TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #17

Status
Not open for further replies.
What would be the difference, if the UNSUB had not been recorded on camera? Or if he had been recorded on camera, but had been dressed entirely different?

-Nin

The unsub has great benefit from the "SWAT" disguise, imho. First, it serves as a deterrent from identification to the camera. Second, it nullifies a potential witness from noticing or paying attention to a cop when visual split-second decision-making is critical. Third, the padding & thickness of the disguise prevents injury or risk of blood/DNA from the perp at the scene. Fourth, it could leave the victim momentarily feeling a false sense of security that the police are here. "No worries, ma'am...I am just checking out what appears to be a burglary" and then, wham! The Unsub could've even lured the victim into another room if need be under the guise of pretending to notice something unusual with the "burglary" & such. Maybe even enlisting her help.
Fifth, if someone else entered before our victim, the Unsub acts like a cop with his flashlight doing his job. Sixth, the disguise proves a great cover for a getaway during the darkness. Seventh, and this is jmho but this unsub is familiar with and comfortable with this getup. Eight, no one really ever calls a cop on a cop--subconsciously we feel the situation is being handled so no 911 calls really.

There's a reason why impersonating a cop is against the law.

Remember, some have speculated that JFK was shot at the grassy knoll by an assassin impersonating a cop. I'm not saying I believe it but it certainly makes for a great disguise for a variety of reasons.
 
This is why I take posts about players social media with a big grain of salt. I see all sorts of different and sometimes contradictory information being posted.

I don't know what to believe.

You can connect to anyone in any industry on LinkedIn. I'm in the legal field, but I have connections to people who are writers, in the tech and pharmaceutical field, people who are teachers and musicians, etc. As I mentioned yesterday, I noticed that CW and I also have a connection in common (someone in the tech industry).
 
Ah ok, I didn't know he actually posted the photo. Then again you can get crafty with that data too but I highly doubt he's very tech savvy. Just my opinion of course ;)
 
Respectfully BBM ;) arrested ONLY if involved in MB Murder. Not for not being in CA. FWIW, I agree with what your meaning, but you have to make it plain or people (me included sometimes) misunderstand what saying and .... sometimes they will feed your out of context comment and it grows legs and takes off :back:

Really? Some people would read my post and think LE would arrest RB for being in California?

If I have to spell things out to avoid that happening I will stop posting.
 
Wow. A temp agency for physicians. Lol. I thought they only did that for caretakers. But I guess I was wrong. I forgot some people insist on hiring at home physicians like Michael Jackson. Where the physician is always there for you. Whether in house or on site. Ok.

Home physicians like the one Michael Jackson had? You mean the ones that can prescribe all those drugs? Hmmmm :thinking:
 
Which is why it is always wise to never answer questions that LE asks. Even if you're telling the truth to the best of your recollection, they can twist whatever you say to suit their purposes. Always answer "I'd like to advise with my lawyer before answering any questions."

I can't understand why everyone involved in this case didn't seek council the first time LE questioned them. Especially the family members. I'm sure most people know by now that the people closest to the victim are under severe scrutiny right away.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I'm sorry my friend. If your wife or family member was killed and LE ask you your whereabouts. Then you should have the right answer. Right then and there. Even if you was snorting drugs in a strip club at the time. You should always answer their original questions in a situation like this if you are not guilty.

I rather say that I was robbing a bank at the time but no way I was there for murder. Jmo

Jmo
 
I just now noticed something important on the search warrant. If you read the wording of it very carefully I believe the person writing it was being crafty with word choice and makes statements that are a little bit ambiguous completely on purpose and the purpose was to get the judge to sign the warrant. Read it closely and what I read is that the only reason at all for ct being on the target number list is because of her feminine sway and distinct walk not at all because of any phoning or texting by her with anyone else on the target list. ct is only on that list because police suspect her and her feminine sway and distinct walk and with so many people having their whole life be on fbook now I am thinking ct'''s own fbook really added to the police believing shes the person who did this. And maybe that is the sole reason the police wanted her husbands phone records too, because they suspect his wife so with his phone and texting they hoped to get glaring proof of ct'''s motive for doing this. Really read page two and top of page three - - - that one big paragraph and then the next big paragraph on page three and then the one right after that. The person who wrote that based on all I know about this killing and reading in between the lines the writer is telling us her thinks ct'''s contact with Missy was to murder her not to talk on the phone or text with her. This is what I think and it completely changes now how I see this case. I think ct is going to wind up arrested but the police will only have flimsy evidence because she plotted this all so well and she will never admit she did it to anyone not ever, no confession no breaking down, cold as ice. Like a person with total opposites of seeming loving and warm and caring and tender to everyone and also completely Mr. Hyde sinister sociopathic ruthless killer. Now that I think this I see it that if ct is arrested her reason for doing what she did in her mind is that she was after noble purposes, protecting her family. Myopinion only.
This is a very good point!
 
