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

[Jethro4WS]

If my memory is correct, two CG sat in their cars in the parking lot for about 20 minutes before class. This has piqued my curiosity since the beginning. I do understand the idea of finishing your morning coffee/caffeine or getting yourself motivated to take the early class. (I've done that before going into my gym.)
But, if MB's truck was under the awning, with the lift gate open, and those campers never saw her move equipment during those 20 minutes, wouldn't they have gone inside to check on her? Perhaps to offer to help? How could anyone expect a 5 a.m. class to begin on time if the equipment was still in her truck?
From what we have learned about MB, it seems highly likely to me that her classes started on time.
If my memory is not correct on any of these details, please let me know. This is JMO. I'm relying on memory, and I do not have a link.

Adding: This occurred to me as I read posts about the 911 calls & the call(s) to BB. Strange that we don't know (thought perhaps locals do) who made those calls.

One thing to keep in mind. We don't know where the campers parked in the lot. When Missy parked her truck the front of her truck was facing to the west. That would mean that anyone that drove into the parking lot and made the right and travelled down the front of the building would have passed her truck but only would see the front of her truck - it would be dark where she parked under that awning. There are big columns and landscaping shrubs on the parking lot island where the awning ends toward the parking lot. It is very likely they wouldn't be able to see much of anything.

If it were any lighter out or any one of them had driven around the building after entering the parking lot to get to that side of the building they might have noticed if any doors or the tailgate of the truck were open.

 

[Deleted member 172065]

I've been reading/posting since thread 1. There was a poster who came on to say her mom's coworker was the one to find MB. No other details though. Not sure if she was the 4:35 camper or someone else. That's all I remember of it being mentioned who found her. I do remember it being speculated that the C's were a husband/wife who were attending the camp and their daughter was a good friend of the B's daughter. Again, all of those are hearsay from what I remember, no links to prove yes or no. This only stands out because I haven't ruled 1st camper or the C's out completely. Ok, haven't ruled anyone out completely but hopefully you understand what I'm saying here

i remember that poster. She said her mom's co-worker found Missy but was surprised at the official COD. I thought that the mom's co-worker thought it was stab, iirc. But not sure if I read 'between the lnes' correctly.

 

[arkansasmimi]

The top quote in bold was added by me for emphasis. My series of posts on the SWs was intended to educate people that LE cannot search and seize a person's electronic data without probable cause. If LE didn't have probable cause, the SW can be thrown out, and as a result, the evidence can be poisoned.


In conclusion, LE has to have a logical and concrete way to separate "bystanders from suspects." The people in the SW have to be different from everyone else in MB's life for some reason, and if questioned, LE will need to be able to articulate that difference in terms of probable cause. If LE failed to that, the evidence has likely been poisoned.

Since I do not believe that LE would do anything to jeopardize evidence, it seems to me that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the people listed on the SW are different from everyone else. It may not mean that there was anything nefarious between MB and those "Target Numbers," but there was something that gave LE probable cause to suspect that person's involvement in MB's death. When looking at the SW and the "Target Numbers" through that lens, LE has given us great insight into MB's life at the time of her death.

Respectfully snipped by me for space. I agree.

In your Scenario A, Lets also add any of the Initials left in the SW... BB, RB, VB, KC, MC, WH

"Scenario A - Let's take AT/CT for example. During interviews LE unearths repeated of a "friendly and familiar" relationship between AT and MB. That gives LE legitimate probable cause to list AT and CT in the SW. LE has established a motive for them. If LE subsequently finds out that there was in fact no relationship and that information was purely a rumor, that does not in any way affect the original SW. At the time the SW was issued, LE had probable cause to suspect their potential involvement."

