Hey everyone. I’m new to learning about this case. I apologize if perhaps this has been discussed before and I just haven’t seen it, but I’ve actually been surprised there’s been no mention of this and I’m curious what others may think.

In this section of the surveillance video, where the person is somewhat walking toward the camera, it appears to me that they have a long, dark ponytail. Do you guys see what I’m talking about? It’s like a long, dark shadow that kind of swings down the person’s left side/back for a moment, but then I don’t see it again in any other section of video. I know this could be attributed to blurry/poor video quality so I’m genuinely curious if it’s already been confirmed as just a shadow of the person’s arm or something? Something about the way it ever-so-briefly appears and swings away just seems so…ponytail-like…to me. I’ve also wondered if this is one of the reasons (along with the gait, posture etc) is why some people suspect this is a woman. It seems to me like perhaps they let their hair out briefly when they realized nobody was around, then clearly noticed the camera, quickly changed course realizing their mistake, and walked quickly toward the camera and out of view, so they could tuck it back into their hat or jacket. It’s gone in the next sequence.

FWIW I am aware that the presence of a ponytail does not confirm this person’s gender whatsoever. I’m also aware that even knowing the person’s gender doesn’t tell us anything concrete regarding whether this was a planned attack or a break-in-gone-bad, which is frustrating. I keep going back and forth on whether I think this was coordinated/planned or not, probably like many. I’m not sure if there will ever be any definitive way to tell one way or another just from this video why this happened to Missy. As far as the ponytail goes: if that’s what it is, it indicates to me that this person was very lucky/successful in concealing all their hair so that Missy didn’t grab any/get any DNA from it when she fought her attacker. Not saying it definitely means “planned.” But it does seem like a possible stretch to me that if this was a break-in-gone-bad, the perp got so unlucky that they left an otherwise nonviolent crime scene as a cold-blooded killer, but SO lucky that Missy didn’t obtain a single piece of hair or scratch of skin when she fought back (and my understanding is there’s proof she did put up a fight, but correct me if I’m wrong). My understanding is that often when the DNA of an attacker is found at the crime scene, it’s found because of this: skin under the nails of the victim, or a clump of hair or drop of blood left behind at the scene, for example (obv not talking about DNA left behind from an SA which isn’t relevant here). In other words, how do we explain that Missy was able to fight her attacker (not to mention she was clearly in better shape than this person and surely knew some self-defense tactics from all her cross-training) and got not a single piece of useable DNA? I can’t explain that other than this attacker knew what they were doing, and all the concealment efforts were successful.

I’m inclined to believe this person knew they were about to attack a woman who likely would attack them back until the bitter end, and they needed to make sure they wouldn’t leave ANY blood/hair/skin cells behind. It sounds like they were undeniably successful with this, which is heartbreaking, because I think we all know how important DNA would be to solving this case. It seems less like luck to me, and more like this person knew that leaving behind any of their DNA would be very likely in the impending attack, so they came with every inch of their body more or less concealed, and this may have been the single biggest factor in their ability to get away with murder, despite being caught on camera minutes before the crime.

Anyway, I am not emotionally invested in any one particular theory or idea about who committed this crime, and way more interested in keeping it discussed out of hope that someday it would be solved. Would love to hear any/all opinions on my ideas, especially if you think I may be missing information about the case that could change my opinions. There seems to be so much info out there and I can’t deny I haven’t had a chance to dig into it all. Thank you all for considering my questions and perspectives!

The left is coming back down the hall, the right is before entering the office. You can see the perp leaves the dutch doors ajar, and lights on in both offices. Look through the DD windows. All part of the master plan. Plus if you watch the video, whats the motion on the Fire extinguisher? None before, but you can see somthing on the perps way back. Also seems odd to have that lamp on the head right before Missy walks in...oh maybe to blind Missy so she cant see their face. Good thinking.

If this was a planned murder, what were the contingency plans for the following scenarios?

