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

[ardenmost]

Captain Johnson stated that LE did onsite investigations and interviews in Mississippi and retrieved some electronic data. (page 5 of May 20 presser).

What at type of investigation was done for RB/VB as far as their alibi?

 

[x_files]

What at type of investigation was done for RB/VB as far as their alibi?

and here lies the million dollar unanswered question.

 

[cady]

and here lies the million dollar unanswered question.

We heard about RB, but I don't recall hearing the same for VB. I think people just assumed that she had to be included in his alibi whereabouts. LE MUST know, though, if they thoroughly checked her out. JMO................(it fleetingly has crossed my mind that MT and VB could have been in cahoots to unburden their beloved BB......) JMO

 

[Camerabug]

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

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Excellent advice! I am seeing things I had not know were important!

 

[Camerabug]

Many thanks to Dushi for originally posting this way back when.

I particularly found this quote interesting: "It is going to raise the awareness of the Police Department that there may be something more here than just a burglary or even a murder," said Schultze. "Something else was going on here, and they're going to try to uncover it."

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/suspect-in-fatal-north-texas-church-attack-was-dressed-in-swat-gear

 

[Batbrat]

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".

Except SP is not wearing a bike helmet or motorcycle helmet. He's wearing a tactical helmet. While conceivably it could be padded (some are), from what I see in the footage it isn't sitting high enough on his head to be. One can measure the eyes to the top of the head or to see where the chin is in relation to the helmet. I've concluded therefore, it's much more likely to be either a kevlar-wrapped nylon tactical helmet (the real deal) or a nylon paintball helmet - both of which are typically lined with webbing, not padding, to keep the head cool. I have researched the measurements on these helmets and have found them to add on average 1-2" in height.

As far as what kind of footwear SP is wearing, it does not appear to be a work boot with a heel. From the footage I was able to most closely match this type of footwear, a tactical-style bootlet. These tac boots do not have much of a heel, certainly not a workboot type heel. They add the same amount. On average 1-1.5".

 

[CHUCKJ]

Except SP is not wearing a bike helmet or motorcycle helmet. He's wearing a tactical helmet. While conceivably it could be padded (some are), from what I see in the footage it isn't sitting high enough on his head to be. One can measure the eyes to the top of the head or to see where the chin is in relation to the helmet. I've concluded therefore, it's much more likely to be either a kevlar-wrapped nylon tactical helmet (the real deal) or a nylon paintball helmet - both of which are typically lined with webbing, not padding, to keep the head cool. I have researched the measurements on these helmets and have found them to add on average 1-2" in height.

From experience. Tactical helments (I believe this is) are not only padded with thicker padding than bike helmets, but also have a carriage system. they are not just a shell sitting on your head. Im not knocking your research. It's just that, as a matter of perception alone, 5" is not that big of a variance and in my estimation, LE is being responsible in theirs. Even by your own extimation, Le is only possibly off by 2-3" and I thinks that reasonable by the standard of saying that the best we can calculate with the information we have.

 

[liz b.]

Many thanks to Dushi for originally posting this way back when.

I particularly found this quote interesting: "It is going to raise the awareness of the Police Department that there may be something more here than just a burglary or even a murder," said Schultze. "Something else was going on here, and they're going to try to uncover it."

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/suspect-in-fatal-north-texas-church-attack-was-dressed-in-swat-gear

That is a very interesting quote. TY. jmo

 

[Batbrat]

From experience. Tactical helments (I believe this is) are not only padded with thicker padding than bike helmets, but also have a carriage system. they are not just a shell sitting on your head. Im not knocking your research. It's just that, as a matter of perception alone, 5" is not that big of a variance and in my estimation, LE is being responsible in theirs. Even by your own extimation, Le is only possibly off by 2-3" and I thinks that reasonable by the standard of saying that the best we can calculate with the information we have.

I see what your saying. To clarify, I haven't claimed the helmet is a "shell" sitting on SP's head. The nylon shell of a tac helm is 4-8mm thick, not 1.5". The webbing acts as the shock absorber similar to padding and adds height, but it's not usually significant. Similar to a construction helm, but they don't sit as high on the head as they're designed for ballistic impact rather than falling debris.

 

[gliving]

Interesting that the perp was wearing gear to protect their head and chest, and Missy's injuries were to her head and chest.

