TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #49

[NoSpoonFeeding]

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is Missy was startled shortly after entering the church building. There’s been times I’ve been startled entering my own house hearing a noise and my instinct is to run back outside. I wonder why Missy went towards the noise versus going away from it until she was sure who it was. My only theory is perhaps the person did know Missy and called out for her and she went towards the perp out of voice familiarity.

The forensic podiatrist gave a good description of the video he saw, not released to the public of her turning her head in an apparent response to a noise, and then walking out of sight into the hallway as if to see what it was. Maybe she was a little concerned but thought it was possibly a janitor. Just a guess.

 

[glassheater]

The forensic podiatrist gave a good description of the video he saw, not released to the public of her turning her head in an apparent response to a noise, and then walking out of sight into the hallway as if to see what it was. Maybe she was a little concerned but thought it was possibly a janitor. Just a guess.

Though I still heavily lean towards targeted, this does give me pause. She ended up going in to investigate the noise but what if the perp making a noise had the opposite effect and she ran out to her truck to get her gun and/or call 911? Would have thought perp would have been quietly lying in wait if targeted.

 

[FromGermany1]

Though I still heavily lean towards targeted, this does give me pause. She ended up going in to investigate the noise but what if the perp making a noise had the opposite effect and she ran out to her truck to get her gun and/or call 911? Would have thought perp would have been quietly lying in wait if targeted.

I believe, SP knew, where to hide (no cameras), and he had to give a slight sound, if he intended to lure Missy just exactly to that corner. I my eyes, SP's plan from the start to get her there. Or scouted during his wandering along the hallways. MOO

 

[x_files]

My understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, is Missy was startled shortly after entering the church building. There’s been times I’ve been startled entering my own house hearing a noise and my instinct is to run back outside. I wonder why Missy went towards the noise versus going away from it until she was sure who it was. My only theory is perhaps the person did know Missy and called out for her and she went towards the perp out of voice familiarity.

EXACTLY! Did she recognize the voice? Or did someone call out her name?!

 

[glassheater]

I believe, SP knew, where to hide (no cameras), and he had to give a slight sound, if he intended to lure Missy just exactly to that corner. I my eyes, SP's plan from the start to get her there. Or scouted during his wandering along the hallways. MOO

What if the opposite happened and she ran out? It was reported that she seemed spooked the couple of weeks before and that she had also received a creepy and weird LinkedIn message. I’m speculating based out of my own reaction but if I arrived somewhere and was expecting to be completely alone at 4:20am, I would have ran away from the noise, not towards it. I’m wondering if her name was called out.

 

[Inthedetails]

What if the opposite happened and she ran out? It was reported that she seemed spooked the couple of weeks before and that she had also received a creepy and weird LinkedIn message. I’m speculating based out of my own reaction but if I arrived somewhere and was expecting to be completely alone at 4:20am, I would have ran away from the noise, not towards it. I’m wondering if her name was called out.

Honestly, I can imagine feeling spooked by any noise when entering a building alone at that hour. But, I would also instantly talk myself out of feeling spooked. And, I'm assuming, her mind was focused on getting ready for her class. Even if spooked, I don't think that would deter her from entering the building and carrying on her tasks. I don't think we can assume someone called out to her, imo.

I don't think this case will ever be solved, tbh.

jmo

 

[somequestions]

There are quite a few reasons why the Loser perp would have picked the door they did, that are way more likely than the idea they were trying to be tricky in their choice.
1 There's nothing odd about not going on the outside door to door, in heavy drenching rain, around a very large building with many doors.
2 No one has said any doors were actually unlocked, have they? So perp not wasting his time, maybe it's because he rightly didn't see the point.
3 Both the awning and the W-side doors could be seen from the highway, and someone trying to break in perhaps attract police attention. The kitchen and back-side doors could not. That makes a huge difference in choices.
4 Other than the kitchen door, the other doors actually had TWO layers of locked doors, which were electronically locked (which means they would be always be AUTOMATICALLY set to lock or unlock). The likelihood that any one of them would have been unlocked, while the others were locked, was essentially zero.
5 The various double doors also had cams to avoid. The kitchen door did not.
6 Loser perp did try one of the double doors first, but gave up. I am guessing they became deterred by two layers of locks, and then bailed when they saw it would be followed by cams.
...I'm wondering if he would have at first been wearing that clear mask while trying to break in - that seems like it would have been smothery, rain-smeared, hard to see, wet or foggy, and something that likely would be ditched quickly as he tried to gain access, making cams extra-problematic.

Where did you get the information the SWAT person burglar tried one of the double doors first? The only thing I ever read was that surveillance cameras may have been activated earlier by someone trying to get in.

