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

[PaperDoll]

Yes, I am referring to that incident too, which the CCTV camera shows a car going east on Cherry and then south on Carmel Peak. I don't know if I should publish the exact address of where the CCTV footage was taken, but it was taken near the corner of Cherry River and Carmel Peak, which if you use StreetView you can match everything seen on both sides of the road in the CCTV image and can even see the security camera itself.

Ok, I drove through the neighborhood once again, :blushing: and if you are correct and that CCTV camera is correct along with that being the Audi, then the Audi would have taken Alta to Cimarron, then made a right on Cherry River (going East) then right on Carmel Peak (going South) then right on Mt. Shasta. It would have been quicker and easier had the Audi taken Alta to Carmel Peak, which is the street before Cimarron.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

They're not mutually exclusive descriptions as I doubt Altergott meant EN was naked except for his backpack and sunglasses just each might have emphasized what they considered relevant parts of his clothing.

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?

Altergott - who didn't own the cell phone in question - gave an approximation per the complaint, while Krisztian who owns the phone can pull up her texts to give the police the exact time. Also the clothing descriptions aren't mutually exclusive and I highly doubt Altergott is saying EN arrived naked except for his backpack and sunglasses, just he didn't mention EN wearing jeans, t-shirt, etc.

 

[Miss Muffet]

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?

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..

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

Links to those articles would be helpful.

 

[sonjay]

They're not mutually exclusive descriptions as I doubt Altergott meant EN was naked except for his backpack and sunglasses just each might have emphasized what they considered relevant parts of his clothing.

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?

Altergott - who didn't own the cell phone in question - gave an approximation per the complaint, while Krisztian who owns the phone can pull up her texts to give the police the exact time. Also the clothing descriptions aren't mutually exclusive and I highly doubt Altergott is saying EN arrived naked except for his backpack and sunglasses, just he didn't mention EN wearing jeans, t-shirt, etc.

Well, but was EN wearing his backpack (Altergott) or carrying it (Krisztian)?

If mutually exclusive statements by A & K mean that they must be referring to two separate events happening at two separate times, then we have to conclude to EN arrived at their apartment twice, once wearing the backpack and once carrying it.

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

It's to be expected that their statements don't match exactly. People don't have perfect memories. EN's story included seeing the Buick and riding in the silver car. He told them this story some time after 3am -- it's not at all surprising that one of his friends might remember him saying he was riding in the car and saw the Buick, and that one might remember him saying that he saw the Buick and then got in the car.

And it is really really a stretch to conclude that such a minor and expected difference in their recollection is evidence that the Buick left and came back and is therefore evidence that there were driving lessons and road rage.

Like I said, you can torture those statements into that meaning, if you're dead set on believing there were driving lessons and road rage. But that's a far cry from anything A or K said as being anything close to a statement that the Buick left and came back.

 

[al66pine]

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

You are most welcome.
As I said, I may have overlooked some adv. & disadv. (or gotten them backazzzzzzzzzward). Anyone?

I posted about GSR, b/c I was carsick from riding in circles (wink)all over the streets,
from park & middle school and home, etc. I can't keep all those routes straight.

 

[PaperDoll]

Going that was is possible, but the security camera video shows the Audi going West on Cherry River and turning South on Carmel Peak shortly before the shooting at the M's house. It also shows the car driving slowly using a spotlight on the Cherry River houses, as if it's searching for where the buick or its occupants are hiding. That can indicate they didn't know the buick was the M's and why they didn't take a direct route to M's house.

Then the route you mentioned means the Audi too the same way the Buick took because from Villa Monterey to Cherry River you would be going West on Cherry River towards Carmel Peak. If they were coming from Cimarron to Cherry River then they would be going East on Cherry River to Carmel Peak.

First off the video I saw, it was hard to tell how fast the car was going, it did look like it was getting ready to make a right turn before it got cut off (if this is the same video we are talking about). I'm also wondering why BM would say he saw the lights coming from the North and I would think, but not sure, that the police would have him show them which way he saw the Audi coming in to their cul-de-sac.

 

[sonjay]

Links to those articles would be helpful.

Here's one that I still have open in my tabs:
http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/...as-shooting-court/_jV9b32rDEClYg3j6KyFYA.cspx

 

[Miss Muffet]

Ok, I drove through the neighborhood once again, :blushing: and if you correct and that CCTV camera is correct along with the being the Audi, then the Audi would have taken Alta to Cimarron, then made a right on Cherry River (going East) then right on Carmel Peak (going South) then right on Mt. Shasta. It would have been quicker and easier had the Audi taken Alta to Carmel Peak, which is the street before Cimarron.

I have visions of an adorable martini drinking paperdoll mermaid sleuthing around the neighborhood!

