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

[SpanishInquisition]

So he could have gone over there with the intention of threatening EN that he better keep his mouth shut about that night. Or to beat him up. Or to tell him to have the Audi driver contact RM. Or to pay what he owed EN, or to collect what EN owed him. Or to ask him for his recipe for bread pudding.

As I've posted on here I've found it odd how EN acted after allegedly having shot nearby neighbors who live within spitting distance. The next day he was at his mom's place and was out talking to his neighbor about it. He wasn't seeking safe houses or otherwise trying to get away from the family that had just chased him with a gun and who he had shot up their house and tried to shot people there. EN was apparently still living at his mom's for a week until he was a arrested, which for someone who calls for help and tries to escape, it doesn't sound like EN was worried about the Meyers doing anything to him. That I think EN committed manslaughter, it doesn't mean that I view things that way to the exclusion of other possibilities as the post-shooting activities of EN give me pause.

 

[sonjay]

I believe it. It was too many days past the shooting for me to believe they knew it was EN all along. If they knew all along, they would have been knocking at EN's door sooner. Not knowing for certain he was the shooter makes it a less risky scenario for the Meyerses to go to his house. They already learned the hard way that going out brandishing guns can backfire.

Maybe, maybe not. TM was taken off life support the evening of the 14th. The Meyers were over at EN's on the 15th. The timing of those two things could be related.

The Meyerses were probably spending all or most of their time at the hospital until TM was taken off life support. All day Friday and all day Saturday at the hospital. Saturday night remove life support. Sunday the 15th they're back home, and one of the very first things they do is go over to EN's. That in itself seems pretty suspicious.

Also, as soon as she died on the 14th, it went from a shooting to a homicide. Maybe they urgently needed to talk with EN or the Audi driver about that.

So, for me, that fact they waited until the 15th to go to EN's house isn't necessarily evidence that they didn't know all along that it was him.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, I saw that you included it as a possibility. I was clarifying that under this theory, it wouldn't really be optional.

I agree to amend it without the option.

I wish we had a diagram of the scene at the cul de sac. Where was the Buick, and which way was it facing when the police got there? Where was TM's body? Where did BM say he was when the shooting started? We don't know any of that.

I know. That information could help us figure out if TM was in the car. We all agree it's very unlikely she wasn't, but what if her body was found somewhere that makes it very likely she was.

Yeah, you'd think. But he could be driving a different car. The silver car could already have been through a chop-shop and its parts already sold on the streets in Mexico.

According to the reports, Jongepier was defending EN, and threatening a neighbor that he thought was responsible for EN's arrest. Threatened to come back for his family, in fact. That sounds a lot like the kinds of threats our Audi driver makes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nned-19-year-old-said-buying-Xanax-years.html

The sketch isn't Jongepier any more than it's EN. Is the sketch just an imaginary person? Have the Meyerses perhaps admitted to police it's imaginary, and that's why police are no longer searching for the person in the sketch?

In his defense, his girlfriend said the neighbor threw something at his car. I believe this is the same neighbor who revealed the rumor that TM was buying prescription drugs from EN. I get the impression he's a hothead himself. I think it could be easy for someone to claim they saw a gun being brandished so shortly after this shooting. The man could have made it up and used wording that was already reported in the media. He might have another beef with this guy. He has a young adult son who could be involved in all of this neighborhood stuff too.

I believe I already shared that I think police are no longer searching for the sketch because the Meyerses fessed up and gave the name of the Audi guy. It might not be imaginary. We won't know if it is or isn't until the driver is arrested.

 

[sonjay]

As I've posted on here I've found it odd how EN acted after allegedly having shot nearby neighbors who live within spitting distance. The next day he was at his mom's place and was out talking to his neighbor about it. He wasn't seeking safe houses or otherwise trying to get away from the family that had just chased him with a gun and who he had shot up their house and tried to shot people there. EN was apparently still living at his mom's for a week until he was a arrested, which for someone who calls for help and tries to escape, it doesn't sound like EN was worried about the Meyers doing anything to him. That I think EN committed manslaughter, it doesn't mean that I view things that way to the exclusion of other possibilities as the post-shooting activities of EN give me pause.

