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

[SpanishInquisition]

Please quote, exactly, the sentence you say I wrote. I find no sentence written by me in which I said or implied that it's okay to get rid of evidence.

This is totally common, totally routine, and is not "getting rid of evidence." You'll see I was pointing out in response that the victim's body was a piece of evidence.

 

[sonjay]

This is totally common, totally routine, and is not "getting rid of evidence." You'll see I was pointing out in response that the victim's body was a piece of evidence.

If you read carefully, particularly the part BBM, you'll see that I specifically said it is not getting rid of evidence. I did NOT say that getting rid of evidence is OK.

is not "getting rid of evidence"

is not "getting rid of evidence"

is not "getting rid of evidence"

is not "getting rid of evidence"

is not "getting rid of evidence"

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Oh, for heaven's sake! Do you not think they document the body and the findings of the autopsy and the lab tests? This is disingenuous at best.

Me pointing out that it's routine to release the body to the family after the autopsy is NOT EVEN CLOSE to me saying it's "OK to get rid of evidence." Geezly crow. By your reasoning, they should be holding BM and KM in cryogenic deep freeze.

ETA: And EN, too, should be in cryogenic deep freeze. And the entire cul de sac along with all the houses should be evacuated and enclosed within an impermeable sterile dome.

Now you're putting words into my mouth as I didn't say it was never OK to get rid of evidence of the body, just I've said this wasn't a natural death, a shooting was involved with at least one family member having a gun, there being a possible felony conspiracy related to drugs and this was an active case rather than a cold case. I'm down with eventually getting rid of the evidence from bodies, just I'm not denying when this happens it is 'getting rid of evidence.'

 

[Miss Muffet]

But there's nothing in the descriptions by EN's friends that suggests the green car left and came back!

Altergott in warrant: "Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car drivig around Johnson Middle School."

Krisztain in warrant: "Nowsch told Krisztain 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."

In one statement, EN is in the park. In the other statement, EN is in the Audi.

If you don't believe those statements indicate the buick left and came back, then you believe the green buick was at the school the entire time between 2210 and 2250 and EN calling and being picked up by the Audi. Or are you believing something that isn't in the warrant? If so, what's the evidence for what you believe?

 

[sonjay]

Now you're putting words into my mouth as I didn't say it was never OK to get rid of evidence of the body, just I've said this wasn't a natural death, a shooting was involved with at least one family member having a gun, there being a possible felony conspiracy related to drugs and this was an active case rather than a cold case. I'm down with eventually getting rid of the evidence from bodies, just I'm not denying when this happens it is 'getting rid of evidence.'

I hate it that reading comprehension is such a lost skill.

I did not say that you said it was never OK to get rid of evidence. I said that by your reasoning EN, BM & KM should be in cryogenic deep freeze. Because after all, this wasn't a natural death, a shooting was involved, there's a possible felony conspiracy related to drugs, and this is an active case. If it's "getting rid of evidence" to release the body to the family, then it's likewise "getting rid of evidence" to allow BM, KM & EN to wash their hands and take showers, and it's likewise "getting rid of evidence" to allow the neighbors on Mt. Shasta to walk around the crime scene and drive their cars around the crime scene and walk their dogs around the crime scene.

Police investigate crime scenes. Medical examiners conduct autopsies. At some point, police release the crime scene and the medical examiner releases the body. It's not getting rid of evidence. It's called "they finished gathering all the evidence that can be gathered."

 

[sonjay]

Altergott in warrant: "Altergott said Nowsch told them he was in the park when he saw a green car drivig around Johnson Middle School."

Krisztain in warrant: "Nowsch told Krisztain 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."

In one statement, EN is in the park. In the other statement, EN is in the Audi.

If you don't believe those statements indicate the buick left and came back, then you believe the green buick was at the school the entire time between 2210 and 2250 and EN calling and being picked up by the Audi. Or are you believing something that isn't in the warrant? If so, what's the evidence for what you believe?

I believe that Altergott and Krisztian were in the apartment together while EN told them about the events of that night. It's obvious that at least one of them is misremembering exactly what he said.

