TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #25

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure how/if Mr B lawyering up would prevent release of cell phone data. Didn't LE get SW for Mr B's cell pronto-quick-ASAP-stat? Then laws re SW & returns would apply. Why/how would ct seal to prevent release of that data? I may be confused.



FWIW, IIRC, on day of her death LE got SW for Ms B's cell & other e-goodies belonging to her - laptop, etc.

Respectfully only SW we are privy to have been released. Having said that, When they did the Probable Cause Affidavit on April 25, it states :
<snip>
Throughout the course of this MURDER investigation, evidence has been recovered from
electronic data extractions performed on Brandon Bevers (husband) and Ms. Bevers
personal electronic devices (lphones and an lpad). This extracted information has
provided officers with potential persons of interest "Target Numbers" based on the
nature of the communications (text, messages, and recovered deleted messages)
between Ms. Bevers and the above "Target Numbers". A portion of these messages (as
well as deleted messages) recovered indicate and confirm statement and tips provided
to officers of an ongoing financial and marital struggle as well as intimate/personal
relationship(s) external to the marriage with identified "Target Numbers".

On Thurs April 21, MT stated in an interview (link and quote below) So I wonder if they had a SW or if he signed something giving permission? And if this is the "one and only Formal interview BB spoke of iirc it was during the April 27 Dry Cleaner press Conf

“ said Tucker. "I know that they have questioned him, looked at their phones."
Missy Bevers' mother-in-law is speaking out after the 45-year-old woman was found killed in a Midlothian church Monday morning. (Published Thursday, April 21, 2016) <<*** this video is withing the article. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Sl...ster-in-Law-Speaks-to-Dateline-376629821.html

**Side note, KS wants to look Suspect in eyes and for the Suspect to die, while BB and MT will forgive, MT because of her faith, BB has conditions on his forgiveness
 
I've come to the conclusion that MPD has run out of ideas. I really have.

June 3, 2016 6:35 pm
"Detectives say they are stymied in their investigation into the murder of a fitness instructor in Midlothian"

Was this on Nancy Grace or did you read the statement somewhere else? Thx.
 
Link would not open- is this an old interview and if possible, can you let us know initials for who is speaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its the FB article : FOX 4 News
20 hrs ·
Midlothian police are waiting for the results to confirm that the blood found on an XL woman's shirt was from a Chihuahua and link to story given. http://bit.ly/1VCCxmE

MT the family member
 
Batbrat - first - Kudos for such excellent work. I'm really curious though - can you tell us how you determined the thickness of the individual or the padding at the areas I've highlighted below

attachment.php

Yes I can. Hopefully.

Just want to start by saying I've worked as a medical and technical illustrator, so I have a thorough knowledge base with regards to anatomy. So in this technique, determining the general body size/shape is basically a tedious process of elimination.

This is a lot of words, so bear with me. A normal human body accumulates mass and volume in predictable or specific ways. For instance, muscles are limited in placement and (somewhat) in size. You will never see a muscle bulging out from the front of the knee and upper shin, for instance. By the same token, you'll rarely see a bulge of fat on the back of the knee (on an otherwise average-sized person). The knee has to bend, so fat rarely accumulates on the interior of joints. So that's the basics. Taking it further, you have to analyze a larger sequence of the video. Isolating one frame can be misleading, but if you study the sequence of video frame by frame, there will occasionally be a frame where the subject turns or moves in a way that allows the costume to either hug a body part, or pull away slightly, revealing a small area of the actual body shape beneath. These are "data points". They become fixed. That means, if one frame shows the fabric hugging the the calf, the calf is now that size, and so now I know that the same subject in every other frame contains a calf that same size, no matter how much fabric appears to conceal it. It can be smaller of course, but not bigger. In other words, the subject won't have an average sized calf in three frames, then grow a bulging calf in all the other frames. For this reason, since the technique is subtractive, the data points containing the smallest diameter of each body part become fixed. The subject's weight and body part size do not fluctuate frame to frame. He is limited to the smallest size determined by the fixed data points from a longer sequence. Additionally, the human body is symmetrical, so where one calf is a fixed size, so becomes the other.

