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

[Miss Muffet]

I know the Daily Mail said it was Selig who talked about the prescription drugs, but I'm not sure they've got the right person quoted. There is a video out there somewhere of an interview with a kid (who has his face blurred out) who said the same thing.

Two separate people, Selig and the kid, mentioned the drugs. Selig said something along the lines of his family tried to help EN when he was younger too, but he didn't buy drugs from EN like TM.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Maybe for the shooting from a vehicle charge, they have to cite an address that's "within an area designated by a City or County Ordinanace as a populated area for the purpose of prohibiting the discharge of weapons." Maybe for that count, citing the specific address is required; it does not mean they're claiming the car was actually on the property, but merely shows that the street in front of that address is within the area designated by the ordinance prohibiting discharge of firearms in a vehicle?
I dunno, I'm guessing here. But that makes more sense to me than claiming and having to prove that the vehicle was actually on the Meyers property.

If the law requires citing a specific address, the Meyers still isn't the specific address as they could name an address halfway down Mt Shasta, which one of those addresses would better fit the narrative. If the ordnances are different between a house halfway down Mt Shasta versus a house all the way down Mt Shasta, that would be a silly charge, but that's the only reason I can think of not giving one of those addresses. Also if the DA doesn't have to prove you were where they expressly said you were in the charge against you, that again makes it hard to defend yourself. It would put the defense in the position of having to both take the accused location literally as well as speculate and prepare to defend against other locations the DA might really mean. To me it just seems like it would be wrong if you could be expressly accused of being somewhere but have your accusers not have to prove you were actually there for you to be found guilty.

 

[sonjay]

I know the Daily Mail said it was Selig who talked about the prescription drugs, but I'm not sure they've got the right person quoted. There is a video out there somewhere of an interview with a kid (who has his face blurred out) who said the same thing.

The Selig statement was part of a longer interview with Selig. Local resident, father of four, known to friends as Stan. He and his wife had also befriended EN, until EN turned on them. I think the DM had the right person quoted. I think Selig sounds pretty biased against EN (possibly with good reason!) and may be making stuff up or exaggerating, but I'm pretty the DM knew exactly who they were quoting.

I think that the blurred-face kid and Selig both saying TM bought drugs from EN lends more support to that rumor than if it was just one person saying it. It doesn't prove it, but IMO it makes it more likely to be true.

 

[Miss Muffet]

That's true. the Meyers could have thought they'd be top dog in a confrontation with the Audi driver regardless of who was in the car. The Meyers could have thought the Audi driver was surrendering when it stopped, so that's why it pulled up close preparing to get out of the car and accomplish whatever end goal they had only to be blindsided by gunfire and have to put the car in reverse to get away.

I believe the M's thought they were the top dog. Everything points to that. Being the aggressor in a high speed chase. Getting too close to the car when it stopped. They thought they had the upper hand---if they're the type of people who think anything through at all.

I'm starting to believe the majority of the warrant. I just disagree with LE's interpretation of the events. M's were clearly the aggressors. I'm sure LE sees that, but they need to charge someone with murder. LE's case rests completely on the cul-de-sac, and they know it.

LE feels no matter what happened that night, even if it was a dispute between two dealers, it all comes down to the cul-de-sac because even people involved in illegal activity don't deserve to be murdered. LE pretty much said that in their statement about the drugs. I'll bet TM's toxicology report verifies her rumored drug use too.

The defense needs to prove the M's are big fish to win this case IMO. There's no other way to prove self defense unless EN's lawyer can prove EN feared his life if the M's survived the night.

The only other defense is the Audi's driver's bullet killed TM, but EN's lawyer is claiming self defense instead.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

They seemed to think they had the upper hand and surprised by the gunfire. Maybe we're looking at this wrong. Maybe the M's are the big fish. Well, medium fish. Truly big fish live in the suburbs leading normal suburban lives and don't get involved in the street stuff. Most likely, it was just two sets of small fish having a dispute.