"In conclusion, LE has to have a logical and concrete way to separate "bystanders from suspects." The people in the SW have to be different from everyone else in MB's life for some reason, and if questioned, LE will need to be able to articulate that difference in terms of probable cause. If LE failed to that, the evidence has likely been poisoned"

"Since I do not believe that LE would do anything to jeopardize evidence, it seems to me that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the people listed on the SW are different from everyone else. It may not mean that there was anything nefarious [/FONT]between MB and those "Target Numbers," but there was something that gave LE probable cause to suspect that person's involvement in MB's death. When looking at the SW and the "Target Numbers" through that lens, LE has given us great insight into MB's life at the time of her death"

There was and the SW Affidavit for Probable Cause plainly states why these individuals were different at that point in the investigation, April 25, 2016 3:25 pm.

Throughout the course of this MURDER investigation, evidence has been recovered from
electronic data extractions performed on Brandon Bevers (husband) and Ms. Bevers
personal electronic devices (lphones and an lpad). This extracted information has
provided officers with potential persons of interest "Target Numbers" based on the
nature of the communications (text, messages, and recovered deleted messages)
between Ms. Bevers and the above "Target Numbers" ]A portion of these messages (as
well as deleted messages) recovered indicate and confirm statement and tips provided
to officers of an ongoing financial and marital struggle as well as intimate/personal
relationship(s) external to the marriage with identified "Target Numbers".
Officers have also received several tips from citizens with possible suspect leads due to the surveillance
footage being released to the general public. Some of these leads have been very specific as to the approximate
weight, height, build, distinct walk and or feminine sway of the
suspect. These tips have been followed up and are identified as "Target Numbers"
identified above.

By April 25 3:25pm, Think about all that had transpired and mountains of tips, interviews - whether true or perceived facts, the whole Dry Cleaner ordeal *jmho is why VB on the list, RB possibly from seeing him walk and the Dry Cleaner shirt ordeal April 22.. General Public *Internet* didn't see him walk much until the April 27 release of the Dry Cleaner SW. Others may have from funeral and so forth. FB postings of injured foot and possible local gossip as you have noted and being wife of AT could put CT on the radar, especially if there were multiple people saying things. JMHO the remainder of the list the same could apply to the remainder of the list as does for CT & AT. JMHO

 

[SteveS]

The top quote in bold was added by me for emphasis. My series of posts on the SWs was intended to educate people that LE cannot search and seize a person's electronic data without probable cause. If LE didn't have probable cause, the SW can be thrown out, and as a result, the evidence can be poisoned.

For clarification, I am going to run through a few possible scenarios:

Scenario A - Let's take AT/CT for example. During interviews LE unearths repeated chatter of a "friendly and familiar" relationship between AT and MB. That gives LE legitimate probable cause to list AT and CT in the SW. LE has established a motive for them. If LE subsequently finds out that there was in fact no relationship and that information was purely a rumor, that does not in any way affect the original SW. At the time the SW was issued, LE had probable cause to suspect their potential involvement.

Scenario B - LE has so many people who were in contact with MB that they decide that all people with blue eyes need to be investigated. Blue eyes do not constitute a legitimate probable cause so the SW would likely be tossed. Of course, this situation is far-fetched, and I do not think that this is what happened. I used it merely to illustrate a point.

Scenario C (and this is specifically the line of thought that I was attempting to address) - LE is sifting through the hundreds of interactions that MB had in her final days. LE can't really separate one person from the next so they in effect create a list of names and throw a dart at the board. If your name is hit with a dart, you are now the proud owner of a "Target Number." I have seen this type of speculation repeatedly mentioned over the course of the last 3+ threads (i.e. "Target Number" was simply part of a group text, "Target Number" has the exact type of relationship with MB as everyone else in her life, etc.). If Scenario C is how LE chose the "Target Numbers," which I do not think is the case, LE is risking having the SW thrown out. That would poison all of the evidence.

In conclusion, LE has to have a logical and concrete way to separate "bystanders from suspects." The people in the SW have to be different from everyone else in MB's life for some reason, and if questioned, LE will need to be able to articulate that difference in terms of probable cause. If LE failed to that, the evidence has likely been poisoned.

