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

[lonewanderer]

A disguise isn't surprising if the burglar was hoping for a large heist. A large heist would have meant a serious crime.

Someone posted a Ken Mains video earlier. Mains is the cold case detective you founded The American Investigative Society of Cold Cases (AISOCC). Mains expressed the opinion that the burglar was a cop wannbe—possibly someone who had applied to a police department and been rejected. That seems plausible to me.

"at that hour"

I'm not sure why you are stressing "at that hour." The crime occurred during the wee hours of the morning, which is typical for B&Es committed at businesses.

“At that hour” because a woman with multiple people that had motive died shortly there after. Extremely high chances she would have been alone, most likely unarmed, and had her hands full. Coincidence not buying it.

Why on planet earth would anyone wear such and exaggerate disguise with the tools they brought? It just so happened to conceal their gender, identity, kept forensics off, and offered protection against someone who was highly athletic and had a small chance of having her weapon on her? Not buying that either.

Just can’t fully bite on a random robbery.

 

[Ozoner]

“At that hour” because a woman with multiple people that had motive died shortly there after.

It's debatable whether anyone had motive let alone multiple people.

Extremely high chances she would have been alone, most likely unarmed, and had her hands full. Coincidence not buying it.

There's no logic to these statements. An interrupted burglary always involves a person showing up unexpectedly while a burglary is occurring. Your statement makes as much sense as saying that interrupted burglaries don't occur when we already know that they do, and we already know that they result in homicides with some regularity.

Also, there was not an extremely high chance that she would be alone; others were arriving around the same time. There was no guarantee that she would be the first one there, and there was no guarantee that she would even enter the church.

There was certainly no guarantee that she would approach the source of whatever noise she heard instead of simply exiting the building and calling law enforcement (which is what most people would have done). The outlier event here—the event that got Missy killed—is that she heard a noise and chose to investigate instead of fleeing.

Missy could have stayed alive simply by not approaching the sound that she heard. If there was a plan, it was a monumentally lousy one.

Why on planet earth would anyone wear such and exaggerate disguise with the tools they brought? It just so happened to conceal their gender, identity, kept forensics off, and offered protection against someone who was highly athletic and had a small chance of having her weapon on her? Not buying that either.

Just can’t fully bite on a random robbery.

What's so exaggerated about the disguise? You're making an assumption that the burglar went to a significant effort with the costume, but it may simply have seemed like the best choice out of the things that he already had. He could have had a fantasy about dressing like a cop.

I listed quite a few points against the targeted theory. I have yet to see anyone refute those points one by one. What I keep reading is, "It was targeted because . . . because . . . naughty woman . . . and . . . and . . . because . . . because . . . costume."

 

[lonewanderer]

It's debatable whether anyone had motive let alone multiple people.

What's so exaggerated about the disguise? You're making an assumption that the burglar went to a significant effort with the costume, but it may simply have seemed like the best choice out of the things that he already had. He could have had a fantasy about dressing like a cop.

I listed quite a few points against the targeted theory. I have yet to see anyone refute those points one by one. What I keep reading is, "It was targeted because . . . because . . . naughty woman . . . and . . . and . . . because . . . because . . . costume."

The outfit just seems like WAY too much for a regular robbery.

A tactical helmet, vest, padding all over. It just seems like they could have went a lot less if they were there to only burglarize. Why all that stuff? It would have been much easier to move without the pads, vest, and helmet. It just doesn’t add up to me. They could have done without a lot of it. If there was no outer paddings and no tactical helmet I would be much more inclined to think they were there for a burglary. Because of these items, it leads me to think they were expecting to need protection from someone.

 

[SteveS]

The outfit just seems like WAY too much ------

It would sure make it easy if we had a "Criminal Attire for Dummies" guidebook, to know what crime this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> felt he was dressing to match. Is this what killers wear? Burglars? Trespassers? It is true that the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> seems to be "overdressed" -- but without knowing the mind of this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, and what he was intending, we have no idea what experience he was dressing (or overdressing) for.

It might be that just the act of committing a B&E made him scared to death of getting caught, and he was trying to cover up everything from view, and also from DNA transfer.

As Ozoner has mentioned, maybe this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> expected to get rich from this robbery, with another recent church robbery netting $600,000. That's enough motivation to make you do all you can to be disguised.

The somewhat-extra padding certainly wouldn't be good attire for a fight. It made him more clumsy and harder to move. But maybe it made the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> feel like he wasn't so <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, having some fake muscles if he was seen somewhere that night?

