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

[Indy Anna]

IMO, the Audi driver is not going to be ID'd unless EN confessed to a friend who it was. Without the Audi driver's testimony, EN can claim self-defense (denying he directed the driver to follow the Buick); the Audi driver isn't about to come forward and implicate himself in any role in a homicide; even if the Meyerses know who the driver of the Audi is, they aren't going to ID him because his testimony will expose their culpability. They are culpable in that they, IMO, were engaged in illegal activity and moved the gunbattle to their home.

The fact that there is damage to the Buick isn't necessarily evidence that KM (an inexperienced driver) was driving. Anyone could sideswipe a parked car or an object if they are driving at high speeds on narrow streets at night, or if they are intoxicated.

Also, I still think it's possible KM wasn't in the car at all. While the M's didn't have much time to corroborate a story before emergency vehicles arrived and while they attended to their mother, they did corroborate a story about the parking lesson at the school. Both BM and KM would have to agree on a story to have given the same story (assuming it's fabricated) to LE, no matter who was initially in the car. Only KM would need to give details because allegedly she and TM were in the car, and TM was in no condition to speak. But, when KM ran outside after the shooting, or BM ran inside the house to call 911, I'm sure the first thing KM wanted to know is "What happened?!!" to which BM would've given her a synopsis of what initially happened (1st gunbattle) and where it happened, and then quickly came up with the driving lesson scenario between TM and KM to make it sound innocent while trying to protect the guilty party/parties. Yes, they were shocked at what happened to their mother, but I think because there was illegal activity involved, the kids went into survival mode so that their top priority at the moment was self-preservation. The kids could later discuss their stories to ensure they were on the same spectrum, but they had to change the story to coincide with freshly discovered evidence (e.g., the 1st gunbattle). Even MM was ready to give his version of the driving lesson scenario in detail.

I don't have any more ideas about what type of illegal activity was involved other than what has been speculated in the media. But, if nothing illegal was involved, why would the victims lie? I know that has been asked over and over, but it's a question that needs to be answered. Also, if BM went out to look for EN at the park armed (assuming only one car chase), would he really take along his little sister?

JMO

 

[sonjay]

I've read it two ways. One possibility is that the Audi driver had the verbal confrontation on his way to pick up EN, which the Buick then drove home followed by returning to the school. Alternatively EN does mention there was an 'exchange' that preceded any of the shooting incidents, which this could mean EN was present for all the events between the cars with this being a continuous chase.

Again looking at the source (the source being the arrest affidavit, which is the closest thing we have at this point to any sort of official summary of what happened):

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi, and the green car began following the Audi.

That sounds to me as if EN was present for all the events between the cars and that it was one continuous chase.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

If being a passenger eliminated responsibility for aggression, most drive by shooters would be innocent.

It doesn't, just those who get convicted of drive-by shootings have a clear chain of evidence showing all the requirements of the charge are met. With gang drive-bys a successful prosecutor can get convictions for murder by showing premeditation, like with there being rival gangs and the shooter having a particular grudge against someone living at a particular home. The problem with the EN case in particular is that it shows the Audi driver as the one who made the threats and would have a grudge if the driver did the shooting rather than EN, while with EN he's shown at least at first as trying to get away. Also it is unusual that you drive into a street and encounter someone armed, so ordinarily if someone was shooting they couldn't say they encountered an armed man before they shot so that too would be other drive-by shooters get convicted as they're usually firing at night into occupied houses where the shooter can't claim self-defense, but I'm skeptical of this one in particular.

Do we have to view the two shooting scenes as two separate incidents?

I'm non-committal so far.

 

[Miss Muffet]

For now, I would like to hear from some independent witnesses. The Meyers and EN versions are all full of holes. Where are all the witnesses, driver of "audi", neighbors, others at the park, b-day party goers etc.??

You'd be hard pressed to find witnesses at that late hour in my neighborhood. The streets and park would be completely empty. Neighbors would be ear witnesses, but I doubt any of the immediate neighbors would look out the window when hearing gunfire so close. I'd hit the ground.