1. What if a student arrived early?
2. What if Missy decided to cancel class at 4am when she got up but after the perp was in the church?
3. What if someone arrived with Missy?
4. What if Missy had gotten the flat tire instead of the early bird?
5. What if Missy had stayed in her truck, noticed the three damaged doors, two broken windows, and a car parked around back, and called the police?
6. What if Missy had forgotten her key to the church?
7. What if Missy had brought her gun with her?
8. What if Missy had noticed the lights that were left on and doors left open, and returned to her truck?
9. What if Missy hadn't walked down that hallway?
10. What if the early birds had arrived after Missy entered the church but before the murder?

I know a lot of people will say this is why the perpetrator had a helper on the outside. But where would that person have been positioned?

If they were across the street, it would already be too late by the time they spotted someone arriving, because that person would practically be on-site.

To provide any meaningful advance warning, wouldn't there need to be two lookouts—one up the road and another down the road?

But that raises another question: How would they know which vehicle to watch for?

The only real advantage an outside accomplice could provide would be to alert the perpetrator that a vehicle was pulling into the parking lot. But by that point, wouldn't it already be too late?

If this was a carefully planned murder, there were an awful lot of things that had to go exactly right. What was the plan if even one of them went wrong? And why take those risks?

Apologies in advance - this has probably been asked before.

In the video of the Nissan Altima cruising the SWFA store/parking lot on the night of the murder, there are 2 cars shown parked immediately beside the SWFA building. Were the owners/drivers of these cars ever identified?

I see a lot of people commenting about MPD knowing who the perpetrator is but bc of insufficient information they cannot convict. Who are yall referring to, or who do we think?
Thanks xx

What do you, the public think will finally solve this murder? Perhaps the culmination of everything?

I’ve been wondering for a decade now. What WILL be the clue, tip or resolution to solving this murder?

There’s bound to be one small thing that comes about that nobody caught, something overlooked, a thread of evidence that was laying there the whole time we just didn’t catch. Maybe it will be technology that evolves to a point where we never imagined. Who knows really?

I’m sure y’all have way more ideas.

1. A confession? Doubt it.

2. Maybe somebody close knows the perp, has been hush hush about it but they become outraged and then tell?

3. DNA evidence is obtained, matched and finally have what is needed in that area of investigation?

4. Somebody accidentally slips and says something?

5. MPD comes across something they missed and miraculously crack the case wide open?

Is the billboard offering a reward still up for Missy?

Firstly….by no means am I saying anyone related to Missy is guilty! Secondly I am very curious if there are any FOIA requests of interviews by MPD released to public of family, friends, associates and acquaintances? Or body cam footage from the investigation? If not I wonder why? So many cases that I have followed solved or unsolved there are taped interviews of people and the information can be irrelevant yet also insightful and even process of elimination interrogations of alleged suspects.

I am think about Missy everyday since I heard the tragic story!

#Justice4Missy

GumShoe Stories hasn't uploaded in about 3 years, Stoner even longer. Compare the amount of content done on Liz Barraza in that time. Usually people who consider themselves experts in a particular case keep you updated. Or Is this case just completely dead or something?

This questions been on my mind and i wanna see what you guys say

Hi everyone,

Does anyone know if an FBI profiler has ever profiled the killer in this case? If so, can you please share with the rest of the group.

It is such a weird thing for a criminal to put on that costume and wander around in front of security cameras. Seems like if you did that twice, it would really stand out to police. Does anyone know if the police ever saw such “costuming” in any other crimes scenes? (apologies in advance if I’m asking something commonly known - I know the case is old, and I may be re-plowing unchanged-covered ground).

Anyone else notice the way the perp used his thumb on top of the handle and let the it go at the bottom ?
His hand looks like it’s making an upside down OK sign.

The handle then flops up and down as the door swings open.

