TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #46

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
GP, you have both accidentally misquoted and also misdated the reference you're using, and imo it changes the possibilities of what we were told.

Before the autopsy on Monday - they first said absolutely nothing, and then in a warrant later that day mentioned (a) "deceased from a head wound" and (b) "[perp] used an unknown instrument to cause the death of [MB] ...".

In the first warrant AFTER the autopsy - this is the one (and only?) time where they used the vague wording you are citing, with the exact wording being:
"multiple puncture wounds found on her head and chest are consistent with the tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building."

I don't see that wording used again in a warrant or PC. Instead, ensuing warrants and PC's backed off even further, simply saying nothing about wounds or weapon, except for one mention in Dec 2016 that noted she had "multiple visual wounds to the body."

So ....

When LE used that wording you cite, we can't say they didn't know cause of death and made a mistake in that wording. There's no question as they wrote that, they KNEW cause of death was by gunshot. Yet that's what they wrote.

So how do we explain what they wrote? Did they lie, or just let the reader misunderstand? Let's look closely.

a - they called the wounds "consistent with the tools" (which can be justified based on the fact that a gun is a tool for shooting something or someone, and obscuring it was a gun)
b - technically, it doesn't even call the weapon a tool, it just says the wounds are "consistent with ..." which is very broad and vague (deliberately so, we must conclude)
c - they didn't say more than one weapon was used (although it can easily be misread as such)
d - they did NOT say the weapon causing death was seen in the video released to the public (although they would have known their careful wording would leave that impression to any public or media snooping through warrants)
e - in fact, their wording doesn't even say it was ever seen at all - look closely
f - all we have is the implication perp was carrying it (which had to be true, for it to be used)
g - it spoke of the injuries as "multiple puncture wounds" which could be 2 bullet holes, one to the head and one to the chest, and nothing more

We know they knew it was death by gunshot. The words they used misled the public/media into thinking otherwise, based on the video they had seen, without telling an actual lie. And then they just went silent on the topic, and let everyone "figure it out" (but, wrongly) and once we thought we knew, no one needed to ask again. I think it was carefully planned.
 
Last edited:
FromGermany1 said:
If SP is carrying something like these harmless plastic inserts around with him, he has "a roof harm" so-to-say. IMO
Why does one carry it around and is blocking one hand with it? What is it good for?
Click to expand...
Put me in the camp as someone who, the more I look at the pics, think it less and less likely that the object in hand has been correctly identified. I see way too many dissimilarities between what's seen in the video, and those trays. FWIW.
 
Razz said:
About infidelities just being a part of marriage and no big deal.
Click to expand...

While (as GS noted) BB didn't say any such thing, in the interview I think he did (perhaps intentionally) downplay the various bumps in the road that had been present during their marriage. I think he wanted to cast MB and their marriage in a positive light when speaking of the past, and keep her memory on a pedestal.

And I think that's a good thing on so many levels. Too many people want to throw others under a bus, and want to see others do the same, and I'm glad he went the other way. Honoring the memory of your loved ones, isn't that what family should be about?
 
SteveS said:
GP, you have both accidentally misquoted and also misdated the reference you're using, and imo it changes the possibilities of what we were told.

Before the autopsy on Monday - they first said absolutely nothing, and then in a warrant later that day mentioned (a) "deceased from a head wound" and (b) "[perp] used an unknown instrument to cause the death of [MB] ...".

In the first warrant AFTER the autopsy - this is the one (and only?) time where they used the vague wording you are citing, with the exact wording being:
"multiple puncture wounds found on her head and chest are consistent with the tools the suspect was carrying throughout the building."

I don't see that wording used again in a warrant or PC. Instead, ensuing warrants and PC's backed off even further, simply saying nothing about wounds or weapon, except for one mention in Dec 2016 that noted she had "multiple visual wounds to the body."

So ....

When LE used that wording you cite, we can't say they didn't know cause of death and made a mistake in that wording. There's no question as they wrote that, they KNEW cause of death was by gunshot. Yet that's what they wrote.

