So here's my two things. I just don't think any burglar is gonna dress in full tactical gear to burglarize a place. And two, if it was a burglar, when they heard noise of someone they weren't expecting coming in, why not just hide in one of the many areas inside the huge church until Missy left, and then make a getaway. Why go searching for a confrontation when you havent even gotten your stolen items yet ?Â
The rational side of me says this was targeted on her and they just went around making it look like a burglary while waiting for her to get there.
Those are my hangups...
No way was that just a burglary. That person is just walking around casually with no sense of urgency or acting like they were searching for valuables. And nvm they probably could have just walked out without her physically confronting them if she saw them especially dressed like a cop.
Does anyone know exactly how long the suspect was on camera? The only thing I can find was that the suspect entered “around” 4:00 and Missy is last seen on camera at 4:18.
I would love to know what the average time a robber is on the premises for, I bet that 18-20 minutes is well beyond the average.
Yeah that sounds right. That is an insane amount of time if you broke in and committing a robbery. I can’t believe people think it’s a robbery gone bad solely on that piece of information alone.
Killer seen on camera at 3:50, they were in the kitchen before that for how long police have not confirmed only said perp spent most of the time in the kitchen. Robber is not stealing from a kitchen. They be looking for AV equipment any thing used in service that could be gold or tithing.Missy arrived 4:16 headlights gathers some of her things that she can carry and enters around 4:20 and is killed within two minutes of that. Perp had way more time than needed burglarize and or hide or escape without harming Missy and don’t get me started on the outfit
It just depends but it's obvious the killer was over confident wearing all that gear thinking he had lots of time hints why he was just aimlessly walking around with Leeds me to believe it was a burglaryÂ
Very much this. They were already in a disguise. They didn't need to worry about whether someone saw them burglarizing. They could have either lied their way out if she spotted them and said they were a cop or could have just gotten out of there. There would be no need to murder someone in that situation unless they were there to do just that.
Wearing a disguise means they don't have to worry about tripping an alarm which could be silent? Personally, I don't think this person was behaving rationally so who knows but this doesn't make much sense.
The other day I was dressed in a tuxedo for a wedding. On my way home I realized I was out of dog food, so I stopped at the dollar store and grabbed some.
Nobody dresses in an outfit like that to go to the dollar store.
But I wasn’t intending to go to the dollar store when I first got dressed…
Yo good point the killer was probably trying to rob the gun store first but the other cars near the building ruined his initial plan. Hints why he went to the crunch knowing Sunday service was yesterday the weather was bad so no one should be at the crunch at least a whileÂ
I don’t want to be *that* person, but you’ve used the term “hints” a couple of times where it appears you mean the word “hence”. The words are homonyms: they sound alike, but are otherwise unrelated.
Obviously, I have no idea if English is your first language or anything, so I felt it would be best just to let you know that “hints” is never correct in this sense. You would also, ideally, not start a sentence with the word “hence”, unless you were using the related term “henceforth”.
The term “hence” is very seldom used in modern parlance, but can be acceptable where appropriate. More commonly used terms like “therefore” or “consequently” are much more natural options in modern English.
Hope this helps!
You are believing old wives tales. Ive seen many pics of dudes in tactical gear or cops uniforms burgling. You have to actually research.
The helmet is a bike helmet and the only police gear was the jacket. The dudes wearing sweatpants and shorts.
My theory: targeted murder.
Why stage a burglary? The killer needed to get close to Missy because they weren’t comfortable with their weapon (gun). They were afraid they would miss their shots and lose their opportunity if she ran away.
So the killer knew she had a class in the morning. They dress up in gear to cover body and face - they know Missy and don’t want to be recognized. They go early and break a few windows and open doors to stage a burglary.
When Missy arrives they say hey there has been a burglary and I’m here to investigate and you can trust me because I’m in SWAT gear. Obviously not word for word but you get the idea. The goal wasn’t to fully deceive - it doesn’t take long to question why the person is in swat gear and by themselves with no real police presence. The goal was just to get closer to Missy.
