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

[Miss Muffet]

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.

Expect someone to shoot you if you brandish your gun.

 

[al66pine]

.... If the Meyers were out driving armed from the start that could explain why there has been so many lies .... 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.

bbm sbm

SpanInq-
Thanks so much for the insight your posts are adding to the thread. And welcome to W/S.

Who was Armed, When - 1 or both 'incidents'? TM? BM? Initial Aggressor? Pre-Med?
If TM had gun (separate from BM's gun) for one or both incidents, it seems the kids made the gun vanish before LE arrived on scene. Possible. Did she have it, then gave to TM? Poss.
If BM had gun, as described in warrant, did he have it w him for both incidents, if he was in car for first & 2nd incident?
If not, why describe his going to grandmother's room to get gun from dresser?
If false (no need to retrieve gun from there), was fib designed to suggest he use gun only occasionally, for specific causes?
If so, does that suggest that he or they were premeditating violence that evening?
Did BM post on his soc media that eve?
If BM was premeditating violence, was it specifically directed at EN? Or specifically someone else? Or just any random dude?

Story about BM getting gun after first incident (whether he as in car at that time), suggests more culpability on his part (even if at TM's request)
If BM was in habit of CCW whenever he left house, then -
- some ppl might think he had a proclivity for violence.
- others would think 'oh, that's his habit, nothing special that evening that he had gun w him,' so not looking for trouble.

So whether BM had gun w him just that evening only, or as part of his usual habit (if true), he could be seen as a hothead,
so also as the initial aggressor, depending what else we believe about the evening's events.
If BM had pre-med violence & was initial aggressor & shot first, does that change conclusion about EN's shooting - any way EN's shooting was justified?

[SUP] Pure speculation. IDK. [/SUP]
____________________________________________________________________
BTW, from my reading, I'm not aware of any firearm violation BM may have committed that evening (but maybe info in footnotes below re Clark Co. would show otherwise).
NV does not require permit to buy handgun or handgun registration, but Clark County does req. handgun registration.
IIRC, BM's handgun was registered and IIRC, he had a CCW permit.
NV allows open carry of handguns but 'For open carry in a vehicle, the firearm must be clearly visible if upon the person, however in Clark County is subject to possible unlawful arrest and litigation.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5 [/SUP]
[SUP]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Nevada


[/SUP]

 

[sonjay]

I think someone 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.

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.

BBM. Their original story story might well have been closest to the truth with respect to the car's travels that night. The car went to the school/park, there was an altercation with EN, there was a chase, and the chase came back to the Meyers house, where Tammy was shot.

That series of events, in broad strokes, correlates perfectly with the narrative provided by EN's two friends.

I keep coming back to that. That was the very first story the Meyerses told that night, and it was the story EN told his friends that night. It's the story that was told by both sides in the immediate aftermath of the event. And to me, it has the ring of truth. Whereas the story that has TM going home to get BM and his gun and go hunting for EN just doesn't have the same ring of truth. IMO. JMO. MOO.

I think the only reason the story has snowballed and changed the way it has is that the Meyerses desperately did not want to tell the truth that BM was in the car that night. So they told the truth about the car's movements, but changed up who was in the car -- not BM and KM hunting for EN, but TM and KM innocently having driving lessons.

The huge revelation that BM was in the car that night came on the same day that EN was in juvie custody. I still think that the only reason the Meyerses changed their story at that point, to reveal that BM had been in the car, was because they realized someone (EN or his friends) was going to spill the beans about BM's presence in the car, and BM pointing the gun at EN.

And, IMO, that's when and why they made up the crazy story about TM going home to drop off KM and tell BM to arm up and go hunting for EN with her. They realized that their original story failed to account for BM being in the car. And rather than recant the original story completely and tell the truth, they added the intermission, during which TM went home to swap passengers.

They knew EN had seen BM pointing the gun at the Audi, and they knew EN had been picked up by the police, and they didn't want to get caught in their original lie. That's when they dropped their little bombshell about TM's alleged vigilantism, and that's when the story really started to spiral out of control.

IMO, they didn't set out to tell a story with so many falsehoods. But, as so often happens, once you start lying, you have to keep making up new lies to support the lies you've already told. They were stuck with the driving lessons story, since they had already told that one, so to account for BM's presence in the car, they added the trip home during the intermission.

 

[sonjay]

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.

BBM. hope it goes without saying that we want to see this when you have it ready!