The people living on the street that intersects with Mt. Shasta would have likely looked out the window and could have seen the Audi leaving. The same goes for residents between the first shooting scene and Mt. Shasta.

At that late hour, many people might have already been sleeping. Most of my neighbors go to bed at 10pm like clockwork. I know this because my household is full of night owls since my husband works night shift.

The birthday party goers would be the best place to start. I do believe the party was over since MM's girlfriend was already asleep at home when she received the call that his mother had been shot. But even if the party was over at the time the shootings occurred, the guests would have an idea if there was any conflict prior to anyone getting into a car.

But for the life of me, I can't understand why at least the Nat'l Enquirer or the Daily Mail hasn't been tracking down and interviewing neighbors, friends, and relatives of the various people involved. The tabloids still have budgets for first-hand investigation, and they often do a lot better job of it than the "real" news reporters.

The Daily Mail does a decent job. I don't know about the Enquirer because I don't read articles from it. I guess I only read the Daily Mail because I didn't realize it was a tabloid, even though my previous employer was a subsidiary of the Daily Mail. LOL

I like how the Daily Mail runs full stories with all-inclusive information gathered from all news reports. It sure beats these five line news reports from the television stations, which makes it very difficult to put all of the little reports together to figure out a story.

Hopefully, we'll see more information from witnesses in the DM and NI after they have time to get boots on the ground.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM: I don't recall EN saying it was a passenger waving the gun, he said someone in the Buick he THOUGHT was waving a gun. :crazy: Am I missing something? EEK!

You are correct. It isn't specified who in the Buick was either waving the gun or pointing the gun at the Audi.

 

[Gin]

You'd be hard pressed to find witnesses at that late hour in my neighborhood. The streets and park would be completely empty. Neighbors would be ear witnesses, but I doubt any of the immediate neighbors would look out the window when hearing gunfire so close. I'd hit the ground.

The people living on the street that intersects with Mt. Shasta would have likely looked out the window and could have seen the Audi leaving. The same goes for residents between the first shooting scene and Mt. Shasta.

At that late hour, many people might have already been sleeping. Most of my neighbors go to bed at 10pm like clockwork. I know this because my household is full of night owls since my husband works night shift.

The birthday party goers would be the best place to start. I do believe the party was over since MM's girlfriend was already asleep at home when she received the call that his mother had been shot. But even if the party was over at the time the shootings occurred, the guests would have an idea if there was any conflict prior to anyone getting into a car.


The Daily Mail does a decent job. I don't know about the Enquirer because I don't read articles from it. I guess I only read the Daily Mail because I didn't realize it was a tabloid, even though my previous employer was a subsidiary of the Daily Mail. LOL

I like how the Daily Mail runs full stories with all-inclusive information gathered from all news reports. It sure beats these five line news reports from the television stations, which makes it very difficult to put all of the little reports together to figure out a story.

Hopefully, we'll see more information from witnesses in the DM and NI after they have time to get boots on the ground.

JMO, I just wanted to add to your thoughts about talking to neighbors or other witnesses. It's very possible that someone saw something. Vegas is little different in that there are lots of folks there with good jobs that work crazy hours.

 

[sonjay]

You'd be hard pressed to find witnesses at that late hour in my neighborhood. The streets and park would be completely empty. Neighbors would be ear witnesses, but I doubt any of the immediate neighbors would look out the window when hearing gunfire so close. I'd hit the ground.

I would think the best chance for eyewitnesses (as opposed to earwitnesses) would be people walking their dogs before going to bed, and other motorists who were driving by. Second shift usually ends at 11, so there might have been some second-shift workers headed home.

The Daily Mail does a decent job. I don't know about the Enquirer because I don't read articles from it. I guess I only read the Daily Mail because I didn't realize it was a tabloid, even though my previous employer was a subsidiary of the Daily Mail. LOL

I used to think the National Enquirer was full of nothing but made-up stories and gossip. But then Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman got murdered. I think the NE had more and better information about that than any of the MSM. I've viewed NE with a tad more respect since then.