Since I do not believe that LE would do anything to jeopardize evidence, it seems to me that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the people listed on the SW are different from everyone else. It may not mean that there was anything nefarious between MB and those "Target Numbers," but there was something that gave LE probable cause to suspect that person's involvement in MB's death. When looking at the SW and the "Target Numbers" through that lens, LE has given us great insight into MB's life at the time of her death.

<mod snip> You keep talking about the SW "being tossed" and the evidence being "poisoned." But that's really not an option, as long as the probable cause affidavit (part of the request for the SW) was truthful. And to be clear, a probable cause affidavit is submitted with the request for the SW, as part of the process, not afterward.

As I've mentioned previously, when the underlying reason is seen as being inadequate, it's correct to say that the request for a SW is likely to be denied, in which case a SW will never exist in the first place. But that doesn't toss any evidence or poison anything, but instead it makes LE obtain (or provide) a better proof of probable cause to get their SW request approved.

The key point is this. Once the SW is issued, then whatever "probable cause" that was offered has at that point been accepted as adequate. LE then has the legal right to search, according to the warrant, and because their search was done with a SW, the evidence is not going to be tossed or poisoned, as you term it.

SW's are a constitutional protection to us. But maybe what is being missed is that such protection is based on prior judicial review of the legitimacy of a search, but not on an adversarial hearing with attorneys and witnesses and the like. Once the SW has been issued, then the process is really over, rather than ahead.

Where you get evidence tossed and poisoned, is in the case of searches that are done WITHOUT a warrant, not with one. That is probably what you are thinking of.

 

[arkansasmimi]

A definition of PROBABLE CAUSE:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

as it applies to Search Warrants quote:

APPLICATION TO SEARCH WARRANTS

Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability that a search will result in evidence of a crime being discovered.7 For a warrantless search, probable cause can be established by in-court testimony after the search. In the case of a warrant search, however, an affidavit or recorded testimony must support the warrant by indicating on what basis probable cause exists.8
A judge may issue a search warrant if the affidavit in support of the warrant offers sufficient credible information to establish probable cause.9 There is a presumption that police officers are reliable sources of information, and affidavits in support of a warrant will often include their observations.10 When this is the case, the officers&#8217; experience and training become relevant factors in assessing the existence of probable cause.11 Information from victims or witnesses, if included in an affidavit, may be important factors as well.12
The good faith exception that applies to arrests also applies to search warrants: when a defect renders a warrant constitutionally invalid, the evidence does not have to be suppressed if the officers acted in good faith.13 Courts evaluate an officer&#8217;s good faith by looking at the nature of the error and how the warrant was executed.14

• 1. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983).
• 2. United States v. Humphries, 372 F.3d 653, 657 (4th Cir. 2004).
• 3. Prosecutor's Manual for Arrest, Search and Seizure, § 6-6(b) (2004).
• 4. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), at 648, 655.
• 5. See Ariz. v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
• 6. People v. Boyer, 305 Ill. App. 3d 374 (1999), at 379-80.
• 7. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238.
• 8. Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 564 (1971).
• 9. Prosecutor's Manual for Arrest, Search and Seizure, § 3-2(c) (2004).
• 10. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978).
• 11. See United States v. Mick, 263 F.3d 553, 566 (6th Cir. 2001).
• 12. See United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 566 (1st Cir. 1996).
• 13. See United States v. White, 356 F.3d 865 (8th Cir. 2004).
• 14. See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 638 F.3d 89, 100&#8211;05 (2d Cir. 2011)

LOL was just fixing to post same thing also:

