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

[Speculaytor]

But why police attire if murder was planned? To convince everyone that it was so well planned burglary that it went wrong despite of perp having everything they could need to talk their way out of it?

If clients of Missy showed up too early. The perp could act as if they responded, keep all out of the building, exit out the back. OR, murder vs vandalism disguise, the perp wanted to make SURE no one would recognize them? I would think a simple disguise if just vandalism. JMHO

 

[Razz]

But why police attire if murder was planned? To convince everyone that it was so well planned burglary that it went wrong despite of perp having everything they could need to talk their way out of it?

The perp knew?

For all we know, he didn't even know who MB was, or care, when he broke into the church that night.

There's no objective reason to say perp even knew MB would be there. Or a class. Or that he knew there was any info on FB somewhere mentioning a schedule. Or that he had any sense of who would arrive when, or who would arrive first, and so on. Or that he cared about any of that.

What happened later doesn't tell us what he knew or intended, and until we figure out who he is, we can't answer those questions.

While we can start with the assumption those things are true, it's just an assumption without an objective basis, and all of them instead could be wrong.

I find it informative that LE has gone back and forth on whether or not this attack was planned. Obviously they started out looking closely at the ones who might have known MB and have a motive, because that's the ones easiest to find and examine. But from their statement and actions, that has yielded nothing, leaving them the much broader group of people who didn't know her. That seems to tell us what the evidence shows so far (or fails to show).

I was/am not aware the police had/have gone between MB's murder being targeted
or not. ????

I do recall that a recent verified insider felt this was a breakin gone wrong. This VI also said the Police were going in a different direction but would not say what direction.

 

[SteveS]

for all you know HE/HER did know who MB was, did order police attire, did plan to Murder Missy, did see the FB, and DID know when to expect her to arrive.

I am just speculating, but more than an assumption

Unfortunately there is no evidence here that, seen with a different speculative scenario/assumptions, can't just as easily be explained as an "unplanned" attack. It's all about what was in <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s mind when he came in the door, and we have no way to know.

<modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s actions consisted of weirdly wandering the halls apparently looking for loot, then killing and running. Those fit a really <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> burglar whose lame attempt at stealing is interrupted so they panic and kill the person who saw them and run away. They also fit the inept sloppy killer who, instead of focusing on when and where the victim will enter, blunders around aimlessly looking for things to steal before hurriedly killing the person who has entered way across the church, and then running like a scared cat.

WHY were they there in the first place - was it to steal or to kill? Was their target some hoped-for loot, or a victim? Did he even know anyone was coming? No way to tell, without knowing who perp is and finding out what he was TRYING to do.

 

[SteveS]

I was/am not aware the police had/have gone between MB's murder being targeted
or not. ????

I do recall that a recent verified insider felt this was a breakin gone wrong. This VI also said the Police were going in a different direction but would not say what direction.

We've had SWs, arrest warrants, press conferencs, and interviews. And yes, their various statements (written and verbal) have wandered back and forth between possible motives. Accounts from those who have talked to LE themselves (VI and BB are two of those) also reflect the same sort of inconsistency.

 

[somequestions]

It would not surprise me at all if the perp in this case did not check the first door to the right or the first door to left of the kitchen window they broke into. If the SWAT person was a burglar, they are different from other burglars.

In the surveillance video of the SWAT person, if you look closely, it looks as if front part of the vest has the tools on it making this person seem heavier than what they actually are. I think this person is thinner and does not have as big a stomach as the surveillance video shows.

If you consider for a second that whoever it was knew they were going to be on surveillance video, it is not as much of a stretch to think that they are not going to act in a natural way. Why? Because they know people are going to watch and analyze the video later.

 

[FromGermany1]

The perp knew?

For all we know, he didn't even know who MB was, or care, when he broke into the church that night.

There's no objective reason to say perp even knew MB would be there. Or a class. Or that he knew there was any info on FB somewhere mentioning a schedule. Or that he had any sense of who would arrive when, or who would arrive first, and so on. Or that he cared about any of that.