Neither of them says that EN said he saw a green car and that the green car left and came back. It's quite a stretch to take those two lines from the warrant and call it evidence that the green car left and came back.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I believe that Altergott and Krisztian were in the apartment together while EN told them about the events of that night.

I thought that too until I realized that EN talked to Krisztain on the phone, Krisztain left the apartment for work before EN did, and he was there for almost five hours.

He could have told Altergott something while Krisztain was getting ready for work or after she left for work. Since he was at their apartment from 0330 until 0815-0820, he could have told Krisztain something while Altergott was going to the bathroom or was sleeping.

Since he was there almost 5 hours, it's unrealistic to expect that one didn't hear something while the other wasn't present. After being involved in a shooting, I highly doubt EN just told his story once and then started talking about other things.

I also think it's unlikely his friends listened to his story once and then both of them went directly to sleep at the same time. A friend at your house saying he was involved in a shootout is a big deal that could keep you up all night.

It's obvious that at least one of them is misremembering exactly what he said.

That's not necessarily true. One could be remembering one part of what he said and the other could be remembering the other part. It's also possible LE didn't include everything they both stated in the warrant since the warrant isn't a transcript.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I did not say that you said it was never OK to get rid of evidence. I said that by your reasoning EN, BM & KM should be in cryogenic deep freeze.

Yes, you left it up to me to try and figure out what you were saying my reasoning was by bringing up cryogenic deep freezing and sterile domes, which presumably my reasoning was that it was never OK to get rid of evidence.

If it's "getting rid of evidence" to release the body to the family, then it's likewise "getting rid of evidence" to allow BM, KM & EN to wash their hands and take showers, and it's likewise "getting rid of evidence" to allow the neighbors on Mt. Shasta to walk around the crime scene and drive their cars around the crime scene and walk their dogs around the crime scene.

I think what you are saying here should help resolve this as this specific issue with potential destruction of evidence and poor chain of custody with the suspect made national headlines with the Michael Brown case:
http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-gra...s-officer-darren-wilson-investigators-1730132
http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/csi/facts.cfm
Everything you cite is indeed times when evidence could be destroyed, just that because it happens, it doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. A potential suspect washing off their hands that may contain blood or other evidence is indeed destruction of evidence, just not checking someone for bodily evidence and them subsequently cleaning themselves isn't inherently wrong. It is even pointed out that wild animals crossing into areas that were blocked off by police tape are destroying evidence and I would think anyone crossing an area marked off by the police could be criminally charged and I would hope that the police wouldn't voluntarily allow random people onto a crime scene.

Police investigate crime scenes. Medical examiners conduct autopsies. At some point, police release the crime scene and the medical examiner releases the body. It's not getting rid of evidence. It's called "they finished gathering all the evidence that can be gathered."

Gathering all the evidence you think you need doesn't also mean you aren't getting rid of evidence you don't' you need. Like Darren Wilson washing his hands getting rid of a body is getting rid of evidence, just like perhaps with KM washing her hands such destruction of evidence may be irrelevant and perfectly OK to be gotten rid of.

 

[sonjay]

I thought that too until I realized that EN talked to Krisztain on the phone, Krisztain left the apartment for work before EN did, and he was there for almost five hours.

He could have told Altergott something while Krisztain was getting ready for work or after she left for work. Since he was at their apartment from 0330 until 0815-0820, he could have told Krisztain something while Altergott was going to the bathroom or was sleeping.

Since he was there almost 5 hours, it's unrealistic to expect that one didn't hear something while the other wasn't present. After being involved in a shooting, I highly doubt EN just told his story once and then started talking about other things.

I also think it's unlikely his friends listened to his story once and then both of them went directly to sleep at the same time. A friend at your house saying he was involved in a shootout is a big deal that could keep you up all night.

That's not necessarily true. One could be remembering one part of what he said and the other could be remembering the other part. It's also possible LE didn't include everything they both stated in the warrant since the warrant isn't a transcript.

Oh, well, sure, it's possible to torture the descriptions in the warrant to come up with the notion that EN somehow was describing a green car that left and came back, if you're dead set on believing that the green car left and came back.

Note, though, that neither Altergott nor Krisztian reported that EN said the green car left and came back.

