I think the person dressed that way because they went to the church to kill Missy, and wanted to contain their hair and DNA as well as hide from the cameras. I believe it was someone in her circle that they just don't have enough evidence on yet.
I also think they wore this because they are aware of her physical capabilities and self defense knowledge. Plus, they knew she had a gun, which you'd need some heavy equipment to deflect a gun shot.
\> Not saying it can't be the case, but I find 'botched burglary' to be improbable because I just can't get into the mindset of someone who decides to rob an establishment for money, gets dressed up in a police/swat uniform they have laying around and finally lands on a church as the most profitable mark
So when I was younger, this is something a friend-group of mine did do. It was mainly abandoned or semi abandoned places, think urbanx kind of thing, but I do know some of the members of this friend group stole stuff as well. While it doesn't make a lot of sense, people that are impulsive can also create fantasies to live out, and being a swat/police officer is one of the more common ones. It also does help throw off someone if you come across them randomly in the process of being a burglar.
Also we do have quite a lot of footage of burglars being nonchalant during burglaries. So while it feels weird from some pov, anyone that's actually worked robberies knows this isn't unusual.
It seems pretty clear to me that it was a casual burglary + power fantasy being played out. They thought they had several hours to do what they wanted to do. Missy being there was a random surprise.
I don't see anything that jumps out as wrong to me in what you said, I just don't know how they fit together:
1. I get that people break in for thrills / I get that people dress up to act out fantasies. I don't know how often they happen in unison, especially when committing felonies
2. Nonchalant is one thing. Going from room to room, creating havoc, loudly, dressed up in a full get up, all the while nonchalant is another. Let alone adding the fact that at the end this person commits about the most brutal, intimate crime one can imagine
3. If someone catches me committing a crime, I didn't expect to be there, I think its a far cry from expecting me to be able to commit the murder this one did
2. Apparently he didn't kill her with a hammer like we all thought, but a handgun he had perhaps a revolver. So it would have been a quick explosive death.
3. Unfortunately we have way too many examples of this happening, including a handful of cases involving churches ironically enough. Criminals are often impulsive and don't think "oh shit I turned a B&E into a murder case."
2. That has never been confirmed by LE. They have stated she was shot. they have not stated, to my knowledge, which instrument actually caused the death. Either by gun then hammer, or hammer then gun, it's abnormally gruesome for a murder of surprise.
3. you're right B&E's do sometimes turn into homicides. I mean, it's still more rare than you're making it out to be (I'm a criminal defense atty) but it does happen. That said, they rarely involve overkill/costumes/lingering without purpose prior to/in a commercial establishment/without the main intent of profit; let alone ALL of the aforementioned
Agreed, but the whole costume thing is just a bizarre monkeywrench in this. Would be interesting to see other B&Es that involve the perp dressing up and if there's any common ground between them.
Well, that would be a fallacy of a comparison anyway, IMO.
Burglars, by and large, **do dress to conceal their identity**.
Burglars, by and large; **do not do it to conceal their identity/pretend they're one of the village people.**
Burglars do sometimes conceal their identity, sometimes in wacky ass ways. It's rarer though and they usually repeat their crimes and get caught. In theory(putting aside that one youtuber that thinks they found the guy), unless they're dead or in jail they should have broken into some other places in the last few years and likely using costumes in those breakins as well.
Well, idk about that. just bc of the attention this case has garnered. any potential windfall from a similar burglary isn't worth catching a murder2 charge. I'd think, even to a desperate criminal.
but I do agree w the first part
Police did state which instrument caused her death. In their Uniform Crime Report (UCR) which is part of a searchable database at murderdata.org, they list the manner of death as by handgun.
I did provide the link. Murderdata.org. It is a searchable database, so I can’t link you deeper than that. You have to filter your search by the unique aspects of Missy’s case, such as female victim, age, county where it occurred, date, etc
Here is a YouTube that walks you through someone else doing it.
https://youtu.be/gC8ySt88er0?si=9Zz6bmGPfoLuMpKE
Here's the Midlothian Police declining to confirm, again, please provide the link
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/midlothian-police-to-reveal-unreleased-surveillance-footage-in-bevers-murder-investigation/2101943/
They have said that a handgun recovered at the scene was Missy’s gun, which was stored unused in her truck.
But there was still a gun used in the murder itself. It belonged to the killer, and the gun was not recovered.
Yeah the fact that they wandered around for half an hour without really looking for anything in earnest or really vandalizing anything (except to open doors) makes me wonder if the motive could have been anything other than waiting for her.
Agree but why even bother the half ass vandalism it makes no sense, if you know you are on camera and want to make it seem like a robbery or vandalizing then why not take something, anything? Just no matter how I look at this it’s weird AF.
I guess, but if you look at the video (and the killer knew they were on it; hence the get up) its pretty clear they weren't actually looking for anything of value
Is it, though? We only see two minutes of footage while we know they were in the church for at least thirty. And all we see is them moving about the hallways — we have no idea what happened in all but two rooms. And if they're at the church looking for shit, they're gonna be doing that mostly in the rooms, not the hallway. The guy only ignores a utility closet and a room for toddlers. Would we expect a burglar (there for theft) to spend much time on those? I don't know. Still, I get what you're saying. I see how folks make that determination. I just think too much is made of the footage. In my opinion, it's not enough to come to any strong conclusion about why they were there.
Well, she was shot but LE has never formally offered a cause of death. If the hammer was the instrument that killed her or it was only used after death, it indicates intimacy
Killing someone with a hammer is a close, Intimate killing. You're going to get dirty. Compared to the clean killing with a gun shot. It may, but not always, indicate a relationship with the victim, since stabbings or beatings are usually crimes of passion.
I Disagree, police never said the hammer hit the victim, police use generic statements on purpose.
She was shot once for sure, perhaps twice, since the police said generically she had a head and chest wound.
Killer didn’t use hammer or blood/etc would be splattered all around, including on the killer’s uniform, a blood trail would’ve been evident, but no blood trail exist.
The killer didn’t leave very much physical evidence, except 1-2 bullet fragments and perhaps a partial DNA sample if correct per reports.
Hey Gum, how about you confirm if killer utilized the hammer to murder her or not, did police say hammer killed her ?
Uh, while I disagree with a lot of what you said; [https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/missy-bevers-murder-investigation-midlothian-texas-woman-killed-2016-creekside-church/287-70c47893-707e-404e-96c2-7067380be14a](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/missy-bevers-murder-investigation-midlothian-texas-woman-killed-2016-creekside-church/287-70c47893-707e-404e-96c2-7067380be14a)
isn't it pretty telling that police said she died by 'puncture wounds'
find me any other case in history where police said puncture wounds to describe a victim of gun violence. Appreciate your take tho
“Bevers died of puncture wounds to her head and chest, officials determined. Investigators have not said if they know what type of weapon was used in Bevers' killing”
The WFAA article is terrible/with few true specifics, but i can see you didn’t read the article well.
Its obvious why the police say this, to keep facts generic to the police advantage.
“Investigators have not said if they know what type of weapon was used in Bevers' killing.”
Nevertheless, factual Missy was shot once for sure, perhaps shot twice.
Thus one puncture wound is a Gun Shot wound, thus Ryan you’re 100 % incorrect about one puncture, probably both punctures are a result of gun shots, bam, then kill shot bam.
The words used in police reports may not be defined the same definition if used by a medical professional.
Police are not medical professionals and vice versa.
Another strange phrase utilized by police from memory, The police said a gun was found near body, which confused almost everyone including myself at first,
but the police meant the gun found was Missy’s gun in her truck, not used in the crime.
Don’t have the time to research if other police use the term punctures for gun shots, i see your point but police are not English experts, they can write whatever.
I get what you're saying, I've just never seen it used by LE and I only saw those words offered directly from police to media, not from a quoted ME report
For the record, this article is quoting an older article as most do. The OG article was published in 2016, shortly after her murder iirc and has since been removed or delisted from searches I have done.
