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?
Okay, about that firearm.
Remember how a request was made for 911 calls in this case, but the MPD denied it based on an opinion of the AG? The letter from MPD to the AG, and the AG’s response, are here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k7ju5m1k31i20tu/Bevers ORA request response.pdf?dl=0#
It was in the MPD letter that a firearm was mentioned with this language:
“…the responsive information contains a serial number of a firearm which the City seeks to withhold under Section 552.108(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 know that when this happened back in June, I saw the terms “illegal firearms” and “missing weapons report” and began to draw parallels to the Ellis County stolen gun case. I thought I had found some vital piece of information.
Well, I did some digging today, and I’m now leaning toward it being -
irrelevant. I think the firearm verbiage is basic legal template language. It is used when a governmental entity (like the city of Midlothian) asks the AG for an opinion on whether information has to be disclosed under the Public Information Act. In fact, if you Google “firearm serial number that could be used on illegal firearms”, you get quite a few hits, like this one (notice paragraph 2 of page 2):
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/openrecords/50abbott/orl/2014/pdf/or201421129.pdf
Other cities have sent letters to the AG using the exact same language, as in the link above. It isn’t something that is unique to this case, in other words. It’s boilerplate.
So I think the chances are low that this is some far-reaching conspiracy involving guns. Obviously there is
some weapon
somewhere, for MPD to list it in their documentation for this case to begin with. But my guess is, it may have been more for strengthening their argument to withhold case information under 552.108.(b)(1) than anything else. Kind of like the SW that used the “suspect may have recorded the murder on his cellphone” deal.
As for what the gun was? Maybe LE confiscated a gun from MB’s vehicle, or from one of the CG camper’s vehicle, or maybe one of the responding officers listed his own gun on a report, although I think that last example is not as likely.
Of course, it’s still possible that a gun was used in the murder. But I personally do not think he had a gun, or any other high-velocity type weapon. And it’s my opinion that the ATF K-9 was there on the Wednesday two days after the murder simply out of an abundance of caution. The church was going to have its first “post-murder” service that night, and they wanted everyone to feel 100% secure.