When I talk about the Audi driver being a big fish, it is a big fish in a small pond. The description by the neighbors of Alpha Bock is that it's a recently formed gang of young petty criminals (though it sounds like they are becoming increasingly violent over time). One of the neighbors even describes how she took on 40 (!) Alpha Block members who tried to crash her party, but she chased them away. The Audi driver could be one of the main suppliers of drugs for the gang and EN's higher level dealer, but he also could have been one of the 40 who was chased away from that party, which even if he's senior among Alpha it doesn't mean Meyers would necessarily fear him as he's just a big drug dealer not a heavy with physical violence.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I think that the blurred-face kid and Selig both saying TM bought drugs from EN lends more support to that rumor than if it was just one person saying it. It doesn't prove it, but IMO it makes it more likely to be true.

It could have been that kid whom Selig heard it from.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The defense needs to prove the M's are big fish to win this case IMO. There's no other way to prove self defense unless EN's lawyer can prove EN feared his life if the M's survived the night.
The only other defense is the Audi's driver's bullet killed TM, but EN's lawyer is claiming self defense instead.

That would be a strong defense, but not the only defense. The prosecution has to prove that EN directed the chase to the Meyers and that when the Audi arrived that the Meyers didn't shoot first or otherwise have a weapon pointed in the direction of EN before he pulled his arm out the window and shot. The Meyers themselves have publicly muddied this by saying it didn't matter who shot first on Mt Shasta. If EN was the driver it would be a lot easier for the prosecution, but EN wasn't the driver and there's no accusation that this was a premeditated drive-by shooting with the Audi passengers conspiring beforehand to go out that night and do a drive-by, but the drive-by was a spur of the moment event where the Audi responded to being chased with no evidence presented of planning/direction between EN and the driver.

 

[BellaVita]

Upthread, I said that EN saying "got those kids" might be enough to discard the neighbor's "drug deal gone bad" theory -- purely on the grounds that it required that TM was in the car. If it was TM and BM in the car, why did EN say "got those kids"?

If TM was in the car, and we overlook EN's statement about "those kids," then I think the neighbor's "drug deal gone bad" theory is back on the table too.

I have trouble reconciling "got those kids" with TM being in the car. I'm not necessarily saying they're completely incompatible with each other, but I have trouble with it.

According to the neighbor, TM was involved in transactions with EN. IF that is true, it most definitely allows for her to be in the car. EN may be used to seeing the kids driving the Buick and assumed it was BM and KM. I think TM was in the car and it was one long extended incident. I think TM was in the passenger seat or the back seat. If KM was in the car, she was in the back seat or passenger seat. For me, in any scenario, I believe BM was the driver. I tend to think all three were in the car. The only variable for me is KM. Not certain about her. The reason I believe the Buick didn't shoot back at Scene 1 is because BM was driving. Either KM or TM brandished the gun. I know it is beyond the experience of well-adjusted people, but it's possible that the M's had few boundaries as far as who was the parents and who was the kids. I get the sense they are one of those families where there is more of a friend relationship with their children instead of a parent-child relationship. If that is the case, TM's judgment may have not been much better than her kids'.

I could be all wrong. Just my opinion.

 

[Miss Muffet]

TM wasn't literally front of BM at the house.

Last night, I was reading the warrant while comparing it to a google map satellite image. TM's body was found next to the driver's side of the car in the driveway. BM was towards the house. The way property is set up, the house is south, the short driveway and the little patch of grass yard are north. The driveway is west of the patch of grass. Technically west and northwest because the northwestern side of the property (the driveway side) juts out further north due to the cul-de-sac cutting further south into the northeastern side of the property. It's a very shallow property front.

The warrant says BM looked to his left and saw TM on the ground next to the car. TM and BM were almost parallel to the street with BM being back further because the circle of the cul-de-sac goes deeper into the property at the small patch of yard. They were on opposite sides of the front property with BM being back further than TM. But TM was not in front of him. They were more parallel even though BM was further south than TM.

This is the reason I'm now convinced TM was driving the car. I went to bed last night planning to draw a diagram today.

 

[sonjay]

If the law requires citing a specific address, the Meyers still isn't the specific address as they could name an address halfway down Mt Shasta, which one of those addresses would better fit the narrative. If the ordnances are different between a house halfway down Mt Shasta versus a house all the way down Mt Shasta, that would be a silly charge, but that's the only reason I can think of not giving one of those addresses. Also if the DA doesn't have to prove you were where they expressly said you were in the charge against you, that again makes it hard to defend yourself. It would put the defense in the position of having to both take the accused location literally as well as speculate and prepare to defend against other locations the DA might really mean. To me it just seems like it would be wrong if you could be expressly accused of being somewhere but have your accusers not have to prove you were actually there for you to be found guilty.

