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

[Deleted member 172065]

SM--the topic of social media:
I'm small town, but i never make family pics/stuff public on FB. Other topics, yes.
Missy ran a business and that would be so much harder to keep private. Wouldn't it? She's also felt safer in a low crime area.

 

[Razz]

If something was bugging you and you were worried about it, wouldn't you bounce it off a friend or your spouse? I do that but often times I don't give the complete story to protect the person or situation I'm talking about. Which brings me to BB. Does he know more than what he's saying publicly and has told Police? Why warn your wife to be careful unless you do it all the time anyway?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[zoeneli]

Now I'm gonna act out the role of a hit man... starting at the church pkg lot:
OK! Here I am in the church parking lot and ready to go! Got the alarm tested, and no cops came. All right! Now I'd better hurry. It's gettin late. I think I'll try the back doors since they're outta sight. No way! I can't get in. Will I get in in time? Side door looks easier. Ok, got it open. I'm drenched. Gotta run back to the car and grab my duffle bag full of swat clothes. Better hurry. Where will I change? This first room looks perfect. Ok, changed and ready to check out the church. Now that I'm in, I can relax a bit but I still gotta hurry a bit or Missy might see me in the hallway breakin stuff. Where's the cameras? Ok. Now for some B&E staging.
Missy will be here at X o'clock and she's never late I'm told. Gotta find a place where I know she will definitely walk to and its gotta be off camera. I don't want something to go wrong and my identity gets revealed. Hmmm, and it's gotta to be near the door where she comes in at or I could miss her. Ok, looks like Location X will work. I see car lights. Gotta get out of sight before she sees me.....
Done. Outta here. Should be ok, though since I have half an hr before its time for the campers to get here.
Feasible?
A stalker would probably be similar to this, but different motive.

My thought is if this was carried out by a 'professional' hit man that is would go down something like:

Case the place
Know MB's schedule and routine before the planned day of the crime
Hide out side in the dark or just in side the doors you know she will come in
Shoot her in the head as she exits her truck or starts to enter the building
The whole crime is done with the hit man showing up probably 15 min or less before her arrival, leaving one minute after her arrival.

Now, I suppose the hit man could be a first timer, but to convince someone to murder for you (even if you pay them) and then to murder by using a hammer to the head and chest (even if they shot her first we know she was hit with the tools) rules out the detached hit man in my head. This sort of hit man to me would still likely be someone who also had a personal motive of their own - either to want MB dead or impress the person hiring them.

 

[Scout]

Scout, couldn't the video be used as direct evidence if they could show the height and gait matched (along with other evidence as to why they believed a specific person was SP of course)?

Since it doesn't show the murder, it's circumstantial evidence. Please understand that "circumstantial" does not indicate weakness in the evidence. On the contrary, circumstantial evidence can be very strong and compelling -- in some instances irrefutable.

ETA: clarification.

The video is direct evidence that someone of a certain height and with a unique gait, dressed in police gear was at the church when it was broken into and Missy was murdered. It is circumstantial evidence that this person murdered Missy. And it cannot be used to identify a suspect unless corroborating evidence is found since other people could have similar height and gait.

Examples of corroborating evidence:

Finding the gear worn by the perpetrator either in his/her possession or with trace evidence or DNA tying it to the suspect

Evidence that the suspect had access to such gear

Witness statements that the suspect was absent from where he should have been or that suspect had expressed desire or made plans to kill Missy

Anything with Missy's DNA in the suspect's possession or shown to have been in his possession

 

[Deleted member 172065]

Yes, I am local. I can't say much, but they thought that BEFORE the stolen guns. If you think about it, the perp had inside knowledge about the alarm system, etc. I think they are suspecting reserves.

I did hear here on Websleuths that Midlothian is going through a corrupt gun theft thing by some cops. Not great. What a mess! I need to read up on that more.

 

[YouWho]

If something was bugging you and you were worried about it, wouldn't you bounce it off a friend or your spouse? I do that but often times I don't give the complete story to protect the person or situation I'm talking about. Which brings me to BB. Does he know more than what he's saying publicly and has told Police? Why warn your wife to be careful unless you do it all the time anyway?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

In my opinion, most humbly I might add, he needed to promote the narrative that she had been in some amount of danger recently, in order to deflect blame from himself.

But if that's true, then he can't really then switch to the B & E motive, which I'm pretty sure he's not done. So that's in his favor.

ETA: I correct myself. Remember, he first said she wasn't targeted (supports the random murder narrative), but then said she was targeted.(I believe he needed to change his opinion isobar everyone - cops, public - said the opposite. In fact, remember how he said both things in the same sentence (in front of P. D.), like he hadnt committed to it yet. IMO, because he knew from the start that she was targeted, But he had hoped they'd go the 'B and E gone wrong' route. IMO.

 

[Batbrat]

Scout, couldn't the video be used as direct evidence if they could show the height and gait matched (along with other evidence as to why they believed a specific person was SP of course)?