I do not think this person cared about the surveillance cameras as long as they are completely hidden in a disguise. Why a burglar would not try the southwest awning doors since they are not in the rain because the area is covered, is a little strange to me.

I personally think the highway is too far away from the church for anybody driving to care about what is going on in a church parking lot, let alone be able to slow down to get any sort of good look at it.

 

[SteveS]

Where did you get the information the SWAT person burglar tried one of the double doors first? The only thing I ever read was that surveillance cameras may have been activated earlier by someone trying to get in.

I do not think this person cared about the surveillance cameras as long as they are completely hidden in a disguise. Why a burglar would not try the southwest awning doors since they are not in the rain because the area is covered, is a little strange to me.

I personally think the highway is too far away from the church for anybody driving to care about what is going on in a church parking lot, let alone be able to slow down to get any sort of good look at it.

1 "Where did you get the info ..."

I have been following this case since very early (maybe the first week?) because I live not far from where it happened, and it was all over the news. Because of that, there has been a mountain on information and discussion I have seen and heard. I visited the church (as well as SWFA site) to see for myself MULTIPLE times and take pics. I am very familiar with the church and its setting because 287 is a major highway, and I happen to use this part of it from time to time.

This info was shared early on, and at various discussions since, in this forum. IIRC there were pictures in various media showing the damage. But I also personally SAW with my own 2 eyes, took pics, may have shared them here (probably did), damage to both places. This forum had MANY discussions over why Loser perp tried more than one door, and those particular doors, and my comments above reflect what to me both the facts as well as what I see as the apparent answers to the discussed parts.

I think I have lost the pics (that phone crashed suddenly one day and I lost them everything in it), sad to say, but the info should be somewhere in past discussions many times.

2 "I don't think the perp cared about the cams as long as he was in the disguise" -- And I already gave a possible answer to that, which is that we don't know if the perp was in disguise, or choosing to wear the face mask and hood, while he was outside the building trying to gain access. He may have had a bag with the SWAT costume (which was not wet, when seen on camera), and changed into his costume once inside.

3 "the highway is too far away to see" -- To some extent, that's true, and even more so on a rainy night. But the question wouldn't be whether someone driving by could see and know "there's a break-in happening" but rather, what did the Loser perp think was possible? When you are at the church, it feels like the highway is RIGHT THERE on top of you, even though it isn't. I can easily see perp wanting to be out of sight of it.

 

[lonewanderer]

Where did you get the information the SWAT person burglar tried one of the double doors first? The only thing I ever read was that surveillance cameras may have been activated earlier by someone trying to get in.

I do not think this person cared about the surveillance cameras as long as they are completely hidden in a disguise. Why a burglar would not try the southwest awning doors since they are not in the rain because the area is covered, is a little strange to me.

I personally think the highway is too far away from the church for anybody driving to care about what is going on in a church parking lot, let alone be able to slow down to get any sort of good look at it.

I think the perp did not use the awning doors because they were targeting Missy and was not 100% sure where she would enter. In my mind, the kitchen is the safest and least likely place for her to be entering the church.

I have also thought the church being so far off the highway is a great point. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would just so happen to choose this church and stroll around in it to play pretend. It could, however, be argued that the church would be an ideal place to do that; way off the highway, 4am, in a place no one would be expected to be. This particular point has been framed both ways for the targeted and non-targeted theories.

 

[Laughing]

I think the perp did not use the awning doors because they were targeting Missy and was not 100% sure where she would enter. In my mind, the kitchen is the safest and least likely place for her to be entering the church.

I have also thought the church being so far off the highway is a great point. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would just so happen to choose this church and stroll around in it to play pretend. It could, however, be argued that the church would be an ideal place to do that; way off the highway, 4am, in a place no one would be expected to be. This particular point has been framed both ways for the targeted and non-targeted theories.

bbm

Or the costumed LARPer/hitperson was looking for leftover Fellowship cookies? Some of us see this person a rather inept. Check first for cookies, then the loose offering? Then just make a mess until something else comes along?

At one point on the available video, the burglar/murder/LARPer seems to be carrying plastic wrap!

LE apparently hasn't identified the car at the nearby gun store, although iirc a poster may have done so years ago.

I'm afraid we'll never know.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[somequestions]

1 "Where did you get the info ..."

I have been following this case since very early (maybe the first week?) because I live not far from where it happened, and it was all over the news. Because of that, there has been a mountain on information and discussion I have seen and heard. I visited the church (as well as SWFA site) to see for myself MULTIPLE times and take pics. I am very familiar with the church and its setting because 287 is a major highway, and I happen to use this part of it from time to time.

