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

[Batbrat]

It's only complicated if you are trying to make it complicated. "Where were you at about 4 am on Apr 18? Who can verify that, to as close to 4 am as you can get?" The answer doesn't require LE verifying every detail in a multi-day timeline, as you propose, but instead just getting a single place/point in time (only ONE) too far away for them to have possibly been in Midlothian at about 4 am on Apr 18. Pretty simple.

Perhaps I am overcomplicating the process. But when I actually think about what it would take for LE to verify BB's exact location at the time of his wife's murder, I ask myself how that's done.

Those questions lead me to believe it's complicated. Who verifies an alibi? How is it verified? Is the verification done over the phone or at the location? Which LE jurisdiction is that? I admit I'm not an investigator, so I guess if you could explain to me how all of this is "pretty simple", I'd be curious to know.

FTR, absolutely no one can verify where I was at 4am on April 18. I imagine my phone probably pinged a cell tower near my home, but there's no proof I was even with my phone. If I were part of a murder investigation, LE isn't necessarily going to verify my alibi and clear me based on someone saying they saw me elsewhere around the time of the murder.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Did I miss something? When was BB cleared? Or am I reading your comment wrong?

My wording and going by repeated posts via Tricia/WS. BB is a victim and you're right: LE advised all people listed in SWs are not suspects (at this time). As arkansismimi mentioned after your comment, to another poster, it's a "blanket statement". Thanks.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Respectfully BBM, True that my layout is not to scale (no one that I have seen anywhere has provided so much as anything anywhere other than what I have sketched out and another member Pibble Pal help to clean up my hen scratch drafts... But how is my layout not Sanctuary/Auditorium in middle with hallways around it? The rooms I labeled are verified by pouring over those same ton of photos that you should be referencing.

I worked hard on that when time and time again some fussed how it was not important. It was and is. Honestly my idea of rooms was verified, thanks to another member finding an article. There were many that helped in brainstorming and I appreciate that. Unless someone comes forth with a layout/blueprint of the church, I am satisfied I did what I set out to do. Have a general idea of what was what. And honestly other than curiosity what the other rooms are is not important. MB was Murdered in the SW corner of the church, when the Search Warrants were filed/released May 3. Which again verified my layout after the fact. So as far as what is where, I am satisfied personally. Other than a few things and only can that be proven by someone actually going in and taking photos from section of church that I have thoughts about. I am done with the Layout. Good Luck.

*** Yes I realize that the building is square and my layout looks rectangle... again... ITS NOT TO SCALE and just my draft. .. I rec'd new information, which I believed was true prior. There is a small hallway just prior to the door the Suspect opens at the 358am mark/next to bulletin board/door tried to open across from HOLY GROUND>
Also the Dutch Door Hallway is the 3/5 yr olds hallway. It is JMHO that the end room on that hallway is the room with white time and the Exit out back . This is my REVISED Layout 5/15/16.


I am still wondering if Room 2 Cuddlers/Crawlers one huge room (Cub Corner in VBS Pic) and Room 4 is opposite side of main entrance Toddlers/2 .. Room 6 first rm, Kit, Room 8 then 10 and 12 on the back hall way.... just thinking out loud. or maybe 2/4 together ? Unsure there is suppose to be a Library iirc. and Church Offices? Front Signage says Office and Preschool to that side of building...
Having said this, it is still possibility and I am awaiting conformation in hopes to answer the hallway where Suspect comes out of room and stumbles or touches wall -- may be the hallway noted behind the bulletin board area. If so that is in the SW corner of building also.. be far SW corner...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

In addition to the blanket statement there was a more specific statement reported. " Police also told FOX 4 the man messaging Missy has cooperated with investigators and was not and is not considered a suspect or a person of interest."

http://www.fox4news.com/news/137370703-story

Indeed. Thank you!
Phew! I do think most of us here really do understand LE in that at this point in time, all those listed on SWs are not suspects - that is: ALL names we were provided on the first SW dump. Perhaps some folk are not happy LE has removed them, not included others or not looked at certain names deeply enough. I'm 100% confident in LE and of course, the result/s will be quite shocking.

With public reaction and the 'hunting down of perps' by outsiders, I wouldn't be surprised if gag orders may be put in place; peoples lives are being destroyed, post by post, thought by thought and day by day. It's upsetting to witness. Beyond belief,actually. MB and BB's families are victims here.

 

[Oregonmama]

I'm still convinced and I have from thread #1 that the perp was someone she briefly hanged out with at the gym, totally platonic on her part and there was infatuation on his part. All the other stuff was just part of her life but not related to this murder.

