TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 April 2016 #2

[KaaBoom]

Arriving by motorcycle would be another reason to arrive to the church early, since a motorcycle would make more noise than most cars.

Is there a place on or very near the church property to hide the motorcycle while the perp was inside the building?

The church parking lot looks massive. Looks like you could almost hide a semi-trailer truck in there. A Motorcycle would not necessary make that much noise, if it is properly maintained, and it could even be pushed into the parking lot with no noise what so ever.

 

[BluSkies]

A random freak who just happened to show up inside a closed church in the middle of the night, a half hour before a woman was murdered there? Thats a stretch.

Of course thats the suspect. That's why the police released the video.

True, but the poster does have a point from a legal standpoint; can be argued that "Swat guy" is not seen killing Missy (as far as we know). I wouldn't discount barcode's comment

 

[Gae]

I'm taken by the way the suspect was swinging the hammer to break the window. Something about it seemed almost delicate. I still wouldn't be surprised if this is a woman.

The minute I saw that swing, I thought the same. That overhand, half attempt at a swing appeared to be the movements of a female.

 

[lstiff]

Oh wow


Sent from my iPhone

Do tell!

 

[BluSkies]

The minute I saw that swing, I thought the same. That overhand, half attempt at a swing appeared to be the movements of a female.

Is there new video showing that I presume? Never saw it!

 

[BluSkies]

Do tell!

Ha, was thinking the same! Seemed random comment

 

[fasteddy8170]

Sometimes in cases like this I like to remove one of the facts of the case and see what we'd have. For example, if any of you know the Jodi Huisentruit case, what would've happened had Jodi left for work on time? Would she have still disappeared? Or, if she hadn't gone to work that morning at all, would she still have been attacked? I like to do that as a kind of thought experiment to try to get into the mind of the kidnapper/killer etc.

In this case, imagine if Missy hadn't shown up that morning. Say, she canceled the class. Or, maybe the class didn't even exist. What then would we have?

Well, we'd have a case of somebody breaking into a church, walking around for at least 40 minutes, breaking windows, opening doors, trying to slim jim a locked door, but, in the end, nothing being stolen. Why do I say that? Because I think 40 minutes is plenty of time for someone to figure out what they want to steal. But this suspect didn't.

Now, I follow A LOT of crime out there in the USA. I can't think of one case I know of that's like that. Where it's a break in but nothing is stolen and there is only slight damage done. I mean, you don't even need to add in the Police gear to make it weird. The case, no matter how the suspect is dressed, is strange and unique. It's like Goldfinger breaking into Fort Knox and not taking the gold. Now, in Goldfinger's case, we find out he has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with theft.

I can't help but think that's the case here as well. There is an ulterior motive here. And I'm not 100 percent sure that it was the murder of Missy. So, why else would somebody break into a church and not take anything? Once again, this is just kind of a thought experiment and it helps when I type it out.

Could it be somebody in the congregation thought the church's security system wasn't good enough? And this was a way to prove it. And things got out of hand with Missy?

At some point in the past did a company lose the bid to equip the church with its cameras, sensors, and recorders? And this was a competitor's way of showing that the church made a mistake in going with a different company? Once again, and things got out of hand.

Is there something internally going on in the church regarding its leader and this break-in was a way of showing the church needs new leadership?

Because the motive wasn't theft. It wasn't graffiti. It wasn't arson. All VERY COMMON reasons that churches get broken into.

One thing I'd also note. To my knowledge, the only things that were broken were windows--not exactly the most expensive things to replace. However, when the suspect had an opportunity to open that locked door by hacking at it or using the slim jim to the point that it breaks the lock, the suspect didn't do that. It's almost like the suspect wanted to break cheap stuff, but not expensive stuff. Because a door like that isn't cheap. In other words, if I'm a thief, and I'm in there to steal stuff, and I've already broken some windows, then a door shouldn't be that big of a deal to destroy, should it? The goal is money or stuff, the goal isn't to walk away empty-handed.

Once again, this makes me feel like we're watching a kind of "show" in these videos. A put-on. A very scripted scene.

 

[Nancee Drue]

Come sit with those of us who are in the remedial math class, JHarlin. The nice thing about people who don't do so well with math is that they are usually very intuitive.

It is true that those who aren't mathematical experts are intuitive?

I am not a math expert and I have esp about this situation.

 

[KaaBoom]

Is it possible he or she was on foot?

Unlikely. It looks to be a five mile walk from anywhere. It would take hours for the suspect to walk there. But his car could have been parked some distance away.

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Originally posted by fasteddy8170:

Watching this new video and all of them together I'm struck by how relaxed this suspect is. Watching the videos, the words "leisurely stroll" come to mind. In fact, of every single break-in video I've ever seen, this person seems to be the most relaxed of any I've seen on security cam videos. Kind of reminds me of Jason from the Friday the 13th films--the guy never runs but always seems to catch his victim.

Something weird that caught my eyes is at the beginning of the video. Watch as the suspect walks down the hall but keeps his/her hand on the wall, as if almost using it for balance. However, watching the rest of the video, this person doesn't need any kind of stabilization, despite kind of walking strangely. So, why does the suspect touch the wall like that? Once again, it's almost like this person is there to just kind of hanging out, walk slowly down the halls as if daydreaming, touching the wall as if admiring the interior. It's creepy.

There were also a couple things that caught my eye about the timeline. The class was supposed to start at 5am. However, Missy got there at 4:20am. 40 minutes early? I've known many fitness coaches in my day--I'm kind of a gym rat. And I've never seen one show up 40 minutes early. I'm not sure what it means. However, if this is truly just a case of wrong place/wrong time for Missy, then it could be that the suspect knew the class was going to take place but didn't anticipate Missy being there THAT early. I think we may have to be open to that.

The next thing about the timeline is when the first students got there. The time line says 4:35am. So, Missy enters the church at 4:20am. Let's say she's attacked at 4:25am. The whole thing takes two minutes. So 4:27am. And the suspect must leave shortly after that. Why? Because what we know is the suspect was gone before the first student arrived at 4:35am because the student hasn't mentioned seeing anything unusual when pulling into the parking lot. I think what this means is the suspect didn't steal anything after killing Missy--there just wasn't enough time, probably just a few minutes. Once again, this brings into question whether the suspect was really there to steal anything or not. I mean, if you're gonna kill someone, you might as well complete the theft that you were looking to perform in the first place, right? However, it all puts the idea out there that the suspect knew when students arrived beforehand and knew to leave quickly.

One more thing, it's kind of odd to me that the first student got there at 4:35am, but 911 wasn't called until 5am. That's 25 minutes for the non-math majors. Now, the student knows Missy is there because her car is out front. Did the student sit out in his/her car all that time? I would think that the student would go inside right away since Missy was already there. Or, is it possible that the student did go inside early and didn't see Missy dead right away? Meaning, maybe Missy was discovered in another part of the church, not where the class takes place. In other words, the student goes inside at 4:35am and doesn't see Missy. The student hangs out. Then other students get there. And as the clock gets closer to 5am, they start to wonder where Missy is, since her car is out front. Thus, they start looking around the other parts of the church and find her.

That's all I got.

Just some bullet-point responses because my computer is acting up:

* Apparently Missy always got there about 40min early as the truck took awhile to unload. This was typical for her (and, sounds like, for other trainers who hauled stuff in their trucks to various workout sites).

* Per a carefully worded news conference (early on) we were told that the gal who arrived early (4:35) was also the one who "discovered" Missy. **What we haven't been told is at what time that camper discovered Missy.** We're also told by Captain Spann that she "waited outside until a few more members came" and "they" went in and "found her." So put those true statements together how you will, but that's what has been said. Maybe the first arrival sat in her car for awhile because of the rain (?), or putting on makeup, checking Facebook, etc...who knows. She was early, so could relax a bit. And then when the first arrival saw the others arrive she went ahead and went in, just slightly ahead of the others who were maybe still parking and getting out of their cars. Or, maybe she went in when she first arrived, discovered Missy dead, and went out and sat in her car in shock for 10-15 min. We just don't know.