This info was shared early on, and at various discussions since, in this forum. IIRC there were pictures in various media showing the damage. But I also personally SAW with my own 2 eyes, took pics, may have shared them here (probably did), damage to both places. This forum had MANY discussions over why Loser perp tried more than one door, and those particular doors, and my comments above reflect what to me both the facts as well as what I see as the apparent answers to the discussed parts.

I think I have lost the pics (that phone crashed suddenly one day and I lost them everything in it), sad to say, but the info should be somewhere in past discussions many times.

2 "I don't think the perp cared about the cams as long as he was in the disguise" -- And I already gave a possible answer to that, which is that we don't know if the perp was in disguise, or choosing to wear the face mask and hood, while he was outside the building trying to gain access. He may have had a bag with the SWAT costume (which was not wet, when seen on camera), and changed into his costume once inside.

3 "the highway is too far away to see" -- To some extent, that's true, and even more so on a rainy night. But the question wouldn't be whether someone driving by could see and know "there's a break-in happening" but rather, what did the Loser perp think was possible? When you are at the church, it feels like the highway is RIGHT THERE on top of you, even though it isn't. I can easily see perp wanting to be out of sight of it.

I thought maybe the reason this person did not want to be seen checking any of the doors is because then they would risk being on surveillance camera if they were not wearing the SWAT uniform yet. Then they chose to enter the building in the most direct way from where they parked their vehicle and not check any other doors that might have a surveillance camera nearby. Police had to at least try to get fingerprints on the outside doors. I know the surveillance camera on the outside of the building was not working according to a news story, but how would the SWAT burglar know that?

 

[lonewanderer]

I thought maybe the reason this person did not want to be seen checking any of the doors is because then they would risk being on surveillance camera if they were not wearing the SWAT uniform yet. Then they chose to enter the building in the most direct way from where they parked their vehicle and not check any other doors that might have a surveillance camera nearby. Police had to at least try to get fingerprints on the outside doors. I know the surveillance camera on the outside of the building was not working according to a news story, but how would the SWAT burglar know that?

Maybe they knew it wasn’t working, or maybe they did not know. They were dressed in all black after all, and it would have been very hard to see them at that hour.

Between the lack of any type of wetness on them, and they very small window of time between murdering Missy and them vanishing, it does seem like they had a quick getaway waiting for them close to the building. What that was? I have no idea, but it leads me to believe this is a high possibility.

 

[lonewanderer]

There are some angles of the helmet that don’t quite look like a military/SWAT helmet (or ACH for Army guys)

In some angles, it looks like a baseball helmet or motorcycle helmet. In the attached screenshots, it really does look like the helmet has a bill, more like a baseball helmet or motorcycle cop. This could just be the headlamp attached though, as we briefly see it on in some of the footage.

Also, the POLICE on the back looks really distinct to me, and the attached pic looks really similar IMO. It’s from a police officer responding to looting at a Vans store in New Jersey. I’m not saying there’s any connection, it just really stood out as looking similar to me.

Speaking of motorcycle helmets, some of the perps attire seem to closely resemble what a motorcycle rider might wear. I’ve wondered if they arrived and left on one, parking it near the kitchen and getting inside quickly before getting wet, and then hopping on it and riding off when they left, as they seemed to vanish after Missy was found unresponsive. I do think a motorcycle would likely be loud though, and there’s plent ly of holes with that theory. For instance, how did they stay dry the whole ride?

 

[somequestions]

This is the type of case where it would not surprise me if what I think ends up being wrong when the case is solved. I think it is a targeted murder, but only because of how strange the burglar acts in the Creekside Church surveillance video. However, there are very good reasons behind it simply being a burglary gone wrong that Missy Bevers may have walked into.

One good argument people make is why not just murder Missy Bevers out in the parking lot of Creekside Church when she arrives? This is a good point, but I do think that might have attracted the attention of motorists driving by, especially if it was a loud gun. But in other cases, the murderer does not care about witnesses or a loud gun(ex: Liz Barraza case).

Another good argument is if the murderer is concerned about being seen committing the murder outside, why not just wait by the church entrance for her truck to show up, then shoot Missy Bevers once she walked into the church. The actual murder location happened down the end of a hallway probably at least a minute or two after she had entered the church. The burglar/murderer did not seem to be waiting for her to arrive. Even if the burglar had worn the same disguise, as long as police cannot identify them, what does it matter if by waiting by the church entrance door the police can determine that it was a targeted killing? As long as police do not know who they are, why would that matter?

I still think there is a good reason to wonder if this was a targeted murder. The surveillance video clearly shows this person did not try to go directly to the church office to get the money. That is the part that seems sort of strange. I wonder if the burglar even had the knowledge to know how to pry open a safe when it seems like they cannot even pry open a door inside the church?