None of us can say what was in the mind of this loser. Yikes, what a scary place to consider. I keep coming back to a<modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> who lived in fear, and tried to get rich easy. That's my speculative choice that fits what I see here ....
1 a scared-to death <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>,
2 timid and breaching a middle-of-nowhere building at a time he would expect no one to be there,
3 hoping to get rich and finally have some money,
4 carrying a gun for protection, fearing something bad will happen to him in an all-alone setting!
5 An over-abundance of fear and caution has him try to see every room for loot (to watch his back, so to speak),
6 when MB arrives out of the blue, he is shocked, totally freaked out, and doesn't know what to do,
7 he's either distracted/unaware, or hiding fearfully when she enters,
8 as she gets closer, or when he suddenly sees her, in a heart-pounding panic he shoots her,
9 probably soiling his diaper in the process,
10 flees in abject terror,
11 remaining still the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, gaining nothing from his failed robbery except the most frightening experience of his life,


12 his life is over and he can never tell anyone the most significant thing he has ever done, and

13 it's 7 years later, and he's STILL too scared to come outside again.

I admit that's a lot of speculation. But that's who I think this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> is, so that's how I think it all happened!

 

[ilovewings]

It would sure make it easy if we had a "Criminal Attire for Dummies" guidebook, to know what crime this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> felt he was dressing to match. Is this what killers wear? Burglars? Trespassers? It is true that the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> seems to be "overdressed" -- but without knowing the mind of this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, and what he was intending, we have no idea what experience he was dressing (or overdressing) for.

It might be that just the act of committing a B&E made him scared to death of getting caught, and he was trying to cover up everything from view, and also from DNA transfer.

As Ozoner has mentioned, maybe this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> expected to get rich from this robbery, with another recent church robbery netting $600,000. That's enough motivation to make you do all you can to be disguised.

The somewhat-extra padding certainly wouldn't be good attire for a fight. It made him more clumsy and harder to move. But maybe it made the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> feel like he wasn't so <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, having some fake muscles if he was seen somewhere that night?

None of us can say what was in the mind of this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>. Yikes, what a scary place to consider. I keep coming back to a loser loner who lived in fear, and tried to get rich easy. That's my speculative choice that fits what I see here ....
1 a <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>,
2 timid and breaching a middle-of-nowhere building at a time he would expect no one to be there,
3 hoping to get rich and finally have some money,
4 carrying a gun for protection, fearing something bad will happen to him in an all-alone setting!
5 An over-abundance of fear and caution has him try to see every room for loot (to watch his back, so to speak),
6 when MB arrives out of the blue, he is shocked, totally freaked out, and doesn't know what to do,
7 he's either distracted/unaware, or hiding fearfully when she enters,
8 as she gets closer, or when he suddenly sees her, in a heart-pounding panic he shoots her,
9 probably soiling his diaper in the process,
10 flees in abject terror,
11 remaining still the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>, gaining nothing from his failed robbery except the most frightening experience of his life,
12 his life is over and he can never tell anyone the most significant thing he has ever done, and
13 it's 7 years later, and he's STILL too scared to come outside again.

I admit that's a lot of speculation. But that's who I think this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> is, so that's how I think it all happened!

You can call him a <modsnip> or a <modsnip> or a <modsnip>, but the fsct is, so far
He committed a perfect crime.

 

[somequestions]

At the end of the surveillance video at Creekside Church we saw this person with some white item in their left hand and using the hammer pick in their right hand to break out a window. Then before the end of the video, they walk into the auditorium with that that hammer pick in their right hand still. Is there right hand their dominant hand?

If they were surprised by Missy Bevers during the burglary because they could not hear her, how did they shoot her?

In order to shoot Missy Bevers, wouldn't this person have to immediately drop the hammer pick, then pull out the gun? Obviously they must have been quite frightened by Missy Bevers if they shot her multiple times.

I would guess the hammer pick was found at least some shooting distance from Missy Bever's body in order for this to make sense. If it was found next to Missy Bevers body, how did it get there? What was the angle of the gunshots when they entered Missy Bever's body? Did someone shoot her while she was on the ground, after they hit her with the hammer pick?

Like so many things I wonder about in this case, I do not have the answers to my questions.

 

[lonewanderer]

At the end of the surveillance video at Creekside Church we saw this person with some white item in their left hand and using the hammer pick in their right hand to break out a window. Then before the end of the video, they walk into the auditorium with that that hammer pick in their right hand still. Is there right hand their dominant hand?

