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

[gitana1]

But why all that and not carry SWAT related things?

What LARPer would walk around lazily swinging a hammer with a SWAT outfit?

Why aren’t they emulating a particular movie, vide game, tv show?

Why didn’t they have something so standard for a SWAT outfit as an assault rifle or any type of gun out and at the ready? Why did they not have something as simple as a baton?

This theory just makes no sense to me. LARPers and cosplayers typically want to be seen, or want to emulate certain people and their actions.

Or let’s say they’re not a cosplayer but a wanna be cop. We’ve seen those people. They have all the gear. Handcuffs. Pepper spray. Lights. Fake badges. Etc.

To me, this had zero to do with a costume and everything to do with a disguise.

 

[x_files]

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.

yes, I agree.

 

[rodee34]

It is my understanding that Missy walked in the the SW doors then proceeded to the NW corner of the same hallway and was ambushed there?

Are we anxious to find the KILLER? YES WE ARE! I am local like many here and have followed the Missy Bevers murder since day one. We were told by the cops right away that our community was not in danger. Still, after 7+ years I'm scared to death for my family!! We can't even get an update on the investigations progress. Maybe the family wants to put it to rest, but WE dont! There is a sick murderer in our community - and has been for 7+ years.

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.

Thanks SteveS… I remember the awful weather that night. I was just wondering if it correlated with the Nissan being at SWFA. One could guess that that SP made the motion detector come on at the church then went to the SWFA lot to wait and see if police came or not. The timing doesn’t work though. It was just a thought.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[Cedars]

LE has stated that Loser perp was first shown on cam at 3:50 am.

I was persuaded by the argument that SP couldn't have been there for Missy, since they're busy hammering, etc, rather than on the look-out for her.

But it would be useful to know whether that behaviour finished fairly soon - say by shortly after 4 am, and then SW disappeared from the cameras and so from that point on was, potentially, waiting. Possibly knowing, from previous surveillance, that she wouldn't arrive before 4.

I'm also considering that police strongly stated, when they released the video, their belief that SP was trying to stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong.

Perhaps they are more open-minded now about an accidental encounter, perhaps the initial focus on homicide was just strategy to eliminate all possible suspects . But on the other hand, they had the whole of the evidence to draw on for that conclusion, whereas the rest of us only have part of the evidence.

So, I guess I've changed my opinion, again.

 

[lonewanderer]

I was persuaded by the argument that SP couldn't have been there for Missy, since they're busy hammering, etc, rather than on the look-out for her.

But it would be useful to know whether that behaviour finished fairly soon - say by shortly after 4 am, and then SW disappeared from the cameras and so from that point on was, potentially, waiting. Possibly knowing, from previous surveillance, that she wouldn't arrive before 4.

I'm also considering that police strongly stated, when they released the video, their belief that SP was trying to stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong.

Perhaps they are more open-minded now about an accidental encounter, perhaps the initial focus on homicide was just strategy to eliminate all possible suspects . But on the other hand, they had the whole of the evidence to draw on for that conclusion, whereas the rest of us only have part of the evidence.

So, I guess I've changed my opinion, again.

Thats the thing....

I am fully and completely sold that Missy was targeted and this person had the ultimate goal of murdering her.

We don't see what happened when Missy and the perp met. Was the perp hiding behind a door or have the hammer raised ready to strike when she comes around the corner? Did it look personal? Or did the perp look genuinely shocked and attacked Missy out of fear? If the latter was the case, I would be willing to throw all logic out the window and accept that she was likely not targeted in that case.

This was something I talked about in the Liz B case, too. We see Liz's shooter extend their left hand. I believe there was something in their hand (my bet is on a picture on a phone), as Liz appears to lean forward to get a better look at it, she is shot. We do not get to see her body language after being confronted. She could have made a "whoah whoah whoah wait thats not me!" hands up type of movement or a "ok, hold on I can explain" type of reaction. To me, that would explain a lot more for her particular case if we saw her reaction before she was shot.

 

[SteveS]

I'm also considering that police strongly stated, when they released the video, their belief that SP was trying to stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong.

"...their belief that SP was trying to stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong" --

I don't think that LE has ever offered any particular opinion like that, much less "strongly stating" that they saw it as a fake burglary.

