GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[PaperDoll]

To add to my last post, I don't think I would walk that park at night if I lived close to it because I wouldn't feel really safe, but I would walk through the neighborhood but not the park.

 

[sonjay]

Let's look again at the source -- the arrest affidavit.

Altergott:

Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car driving around Johnson Middle School. Nowsch said he thought the people in the car were looking for him so he called a friend who owns a silver four door Audi sedan to come to the park and pick him up.

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following the Audi. Nowsch told Altergott he thought he saw a gun being pointed from the window of the green car so he put a clip in his gun and started shooting at the green car. Nowsch told Altergott the green car tried to get away and they followed it into a cul-de-sac where he loaded another clip.
​

Krisztian:

Nowsch told Krisztian he was driving by the school in a silver four door Audi when he saw a green car in the school parking lot waiting for him. Nowsch said someone in the green car was waving a gun out the window. Nowsch told Krisztian the green car began following him and then they started chasing each other. Nowsch told Krisztian there were two places where he shot his gun. The first location was on a street, and the second was in a Cul-de-Sac where Nowsch said they followed the green car into.
​

It's true that these two statements differ in where EN was when he saw the green car. They differ in a few other minor points as well.

Altergott remembers EN mentioning an "exchange" between the green car and the Audi." Krisztian doesn't say anything about an exchange.

Altergott remembers EN mentioning twice that he loaded another clip into his gun.

They both mention the green car following EN.

Then they both mention the gun in the green car's window, the shooting, the trip to the cul de sac and the final shooting.

They both mention that there were two shooting scenes.

Neither of them gives any indication that EN said anything about the green car leaving and coming back.

Both of them seem to be describing one event -- EN sees the green car, the chase, the gun, the shooting, the chase to the cul de sac and the final shooting.

Think about this. If the Meyers' story didn't include the driving lesson and road rage -- if that notion wasn't already planted in your mind -- would anyone think that the above statements by A. & K. made any reference to the green car having driving lessons, having road rage, leaving, and coming back? Or would you think they were describing the same event and simply misremembering some minor details of a 3:30am conversation?

 

[BellaVita]

There's a big difference between being "in the park" and "in the car." That indicates EN shared he saw the green buick on TWO separate occasions. The M's state the buick was at the school on TWO separate occasions. I thought you didn't believe in coincidences?

Your pretty much wanting to disregard a majority of warrant doesn't sway me in the least.
I am confident LE has evidence to justify their warrant. LE wouldn't bring charges against EN with a warrant full of M's stories without finding evidence to confirm M's story first. No DA would want to go to trial with this warrant without knowing there is evidence to back up major points in the M's stories in the warrant.

I'm comfortable with waiting until trial to learn which of us is more accurate about the car leaving the school twice, going home once, etc..

Yes, the M's do state that the car left and then came back to the school. For more driving lessons. If you believe that. EN states that he was riding in the Audi and saw the Buick in the parking lot. If it is true that they returned to the school the second time for more lesson, again if you can believe anything they say, then I am VERY CERTAIN there had been no road rage at that point. Because they would have been scared and on their way home to get BM and the gun. Yet, EN says in one account that he believed he saw a gun pointed at that time. EN was already in the car when the Audi first encountered the Buick. Therefore, no solo meeting between Audi and Buick before EN was picked up. The road rage would had to have happened with EN in the car. Not that I think it happened because the Buick was driving slowly. IMO>

 

[sonjay]

I went on Google Maps and used the measurement tool on there where I selected the closest NE corner of the park and I drew a line from there to where BM says they say the Audi, which also is where EN is alleged to have said the cars spotted one another. As I've said previously on here I have problems understanding why EN was there under any scenario, but I find it potentially more troubling for why he was there under a continuous event scenario because he would have had to cross the street on foot and go toward the area he identified as dangerous in order for him to reach the silver car or after having been picked up somewhere else that would mean he was looping around the area that EN had considered dangerous with the Buick out for him.

Hmmm...... where BM says they saw the Audi. Do you mean on Ducharme west of Sam Jonas Street?

Where EN is alleged to have said the cars spotted one another. This part I'm not clear on. Where did EN say this is where the cars spotted one another? So far as I know, EN says he first saw the Buick "in the school parking lot" or "driving around the school." I'm not aware of EN saying he spotted the Buick on Ducharme at Sam Jonas Street. Where did he say this? I must have missed it.

he would have had to cross the street on foot and go toward the area he identified as dangerous

Again, I'm not clear on this. Why would EN have had to cross the street (which street?) on foot? Where was he walking from and to, and why, that he had to do this? And where did he say that this is what he did?

