TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #48

[Megnut]

Person wasn't a good burglar.

Person wasn't a good vandal. Very little destruction really.

Person wasn't a good hitman.

So what's that leave?

Murdering Missy was reactionary.

The person wanted to be in the church. In no particular hurry.

Why?

Cos play?

Stalling. For what?

Lying in wait? For the expected unlocker, later?

Someone interested in selling the church an upgraded security system? See how easy it is to break in, vandalize, all this time in your building and no alarms. And it all went 50 shades of crazy?

I don't think murder was part of the plan that day.

JMO

 

[Ozoner]

Crazy how we all interpret the same information differently. Because I am confident SHE was there for Missy.

I suppose that comes from having few facts, and we have to make many assumptions and engage in a LOT of conjecture to arrive at what we each think happened.

IMO.



Everything here is just my opinion and assumption and conjecture. Speculative thought, if you will.

(Aah, the SIL interview. You’d think that in the years since Missy’s murder, Brandon and others would have given interviews, etc., trying to keep the case alive. But if anyone has tried to plead for a resolution for Missy since the early days, I haven’t seen it. As I said earlier, I think Missy’s murder solved some kind of family issue, and I have felt from early on that Brandon had a suspicion of who, so didn’t and hasn’t pushed very hard for it to be solved.

If there is or are interviews/television stories with Missy’s family participation, especially her in-law family, please direct me to them. I‘ve followed this case since the beginning, but spottily after the first couple of years or so. Thank you in advance.)

I think the noise Missy heard could have been the perp speaking to Missy, and she recognized the voice, so she wasn’t worried. Maybe saying something about deciding to start the class with Missy.

I probably need to go refresh my memory, and iirc, the outside cameras were not working. Did the porte cochere camera record Missy driving her truck into the back parking lot, coming either from the west or the east? My thought being that if she drove straight in and circled around the back to come to the overhang area from the west, she may have seen a car she recognized parked on that off-side. So when she heard a voice she recognized, she wasn’t concerned. Maybe thought whomever it was had a key to the building.

Or she heard a noise, but thought it was from the storm.

I’ve not read anything detailing what Missy’s routine was when setting up at the church. Maybe she always headed north up that main hallway to turn on particular lights or something.

IMO as always.

Check out the story of Adrienne Jones, killed by two naval academy cadets, because AJ was perceived as a romantic rival to the female cadet. Crazy.

Might be something just as crazy here.

IMO.

I try to avoid conjecture. I look at the evidence and go where it leads me. Some interpretation of the evidence is required, of course.

However, I see many others here trying to force the evidence to fit a pet theory. That's the difference.

 

[somequestions]

Crazy how we all interpret the same information differently. Because I am confident SHE was there for Missy.

I agree that each of us looks at the evidence differently. In my opinion, neither the interrupted burglary or the targeted murder theory can be proven because we do not know what happened off camera surveillance in the altercation between Missy Bevers and the suspect burglar. My opinion is that it was a targeted crime against either Missy Bevers, Creekside Church, or the Gladiator Camp.

Whoever it was on surveillance camera, they seemed to be very careful about not being recognized. I wonder how many churches in the area have surveillance cameras inside the church?

It is hard for me to believe the person who committed this crime did not know there were surveillance cameras in the church. These cameras required the person to keep moving. I wonder if this burglar knew that not only were there surveillance cameras at Creekside Church, but also that they were motion sensitive? Therefore, go in through a window or door instead of one of the main entrance/exit doors because the cameras are in the hallways?

 

[FromGermany1]

Person wasn't a good burglar.

Person wasn't a good vandal. Very little destruction really.

Person wasn't a good hitman.

So what's that leave?

Murdering Missy was reactionary.

The person wanted to be in the church. In no particular hurry.

Why?

Cos play?

Stalling. For what?

Lying in wait? For the expected unlocker, later?

Someone interested in selling the church an upgraded security system? See how easy it is to break in, vandalize, all this time in your building and no alarms. And it all went 50 shades of crazy?

I don't think murder was part of the plan that day.

JMO

Why wasn't s/he a good hitman?? 6 years on the run resp. living a free life somewhere, not even being a POI - the job was done brutal, but excellent, I think. A good choreography of all parties, it seems. MOO

 

[5W's]

Crazy how we all interpret the same information differently. Because I am confident SHE was there for Missy.

I suppose that comes from having few facts, and we have to make many assumptions and engage in a LOT of conjecture to arrive at what we each think happened.

IMO.



Everything here is just my opinion and assumption and conjecture. Speculative thought, if you will.

(Aah, the SIL interview. You’d think that in the years since Missy’s murder, Brandon and others would have given interviews, etc., trying to keep the case alive. But if anyone has tried to plead for a resolution for Missy since the early days, I haven’t seen it. As I said earlier, I think Missy’s murder solved some kind of family issue, and I have felt from early on that Brandon had a suspicion of who, so didn’t and hasn’t pushed very hard for it to be solved.

