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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
The point is, she could have left the building. If her being killed hinged on her decision to investigate what she heard, when she could just as easily have went back to her car, it is logical to conclude that this was not a planned killing.
Only with the assumption that she got murdered cause she went to investigate and that perp was not there to kill her.

Not so much if considering that perp, aware of the surveillance location and the way the cameras work was trying to lure her into the area where they wouldn't catch anything or will end up not triggered - and that he wasn't willing to let her go in case that she'd turn back. Knowing her he could more or less predict what she's going to do and conclude that there is a big chance that she won't run away instantly - and that he'll be able to get her even if she will (while if not, his luck, cover up done perfectly).
If he was waiting to ambush her straight after she entered the church the whole supposed cover up of it being made to look like interrupted burglary would go straight into the sewer. Who would discuss it as possible burglary if perp would enter the church and lay low, waiting for her car to arrive, attacked, murdered her and fled? It's not how burglaries look like, 100% of investigators attention would be focused on looking for murderous loon with petty personal vendetta, not for a burglar.

The theory that those, believing that Missy was targeted are buying into is not that it was (A) professional hitman, nor that (B) it was clear cut targeted murder. Theory is (C) that it was meant to look like a burglary to cover up the fact that it was all about murdering Missy.
Listing arguments on why it was clearly not (A) or (B) is not the same as disproving (C).
 
Yes, that could be how it happened, but maybe she thought one of her class members had arrived and she went to see, not expecting anyone else to be around?
The scenario i have in my mind is that she heard some banging, breaking of glass on the far side of the church and on a stormy night like that she would assume there is an open/broken window in the building or some door was left open and racoons got in. Certainly not that a stranger was in the building luring her to him with his voice. In a direction where at any point she could have noped out of there or grabbed her phone to call for help. i think he was just banging away on things and breaking stuff just like we see him doing throughout the church and she went to investigate and stood between him and his door out of there.

My opinions only.
 
I don't know what I believe happened in this case, but I don't get what's going on with that line of thinking.

Why after figuring out that it had to be attempted burglary or act of vandalism and whatever the perp was doing was not targeted at Missy and he/she had no idea that she will show up and concluding that it's the most logical and likely scenario.
I agree that it's the most probable. To the very least it's cause statistically murder as a result of interrupted burglary happens probably at least hundred times more often than burglary being just an act to cover up the planned murder (with obvious suspects close to the victim ruled out).

But then after learning from credible expertise that she was caught on surveillance hearing something and turning to the side from which that sound was likely coming and knowing for a fact that she did not run away, did not called cops, did not ran back to her car to grab her gun but went deeper inside the church...

Why the most likely and reasonable assumption is that she acted uneasonably and unlike average person would be expected to? Why accuse her of indulging in risky behaviour and putting herself in danger?

Does it really seems more likely to assume that she heard noises of destruction and decided to approach the burglar unarmed and unprepared than that she heard something odd but not scary or was lured deeper inside?

She's like a minute, even less than a minute from her gun.
It's right there in her car!
Who on Earth would go to investigate suspicious sounds, like glass being broken, property being ravaged armless if they'd have a gun right there, cellphone right there, clear way out right there?

Yes, it's true that people are acting irresponsible and making bad choices all the time, and it could happen here as well.
But was she known for acting like a fearless, reckless Wonderwoman?
If not, isn't it more likely, considering how safety conscious and worried her husband was prior to that, and how she kinda acted like she was worried someone may be stalking her that what she heard then was surprising, unexpected, odd but NOT scary, at least not scary in a way that would indicate her possibly being in danger?

To the very least I'd expect her to hear something confusing but kinda mondain and to a degree expected, like electricity malfunctioning... or something, no idea what.

I'd be very interested in her victimology. Did she ever mentioned to her friends or family, shared a similar story about her getting somewhere and not expecting anyone to be there just to discover that whoa, someone was there! With totally innocent and good, just unforeseen (for her) reason.
If she experienced that recently or couple times in the past, I'd think that she could be slightly less alarmed while hearing somebody's presence.

