TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #31

[Scout]

I'm going to say this- at 51 years of age I know personally quite a few people who have had affairs. Of each one of them I know not one that I know of has had only 1 affair. The people I know have had multiple affairs, if not many. Just saying, take it for what it's worth. Anyone else want to chime in here?

It happens quite often. Men and women are both susceptible to mid-life crisis, particularly when reaching a certain age coincides with a significant loss. In Missy's case, the timing of her intense interest in fitness and the known affair appear to have coincided with the death of her daddy.

 

[liz b.]

Hello, folks.

I haven't read or posted on Missy's threads for a few weeks, but I read something in the news today that we kinda-sorta discussed way back when. I bring it up as a POSSIBILITY, though it does seem far-fetched, I admit.

It's POSSIBLE the perp was a gamer. There is a story in the news today about a teenager who was playing some sort of game online that involves exploring in real-life places...and she ended up finding a dead body. (The teen was not involved with any crime - she was innocently playing a game and finding the body seems to be a coincidence.)

Maybe, just maybe, the perp was playing some sort of augmented-reality/fantasy game. Whether the murder was part of the game or not, I don't know, but I would assume no.

Here's the story I read today that reminded me of theories tossed around on Missy's case: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-body-river-playing-pokemon-article-1.2704983

FWIW, I think perp knew Missy personally (or had some sort of connection) and was not a gamer, but it might be worth considering a far-fetched theory now and then.

TY for posting this. I had thought of SP being a gamer too. I wondered if he was acting out a video game, especially as he seemed to creep along the corridor,touching the wall. Even wondered if there was another gamer in the church with him., and if he was wearing any kind of virtual reality headset...jmo

 

[ardenmost]

I'm confused about all of the posts that suggest that it's impossible for BB and friend to drive the rental car home in the allotted time. Like you say, they did arrive in the rental car so they did do it. JMO.

It's possible they were not even starting back to Midlothian from where BB stated they did. They could have been closer. Besides, who IS the other person? Or DID another person drive him home? Just questions to ponder to help rule things in/out of the case....

 

[Batbrat]

Respectfully, this really doesn't make sense, in relation to this case, to try to theorize that a car traveled from Biloxi area to Red Oak/Ovilla area from 7 am to 3 pm that Monday, but BB wasn't in it during the drive, yet drove into his driveway in it.

It probably won't make sense to someone who believes BB's alibi. Those folks will take him at his word that he was in a car, rented by his friend, traveling from Biloxi to Red Oak from 7am to 3pm on Monday. They'll assume he was in the car the whole time as it drove straight on through to his driveway. I have no problem with that.

We were discussing possible discrepancies in the travel timeline. My reply to Chuck regarding his expertise on travel timelines was that was yes, you can track that car and prove the car did make that trip, exactly as it was reported. But my point was that while you can verify a car's speed, location, mileage to the tick, that still doesn't mean that the person claiming to be a passenger in that car was actually a passenger for the entirety of the trip (or even at all until it arrived in Red Oak). That we don't know for certain - we're just assuming that's what happened. Since BB didn't drive the car, and there are reports that he did not rent the car himself, it is not completely outside the realm of possibility that he was not actually in the car during the entire trip. I'm not saying that's what happened at all. I'm simply stating that sure, one can eliminate discrepancies in the vehicle travel aspect of the alibi, but it still doesn't necessarily place that particular passenger in that vehicle.

LE has corroborated that BB was in Biloxi area at the time of the murder, early on Monday.

Hmm. That's not my understanding. If you have a quote from LE that confirms BB was in Biloxi at the exact time of the murder, I'd love to see it.

So (a) why an elaborate ruse to disguise his travel afterwards,

Answering in case you're actually asking. This is completely hypothetical, because I have no evidence whatsoever that BB was not, in fact, in Biloxi at the time of the murder. But hypothetically, if he weren't... say, if for whatever reason he traveled back to Midlothian very shortly after he arrived in Biloxi, then there might be a need to create a ruse placing him elsewhere at the time of his wife's murder.

and (b) how would he have otherwise been able to arrive in Red Oak/Ovilla area in the car at 3 pm that left Biloxi area that morning?

He would have presumably (if we're following my hypothetical above), already been in the area of Red Oak when the car arrived at 3pm. If not in Red Oak, then perhaps somewhere further east (Shreveport?), where he could have been picked up by the driver in the tracked rental car as it traveled through from the Biloxi area.