Okay so to address your question and diagram. The area at the upper/outer portion of the thigh is not an area that normally accumulates fat or mass when a person is otherwise of average size. Someone with a massive bulge in that area would likely be either very muscular (or obese) overall. Likewise, the lower back does not typically accumulate so much fat that it bulges out over the buttocks. There are exceptions, of course. But as I stated above with the "data points" thing, there are frames where the back of the vest hugs more closely to the subject, and you can clearly see there is no bulging above the buttocks. The same can be said for the belly fat. Frames in the sequence show very little to no bulge, and in a later sequence of the video show the front bulge to be sitting too high on the torso to be a gut. I concluded it was bulging vest pockets, not a gut. Now, there may be more of a "love handle" silhouette to the sides than I've indicated, but from my anatomical knowledge, it's my opinion they are unlikely to be of any significant size, since there is less fat accumulation in other areas of the body and torso.

So the shorter answer is if you isolate just this one single frame, there could very well be body weight on those areas. But... when you take the video as a whole, frame by frame, and try to make that weight sit on the body in each and every frame, it simply won't work. Because some frames that bulk shifts, moves, or loses volume, and that's not how fat and muscles work. But it is how padding and fabric work.

Hopefully that answered your question. Don't ever hesitate to ask!
 
ATF was present, but that's a local K-9 and officer from the Red Oak police department. The Dallas Morning News correctly reported this on April 21st or 22nd, but other news outlets didn't give due diligence and assumed it was an ATF dog. It keeps getting reported incorrectly here, so I wanted to update you.

I believe you're mistaken on this, Honeybee85. It was ATF K9 Titan and his handler Special Agent Kaase.

https://youtu.be/2EZ1AIxg78M

image.jpg

https://www.atf.gov/about/k9/titan
 
Really- that's why I love to sleuth and WS. Speculating on the information is useful and for other cases LE does come to these forums. Not saying we will solve the case, and I think I get your point too- but I wouldn't be here but to try to get justice for MB and to feel like "maybe we do contribute" to the solutions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL unless we have something that LE doesn't nope we aren't going to solve it. JMHO. I love the puzzle and research part, but unless someone is involved in the actual case or know the Suspect, (then their views tend to be bias one way or other) I honestly don't think WE will solve it or any case. JMHO. But I love following cases. *Side note, I know for a fact LE and Media both come to this Websleuths Site. ;)
 
Yes I can. Hopefully.

Just want to start by saying I've worked as a medical and technical illustrator, so I have a thorough knowledge base with regards to anatomy. So in this technique, determining the general body size/shape is basically a tedious process of elimination.

This is a lot of words, so bear with me. A normal human body accumulates mass and volume in predictable or specific ways. For instance, muscles are limited in placement and (somewhat) in size. You will never see a muscle bulging out from the front of the knee and upper shin, for instance. By the same token, you'll rarely see a bulge of fat on the back of the knee (on an otherwise average-sized person). The knee has to bend, so fat rarely accumulates on the interior of joints. So that's the basics. Taking it further, you have to analyze a larger sequence of the video. Isolating one frame can be misleading, but if you study the sequence of video frame by frame, there will occasionally be a frame where the subject turns or moves in a way that allows the costume to either hug a body part, or pull away slightly, revealing a small area of the actual body shape beneath. These are "data points". They become fixed. That means, if one frame shows the fabric hugging the the calf, the calf is now that size, and so now I know that the same subject in every other frame contains a calf that same size, no matter how much fabric appears to conceal it. It can be smaller of course, but not bigger. In other words, the subject won't have an average sized calf in three frames, then grow a bulging calf in all the other frames. For this reason, since the technique is subtractive, the data points containing the smallest diameter of each body part become fixed. The subject's weight and body part size do not fluctuate frame to frame. He is limited to the smallest size determined by the fixed data points from a longer sequence. Additionally, the human body is symmetrical, so where one calf is a fixed size, so becomes the other.

Okay so to address your question and diagram. The area at the upper/outer portion of the thigh is not an area that normally accumulates fat or mass when a person is otherwise of average size. Someone with a massive bulge in that area would likely be either very muscular (or obese) overall. Likewise, the lower back does not typically accumulate so much fat that it bulges out over the buttocks. There are exceptions, of course. But as I stated above with the "data points" thing, there are frames where the back of the vest hugs more closely to the subject, and you can clearly see there is no bulging above the buttocks. The same can be said for the belly fat. Frames in the sequence show very little to no bulge, and in a later sequence of the video show the front bulge to be sitting too high on the torso to be a gut. I concluded it was bulging vest pockets, not a gut. Now, there may be more of a "love handle" silhouette to the sides than I've indicated, but from my anatomical knowledge, it's my opinion they are unlikely to be of any significant size, since there is less fat accumulation in other areas of the body and torso.