What happened later doesn't tell us what he knew or intended, and until we figure out who he is, we can't answer those questions.

While we can start with the assumption those things are true, it's just an assumption without an objective basis, and all of them instead could be wrong.

I find it informative that LE has gone back and forth on whether or not this attack was planned. Obviously they started out looking closely at the ones who might have known MB and have a motive, because that's the ones easiest to find and examine. But from their statement and actions, that has yielded nothing, leaving them the much broader group of people who didn't know her. That seems to tell us what the evidence shows so far (or fails to show).

We don't know, what you said, we don't know - right. Although possible is the following: Many people did know MB's schedule, so as family, friends of family, many campers (MB's members or not), colleagues (instructors of different camper groups), inevitably also some church people bc. of permission to work there/get a key, certainly some people at MB's gym and so on. The schedule wasn't a secret, which had to be guarded. It is in the Franchise's interest to get the word out whenever/whereever to recruit new paying members. Probably there was even commission for recruiting new members (have forgotten, if). MB participated in conventions (as she did the weekend before her murder, afaik - was it Austin?) and certainly she advertised NONSTOP. Because it is the special concept of the Franchise to work out very early in the morning (for people, who have to be at their work 3 hours later) and work out at public places (like a church or a parking lot), it was required to explain the usual schedule to interested people.

The SP could have participated in one or two of MB's lessons himself, getting a good insight into times/places/processes. With some more questions asked, he could have found out about her hometown/family/her route to church/her habits/other campers. IF he had to do at all. If he became instructed by someone, he hadn't to ask even; he would have known all he needed to know. On the morning of April 18th, he even would have noticed, that MB was a little late (forgot the reason meanwhile). So his time window between arriving of MB and arriving of her first clients was more narrow than planned, and he had to hide and wait for a little more time than estimated. Whether he became nervous in his hiding corner, we won't know .......

 

[5W's]

Unfortunately there is no evidence here that, seen with a different speculative scenario/assumptions, can't just as easily be explained as an "unplanned" attack. It's all about what was in <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s mind when he came in the door, and we have no way to know.

<modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s actions consisted of weirdly wandering the halls apparently looking for loot, then killing and running. Those fit a really loser burglar whose lame attempt at stealing is interrupted so they panic and kill the person who saw them and run away. They also fit the inept sloppy killer who, instead of focusing on when and where the victim will enter, blunders around aimlessly looking for things to steal before hurriedly killing the person who has entered way across the church, and then running like a scared cat.

WHY were they there in the first place - was it to steal or to kill? Was their target some hoped-for loot, or a victim? Did he even know anyone was coming? No way to tell, without knowing who perp is and finding out what he was TRYING to do.

To a certain extent we can speculate by the perp's actions. I'm sure that is probably what LE has done but with knowledge of the scene.

 

[FromGermany1]

IF the driver of the Nissan Altima, curving the parking lot of the gun store, had something to do with MB's murder, it would still be interesting to know, what he did with his laptop on the passenger seat or dashboard. Some here on WS meant to have recognized something like that at least.
Did he observe the church before the murder? Did he hold a connection to SP in/near the church, if it wasn't SP himself in the car? Which digital connections could the driver or SP have had, that helped the planning of an attack on Missy?
Which are the possibilities, what he could have worked on with a laptop?

 

[pseudo_hum]

IF the driver of the Nissan Altima, curving the parking lot of the gun store, had something to do with MB's murder, it would still be interesting to know, what he did with his laptop on the passenger seat or dashboard. Some here on WS meant to have recognized something like that at least.
Did he observe the church before the murder? Did he hold a connection to SP in/near the church, if it wasn't SP himself in the car? Which digital connections could the driver or SP have had, that helped the planning of an attack on Missy?
Which are the possibilities, what he could have worked on with a laptop?

Lots to consider. I wonder if the perp was checking for a class cancellation announcement. No phone because he/she did not want to leave a digital trail?