Can you share your opinion about the park? Does it look dangerous? Have you been in the area on weekends or after school and after work hours when people are usually home? Do you see people there? Or is it desolate like people are avoiding it because they feel it's dangerous?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

There's a big difference between being "in the park" and "in the car."

Yes, it's approximately 600 feet away from the closest area of the park to where BM says they saw the Buick.

 

[Miss Muffet]

You are most welcome.
As I said, I may have overlooked some adv. & disadv. (or gotten them backazzzzzzzzzward). Anyone?

I posted about GSR, b/c I was carsick from riding in circles (wink)all over the streets,
from park & middle school and home, etc. I can't keep all those routes straight.

Thank you for sharing what you know about GSR! I avoided the driving route discussion for a long time too! I couldn't wrap my mind around it from reading it. Then I finally decided to try to make sense of it. I've spent so much time looking at that map, I feel I know the neighborhood better than my own now. LOL

 

[sonjay]

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..

No, it doesn't indicate that at all. This was a conversation that took place sometime in the wee hours of the morning. It's natural to assume that neither A nor K was paying particular attention to exactly where EN said he was when he saw the green car. That wouldn't seem like a particularly important detail. What was obviously important, at the time, was that he shot somebody! I'm actually surprised that there aren't more differences between their accounts of what EN said.

It's remotely possible that the two different locations cited by A & K refer to two different sightings of the Buick. But it's by no means self-evident, and it's entirely possible -- even likely -- that those are just the routine, expected "remembering things slightly differently" that every police officer expects from witnesses who saw the same event or heard the same conversation.

Especially since NEITHER A nor K said that EN ever said the Buick left and came back. If even one of them had said this, I would give it credence. But neither of them said this.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, it's approximately 600 feet away from the closest area of the park to where BM says they saw the Buick.

Yepper. Plus, the only way to be in the park with a car is the park's parking lot. It's located in the northwestern side of the park, and you can't see the school from there.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Here's one that I still have open in my tabs:
http://www.mynews3.com/mostpopular/...as-shooting-court/_jV9b32rDEClYg3j6KyFYA.cspx

Yes, you're correct. Thank you.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, it's approximately 600 feet away from the closest area of the park to where BM says they saw the Buick.

Please fill me in.... where is this "it" you refer to that's 600 feet from the park? Why do you think the silver car was there? Or EN? You think the car was there, or you think EN was there on foot? Or the Buick was there?

 

[BellaVita]

There is circumstantial evidence that the Buick was doing something at the school, disappeared for an indeterminate period of time and then re-appeared at the school some time later based on what EN is alleged to have said. It doesn't have to be driving lesson/road rage for the Buick to have had an encounter with the silver car, returned home and then went to the school. A disappearing re-appearing car does not limit the reasons for this happening to only two reasons.

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

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Well, but was EN wearing his backpack (Altergott) or carrying it (Krisztian)?

You're assuming they both answered the door simultaneously rather than one person answering the door and seeing EN wearing his backpack then at some indeterminate time thereafter elsewhere in the apartment the other person first saw EN carrying his backpack getting ready to put it down or any such other scenario involving non-simultaneously viewing of the arrival of EN.

Like I said, you can torture those statements into that meaning, if you're dead set on believing there were driving lessons and road rage. But that's a far cry from anything A or K said as being anything close to a statement that the Buick left and came back.

I don't know why are attributing to me that I'm dead-set on there were driving lessons and road rage when over and over again I've said otherwise and for days have been saying that something along the lines of your drug conspiracy could have happened. I've said something may have happened on Cimarron and I've also said a drug related conspiracy might be behind this as I've been distinctly not dead-set on any one theory.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Especially since NEITHER A nor K said that EN ever said the Buick left and came back.

EN's witness statements don't exist in a vacuum in that warrant. You are purposely disregarding the M's statements. That resulted in you being convinced EN's "those kids" statement eliminated TM from being in the car even though the M's stated she was in the car. And your disregard for viewing the warrant statements as a whole is resulting in you believing the buick went to the school and stayed there for almost an hour.

I'm sure there is some sort of lie hiding something, but I don't think the lie eliminates the portions of the warrant regarding people's movements since information about people's movements compiles the majority of the warrant. I'm sure it can be easily verified that the buick was on various streets and not sitting at the school the entire time via security cameras located throughout the area. I believe the movements occurred and the lie is something else---perhaps to justify the movements or perhaps to protect who was truly present during the movements.

 

[PaperDoll]

I have visions of an adorable martini drinking paperdoll mermaid sleuthing around the neighborhood!

Can you share your opinion about the park? Does it look dangerous? Have you been in the area on weekends or after school and after work hours when people are usually home? Do you see people there? Or is it desolate like people are avoiding it because they feel it's dangerous?

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.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Please fill me in.... where is this "it" you refer to that's 600 feet from the park? Why do you think the silver car was there? Or EN? You think the car was there, or you think EN was there on foot? Or the Buick was there?

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.