TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #28

[GA_Peach]

Their alibis were independently corroborated. Neither alibi relies on the person in question being alone or unseen by others -- quite the contrary. So to suggest that LE is lying implies that there is a vast conspiracy of silence surrounding RB and BB. I find that totally implausible, and it would be extremely irresponsible for LE to perpetuate such a conspiracy based lie, as it could put the lives of others at risk, since they could presumably refute the alibi and send someone to prison at a moment's notice. So, it is totally implausible, hence unjustifiable.

eta: your theory also would presume that the media are complicit in perpetuating the lie. Perhaps some media might fall for it -- but certainly not all, and the truth would come out, since there are certainly many sources that have corroborated their alibis.

Thank you.

Here is an one possible example that wouldn't constitute a conspiracy and wouldn't involve a lie by police. I am going to use BB as an example because he is the only one for which we have heard details of his alibi. Suppose for a minute that LE checked out his alibi. They independently corroborated that BB was in Biloxi - plane tickets, video of him renting a car, eyewitness accounts of him eating at a restaurant, and so on. They have electronic evidence that his credit card was used there. As they begin pulling the associated video, LE notices that toward the end of his trip that the person using BB's credit card is not BB. However, they still don't have enough information to make an arrest, and they are investigating other avenues in the background. In the meantime, they tell BB his alibi has been corroborated, which is technically true, to give him a false sense of security.

This type of scenario could apply to anyone's alibi. To be clear, I am not stating that this happened or is what I expect to happen in this case. I simply think that LE stating that the alibis have been independently corroborated doesn't mean that anyone is in the clear. For as few words as LE has spoken to the public, they have made that point abundantly clear.

 

[SteveS]

This was the point I was making above. This seems to be a theme in this case. What are the reasons?

The theme in this case, imo, is that whatever LE says, people here don't want to believe. And then they want to complain that LE isn't saying anything, and that the info is all over the lot and conflicting/confusing. Except, LE says plenty (if you just listen to what they say) and it isn't conflicting at all (if you accept that they aren't out here to feed the public a bunch of BS). Any lack of info and confusion only exists imo where people think they know more than LE and want to believe that LE has some sort of game they're playing with the public.

I see a case where
1 BB and RB and the others have been checked out by LE, who have found that they were legitimately out of town, and have so far found nothing to indicate any involvement
2 A disclaimer saying "Until Missy's killer is caught, I will stop short of saying that any person is absolutely excluded" is nothing more than a broad cautionary disclaimer in light of the fact the perp hasn't been identified and caught
3 A perp who is 5-2 to 5-7
4 The church exterior cams were not working that night, as they've said every time
5 A helpful exterior shot may exist from some other source than the church exterior cams
6 Pressers following the same sort of routine as most cases do, used to shared a bit and also keep the case in the news, but little more

 

[Kamy]

Respectfully, you are wrong on your assumptions about LE on Chambers case. He was NOT on radar until his DNA from his second killing was put in the Codis database and got a match on Chambers perp DNA.

This is a prime example of how LE can and will say and/do anything they wish whether truthful or not. Know any lawyers? Any investigators? Any LE? Deceitfulness helps them solve crimes. It's part of their tools. I'll never comprehend why some people believe 100% fact just because the law said it.

Correct, thank you. I went back and reread because I knew LE never had QT on their radar in the Jessica C case. That was the first case I followed
here everyday. I even posted my first post in that thread for sentimental reasons, it just seemed appropriate. I'll never forget that sweet girl. :rose:
But I digress:

LE's first responsibility is to find the perp and in doing that they have 2 things to keep in mind. Respect for the victim's family and constantly
being mindful that anything they say or do is possibly being watched by the perp.

The public nor the media don't get to know the real scoop/story until they have an arrest. Even then its usually during the trial that all the
details are revealed. Until then I completely understand why LE sits on certain info - like releasing the 911 calls.
If releasing those calls could jeopardize their investigation or case then I say sit on them, same thing if there are any
SWs that aren't 'released or anything they are keeping under wraps. We will find out soon enough.

