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

[SpanishInquisition]

Did Tom call Metro's homicide himself? Since EN was arrested, it seems LE didn't think his information was relevant. I'm not doubting what he claims is true, but I'd like more than his word. Tom has 466 comments, but his activity is private. What are the odds a prolific Las Vegas Review-Journal commenter just happens to have information about this particular case? He has the same name as an attorney in Vegas. A criminal attorney. Possibly hired by EN's Condrad Claus to help with investigations? Are his other hidden comments similar about other criminal cases? Is this a way he finds witnesses? Come on, before we jump on Tom's bandwagon, let's research this Tom dude! Consider the source, and all that.

If this is the lawyer, he'd have to be highly confident in his source. Random commenters on message boards don't necessarily know or care about being sued for defamation, but someone who has passed the bar would be more circumspect about making serious claims, which us here merely speculate while his statement is far more definitive stating outright that the Meyers are lying and BM committed a serious crime. It doesn't mean anyone of what Pitaro says is true, just Pitaro really has to believe it.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, the shooting would have been quick. I'm not sure one way or the other if they're talking about the same bullet or a different bullet.

The LVMPD press release says "the victim was struck by one round."

Source: http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf

The arrest affidavit says they recovered one .45 bullet that tested positive for human blood.

Since we haven't heard anything about anyone else receiving even a graze wound, the only logical conclusion is that the recovered .45 bullet with human blood on it is the one that hit TM, and the only one that hit TM.

We could go spinning some fanciful theory about EN smearing human blood on bullets before shooting them, but I'm going with the conclusion that one bullet -- and only one bullet -- struck TM, and that's the bullet the police recovered.

 

[sonjay]

I feel RM is making superfluous statements trying to obscure the real point of the ever changing stories. One sign of a bad liar is constantly adding small details to explain all your other mistruths. The M's have also claimed they learned of EN's involvement through social media and that's why they went to his home. But still no reporting of this to police by the M's. Maybe police monitored social media too. I still think the M's knew EN was in the car at the time of the shooting. IMO.

Yep, so very true!

That too is part of why I don't believe the driving lessons/road rage story. Details were constantly being added and changed.

Originally, the story didn't have the horn honking. It was either a minor accident or a near-collision, and a verbal exchange.

A couple of days later, the detail was added that the road rage car passed them, then cut in front of them and hit the brakes.

The horn honking detail was added a little later, on the 17th -- the same day it was revealed that the Buick went home to drop off KM and pick up armed BM to go hunting for the road rager.

"I'm gonna come back and get you and your daughter" is a detail that was added on Feb. 20 - 8 days after the shooting!

The driving lesson story itself had little details continually being added. First it was just a very vague "driving lessons in the school parking lot." Then later it was parallel parking. Then later, lane changing and merging were added. Then later on came the part about leaving the school and driving around in the residential area north of the school. Then a bit later came the part about them driving southward on Villa Monterey and switching seats there.

The driving lesson/road rage story never rang true from the very beginning. It sounded hinky and forced and made up from the very beginning.

 

[sonjay]

Where the M's current friends with EN very recently? I got the impression from RM's statements that EN was an ex-friend of the M's children well into the past, and that EN was no longer a part of the M's lives. All of the "help" RM said TM did for EN seemed to be past tense to me.

Sadly, TM was dead by that point. So yes, it was all past tense.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM. I have problems embracing the sheer number of coincidences in such a scenario.

Especially since we have reason to believe that EN would have recognized the green Buick as belonging to the Meyerses, and we have reason to believe that the Meyerses knew that EN hung around the park doing business.

I could buy a two-trip theory if it didn't contain so many coincidences; e.g., they meet up with EN at the park for a deal, things go sour, they leave to go get BM's gun. When they come back, EN knows they're after him, he calls the Audi driver, and then car chases and shootings happen.

Yes, I have problems with both one-trip and two-trip under any of the current scenarios. At this point I'm not confident to heavily weight that EN knew it was the Meyers who were in the Buick nor that the Meyers knew it was EN from the very beginning, just it's something I'm not sure about.

 

[sonjay]

Yes, I have problems with both one-trip and two-trip under any of the current scenarios. At this point I'm not confident to heavily weight that EN knew it was the Meyers who were in the Buick nor that the Meyers knew it was EN from the very beginning, just it's something I'm not sure about.

But the Meyerses have said they knew it was EN. See BellaVita's post above (#901). See the other statements such as "We knew this boy, we knew how bad he was, he knew where we lived." That statement was RM's justification for why they left home with a gun that night.

Either they were lying then, when they claimed they didn't know who it was, or they're lying now, when they claim they did.