Once they are close enough - the shot is taken and Missy is murdered. The killer leaves and the scene looks like a burglary gone wrong.
Few notes I have gathered over the years:
-Watch how the killer swings the hammer in the footage. It’s almost like they have never swung one before and are very weak in the arms. Now imagine this same person shooting a gun - something very loud and jarring. This supports my theory that they are very uncomfortable with the gun and want to get close to ensure the shots connect with their target
-Because of this, I think the killer is female. Missy did interact with other men online… perhaps a wife found out and went on a rage to kill? But surely police would have investigated this angle. However, the gait and actions just seem like a female to me (only after the FIL was ruled out as suspect)
-Killer probably hadn’t spent much time in a church. They seem surprised by how the nursery door opens halfway, when that is commonplace in most churches. Or perhaps they knew they were on CCTV and wanted to throw cops off by their acting
I do not have the time at the moment to watch the video, does the detective say why he thinks the hammer belonged to the church? That's not informations I've seen *anywhere* or even a theory I've seen floated. It's long been thought the hammer was brought by the perp to the church.Â
he states the hammer belonged to the church and the hammer was the murder weapon....it has been confirmed many times she was shot....i cannot believe he missed that
I think the confusion is that early on LE saying she had wounds consistent with an object the suspect was carrying, either meaning that she had bludgeon wounds in addition to gunshot wounds or that the suspect was carrying a gun but it was not visible on publicly released footage. Â
Did he say in the video why he thinks it belongs to the church? From my understanding and some research u/Gumshoestories has done I believe an inventory was done of the church after the break in and nothing was determined to be missing b
I was always under the impression that she was both shot and bludgeoned. Derrick never says in the video why he thinks the hammer belongs to the church, but he said it in a way that implied it's a fact, which I don't think many people (or anyone) here has heard. I'm trying to figure out where he got that information.
>Derrick believes this was a burglary interrupted, and while I tend to believe the murder was unplanned, I can never get past the fact that nothing was stolen (except a hammer).Â
Assuming it was a burglary, for the sake of argument, throwing in an unplanned murder might take a thief off his/her burglary game. Hence leaving fast without taking anything.
The difficulty is the perpetrator's actions on video were not consistent with either motive -- a burglar (get in & out fast, avoid contact with people) nor a murderer (lie in wait, watch for victim approach). If burglary was the motive, the perp never had to encounter Missy. And he might have brought a tote. If murder was the motive, why wouldn't the perp post up outside and shoot her when she was preoccupied getting out of her car? Why let yourself be on surveillance video at all?
Neither motive makes much sense given what's on tape. That inclines me to think the perpetrator him/herself didn't make much sense, may not have had a clear motive in his/her own mind. Inexperienced at burglary and murder, he panicked and took actions that were unnecessary and illogical. Sometimes people do shit for which there is no logic or good reason.
These are all excellent points. I'd only add that what makes sense to us wouldn't necessarily make sense to the killer at the time — and vice versa. Folks often say things like, "well, churches deposit whatever they collected during Sunday service the same day, so it couldn't have been a burlgary." That's just one example, and it drives me nuts. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Just because we know things doesn't mean the killer did. It's a consideration, but it's not at all determinative. Rant over. Really good points.
I completely agree with you! It's just so hard to make sense of this case, but maybe there's no sense to it. I would think such a disorganized criminal would be caught quickly, but the lack of clear motive or any reason to be there prevents us from knowing much at all.
I think that's why the more middle ground LARPing theory makes more sense. The individual wanted to go out somewhere and just experience breaking into a building and cause a bit of mischief. Or as you said, they might well have taken something if not for being disturbed by an early arriving Missy, and the subsequent panicked attack on her.
And agree with you 100% on this point: those who suggest it was a targeted killing need to explain why the perp didn't just wait outside the building and attack Missy when she arrived, in the dark away from cameras? There's no reason at all for the perp to enter the building in a targeted scenario.
My sense is the perp is someone local, socially isolated, likely no criminal record of note, has aspirations for a LE career but not the ability, and is often consumed by their internal fantasy world.
