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

[11frogs]

The entry way from the edge of the building (from the outside) to the outer doors of the vestibule - just through the doors in your image but can't be seen - is 21 feet deep.

snipped for room

i believe this 21 ft area is where they found MB. JMO

 

[Jmd1231]

Unless there is a witness to the murder who is talking to LE, all evidence in the possession of LE is, by definition, circumstantial.

Not at all. LE has not released any info about anything, but very possible (I would say better chance than not) they do have some direct evidence.

 

[Jethro4WS]

Perhaps it could have been possible to see at least the truck headlights from the SWFA with this camera angle. Especially since it's so dark there at night and little traffic. You can clearly see the COC in the background there. What do you think?

[video=youtube;gu_5OKjceUo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu_5OKjceUo[/video]

If Missy came around the back of the church to get to the car port this camera should be able to see it. It would be close for any other approach but only to see her headlights sweep across the south side of the church as she made a left into the car port because the trees to the left of the image block the car port itself - but that would not be as bright as headlights shining in the direction of the camera. If there is a camera similar to this one to the right of the brickwork you see at the right of the image that camera should have the car port in view with an opportunity to capture any approach.

 

[TeaTime]

That is the $64,000 question isn't it. If she came in those SW doors we absolutely know those cameras were working. There is a blind spot behind the cameras in that corner because the cameras are pointed other directions. And there may be blind spots of about 10 to 15 feet (beyond the range of motion detection) in each direction those cameras are viewing down the halls. But having not seen any footage from cameras from those opposite directions or from a camera I would expect to exist in the west side main entry area (facing the entry i.e. pointing west) the exact size of any blind spots can't be known with certainty. The killer is either very lucky or very intelligent.

Or was in the bathroom.

 

[Jethro4WS]

There was very heavy rain.. but it had stopped at some point, between 4 and 4:30am, because I was outside at 4:45 a.m. and the first thing I noticed was the concrete had dry spots. I noticed it because of the dang rain that just wouldn't stop for days on end. I am a few miles away though, and you know how it can be pouring on one side of the street and not the other here. A field test would help. I can also understand the inside cameras of the COC picking up the headlights, if the angle of the drive up is just right. (You know how the driveway slants a bit on that side.)

For what it is worth, here is the weather radar at 4am and 5am

 

[TeaTime]

Not at all. LE has not released any info about anything, but very possible (I would say better chance than not) they do have some direct evidence.

A whole pile of circumstantial (indirect evidence which requires inference and presumption) doesn't become direct evidence in a case where one is proving the elements of murder. Direct evidence (in my example here: documents which speak for themselves) which places someone's cell phone in spot A when they said they were in Spot B may prove that the person's GPS device was not where he was, but does not prove he was physically in spot A or that he committed the crime that occurred in the area. This, while considered direct evidence of the location of the GPS is still not direct evidence of the crime of murder. It may be part of the bricked wall of circumstantial evidence from which one could infer or presume that the person was in fact at spot A but only if other circumstantial evidence supports this inference. This would happen if, for example, the person said he had his GPS with him at the time in question, then denied it. Other direct evidence, such as an eye witness, could prove that the person was in fact in spot A but unless a witness to the murder that testimony becomes just another brick in the wall of indirect evidence. Direct evidence proves a fact in dispute without having to prove anything else first. (His phone was there) Circumstantial (indirect) evidence requires inference and presumption to prove a fact. (His phone was there, he lied about where it was therefore one can infer that he was there too).

Since this is the crime of murder, the only direct evidence that is possible is an eye witness and for it to be evidence at all for purposes of this discussion, mean's that it is in LE's possession, that witness would have to be talking.

Sorry, I took the short cut.

Mea culpa.

 

[DeDee]

I think it's worth it to waste your time and theirs, considering that it's to try to get justice for MB first and foremost. And secondly, there is a $20,000+ reward if you turn out to be right. 200 hours at $100.00 per hour.

Raise your hand if you are here for the hopes of garnering the reward offer.

My guess would be that 99% of us are here seeking Justice for Missy Bevers.

I can only speak for myself, in that, there is no way the monetary reward has entered my mind except that the FBI has not offered one. That is highly irregular for them when involved in a case that they cannot solve. They've been known to lease billboards looking for tips. None of that has happened here. Is there more than one conclusion other than they know? They already know.

:cow:

 

[Cannonball3804]

Raise your hand if you are here for the hopes of garnering the reward offer.

My guess would be that 99% of us are here seeking Justice for Missy Bevers.

I can only speak for myself, in that, there is no way the monetary reward has entered my mind except that the FBI has not offered one. That is highly irregular for them when involved in a case that they cannot solve. They've been known to lease billboards looking for tips. None of that has happened here. Is there more than one conclusion other than they know? They already know.

:cow:

Like I said... "justice for MB first and foremost."

 

[SteveS]

For what it is worth, here is the weather radar at 4am and 5am

Something is incredibly amiss with those 2 maps. You won't ever have 2 essentially-identical radar maps an hour apart. Storms constantly move and shift and wax and wane.

 

[Jmd1231]

A whole pile of circumstantial (indirect evidence which requires inference and presumption) doesn't become direct evidence in a case where one is proving the elements of murder. Direct evidence (in my example here: documents which speak for themselves) which places someone's cell phone in spot A when they said they were in Spot B may prove that the person's GPS device was not where he was, but does not prove he was physically in spot A or that he committed the crime that occurred in the area. This, while considered direct evidence of the location of the GPS is still not direct evidence of the crime of murder. It may be part of the bricked wall of circumstantial evidence from which one could infer or presume that the person was in fact at spot A but only if other circumstantial evidence supports this inference. This would happen if, for example, the person said he had his GPS with him at the time in question, then denied it. Other direct evidence, such as an eye witness, could prove that the person was in fact in spot A but unless a witness to the murder that testimony becomes just another brick in the wall of indirect evidence. Direct evidence proves a fact in dispute without having to prove anything else first. (His phone was there) Circumstantial (indirect) evidence requires inference and presumption to prove a fact. (His phone was there, he lied about where it was therefore one can infer that he was there too).