As for what EN knew: When he saw the Buick, his thought was that "those kids" were after him. He seems to have thought he recognized the Buick and thought he knew who it belonged to. Maybe he knows someone else who owns a similar car, and that's who he thought it was. Personally, I doubt it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I too believe they're making up a story to cover something up.

It appears that they really didn't want anyone to know that they knew EN and knew he was the shooter. Based on that, I tend to believe that they're covering up something that had to do with EN. I can't prove it, but it feels logical to me. Let's compare:

Non-EN related: The Meyerses were up to something nefarious that night -- something that had nothing to do with EN. Somehow, they ended up in a car chase and shootout with EN. Subsequently, they didn't tell police for a solid week that EN was the shooter and that they knew him. They only admitted they knew EN on the day he was arrested.

EN related: The Meyerses were up to something nefarious that night involving EN. This results in a car chase and shootout with EN. Subsequently, they didn't tell police for a solid week that EN was the shooter and that they knew him. They only admitted they knew EN on the day he was arrested.

In the non-EN related scenario, there's no logical reason whatsoever for the Meyerses to keep secret their relationship with EN.

In the EN related scenario, there's a reason to keep that secret. They don't want police to know that they instigated the whole thing.

I think the Meyers knew the silver car driver and whoever this driver is would be the reason to also be silent about EN seeing how EN had some affiliation with the driver. The Meyers wouldn't necessarily know who all EN's friends are and we don't know the length of time EN had been affiliated with the driver as it could have been recent before the Meyers found out that EN had something to do with the driver. The silver car driver could be engaged in some sort of illicit business in conflict with the Meyers and it wouldn't necessarily be a business EN would be automatically part of, like a chop shop or something else unrelated to drugs but still illegal.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, if it took 5-10 minutes to drive the alleged BM route, that would mean that at least 20 minutes were spent at home.

When I set out to do the timeline last night, I was expecting to discover it was one long event.

But that extra 20 minutes doesn't jive with one event. That leads me to question WHEN in the 30 minutes did the 20 minutes occur?

And that has me thinking it was one long event that ended with TM getting shot at the house while they were back to get BM after the first shooting. It's possible that the return home to get BM didn't happen until after the first shooting scene. And that's when TM and KM sped home to get BM. While they were home getting BM and the time it takes for him to get dressed and everything, the Audi was sowly driving around looking for them with a spotlight. It could have shown up at Mt. Shasta when TM and BM were outside just as they were about to get into the car to leave with the gun. This also leaves plenty of time for a lot of discussion between the M's that night.

My beleiving that it was one event with TM and KM in the car and the 20 minutes was spent at home after the first shooting doesn't mean I believe TM and KM were out innocently having driving lessons the entire time 1-1/2 hours they were out in the buick. I have some motives that allow for TM and KM to be the ones in the car at the time of the first shooting without them being innocent "driving lesson" riders.

I'd think the school in particular would have cameras showing footage, so I hope LE has info for the school times.

I'm sure they have verified the car location at various points throughout the evening at the school or at other camera locations on these streets. That's why I'm not willing to throw out any of the driving around stated in the warrant.

I want to know the time of the first shooting. That will answer if the 20 minutes was spent at the house getting BM earlier or if it was spent at the house at the end of the 30 minutes and they were shot while they were just leaving to go back out.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Quote from linked article:

Letting the public know his family knew Nowsch earlier “would’ve hurt what these good Metro detectives were trying to accomplish,” Robert Meyers Sr. said.

“There was things that couldn’t be said. Things that had to be said certain ways to get what we had done today, because there is more than one guy” involved in the shooting.

I know this statement has been often discussed but I think some things bear repeating. Because a lot of posters feel that the M's had no idea that EN was in the Audi. If they didn't know he was in the Audi, then the M's would not have that piece of info to withhold. I have no quarrel with the idea that the public doesn't need to know everything, but why not tell police? I may not be explaining myself clearly, but what I'm trying to point out is that the M's KNEW that EN was RELEVANT to the investigation. The M's can't lie their way out of a paper bag. Shades of the Anthony family, for sure. IMO.

The claim by the Meyers is that the thought it was EN before the arrest, but only after the shooting:
"Robert Meyers said that on Feb. 15, after social media accounts suggested Nowsch might have been involved in the shooting, he and two of his sons walked a block to the modest home where Nowsch lived with his single mother and her 1-month-old baby."
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/28189549/defense-police-knew-suspect-in-vegas-mom-killing-smoked-pot
The Meyers are not claiming they knew EN had anything to do with the silver car the night of the shooting, but only days later making the connection.