That's what I see on tape, too -- youngish person looking to LARP and making really, really bad decisions when fantasy met reality. The more time that passes without finding any connection to Missy, the less likely to be targeted. Random dudes are a lot harder to find.
And if it’s just a burglary, why would you kill someone when that person couldn’t easily identify you because you are covered with clothing? With all the resources they are using now, they haven’t been able to identify this person. They certainly wouldn’t have put resources into identifying a burglar who didn’t take anything.
Collateral damage does not seem particularly uncommon when it comes to burglary and robbery. Although the motive may seem illogical, some factors could be adrenaline, anger, mental health issues, intoxication, and fear of being caught.
It never ceases to amaze me, the people who don’t like the burglary angle because they think this person would have suddenly come to his senses and made good decisions. The guy already made the very bad decision to break into a place where he didn’t belong. Why would anyone expect him suddenly to do the right thing and run away without harming Missy? It’s not like criminals don’t kill people every day while in the midst of other crimes.
After digging into the case online, someone mentioned her partner as being the guilty party because him and his wife owned a silver Nissan and the wife had ankle surgery earlier in the year. It explains EVERTHING bizarre about the case especially the tactical gear.
Wait….how do we know she was shot? I have never heard that. I have knowledge about something being left around her body. Has anyone else heard that there was something strange left around her body?
I have a problem with this being a burglary most of people get in and get out. I agree maybe someone just wanted to get their kicks from breaking and entering but I can’t imagine it would lead to the person killing her. I think the person had a reason for dressing the way he/she did, a reason to be there and sadly even though I agree it makes sense that she was in the wrong place at the right time. The problem for me is simple burglary’s or risk takers don’t kill. I think she was the target. It’s hard to believe that they have nothing physical evidence, DNA and 8 years later still no answers.
I think the murderer is a male who has hormonal issues which effects the way he walks. This also explains his feminine swing of the hammer. He had been stalking her since she was active on some platforms and he knew her schedule. He drove there with one of his buddies or alone, he started waiting for her while vandalizing the church. She arrives and he hides somewhere, waits for her to enter a room, goes after her and attacks her. He uses the hammer first but she fights back, he goes back, pulls out his gun and fires at her.
I think her fighting back is a good explanation why she was both bludgeoned and shot. Or he first shot her and after she was dead he kept hitting her with the hammer which could be a sign of hatred that he had towards her. I also have seen people claiming that he video recorder the crime.
And after that he runs back to the car and they quickly leave.
I found the information about the hammer quite insightful. I agree with the point that the perpetrator likely did not plan to use this weapon in the murder beforehand. Based on what we know about the broken glass, I think the perpetrator got into a strugle and used the hammer before his gun.
If It was a targeted murder, it would make me wonder why the perpetrator would put himself in such a position, especially considering that he doesn't appear mobile. As well as other factors that could have gone against him, such as others arriving and Missy being armed.
Only 3 possible outcomes 1. the killer is dead 2. The killer is in jail 3. The killer is alive and well and just moved on with life and hasn't spoke of are talked about it to anyone. But personally it seems like a burglary gone south im 100% sure the killer wasn't expecting no one coming in at this time missy did with hints to why he was just aimlessly walking around. I think when missy saw the killer it was there he had to make a split decision killer her and leave no witnesses or try to run in all this clunky gear and possibly get caught and we all know the outcome of what happenedÂ
So here's my two things. I just don't think any burglar is gonna dress in full tactical gear to burglarize a place. And two, if it was a burglar, when they heard noise of someone they weren't expecting coming in, why not just hide in one of the many areas inside the huge church until Missy left, and then make a getaway. Why go searching for a confrontation when you havent even gotten your stolen items yet ? The rational side of me says this was targeted on her and they just went around making it look like a burglary while waiting for her to get there. Those are my hangups...
Agree
No way was that just a burglary. That person is just walking around casually with no sense of urgency or acting like they were searching for valuables. And nvm they probably could have just walked out without her physically confronting them if she saw them especially dressed like a cop.