 

[sonjay]

Yes, the M's do state that the car left and then came back to the school. For more driving lessons. If you believe that. EN states that he was riding in the Audi and saw the Buick in the parking lot. If it is true that they returned to the school the second time for more lesson, again if you can believe anything they say, then I am VERY CERTAIN there had been no road rage at that point. Because they would have been scared and on their way home to get BM and the gun. Yet, EN says in one account that he believed he saw a gun pointed at that time. EN was already in the car when the Audi first encountered the Buick. Therefore, no solo meeting between Audi and Buick before EN was picked up. The road rage would had to have happened with EN in the car. Not that I think it happened because the Buick was driving slowly. IMO>

LOL, you're right! I forgot about that. If you believe KM's story, the Buick went to the school for driving lessons, then left and went driving around residential areas, then came back to the school for more driving lessons. Then left to go home. Road rage ensued. Then the Buick came back carrying BM and his gun.

So the Buick allegedly made 3 trips to the school that night! Even creatively interpreting A's & K's statements to mean there were two sightings of the Buick at the school, that doesn't account for 3 separate sightings.

 

[sonjay]

Altergott:

Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car driving around Johnson Middle School. Nowsch said he thought the people in the car were looking for him so he called a friend who owns a silver four door Audi sedan to come to the park and pick him up.

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following the Audi. Nowsch told Altergott he thought he saw a gun being pointed from the window of the green car so he put a clip in his gun and started shooting at the green car. Nowsch told Altergott the green car tried to get away and they followed it into a cul-de-sac where he loaded another clip.
​

Krisztian:

Nowsch told Krisztian he was driving by the school in a silver four door Audi when he saw a green car in the school parking lot waiting for him. Nowsch said someone in the green car was waving a gun out the window. Nowsch told Krisztian the green car began following him and then they started chasing each other. Nowsch told Krisztian there were two places where he shot his gun. The first location was on a street, and the second was in a Cul-de-Sac where Nowsch said they followed the green car into.
​

If we're to believe that these two statements refer to two separate sighting of the Buick by EN, then Krisztian's has to be the second sighting -- because EN was already in the Audi in Krisztian's statement.

Allegedly, Krisztian's sighting, the second sighting, is after the road rage and after the Buick has gone home to get BM and his gun.

Yet this sighting has the Buick "in the school parking lot waiting for him." The Buick wasn't on Ducharme, and it wasn't arriving at the school or park from the Meyers' home. It was just sitting in the school lot waiting for EN.

So even under the creative interpretation of these two statements as being two separate sightings of the Buick, it doesn't make sense.

 

[sonjay]

To add to my last post, I don't think I would walk that park at night if I lived close to it because I wouldn't feel really safe, but I would walk through the neighborhood but not the park.

After hearing so much about what's going on in that neighborhood, I don't think I'd want to drive through it in broad daylight.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

It's true that these two statements differ in where EN was when he saw the green car. They differ in a few other minor points as well.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. This is not a transcript revealing everything A and K each told the police, just what the police are choosing to cite from those interviews.

Altergott remembers EN mentioning an "exchange" between the green car and the Audi." Krisztian doesn't say anything about an exchange.

We don't know that. For all we know - and how it appears to me - is that the police primarily focused on the first set of events with A and then exclusively focused on the second set of events with K....it might not be that way, but we have no idea the extent of detail A and K each provided.

Think about this. If the Meyers' story didn't include the driving lesson and road rage -- if that notion wasn't already planted in your mind -- would anyone think that the above statements by A. & K. made any reference to the green car having driving lessons, having road rage, leaving, and coming back? Or would you think they were describing the same event and simply misremembering some minor details of a 3:30am conversation?