EN just isn't normal.

He told his friends he "got those kids," but he told a neighbor that whoever killed TM would have to pay.
He made the cops wait to arrest him until he got high.
The stories about his behavior in the neighborhood are bizarre.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Maybe, maybe not. TM was taken off life support the evening of the 14th. The Meyers were over at EN's on the 15th. The timing of those two things could be related.

The Meyerses were probably spending all or most of their time at the hospital until TM was taken off life support. All day Friday and all day Saturday at the hospital. Saturday night remove life support. Sunday the 15th they're back home, and one of the very first things they do is go over to EN's. That in itself seems pretty suspicious.

Also, as soon as she died on the 14th, it went from a shooting to a homicide. Maybe they urgently needed to talk with EN or the Audi driver about that.

So, for me, that fact they waited until the 15th to go to EN's house isn't necessarily evidence that they didn't know all along that it was him.

I feel like I'm going in circles. I explained previously in the thread why I believed this. The press conference you posted to show RM stating TM and BM left the house that night because "they" knew where the Meyerses lived, convinced me the Meyerses didn't know EN was involved. They had seen the Audi driver at that point in time in the story. EN wasn't in the car by that time.

This information verified that the Audi driver is a bigger deal in the case than we previously thought. Go back and read the posts since you initially posted the timeline this morning. Read them in sequence. You'll see how this verifies the importance of the Audi driver. Your timeline fleshed out the Audi driver. You later posted the video of RM that again brought to life that the Meyerses knew the Audi driver.

 

[sonjay]

I feel like I'm going in circles. I explained previously in the thread why I believed this. The press conference you posted to show RM stating TM and BM left the house that night because "they" knew where the Meyerses lived, convinced me the Meyerses didn't know EN was involved. They had seen the Audi driver at that point in time in the story. EN wasn't in the car by that time.

This information verified that the Audi driver is a bigger deal in the case than we previously thought. Go back and read the posts since you initially posted the timeline this morning. Read them in sequence. You'll see how this verifies the importance of the Audi driver. Your timeline fleshed out the Audi driver. You later posted the video of RM that again brought to life that the Meyerses knew the Audi driver.

"They knew where we live" is not evidence that the Meyerses didn't know it was EN.

In fact, in that same press conference, RM, referring to EN, said this:

We know this boy. I couldn’t tell you this before. He knew where I lived. We knew how bad he was, but we didn’t know it was this bad. That he’d gotten to this point, and his friends. She (Tammy Meyers), she gave him money, she told him to pull his pants up and be a man.

That, to me, is evidence ... well, maybe not evidence that the Meyerses knew it was EN, but evidence that RM is claiming that they knew all along it was EN.

I'm not denying that the Audi driver seems to have more importance than we initially realized. But I think it's clear that RM at least wants us to believe that they knew all along that EN was the shooter.

 

[Miss Muffet]

On the route that the Buick allegedly first encountered the Audi was going in the direction of a gas station/convenience store on the corner of Durango and Westcliff, which that could have been the original destination to explain why they were on Durango after having been out driving - whether TM was out giving a driving lesson or it was something else, the driver could have been going for gas and/or other stuff as that appears to be the closest place. On a dual scene scenario the Buick could have encountered the Audi on Durango and decided to go home to get a gun to chase the Audi, which would explain the route given in the Complaint.

Thanks. I'm going to think about this some more by comparing it to the map, complaint, and or various scenarios. I didn't expect to devote so much time today in this thread. I had hoped to spend more time doing research and creating my spreadsheet. I'm going to take these new theories we came up with today and hash them out.

 

[sonjay]

I feel like I'm going in circles. I explained previously in the thread why I believed this. The press conference you posted to show RM stating TM and BM left the house that night because "they" knew where the Meyerses lived, convinced me the Meyerses didn't know EN was involved. They had seen the Audi driver at that point in time in the story. EN wasn't in the car by that time.

BBM. This is theory and speculation, not verified fact, and certainly not proved by the press conference.

