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

[SpanishInquisition]

Here's the link about EN carrying a pistol around the neighborhood. Also I just noticed that the witness on EN carrying his gun around the neighborhood said that she spoke to EN the next day presumably in the neighborhood:

Melissa Mour, who lives next door to Nowsch, told the Associated Press she talked with him about the gunfire and screeching tires the day after.

"He was like, `Whoever did this is going to pay for it. I've know that family a long time,'" Mour said. "The way he spoke that day, it was like he liked them. It was like he was upset at whoever did it."

She also told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he often walked around the neighborhood with a gun.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/20/vegas-road-rage-killing-suspect/23769607/

To me that seems pretty brazen, but it also looks like EN must have known he wasn't the target to the point where he'd still be openly living practically across the street from the Meyers. Given that it isn't outside the realm of possibility (however improbable) that EN didn't lie to the police and that he really didn't have anything to do with this. It is not impossible that the police interviewed affiliates of the Audi driver who pinned it on EN, but I don't think that's likely. It seems strange to me that EN would be out apparently walking the street the next day in practically shouting distance from the Meyers' without fear of being gunned down when just the previous day before any shooting took place he would panic and want to flee at mere sight of the Meyers' car and had just been chased with a gun by the Meyers.

 

[Miss Muffet]

* I don't think the Meyers were out to shoot anyone, but were out to intimidate where their intimidation attempt completely backfired on them. I'm not sure that EN was their intended target since according to neighbors EN was known for openly carrying his pistol around the neighborhood, so it might have only been coincidental that EN was in the Audi. EN might have just been paranoid about the car where the Meyers didn't even know he was at the park, but they were definitely looking for the Audi when he and his pistol just happened to be there. Giving EN's known pistol-packing and the apparent Meyers surprise at being fired upon by the Audi makes me think EN wasn't the target, but the Meyers figured it out only after the shooting began that EN was involved.

I want to quickly elaborate my thoughts on this before I go off to ponder it while I accomplish something IRL.

Maybe they didn't start out the evening to search for EN or Audi. Maybe they were just joyriding and making deliveries. Maybe it was just a minor turf war or some other dispute the were having with EN---someone they didn't consider dangerous to them because they were friends for years. When they encountered the Audi, they knew **** was stepping up a scary notch so they went home to get a gun because they're not going to let anyone threaten them and tell them where they can do business.

Again, I'm thinking about all of these kids I know who went down a wrong path and their interactions with each other. They constantly have fallouts and disagreements but end up resolving them and coexisting and sometimes becoming friends again. While we don't have any intense organized drug activity where I live, I know things can quickly change in areas when someone comes in and tries to throw their weight around to push other people out.

 

[Miss Muffet]

ITA the audi driver is the key.

JMO, Lots of speculation on my part here-If LE does know all the players (and I think they do) they have pretty good reason to sit tight for now. Maybe they don't particularly care that the M's fear (or resent or are angry) at audi car driver. I would think LE and the Prosecution are having to work hard to figure out the bottom line truth, and present a case in spite of it. When both sides of the investigation appear to be sort of merged and murky, that might be difficult. (And frustrating.)

That's a possibility too. I have a feeling the Audi driver is a bigger fish. Since he probably left the state or even the country, they're not in a rush to pick him up. In the meantime, they can take their time establishing a solid case against him.

 

[miimaa]

Speculation on my part but I do not believe there was a driving lesson that night. I think the daughter may have been out joyriding in mom's car and came home when she got herself into a dangerous situation. Woke the brother up to help her. (EN telling his friends he 'got those kids'.......) TM got in the middle. Like I said - SPECULATION on my part but with all the lies from the Meyers and the timing I wholly do not buy mother and daughter were out doing driving lessons. I think also the dad RM doesn't even know what actually happened.

 

[sonjay]

you're choosing to excluding huge pieces without providing logical reasons why the pieces should be excluded aside from the Meyerses are liars.

You can't accept some statements form the warrant and disregard others. You have no facts they didn't go home for the gun. I don't know why you're stuck on them having the gun starting out. Their hiding the identity of the Audi driver indicates there would be significant fear that caused them to go home for their gun.

Well, yes I can. As long as I'm doing it logically and not doing it arbitrarily and capriciously.

My barebones narrative of the events of the night of Feb. 12th is based only on things that we either know for certain are true or that we are nearly certain are true -- i.e., facts that we know to be true (e.g., police recovered .45 shell casings at shooting scene #1, and .45 and 9mm casings at the cul de sac), and statements made by witnesses that are supported by other witnesses or physical evidence -- e.g., Brandon's description of the car chase is very very similar to the car chase described by EN's two friends. It's highly unlikely that EN's friends and Brandon would all describe so similarly a car chase that didn't take place, so I included that chase.