If they were surprised by Missy Bevers during the burglary because they could not hear her, how did they shoot her?

In order to shoot Missy Bevers, wouldn't this person have to immediately drop the hammer pick, then pull out the gun? Obviously they must have been quite frightened by Missy Bevers if they shot her multiple times.

I would guess the hammer pick was found at least some shooting distance from Missy Bever's body in order for this to make sense. If it was found next to Missy Bevers body, how did it get there? What was the angle of the gunshots when they entered Missy Bever's body? Did someone shoot her while she was on the ground, after they hit her with the hammer pick?

Like so many things I wonder about in this case, I do not have the answers to my questions.

I have read a speculation that the hammer pick or other tool may have been used to (at least attempt) to extract the bullets from her body.

We also do not get the full video, which would answer a lot of those questions about what the suspect had in their hands when they saw Missy.

A full video (or at least shortly before she was attacked) may also answer the great debate if the suspect was lying in wait for her or was caught off guard by her.

 

[FromGermany1]

IF the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> was a burglar and full of fear, when a little unprotected woman arrived, who had publicly announced on her Fb, that she would show up as usual on this Monday morning,
then I wonder about:

WHY, oh WHY did he probably videotape his own murdering action or at least the dying victim? LE is thinking, he might have done so*. For now, we won't learn of the reason for that theory, but of course there seems to be a certain reason.

* Look at one of my 2 links, I just posted for refreshing.

I think, no scared burglar, who kills out of sheer fright and fear, would have had motive to film his crime.
Someone, who had a well thought out plan and was at the church to kill exactly this woman Missy (the killing cleverly disguised as some sloppy "burglary"), had a motive. IF the SP was a hired killer, maybe his client ordered some pics. Or he had a use for it on the dark net, who knows.

IMO + MOO

 

[Ozoner]

You can call him a <modsnip> or a <m odsnip> or a <modsnip>, but the fsct is, so far
He committed a perfect crime.

It was hardly perfect if the goal was to score a large amount of cash. In that case, the crime was a complete failure.

Murders where the killer has no prior connection to the victim—such as thrill kills where a random victim is targeted—are notoriously difficult to solve. (They were almost never solved in the pre-DNA, pre-GPS, pre-cell-phone-ping days unless the killer bragged to somebody.)

 

[lonewanderer]

It was hardly perfect if the goal was to score a large amount of cash. In that case, the crime was a complete failure.

Murders where the killer has no prior connection to the victim—such as thrill kills where a random victim is targeted—are notoriously difficult to solve. (They were almost never solved in the pre-DNA, pre-GPS, pre-cell-phone-ping days unless the killer bragged to somebody.)

If we actually knew who the murderer was, that would help solve the targeted/random theories.

I’m a big advocate for targeted, but I would be willing to admit it was random if the killer new Missy but was actually there for a robbery.

I am extremely open minded and nothing is impossible, but with the facts we currently have, I just can’t be convinced this particular case was a random robbery.

 

[ilovewings]

If we actually knew who the murderer was, that would help solve the targeted/random theories.

I’m a big advocate for targeted, but I would be willing to admit it was random if the killer new Missy but was actually there for a robbery.

I am extremely open minded and nothing is impossible, but with the facts we currently have, I just can’t be convinced this particular case was a random robbery.

I believe she was targeted but I have an open mind. Regardless of what scenario you believe, the fact that this person has not been caught, to me describes a perfect murder- there are many unsolved crimes - some for decades--- The police are fond of saying that perps always leave something of themselves behind- clearly, based on so many unsolved cases, that is not the case.-Hopefully this person will be caught- but it has been several years now- I mean they have the perp on tape and still cannot identify and capture this person.

 

[somequestions]

I have read a speculation that the hammer pick or other tool may have been used to (at least attempt) to extract the bullets from her body.

We also do not get the full video, which would answer a lot of those questions about what the suspect had in their hands when they saw Missy.

A full video (or at least shortly before she was attacked) may also answer the great debate if the suspect was lying in wait for her or was caught off guard by her.

I only think the way I do because during the entire video it seems like the burglar constantly has something in their hands. Even if they ran into Missy Bevers by surprise, dropped the hammer pick, and then pulled out a gun, what would you expect the victim to do? I would expect the victim to turn around and try to leave to get back to their truck to call police as the person is getting their gun. But then the bullets would have entered Missy Bevers from behind in her back.