Yes, I think something is up as it would be running dead on into danger for EN to go away from the park to be right across from the school where he sees the Buick, which contradicts everything else EN is alleged to have said with him calling the silver car for help, them trying to get him and him being chased. It makes more sense EN either walked or was driven to the silver car facing west on Ducharme across the street because he saw the car drive off, so he thought he could cross on foot or drive by without fear of being chased. Just because one is willing to entertain that the Buick drove off, it doesn't mean you have to entertain that there was any driving lessons or anything at all that happened on Cimarron because separate from that you have to explain why else would EN be approaching the school when he'd been trying to escape that was at the school. Whoever was in the Buick at first could have seen EN, driven home to get armed to go after him and then appeared again when he was in the silver car, which such a scenario involves leaving the school but involves no driving lessons or road rage.

 

[sonjay]

It's true that these two statements differ in where EN was when he saw the green car. They differ in a few other minor points as well.

Maybe they do and maybe they don't. This is not a transcript revealing everything A and K each told the police, just what the police are choosing to cite from those interviews.

Wait, what? I thought these two statements were the definitive proof that the Buick left the school and came back? Now you're saying maybe they don't differ? So they're not proof of anything, then?

Yes, I think something is up as it would be running dead on into danger for EN to go away from the park to be right across from the school where he sees the Buick

I still don't know where you got the idea that EN went [somewhere?] away from the park. Where did he go? Where does the information come from that he went there? You keep referring to this mysterious pedestrian trip by EN that I don't know where you're getting it from.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Hmmm...... where BM says they saw the Audi. Do you mean on Ducharme west of Sam Jonas Street?

Yup

Where EN is alleged to have said the cars spotted one another. This part I'm not clear on. Where did EN say this is where the cars spotted one another? So far as I know, EN says he first saw the Buick "in the school parking lot" or "driving around the school." I'm not aware of EN saying he spotted the Buick on Ducharme at Sam Jonas Street. Where did he say this? I must have missed it.

Everyone is saying the cars spotted one another with the silver car on the westbound side Ducharme and the Buick in the general area of the main school parking lot.

Again, I'm not clear on this. Why would EN have had to cross the street (which street?) on foot? Where was he walking from and to, and why, that he had to do this? And where did he say that this is what he did?

It isn't anything he had to say, just a matter of geography that he either had to cross the street to reach the westbound-facing silver car or he had to have gotten picked up elsewhere - like on Cherry - at the park and taken Buffalo and to Ducharme. He had to get from being in the park next to the school to being in the silver car across the street from the school one way or the other as those are two very distinct locations.

 

[SeeAlice]

Let's look again at the source -- the arrest affidavit.

Altergott:

Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car driving around Johnson Middle School. Nowsch said he thought the people in the car were looking for him so he called a friend who owns a silver four door Audi sedan to come to the park and pick him up.

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following the Audi. Nowsch told Altergott he thought he saw a gun being pointed from the window of the green car so he put a clip in his gun and started shooting at the green car. Nowsch told Altergott the green car tried to get away and they followed it into a cul-de-sac where he loaded another clip.
​

Krisztian:

Nowsch told Krisztian he was driving by the school in a silver four door Audi when he saw a green car in the school parking lot waiting for him. Nowsch said someone in the green car was waving a gun out the window. Nowsch told Krisztian the green car began following him and then they started chasing each other. Nowsch told Krisztian there were two places where he shot his gun. The first location was on a street, and the second was in a Cul-de-Sac where Nowsch said they followed the green car into.
​

It's true that these two statements differ in where EN was when he saw the green car. They differ in a few other minor points as well.

Altergott remembers EN mentioning an "exchange" between the green car and the Audi." Krisztian doesn't say anything about an exchange.

Altergott remembers EN mentioning twice that he loaded another clip into his gun.

They both mention the green car following EN.

Then they both mention the gun in the green car's window, the shooting, the trip to the cul de sac and the final shooting.

They both mention that there were two shooting scenes.

Neither of them gives any indication that EN said anything about the green car leaving and coming back.

Both of them seem to be describing one event -- EN sees the green car, the chase, the gun, the shooting, the chase to the cul de sac and the final shooting.

Think about this. If the Meyers' story didn't include the driving lesson and road rage -- if that notion wasn't already planted in your mind -- would anyone think that the above statements by A. & K. made any reference to the green car having driving lessons, having road rage, leaving, and coming back? Or would you think they were describing the same event and simply misremembering some minor details of a 3:30am conversation?

I'm so confused, I have no idea.

I'll be perfectly honest here. I am relying on all of you for locations and distances. (Heck, I get mixed up looking at my own neighborhood on Google Maps Streetview.)

