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

[sonjay]

I've been saying all along that I believed the buick was the car for the children to drive and that's why the story includes driving lessons in the car.

Since the first shooting scene can't be a coincidence of where they said TM and MM changed seats in the car at the end of the "driving lessons," I don't believe there were ever driving lessons. Why lie about that? Why put the sister in the car to begin with? Was she in the car the entire time? Why would they create a lie to say the daughter wasn't in the car? It seems the lie protects the sister from being present as a witness at the time of the shootings.

When you look at the description MM gave of the route she and TM drove after they finished driving lessons, it's not much different from the crazy routes they took when TM and BM were supposedly in the car. I'll bet the first route with TM and MM in the car was a car chase too. The question is who was really in the car then? It was likely one continuous car chase instead of two separate incidents with two different people in the car each time.

I continue to think that there was no trip home to drop off daughter and pick up son. There was one car chase, ending at the Meyers home, IMO. That's why the two driving trips are so similar. JMO.

The two routes described by the two Meyers kids are way too similar to be coincidence. It strikes me that if in fact there was just one car chase, then the similarities of the two routes supports the notion that it was the two Meyers kids in the car. They both described essentially the same route because they traveled that route in the car together, while chasing EN. IMO, JMO, MOO.

 

[PaperDoll]

Yep, EN lied. Of course EN lied.

The key difference is that we expect the shooter to lie. Isn't that a given? Aren't the prisons full of innocent people who swear they didn't do it? Of course the guy who did the crime lies. And we know exactly why he lies: because he wants to cover up the fact that he did it.

But we don't normally expect the victim or the victim's family to lie. When the victim or the victim's family lies, it gives us pause and makes us wonder what they want to cover up.

When the victim's family lies, sometimes it's because they actually did it.

But that's not the case here. Given EN's virtual confession to his friends, I don't think there's any doubt that EN was the shooter. EN was holding the gun and pulled the trigger, firing the bullet that hit TM in the head and killed her. I would be greatly surprised if that's not the case.

So why did TM's family lie? What are they covering up? We know why EN lied, but why did the Meyerses lie?

LOL, Yup, one would expect the "suspect" to lie :jail: but you are right about the victims lying, why would they do that? First off, and I'm not sure what to believe, but sometimes stories change once things settle a bit. Sometimes you remember things that you may have forgotten since emotions were running high that night. Heck, I'm still unsure if TM was even in the car or if there was a driving lesson. If TM was involved then why go back out, with gun, and try to locate the "trouble makers"???? You are asking for trouble... So, when I get elected for jury (haha) yeah, like that will happen.. :crazy: Then I will have more info...

 

[PaperDoll]

The two routes described by the two Meyers kids are way too similar to be coincidence. It strikes me that if in fact there was just one car chase, then the similarities of the two routes supports the notion that it was the two Meyers kids in the car. They both described essentially the same route because they traveled that route in the car together, while chasing EN. IMO, JMO, MOO.

But, now I'm going off memory here and that's not good (lol)... Maybe when TM and BM were taking the same route, it's because TM was telling BM this is the route we took when we were being harassed... maybe??????

 

[Miss Muffet]

The two routes described by the two Meyers kids are way too similar to be coincidence. It strikes me that if in fact there was just one car chase, then the similarities of the two routes supports the notion that it was the two Meyers kids in the car. They both described essentially the same route because they traveled that route in the car together, while chasing EN. IMO, JMO, MOO.

Okay. I feel good about that.

BUT it doesn't explain lying about TM being out with KM earlier for driving lessons.

What about this: KM is out driving by herself. She goes home and gets BM. KM and BM go looking for EN. TM gets shot coming out of the house after she hears BM's gunfire. They lie about TM being with KM for driving lessons because they're trying to hide that KM was driving without a license.

This fits "I got those kids." It also fits TM suddenly being on the ground behind BM when BM claimed he pushed her back into the car. I'll bet KM is who he really pushed back into the car.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

EN serves only 3-5 years for manslaughter, that is if he doesn't get off completely by an acquittal.