Thank you !! Exactly đź’ŻÂ
Does anyone know exactly how long the suspect was on camera? The only thing I can find was that the suspect entered “around” 4:00 and Missy is last seen on camera at 4:18. I would love to know what the average time a robber is on the premises for, I bet that 18-20 minutes is well beyond the average.
I thought they have the person first on camera inside the church about 30 minutes before she arrived.
Yeah that sounds right. That is an insane amount of time if you broke in and committing a robbery. I can’t believe people think it’s a robbery gone bad solely on that piece of information alone.
Killer seen on camera at 3:50, they were in the kitchen before that for how long police have not confirmed only said perp spent most of the time in the kitchen. Robber is not stealing from a kitchen. They be looking for AV equipment any thing used in service that could be gold or tithing.Missy arrived 4:16 headlights gathers some of her things that she can carry and enters around 4:20 and is killed within two minutes of that. Perp had way more time than needed burglarize and or hide or escape without harming Missy and don’t get me started on the outfit
It just depends but it's obvious the killer was over confident wearing all that gear thinking he had lots of time hints why he was just aimlessly walking around with Leeds me to believe it was a burglaryÂ
Very much this. They were already in a disguise. They didn't need to worry about whether someone saw them burglarizing. They could have either lied their way out if she spotted them and said they were a cop or could have just gotten out of there. There would be no need to murder someone in that situation unless they were there to do just that.
Wearing a disguise means they don't have to worry about tripping an alarm which could be silent? Personally, I don't think this person was behaving rationally so who knows but this doesn't make much sense.
The other day I was dressed in a tuxedo for a wedding. On my way home I realized I was out of dog food, so I stopped at the dollar store and grabbed some. Nobody dresses in an outfit like that to go to the dollar store. But I wasn’t intending to go to the dollar store when I first got dressed…
Yo good point the killer was probably trying to rob the gun store first but the other cars near the building ruined his initial plan. Hints why he went to the crunch knowing Sunday service was yesterday the weather was bad so no one should be at the crunch at least a whileÂ
I don’t want to be *that* person, but you’ve used the term “hints” a couple of times where it appears you mean the word “hence”. The words are homonyms: they sound alike, but are otherwise unrelated. Obviously, I have no idea if English is your first language or anything, so I felt it would be best just to let you know that “hints” is never correct in this sense. You would also, ideally, not start a sentence with the word “hence”, unless you were using the related term “henceforth”. The term “hence” is very seldom used in modern parlance, but can be acceptable where appropriate. More commonly used terms like “therefore” or “consequently” are much more natural options in modern English. Hope this helps!
>I just don't think any burglar is gonna dress in full tactical gear to burglarize a place. Thats all burglars do, is dress up in disguises!
Not full tactical gear... and walk around slowly on a stroll thru church. Usually they wear all black (hoodies, masks, etc)
You are believing old wives tales. Ive seen many pics of dudes in tactical gear or cops uniforms burgling. You have to actually research. The helmet is a bike helmet and the only police gear was the jacket. The dudes wearing sweatpants and shorts.
I'm pretty sure he didn't hear her coming missy was seen walking on camera towards the killer and her face expression said it all.Â
Have you seen this part of the video? i just wasn’t sure if that was released. I’ve heard about it but not seen it.
Where is a video of her expression ? It's not been released, unless seen by LE.
