TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, 18 Apr 2016 #40

[kmoon]

I have a question that may seem silly, but , aren't the knee pads on backwards in this picture?

I see the same...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DexterMorgan]

I think the first camper seen a Nissan Altima leave the area upon arrival.

So LE showed the Nissan from the gun lot.

But I am still bewildered since LE didn't show good pics of the Nissan at first.

Because they only showed grainy footage until the gun store released the actual footage.

So why is LE playing with footage of a car in question.

 

[PibblePal]

Ok i read as much as I can but real life has gotten in the way!

I'm scared to ask... What's new in the case since mid January? :scared:

Miss y'all. But I'll have more time to check-in more often!

 

[ocgrad]

On Tues 4/19 BB gave interview I am assuming this is after meeting with MPD. This was prior to the longer version of video released. He states he doesn't think a vehicle was at the facility and we dont know how he got there. starts at around 3:20ish mark.
JMHO he would have spoken to the individual who called him prior to MPD (according to KS anyway). Maybe that person told him didn't see a veh? JMHO

Link to Media thread post with link to video as not to take up space http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...eline-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=12513771#post12513771

Maybe I imagined it, but I thought there was an interview with BB in which he stated there was not a vehicle when MB arrived and even said that she would not have gone in if she had seen a vehicle. Anyone else remember him saying that?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Ok i read as much as I can but real life has gotten in the way!

I'm scared to ask... What's new in the case since mid January? :scared:

Miss y'all. But I'll have more time to check-in more often!

Nuttin Honey Check back often lol

ETA Miss you too:loveyou:

 

[Jethro4WS]

I think the first camper seen a Nissan Altima leave the area upon arrival.

So LE showed the Nissan from the gun lot.

But I am still bewildered since LE didn't show good pics of the Nissan at first.

Because they only showed grainy footage until the gun store released the actual footage.

So why is LE playing with footage of a car in question.

That is why I have always thought that MPD was sending a message. If you had read what they said in the Waxahachie Daily Light article that came out about this new video MPD was saying that they had initially released the screen grabs of the Altima in the hope that the public could identify the decal. MPD was not that specific in the May 20th press conference as we know they released the make, model, and year range of the car along with its possible color. So, something does not add up.

The way I see it is that if the Altima is involved SP and/or an accomplice of SP knows very well that the Altima was seen on camera. It was intentional. And further SP and/or an accomplice knew what MPD had when the images were released. So either MPD was attempting to spook SP and/or an accomplice or they were trying to tell them that they know something else specifically aside from just the existence of the Altima itself or the decal. From all appearances SP and/or an accomplice have not acknowledged the receipt of the message. Perhaps, more importantly, SP and/or an accomplice don't understand the message or they don't care.

If MPD were truly looking for leads based on the vehicle we would have had the video we have now 8 months ago and if they were only interested in the decal they would have made it explicit that they were seeking identification of just the decal.

It is perplexing to me as to what MPD is doing.

 

[PibblePal]

Nuttin Honey Check back often lol

ETA Miss you too:loveyou:

I thought you would have solved this case by now. I'm disappointed LOL :shame:
I'll be checking back very often!

 

[SteveS]

If MPD were truly looking for leads based on the vehicle we would have had the video we have now 8 months ago and if they were only interested in the decal they would have made it explicit that they were seeking identification of just the decal.

It is perplexing to me as to what MPD is doing.

I think they are giving outsiders busy work, that isn't really meaningful at all, to keep them occupied.

 

[ocgrad]

That is why I have always thought that MPD was sending a message. If you had read what they said in the Waxahachie Daily Light article that came out about this new video MPD was saying that they had initially released the screen grabs of the Altima in the hope that the public could identify the decal. MPD was not that specific in the May 20th press conference as we know they released the make, model, and year range of the car along with its possible color. So, something does not add up.

The way I see it is that if the Altima is involved SP and/or an accomplice of SP knows very well that the Altima was seen on camera. It was intentional. And further SP and/or an accomplice knew what MPD had when the images were released. So either MPD was attempting to spook SP and/or an accomplice or they were trying to tell them that they know something else specifically aside from just the existence of the Altima itself or the decal. From all appearances SP and/or an accomplice have not acknowledged the receipt of the message. Perhaps, more importantly, SP and/or an accomplice don't understand the message or they don't care.

If MPD were truly looking for leads based on the vehicle we would have had the video we have now 8 months ago and if they were only interested in the decal they would have made it explicit that they were seeking identification of just the decal.

It is perplexing to me as to what MPD is doing.