 

[Laughing]

Except -- wouldn't a laptop or tablet leave a similar digital trail?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[Hexe]

Except -- wouldn't a laptop or tablet leave a similar digital trail?

jmho ymmv lrr

Oh yes, it would.

 

[moslym3]

For me, the biggest clue we have that this is a random waddling loser on a power trip is that there are no suspects, no persons of interest. LE has interviewed everyone in MBs life - if there was friction somewhere someone would have said something. I think suspect is unrelated to MB and that, combined with no good images and no DNA left behind, there isn't anyone else to look at.
I think this will be solved when the perp gets in trouble for something else - maybe a related crime - and something connects him. Or one of his family/friends suddenly clicks and remembers how he was larping around with his silly costume or talking about applying to the police academy back then and then all of a sudden said that was a dumb idea and moved on.
I think he's a young guy, that's why it escalated right to murder. They don't think consequences. They do super dumb stuff.
I think he lives nearby or this church is on his late night/early morning commute, or he went to the church growing up. High schoolers don't do a senior prank on the school across town, they break into their own high school and put all the desks on the roof of the building.

All my own opinions.

 

[Cryptic]

Unfortunately there is no evidence here that, seen with a different speculative scenario/assumptions, can't just as easily be explained as an "unplanned" attack. It's all about what was in <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s mind when he came in the door, and we have no way to know.

WHY were they there in the first place - was it to steal or to kill? Was their target some hoped-for loot, or a victim? Did he even know anyone was coming? No way to tell, without knowing who perp is and finding out what he was TRYING to do.

Good point about the futility of trying to rationalize the actions of a certain number of criminals.

As you stated, they can have a tendency to do stuff for reasons only known to themselves. That aside, while no explanation is perfect, other posters have advanced the following possibilities as to the "thought" of the intruder:

One forum member illustrated that Missy may have confronted the intruder. This possibility then makes the resulting violence easier to "understand".

For example, the victim heard the intruder, then went confirm their identity as say, the parish book keeper getting in early to complete his or her books etc. The surprised intruder then attacks Missy.

1. Intruder's motives: Intruder is a burglar of sort, but not after valuables per se (though they take them when they find them). Rather, burglar's main motivation is thrill that can include seemingly pointless vandalism, taking momento trophies etc. Missy hears them, moves to confirm their identity, and is attacked.

2. Intruder's Motives: Intruder is "LARPing" of sorts (Live Action Roleplaying- costumed teenagers and adults recreating a theme "world" by interacting with each other in character as part of the game). A common theme is fantasy adventure.

One form involves an amalgating amateur adventure / mystery movies uploaded in bits and pieces to social media platforms. Interested viewers can pursue the plot by independent LARPing for solo thrills. And/ or... they can send in their own creative content hoping to be merged with the movie. MIssy moves to confirm identity, and gets attacked.

 

[Speculaytor]

Unfortunately there is no evidence here that, seen with a different speculative scenario/assumptions, can't just as easily be explained as an "unplanned" attack. It's all about what was in <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s mind when he came in the door, and we have no way to know.

<modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>'s actions consisted of weirdly wandering the halls apparently looking for loot, then killing and running. Those fit a really loser burglar whose lame attempt at stealing is interrupted so they panic and kill the person who saw them and run away. They also fit the inept sloppy killer who, instead of focusing on when and where the victim will enter, blunders around aimlessly looking for things to steal before hurriedly killing the person who has entered way across the church, and then running like a scared cat.

WHY were they there in the first place - was it to steal or to kill? Was their target some hoped-for loot, or a victim? Did he even know anyone was coming? No way to tell, without knowing who perp is and finding out what he was TRYING to do.

I do disagree that there is no evidence. There may be no physical evidence, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that we can speculate about. It was either targeted, or it was not. Both scenarios are pure speculation at this point. And as I said, IMO it is a bigger jump to say a burglar, or person there to vandalize turned into a violent murderer because they were surprised, rather than this was targeted and they were trying to make it LOOK like a burglary gone wrong. We can agree to disagree at this point though. I sure enjoy the discussion. It is so boring when we all agree. I do hope it is solved someday, so we can know and her family have closure.