In the initial PC on Apr 18, the first guy said this...
Q: So are you saying maybe she interrupted a burglary in progress?
A: It certainly is possible. The individual was there, and we have evidence of broken glass and damage to the facility prior to her arrival.
...and this...
Q: Chief, could it be possible that she was targeted? ...Is it possible this was not random?
A: We're exploring all possibilities. It certainly was a strange occurrence ... [and then he went on to elaborate on how confusing it was, how it could certainly be possible there was targeting, but ... and then ended talking about burglary stuff] ...but all scenarios are on the table right now.

Then the 2nd guy (who had not even seen the video) said this:
Q: [a question about the particulars of MB being found]
A: ...Once the officers got there, their preliminary search -- they did determine that there was forced entry into the building, broken glass throughout the building, and from that, determined that it was possibly a burglary that she may have walked in and interrupted.

In that PC, the 2nd guy explicitly said he had not actually seen the video, and it sounded like the first hadn't either (he talked about his "understanding" of what was in the video, rather than having any certainty). As early as it was at that point (just a few hours after the murder), it seems quite unlikely they could have formed ANY strong conclusions.

In the Apr 22 PC, the only words about LPs intent was this very brief ball of nothing:
Q: Are you getting closer to a motive? Was it burglary?
A: We are not getting closer to a motive.

In the May 20 PC, when asked if they have been "leaning" one way or the other between burglary vs targeted, LE said:
We haven't really. You know, until we have strong information that can point us in one direction, we really have encouraged our investigators to stay open-minded... To say we have a particular narrative that we are even 51[%] to 49 on, is not accurate....

 

[Cedars]

"...their belief that SP was trying to stage the murder as a burglary gone wrong" --

I don't think that LE has ever offered any particular opinion like that, much less "strongly stating" that they saw it as a fake burglary.

In the initial PC on Apr 18, the first guy said this...
Q: So are you saying maybe she interrupted a burglary in progress?
A: It certainly is possible. The individual was there, and we have evidence of broken glass and damage to the facility prior to her arrival.
...and this...
Q: Chief, could it be possible that she was targeted? ...Is it possible this was not random?
A: We're exploring all possibilities. It certainly was a strange occurrence ... [and then he went on to elaborate on how confusing it was, how it could certainly be possible there was targeting, but ... and then ended talking about burglary stuff] ...but all scenarios are on the table right now.

Then the 2nd guy (who had not even seen the video) said this:
Q: [a question about the particulars of MB being found]
A: ...Once the officers got there, their preliminary search -- they did determine that there was forced entry into the building, broken glass throughout the building, and from that, determined that it was possibly a burglary that she may have walked in and interrupted.

In that PC, the 2nd guy explicitly said he had not actually seen the video, and it sounded like the first hadn't either (he talked about his "understanding" of what was in the video, rather than having any certainty). As early as it was at that point (just a few hours after the murder), it seems quite unlikely they could have formed ANY strong conclusions.

In the Apr 22 PC, the only words about LPs intent was this very brief ball of nothing:
Q: Are you getting closer to a motive? Was it burglary?
A: We are not getting closer to a motive.

In the May 20 PC, when asked if they have been "leaning" one way or the other between burglary vs targeted, LE said:
We haven't really. You know, until we have strong information that can point us in one direction, we really have encouraged our investigators to stay open-minded... To say we have a particular narrative that we are even 51[%] to 49 on, is not accurate....

I wasn't going off the PCs, but the local media

Sources: Police believe slain Midlothian mom was targeted

Eight days after fitness instructor Missy Bevers was killed inside a Midlothian church, there are no answers about who killed her or wh...

www.wfaa.com

"Sources tell News 8 that investigators are certain that Bevers was the target, and did not stumble into a burglary gone bad. They further believe that the scene was staged to make it look like there had been a burglary."

 

[AnonymousSeesYOU]

Might we consider the tools? What if those tools were just handy? If not exactly familiar - then handy, nearby? What if the tools were not only handy to breaking and entering, but also to work? Renovators? contractors? property managers? Why the hammer? Pry bar for sure. But why the hammer? It’s handy. But no more particularly useful in a burglary than a pry bar, but if you have it? Why not? Is it someone who works in that general business but who doesn’t use ( and has no idea how to use) the actual tools? Support? Clerical? Office manager? Because, clearly, they have no idea how to use those tools. A pry bar breaks glass as easily as a hammer. Why the hammer?