If not, I'd consider - and it's obviously highly influenced by my openess to the possibility of it being planned murder (and unwillingness to believe that her acting in a way that doesn't make any sense is the most likely explanation of why she went in instead of out) - that the perp could purposely make a noise to lure her in, to get her close enough to ambush her and succeed with it no matter if she has a gun on her or not.
Targeted murder would mean that perp almost certainly knew that she could have a gun on her.

Lying low and waiting for her to arrive would make this whole burglary mascarade pointless.
Luring her inside one of those rooms, or only as close to get her to the point from where physical attack could be done (like behind the wall/door/corner). How?
Scary as hell, but calling her by name could do.
Maybe pretending to have an actual conversation with somebody. Some casual talk about repairing something maybe? That could not cause her to run away and grab a gun.
But playing a child's voice/voices or calling for help "is someone there? i heard someone, please come help me, oh my god, hurry up, im bleeding" would IMO be like 70:30 chances that she will go in, confused, weirded out or - with the latter - scared but hurried to get asap to the hurting person.
 
i think he was just banging away on things and breaking stuff just like we see him doing throughout the church and she went to investigate and stood between him and his door out of there.
But that would still leave her with at least few seconds of advantage cause he'd be focused on breaking those stuff, probably more.
It'd be fitness instructor in great shape, wearing her fitness clothes, ready for morning workout and wearing (most likely) comfy sneakers vs. weirdo in a helmet, googles, in an outfit that looks like he was doing "100 shirt's challenge" and wearing Pippi Langstrumpf's shoes that are making him walk weird.
She cautious, slowly approaching the source of disturbing sounds vs. loon playing his fantasy and breaking things or ramaging church property, focused on doing that.

That could happen only if she froze in shock, giving him the time to notice her and attack. Possible, but why would she froze seeing a burglar if she went to investigate instead of running or freezing near the entrance just moments before? With each step she would be more sure that something bad/wrong is going on, still kept going there, but later froze? Get outruned by him?
Wounds on head and chest, not back. So either head attacked from behind&top or frontally, while she was not running. And puncture wounds, not blows. His vision, hearing and physical abilities should be severely limited by the outfit, while hers not. If he was unaware of her arrival and she aware of somebody's unusual, unauthorised presence it should not happen like that.
Possible, but some pretty strange circumstances had to occur - on top of her acting bizarre.
 
Only with the assumption that she got murdered cause she went to investigate and that perp was not there to kill her.

Not so much if considering that perp, aware of the surveillance location and the way the cameras work was trying to lure her into the area where they wouldn't catch anything or will end up not triggered - and that he wasn't willing to let her go in case that she'd turn back. Knowing her he could more or less predict what she's going to do and conclude that there is a big chance that she won't run away instantly - and that he'll be able to get her even if she will (while if not, his luck, cover up done perfectly).
If he was waiting to ambush her straight after she entered the church the whole supposed cover up of it being made to look like interrupted burglary would go straight into the sewer. Who would discuss it as possible burglary if perp would enter the church and lay low, waiting for her car to arrive, attacked, murdered her and fled? It's not how burglaries look like, 100% of investigators attention would be focused on looking for murderous loon with petty personal vendetta, not for a burglar.

The theory that those, believing that Missy was targeted are buying into is not that it was (A) professional hitman, nor that (B) it was clear cut targeted murder. Theory is (C) that it was meant to look like a burglary to cover up the fact that it was all about murdering Missy.
Listing arguments on why it was clearly not (A) or (B) is not the same as disproving (C).
I haven't listed any arguments that it wasn't (A) or (B). I addressed (C) directly, and the evidence makes it clear that it wasn't (C).

Even if the perp was there to kill her, she could have left the building.

To spell it out in plain terms, no-one—professional, amateur, or anything in between—would make a plan to murder Missy that relied on her being "lured" to a certain part of the building while the "lure" might not have worked and she could just have easily left the building.