If there is or are interviews/television stories with Missy’s family participation, especially her in-law family, please direct me to them. I‘ve followed this case since the beginning, but spottily after the first couple of years or so. Thank you in advance.)

I think the noise Missy heard could have been the perp speaking to Missy, and she recognized the voice, so she wasn’t worried. Maybe saying something about deciding to start the class with Missy.

I probably need to go refresh my memory, and iirc, the outside cameras were not working. Did the porte cochere camera record Missy driving her truck into the back parking lot, coming either from the west or the east? My thought being that if she drove straight in and circled around the back to come to the overhang area from the west, she may have seen a car she recognized parked on that off-side. So when she heard a voice she recognized, she wasn’t concerned. Maybe thought whomever it was had a key to the building.

Or she heard a noise, but thought it was from the storm.

I’ve not read anything detailing what Missy’s routine was when setting up at the church. Maybe she always headed north up that main hallway to turn on particular lights or something.

IMO as always.

Check out the story of Adrienne Jones, killed by two naval academy cadets, because AJ was perceived as a romantic rival to the female cadet. Crazy.

Might be something just as crazy here.

IMO.

One thing I have to say is if we knew the layout of the church at that time I think it would help give us an idea and it may be more than just conjecture then. Even if we knew what room Missy held the class in if it was storming out. Someone in an earlier post said that the hallway the perp was vandalizing had a small utility room where the church kept broom, dust pans vacuums etc. (hammers?.) To me it looks like a midsized church so I'm sure it has more than one hallway.

 

[Laughing]

One thing I have to say is if we knew the layout of the church at that time I think it would help give us an idea and it may be more than just conjecture then. Even if we knew what room Missy held the class in if it was storming out. Someone in an earlier post said that the hallway the perp was vandalizing had a small utility room where the church kept broom, dust pans vacuums etc. (hammers?.) To me it looks like a midsized church so I'm sure it has more than one hallway.

Floor plans are posted -- somewhere. An early poster set up a very detailed path, matching available interior photos of the church (lots of faces covered/blurred) and stills from the video, marked on the floor plan. First or second thread???

IIRC, Camp Gladiator usually did their workouts under the portico. We also had quite the chat about the term for the drive-thru portico, can't spell but pronounced "Port A Coochie."

Might be time for a re-post of that floor plan with the path of the FLWD?

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[ArmchairDefective]

I'm sorry but I really don't think that a burglar would wear a police uniform and walk around, taking their time like they are waiting for someone's arrival. The burglar would get in, and get out as fast as possible.

Agreed. This is my first time perusing this case on Websleuths and I'm surprised to see that there are people who think this wasn't a targeted attack. IMO it stretches credulity to think that someone went to the church in THAT getup for any purpose other than murder. If the outfit weren't so strange, I would think it more likely that the perp had some other goal in mind, but I can't imagine why anyone would choose such a specific and cumbersome disguise if they were only planning some garden-variety larceny or vandalism.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I have a Smart phone. I don't know whether it has GPS, but if it does, I would have no idea how to use it. I don't think most people would.

Open your compass.
Click your coordinates.

 

[5W's]

Floor plans are posted -- somewhere. An early poster set up a very detailed path, matching available interior photos of the church (lots of faces covered/blurred) and stills from the video, marked on the floor plan. First or second thread???

IIRC, Camp Gladiator usually did their workouts under the portico. We also had quite the chat about the term for the drive-thru portico, can't spell but pronounced "Port A Coochie."

Might be time for a re-post of that floor plan with the path of the FLWD?

jmho ymmv lrr

Thanks for posting this. Sometime I will go look at the fist threads of this case and take a look. Then I can speculate with some information on this tragic case and also on the the bizarreness of it.

 

[Ozoner]

Agreed. This is my first time perusing this case on Websleuths and I'm surprised to see that there are people who think this wasn't a targeted attack. IMO it stretches credulity to think that someone went to the church in THAT getup for any purpose other than murder. If the outfit weren't so strange, I would think it more likely that the perp had some other goal in mind, but I can't imagine why anyone would choose such a specific and cumbersome disguise if they were only planning some garden-variety larceny or vandalism.

Do you have evidence of murderers wearing unusual disguises more often than other offenders?

There is no evidence whatsoever that this was a targeted attack. A highly-subjective claim that someone would wear a disguise for murder but not vandalism or burglary doesn't withstand close scrutiny. Anyone committing any crime might choose to wear a disguise.

This particular disguise may have had an element of role-playing to it; the perpetrator may have been living out some kind of fantasy—or it might just have been what he had to fully conceal his identity from video cameras. Murderers don't want to be identifiable on security footage, but neither do burglars and vandals.