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Wait, what? I thought these two statements were the definitive proof that the Buick left the school and came back? Now you're saying maybe they don't differ? So they're not proof of anything, then?

As you'll recall I've challenged you on what you were defining as fact as I thought things were still unknown (like with the 45 bullet before the ballistics report is out) and I'm not set on any one theory. I've been saying those statements from A and K are second-hand hearsay. I think any number of theories can arise based upon what we know and that certain things may be vague leading to multiple viable interpretations, relevant details could be missing, etc. In part because of deficiencies of the criminal complaint is why I'm not dead set on any one theory.

I still don't know where you got the idea that EN went [somewhere?] away from the park. Where did he go? Where does the information come from that he went there? You keep referring to this mysterious pedestrian trip by EN that I don't know where you're getting it from.

In order to go from someplace at the park to being in a car across the street from the school and driving on Ducharme, you have to get there one way or the other. For the silver car to make the turn from Ducharme onto Villa Monterey when it was being chased by the Buick this could not been initiated with the silver car at or across from the park.

 

[al66pine]

Some forensic labs accept only GSR samples collected within 5 hrs of shooting.
Others accept samples taken >5 hrs post-shooting. (Page 4 online, p 27 print version).

Per link, GSR particles are often mostly or entirely worn away (putting hands in pockets, lifting/carrying items, wiping hands, washing hands, etc.) in a matter of several hours.
TM did not wash her hands after being shot, but if hand samples were not collected at scene,
then likely GSR was all worn or washed away after some hours in the hospital, imo.

Most or all GSR particles on clothing may also be washed away in laundry process.
I wonder if TM's clothing was tested for GSR.

Also wonder about any GSR tests on other M fam members there.
______________________________________________________________________
See http://swggsr.org/documents.html (Scientific Working Group for Gunshot Residue org.)
Click on 'The Current Status of GSR Examinations' for 9 page pdf,
pub. May 2011, in FBI/Law Enforcement Bulletin. Pages 2, 3, 4 online, pp 25, 26, 27 print version.

Sample collection from hands, body, clothing, etc.
Samples can be inadvertently contaminated, at the scene, by the collector tech/LE, etc.
Washing hands can wash away GSR.
Different private labs set diff criteria for accepting samples (GSR, fingerprints, drugs, hair, etc).
(Then tech stuff testing procedures.(other pp))
Pages 6, 7, 8 on line (pp 29, 30, 31 print version).
Reporting
Testimony by GSR expert.

 

[sonjay]

Yup



Everyone is saying the cars spotted one another with the silver car on the westbound side Ducharme and the Buick in the general area of the main school parking lot.



It isn't anything he had to say, just a matter of geography that he either had to cross the street to reach the westbound-facing silver car or he had to have gotten picked up elsewhere - like on Cherry - at the park and taken Buffalo and to Ducharme. He had to get from being in the park next to the school to being in the silver car across the street from the school one way or the other as those are two very distinct locations.

I would say it's an assumption -- speculation -- that he walked there to get in the silver car. He could have been picked up curbside at the park, could he not?

I don't think we can use that assumption as proof of anything.

 

[charminglane]

5 guests are here.
PLEASE register!
We would love to hear what you think.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Another conflict between the M's and EN. IF, IF, IF someone believes the Audi road-raged with the Buick before going to the park for EN, that makes no sense to me. BM said they found the Audi and its passenger on Ducharme, then the chase started and then the first shooting episode. I don't believe much what any M has to say, but if it's true that there was a pit stop made for son and gun, the conflict is that EN is consistent in his account that the trouble started at the school. The M's make no mention of engaging the Audi at the school location. I'm not able to copy the relevant parts of the warrant. Here is the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/0...5F02612X-declaration-&-complaint_Redacted.pdf

EN's account wouldn't mention an Audi altercation elsewhere before he was picked up because he wouldn't be present at the time it happened. BM's statement isn't proof the Audi altercation didn't happen prior to finding the Audi on Ducharme because BM wasn't present when it occurred. And the BM does include the conflict near the school because the first shooting scene is right near the school.

 

[sonjay]

As you'll recall I've challenged you on what you were defining as fact as I thought things were still unknown (like with the 45 bullet before the ballistics report is out) and I'm not set on any one theory. I've been saying those statements from A and K are second-hand hearsay. I think any number of theories can arise based upon what we know and that certain things may be vague leading to multiple viable interpretations, relevant details could be missing, etc. In part because of deficiencies of the criminal complaint is why I'm not dead set on any one theory.

