TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #35

[zoeneli]

I think LE is dead on in their accessment of the height being 5,2" to 5,7". 5in could litteraly be the differance between the perp barefooted with no helment and the thickness of the heels of the boots and the height at witch the helmet rest above the suspects head.

Their 5" gap is what makes me curious about their numbers. That is a big range for the technology they have coupled with access to the exact space with the cameras still mounted in their same positions. They know exactly how tall SP is in the costume. You wouldn't look at barefoot, because SP isn't. The range should only account for the the lowest possible boot heel height to highest, and possible thinnest helmet to thickest. You can't have much of a heel insert inside those boots. Anything much over 1/2" will make it very hard to walk and flex the foot (not cause turn out). An outer lift would be visible. If a thin, narrow boot heel accounts for 1/2", then with a lift + thicker boot heel, you are maybe at 2". I wouldn't put helmet variance at much over 1" either. I am not sure why they need to give a window of nearly half a foot. Seems a bit large to me.

 

[No it's not]

Their 5" gap is what makes me curious about their numbers. That is a big range for the technology they have coupled with access to the exact space with the cameras still mounted in their same positions. They know exactly how tall SP is in the costume. You wouldn't look at barefoot, because SP isn't. The range should only account for the the lowest possible boot heel height to highest, and possible thinnest helmet to thickest. You can't have much of a heel insert inside a those boots. Anything much over 1/2" will make it very hard to walk and flex the foot (not cause turn out). An outer lift would be visible. If a thin, narrow boot heel accounts for 1/2", then with a lift + thicker boot heel, you are maybe at 2". I wouldn't put helmet variance at much over 1" either. I am not sure why they need to give a window of nearly half a foot. Seems a bit large to me.

Perhaps the individual has a short leg syndrome (hip injury?) and wears a special (right) shoe in real life?

-Nin

 

[Camerabug]

Their 5" gap is what makes me curious about their numbers. That is a big range for the technology they have coupled with access to the exact space with the cameras still mounted in their same positions. They know exactly how tall SP is in the costume. You wouldn't look at barefoot, because SP isn't. The range should only account for the the lowest possible boot heel height to highest, and possible thinnest helmet to thickest. You can't have much of a heel insert inside a those boots. Anything much over 1/2" will make it very hard to walk and flex the foot (not cause turn out). An outer lift would be visible. If a thin, narrow boot heel accounts for 1/2", then with a lift + thicker boot heel, you are maybe at 2". I wouldn't put helmet variance at much over 1" either. I am not sure why they need to give a window of nearly half a foot. Seems a bit large to me.

Deliberately leaving more than one person on the hot seat...that's interesting..jmo

 

[Batbrat]

I think LE is dead on in their accessment of the height being 5,2" to 5,7". 5in could litteraly be the differance between the perp barefooted with no helment and the thickness of the heels of the boots and the height at witch the helmet rest above the suspects head.

I disagree. By now I've logged hundreds of hours and created dozens of diagrams of height assessments from multiple frames of the video, and not a single one of them has come in under 71". There is no way the subject in the video is as short as LE's estimates. I've also researched the costume measurements extensively, and the most I could reasonably account for with helmet and shoes was 3" - with the average being much closer to 2.5" total. Nowhere near 5".

 

[Bcoin]

Their 5" gap is what makes me curious about their numbers. That is a big range for the technology they have coupled with access to the exact space with the cameras still mounted in their same positions. They know exactly how tall SP is in the costume. You wouldn't look at barefoot, because SP isn't. The range should only account for the the lowest possible boot heel height to highest, and possible thinnest helmet to thickest. You can't have much of a heel insert inside a those boots. Anything much over 1/2" will make it very hard to walk and flex the foot (not cause turn out). An outer lift would be visible. If a thin, narrow boot heel accounts for 1/2", then with a lift + thicker boot heel, you are maybe at 2". I wouldn't put helmet variance at much over 1" either. I am not sure why they need to give a window of nearly half a foot. Seems a bit large to me.

I wear work boots every day that are similar, at least from what I can see, to the boots in the video. They give me at least 1.5-2 inches without inserts or anything. I also have a motorcycle helmet that gives at least 2-3 inches. You would be surprised how much padding some helmets have in them with the padding, air space and shell. Add all that to the fuzz of the video and I could see why a 5 inch range was given. They could easily appear 5'7 and really be 5'3.

