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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't completely rule out the perp. being known to Missy or at least to someone in her circle, but I think the fact that seven years later the Police have not advanced the case any further makes me lean more towards the perp being a complete 'randomer'.
"There are states of being that are neither warm, nor cold- neither positive, nor negative."

Ok, fake new age mysticism aside, I think there is a suspect possibility that is "in between" being part of the victim's circle and being random.

Such a potential perpetrator would have ties to an individual in the victim's circle and then act on behalf of that person.
Vagueness aside.....

The victim's uhmm...... "extracurricular activities" could lead to a situation where a perpetrator concludes that the victim's activities present a threat to the marriage of a friend or relative. They then move to protect that marriage by, well, murder.

In this possibility, the perpetrator could be a protective sibling or close friend. If the individual also has a failed marriage of their own stemming from similar activities, resentment towards the victim might increase further.

Such a possible perpetrator could be actively religious. But.... one can also be very secular and still development a protective sense of "N0- not going to let this happen to somebody else." and have a deep social, but not religious, opposition to people engaged in certain activities.

Anectdotaly, I once had a non religious neighbor (and non murderous) in extremely secular SOCAL who had been "burned" once in a marriage and had developed an open dislike of women she deemed to be "players" in regards to married men.
 
Last edited:
Cryptic, I have been having similar thoughts about both this and Elizabeth Barraza. Could this be a "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" situation? In other words, could a person with some relation to the victim and some grievance (real or imagined) voice a complaint to a third party with no direct connection. For example, maybe a FIL complained about his DIL to an old buddy?
 
Cryptic, I have been having similar thoughts about both this and Elizabeth Barraza. Could this be a "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" situation? In other words, could a person with some relation to the victim and some grievance (real or imagined) voice a complaint to a third party with no direct connection. For example, maybe a FIL complained about his DIL to an old buddy?
I think it could be worth expanding your possibility of a murderous "secret helper" to Barraza's cos play life.

A forum member who was active in adult cosplay (non Star Wars) stated that the hobby interest has visible numbers of "high maintenance" participants.

High maintenance was centered on a participant deriving all, or nearly all of their social standing, self respect, sense of community and in some cases, "chosen family" from the cos play world. She (writing style seemed feminine) also related that, well, uhmm.... not all adult cos players are mature and take social ques well.

The above could support a motive of: Cosplay in my everything. I"ll help "X" by permanently solving "problem" "B". "X" can thank be later. It seems far fetched, but to paraphrase a famous investigator: Motives only have to exist, they dont need to be good.
 
Is there something that connects this case to Elizabeth Barraza other than the perp here wearing a (non-character) costume and Barraza being a member of the conventioneer community? Elizabeth's murder is exactly like a targeted killing. The killer cases the target's home, approaches them directly, confirms their identity, executes and immediately flees. Missy's murder is basically the opposite of that.
 
Is there something that connects this case to Elizabeth Barraza other than the perp here wearing a (non-character) costume and Barraza being a member of the conventioneer community? Elizabeth's murder is exactly like a targeted killing. The killer cases the target's home, approaches them directly, confirms their identity, executes and immediately flees. Missy's murder is basically the opposite of that.
I think you are right in this. It’s great clarification. However, it could be useful to discuss the similarity as well, as long as we have in mind both how these crimes are similar AND how they’re different. Great post.
 
I think you are right in this. It’s great clarification. However, it could be useful to discuss the similarity as well, as long as we have in mind both how these crimes are similar AND how they’re different. Great post.
I don't see anything similar about the crimes themselves, at least what we know about them - which is precious little in both. In my own opinion of both I think the similarity is that they were both committed by weirdos with weird motives that don't make sense to normal investigators - but I don't think the motive is the same in both.
 
I don't see anything similar about the crimes themselves, at least what we know about them - which is precious little in both. In my own opinion of both I think the similarity is that they were both committed by weirdos with weird motives that don't make sense to normal investigators - but I don't think the motive is the same in both.
Totally! They are both conundrums.

I do think that a great similarity is that both perps were caught on video and yet can’t be identified, even as to gender, according to LE. However, I do believe that that’s about where the similarities end. Over time, I’ve become convinced that Missy’s murder was likely an interrupted burglary, but I definitely believe that Liz was targeted.

There is something quite personal about it, even if the murderer him/herself was hired. Whoever did this to Liz, IMO, very much wanted HER dead.
 
