TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #49

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I respect everyone's views but I just can't wrap my head around the targeted theory.

If targeted, why not kill Missy at her house, or close to her house? If targeted, they'd know her hubs was out of town. If targeted, they'd know the reason Missy was going to the church: to lead an exercise class i.e. they'd know several people were going to be there.

I can't find the images now, but I remember when this case was more fresh, someone mapped out the route from Missy's home to the church using Google street view. So many quiet, near-desolate spots along the way from her house to he church, where she could've been ambushed easily. I just can't make sense of the plan being to ambush Missy at the church that morning. I mean, even killing her in the church parking lot would make (slightly) more sense than smashing out a ton of glass and wandering around inside the church waiting for her.
 
I respect everyone's views but I just can't wrap my head around the targeted theory.

If targeted, why not kill Missy at her house, or close to her house? If targeted, they'd know her hubs was out of town. If targeted, they'd know the reason Missy was going to the church: to lead an exercise class i.e. they'd know several people were going to be there.

I can't find the images now, but I remember when this case was more fresh, someone mapped out the route from Missy's home to the church using Google street view. So many quiet, near-desolate spots along the way from her house to he church, where she could've been ambushed easily. I just can't make sense of the plan being to ambush Missy at the church that morning. I mean, even killing her in the church parking lot would make (slightly) more sense than smashing out a ton of glass and wandering around inside the church waiting for her.
I'm not really married to either theory, but it is possible to target someone and not know where they live or personal where abouts of their family. It honestly could have been someone from the yoga class or previous member of the yoga class. It could have been someone mad at the church and Missy was collateral damage. The only thing standing in the way of me being completely on board with untargeted attack is the disguise. It's a little above and beyond for just a burglary or ransack. A balaclava a grungy clothes probably would suffice for a trespass and ransack of a church. JMO
 
I'm not really married to either theory, but it is possible to target someone and not know where they live or personal where abouts of their family. It honestly could have been someone from the yoga class or previous member of the yoga class. It could have been someone mad at the church and Missy was collateral damage. The only thing standing in the way of me being completely on board with untargeted attack is the disguise. It's a little above and beyond for just a burglary or ransack. A balaclava a grungy clothes probably would suffice for a trespass and ransack of a church. JMO
I agree with not being particularly married to any one idea in this case. For me, I’m leaning toward against the idea this was an untargeted attack because missy said in the weeks prior she felt like she was being stalked or watched. MOO for now since I don’t have a quick link ready.
 
Missy was, afaik, stalked at her gym and therefore felt unsafe there and wasn't herself the last time, she worked out (owners said so, as far as I remember). She got a creepy message on LinkedIn, which frightened her and which she showed to her friend. Her husband feared for her safety at the camps and bought her or bought with her a gun for self-defense.
It isn't useful to know, but I just today was thinking, whether she went (with BB?) to the SFWA, where during the night of her murder a Nissan Altima (?) was aimlessly cruising around. Does someone know, when it was, that Missy got her gun?
 
This case gives me chills. I was up late last night watching a deep dive on it. Something about the murderer strolling through a darkened, empty church along with the footage of the Altima randomly turning its lights on and off, driving around, and then parking...chilled to the bone.

I'm not sure where I lean as to if this was targeted or not.
 
If targeted, why not kill Missy at her house, or close to her house? If targeted, they'd know her hubs was out of town. If targeted, they'd know the reason Missy was going to the church: to lead an exercise class i.e. they'd know several people were going to be there.

If Missy was targeted, the church makes far more sense than elsewhere.

Harder to break into a house with multiple occupants and nearby neighbours vs a somewhat isolated, unoccupied church without being detected in situ, greater chance Missy would be able to access firearm for defence and utilise her greater familiarity with her surroundings, higher likelihood of witnesses (her daughters, then neighbours). Gunshot sound more likely to be heard by family or neighbours so LE could be notified/get there quicker. Amount of quick exit routes - less viable / level of traffic lower so getaway vehicle may stand out more? If, as I lean towards, they were trying to frame the scene as a burglary gone wrong, this may be a harder sell if it occurred at her house, crime may immediately seem more personally motivated etc. Outside chance - but maybe the perp didn't want her daughters to be the ones to find Missy?

Why not near house - harder to kill when on the move and no fixed location, harder to plan; more variables to account for to avoid detection, smaller window of opportunity. An idle thought - if she had been killed on her driveway, the case would be perhaps be similar to Liz Barraza.