NRS 202.287, here:


NRS 202.287  Discharging firearm within or from structure or vehicle; penalties. 1.  A person who is in, on or under a structure or vehicle and who maliciously or wantonly discharges or maliciously or wantonly causes to be discharged a firearm within or from the structure or vehicle:
(a) If the structure or vehicle is not within an area designated by city or county ordinance as a populated area for the purpose of prohibiting the discharge of weapons, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) If the structure or vehicle is within an area designated by city or county ordinance as a populated area for the purpose of prohibiting the discharge of weapons, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.
2.  If a firearm is discharged within or out of any vehicle that is in motion or at rest and it cannot with reasonable certainty be ascertained in what county the crime was committed, the offender may be arrested and tried in any county through which the vehicle may have run on the trip during which the firearm was discharged.

Source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec287

BBM. This doesn't specifically address specific addresses, but it sounds like the law recognizes that things that happen with vehicles can't necessarily be pinned down to a single very specific location. If they can prosecute across county lines when they're unable to determine which county a thing happened in, I'm pretty sure they can prosecute for any location on a cul de sac that's only about 300 feet long.

And, if that's the case, then it makes sense, to me, that the warrant would list the Meyerses address rather than another address on the cul de sac. Why drag some poor innocent neighbor's address into a case that's getting national attention? Especially since it was, by all accounts, a moving vehicle (not a parked one), and therefore some imprecision is assumed with respect to the location of the vehicle.

I'm pretty sure, at this point, that the warrant is not actually claiming that the silver car was actually on the Meyers property. I could be wrong, but that's where I am at the moment.

 

[sonjay]

It could have been that kid whom Selig heard it from.

Hah! Good point! Unless he witnessed with his own eyes the drug deals taking place, he's reporting hearsay.

 

[BellaVita]

Were TM and BM on the same side of the car? If yes, were they adjacent to the street side or the house side? If they were on the house side of the car, and if the driver's side faced the house rather than the street, TM could have slid across from the passenger side as it would have been a shorter route into the safety of the house. Does this make sense? I am spatially challenged!

 

[sonjay]

TM wasn't literally front of BM at the house.

Last night, I was reading the warrant while comparing it to a google map satellite image. TM's body was found next to the driver's side of the car in the driveway.

What a find! I've been looking and looking for a source that tells us where TM's body was found. Where did you find this info?

 

[Miss Muffet]

Upthread, I said that EN saying "got those kids" might be enough to discard the neighbor's "drug deal gone bad" theory -- purely on the grounds that it required that TM was in the car. If it was TM and BM in the car, why did EN say "got those kids"?

If TM was in the car, and we overlook EN's statement about "those kids," then I think the neighbor's "drug deal gone bad" theory is back on the table too.

I have trouble reconciling "got those kids" with TM being in the car. I'm not necessarily saying they're completely incompatible with each other, but I have trouble with it.

I've decided TM was in the car at the time of the shooting. I spent a lot of time last night reading the warrant. I posted above what I concluded about the crime scene where she was shot.

I don't think we can disregard major portions of the warrant due to one "got those kids" phrase. EN was admittedly paranoid and probably high as a kite.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm pretty sure, at this point, that the warrant is not actually claiming that the silver car was actually on the Meyers property. I could be wrong, but that's where I am at the moment.

You're right. I was mistaken in thinking one or both parties said the Audi was stopped on Mt Shasta, which if everyone says it was a moving vehicle, the address given doesn't matter too much.

 

[sonjay]

The warrant says BM looked to his left and saw TM on the ground next to the car.

Oh, darn, you're basing that on the warrant. The warrant says he turned to his left and saw his mother lying on the ground bleeding from the head. Unfortunately, it doesn't say that he saw her on the ground next to the car.

He said he moved southeast from the car. Presumably he was looking and shooting in an eastward direction. Literally, if he then looked to his left and saw his mother on the ground, then she was east of the of the car as well. Otherwise he would have to look behind and to his left.