The statements by the two friends I give a lot of credibility to. Everything they said that can be verified to be true or false has proven to be true. Nothing that they said has been proven to be false. Their two accounts differ only in minor details, which is to be expected. Therefore, I give a lot of credibility to the statements by the friends. But even so, I didn't include all of the details from the friends.

OTOH, many things said by the Meyerses have turned out to be false. Therefore, I did not include in the narrative anything said by the Meyerses that isn't supported by some sort of corroborating evidence. I'm not saying, in that narrative, that any of it is true or untrue. I'm simply saying that it can't be included in the narrative of known facts, because it's not known, it's only claimed by the Meyerses, who are known to have lied about the events of that evening.

Please notice that I also left things out of the narrative that I believe to be true -- e.g., that Brandon was in the car. There is no objective evidence that Brandon was in the car, so I left that out. There is no objective evidence whether either Tammy or KM was in the car or not in the car, so I didn't include anything about their whereabouts except for Tammy getting shot in the cul de sac. There is no objective evidence about whether any Meyers initially went to the park looking for EN, so I didn't include that. That narrative of known facts is exactly that -- a narrative of known facts, not speculation or theory, not even my own pet theory.

The narrative is not intended to be, nor is it presented as, something that incorporates everything that happened that night. It is intended to be something that incorporates only those things known to be true.

And again, I ask: Is there any objective evidence that they went home to get a gun?

You have no facts they didn't go home for the gun.

No, I don't. And you have no facts that they did. When there are no facts to support something, you don't include that something in your narrative of known facts.

I'm not arguing, at this point, whether they did or didn't go home for the gun. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That fact that they say they did is not even close to proof. I'm pointing out that there is no objective evidence or supporting evidence, whatsoever, that they did go home for the gun. And I'm asking why, in light of that lack of evidence, you're so certain that they did.

So again, I ask: Is there any objective evidence that they went home to get a gun? If so, I'll include it in the narrative of known facts. If not, it continues to be theory and speculation, not fact.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Speculation on my part but I do not believe there was a driving lesson that night. I think the daughter may have been out joyriding in mom's car and came home when she got herself into a dangerous situation. Woke the brother up to help her. (EN telling his friends he 'got those kids'.......) TM got in the middle. Like I said - SPECULATION on my part but with all the lies from the Meyers and the timing I wholly do not buy mother and daughter were out doing driving lessons. I think also the dad RM doesn't even know what actually happened.

I don't think anyone believes there was a driving lesson.

It really could be that simple as your scenario, couldn't it? It pretty much explains everything from statements on both sides with the only lie being mom was in the car. I've always felt KM was out by herself in the beginning. What happened with the Audi is crucial. I'll bet KM knew the Audi driver too. EN and Audi driver probably thought it was BM until Audi driver stopped and threatened KM. When he realized it wasn't BM, he wasn't interested and went to pick up EN and give him a ride to wherever he wanted to go. Then KM gets BM and the green buick re-appears with BM brandishing a gun. Buick driver tries to get away, but he can't shake BM. So he stops in the middle of the road so they can defend themselves and EN fires shots. Maybe the reason they pursued the Buick is because they knew BM knew where they lived!

 

[Miss Muffet]

Sonja, I'm not challenging the new narrative you presented. It was a great exercise. It helped me realize the first Audi encounter was a critical point in the events. I was just pointing out that you previously believed there was no encounter whatsoever with the Audi prior to EN being picked up. I think there was an encounter, but it wasn't road rage.

It's downright a quandary to expect me to prove the Buick went home when you don't have to prove it didn't. Neither of us have proof either way. We have no choice but to go by the statements.

I think we're getting a more logical turn of events by acknowledging the Audi encounter occurred and the car returned home, than to merely think the Meyerses started out that night brandishing a gun because there's no proof of that either.

We're all speculating as to why BM had a gun. When he had the gun is part of all of our speculations.

 

[jayme1133]

Lots to ponder this morning!! You guys are the best!

I have a question about the relationships....WHY did RM and BM bang on EN front door??

AND....why is LE so eager to go to GJ if there are bigger fish?

Any thoughts?

 

[sonjay]

Speculation on my part but I do not believe there was a driving lesson that night. I think the daughter may have been out joyriding in mom's car and came home when she got herself into a dangerous situation. Woke the brother up to help her. (EN telling his friends he 'got those kids'.......) TM got in the middle. Like I said - SPECULATION on my part but with all the lies from the Meyers and the timing I wholly do not buy mother and daughter were out doing driving lessons. I think also the dad RM doesn't even know what actually happened.

It would be nice to have such a nice simple explanation. But I see some holes in this theory.