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
An extension of the exclusionary rule established in Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920). This doctrine holds that evidence gathered with the assistance of illegally obtained information must be excluded from trial. Thus, if an illegal interrogation leads to the discovery of physical evidence, both the interrogation and the physical evidence may be excluded, the interrogation because of the exclusionary rule, and the physical evidence because it is the &#8220;fruit&#8221; of the illegal interrogation. This doctrine is subject to three of important exceptions. The evidence will not be excluded (1) if it was discovered from a source independent of the illegal activity; (2) its discovery was inevitable; or (3) if there is attenuation between the illegal activity and the discovery of the evidence. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Here is link to Exclusionary Rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule

 

[arkansasmimi]

Thank you. You're correct. One participant arrived at 4:35 a.m. Two 911 calls about 25 minutes later.
http://www.fox4news.com/news/129779738-story

Also add the 5:06 a.m. call that could either be included in the 2 approx 5:00 a.m. 911 calls or maybe an additional call. The 5:06 a.m. is listed in the iPhone and iPad SW Affidavit for Probable Cause. JMHO it would def make sense (to me) 1 call was made to 911 at approx 5 - initially found her and something wrong and then the 5:06 call stating she not breathing and deceased. But that is JMHO, and the documents with this info are unclear.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to that, didn't MB and AT just meet 5 weeks prior to the murder?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

If you go back to MB facebook you will see they have been friends since at least 2014

 

[Scout]

I'd like to know if the local citizens are content with the status of the investigation. It appears stalled and likely to go cold from my perspective.

 

[arkansasmimi]

is there anyone who can point me in the direction of any info (perhaps even discussion here that seems legit) to support this? I have been trying to find something about who found her and have been reading endless news reports etc, to no avail. Anything at all would be appreciated. This is a gap in my research. =) TIA

My theory is strictly from research. Not anyone listed in MSM or Documents. To my knowledge the names of the CG Campers are probably only known to people local and LEO. JMHO I totally understand for many reasons why that info is not released by MPD and along with among many reasons the Incident and Statements are not being released as well as 911 calls.

 

[x_files]

I'd like to know if the local citizens are content with the status of the investigation. It appears stalled and likely to go cold from my perspective.

Who knows- I haven't seen any locals blog about it? Maybe just discuss it amongst themselves?

 

[SandyQLS]

LE and the Bevers family have admitted there was at least one affair on MB's part. So, while she may have been a wonderful person, we know she made at least one bad choice. However, there is nothing to suggest AT was an unfaithful husband and to invent such a scenario in order to cast CT as a murderer to jam together pieces of a puzzle that do not fit, is too low to go.

LE has never said that MB "had an affair." LE said there were "relationship(s)" outside the marriage and "intimate texts" which are not an affair. The only person who specifcally said that MB had an affair was KS. Unless KS was present and has photographs, then her word is no better than 2nd hand and rumor, all of which may have been created by jealous, hate-filled gossips, or by the killer(s) who may have began this character assasination a long time ago now.

 

[privateaye]

If you go back to MB facebook you will see they have been friends since at least 2014

Ok thanks. I remember reading it was 5 weeks, on another website. The belief was that wasn't enough time for all the pieces to come together...affair, jealousy, meticulous planning, murder etc. But if they've known each other since 2014 that negates that idea.
Edit: To clarify, this is in reference to CT as perp.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

I have been trying to keep up but not posting much because I don't have anything to add. Two things did stick out to me in reading the last few days.

MB's purse - she may not have taken one. If I have a chance to leave mine at home, I do! I will take my license and check card but leave everything else at home. So since she was just doing a workout then headed back home (I assume since girls were there and BB gone), I'm thinking she probably didn't take a purse with her.

CT's number being included - I really have to assume MB and CT spent some time together. Met at some point, something. If AT was starting CG because of MB, I would think both couples would have met each other at some point. It's not weird that CT would have MB's number. But....I DO think there was a reason it was listed on the SW. Same with all numbers listed. There was some reason LE had reason to list those number. And it's also why the C's (husband/wife) haven't gone off my radar yet either. I have no idea how they linked to her but there is a reason. I know some are saying they found MB but I'm not sure on that. The one person who posted on early threads said it was her mom's coworker, NOT the C's??? Of course, hearsay, but I saw recently someone else say KC had an early spin class and couldn't have been there. So why were they listed??????