I actually find it encouraging they have info they are sitting on, IMO that means they have info that may help find the SP. lease:

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
Respectfully but isn't that the same as BB did? CW and others on the SW? zipped up their social media pages? Couple have JMHO.

So, maybe CW, BB and CT all have legal representation. If I was named in a SW as a communicator with a homicide victim, you better bet I would have an Esq.
Justice for MB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just saying people pull out one person does this or that.. when actually there are lots more doing same as one everyone implying. And as I have stated prior, after following cases and reading lots of legal stuff. Praying I never in the situation but you darn well better now, Mimi getting a lawyer no matter what.

 

[GA_Peach]

The theme in this case, imo, is that whatever LE says, people here don't want to believe. And then they want to complain that LE isn't saying anything, and that the info is all over the lot and conflicting/confusing. Except, LE says plenty (if you just listen to what they say) and it isn't conflicting at all (if you accept that they aren't out here to feed the public a bunch of BS). Any lack of info and confusion only exists imo where people think they know more than LE and want to believe that LE has some sort of game they're playing with the public.

I see a case where
1 BB and RB and the others have been checked out by LE, who have found that they were legitimately out of town, and have so far found nothing to indicate any involvement
2 A disclaimer saying "Until Missy's killer is caught, I will stop short of saying that any person is absolutely excluded" is nothing more than a broad cautionary disclaimer in light of the fact the perp hasn't been identified and caught
3 A perp who is 5-2 to 5-7
4 The church exterior cams were not working that night, as they've said every time
5 A helpful exterior shot may exist from some other source than the church exterior cams
6 Pressers following the same sort of routine as most cases do, used to shared a bit and also keep the case in the news, but little more

Given statement #1 above, do you believe that SP is not tied to any of the people listed in the SWs?

 

[RANCH]

Thank you.

Here is an one possible example that wouldn't constitute a conspiracy and wouldn't involve a lie by police. I am going to use BB as an example because he is the only one for which we have heard details of his alibi. Suppose for a minute that LE checked out his alibi. They independently corroborated that BB was in Biloxi - plane tickets, video of him renting a car, eyewitness accounts of him eating at a restaurant, and so on. They have electronic evidence that his credit card was used there. As they begin pulling the associated video, LE notices that toward the end of his trip that the person using BB's credit card is not BB. However, they still don't have enough information to make an arrest, and they are investigating other avenues in the background. In the meantime, they tell BB his alibi has been corroborated, which is technically true, to give him a false sense of security.

This type of scenario could apply to anyone's alibi. To be clear, I am not stating that this happened or is what I expect to happen in this case. I simply think that LE stating that the alibis have been independently corroborated doesn't mean that anyone is in the clear. For as few words as LE has spoken to the public, they have made that point abundantly clear.

Sounds like you're saying someone could have conspired with BB by impersonating him to give him a false alibi.

Still a conspiracy. And not a very likely scenario. JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Thank you.

Here is an one possible example that wouldn't constitute a conspiracy and wouldn't involve a lie by police. I am going to use BB as an example because he is the only one for which we have heard details of his alibi. Suppose for a minute that LE checked out his alibi. They independently corroborated that BB was in Biloxi - plane tickets, video of him renting a car, eyewitness accounts of him eating at a restaurant, and so on. They have electronic evidence that his credit card was used there. As they begin pulling the associated video, LE notices that toward the end of his trip that the person using BB's credit card is not BB. However, they still don't have enough information to make an arrest, and they are investigating other avenues in the background. In the meantime, they tell BB his alibi has been corroborated, which is technically true, to give him a false sense of security.

This type of scenario could apply to anyone's alibi. To be clear, I am not stating that this happened or is what I expect to happen in this case. I simply think that LE stating that the alibis have been independently corroborated doesn't mean that anyone is in the clear. For as few words as LE has spoken to the public, they have made that point abundantly clear.

Why would they lie to him? Why would they lie to everyone involved? I think this sounds like another conspiracy theory.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Yes. I speculate several of them do. If you got a search warrant for your stuff on a potential death-penalty case, wouldn't you? Some have now opened some parts but not others. I can almost guarantee you that decision was made with the guidance of counsel.