Let's hope for an arrest tomorrow!

 

[arkansasmimi]

Two quick questions I have (& If this info has already been shared/discussed, my apologies!)
1. Are AT/CT members of the church where MB was found?
2. Approx how far is AT/CT's home from the church? I know a local had mentioned the neighboring streets which have cameras but I was just curious about a general distance in miles?

Thanks!

2) 18.9 miles / 22 min per Google jmho

 

[arkansasmimi]

Add to list - I cannot think of a cop anywhere that would not hestitate to shoot at those big letters "POLICE" if chasing this person, and more dangerous to LE, hesitate with the front letters "Police" while the suspect says "I'm a cop - let me get my badge" and pulls out a handgun.

I had not been too concerned about MB potentially confronting the suspect - but he is dressed as a motorcycle cop, so it would be sensible to not see a patrol car with red/blue flashing lights out in front, and instead for MB or anyone to think they just didn't see the motorcycle, especially if he was saying "The breakin was in the back" with thumb over shoulder pointing to the NE, where people would assume he parked his motorcycle. Disguise just good enough to fool people momentarily, as he tells them to go back outside (assuming his plan was thwarted by MB or campers).

:thinking: Could be part of the plan, stage the break in... all the open doors... MB shows up sees the Suspect Police >>> Suspect :Ma'am an alarm call, do you have a key to this door? Caught off guard MB goes along after all he is a LEO ? ... or Suspect comes out as MB walks down that Main Hallway and lures her down that small hallway prior to the 1st door (358am door/bulletin board) JMHO I think that's where MB was killed .. there is a glass top table there and couple places...

 

[knowthings]

So wouldn't CT risk being seen leaving her home at that time of the morning, that's if she drove her car.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Per Texas law, an indictment will be needed to file felony charges against anyone.

For felony charges, Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution requires prosecutors to go to the grand jury to seek an indictment before officially filing criminal charges.

http://www.mytexasdefenselawyer.com/texas-criminal-court-procedures/

Now there's something New and Good to work on ....

:thinking: sources better not be speaking of this

How secret are grand jury proceedings?
Secret enough to cost a violator $500 and 30 days in jail! The code tells us that the “proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret.” Provisions are made in Art. 20.02(c) for prosecutors to share information obtained via the grand jury with another grand jury, a law enforcement agency, or another prosecutor when they need their assistance with the case. The code also says when a prosecutor does share such information, she should also admonish the recipients that they must keep it secret. It is not required, but if you are sharing grand jury transcripts or other information obtained via the grand jury process with other another law enforcement agency, it may be advisable to obtain a court order allowing the release. When you release the information, have the recipient sign an acknowledgement that she has been admonished to keep the information secret.
http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-community-meets-law

 

[SteveS]

when I actually think about what it would take for LE to verify BB's exact location at the time of his wife's murder ...

FTR, absolutely no one can verify where I was at 4am on April 18. .

Well, maybe LE needs to look at you, then! But with these guys, that ("prove to us your exact location at the time of MB's murder) isn't the right question or the whole question (the rest of it is "what is the closest time to 4 am that someone can verify your whereabouts in that area?") To be clear, LE doesn't have to nail down EXACTLY where they were - to the inch - as you propose, only that it couldn't have been Midlothian. That's because, with their claim of being so far away, the travel time to get to and from Midlothian creates a HUGE window of time and space, in which a single confirmed presence anywhere in that faraway place during a wide range of time rules out any possibility of a presence in Midlothian TX at the time of the murder.

For example, if BB rented a car at 6 am in MS, then verifying that is incredibly easy with quite a paper trail to boot, and he couldn't possibly have been in TX at 4. Or if RB was in a hotel bar at midnight in CA, then the same thing - he couldn't have been in TX at murder time. And the fact that these guys were traveling in the company of others using public accommodations and transportation offers a wide range of ways to confirm they were in another state at the time, and LE simply needs to ask a few questions and then make a few calls (and perhaps fax or email a pic) to be sure. Which I'm sure they did, long ago.

 

[arkansasmimi]

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 21. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.21.htm

 

[arkansasmimi]

Art. 38.02. EFFECT UNDER PUBLIC INFORMATION LAW OF RELEASE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION. A release of information by an attorney representing the state to defense counsel for a purpose relating to the pending or reasonably anticipated prosecution of a criminal case is not considered a voluntary release of information to the public for purposes of Section 552.007, Government Code, and does not waive the right to assert in the future that the information is excepted from required disclosure under Chapter 552, Government Code.

Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 630 (H.B. 1360), Sec. 1, eff. June 19, 2009.


Art. 38.03. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that he has been arrested, confined, or indicted for, or otherwise charged with, the offense gives rise to no inference of guilt at his trial.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.



Amended by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 2247, ch. 539, Sec. 1, eff. June 12, 1981.


Art. 38.04. JURY ARE JUDGES OF FACTS. The jury, in all cases, is the exclusive judge of the facts proved, and of the weight to be given to the testimony, except where it is provided by law that proof of any particular fact is to be taken as either conclusive or presumptive proof of the existence of another fact, or where the law directs that a certain degree of weight is to be attached to a certain species of evidence.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

Art. 38.05. JUDGE SHALL NOT DISCUSS EVIDENCE. In ruling upon the admissibility of evidence, the judge shall not discuss or comment upon the weight of the same or its bearing in the case, but shall simply decide whether or not it is admissible; nor shall he, at any stage of the proceeding previous to the return of the verdict, make any remark calculated to convey to the jury his opinion of the case.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.552.htm#552.007

 

[SteveS]

Now there's something New and Good to work on ....

:thinking: sources better not be speaking of this

How secret are grand jury proceedings?
Secret enough to cost a violator $500 and 30 days in jail! The code tells us that the “proceedings of the grand jury shall be secret.” Provisions are made in Art. 20.02(c) for prosecutors to share information obtained via the grand jury with another grand jury, a law enforcement agency, or another prosecutor when they need their assistance with the case. The code also says when a prosecutor does share such information, she should also admonish the recipients that they must keep it secret. It is not required, but if you are sharing grand jury transcripts or other information obtained via the grand jury process with other another law enforcement agency, it may be advisable to obtain a court order allowing the release. When you release the information, have the recipient sign an acknowledgement that she has been admonished to keep the information secret.
http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/grand-jury-where-community-meets-law

There may be some confusion here. In TX (and probably everywhere, I would wager), it doesn't take an indictment to arrest someone and put them in jail. If LE decided they know who did this and had proof they felt to be sufficient at trial, an arrest could and would happen immediately.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Interesting :thinking:

Art. 38.17. TWO WITNESSES REQUIRED. In all cases where, by law, two witnesses, or one with corroborating circumstances, are required to authorize a conviction, if the requirement be not fulfilled, the court shall instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal, and they are bound by the instruction.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.38.htm
Take time and do it right......

Art. 38.23. EVIDENCE NOT TO BE USED. (a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case.
In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained.
(b) It is an exception to the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Article that the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.38.htm

 

[arkansasmimi]

Art. 38.35. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY. (a) In this article:
(1) "Crime laboratory" includes a public or private laboratory or other entity that conducts a forensic analysis subject to this article.
(2) "Criminal action" includes an investigation, complaint, arrest, bail, bond, trial, appeal, punishment, or other matter related to conduct proscribed by a criminal offense.
(5) "Physical evidence" means any tangible object, thing, or substance relating to a criminal action.
(3) "Commission" means the Texas Forensic Science Commission established under Article 38.01.
(4) "Forensic analysis" means a medical, chemical, toxicologic, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence, including DNA evidence, for the purpose of determining the connection of the evidence to a criminal action. The term includes an examination or test requested by a law enforcement agency, prosecutor, criminal suspect or defendant, or court. The term does not include:
(A) latent print examination;
(B) a test of a specimen of breath under Chapter 724, Transportation Code;
(C) digital evidence;
(D) an examination or test excluded by rule under Article 38.01;
(E) a presumptive test performed for the purpose of determining compliance with a term or condition of community supervision or parole and conducted by or under contract with a community supervision and corrections department, the parole division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, or the Board of Pardons and Paroles; or
(F) an expert examination or test conducted principally for the purpose of scientific research, medical practice, civil or administrative litigation, or other purpose unrelated to determining the connection of physical evidence to a criminal action.
(b) A law enforcement agency, prosecutor, or court may request a forensic analysis by a crime laboratory of physical evidence if the evidence was obtained in connection with the requesting entity's investigation or disposition of a criminal action and the requesting entity:
(1) controls the evidence;
(2) submits the evidence to the laboratory; or
(3) consents to the analysis.
(c) A law enforcement agency, other governmental agency, or private entity performing a forensic analysis of physical evidence may require the requesting law enforcement agency to pay a fee for such analysis.
(d)(1) Except as provided by Subsection (e), a forensic analysis of physical evidence under this article and expert testimony relating to the evidence are not admissible in a criminal action if, at the time of the analysis, the crime laboratory conducting the analysis was not accredited by the commission under Article 38.01.
(2) If before the date of the analysis the commission issues a certificate of accreditation under Article 38.01 to a crime laboratory conducting the analysis, the certificate is prima facie evidence that the laboratory was accredited by the commission at the time of the analysis.
(e) A forensic analysis of physical evidence under this article and expert testimony relating to the evidence are not inadmissible in a criminal action based solely on the accreditation status of the crime laboratory conducting the analysis if the laboratory:
(A) except for making proper application, was eligible for accreditation by the commission at the time of the examination or test; and
(B) obtains accreditation from the commission before the time of testimony about the examination or test.
(f) This article does not apply to the portion of an autopsy conducted by a medical examiner or other forensic pathologist who is a licensed physician.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 298, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Art. heading amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 698, Sec. 1, eff. June 20, 2003; Subsec. (a)(1) amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 698, Sec. 2, eff. June 20, 2003; Subsecs. (d), (e) added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 698, Sec. 3, eff. June 20, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1224 (H.B. 1068), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2005.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1276 (S.B. 1287), Sec. 8, eff. September 1, 2015.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1276 (S.B. 1287), Sec. 9, eff. September 1, 2015.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.38.htm

