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

[sonjay]

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.

That's how I took it, too. But then he ran from a position approx. 20 feet from his front door, out to the street behind the truck that was parked in front of the neighbor's house. Or, at least, that's what he says happened. When I look at the crime scene diagram and I picture BM running from the car to within 20 feet of his front door and then back out to the street again, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Why would he do that? If he was within 20 feet of his front door, that he had to be pretty much right next to the cars that were parked in his own driveway. They would have provided good cover. Why would he run back out across that big open area, where he would be exposed, all the way out to the street?

In light of the knowledge that BM is a known liar who has already lied about this case, I'm not inclined to believe this particular part of his story. Because it just doesn't make sense. IMO, MOO, JMO and all that jazz.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

Yes, that's what I'm saying as it comes down to at what point EN saw BM as BM running forward toward the Audi potentially hurts rather than helps the prosecution if the prosecution insists that BM was the only other person EN saw. It may well be true that EN fired first at someone who had their back turned who was on their own property, but a personal belief without definitive supporting evidence can get you a hung jury or an outright acquittal as juries can need something more solid than that. Whether it is true or whether it is used as an opening for the defense, the defense can explain the confessions from EN as well as BM's testimony as that EN saw an armed BM running up the street in his direction and it was only then that EN fired. I really don't think EN saw BM, but I also don't buy that BM responded to being shot at by stopping his fleeing and instead running into the gunfire past the cover of a solid brick wall and kept running in the open towards an armed car shooting while he was on foot. Being shot at usually gets people to run away from bullets (which TM did the first time), not to turn around and run towards bullets unless you're going for something like suicide-by-cop. I think that EN shot at someone else running towards the Meyers house while BM was behind the other vehicle before the Audi arrived (instead of running towards gunfire to get there) and he only fired a few shots in trying to be stealthy while at close range so as to not give himself away, which he apparently succeeded in given how EN didn't know he was shot at. All EN's defense has to do is hang the jury with reasonable doubt is say that the prosecution can't prove that EN fired before seeing an armed BM running up the street towards him. It's apparently true that TM wasn't armed, but that really wouldn't matter if you can raise sufficient reasonable doubt as to who the aggressor was, like if the Audi was the aggressor at that moment it wouldn't be criminal if BM had killed Andrews even though Andrews was presumably unarmed as your group being aggressive can get you legally killed even if you personally are just the unarmed driver who didn't shoot at anyone - even if Andrews had got out of the car, he could legitimately be viewed as a threat even if he wasn't an actual threat.

 

[PaperDoll]

I understand the defense is going to poke holes trying to create reasonable doubt. However if I were on the jury knowing what I know now, there isn't any reasonable doubt because IMO EN, gun loaded, went into the cul-de-sac where the Meyers live, shot off (I forgot how many now :crazy rounds at the person running towards the house then took shots at the car where there were "heads". In his own words he said he wasn't being shot at so I would wonder why he even went on the cul-de-sac and if he wasn't being shot at and never mentioned anyone pointing a gun at him, why would he start shooting? He even said "he got those Mo...F'er". He killed a woman who was, IMO getting out of the car (not clear on that and why at this point) but he still shot off some rounds. BM, IMO, shot off his 3 rounds after EN did. This is what my impression would be if I were on the jury, ONLY knowing what I know now. I don't have the full details.

 

[jjenny]

I understand the defense is going to poke holes trying to create reasonable doubt. However if I were on the jury knowing what I know now, there isn't any reasonable doubt because IMO EN, gun loaded, went into the cul-de-sac where the Meyers live, shot off (I forgot how many now :crazy rounds at the person running towards the house then took shots at the car where there were "heads". In his own words he said he wasn't being shot at so I would wonder why he even went on the cul-de-sac and if he wasn't being shot at and never mentioned anyone pointing a gun at him, why would he start shooting? He even said "he got those Mo...F'er". He killed a woman who was, IMO getting out of the car (not clear on that and why at this point) but he still shot off some rounds. BM, IMO, shot off his 3 rounds after EN did. This is what my impression would be if I were on the jury, ONLY knowing what I know now. I don't have the full details.