 

[beubeubeu]

Except -- wouldn't a laptop or tablet leave a similar digital trail?

jmho ymmv lrr

Oh yes, it would.

Wouldn't that work only if they'd connect to local wifi or use actual internet connection that someone was paying to get?
What about some sort of radio connection? Or surveillance cameras or photo traps meant to work where no cable, wifi or internet is available?
Straight line distance between SFWA parking lot and church is not that big. And it's clearly possible to find a spot where it's not obscured by even a tree.

Im not even sure if I see that as likely possibility, cause I fail to see anything that could be considered a laptop (but definitely some phone/gps/tabletlike kind of thing).

 

[somequestions]

If you consider for a second that the burglar knew they were going to be on the Creekside Church surveillance tape, then it is very strange. The surveillance tape is the witness.

We do not know what happened because it was not captured on camera. Maybe Missy Bevers tried to attack the burglar and that is why she was murdered? But then the burglar is wearing a police uniform. Based on what is known so far, if this was a burglary interrupted, then it has to be one of the dumbest examples of a burglary I have ever seen.

 

[Speculaytor]

If you consider for a second that the burglar knew they were going to be on the Creekside Church surveillance tape, then it is very strange. The surveillance tape is the witness.

We do not know what happened because it was not captured on camera. Maybe Missy Bevers tried to attack the burglar and that is why she was murdered? But then the burglar is wearing a police uniform. Based on what is known so far, if this was a burglary interrupted, then it has to be one of the dumbest examples of a burglary I have ever seen.

If it were a burglary, then why not at least take her wedding rings?

 

[Razz]

We've had SWs, arrest warrants, press conferencs, and interviews. And yes, their various statements (written and verbal) have wandered back and forth between possible motives. Accounts from those who have talked to LE themselves (VI and BB are two of those) also reflect the same sort of inconsistency.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. What arrest warrants? Also, search warrants were for tower dumps, MB's phone (I believe BB gave his voluntarily) and the dry cleaners search warrant, and a FB warrant.

I don't recall police mentioning in any press conferences that they thought this could be a burglary gone wrong. I will concede that BB during an interview may have said it could be a burglary gone wrong but he was fairly certain that it was targeted in the beginning.

The police had press conferences's re the car driving in the SWFA parking lot but that's the only time they waffled.. was it connected or was it not.

I don't use other sites to get my info, nor do I have an in with the P.D. And with our VI, you can choose to believe him or not. I found his info to generally be reliable. Before he was a VI, he was a member here and I believe he was responsible for the P.D. heavily eyeballing a security guard.

There may have been other POI's but I'm not aware of specific ones and who was interviewed and who wasn't. I'm also not aware of additional search warrants. Lots of innuendo and false info, though.

 

[SteveS]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

You say "They said X, except when they said Y' and that means you AGREE with me -- as that was my point. They haven't been consistent - at times they have indicated targeted, or not targeted, or we can't tell which it might be.

 

[SteveS]

I do disagree that there is no evidence.

<modsnip - personalizing>

What I was saying is that in order to know it was targeted or untargeted, we would need evidence that can objectively be seen ONLY one way but not the other. But we don't have any of THAT kind of evidence. All the evidence we have can point to either direction.

The main one was the fact that <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> happened to be there when MB was. But was it just wrong place, wrong time, people crossing paths? Or did he come there just because she was going to be there? No evidence we have so far can answer that question for us.

It might have been an inept burglar who messed up a burglary (and when someone got killed, didn't want to take anything that might connect him to the crime), or it might have been someone who was there just to see MB but was so dumb in his process that he fiddled around the building and was on the other side when she walked in, not prepared at all (and whether this one actually originally INTENDED to kill, even that would be uncertain.) Both of those LOOK the same, so you can't ascertain motive by watching.