Even someone wanting it to make it look like a burglary would not make a plan that would only work if Missy did what the perp hoped. Even a five-year-old would not make a murder plan with that much uncertainty. The theory is laughable on its face.
 
You're missing the point.

I haven't listed any arguments that it wasn't (A) or (B). I addressed (C) directly, and the evidence makes it clear that it wasn't (C).

Even if the perp was there to kill her, she could have left the building.

To spell it out in plain terms, no-one—professional, amateur, or anything in between—would make a plan to murder Missy that relied on her being "lured" to a certain part of the building while the "lure" might not have worked and she could just have easily left the building.

Even someone wanting it to make it look like a burglary would not make a plan that would only work if Missy did what the perp hoped. Even a five-year-old would not make a murder plan with that much uncertainty. The theory is laughable on its face.
I must be missing that point completely.

From where that confidence, that she could have left the building is coming from?

No criminal over the age of 5 ever planned to do the crime like:
1. Okay, so I have a great evil plan to do a crime, if I'll succeed with luring the person in and come with me willingly I'll do that cause good for me, there will be less evidence to connect me to this crime.
2. If it won't work and they won't go willingly I'll just shoot them.
?
 
The scenario i have in my mind is that she heard some banging, breaking of glass on the far side of the church and on a stormy night like that she would assume there is an open/broken window in the building or some door was left open and racoons got in. Certainly not that a stranger was in the building luring her to him with his voice. In a direction where at any point she could have noped out of there or grabbed her phone to call for help. i think he was just banging away on things and breaking stuff just like we see him doing throughout the church and she went to investigate and stood between him and his door out of there.

My opinions only.

It could be some or all of that. But all these forum scenarios assume so much. The SIL "descriptions" are murky and come from someone who didn't even see the video, and is doing mostly guessing about what it might show (and then, guessing as to what is not on the video). The one thing she can tell us for certain, she's not telling (the cause of death).

We know MB came in and then went for a stroll that ended in disaster. She apparently proceeded as usual up the hall. From there, other than the general direction, we really can't rule out anything - or rule in anything, either.

Where was she when she reacted? What did she hear (or was she reacting to something NOT a sound)? Was it a big reaction, or just a small reflex? Was the whatever-it-was obvious (loud) or subtle (soft)? Did it come from loser perp or not? Did it point her to some direction or not? How did she respond, was she scared, or curious, or aggressive, or what? How did the interaction with loser perp begin? We have no way to know any of that, not even a hint.
 
I haven't listed any arguments that it wasn't (A) or (B). I addressed (C) directly, and the evidence makes it clear that it wasn't (C).

Even if the perp was there to kill her, she could have left the building.

To spell it out in plain terms, no-one—professional, amateur, or anything in between—would make a plan to murder Missy that relied on her being "lured" to a certain part of the building while the "lure" might not have worked and she could just have easily left the building.

Even someone wanting it to make it look like a burglary would not make a plan that would only work if Missy did what the perp hoped. Even a five-year-old would not make a murder plan with that much uncertainty. The theory is laughable on its face.
I'm thinking like a 5-year-old: The SP could have left the building without a murder, if Missy escaped. Nothing more could have been lost, apart from preparatory work (broken doors/glass), which would have been in vain.
Probably there was an (unknown) element in the second part of the crime, which secured the outcome for the murderer: maybe SP indeed said her name, maybe a nickname even, maybe some insider-code word. When Missy followed the voice around the next corner, it was already too late. Lightning attack. - My thoughts and MOO.
 
Last edited:
Except we know that what you're saying isn't true. We know from the video and the podiatrist's testimony that Missy did turn and go towards whatever noise she heard. We can reasonably assume that the noise was made by the perp, which means that Missy approached the perp.