I think the conversation about direct vs circumstantial evidence is an interesting one. In the past couple decades, eyewitness accounts have been largely debunked as unreliable, while circumstantial evidence in the form of forensic science has become the gold standard for prosecution. Whenever I hear defense attorneys go on about how a prosecutors case is "merely circumstantial", I know that's wordplay used to sound dismissive of what's probably a mountain of forensic evidence. Juries expect the science these days and probably give as much or more weight to it than much of what's legally defined as direct evidence. I've seen so many cases that without circumstantial evidence the wrong person would have been convicted or the case would never have been tried at all.

 

[YouWho]

My thought is if this was carried out by a 'professional' hit man that is would go down something like:

Case the place
Know MB's schedule and routine before the planned day of the crime
Hide out side in the dark or just in side the doors you know she will come in
Shoot her in the head as she exits her truck or starts to enter the building
The whole crime is done with the hit man showing up probably 15 min or less before her arrival, leaving one minute after her arrival.

Now, I suppose the hit man could be a first timer, but to convince someone to murder for you (even if you pay them) and then to murder by using a hammer to the head and chest (even if they shot her first we know she was hit with the tools) rules out the detached hit man in my head. This sort of hit man to me would still likely be someone who also had a personal motive of their own - either to want MB dead or impress the person hiring them.

If it was a hit - murder for hire - it should never appear to be that. It must appear to be a B and E gone wrong, because those closest to her would immediately be in LE's scope of vision. And the person who arranged it wouldn't want that. IMO.

 

[rodee34]

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.

I thought the same thing... but oh well. Radar man must have taken a nap. :thinking:

 

[Batbrat]

In my opinion, most humbly I might add, he needed to promote the narrative that she had been in some amount of danger recently, in order to deflect blame from himself.

But if that's true, then he can't really then switch to the B & E motive, which I'm pretty sure he's not done. So that's in his favor.

I think it also works with the B & E scenario, though. Especially if you're trying to give weight to the idea that by going off before dawn, alone, to an isolated location, etc., puts you at greater risk to opportunistic crime. But as I see it, it's still deflecting - by partially blaming the victim for her own demise: "I warned her".

 

[Scout]

I think the conversation about direct vs circumstantial evidence is an interesting one. In the past couple decades, eyewitness accounts have been largely debunked as unreliable, while circumstantial evidence in the form of forensic science has become the gold standard for prosecution. Whenever I hear defense attorneys go on about how a prosecutors case is "merely circumstantial", I know that's wordplay used to sound dismissive of what's probably a mountain of forensic evidence. Juries expect the science these days and probably give as much or more weight to it than much of what's legally defined as direct evidence. I've seen so many cases that without circumstantial evidence the wrong person would have been convicted or the case would never have been tried at all.

Yes. Circumstantial is often more reliable than direct. It's been shown that witnesses and victims are prone to misidentification where the perpetrator is a stranger to the witness, particularly when the witness or victim is of a different race than the perpetrator. This is why there are so many cases these days of DNA evidence being used to clear persons who were wrongfully convicted in earlier decades. In the vast majority witness misidentification was a deciding factor.

ETA: This happens across all racial lines not just white people misidentifying black people.

 

[SKresearch]

The classes were held, "outside".