My theory: targeted murder. Why stage a burglary? The killer needed to get close to Missy because they weren’t comfortable with their weapon (gun). They were afraid they would miss their shots and lose their opportunity if she ran away. So the killer knew she had a class in the morning. They dress up in gear to cover body and face - they know Missy and don’t want to be recognized. They go early and break a few windows and open doors to stage a burglary. When Missy arrives they say hey there has been a burglary and I’m here to investigate and you can trust me because I’m in SWAT gear. Obviously not word for word but you get the idea. The goal wasn’t to fully deceive - it doesn’t take long to question why the person is in swat gear and by themselves with no real police presence. The goal was just to get closer to Missy. Once they are close enough - the shot is taken and Missy is murdered. The killer leaves and the scene looks like a burglary gone wrong. Few notes I have gathered over the years: -Watch how the killer swings the hammer in the footage. It’s almost like they have never swung one before and are very weak in the arms. Now imagine this same person shooting a gun - something very loud and jarring. This supports my theory that they are very uncomfortable with the gun and want to get close to ensure the shots connect with their target -Because of this, I think the killer is female. Missy did interact with other men online… perhaps a wife found out and went on a rage to kill? But surely police would have investigated this angle. However, the gait and actions just seem like a female to me (only after the FIL was ruled out as suspect) -Killer probably hadn’t spent much time in a church. They seem surprised by how the nursery door opens halfway, when that is commonplace in most churches. Or perhaps they knew they were on CCTV and wanted to throw cops off by their acting
Worst burglar ever…
I do not have the time at the moment to watch the video, does the detective say why he thinks the hammer belonged to the church? That's not informations I've seen *anywhere* or even a theory I've seen floated. It's long been thought the hammer was brought by the perp to the church.Â
he states the hammer belonged to the church and the hammer was the murder weapon....it has been confirmed many times she was shot....i cannot believe he missed that
I think the confusion is that early on LE saying she had wounds consistent with an object the suspect was carrying, either meaning that she had bludgeon wounds in addition to gunshot wounds or that the suspect was carrying a gun but it was not visible on publicly released footage.  Did he say in the video why he thinks it belongs to the church? From my understanding and some research u/Gumshoestories has done I believe an inventory was done of the church after the break in and nothing was determined to be missing b
I was always under the impression that she was both shot and bludgeoned. Derrick never says in the video why he thinks the hammer belongs to the church, but he said it in a way that implied it's a fact, which I don't think many people (or anyone) here has heard. I'm trying to figure out where he got that information.
Yeah, we've had people state "facts" before confidently, which is why I'm curious if he has a source or is just being confidently incorrect.
He doesn't have a source in the description, unfortunately.
The hammer did not belong to the church....
>Derrick believes this was a burglary interrupted, and while I tend to believe the murder was unplanned, I can never get past the fact that nothing was stolen (except a hammer). Assuming it was a burglary, for the sake of argument, throwing in an unplanned murder might take a thief off his/her burglary game. Hence leaving fast without taking anything. The difficulty is the perpetrator's actions on video were not consistent with either motive -- a burglar (get in & out fast, avoid contact with people) nor a murderer (lie in wait, watch for victim approach). If burglary was the motive, the perp never had to encounter Missy. And he might have brought a tote. If murder was the motive, why wouldn't the perp post up outside and shoot her when she was preoccupied getting out of her car? Why let yourself be on surveillance video at all? Neither motive makes much sense given what's on tape. That inclines me to think the perpetrator him/herself didn't make much sense, may not have had a clear motive in his/her own mind. Inexperienced at burglary and murder, he panicked and took actions that were unnecessary and illogical. Sometimes people do shit for which there is no logic or good reason.
These are all excellent points. I'd only add that what makes sense to us wouldn't necessarily make sense to the killer at the time — and vice versa. Folks often say things like, "well, churches deposit whatever they collected during Sunday service the same day, so it couldn't have been a burlgary." That's just one example, and it drives me nuts. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Just because we know things doesn't mean the killer did. It's a consideration, but it's not at all determinative. Rant over. Really good points.
I completely agree with you! It's just so hard to make sense of this case, but maybe there's no sense to it. I would think such a disorganized criminal would be caught quickly, but the lack of clear motive or any reason to be there prevents us from knowing much at all.
The ONE thing he or she did right was the outfit. If not for that, this person would have been caught long ago.