First, what kind of dangerous situation did KM get herself into, and how? And how dangerous could it have been if she drove herself home safely?

Second, if it was minor enough that it ended when she drove herself home safely, why did she feel it necessary to get big brother and his gun to go back out again? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just go to bed? Or, if it was such a dangerous situation that she couldn't just go to bed, whey didn't she and her brother call the police, rather than arm up and go looking for trouble so late at night?

Third, when the thing ended with TM lying there shot in the head, what on earth kind of situation had KM been involved in, that they felt it necessary or justified to lie to police, thereby leaving their mother's shooter running around the neighborhood free?

I don't think anyone believes there was a driving lesson.

It really could be that simple as your scenario, couldn't it? It pretty much explains everything from statements on both sides with the only lie being mom was in the car. I've always felt KM was out by herself in the beginning. What happened with the Audi is crucial. I'll bet KM knew the Audi driver too. EN and Audi driver probably thought it was BM until Audi driver stopped and threatened KM. When he realized it wasn't BM, he wasn't interested and went to pick up EN and give him a ride to wherever he wanted to go. Then KM gets BM and the green buick re-appears with BM brandishing a gun. Buick driver tries to get away, but he can't shake BM. So he stops in the middle of the road so they can defend themselves and EN fires shots. Maybe the reason they pursued the Buick is because they knew BM knew where they lived!

No, if miimaa's theory were true, that means there were many lies. Driving lessons. Speed limit. Honking horn. Road rage. Accident, sideswiped, skidding out, verbal threats. Sketch of non-existant person. Claiming that TM was in car, omitting fact that BM was in car. Claiming that TM took KM home and told her to get BM and his gun. Omitting any mention of shooting scene #1. Omitting any knowledge that it was EN and they knew him.

Lots and lots of lies if this is what happened. And why? Because KM was joyriding without a license and got herself in a minor conflict that she was able to leave safely and go home? That's not worth all those lies.

 

[sonjay]

Sonja, I'm not challenging the new narrative you presented. It was a great exercise. It helped me realize the first Audi encounter was a critical point in the events. I was just pointing out that you previously believed there was no encounter whatsoever with the Audi prior to EN being picked up. I think there was an encounter, but it wasn't road rage.

It's downright a quandary to expect me to prove the Buick went home when you don't have to prove it didn't. Neither of us have proof either way. We have no choice but to go by the statements.

I think we're getting a more logical turn of events by acknowledging the Audi encounter occurred and the car returned home, than to merely think the Meyerses started out that night brandishing a gun because there's no proof of that either.

We're all speculating as to why BM had a gun. When he had the gun is part of all of our speculations.

BBM. Well, of course, neither of us has to prove anything.

I'm just saying that if you want the trip home to be incorporated into the narrative of known facts, you have to provide some evidence that it happened. Evidence beyond a Meyer saying it happened, because that's not evidence.

And I'm saying that the fact that it's not included in the narrative of known facts is not the same thing as me stating as fact that it didn't happen. My theory that it didn't happen is not a known fact, either. But only things that are known facts can go in the narrative of known facts.

Bottom line is, unless there's evidence that it happened, it has to go in the column headed "theory and speculation," not in the column headed "known facts."

 

[sonjay]

Lots to ponder this morning!! You guys are the best!

I have a question about the relationships....WHY did RM and BM bang on EN front door??

AND....why is LE so eager to go to GJ if there are bigger fish?

Any thoughts?

If there are bigger fish, a GJ is exactly what they'd do. Because GJs are secret. That way, they can get an indictment against EN without tipping their hand in their investigation of the bigger fish. And also, getting an indictment of EN would give them more bargaining power to use as leverage against EN -- i.e., tell us what you know about Mr. Big and we'll drop the charges or agree to a plea deal or what-have-you.

Oh, and this:
I have a question about the relationships....WHY did RM and BM bang on EN front door??

Was BM over at EN's banging on the door, too? I must have missed that.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I have a question about the relationships....WHY did RM and BM bang on EN front door??

I believe they still didn't view him as a terrible threat since he was a close friend of the family at some time in the past. As RM said, they knew he went down a bad road, but didn't realize it was that bad. I can imagine that based on the kids who spent a significant part of their teen years practically living at my house prior to going down a bad road. I'm not afraid of them. I feel they respect me because of how close we were in the past.

I don't think the Meyerses realized EN was involved that night until a few days later when they went knocking on his door. When RM is saying TM and BM left the house that night because "they" knew where the Meyerses lived, he was talking about the Audi driver knowing where they lived. The Audi driver is the only person seen at the encounter because EN hadn't been picked up yet. As a result, EN wasn't even part of the equation in their minds when the Buick returned home. It's possible they didn't see EN in the gun battle with cars flying everywhere. Then they heard rumors a few days later, and they went to EN's house because they're trying to get answers to who was in the car.

