Even more suspicious made up stuff from the M's. I guess they could now claim that there were really 4 people in the car-the 2 black males, spikey haired white driver and that in the confusion, they didn't notice EN. Just keep making it up as you go along, I guess.
GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #5
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #194- Latest: girlhasnoname
-
UK - Lin, 45, & Megan Russell, 6, Chillenden, Kent, 9 July 1996- Latest: Westchester76
- Status
Even more suspicious made up stuff from the M's. I guess they could now claim that there were really 4 people in the car-the 2 black males, spikey haired white driver and that in the confusion, they didn't notice EN. Just keep making it up as you go along, I guess.
I like this except I don't think KM was in the park. I do like the idea of all 3 being in the car for the chase. No driving lessons. The only road rage was a result of whatever personal issues had been brewing for a while. Not because of the Buick driving slow. Whatever really happened started at the school/park area. IMO.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
Yep, that seems to be the MO of the Meyers family. Just make it up as you go along. If you have to make up details later that are in direct conflict with earlier stories, you just ignore that and plow right on ahead.
I find it revealing that the Las Vegas police haven't asked local residents to be on the lookout for the 2 black males or the spiky-haired dude. The police aren't looking for them because they don't exist.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
Okay, important question:
The two black males. Is that a lie that was almost immediately discarded? Or is it a truth that was almost immediately hushed up?
ETA: Or a partial truth that was almost immediately hushed up -- i.e., one black male in the Audi?
Here is my thought. SUPPOSEDLY, the spikey haired guy was driving. EN was in the passenger seat shooting. The 2 black males would be in the back seat. How would the M's even know they were there? They didn't even claim to recognize that their buddy, EN, was in the car. KM claims the only interaction they had was with spikey haired guy. EN was not driving. If a black guy WAS driving the Audi, then the M's were VERY invested at that point in hiding major details. IMO.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
Two black dudes in the back seat of a car with tinted windows at night..... If that part was true, then the Meyerses had to have had a pretty up-close-and-personal encounter with the Audi. That's not something they would be able to see at a distance during a car chase.
Even if one of the black males was driving, if there were two black males, one had to be in the back seat, and same thing ..... Meyerses had to have been pretty close to the Audi to see the one in the back.
Or maybe the the two black males were driving and riding shotgun, and EN was in the rear passenger-side seat?
But no.... EN told his friends that he did the shooting. In the warrant, BM says that the front passenger did the shooting at both crime scenes. So if EN is telling the truth about that, and BM is telling the truth about which seat the shooting came from, EN had to have been in the front seat. If there were two black males, at least one of them had to be in the back seat, and possibly both of them were in the back.
(That's assuming that three grown men didn't ride 3 across in the front seat. Men usually don't do that, but it's possible.)
ETA: Or maybe not possible. The Audi is a compact car. Probably not room for 3 across.
LOL, you guys are so funny, trying to make sense out of nonsense.
If you think we feel confused, you should try to explain the sequence of events (or the sequence of stories about the events) to someone who hasn't follow this case and see their reactions. (That's how I found the Castelan interview with Bob: trying to find a way to explain how we went from point A to point 9.846.)
If you think we feel confused, you should try to explain the sequence of events (or the sequence of stories about the events) to someone who hasn't follow this case and see their reactions. (That's how I found the Castelan interview with Bob: trying to find a way to explain how we went from point A to point 9.846.)
SpanishInquisition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 5,885
Another thing EN's defense may do - particularly if the prosecution plays up the EN-is-a-druggy-gangbanger angle - is to say that EN falsely confessed either because he was deluded due to drugs or to brag, when he was only in the car but not the shooter. If there's four people in the Buick, the prosecution case looks mighty strange with the claim that 44 year old mother Tammy Meyers was going to single-handedly take on a car full dangerous gang members with the police expressly to stay away from her showdown. That just seems totally fantastical where even if she was the reincarnation of Milunka Savic, she wouldn't go out there 4 young guys against 1 mother in her 40s with the police kept away.
SpanishInquisition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 5,885
This is going to have to be explained at trial to a jury under the same circumstances, which we're wondering how that is going to go. If the DA says EN was the one who made the threat and was described as 6' 180 pounds with spiky hair, no way they could get a 1st Degree Murder conviction off that, while if it's something else it will be difficult getting a conviction for 1st Degree Murder when the defense could successfully argue that is it was Manslaughter (the defense can file a motion to prevent the DA from offering lesser charges) or outright self-defense where they'd raise reasonable doubt.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
Yes, that's occurred to me, too. I was thinking bragging more likely than delusional. I'm pretty sure that A. & K. are being truthful when they say that EN told them he did the shooting -- but we don't know that EN was being truthful in the telling.
OTOH, the video of the other friend -- the black kid with his face blurred out -- shows that friend talking about how EN was upset when he said "I think I killed someone's mom." That doesn't sound like bragging. I wonder else, if anything, EN told that friend about what happened that night?
If the Meyerses had elected to tell police the night of the shooting the identity and address of the shooter, LE might have able to find EN soon enough to do a GSR test on him.