So the shorter answer is if you isolate just this one single frame, there could very well be body weight on those areas. But... when you take the video as a whole, frame by frame, and try to make that weight sit on the body in each and every frame, it simply won't work. Because some frames that bulk shifts, moves, or loses volume, and that's not how fat and muscles work. But it is how padding and fabric work.

Hopefully that answered your question. Don't ever hesitate to ask!

Thanks for your response...just from viewing that surveillance video though umpteen times - to me it appears the killer has larger thighs. And in some frames the pants even appear to be too tight.

thighs 3.jpg


thighs 4.jpg


thighs 6.jpg
 
ITA, and it seems pretty obvious that LE does not want any help from the public. :(

Lead Investigator in Beverly Carters murder stated on the witness stand when asked about tips (by Def Attorney)Investigator said "well we had a psychic fly in from CA.." lol OBJECTION and break for lunch iirc ... I sure they do need tips when they ask for them, but Lord only knows what they have to wade through, losing valuable time on crazies :shame: and if they miss something.. the Def will probably bring it up (they get all that stuff in Discovery)
 
Are the locals afraid? I know I would be at a new level of paranoid!!!
 
Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
Respectfully, Its ok. As I said we can agree to disagree. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just going by what MPD says and documents and timeline of those documents. They know more about this than any of us do. LE has facts, Suspect has facts...unless your one of those or someone who one of those gave factual info, will be only one who knows what is what.

None of us (public) are going to "solve this case" all we can do is discuss information released by LE and MSM

didn't mean for you to blush. Just knew if you agreed it would be a slam dunk. And I respect your opinion! (even when it differs from mine.) &#128538;

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

How kind of you. But I am no different than anyone else here. Thats why I said I not trying to convince anyone of anything. I do not have all the facts. But ones we have, and try to think of think logical about lol Keep doing what you do, you could very well be on right path. I will be first to send you a virtual high 5 !
 
Ok. Thank you.

BUT, the other dog present on scene (but I don't know if brought out of the vehicle) is Remy. He tracks people, their scent trails, etc.

One more correction I need to make: I said Red Oak PD. It was Midlothian PD K-9 on scene.
 
ATF was present, but that's a local K-9 and officer from the Red Oak police department. The Dallas Morning News correctly reported this on April 21st or 22nd, but other news outlets didn't give due diligence and assumed it was an ATF dog. It keeps getting reported incorrectly here, so I wanted to update you.

Haven't gotten to the next pages yet so forgive me if this has been posted already - but SpanishInquisition's post in Thread 1 provides a government link showing that Titan, while a local dog, is an ATF dog specifically used for bomb-sniffing and gun residue sniffing (see government ATF link about "Titan" in the post):

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-gear-18-April-2016-1&p=12483140#post12483140

I can see how with all the agencies involved, it might be easy to confuse which agency he belongs to, though. Here are a couple other news sources I have for that ATF dog info (if interested):

One federal agency confirmed Wednesday night they&#8217;re assisting in the case. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) local bomb sniffing dog &#8220;Titan&#8221; and his Agent have searched the building and grounds of the church. Some clues &#8220;Titan&#8221; could hit on are cast off gun casings and gun residue. Officials didn&#8217;t say whether or not the dog provided any breaks in the case.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/04/20/creekside-churchs-exterior-cameras-off-day-of-midlothian-murder/

On Wednesday, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were on the premises with a local bomb-sniffing dog named "Titan" who searched the building and grounds of the church. Officials said the dog was searching for gun casings and gun residue, among other possible clues. They did not say if the dog found anything related to the case.

https://60minutes.com/news/cameras-outside-texas-church-not-working-on-day-of-terri-bevers-murder/

ETA: ah, and now I see scout up above also posted! Sorry for the redundancy!
 
Are the locals afraid? I know I would be at a new level of paranoid!!!

I believe that she was targeted....but if I knew why and it involved criminal activity knowledge, I'd be really paranoid if I had an inkling of it. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
98
Guests online
2,614
Total visitors
2,712

Forum statistics

Threads
602,015
Messages
18,133,296
Members
231,207
Latest member
ragnimom
Back
Top