TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #30

[SteveS]

Why would a Church have a small coat rack? ?

The question they have to answer isn't really "why," is it?

If they do have one, for any reason they choose, or even for no reason whatsoever, then it's all good. And it's probably an easy issue for LE to resolve, if they feel the need - "Hey, CCoC church people, do you have a coat rack (or a whatcha-ma-doojie) in your front entrance?" One quick call and done.

 

[rodee34]

It doesn't matter, does it? If LE doesn't give info, we ask when can we get some. If they do, it's scoffed at and treated as rubbish. Looks to me like there's not much to be gained by LE, in sharing anything - other than it might give tips to the perp on what they're finding out.

I think I'd keep my info to myself.

You know, as desperate as we are for "updates and information" those alibi's would be ripped to shreds on social media, like many others have been. There are some crazy people out there!

 

[SteveS]

You know, as desperate as we are for "updates and information" those alibi's would be ripped to shreds on social media, like many others have been. There are some crazy people out there!

Yeppers, it's a no-win game for LE. Fortunately for them, Texas law lets them keep all their cards hidden, and snicker at the questions and wondering and speculation by (as they termed it) "Facebook detectives" who get "worked up" over info, if that's what they wanna do. (And usually, it is.)

 

[DeDee]

I think if we try to see things through LE's eyes, is it reasonable or unreasonable to think that they would see a several-months private online "flirty/familiar/intimate" communication as being a "relationship"? I think it's reasonable. So I think there is a basis to presume an external relationship on MB's part, though not necessarily physical.

RSBM for focus

The LinkedIn mystery "creepy" message Missy received three days before her death was, imo, a "warning". This unknown person to us was most likely very well aware of MB and CW using LI for communications. Missy did not heed the "warning". She went to Austin anyway and died when she returned on Monday for CG class.

 

[No it's not]

Except when you break it down to the perspective lines of the 3-dimensional space, then measure each item and subject correctly within that space, the doors do not look so small after all. You have to consider perspective and something called the parallax view - the position of the camera and the items in its line of sight. If the doors along the wall are 84" high, I estimate the gentleman in the blue shirt (back row, right) to be approximately 5'9"-5'10" tall, wearing shoes. See below:

Thanks Bat, that makes good sense! Another indication then of the doors being 84" and not 80". Hmm

-Nin

 

[rodee34]

Why would a Church have a small coat rack? My Church does not have one at all. We wear our outer clothing into the sanctuary. If it becomes too warm inside, we slip our arms ot of them. The gentlemen would never remove their coats. And the ladies would never leave their minks on a dinky coat rack in an outer hallway. A coat rack does not make sense to me. Schools can't even have them due to spreading lice and such creepy crawlers. Which verified insider informed us that it was indeed a coat rack or has it always been a supposition?

Well, someone had asked what that figure was in the photo.. Then someone replied that it was a coat rack, then I said "In the middle of the hallway?" (All paraphrasing..to give you the cliff notes.) I downloaded the pic and lightened it up (didn't repost) and it doesn't really look like a coat rack. To me, it looks more like a person... which does not fit my theory. There must be a good explanation for this object standing in the front of that table. "I" just don't know what it is.

Our church doesn't have a coat rack either. IMO

 

[liz b.]

S/he very well could have had a firearm. There was mention of a firearm's serial number on a request to the Attorney General's office to withhold documents. (I can't retrieve it now since I'm on the iPad.) I noted a specific quote - " In this instance, the responsive information contains a serial number of a firearm which the City sees to withhold under Section 553.108 (b)(1). Release of this serial number could interfere with law enforcement by divulging a firearm serial number that could be used on illegal firearms or be falsely used in a missing weapons report."

The document was brought up here at WS before by... (I think...) Cannonball??? I'm sorry if that's incorrect.

Yes, that outfit was not geared for a quick escape, but it covered everything but the eyeballs. There wouldn't be any scratches resulting in DNA left behind. JMO

Yes, I recall the firearm's serial number issue. As for covering everything but the eyeballs, well, the eyes are often vulnerable in a fight. In a fight for her life, MB would probably have gone for the SP's eyes, or his throat. Thing was, though, SP "ambushed" her, according to LE. So there never was a fight. He might well have left some traces of DNA, but if he's not in any databases in this country, his DNA won't lead to him right now... It's not just that cumbersome costume, the boots don't look like they fit him...what the... was he doing there ?? jmo

 

[GeeEm]

Nothing In The MSM or from LE to indicate either one of them had an "affair" in the physical sense, and MB is the only one we know of specifically with regard to "external relationship(s)". So respectfully, it is not factual to say that BB presumably told investigators about his own affair when there is nothing to back up the existence of one, physical or otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I always wondered if BB told LE he was/had an affair why wasn't that name on the SW?

 

[rodee34]

Yeppers, it's a no-win game for LE. Fortunately for them, Texas law lets them keep all their cards hidden, and snicker at the questions and wondering and speculation by (as they termed it) "Facebook detectives" who get "worked up" over info, if that's what they wanna do. (And usually, it is.)