Note also that Altergott said that EN "sat in the dining room and began to tell him and Khatelyn about being involved in a shooting...." and "Altergott said Nowsch told them...." The clear implication is that he told them together. Even if he talked to one of them while the other wasn't present, note that NEITHER of them says he said the green car left and came back.

If you're dead set on believing that the green car left and came back, run with it.

I'd rather look for actual evidence, than torture people's words into being something other than what they are.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, you left it up to me to try and figure out what you were saying my reasoning was by bringing up cryogenic deep freezing and sterile domes, which presumably my reasoning was that it was never OK to get rid of evidence.



I think what you are saying here should help resolve this as this specific issue with potential destruction of evidence and poor chain of custody with the suspect made national headlines with the Trayvon Martin case:
http://www.ibtimes.com/ferguson-gra...s-officer-darren-wilson-investigators-1730132
http://idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/season12/csi/facts.cfm
Everything you cite is indeed times when evidence could be destroyed, just that because it happens, it doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong. A potential suspect washing off their hands that may contain blood or other evidence is indeed destruction of evidence, just not checking someone for bodily evidence and them subsequently cleaning themselves isn't inherently wrong. It is even pointed out that wild animals crossing into areas that were blocked off by police tape are destroying evidence and I would think anyone crossing an area marked off by the police could be criminally charged and I would hope that the police wouldn't voluntarily allow random people onto a crime scene.



Gathering all the evidence you think you need doesn't also mean you aren't getting rid of evidence you don't' you need. Like Darren Wilson washing his hands getting rid of a body is getting rid of evidence, just like perhaps with KM washing her hands such destruction of evidence may be irrelevant and perfectly OK to be gotten rid of.

If you want to believe that the medical examiner releasing the body is getting rid of evidence, that's your prerogative. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Loud! I have a .45. I've heard what it sounds like without ears on.

I've heard what they sound like without ears at the shooting range when someone else fired one. I wasn't even with the him or immediately next to him, and I thought I'd lost my hearing on one side.

 

[Miss Muffet]

It's quite a stretch to take those two lines from the warrant and call it evidence that the green car left and came back.

It's interesting how you believe we can compare EN witness statements with BM statements and call it evidence TM's body was near the car and we can conclude she was actually in the car from that new evidence, but you don't believe we can do it here even though those two EN witness statements indicate two different times EN saw the car and the M's statements place the car at the school at two different times.

 

[al66pine]

Maybe. Possible disadvantage or detriment to def-EN, depending on whether state did perform GSR test or not, and whether test concluded TM had GSR or not.

Hypos:
1. LE evd tech & Med Exam'r performed NO GSR test on TM, remains released to fam
.
A. Cremated. No remains to test.
.................Result: no poss future test by St., def-EN, or future def.
................?Poss equally beneficial or detrimental to St., def-EN, or future def??? IDK.
................?Allows def: 'St skipped test that c/show TM armed & fired; def fired in self def.'
.
B. Buried Remains avail to exhume & test, by St, def-EN or future def.
................Result: Post autopsy & burial prep, test results = ?poss not meaningful? imo.
................?Poss. equally beneficial or detrimental to St., def-EN, or future def.? IDK.
................?Allows def: 'St skipped test that c/show TM armed & fired; def fired in self def.?


2. LE evd tech & Med Exam'r performed GSR test on TM, remains released to fam
.
A. Cremated. No remains for def. team testing, whether def-EN or future EN
..................If St test result shows noGSR, then Beneficial to St.,
..................Shows TM was not armed, did not shoot, so no self-defense argument for def.
..................Also shows shooter-def-EN was at least (X distance, 2-3 ft?) away from TM.
..................Also shows BM or ?* was at least (X distance, 2-3 ft?) away from TM.
..................Possible for def. team to attack ^St's witnesses & evd. by cross exam re
................. collection, swabs, chain of custody, contamination, tester expertise & interp.etc
..................Poss for def team to put on own expert witness re opinion St wit & evd. &
..................poss can refute underlying basis for St wit opinion & evd
.
..................If St test result shows GSR, shows TM was -
..........................-armed, shot own gun (benefits def for poss self-def argument for EN) or
..........................-shot by def-EN, close enough (X distance, 2-3 ft?) to leave GSR or
..........................-shot by BM or ?, close enough (X distance, 2-3 ft?) to leave GSR.
..................Possible for def. team to attack ^St's witnesses & evd. by cross exam re
................. collection, swabs, chain of custody, contamination, tester expertise & interp.etc
..................Poss for def team to put on own expert witness re opinion St wit & evd.
.
B. Buried Remains avail to exhume & test, by def-EN or future def.
................Result: Post autopsy & burial prep, test results ?poss not meaningful? imo.
................If St shows noGSR, same poss bene & detriment to St & def-EN as ^2A^.
................If St shows GSR, same poss bene & detriment to St & def-EN as ^2A^.