I don't think we can take any or all of that literally, though. It was a fluid, fast-moving situation. IMO, the warrant doesn't reveal any solid information about exactly where TM was found. Only that she was on the ground.

I'm jonesing for a crime scene diagram from LE.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Were TM and BM on the same side of the car? If yes, were they adjacent to the street side or the house side? If they were on the house side of the car, and if the driver's side faced the house rather than the street, TM could have slid across from the passenger side as it would have been a shorter route into the safety of the house. Does this make sense? I am spatially challenged!

Yes, BM said he ran around to the driver's side and it appears the driver's side faced the house, but BM could have been the driver with TM sliding across.

 

[PaperDoll]

Here's BM's description in the arrest affidavit:

"Brandon said the silver car sped up as it continued south on Villa Monterey. Brandon said when he and his mother were approximately 50 feet south of Cherry River Drive on Villa Monterey the silver car stopped and was facing in a southwesterly direction on Villa Monterey and Alta Drive. Brandon said his mother stopped the car and the front passenger of the silver car began shooting at them."

Based on that, here's a diagram of the scene as described by Brandon:

View attachment 70563
The Myers car "X" is measured by Google maps to be on Villa Monterey 50 feet south of Cherry River. The silver car is at Villa Monterey and Alta. The vehicles aren't that close together. I gave some extra distance south for the Meyers car, and some little distance north for the silver car, to minimize the distance.

Important note: This is NOT accurate. If the silver car stopped when the Meyers car was 50 feet south of Cherry River, the Meyers car probably traveled some distance before stopping. That's not where Brandon said they stopped -- it's where he said they were when the silver car stopped, and that then his mother stopped.

Brandon's estimate of "50 feet south of Cherry River" is probably not an accurate estimate. Most people are terrible at estimating distances, and I'm sure that was the last thing he was paying attention to at that moment.

Brandon's statement that the silver car was "on Villa Monterey and Alta Drive" is vague and probably not accurate, and from Brandon's vantage point, he probably couldn't tell how far south the silver car was on V.M.., or how close the silver car was to Alta. I'd interpret that statement as meaning something like "the silver car was further south on Villa Monterey in the direction of Alta Drive."

So this diagram by no means tells us that this is how far apart the cars were. But it does give us a starting point to visualize the scene.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that the Meyers car was more than 50 feet past Cherry River. Probably not all the way to Brothers Bay, because if they went all the way to Brothers Bay before stopping, then it's likely that Brothers Bay would have been Brandon's reference point, rather than Cherry River.

And I'd guess that the silver car was somewhere between Success Court and Alta. WAG, nothing more.

The police have a pretty good idea where the silver car was, because they found .45 shell casings, but they probably don't know exactly where the Meyers car was.

Cherry River is a longer street than Brothers Bay and it's also the street you would take to get to Mt. Shasta. Brothers Bay is a small cul-de-sac like Mt. Shasta so I can see why BM told police they were approx. 50 ft. south of Cherry River.

 

[BellaVita]

Having just read the warrant again, I think the biggest question is this: Why was it sooo important in the M's first version of events to not place BM in the car under any circumstances? Also, the warrant version really does make TM look very, very bad in the judgment dept. If warrant is true, she insisted to go hunting for a car that had left them alone. A car that supposedly the M's did not recognize. I still would like to know who had cell phones with them. Hard to believe neither KM nor TM was carrying one at that time of night, especially. Many points at which to call 911 if you are not involved in anything illegal. 911 first, then a call to BM at home alerting him to get ready, there may be trouble. I know if I had a frightening encounter close to home, that's what I would do. Call 911 and then my husband at home. And then wait for police to come.

I know these questions have been asked before, but after reading the warrant, this is my focus.

 

[Miss Muffet]

What a find! I've been looking and looking for a source that tells us where TM's body was found. Where did you find this info?

I'll find it and post it! Give me time to get my ducks in a row. It was reported in an article or by LE. I didn't think twice about it when I read/heard it.

Then last night when I was reading the warrant for my spreadsheet, the crime scene came together when I wasn't even focusing on that. It was a light bulb moment. Clearly this crime scene info should be my entire focus today instead of the spreadsheet.

Unless anyone can come up with a good reason she was there after I share what I figured out, I'm now convinced TM was driving that car. And that's the last thing I thought or was looking to prove!