Is there something that connects this case to Elizabeth Barraza other than the perp here wearing a (non-character) costume and Barraza being a member of the conventioneer community? Elizabeth's murder is exactly like a targeted killing. The killer cases the target's home, approaches them directly, confirms their identity, executes and immediately flees. Missy's murder is basically the opposite of that.
Maybe, targetted were both, Elizabeth and Missy, who should be dead after the offense. BUT Missy had 3 children and maybe shouldn't be shot at her home/in front of her home. Elizabeth had no children.
What, if a hired killer (or the client) took that big difference into account?
Of course, Idk, if the cases could be connected. Although I am feeling, as if it is possible because of the costumes and the unscrupulousness.
 
Maybe, targetted were both, Elizabeth and Missy, who should be dead after the offense. BUT Missy had 3 children and maybe shouldn't be shot at her home/in front of her home. Elizabeth had no children.
What, if a hired killer (or the client) took that big difference into account?
Of course, Idk, if the cases could be connected. Although I am feeling, as if it is possible because of the costumes and the unscrupulousness.
In that case maybe they should check out Sheila Keen-Warren
 
I think Evilwise always makes good points, I agree that Elizabeth was clearly targeted. I personally believe that Missy was also targeted but I acknowledge that the info we have for her is much more ambiguous than for Liz and certainly leaves room for the theory that this was an accidental interruption of an actual burglar or a role-playing vandal/weirdo.

For those of us in the group that think Missy was targeted, then as Germany points out, the location allows us to make inferences about the killer and possible motive. I too believe with FromGermany that the church was selected because it was a location that was public (i.e., not the family home), where she advertised she'd be, and yet where her children would not be with her. These facts do not prove that she was targeted; they just allow us to make some inferences about killer and motive. And as I noted above, I can't help but wonder if this was a third party who felt somehow justified but has little direct connection to Missy herself.

JMO.
 
Comparing Missy's case to Elizabeth Barraza is tough. Yes, both appear to have a killer in some disguise and both involve CCTV footage. But in Elizabeth's case we actually see the murder on video and it appears to be personal and intentional. In Missy's case while we do have footage we don't actually see the murder. For me, that leaves the actual intent of murder (targeted) vs unplanned (burglary, vandalism) more open to speculation.
 
These facts do not prove that she was targeted; they just allow us to make some inferences about killer and motive. And as I noted above, I can't help but wonder if this was a third party who felt somehow justified but has little direct connection to Missy herself.
Nevertheless: if a third party, feeling justified (for what exactly? morals??), Missy was targeted also. IMO
 
Cryptic, I have been having similar thoughts about both this and Elizabeth Barraza. Could this be a "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" situation? In other words, could a person with some relation to the victim and some grievance (real or imagined) voice a complaint to a third party with no direct connection. For example, maybe a FIL complained about his DIL to an old buddy?

In different cases I follow, I have multiple theories. At the core of the motive, the actions afterwards are like spider-webs, or branches, the may explain some of the actions.

In Missy’s in particular, I have always wondered if someone (and I have a specific someone in mind) had a conversation (and I have a few possible particular ones in mind) with Brandon and COMPLETELY misinterpreted it.

This person (my person or not) would have been fairly mentally unstable and may have carried out the murder, expecting Brandon to reward them, acknowledge them, or do something for them in return.

Brandon may have had a light bulb moment and known who it was after Missy was murdered, or he may have no clue this person did it for the reason they did.

That is just one of my branches in one of my theories. Of course, speculation but just my mind at work.
 
In different cases I follow, I have multiple theories. At the core of the motive, the actions afterwards are like spider-webs, or branches, the may explain some of the actions.

In Missy’s in particular, I have always wondered if someone (and I have a specific someone in mind) had a conversation (and I have a few possible particular ones in mind) with Brandon and COMPLETELY misinterpreted it.

This person (my person or not) would have been fairly mentally unstable and may have carried out the murder, expecting Brandon to reward them, acknowledge them, or do something for them in return.

Brandon may have had a light bulb moment and known who it was after Missy was murdered, or he may have no clue this person did it for the reason they did.

That is just one of my branches in one of my theories. Of course, speculation but just my mind at work.
I lean like 80/20 toward this being non-targeted, but I do have one main targeted theory, and it is pretty similar to yours.

I do NOT think Brandon willfully had anything to do with the murder, but man he sure does seem like he thinks he knows who did it. That is honestly the biggest reason I don’t lean even more strongly toward non-targeted.
 