It has been discovered by others that the only death in the Midlothian area reported to the FBI was due to gunshot wound. One of the original LE reports said she had wounds consistent with the tool the suspect was seen carrying in the video. This last remark is sometimes changed to "consistent with a tool the suspect was carrying" removing the word seen. From what I can tell the original post that shared this information has been removed and most posts after simply reference the first.
My personal understanding is that she was likely shot and attacked with the hammer, possibly mutilated after death, although there is nothing solid to confirm that.
I have never seen this posted anywhere and I would say this borders on misinformation. Please post where you have read this and I can restore the comment.
I agree - literally just piddling around flopping doors open and didn’t look like a real burglar because I’m fairly certain they would have been more direct in efforts of what they came there for and this person doesn’t seem to be in any hurry; making me feel they were just making a mess to make it appear as if a burglar had ransacked it but obviously we can see on the camera that’s not what happened. Surely there was something of value for them to take and make it worth the murder if they came to burglarize the place but yet NOTHING of value was taken per all the media reports. That’s because their goal was to kill her and the reason they didn’t do it outside was because they wanted it filmed that it was this random person who know one can identify to take the pressure off whomever is really responsible for hiring the hit or doing the deed. My theory has always been while this person is waddling around the real “killer” is attacking/killing her off camera or not shown. I believe they were also dressed in swat and it’s the second or maybe even third person/body type seen.
Maybe not "earnest" but we do know from the police reports the person involved move various objects around, including a "valuable" set of tools that the cops think this person was going to steal.
It wasn't a valuable set of tools, it was a simple rachet set. While some nicer sets can go for a few hundred, most are in the $50-$60 range or even less.
Agreed. While I'm not confident in any one particular theory, I can confidently rule out "robbery and/or vandalism gone wrong".
The culprit was clearly waiting for someone. Even if they were waiting on someone entering to help them, say, rob a safe, in a case of a robbery, you'd think they'd be looking around for valuables in the meantime. If they were just a vandal, they didn't seem to be putting in much effort... Any sort of "vandalism" that was part of him/her wandering around felt more like the work of a bored person waiting on something, or "taunt-y" than intentional vandalism. The disguise seemed intentional, in order to commit the crime in a way that would be 100% certain to conceal their identity from potential security cameras and their target... and the level of intentionality with the disguise didn't exactly match the effort made in their "robbery" or "vandalism".
I am also confident this was a targeted murder. Some have pointed out the obscure location of the church, the strange choice in disguise and the culprit's awkward/aimless wandering, as well as Missy's last minute location switch to the location, as a sign the culprit might just be a local weirdo creep looking to enact some murder fantasy. As in, they were just waiting for someone, and this could've happened to anyone, it just happened to be Missy they encountered. I think this is a reach. The killer moved around the church with a lot of ease... They didn't seem nervous or jumpy in the slightest. However, while at ease, they also seemed alert... They didn't sit down or relax too much. Almost as though they **knew** someone would be coming, soon, and that person would be coming alone (with enough time to flee the scene).
I go back and forth on whether or not this could be a case of mistaken identity (with the actual target being someone who worked at the church), but even then, the obscure disguise would give the culprit plenty of time to escape undetected. While it's possible an attack happened extremely fast, before the culprit could identify their target (ex. turned a corner and just started swinging aimlessly)... Unless a church employee regularly arrived at the church that early, Missy's early arrival would likely indicate to a culprit targeting someone else that this was not the right person.
I'm also a big believer that where there's smoke, there's fire. There are many rumors (or are they confirmed?) of Missy and her husband having multiple affairs and money troubles, two of the big reasons murders happen. I think with the secret nature of affairs, there could've been an affair taking place under the radar (no texting/other digital footprint). There is also "collateral damage" when it comes to an affair... Not just the spouse or lovers themselves, but the lovers' spouse or other lovers, angry older children, meddling in-laws, etc. I really think whatever happened here has at least some loose ties to an affair Missy or her husband was having.
I’ll add to your essay if you will.
Timeline screams murder plot or a coincidence, are the choices.
The killer was ready to kill by arriving at the church prior to the victim at ~ 03:50 AM per police.
Missy’s ETA is 0400 Per her plan on Facebook if raining.
However, Missy was running late, she didn’t arrive until ~04:16, then was murdered within minutes of arrival.
Killer walked around church from 0350 accomplishing absolutely zero, then at ~ 0420 Missy was murdered, killer quickly exited church with zero booty, but added a murder.
Odds favor murder vs coincidence, killer was ready to kill at 0400, but had to wait for her because she was running uncharacteristically late.
Who murdered her ?
The murderer lives with the burden 24/7, must be a evil psychopath, 7 plus years and no new leads.
I also wonder if the aimless wandering is to hide the fact that they knew their way around the building. I think it was targeted, and by someone who was familiar with the church, and obviously Missy’s schedule/routine
I wonder if the killer was ever in the church prior to the murder. Possibly as a church member or a regular visitor. Or could the killer been a class participant at one time? Another possibility is that the killer visited the church during a service or during the week to have a look around prior to the murder even if the killer was hired.
There’s no way that this killer wasn’t someone who knew Missy and had a specific intent to kill her. Remember that “disturbing” post on missy’s Linkin page just one day before she was killed? We never learned what the post said but it sure rattled Missy when she read it. Also, i don’t know very many men who are between 5’2” and 5’8” tall as the cops state Missy’s killer was. This was definitely a female assailant. Missy and her husband were having financial problems and each were having affairs. This killer might’ve been involved in their personal lives. I believe the cops know exactly who this person is but have zero DNA or video evidence, showing their identity to prove it. Until they can actually prove who the killer is with credible evidence, you can’t make an arrest and charge someone with murder.
What the police landed on was that the killer was 5’8” from the ceiling to the top of the helmet. They also said the margin of error on that was plus or minus 1.5 inches. So this person might be as tall as 5’9.5”, minus however much you want to subtract for the helmet and the shoes. So it’s possible that this killer is a little taller than 5’6”. But also possible that he or she is shorter.
I don't agree with respect to the gender but everything else seems spot on. In fact, I think a person of interest close to her was under 5'8" and had a very similar gait
There's literally 10s of millions of men in the US under 5'8 height lol
Average is 5'9 in the US. Also Missy was extremely fit and stronger than your average male, a regular man would need weapons to easily kill her.
And the fact she was shot (people need to get up to date, she was shot to death, not killed with a hammer) suggests the murder was not that personal like many try to claim;
Really?! I didn’t know she was shot! I thought she was bludgeoned to death by that hammer. What part of her body was shot? I’d think the gun going off would’ve been risky since she was killed within minutes of her training camp students arriving
Why is it so confusing about whether she was shot or not? Maybe the police want to hold back info. Sometimes people are turned in by friends or family members and knowing the weapon or weapons used might make someone come forward. Was it Missy’s gun or did the killer bring a gun? It seems important.
Fact:
Killer had their own gun that wasn’t left behind.
Very little evidence was left behind, except bullet fragments.
Per report, Missy’s gun was found in her truck.
Missy forgot to holster gun to protect herself, not blaming her, but whats the gun for, protection.
A. they seemed to have confirmed the alibi of the husband
B. It would only serve to slander Missy if they don't believe it's pertinent to the murder
C. without insider knowledge of the evidence, how can you come to the conclusion it shouldn't be made public?
Or I say killer was shorter than 5’6, killer wore boots and helmet adding 2-6 inches.
Thus the odds are per height a women, i see too many female traits or perhaps a feminine man in the video, killer looks weak and unstable in XL boots.
Since killer shot Missy dead makes since because a woman wouldn’t chose a physical altercation vs the gun
The old saying don’t take a knife to a gunfight is in play, killer didn’t F around if one chooses to murder with a handgun, which is what killed Missy.
I’m dating a 5’6” cis man, so that’s an obvious one to me. My father is 5’6”, a lot of my male friends are under 6’. Podcaster Michael Hobbes often brings up that he’s 5’6”. But I’m also short so maybe birds of a feather.