 

[BellaVita]

Yes, I have problems with both one-trip and two-trip under any of the current scenarios. At this point I'm not confident to heavily weight that EN knew it was the Meyers who were in the Buick nor that the Meyers knew it was EN from the very beginning, just it's something I'm not sure about.

Yes, it is almost impossible to be 100% about anything. BUT, if a person doesn't believe there was driving lessons, what was the Buick doing in the school lot right next to where EN ran his business? I keep going back to EN saying he "got those kids". He had been telling people that someone was threatening him/his family. Despite any possible paranoia brought on by drug use, I think he had a concrete idea of who the people out to get him were. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you, if you know what I mean. He didn't just decide the night of the shooting that something was going to go down. It was brewing before then. IMO.

 

[Miss Muffet]

If this is the lawyer, he'd have to be highly confident in his source. Random commenters on message boards don't necessarily know or care about being sued for defamation, but someone who has passed the bar would be more circumspect about making serious claims, which us here merely speculate while his statement is far more definitive stating outright that the Meyers are lying and BM committed a serious crime. It doesn't mean anyone of what Pitaro says is true, just Pitaro really has to believe it.

Maybe he's the Audi driver's lawyer. That makes sense.

 

[BellaVita]

The claim by the Meyers is that the thought it was EN before the arrest, but only after the shooting:
"Robert Meyers said that on Feb. 15, after social media accounts suggested Nowsch might have been involved in the shooting, he and two of his sons walked a block to the modest home where Nowsch lived with his single mother and her 1-month-old baby."
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/28189549/defense-police-knew-suspect-in-vegas-mom-killing-smoked-pot
The Meyers are not claiming they knew EN had anything to do with the silver car the night of the shooting, but only days later making the connection.

You are right. They are not claiming they knew that night. They didn't want to claim that. But RM says that they had to withhold info that they knew EN. The only way they would have something to withhold is if they knew something. There are lots of neighbors, associates, etc. but there was nothing to withhold about THEM because the M,s had nothing to hold back. They weren't relevant to that night. EN WAS RELEVANT. RM is just a terrible liar weaving a very tangled web. IMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The LVMPD press release says "the victim was struck by one round."

Source: http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf

The arrest affidavit says they recovered one .45 bullet that tested positive for human blood.

Since we haven't heard anything about anyone else receiving even a graze wound, the only logical conclusion is that the recovered .45 bullet with human blood on it is the one that hit TM, and the only one that hit TM.

We could go spinning some fanciful theory about EN smearing human blood on bullets before shooting them, but I'm going with the conclusion that one bullet -- and only one bullet -- struck TM, and that's the bullet the police recovered.

I hadn't seen that press release before, but it was sent out within hours of the shooting. In the week since then from then to the complaint we don't know one way or the other if they recovered another bullet on scene that struck TM someplace else in addition to there being a bullet in TM's head or that it was the same bullet. The statement from the complaint is that this bullet was something CSI found on-scene during their investigation rather than that it was a bullet recovered from TM at the hospital. It doesn't take any conspiracies to figure there might have been a bullet in TM's head and also a subsequent bullet recovered by CSI sometime later during the course of their investigation. It never crossed my mind to even consider that if there was a second bullet that there was some conspiracy behind and I don't think anyone else has said that either, so I don't know where that is coming from.

 

[PaperDoll]

Yep, so very true!

That too is part of why I don't believe the driving lessons/road rage story. Details were constantly being added and changed.

Originally, the story didn't have the horn honking. It was either a minor accident or a near-collision, and a verbal exchange.

A couple of days later, the detail was added that the road rage car passed them, then cut in front of them and hit the brakes.

The horn honking detail was added a little later, on the 17th -- the same day it was revealed that the Buick went home to drop off KM and pick up armed BM to go hunting for the road rager.

"I'm gonna come back and get you and your daughter" is a detail that was added on Feb. 20 - 8 days after the shooting!

The driving lesson story itself had little details continually being added. First it was just a very vague "driving lessons in the school parking lot." Then later it was parallel parking. Then later, lane changing and merging were added. Then later on came the part about leaving the school and driving around in the residential area north of the school. Then a bit later came the part about them driving southward on Villa Monterey and switching seats there.

The driving lesson/road rage story never rang true from the very beginning. It sounded hinky and forced and made up from the very beginning.

I think sometimes stories change in a situation like this because maybe a person doesn't remember every detail due to shock. TM was killed right in front of her own house and her son found her lying in blood. Lots of emotions running high so when a police report is taken, I'm sure it's hard to remember everything at that time. Then days pass and maybe you start to remember things so it gets added to the statement. I know I can't think very clearly if I'm upset about something, especially if someone I loved was just killed. MOO!