 

[Miss Muffet]

When wondering if LE interviewed birthday party guests and such, I am reminded of the LE spokesperson who was portraying the Meyers' story as innocent with a weird upbeat tone to his voice and a smile on his face.

To me, that indicates LE believed the Meyerses' statements from the beginning and didn't bother to track down birthday party guests to investigate what happened earlier in the evening.

I'm talking about the LE spokesperson earlier in the investigation who was wearing a light blue shirt with a tie. Not the more professional spokesperson wearing a suit jacket later.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I used to think the National Enquirer was full of nothing but made-up stories and gossip. But then Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman got murdered. I think the NE had more and better information about that than any of the MSM. I've viewed NE with a tad more respect since then.

They must have stepped up their game since the 80s. If they're reporting at the same level as the Daily Mail, I'll start reading their articles on stories I'm already following. Thanks for the into!

 

[sonjay]

When wondering if LE interviewed birthday party guests and such, I am reminded of the LE spokesperson who was portraying the Meyers' story as innocent with a weird upbeat tone to his voice and a smile on his face.

To me, that indicates LE believed the Meyerses' statements from the beginning and didn't bother to track down birthday party guests to investigate what happened earlier in the evening.

I'm talking about the LE spokesperson earlier in the investigation who was wearing a light blue shirt with a tie. Not the more professional spokesperson wearing a suit jacket later.

I found that whole LE news conference just weird.

I want to think that LE is/was pretending, publicly, that they believe everything the Meyerses are saying, to encourage them to keep talking.

Las Vegas police? Vegas police aren't some podunk small-town police department. I have to think they've seen everything. I have to think that they know that everyone lies. I have to think they always look closely at family, even when the bad guy is obviously a random stranger. I sure hope so, at any rate. I'll be very disappointed if I learn that they didn't interview everyone possible as soon as possible, and go back for subsequent interviews as needed.

As a side note, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that the Meyerses seem to have clammed up. RM has always been the biggest mouthpiece from the beginning. Someone with some sense finally got to him and told him to shut up.

 

[Miss Muffet]

JMO, I just wanted to add to your thoughts about talking to neighbors or other witnesses. It's very possible that someone saw something. Vegas is little different in that there are lots of folks there with good jobs that work crazy hours.

That's a great point! Vegas has more than just hospital workers working weird shifts. I'll bet a significant among of the population does. That means there might be quite a few witnesses. Since my family's schedule is unusual and we are the ONLY people who are up in the middle of the night, we are often witnesses to what happens at night around here. My daughter heard a neighbor moaning for help after she had fallen and couldn't get up at 3am. I heard someone breaking into my other neighbor's garage. We were the ones to call in a fire when another neighbor's house caught on fire while the family was sleeping. That sort of stuff.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I found that whole LE news conference just weird.

I want to think that LE is/was pretending, publicly, that they believe everything the Meyerses are saying, to encourage them to keep talking.

Las Vegas police? Vegas police aren't some podunk small-town police department. I have to think they've seen everything. I have to think that they know that everyone lies. I have to think they always look closely at family, even when the bad guy is obviously a random stranger. I sure hope so, at any rate. I'll be very disappointed if I learn that they didn't interview everyone possible as soon as possible, and go back for subsequent interviews as needed.

We already know they turned over the body without having performed GSR in a shooting case and that the evidence is basically going to be permanently destroyed before they even have an indictment, which that is totally on them. I could see their mishandling costing them what otherwise could have been a conviction.

 

[Miss Muffet]

As a side note, I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed that the Meyerses seem to have clammed up. RM has always been the biggest mouthpiece from the beginning. Someone with some sense finally got to him and told him to shut up.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to shut him up.

 

[Miss Muffet]

We already know they turned over the body without having performed GSR in a shooting case and that the evidence is basically going to be permanently destroyed before they even have an indictment, which that is totally on them. I could see their mishandling costing them what otherwise could have been a conviction.