Could also go thru same drill re GSR testing on BM, KM, et al. Poss'ly diff adv & disadv.

I may very well be overlooking some points re adv and disadv above.
Hoping someone can fill in missing pieces.
____________________________________________________________________

* re poss other shooter, not known of at this point (~ grassy knoll theory?)

 

[sonjay]

It's interesting how you believe we can compare EN witness statements with BM statements and call it evidence TM's body was near the car and we can conclude she was actually in the car from that new evidence, but you don't believe we can do it here even though those two EN witness statements indicate two different times EN saw the car and the M's statements place the car at the school at two different times.

EN and BM were both describing an event that they saw from two different perspectives. They both explicitly referred to one person moving away from the car and one person being at the car, and the person at the car being shot. They both said this specifically.

Altergott and Krisztian were describing the same conversation that they were both part of. NEITHER of them says that EN said the green car left and came back.

Altergott says EN called & texted Krisztian at 3am. Krisztian says he called & texted her at 3:36.

Altergott said he was wearing a black backpack and wearing sunglasses. Krisztian said he was wearing a black baseball hat, a Marilyn Monroe shirt, jeans, and carrying a black backpack.

Are we to conclude from these differences that EN called & texted at two different times 36 minutes apart?
Are we to conclude from these differences that EN arrived at their apartment twice, wearing different clothing, wearing his backpack for one visit and carrying it for the other visit?

Or does it make sense to conclude that, having been awakened in the wee hours, A. & K. simply didn't remember everything exactly the same down to every last detail?

 

[sonjay]

Maybe. Possible disadvantage or detriment to def-EN, depending on whether state did perform GSR test or not, and whether test concluded TM had GSR or not.

Hypos:
1. LE evd tech & Med Exam'r performed NO GSR test on TM, remains released to fam
.
A. Cremated. No remains to test.
.................Result: no poss future test by St., def-EN, or future def.
................?Poss equally beneficial or detrimental to St., def-EN, or future def??? IDK.
................?Allows def: 'St skipped test that c/show TM armed & fired; def fired in self def.'
.
B. Buried Remains avail to exhume & test, by St, def-EN or future def.
................Result: Post autopsy & burial prep, test results = ?poss not meaningful? imo.
................?Poss. equally beneficial or detrimental to St., def-EN, or future def.? IDK.
................?Allows def: 'St skipped test that c/show TM armed & fired; def fired in self def.?


2. LE evd tech & Med Exam'r performed GSR test on TM, remains released to fam
.
A. Cremated. No remains for def. team testing, whether def-EN or future EN
..................If St test result shows noGSR, then Beneficial to St.,
..................Shows TM was not armed, did not shoot, so no self-defense argument for def.
..................Also shows shooter-def-EN was at least (X distance, 2-3 ft?) away from TM.
..................Also shows BM or ?* was at least (X distance, 2-3 ft?) away from TM.
..................Possible for def. team to attack ^St's witnesses & evd. by cross exam re
................. collection, swabs, chain of custody, contamination, tester expertise & interp.etc
..................Poss for def team to put on own expert witness re opinion St wit & evd. &
..................poss can refute underlying basis for St wit opinion & evd
.
..................If St test result shows GSR, shows TM was -
..........................-armed, shot own gun (benefits def for poss self-def argument for EN) or
..........................-shot by def-EN, close enough (X distance, 2-3 ft?) to leave GSR or
..........................-shot by BM or ?, close enough (X distance, 2-3 ft?) to leave GSR.
..................Possible for def. team to attack ^St's witnesses & evd. by cross exam re
................. collection, swabs, chain of custody, contamination, tester expertise & interp.etc
..................Poss for def team to put on own expert witness re opinion St wit & evd.
.
B. Buried Remains avail to exhume & test, by def-EN or future def.
................Result: Post autopsy & burial prep, test results ?poss not meaningful? imo.
................If St shows noGSR, same poss bene & detriment to St & def-EN as ^2A^.
................If St shows GSR, same poss bene & detriment to St & def-EN as ^2A^.