I'd hate to be in their (LE's) shoes... don't you know they probably sit home with their curtains drawn every night to avoid neighbors. If my husband was in LE, I'd be pestering the heck out of him to get info. (But in my case, I may as well be asking a telephone pole for information.) I hope that FB frenzy stays there. I'm ashamed to say that I look.. if only to feel thankful for this place. :happydance:

 

[SteveS]

S/he very well could have had a firearm. There was mention of a firearm's serial number on a request to the Attorney General's office to withhold documents. (I can't retrieve it now since I'm on the iPad.) I noted a specific quote - "In this instance, the responsive information contains a serial number of a firearm which the City sees to withhold under Section 553.108 (b)(1). Release of this serial number could interfere with law enforcement by divulging a firearm serial number that could be used on illegal firearms or be falsely used in a missing weapons report."

I doubt MB had a gun there, if that's what the idea is being based on in the forum here. I can't tell you for certain if this is how that statement was being used for this case, but that wording is legalese that's typically used to say, "A cop had his gun there and we have to disclose that. But if we give out its SN, it might be forged onto another weapon and cause problems for him and us later on. So you can't have it and we're not giving it out in a FOIA request. If you don't like it, you can sue the State of Texas who says that's our right, and spend your money to battle the Texas AG in court, and good luck with that." And with that, the cop can still carry his gun, and not have to worry about a duplicate showing up with his SN on it.

 

[rodee34]

The LinkedIn mystery "creepy" message Missy received three days before her death was, imo, a "warning". This unknown person to us was most likely very well aware of MB and CW using LI for communications. Missy did not heed the "warning". She went to Austin anyway and died when she returned on Monday for CG class.

Do we know how long the session was in Austin? Like M-F or S&S? I did see on MB's FB page she did have time to go to lunch with a girlfriend and her kiddos one of those days. MAYBE she was the friend that saw the creepy message...? I hate to say that outloud.

 

[Montjoy]

I doubt MB had a gun there, if that's what the idea is being based on in the forum here. I can't tell you for certain if this is how that statement was being used for this case, but that wording is legalese that's typically used to say, "A cop had his gun there and we have to disclose that. But if we give out its SN, it might be forged onto another weapon and cause problems for him and us later on. So you can't have it and we're not giving it out in a FOIA request. If you don't like it, you can sue the State of Texas who says that's our right, and spend your money to battle the Texas AG in court, and good luck with that." And with that, the cop can still carry his gun, and not have to worry about a duplicate showing up with his SN on it.

I don't believe she would have been carrying a gun either. Just speculation, of course, but given the clothing she would likely be wearing before a workout, I don't think she or anyone else in her position would be carrying a gun.

 

[GA_Peach]

I always wondered if BB told LE he was/had an affair why wasn't that name on the SW?

Are you familiar with all of the people listed in the SWs? There is speculation about why a certain female is listed.

 

[GeeEm]

LOL! Whats the shards and pieces tiff? Does it get us any closer to figuring out who SP is? Not sure that it is informative, unless the glass produced DNA of SP. If it did, what is the big delay in an arrest? Otherwise, who cares? Just My Opinion

NOOO! Let's not get on the topic of shards vs shattered lol. Made my brain hurt lol 🤕

 

[GeeEm]

Thanks for the hard work. That's great! For future reference as needed, I'm posting together below your diagram first, and then mine after it, two versions based on the same research. And after a bit of close looking at video and analysis of general church layout, I think the door to room 12 is actually located on the southside hall, about where noted. (It's not important to know, but has been a source of a bit of curiosity previously due to appearing in video.)

Very well done Steve and Bat!

Thanks to all for the hard work you apply in diagrams.

 

[ardenmost]

Are you familiar with all of the people listed in the SWs? There is speculation about why a certain female is listed.

Can you put the list out there again? I'd appreciate that!

 

[rodee34]

I doubt MB had a gun there, if that's what the idea is being based on in the forum here. I can't tell you for certain if this is how that statement was being used for this case, but that wording is legalese that's typically used to say, "A cop had his gun there and we have to disclose that. But if we give out its SN, it might be forged onto another weapon and cause problems for him and us later on. So you can't have it and we're not giving it out in a FOIA request. If you don't like it, you can sue the State of Texas who says that's our right, and spend your money to battle the Texas AG in court, and good luck with that." And with that, the cop can still carry his gun, and not have to worry about a duplicate showing up with his SN on it.

I am probably misunderstanding.. If what you are saying is true.. then anytime LE shows up to a crime scene and has a gun, or draws their firearm, (I'm assuming no shots were fired here by LE) they put the LE serial numbers on a report or document that the public can read? I just find that a hard pill to swallow. (Which I'm not saying that.. at all..) NOT being "snarky" honest.

Edited to add: I don't speak for the forum here.. I don't even know these folks.

 

[wgram]

"corroborated through independent sources", leaves one thinking: Independent = 1

to me it means alibi(s) plural not more than one per alibi. There were more than one alibi and to say they were verified by independent sources means all the alibis.... not just one.

 

[liz b.]

I don't believe she would have been carrying a gun either. Just speculation, of course, but given the clothing she would likely be wearing before a workout, I don't think she or anyone else in her position would be carrying a gun.

I agree, I don't think she carried a gun on that morning. I think SP might have though...jmo

 

[Eloise]

I thought independent sources meant sources not connected to the Bevers.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk