TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #47

[khaki]

Neither have I. I suspect that EMS did not recognize the bullet wound(s?). After the autopsy, LE knew that she had been shot as well as "punctured", but never clarified that publicly because they wanted to keep the fact that she was shot under wraps. That may be why they belatedly brought in the ATF sniffer dog, unfortunately after they had released the crime scene. JMO

I agree! IMO, the tool (s) were used to dig out the bullet, and to cause grossly and horrifying disfigurement of Missy. I believe the SP (s) were there for one reason only-to kill Missy. I believe all the walking around, going room to room, was to understand fully the lay of the land, to make sure no one else was there, kill time, throw off LE, etc. Once Missy arrived, he/she/they wasted no time carrying out the intent of their mission. JMHO

 

[cady]

I agree! IMO, the tool (s) were used to dig out the bullet, and to cause grossly and horrifying disfigurement of Missy. I believe the SP (s) were there for one reason only-to kill Missy. I believe all the walking around, going room to room, was to understand fully the lay of the land, to make sure no one else was there, kill time, throw off LE, etc. Once Missy arrived, he/she/they wasted no time carrying out the intent of their mission. JMHO

Possibly, but that was a local rumor going around. May or may not be true. But if she was already shot, one wonders what the purpose of the tool injuries was, if not to gleefully disfigure her. A former member here, who claimed to have some inside info, said that LE HAS bullet fragments , presumably from her head, at autopsy. If so, and SP was digging for a bullet , SP was unsuccessful. JMO (I agree that SP's intent in the whole charade was to KILL Missy.)

 

[TheGardener]

When you put on a pair of gloves, pull on your pants, strap on your police gear, you use your hands. If you think you've hidden your sweat, your shed skin, your aspirate or any of the things that may identify you...you are wrong. You probably used your hands to strap on your gear before you put your gloves on. Keep this in mind.

There's a wonderful new tool for collecting DNA. Its called an M-vac. It's like a little wet vac that sucks DNA from places DNA could not be gathered from before. Here's some info about it. I think Missy's clothing and any other evidence gathered from the crime scene needs another look...with an M-vac. I've sent this info on to the MPD.

Does it work? M-vac found DNA on a rock used to kill a woman - 17 years after traditional DNA collection techniques found nothing. The guy who matched the DNA knew the victim at the time of the crime. He has been arrested and is going to trial.
How It Works | M-Vac Systems, Inc

 

[cady]

It would be GREAT, if somewhere down the road, we find out that a DNA sample was indeed found and is in the hands of the FBI. We have no idea if that happened. If it did, then LE is aware of the gender of SP and maybe even far enough along in investigating genealogically. But my rant about the aborted crime scene investigation still stands. The opportunity to find the tiniest smidgeon of physical evidence has long since passed. Sadly. JMO

 

[al66pine]

# of Shots Struck?

... The number of wounds is, at this point, only known to the ME and police and the perpetrator. If an informant or perpetrator were ever to confess, he or she would know how many times Missy was struck. JMO.

@Synergizer Bunny bbm sbm Thx for your post prompting me to think about this issue a bit further. Respectfully, not disagreeing, but am questioning it. SP is likely to know number of shots fired,* but may not know how many bullets struck her, even tho she was close by.
If MB suffered injuries caused by both gunshot(s?) and by tool strike(s?), do we know the order of injuries as a fact? Did SP shoot first, then inflict further injury w other tools? Or did SP strike her first w the tools, then administer a firearm coup de grace? Could one type of injury camouflage the other, so the number of shots striking her remains unknown? IDK.
Lots I've forgotten, so definitely welcoming comments, corrections. my2ct.

As to SP or informant making stmts to LE? Well, either one may have incentive to tell the truth. Or not. Again, IDK.
______________________________________
* In shooting events --- unplanned crimes, premeditated crimes, target practice at indoor/outdoor range, or in the wild/bush --- sometimes a shooter may not know number of shots fired. Can happen w both LE & perps, thinking/saying: Did I empty the clip? Did I fire all 6 (8, 10, etc?) rounds? More likely to happen slip the mind in panic situations. Also w more than 1 -2 shots fired.
Presumably this SP knew number of rounds in gun before firing in church and could count number afterward, so could know the number fired. Conceding the point, in MB's death very likely imo, SP knew number of shots fired.

 

[SteveS]

This isn't accurate. LE wouldn't use the term "puncture wounds" to refer to bullet wounds. I've been following true crime cases since 1987, and I have never seen bullet wounds described as puncture wounds—not once.

While you may not have ever personally "seen" it happen, what you have seen before isn't the limit of what LE might choose to do.

You are wrong in saying "LE wouldn't use the term "puncture wounds" to refer to bullet wounds." A bullet wound is indeed classified as a puncture wound in medical coding. If LE wanted to use that terminology, they could do so and be completely justified - in fact, 100% accurate - in doing so. Perhaps they might want to make it clear that a gun was fired, and use "bullet" wound to specify further, but other times they might not.

For an elaboration on the medical coding, see Taking the Pain Out of Gunshot Wounds in ICD-10 | Medical Coding Buff

 

[SSV]

This case is the case that brought me to WS and has fascinated me ever since. I am in awe of all the research and thought that people have put into this and do not claim to have put anywhere near the effort that they have. I've read with interest the discussion of church as target vs. Missy as target and there's a lot of really interesting thought-provoking information and opinions that I hadn't thought about.

Here's where I get stuck when I consider 'church as target': the tactical gear. Please accept my apologies if this has already been hashed out in a prior thread - I've read many of them but not all of them. Standard disclaimer: as usual, MOO.

1. This is a heavy duty disguise for just a burglary. As many have said, there are easier and less cumbersome disguises. Doesn't mean it's not possible that someone really put a lot of thought into a foolproof disguise but it just seems like overkill, especially considering that most burglars are looking for the quick in and out. This disguise appears to me to have the primary focus of covering and distorting almost every aspect of SP's body which seems to be a bit much for a burglary that, if it were real, wouldn't've netted a lot of money/stuff. I mean, I could see it for, say, an armed robbery of a high-end jewelry store - with the added benefit of confusion as to "Why the *bleep* are the cops robbing me?" This leads to my second thought...

2. Tactical gear is not only for protection and disguise. It is, at least in part, for intimidation and fear. Think of seeing an armed line of riot-gear clad police, or seeing a fully geared up SWAT team deploying. For most people, that is scary AF, and that's intentional - get people scared so that they leave/surrender/whatever before any actual action happens. (source = me: I'm a police & fire dispatcher)

The forensic podiatrist mentioned seeing the video of Missy turning her head as if she heard a noise, and someone on Reddit said something like "Can you imagine looking up/around/whatever and seeing that?" (meaning a person in tactical gear) and that really struck me.

If you were out for revenge, and have decided to kill someone, perhaps you might want to make the last minutes of their life absolutely terrifying. If Missy has wronged you in some way, and you are filled with rage (but the cool calculating kind), and you have decided that therefore you must murder Missy, not only do you not want to be identified, but you also decide that her last moments should be filled with complete and utter terror as part of your payback. You don't need her to know who you are, but to know that she is going to die at your hand and there is no escape.

Seeing someone who looks like a police officer about to shoot you? For me, that would be bowel-releasing fear. I'm making myself twitch just trying to imagine it. Or even if you don't see any police logo or identifying information, a person dressed in all black tactical gear? Is this a terrorist? Who is this and why do they have a gun pointed at you and.....? Even scarier if they don't identify themselves as police and don't say anything at all - just loom up in a space where you don't expect anyone else to be, dressed in black, unrecognizable, with a gun pointed at you?

After 18 years at my job, I've seen and heard things I never could have imagined so of course my twisted little brain went to this dark place. It also went to the place of maybe she was still alive after she was shot & that's where the blunt force trauma came into play - wound your enemy & look them in the eye as you bludgeon/stab/whatever them. Okay, I'm going to go watch some happy kitten videos now...

(edited to fix spelling)

 

[Ozoner]

While you may not have ever personally "seen" it happen, what you have seen before isn't the limit of what LE might choose to do.

You are wrong in saying "LE wouldn't use the term "puncture wounds" to refer to bullet wounds." A bullet wound is indeed classified as a puncture wound in medical coding. If LE wanted to use that terminology, they could do so and be completely justified - in fact, 100% accurate - in doing so. Perhaps they might want to make it clear that a gun was fired, and use "bullet" wound to specify further, but other times they might not.

For an elaboration on the medical coding, see Taking the Pain Out of Gunshot Wounds in ICD-10 | Medical Coding Buff

Nope. That's now how LE uses the term. You're attempting to twist the facts to want the narrative that you want to promote. Moreover, LE has said that the puncture wounds were "consistent with the tools" that the perp was carrying. It is very clear that the puncture wounds that they are referring to are not bullet wounds. Try again.

 

[SteveS]

You're attempting to twist the facts to want the narrative that you want to promote. Moreover, LE has said that the puncture wounds were "consistent with the tools" that the perp was carrying. It is very clear that the puncture wounds that they are referring to are not bullet wounds. Try again.

I'm merely stating FACTS.

The FACTS are, bullet wounds are medically classed as "puncture wounds." What wording LE uses is up to them, but ICD-10 coding is being imposed nationally since 2015 in the US (the US is somewhat lagging in that), and HIPAA laws also come into play with any medical info, which connects to the use of ICD designations.

Hitting someone with a crowbar or a flashlight would not be a puncture wound, interestingly. We were told by an expert who had researched the case that he was informed the wounds were of the nature that they almost opted for an open casket funeral service - his takeaway was that apparently she was NOT mangled and gouged to any significant degree, if at all.

The FACTS are, MB was killed by a gunshot, not by some other weapon.

The FACTS are, that no one besides LE knows which tool (out of the "tools") they were referencing as being consistent with wounds, nor does LE ever say that the tool that's consistent is ever seen -- all they said is that a tool perp was "carrying" was "consistent with" wounds. Clearly perp must have been carrying a gun (since MB was shot to death) and a gunshot wound would be "consistent with" that gun, and a gun is a tool used to accomplish the purpose of shooting something.

The FACT is, when LE was asked for details of how MB died, they said they're aren't answering that now, and never came back to answering it later. Ever.

My personal conclusion is that LE wanted to keep the details of the attack away from the public, so deliberately fuzzied up their words by using terms and phrasing they knew might lead to misunderstanding. They didn't owe the public or media those details, and didn't really need them to know what happened.

 

[cady]

And EVERYONE knows that lil' MPD are savvy linguists. They are paid by the people and work as public servants for the people, but a savage murder is none of the people's business. So they deliberately misinform a public starved for clarity by contorting the meaning of words. NOT. MPD are everyday people who speak colloquially, like the people they serve. JMO

 

[SteveS]

And EVERYONE knows that lil' MPD are savvy linguists. They are paid by the people and work as public servants for the people, but a savage murder is none of the people's business. So they deliberately misinform a public starved for clarity by contorting the meaning of words. NOT. MPD are everyday people who speak colloquially, like the people they serve. JMO

You want to think all that is true ...

But the simple fact is, MB was killed by gunshot. Yet MPD has never once said gunshot, bullet, or the like. In fact, they deliberately sidestepped admitting she was shot. Is that the "attempt to inform" that you imagine? Or did they, perhaps, decide that apprehending and convicting MB's killer is a much higher priority as public servants than being transparent about the cause of death?

 

[cady]

You want to think all that is true ...

But the simple fact is, MB was killed by gunshot. Yet MPD has never once said gunshot, bullet, or the like. In fact, they deliberately sidestepped admitting she was shot. Is that the "attempt to inform" that you imagine? Or did they, perhaps, decide that apprehending and convicting MB's killer is a much higher priority as public servants than being transparent about the cause of death?

I think that they said what they knew at the time they said it and declined to say anything more as their understanding progressed. I don't think that they lied, initially. Subsequently, they were told to not divulge further information, believing that death by gunshot could possibly lead them to the perp. Simple. JMO
I think that they may have told BB eventually about the gunshot. But for the life of me I can't understand why they would share details with a self-described "expert" investigator, who they knew would most likely spill the beans....

 

[Razz]

You want to think all that is true ...

But the simple fact is, MB was killed by gunshot. Yet MPD has never once said gunshot, bullet, or the like. In fact, they deliberately sidestepped admitting she was shot. Is that the "attempt to inform" that you imagine? Or did they, perhaps, decide that apprehending and convicting MB's killer is a much higher priority as public servants than being transparent about the cause of death?

Where is this stated unequivocally? I don't really doubt it but it was unknown for such a long time and I believe it was one of WS insider's that figured this out.

 

[Razz]

If this was a "surprise encounter" in the NW corner, how did SP get his gun out so quickly? And if he heard her coming down the hallway, SP had a perfect and close route of escape but didn't take it until after he/ she had murdered her.

 

[drama_farmer]

Is it possible that SP acquired the firearm once inside the building? I would think that sort of info would be kept very hush-hush, if true. Are there facts we know now that would discount that possibility?

 

[cady]

If this was a "surprise encounter" in the NW corner, how did SP get his gun out so quickly? And if he heard her coming down the hallway, SP had a perfect and close route of escape but didn't take it until after he/ she had murdered her.

Must have been positioned with the gun at the ready and had no intention of leaving until mission accomplished. Too bad we have no idea if she was shot from behind or at side or front. That would be a clue as to position of SP. UGH. JMO

 

[cady]

Is it possible that SP acquired the firearm once inside the building? I would think that sort of info would be kept very hush-hush, if true. Are there facts we know now that would discount that possibility?

Only that REPORTEDLY nothing at all was missing from the church. JMO

EEK! It would be a whole new bone of contention if some day we learn that SP used a gun that was specifically left for SP somewhere in the church, used it, left with it, and disposed of it. Not out of the realm of possibility, but awful to think about. JMO

 

[SteveS]

Where is this stated unequivocally? I don't really doubt it but it was unknown for such a long time and I believe it was one of WS insider's that figured this out.

It's been cited many times in this thread and prior ones -- it's from the official FBI UCR reports (available online to search, but a nightmare to navigate), and easier to see at MurderData.org . Death by Gunshot. Weapon: Handgun-pistol, revolver, etc.

 

[TheGardener]

This case is the case that brought me to WS and has fascinated me ever since. I am in awe of all the research and thought that people have put into this and do not claim to have put anywhere near the effort that they have. I've read with interest the discussion of church as target vs. Missy as target and there's a lot of really interesting thought-provoking information and opinions that I hadn't thought about.

Here's where I get stuck when I consider 'church as target': the tactical gear. Please accept my apologies if this has already been hashed out in a prior thread - I've read many of them but not all of them. Standard disclaimer: as usual, MOO.

1. This is a heavy duty disguise for just a burglary. As many have said, there are easier and less cumbersome disguises. Doesn't mean it's not possible that someone really put a lot of thought into a foolproof disguise but it just seems like overkill, especially considering that most burglars are looking for the quick in and out. This disguise appears to me to have the primary focus of covering and distorting almost every aspect of SP's body which seems to be a bit much for a burglary that, if it were real, wouldn't've netted a lot of money/stuff. I mean, I could see it for, say, an armed robbery of a high-end jewelry store - with the added benefit of confusion as to "Why the *bleep* are the cops robbing me?" This leads to my second thought...

2. Tactical gear is not only for protection and disguise. It is, at least in part, for intimidation and fear. Think of seeing an armed line of riot-gear clad police, or seeing a fully geared up SWAT team deploying. For most people, that is scary AF, and that's intentional - get people scared so that they leave/surrender/whatever before any actual action happens. (source = me: I'm a police & fire dispatcher)

The forensic podiatrist mentioned seeing the video of Missy turning her head as if she heard a noise, and someone on Reddit said something like "Can you imagine looking up/around/whatever and seeing that?" (meaning a person in tactical gear) and that really struck me.

If you were out for revenge, and have decided to kill someone, perhaps you might want to make the last minutes of their life absolutely terrifying. If Missy has wronged you in some way, and you are filled with rage (but the cool calculating kind), and you have decided that therefore you must murder Missy, not only do you not want to be identified, but you also decide that her last moments should be filled with complete and utter terror as part of your payback. You don't need her to know who you are, but to know that she is going to die at your hand and there is no escape.

Seeing someone who looks like a police officer about to shoot you? For me, that would be bowel-releasing fear. I'm making myself twitch just trying to imagine it. Or even if you don't see any police logo or identifying information, a person dressed in all black tactical gear? Is this a terrorist? Who is this and why do they have a gun pointed at you and.....? Even scarier if they don't identify themselves as police and don't say anything at all - just loom up in a space where you don't expect anyone else to be, dressed in black, unrecognizable, with a gun pointed at you?

After 18 years at my job, I've seen and heard things I never could have imagined so of course my twisted little brain went to this dark place. It also went to the place of maybe she was still alive after she was shot & that's where the blunt force trauma came into play - wound your enemy & look them in the eye as you bludgeon/stab/whatever them. Okay, I'm going to go watch some happy kitten videos now...

(edited to fix spelling)

I've thought of this many times. Still, when you think about it, any crime where the perp fully conceals themselves is no better or worse than this effort at disguise. The problem is the NATURE of the selection.

John Wayne Gacy actually wore his clown costume while murdering some of his victims. The exterior was the exact opposite of what was going on in the interior. It was an even greater tool of concealment than his costume alone, a kind of "flies to honey" bend on his approach to victims. He told LE, "After all, everybody LOVES clowns." Gacy used the symbol of something good to do something bad.

SP has done something similar. SP isn't a SWAT officer. His message isn't SWAT, its POLICE. He's a tactical police officer operating on his own without the company or benefit of a team. No team for SP. He alone is in charge. Here again, he's using the symbol of something good (law and order) to do something bad (B&E/burglary). Tactical police are generally thought of as being assigned to bring order out of chaos. The situation is out of control, but not so out of control that it requires SWAT. An officer might even have this equipment in his cruiser's trunk. In a heightened alert situation and acting in concert with his fellow officers, he adds further protection to his standard police uniform. Wearing the uniform sends a message to Joe Civilian, something has gone terribly wrong, there's an environment of heightened danger in the area and I'm here to manage it. Authority. Obey me. Subjugate yourself to MY authority. And Joe Civilian does just that. He follows orders.

That's all well and good, but in this case SP is what's gone wrong with the environment - its just that Joe Civilian (MB) doesn't suspect that. She's more likely thinking, "What the hell is going on? Why is this cop here?" SP has calculated to have her trust him just enough to buy a little time for himself. The decision he makes in those few moments leaves Missy alive or dead, because she's in mental freefall. SP can continue the ruse, stuff her in a closet for "her own protection" and run away - or he can shoot her. He chooses the latter. In a legal sense, premeditation can begin days, months, years before a murder - or it can occur during those decisive seconds when a better choice, the choice to leave Missy alive, was not made.

SP was a bad guy disguised as a good guy and Missy bought it long enough for him to make the decision to execute her. Obviously, SP came prepared to kill someone, perhaps not for the purpose of killing someone. We can guess what lives inside SP's head, but we can be sure SP is no good guy. I've said it before, SP brought a gun to a food fight.

Many psychopaths have used similar ruses to mollify the possible terror their presence presented during the moments when their victims were indecisive about the situation in which they found themselves. Bundy, Kemper, Gacy, Ridgeway, Dahmer, etc. all presented themselves as trustworthy. The deadly, effective psychology of conscienceless killers.

 

[cady]

It's been cited many times in this thread and prior ones -- it's from the official FBI UCR reports (available online to search, but a nightmare to navigate), and easier to see at MurderData.org . Death by Gunshot. Weapon: Handgun-pistol, revolver, etc.

Steve, I don't know if this is something that you would consider, but how about taking a screenshot of the info and send it to Rebecca Lopez who is WFAA senior crime and justice reporter since 1998. Ask her to authenticate it, for good measure (I believe that it's authentic) and remind her if she isn't all that familiar w a Midlothian murder, that NO ONE has publicly stated that Missy was shot. For 5 long years. Maybe she can shake the truth out?????? After all, as you said, it is online and therefore joe public has a right to see it. Not sure that public knowledge would help, but I don't see how it can hurt. JMO