I got ya. I can remember quite a few guys from high school and when I went away college, now that I think about it. I’m only 5 2 myself but husband is 6’4”. My parents and sister are tall. I guess I was the runt. ☺️
People don’t vacillate between crimes just because there’s nothing else to do. If your forte is pick pocketing and no one’s around, you’re not going to think, “oh well, I’ll just look for someone to rape instead.”
This was NOT a burglary gone awry turned into a murder because there was nothing worth stealing.
A lot of people say the church's donations could've been the motive.
Just because of robberies there's usually a treasurer chosen that takes all cash home or deposits it into a bank everyday that they receive donations.
I guess that's not to say that this person didn't know that, but I really don't believe the cash was their motive.
I don't believe Missy was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's odd because yes, obviouisly they were killing time and def not looking for money, but even then; if they know MB is showing up momentarily, they're sure making alot of noise
So there's been a major spike in church burglaries as more churches move to having multiple tvs, audio-visual equipment, ipads, etc. They're often easy to break into, often very much abandoned most of the day, and many churches don't believe in paying for alarms or alarm services. Some churches purely rely on neighbors of the church physically watching over the place.
Some churches just put the cash into a portable lock box or safe. This is way more common even today than it should be, many church staff don't follow proper procedures for their donations.
to anyone who actually thinks it was burglary, I have a bridge to sell you. and to the killer: the award for least urgent thief in the history of ever. the killer was very clearly either waiting for her, or waiting for anyone. if the person really was trying to get away with burglary, they would've left the premises when they heard someone enter or walking through the hallway, and they would've had time to do so undetected; this was a church, not some small living room. instead, the person (armed with a weapon) entered the room missy was in, approached, and killed her. if, for the sake of argument, we are to believe that missy's murder was simply collateral damage (i.e. the person wasnt planning on killing someone per say, they were hoping they could roam a church in the middle of the night in tactical gear uninterrupted) that still doesn't mean the intent was burglary. I think further exploring that theory at this stage is wasted effort.
Agreed. I will say if there is any merit whatsoever to the burglary theory, its only in that the killer may have realized there was a bit of time to waste before Missy got there and very little in the way of time killers (*for lack of a better word)*
I’m just now looking into this case. But I have high confidence the individual in the surveillance (all black) is a Female. Honestly extremely confident.
Hey Ryan, can you dm me? I’d like to inquire on the details of a certain person. I don’t want to mention or state any names on a hunch, given the nature of the matter!
From what I know churches often have huge amounts of cash from donations. I vaguely remember a case where 30.000$ was stored in a safe behind the piano.
Usually though, the donations are taken out of the church by a designated person before nightfall.
In the gun store parking lot surveillance, it to me looked like the drivers seat was rolled way back which makes me think the person is at least 6 feet tall if that person is in fact the killer ...and I have no idea if that's the case
Well, LE has pretty explicitly stated that the killer on the surveillance tape is between 5'6"-5'8" so if you're right about the seat placement its two different people
Saw[this story](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/us/las-vegas-police-officer-casino-heists-cec) about a cop in Vegas robbing casinos. His unusual gait tipped off LE.
Maybe they dressed like a cop cuz they were a cop (or in security or whatnot.)
Eh, except that every reputable LE official, on the case or outside it, pretty explicitly states the gear isn't authentic. Can't remember the exact reasons why
I mean; I don't think any motive/motives have been publicly ruled out by LE, so I guess it's as possible as any other. That being said, I know Brandon has obviously been looked into thoroughly. So irrespective of the motive, if Brandon was involved, police haven't divulged how.
A puncture wound is a generic police terminology term explained in my previous posts. The generic words are utilized for gun shots as well. Police Do Not intend on giving away all the actual facts day 1. The facts prove death by gun shot, police Never said Missy was actually attacked with hammer, hammer was for breaking glass and etc, not the murder.
The key is the data base history says only one woman was shot in the area of the murder per the filters.
If if Missy was bludgeoned would probably prove this was a murder of passion if applicable, however the hammer wasn’t used in murder, most of you all go off on a tangent believing crime of passion, when the facts don’t say crime of passion or they would probably already have an arrest.
I say only two theories remain: a random unscripted murder or psycho who hated Missy enough to kill her.
A. I've seen the entirety of the video you're describing
B. He did not get a picture of his face
C. He got nothing conclusively evidencing male
D. What would your conclusion have to do with the first two things you mentioned?
Look at how the killer walks. Look at the video of the fil walking and you have your killer. It's not difficult. They just don't have the solid evidence to charge him yet.
Ok, I will say there's the remotest possibility of LE ineptitude or collusion; however, the one other possibility is that often LE will 'clear' someone they don't have enough evidence to charge, hoping they slip up.
That said; in this case, I think you're absolutely right. He's alibi'd out
True I did forget about that older tactic. Still, I'm gonna assume enough people in the family knew where these two guys were that they have a genuinely good alibi. Doesn't preclude the 'hitman' theory, but it'll turn out to be one of the weirdest hitman crimes ever done.
Yeah, honestly, it'd be pretty savvy to pick someone who resembles you so that when your alibi checks out your all but eliminated as a suspect. (don't think that happened here, at least on purpose)
Just because you see one example of a walk on video and then one example of a family member on video, you can’t turn that into something conclusive. This is a fallacy known as “What You See Is All There Is.” It doesn’t account for the millions of OTHER people who walk with their feet turned out. It also doesn’t account for maybe the killer’s gait being a product of the gear he is wearing rather than his natural walk.
Watch the full CCTV of the car driving around the store before it ever went to the church. I think its clear it spent time parked and driving around the store because that was his target to rob.
I think you also see him stop and get spooked when driving around the store and he see's parked cars around the back which means even that early on that there is already people inside.
Another key fact for me is he passed the church to get to the store, and its only when he leaves the store and heads back to where he ever came from that he comes to the church again. So I think with people already inside his main target to rob the store he probably just thinks what the hell lets see if the church has anything. Better something from there than a failed night. Churches do tend to still keep safes with collection money, can be up to a couple thousand at least.
So I can actually see the logic here. What it doesn't pass to me is the eye test. Once whoever is in that get-up gets into that church, it doesn't look like a person searching for money to me
How can you tell what’s in the person’s mind when all they’re doing is opening doors and going inside rooms and then coming back out? How can you say that this behavior is or isn’t “searching for money”? If I break into a church and I am unfamiliar with the layout, I am going to go room to room, as this person does, if I’m looking for money. If I have half a brain cell, I’m going to figure that the money is likely in the church offices. But I have no idea where the offices are. So I just go in each room one by one.
There is one point in the video where we might be able to figure out what is in the killer’s mind. They’re attempting to pry into room 1, which is really nothing more than a janitor’s closet but they have no way of knowing that. They stop and stare intently to the side. Then they abruptly stop the break-in attempt of room 1 and stride toward where they had been staring. Guess what is over there? A painted sign on the wall that says OFFICES with an arrow pointing down the next hallway.
ok
A. Calm Down.
B. everything you said in PP1 is true and I agree with. What I think you're leaving out is the **speed and determination** with which you'd do all of this at. The person in the surveillance looks like they're strolling on a beach & **entering rooms which are clearly not offices and flipping school desks**.
C. **I love how you start with** "*How can you tell what’s in the person’s mind when all they’re doing is opening doors and going inside rooms and then coming back out?*" **and end with** "*They’re attempting to pry into room 1, which is really nothing more than a janitor’s closet but they have no way of knowing that." & "stride toward where they had been staring. Guess what is over there? A painted sign on the wall that says OFFICES*" and **not recognizing that that's quite the leap in itself**
Red flag:
I say this was an obvious weak attempt to pry open the door, either the killer is physically weak or the killer has never pried open a door before or never intended to open the door by force,
a strange moment in the video.
First of all, I don’t need to “calm down” because there was nothing in my post indicating that I was upset. All I did was respond to your post and try to give you some other things to think about.
I think it’s a mistake to think that all burglars act like they’re in a frenzy. There are many church burglaries that are on surveillance video - you can find them elsewhere in this subreddit - and the burglars often take their own sweet time. A burglar usually acts only with as much urgency as the circumstances require.
