraza and what (I presume) happened to Missy: gunshot at point blank range. If the victim is not part of the same household, IMO that's almost the sole means by which an average person could kill someone with malice aforethought. That likely means (a) lying in wait in the victim's home (which would require access or break-in; (b) approaching the victim at her home as in the Barraza garage sale case or the fake delivery in Shelia Keen-Warren case; or (c) approaching the victim on the street or in a public or semi-public place, as with Missy. Due to the prevalence of cameras in doorbells, driveways, and public spaces, a disguise seems necessary. If we assume that Missy was targeted, what strikes me about the church location is that it is the most reliable place to get her alone. Missy was a busy mother of three and likely to be in the company of her children at home or while driving or in public places such as the bank or grocery store. If the killer placed importance on not committing the crime in front of the children or in the family home, he or she had few options. And Missy had advertised on a publicly visible FB post that she would be at the church. It is one of the few places an evil-minded person with no special skills could approach her if they did not want to expose the children or home to the direct impact of the crime.
3. The crime happened on a date for which her husband had an impeccable alibi (out of state on a fishing trip with witnesses) and her FIL had a very good alibi (out of state). I do not suggest that they were involved. But what if protecting those family members was an important criterion for the killer? (Rational or not.) JMO.
4. The forensic podiatrist quoted above described unreleased video of Missy apparently hearing a noise and then proceeding further into the church, toward the noise. Missy had a gun in her truck. If I were in her circumstances, with a weapon and phone in my vehicle, there is only one thing that could cause me to walk into the deserted church on that stormy night: hearing someone call my name.
JMO. As noted, a lot of this is projection and may say more about me than it does about the case. I hope the authorities can catch a break and bring justice to her family.