Two 911 calls - I honestly don't find this weird. One person may have stayed with MB to do CPR/see if she was alive while the other person freaked and ran outside and called 911. I personally don't think both were standing there together while making the calls.

I keep thinking I will step away from this case because there isn't anything new. But I can't back away. I keep hoping something will break. So I scroll and roll and scroll and roll.

RBBM, MB purse was in her truck per the SW for the Ford F150 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12721634#post12721634

MB iPhone was NOT listed on the SW for Ford F150 but her purse was along with other things.

UPDATE ON MB IPHONE:
From the iPhone and iPad SW:

SW Affidavit for iPhone & iPad for Forensic Examination and Extraction -April 19 550 pm
Page 3/8 - APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT

1. THERE IS IN ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, A PLACE AND PREMISES DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS:
The Midlothian Police Department, 1150 North State Highway 67, Suite 300, Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas.

2: THERE IS AT SAID PLACE AND PREMISES PROPERTY CONCEALED AND KEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: *WRITTEN IN : AND/OR CONTAINING (? unable to read writing but think this what says "containing" ) EVIDENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER:

Cellular telephone discovered owned by Terri Leanne Bevers: Apple iPhone, Model: A1549 IMEI Number:35699006428811027
Your Affiant believes that the cell phone contains forensic evidence to aid this criminal investigation of Murder

**so the MPD had possession of the iPhone from crime scene JMHO

**SW from Ford F150 got possession of iPhone and Planner from truck

 

[GA_Peach]

1 "Are some of you suggesting that any person who texted or called Missy could be subjected to a search and seizure of all of their electronic communication for a 45+ day period?"

Perhaps so, although I trust that you mean "could LE ask for a SW for something or other based on this" when you say "subjected to search and seizure."

2 "Does simply contacting Missy warrant enough probably cause?"

Perhaps so, although I trust that you mean "could LE ask for a SW for something or other based on this" when you say "subjected to search and seizure."

3 "Also, how were the "Target Numbers" selected out of all of the people who came into contact with MB?"

We don't know. That would be up to LE to figure out, to separate the suspects from the bystanders.

4 "If the "Target Numbers" were simply random, I see some huge Fourth Amendment issues, and I would hate for LE to have poisoned any evidence collected via the SWs."

If they legally obtained a warrant from the court, for whatever they were searching and found, they should be good to go. It's the search without a warrant, or outside the scope of a legally-obtained warrant, that can cause trouble. I'm guessing that anyone who was in contact with MB in the days leading up to her mysterious death would probably be allowed to be investigated a bit more, and that SW's for their electronic data trails would be permitted, but it's up to LE to ask for permission and give their reasoning, and then up the court to say yea or nay.

<mod snip> You keep talking about the SW "being tossed" and the evidence being "poisoned." But that's really not an option, as long as the probable cause affidavit (part of the request for the SW) was truthful. And to be clear, a probable cause affidavit is submitted with the request for the SW, as part of the process, not afterward.

As I've mentioned previously, when the underlying reason is seen as being inadequate, it's correct to say that the request for a SW is likely to be denied, in which case a SW will never exist in the first place. But that doesn't toss any evidence or poison anything, but instead it makes LE obtain (or provide) a better proof of probable cause to get their SW request approved.

The key point is this. Once the SW is issued, then whatever "probable cause" that was offered has at that point been accepted as adequate. LE then has the legal right to search, according to the warrant, and because their search was done with a SW, the evidence is not going to be tossed or poisoned, as you term it.

SW's are a constitutional protection to us. But maybe what is being missed is that such protection is based on prior judicial review of the legitimacy of a search, but not on an adversarial hearing with attorneys and witnesses and the like. Once the SW has been issued, then the process is really over, rather than ahead.