Unfortunately, the Meyerses elected to eliminate that possibility by keeping secret the identify of the shooter.
The prosecution might be able to put EN in the car, and might be able to prove that EN's gun fired the fatal round. But with reports from the key witnesses that there were four people in that car, can the prosecution put the gun in EN's hand when it was fired? It's not sufficient for the prosecution to show "could have been" or "probably" ... they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
JMO-Well, I could see it possibly happening if her sense of fear, good judgment and reason were "dulled".
But I guess it would depend on what the tox screen showed.
I agree with you, I don't see that angle as being a plus for the prosecution, though.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
I can't speak for anyone else, but if my senses and reasoning ability were dulled to the extent that I thought it was a good idea to go out hunting for 4 enraged young men, late at night, with or without my armed son .... well, if my senses were dulled that much, I would be physically incapable of getting in a car and driving it, much less engaging in high-speed chases.
SpanishInquisition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 5,885
If you're fearful you turn your home into a fortress (which actually the Meyer's home looks like it would be difficult to storm) and/or call LE. Both myself personally and a former relative of mine have had weapons pulled on us and it's not like either of us after we were safe went back and hunted for danger. There was also a family friend who thought he was in danger and it was considered that he'd temporarily live on remote property of ours as the fear response was to hide and otherwise keep safe rather than actively hunt. You draw a gun and go hunting as a fear response to someone breaking into your house, but other than that you don't go hunt an alleged threat down unless there's something else going on - if it's something to get in your car over, you let the police cars go do it. Drugs can explain this, but I don't think under the 'reasonable person' standard that getting armed and hunting someone while expressly not calling 911 would be considered a valid fear response.
Not that I think either of them were right, but I think EN would have a slightly better claim to 'reasonable person' actions insomuch as his actions were more instantaneous rather than deliberate from the safety of home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
I don't think a composite LV juror would say a reasonable person would arrive home after threat and not stay there and call the police, but it may at least give a juror pause that someone in their car who was already armed by their home may drive by a nearby street a few hundred feet from their family to be sure that the threat was gone and that they weren't going to be gunned down as soon as they parked the car in the driveway as the Audi couldn't have driven to EN's home without fear of a drive-by as they got out of the car unless they knew the Buick wasn't nearby.
EDIT: The more I think about it, the more EN's action could be considered defensive given the proximity to his family's home. Being in a car you are semi-defended, which is way better than being out on the street with zero cover. The Audi crew should have called 911, but short of that getting out of the car and leaving yourself without cover would put you in an extremely vulnerable position. To see that you have enough time to get yourself into a protected home, you need to know you have the time to do this. Leaving a home to get in a car is very different from being in a car to see if you can safely enter your home. Not to say that anyone was thinking this, but EN's defense could say he had to check the neighborhood to be sure the Buick was far enough way that he could go inside his home safely.
JMO-The reaction can vary. Some might just want to sleep, others might feel more alive, more powerful, more amazing. (To their detriment...)
Their good judgment goes out the window, and instead a sort of unreasonable entitlement can replace it for awhile. They feel competent, more powerful than they should. Not a normal state of affairs. A little or a lot grandiose.
I can't prove this, but my suspicions are: Everyone had an excellent time at the party. Lots of adult beverages? Other things? At some point that evening, something triggered some unreasonable rage between the M's and EN.
So what do the family members do? They go grab a gun from granny's drawers and head out rather than stay home and call 911.They are obviously invested in either scaring the daylights out of someone, score settling, or both. And I think most everyone involved in going on the hunt had to be feeling pretty grandiose to actually act on such a stupid plan.
And it's the score settling that I vote for. EN may not have been following M's orders, or may (in M's eyes) have pulled a fast one with product or money. Don't know.
And just for the record, I don't think that the family's reaction is reasonable or explainable. This is going to be one bizarre trial, if it goes that far.
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
Certainly I don't disagree that judgment can fly out the window when people are enjoying themselves a little too much with adult beverages or recreational pharmaceuticals. Notice that I very specifically referred to myself only when I wrote I can't speak for anyone else. I enjoy a couple of beers, but if I make the mistake of drinking a third one, it puts me under the table. But yeah, I know people who can drink a whole case and still function.
I'd bet that we all agree that, whatever the reason, it was poor judgment for TM to take her armed son that night and go out looking for EN. They were safe at home. They should have stayed at home.
I'm not convinced they had any reason to call 911 that night before setting out. Whatever their beef with EN, it may have started much earlier -- hours previously, days previously. Or it may have started that very night and they may indeed have had reason to be concerned about EN that night.
Based only on the little bit of evidence we have available to us, I haven't seen any evidence that they had anything to fear from EN that night. But there's no doubt in my mind that EN had something to fear from them.
So much very basic and likely relevant information is missing here. (Why no reporters have asked these questions, I don't know.)
- Who was at/in the Meyers residence at the time of the shooting?
- Who resided at the Mt. Shasta house immediately before the shooting?