I'm not sure whether the distance she had to go mattered, but the sister-in-law seemed certain that Missy was killed in the NW corner of the church, so it's reasonable to suppose that the perp was in that general area doing whatever he was doing.
Where does it state that Missy went down the hallway. Like I said before there are a lot of threads for this case and it is really tedious to read through all of them. I mean this case hasn't been solved in years So I know I've missed things so I'm learning. I assumed that Missy was going to the area where the class would take place if it was raining/storming outside. So assuming this I thought she was headed there regardless and such she wasn't going to confront. It looks like a midsized church with more than one hallway. Does anyone know if the hallway Missy walked down was the hallway where the perp was vandalizing. Its possible she didn't hear anything but saw the broken glass that's why she turned her head and walked down the hallway thinking it has to do something with the storm that had passed earlier but little did she know someone potentially dangerous was there.
 
But that would still leave her with at least few seconds of advantage cause he'd be focused on breaking those stuff, probably more.
It'd be fitness instructor in great shape, wearing her fitness clothes, ready for morning workout and wearing (most likely) comfy sneakers vs. weirdo in a helmet, googles, in an outfit that looks like he was doing "100 shirt's challenge" and wearing Pippi Langstrumpf's shoes that are making him walk weird.
She cautious, slowly approaching the source of disturbing sounds vs. loon playing his fantasy and breaking things or ramaging church property, focused on doing that.

That could happen only if she froze in shock, giving him the time to notice her and attack. Possible, but why would she froze seeing a burglar if she went to investigate instead of running or freezing near the entrance just moments before? With each step she would be more sure that something bad/wrong is going on, still kept going there, but later froze? Get outruned by him?

Then image this scenario: it's a stormy morning. Missy hears a sound of breaking glass from somewhere deep in the church. She is used to her area being safe (because Midlothian is quite safe) do her first thought is not "Burglary!" but "Oh, the storm damaged some window, maybe it was left open, better to check on it". She goes deeper into the church building, towards the source of that sound, enters a room... And in a dim light she sees person in a Police outfit (SWAT is a Police force, mind you). She is completely dumbfounded, is that a Police action, or something? But why isn't the area cordoned off, where are other policemen and their cats? What's going on? The perpetrator, more and more panicked, sweats profusely into his fake suit. What if she will recognise him? What to do, she is standing in the only way out from the room! Missy approaches him, stil thinking dude is a real LE member and he snaps. In a blind panic, wanting to get out of there, he starts to hit her with what he has in his hand...

Do you see why Missy might not think about running away? She was used to living in a relatively safe area, without much serious crimes happening and the perp was dressed like a LE member.
 
Where does it state that Missy went down the hallway. MISSY ENTERED AT SW CORNER, ENDED UP SOMEWHERE IN VICINITY OF NW CORNER, SO OBVIOUSLY HAD TO HAVE TRAVELED SOME PORTION OF THAT HALLWAY. Like I said before there are a lot of threads for this case and it is really tedious to read through all of them. I mean this case hasn't been solved in years So I know I've missed things so I'm learning. I assumed that Missy was going to the area where the class would take place if it was raining/storming outside. WE ARE NOT SURE WHERE CLASS WAS GOING TO BE HELD. WE ARE NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE MISSY ENDED UP, EITHER. SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY IF SHE WAS GOING TO A CLASS AREA, OR IF SHE WAS DOING SOMETHING ELSE SHE NEEDED TO DO. So assuming this I thought she was headed there regardless and such she wasn't going to confront. It looks like a midsized church with more than one hallway.

Does anyone know if the hallway Missy walked down was the hallway where the perp was vandalizing. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE PERP WAS VANDALIZING (OR VANDALIZED). IT COULD HAVE BEEN ONE HALLWAY (OR ROOM) ONLY. IT COULD HAVE BEEN EVERY HALLWAY AND ROOM HE WAS IN. OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. Its possible she didn't hear anything but saw the broken glass that's why she turned her head IT'S POSSIBLE IT HAPPENED THAT WAY. OR, IT'S POSSIBLE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. and walked down the hallway thinking it has to do something with the storm that had passed earlier but little did she know someone potentially dangerous was there.

(See responses in caps in text above.)

