[FONT=&]IMO the perp never intended to enter through the NE entrance[/FONT]. He broke the first set of glass (doors) and did not proceed in order not to be on the inside surveillance cams. Why not? Even if the panic bars were locked , he could not simply duck and enter? If he got to the church and broke the glass, then left and observed the building for dispatch, he could have returned and proceeded to break through the second set of doors. He didn't. Why not? Because that's not how it went IMO.
If this was a [FONT=&]burglary[/FONT], what was the burglar going for? If he was looking for the [FONT=&]Sunday's donations[/FONT], the [FONT=&]directory sign[/FONT] in the parking lot would have made clear the offices were towards the [FONT=&]South[/FONT] of the building. Why didn't he try to enter through the [FONT=&]SE entrance [/FONT]then? That entrance is located out of view - like the NW entrance- and yet, it would be much closer to the offices and would establish a better exit point. If the burglar was looking for equipment, how would he have carried it out to where? He did not establish another exit point yet, but the kitchen vestibule exit door, which is visible and risky to park a car in front without possibly being seen. Begs the question again ( for the x amount of time) why did he enter through the kitchen?
The entry and (same) exit point for a burglar in a relative large building like that is [FONT=&]somewhat[/FONT] risky from my point of view. No matter how I turn it, the entry chosen by SP does not make sense to [FONT=&]me[/FONT], if this was a [FONT=&]burglary[/FONT]. If he worked so "hard" and had to abort breaking through the second set of doors of the NE entrance like it has been previously suggested, then he would have had to anticipate the same hardship, in case he had to exit the church in a quick run. He would almost [FONT=&]have[/FONT] to establish a [FONT=&]second point of exit other than the entry point[/FONT] to have a [FONT=&]safe escape[/FONT]. In this case, the burglar would literally have to circle around the building or diagonally across just to arrive back on to the start. Who does that?
All that risk taken for staying inside the building for what? I am saying it again, the way of how, where and possibly [FONT=&]when[/FONT] ( hopefully we will know) the perp entered the church, was a mistake on SP's part. An almost perfect outfit to conceal and to possibly escape during a [FONT=&]not expected altercation - but then why costume up to begin with??[/FONT]I'd saythe perp staged this entire break in scenario [FONT=&]well in advance.[/FONT] The broken-in parts ( window(s) and glass doors) were possibly accomplished well before SP's time of actual sighting on camera. S-he could not have possibly planned being inside the building in a timely manner in order to finish his deed.This was done long before IMO[FONT=&]. [/FONT]I'd also say,[FONT=&] SP possibly had a key.[/FONT]This was all so very well planned in advance, poor Missy did not have the fraction of a chance. It is very possible IMO, that Missy indeed was first shot and then in addition injured to obscure the entry wound.
Was this [FONT=&]personal[/FONT] or was it supposed to[FONT=&] look personal[/FONT] ? To me the answer is simple, it is just the [FONT=&]opposite[/FONT] of what it looks like. Same like the[FONT=&] police outfit[/FONT], the [FONT=&]break in[/FONT], the running around and [FONT=&]breaking glass [/FONT]( everyone is looking at the glass, but it's the [FONT=&]hammer [/FONT]he want's us to see), the unsuccessful [FONT=&]prying open [/FONT]of a door ( it wasn't the door, perhaps the plate, but for sure it was the [FONT=&]tool [/FONT]he wants us to see). It's all fake. Fiction is the lie, through which SP is telling us the truth. So, who is behind Missy's murder? The person with the biggest motive ( in their view), some cash and a good sense for fiction and Hollywood limelight.
All my thoughts only.
-Nin
