TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #33

[al66pine]

....GRAPHIC: A dart, maybe but what about a blunt instrument that disables MB or kills her outright....
The other numerous puncture wounds around the chest and face? Just another attempt to throw cops off the trail to lead them to an angry woman or a psycho man. When actually, it was neither....

^ sbm bbm "injuries around the chest and face?" I recall MPD LE's wording about injuries to "chest & head," not face. No link atm, but from 1st presser IIRC. Also recalling discussion on thread about same thing - face v chest - believe llnk(s) confirmed 'head.'

If hiding & waiting, seems likely perp would prefer to hit from behind, at least initially, which would cause injuries on back of vic's head. Approaching from behind maintains perp's advantage of surprise more than facing vic during first swings.

Seems more likely imo for perp to approach this ^ way than to approach vic from front & cause injuries to face, altho it's poss. Altho injuries to face could be described as injury to head, I don't think the reverse is necessarily true.

All JM2cts, may be all wrong, feel free to chime in.

 

[SteveS]

On the premise that a firearm was discharged at the crime scene:

If the firearm had previously been in police custody, it should have been test-fired for firearm analysis to determine if it had been used in any other crimes. Therefore that firearm, its SN, and photographs of all markings made by that firearm on test-fired bullets and cartridge cases would be in the database.

Firearms in police custody in Ellis County have been reported stolen. IIRC, at least one is still unaccounted for.

If a firearm was discharged at the crime scene, police or the ME could have recovered a bullet or spent cartridge case that could be linked to a firearm in the database by examining and comparing striations on the bullet or firing pin impressions, extractor marks, ejector marks, or breech face marks on the cartridge case.

That scenario is interesting as to how they get a SN and where one might exist. But I don't see how it workd for the specific gun that matches this crime and this SW.
1 In that scenario, the murderer, whoever he is, certainly knows the gun was used on MB, so you're not sealing the SN to keep him in the dark about it being a murder weapon, and he already has the SN.
2 There's no scenario in which LE can reasonably imagine that the thief who stole from them will later come to the police and report his gun being stolen, nor would the murderer if they are different people.
3 Nor is there any reason to keep a SN away from a crook who has the gun (with its SN in his hand) to replicate as he wishes, nor would he want to put the SN of a gun used in a murder on another gun anyhow.

 

[roadrunnermt]

excerpt from: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/06/ddhln.01.html

"...Lisa Bloom, Host: [KS], police reports are saying that [MB] may have had an affair. Did you know anything about that?

[KS]: I knew of one um that happened about a year and a half ago. Um, that was the only one that I knew of. And um you know when this thing first happened, that um was the first thing that went through my mind was--you know--was, did this have anything to do with--with an affair, that she may have had another one, you know, cause what a lot of people thought, you know, it (clears throat) it certainly looked targeted and could an affair play a part in this?..."

18 months before murder - an affair by MB
10 months before murder - "I love you" every day MB to BB
4 months before and continuing to murder - MB engaging in flirtatious LI messages

How did LE know so quickly that MB and CW were engaging in flirtatious LI messages since there were attempts to immediately delete them? WHO is it that knew about the flirtatious messages and informed LE? Was it CW or someone else? The LinkedIn SW for CW was issued without his knowledge, and the strongest terms were advised to LinkedIn not to disclose the existence of the SW, so was it someone else who told LE about the flirtatious and intimate messages?

From the LinkedIn SW dated 4/27/2016:

page 13/18 of pdf, page 4/9 of CW SW:
"...THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE ABOVE-LISTED PROVIDER NOT TO
DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT, BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT IS EASILY DELETED OR DESTROYED. IN
ADDITION, AFFIANT’S INVESTIGATION IS NOT KNOWN TO THE SUSPECT AND
DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATION WILL LIKELY CAUSE IMMEDIATE
DANGER TO WITNESSES, DESTRUCTION OFOTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND
FLIGHT FROM PROSECUTION ..."

page 16/18 of pdf, page 7/9 of CW SW:
"...Additionally, law enforcement has conducted several interviews with persons of interest
and during one such interview learned that [CW], had engaged in while on
the Linkedln Social Media Service several correspondence with the decedent since
(January of2016) until her death. These communications were described as flirtatious
and familiar. ...