 

[sonjay]

The claim by the Meyers is that the thought it was EN before the arrest, but only after the shooting:
"Robert Meyers said that on Feb. 15, after social media accounts suggested Nowsch might have been involved in the shooting, he and two of his sons walked a block to the modest home where Nowsch lived with his single mother and her 1-month-old baby."
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/story/28189549/defense-police-knew-suspect-in-vegas-mom-killing-smoked-pot
The Meyers are not claiming they knew EN had anything to do with the silver car the night of the shooting, but only days later making the connection.

Let's look at what RM said in his press conference:

We know this boy. I couldn't tell you this before. He knew where I live. We knew how bad he was but we didn't know he was this bad. That he's gotten to this point. And his friends. But this kid -- the animal my wife was going to search -- my wife spent countless hours at that park consoling this boy. And he's probably watching this right now and he's gotta feel bad, because she was really good to him. She fed him, she gave him money, she told him to pull his pants up and to be a man. Oh, more times than I can count. But none of you knew this before because it woulda hurt what these great metro detectives were trying to accomplish.

Things that have been said about my son. There was opportunity chance for things to be vigilante. My son never took it to that. The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because now you know they knew where we lived.
​

It seems clear to me that RM is saying that they (his family) knew, that night, that they were going out to look for EN. Silver car or no silver car, they knew they were setting out to look for EN. And that means they knew EN was the shooter. That very night, they knew that they had been in a car chase and a shootout with EN, yet they only admitted it after police arrested EN.

 

[BellaVita]

I think sometimes stories change in a situation like this because maybe a person doesn't remember every detail due to shock. TM was killed right in front of her own house and her son found her lying in blood. Lots of emotions running high so when a police report is taken, I'm sure it's hard to remember everything at that time. Then days pass and maybe you start to remember things so it gets added to the statement. I know I can't think very clearly if I'm upset about something, especially if someone I loved was just killed. MOO!

I can go with things changing a little here or there. But when you go from BM running out the house with his gun to BM and TM riding around looking for the "road rager", and ending back at home, there is way more to it than simple "misremembering". IMO.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I think sometimes stories change in a situation like this because maybe a person doesn't remember every detail due to shock. TM was killed right in front of her own house and her son found her lying in blood. Lots of emotions running high so when a police report is taken, I'm sure it's hard to remember everything at that time. Then days pass and maybe you start to remember things so it gets added to the statement. I know I can't think very clearly if I'm upset about something, especially if someone I loved was just killed. MOO!

Exactly. In addition to being upset about TM being shot, BM and/or KM were involved in a shootout. They're answering questions after the adrenaline from the event, the shock of their mother being shot, and worrying if she's going to survive at the hospital.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yes, it is almost impossible to be 100% about anything. BUT, if a person doesn't believe there was driving lessons, what was the Buick doing in the school lot right next to where EN ran his business? I keep going back to EN saying he "got those kids". He had been telling people that someone was threatening him/his family. Despite any possible paranoia brought on by drug use, I think he had a concrete idea of who the people out to get him were. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you, if you know what I mean. He didn't just decide the night of the shooting that something was going to go down. It was brewing before then. IMO.

There can be many reasons for going into an empty parking lot at night that don't even have to be illegal. If KM was in the car alone, she could have been going to school for a nighttime tryst with someone her parents forbade her from seeing.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I can go with things changing a little here or there. But when you go from BM running out the house with his gun to BM and TM riding around looking for the "road rager", and ending back at home, there is way more to it than simple "misremembering". IMO.

Absolutely. But I think their first story of BM not being present at the first shooting hints at why they're lying. I think BM was mostly telling the truth from his perspective when he was questioned by police immediately after the shooting, and the subsequent story changes are to cover up what happened when TM and KM were out in the car.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Let's look at what RM said in his press conference:

Things that have been said about my son. There was opportunity chance for things to be vigilante. My son never took it to that. The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because now you know they knew where we lived.
​

It seems clear to me that RM is saying that they (his family) knew, that night, that they were going out to look for EN. Silver car or no silver car, they knew they were setting out to look for EN. And that means they knew EN was the shooter. That very night, they knew that they had been in a car chase and a shootout with EN, yet they only admitted it after police arrested EN.

Actually that quote is counter to that interpretation as EN had known where they lived for years, which I think it is uncontested that the Meyers had known EN for years rather than just met him that evening. The quote seems to be saying someone else just that night figured out where he lived, so that's why they went out after them.