I have been on the male sp train for a long time, but I am off of that. I am 70/30 now that it is an angry woman. I believe the suspect has been under our nose the whole time.

Just my opinion

 

[No it's not]

Nin--a lot to ponder. Is this the right direction?

1. The staging is fake in that it s(he wanted us to see it (we know that from the one glance at the camera and they continued on).
2. Staging fake so we won't suspect WHO?? A church member, a CG member, a hired hit, a REAL swat prep, or someone who actually had a key??
3. S(he knew about the tapes recording yet KNEW s(he didn't have to find and destroy the tape because the murder wasn't on it.
4. The randomness makes it MORE fake--an act put on by the dilettante at a masquerade ball!
5. Mistake is buried somewhere in the cockiness, but it is there and it DID happen.

Thanks Nin

My thoughts, yes. I also think the body was moved after the attack. JMO

The tricky part in this entire case is to estimate the killer's intelligence. He is either very smart or very dumb. You figure

-Nin

 

[Razz]

WoW! Never even once looked at it from this perspective! I would like to know as well..who did first cast aspersions at CT? That is someone I would like to take a look at...And why? Another excellent question...thank you SandyQLS you have opened my eyes!

I suggest you go back to Thread One. That will give you a good idea.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[x_files]

Except they aren't the same height in the photos. If she's 5'3" in the photos, she is not the same height as her mom, who is clearly several inches taller. If you believe her youngest daughter is 5'3" and BB is 6'5"+, then that puts MB at 5'9"-5'10". So did MB fib about her height? Is she actually 6 or 7 inches taller than she claimed? I'm so confused.

Highly, doubtful Missy looks quite petite to me, if anything she might say she's 5'3 and only be 5'. I lean towards she's being truthful about her height around 5'2-5'3.

 

[x_files]

that ol boy is about 5'8 with his boots on. BB about 6'.

RB fits the perp's
height and gait which is uncanny, but I still think there might be two perps caught on camera.

 

[x_files]

11frogs-thank you for providing the correct heights for BB n RB.

On another note... And going back to the church video - Has anyone had any of these thoughts/observations concerning SP:

1) SP appears drunk or otherwise impaired and is perhaps accustomed to being in this state
2) SP seems not to have a care in the world
3) SP appears somewhat different and walks somewhat differently at times during the video(s). Is this due to distortions, varying camera angles or could it be that two people are dressed in the same outfit but don't appear together? Or would that be too complicated?
Probably.

Finally, how much cunning and conniving is required to pull off an embezzlement at a place of business? Even if one is ultimately caught, wouldn't that require planning/obfuscation / execution over a period of time?

I'm leaning towards two perps of similiar height range within 2-3 inches now.

 

[Camerabug]

I suggest you go back to Thread One. That will give you a good idea.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

It was a very long time ago...

 

[x_files]

----------------------------------------------
My thoughts as well. Add to that: disregard of others, of laws / rules / social norms, self-serving, narcissistic ... The same personality traits of someone who'd be willing and able to commit murder (or murder-for-hire)?

In other words intelligent enough to plan, plot and carry out this crime, and possibly evade being arrested.

 

[privateaye]

If you actually believe he's 6'6" tall, he's definitely too tall to be SP (who is likely about 5'11" or so).

As I later posted I was repeating a comment from someone on Nancy Grace. I had since posted the picture and stated what I thought was 6-4 and someone else came on and said that he was six feet tall I'm assuming she knows him since there was no link. To me anywhere above 6 feet he does not look like he could fit into that SWAT outfit. If we are to believe what LE told us the person is much shorter than that.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[zoeneli]

I wear work boots every day that are similar, at least from what I can see, to the boots in the video. They give me at least 1.5-2 inches without inserts or anything. I also have a motorcycle helmet that gives at least 2-3 inches. You would be surprised how much padding some helmets have in them with the padding, air space and shell. Add all that to the fuzz of the video and I could see why a 5 inch range was given. They could easily appear 5'7 and really be 5'3.

I have been on the male sp train for a long time, but I am off of that. I am 70/30 now that it is an angry woman. I believe the suspect has been under our nose the whole time.

