GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #8

[al66pine]

From what I gathered out of the interview (Meyers lawyer),she had a prescription of 60 pills and took only 1 in the last 45 days since itwas filled. Then the lawyer goes on to say there were 45/44 pills left.That tells me she took 16 pills but doesn't saywhen those were taken, nor does he mention any date it was filled, not thatthis means a thing to me because I do not believe her pain meds caused her todo what she did.In fact if she were ona Valium/muscle relaxant type drug, I would think it would relax her not makeher more aggressive.I do understanddrugs can have a adverse effect as well, but for the most part I think thedrugs do as they should.All drugs haveside effects and everyone is different and drugs react differently to somepeople.. However, with all that said, TM is the victim here and for some reason people are more interested in her drug history than they are EN's drug history, after all he is the one who shot and killed her, not the other way around.

ETA: Sorry about the typing of this post, sentences running together :crazy: typed it out then copied to past in word because I was interpreted..

bbm

Maybe TM's Rx did not affect her actions that night. IDK.
All speculation about whether anyone involved that night took drugs and if drugs affected judgment.
Unexpected actions on part of more than one person.
A sad result, with or without drugs of any kind in the equation. RIP Tammy.
JM2cts.

 

[Midge Montana]

For drugs to show up in your system, it depends on a few factors. One, of course, being when you last took the drug. But it also depends on how much/how long you have been taking it.
I am on a drug (Norco) for chronic migraine, that is a step-down from Oxy. My pain contract with my physician states that I may be tested and subjected to a pill count at any given time to be sure the drug is in my system, in other words, to make sure I am actually taking the meds and not selling them.
I agree with the statement prior posted that if you are only taking one every 60 days (which again, I find that math very skewed), you shouldn't be prescribed them. However, so many factors play into that. First of all, many doctors are lax in prescribing them. The DEA is seriously cracking down on over prescribing doctors, but if the patient doesn't state that they are getting better and not needing them often, the doctor will likely keep writing the scripts. Also, she may have been weaning herself off of them. We just don't know.
The information we have been given does nothing to help figure out when she had last taken, or the frequency of her taking them. And truthfully, there isn't reason to give the public any specifics except for the fact that the lawyer gave misleading statements, opening the door to curiosity.
I still stand by my OPINION that she shouldn't have been driving under the influence. Also, I am almost happy to read that drugs may have contributed to her poor decisions, because for the life of me I have never been able to understand the actions taken that night.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Exactly, Midge. So many factors to say whether or not drugs, legally prescribed or illegally supplemented play any role in this.

The lawyer's choice of words is curious.

 

[PaperDoll]

I agree that TM could have been weaning herself off the drugs and I also agree that it's none of the publics business what she has been prescribed. We don't know how much drugs were in her system that night. I still don't believe the drugs contributed to her unexplained actions. Like someone said a few posts back, if alcohol was involved, and lots of it, then I can see some behavior changes. If pain meds give someone a "high", then I would think that high would be a pleasant one, not a bad one, JMO!!! If she took valium/muscle relaxant, she would be feeling relaxed IMO...

I still don't believe, unless I see more evidence, that TM is a drug abuser.. and if there is evidence that she was, again, she isn't the one who killed anyone, EN did. In fact TM didn't carry a gun, BM did and IIRC she didn't ask BM to bring his gun, he brought it on his own. Per BM he said she was going to go with or without him.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I look at it as a puzzle that I personally would like to solve. I may or may not be entitled to the information. The story as told doesn't make much sense to me and that keep me curious about this case.

 

[PaperDoll]

I look at it as a puzzle that I personally would like to solve. I may or may not be entitled to the information. The story as told doesn't make much sense to me and that keep me curious about this case.

I'm curious as well, plus, I live in Las Vegas so this has captured my attention.

I wonder if it will go to trial as scheduled???? Seems quick, IMO..

 

[Midge Montana]

I look at it as a puzzle that I personally would like to solve. I may or may not be entitled to the information. The story as told doesn't make much sense to me and that keep me curious about this case.