So how do we explain what they wrote? Did they lie, or just let the reader misunderstand? Let's look closely.

a - they called the wounds "consistent with the tools" (which can be justified based on the fact that a gun is a tool for shooting something or someone, and obscuring it was a gun)
b - technically, it doesn't even call the weapon a tool, it just says the wounds are "consistent with ..." which is very broad and vague (deliberately so, we must conclude)
c - they didn't say more than one weapon was used (although it can easily be misread as such)
d - they did NOT say the weapon causing death was seen in the video released to the public (although they would have known their careful wording would leave that impression to any public or media snooping through warrants)
e - in fact, their wording doesn't even say it was ever seen at all - look closely
f - all we have is the implication perp was carrying it (which had to be true, for it to be used)
g - it spoke of the injuries as "multiple puncture wounds" which could be 2 bullet holes, one to the head and one to the chest, and nothing more

We know they knew it was death by gunshot. The words they used misled the public/media into thinking otherwise, based on the video they had seen, without telling an actual lie. And then they just went silent on the topic, and let everyone "figure it out" (but, wrongly) and once we thought we knew, no one needed to ask again. I think it was carefully planned.
Click to expand...

Precisely. I really wouldn't try figure out anything based on what LE said. When such a statement is so vague, you can twist it to mean anything you want and it becomes meaningless.

But it's more difficult to twist actual FBI data which says that the cause of death was from a gunshot wound (notice how it's much more specific). So, this is the only reliable piece of information we have so far.
 
GA_Peach said:
And I really want to know which cameras were activated and if they were triggered again before SP is seen on camera.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's always been something on my mind. Also, how long they were activated for. Unfortunately we are lacking some specifics on this case which could really help. The other thing that's been on my mind is the time gap between the cameras mysteriously activating and SP first appearing on camera as well as how long SP was in the kitchen.

I can imagine how motion cameras outside would falsely activate but I'm struggling to find reasons how cameras inside a building in the early morning could falsely activate.
 
I don't think MPD is refined enough to play effective wordsmithing games. And the fact that MB's cause of death shows up on a publicly available web site proves my point. They were not deceiving anyone. I believe that MB suffered puncture wounds consistent with the TOOLS we see SP carrying. That is exactly what the SW says. Those wounds are likely separate and distinct from the fatal gunshot wound(s). If you want to hold onto to a different theory, please do so.

And if the gunshot(s) was so apparent from the onset, why in the world did MPD release the scene before the ATF was able to do its thing? Was that part of MPD's clever plan to misdirect the public?

Also, the timing of a submission of a SW does not necessarily coincide with when it is written.

I stand by my theory. I stated very early on that MB was shot, and that was discredited at that time. However, some of us had already seen the FBI site at that time. I firmly believe MB was shot AND received puncture wounds from a separate tool. And if that is the case, it tells us a lot about SP.

And I want to know why MPD believes that the activation of interior cameras may signal a testing of the alarm system. That doesn't pass the common sense test. As GS recently said, he doesn't believe that MPD is currently on the right track. I tend to agree.
 
Last edited:
GA_Peach said:
I don't think MPD is refined enough to play effective wordsmithing games. And the fact that MB's cause of death shows up on a publicly available web site proves my point. They were not deceiving anyone. I believe that MB suffered puncture wounds consistent with the TOOLS we see SP carrying. That is exactly what the SW says. Those wounds are likely separate and distinct from the fatal gunshot wound(s). If you want to hold onto to a different theory, please do so.

And if the gunshot(s) was so apparent from the onset, why in the world did MPD release the scene before the ATF was able to do its thing? Was that part of MPD's clever plan to misdirect the public?

Also, the timing of a submission of a SW does not necessarily coincide with when it is written.

I stand by my theory. I stated very early on that MB was shot, and that was discredited at that time. However, some of us had already seen the FBI site at that time. I firmly believe MB was shot AND received puncture wounds from a separate tool. And if that is the case, it tells us a lot about SP.