 

[CHUCKJ]

From experience. Tactical helments (I believe this is) are not only padded with thicker padding than bike helmets, but also have a carriage system. they are not just a shell sitting on your head. Im not knocking your research. It's just that, as a matter of perception alone, 5" is not that big of a variance and in my estimation, LE is being responsible in theirs. Even by your own extimation, Le is only possibly off by 2-3" and I thinks that reasonable by the standard of saying that the best we can calculate with the information we have.

Please excuse me if you took this to be a debate. I guess the easiest way to say what Im trying to say is this: If LE had given an estimate of 5.5 to 5.7, or even 5.4-5.7, would you question it's validity?
accounting for the unknown even by your own extimations, a profile of within 2 to 3in is as close as I've ever heard reported for any unidentified suspect.

Lets say at the minimum, the boots add an inch and the helmet adds .5 inches. the range would be 5.31/2 to 5.7....a differance of 3" That more than reasonable. accounting for the unknown by 2" and regardless of the technology they were using, there is no way they could calculate it exactly even barefooted with no helmet short of the suspect standing with their back flat against the wall next to a measuring stick.

 

[CHUCKJ]

I see what your saying. To clarify, I haven't claimed the helmet is a "shell" sitting on SP's head. The nylon shell of a tac helm is 4-8mm thick, not 1.5". The webbing acts as the shock absorber similar to padding and adds height, but it's not usually significant. Similar to a construction helm, but they don't sit as high on the head as they're designed for ballistic impact rather than falling debris.

forgive me, for the additional post. I had to sign back in and not sure what happened, so started over and looks like I replied twice with virtually the same info. For sake of you understanding that Im not against your figures....Ill leave it at that....Props on all the time and energy you've invested on this case....

 

[latisha.darnell]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[east2west]

I'm still in the camp that SP is a female. It was reported that MB stopped going to the gym weeks before her murder. Maybe MB became gym friends with SP overtime. Its been reported MB was a member for 3 yrs at the gym. SP became fixated on MB in a romantic way overtime as well. MB and SP continue to play a dangerous game of push and pull (stay away..and I'm flattered...lets workout, go have coffee, lunch occasionally). SP eventually tells MB that she has feelings for her and wants more, however MB can not reciprocate. SP feels she has been "strung along" with the hope that MB would reciprocate. SP becomes enraged from unrequited love. This all took place without ever having exchanged phone numbers. No telephonic trail for LE to follow. Their relationship was strictly face to face communication. Perp: Female. Motive: Unrequited Love . I'm convinced the Gym and one of its members holds the clue to her tragic demise. the usual "jmo".

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/nancy-gr...evers-reportedly-acting-strange-before-murder

 

[liz b.]

Interesting that the perp was wearing gear to protect their head and chest, and Missy's injuries were to her head and chest.

Fascinating observation ! jmo

 

[Camerabug]

That is a very interesting quote. TY. jmo

That link didn't come through right so I will try again here
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/loc...-texas-church-attack-was-dressed-in-swat-gear

 

[Batbrat]

Please excuse me if you took this to be a debate. I guess the easiest way to say what Im trying to say is this: If LE had given an estimate of 5.5 to 5.7, or even 5.4-5.7, would you question it's validity?
accounting for the unknown even by your own extimations, a profile of within 2 to 3in is as close as I've ever heard reported for any unidentified suspect.

Lets say at the minimum, the boots add an inch and the helmet adds .5 inches. the range would be 5.31/2 to 5.7....a differance of 3" That more than reasonable. accounting for the unknown by 2" and regardless of the technology they were using, there is no way they could calculate it exactly even barefooted with no helmet short of the suspect standing with their back flat against the wall next to a measuring stick.

I definitely see what you're saying - we are on the same page there. And, I'm really not trying to butt heads on this either. I totally see where you're at on this. I just want to clarify what my own research and work has produced, and more importantly, give the reasons for why I refuse to tweak my own numbers in order to "fit into" some predetermined parameters, which I feel is a form of confirmation bias.

Being consistently overly-generous on gear dimensions rather than conservative, being consistently conservative on height estimates of the subject, sure... one might be able to almost squeeze SP into within LE's upper end estimates. However, I can't/won't do that because that's not the point of my work. Additionally it's what my research and numbers reflect. I can find no helmet anywhere that would add 5" to a person's height. Sorry, but that's simply not reasonable or plausible. I could budge a bit on the shoes, but not much (I won't go into detail here unless you request it, but it has to do with the measurement of SP's foot from instep to heel - something I spent a lot of time on when the subjects of "too big shoes" and "shoe lifts" were brought up).