You can connect to anyone in any industry on LinkedIn. I'm in the legal field, but I have connections to people who are writers, in the tech and pharmaceutical field, people who are teachers and musicians, etc. As I mentioned yesterday, I noticed that CW and I also have a connection in common (someone in the tech industry).

Thanks. I'm talking about all social media and not just Linkedin. I see posts here about a single individuals social media information that is as varied as the stars in the sky. JMO
 
But if it was proven BB was not in Biloxi, or RB was not in Cali, surely that would be enough for LE to bring them in? I mean, in this situation why lie if you've nothing to hide, right?

If I remember correctly, LE knew that Scott Peterson was lying about his own whereabouts from the beginning, but they didn't arrest him until they had a hell of a lot more evidence. They just let him keep digging himself in deeper...

SP was an interesting case...a husband who had affairs and wanted to get rid of his wife to make room for his mistress. Quite the motive. But I digress.

If anyone is lying about their whereabouts in this case, LE will likely not say anything until and unless they find more evidence to corroborate - or until the perp hangs himself. Just take note of the fact that they have NOT confirmed or denied ANYONE's whereabouts.
 
Yes indeed..I was also thinking about that motion detector "light" as posted in the Tarrant County video. Funny, you commented on it.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/tarr...g-in-search-for-missy-bevers-killer/188445681

However, I wanted to ask you, what your thoughts are about the UNSUB's outfit? Why did the individual chose to wear it?

-Nin

Honestly, this case has me puzzled. I think the killer knew that a disguise was necessary because he would be on camera while in the church corridors. But I think it also gave him a thrill to wear that getup. It's too elaborate to be only a deterrent to identification.
 
Thanks Sandy. So the police could be there scratching their heads saying "yeah we know for sure XX was in Midlo but insists he was not, if only we could do something about that" and yet still have to find what? A solid motive? Physical evidence?

They need more evidence. Anyone could lie for any number of reasons - to cover up an affair, for example, or maybe they are interviewing for another position out of town or state and they don't want their boss to find out and fire them, etc. etc.
 
TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers,45, murdered in church/person in SWAT gear,18 Apr 2016 #12
for convenience



[quote name="CoverMeCagney" post=12530992]List of names mentioned in the warrants for AT&T and LinkedIn:



M Bevers

B Bevers - Missy's husband

R Bevers - Brandon's dad

V Bevers - Brandon's stepmom

Casey Williams - man who MB was flirting with online, also a fitness instructor

AJ Tucker - fellow CG trainer and friend of MB, in Austin with her prev week

C Tucker - wife of AJ. EDIT: or could be BB's brother Chad

K Cozine - parent of one of the Bever kids friends

M Cozine - wife of Kevin

W Houtz - not known whether Wendy or Wayne



EDITED to remove first names as only initials were given in the warrant (except for Casey Williams)
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12533809

Just bringing this forward from another thread. Originally posted by Covermecagney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do we know this for sure NOW. That CW is a Fitness Instructor? Posted like that makes someone possibly get the impression CW was a CG Instructor, which I do not believe is the case. Rather I have not seen that as being the case. * I know this was first made at time SW's were released and much more sleuthing has done. Also the CT was confirmed by MSM as being the Wife of A Tucker and NOT Step/half brother of BB.

CW is listed in the 4/26 LinkedIn Search Warrant...but is not one of the AT&T Target Numbers, the Remaining individuals are in the AT&T Target Numbers Search Warrant 4/25
jmho
 
If I remember correctly, LE knew that Scott Peterson was lying about his own whereabouts from the beginning, but they didn't arrest him until they had a hell of a lot more evidence. They just let him keep digging himself in deeper...

SP was an interesting case...a husband who had affairs and wanted to get rid of his wife to make room for his mistress. Quite the motive. But I digress.

If anyone is lying about their whereabouts in this case, LE will likely not say anything until and unless they find more evidence to corroborate - or until the perp hangs himself. Just take note of the fact that they have NOT confirmed or denied ANYONE's whereabouts.

They let Scotty continue because they were tapping his phone calls that he was having with his mistress during his wife's vigil.

That conversation sealed his fate. Especially since it was during his wife's and unborn son vigil.