And I want to know why MPD believes that the activation of interior cameras may signal a testing of the alarm system. That doesn't pass the common sense test. As GS recently said, he doesn't believe that MPD is currently on the right track. I tend to agree.
Click to expand...
As far as the activation of interior cameras, why doesn’t it make common sense that if someone smashed a glass door to test for alarm response, that the vibration of that disturbance might possibly cause a camera to activate? That might not have been what happened, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think it’s possible.

At the NE entrance, the outer doors were smashed. The inner doors were not. There were two cameras right there. So the open question is, would the breaking of the outer doors have been enough to trigger one or both of those cameras? We keep hearing that things like headlights and lightning and birds are enough to trigger cameras. If that’s the case, doesn’t it seem possible (if not probable) that breaking a heavy outer door might do so?
 
Gumshoe Stories said:
As far as the activation of interior cameras, why doesn’t it make common sense that if someone smashed a glass door to test for alarm response, that the vibration of that disturbance might possibly cause a camera to activate? That might not have been what happened, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think it’s possible.

At the NE entrance, the outer doors were smashed. The inner doors were not. There were two cameras right there. So the open question is, would the breaking of the outer doors have been enough to trigger one or both of those cameras? We keep hearing that things like headlights and lightning and birds are enough to trigger cameras. If that’s the case, doesn’t it seem possible (if not probable) that breaking a heavy outer door might do so?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to me that interior cameras activate based on activity in another room/area. For example, if the interior cameras were located in the kitchen and the kitchen window was smashed, I would understand that camera being activated. However, I do not understand a camera in an adjacent hallway being activated by the kitchen window being smashed. In CCoC, all of the interior cameras are insulated from the exterior by another room and/or set of doors. It just isn't intuitive to me based on the camera placement that exterior activity triggers interior cameras.

Do we know for a fact that headlights and birds activate the cameras, or is that mere speculation? I could understand that activity being picked up by an already active camera. I find that scenario more likely.

Also, if the interior cameras are so sensitive that they pick up headlights, it's strange that they would not have picked up the struggle between MB and SP. Or SP leaving after killing MB. Or MB's walk down the main hallway. While SP could have activated the cameras while remaining outside their fields of view, it's hard to believe he was that he was that fortunate if the cameras were that sensitive.

And where does the struggle with the door on the north side of the building come into play? When does LE believe that happened?

For the record, I am not suggesting what you indicate may have happened at the NE doors is impossible. It just doesn't seem likely based on the other information we have. I am really curious what cameras were activated at 2:20.
 
Last edited:
Gumshoe Stories said:
As far as the activation of interior cameras, why doesn’t it make common sense that if someone smashed a glass door to test for alarm response, that the vibration of that disturbance might possibly cause a camera to activate? That might not have been what happened, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think it’s possible.

At the NE entrance, the outer doors were smashed. The inner doors were not. There were two cameras right there. So the open question is, would the breaking of the outer doors have been enough to trigger one or both of those cameras? We keep hearing that things like headlights and lightning and birds are enough to trigger cameras. If that’s the case, doesn’t it seem possible (if not probable) that breaking a heavy outer door might do so?
Click to expand...
I think the thunder/lightening is another good option for why the interior camera activated. Just like a good thunder sets off car alarms?
 
I guess we need to first establish what type of motion sensors were used in the cameras to understand the different possibilities of activation and their probabilities of occuring.

According to this, motion sensors using IR can be triggered by sudden changes in lighting. Lightning could be a possible cause of this as suggested by @moslym3 .

Though, I don't think we can rule out smashing of doors as a probable cause yet.
 
​
zee007 said:
I guess we need to first establish what type of motion sensors were used in the cameras to understand the different possibilities of activation and their probabilities of occuring.

According to this, motion sensors using IR can be triggered by sudden changes in lighting. Lightning could be a possible cause of this as suggested by @moslym3 .

Though, I don't think we can rule out smashing of doors as a probable cause yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can definitively rule out the smashing of the doors either. However, can we rule out SP as the cause of the camera activation? Is it possible he was already in the building? He was not seen on camera until 3:50, but there was some sort of "interior" activity 1.5 hours priors to that. That's part of the reason that I am curious if there were any subsequent triggers of the cameras. The SW's use of the word "first" has me wondering if there were others.