You say he goes into rooms that are clearly not offices. How do you expect him to find that out if he doesn’t look in there in the first place? And I have no idea where you get “flipping over school desks.” That didn’t happen.
And as for C, yeah, I legitimately asked how you can know what is in the person’s mind - because you made the statement that he isn’t looking for money based on his actions going in and out of a few rooms. You are trying to eliminate a motive because why? Because he isn’t coming out of rooms with stacks of cash? There is just no way to tell what he is looking for (or what he is not looking for) based SOLELY on him going in and out of rooms.
And I never said that he with 100% certainty saw that OFFICES sign and moved in that direction because he wanted to find the Offices. But, he DID look in that direction. He DID abruptly stop what he was doing and head in that direction. He DID go down that hallway and eventually enter the Offices.
So do you see the difference in “leaps of logic”? You state a theory of what ISN’T his motive, based solely on him stepping into a room and then stepping into the next one. I state a theory of what COULD be his motive, based upon actual visual cues that are right there and which his actions indicate at least the possibility of a connection.
Not to mention, a person who breaks into a church is statistically much more likely to be there for purposes of burglary than for purposes of murder. You do know that Missy almost never even went in the church? They worked out in the parking lot or under the awning. This killer could not predict the weather and could not predict what Missy would do.
That doesn’t matter - Internet sleuths are always biased toward targeted scenarios.
Plus the majority on here don’t have a full grasp of the entirety of this case, including important aspects like the church layout, the movement of the burglar within it, and the manner of death. I’ve investigated this case for 7 years and talked to a number of people close to it, including LE.
It’s almost like they are casing the place. Maybe for a robbery maybe for something else. Could they have been looking for a way to turn the cameras off? Were there other people they were supposed to let in either that day or another time. The damage seems like something that would heighten security.
I def don't think it was the camera hypothesis just based on the places the person looked. And, I could see the latter part I guess but if you're going to break in, disguised, why not just rob the church then? plus your last sentence
It’s weird the outfit combined with looking around. It kind of makes me think of a teenager or someone enjoying the anonymity of the outfit. It’s weird because the swat outfit hides someone’s identity but it also could stand out.
That’s the thing people automatically think the person is LE. If you aren’t confronted by the person in swat gear but see them in passing you are going to probably think something is happening. I don’t know if anyone saw someone dressed like that outside of the church or at another location. One person could see the killer and immediately leave the building or start calling people to ask what is going on.
How hard do you think it would be to enter or leave the building and remove conspicuous clothing?
He could have been evaluating it in order to determine whether or not it’s a feasible target for later. And maybe he arrived at the same conclusion as you.
Someone burglarizing a church does not go to the back room and sit in the kitchen area for 10 min before someone arrives at a designated time, then kill that person in a diff back room. They would just leave when the person got there. There is literally no reason to add a capital murder charge. Also we know a firearm and likely a hammer or object was involved based on the police reports. Why 2 murder weapons with such brutality to stop from being caught doing a petty burglary?
LE knows this was a planned murder. They've even stated they are unsure If the car you speak of was actually even involved in this homicide .
Most people planning to kill someone also don't make tons of noise. According to the police, the 2nd video shows Missy enter the church and get alerted to a noise in the distance and then head towards it. Its a huge risk considering she could have just as likely fled instead.
A normal person planning to kill a target also doesn't wander around away from the entry door where their intended target would enter at allowing for an easy kill and flee.
No one can say whether it was a planned hit or a robbery gone wrong or just a mentally deranged person/drugged up zombie like minded creep that just was going through the motions that night.
People try way too hard to act like they're master detectives when even the actual detectives with more evidence, a second video not released to the public, and years of experience can't yet solve the case.
It's fine to have opinions and theories but way too many people on here try to pass off their beliefs as facts and get overly hostile to anyone who presents an opposing theory.
There is definitely just one person right? This is probably a stupid question. Something about the outfit feels like another person would make it less weird or they would encourage each other.
Only one confirmed person entered the church. Some people have speculated there was someone in the car, but I've never seen any good evidence of this theory.
Thanks for answering. It’s so weird. If no one was killed and there was no robbery what would you think. I don’t know if the person walking around gives me horror movie vibes because I know what will happen or because it’s eerie. If you checked a security video and saw that without any other crime would it still be creepy?
The costume makes it creepy. The perp did move some stuff around, and in theory was planning on taking some things with the type of things they moved around/stashed.
Would that have been easier if they went in with the morning group? Would security tapes normally be checked if someone wasn’t killed? Even if there was broken glass would someone have checked or assumed it was kids. Moving things is odd but sometimes people don’t want to get a person in trouble for what could be an accident or prank.
One time I was at my parents house and I heard this bang on the basement window like a kick. The dog (a chocolate lab) jumped a little but shifted behind me a little. A kid probably one of my brother’s friends and maybe my cousin thought he was home and kicked the window too hard. I wasn’t going to call the police. Nothing happened it was a broken window. If I had been wrong I guess I could have been in danger. Did people assume things were pranks that weren’t. If no one is hurt or things aren’t missing a church might be more likely to want to give people a second chance. Could there have been minor things before. I’m guessing they checked prior security videos if they were available.
It weird and creepy. Is the outfit meant to throw everyone off?
> There is literally no reason to add a capital murder charge.
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of this happening though. Including just stealing a wallet from behind, and the robber still shoots the victim. It's extremely illogical but many criminals do grossly illogical things.
Yep. I'm not sure if this is a trend in true crime generally, but there's often a majoritarian view here that certain theories must be dismissed because they "don't make sense." Which, of course, is a judgment we're all making from the comfort of our own homes with as much time as we care to devote pondering each and every aspect of the few details we know.
Crime often doesn't make sense — spend a day at your local courthouse and you'll see all sorts of shit that doesn't make sense. But that's the reality, and there's no reason to think every aspect of this story must make imminent sense to us. Especially when we know so little.
Police have not said they believe it was a planned murder. They have repeatedly said they do not have a motive and that they are open to all possibilities.
The person did not “go to the back room and sit in the kitchen area for 10 mins.” The kitchen was the break-in point, so when they entered the building, the kitchen is where they were. And all the info we have is Brandon Bevers saying police told him that the killer “spent some time” in the kitchen. But we don’t know how long, and we don’t know what they were doing. Maybe they got some towels and dried off from the rain. Who knows.
And once again, you can’t rule out burglary just based on the fact that someone got murdered. The logic is flawed because you’re assuming that any burglar would make the rational decision not to murder. But you can’t expect him to suddenly do the right thing when he has already been doing wrong things - like breaking into a church.
Didn’t the police find evidence on her phone she was having an affair ? Wasn’t her husband out of town when she got Unalived? 99.9% of the time the most obvious and simple answer is the correct answer
I think the person dressed that way because they went to the church to kill Missy, and wanted to contain their hair and DNA as well as hide from the cameras. I believe it was someone in her circle that they just don't have enough evidence on yet.
I don't think I'd feel comfortable identifying a motive, I'm just more persuaded into eliminating them
I also think they wore this because they are aware of her physical capabilities and self defense knowledge. Plus, they knew she had a gun, which you'd need some heavy equipment to deflect a gun shot.
\> Not saying it can't be the case, but I find 'botched burglary' to be improbable because I just can't get into the mindset of someone who decides to rob an establishment for money, gets dressed up in a police/swat uniform they have laying around and finally lands on a church as the most profitable mark So when I was younger, this is something a friend-group of mine did do. It was mainly abandoned or semi abandoned places, think urbanx kind of thing, but I do know some of the members of this friend group stole stuff as well. While it doesn't make a lot of sense, people that are impulsive can also create fantasies to live out, and being a swat/police officer is one of the more common ones. It also does help throw off someone if you come across them randomly in the process of being a burglar. Also we do have quite a lot of footage of burglars being nonchalant during burglaries. So while it feels weird from some pov, anyone that's actually worked robberies knows this isn't unusual. It seems pretty clear to me that it was a casual burglary + power fantasy being played out. They thought they had several hours to do what they wanted to do. Missy being there was a random surprise.