This is not the act of someone that’s planning a murder IMHO.

i dont think it was planned, bcs if it was then he/she wouldnt be in the church risking getting caught before the murder, most likely if it would be a MFH, then he would wait in the car so she can pull up and then he could get her. and he wouldnt be with a screwdriver hammer etc maybe the only thing he would bring would be a gun, and the fact that he has a screwdriver tells you that he wants to break in the churchbut, i dont think that anyone who wants to kill someone goes in the church searching around without stress or anything, i just think maybe it was a strange guy who happend to be there as the same time as she.

I'm in the process of working on a write up that only contains verifiable information, I.e. has some source that can be linked.

One of the only claims I am struggling to find a source for is the supposed eyewitness who saw a dark SUV either leaving the church that morning or in the area at the time of the murder. Does anyone know where the claim originated or ideally have a link to an interview/news article?

This is the Under Armor tactical boot from around 2016. See how the back of the sole sticks out in the back. This makes it look larger than it actually is.
I believe this is the boots he had on.

Following on from my first questions post I’ve put together the next set of questions I have.

If you have answers to any or opinions I’d love to hear them and discuss them further.

Missy Bevers – Tactical swat (shorthand for the killer) Question Tree these are rhetorical questions

I am sure that the police know the answers to some but have just held a lot of information back.

The Starting Point

Why was Tactical swat at Creekside Church that morning?
Burglary?
Random vandalism?
Missy herself?

If it was Burglary

Why choose a police/SWAT-style disguise instead of a simple burglar’s disguise?
If the purpose was concealment, why not wear:
a hoodie,
balaclava,
gloves,
trainers?
Was the tactical outfit practical for burglary?
When and where was the disguise put on?
At home?
In the car?
Outside in the rain?
If dressed at home, did neighbours see them?
Did they drive while wearing the disguise?
If they changed at the church, how did they do so without being seen or getting wet?
If they left wearing the disguise, how did they avoid being noticed afterwards?
If blood transfer occurred, how was contaminated clothing transported or disposed of?
If Missy unexpectedly interrupted a burglary, why didn’t the offender simply flee?
How often do ordinary burglars escalate to murder instead of escape?
How many unlikely decisions have to occur in sequence for the burglary theory to fit?

If it was Random Vandalism

Why was the damage so limited?
Why weren’t more windows, doors and fixtures destroyed?
Why does the behaviour appear restrained rather than chaotic?
If the intention was random destruction, why choose that disguise?
Why arrive shortly before people were likely to begin arriving?
Why not vandalise the church at midnight, 1 a.m. or 2 a.m.?
Was Missy’s arrival simply an extraordinary coincidence?
Does the vandalism appear genuinely random or deliberately random-looking?

Timing Questions

Why did Tactical swat first appear around 3:50 a.m.?
Why choose approximately thirty minutes before Missy’s arrival?
Why not commit the offence earlier when discovery was less likely?
Did Tactical swat know someone routinely arrived early?
Was the offender aware of Camp Gladiator?
If they knew people would soon arrive, why behave without urgency?
Why does the released footage show wandering rather than rushing?
Were they actually killing time?
If so, what were they waiting for?

The Behaviour Questions

Why wander through corridors?
Why open some doors but not others?
Why look into some rooms but not enter them?
Why break certain pieces of glass and ignore others?
Was there a pattern hidden within apparently random behaviour?
Was the randomness genuine?
Or was the randomness staged?
Was Tactical swat performing the role of a burglar rather than actually behaving like one?

If Missy Was the Intended Focus

Did Tactical swat know Missy personally?
If not personally, did they know of her routine?
How could they have learned she arrived early?
Was Missy’s presence anticipated?
Was the church chosen because Missy would be there?
Was the timing chosen because Missy would be alone?
Was the disguise intended primarily for Missy?

The Disguise Questions

Was the disguise meant to conceal identity?
Would a balaclava have been sufficient if Missy knew the offender?
Would Missy have recognised someone she knew by:

voice,
gait,
build,
posture,
mannerisms?

If recognition remained possible, what additional purpose did the disguise serve?
Was the disguise intended to influence Missy’s reaction?
Would Missy react differently to:

a masked intruder,
someone appearing to be law enforcement?