I still find it very strange that Missy’s family has never spoke out (or if they have, it would take effort to find).

Yet, Brandon’s dad with with him to the police station and spoke to the media, Brandon’s stepmom spoke to the media “well get you with your special little walk” and Brandon’s sister spoke to the media giving a VERY defensive interview.

I don’t think any of them were the person in the gear, and I don’t think they were involved, but it is really strange to me.
 
This person would have been fairly mentally unstable and may have carried out the murder, expecting Brandon to reward them, acknowledge them, or do something for them in return.
I think one of the difficulties with the case is not only the targeted vs untargeted possibilities, but there is also an increased possibility of seemingly illogical motives (as you allude to)

At the end of the day, combining marital relationships with extracurricular activities, can lead to some participants:

- Not being able to keep, well, sex and the idea of a personal relationship separate.
- Developing unreasonable expectations.
- Engage in fuzzy, emotionally driven "cause and effect" analysis if there is a dispute, or a personal dislike occurs.
- Expecting others to follow certain rules, but then exempting themselves from those same rules.
 
Though it's difficult to tell in the video if male or female I suspect female because of the mannerism throughout the video.
I suspect killer targeted MB and waited for her to arrive because killer had the opportunity to leave once MB's arrived at the church and did not leave, but possibly rushed to ambush and kill her? Moreover, curious if killing seemed to be personal and a rage? Did not appear to be robbery, imo.

Please be advised that I've not looked into this case recently so my memory about it may not be fresh. All speculation and moo.
 
It's beyond me to even try to read through all these threads but I'd love to know if any person working in security and with surveillance ever gave their insight about the video from the gun store parking lot - and I don't mean that specific store or even that area.

I tried to find an answer but failed - was that surveillance from the store checked as far back as possible to check if this specific model of a car was seen there before?
And - no matter if the answer here is yes or no - what about other nights: did it happen at least once in available history of this parking lot that someone was driving and messing with their lights in such unusual way?
What are thoughts of people who worked at security and looked at surveillance for years?
Is that like "oh, that's hella suspicious, I never saw anything like that in my life" or like "oh yeah, I saw something like that couple times"?

I used to think that store is in some significant distance from the church, not that it's just across the road and clearly visible. I know that there is significant time gap so it could be nothing, but it was unusual enough to end up in media. But exactly how unusual on 1 to 10 scale - two or nine?
View attachment 360769
To my knowledge the driver never came forward.
So... not a local? But why would they act like that? Not taking any stops, not really looking like they're checking if car is working properly, its more like they're checking how this car is working.
Some kid with no licence who take advantage of their parents sleeping and sneaked out to drive around?
That would suggest that car was taken from somewhere in the area, pretty sure all registered were checked.

Would police ask about owners alibi only? Would they also asked about the, excuse me but - car's alibi? Maybe the owner slept soundly for the whole night while someone got access to their keyes and decided to use it in burglary: taking the car early night, checking it out on the nearby parking lot, then going for a ride to build up the courage (get the outfit) and then came back to try to rob the church?

I've worked as a surveillance operator for a number of years, so I believe I can speak on this with a tad bit of first-hand experience.

In regards to whether or not a car parking/idling in the early morning hours would be deemed suspicious or not would depend entirely upon circumstances.

Generally speaking, if we were to see a vehicle park and begin to idle in the early-morning hours of a parking lot, and the vehicle is somewhat at a distance from the client's building : we would give them 15 minutes or so before attempting to remove them from the property. The entire time, they would be closely monitored; as in the cameras with the best views of the subject are brought up full-screen on a 40" monitor.

Then again, if a surveillance operator was watching this live, and knew that the shop was a firearm store, they may be far less forgiving than if it was a fast food joint.

Also a factor is whether the area is rural/urban. Most of the clients monitored were in a very urban Southern-California, wherein a vehicle parking transiently is not uncommon. If this were a rural area in this case, which I believe it to be, it would arouse heightened suspicion in an operator.

Also, what is deemed suspicious is determined by the client first and foremost. We had properties that wished us to dispatch the authorities immediately at the slightest bit of suspicion, and others that would prefer to refrain from us taking any action at all, unless there is a clear and direct threat to life or property.

All in all, I observed some crazy s**t as a Surveillance Operator- both good and bad, and it was one hell of a way to spend my early 20's!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,904
Total visitors
2,072

Forum statistics

Threads
580,937
Messages
17,764,591
Members
225,108
Latest member
Alex8801
Back
Top