I would have no problem whatsoever in finding him guilty either.
Victim being a perfect human being is not a requirement for finding a person who killed her guilty.
Victim's children being perfect little angels is not a requirement for finding a person who killed the victim guilty.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I understand the defense is going to poke holes trying to create reasonable doubt. However if I were on the jury knowing what I know now

It's not a question of what you or I individually would do on a jury, but a composite of 12 people on a jury. For that composite of 12 jurors, I don't think BM saying he stop fleeing, turned around and ran towards gunfire I just don't think is going to help. I don't think it's true but because BM is saying that, it allows based on the prosecution's own testimony for EN's defense to say BM was running toward him with a gun and the defense can dispute as to when EN fired compared to when BM was running up the street with his gun, but the defense doesn't have to affirmatively prove when EN fired but just raise reasonable doubt and all it does is one juror to feel there isn't sufficient affirmative evidence. I don't think EN ever saw BM running towards him because BM was already there behind the truck before the Audi arrived and that EN did shoot at others who had their back turned, but that would take the DA/Meyers admitting it to have more credible case instead of claiming that BM ran towards gunfire and past a brick wall that could have provided cover in response to being shot at. Just because I wouldn't believe personally if EN's defense said EN only shot after BM came running towards him rather than before, it doesn't mean I don't think at least 1 out of 12 jurors would have sufficient doubt where they don't think BM stop fleeing turned around ran into gunfire and it was running up the street towards the Audi before EN fired.

BM, IMO, shot off his 3 rounds after EN did

I don't necessarily doubt that, just I doubt that EN saw BM at all and that's why EN never knew he was shot at by BM. I think EN was shooting at others running towards the house with their backs turned and it was during this time BM fired, not that BM dodged bullets while running towards the Audi and then BM shot at the Audi without EN ever seeing he was being shot at.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Victim's children being perfect little angels is not a requirement for finding a person who killed the victim guilty.

Believing someone responded to being shot at by stopping fleeing and instead running towards the gunfire isn't about whether someone is an angel or not, unless you mean whether or not the jurors actually believe a witness is lying on the stand and if a witness is seen as lying in their testimony that can have a lot to do with how the jury finds.

 

[PaperDoll]

12 jurors will decide but each juror has their own opinion/right to help decide so it does matter what 1 juror thinks.

 

[PaperDoll]

IMO BM ran towards the gunfire most likely to shoot the person that is firing at his mom, who was still in the car, and who was also trying to kill him. He had the truck to protect him and that truck that was in the street, looked like a better angle to hide and shoot. BM isn't the one who killed anyone, EN did. If BM did anything criminal, he would have been arrested. BM isn't on trial here for murder, EN is and EN is the one who did the shooting from the passenger side. EN's own confession said said he didn't think anyone was shooting at him and yet he unloaded bullets and one killed another human being. EN never said who was threatening him but he carried a gun just in case. Had he known who was after him, then he would have known it was the Meyers because a lot of people here think the Meyers went looking for EN. EN would have known he shot and killed TM but he didn't, in fact he heard about after it hit the news IIRC. Who was EN afraid of to where he thought he had to carry a gun with him, did he ever say?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

IMO BM ran towards the gunfire most likely to shoot the person that is firing at his mom, who was still in the car, and who was also trying to kill him.

EN fired at the runner first, so if that runner was BM, BM stop fleeing and ran towards the Audi in response to being shot at. Also per BM he had TM hide down in the car before he ran from the car and BM testified that he only saw she had moved from there after the shooting had ended, so him turning around because his mom stopped hiding in the car would require him to have eyes in the back of his head and it also wouldn't match his testimony. Also it does not match Mogg's testimony where Mogg only testified to EN seeing people run toward 'the house,' so for Mogg's testimony to match EN would have not to have see BM run up the street but instead saw some 3rd person running from the car to he Meyers, which could have happened but again would take acknowledging there was at least three people in the car.

He had the truck to protect him and that truck that was in the street, looked like a better angle to hide and shoot.

You're now making an argument for him to have not fled in the first place and to instead have gone to the truck immediately.

BM isn't the one who killed anyone, EN did. If BM did anything criminal, he would have been arrested. BM isn't on trial here for murder, EN is and EN is the one who did the shooting from the passenger side. EN's own confession said said he didn't think anyone was shooting at him and yet he unloaded bullets and one killed another human being. EN never said who was threatening him but he carried a gun just in case. Had he known who was after him, then he would have known it was the Meyers because a lot of people here think the Meyers went looking for EN. EN would have known he shot and killed TM but he didn't, in fact he heard about after it hit the news IIRC. Who was EN afraid of to where he thought he had to carry a gun with him, did he ever say?