I'm not saying that it is not a piece of the puzzle, only that the information is not complete enough to tell us anything of real value. There are so many factors and possibilities that it just doesn't mean much at this point. I totally agree that this is the most bizarre case I have ever seen. The details are impossible to keep track of without a spreadsheet.

 

[al66pine]

....I totally agree that this is the most bizarre case I have ever seen. The details are impossible to keep track of without a spreadsheet.

sbm bbm

And to print the data, we'd need something the size of a king bedspread. LOL, but not kidding.

 

[Meddlesome Kid]

TM's possible drug use/abuse *should* be discussed. It's certainly going to come up at trial. It's quite plausible that the defense could claim EN was defending himself from someone who was not fully in control of their mental faculties and was hell bent on confronting a person she perceived as having wronged her. The prosecution has ALREADY ADMITTED that EN was NOT the person who "road raged" TM and she had NO REASON to pursue him.

Given EN's history (behavior and health issues, drug use, documented victim of child abuse, and an abusive school along with alleged gang activity),physical size, and childish looks and voice; it will be relatively easy to the defense to portray him as a victim of his past who was already paranoid and reacted poorly to being threatened. Since he was not in control of the car, the defense can also claim he was "cornered" or "trapped" in the cul-de-sac and was defending himself from his ALREADY ADMITTED AGGRESSORS because there is no proof of who shot first.

I am NOT saying any of this is absolute fact or that anyone on a jury will buy it (OR how guilty I PERSONALLY FEEL about EN's guilt or innocence), but IMO (as a former defense attorney's assistant), I think this is how the defense will likely proceed. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that TM's behavior, drug/med habits, and mental state will certainly be alluded to, if not an outright key component to the defense's strategy.

Oxy, whether taken legally or not, could easily have effected TM's thinking and actions that night. *IF* TM was abusing prescription meds (Oxy is one of the most commonly abused pharms and MUCH of that abuse begins with a legal prescription - hence the classification it has), it certainly colors the situation differently. NO, it does NOT mean she deserved to be shot, but it DOES make a difference in how her actions will be explained to and received by a jury and how they will feel about EN's subsequent actions and deserves to be discussed here. The prosecution and family have attempted to show TM as a totally innocent victim, but I doubt a jury will see her in that light. This in itself could be a serious issue when it comes to the credibility of the prosecution's case and witnesses.

IMO, the one person who has NO explanation for HIS actions that night, is BM. He was supposedly clean and sober, and yet he behaved as poorly and made just as bad choices as the two people who were allegedly under the influence of mind altering substances. Nor has he been entirely forthcoming about the events of the evening. I think a jury is going to have the most difficulty understanding BM's actions both during the night in question as well as the inconsistencies in his story during weeks immediately following.

 

[sonjay]

TM's possible drug use/abuse *should* be discussed. It's certainly going to come up at trial. It's quite plausible that the defense could claim EN was defending himself from someone who was not fully in control of their mental faculties and was hell bent on confronting a person she perceived as having wronged her. The prosecution has ALREADY ADMITTED that EN was NOT the person who "road raged" TM and she had NO REASON to pursue him.

We know it's true that she was hell bent on confronting someone that night.
And we know it's true that EN had not road raged her that night and she had no reason to pursue him.
The only part of the above that's in question is whether or not TM was in full control of her mental faculties that night.

Given EN's history (behavior and health issues, drug use, documented victim of child abuse, and an abusive school along with alleged gang activity),physical size, and childish looks and voice; it will be relatively easy to the defense to portray him as a victim of his past who was already paranoid and reacted poorly to being threatened. Since he was not in control of the car, the defense can also claim he was "cornered" or "trapped" in the cul-de-sac and was defending himself from his ALREADY ADMITTED AGGRESSORS because there is no proof of who shot first.

These are all good points, and could have have a big impact on the jury.

The prosecution and family have attempted to show TM as a totally innocent victim, but I doubt a jury will see her in that light. This in itself could be a serious issue when it comes to the credibility of the prosecution's case and witnesses.

The prosecution is starting behind the 8 ball in the credibility department. There are already serious credibility problems, and they've got their work cut out for them to attempt to gin up some credibility for the witnesses with the last name of Meyers.