Respectfully, if you change your profile picture on FB, that is public, that is not an option. So that is not opening some parts up. The lady fb is private and we are not suppose to be talking about it anymore per Mods and Tricia. Whether they have an attorney or not, I do not blame them for locking up their Social Media, everyone stalking them and posting every thing all over fb/twitter and so forth. All of them are not involved so there are innocent people being accused and that is scary. JMHO

 

[GA_Peach]

Sounds like you're saying someone could have conspired with BB by impersonating him to give him a false alibi.

Still a conspiracy. And not a very likely scenario. JMO

Just to be clear, I am not saying that anyone conspired with BB to give him a false alibi. I am stating that a false alibi (by any person questioned by LE) is one possibility in this case.

There has been much discussion about whether or not a hit man was involved in this case. A hit man would definitely involve a conspiracy and could likely involve a false alibi. A false alibi would become increasingly likely if the hit man was a recruited friend/relative rather than a professional. We have also wondered why the FBI is involved. Murder for hire is one reason that the FBI may be called in. Money laundering is another.

 

[GA_Peach]

Why would they lie to him? Why would they lie to everyone involved? I think this sounds like another conspiracy theory.

If this was a murder for hire, they need to investigate the entire web. They don't want to show their hand and let some members of the plot slip away. Yes, hiring (or recruiting) a person to commit a murder is a conspiracy.

 

[Kamy]

I guess its just me but I watch ID channel everyday. I see Detectives use their words carefully and let people and suspects ASSume
or think whatever they want. They imply and use omission to get the suspect to feel pressure or think they have more on him/her than they do.

In interrogations they can outright lie to the suspect to get them to confess and thats legal.

And BTW, GA_Peach said "example" and just posted a "possible scenario"....and again, if you watch the ID channel that crazy scenario is not out
of the realm of possibility...there are some crazy people out there. They are the exception to the rule (Occam's Razor).

 

[RANCH]

Just to be clear, I am not saying that anyone conspired with BB to give him a false alibi. I am stating that a false alibi (by any person questioned by LE) is one possibility in this case.

There has been much discussion about whether or not a hit man was involved in this case. A hit man would definitely involve a conspiracy and could likely involve a false alibi. We have also wondered why the FBI has been brought in. Murder for hire is one reason that the FBI may be called in. Money laundering is another.

I don't think that BB has a false alibi. LE wouldn't lie to the public about that. JMO

 

[Montjoy]

Thank you.

Here is an one possible example that wouldn't constitute a conspiracy and wouldn't involve a lie by police. I am going to use BB as an example because he is the only one for which we have heard details of his alibi. Suppose for a minute that LE checked out his alibi. They independently corroborated that BB was in Biloxi - plane tickets, video of him renting a car, eyewitness accounts of him eating at a restaurant, and so on. They have electronic evidence that his credit card was used there. As they begin pulling the associated video, LE notices that toward the end of his trip that the person using BB's credit card is not BB. However, they still don't have enough information to make an arrest, and they are investigating other avenues in the background. In the meantime, they tell BB his alibi has been corroborated, which is technically true, to give him a false sense of security.

This type of scenario could apply to anyone's alibi. To be clear, I am not stating that this happened or is what I expect to happen in this case. I simply think that LE stating that the alibis have been independently corroborated doesn't mean that anyone is in the clear. For as few words as LE has spoken to the public, they have made that point abundantly clear.

To me, this seems even more implausible, presuming some extremely slipshod LE work, and ultimately more contingent upon totally incompetent, Keystone cops. Given all the agencies involved, I don't buy it at all.

And what would be the possible benefit of the 'false sense of security' here? That sounds like something from an old TV show.

I recognize that you've implied that you're playing devil's advocate here, but to what end, really? In my opinion, it just seems like a way to make the suspicion against BB and RB seem less illegitimate.

 

[GA_Peach]

To me, this seems even more implausible, presuming some extremely slipshod LE work, and ultimately more contingent upon totally incompetent, Keystone cops. Given all the agencies involved, I don't buy it at all.