That's all well and good, but that's getting away from the issue of the prosecution's case being believable. It sounds quite unbelievable that BM didn't point his gun at he Audi and was too scared to shoot the first time to him in a manner of seconds to him being fearless where he would charge into incoming gun fire to the point of running past cover and continuing to expose himself at close range just so that he could get a better angle to shot from. If BM is part Dirty Harry and part Rambo who will run into gunfire, that certainly doesn't sound like someone who would have much of a problem pointing a gun at a car he believed made a death threat against his family.

 

[sonjay]

Investigating the Meyers murder
Monday at 10pm

I guess it means this coming Monday at 10pm.

There's a suggestion that there's yet some "new twist" in the case. I suspect it's just hype.

http://www.frequency.com/video/investigating-meyers-murder/234845310?cid=5-2436

 

[PaperDoll]

Thanks Sonjay, you are correct, it's airing on the 18th

 

[sonjay]

Thanks Sonjay, you are correct, it's airing on the 18th

I wonder if anyone here thinks it's even remotely possible that they've got some piece of information that we haven't already discussed to death right here.

 

[PaperDoll]

The trial should be coming up soon, however it seems a little too soon IMO:

		Notice of Witnesses and/or Expert WitnessesNotice of Expert Witnesses
		NoticeNotice of Expert Witnesses and Witnesses
		MotionMotion to Preserve and Produce Evidence, Including Potentially Exculpatory Evidence
		MotionMotion to Strike State's Expert Notice and Testimony of Experts
		MotionMotion to Suppress Statement and Denno Hearing
		Calendar Call (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael)
		Motion (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael) Motion to Preserve and Produce Evidence, Including Potentially Exculpatory Evidence Reset by Court to 05/21/2015 Reset by Court to 05/21/2015 Reset by Court to 05/19/2015 [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/19/2015 [/TH] [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015 [/TH] [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015 [/TH]
		Motion to Strike (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael) Motion to Strike State's Expert Notice and Testimony of Experts Reset by Court to 05/21/2015 Reset by Court to 05/19/2015 [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/19/2015 [/TH] [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015 [/TH]
		Motion to Suppress (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael) Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statement and Denno Hearing Reset by Court to 05/21/2015 Reset by Court to 05/19/2015 [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/19/2015 [/TH] [TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015 [/TH]
		Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/01/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/05/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/11/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/11/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/11/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/19/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/21/2015
[/TH]

[TH="class: ssTableHeaderLabel"] 05/26/2015
[/TH]

 

[OtterPops]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29097862/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-tammy-meyers-homicide-investigation

I haven't been keeping up with this thread (will go back after I post this) but I brought up this weird post on dad's fb page back in the 4th or 5th part of this thread and no one thought it might be relevant. Interesting to see the local media asking the same question because I was curious whatever happened to this guy and why dad was so interested in him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, y'all!

 

[sonjay]

Article on the "Meyers Murder" special report:
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29097862/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-tammy-meyers-homicide-investigation

Apparently, the new twist is that the missing guy whose photo RM had posted on Facebook is a) a cousin of Tammy Meyers, and b) assessed to be the "22nd most likely match" to the road rage spiky-haired sketch out of 100,000 other photos, as evaluated by the "FaceSketch ID system." The guy who developed the FaceSketch ID system says that's a "significant" finding.

The missing guy, Taylor Yager, went missing on Feb. 10 (2 days before TM was shot). He was found dead in Colorado a few weeks later.

He went missing Feb. 10. RM posted his "missing" photo on March 12. The coroner said he died on March 21. RM wouldn't talk to News5 about it. TY's father said that his family hasn't been in contact with the Meyers famiy in 12-15 years. He said his son didn't know the Meyers and had never been around them.

He was known to LVPD's homicide section. Police have found no evidence in phone records or other items to suggest any connection between TY and the Meyerses.

Also according to the article, Stanton believes there really was a road rage incident that night — based on the details KM gave about it, and because it was actually a motive for TM to go back out there to protect herself, her family and her daughter.

Also according to the article, the prosecution is focusing on the route driven by the silver car. They're questioning how the silver car got to the Meyers home so quickly.