I currently think those are the most likely outcomes. Just going off KM and BM's description of events it is clear there is no pre-meditation where the shooting didn't start until the Meyers themselves say they chased the Audi. Here's some interesting reading:
http://www.harmfulerror.com/2007/09/incredible_decision_by_9th_cir.html
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/09/11/0615735.pdf
The sketch could really come back and bite the police/DA as that seems to be the basis for the premeditation as you'll note this article is from 2/19 the day of the Criminal Complaint: "Metro said Thursday that Nowsch was the man drawn in a sketch police circulated to find the shooter. That man was described as being in his mid-20s, 6 feet tall and about 180 pounds with spiked dirty blond hair and blue or hazel eyes."
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...-arrested-shooting-initially-called-road-rage
However the Complaint gives some critical details that the driver who made the alleged threat is not the shooter where according to BM and KM: "The daughter said a white male approximately 6' tall got out of the driver's seat of the silver car and said 'I'm going to come back for you and your daughter'...Brandon said his mother stopped the car and the front passenger of the silver car began shooting at them...Brandon said the car was approximately half way down the cul-de-sac when the front passenger leaned partially out of the passenger window and began firing west toward his mother and his mother's car."
Insisting that growth hormone taking EN was the one in the sketch seems detrimental to the police/DA when it will be easy to argue EN never made the threat and by the Meyers own account, the Audi didn't fire upon them until after Meyers chased the Audi. It's not to say that EN can't or shouldn't go to prison, but the DA/police shouldn't keep on perpetuating silly easily dismissed arguments that will undermine them in front of a jury. This seems like a crime of passion where EN reacted in the heat of the moment after being chased (he felt threatened too, but it is universally agreed upon he was chased). EN may have been present in the car for the threat if this was one long back and forth where that scenario could both help and hurt the prosecution, but if the police/DA keep going around in circles on what happened and insist EN was the driver mistaken to be 6' tall that itself creates reasonable doubt for the jury.

EN's indirect description of events can be read as either two events or one long event. If it is one long event that presents a challenge as it means the Meyers were out driving armed from the start and it also calls into question which of the Meyers were in the car. All three of them could have been in the car or KM could have ran inside while TM ran outside and got caught in the crossfire or some other such scenario. If the Meyers were out driving armed from the start that could explain why there has been so many lies and it really calls into question what was going on, which the truth could be that TM was just a bystander who had nothing to do with this and ran outside after her kids flashed the pistol and were involved in a chase and shooting. No explanation sits quite right with me though, but the Meyers proactively being armed and looking for trouble would be a strong motive to lie as KM and BM would not want to say that. Even if TM was driving that still means BM was riding around armed in the passenger seat before any threats had been made, so BM in particular has a strong motive to cast more and more blame on TM as time has gone on.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

EN didn't have to be engaged in illegal activity to have a conflict over the rumored drugs.

I'm addressing the specific local rumor that what happened that night was a prescription drug deal involving EN and the Meyers. If that specific rumor is true, it undermines a defense case using self-defense. Other such scenarios would of course differ on their impact to a defense claim of self-defense.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

EN did lie, he told police he went to the recording studio that night and knew nothing about the shooting..

Yes, trust no one. I look at physical evidence and when there appears to be alignment between stories coming from opposing parties.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I'm addressing the specific local rumor that what happened that night was a prescription drug deal involving EN and the Meyers. If that specific rumor is true, it undermines a defense case using self-defense. Other such scenarios would of course differ on their impact to a defense claim of self-defense.

And I was offering another scenario that would safely benefit the defense since the rumored drug involvement really ties everything together. It answers questions of motive, why EN was afraid, why the Meyerses gave chase to EN, etc., since it's obvious this wasn't a road rage incident, without admitting EN was involved in a crime at the time the incident occurred.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

So, when I get elected for jury (haha) yeah, like that will happen

With me it is kind of funny as I worked for my local PD (not as a cop), my dad was a cop and my mom worked for the DA (as a Victim Advocate no less), but I tend to be pretty strong when it comes to the rights of the defendant. I only want truly guilty people who are punished after a fair and just trial to punished, which means letting guilty people go if the police/DA failed in one way or the other. I for instance can't stand George Zimmerman, but nothing incensed me more than Angela Corey withholding evidence from the GZ defense and firing the whistleblower as that violated GZ's rights and the whistleblower's too.

 

[sonjay]

Okay. I feel good about that.

BUT it doesn't explain lying about TM being out with KM earlier for driving lessons.

What about this: KM is out driving by herself. She goes home and gets BM. KM and BM go looking for EN. TM gets shot coming out of the house after she hears BM's gunfire. They lie about TM being with KM for driving lessons because they're trying to hide that KM was driving without a license.

This fits "I got those kids." It also fits TM suddenly being on the ground behind BM when BM claimed he pushed her back into the car. I'll bet KM is who he really pushed back into the car.

I still think the driving lessons story was totally made up, in an attempt to conceal the fact that BM and KM were out with Brandon's gun hunting for EN. Car chase, shootout, mom's dead, OMG what do we tell the cops? They tell the cops whatever cover story they can come up with in the few minutes between the shooting and the time the cops arrived. They probably knew or suspected that someone might have seen the car at the school, so their cover story had to explain the presence of the car at the school. As I said upthread, KM quite possibly has been getting driving lessons from mom, quite possibly at the school parking lot, so it would be something that would readily pop into her head as a cover story.