ETA - And if SP was testing out the security system, why was he fixated on CCoC? Why that building? Why that time of night? Why that day? And would he have abandoned CCoC if the police responded? The strange thing is that smashing in a door would alert police to suspicious activity if they did respond to an alarm call. Why did SP want to make sure CCoC was safe to enter rather than get in and get out? While I don't believe SP testing the alarm system triggered the cameras, it would tell us a lot about motive if that were the case.
 
Last edited:
GA_Peach said:
​


I don't think we can definitively rule out the smashing of the doors either. However, can we rule out SP as the cause of the camera activation? Is it possible he was already in the building? He was not seen on camera until 3:50, but there was some sort of "interior" activity 1.5 hours priors to that. That's part of the reason that I am curious if there were any subsequent triggers of the cameras. The SW's use of the word "first" has me wondering if there were others.

ETA - And if SP was testing out the security system, why was he fixated on CCoC? Why that building? Why that time of night? Why that day? And would he have abandoned CCoC if the police responded? The strange thing is that smashing in a door would alert police to suspicious activity if they did respond to an alarm call. Why did SP want to make sure CCoC was safe to enter rather than get in and get out? While I don't believe SP testing the alarm system triggered the cameras, it would tell us a lot about motive if that were the case.
Click to expand...
Just curious, what are your thoughts on why the NE outside doors but not interior of same were broke?
 
Mistree said:
Just curious, what are your thoughts on why the NE outside doors but not interior of same were broke?
Click to expand...

Staging. IMO, the entire crime scene was staged. Why break exterior doors in an attempt to gain entry only to quit after you have made progress toward your goal? Maybe your goal was never to enter through those doors...
 
GA_Peach said:
I don't think MPD is refined enough to play effective wordsmithing games.
[SBM]
Also, the timing of a submission of a SW does not necessarily coincide with when it is written.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I guess we can agree to disagree on what LE was doing with the wording and why.

About the dates - those I provided were accurate and derived from careful examination, and they were based on the notary date when the judge signed the warrant, rather than dates when the document was later filed or released to the public. (Look for yourself, if you wish.) That chronology is what it is, and we have to factor it into our analysis.

About the "wordsmithing games" (great terminology!!) - you question whether LE could have even thought they could keep the public and media from knowing that MB was killed by gunshot. Refined enough, as you put it. But sometimes the proof is in the pudding, as they say -- isn't "MB was killed by gunshot" STILL TO THIS DAY a fact that few outside this forum are probably aware of?

And we do have some evidence of how they were trying to operate. We do know that MPD would not talk about cause of death (ever). When asked about cause of death, they said they would release that later - and never did. They certainly have never tried to clear up the misperceptions about COD that even still exist. And while they may not have had the experience to suggest that they would take such a route to hide the gunshot, they were being advised from the outset by experienced FBI and ATF who likely had plenty of experience.

Frankly, based on the totality of how they acted, I have no doubt they tried to bury this fact, and did so successfully. What I fail to see is why - it's not like they could gain an advantage by being able to hide COD from the actual perp.
 
Last edited:
Sillybilly said:
ADMIN NOTE:

Just to let everyone know the good news that Tricia has verified WS member Gumshoe Stories as a Missy Bevers Case Expert.

Gumshoe Stories is allowed to state information as fact without having to provide links to MSM, and they are also allowed to post links to both their website and youtube channel. Members may ask Gumshoe questions and it will be up to them as to whether they are able to answer those questions or not. Do not argue with our Verified Case Expert and please remember to be respectful to them at all times.
Click to expand...
Just bringing this forward.
 
GA_Peach said:
It doesn't make sense to me that interior cameras activate based on activity in another room/area. For example, if the interior cameras were located in the kitchen and the kitchen window was smashed, I would understand that camera being activated. However, I do not understand a camera in an adjacent hallway being activated by the kitchen window being smashed. In CCoC, all of the interior cameras are insulated from the exterior by another room and/or set of doors. It just isn't intuitive to me based on the camera placement that exterior activity triggers interior cameras.