I somehow don't think we have enough specific clock times to really nail things down time-wise. I wish we had the following:

The time the 911 call was made after the shooting.
The time any other 911 calls were made by neighbors after the shooting.
The time of any 911 calls made by people who live in the area of the first shooting scene at Villa Monterey and Alta.
The time of any other 911 calls that may have been made -- by people who might have seen any part of any altercation or chase or spin-out or near-crash.

The timestamps of any videos from any surveillance cameras that may have caught one or both cars on tape.

The exact location of the surveillance video that we have seen. We do have the timestamp of that one: 11:22 pm. We don't know if that timestamp is accurate, and we don't know exactly where that camera is located. And we've only seen a very brief clip of it; we don't know if the uncut video shows the Meyers car going past before or after the silver car, or if it does not show the Meyers car at all.

Plus... the times of any texts and/or phone calls to or from the various participants.

And I really really wish we had some way of knowing exactly what time the whole thing started. An exact start time and an exact end time would give us a real leg up on nailing down what was possible.

 

[*JMO*]

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.

Has the version (according to RM) that involved TM fleeing for home and attempting to leave again to hide the car (because the silver car occupants knew where they lived and TM being afraid to have it parked at the M home) been revised or is this version all part of the alleged reason for BM joining her with his gun?

Since they admitted to knowing the suspect all along, this version never made sense unless they thought E was not familiar with the Buick.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/20/nday.02.html

 

[*JMO*]

Has the version (according to RM) that involved TM fleeing for home and attempting to leave again to hide the car (because the silver car occupants knew where they lived and TM being afraid to have it parked at the M home) been revised or is this version all part of the alleged reason for BM joining her with his gun?

Since they admitted to knowing the suspect all along, this version never made sense unless they thought E was not familiar with the Buick.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/20/nday.02.html

Please excuse me for quoting my own post but I just reviewed the police report and there is no mention of the "moving the cars" version, so just chalk that up to another one of RM's accounts.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

If BM had pre-med violence & was initial aggressor & shot first, does that change conclusion about EN's shooting - any way EN's shooting was justified?

It may or may not change the disposition of EN's case, but I think it would be pretty non-controversial to consider family members suspects in major crimes rather than there being a neat dividing line between family members and suspects. If this was part of something larger, like gang warfare or some other violent criminal conspiracy one or more of the Meyers kids could be looking at Felony Murder (in addition to everyone in the Audi). If BM alone or with other Meyers kids in a premeditated fashion decided to go after the Alpha Block gang that night, that puts the case in a whole different stratosphere. The more this was preplanned by the Meyers, the easier the explanation for lying about it as lies potentially protect them from being charged with murder even if they didn't fire the round that killed TM particularly if TM had little to no role in this and was herself deceived into coming outside. If KM and BM were afraid that they'd face serious criminal time themselves, I just don't see what their motive would be to lie and to keep lying for days (potentially to this day) as all it dues is hinder the police and undermine the prosecution without any apparent upside for them otherwise.

 

[katydid23]

It may or may not change the disposition of EN's case, but I think it would be pretty non-controversial to consider family members suspects in major crimes rather than there being a neat dividing line between family members and suspects. If this was part of something larger, like gang warfare or some other violent criminal conspiracy one or more of the Meyers kids could be looking at Felony Murder (in addition to everyone in the Audi). If BM alone or with other Meyers kids in a premeditated fashion decided to go after the Alpha Block gang that night, that puts the case in a whole different stratosphere. The more this was preplanned by the Meyers, the easier the explanation for lying about it as lies potentially protect them from being charged with murder even if they didn't fire the round that killed TM particularly if TM had little to no role in this and was herself deceived into coming outside. If KM and BM were afraid that they'd face serious criminal time themselves, I just don't see what their motive would be to lie and to keep lying for days (potentially to this day) as all it dues is hinder the police and undermine the prosecution without any apparent upside for them otherwise.