Besides that. The case was very circumstancial for a death penalty case.

Jmo
 
Thanks to all who helped. I will need to print or look at the SW on a bigger scteen.

What drew my interest in the ATT SW, the police were "requesting
historical records and information on #s identified in a mobile directory hereafter referred to as Target #s.(???????)
This information is believed to be imperative in locating a suspect(s) in the murder investigation of Missy Bevers from March 1, 2016 to April 24, 2016."

I did not see any phone #s as they had been blacked out.

So, how did they get the target #s originally (interviews?!) and why were they requesting from 3/1/16 to 4/24/16. I really can't say what the numbers were and/ or who they belonged to but the dates above are very interesting.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
I'm guessing that "UNSUB" is unknown subject or the killer. Personally it wouldn't make any difference because I can't tell if it's a man or a women, young or old, or which race.

I don't think it's a cop so the attire doesn't matter to me.

Unknown subject, yes.

If the individual had not been recorded on camera inside the building, we would not be looking at pics of the possible perpetrator. We would strictly go by whatever LE is releasing in the case. We would hope, there were other cameras from surrounding businesses/ properties possibly capturing the individual entering or leaving the church.

If the individual had not been dressed in LE/SWAT outfit/costume but entirely different with layers of clothing and a mask perhaps, it would still elude his identity and he/she may have possibly been more agile to move especially in case of a quick getaway.

However, the outfit clearly differentiates the individual from MB's camp participants from that morning! It may have also been helpful in gaining proximity to the victim. It would also be helpful, if MB had not shown up by herself and had a "last minute" helper or early camp participant. The perpetrator would maintain a more authorized appearance in a critical situation that may only last for seconds, if that was to occur. Who would attack a LE officer, who himself may have been wielding a hammer or another weapon like instrument?

Dis he/she wanted to be seen? If so, this was the perfect location! Great timing too. They wanted to distract from the early morning workout group. The individual seems familiar with the building surroundings and the security measures or lack thereof: He/she seems calm and confident, is walking the floors matter of factly like during a shift.

When MB announced the new workout place - C Church- on August 31st, 2015 (FB), she also offered free gigs for all church members and staff, just saying.

-Nin
 
Forgive me if this has already been covered (unfortunately it's impossible for me to keep up with every page of these threads ��")

I want to know about the perp's outfit. Is it legit or a costume? Where could this attire be purchased? Amazon?

For everyone saying its a woman...I just find it hard to imagine myself having the strength to commit that crime even without a helmet on.

Do we think LE has more video than we know about? I remember seeing someone mention locals saying something about kitchen footage.

And who is CW?

Ya'll are too fast for me. I can't keep up!

---
Also, I have given up on TapaTalk and currently viewing this thread via the desktop version on my iPad. Every time I want to read the latest posts on this- I spend 20 minutes searching for the current discussion.
Meaning I find thread #12
Land on page 1
Click on LAST page
Scroll down to a Mod Post notifying users that they're closing the thread and opening a new one.
Click the link to new thread (#13)
Land on Page 1
Click on LAST
Scroll til I find a link to the new thread

Holy hamburgers it's frustrating. Any advice or tips will be appreciated :)

Carry on
 
Honestly, this case has me puzzled. I think the killer knew that a disguise was necessary because he would be on camera while in the church corridors. But I think it also gave him a thrill to wear that getup. It's too elaborate to be only a deterrent to identification.

Yes, I agree. There is more to it. As I just posted to "Ranch", the great distinction between campers and him/herself may be relevant. He/she even looked straight into it. That's brazen. Or entirely stupid..

-Nin
 
Which is why it is always wise to never answer questions that LE asks. Even if you're telling the truth to the best of your recollection, they can twist whatever you say to suit their purposes. Always answer "I'd like to advise with my lawyer before answering any questions."

I can't understand why everyone involved in this case didn't seek council the first time LE questioned them. Especially the family members. I'm sure most people know by now that the people closest to the victim are under severe scrutiny right away.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I can understand why family and others connected to this case apparently haven't retained lawyers. It's because if they do, people will come unglued saying that they just "lawyered up" and that's an indication of guilt.

The saying goes "only guilty people need lawyers" so whoever hires a lawyer is guilty of something and "innocent people don't need lawyers they need to tell LE everything"

I have never bought into that argument.
 
Several of my questions may have been answerd in the 7 minutes I was typing : ) I'll go above and read
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
768
Total visitors
834

Forum statistics

Threads
589,922
Messages
17,927,694
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top