Of course this is all complete speculation and there isn't a shred of evidence supporting or disproving that hypothetical. It's also my opinion that the scenario starts to get overly complicated and involves too many people. But it's not impossible and there's no reason folks shouldn't be able to discuss it as a possibility. We have LE statements that independent sources have corroborated BB's fishing trip alibi - something I think all of us acknowledge. But until we have official word that he is cleared, or actual evidence proving he was where he said he was at the time of the murder, some of us might think and wonder about how his alibi fits together and if anyone else was a part of that alibi.

 

[observation]

It's possible they were not even starting back to Midlothian from where BB stated they did. They could have been closer. Besides, who IS the other person? Or DID another person drive him home? Just questions to ponder to help rule things in/out of the case....

I'm certain that this friend wants to protect their privacy. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GA_Peach]

Here is why I asked about the video and what we thought, if there wasn’t any indoor surveillance tape:

Without the tape this would almost certainly look like an interrupted burglary. Some would come up with the theory of a targeted hit. I think it wouldn’t be that many.

What we would not know without the tape:

• · We would not see the individual all dressed up in a police-uniform-like outfit toe to head.
• · We would not know how much time the perp had spent inside the church.
• · We would not notice their calm wandering around swinging their hammer.
• · We would not observe just 1 individual (supposedly).
• · We would not have seen the type of tools the perp was carrying and how he was utilizing them.
• · We would not have noticed a strange object in the perp’s left hand.
• · We would not know about the perp’s (most likely) handedness.
• · We would not have noticed their characteristic gait.
• · We would not consider any possible ankle/foot/leg/hip injury or weakness.
• · We would (most likely)not debate about the gender.
• · We would most likely not debate, whether the perp was familiar with the church’s layout or not.
• · We would most likely not even debate the layout (just the entry/ exit point and the immediate crimescene)

Mathematically seen, the video is actually against the perp. So much more we are privy to than without the tape. So, why the risk? What happened here?

The perp either did not know the outdoor surveillance camera(s) were not functioning, in which case he would most likely not be affiliated in any way with the church. He could be a local or an out-of-towner.

Or, he would have been privy to the fact, that the outside cams had been malfunctioning (for a while now, as reported by MLPD during the presser), in which case he may be a church member/ local, or an out-of-towner being informed about the detail by another individual.

The one group, that may have access to either information (outside cams malfunctioning/ inside surveillance/ motion detector operated system active and operative) without involvement of a third party would be church-members.

Consequently any other group would require insider knowledge in order to know about the malfunctioning cams.

Then we have of course the option, that it did not play a role to the perp, whether the outdoor cams were working or not. This is the most feasible possibility to me, as it covers any group of individuals. It would also support the theory, that the perp realized there were surveillance cameras inside the building.

So what does that mean? It means several things to me, MOO, IMO etc


1. The burglary aspect does not make much sense for all the points being discussed ad nauseam over 31 threads, one main reason being against such burglary that the individual did not go straight to the offices (signage outside and inside the church) trying to gain access to any stored funds/tithings, IMO. Would a burglary still be possible? Yes. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish burglary? No.


2.If this was a targeted (paid) hit, the video camera recorded a lot of characteristics of the perp despite the cover. How could the killer be so sure about what LE would have on him in the end or not? There are other ways much more efficient and less risky. If this was a hit for hire, I am almost certain the perp had a look-out, a driver, an accomplice. Would it be possible? Yes. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish hit? Possibly so. Yes.


3. If this was a revenge killing (lover, spouse, camper, somebody’s BF), a hate crime (hate-group, church member), a drug or money related crime ( victim was witness of illegal activity, was involved, victim needed to be eliminated due to money/insurance etc.) then the individual could be highly motivated and could operate by her/himself. That individual would be close to the victim and may be privy to last minute decisions of the victim. That individual would also most likely be familiar with the church and the layout thereof. Would this be possible? Yes. Would a police outfit be needed to accomplish the deed? Possibly so. Yes.


To me option 2 and 3 are making the most sense mathematically speaking. If the perp was some LE –hate- infatuated individual, option 1 could still apply. Then the perp was in for vandalism and not necessarily burglary. However, a burglar could not be sure about what LE may have on them and they would be charged with an additional impersonating a police officer if caught, so, not sure about it. All IMO.


Therefore I am still opting for 2 and 3.


What are your thoughts?


-Nin

Nin, let me start out by saying that I always appreciate your posts. You ask great questions and have wonderful insight. I hope that I am one day as proficient at sleuthing as you are.