 

[AnonymousSeesYOU]

Might we consider the tools? What if those tools were just handy? If not exactly familiar - then handy, nearby? What if the tools were not only handy to breaking and entering, but also to work? Renovators? contractors? property managers? Why the hammer? Pry bar for sure. But why the hammer? It’s handy. But no more particularly useful in a burglary than a pry bar, but if you have it? Why not? Is it someone who works in that general business but who doesn’t use ( and has no idea how to use) the actual tools? Support? Clerical? Office manager? Because, clearly, they have no idea how to use those tools. A pry bar breaks glass as easily as a hammer. Why the hammer?

Also, a prybar kills as easily as a hammer. Why both tools?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I wasn't going off the PCs, but the local media

Sources: Police believe slain Midlothian mom was targeted

Eight days after fitness instructor Missy Bevers was killed inside a Midlothian church, there are no answers about who killed her or wh...

www.wfaa.com

"Sources tell News 8 that investigators are certain that Bevers was the target, and did not stumble into a burglary gone bad. They further believe that the scene was staged to make it look like there had been a burglary."

That article was posted only 8 days after the murder and I'm sure some of the detectives were convinced that the "ususal" suspects were involved, especially since they heard about the extracurricular activities in the marriage and the "so-called "odd" message on her phone. When it was announced that family members were not suspects, LE was no longer committed to the "targeted" theory.
MOO

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Also, a prybar kills as easily as a hammer. Why both tools?

The hammer was needed to break out the reinforced glass on the doors. A hammer can't be used to pry at a door lock/jam/drawer etc.


The killer had a gun, a gun is not a "back-up" weapon for a murderer in case they are unsuccessful in killing someone with tools.

 

[somequestions]

Also, a prybar kills as easily as a hammer. Why both tools?

The reason for a prybar and hammer together would be to pry open a safe or really any door that required to be opened by force. After watching video of another burglary of a different church, in that video the burglar was able to use the prybar to wedge in the side door of the safe and then use the hammer to force the safe open. You put the prybar in the side of the safe and then hit the prybar with the hammer to force it open.

What is sort of interesting is that in the Creekside Church surveillance video, the burglar gets to a door they want to open and tries to use the prybar along with what looks like a small hammer to open the door. They use so little force that they give up on opening the door and move on. Because of that, I wondered if the burglar, if they got into the church offices, was even able to open the safe? As far as I know this information is not known.

 

[lonewanderer]

The reason for a prybar and hammer together would be to pry open a safe or really any door that required to be opened by force. After watching video of another burglary of a different church, in that video the burglar was able to use the prybar to wedge in the side door of the safe and then use the hammer to force the safe open. You put the prybar in the side of the safe and then hit the prybar with the hammer to force it open.

What is sort of interesting is that in the Creekside Church surveillance video, the burglar gets to a door they want to open and tries to use the prybar along with what looks like a small hammer to open the door. They use so little force that they give up on opening the door and move on. Because of that, I wondered if the burglar, if they got into the church offices, was even able to open the safe? As far as I know this information is not known.

This part of the footage is really interesting to me.

As one person pointed out, the perp is going against the hinges and doing a lot of things that make no sense.

From that angle, it looked possible to me that the perp was not actually trying to pry anything. It looks like they have a long black object (if not a crowbar then maybe a cattle prod, etc) and are using the door for leverage to do something to the object. So instead of placing it on a table, or the floor, they are using their hips to balance the object and the door as leverage to keep the object vertical.

 

[Cedars]

That article was posted only 8 days after the murder and I'm sure some of the detectives were convinced that the "ususal" suspects were involved, especially since they heard about the extracurricular activities in the marriage and the "so-called "odd" message on her phone. When it was announced that family members were not suspects, LE was no longer committed to the "targeted" theory.
MOO

I agree, as I mentioned LE need to begin by going full-on with a premeditated homicide theory if there is any possibility for it.

However.IMO they had, by 8 days in, compiled and reviewed the whole sequence of events many times. I think if there was clear evidence that Missy had interrupted a busy, vandalizing SP, they would not still be so cagey.