IMO, the one person who has NO explanation for HIS actions that night, is BM. He was supposedly clean and sober, and yet he behaved as poorly and made just as bad choices as the two people who were allegedly under the influence of mind altering substances. Nor has he been entirely forthcoming about the events of the evening. I think a jury is going to have the most difficulty understanding BM's actions both during the night in question as well as the inconsistencies in his story during weeks immediately following.

That constant smirk of his in the recent interview just does not give him credibility at all. I don't see a jury liking that cocky attitude either. He has most definitely not been forthcoming. At trial, unlike in a kid-glove interview, he will be cross-examined vigorously. His story will not hold up. He will be forced to explain the discrepancies. He will be confronted with the lies that were told initially. He will be questioned hard. And that smirk will disappear.

 

[PaperDoll]

I'm not a big fan of BM or RM and I think their interviews don't do them justice. However, they didn't kill anyone that night and they are not the ones on trial. EN fessed up that he shot someone, in fact he bragged about how many bullets he unloaded and said "I got those #(%&#(%&@#" He also was the one who ended up on the Meyers cul-de-sac and starting shooting off more rounds. BM shot off 3 and he has a right to on his own property since he knew that Audi starting shooting at them first. This is what the jury will hear and wonder why EN when into that cul-de-sac. What was his reason for that? He didn't live there he lived on the other side of it. EN said he "thought" he saw a gun being waved out the window of the Buick, but he can't prove that can he? It was dark out and it could have been hard to see. If he saw a gun being waved out the window, could he have noticed the passenger? EN also never mentioned who he thought was after him, he simply said "someone is threatening me".

We don't have all the answers, but the attorneys will have a lot of evidence that we don't have. Hoping this trial goes live..

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The prosecution and family have attempted to show TM as a totally innocent victim, but I doubt a jury will see her in that light. This in itself could be a serious issue when it comes to the credibility of the prosecution's case and witnesses.

Also by painting TM as a totally innocent victim they are concomitantly painting EN as an innocent bystander who overreacted. Because of the way the prosecution is handling this I don't see it as likely they could get anything beyond M2. However, if the DA instead took the tack that this was a fight over a drug deal that had happened hours/days previously, I'd see the chances as far greater for M1 depending on what exactly the circumstances were. As things are now the DA isn't going to be seen as credible so what should be an EN weakness - like being a drug dealer - can be seen as strengths or at least not count against EN as they should (like him being a drug dealer is irrelevant if he was falsely chased by the Meyers rather than intentionally chased because of something happened as a direct result of his drug dealing).

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BM shot off 3 and he has a right to on his own property since he knew that Audi starting shooting at them first.

You are aware BM wasn't on his own property? I think you've let the Meyers confuse you with their lies. It was originally portrayed that BM came running out of house firing a gun, but BM wasn't on his property and in fact was in front of another house, so BM's location gives him no special rights to shoot. I don't think it will really matter as to the results on the jury given how it appears EN never said he saw anyone shoot at him, but if you're following this case you should know where people were shooting from.

This is what the jury will hear and wonder why EN when into that cul-de-sac. What was his reason for that? He didn't live there he lived on the other side of it. EN said he "thought" he saw a gun being waved out the window of the Buick, but he can't prove that can he?

EN doesn't have to prove it, just like how George Zimmerman didn't have to prove Trayvon Martin attacked him first as in both jurisdictions the burden doesn't shift to the defense. However, the jury knows that by BM's own admission that he was out with a gun, so the jury can see how the gun didn't exactly just came out of thin air. This is additionally bolstered by this being told to KK rather than something EN first asserted when he was arrested. I don't think EN is being prosecuted for anything related to the first shooting as I think it would be hard to get a conviction for the first shooting given how that BM admits he had a gun and admits the Buick chased the Audi and it is the prosecution's burden rather than the defense's burden to prove their case.

If he saw a gun being waved out the window, could he have noticed the passenger?

EN may well have seen BM perfectly clearly, but EN has never met BM for him to know it was one of the Meyers.