This information verified that the Audi driver is a bigger deal in the case than we previously thought. Go back and read the posts since you initially posted the timeline this morning. Read them in sequence. You'll see how this verifies the importance of the Audi driver. Your timeline fleshed out the Audi driver. You later posted the video of RM that again brought to life that the Meyerses knew the Audi driver.

RM's use of "they" (in "they knew where we live") suggests that they knew both the Audi driver and EN. It does not suggest, to me, that they knew the Audi driver but not EN.

We all have a tendency (me included) to run with our pet theory and believe that it's all fact-based. But it's not. Not your theory nor my theory nor anyone else's theory. We're taking a very barebones set of facts (the facts in my "narrative of known facts") and weaving a story around those facts.

That's exactly why I posted the narrative of known facts. So that we have something to refer to with respect to "Is this fact or is this theory?"

I try very hard to differentiate between facts and theories. I'm sure I'm not always successful. But this case is so full of lies and deceptions and theories, I think we all have to try extra hard to maintain that distinction.

 

[Miss Muffet]

"They knew where we live" is not evidence that the Meyerses didn't know it was EN.

In fact, in that same press conference, RM, referring to EN, said this:

We know this boy. I couldn’t tell you this before. He knew where I lived. We knew how bad he was, but we didn’t know it was this bad. That he’d gotten to this point, and his friends. She (Tammy Meyers), she gave him money, she told him to pull his pants up and be a man.

That, to me, is evidence ... well, maybe not evidence that the Meyerses knew it was EN, but evidence that RM is claiming that they knew all along it was EN.

I'm not denying that the Audi driver seems to have more important than we initially realized. But I think it's clear that RM at least wants us to believe that they knew all along that EN was the shooter.

I don't want to go around and around repeating what I posted clearly earlier in this thread today. I'll try one more time.

He's not addressing only one point in the news conference.

He's specific when he talks about EN throughout life, not necessarily for the shooting from the beginning, not sharing what he knew when he knew it due to investigation. That's not saying he knew EN was the shooter from the start.

He's vague and says "they" when he's talking about the reason BM and TM left the house. He's talking about the Audi encounter since he is discussing why they went and got BM and the gun.

He is not saying he knew about EN all along. If you consider this evidence, you have to consider there is also evidence where he claims he learned about EN via social media many days later. Putting the two evidences together brings the conclusion I'm making.

This tells me he's saying the night of the incident:

They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived.

They knew EN very well throughout the years. They became aware he was involved two days before he was arrested via social media. He couldn't tell anyone prior to his arrest to hinder the investigation.

LE and RM are being vague about the Audi driver. They're dancing around that indicates to me that the Audi driver is important.

 

[Miss Muffet]

BBM. This is theory and speculation, not verified fact, and certainly not proved by the press conference.

RM's use of "they" (in "they knew where we live") suggests that they knew both the Audi driver and EN. It does not suggest, to me, that they knew the Audi driver but not EN.

We all have a tendency (me included) to run with our pet theory and believe that it's all fact-based. But it's not. Not your theory nor my theory nor anyone else's theory. We're taking a very barebones set of facts (the facts in my "narrative of known facts") and weaving a story around those facts.

That's exactly why I posted the narrative of known facts. So that we have something to refer to with respect to "Is this fact or is this theory?"

I try very hard to differentiate between facts and theories. I'm sure I'm not always successful. But this case is so full of lies and deceptions and theories, I think we all have to try extra hard to maintain that distinction.

I've brainstormed many scenarios. I didn't embrace one until yesterday, I believe. And I changed it significantly today. I haven't settled on anything. You ask me questions about my latest theory, and I answered your questions all day.

You cry "evidence" in a biased manner. You consider a video of RM evidence. You don't consider a corresponding statement from RM about the same thing evidence. I am not here to discredit you. I am here to get ideas. I welcome anyone who can throw logic at any ideas I'm considering. It's not logical or reasonable for you to say one thing RM says is evidence and another thing RM says isn't evidence.

I've gotten what I need from this thread to do research for now. I'm taking a break to look at the evidence and compare it to the new theories without distractions. I gave you half my day about "fact." Now it's time for me to focus on other things, like the spread sheet I want to do, comparing my new scenario to the evidence, etc.. Not only do I want to solve this, but I have a real life.