...An electronic forensic data extraction of the cellphones belonging to the decedent and
[CW] confirms that the communications using Linkedln occurred. The content of
the recovered communications appears intimate in nature. The extracted information
also showed that these communications were deleted after the conversation ended and
were only able to be partially recovered. ..."

JMO If there had been affair(s), and an attempt to reconcile, and daily "I love you", then a new series of flirtations or an affair that is being kept secret by deleting the messages... JMO if I were a spouse in this situation, I would feel more than betrayed, more than lied to, but more like duped, made a fool of, or made a chump, and I would be more than angry about another affair, I would be enraged at the duplicity.

This SW is why I never understood the aspersions cast on AT/CT when the SW states that the person MB was having flirtatious and intimate messaging with was CW, not AT.

I wonder also who deleted these messages. Females usually retain messages of that nature unless she was worried of someone reading them or if a falling out happened between MB and CW.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

excerpt from: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1607/06/ddhln.01.html

"...Lisa Bloom, Host: [KS], police reports are saying that [MB] may have had an affair. Did you know anything about that?

[KS]: I knew of one um that happened about a year and a half ago. Um, that was the only one that I knew of. And um you know when this thing first happened, that um was the first thing that went through my mind was--you know--was, did this have anything to do with--with an affair, that she may have had another one, you know, cause what a lot of people thought, you know, it (clears throat) it certainly looked targeted and could an affair play a part in this?..."

18 months before murder - an affair by MB
10 months before murder - "I love you" every day MB to BB
4 months before and continuing to murder - MB engaging in flirtatious LI messages

How did LE know so quickly that MB and CW were engaging in flirtatious LI messages since there were attempts to immediately delete them? WHO is it that knew about the flirtatious messages and informed LE? Was it CW or someone else? The LinkedIn SW for CW was issued without his knowledge, and the strongest terms were advised to LinkedIn not to disclose the existence of the SW, so was it someone else who told LE about the flirtatious and intimate messages?

From the LinkedIn SW dated 4/27/2016:

page 13/18 of pdf, page 4/9 of CW SW:
"...THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THE ABOVE-LISTED PROVIDER NOT TO
DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THIS SEARCH WARRANT, BECAUSE THE
EVIDENCE BEING SOUGHT IS EASILY DELETED OR DESTROYED. IN
ADDITION, AFFIANT’S INVESTIGATION IS NOT KNOWN TO THE SUSPECT AND
DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATION WILL LIKELY CAUSE IMMEDIATE
DANGER TO WITNESSES, DESTRUCTION OFOTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AND
FLIGHT FROM PROSECUTION ..."

page 16/18 of pdf, page 7/9 of CW SW:
"...Additionally, law enforcement has conducted several interviews with persons of interest
and during one such interview learned that [CW], had engaged in while on
the Linkedln Social Media Service several correspondence with the decedent since
(January of2016) until her death. These communications were described as flirtatious
and familiar. ...

...An electronic forensic data extraction of the cellphones belonging to the decedent and
[CW] confirms that the communications using Linkedln occurred. The content of
the recovered communications appears intimate in nature. The extracted information
also showed that these communications were deleted after the conversation ended and
were only able to be partially recovered. ..."

JMO If there had been affair(s), and an attempt to reconcile, and daily "I love you", then a new series of flirtations or an affair that is being kept secret by deleting the messages... JMO if I were a spouse in this situation, I would feel more than betrayed, more than lied to, but more like duped, made a fool of, or made a chump, and I would be more than angry about another affair, I would be enraged at the duplicity.