I also thought it seemed odd that MPD said they released the stills to give the best view of the bumper stickers as if that was the best way to get the public's help to identify the owner and so I also thought it must be a message. Why do you think the SP would have intended for the Altima to be seen on camera?
Have you had any luck to zoom in on the monitors on the 2nd floor? Is it possible the SP and/or accomplice were parked at SWFA viewing the monitors on the 2nd floor with binoculars while another vehicle was dispatched to turn into the church so they could see how much activity could be picked up by SWFA surveillance? I suppose this is something that would have been done long before that same night.

 

[barby692222]

my thoughts exactly!

 

[zigster58]

Maybe I imagined it, but I thought there was an interview with BB in which he stated there was not a vehicle when MB arrived and even said that she would not have gone in if she had seen a vehicle. Anyone else remember him saying that?

Yes I do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zigster58]

I think they are giving outsiders busy work, that isn't really meaningful at all, to keep them occupied.

Very good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barby692222]

Marking.

I'm open to anything about now.

Did we decide if you could see a car pull into CCoC from SWFA?

I think we need/needed every video tape off any camera on Hwy 287 or street that fed into 287, that could see the road. 3-4 a.m is the least busy hour of the night. Who was moving around at that time and what were they driving (beside passers through)?

These CG classes aren't large (esp. 5 am). Who looks like and walks like SP. We should be able to eliminate pretty quickly.

 

[No it's not]

I have a question that may seem silly, but , aren't the knee pads on backwards in this picture?

The little thing, that looks like a latch, belongs to the other leg IMO.

-Nin

 

[arkansasmimi]

The thing about the SWFA video is that if that is the camera that allowed MPD to determine when MB arrived that can only be the case if MB either drove around the entire church clockwise and pulled in under the car port or she drove past the car port going further south and looped in the south parking lot back toward the car port. Backing in or making the hard left at the south corner followed by a hard left under the car port would not be visible to those cameras. If it was determined from an internal camera then SP had to be moving and on camera at the time MB was arriving.

Naturally, knowing the answers to whether MPD saw a car or not and which camera showed MBs arrival would make things easier. MPD has not been inclined to answer any questions I have asked of them concerning the cameras that they have not already made public.

Respectfully snipped for space. RBBM

The one and only MSM that quoted Asst Chief Johnson was NBC5 http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Po...idlothian-Murder-Investigation-376269831.html and DailyMail UK quoted NBC5 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...isly-early-morning-slaying-fitness-coach.html as source in a story. The quote was from Tues, April 19th and in article April 20.

So I just a few ago PM the Midlothian Police Department Facebook and asked. I got a reply in 10 minutes. *I have always gotten a reply to my questions, when asked to confirm.

One more FACT to be placed in the Media thread. And proof that MSM twists stuff and misreports. It also makes sense SWFA deleting their replies on the 4/18/16 video. No vehicle parked at Creekside Church caught on video from inside camera.

:drumroll:

 

[Cannonball3804]

HMMMM....IF suspect car/lights can be seen turning right INTO Creekside, on SWFA surveillance, the same vehicle would have passed SWFA cams seconds before the turn into Creekside. Wouldn't it have been clearly visible? Maybe not plate# but make and model???? JMO If not, there was either NO vehicle, or the perp vehicle turned LEFT into Creekside......and THAT would have been caught on SWFA cam, too. That's why I am doubting that there is evidence of a vehicle...........unless LE has kept definitive vehicle evidence MUM! JMO

It's my understanding that it's not possible to make a left turn into the church. This is a rural highway, with a grassy median that you can't drive across. If you look at satellite photos, there are designated "turn-abouts" for crossing over to head in the opposite direction. One of those is between the church and SWFA; the other is maybe a quarter-mile past SWFA.

So no turning left into either the church or the gun store. If you're on the opposite side of the highway, you have to travel past, use the turn-about, and then make a right turn into the parking lot.

 

[No it's not]

Here are some captures of SP in front of the door next to the bulletin board trying to get a better picture of the helmet.

Cropped, re-sampled, de-saturated and brightened up, no other processing:

-Nin

 

[nearsouth]

It's my understanding that it's not possible to make a left turn into the church. This is a rural highway, with a grassy median that you can't drive across. If you look at satellite photos, there are designated "turn-abouts" for crossing over to head in the opposite direction. One of those is between the church and SWFA; the other is maybe a quarter-mile past SWFA.

So no turning left into either the church or the gun store. If you're on the opposite side of the highway, you have to travel past, use the turn-about, and then make a right turn into the parking lot.

No, if you look at a map or satellite view you can see a turn (across the median) that is directly across from the church entrance. You can definitely make a direct left into the church.

 

[Cannonball3804]

No, if you look at a map or satellite view you can see a turn (across the median) that is directly across from the church entrance. You can definitely make a direct left into the church.

Ok, I asked about this a few weeks ago and the only limited response I got seemed to indicate right turn only. That does seem to be the case with SWFA, at least.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Agreed. Do the eyes.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

Gladly also the shoes.