Now that we've learned about the evidence from the podiatrist that Missy turned because she heard something and apparently went to check the disturbance rather than fleeing, it is time, IMO, to dismiss once and for all the notion that this might have been a targeted murder.

 

[pseudo_hum]

Agreed. This is my first time perusing this case on Websleuths and I'm surprised to see that there are people who think this wasn't a targeted attack. IMO it stretches credulity to think that someone went to the church in THAT getup for any purpose other than murder. If the outfit weren't so strange, I would think it more likely that the perp had some other goal in mind, but I can't imagine why anyone would choose such a specific and cumbersome disguise if they were only planning some garden-variety larceny or vandalism.

Agreed, it seems as though the culprit wanted to conceal their sex as well as their identity.

 

[Ozoner]

Agreed, it seems as though the culprit wanted to conceal their sex as well as their identity.

I disagree with the logic. I see a male when I watch the video, but even if others are uncertain about the perpetrator's sex, there is no evidence that the concealment of sex was deliberate. That was quite likely a byproduct of the concealment of identity.

 

[pseudo_hum]

I disagree with the logic. I see a male when I watch the video, but even if others are uncertain about the perpetrator's sex, there is no evidence that the concealing of sex was deliberate. That was quite likely a byproduct of the concealment of identity.

Well Ozoner, I tend to disagree with your observations. But I have no inside knowledge, just IMO.

 

[Detective Willy]

Husband says he is done searching for wife's killer for his kids' sake

Brandon Bevers, husband of murdered Texas fitness instructor, Missy Bevers, said he is done with the hunt for her killer after a year and a hallf for the sake of his children.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I can’t say that I can recall a murder case where a Husband has said that he is going to give up searching for the killer?

This seems odd and a bit disturbing to me.

Most people say they will never give up and will keep searching until the day they die IMO?

Do other people think this is a strange thing to say?

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Do other people think this is a strange thing to say?

That's an old article. I don't think it's strange. He can't fully be there for his kids and he can't let it take away anymore of their childhood. He wants the endless requests for interviews to stop. There's nothing he can do to search for the murderer. I think he explains it pretty well.

 

[Tower]

Do you have evidence of murderers wearing unusual disguises more often than other offenders?

There is no evidence whatsoever that this was a targeted attack. A highly-subjective claim that someone would wear a disguise for murder but not vandalism or burglary doesn't withstand close scrutiny. Anyone committing any crime might choose to wear a disguise.

This particular disguise may have had an element of role-playing to it; the perpetrator may have been living out some kind of fantasy—or it might just have been what he had to fully conceal his identity from video cameras. Murderers don't want to be identifiable on security footage, but neither do burglars and vandals.

Now that we've learned about the evidence from the podiatrist that Missy turned because she heard something and apparently went to check the disturbance rather than fleeing, it is time, IMO, to dismiss once and for all the notion that this might have been a targeted murder.

I do tend to agree with you. My main reasons for moving over to the “cosplay vandal” theory over the years is the uselessness of the perp’s movements and I believe the police would have made a connection and arrest by now if someone in her life hated Missy this much.

However, I have 2 thoughts:

1) Maybe it was targeted and police ”know” who committed this murder, but they don’t have enough evidence to arrest anyone. That is not uncommon.

2) We know Missy was expecting harmless early-bird campers to meet her soon. What if the perp thought Missy was arriving a little later and was surprised by how early she was (as camp did not officially start until 5). Perp realized Missy had arrived and was opening the (sanctuary?) door to engage with and shoot Missy. Missy thought it was one of her campers coming in early to use the restroom. So she casually turned to the sound and walked off-camera (as reported by the forensic podiatrist who saw additional unreleased video), thinking she was greeting the boot camper. This would be a targeted scenario of a bumbling, careless, angry perp who didn’t research her camp start time very well.

I do think in a targeted scenario, the perp would have been more prepared. Not being caught for years does not mesh well with a careless perp.

It’s such a heartbreaking case. I was alone in the dark at my own church preparing for services last night and I brought my knife and clipped my bear spray to the front of my shirt with lock disengaged. I wish I wasn’t thinking of how scared Missy must have been in her last moments. I do think of her and her girls often. I hope she and her family can get justice someday soon.
Moo

 

[SteveS]

Perp realized Missy had arrived and was opening the (sanctuary?) door to engage with and shoot Missy. Missy thought it was one of her campers coming in early to use the restroom. So she casually turned to the sound and walked off-camera (as reported by the forensic podiatrist who saw additional unreleased video), thinking she was greeting the boot camper.

