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

[sonjay]

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.

They probably knew from the hospital within hours of the shooting that TM was struck by one round. At the hospital, medical personnel would have examined her, and if they found one wound, they can pretty confidently state that she was struck by one round. They probably also did x-rays to determine if any bullets or bullet fragments were lodged inside her.

I don't see any reason to think that TM might have been struck by more than one bullet.

 

[sonjay]

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!

Yes, but..... Lots and lots of changes, lots and lots of additional details added. She somehow "forgot" to mention that night -- she forgot to mention for a whole week, in fact! -- that the silver car didn't follow her and her mom home and shoot her mom right then and there. She somehow "forgot" that she and her mom escaped, went home, and her mom told BM to get his gun and go out hunting with mom. It just doesn't add up. This isn't just a matter of remembering little details later. This is a matter of deliberately omitting huge, crucial pieces of information.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Since many people are reading this thread and some have shared they can't make sense of the driving routes and timelines, I'll bet the prosecution and the defense are going to have a damn hard time getting a jury to understand the scenarios each side presents. I'll bet the jurors' eyes will be glassing over when each side discusses this stuff.

 

[PaperDoll]

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.

When you have more than 1 person involved in something you may get different versions of the story. RM was supposedly out of town and didn't witness any of this, right and is hearing it from his kids so maybe each of them saw it a bit differently. I'm still under the impression that TM and KM were out driving, then BM and TM went out looking, but that is just my opinion. We are only hearing the Meyers version and very little of EN's version. In fact EN's version and the Meyers version in the police report are pretty consistent give or take a few small wordings.

 

[sonjay]

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.

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.

I'm sorry. How on earth do you get that interpretation from that sentence? RM was saying that the whole purpose of them leaving here that night was because "they" knew where we lived. What other possible interpretation could there be?

 

[sonjay]

When you have more than 1 person involved in something you may get different versions of the story. RM was supposedly out of town and didn't witness any of this, right and is hearing it from his kids so maybe each of them saw it a bit differently. I'm still under the impression that TM and KM were out driving, then BM and TM went out looking, but that is just my opinion. We are only hearing the Meyers version and very little of EN's version. In fact EN's version and the Meyers version in the police report are pretty consistent give or take a few small wordings.

EN's version and BM's version in the police report are pretty consistent with each other.

EN said absolutely nothing (according to his friends) that indicate a road rage incident, a horn honking, the Audi cutting off the Buick and spinning to a stop in front of the Buick, the driver getting out and threatening to "come back for you and your daughter," then the Buick escaping and coming back again. If all that had happened, it seems very odd that EN wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[sonjay]

I'm sorry. How on earth do you get that interpretation from that sentence? RM was saying that the whole purpose of them leaving here that night was because "they" knew where we lived. What other possible interpretation could there be?

Ah, I've got you. I think you read it this way -- note the commas in red:

The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because now, you know, they knew where we lived.
​

You think RM is essentially saying that "now they knew where we lived."

You need to watch the press conference. Here's a link:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152802324678802

I'll add dashes to show how RM actually said it in the press conference:

The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because — now you know — they knew where we lived.
​

He threw in the "now you know" as an aside to the press corps that now they (the press) know that EN knew where the Meyerses lived. There's a clear and definite pause before and after "now you know." When you watch it, it's very clear what he meant.

ETA: this line is at 1:57 in the press conference video at the link.

ETA2:
At 3:16 in the press conference video at the link:
"They knew -- mommy knew who this was, one of these people. She just didn't want it to come back here. She tried to get him to go somewhere else. Cause she was afraid."

 

[sonjay]

At 3:16 in the press conference video at the link:
"They knew -- mommy knew who this was, one of these people. She just didn't want it to come back here. She tried to get him to go somewhere else. Cause she was afraid."

"mommy knew who this was"

That is clear and unmistakable. Mommy couldn't have learned later from social media or from rumors in the neighborhood. The ONLY possible interpretation of that line is that TM knew who it was that very night, when she left the house with her armed son.

 

[sonjay]

"They knew -- mommy knew who this was, one of these people."

I just noticed -- RM starts out by saying "they knew" and then corrects himself to "mommy knew."

Innocent slip of the tongue? Or not?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Ah, I've got you. I think you read it this way -- note the commas in red:

The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because now, you know, they knew where we lived.
​

You think RM is essentially saying that "now they knew where we lived."