 

[Miss Muffet]

If there are bigger fish, a GJ is exactly what they'd do. Because GJs are secret. That way, they can get an indictment against EN without tipping their hand in their investigation of the bigger fish. And also, getting an indictment of EN would give them more bargaining power to use as leverage against EN -- i.e., tell us what you know about Mr. Big and we'll drop the charges or agree to a plea deal or what-have-you.

I agree completely.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Bottom line is, unless there's evidence that it happened, it has to go in the column headed "theory and speculation," not in the column headed "known facts."

OMG. I'm not used to WS political correctness. I can't believe we typed so many loooong posts back and forth for me to understand you were simply taking issue with my using the word "fact" when I didn't even type the word "fact" with any passion or meaning. Now I understand that you don't believe it to be a "fact" they had the gun with them from the start, but you think you're posts were more accurate simply because you didn't use the word "fact."

I assure you that I have been appropriately straightened out on when I should and shouldn't use the word "fact."

 

[sonjay]

Sonja, I'm not challenging the new narrative you presented. It was a great exercise. It helped me realize the first Audi encounter was a critical point in the events. I was just pointing out that you previously believed there was no encounter whatsoever with the Audi prior to EN being picked up. I think there was an encounter, but it wasn't road rage.

It's downright a quandary to expect me to prove the Buick went home when you don't have to prove it didn't. Neither of us have proof either way. We have no choice but to go by the statements.

I think we're getting a more logical turn of events by acknowledging the Audi encounter occurred and the car returned home, than to merely think the Meyerses started out that night brandishing a gun because there's no proof of that either.

We're all speculating as to why BM had a gun. When he had the gun is part of all of our speculations.

Right, there's no proof of that either. And if you'll notice, I did not include that in my narrative of known facts -- because that narrative only includes things that are known facts.

I still believe BM initially set out in the Meyers car with a gun that night. But I can't include that in the narrative of known facts, because it's not a known fact.

That's the same reason I didn't include your belief that there was a trip home to get the gun -- because it's not a known fact.

Nothing gets included in the narrative of known facts unless there's evidence that it happened. Not speculation, not theory, not claims by known liars, but actual evidence.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I have a question about the relationships....WHY did RM and BM bang on EN front door??

To me that's further proof that the Meyers weren't gunning for EN with the intent to go to the park/school and intimidate him. It was only later that they heard a rumor he was involved, so that's why they went. This really points to it all being about the Audi with EN being a bystander to whatever the root cause of the confrontation was.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Right, there's no proof of that either. And if you'll notice, I did not include that in my narrative of known facts -- because that narrative only includes things that are known facts.

I still believe BM initially set out in the Meyers car with a gun that night. But I can't include that in the narrative of known facts, because it's not a known fact.

That's the same reason I didn't include your belief that there was a trip home to get the gun -- because it's not a known fact.

Nothing gets included in the narrative of known facts unless there's evidence that it happened. Not speculation, not theory, not claims by known liars, but actual evidence.

Please see my immediate previous post about "facts." We can officially drop this now.

 

[sonjay]

OMG. I'm not used to WS political correctness. I can't believe we typed so many loooong posts back and forth for me to understand you were simply taking issue with my using the word "fact" when I didn't even type the word "fact" with any passion or meaning. Now I understand that you don't believe it to be a "fact" they had the gun with them from the start, but you think you're posts were more accurate simply because you didn't use the word "fact."

I assure you that I have been appropriately straightened out on when I should and shouldn't use the word "fact."

Yes well, that's what I've been trying to pound home here! That's why I made my "narrative of known facts"!

We've all got lots of theories. Those theories are based on facts as well as on presumptions, assumptions, logic, personal experience and intuition.

My "narrative of known facts" is intended to winnow out all of the "theory" part and include only the "fact" part. So that we can see what we actually have when we're looking only at known facts.

 

[sonjay]

Hah! Cross-posting. Never mind. Still friends?

 

[Miss Muffet]

To me that's further proof that the Meyers weren't gunning for EN with the intent to go to the park/school and intimidate him. It was only later that they heard a rumor he was involved, so that's why they went. This really points to it all being about the Audi with EN being a bystander to whatever the root cause of the confrontation was.

I totally agree. I think that's why EN's version makes so much sense too. Since we have no idea who the Audi driver is, we can only speculate, but I think the Audi driver is a big deal and that's why the Meyerses reacted the way they did. It doesn't make what they did right. It just really explains WHY nothing has made any sense. We can thank Sonja for taking the time to type that new timeline that helped us see the importance of the Audi driver.