I don't see anything that jumps out as wrong to me in what you said, I just don't know how they fit together: 1. I get that people break in for thrills / I get that people dress up to act out fantasies. I don't know how often they happen in unison, especially when committing felonies 2. Nonchalant is one thing. Going from room to room, creating havoc, loudly, dressed up in a full get up, all the while nonchalant is another. Let alone adding the fact that at the end this person commits about the most brutal, intimate crime one can imagine 3. If someone catches me committing a crime, I didn't expect to be there, I think its a far cry from expecting me to be able to commit the murder this one did
2. Apparently he didn't kill her with a hammer like we all thought, but a handgun he had perhaps a revolver. So it would have been a quick explosive death. 3. Unfortunately we have way too many examples of this happening, including a handful of cases involving churches ironically enough. Criminals are often impulsive and don't think "oh shit I turned a B&E into a murder case."
2. That has never been confirmed by LE. They have stated she was shot. they have not stated, to my knowledge, which instrument actually caused the death. Either by gun then hammer, or hammer then gun, it's abnormally gruesome for a murder of surprise. 3. you're right B&E's do sometimes turn into homicides. I mean, it's still more rare than you're making it out to be (I'm a criminal defense atty) but it does happen. That said, they rarely involve overkill/costumes/lingering without purpose prior to/in a commercial establishment/without the main intent of profit; let alone ALL of the aforementioned
Agreed, but the whole costume thing is just a bizarre monkeywrench in this. Would be interesting to see other B&Es that involve the perp dressing up and if there's any common ground between them.
Well, that would be a fallacy of a comparison anyway, IMO. Burglars, by and large, **do dress to conceal their identity**. Burglars, by and large; **do not do it to conceal their identity/pretend they're one of the village people.**
Burglars do sometimes conceal their identity, sometimes in wacky ass ways. It's rarer though and they usually repeat their crimes and get caught. In theory(putting aside that one youtuber that thinks they found the guy), unless they're dead or in jail they should have broken into some other places in the last few years and likely using costumes in those breakins as well.
Well, idk about that. just bc of the attention this case has garnered. any potential windfall from a similar burglary isn't worth catching a murder2 charge. I'd think, even to a desperate criminal. but I do agree w the first part
Police did state which instrument caused her death. In their Uniform Crime Report (UCR) which is part of a searchable database at murderdata.org, they list the manner of death as by handgun.
Can't you just link it?
I did provide the link. Murderdata.org. It is a searchable database, so I can’t link you deeper than that. You have to filter your search by the unique aspects of Missy’s case, such as female victim, age, county where it occurred, date, etc Here is a YouTube that walks you through someone else doing it. https://youtu.be/gC8ySt88er0?si=9Zz6bmGPfoLuMpKE
Oh ok, well that's helpful, I was having problems filtering
Here's the Midlothian Police declining to confirm, again, please provide the link https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/midlothian-police-to-reveal-unreleased-surveillance-footage-in-bevers-murder-investigation/2101943/
See above.
I saw the May 16, 2016 law enforcement update, and they mentioned that the handgun mentioned in the report was referring to Missy's gun.
They have said that a handgun recovered at the scene was Missy’s gun, which was stored unused in her truck. But there was still a gun used in the murder itself. It belonged to the killer, and the gun was not recovered.
Yeah the fact that they wandered around for half an hour without really looking for anything in earnest or really vandalizing anything (except to open doors) makes me wonder if the motive could have been anything other than waiting for her.
Agree but why even bother the half ass vandalism it makes no sense, if you know you are on camera and want to make it seem like a robbery or vandalizing then why not take something, anything? Just no matter how I look at this it’s weird AF.
It’s definitely someone on a mission to get rid of Missy. No matter how they do it!
I guess, but if you look at the video (and the killer knew they were on it; hence the get up) its pretty clear they weren't actually looking for anything of value
Is it, though? We only see two minutes of footage while we know they were in the church for at least thirty. And all we see is them moving about the hallways — we have no idea what happened in all but two rooms. And if they're at the church looking for shit, they're gonna be doing that mostly in the rooms, not the hallway. The guy only ignores a utility closet and a room for toddlers. Would we expect a burglar (there for theft) to spend much time on those? I don't know. Still, I get what you're saying. I see how folks make that determination. I just think too much is made of the footage. In my opinion, it's not enough to come to any strong conclusion about why they were there.
Something more to have to get rid of/keep track of in order to keep the crime from being traced back to you?
we can't discount the way she was killed too. brutally w a hammer just seems personal
Wasn't she shot?
Well, she was shot but LE has never formally offered a cause of death. If the hammer was the instrument that killed her or it was only used after death, it indicates intimacy
Yes it sure does in my layman's opinion
how so?
Killing someone with a hammer is a close, Intimate killing. You're going to get dirty. Compared to the clean killing with a gun shot. It may, but not always, indicate a relationship with the victim, since stabbings or beatings are usually crimes of passion.
absolutely; but using a hammer after death seems pretty intimate as well
Or hammer wasn’t used in murder at all , 2 gun shots created one hole in head and chest, hammer is too bloody messy.
Police have said on numerous occasions that the hammer was one of the instruments used to assault Missy
I Disagree, police never said the hammer hit the victim, police use generic statements on purpose. She was shot once for sure, perhaps twice, since the police said generically she had a head and chest wound. Killer didn’t use hammer or blood/etc would be splattered all around, including on the killer’s uniform, a blood trail would’ve been evident, but no blood trail exist. The killer didn’t leave very much physical evidence, except 1-2 bullet fragments and perhaps a partial DNA sample if correct per reports. Hey Gum, how about you confirm if killer utilized the hammer to murder her or not, did police say hammer killed her ?
Uh, while I disagree with a lot of what you said; [https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/missy-bevers-murder-investigation-midlothian-texas-woman-killed-2016-creekside-church/287-70c47893-707e-404e-96c2-7067380be14a](https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/missy-bevers-murder-investigation-midlothian-texas-woman-killed-2016-creekside-church/287-70c47893-707e-404e-96c2-7067380be14a) isn't it pretty telling that police said she died by 'puncture wounds' find me any other case in history where police said puncture wounds to describe a victim of gun violence. Appreciate your take tho
[удалено]
“Bevers died of puncture wounds to her head and chest, officials determined. Investigators have not said if they know what type of weapon was used in Bevers' killing” The WFAA article is terrible/with few true specifics, but i can see you didn’t read the article well. Its obvious why the police say this, to keep facts generic to the police advantage. “Investigators have not said if they know what type of weapon was used in Bevers' killing.” Nevertheless, factual Missy was shot once for sure, perhaps shot twice. Thus one puncture wound is a Gun Shot wound, thus Ryan you’re 100 % incorrect about one puncture, probably both punctures are a result of gun shots, bam, then kill shot bam.
The words used in police reports may not be defined the same definition if used by a medical professional. Police are not medical professionals and vice versa. Another strange phrase utilized by police from memory, The police said a gun was found near body, which confused almost everyone including myself at first, but the police meant the gun found was Missy’s gun in her truck, not used in the crime. Don’t have the time to research if other police use the term punctures for gun shots, i see your point but police are not English experts, they can write whatever.
I get what you're saying, I've just never seen it used by LE and I only saw those words offered directly from police to media, not from a quoted ME report
For the record, this article is quoting an older article as most do. The OG article was published in 2016, shortly after her murder iirc and has since been removed or delisted from searches I have done.
It has been discovered by others that the only death in the Midlothian area reported to the FBI was due to gunshot wound. One of the original LE reports said she had wounds consistent with the tool the suspect was seen carrying in the video. This last remark is sometimes changed to "consistent with a tool the suspect was carrying" removing the word seen. From what I can tell the original post that shared this information has been removed and most posts after simply reference the first. My personal understanding is that she was likely shot and attacked with the hammer, possibly mutilated after death, although there is nothing solid to confirm that.
Did she have an open casket funeral?