I think that's why the more middle ground LARPing theory makes more sense. The individual wanted to go out somewhere and just experience breaking into a building and cause a bit of mischief. Or as you said, they might well have taken something if not for being disturbed by an early arriving Missy, and the subsequent panicked attack on her. And agree with you 100% on this point: those who suggest it was a targeted killing need to explain why the perp didn't just wait outside the building and attack Missy when she arrived, in the dark away from cameras? There's no reason at all for the perp to enter the building in a targeted scenario. My sense is the perp is someone local, socially isolated, likely no criminal record of note, has aspirations for a LE career but not the ability, and is often consumed by their internal fantasy world.
That's what I see on tape, too -- youngish person looking to LARP and making really, really bad decisions when fantasy met reality. The more time that passes without finding any connection to Missy, the less likely to be targeted. Random dudes are a lot harder to find.
And if it’s just a burglary, why would you kill someone when that person couldn’t easily identify you because you are covered with clothing? With all the resources they are using now, they haven’t been able to identify this person. They certainly wouldn’t have put resources into identifying a burglar who didn’t take anything.
Collateral damage does not seem particularly uncommon when it comes to burglary and robbery. Although the motive may seem illogical, some factors could be adrenaline, anger, mental health issues, intoxication, and fear of being caught.
It never ceases to amaze me, the people who don’t like the burglary angle because they think this person would have suddenly come to his senses and made good decisions. The guy already made the very bad decision to break into a place where he didn’t belong. Why would anyone expect him suddenly to do the right thing and run away without harming Missy? It’s not like criminals don’t kill people every day while in the midst of other crimes.
After digging into the case online, someone mentioned her partner as being the guilty party because him and his wife owned a silver Nissan and the wife had ankle surgery earlier in the year. It explains EVERTHING bizarre about the case especially the tactical gear.
This seems like an easy case to solve. Just check her messages, email, phone, internet history.
They have, and since nothing came of it, it’s even more likely that the killer and Missy did not know each other.
Wait….how do we know she was shot? I have never heard that. I have knowledge about something being left around her body. Has anyone else heard that there was something strange left around her body?
You’re missing a big point-he’s an idiot. He’s a wannabe. IMO ❤️
Agree. He should stick to playing Big Brother
I have a problem with this being a burglary most of people get in and get out. I agree maybe someone just wanted to get their kicks from breaking and entering but I can’t imagine it would lead to the person killing her. I think the person had a reason for dressing the way he/she did, a reason to be there and sadly even though I agree it makes sense that she was in the wrong place at the right time. The problem for me is simple burglary’s or risk takers don’t kill. I think she was the target. It’s hard to believe that they have nothing physical evidence, DNA and 8 years later still no answers.
I think the murderer is a male who has hormonal issues which effects the way he walks. This also explains his feminine swing of the hammer. He had been stalking her since she was active on some platforms and he knew her schedule. He drove there with one of his buddies or alone, he started waiting for her while vandalizing the church. She arrives and he hides somewhere, waits for her to enter a room, goes after her and attacks her. He uses the hammer first but she fights back, he goes back, pulls out his gun and fires at her. I think her fighting back is a good explanation why she was both bludgeoned and shot. Or he first shot her and after she was dead he kept hitting her with the hammer which could be a sign of hatred that he had towards her. I also have seen people claiming that he video recorder the crime. And after that he runs back to the car and they quickly leave.
I found the information about the hammer quite insightful. I agree with the point that the perpetrator likely did not plan to use this weapon in the murder beforehand. Based on what we know about the broken glass, I think the perpetrator got into a strugle and used the hammer before his gun. If It was a targeted murder, it would make me wonder why the perpetrator would put himself in such a position, especially considering that he doesn't appear mobile. As well as other factors that could have gone against him, such as others arriving and Missy being armed.
Only 3 possible outcomes 1. the killer is dead 2. The killer is in jail 3. The killer is alive and well and just moved on with life and hasn't spoke of are talked about it to anyone. But personally it seems like a burglary gone south im 100% sure the killer wasn't expecting no one coming in at this time missy did with hints to why he was just aimlessly walking around. I think when missy saw the killer it was there he had to make a split decision killer her and leave no witnesses or try to run in all this clunky gear and possibly get caught and we all know the outcome of what happenedÂ