As for your suggested scenario, with KM out driving by herself and going home to get BM..... Yeah, I guess it's possible. Perhaps KM was out driving by herself in the area of the school and park, and something happened between KM and EN at the park, and that's why she went home to get BM and they went out hunting for EN. BM defending his sister's honor, or protecting her from the neighborhood drug dealer, or something like that. This theory definitely has possibilities.

But I think the reason they lied about the driving lessons is because they were desperately trying to cover up the fact that KM & BM were out in the car with BM's gun hunting for EN. Brandon took his gun and went hunting for EN. There's no innocent explanation for that. So they desperately wanted the police to believe that Brandon was at home. Would they really start this whole web of lies because they wanted to hide the fact that a 15-year-old was out driving without a license?

Okay, yeah, I have to admit, people lie about the stupidest things, but I have trouble believing that would be something they were particularly worried about. I think what they were primarily worried about was the fact that Brandon took his gun and went out hunting for EN. That's something that's more worth lying about, IMO.

 

[sonjay]

But, now I'm going off memory here and that's not good (lol)... Maybe when TM and BM were taking the same route, it's because TM was telling BM this is the route we took when we were being harassed... maybe??????

Possible, IMO. If there were two separate trips and two separate car chases, that's probably the best explanation.

I'm partial to the theory that there was one car chase, but I do have to acknowledge that I could be wrong and there might have been two separate car chases with an intermission, during which TM took KM home and picked up BM. If that's what happened, your explanation for why the routes were so similar makes sense. I personally don't think it happened that way, but I could be wrong.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

One key line from the Complaint potentially supporting one long car chase, particularly if Altergott didn't get exactly what EN allegedly told him right: "Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following." The only verbal exchange was on Cimarron drive and there is the physical evidence of this confrontation. If Altergott didn't completely understand the what EN said, what EN could have meant was that the Meyers followed the Audi from the school to Alta and then Durango to Westcliff and then finally to Cimarron (potentially with there being a back on forth on them chasing one another) where there was the skid out and the Audi driver got out of the car. After that verbal confrontation the chase between the cars continued and that's when BM's gun came out the window, which resulted in the first shooting. Finally the Meyers arrived home and BM/KM use the same type of road rage story told to the police where TM then comes outside believing the false story when the Audi arrives, which would explain EN's comments about 'kids' and exonerates TM of any questionable conduct as she just would have arrived on scene within minutes of being shot and no clue about the truth of what happened. This also would be a motive to keep up the false story for as long as possible.

I do believe there is evidence that the police have alluded to where the Meyers lost the Audi after the verbal confrontation (the picture capture of the car driving on Carmel Peak), which it could have been BM/KM/TM (any combination of the three) in that scenario who drove home to get armed and quickly found the Audi and chased it until they were unexpectedly fired upon and fled back. Alternatively without going home after the verbal confrontation they could have looped around after driving around the Audi, gotten out the pistol and then had the chase with the gun out the window to show the Audi who was boss until they were unexpectedly fired upon and fled home. I really think whoever was in the Buick at the time thought they were king of the road thinking they'd be top dog carrying the pistol and could bully the Audi showing their pistol trumped the Audi driver's words, but they got blindsided chasing someone who also had a pistol and was willing to use it. TM of course could be completely innocent in all this and only got caught in the crossfire at the very end.

 

[jjenny]

EN did lie, he told police he went to the recording studio that night and knew nothing about the shooting..

Sure did. But the person who he claimed he was with didn't confirm his "alibi."

 

[jjenny]

Well, yeah, subsequent stories do make BM more innocent.

...

Not at all. In the first version, he was not in the car, came out after mother was already shot, and shot in self-defense. Totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
The subsequent version, he was in the car with his gun, and they chased EN's car. Potentially DA could charge him if he wanted.
So, the second story is not making him look better at all.
Given that, why did the story change (if it did)?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Not at all. In the first version, he was not in the car, came out after mother was already shot, and shot in self-defense. Totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
The subsequent version, he was in the car with his gun, and they chased EN's car. Potentially DA could charge him if he wanted.
So, the second story is not making him look better at all.
Given that, why did the story change (if it did)?

I believe this story changed after the police confirmed there wasn't an accident resulting in invalidating the first story, so they had to come up with something else. It makes BM look bad, but not nearly as bad as he could potentially look, which this story makes him look somewhat good in that he's only doing it reluctantly to protect TM who would otherwise allegedly would drive alone and armed to hunt the Audi with 2-3 passengers who just made death threats to them. They make themselves look bad only when forced to, like saying the knew EN and went over to EN's house on 2/15 only after EN had already been arrested as the police knew nothing about either the visit or being acquainted until after the suspect was in custody for the second time.