 

[PaperDoll]

You are aware BM wasn't on his own property? I think you've let the Meyers confuse you with their lies. It was originally portrayed that BM came running out of house firing a gun, but BM wasn't on his property and in fact was in front of another house, so BM's location gives him no special rights to shoot. I don't think it will really matter as to the results on the jury given how it appears EN never said he saw anyone shoot at him, but if you're following this case you should know where people were shooting from.



EN doesn't have to prove it, just like how George Zimmerman didn't have to prove Trayvon Martin attacked him first as in both jurisdictions the burden doesn't shift to the defense. However, the jury knows that by BM's own admission that he was out with a gun, so the jury can see how the gun didn't exactly just came out of thin air. This is additionally bolstered by this being told to KK rather than something EN first asserted when he was arrested. I don't think EN is being prosecuted for anything related to the first shooting as I think it would be hard to get a conviction for the first shooting given how that BM admits he had a gun and admits the Buick chased the Audi and it is the prosecution's burden rather than the defense's burden to prove their case.



EN may well have seen BM perfectly clearly, but EN has never met BM for him to know it was one of the Meyers.

BBM: Yes, I've been following this case and this is what I read from the GJ statement (see below) and I believe BM was on his property when he was being shot at, and I personally believe EN shot first. I know others may not believe he did and that's ok, I have a different view.

What did you do after you saw theheadlights turn on Mount Shasta?
A. Ran towards the house.
Q. That would have been as we look at Grand
Jury Exhibit 9, you would have been running off the
photograph to the right to your front door?
A. Yes.
Q. As you were running what did you see or
hear occur?
A. Gunshots.
Q. Can you tell me how many?
A. Not to be exact.
Q. More than one?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ever get inside your home?
A. No.
Q. What did you do? How far to the front door
did you get?
A. I want to say about 20 feet out.
Q. And then what did you do then?
A. Basically as soon as they started shooting
I ran towards this truck right here, it's this white
one, and I was about I want to say five feet behind it.
Q. This truck here that's depicted with the
white door and kind of the --
A. Yes.
Q. -- back seat with the dually Wheels, is that correct?

 

[sonjay]

BBM: Yes, I've been following this case and this is what I read from the GJ statement (see below) and I believe BM was on his property when he was being shot at, and I personally believe EN shot first. I know others may not believe he did and that's ok, I have a different view.

What did you do after you saw theheadlights turn on Mount Shasta?
A. Ran towards the house.
Q. That would have been as we look at Grand
Jury Exhibit 9, you would have been running off the
photograph to the right to your front door?
A. Yes.
Q. As you were running what did you see or
hear occur?
A. Gunshots.
Q. Can you tell me how many?
A. Not to be exact.
Q. More than one?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ever get inside your home?
A. No.
Q. What did you do? How far to the front door
did you get?
A. I want to say about 20 feet out.
Q. And then what did you do then?
A. Basically as soon as they started shooting
I ran towards this truck right here, it's this white
one, and I was about I want to say five feet behind it.
Q. This truck here that's depicted with the
white door and kind of the --
A. Yes.
Q. -- back seat with the dually Wheels, is that correct?

You need to look at BM's GJ testimony and correlate it with the crime scene photos and diagram that were released. BM was referring to a truck that was parked in the street in front of the next-door neighbor's house. And he specifically said that he was right in the vicinity of the yellow evidence tags, which are clearly shown in the street behind that truck.

He was not on his own property.

He also took his gun and went hunting for EN, and then chased EN. I still have a lot of trouble with that.

 

[Solitaryone]

I really have problems with the stories told by BM/KM. For awhile now I've wondered if what they've said about TM's actions that night are true. How do we know that everything TM is alleged to have said and done is even true considering all the changing stories from her family? I don't trust BM/KM or their different versions of what happened that night. If it wasn't for TM's purse being found outside the drivers door, I'd have doubts she was even with BM/KM in the car. And I do think KM was in the car for everything. Maybe one of the reasons we can't make sense of these different versions of what TM is said to have said and done is because maybe she didn't say and do everything BM/KM claim she did.