"Missy thought it was one of her campers coming in early to use the restroom"....Factually impossible for MB to think any of her campers were in the building causing a noise. They could only enter through one specific door, once she had unlocked it, and which she had just unlocked and walked through and she was still mere steps from that entrance. If she thought she heard a camper and moved to them, it would have been back to the entrance through which she had just come and not further into the building.

But what did she even hear (if anything)? it is very possible she didn't hear anything particularly loud, or thought it was a "benign" sound of some sort. (That could be anything from thunder/lightning storm making sounds, building creaking, bulding mechanical system making sounds, her thinking she heard a person but figured it was a janitor working very late or very early hours, or who knows what else.)

Unfortunately it's impossible to even begin to get a read on her at that point without seeing her reaction, and probably also need audio of whatever sound it was to get a better idea of what she might have been thinking. We have none of that.

 

[windrower]

Do you have evidence of murderers wearing unusual disguises more often than other offenders?

There is no evidence whatsoever that this was a targeted attack. A highly-subjective claim that someone would wear a disguise for murder but not vandalism or burglary doesn't withstand close scrutiny. Anyone committing any crime might choose to wear a disguise.

This particular disguise may have had an element of role-playing to it; the perpetrator may have been living out some kind of fantasy—or it might just have been what he had to fully conceal his identity from video cameras. Murderers don't want to be identifiable on security footage, but neither do burglars and vandals.

Now that we've learned about the evidence from the podiatrist that Missy turned because she heard something and apparently went to check the disturbance rather than fleeing, it is time, IMO, to dismiss once and for all the notion that this might have been a targeted murder.

I disagree with the logic. I see a male when I watch the video, but even if others are uncertain about the perpetrator's sex, there is no evidence that the concealment of sex was deliberate. That was quite likely a byproduct of the concealment of identity.

rbbm

This case really has no hard evidence for either one thing or another. As I said earlier, we all bring our biases, our experiences, our knowledge, and our intuition to bear on the scenario we think might be what happened.

The underlined above is not, for me, hard evidence. Isn’t it the podiatrist’s opinion that Missy turned because she heard a noise? Iirc, the church surveillance cameras did not record audio, so he couldn’t KNOW that, but it may have appeared to him that Missy heard something, based on his biases, experiences, etc., just as we do here.

And I’m not sure why Missy moving toward the direction she turned means we dismiss a targeted attack. I’m not following the logic. Especially as I think her murderer is someone she knew well.

So, I’ll agree to disagree here, and that’s okay. That’s the beauty of WS, we can pick apart scenarios and thoughts and ideas, and still respect each other’s contributions to the threads.

Ozoner, your experience here and postings over the years do give me pause about remaining on the targeted side of things, but that’s where I am for now.

 

[somequestions]

As far as I have read, there is no indication as to the type of noise Missy Bevers heard in the church. I probably would have done the same thing as Missy Bevers, checked to see what was going on when I heard the noise.

If I saw a burglar I would probably turn around and leave the church to call the police. But the fact this person is wearing a police uniform probably left Missy Bevers startled as to what to do if the police are already there?

Still, this is a strange burglar. If they had a gun and threatened Missy Bevers with it, would they really get into a physical confrontation with Missy? What about the glass case that was supposedly broken? Maybe Missy Bevers was shot and her body fell on or near the glass case causing it to break?

Why shoot the victim? It makes no sense unless this person forgot they were completely disguised? The main reason I cannot understand why she was shot is the surveillance cameras. Murdering Missy Bevers does nothing to get rid of a witness unless you actually believe the burglar did not know they were on surveillance camera in the church. But there remains the possibility Missy Bevers stood between the burglar and leaving for a church that was not even her own.

Without the surveillance video, Missy Bevers or her Gladiator Camp participants might have been the first people suspected in the burglary. Did the burglar know they were on surveillance video?

 

[Razz]

rbbm

This case really has no hard evidence for either one thing or another. As I said earlier, we all bring our biases, our experiences, our knowledge, and our intuition to bear on the scenario we think might be what happened.

The underlined above is not, for me, hard evidence. Isn’t it the podiatrist’s opinion that Missy turned because she heard a noise? Iirc, the church surveillance cameras did not record audio, so he couldn’t KNOW that, but it may have appeared to him that Missy heard something, based on his biases, experiences, etc., just as we do here.

And I’m not sure why Missy moving toward the direction she turned means we dismiss a targeted attack. I’m not following the logic. Especially as I think her murderer is someone she knew well.

So, I’ll agree to disagree here, and that’s okay. That’s the beauty of WS, we can pick apart scenarios and thoughts and ideas, and still respect each other’s contributions to the threads.

Ozoner, your experience here and postings over the years do give me pause about remaining on the targeted side of things, but that’s where I am for now.

You must be a therapist and I mean that in the most positive way possible.

I don't know who has seen or heard or read from the podiatrist DIRECTLY so I'm not ready to take what he "supposedly" said as gospel.