 

[Miss Muffet]

It makes BM look bad, but not nearly as bad as he could potentially look, which this story makes him look somewhat good in that he's only doing it reluctantly to protect TM who would otherwise allegedly would drive alone and armed to hunt the Audi with 2-3 passengers who just made death threats to them.

Agreed. The irony is that TM would have been safer if she had gone alone since BM's brandishing his gun aggravated the situation and certainly didn't protect his mother. Of course, she would have been safest if she had stayed home. I just see the irony in BM's intentions to protect his mother when he ultimately did the opposite.

 

[sonjay]

Not at all. In the first version, he was not in the car, came out after mother was already shot, and shot in self-defense. Totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
The subsequent version, he was in the car with his gun, and they chased EN's car. Potentially DA could charge him if he wanted.
So, the second story is not making him look better at all.
Given that, why did the story change (if it did)?

There was a version in which TM went home to get BM and his gun, the story had BM arming himself on his own initiative and there was no mention of a discussion about calling 911.

Then they subsequently modified that story to add the detail that BM wanted to call 911 but mom said no she was going with or without him.

Then they subsequently modified that story to add the detail that TM specifically asked BM to bring his gun.

Both of those modifications make TM more responsible for what happened, and BM less responsible, by making TM the active agent in the story and BM simply an obedient son who did whatever mom told him to.

I'm sorry, but I can't explain this any more clearly. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

[sonjay]

One key line from the Complaint potentially supporting one long car chase, particularly if Altergott didn't get exactly what EN allegedly told him right: "Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi and the green car began following." The only verbal exchange was on Cimarron drive and there is the physical evidence of this confrontation. If Altergott didn't completely understand the what EN said, what EN could have meant was that the Meyers followed the Audi from the school to Alta and then Durango to Westcliff and then finally to Cimarron (potentially with there being a back on forth on them chasing one another) where there was the skid out and the Audi driver got out of the car. After that verbal confrontation the chase between the cars continued and that's when BM's gun came out the window, which resulted in the first shooting. Finally the Meyers arrived home and BM/KM use the same type of road rage story told to the police where TM then comes outside believing the false story when the Audi arrives, which would explain EN's comments about 'kids' and exonerates TM of any questionable conduct as she just would have arrived on scene within minutes of being shot and no clue about the truth of what happened. This also would be a motive to keep up the false story for as long as possible.

I do believe there is evidence that the police have alluded to where the Meyers lost the Audi after the verbal confrontation (the picture capture of the car driving on Carmel Peak), which it could have been BM/KM/TM (any combination of the three) in that scenario who drove home to get armed and quickly found the Audi and chased it until they were unexpectedly fired upon and fled back. Alternatively without going home after the verbal confrontation they could have looped around after driving around the Audi, gotten out the pistol and then had the chase with the gun out the window to show the Audi who was boss until they were unexpectedly fired upon and fled home. I really think whoever was in the Buick at the time thought they were king of the road thinking they'd be top dog carrying the pistol and could bully the Audi showing their pistol trumped the Audi driver's words, but they got blindsided chasing someone who also had a pistol and was willing to use it. TM of course could be completely innocent in all this and only got caught in the crossfire at the very end.

That's how I think it went down. And not only did they find themselves chasing someone who also had a pistol and wasn't afraid to use it, their 9mm got trumped by EN's .45.

Never take a 9mm to a .45 gunfight. Or something like that.

 

[sonjay]

Agreed. The irony is that TM would have been safer if she had gone alone since BM's brandishing his gun aggravated the situation and certainly didn't protect his mother. Of course, she would have been safest if she had stayed home. I just see the irony in BM's intentions to protect his mother when he ultimately did the opposite.

Ummm..... not necessarily. I think she was at home, and the kids went out hunting EN. They brought the gunfight to the family home, where innocent TM got shot when she went to see what was going on. IMO.

In any case, she would have been safest had none of the Meyerses gone out with a gun to hunt down and chase EN that night. Based on the police affidavit, whoever was in the Meyers car chasing EN with a gun was the aggressor, and that person, IMO, bears a great deal of the responsibility for what happened that night.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I think KM went home to get BM. They can't wander too far away from the truth since there's two of them who need to tell the story without much time to formulate one. The entire "TM and KM went home to drop off KM and get BM" lie is too specific and complicated to dream up out of the blue unless someone actually went home for some reason or another.

Instead of just looking at the map, I'm going to make a spreadsheet of the distances and travel times to compare to the clock times stated in the warrant. This will be the best way to determine if there is a enough time or not enough time for various scenarios we're considering.