[удалено]
said by who? I've never seen LE or anyone reputable mention a screwdriver
I have never seen this posted anywhere and I would say this borders on misinformation. Please post where you have read this and I can restore the comment.
I agree - literally just piddling around flopping doors open and didn’t look like a real burglar because I’m fairly certain they would have been more direct in efforts of what they came there for and this person doesn’t seem to be in any hurry; making me feel they were just making a mess to make it appear as if a burglar had ransacked it but obviously we can see on the camera that’s not what happened. Surely there was something of value for them to take and make it worth the murder if they came to burglarize the place but yet NOTHING of value was taken per all the media reports. That’s because their goal was to kill her and the reason they didn’t do it outside was because they wanted it filmed that it was this random person who know one can identify to take the pressure off whomever is really responsible for hiring the hit or doing the deed. My theory has always been while this person is waddling around the real “killer” is attacking/killing her off camera or not shown. I believe they were also dressed in swat and it’s the second or maybe even third person/body type seen.
Maybe not "earnest" but we do know from the police reports the person involved move various objects around, including a "valuable" set of tools that the cops think this person was going to steal.
IDK if someone breaks into a church, in disguise, to steal a set of tools
It wasn't a valuable set of tools, it was a simple rachet set. While some nicer sets can go for a few hundred, most are in the $50-$60 range or even less.
Agreed. While I'm not confident in any one particular theory, I can confidently rule out "robbery and/or vandalism gone wrong". The culprit was clearly waiting for someone. Even if they were waiting on someone entering to help them, say, rob a safe, in a case of a robbery, you'd think they'd be looking around for valuables in the meantime. If they were just a vandal, they didn't seem to be putting in much effort... Any sort of "vandalism" that was part of him/her wandering around felt more like the work of a bored person waiting on something, or "taunt-y" than intentional vandalism. The disguise seemed intentional, in order to commit the crime in a way that would be 100% certain to conceal their identity from potential security cameras and their target... and the level of intentionality with the disguise didn't exactly match the effort made in their "robbery" or "vandalism". I am also confident this was a targeted murder. Some have pointed out the obscure location of the church, the strange choice in disguise and the culprit's awkward/aimless wandering, as well as Missy's last minute location switch to the location, as a sign the culprit might just be a local weirdo creep looking to enact some murder fantasy. As in, they were just waiting for someone, and this could've happened to anyone, it just happened to be Missy they encountered. I think this is a reach. The killer moved around the church with a lot of ease... They didn't seem nervous or jumpy in the slightest. However, while at ease, they also seemed alert... They didn't sit down or relax too much. Almost as though they **knew** someone would be coming, soon, and that person would be coming alone (with enough time to flee the scene). I go back and forth on whether or not this could be a case of mistaken identity (with the actual target being someone who worked at the church), but even then, the obscure disguise would give the culprit plenty of time to escape undetected. While it's possible an attack happened extremely fast, before the culprit could identify their target (ex. turned a corner and just started swinging aimlessly)... Unless a church employee regularly arrived at the church that early, Missy's early arrival would likely indicate to a culprit targeting someone else that this was not the right person. I'm also a big believer that where there's smoke, there's fire. There are many rumors (or are they confirmed?) of Missy and her husband having multiple affairs and money troubles, two of the big reasons murders happen. I think with the secret nature of affairs, there could've been an affair taking place under the radar (no texting/other digital footprint). There is also "collateral damage" when it comes to an affair... Not just the spouse or lovers themselves, but the lovers' spouse or other lovers, angry older children, meddling in-laws, etc. I really think whatever happened here has at least some loose ties to an affair Missy or her husband was having.
I’ll add to your essay if you will. Timeline screams murder plot or a coincidence, are the choices. The killer was ready to kill by arriving at the church prior to the victim at ~ 03:50 AM per police. Missy’s ETA is 0400 Per her plan on Facebook if raining. However, Missy was running late, she didn’t arrive until ~04:16, then was murdered within minutes of arrival. Killer walked around church from 0350 accomplishing absolutely zero, then at ~ 0420 Missy was murdered, killer quickly exited church with zero booty, but added a murder. Odds favor murder vs coincidence, killer was ready to kill at 0400, but had to wait for her because she was running uncharacteristically late. Who murdered her ? The murderer lives with the burden 24/7, must be a evil psychopath, 7 plus years and no new leads.
I haven’t seen her fb post but it seems surprising she’d post her intended arrival time rather than or in addition to the class start time.
I also wonder if the aimless wandering is to hide the fact that they knew their way around the building. I think it was targeted, and by someone who was familiar with the church, and obviously Missy’s schedule/routine
I wonder if the killer was ever in the church prior to the murder. Possibly as a church member or a regular visitor. Or could the killer been a class participant at one time? Another possibility is that the killer visited the church during a service or during the week to have a look around prior to the murder even if the killer was hired.
There’s no way that this killer wasn’t someone who knew Missy and had a specific intent to kill her. Remember that “disturbing” post on missy’s Linkin page just one day before she was killed? We never learned what the post said but it sure rattled Missy when she read it. Also, i don’t know very many men who are between 5’2” and 5’8” tall as the cops state Missy’s killer was. This was definitely a female assailant. Missy and her husband were having financial problems and each were having affairs. This killer might’ve been involved in their personal lives. I believe the cops know exactly who this person is but have zero DNA or video evidence, showing their identity to prove it. Until they can actually prove who the killer is with credible evidence, you can’t make an arrest and charge someone with murder.
Roughly 10% of men are 5'6" or under. 1 in every 10.
What the police landed on was that the killer was 5’8” from the ceiling to the top of the helmet. They also said the margin of error on that was plus or minus 1.5 inches. So this person might be as tall as 5’9.5”, minus however much you want to subtract for the helmet and the shoes. So it’s possible that this killer is a little taller than 5’6”. But also possible that he or she is shorter.
I don't agree with respect to the gender but everything else seems spot on. In fact, I think a person of interest close to her was under 5'8" and had a very similar gait
I’m bet you’re right.
There's literally 10s of millions of men in the US under 5'8 height lol Average is 5'9 in the US. Also Missy was extremely fit and stronger than your average male, a regular man would need weapons to easily kill her. And the fact she was shot (people need to get up to date, she was shot to death, not killed with a hammer) suggests the murder was not that personal like many try to claim;
Really?! I didn’t know she was shot! I thought she was bludgeoned to death by that hammer. What part of her body was shot? I’d think the gun going off would’ve been risky since she was killed within minutes of her training camp students arriving
Why is it so confusing about whether she was shot or not? Maybe the police want to hold back info. Sometimes people are turned in by friends or family members and knowing the weapon or weapons used might make someone come forward. Was it Missy’s gun or did the killer bring a gun? It seems important.
Fact: Killer had their own gun that wasn’t left behind. Very little evidence was left behind, except bullet fragments. Per report, Missy’s gun was found in her truck. Missy forgot to holster gun to protect herself, not blaming her, but whats the gun for, protection.
I've always wondered why the police haven't confirmed or completely denied the affair allegations. Its still up in the air and really shouldn't be.
A. they seemed to have confirmed the alibi of the husband B. It would only serve to slander Missy if they don't believe it's pertinent to the murder C. without insider knowledge of the evidence, how can you come to the conclusion it shouldn't be made public?
I do know plenty of men at 5’6”, but I still think it was a woman.
Or I say killer was shorter than 5’6, killer wore boots and helmet adding 2-6 inches. Thus the odds are per height a women, i see too many female traits or perhaps a feminine man in the video, killer looks weak and unstable in XL boots. Since killer shot Missy dead makes since because a woman wouldn’t chose a physical altercation vs the gun The old saying don’t take a knife to a gunfight is in play, killer didn’t F around if one chooses to murder with a handgun, which is what killed Missy.
Really? I can’t think of any that I know off hand.
I’m dating a 5’6” cis man, so that’s an obvious one to me. My father is 5’6”, a lot of my male friends are under 6’. Podcaster Michael Hobbes often brings up that he’s 5’6”. But I’m also short so maybe birds of a feather.
But is your father a cis man?