 

[sonjay]

This tells me he's saying the night of the incident:

They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived.

RM doesn't even come close to saying this in his press conference, nor in any of his many public statements.

I'm trying to separate facts from theories. We cannot make up theories and call them facts, no matter how much we would like to.

We can make up theories, yes, and we can look at them to see how well they do or don't comport with the facts, but we can't call the theories facts.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

EN just isn't normal.
He told his friends he "got those kids," but he told a neighbor that whoever killed TM would have to pay.
He made the cops wait to arrest him until he got high.
The stories about his behavior in the neighborhood are bizarre.

All sorts of things are not normal, but it doesn't mean they aren't self-consistent. To me it makes perfect sense that EN would want to do drugs before taken into custody, which isn't to say that most people would think the same way, but most people aren't the neighborhood drug dealer who is knowing for getting so high as to be incapacitated that he can't stand up. However, what is not self-consistent is to call for back-up at the first sign of trouble and then flee because you thought you were targeted, but then to those very same people you were fleeing from where you ended up shooting up their house and killing one of to not take the same action and flee but to instead talk to the neighbor about the shooting and hanging around for days with them right by able to attack you...it isn't self-consistent. Many of the participants have acted in strange ways compared to what is normal, but much of their behavior is consistent as people behave in patterns even if they're strange patterns.

 

[sonjay]

Maybe the neighbor Selig is right:

"The son and mother left the Meyers residence looking for Erich on a drug deal gone bad. That's the word on the street. A prescription drug deal gone bad."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nned-19-year-old-said-buying-Xanax-years.html

So let's try this on for size. TM had a deal with EN go bad. BM and his mom set out (BM armed) looking for EN. EN correctly identified them as being "after him." EN called the Audi driver (who was part of the neighborhood drug territory and therefore part of the "drug deal gone bad."

Words were exchanged. The chase happened. Shooting scene #1 happened. BM had his gun with him, but wasn't expecting EN to shoot, so it was in his holster, safety on. By the time he got it out of the holster and ready to fire, TM was already fleeing back toward home. Shooting scene #2 happened. BM pushed his mother back into car and moved toward the house. EN shot at both of them, but hit only TM, while BM was returning fire.

BM got his sister from the house and they quickly made up a story for the police, because they definitely did not want to tell police what actually happened.

Does this comport with the facts as we know them?

 

[sonjay]

All sorts of things are not normal, but it doesn't mean they aren't self-consistent. To me it makes perfect sense that EN would want to do drugs before taken into custody, which isn't to say that most people would think the same way, but most people aren't the neighborhood drug dealer who is knowing for getting so high as to be incapacitated that he can't stand up. However, what is not self-consistent is to call for back-up at the first sign of trouble and then flee because you thought you were targeted, but then to those very same people you were fleeing from where you ended up shooting up their house and killing one of to not take the same action and flee but to instead talk to the neighbor about the shooting and hanging around for days with them right by able to attack you...it isn't self-consistent. Many of the participants have acted in strange ways compared to what is normal, but much of their behavior is consistent as people behave in patterns even if they're strange patterns.

Well, but as far as we know, EN did in fact call the Audi and flee, then ended up shooting up their house and killing one of them, and then hanging around for days with them nearby. You're right, it's not self-consistent, but it is what it is. If he uses a lot of drugs, especially some of the more exotic ones that can really mess up your thinking, that could explain his self-inconsistency.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BM got his sister from the house and they quickly made up a story for the police, because they definitely did not want to tell police what actually happened.
Does this comport with the facts as we know them?

Also for that same reason could be why EN didn't flee as he was under the protection of the Audi driver who could be the kingpin or generally higher up the criminal food chain where the Meyers knew there would be payback if they ratted EN and/or the Audi driver out. The Audi driver could be EN's supplier and a boss (or the boss) of the Alpha Block gang.

 

[Tricia]

YES you can sleuth Jongepier. He pulled a gun, he was arrested, he is involved.

You may sleuth him just remember our terms of service.

Tricia

 

[Miss Muffet]

I only have a minute because I have to get something done tonight.