 

[PaperDoll]

BM was on his property IMO when gunshots were fired; even EN said he shot at someone running towards the house. BM didn't make it to his front door because after he heard the shots, he ran to the truck (parked in the street), he mentions that. I personally believe BM was on his own driveway running towards his house, not the house next door, there would be no need to run to the neighbors house. After hearing the gunshots he then ran towards the truck parked in the street. Again, the crime scene photos show the casing where BM was shooting, I get that, but I believe EN fired first when BM was on his own property at that time. EN said he wasn't being shot at, bad call on his part because the jury is going to wonder why he shot at the person running and at the car if there was no need to.

What did you do after you saw theheadlights turn on Mount Shasta?
A. Ran towards the house.
Q. That would have been as we look at Grand
Jury Exhibit 9, you would have been running off the
photograph to the right to your front door?
A. Yes.
Q. As you were running what did you see or
hear occur?
A. Gunshots.
Q. Can you tell me how many?
A. Not to be exact.
Q. More than one?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ever get inside your home?
A. No.
Q. What did you do? How far to the front door
did you get?
A. I want to say about 20 feet out.
Q. And then what did you do then?
A. Basically as soon as they started shooting
I ran towards this truck right here, it's this white
one, and I was about I want to say five feet behind it.
Q. This truck here that's depicted with the
white door and kind of the --
A. Yes.
Q. -- back seat with the dually Wheels, is that correct?

 

[sonjay]

I really have problems with the stories told by BM/KM. For awhile now I've wondered if what they've said about TM's actions that night are true. How do we know that everything TM is alleged to have said and done is even true considering all the changing stories from her family? I don't trust BM/KM or their different versions of what happened that night. If it wasn't for TM's purse being found outside the drivers door, I'd have doubts she was even with BM/KM in the car. And I do think KM was in the car for everything. Maybe one of the reasons we can't make sense of these different versions of what TM is said to have said and done is because maybe she didn't say and do everything BM/KM claim she did.

The only parts of the stories told by BM & KM that I believe are the parts that are supported by other evidence. They have already been shown to have lied about critically important elements of the events of that night. So, the parts of their stories that aren't supported by other evidence, I don't take their word for it at all. They might be lying and they might be telling the truth, but I don't believe anything just because one of them said it. To me, it's just as if they didn't say anything. Because their words simply have no credibility.

And if RM said it, I pretty well figure it's pure fantasy.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BM was on his property IMO when gunshots were fired; even EN said he shot at someone running towards the house.

You are assuming that 'the house' must be the Meyers house even though EN didn't say it. He didn't say the Meyers house to KK nor did he say it to Mogg nor did EN say there was running to two different houses or any mention of a second house - it may mean the Meyers house or it may not rather than it automatically having to mean that. It's possible that EN did see some other male running towards the Meyers and it is that person EN is referring to as to explain why EN didn't see BM shooting at him and running towards him as EN didn't know he was there...actually some armed person running towards you would have been quite a defense for EN if what EN meant was that he saw an armed BM running towards his direction. EN did not say he saw a person run toward two different houses. I think given what has been stated and what the evidence is that either EN saw BM and thought he was going towards another house not associated with the Meyers or EN didn't see BM but instead saw others besides BM/TM go towards the Meyers. If BM did see an armed BM running towards him in the direction of the other house that could potentially get him off entirely if it came down to the jury having to apply reasonable doubt in determining when exactly EN saw BM and when EN fired...I think there was more than two people in the car and that EN shouldn't get off scot-free, but if the DA puts it out there that there was only two people in the Buick, EN was an innocent bystander who was misidentified by the Meyers and BM was armed and running up the street in the direction of the Buick that could potentially get EN off entirely as some armed person running towards you with a gun, they don't have to shoot at you for you to be able to successfully argue self-defense.

 

[PaperDoll]

And did you ever get inside your home?
A. No.
Q. What did you do? How far to the front door
did you get?
A. I want to say about 20 feet out.


When BM was asked if he ever got inside his home, he said No, but he was about 20 feet from his door, that is how I took it. There was a photograph that was put up and we didn't get to see it when BM was being questioned. But even this statement tells me BM was at his own home. IIRC neither one BM and EN knew each other.

Q. That would have been as we look at Grand
Jury Exhibit 9, you would have been running off the
photograph to the right to your front door?
A. Yes.