If targeted they likely would know how much earlier Missy would be there at the church to set up before anyone else arrived, knew she would have to unlock the church so toilet facilities were available or would be situated under the awning. It was a location they could arrive at BEFORE Missy arrived, to get prepared. It was a place that could be cased in more detail than her home without suspicions before the crime, and the day of the crime. E.g. they could attend the church - in whatever capacity - to learn the layout, drive around it, sit in the car park across the road at different times of the day to check traffic etc. with an easier cover story than accessing Missy's house (unless they were already intimately familiar and had a legitimate excuse to be there).

---------------

I'm not married to the targeted theory, but untargeted makes far less sense to me. Because it doesn't make sense that the perp was there to steal stuff - they probably wouldn't have worn so much bulky clothing to hide their appearance, they would've actually taken valuables, they would've been in and out as fast as possible.

If they broke in to LARP as SWAT or wanting to be "tacticool", I don't think that's reflected in their lackadaisical wandering. They were not pretending to breach and clear along the halls, they weren't using tools or weapons in a way that LE or a video game character would in the footage we've seen.

If they broke in just for the thrill/to cause property damage/idle exploration and they were worried that there was a witness to their crime, why murder Missy - and make the crime FAR more severe in the process - rather than just run away? So it seems most logical that the murder would have likely occurred in the moment when they were panicked, right?

But from what I remember, Missy was shot AND also had multiple puncture wounds to the head and chest from a "tool". While possible if simply surprised, it seems like overkill; why continue the attack with a different weapon? That goes beyond spur of the moment reaction. Why not get the hell out of there as soon as she was down if the perp's main fear was being caught?

So, if untargeted... Maybe the person was there to kill someone that morning, they just didn't care who? But then if they were at the church at that time, they would have to know the class was on that morning, otherwise what potential victims could there be there, at 4am at a church? Therefore, if the perp knew there was a class on, they would also know the class was guaranteed to continue OUTSIDE even if it was raining. So why break into the church wearing SWAT gear and remain inside, waiting for them to arrive, when it was far more likely that all the possible victims would remain outside? It would be far harder to get away, way more likely people would see you than say, taking pot shots when they were grouped together outside.
 
Last edited:
But While possible if simply surprised, it seems like overkill; why continue the attack with a different weapon? That goes beyond spur of the moment reaction. Why not get the hell out of there as soon as she was down if the perp's main fear was being caught?

"from what I remember, Missy was shot AND also had multiple puncture wounds to the head and chest from a "tool"."

You misremember.

We know Missy was killed by being shot. We were told there were "puncture wounds." But we were not told those puncture wounds were in addition to shots.

Technically, a bullet wound is a puncture wound, since it punctures the skin.

LE repeatedly (and to this day) danced around giving details of how she was killed, and given that, "puncture wounds" may have been used (in a SW, not a PC) to be misleading.
 
It seems, Missy's case is the only one on a wide field (nationwide), where "puncture wounds to the chest and the head, caused by a tool, the perp carried around" is the description of several gun shot wounds.
I've been reading about crime for a long time (on WS and elsewhere), and I can't remember to have read about "puncture wounds", which were caused by "a tool", when a gun and gun shot/s were meant.

What purpose would it have for LE, to express the wounding/injuries so ambiguously? If not some curious sleuth had found the statistics about homicide in TX/2016, where the respective weapon was mentioned, we the public would still think of "puncture wounds by a tool" - for what??

We will see one day in the future, hopefully, who did it and how and why.
 
Is it possible that the police believe a gun was used but only to hit her with, not actually shoot? Could that be why it was listed as a gun related homicide in the 2016 statistics report? And why they haven't just come out and say she was shot? Maybe they think if the real killer ever confessed only they would know a gun was used but no shots were actually fired? The puncture wounds could be from the hammer or some other tool.

My thoughts only.
 
It seems, Missy's case is the only one on a wide field (nationwide), where "puncture wounds to the chest and the head, caused by a tool, the perp carried around" is the description of several gun shot wounds.
I've been reading about crime for a long time (on WS and elsewhere), and I can't remember to have read about "puncture wounds", which were caused by "a tool", when a gun and gun shot/s were meant.

What purpose would it have for LE, to express the wounding/injuries so ambiguously? If not some curious sleuth had found the statistics about homicide in TX/2016, where the respective weapon was mentioned, we the public would still think of "puncture wounds by a tool" - for what??

We will see one day in the future, hopefully, who did it and how and why.

The answer to your question of "what purpose would it have for LE, to express the wounding/injuries so ambiguously" is obvious: it's part of their obvious attempts to keep any media or the public from knowing how she was killed. There is no question LE has deliberately tried to mask and hide how MB was killed. It;s been over 8 years and we still haven't been given a single answer on how they think she was killed. When asked, the answer is "later."