It would be nice if we actually knew whether or not the burglar got into the church offices to look for the money. Obviously they had a gun so they must have gotten in to the office or at least tried to shoot the lock. If that is the case and the burglar stayed in there for a long time compared to the other rooms, then I would be more inclined to believe this was a burglary gone wrong.

But the video evidence says to me that at some point the SP burglar put away the hammer pick and pulled out a gun. It all depends on where the hammer pick was found. Each person looks at things differently. It would help if we knew the answers to our questions.

 

[SteveS]

FG, I don't buy into the purely speculative idea that the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> perp recorded anything. LE utilized various wild theories as rationale to get SWs issued, but we have no real reason to think there's any likelihood of such a thing. It does make good fodder for talking heads on TV and for selling articles, but we gotta believe this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> could never have done something so brave unless he shows us. And 7 years later, he's still cowering, so I still think the loser doesn't have it in him.

 

[evilwise]

I think that the "killer may have video taped the crime" comes from the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> having a light on their helmet that law enforcement speculated might have been a gopro. Not that people are any more or less likely to use gopros to record themselves vandalizing/robbing than to record themselves assassinating. The top motive is ego, regardless. Whether to post online for the likes or to watch over and over again by themselves <modsnip> it's still about ego. It's not like there needed to be be video evidence that Missy was dead to collect the bounty because she just vanished.

Also, as far as that FBI statistic goes - again not that it ultimately supports one theory over another - but it being classified as a handgun death can very very easily be a miscommunication or even just a data entry error. Anybody who actually has jumped through all the hoops to see the data can tell you that several of those hoops involve acknowledging that what you're accessing is statistical data not intended to be analyzed individually. It's literally the mission statement of that particular database. There is no guarantee of verification and data can be directly entered by all kinds of law enforcement and medical personnel just by filling out a form on the web. No official anything required or implied.

Ultimately all the bickering is on account of how little law enforcement reveals about the case. They should be dropping little breadcrumbs that the community is at each others throats for if they want to keep it on the radar.

I personally do my best not to make too many inferences and try to remind myself that my belief in the random perp theory is founded on my intuition from watching the video. <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>

 

[FromGermany1]

FG, I don't buy into the purely speculative idea that the <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> perp recorded anything. LE utilized various wild theories as rationale to get SWs issued, but we have no real reason to think there's any likelihood of such a thing. It does make good fodder for talking heads on TV and for selling articles, but we gotta believe this <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>could never have done something so brave unless he shows us. And 7 years later, he's still cowering, so I still think the loser doesn't have it in him.

In any case, he didn't have time to "****" his pants, I think (like you assumed).
Because Missy was on full speed and arrived near his hidden place very fast. Maybe, <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> relieved himself after the murder, the way others relieve themselves sex-wise. We didn't hear of "biological evidence" at the crime scene, though.
So, all is speculation, whatever we talk about.

If I'm looking at my post before sending, I can read the term, I wanted to use. If I'm sending it, the term is missing. I changed it to **** now.

 

[Cedars]

I only think the way I do because during the entire video it seems like the burglar constantly has something in their hands. Even if they ran into Missy Bevers by surprise, dropped the hammer pick, and then pulled out a gun, what would you expect the victim to do? I would expect the victim to turn around and try to leave to get back to their truck to call police as the person is getting their gun. But then the bullets would have entered Missy Bevers from behind in her back.

It would be nice if we actually knew whether or not the burglar got into the church offices to look for the money. Obviously they had a gun so they must have gotten in to the office or at least tried to shoot the lock. If that is the case and the burglar stayed in there for a long time compared to the other rooms, then I would be more inclined to believe this was a burglary gone wrong.

But the video evidence says to me that at some point the SP burglar put away the hammer pick and pulled out a gun. It all depends on where the hammer pick was found. Each person looks at things differently. It would help if we knew the answers to our questions.

According to the physician that viewed the rest of the video, she heard a noise and went immediately down the hall to investigate. I wonder how reliable that is?

What kind of noise? I try to imagine, I'm at an apparently deserted, locked church, just after 4 am. I haven't seen any cars parked at either entrance.
Yet I go and investigate this noise.

I've been alone in places and I'm pretty sure, I'd only do that if I believed the noise wasn't caused by a human. A beeping electronic noise, for eg.

Would I go if I knew for certain it was a person making that kind of noise? Not me! I might stay rooted to the spot and try to figure out what was going on...I might call out 'who's there?'