* We're told in the sister-in-law interview that the first call to BB concerning the "accident" was not from LE, but from "the friend that found her" ("He's getting all this information from the friend that found her" is the direct on-camera quote, when SIL Kristi is explaining the initial mix-up in communication about what happened to Missy.)

* a short while later LE calls BB with news of Missy's passing (presumably from the scene where she was pronounced dead - see timetable)

*Missy''s phone, purse, and iPad were still in her truck, so it sounds like the friend that called BB did so from her own phone. Kristi called her a "friend" so maybe she was a close family friend who had BB's # on her cell phone for whatever reason. ("Couple's friends" who are close friends will sometimes have each other's spouse's numbers on their phone for emergency contact or to track the hubbies down, so this not by necessity suspect.)

 

[cuffem]

The church parking lot looks massive. Looks like you could almost hide a semi-trailer truck in there. A Motorcycle would not necessary make that much noise, if it is properly maintained, and it could even be pushed into the parking lot with no noise what so ever.

I have to say with many years of riding (had no car), you would not be able to ride a mc in that get up.

 

[BluSkies]

Sometimes in cases like this I like to remove one of the facts of the case and see what we'd have. For example, if any of you know the Jodi Huisentruit case, what would've happened had Jodi left for work on time? Would she have still disappeared? Or, if she hadn't gone to work that morning at all, would she still have been attacked? I like to do that as a kind of thought experiment to try to get into the mind of the kidnapper/killer etc.

In this case, imagine if Missy hadn't shown up that morning. Say, she canceled the class. Or, maybe the class didn't even exist. What then would we have?

Well, we'd have a case of somebody breaking into a church, walking around for at least 40 minutes, breaking windows, opening doors, trying to slim jim a locked door, but, in the end, nothing being stolen. Why do I say that? Because I think 40 minutes is plenty of time for someone to figure out what they want to steal. But this suspect didn't.

Now, I follow A LOT of crime out there in the USA. I can't think of one case I know of that's like that. Where it's a break in but nothing is stolen and there is only slight damage done. I mean, you don't even need to add in the Police gear to make it weird. The case, no matter how the suspect is dressed, is strange and unique. It's like Goldfinger breaking into Fort Knox and not taking the gold. Now, in Goldfinger's case, we find out he has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with theft.

I can't help but think that's the case here as well. There is an ulterior motive here. And I'm not 100 percent sure that it was the murder of Missy. So, why else would somebody break into a church and not take anything? Once again, this is just kind of a thought experiment and it helps when I type it out.

Could it be somebody in the congregation thought the church's security system wasn't good enough? And this was a way to prove it. And things got out of hand with Missy?

At some point in the past did a company lose the bid to equip the church with its cameras, sensors, and recorders? And this was a competitor's way of showing that the church made a mistake in going with a different company? Once again, and things got out of hand.

Is there something internally going on in the church regarding its leader and this break-in was a way of showing the church needs new leadership?

Because the motive wasn't theft. It wasn't graffiti. It wasn't arson. All VERY COMMON reasons that churches get broken into.

One thing I'd also note. To my knowledge, the only things that were broken were windows--not exactly the most expensive things to replace. However, when the suspect had an opportunity to open that locked door by hacking at it or using the slim jim to the point that it breaks the lock, the suspect didn't do that. It's almost like the suspect wanted to break cheap stuff, but not expensive stuff. Because a door like that isn't cheap. In other words, if I'm a thief, and I'm in there to steal stuff, and I've already broken some windows, then a door shouldn't be that big of a deal to destroy, should it? The goal is money or stuff, the goal isn't to walk away empty-handed.

Once again, this makes me feel like we're watching a kind of "show" in these videos. A put-on. A very scripted scene.

why does this remind me of O.J.'s book on 'if I did it"

 

[Tillicum]

I do agree that it would be easy to hide, but they are loud. I can hear when someone is riding a motorcycle streets away.

Yes but what if it was a bicycle instead? I've been pondering that this afternoon..

 

[Gae]

It is true that those who aren't mathematical experts are intuitive?

I am not a math expert and I have esp about this situation.

Every personality test I take, I score very high on the intuitive scale, but I'm terrible at math. A couple of experts in the field told me that's common.