I found something important!!!

Look at the last paragraph of the warrant.

"The information is also consistent with there were two shooting scenes, which to your affiant's knowledge has never been released to the media."

This supports RM's claim that there were details of the case the Meyerses promised not to disclose because it would hinder the investigation.

 

[Miss Muffet]

This tells me he's saying the night of the incident:

They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived.

RM doesn't even come close to saying this in his press conference, nor in any of his many public statements.

I'm trying to separate facts from theories. We cannot make up theories and call them facts, no matter how much we would like to.

We can make up theories, yes, and we can look at them to see how well they do or don't comport with the facts, but we can't call the theories facts.

<modsnip>

I'm calling it a fact that RM stated he learned about EN via social media and that's why he went to EN's house two days before EN was arrested.

I'm calling it a fact that RM stated "they" knew where we lived when he was explaining WHY TM and BM left the house to find the Audi.

Theories that results from statements contained in warrant:

The warrant states that the first "road rage" Audi encounter is the reason TM and KM returned to the house.

EN wouldn't have been in the Audi at that time because TM and KM encountered the Audi on its way to pick up EN.

As a result, RM's reason he gave for TM and BM leaving the house is because the Audi driver knew where they lived, not EN.

The logical conclusions:

RM said "they" when discussing why TM and BM left the house in search of the Audi is because subsequently two people were in the Audi by the time the shootings occurred.

Which I so concisely summarized as:

"This tells me he's saying the night of the incident:

They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived."

Let's revisit exactly what RM said in the video at that point:

"The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because, now you know, they knew where we lived."

He is talking about when BM and TM left the house to go find the Audi. At that point, only the Audi driver was in the Audi because it was heading to pick up EN.

This is THEORY based on facts listed above, details in the warrant listed above, and logical conclusions listed above.

<modsnip>

"They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived."

When I already provided a preamble in the post that contained that sentence to explain how I came to that conclusion?

I try not to pull one sentence from a post out of context and ignore the entire context of the post that included it.

Are the facts and theories separated enough this time?

 

[sonjay]

Do I have to spell it out more than I already have in my previous post?

I'm calling it a fact that RM stated he learned about EN via social media and that's why he went to EN's house two days before EN was arrested.

I'm calling it a fact that RM stated "they" knew where we lived when he was explaining WHY TM and BM left the house to find the Audi.

Theories that results from statements contained in warrant:

The warrant states that the first "road rage" Audi encounter is the reason TM and KM returned to the house.

EN wouldn't have been in the Audi at that time because TM and KM encountered the Audi on its way to pick up EN.

As a result, RM's reason he gave for TM and BM leaving the house is because the Audi driver knew where they lived, not EN.

The logical conclusions:

RM said "they" when discussing why TM and BM left the house in search of the Audi is because subsequently two people were in the Audi by the time the shootings occurred.

Which I so concisely summarized as:

"This tells me he's saying the night of the incident:

They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived."

Let's revisit exactly what RM said in the video at that point:

"The whole purpose of them leaving here that night is because, now you know, they knew where we lived."

He is talking about when BM and TM left the house to go find the Audi. At that point, only the Audi driver was in the Audi because it was heading to pick up EN.

This is THEORY based on facts listed above, details in the warrant listed above, and logical conclusions listed above.

Did it really require 17 sentences to help you understand my one sentence:

"They knew the Audi driver's identity and went home to get BM and his gun and go out to find him because the Audi driver new where they lived."

When I already provided a preamble in the post that contained that sentence to explain how I came to that conclusion?

I try not to pull one sentence from a post out of context and ignore the entire context of the post that included it.

Are the facts and theories separated enough this time?

All I can say is, you are certainly reading an awful lot into a cryptic statement by a man who has been misleading, deceptive and vague from day 1.

Facts are facts. Theories are theories. They are not the same thing.

 

[Miss Muffet]

All I can say is, you are certainly reading an awful lot into a cryptic statement by a man who has been misleading, deceptive and vague from day 1.

Facts are facts. Theories are theories. They are not the same thing.

I'm going to bow out of this exchange with you instead of pointing out when you've done the same.