If I keep rounding down, shaving off, squeezing, accounting for the absolute smallest or largest measurements in order to fit some predetermined parameter (or theory, or suspect), what's the point of doing my own work at all? And even if I do that (as I have per request on multiple occasions), I still can barely squeeze into their upper end number. If I genuinely believed LE was being liberal with their range of heights "just in case", then their range should start closer to 5'7" on the low end and go up to 6'. As it is now, they have fully eliminated men from suspect list, as the average height for American males is 5'10". More than 80% of men are over 5'8". Why, if they're being "generous" with a wider range, virtually eliminate half the population altogether? From that, you might automatically assume "well then, probably a woman". Which is what my initial reaction was. Is it a woman? That's what I wanted to find out. That's why I spent so much time on it. But my work did not produce numbers anywhere near their range within reason. So I'm left wondering why and how they arrived at their numbers. If my work resulted in a wider range, starting from somewhere in the vicinity of LE's estimates on up to mine, I might be more inclined to agree with you or agree with LE.

My work has completely changed my mind on who SP could be. As much as I dislike what my results have produced, they are what they are. They are the result of many, many hours of meticulous work, and I'm not about to trim them down simply to match someone else's results. At least, not until they can show/teach me the method of how they arrived at such different numbers than I and other analysts have.

SP is not 5'7" or shorter. If I add 4-5" for the helmet, this is what it would look like. I'm not trying to be intentionally ridiculous with the illustration below. By my most conservative measurement, and my most most generous leeway on LE's results (based on your numbers), this illustration represents what a tac helm (actual outline overlay) would look like on a man of 5'5" (edited to correct) if we added 4" or more padding to the height:

 

[Batbrat]

I definitely see what you're saying - we are on the same page there. And, I'm really not trying to butt heads on this either. I totally see where you're at on this. I just want to clarify what my own research and work has produced, and more importantly, give the reasons for why I refuse to tweak my own numbers in order to "fit into" some predetermined parameters, which I feel is a form of confirmation bias.

Being consistently overly-generous on gear dimensions rather than conservative, being consistently conservative on height estimates of the subject, sure... one might be able to almost squeeze SP into within LE's upper end estimates. However, I can't/won't do that because that's not the point of my work. Additionally it's what my research and numbers reflect. I can find no helmet anywhere that would add 5" to a person's height. Sorry, but that's simply not reasonable or plausible. I could budge a bit on the shoes, but not much (I won't go into detail here unless you request it, but it has to do with the measurement of SP's foot from instep to heel - something I spent a lot of time on when the subjects of "too big shoes" and "shoe lifts" were brought up).

If I keep rounding down, shaving off, squeezing, accounting for the absolute smallest or largest measurements in order to fit some predetermined parameter (or theory, or suspect), what's the point of doing my own work at all? And even if I do that (as I have per request on multiple occasions), I still can barely squeeze into their upper end number. If I genuinely believed LE was being liberal with their range of heights "just in case", then their range should start closer to 5'7" on the low end and go up to 6'. As it is now, they have fully eliminated men from suspect list, as the average height for American males is 5'10". More than 80% of men are over 5'8". Why, if they're being "generous" with a wider range, virtually eliminate half the population altogether? From that, you might automatically assume "well then, probably a woman". Which is what my initial reaction was. Is it a woman? That's what I wanted to find out. That's why I spent so much time on it. But my work did not produce numbers anywhere near their range within reason. So I'm left wondering why and how they arrived at their numbers. If my work resulted in a wider range, starting from somewhere in the vicinity of LE's estimates on up to mine, I might be more inclined to agree with you or agree with LE.

My work has completely changed my mind on who SP could be. As much as I dislike what my results have produced, they are what they are. They are the result of many, many hours of meticulous work, and I'm not about to trim them down simply to match someone else's results. At least, not until they can show/teach me the method of how they arrived at such different numbers than I and other analysts have.

SP is not 5'7" or shorter. If I add 4-5" for the helmet, this is what it would look like. I'm not trying to be intentionally ridiculous with the illustration below. By my most conservative measurement, and my most most generous leeway on LE's results (based on your numbers), this illustration represents what a tac helm (actual outline overlay) would look like on a man of 5'7" if we added 4" or more padding to the height:

OMG I just realized it's Dark Helm from Spaceballs. Carry on.

 

[curiousjo]

So Batbrat- in your estimate- what height is SP? Are you sticking with approx 5'11-6 foot?

 

[x_files]

OMG I just realized it's Dark Helm from Spaceballs. Carry on.

Why would LE give incorrect height out to the public? That's what confounds me.