What we do know is that MB entered and walked up the hallway some number of feet, until she was out of cam view. We don't know how far she got. None of us have seen the video, so we don't know if her reaction was to something visual, something heard, or her reaction was mostly just a pause and then back to her tasks. We don't know if the attack itself began in that hallway, or elsewhere. That's about all we know for sure of what Missy did.
 
Last edited:
(See responses in caps in text above.)

What we do know is that MB entered and walked up the hallway some number of feet, until she was out of can view. We don't know how far she got. We don't know if the attack began in that hallway, or elsewhere.
Yes, for all we know is that she could have gone to the kitchen to get a coffee and it happened around there. But I think there was more than one place in the hallway where the video is shown that was vandalized. From what I've seen it looks like to me it was couple of places in the same area the perp was walking in hitting doors and windows it wasn't just one.
 
Yes, for all we know is that she could have gone to the kitchen to get a coffee and it happened around there. But I think there was more than one place in the hallway where the video is shown that was vandalized. From what I've seen it looks like to me it was couple of places in the same area the perp was walking in hitting doors and windows it wasn't just one.

You're thinking of a diff hallway. In that W side hallway that MB must have walked, we see perp in video getting doors open, and that's about it. (He certainly could have done vandalism in that hallway we didn't see. But we didn't see any of that. So maybe he didn't.)
 
According to the verified insider on the case, Missy Bevers had been using Creekside Church for her Gladiator workouts since September 2015. She was murdered on Monday, April 18, 2016. Her life was all over social media.

I have had someone break into my house while I was not home. I have had vandalism. If there is one thing I have learned it is that when you establish a pattern people will notice. Most of these incidents happened while I was at work.

I think it is possible this person knew her routine and waited in the northwest corner of the church to be absolutely sure she walked in alone. But it is equally possible they knew the church was empty because they had been there before or because of the time of day.

I do think, however, that there is no way someone could probably predict where precisely to stand to not be seen by the surveillance cameras unless they had seen through the surveillance cameras themselves or they had been to the church enough times to get a good idea of the approximation of the view by researching it. If the crime had been captured on surveillance camera it would be so much easier to determine whether this was an interrupted burglary or a targeted crime. You would be able to see the actual altercation or whether Missy Bevers tried to get away. For example, if she were shot in the back that would really sway my thinking heavily towards targeted crime. I still think it is a targeted crime in some way because I do not think most burglars would act in this manner that this burglar did. That is my opinion.
 
According to the verified insider on the case, Missy Bevers had been using Creekside Church for her Gladiator workouts since September 2015. She was murdered on Monday, April 18, 2016. Her life was all over social media.

I have had someone break into my house while I was not home. I have had vandalism. If there is one thing I have learned it is that when you establish a pattern people will notice. Most of these incidents happened while I was at work.

I think it is possible this person knew her routine and waited in the northwest corner of the church to be absolutely sure she walked in alone. But it is equally possible they knew the church was empty because they had been there before or because of the time of day.

I do think, however, that there is no way someone could probably predict where precisely to stand to not be seen by the surveillance cameras unless they had seen through the surveillance cameras themselves or they had been to the church enough times to get a good idea of the approximation of the view by researching it. If the crime had been captured on surveillance camera it would be so much easier to determine whether this was an interrupted burglary or a targeted crime. You would be able to see the actual altercation or whether Missy Bevers tried to get away. For example, if she were shot in the back that would really sway my thinking heavily towards targeted crime. I still think it is a targeted crime in some way because I do not think most burglars would act in this manner that this burglar did. That is my opinion.
I believe, because the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> seemed to know, where the surveillance cameras precisely were and which part of a hallway/room would be shown on the monitor/tape, though he was waddling, he wasn't a complete <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>. Can't be only luck.
Is there a possibility, the SWF driver communicated with him, being connected to the camera system, and told him online, where a blind spot would be??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe, because <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> seemed to know, where the surveillance cameras precisely were and which part of a hallway/room would be shown on the monitor/tape, though he was waddling, he wasn't a complete <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>. Can't be only luck.
Is there a possibility, the SWF driver communicated with him, being connected to the camera system, and told him online, where a blind spot would be??