Where you get evidence tossed and poisoned, is in the case of searches that are done WITHOUT a warrant, not with one. That is probably what you are thinking of.

Red added by me.

Respectfully, you seem to have a lot of confidence about what I am thinking and asking. I am not sure why you keep trying to clarify my thoughts on my behalf, and I request that you stop. In both cases that you have tried to project your thoughts onto me, you have been mistaken.

If the SW was not based on probable cause although LE stated that it was, the SW will likely be invalidated. The SW being approved assumes that the statements in it are true. That is what I said, and it is precisely what I meant. You can be feel free to disagree with that statement, but please do not try to "fix" my words for me.

If you aren't understanding my words, arkansasmimi has a great post about it (post #143). I did not post it here for the sake of space, but she clearly articulates why the "Target Numbers" are different. Thanks, arkansasmimi. You might want to check out post #139 as it defines what is needed to establish probable cause.

 

[arkansasmimi]

<mod snip> You keep talking about the SW "being tossed" and the evidence being "poisoned." But that's really not an option, as long as the probable cause affidavit (part of the request for the SW) was truthful. And to be clear, a probable cause affidavit is submitted with the request for the SW, as part of the process, not afterward.

As I've mentioned previously, when the underlying reason is seen as being inadequate, it's correct to say that the request for a SW is likely to be denied, in which case a SW will never exist in the first place. But that doesn't toss any evidence or poison anything, but instead it makes LE obtain (or provide) a better proof of probable cause to get their SW request approved.

The key point is this. Once the SW is issued, then whatever "probable cause" that was offered has at that point been accepted as adequate. LE then has the legal right to search, according to the warrant, and because their search was done with a SW, the evidence is not going to be tossed or poisoned, as you term it.

SW's are a constitutional protection to us. But maybe what is being missed is that such protection is based on prior judicial review of the legitimacy of a search, but not on an adversarial hearing with attorneys and witnesses and the like. Once the SW has been issued, then the process is really over, rather than ahead.

Where you get evidence tossed and poisoned, is in the case of searches that are done WITHOUT a warrant, not with one. That is probably what you are thinking of.

RBBM. Just because you have a SW, does not mean that that everything went as suppose to. Not completely true. In the Beverly Carter case, 2 Search Warrants were executed and were challenged by one of the Defense Attorney and won. They were deemed to be General Warrants. The SW Affidavit was approved and a SW was signed by the Judge and evidence was collected. Sadly in that case one was the trunk of car with hair of the victim.

Links in that case evidence was suppressed/toss/unable to be used because of an illegal search warrant https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29 and final word decision https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=4DAZN9A8XHYVFWKXJF42XYRVP16125

JMHO what GA Peach has said and continues to say is that the individuals on the ATT Target Numbers SW, were on there for a reason. Not just by some fluke. GA Peach is correct because that is exactly what the SW Affidavit points out. If they had not had Probable Cause (and they appeared to by the PC Affidavit) then yes the SW could be challenged potentially just as in the BC case. JMHO

 

[SandyQLS]

RBBM, MB purse was in her truck per the SW for the Ford F150 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12721634#post12721634 MB iPhone was NOT listed on the SW for Ford F150 but her purse was along with other things. UPDATE ON MB IPHONE: From the iPhone and iPad SW: SW Affidavit for iPhone & iPad for Forensic Examination and Extraction -April 19 550 pm Page 3/8 - APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT 1. THERE IS IN ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, A PLACE AND PREMISES DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS: The Midlothian Police Department, 1150 North State Highway 67, Suite 300, Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. 2: THERE IS AT SAID PLACE AND PREMISES PROPERTY CONCEALED AND KEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: *WRITTEN IN : AND/OR CONTAINING (? unable to read writing but think this what says "containing" ) EVIDENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER: Cellular telephone discovered owned by Terri Leanne Bevers: Apple iPhone, Model: A1549 IMEI Number:35699006428811027 Your Affiant believes that the cell phone contains forensic evidence to aid this criminal investigation of Murder **so the MPD had possession of the iPhone from crime scene JMHO **SW from Ford F150 got possession of iPhone and Planner from truck