Just my opinion

Bcoin. I agree with the 1.5 -2" on those type of boots. There just aren't boots that look like that at a 0" sole. I would say .75 would be the very minimum the cushioned heel would give. So even at your max of 2", you are looking at what should be a 1.25 inch variance from their low estimate to high. The helmet, 3" seems like a bit much, especially for the type of helmet it appears to be. With the shape of the sides, it isn't a standard motorcycle helmet. I would say the least you could add for a helmet would be 1/2". So if we do a range of 1/2" to 2 1/2" for helmet padding, that is 2". Add the 1.25 for the boots, and I am still at a max of 3.25", and I think that is being generous. They may just want to be cautious and not eliminate anyone, but if anything it seems like they would be opening the door for extra chatter coming in as tips, that they know can't be valid.

 

[CHUCKJ]

Their 5" gap is what makes me curious about their numbers. That is a big range for the technology they have coupled with access to the exact space with the cameras still mounted in their same positions. They know exactly how tall SP is in the costume. You wouldn't look at barefoot, because SP isn't. The range should only account for the the lowest possible boot heel height to highest, and possible thinnest helmet to thickest. You can't have much of a heel insert inside those boots. Anything much over 1/2" will make it very hard to walk and flex the foot (not cause turn out). An outer lift would be visible. If a thin, narrow boot heel accounts for 1/2", then with a lift + thicker boot heel, you are maybe at 2". I wouldn't put helmet variance at much over 1" either. I am not sure why they need to give a window of nearly half a foot. Seems a bit large to me.

I would say even with the technology they had, there are still several variables that woud make a range of 5" a reasonable estimation. Unless, you think they are incompetent, or have some reason to put out false information.

 

[privateaye]

I would say even with the technology they had, there are still several variables that woud make a range of 5" a reasonable estimation. Unless, you think they are incompetent, or have some reason to put out false information.

I would have to agree with this statement. I did wonder at first if they were throwing information out to get a reaction from their Person of Interest but the more I think about it the more I think they're not doing that and they are giving an honest assessment. I think it would be unprofessional for them to do otherwise and I don't believe they would give incorrect information to the public. Also doubt that they made a mistake that they would not have corrected by now. That information has been out for a while and they haven't modified it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[CHUCKJ]

I disagree. By now I've logged hundreds of hours and created dozens of diagrams of height assessments from multiple frames of the video, and not a single one of them has come in under 71". There is no way the subject in the video is as short as LE's estimates. I've also researched the costume measurements extensively, and the most I could reasonably account for with helmet and shoes was 3" - with the average being much closer to 2.5" total. Nowhere near 5".

I don't doubt your efforts, but from experience, I can tell you that your varience for boots and helmet is wrong. I have ridden bikes all my life, and some helments could be as much at 3" in padding.and how they sit on an individuals head. I have worn hard hats that add 3" and boots that add almost 3. work boots that I have on now, add about 2.25".

 

[x_files]

I've tried to wrap my mind around this. My numbers do not correspond to yours, but here are my thoughts:

1.) Her comments regarding Missy not being perfect and SP not understanding agape love - This leads me to believe that whoever MT believes is SP (the person she is addressing) tried to reveal something (an affair?) about Missy to BB and family and did not get the response from them that she had hoped for.

2.) IMO, she obviously has a very specific person in mind and I think might have had communication with the person herself, possibly regarding the above.

3.) I do find it very odd that she doesn't say she loved MB. I find it even odder, that when she speaks of how Missy isn't perfect, she follows it with her comment about agape love instead of something more like....Missy wasn't perfect, nobody is, but Missy was a great person, a wonderful mother etc. As if agape love was the only love she was worthy of. I hope I'm making sense. I'm too tired to edit.

4.) I do also think it's possible that writing this was her way of coping and maybe leaving out her loving Missy was not intentional, but that she just forgot to add it. I'm trying to see this from both sides....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I pick up MT and RB/VB were afraid of loosing visitations with the grandkids if a divorce would go through. I don't pick up either liked or loved MB, but disapproved of her.

 

[x_files]

This is something I would like to know, too: WHO exactly began the finger-pointing at CT? As for the Target Numbers SW, a very slow careful reading of that pertinent paragraph indicates that while some target numbers may have had phone/text contact with MB, other numbers are on the list as a result of "tips from citizens with possible suspect leads" and not as a result of direct phone contact with MB. It is possible that CT had no phone/text contact with MB, and was simply suggested based on a tip that she resembled SP. (AT&T Target Numbers SW, last para. p.8 - p.9 first para.)

I find this interesting. They wanted to control the narrative and cast blame towards CT for an alleged affair MB was having with AT.

 

[x_files]

Hmmm......a sibling??? JMO

genetic gait.