This SW is why I never understood the aspersions cast on AT/CT when the SW states that the person MB was having flirtatious and intimate messaging with was CW, not AT.

Wonder why flirtatious communications were only PARTIALLY recovered.

 

[CHUCKJ]

Then again, why not arrest #1 and #2 and the first one that coughs up #3 doesn't get the death penalty.

That makes no sense at all. If thre were more than one, and they knew who they were, they would be in jail. To my knoledge, it is not a common practice to let murders roam the streets knowing who and where they are. I say where, because if they know who, but not where, their faces would be plastered all over the news...

 

[Deleted member 172065]

I'm also not too sure, the perp just barley made it in. That would be hard to tell without being there. Suspect may have gotten in with ease?

It was said SOMEWHERE here that firemen would have trouble getting in those doors...

 

[CHUCKJ]

RBBM

Are you suggesting terrorist with Missy Bevers case because of the Perpetrator gear? From my understanding the LE did not see anyone until the camera was viewed, so I'm confused.

And given the local press statement LE stated the public was in no harm. If my memory is correct it was said to report if you seen anything suspicious.
Also the crime scene was completed around noon, which I thought was odd, fast and furious lol

The "major recent attacks on LE" occurred after MB was murdered

Unless things have changed MPD had a post on their website that the public was not in danger(paraphrasing). I think it's against TOS to link FB page

Thanks

All JMHO 

Im, saying as clearly as I now how, that that is more likley the case for the dog than a gun that there has been no mention of other than rampant rumors on another site where this is being discussed....Ill leave it at that. I repeat, I respect othere opinions, I just happen to strongly disagree, as I have see or heard no evidence or information, that would lead me to think there was a gun involved. <mod snip>

 

[Razz]

^ sbm bbm "injuries around the chest and face?" I recall MPD LE's wording about injuries to "chest & head," not face. No link atm, but from 1st presser IIRC. Also recalling discussion on thread about same thing - face v chest - believe llnk(s) confirmed 'head.'

If hiding & waiting, seems likely perp would prefer to hit from behind, at least initially, which would cause injuries on back of vic's head. Approaching from behind maintains perp's advantage of surprise more than facing vic during first swings.

Seems more likely imo for perp to approach this ^ way than to approach vic from front & cause injuries to face, altho it's poss. Altho injuries to face could be described as injury to head, I don't think the reverse is necessarily true.

All JM2cts, may be all wrong, feel free to chime in.

GRAPHIC: I went back and reread my post and in my "scenario" I did have her being hit on the head from behind...enough to not only disable her but kill her....first.

I made a leap in my scenario about MB being punctured in the face probably because she'd been punctured in the chest. And, it fit with my scenario that SP was trying to make it look like the work of a jealous wife or a scorned man.

I appreciate the delineation, however. She may never have been punctured in the face.





Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[CHUCKJ]

It was said SOMEWHERE here that firemen would have trouble getting in those doors...

yes, and that was someone's opinion. It was just a comercial door with a panic bar. Its not fort knox.

 

[Scout]

For those of you who don't think a firearm was used to kill Missy, how do you explain the inclusion of a firearm serial number in investigative documents?

 

[CHUCKJ]

For those of you who don't think a firearm was used to kill Missy, how do you explain the inclusion of a firearm serial number in investigative documents?

It was probably MB's gun from her truck.

 

[Scout]

Im, saying as clearly as I now how, that that is more likley the case for the dog than a gun that there has been no mention of other than rampant rumors on another site where this is being discussed....Ill leave it at that. I repeat, I respect othere opinions, I just happen to strongly disagree, as I have see or heard no evidence or information, that would lead me to think there was a gun involved. <mod snip>

I don't read other sites so I'm not familiar with the rampant rumors you refer to. My theory is based solely on the use of the ATF K9 and the inclusion of a firearm serial number in investigative documents.

