MO - Off-duty officer (Katlyn Alix) shot dead by on-duty officer (Nathaniel Hendren), Jan 2019

[GordianKnot]

St. Louis police logs offer insight into final days, hours before Officer Alix's death

Updated article with police log info.

At 11:48 p.m., Officers Hendren and Riordan responded to a burglary alarm call at 6512 Manchester Ave. that turned out to be a false alarm.
According to the documents released to 5 On Your Side, that call was cleared at 12:14 a.m.

Police sources tell 5 On Your Side the SUV Officers Hendren and Riordan were driving at the time did not have GPS technology, making it more difficult to trace their every move.

But according to police, both men ended up at Officer Hendren's apartment at 750 Dover Place in the Carondelet neighborhood, which is outside their assigned patrol area.

Depending on traffic and which route you take, that's roughly 15 to 20 minutes from the false alarm call near Dogtown.

Timeline is interesting, IMO.

Whatever happened in that apartment, transpired pretty quickly.

JMO.

 

[GordianKnot]

So lying to obstruct a criminal investigation is not a crime? If this RR stuff is all BS, why shouldn't he be charged? And if he's lying, who knows what really happened, and if he might even be involved in her death?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This right here.

If RRR is a lie (which, IMO, is a given), he lied to police officers during the course of an investigation. Ergo, he should be charged with obstruction of justice at a minimum.

JMO.

 

[GordianKnot]

I have been reading but not responding. I still just can't imagine a POLICE OFFICER with MILITARY TRAINING, EVER thinking it was OK to point a gun at anyone withOUT the intent to kill?!?!?!

I was just talking to my husband about this case, he feels either there was either severe depression, lack of caring whether they live or not, OR there was no RRR. Without another witness to say that's what was happening,this could be first degree murder. There could have been something within the dept or a relationship ending, or she knew something/was a witness to something that the other officer didn't want known, and the two officers went to her apartment that night with the intent to threaten or kill her. She's not alive to say they were doing the RRR. The only two that can say that have a huge stake in the case to say it. Though IMO, it's still murder, because you should always assume a gun is loaded, and should never point that gun at anything you don't intend to kill!

BBM: 2Hope4, to your bolded points above, tell your husband he's one smart guy, IMO!!!

 

[GordianKnot]

It washes because the partner is there to vouch for it. Without the partner's eyewitness account of the whole RRR thing, it looks even more ridiculous, if that's possible.

BBM: There's absolutely no reason for the RRR story to wash.

The fact that the partner vouches for the RRR story does not make it credible.

The fact that the partner vouches for the RRR story simply destroys his credibility.

JMO.

 

[GordianKnot]

If the best story they could come up with is RRR (without spinning the cylinder), what in the world really happened in that apartment?

*Speculation: The only reason to concoct the RRR story would be to cover for something which was not accidental and would have resulted in much more serious charges than involuntary manslaughter if the truth were known.

If @Falcon500 comes back on the thread, he may be willing to share his thoughts/theories as a VE/LEO.

JMO.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Then again (just thinking aloud). . .I suppose if he got the "shiner" prior to the RRR it would be noticed by others and we'd know that by now. . . ?

On a similar note: Anyone else think that the window head-butting was done in an attempt to "cover up" an injury sustained during the nefarious accident? IMO MOO

Since he and his "partner" drove the victim to the hospital themselves, it might be that no other officers actually saw him. If he claims that upon arrival at the hospital, he smashed his head into the window, it could be made to look like the injury happened then.

Just throw it all into the mix of stuff that makes no sense, and then you have a Sandwich.

 

[SoCalDavidS]

Just thinking....it's far scarier to believe that the story they're telling is true, than if it had been portrayed as a completely accidental shooting, like they were showing the gun off and it accidentally fired. Shows utter incompetence by the officer trained to possess a firearm. Am I wrong?

To me, this RR excuse only heightens the need for a conviction, or even a 1st degree murder charge. I mean, an accidental shooting is an accident. But how is pointing a loaded gun at someone, which isn't even the definition of a RR game, accidental? If it were any ordinary citizen, that person would be convicted without question, possibly on Intentional Manslaughter.

Pointing a gun that you 100% know has a bullet in it, and firing it, is not an accident. The fact they even have the balls to call this an accident tells me that there is an effort to cover up the truth, and prepare to let this officer or these officers get off lightly.

Edit To Add: I just read an article saying the attorney wants the judge taken off case, since he essentially voiced the same concerns as I did. Pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is not accidental. Funny how the one person with any sense of intelligence here, is the one they're trying to get rid of.

 

[mickey2942]

Which goes back to my original premise...I am not seeing any outrage from SLMPD that an officer was killed. No demands for comprehensive and complete investigation. The supervision has been very quiet on this situation. It seemed to me that the focus was on protecting the perpetrators, rather than investigating the death of another officer.

Which from the beginning was deemed a "tragic accident".

 

[GordianKnot]

Pointing a gun that you 100% know has a bullet in it, and firing it, is not an accident. The fact they even have the balls to call this an accident tells me that there is an effort to cover up the truth, and prepare to let this officer or these officers get off lightly.

SABBMFF:

Agreed. The warp speed at which they jumped out in front of cameras to label this a "tragic accident" and push the RRR storyline is astonishing.

It certainly gives the unseemly appearance of there having been
"A Rush to (Non)Judgment" in this case.

JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

Which goes back to my original premise...I am not seeing any outrage from SLMPD that an officer was killed. No demands for comprehensive and complete investigation. The supervision has been very quiet on this situation. It seemed to me that the focus was on protecting the perpetrators, rather than investigating the death of another officer.

Which from the beginning was deemed a "tragic accident".

Yes. And why these 2 rookies with seemingly no street and/or political cred. I'm thinking it's the partner that has friends at the top. MOO

 

[SoCalDavidS]

I'm thinking that there will be a plea bargain, and a settlement with the victim's family, to make this all go away. The questioning public will just be left to wonder what the truth is, without ever learning it.

 

[Deleted member 158085]

Yes. And why these 2 rookies with seemingly no street and/or political cred. I'm thinking it's the partner that has friends at the top. MOO

Or relatives.

 

[GordianKnot]

I'm thinking that there will be a plea bargain, and a settlement with the victim's family, to make this all go away. The questioning public will just be left to wonder what the truth is, without ever learning it.

Unhappily, I agree with everything you just said.

 

[GordianKnot]

Attorney for officer accused in Russian roulette-style fatal shooting claims judge is biased, requests new one

So NH is requesting a new judge?

Great...as if the deck wasn't already stacked enough in his favor.

 

[Seattle1]

JAN 31, 2019

ST. LOUIS – Judge David Roither said he had a problem with defense attorneys calling Officer Nathanial Hendren’s fatal shooting of Officer Katlyn Alix an accident.

The judge pointed to the suspect's military and police training and said Officer Hendren knows, "You do not point a muzzle at anything you do not intend to shoot.”

Judge Roither listed what he believes were “intentional” acts as described in the probable cause statement.

“Unholstering the firearm – an intentional action. Loading it – intentional action. Reloading it – intentional action. Pointing it – intentional,” Roither said

Despite the judge’s strong words, Officer Hendren bonded out. The judge increased the bond to $100,000 but allowed him to post 10 percent to get out.

During the hearing, Katlyn Alix’s sister, Jessica Durbin, cried to the judge, ''My whole world is lost.” She added, “we need the truth.”

Officer Alix’s husband, St. Louis police Officer Anthony Meyer, also pleaded with the judge, asking him not to reduce Hendren’s bond.

Hendren sat with his head down, sometimes lowering it to the table. His family, from Columbia, Missouri, sat behind him. They held each other and cried.
Judge said actions of officer who shot his colleague were “intentional”

Bumping what Judge Roither said about NH...

 

[GordianKnot]

Bumping what Judge Roither said about NH...

Well, Seattle, we certainly can't have that now, can we?

Judge R.'s statement that, "You do not point a muzzle at anything you do not intend to shoot" demonstrates that he has a clear bias toward honoring a system of factual, evidence-based jurisprudence.

We simply can't have that in this case.

It would not be fair to NH to have an impartial, unbiased judge!

JMO.

 

[Seattle1]

Well, Seattle, we certainly can't have that now, can we?

Judge R.'s statement that, "You do not point a muzzle at anything you do not intend to shoot" demonstrates that he has a clear bias toward honoring a system of factual, evidence-based jurisprudence.

We simply can't have that in this case.

It would not be fair to NH to have an impartial, unbiased judge!

JMO.

That's OK.

Perhaps his former USMC training officer can appear before him and ask him to recite the 4 rules of firearm safety:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target (and you have made the decision to shoot).
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

ETA: Essentially just what the Judge told him. You pointed, aimed, and fired! You intended to shoot KA!

 

[GordianKnot]

Since he and his "partner" drove the victim to the hospital themselves, it might be that no other officers actually saw him. If he claims that upon arrival at the hospital, he smashed his head into the window, it could be made to look like the injury happened then.

Just throw it all into the mix of stuff that makes no sense, and then you have a **** Sandwich.

Of course, the only way you could swallow that sammy would be to chase it down with a long, tall glass of Kool-Aid.

 

[Falcon500]

Which goes back to my original premise...I am not seeing any outrage from SLMPD that an officer was killed. No demands for comprehensive and complete investigation. The supervision has been very quiet on this situation. It seemed to me that the focus was on protecting the perpetrators, rather than investigating the death of another officer.

Which from the beginning was deemed a "tragic accident".

I've been puzzled by your commentary since this incident happened. What outrage were you expecting? To have the mayor hold a daily press conference and scream and rant? The supervision has been quiet? Police departments today generally do not allow anyone except for the chief and the PIO (spokesperson) to speak publically about a police incident. How did the department protect the two officers?

All along it has been your belief that one or both officers have relatives in the department who have protected them. This is not 1935. That kind of stuff does not happen anymore and if you have any evidence that it has then give me examples.

 

[GordianKnot]

I've been puzzled by your commentary since this incident happened. What outrage were you expecting? To have the mayor hold a daily press conference and scream and rant? The supervision has been quiet? Police departments today generally do not allow anyone except for the chief and the PIO (spokesperson) to speak publically about a police incident. How did the department protect the two officers?

All along it has been your belief that one or both officers have relatives in the department who have protected them. This is not 1935. That kind of stuff does not happen anymore and if you have any evidence that it has then give me examples.

BBM: Falcon, I'm not the OP, but I do have a concern that the department was out in front of the cameras at warp speed pushing the Reverse Russian Roulette narrative and stating that this was a "tragic accident."

You said you find that RRR scenario implausible, also.

I'm pretty confident that as a VE you have a strong sense of what the likely scenario is here. Do you think what really happened in that apartment that night will come to light or not in this case?