(Did she normally go INSIDE the church first, before,
the classes were held "outside"?)

````````
(If she had been given a "key" to the church)

Did police FIND "this" key?

Maybe they did find it.
But "if" they didn't, I would wonder, why is it not there
/or, why is it 'no longer' there. (Why did this person get it.)

But maybe they did find, "a key".

 

[TeaTime]

<modsnip>. Your "legal terms of art" are correct. However, it is not black and white as you try to portray.

There are instances where the same type of dna/hair/fingerprint found might be considered circumstantial in one case and direct evidence in another.

ie...man rapes wife...if his semen/dna is found inside of her, his hair on the bed, his fingerprint found at scene, these would all be considered circumstancial, as there are other conclusions/logical reasons these items could be there....

Now take a woman raped by random perp...a man that has never been in her residence, someone unknown to victim, and this random perps dna is found inside her, hair and fingerprints are found at victims residence, in this instance, it is direct evidence.

A quick, simpler explanation is if a piece of evidence can lead to a conclusion believed beyond a reasonable doubt, it is then considered direct evidence.

While the legal statements you cut and pasted from the first place you found on the Internet are generally true and factual, not every piece of evidence can be painted with the same brush. A piece considered circumstantial in one instance can be considered direct in another. Plenty of case law showing this.

<modsnip>

No insult needed and I didn't need to look online for anything. DNA in your example only proves that there was sexual contact, not that there was sex without consent. The presence of DNA in and of itself does not prove rape (lack of consent). To prove rape one must also prove lack of consent which can sometimes be accomplished with the sworn testimony of the victim or proof that the victim is incapable of giving consent.

Direct evidence requires no inference, it proves a fact without proof of any other fact in issue. DNA can therefore not prove rape. It can only prove the presence of DNA. An inference can be made that it was deposited without the consent of the victim if there is other proof that the victim did not or could not consent.

I do not think you really do understand what I am talking about. But, as you no doubt know, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the burden of proof in criminal cases and the determination of whether something is direct or circumstantial evidence does not depend on whether the case is criminal or civil in nature.

 

[Scout]

The certainty of the victim/witness is not indicative of reliability. There have been cases where the victim/witness cannot accept the irrefutable DNA evidence that cleared the person wrongfully convicted because they are so certain that they correctly identified their assailant.

 

[moonchild7]

I know this has been discussed, but I just watched again the BB interview with the media on 4/19. At the 10:35 mark, he says, "The police estimate that this person is about 6 ft tall."

Anyone want to weigh in as to how the LE can be so off on their height estimate from viewing the video - the day after the murder - when that information is so critical? Especially when experts came in later and determine the height to be 5'2 - 5'7? HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[video=youtube;lnBJ17dtx48]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnBJ17dtx48[/video]

It would seem that LE have a lot of experience viewing surveillance video and able to estimate height more accurately than they did.

 

[TeaTime]

I think the conversation about direct vs circumstantial evidence is an interesting one. In the past couple decades, eyewitness accounts have been largely debunked as unreliable, while circumstantial evidence in the form of forensic science has become the gold standard for prosecution. Whenever I hear defense attorneys go on about how a prosecutors case is "merely circumstantial", I know that's wordplay used to sound dismissive of what's probably a mountain of forensic evidence. Juries expect the science these days and probably give as much or more weight to it than much of what's legally defined as direct evidence. I've seen so many cases that without circumstantial evidence the wrong person would have been convicted or the case would never have been tried at all.

MOST cases are exclusively brought on circumstantial evidence which, when viewed as a whole, a reasonable person could infer that the crime or liability was proven or not proven.

 

[x_files]

In my opinion, most humbly I might add, he needed to promote the narrative that she had been in some amount of danger recently, in order to deflect blame from himself.

But if that's true, then he can't really then switch to the B & E motive, which I'm pretty sure he's not done. So that's in his favor.

ETA: I correct myself. Remember, he first said she wasn't targeted (supports the random murder narrative), but then said she was targeted.(I believe he needed to change his opinion isobar everyone - cops, public - said the opposite. In fact, remember how he said both things in the same sentence (in front of P. D.), like he hadnt committed to it yet. IMO, because he knew from the start that she was targeted, But he had hoped they'd go the 'B and E gone wrong' route. IMO.

Your theory is that BB hired a hit?
Or had a close family help?

 

[DBLG]

Interesting, maybe a hit? A dirty cop on the take that does dirty jobs on the side?

I also think MB may have seen or heard something that made her a target. Maybe steroids or other illegal drug dealings (coke, H) at gym locations or in the "hyper fitness" circle. I'm not implying AT ALL that any one of the gym members of CG members participated in any illegal drugs but I will say that if you are "addicted" to fitness just like anything else, you may be "addicted" to other things. I know I'll probably get backlash for these comments but quite frankly these drugs are everywhere and very mainstream in small towns. Totally MOO. It may have been a pretty wide net. That could compromise marriages, jobs, businesses, etc. Totally MOO

 

[al66pine]

FWIW:

"Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[SUP][1][/SUP]Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.[SUP][2][/SUP]
For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendant’s guilt may be inferred.
In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come through any sense, including [smell,] touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence"

{{What witness states must relate to an element of the crime w which def is charged.
After initial questions about witness's identity, time, place of events, prosecutor elicits info from Wit on witness stand, in court, under oath
"I saw Mr C w a foot long hunting knife repeatedly stab Mr V who bled profusely."
At trial of def. C for manslaughter or murder of V, W's testimony is direct evidence. That is, if V died of stab wounds. JM2cts.}}

"Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that implies the existence of the main fact in question, but does not in itself prove it. The existence of the main fact is deduced from the indirect or circumstantial evidence by a process of probable reasoning. The introduction of a defendant's fingerprints or DNA sample are examples of circumstantial evidence. The fact that a defendant had a motive to commit a crime is also circumstantial evidence. In an important sense, however, all evidence is merely circumstantial because no evidence can prove a fact in the absence of one or more inferences."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_(law)

 

[TeaTime]

The certainty of the victim/witness is not indicative of reliability. There have been cases where the victim/witness cannot accept the irrefutable DNA evidence that cleared the person wrongfully convicted because they are so certain that they correctly identified their assailant.

Evidence is always subject to cross-examination to try to discover errors in witness identification and scientific methodology. Post conviction, when new methods or testimony is discovered, the issue can be raised again. Eye witness testimony can be wrong, but is still, by its nature, direct evidence.

Reliability (truth of the matter intended to be proven by the evidence offered) is to be weighed by the trier of fact. Even direct evidence such as eye witness testimony may not be believed and therefore deemed unreliable. It is often a judgment call.