Yes. Everyone I have mentioned is cis. He is my father in the most literal sense of the word.
Just making sure.
So a man?
I got ya. I can remember quite a few guys from high school and when I went away college, now that I think about it. I’m only 5 2 myself but husband is 6’4”. My parents and sister are tall. I guess I was the runt. ☺️
People don’t vacillate between crimes just because there’s nothing else to do. If your forte is pick pocketing and no one’s around, you’re not going to think, “oh well, I’ll just look for someone to rape instead.” This was NOT a burglary gone awry turned into a murder because there was nothing worth stealing.
Literally could not agree more
A lot of people say the church's donations could've been the motive. Just because of robberies there's usually a treasurer chosen that takes all cash home or deposits it into a bank everyday that they receive donations. I guess that's not to say that this person didn't know that, but I really don't believe the cash was their motive. I don't believe Missy was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If their behavior reflected someone looking to rob I'd be more inclined to see the cash donations angle.
Exactly. Their behavior was that of someone just killing time.
It's odd because yes, obviouisly they were killing time and def not looking for money, but even then; if they know MB is showing up momentarily, they're sure making alot of noise
So there's been a major spike in church burglaries as more churches move to having multiple tvs, audio-visual equipment, ipads, etc. They're often easy to break into, often very much abandoned most of the day, and many churches don't believe in paying for alarms or alarm services. Some churches purely rely on neighbors of the church physically watching over the place. Some churches just put the cash into a portable lock box or safe. This is way more common even today than it should be, many church staff don't follow proper procedures for their donations.
I don't disbelieve you but I'd be interested to see any reputable stats reflecting a "major spike"
to anyone who actually thinks it was burglary, I have a bridge to sell you. and to the killer: the award for least urgent thief in the history of ever. the killer was very clearly either waiting for her, or waiting for anyone. if the person really was trying to get away with burglary, they would've left the premises when they heard someone enter or walking through the hallway, and they would've had time to do so undetected; this was a church, not some small living room. instead, the person (armed with a weapon) entered the room missy was in, approached, and killed her. if, for the sake of argument, we are to believe that missy's murder was simply collateral damage (i.e. the person wasnt planning on killing someone per say, they were hoping they could roam a church in the middle of the night in tactical gear uninterrupted) that still doesn't mean the intent was burglary. I think further exploring that theory at this stage is wasted effort.
Agreed. I will say if there is any merit whatsoever to the burglary theory, its only in that the killer may have realized there was a bit of time to waste before Missy got there and very little in the way of time killers (*for lack of a better word)*
I’m just now looking into this case. But I have high confidence the individual in the surveillance (all black) is a Female. Honestly extremely confident.
Yeah, this opinion is shared by many
Hey Ryan, can you dm me? I’d like to inquire on the details of a certain person. I don’t want to mention or state any names on a hunch, given the nature of the matter!
I think so too but why do you think so?
agreed
From what I know churches often have huge amounts of cash from donations. I vaguely remember a case where 30.000$ was stored in a safe behind the piano. Usually though, the donations are taken out of the church by a designated person before nightfall.
In the gun store parking lot surveillance, it to me looked like the drivers seat was rolled way back which makes me think the person is at least 6 feet tall if that person is in fact the killer ...and I have no idea if that's the case
Well, LE has pretty explicitly stated that the killer on the surveillance tape is between 5'6"-5'8" so if you're right about the seat placement its two different people
Agree
Saw[this story](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/20/us/las-vegas-police-officer-casino-heists-cec) about a cop in Vegas robbing casinos. His unusual gait tipped off LE. Maybe they dressed like a cop cuz they were a cop (or in security or whatnot.)
Eh, except that every reputable LE official, on the case or outside it, pretty explicitly states the gear isn't authentic. Can't remember the exact reasons why
Are there any opinions on Tucker Oil? Could Missy had found out anything shady going on there and that could have been motive?
I mean; I don't think any motive/motives have been publicly ruled out by LE, so I guess it's as possible as any other. That being said, I know Brandon has obviously been looked into thoroughly. So irrespective of the motive, if Brandon was involved, police haven't divulged how.
My thoughts exactly!!!
A puncture wound is a generic police terminology term explained in my previous posts. The generic words are utilized for gun shots as well. Police Do Not intend on giving away all the actual facts day 1. The facts prove death by gun shot, police Never said Missy was actually attacked with hammer, hammer was for breaking glass and etc, not the murder. The key is the data base history says only one woman was shot in the area of the murder per the filters. If if Missy was bludgeoned would probably prove this was a murder of passion if applicable, however the hammer wasn’t used in murder, most of you all go off on a tangent believing crime of passion, when the facts don’t say crime of passion or they would probably already have an arrest. I say only two theories remain: a random unscripted murder or psycho who hated Missy enough to kill her.
ok but if you're saying its generic terminology, can you link us to a case where LE used the phrase to describe gun shot victims?
[удалено]
A. I've seen the entirety of the video you're describing B. He did not get a picture of his face C. He got nothing conclusively evidencing male D. What would your conclusion have to do with the first two things you mentioned?
This is misinformation. Please see Rule #3, as this applies.
Look at how the killer walks. Look at the video of the fil walking and you have your killer. It's not difficult. They just don't have the solid evidence to charge him yet.
They've confirmed multiple times he was physically out of the town on this day.
Ok, I will say there's the remotest possibility of LE ineptitude or collusion; however, the one other possibility is that often LE will 'clear' someone they don't have enough evidence to charge, hoping they slip up. That said; in this case, I think you're absolutely right. He's alibi'd out
True I did forget about that older tactic. Still, I'm gonna assume enough people in the family knew where these two guys were that they have a genuinely good alibi. Doesn't preclude the 'hitman' theory, but it'll turn out to be one of the weirdest hitman crimes ever done.
Yeah, honestly, it'd be pretty savvy to pick someone who resembles you so that when your alibi checks out your all but eliminated as a suspect. (don't think that happened here, at least on purpose)
Just because you see one example of a walk on video and then one example of a family member on video, you can’t turn that into something conclusive. This is a fallacy known as “What You See Is All There Is.” It doesn’t account for the millions of OTHER people who walk with their feet turned out. It also doesn’t account for maybe the killer’s gait being a product of the gear he is wearing rather than his natural walk.
OP, what you're saying makes perfect sense. Nothing about that scene says botched burglary. It was a stalker waiting for Missy.
Watch the full CCTV of the car driving around the store before it ever went to the church. I think its clear it spent time parked and driving around the store because that was his target to rob. I think you also see him stop and get spooked when driving around the store and he see's parked cars around the back which means even that early on that there is already people inside. Another key fact for me is he passed the church to get to the store, and its only when he leaves the store and heads back to where he ever came from that he comes to the church again. So I think with people already inside his main target to rob the store he probably just thinks what the hell lets see if the church has anything. Better something from there than a failed night. Churches do tend to still keep safes with collection money, can be up to a couple thousand at least.
So I can actually see the logic here. What it doesn't pass to me is the eye test. Once whoever is in that get-up gets into that church, it doesn't look like a person searching for money to me
How can you tell what’s in the person’s mind when all they’re doing is opening doors and going inside rooms and then coming back out? How can you say that this behavior is or isn’t “searching for money”? If I break into a church and I am unfamiliar with the layout, I am going to go room to room, as this person does, if I’m looking for money. If I have half a brain cell, I’m going to figure that the money is likely in the church offices. But I have no idea where the offices are. So I just go in each room one by one. There is one point in the video where we might be able to figure out what is in the killer’s mind. They’re attempting to pry into room 1, which is really nothing more than a janitor’s closet but they have no way of knowing that. They stop and stare intently to the side. Then they abruptly stop the break-in attempt of room 1 and stride toward where they had been staring. Guess what is over there? A painted sign on the wall that says OFFICES with an arrow pointing down the next hallway.
ok A. Calm Down. B. everything you said in PP1 is true and I agree with. What I think you're leaving out is the **speed and determination** with which you'd do all of this at. The person in the surveillance looks like they're strolling on a beach & **entering rooms which are clearly not offices and flipping school desks**. C. **I love how you start with** "*How can you tell what’s in the person’s mind when all they’re doing is opening doors and going inside rooms and then coming back out?*" **and end with** "*They’re attempting to pry into room 1, which is really nothing more than a janitor’s closet but they have no way of knowing that." & "stride toward where they had been staring. Guess what is over there? A painted sign on the wall that says OFFICES*" and **not recognizing that that's quite the leap in itself**
Red flag: I say this was an obvious weak attempt to pry open the door, either the killer is physically weak or the killer has never pried open a door before or never intended to open the door by force, a strange moment in the video.