Since this is the crime of murder, the only direct evidence that is possible is an eye witness and for it to be evidence at all for purposes of this discussion, mean's that it is in LE's possession, that witness would have to be talking.

Sorry, I took the short cut.

Mea culpa.

I understand the difference. What I am saying is they very well could have dna, hair, etc, just no match as of yet. When (if) they ever get a match, that would be direct evidence. I very well could be wrong (I have been once or maybe twice before ) but if I had to bet, I would guess they do have some sort of physical, direct evidence gathered at the scene, just nothing to link it to yet. Jmo

 

[kmoon]

I've been gone for weeks anything?


IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[11frogs]

I know I started this a while back but I am going to revisit. I have spent the last hour searching more charter websites trying to find one that leaves early 5-6am for Chandeleur and I cannot find one. I know some have said BB may have gone with a person with a private boat due to vendor but I find that unlikely and if so that they wouldn't follow the many charters that leave at 12:01am Monday. Safety in numbers. Going 40 miles off coast. Yes did LE check his alibi -yes - but if this were arranged to leave on Mo day 5-6am this is very unusual and should be suspect. JMO

I am not saying BB is SP . Just saying his story about 5-6am does not jive with other charter services.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I may be mistaken but I believe that they said her arrival was seen on video surveillance. They didn't say directly which cameras caught that. But what we do know, per MPD, is that the outside cameras at the Creekside Church were working intermittently. We also know that the SWFA Gun shop cameras were working because they have the captures of that Altima in their parking lot. The best bet is that her arrival was captured by the SWFA cameras.

I remember LE stating her arrival was on video too, but I don't recall where it was stated.

Maybe she sent a text to someone stating she was pulling into the parking lot, was on the phone with someone, gps, or an app on her phone or iPad tracked her arrival time to the church. If she had location services turned on gps, bluetooth, wi-fi hotspots and cell tower locations would easily determine her approximate location and the time.

I know I've said it before, but I have to say it again......IMO the cell, cell tower, and data information is crucial. This stuff leaves footprints and I'm hoping it leads straight to the perp(s) or accomplice(s).

 

[zoeneli]

I understand the difference. What I am saying is they very well could have dna, hair, etc, just no match as of yet. When (if) they ever get a match, that would be direct evidence. I very well could be wrong (I have been once or maybe twice before ) but if I had to bet, I would guess they do have some sort of physical, direct evidence gathered at the scene, just nothing to link it to yet. Jmo

The video could end up being direct evidence as well if they can match the gait or have clearer stills of the face than we have. The tools could end up being good forensic evidence as well. We know LE stated the tools SP was carrying in the video appeared to be what was used to kill her and some were left at the scene, so there will hopefully be some way to eventually tie that all together.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I know I started this a while back but I am going to revisit. I have spent the last hour searching more charter websites trying to find one that leaves early 5-6am for Chandeleur and I cannot find one. I know some have said BB may have gone with a person with a private boat due to vendor but I am find that unlikely and if so that they wouldn't follow the many charters that leave at 12:01am Monday. Yes did LE check his alibi -yes - but if this were arranged to leave on Mo day 5-6am this is very unusual and should be suspect. JMO

I am not saying BB is SP . Just saying his story about 5-6am does not jive with other charter services.

I agree with you, seems odd! (fishy...LOL)

 

[Jethro4WS]

Something is incredibly amiss with those 2 maps. You won't ever have 2 essentially-identical radar maps an hour apart. Storms constantly move and shift and wax and wane.

Go to Weather Underground. You can get radar loops for any day going back to 2005 for DFW. You can see it yourself.

 

[SteveS]

Go to Weather Underground. You can get radar loops for any day going back to 2005 for DFW. You can see it yourself.

It doesn't matter what they might have there. You posted two IDENTICAL maps, but supposedly an hour apart. That is simply not possible. If you overlay one map over the other, you will see it is identical except one is panned a bit farther north and the other farther south, catching a bit more (or less) in the added or subtracted area.

Perhaps WU doesn't actually have maps for each hour. Or something else. But what you have posted, as being the regional radar map at 4, and then again a supposedly new radar reading at 5, is not possibly accurate.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

I understand the difference. What I am saying is they very well could have dna, hair, etc, just no match as of yet. When (if) they ever get a match, that would be direct evidence. I very well could be wrong (I have been once or maybe twice before ) but if I had to bet, I would guess they do have some sort of physical, direct evidence gathered at the scene, just nothing to link it to yet. Jmo

I hope you're right and they have some sort of incriminating evidence. raying:

 

[Jmd1231]

I hope you're right and they have some sort of incriminating evidence. raying:

I sure hope so too!! I would think they do, but nothing about this case seems "usual" so maybe this will end up being the invisible man...sure hope not and that justice is served.

 

[Jmd1231]

I agree with you, seems odd! (fishy...LOL)

I only did a quick search, so nothing I say can be considered fact, but there are chartered trips that don't have a "set" time...ie. you set the time you leave and return. Although I am far from what one would call a fisherman, I do know dusk is a prime fishing time. I admit maybe you know more about exactly what type of charter he took, but going off of only knowing he took a chartered fishing trip, leaving at that time, or really anytime from 3 am until 7 am, not only would I not consider fishy (no pun intended ) but I would actually consider that time as actually the most logical time for the trip.

1 last quick thing...was it actually stated/confirmed by someone that he chartered a boat? Or is this just based on our sleuthing?