You need to watch the press conference. Here's a link:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152802324678802"

Yes, you're right on the break in speech. It still seems like RM is saying they had to go out that night because multiple people - not just RM - learned where the Meyers lived that night. It sounds like RM is saying with his vigilante comment that the Meyers had previous opportunities to go after some people, but only got armed and went after them that night instead of previously because they knew those people finally figured out where they lived. The Meyers felt they had to go out that night either because they saw RM in the car and went back to get armed or they had already been chasing the car because they saw it drive by their street. I'm not getting from what was said that EN was the main target, but that EN was a target because he had aligned himself with the other Meyers targets.

 

[sonjay]

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.

I've been thinking about that. Because after an event like this, it is certainly true that people often do remember more details as time goes by.

But I keep coming face to face with that huge discrepancy: TM & KM getting home with the silver car following them, and BM running out of the house to return fire, vs. TM & KM escaping and getting home safely, and TM & BM going to out to hunt down the silver car.

KM had to -- absolutely had to -- be lying about that. There's no way she simply "forgot" or "misremembered" something like that.

So to believe that the other details came back to her later, we would have to believe that she was thinking clearly enough that night to lie to cover up for her brother's involvement (or whatever she was covering up for), but also that she was so shaken that she didn't remember until 5 days later that she set off the road rager by honking the horn, and she didn't remember until 8 days later that the Audi driver threatened to "come back for you and your daughter."

I don't buy what she's selling. I just don't.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

<modsnip> There was some ongoing feud between the Meyers and some other people that for some reason escalated that night (like perhaps with whoever was driving the Buick on Durango having a confrontation with their old nemesis or seeing EN with them so these other people now had a way to find out where the Meyers lived). The Meyers that night planned on gunning down - or at least threatening - some people including perhaps EN. With the press conference it sounds like RM himself is saying BM attempted to engage in a premeditated act of murder or at least assault with a deadly weapon, just that it backfired.

 

[sonjay]

<modsnip> There was some ongoing feud between the Meyers and some other people that for some reason escalated that night (like perhaps with whoever was driving the Buick on Durango having a confrontation with their old nemesis). The Meyers that night planned on gunning down - or at least threatening - some people including perhaps EN. With the press conference it sounds like RM himself is saying BM attempted to engage in a premeditated act of murder or at least assault with a deadly weapon, just that it backfired.

That's pretty much what I think. BM set out with his gun that night with nefarious intent.

IMO, the purpose wasn't to defend his mom & sister against some random road rager. He had a specific target in mind, and he went hunting for that target. I think that target was EN. Because EN saw the Buick and thought "those kids" were "after" him.

I'm still not sure who was in the car with him. TM? KM? One of the other brothers? I think TM had to be -- I think we're all pretty sure that she was the person who was shot "at the car."

 

[Gin]

Since many people are reading this thread and some have shared they can't make sense of the driving routes and timelines, I'll bet the prosecution and the defense are going to have a damn hard time getting a jury to understand the scenarios each side presents. I'll bet the jurors' eyes will be glassing over when each side discusses this stuff.

Well, the jurors live in LV. It's a busy town, but it's not that big. They may not know that neighborhood, but they would know others that are similar. A few nice sized charts and and several diagrams and I think they'll be OK.
You make a great point, though that it's not straightforward. And I think either side would be nuts to try to only talk the jurors through the specifics of the routes.

 

[PaperDoll]

EN's version and BM's version in the police report are pretty consistent with each other.

EN said absolutely nothing (according to his friends) that indicate a road rage incident, a horn honking, the Audi cutting off the Buick and spinning to a stop in front of the Buick, the driver getting out and threatening to "come back for you and your daughter," then the Buick escaping and coming back again. If all that had happened, it seems very odd that EN wouldn't have mentioned it.

You are correct but EN did say to his friends that "they were chasing each other". When BM spotted the Audi, the Audi took off with Buick following, shots were fired, then Buick heads home and Audi follows and more shots were fired, but IMO before all that, EN spotted the Buick in the parking lot while driving in the Audi, IIRC. So why would the Buick be in the parking lot the 1st time EN spotted it?

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, you're right on the break in speech. It still seems like RM is saying they had to go out that night because multiple people - not just RM - learned where the Meyers lived that night. It sounds like RM is saying with his vigilante comment that the Meyers had previous opportunities to go after some people, but only got armed and went after them that night instead of previously because they knew those people finally figured out where they lived. The Meyers felt they had to go out that night either because they saw RM in the car and went back to get armed or they had already been chasing the car because they saw it drive by their street. I'm not getting from what was said that EN was the main target, but that EN was a target because he had aligned himself with the other Meyers targets.

Are you going by written text of what he said or listening to him actual speak at the news conference?