I am responding more to the many people out in social media-land who state it's 'obvious' that SP is not lurking and waiting for Missy, that anyone who supports a targetted theory 'lacks critical thinking skills' because the footage shows SP is not lying in wait.

I am saying, that's just 2 minutes 11 seconds of footage of that behaviour, (and police say they've released almost all of it), whereas there's an additional 26 minutes of time that is unaccounted for.

I believe it is an error in logic to assume SP was continuing the behaviour seen on camera, for the whole 28 minutes. Only police know whatever there is to know about that whole time frame.

JMO

 

[AnonymousSeesYOU]

This part of the footage is really interesting to me.

As one person pointed out, the perp is going against the hinges and doing a lot of things that make no sense.

From that angle, it looked possible to me that the perp was not actually trying to pry anything. It looks like they have a long black object (if not a crowbar then maybe a cattle prod, etc) and are using the door for leverage to do something to the object. So instead of placing it on a table, or the floor, they are using their hips to balance the object and the door as leverage to keep the object vertical

Do men and women use their hips to balance things in equal measure? Women, sure. Men?

 

[FromGermany1]

I agree, as I mentioned LE need to begin by going full-on with a premeditated homicide theory if there is any possibility for it.

However.IMO they had, by 8 days in, compiled and reviewed the whole sequence of events many times. I think if there was clear evidence that Missy had interrupted a busy, vandalizing SP, they would not still be so cagey.

I am responding more to the many people out in social media-land who state it's 'obvious' that SP is not lurking and waiting for Missy, that anyone who supports a targetted theory 'lacks critical thinking skills' because the footage shows SP is not lying in wait.

I am saying, that's just 2 minutes 11 seconds of footage of that behaviour, (and police say they've released almost all of it), whereas there's an additional 26 minutes of time that is unaccounted for.

I believe it is an error in logic to assume SP was continuing the behaviour seen on camera, for the whole 28 minutes. Only police know whatever there is to know about that whole time frame.

JMO

After more than 7 years it finally could be tried out, if the WHOLE surveillance video would give us clues, who the SP might be. LE said, the SP did nothing more than walking hallways in an unspectacular manner during the part of the video, which wasn't made public. But who knows, whether that is really true.

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Setting aside whether it was a targeted or random attack…….. maybe the SWAT/law enforcement disguise was used also if the perpetrator was familiar with the church. And would have known they were on camera? Akin to an ‘inside job’?

I’ve not, however, been able to view the entire video available and in sequence to better make a judgement.
MOO

 

[somequestions]

I had an outside-the-box theory about this case.

Whether you think it was targeted or not targeted, I think many people think the POLICE disguise is not much of a disguise when it comes to being a real police officer. Why get completely dressed up like that anyway? I think many people think the burglary is a strange one because of the actions of the burglar.

What if someone who is a foreigner living here thinks differently? Maybe to a foreigner this is what they think people will believe as being police? Maybe to a foreigner the actions of the burglar on the surveillance video seem normal? I know there is very little evidence to actually support this.

The Missy Bevers case already feels very cold. The remarkable thing is that there is good surveillance footage. Is there any physical evidence that ties somebody to the crime scene? If it was a burglary gone wrong that Missy Bevers stumbled into and a stranger she never met before killed here, then there is no connection to Missy Bevers. If it was someone she knew, then the conclusion would be that by now police have interviewed everyone they think may have been involved. This case might never be solved. That is a hard realization to come to in a case that is not even 8 years old.

 

[acutename]

I googled TX church robberies and there are a lot of them.

TX church robberies - Google Search

Most of them have security videos - but no IDs. In some of them there is a safe which the thieves seem to know the location of; in other instances, they take whatever appliances they can -TV, computer, leaf blower- anything they could sell. I guess this is a thing- to rob churches.

 

[FromGermany1]

I googled TX church robberies and there are a lot of them.

TX church robberies - Google Search

Most of them have security videos - but no IDs. In some of them there is a safe which the thieves seem to know the location of; in other instances, they take whatever appliances they can -TV, computer, leaf blower- anything they could sell. I guess this is a thing- to rob churches.

Missy's killer too stupid to find a leaf blower or something similar nice, which would have been worth the effort and disguise!
I believe, that wasn't, why he was there. He had to work for his money. MOO