Do we know for a fact that headlights and birds activate the cameras, or is that mere speculation? I could understand that activity being picked up by an already active camera. I find that scenario more likely.

Also, if the interior cameras are so sensitive that they pick up headlights, it's strange that they would not have picked up the struggle between MB and SP. Or SP leaving after killing MB. Or MB's walk down the main hallway. While SP could have activated the cameras while remaining outside their fields of view, it's hard to believe he was that he was that fortunate if the cameras were that sensitive.

And where does the struggle with the door on the north side of the building come into play? When does LE believe that happened?

For the record, I am not suggesting what you indicate may have happened at the NE doors is impossible. It just doesn't seem likely based on the other information we have. I am really curious what cameras were activated at 2:20.
Click to expand...
You are right. What cameras were activated (which tells us what area the camera can see) is very important.

Cameras like the ones in CCoC can probably be triggered by things that occur outside of the building such as moving branches on trees, cars travelling nearby, etc. But the main requirement for that is that the field of view includes a view of the outside and that outside area is within the defined rectangle to check for movement.

When a camera like we see at CCoC checks for movement it is done by looking for smaller rectangles withing the larger "check for movement" rectangle that have pixel values that have changed color - a certain percentage of the pixels (threshold) has to occur - and that in subsequent sampling finds either a larger rectangle of changes and/or the rectangle with pixel changes has "moved" with respect to the previous rectangle. This is usually enough to cause a camera to send a message to a log file indicating that it has seen something.

If the "movement" continues for a period of time (usually configurable 1 to 5 seconds) the camera "records" by sending frames of video to the PC that saves the video. If the movement stops before reaching the "record" threshold the system may record that the camera saw motion but it didn't meet the threshold (false positive) and that would be logged. This too, is something that is configurable so may or may not exist.

If in subsequent comparisons to previous rectangles the precent of pixels drops below the threshold the camera determines that there is no motion and the camera stops recording.

We know this happens with the CCoC cameras that we have seen video from because the segments of video we do have are each comprised of several pieces spliced together. If SP does not move enough (causing enough pixels to change) the camera will "see" no movement and stop recording. In the long MPD video the West Hall sequence is at least 7 pieces of video spliced together, in the South Hall the Dutch Door sequence is almost certainly two since SP probably spent more than a second or two within the DD room and the sequence showing SP coming West in the South hall is at least 3 snippets spliced together.

One of the interesting things about the CCoC cameras is that when the camera has determined that it is going to stop recording - i.e. that the threshold has no longer been met - the individual frames will alternate with one frame being the regular view we see and the next frame being entirely shifted one or two pixel rows up. This creates an effect as if the camera is moving or vibrating (it isn't). We all can easily see this in the ending sequence before SP comes out of Room 10. In all other places where this happens it has been minimized by whoever did the splicing and it is less noticeable unless you go frame by frame. And the way it can be determined that this occurs when the camera is going to stop recording is that if you go frame by frame as SP goes to the door for Room 20 (after leaving the DD room) you will see the entire image start to shift up and down by a pixel or two alternating until that sequence ends.

The cameras at the NE cannot be triggered by outside activity. The camera at the SW looking North cannot be triggered by outside activity. It is highly doubtful that SW camera looking East would trigger on headlights but cannot rule out that possibility completely because it might be possible if a vehicle drove straight into the same place Missy backed into. But I would expect that would trigger the same outside camera that had the campers on video so that other camera would have better footage anyway.

The way the Geofence warrant is worded by using the term "first activated" suggest there were more than one activation prior to around 3:50 AM. And MPD has also been quoted in early articles about the cameras acting intermittently that night. However, given the track record with MPD and their wording it is anyone's guess as to what any of it means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 200 more.
Total: 3,507 (members: 201, guests: 3,306)

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
3,306
Total visitors
3,507
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,256
Messages
17,966,350
Members
228,734
Latest member
TexasCuriousMynd
Back
Top