When listening to him speak, the breaks in speech are here:

"The whole purpose of them leaving here that night, is because, now you know, they knew where we lived."

There's a link to the news conference in my signature line.

But I agree it sounds like he was saying earlier in the speech that his son had opportunities to be a vigilante prior to the night TM was shot. Hell, it doesn't sound like it. That is what he's saying. That indicates there was an ongoing conflict that was a serious threat, not only to the M's but to E too.

EN had been telling his two friends that someone was threatening to kill his mother and her baby. The female EN witness shared that in the past tense at the start of her statement where she's stating how long she's known EN and her relationship with him. She wasn't saying EN said someone said they were going to kill EN's mother and baby that night.

All of this helps clarify the guy in the Audi saying he was coming back for TM and KM, and it validates to me there really was an encounter with the Audi guy and he said that.

It really could have been very similar to how it's stated in the warrant. TM and KM might have been out minding their own business. Threats going between whatever conflict of threats between BM and EN had went to a new level when someone threatened EN's mother and her baby, causing EN to freak out when he saw the buick.

All of the past history and EN freaking out instigated Audi dude to threaten TM and KM. After all, if you threaten EN's mother and baby, you deserve to have your mother and sister threatened back. TM and KM rushed home saying "he threatened us!" would cause BM to finally decide to be a vigilante since his mother and sister are now being threatened too, instead of just him being threatened/doing threatening up until that night.

This also explains why it took 20 minutes at the M's house when TM and KM returned to the house.

 

[sonjay]

You are correct but EN did say to his friends that "they were chasing each other". When BM spotted the Audi, the Audi took off with Buick following, shots were fired, then Buick heads home and Audi follows and more shots were fired, but IMO before all that, EN spotted the Buick in the parking lot while driving in the Audi, IIRC. So why would the Buick be in the parking lot the 1st time EN spotted it?

Mmmmm.....

Altergott said that EN said the the green car followed the Audi, then the Audi followed the green car. Very very similar to what BM described.

Krisztian said that EN said the green car began following him and they started chasing each other.

I think that Krisztian simply didn't remember the details of who chased who in what order, she just remembered that they each chased the other at some point.

We're still not clear on exactly where the Buick was when EN first saw it. And we're still not positive that the Buick didn't make two trips to the school. (Just because I reject the road rage/driving lesson story doesn't mean I've completely rejected the possibility that the Buick made two trips to that area that night.)

From the same conversation in the same apartment at the same time, one of EN's friends said he was in the Audi and saw the Buick in the school parking lot, and the other friend said he saw it "driving around the school" and called his Audi-driving friend.

Now, this apparent discrepancy could mean that EN saw the Buick in two different locations at two different times. It could also mean that the two friends simply remember the details differently. They weren't police officers interrogating him and writing down exactly what he said; they were simply two friends who were awakened at 3 or 3:30 am by EN, who came over and told them about getting in a car chase and a shootout.

Another interpretation that just occurred to me. "Driving around the school" could mean "driving around the school parking lot." People aren't precise, no matter how much we wish they were. EN might not have been precise when he told his friends; his friends might not have been precise when they talked to police. I want to believe that police were precise when they put this into the affidavit, but we can't be certain of that either. Then we would only have the discrepancy of whether or not EN was in the Audi when he first saw the Buick, or he saw the Buick then called the Audi friend.

Frankly, I think it's quite a stretch to take that a minor difference in detail from the accounts by the two friends who heard the same story at the same time (at 3 in the morning!) and interpret that to mean that there were two separate trips by the Buick, plus driving lessons and road rage. Theoretically possible? Well, sure. Likely? Not in my opinion. I think it's more likely that the two friends simply remembered some of the details of that conversation slightly differently.

Everyone who has ever had a conversation with a married couple recounting some incident knows that they're constantly correcting each other. "No, he didn't say that, Fred! He said this." "No, we went to have drinks first, then we ran out of gas." "No, Uncle Johnny didn't get drunk at Suzy's wedding; that was at Grandma's funeral." People misremember things. The two friends were wakened at 3am and were told about a car chase and a shootout. They had no idea that the exact location of the Buick might matter later, or that it might matter whether EN was in the car when he spotted the Buick or spotted the Buick then called the Audi. They didn't pull out their notebooks and write down the details as EN was recounting the incident. 5 days later, they recounted to police, as best they could, what EN had told them.

I've said before that I'm surprised there aren't more differences between the accounts by the two friends.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Another thought regarding past history between them.