- Why wasn't Tammy with Bob in California? Did she plan on going on Friday or Saturday? Did she usually work with him at festivals? (There is a photo of her apparently working the register on at least one occasion. KM and one of the boys are also in the photo. Did the whole family usually work the festivals together in the beginning?)
- Did Bob's partner work the festival without him? (No, IMO. The trailer was at the Meyers home that weekend, IIRC.)
- Why the big media push? Bob called the TV station en route from California the same night as the shooting. He held numerous press conferences during the 2 days she was on life support, as well as afterwards. After the ComeFundMe debacle, why continue relaying unreliable and irreconcilable details from the kids to the media?
- What happened to Susan Ramos? How is she related to Bob & Tammy? ("A cousin," but is she his cousin or Tammy's?)
- What "social media" posts led Bob to believe EN did it? He drove GMA/ABC reporters all around the neighborhood and the road rage scenes in his truck, texted with Nancy Grace, gave exclusive interviews in coffeeshops, etc. Surely he would share screenshots of these posts with at least one of these reporters, right? We know that uncertainty doesn't usually stop him from sharing.
- Why the willingness to throw this beloved mother and wife under the bus? (I'm pretty sure the man who pushed the "it was a drug deal gone bad" angle with media is a close friend of Bob's.)
- Why were the descriptions of the shooter and other passengers in the now-mythical silver car so screwed up? Was it intentional? If so, whose intent was it, LVMPD's or someone else's?
- WHY ALL THE EVER-CHANGING FACTS AND STORIES? If the kids misled Dad (or if Dad misunderstood the kids) once, especially when it first hapoened, people could accept that it was unintentional and innocent. But after 3 or 4 (or 10 or 12) times, it becomes more difficult to believe they weren't intentionally trying to mislead everyone, including law enforcement, IMO.
I don't doubt they all loved Tammy but that only makes all of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies even more inexplicable.
btw - I'm willing to entertain answers, explanations, excuses from anyone. (And perhaps an enterprising reporter will ask some of these questions of those who have the answers?!)
- Who was at/in the Meyers residence at the time of the shooting?
- Who resided at the Mt. Shasta house immediately before the shooting?
- Why wasn't Tammy with Bob in California? Did she plan on going on Friday or Saturday? Did she usually work with him at festivals? (There is a photo of her apparently working the register on at least one occasion. KM and one of the boys are also in the photo. Did the whole family usually work the festivals together in the beginning?)
- Did Bob's partner work the festival without him? (No, IMO. The trailer was at the Meyers home that weekend, IIRC.)
- Why the big media push? Bob called the TV station en route from California the same night as the shooting. He held numerous press conferences during the 2 days she was on life support, as well as afterwards. After the ComeFundMe debacle, why continue relaying unreliable and irreconcilable details from the kids to the media?
- What happened to Susan Ramos? How is she related to Bob & Tammy? ("A cousin," but is she his cousin or Tammy's?)
- What "social media" posts led Bob to believe EN did it? He drove GMA/ABC reporters all around the neighborhood and the road rage scenes in his truck, texted with Nancy Grace, gave exclusive interviews in coffeeshops, etc. Surely he would share screenshots of these posts with at least one of these reporters, right? We know that uncertainty doesn't usually stop him from sharing.
- Why the willingness to throw this beloved mother and wife under the bus? (I'm pretty sure the man who pushed the "it was a drug deal gone bad" angle with media is a close friend of Bob's.)
- Why were the descriptions of the shooter and other passengers in the now-mythical silver car so screwed up? Was it intentional? If so, whose intent was it, LVMPD's or someone else's?
- WHY ALL THE EVER-CHANGING FACTS AND STORIES? If the kids misled Dad (or if Dad misunderstood the kids) once, especially when it first hapoened, people could accept that it was unintentional and innocent. But after 3 or 4 (or 10 or 12) times, it becomes more difficult to believe they weren't intentionally trying to mislead everyone, including law enforcement, IMO.
I don't doubt they all loved Tammy but that only makes all of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies even more inexplicable.
btw - I'm willing to entertain answers, explanations, excuses from anyone. (And perhaps an enterprising reporter will ask some of these questions of those who have the answers?!)
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
sonjay
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 3,608
- Reaction score
- 117
I suspect we'll be well into the trial before we find out answers to these important questions.
EN's arraignment is tomorrow. We should get one question answered: Will he get out on bail? If he's turned loose back into that neighborhood, a few houses away from the Meyerses, until and during the trial, things might get ugly out there.
newone
2nd mouse gets the cheese
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,613
- Reaction score
- 44
bbm: don't think he has the $$ for that JMO but I can see just for sake of ''principle'' it might be requested
SpanishInquisition
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2015
- Messages
- 2,903
- Reaction score
- 5,885
From what I can tell his mom has some money, which she might be paying for the Claus brothers, if they're not doing it for free. EN's mom owns her place and it looks like she has a good amount of equity that could be used to post bail. I just don't know that it would be safe for him to be out even if he was let without much trouble.
- Status