 

[Jsoeur]

I think both news reports and every piece of info we have has been incredibly consistent on the whereabouts and travels of BB and RB. BB was in MS where he had flown, and he drove back to get home quicker. RB was in CA from where he flew back. AFAIK there has been not a single thing to contradict any of that.

I guess I may have gotten it wrong about news reports being inconsistent. But also, it's all based on what the family has said. Technically that doesn't mean their whereabouts are corroborated by LE, either. Again, I'm not saying I don't believe they traveled as they said. BTW, do you have a news link where RB was reported to have flown from CA?

 

[arkansasmimi]

Art. 38.36. EVIDENCE IN PROSECUTIONS FOR MURDER. (a) In all prosecutions for murder, the state or the defendant shall be permitted to offer testimony as to all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the killing and the previous relationship existing between the accused and the deceased, together with all relevant facts and circumstances going to show the condition of the mind of the accused at the time of the offense.
(b) In a prosecution for murder, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by Section 9.31, 9.32, or 9.33, Penal Code, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, shall be permitted to offer:
(1) relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence committed by the deceased, as family violence is defined by Section 71.004, Family Code; and
(2) relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to family violence that are the basis of the expert's opinion.

Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 7.03, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Subsec. (b) amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 1276, Sec. 7.002(g), eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.38.htm

 

[arkansasmimi]

There may be some confusion here. In TX (and probably everywhere, I would wager), it doesn't take an indictment to arrest someone and put them in jail. If LE decided they know who did this and had proof they felt to be sufficient at trial, an arrest could and would happen immediately.

We dont do Grand Juries here in Arkansas.... But from following a case in VA, and reading else where... I can see this being done in this case. JMHO

How Grand Juries Work

Unlike regular juries, grand juries do a lot behind closed doors. This means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.

If the grand jury indicts a defendant based on the evidence presented, it returns a "true bill". If the grand jury decides not to indict, it returns a "no bill". However, even if a grand jury does not indict, the prosecutor can return to the same grand jury and present additional evidence, get a new grand jury, or even file criminal charges regardless.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...harged-with-a-crime.html#sthash.u2MbZYLV.dpuf

 

[arkansasmimi]

:thinking: Looks like the Reward only being paid if they not only get an arrest but also an indictment... So I feel safe saying it will go to a Grand Jury without further search at this time
:judge:


Oak Farms Dairy is offering a $10,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and indictment of the person responsible for Bevers’ death.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...days-before-slaying-search-warrant-says.html/

SWFA Outdoors is offering a $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and indictment of the person or persons responsible for Bevers death, in addition to the $10,000 reward being offered by Oak Farms Dairy.
http://www.midlothianmirror.com/article/20160513/NEWS/160519728

 

[SteveS]

We dont do Grand Juries here in Arkansas.... But from following a case in VA, and reading else where... I can see this being done in this case.

By law, the arrest and the indictment can be sequenced either way, and in practice as well. My expectation - an educated guess - is that the arrest in this case is most likely to come before they convene a grand jury, not after. (And, to be clear, it's a mistake to imagine that "hearing no news and no arrest yet" has anything to do with LE waiting on an indictment before proceeding further.)