BBM

I think the confusion comes because the kids were essential lying to their Dad, who then contacted the media at every opportunity. So the motive to lie was possibly just kids doing what they usually do---lying to parents about trouble they are in. But of course thus got magnified and escalated because of the death involved and the media scrutiny.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

From the Complaint:
"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police, but she told him no come with me or I'll go by myself."
That alleged statement from the mother is beyond Dirty Hairy, particularly if she meant she a 44 year old non physically imposing woman was going to go back out there alone and unarmed (or even armed if she intended to take BM's gun) against an unknown number of passengers in the Audi, with at least the driver being a physically imposing 6' 180 pounds male about half her age where she wants to take the car on with the police expressly not supposed to protect her home or herself. That alleged statement from TM could be true, but would be an awfully extreme action for a mother to do with the intent of going on the hunt and not protecting the home. On the other hand it makes a bit more sense if this was actually the attitude of a male in their 20s. The family actually touts about how she had been a nurse (not like an Iraq vet with war experience) and nurturing, which that image may well be the correct one but would totally contradict her being someone who thinks they could single-handedly hunt down and take on potentially a car full of armed gangsters half her age with police expressly not to be there for the confrontation. Also BM is the owner of the gun, not TM or RM, which points to TM either being wholly uninvolved or duped into whatever involvement she had plus that wasn't her normal car that she drove.

 

[sonjay]

Has the version (according to RM) that involved TM fleeing for home and attempting to leave again to hide the car (because the silver car occupants knew where they lived and TM being afraid to have it parked at the M home) been revised or is this version all part of the alleged reason for BM joining her with his gun?

Since they admitted to knowing the suspect all along, this version never made sense unless they thought E was not familiar with the Buick.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1502/20/nday.02.html

At the news conference RM held, he said "the whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because, now you know, they knew where we live."

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152802324678802

Scratching my head over that one. If the guy that you claim was trying to kill your wife and daughter knows where you live, I can't figure out what the benefit would be of leaving your daughter at home and going back out in the car with your son. But that's what RM said on Feb. 19.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

So the motive to lie was possibly just kids doing what they usually do---lying to parents about trouble they are in.

But they weren't just lying to their dad, they were lying to the police who were investigating the death of their mother. There's lying about whether you remembered to feed the cat is one thing, but lying to the police themselves is a whole other thing and can be charge as a serious crime itself:
http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/obstructing-public-officer.html
Normally if someone has otherwise not done something wrong, when they have to make an official statement or be under oath is when they'd fess up. Sending a murder investigation on wild goose chases when they're investigating the death of your own family member seems awfully odd for it to be done for non-nefarious reasons as it doesn't make sense to commit a misdemeanor just to get away with a petty issue.

 

[sonjay]

From the Complaint:
"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police, but she told him no come with me or I'll go by myself."
That alleged statement from the mother is beyond Dirty Hairy, particularly if she meant she a 44 year old non physically imposing woman was going to go back out there alone and unarmed (or even armed if she intended to take BM's gun) against an unknown number of passengers in the Audi, with at least the driver being a physically imposing 6' 180 pounds male about half her age where she wants to take the car on with the police expressly not supposed to protect her home or herself. That alleged statement from TM could be true, but would be an awfully extreme action for a mother to do with the intent of going on the hunt and not protecting the home. On the other hand it makes a bit more sense if this was actually the attitude of a male in their 20s. The family actually touts about how she had been a nurse (not like an Iraq vet with war experience) and nurturing, which that image may well be the correct one but would totally contradict her being someone who thinks they could single-handedly hunt down and take on potentially a car full of armed gangsters half her age with police expressly not to be there for the confrontation. Also BM is the owner of the gun, not TM or RM, which points to TM either being wholly uninvolved or duped into whatever involvement she had plus that wasn't her normal car that she drove.

Yes, this. Sooooo this.

This also supports my belief that TM never went home to send KM inside and get BM with his gun to go out and hunt down EN.

I just don't believe TM did this.

 

[ninij9]

Wow. I have not read here since yesterday. All of your great sleuthing has me hesitant to post my theory as to a small piece of this puzzle. I have thought a lot about TMs "mentoring" of EN. No matter which way I cut it, mentoring the local drug dealer seems way too fantastical to me.
What if bringing him food and driving to the park to give him motherly advice, was just what she told her husband? What if she WAS buying Xanax, or some such prescription pills and just said this when questioned by him to explain her appearances at that park?
I'm much more comfortable reading all of your work than posting, but this just seems very plausible to me. I am having a really hard time picturing a loving mother and wife associating with this kid.
Thank you all for keeping me glued to this thread.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I just don't believe TM did this.

Yes, whatever her involvement was probably because KM/BM told her some meanies road raged them. I'm inclined to believe that KM was the driver for most of this and BM was the passenger. Whatever KM said got TM to go to the car while BM was outside holding the pistol.