I just had an idea of why the conflict could have escalated to someone threatening EN's mother and her baby. EN's mother clearly is upset with EN's lifestyle if we believe he was kicked out his house due to his drug life. Maybe EN's mother stuck her nose into things. Maybe she threatened to call the police or something. Or maybe she found what EN was selling and flushed it down the toilet and EN owed money to whoever supplies him. Maybe something like that is why EN's mother and baby were threatened.

I think we're onto something regarding the past history and the motive between the two groups.

I don't think that necessarily means half the warrant isn't relevant and BM set out at the very beginning of the night with intent to kill. I think it all blew up while TM and KM were out in the car. Their going home and telling BM what happened made him go vigilante and grab his gun to leave. Maybe TM was saying, "No, call the police!" to BM, but she went with him when he insisted on leaving. Or perhaps TM didn't get into the car with BM knowing he was planning to be a vigilante. Maybe TM got into the car with one intention and BM got into the car with another intention.

MY ENTIRE POST IS MY THEORY, OPINION, ETC., based on drug rumors reported in the media, media reports of statements made by RM, and the warrant.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

But I agree it sounds like he was saying earlier in the speech that his son had opportunities to be a vigilante prior to the night TM was shot. Hell, it doesn't sound like it. That is what he's saying. That indicates there was an ongoing conflict that was a serious threat, not only to the M's but to E too.

Just going off of what RM has said and what we know the end result of that night was, it sounds like BM could be charged with Second Degree Murder (via Felony Murder) because the nationally confessed intent of BM (albeit from RM rather than coming from BM himself) was at a minimum a premeditated Assault With A Deadly Weapon, which that lead to the death of TM. I say Second Degree Felony Murder rather than First Degree Felony Murder as the Nevada Supreme Court has specifically ruled that although there are only very specific crimes that qualify by statute for Felony First Degree, violent felonies in general are allowed for Second Degree Felony Murder. The Meyers may have engaged in Attempted Murder, just I think Assault With A Deadly Weapon as a the predicate felony would be a far easier case to prove. BM still could not be found guilty of Felony Murder as BM's defense could argue that the Audi chasing the Buick back to the house was a separate act and not foreseeable to be able to attach those events together...I do think it was foreseeable that someone could have ended up dead, but this defense could work if the charge was brought against BM.

No matter what the Audi driver said - unless it was threatening a friend or relative who lived elsewhere, which the Meyers don't claim - there was absolutely no legitimate reason to get in the Buick armed and go hunting. If this was truly about self-defense, they could have barricaded their house and hunkered down if they didn't want to call the police, but the Meyers were the aggressors even if they received a death threat from someone...and I'm basing this on what the Meyers have said. Of the way everyone acted, EN doesn't seem like the must culpable in TM's death even with him firing the fatal shot and engaging in at least Voluntary Manslaughter.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Another thought regarding past history between them.

I just had an idea of why the conflict could have escalated to someone threatening EN's mother and her baby. EN's mother clearly is upset with EN's lifestyle if we believe he was kicked out his house due to his drug life. Maybe EN's mother stuck her nose into things. Maybe she threatened to call the police or something. Or maybe she found what EN was selling and flushed it down the toilet and EN owed money to whoever supplies him. Maybe something like that is why EN's mother and baby were threatened.

I think we're onto something regarding the past history and the motive between the two groups.

I don't think that necessarily means half the warrant isn't relevant and BM set out at the very beginning of the night with intent to kill. I think it all blew up while TM and KM were out in the car. Their going home and telling BM what happened made him go vigilante and grab his gun to leave. Maybe TM was saying, "No, call the police!" to BM, but she went with him when he insisted on leaving. Or perhaps TM didn't get into the car with BM knowing he was planning to be a vigilante. Maybe TM got into the car with one intention and BM got into the car with another intention.

EN was kicked out temporarily from his mom's that night rather than permanently, which one of the EN's neighbors said EN would repeatedly get temporarily banned from her home and we know EN was at her home on 2/13 because the neighbor talked to EN and later he was arrested there. I think there was the ongoing feud between Meyers and a separate Audi crew, not that the Meyers had threatened EN previously. I'm guessing that EN mistook the Buick for someone else's car given how it was at night possibly some distance away, EN could have been intoxicated to some degree plus if EN has poor vision I don't think he'd wear glasses to correct it, which could all go to him having a false panic. I don't see a reason for EN to voluntarily place himself in the neighborhood right by those who have a death threat out on him. I think it was just very unfortunate set of circumstances that it turned out EN's possibly new friends ended up being arch-enemies of the Meyers, which EN just got caught in the middle of.