I agree with the first part of your analysis, but unfortunately I do think that the condition of MB's body and the associated wounds would have eventually led LE away from a botched B&E scenario. However, the most valuable time for an investigation would have been squandered. Even with the video evidence, LE originally suspected a B&E so I can only imagine how long they would have continued down that road without the video. Perhaps, SP thought the cameras inside the church were malfunctioning as well. MOO

I am in the options 2 and 3 camp as well. For a long time, I thought that a "paid" hit likely translated to a "recruited" hit. I had thought that the hit person would have been someone close to the person who ordered the hit. The hit person would have done this as a favor to the organizer since the organizer would have the immediate attention of LE. The hit would put (a) further degree(s) of separation between the MB and the organizer. However, I am stepping back a bit from this theory, and it would take very little evidence to convince me that this was actually a paid hit. My biggest drawback to the paid hit theory still remains - a professional hit man would seem to have a different MO. I would imagine a professional would rather use a few well-placed shots than a tool consistent with what we see SP carrying on the video. MOO

IMO, scenario 3 is the most likely. However, I am not convinced that SP acted alone. I do believe that there was at least one accomplice... a planner, a driver, a lookout, an alibi enhancer, or a physical helper. As for the motives you mention, I could be convinced of any of them with the right evidence.

 

[RANCH]

It's possible they were not even starting back to Midlothian from where BB stated they did. They could have been closer. Besides, who IS the other person? Or DID another person drive him home? Just questions to ponder to help rule things in/out of the case....

I don't see how it's possible for them to not be where they said they where and have LE say that BB's alibi was corroborated. JMO

 

[observation]

From Sparky's black and white photo here:

I enlarged it here- no photo shop just zoomed in here:

Who are you????



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ardenmost]

I don't see how it's possible for them to not be where they said they where and have LE say that BB's alibi was corroborated. JMO

Perhaps they had separate rooms and the friend was able to provide verbal verification that he had been with BB on Sunday.

 

[RANCH]

I'm certain that this friend wants to protect their privacy. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's very understandable to me why the friend wish's to remain anonymous. If his identity was made public I bet that there would be all sorts of wild theory's being made about him.

He's being questioned on this thread without anything being known about him. JMO

 

[ardenmost]

Perhaps they had separate rooms and the friend was able to provide verbal verification that he had been with BB on Sunday.

We just don't know any of the particulars because MPD withholding information.

 

[RANCH]

Perhaps they had separate rooms and the friend was able to provide verbal verification that he had been with BB on Sunday.

Sorry. I don't understand the point your trying to make. Of course the friend has verified BB's alibi. That's why LE has said that they have independently corroborated BB's alibi. JMO

 

[ardenmost]

We just don't know any of the particulars because MPD withholding information.

No one in particular is being questioned, as we do not know who the BB buddy is.

 

[ardenmost]

No one in particular is being questioned, as we do not know who the BB buddy is.

Just saying: Since there in no known suspect, all roads are still open!

 

[Razz]

No one in particular is being questioned, as we do not know who the BB buddy is.

Is it possible the buddy is a woman?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

Is it possible the buddy is a woman?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Do you have any reason to think that the fishing buddy could be a women? I haven't seen anything myself to suggest that. JMO

 

[Razz]

Do you have any reason to think that the fishing buddy could be a women? I haven't seen anything myself to suggest that. JMO

No, not really. But in his pictures put on FB, were any of them w/
friends or buddy(s)? Perhaps his reason for posting pictures was not so much to show he was there(thus providing an alibi) but more that he was there with "buddies" and not w/ someone he shouldn't have been with.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[RANCH]

No, not really. But in his pictures put on FB, were any of them w/
friends or buddy(s)? Perhaps his reason for posting pictures was not so much to show he was there(thus providing an alibi) but more that he was there with "buddies" and not w/ someone he shouldn't have been with.



Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Sorry, I don't do Facebook so I have no idea what anyone in this case has posted.

 

[Razz]

Sorry, I don't do Facebook so I have no idea what anyone in this case has posted.

I have nothing to base this speculation on other than I don't recall that possibility was ever brought up.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

It probably won't make sense to someone who believes BB's alibi. Those folks will take him at his word that he was in a car, rented by his friend, traveling from Biloxi to Red Oak from 7am to 3pm on Monday. They'll assume he was in the car the whole time as it drove straight on through to his driveway. I have no problem with that. .

You replied to my post on the driving time. It was made in response to those who have been asserting something-something based on an idea that he didn't have time to drive from Biloxi area to Red Oak/Ovilla area. As I showed, clearly he did.

It was not intended to PROVE what LE has already ascertained, which is that BB's alibi for the time of the murder (being in Biloxi) checked out. But while we don't have access to things like the car rental agent and the others on the fishing trip and maybe an taxi/Uber driver and security cams here and there at places BB told them he was, I do trust that LE is smart enough to know how to check out the details of an alibi properly, so I don't see the need for any of us to further have to prove that.