I'm always shocked when families are allowed to cremate a murder victim. You'd think there would be laws to prevent it from happening. Even without a law stipulating it, you'd think murder victims families would want to protect as much evidence as possible since you hear all the time about bodies being exhumed to solve murders years later.

 

[Gin]

I'm always shocked when families are allowed to cremate a murder victim. You'd think there would be laws to prevent it from happening. Even without a law stipulating it, you'd think murder victims families would want to protect as much evidence as possible since you hear all the time about bodies being exhumed to solve murders years later.

It's puzzling, but who knows if that is talked about with family members.

I am sorry she lost her life. I hope she is now at peace. This is a very sad ending for a 44yo woman.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Again looking at the source (the source being the arrest affidavit, which is the closest thing we have at this point to any sort of official summary of what happened):

Nowsch told Altergott there was an exchange between the green car and the Audi, and the green car began following the Audi.

That sounds to me as if EN was present for all the events between the cars and that it was one continuous chase.

But couldn't the "exchange" EN references have been the incident when the green car found the Audi after the green car left the house?

Keep in mind, from EN's vantage point, there was only one extended experience of his own from when he saw the green car, got picked up, and then was chased by the green car. There has to be a lag of time between seeing the buick at the school and being picked up by the Audi. It makes sense there would be time for the Meyerses to go home during that time period.

This is why I want to do a spreadsheet to look at the driving times for the distances. I think that might tell us if there was enough time or not. But I need to get off of this thread to do the spreadsheet! LOL

 

[PaperDoll]

There had to have been some time lapse when EN saw the Buick driving at the school because he called his friend (Audi) to come pick him up, how long did it take for the Audi to arrive? I don't know, but it still took some time. Maybe that was when TM and KM were actually doing the driving lesson, then the Audi arrives, picks up EN and off they go to investigate the Buick. The Buick was able to get home fast enough to make the switch from KM to BM, then off they go looking for the Audi. Gosh, I really wish we had more to go on, more docs would be nice :fence:

 

[Morag]

This quote to me just shows how bad this story is. There is no logic in it just story. If you think bad guys are following you, you call police go in your house and lock the door and don't take your children to fight bad guys. I think you don't leave your daughter home alone where people can find her especially since I believe that TM knew exactly who that other person was and I do not believe it was road rage.[/QUOTE

Yes, if you are being followed by bad guys, you go home, lock the door, and call 911 immediately. That is exactly what you do - if you're a 44-year-old person. If you are teenagers/early 20's, maybe not. I'm beginning to think that TM had NO involvement until she walked out into her driveway and was struck down in a gunfight. I wonder if the Buick's steering wheel was fingerprinted that night?

 

[sonjay]

We already know they turned over the body without having performed GSR in a shooting case and that the evidence is basically going to be permanently destroyed before they even have an indictment, which that is totally on them. I could see their mishandling costing them what otherwise could have been a conviction.

Yes, I can see that too. I don't think that alone would get an acquittal, but it can certainly be part of the reasonable doubt grab bag.

But .... wouldn't doing or not doing a GSR test be up to the lab boys? Even if the lab failed to do a test that (in retrospect, at least) really should have been done, that doesn't mean that the detectives aren't on top of things in their area of responsibility -- interviewing all witnesses, seeking out all possible evidence from the scene and the neighborhood, etc.

 

[sonjay]

But couldn't the "exchange" EN references have been the incident when the green car found the Audi after the green car left the house?

Keep in mind, from EN's vantage point, there was only one extended experience of his own from when he saw the green car, got picked up, and then was chased by the green car. There has to be a lag of time between seeing the buick at the school and being picked up by the Audi. It makes sense there would be time for the Meyerses to go home during that time period.

This is why I want to do a spreadsheet to look at the driving times for the distances. I think that might tell us if there was enough time or not. But I need to get off of this thread to do the spreadsheet! LOL

There's just way too much guesswork there for me. We don't have any idea what time EN first saw the Buick, or what time he called the Audi driver, or what time the Audi driver got there. I can't begin to form an opinion about that.