When you look at this case at face value, it seems like a burglary gone wrong. It seems too creative to be a murder. It seems too strange to be a burglary. I understand why there are so many different theories in this case.

 

[glassheater]

This is the type of case where it would not surprise me if what I think ends up being wrong when the case is solved. I think it is a targeted murder, but only because of how strange the burglar acts in the Creekside Church surveillance video. However, there are very good reasons behind it simply being a burglary gone wrong that Missy Bevers may have walked into.

One good argument people make is why not just murder Missy Bevers out in the parking lot of Creekside Church when she arrives? This is a good point, but I do think that might have attracted the attention of motorists driving by, especially if it was a loud gun. But in other cases, the murderer does not care about witnesses or a loud gun(ex: Liz Barraza case).

Another good argument is if the murderer is concerned about being seen committing the murder outside, why not just wait by the church entrance for her truck to show up, then shoot Missy Bevers once she walked into the church. The actual murder location happened down the end of a hallway probably at least a minute or two after she had entered the church. The burglar/murderer did not seem to be waiting for her to arrive. Even if the burglar had worn the same disguise, as long as police cannot identify them, what does it matter if by waiting by the church entrance door the police can determine that it was a targeted killing? As long as police do not know who they are, why would that matter?

I still think there is a good reason to wonder if this was a targeted murder. The surveillance video clearly shows this person did not try to go directly to the church office to get the money. That is the part that seems sort of strange. I wonder if the burglar even had the knowledge to know how to pry open a safe when it seems like they cannot even pry open a door inside the church?

When you look at this case at face value, it seems like a burglary gone wrong. It seems too creative to be a murder. It seems too strange to be a burglary. I understand why there are so many different theories in this case.

Great points made here. If this was a targeted murder, your points highlight the inexperience of the perp as they left a window of opportunity for MB to escape.

I brought up the point that MB could have very well run out to her truck when she heard the noise. Her husband encouraged her to buy a gun for safety since she was the first one alone at odd hours for her classes so she wasn’t clueless about a potential safety issue. I’m surprised she didn’t run out and grab her gun first if she wanting to check if someone was there. So that makes me wonder if someone called out to her and she recognized the voice.

Like you said, no theory can be ruled out because so many things don’t make sense.

 

[rodee34]

FACT or FICTION: Is it a fact that the church motion detector cameras showed motion detection before 2:00am? Where is that verified?

 

[AnonymousSeesYOU]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>
This person seemed to do a very good job of not being seen entering the church and leaving without being noticed too.

It seems like a major stretch to think a teen would have planned that all out (especially if he/she was there not intending to hurt someone) and would have had the foresight of covering their tracks.

The person in the SWAT attire, while a bit awkward, does not seem sloppy enough to be a teen on thrill-seeking dress up adventure. They don't appear to have any adrenaline pumping, are moving slowly around, and seem to be wasting time (I suspect the SWAT wearing is wasting time and checking rooms to best plan how to attack

EXACTLY! Did she recognize the voice? Or did someone call out her name?!

What if it were just a female voice? A female voice might render Missy or anyone less cautious. Whether Missy recognized it or not, a female voice might particularly convey a false sense of security to another female.

 

[FromGermany1]

It seems too creative to be a murder. It seems too strange to be a burglary. I understand why there are so many different theories in this case.

I like this ^^!

 

[SteveS]

FACT or FICTION: Is it a fact that the church motion detector cameras showed motion detection before 2:00am? Where is that verified?

FICTION.

LE has stated that Loser perp was first shown on cam at 3:50 am. In a much later SW (Jan 2019), LE noted the earliest cam activation that night was AFTER 2:00 am (at 2:23 am), and with nothing being seen on cam to account for the activation.

"2:23 am: Motion activated cameras in the building are first activated but they do not capture any person or the cause of this activation."

It has also been alleged by some (who may or may not be reliable) that the church's cams are glitchy and that the activation for no apparent reason (ie, with nothing showing up on the recording) was not a new thing.

All of this was the subject of much discussion in the past in these forums, but there was so much wild speculation with so little hard info that it proved to be a pointless exercise. My personal guess was that the activation may have been triggered by lightning strikes, where the change in light made the cam think it was movement, as it was a significant weather event that night with lots of rain, lightning, etc.

 

[gitana1]

In addition to many other problems I have with the cosplay theory, I will expand on this piece.

The outfit doesn’t look like anyone from anything in particular. The person in the outfit is also not moving or acting like anyone in particular from any movie, tv show, or video game.

I really don’t see the point in getting THAT decked out in an outfit, while it’s raining outside, and not emulate someone they are trying to cosplay.

Agreed. And they seem to be casually waiting around, not LARPING. I’ve seen cosplayers in action and it’s pretty theatrical.