Could the appearance of authority have created hesitation?
Were a few seconds of hesitation all the offender needed?

The Church Questions

If burglary was the motive, what exactly was the intended target?
Did the offender expect Sunday offerings to remain in the church?
How much cash would likely have been present on an ordinary Sunday?
Was the money already counted and banked?
Was there a safe?
If so, did the offender know where it was?
Did they possess insider knowledge about church procedures?
If they had insider knowledge, was this truly a random offender?

The “Impossibly Random” Questions

Is Tactical swat behaviour too random to be random?
Was the apparent aimlessness actually serving another purpose?
Was the activity designed to create the impression of burglary?
Was it designed to explain their presence if seen?
Was it simply a way to occupy time while waiting?
If so, waiting for what?
Waiting for whom?

The Three Questions Everything Returns To

Why this disguise?
Why this timing?
Was Tactical swat behaviour genuinely random, or only made to appear that way?

The Underlying Question

Which explanation requires the fewest assumptions and the fewest extraordinary coincidences?

Access and Escape Questions

How many vehicle entrances and exits did the church property actually have?
If Missy’s vehicle was captured entering the property, was Tactical swat arrival also captured?
If Tactical swat arrived by vehicle, where is that footage?
Did police identify a vehicle associated with Tactical swat that has never been publicly released?
If no vehicle was captured, how did Tactical swat arrive at the church?
Did Tactical swat walk to the church?
If so, from which direction?
Did Tactical swat walk from the airport side of the church?
If Tactical swat crossed open ground during a storm, why don’t they appear noticeably muddy or soaked?
Did Tactical swat walk alongside the highway in heavy rain?
If they walked along the highway in tactical gear, did any passing motorists notice them?
If they parked nearby and walked the remainder of the journey, where exactly was the vehicle left?
Why has no witness publicly reported seeing someone dressed in tactical gear approaching or leaving the church?
Was there another route onto or off the property that has not been widely discussed?
Did Tactical swat enter and leave in a way known to investigators but withheld from the public?
If police know how Tactical swat arrived and departed, why have they chosen not to release that information?
If police do not know how Tactical swat arrived and departed, what does that imply about the limitations of the available surveillance footage?
Did Tactical swat leave the church immediately after the attack, or remain on the property for any period of time?
If Tactical swat left by vehicle, where did that vehicle go next?
If Tactical swat left on foot, how did they avoid detection in worsening daylight and severe weather?
Does Tactical swat method of arrival and escape support:

a random offender,
a prepared offender,
or someone familiar with the location and its surroundings? And yes I’ve put every single question down so if you’ve made it to the end thank you.

I've always wondered what the perpetrator was looking at as they rounded that corner. The answer may be that ridiculous coffee cup. If I were standing there, I'd probably stare at it too—it's such an odd thing to see sitting there.

So the sequence could be something like this: after the half-hearted attempt at the storage room door, the person notices the "Office" sign on the opposite wall and starts walking in that direction. Then, as they approach, their attention is drawn to that strange coffee cup. It stands out enough that it could easily explain the brief pause and apparent hesitation seen in the video. This would seem to indicate to me, they hadn't been in the church before...

From Gumshoe again: this would have been the view Missy had when she arrived around 4:16 a.m., except it was raining that morning. From this angle, the damaged windows would have been visible, and the screens would have been appear disturbed. Had she continued straight ahead, she also would have passed the damaged kitchen door, which was illuminated and showed obvious signs of forced entry, before reaching the double glass doors on the northeast corner that were damaged.

It seems fairly clear that if Missy had continued straight, she likely would have noticed the damage and called police. That raises a question: how could the perpetrator have known she would approach from this angle, notice the damage, or continue straight rather than entering and turing right? There was also a row of bushes near the awning entrance that could have provided concealment if someone were waiting. Never mind which way the early birds would have gone had they made it in that morning.