If I caught a glimpse of someone who remotely looked like SP, I'd run like h*** to get back in my car.

And then, if we believe SP was making so much noise they didn't hear Missy come in, would they really hear the pad pad of her footsteps coming down the hall. As you suggest, would they see her before she saw them and ran. Would they be able to drop what they were doing, grab the gun, fire accurately...

I really have trouble imagining this.

Perhaps the noise Missy heard was the burglar trying to escape, having heard her come in. Perhaps, since they were too encumbered to escape, they took a defensive position to wait to see what happened. She had this phenomenal bravery to go investigate, so SP was prepared, at that point, to attack.

JMO

 

[iamnotagolem]

According to the physician that viewed the rest of the video, she heard a noise and went immediately down the hall to investigate. I wonder how reliable that is?

What kind of noise? I try to imagine, I'm at an apparently deserted, locked church, just after 4 am. I haven't seen any cars parked at either entrance.
Yet I go and investigate this noise.

I've been alone in places and I'm pretty sure, I'd only do that if I believed the noise wasn't caused by a human. A beeping electronic noise, for eg.

Would I go if I knew for certain it was a person making that kind of noise? Not me! I might stay rooted to the spot and try to figure out what was going on...I might call out 'who's there?'

If I caught a glimpse of someone who remotely looked like SP, I'd run like h*** to get back in my car.

And then, if we believe SP was making so much noise they didn't hear Missy come in, would they really hear the pad pad of her footsteps coming down the hall. As you suggest, would they see her before she saw them and ran. Would they be able to drop what they were doing, grab the gun, fire accurately...

I really have trouble imagining this.

Perhaps the noise Missy heard was the burglar trying to escape, having heard her come in. Perhaps, since they were too encumbered to escape, they took a defensive position to wait to see what happened. She had this phenomenal bravery to go investigate, so SP was prepared, at that point, to attack.

JMO

I've wondered if SP called Missy's name, if it was a familiar voice, it'd explain why Missy had no fear approaching SP. Just a thought.

 

[Cedars]

I've wondered if SP called Missy's name, if it was a familiar voice, it'd explain why Missy had no fear approaching SP. Just a thought.

Yeah, I'm trying to visualize if I opened the locked door into my workplace expecting no one to be there, and I heard a familiar colleague call my name, I'd still probably stay by the door and wait for them to come show themselves. That's a normal interaction, the intruder shows themselves to reassure you it's safe.

But maybe if it was someone who cried 'Help, help, I'm stuck', or something.

To me, there's a strong instinct for self-preservation in an unknown situation. It's our animal instinct. Even real SWAT people are hesitant to naively barge into unknown situations.

The typical strategy of an planned attack is to confront the victim when they aren't alerted to your presence.

JMO

 

[lonewanderer]

I've wondered if SP called Missy's name, if it was a familiar voice, it'd explain why Missy had no fear approaching SP. Just a thought.

I am very much so a targeted believer, but I’m having a hard time believing she would find it normal for anyone to call her name THAT early in the morning, not expecting anyone.

<modsnip - no link to source of information>

 

[lonewanderer]

I think that the "killer may have video taped the crime" comes from <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING> having a light on their helmet that law enforcement speculated might have been a gopro. Not that people are any more or less likely to use gopros to record themselves vandalizing/robbing than to record themselves assassinating. The top motive is ego, regardless. Whether to post online for the likes or to watch over and over again by themselves <modsnip>it's still about ego. It's not like there needed to be be video evidence that Missy was dead to collect the bounty because she just vanished.

Also, as far as that FBI statistic goes - again not that it ultimately supports one theory over another - but it being classified as a handgun death can very very easily be a miscommunication or even just a data entry error. Anybody who actually has jumped through all the hoops to see the data can tell you that several of those hoops involve acknowledging that what you're accessing is statistical data not intended to be analyzed individually. It's literally the mission statement of that particular database. There is no guarantee of verification and data can be directly entered by all kinds of law enforcement and medical personnel just by filling out a form on the web. No official anything required or implied.

Ultimately all the bickering is on account of how little law enforcement reveals about the case. They should be dropping little breadcrumbs that the community is at each others throats for if they want to keep it on the radar.

I personally do my best not to make too many inferences and try to remind myself that my belief in the random perp theory is founded on my intuition from watching the video. <modsnip - NO NAMECALLING>

I have wondered if footage we have not seen reveals more, such as perp pulling out a device and clearly filming it after the fatal attack.