"<modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> seemed to know, where the surveillance cameras precisely were and which part of a hallway/room would be shown on the monitor/tape"....

I don't see any good reason to assume <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> knew anything. (I think he just happened to pick that place, on that day, and the ideas of him being some sort of "know all" are way off base.)

Between the extreme disguise and being on camera over and over, I think it argues fairly conclusively that <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> perp had no clue at all. He was caught on cam wherever there were cams, and off cam where the cam didn't see. We don't see him dodging any cams or especially avoiding any of them, particularly. He went through the church in linear, geographical order (just a straight line around the church interior). He felt a need for wearing an inefficient bulky disguise to try to negate being recognized, if there was a cam seeing him, as he prowled and looked for theftables.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Missy might have blocked the perp's way; we don't have enough information to say.

IMO, It is fairly easy to disprove the idea that this was targeted now that we have the podiatrists testimony.

If Missy heard someone in the Church when no one should have been there, instead of going towards where the person was in order to investigate, all she had to do was exit the building and call the police. Most people—most women, especially—would have done exactly that.

She had a chance to remove herself from the situation unscathed but didn't take it. No killer who had targeted Missy would have given her that chance.

I don't know whether this perp was there to steal or simply to role play and vandalize, but I am confident that he was not there for Missy.

Crazy how we all interpret the same information differently. Because I am confident SHE was there for Missy.

I suppose that comes from having few facts, and we have to make many assumptions and engage in a LOT of conjecture to arrive at what we each think happened.

IMO.

Except we know that what you're saying isn't true. We know from the video and the podiatrist's testimony that Missy did turn and go towards whatever noise she heard. We can reasonably assume that the noise was made by the perp, which means that Missy approached the perp.

I'm not sure whether the distance she had to go mattered, but the sister-in-law seemed certain that Missy was killed in the NW corner of the church, so it's reasonable to suppose that the perp was in that general area doing whatever he was doing.

Everything here is just my opinion and assumption and conjecture. Speculative thought, if you will.

(Aah, the SIL interview. You’d think that in the years since Missy’s murder, Brandon and others would have given interviews, etc., trying to keep the case alive. But if anyone has tried to plead for a resolution for Missy since the early days, I haven’t seen it. As I said earlier, I think Missy’s murder solved some kind of family issue, and I have felt from early on that Brandon had a suspicion of who, so didn’t and hasn’t pushed very hard for it to be solved.

If there is or are interviews/television stories with Missy’s family participation, especially her in-law family, please direct me to them. I‘ve followed this case since the beginning, but spottily after the first couple of years or so. Thank you in advance.)

I think the noise Missy heard could have been the perp speaking to Missy, and she recognized the voice, so she wasn’t worried. Maybe saying something about deciding to start the class with Missy.

I probably need to go refresh my memory, and iirc, the outside cameras were not working. Did the porte cochere camera record Missy driving her truck into the back parking lot, coming either from the west or the east? My thought being that if she drove straight in and circled around the back to come to the overhang area from the west, she may have seen a car she recognized parked on that off-side. So when she heard a voice she recognized, she wasn’t concerned. Maybe thought whomever it was had a key to the building.

Or she heard a noise, but thought it was from the storm.

I’ve not read anything detailing what Missy’s routine was when setting up at the church. Maybe she always headed north up that main hallway to turn on particular lights or something.

IMO as always.

Check out the story of Adrienne Jones, killed by two naval academy cadets, because AJ was perceived as a romantic rival to the female cadet. Crazy.

Might be something just as crazy here.

IMO.
 
What if the intended target was whoever typically unlocks the building for the day?

Great idea! Wonder if Creekside had office hours on Monday? Sometimes, churches are closed on Mondays -- because they are open Sundays.

Hhhhhmmm, embarrassed that I didn't think of this question in all these years -- sure hope some branch of LE did!

jmho ymmmv lrr
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
2,190
Total visitors
2,376

Forum statistics

Threads
600,366
Messages
18,107,594
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top