===========================================

I didn't see the show, so I can go only by the written article. As far as I can tell, the news about TY is the only new information.

Obviously, if KM described TY for the police sketch, she had to have had some sort of contact with him or exposure to him. It could be nothing more than a photo of him in the Meyers house that she had seen, and when she realized she had to describe someone for the police, she described him (either deliberately or inadvertently). Or it could be that he was somehow involved in the events of that night. Police have found no evidence that he was. Waaaaay back in one of the earlier threads, it had been pointed out here his resemblance to the sketch, but that discussion petered out and went no further.

If he was involved, I'm quite sure that this long-lost cousin didn't suddenly turn up out of the blue and road-rage them out of sheer coincidence. If so, then this case's coincidence meter will have set a new world record that will probably last until the end of time.

I still don't believe there was a road rage incident. TY may or may not have been involved that night, but even if he was, that's not proof of any road rage incident. Stanton's belief that there was road rage is apparently not based on any facts or evidence in the case. The details that KM gave about it, IMO, don't make sense and are inconsistent with each previous telling of the story. Liars can make up details; details aren't proof of truth-telling. I personally don't find her details believable at all.

Also, the police and prosecution have reason to want there to have been road rage. If there was no road rage, then their star witnesses have even less credibility than they already do (if that's possible). Also, they need for TM to have had a reason to go out hunting with her armed son — some reason other than that she was hunting specifically for EN. So they want the road rage story to be true, but that doesn't mean that it is true.

Also, I notice that when Stanton said he believes there was road rage, he didn't mention (at least, in the article) any witnesses to it, any surveillance video that confirms it, or any other actual evidence supporting the road rage story. He said he believes the road rage story based on 2 things, the detail and the motive for TM to go out with her armed son. That's less than compelling, IMO.

As for how the silver car got to the Meyers home so quickly, that's something that we've discussed to death right here. Both cars were very close to the Meyers home after the 1st shooting scene. The silver car's route is still something of a mystery. Based on EN's description of their route, the silver car shouldn't have turned up on the surveillance video on Cherry River immediately before the shooting. The article doesn't shed any new light on that, and I'm guessing the show didn't either.

 

[OtterPops]

Sonjay, your link (the same as the one I posted above) links to the video of the story at the top of the page. Article sums it up pretty well. Except you have to see the weird awkward smile on the prosecutors face when asked about Yager. Just odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, y'all!

 

[OtterPops]

The video does compare briefly the route of both cars to the Meyers home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, y'all!

 

[bessie]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29097862/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-tammy-meyers-homicide-investigation

I haven't been keeping up with this thread (will go back after I post this) but I brought up this weird post on dad's fb page back in the 4th or 5th part of this thread and no one thought it might be relevant. Interesting to see the local media asking the same question because I was curious whatever happened to this guy and why dad was so interested in him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk, y'all!

Good for you, OtterPops. What a crazy coincidence if there's no connection. I'd love to know what led up to RM's post. Did he just by chance happen to see the guy's face on a "missing" poster and noted the resemblance? Did he know the missing man was related to TM? Or did he have knowledge of something more? The follow up should be interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[sonjay]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/29097862/a-new-wrinkle-in-the-tammy-meyers-homicide-investigation

I haven't been keeping up with this thread (will go back after I post this) but I brought up this weird post on dad's fb page back in the 4th or 5th part of this thread and no one thought it might be relevant. Interesting to see the local media asking the same question because I was curious whatever happened to this guy and why dad was so interested in him.

The article says he was a cousin of TM, but his father said they had no contact with the Meyerses for 10-12 years.

The article also says he was known to the Las Vegas police homicide section. I wonder in what context he was "known" to them.

His FB page has a selfie posted in Dec. 21, 2014. A comment on it is a friend asking "when u get out bro." He replied "Friday." His last FB post prior to that was Nov. 7, 2014. So if the "when you get out bro" refers to jail, he wasn't in there for very long.

He goes by both Taylor Yager and Bishop Yager. I think Bishop Taylor is his real name, but I'm not sure.
WS thread about his case. Not much info there, though:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?274184-CO-Taylor-Darrell-Yager-20-Denver-10-Feb-2015

 

[sonjay]

The video does compare briefly the route of both cars to the Meyers home.

Otter, what did the video say or show about the routes?

Is the show available online anywhere? I'd like to see it for myself.