Not only that, but the media and public are still in the dark about the fact she was shot, and if not for a sharp researcher looking in the right place, we wouldn't know either.

Puncture wound is not a technical term, and does not point to any particular weapon, but instead carries a lot of vagueness because the reader will impose his own thoughts on what that might look like and what would cause it. The same is true with "tools." I think that was deliberate misdirection, but who knows until LE gives a fuller explanation. Do I think we will get one? Nope. It's already been over 8 years.

To CT's comments:
1 If she was hit by a gun itself, rather than shot, how would that possibly puncture anything?
2 If she was killed by a hammer or other item, then the cause of death is "hammer" (or whatever else, and not handgun.
3 A hammer doesn't solve the weird wording in the SW, since it isn't a puncture tool either -- it's a bludgeoning thing.
 
Last edited:
The answer to your question of "what purpose would it have for LE, to express the wounding/injuries so ambiguously" is obvious: it's part of their obvious attempts to keep any media or the public from knowing how she was killed. There is no question LE has deliberately tried to mask and hide how MB was killed. It;s been over 8 years and we still haven't been given a single answer on how they think she was killed. When asked, the answer is "later."

Not only that, but the media and public are still in the dark about the fact she was shot, and if not for a sharp researcher looking in the right place, we wouldn't know either.

Puncture wound is not a technical term, and does not point to any particular weapon, but instead carries a lot of vagueness because the reader will impose his own thoughts on what that might look like and what would cause it. The same is true with "tools." I think that was deliberate misdirection, but who knows until LE gives a fuller explanation. Do I think we will get one? Nope. It's already been over 8 years.

To CT's comments:
1 If she was hit by a gun itself, rather than shot, how would that possibly puncture anything?
2 If she was killed by a hammer or other item, then the cause of death is "hammer" (or whatever else, and not handgun.
3 A hammer doesn't solve the weird wording in the SW, since it isn't a puncture tool either -- it's a bludgeoning thing.
1. I'm not saying it was the gun that caused the puncture wounds.
2. I wasn't sure about this one. Could they classify it as a handgun related death if they knew that a gun was used to hit her but not exactly sure what the other weapon was? Like they found a piece of a broken gun, so that's the only weapon they are certain was used but knew there had to be another weapon involved because of the puncture wounds.
3. I was thinking maybe the back of the hammer or some other tool that they're not quite sure of.

My thoughts only.
 
The answer to your question of "what purpose would it have for LE, to express the wounding/injuries so ambiguously" is obvious: it's part of their obvious attempts to keep any media or the public from knowing how she was killed. There is no question LE has deliberately tried to mask and hide how MB was killed. It;s been over 8 years and we still haven't been given a single answer on how they think she was killed. When asked, the answer is "later."

Not only that, but the media and public are still in the dark about the fact she was shot, and if not for a sharp researcher looking in the right place, we wouldn't know either.

Puncture wound is not a technical term, and does not point to any particular weapon, but instead carries a lot of vagueness because the reader will impose his own thoughts on what that might look like and what would cause it. The same is true with "tools." I think that was deliberate misdirection, but who knows until LE gives a fuller explanation. Do I think we will get one? Nope. It's already been over 8 years.

To CT's comments:
1 If she was hit by a gun itself, rather than shot, how would that possibly puncture anything?
2 If she was killed by a hammer or other item, then the cause of death is "hammer" (or whatever else, and not handgun.
3 A hammer doesn't solve the weird wording in the SW, since it isn't a puncture tool either -- it's a bludgeoning thing.
I wanted to find the statistics, which I remember, but found only another statistics "Murder victims by weapon". Accordingly, if a gun wasn't used to shoot and murder the victim, the weapon wouldn't be a rifle/shotgun/handgun/firearm, but rather a "blunt object". Otherwise the statistics wouldn't be really meaningful, MOO. As a 100% layman, I may be wrong of course. ;)

 
I'm not really married to either theory, but it is possible to target someone and not know where they live or personal where abouts of their family. It honestly could have been someone from the yoga class or previous member of the yoga class. It could have been someone mad at the church and Missy was collateral damage. The only thing standing in the way of me being completely on board with untargeted attack is the disguise. It's a little above and beyond for just a burglary or ransack. A balaclava a grungy clothes probably would suffice for a trespass and ransack of a church. JMO
If the killer targeted MB, they may have known exactly where she lived. But, if they had killed her there, that would narrow the suspect pool to people who knew where she lived. Attacking MB at the church gives the appearance of non-targeted, and helps to avoid pinpointing a suspect.