Edited to fix typo.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

You can't really control what another human being is going to do. Missy could have slept in an extra 5 minutes. She could have awoken early and left a little earlier. She could have taken a different route to the church that would have changed how much time it would get there. Upon entering the church she could have went down a hallway and SP was waiting down the other. You can have high confidence based on prior actions or behavior where someone will go and when but you can't control what another person may actually do especially if that person doesn't know they have to be in a specific area in that church at or after a specific time. SP could only control that if they went MBs house, woke her, got her in her vehicle, drove to the church and walked her to the spot she was murdered.

So I believe that SP had high confidence and planned based on that. Since I believe that this was planned with the intent to get away with it, if Missy were to be 10 or 15 minutes later to the church she would be alive today but in extreme danger never knowing someone wants her dead.

You said if Missy got there 10 or 15 minutes later, she d still be alive. Would a hit man really plan it that tight?

 

[Scout]

It was probably MB's gun from her truck.

Possibly. But if that were the case, why would they be concerned that its SN could be fraudulently used in a missing weapons report?

 

[SleutherySea]

Not that you can take my word for it, but I am confident from looking at the video that neither BB or RB are the suspect. BB is entirely too tall and thin, and RB is entirely too fat- other than the similarities in the walk, there is nothing that I have seen other than rampant speculation to suggest that RB was not where he said he was, or that he commited the crime. Same goes for BB. I know as of late, this has not been a popular position here, but I can see the rotation of commentary from page after page after page, of injecting of speculation with the charactors we know of, in the absense of any new information, or new players.

BBM: I agree with you, and yet the walk is so compelling. RB and BB appear to both have "the walk". Which is hard to look away from. Could this be considered a family trait? Any other family members have "the walk"? Female or male?

 

[Scout]

If firearms are destroyed by LE as prior evidence of crimes, are they still officially registered?

Sorry, I overlooked this post earlier. They would still be in the NIBIN database.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Would they???? Maybe they already know who #1 and #2 are and just need help identifying SP#3.... JMO I personally think there were 2 SP.

Until LE says he/she acted alone it's possible
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

While LE have not publicly ruled out outside accomplices, they have said (and links have been brought into these threads already) that there was only 1 Swatperp, only 1 perp dressed in SWAT gear in the video.

 

[zoeneli]

Possibly. But if that were the case, why would they be concerned that its SN could be fraudulently used in a missing weapons report?

Scout, how are you seeing the SN being used? I don't see that the SN being used in a missing weapons report would be dependent on LE having the actual gun in their possession. I just assumed they meant criminals take serial numbers and re-use them on stolen weapons or they lie on insurance forms etc saying a weapon was stolen and give a SN, etc.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

PIM where you been? Good to see you back

Hey a 60 year old grandmother can do just about anything these days, remember Granny Clampett? &#65533;&#65533;

Thanks

JMO &#65533;&#65533;

Aw, thanks GeeEm! And who could forget Granny Clampett?! (I have been accused of similar stance with my own rifle. But I'm nowhere near her league, yet.)



And all kidding aside...I'm not so sure the granny in question is of the same rare stock, either.

 

[WannaBDetective]

That makes no sense at all. If thre were more than one, and they knew who they were, they would be in jail. To my knoledge, it is not a common practice to let murders roam the streets knowing who and where they are. I say where, because if they know who, but not where, their faces would be plastered all over the news...

I'm starting to think they aren't close to anarrest (JMO). If they don't have them identified and arrested at the 10week mark, the investigation "slows to a crawl" (MSM words, not mine). They've gone through all the evidence. Interviewed all the people (some multiple times). Been pressured by the victim's family. I believe they may have a pretty good idea who or what (B/E, stalker, etc) but their top POI's seem to belvawyered up and they don't have enough of a case to take to trial.

IMO, the "arrest in a few weeks", "Grand Jury meeting as we speak" is in the words of Ben Bernake is "irrational exuberance". They'll probably eventually at least make an arrest and attempt to get a conviction but I think (hope I'm wrong) that we're a ways out.