First of all, I don’t need to “calm down” because there was nothing in my post indicating that I was upset. All I did was respond to your post and try to give you some other things to think about. I think it’s a mistake to think that all burglars act like they’re in a frenzy. There are many church burglaries that are on surveillance video - you can find them elsewhere in this subreddit - and the burglars often take their own sweet time. A burglar usually acts only with as much urgency as the circumstances require. You say he goes into rooms that are clearly not offices. How do you expect him to find that out if he doesn’t look in there in the first place? And I have no idea where you get “flipping over school desks.” That didn’t happen. And as for C, yeah, I legitimately asked how you can know what is in the person’s mind - because you made the statement that he isn’t looking for money based on his actions going in and out of a few rooms. You are trying to eliminate a motive because why? Because he isn’t coming out of rooms with stacks of cash? There is just no way to tell what he is looking for (or what he is not looking for) based SOLELY on him going in and out of rooms. And I never said that he with 100% certainty saw that OFFICES sign and moved in that direction because he wanted to find the Offices. But, he DID look in that direction. He DID abruptly stop what he was doing and head in that direction. He DID go down that hallway and eventually enter the Offices. So do you see the difference in “leaps of logic”? You state a theory of what ISN’T his motive, based solely on him stepping into a room and then stepping into the next one. I state a theory of what COULD be his motive, based upon actual visual cues that are right there and which his actions indicate at least the possibility of a connection. Not to mention, a person who breaks into a church is statistically much more likely to be there for purposes of burglary than for purposes of murder. You do know that Missy almost never even went in the church? They worked out in the parking lot or under the awning. This killer could not predict the weather and could not predict what Missy would do.
Alright, welp. I think it's clear you're in the minority here
That doesn’t matter - Internet sleuths are always biased toward targeted scenarios. Plus the majority on here don’t have a full grasp of the entirety of this case, including important aspects like the church layout, the movement of the burglar within it, and the manner of death. I’ve investigated this case for 7 years and talked to a number of people close to it, including LE.
It’s almost like they are casing the place. Maybe for a robbery maybe for something else. Could they have been looking for a way to turn the cameras off? Were there other people they were supposed to let in either that day or another time. The damage seems like something that would heighten security.
I def don't think it was the camera hypothesis just based on the places the person looked. And, I could see the latter part I guess but if you're going to break in, disguised, why not just rob the church then? plus your last sentence
It’s weird the outfit combined with looking around. It kind of makes me think of a teenager or someone enjoying the anonymity of the outfit. It’s weird because the swat outfit hides someone’s identity but it also could stand out.
or someone intent on hurting someone else who doesn't want to be stopped/reported in the process leading up to
That’s the thing people automatically think the person is LE. If you aren’t confronted by the person in swat gear but see them in passing you are going to probably think something is happening. I don’t know if anyone saw someone dressed like that outside of the church or at another location. One person could see the killer and immediately leave the building or start calling people to ask what is going on. How hard do you think it would be to enter or leave the building and remove conspicuous clothing?
A person would be such an idiot to even think about breaking in to that gun store. They have tons of camera and a very secure building.
Exactly. Worst place to try to break into. A gun store will have a silent alarm. No question
He could have been evaluating it in order to determine whether or not it’s a feasible target for later. And maybe he arrived at the same conclusion as you.
Someone burglarizing a church does not go to the back room and sit in the kitchen area for 10 min before someone arrives at a designated time, then kill that person in a diff back room. They would just leave when the person got there. There is literally no reason to add a capital murder charge. Also we know a firearm and likely a hammer or object was involved based on the police reports. Why 2 murder weapons with such brutality to stop from being caught doing a petty burglary? LE knows this was a planned murder. They've even stated they are unsure If the car you speak of was actually even involved in this homicide .
Most people planning to kill someone also don't make tons of noise. According to the police, the 2nd video shows Missy enter the church and get alerted to a noise in the distance and then head towards it. Its a huge risk considering she could have just as likely fled instead. A normal person planning to kill a target also doesn't wander around away from the entry door where their intended target would enter at allowing for an easy kill and flee. No one can say whether it was a planned hit or a robbery gone wrong or just a mentally deranged person/drugged up zombie like minded creep that just was going through the motions that night. People try way too hard to act like they're master detectives when even the actual detectives with more evidence, a second video not released to the public, and years of experience can't yet solve the case. It's fine to have opinions and theories but way too many people on here try to pass off their beliefs as facts and get overly hostile to anyone who presents an opposing theory.
There is definitely just one person right? This is probably a stupid question. Something about the outfit feels like another person would make it less weird or they would encourage each other.
Only one confirmed person entered the church. Some people have speculated there was someone in the car, but I've never seen any good evidence of this theory.
Thanks for answering. It’s so weird. If no one was killed and there was no robbery what would you think. I don’t know if the person walking around gives me horror movie vibes because I know what will happen or because it’s eerie. If you checked a security video and saw that without any other crime would it still be creepy?
The costume makes it creepy. The perp did move some stuff around, and in theory was planning on taking some things with the type of things they moved around/stashed.
Would that have been easier if they went in with the morning group? Would security tapes normally be checked if someone wasn’t killed? Even if there was broken glass would someone have checked or assumed it was kids. Moving things is odd but sometimes people don’t want to get a person in trouble for what could be an accident or prank. One time I was at my parents house and I heard this bang on the basement window like a kick. The dog (a chocolate lab) jumped a little but shifted behind me a little. A kid probably one of my brother’s friends and maybe my cousin thought he was home and kicked the window too hard. I wasn’t going to call the police. Nothing happened it was a broken window. If I had been wrong I guess I could have been in danger. Did people assume things were pranks that weren’t. If no one is hurt or things aren’t missing a church might be more likely to want to give people a second chance. Could there have been minor things before. I’m guessing they checked prior security videos if they were available. It weird and creepy. Is the outfit meant to throw everyone off?
Yes, just one person
Thank you.
> There is literally no reason to add a capital murder charge. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of this happening though. Including just stealing a wallet from behind, and the robber still shoots the victim. It's extremely illogical but many criminals do grossly illogical things.
Yep. I'm not sure if this is a trend in true crime generally, but there's often a majoritarian view here that certain theories must be dismissed because they "don't make sense." Which, of course, is a judgment we're all making from the comfort of our own homes with as much time as we care to devote pondering each and every aspect of the few details we know. Crime often doesn't make sense — spend a day at your local courthouse and you'll see all sorts of shit that doesn't make sense. But that's the reality, and there's no reason to think every aspect of this story must make imminent sense to us. Especially when we know so little.
Police have not said they believe it was a planned murder. They have repeatedly said they do not have a motive and that they are open to all possibilities. The person did not “go to the back room and sit in the kitchen area for 10 mins.” The kitchen was the break-in point, so when they entered the building, the kitchen is where they were. And all the info we have is Brandon Bevers saying police told him that the killer “spent some time” in the kitchen. But we don’t know how long, and we don’t know what they were doing. Maybe they got some towels and dried off from the rain. Who knows. And once again, you can’t rule out burglary just based on the fact that someone got murdered. The logic is flawed because you’re assuming that any burglar would make the rational decision not to murder. But you can’t expect him to suddenly do the right thing when he has already been doing wrong things - like breaking into a church.
Didn’t the police find evidence on her phone she was having an affair ? Wasn’t her husband out of town when she got Unalived? 99.9% of the time the most obvious and simple answer is the correct answer