jmo
 
So let me get this right for the targeted theory. The killer gets to SWFA at 2 am, drives around the lot until they come up on 2 cars parked in the rear, decides to park for a minute and then leaves. 15 minutes later the motion detection gets triggered at the church, but nothing is seen on the footage. At 3:50 we see our first footage, of the killer exiting the kitchen and walking down the hall with their hand on the wall. We know this isn't the first footage, we know there was footage of the killer sticking his head out of the west side door of the kitchen looking around. We also know there is footage of the front of a light colored sedan parked at the church, that was said by LE before they had the SWFA footage. LE tells us that the killer spent a significant amount of time in the kitchen and the Offices. We only have the 4 interior cameras, 2 at the southwest enterence and 2 at the northeast enterance. Missy arrives at 4:16, enters the building at 4:18, footage shows her noticing the open dutch doors to her right, then she snaps her head to the left looking down the main hall, she hesitantly walks down the hall and the camera stops recording. The first early bird is probably pulling in the parking lot right about now. Missy is killed at 4:22 and the killer is not recorded leaving the building. Police say it appears nothing was stolen. All of this wearing that crazy outfit and armed. this would have to go down as the worst planned succesful murder in the history of planned murders. I think everyone agrees, this case should be easy to solve, except for a handful of extermely lucky breaks for the killer. The cameras missing the license plate at SWFA. An early bird sleeping in due to the rain, another having a flat tire and third being his first time. Missy not going back to her truck to get her gun, Missy proceeding down the hall. The killer picked a location with a single enternace and exit, it's absolutely incredible to me that they were able to pull out with out detection. I would think we would all agree that anyone planning a murder would at least give an exit path some thought. I just can't seem to make the leap from a bumbling idiot to a criminal mastermind.
 
Re-post, still trying to wrap my head around the 'foreplay' in this bizarre murder, imo.
Apr 22, 2016
Police have released longer surveillance video from Creekside Church in hopes of catching the person clad in tactical gear who is suspected of killing Missy Bevers.
 
What is the general consensus on the suspect's familiarity with the church? It appears at first glance that the suspect is opening doors and checking out rooms as if they don't know where they are. However, this could have been a tactic with the CCTV to make it seem like they are new to the building.
 
What is the general consensus on the suspect's familiarity with the church? It appears at first glance that the suspect is opening doors and checking out rooms as if they don't know where they are. However, this could have been a tactic with the CCTV to make it seem like they are new to the building.
I personally think they were likely looking for the room Missy was planning to enter and setting up a surprise attack on her. Perhaps they were familiar but checking the room for any signs of Missy preparing to be there.

I fully believe she was targeted and I have a very strong opinion about that, but, the points made about her not being targeted also make a lot of sense in the weeds of it.
 
I personally think they were likely looking for the room Missy was planning to enter and setting up a surprise attack on her. Perhaps they were familiar but checking the room for any signs of Missy preparing to be there.

I fully believe she was targeted and I have a very strong opinion about that, but, the points made about her not being targeted also make a lot of sense in the weeds of it.
I think, the perp lured (with some noise) Missy into a certain corner, where no video surveillance was installed/working, and he knew of that special place very well. Maybe, the crashed door windows led her to the place, she was expected to end up, a trail like the breadcrumbs in Hansel and Gretel. Honestly, Idk, if that fits with the broken glass indeed. MOO
 
Last edited:
I personally think they were likely looking for the room Missy was planning to enter and setting up a surprise attack on her. Perhaps they were familiar but checking the room for any signs of Missy preparing to be there.

I fully believe she was targeted and I have a very strong opinion about that, but, the points made about her not being targeted also make a lot of in the weeds of it.
This information has been known since the start of this thread. There was no room Missy was going to set-up in. There were going to work out in the covered area at the entry. The organization is strictly outdoors, they do not pay for the use of any facilities for the boot camps. They find free covered areas when it's raining. The church allowed her access to put her paperwork/sign in sheets on the table in the entry, due to the weather. It says it clearly on their website and each location for every class is outdoors. "Campers" bring their own weights, mats, etc.

From the website;

Camp Gladiator designs the most effective outdoor workout classes for
all fitness levels! If you don't see a class near you, check out our onlinown to be outdoors.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
243
Guests online
709
Total visitors
952

Forum statistics

Threads
611,005
Messages
18,274,788
Members
235,261
Latest member
truthHunterz
Back
Top