 

[katydid23]

From the Complaint:
"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police, but she told him no come with me or I'll go by myself."
That alleged statement from the mother is beyond Dirty Hairy, particularly if she meant she a 44 year old non physically imposing woman was going to go back out there alone and unarmed (or even armed if she intended to take BM's gun) against an unknown number of passengers in the Audi, with at least the driver being a physically imposing 6' 180 pounds male about half her age where she wants to take the car on with the police expressly not supposed to protect her home or herself. That alleged statement from TM could be true, but would be an awfully extreme action for a mother to do with the intent of going on the hunt and not protecting the home. On the other hand it makes a bit more sense if this was actually the attitude of a male in their 20s. The family actually touts about how she had been a nurse (not like an Iraq vet with war experience) and nurturing, which that image may well be the correct one but would totally contradict her being someone who thinks they could single-handedly hunt down and take on potentially a car full of armed gangsters half her age with police expressly not to be there for the confrontation. Also BM is the owner of the gun, not TM or RM, which points to TM either being wholly uninvolved or duped into whatever involvement she had plus that wasn't her normal car that she drove.

As a mother, with a son and a daughter, I can say that the story as told above, makes ZERO sense to me. If someone threatened to kill my daughter, NO WAY would I send her into the house, to stay all alone, while I took my son AND THE WEAPON< away from the home. That makes no sense. You would want to stay and protect your child, not leave her alone, unarmed, and then not even contacting police, and/or other family to come be with her.

It just does not ring true to me. Also, the motivation for her to go out and 'hunt' the road rager down. It makes no sense to go take a weapon and seek out a RANDOM angry driver. Why not let it go if they do not know you or where you live?

The only way it makes sense to me is if they DID know who the 'rager' was and they DID know they were vulnerable at home. Which we eventually found out was the truth of the situation.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I have thought a lot about TMs "mentoring" of EN. No matter which way I cut it, mentoring the local drug dealer seems way too fantastical to me.

Given how something is being hidden, I think that means there's any number of possibilities. Someone can both be a loving parent and a drug user. With RM it looks like he hadn't seen much of EN in about a year, but it could be that he misses the comings and goings on in the neighborhood because he's a road warrior for work while other members of the family had more frequent interactions with EN.

 

[katydid23]

But they weren't just lying to their dad, they were lying to the police who were investigating the death of their mother. There's lying about whether you remembered to feed the cat is one thing, but lying to the police themselves is a whole other thing and can be charge as a serious crime itself:
http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/obstructing-public-officer.html
Normally if someone has otherwise not done something wrong, when they have to make an official statement or be under oath is when they'd fess up. Sending a murder investigation on wild goose chases when they're investigating the death of your own family member seems awfully odd for it to be done for non-nefarious reasons as it doesn't make sense to commit a misdemeanor just to get away with a petty issue.

I know they were also lying to the police. But I think the way the dynamics of the family was working, was that the Dad was in constant contact asking what was going on and the kids were telling him inconsistent versions, and he was sharing each version with the media.

Usually the public does not get a birds eye view of each and every version of the story. But Dad gave us this in this case. Luckily for the EN defense team.

 

[Hiandmighty]

You know what has been nagging me-- the whole idea that RM said TM used to tell EN to pull up his pants.

What business was of her to tell him that? (If it is true)...

 

[katydid23]

Yes, whatever her involvement was probably because KM/BM told her some meanies road raged them. I'm inclined to believe that KM was the driver for most of this and BM was the passenger. Whatever KM said got TM to go to the car while BM was outside holding the pistol.

I agree.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The only way it makes sense to me is if they DID know who the 'rager' was and they DID know they were vulnerable at home. Which we eventually found out was the truth of the situation.

To me that makes sense for it to be BM or KM's train of thought, but not TM. TM would either want to keep the house guarded or have everyone get in the car and abandon the house. Leaving your house with your teenage daughter inside seems like a way to put the daughter's life in danger as they could storm and overpower a single individual. A home is far more defensible than a car, especially if the home is two story, where three people would be hard to defeat inside versus a car challenging with three people. The only possible reason I could somewhat see for the action would be if TM said to call the police to the house rather than the allegation that she stopped the police from being called. I think whatever threat was made wasn't considered that dangerous, so they didn't see themselves in danger once they got armed but were surprised at getting fired upon. I really question if it was TM that was involved in this rather than BM/KM.