 

[lstiff]

Question: is there only 1 entry "road" into the parking lot? Meaning if the perp left in or on a vehicle that wasn't an ATV through the woods, they would have to drive out of the drive and possibly pass some of the people driving in? Do we have any pictures of the parking lot layout?

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

It is true that those who aren't mathematical experts are intuitive?

I am not a math expert and I have esp about this situation.

One-time math teacher here, and also have scored pretty highly intuitive (Myers-Briggs).

Thinking it's just the luck of the draw. (I cannot for the life of me do a cartwheel or whistle with my fingers.)

 

[JLSChook]

Just read the entire 1st thread and all of this one. My thoughts:

--This is a woman perpetrator. I saw this the minute I watched the very first (20 second) video. Watching all subsequent videos have only solidified it for me. (Swinging hammer, tracing the walls while walking, slight forward pelvic stance while walking/standing, etc...)

--I believe this woman is thick, not fat nor extremely thin. I also believe she is in her 30's. Not a teen.

--As far as motive, I have a couple of ideas but can't really go into detail at this time. This crime was extremely personal. Either the killer's motive was revenge/jealousy/elimination of perceived threat, or quite frankly, this perp is severely delusional and mentally ill. (See Mary Jane Fonder)

Like I said, I have other ideas but will conform to TOS at this time.

 

[lstiff]

Every personality test I take, I score very high on the intuitive scale, but I'm terrible at math. A couple of experts in the field told me that's common.

I actually took the Myers Briggs Test this week. I learned so much (actually I just felt relieved that someone finally gets me) about myself!
ESFJ-T apparently the same as Bill Clinton & Taylor Swift :blushing:

 

[PoirotryInMotion]

Yes but what if it was a bicycle instead? I've been pondering that this afternoon..

No reason at all it couldn't have been--or a motor scooter. A bit muddy, maybe, but someone who dons a SWAT outfit to break in and murder someone isn't going to let that stand in the way.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well I guess my two cents are worth as much as everyone else's two cents, so here they are.

I watched the most recent video and if I'd win $1 million for giving the correct answer and have to pick up a snake <shudder> if I were incorrect, I would go with woman.

Caveat: in drama classes students are taught to convey things about their character with what is called a "leading center." Which means leading movement with a specific body part to signal something about the character, because people do this in real life as well. Think of the soldier who walks into a room with chest thrust out.

To me this person is leading with the stomach, which pregnant women do in real life. Maybe some of you who theorized a pregnant woman picked up on this kind of movement.

More frequently, however, people of both sexes with weight in the stomach lead with the stomach. I have observed this much more frequently with men though, because in general, women try to hold in or otherwise disguise their big stomachs and men are less likely to do this.

A bit of a tangent there, but I am seeing either a) a woman or b) a man with a big gut.

As for the wall touching. I am not seeing that being done for balance. To me it almost looks like a kind of "la la la" gesture akin to skipping. Now if the person jumped up to touch the top of a door frame, I would know FOR SURE it's a man.

Lastly, I am seeing unmet expectations in the way the person interacts with the doors. He/she appears to me to gracefully open the first door as if expecting it to be unlocked, as indeed it is. No turning the knob first to see if the door is unlocked before trying to open it, as I would expect with a burglar unfamiliar with the place.

By contrast, when he/she tries that with the second door, which is locked, I see body language that says WTF, really? Locked?

Same with the Dutch door. I am not seeing surprise equivalent to someone unfamiliar with such a door. I am seeing surprise like really? This was supposed to be (left in whatever state required so that the door opens as one unit).

If it turns out that this is a man I will be surprised but not totally shocked (and please, no SNAKES!)

But if it turns out that this person is completely unfamiliar with the church building, I will be so shocked that my neighbors' lights will flicker.

ETA: Another thing about the gender. I think the SWAT gear is another attempt to hide that this is a woman, because anyone seeing anyone dressed like that would automatically assume a man, simply because we don't often see women in SWAT gear. Just as the Midlothian police apparently did before backtracking.

One more edit: I read the body language of some of the opening of doors as, "I always wondered what was in here, now I have the chance to find out."