Could also go thru same drill re GSR testing on BM, KM, et al. Poss'ly diff adv & disadv.

I may very well be overlooking some points re adv and disadv above.
Hoping someone can fill in missing pieces.
____________________________________________________________________

* re poss other shooter, not previously known of at this point (~ grassy knoll theory?)

I believe that all the hoopla about the GSR test is moot. I have found articles that specifically state that the defense was asking for the results of the GSR test that the medical examiner had done, and that they wanted to conduct their own independent test.

So there was a GSR test done. No evidence has been gotten rid of. The defense will get it when they're entitled to it, along with the full autopsy including the tox screen and other test results.

 

[Miss Muffet]

That's a very informative and concise post, al66pine! Thank you for compiling it!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I believe that Altergott and Krisztian were in the apartment together while EN told them about the events of that night. It's obvious that at least one of them is misremembering exactly what he said.
Neither of them says that EN said he saw a green car and that the green car left and came back. It's quite a stretch to take those two lines from the warrant and call it evidence that the green car left and came back.

The problem then becomes why was EN east of the park in the area he considered dangerous. The silver car was on the other side of the road across from the school so EN had to cross the street on foot while approaching the dangerous area, which putting himself in such elevated danger defeats the purpose of his calling for the car in the first place or why if EN got picked up elsewhere was driving by the danger area as by all parties consent the silver car was the hunted. I have problems regardless of the scenario as to why the silver car with EN was across the street (either moving or stationary) from the school that was considered the danger area with the Buick.

 

[sonjay]

The problem then becomes why was EN east of the park in the area he considered dangerous. The silver car was on the other side of the road across from the school so EN had to cross the street on foot while approaching the dangerous area, which putting himself in such elevated danger defeats the purpose of his calling for the car in the first place or why if EN got picked up elsewhere was driving by the danger area as by all parties consent the silver car was the hunted. I have problems regardless of the scenario as to why the silver car with EN was across the street (either moving or stationary) from the school that was considered the danger area with the Buick.

Where exactly are you saying the silver car was? And when exactly was it there? At what point in the sequence of events was it there? And how do you know exactly where it was at that point?

I'm having trouble following what you're asking about.

 

[BellaVita]

Quote Originally Posted by BellaVita

Yes, I think the Audi was very close behind. But remember, now the story is that BM was in the car. KM did not have to go get him. But I tend to think all three were in the car and it was one extended incident.

The story isn't now BM was in the car all along. That's sonjays story. That might be your story too. It might be other people's stories, but it's not everyone's story. Some of us haven't ruled out the buick returning home part of the story.

What I meant is that according to the M's current version of events, BM was in the car when it arrived at the cul de sac just before the shooting of TM. I know the M's claim there was a stop to get the son and the gun. I don't think I ever claimed 100% BM was in the car the whole time. I tend to lean that way. And I do find it odd that the warrant makes no mention of whether KM got back in the car or stayed at the house.

 

[al66pine]

I expect states to have laws prohibiting bodies from being cremated if the deceased was murdered or had a suspicious death. Any death from gunshot should be buried instead of cremated.

bbm

I just posted, touching on this subject -- about poss disadv. to def. when there is no GSR test done by St.
and/or when def team is unable to conduct own GSR tests.

bbm
Requiring burial rather than cremation for gun deaths would not necessarily preserve evd forGSR tests.
Timing of swabbing & collection is important. GSR test accuracy is diminished, if swabs are done more than several hours (IIRC) after the gunshot(s).
Autopsy procedure & burial prep. - washing/cleaning - also would diminish accuracy of GSR results.
IOW, burial does not allow def team to exhume and get accurate GSR test results,imo.

I linked technical lit on GSR testing ~ wk ago, if anyone wants to search.

JM2cts.