The word "purse" does not occur in the Truck SW. The handwritten sentence you are unable to read (? page 2 item#3) states: "and/or evidence of the commission of the crimes of murder /and burglary." JMO.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
If you go back to MB facebook you will see they have been friends since at least 2014

Ok thanks. I remember reading it was 5 weeks, on another website. The belief was that wasn't enough time for all the pieces to come together...affair, jealousy, meticulous planning, murder etc. But if they've known each other since 2014 that negates that idea.
Edit: To clarify, this is in reference to CT as perp.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

That my dear is why one researches to find the truth and uses links for back up. Just because some one says something and repeats it yet has nothing to back it up.. well gotta research. Take what is said and research. JMHO But yes MB got her Trainer Cert in April 2014 iirc and she iirc met AT at a gym where he was doing classes and she on her own was starting Bootcamp classes. She went to a CG presentation at Walgreen in Midlo that was being covered by a MSM I want to say Fox4 but dont quote me dont have time to get link at moment. That was iirc Feb 2015 and she joined CG in March 2015 or maybe the Walgreen was Jan and she joined Feb, one or the other, it on her FB.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
RBBM, MB purse was in her truck per the SW for the Ford F150 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...4#post12721634 MB iPhone was NOT listed on the SW for Ford F150 but her purse was along with other things. UPDATE ON MB IPHONE: From the iPhone and iPad SW: SW Affidavit for iPhone & iPad for Forensic Examination and Extraction -April 19 550 pm Page 3/8 - APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT 1. THERE IS IN ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS, A PLACE AND PREMISES DESCRIBED AND LOCATED AS FOLLOWS: The Midlothian Police Department, 1150 North State Highway 67, Suite 300, Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. 2: THERE IS AT SAID PLACE AND PREMISES PROPERTY CONCEALED AND KEPT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAWS OF TEXAS AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: *WRITTEN IN : AND/OR CONTAINING (? unable to read writing but think this what says "containing" ) EVIDENCE IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENCE OF MURDER: Cellular telephone discovered owned by Terri Leanne Bevers: Apple iPhone, Model: A1549 IMEI Number:35699006428811027 Your Affiant believes that the cell phone contains forensic evidence to aid this criminal investigation of Murder **so the MPD had possession of the iPhone from crime scene JMHO **SW from Ford F150 got possession of iPhone and Planner from truck

The word "purse" does not occur in the Truck SW. The handwritten sentence you are unable to read (? page 2 item#3) states: "and/or evidence of the commission of the crimes of murder /and burglary." JMO.

Respectfully, MB purse is listed as being inventoried on the SW for the truck. The purse was not seized from the truck, only the iPad and Planner were.
And on the UPDATE part that is on the iPhone and iPad SW, stating the location of the iPHONE. 2 different SW. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[privateaye]

That my dear is why one researches to find the truth and uses links for back up. Just because some one says something and repeats it yet has nothing to back it up.. well gotta research. Take what is said and research. JMHO But yes MB got her Trainer Cert in April 2014 iirc and she iirc met AT at a gym where he was doing classes and she on her own was starting Bootcamp classes. She went to a CG presentation at Walgreen in Midlo that was being covered by a MSM I want to say Fox4 but dont quote me dont have time to get link at moment. That was iirc Feb 2015 and she joined CG in March 2015 or maybe the Walgreen was Jan and she joined Feb, one or the other, it on her FB.

"My dear", that's why I asked on here, and didn't treat it as fact. What's with the attitude with this site.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

"My dear", that's why I asked on here, and didn't treat it as fact. What's with the attitude with this site.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Oh I meant that kindly, not as condescending. Sorry if came across like that. Southern to the core.