And what would be the possible benefit of the 'false sense of security' here? That sounds like something from an old TV show.

I recognize that you've implied that you're playing devil's advocate here, but to what end, really? In my opinion, it just seems like a way to make the suspicion against BB and RB seem less illegitimate.

I think that a false alibi fits very well in a murder for hire scenario. It's not slipshod LE work. It's LE identifying ALL of the players before anyone knows that LE even has an inkling of what really happened.

The false sense of security would allow LE to identify and gather evidence on ALL of the relevant parties.

I don't think that murder for hire (or recruitment) is a stretch in this case.

 

[GA_Peach]

I guess its just me but I watch ID channel everyday. I see Detectives use their words carefully and let people and suspects ASSume
or think whatever they want. They imply and use omission to get the suspect to feel pressure or think they have more on him/her than they do.

In interrogations they can outright lie to the suspect to get them to confess and thats legal.

And BTW, GA_Peach said "example" and just posted a "possible scenario"....and again, if you watch the ID channel that crazy scenario is not out
of the realm of possibility...there are some crazy people out there. They are the exception to the rule (Occam's Razor).

BBM

I just get an extremely strong sense that is what is happening in this case. MOO

 

[bluesneakers]

To me, this seems even more implausible, presuming some extremely slipshod LE work, and ultimately more contingent upon totally incompetent, Keystone cops. Given all the agencies involved, I don't buy it at all.

And what would be the possible benefit of the 'false sense of security' here? That sounds like something from an old TV show.

I recognize that you've implied that you're playing devil's advocate here, but to what end, really? In my opinion, it just seems like a way to make the suspicion against BB and RB seem less illegitimate.

BBM
I agree. All the what ifs and maybes somehow implying it's possible but not really. I don't get the point. It feels like it's just shy of naming him a suspect. Why? I also think it's not possible LE is lying about his alibi, and giving anyone a false sense of security means he's going to do what exactly? Think it's okay to call his (non-existent) false alibi buddy or send an email to the hitman?

JMO

 

[RANCH]

I think that a false alibi fits very well in a murder for hire scenario. It's not slipshod LE work. It's LE identifying ALL of the players before anyone knows that LE even has an inkling of what really happened.

The false sense of security would allow LE to identify and gather evidence on ALL of the relevant parties.

I don't think that murder for hire (or recruitment) is a stretch in this case.

I don't understand why someone would hire a killer so they wouldn't have to do the killing and then create a false alibi. Where would they be? They're not at the killing because they hired someone to do it.

Did they go to the movies? I don't get it. JMO

 

[GA_Peach]

I don't understand why someone would hire a killer so they wouldn't have to do the killing and then create a false alibi. Where would they be? They're not at the killing because they hired someone to do it.

Did they go to the movies? I don't get it. JMO

They don't hire a killer. They recruit a friend or family do their dirty work. They then provide alibis for one other. They cover all of their bases.

And I respectfully ask that you delete your comment where you state that I think RB/BB are suspects. I never said that.

ETA - They would provide alibis for each other because all parties involved in the hit wanted MB gone. They were looking out for each other, kwim?

 

[Montjoy]

They don't hire a professional hit man. They recruit a friend or family do their dirty work. They then provide alibis for one other. They cover all of their bases.

rsbm --

I think as soon as you get someone else to kill someone for you, that someone else becomes a 'professional hit man'. And this case does not look like the work of a sloppy psychopath -- it was well thought out. So if it wasn't personal, it was someone doing a job: a professional.

eta: I don't see any reason to think it was a hit man/woman, but I won't dismiss the possibility.

 

[bluesneakers]

They don't hire a professional hit man. They recruit a friend or family do their dirty work. They then provide alibis for one other. They cover all of their bases.

And I respectfully ask that you delete your comment where you state that I think RB/BB are suspects. I never said that.

Maybe not directly, but you keep using BB in your examples. Why?

"If they are so sure that RB and BB are not involved, why not just clear them?"

^ IMO that's an indirect way to suggest BB's alibi is "false" because he hasn't been officially cleared.