Exactly so. And it's not valid to take a creative interpretation of two disparate statements in the affidavit and use them as proof that the Buick made two trips to the school.

The most that can be argued with respect to those differing statements in the affidavit about where EN was when he spotted the Buick is that they allow for such an interpretation. (Somewhat, if one really wants to believe there were two separate trips by the Buick.)

They are certainly not proof that the Buick made two separate trips to the school. Nor are they proof that EN walked to the intersection of Ducharme and Sam Jonas. Nor are they proof that road rage happened, or that there were driving lessons.

But I'm seeing posts here that take creative interpretation of those statements and use them as proof that all of those things happened.

 

[sonjay]

I'm so confused, I have no idea.

I'll be perfectly honest here. I am relying on all of you for locations and distances. (Heck, I get mixed up looking at my own neighborhood on Google Maps Streetview.)

You don't seem to be wedded to any particular theory of what happened.

I'd love to hear your take on these statements by EN's friends. These excerpts are from the affidavit for the arrest warrant:

Altergott:

Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car driving around Johnson Middle School. Nowsch said he thought the people in the car were looking for him so he called a friend who owns a silver four door Audi sedan to come to the park and pick him up.

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following the Audi. Nowsch told Altergott he thought he saw a gun being pointed from the window of the green car so he put a clip in his gun and started shooting at the green car. Nowsch told Altergott the green car tried to get away and they followed it into a cul-de-sac where he loaded another clip.​

Krisztian:

Nowsch told Krisztian he was driving by the school in a silver four door Audi when he saw a green car in the school parking lot waiting for him. Nowsch said someone in the green car was waving a gun out the window. Nowsch told Krisztian the green car began following him and then they started chasing each other. Nowsch told Krisztian there were two places where he shot his gun. The first location was on a street, and the second was in a Cul-de-Sac where Nowsch said they followed the green car into.
​

 

[sonjay]

EN's account wouldn't mention an Audi altercation elsewhere before he was picked up because he wouldn't be present at the time it happened. BM's statement isn't proof the Audi altercation didn't happen prior to finding the Audi on Ducharme because BM wasn't present when it occurred. And the BM does include the conflict near the school because the first shooting scene is right near the school.

Right. No one else's statement has anything about the alleged driving lessons or road rage, because KM is the only source of that story.

KM, who kept changing her story. There was a crash. No, it was a sideswipe. No, it was a near-collision. No, it was just a dude who got mad because her mom was driving the speed limit.

KM, who first was unable to give a description of the driver to police, but who later described a 6' spiky-haired dude with hazel eyes -- and this dude doesn't seem to be a person of interest to police.

KM, who originally said the silver car followed her and her mother home.

KM, who apparently has difficulty telling the story correctly.

 

[Miss Muffet]

LOL, Vegas baby martini and all Ok and this is funny, I actually took a video from where the Audi was spotted by TM and BM, and drove the route, BUT I FORGOT TO HIT THE RECORD BUTTON.. lol It's just as well I did.. lol Ok, back to answer your questions; the first time I drove through there and took my 1st pics, there was a baseball game going on at the school, lots of cars and people, and I've seen a group of guys playing what I think was basketball in the park. I can see teens hanging out there at night, would I say it was safe? That is a hard call because the housing track on the Cherry River side is nice, but on the other side of the park the houses look older so you may get a mix of people. I've only gone though the neighborhood in daylight. Would I consider it dangerous, not really. I live in a nice neighborhood and we've had some crime happen not far from us. In fact, not sure if this was on national news, but there were 3 people killed the other day that isn't all that far from us, and hubby and I actually have eaten at the restaurant that is next to the complex. So, nice area or not, crime still happens, but I think this was a domestic crime and not some random pick.

Thanks! That's hilarious about not pressing the record button. I can imagine myself doing that too!

It doesn't sound like a dangerous neighborhood, does it? Nighttime at the park can be different, but I got the impression that resident in the news was saying he didn't trust the park even during the day since he won't let his children go there. Obviously many people are comfortable going there during the day since you've seen people there.

I was just out running errands and passed the state store (where alcohol is sold in my state). Reading your "Vegas baby martini" before leaving almost inspired me to stop and make a purchase.