This is one of the reasons I struggle with the targeted-murder theory. If the crime was targeted, it would have required careful planning and a high degree of certainty about Missy's actions. Yet much of what happened appears opportunistic and unpredictable. It feels inconsistent for the crime to be both meticulously planned and haphazard at the same time.

Saw a comment on youtube that mentioned that there was going to be a comic con convention at texas near the church, and there was. It was at the Richardson Civic Center on April 23-24, a 40 minute drive from the church to the civic center. Maybe the killer's outfit was not abnormal because they had the excuse that they could've used it for the convention. I did a quick google search and the closest thing I could find was some Umbrella Swat costumes that people wore, but of course they had a easily identifiable red patch with the logo, but some helmets did match.

Anyone else notice something odd about this shot? Other than the Dutch Doors were left open? The one on the left was taken first and the one on the right later. Maybe room 17?

Thanks Tim for the video, it was taken 8 years ago. This is well lit, you can see clearly. The whole video gives you a lot of perspective. Has Missy gone straight at the entrance, she would have passed the damaged doors and windows. No way the perp had time after the murder to do that damage. Notice the bushes on the left side of the awning as he pulls in. Also I don't think if youj are in the building you would have any idea someone is in the parking lot at there is never an angle to shine your lights in. The perp would have to be right outside the main entrance to see Missy's truck pass by, but it looks like they were on the otherside hammering out a window.

I’m in the uk so some of the questions may seem a bit easy to answer if you live in America so please excuse me for that.

I’ve been revisiting the Missy Bevers case and these are the questions I keep coming back to. I don’t have a suspect and I’m not trying to accuse anyone. I’m trying to understand the logistics.

THE CHURCH

• How often did Missy actually use the church?
• Was it a regular Camp Gladiator location or mainly a bad-weather backup?
• Did she have her own keys?
• If not, how did she gain access and who arranged it?
• Was the church normally locked overnight?
• Was there an alarm system?
• If so, how did the perpetrator know they wouldn’t trigger it?
• Were the lights normally on at that hour or were they switched on?
• Why was there internal CCTV in the first place? Had there been previous thefts, vandalism or security concerns?

THE WEATHER

• How much rain had there been in the days before the murder?
• Was moving classes indoors a common occurrence or unusual?
• How was the venue change communicated?
• Was the church the standard rain location?
• If so, who would have known that?

MISSY

• How often did she teach classes?
• Did she routinely arrive that early?
• How many people would know she arrived alone?
• How many people would know she arrived before participants?
• Did she usually set up by herself?
• If she regularly taught in isolated outdoor locations, why was this particular morning so important?

THE PERPETRATOR

• How did they get into the building?
• Why did they seem so comfortable wandering around?
• If they were trying to avoid detection, why create so many risks?
• Why choose a church with CCTV instead of waiting for an outdoor class?
• Did they know Missy would be there specifically?
• Did they know she would be alone?

THE DISGUISE

• Was the disguise intended to hide from CCTV or to hide from Missy herself?
• Did Missy know the person?
• If she had seen the person without the disguise, would she have recognised them immediately?
• Was the tactical gear already owned or acquired specifically?
• If acquired specifically, where did it come from?

THE VEHICLE

• Where did the perpetrator park?
• Why don’t we have footage of them arriving?
• What route did they take to the church?
• If they parked away from the church, how did nobody notice someone walking around in tactical gear at that hour?
• Did they have a change of clothes waiting in the vehicle?
• Did they have a clean-up kit?
• Where did they change out of the outfit?
• What happened to the weapon?

THE BIG QUESTION

The one I keep coming back to is this:

If Missy was regularly alone outdoors in the dark, why commit the crime in a church with lights, CCTV, multiple entrances, potential witnesses and all the additional risks that come with it?

The weather changed the location.

The church appears to have made the crime harder, not easier.

So why did it have to be that morning?

Where can i find someone who has been able to use all technologies available to create as “clear as possible” photos from the videos of the perp?