You brought up a lot of good points in your first post here. It was so much info that I think for some of us there was some information overload going on, but I wanted to go back and look at these points one by one.
1. (1st Paragraph of Facts) Where did TM and daughter drive when the daughter alleged drove in the residential area? To me there's an awful lot of time to account for as there's 40 minutes of 'driving lessons,' which in that 40 minutes I'm including trip time by TM to the school as it is a negligible distance from their home. If for instance 20 minutes was spent driving around Las Vegas with the daughter at the wheel that should have taken them a few miles. Also during this time the daughter could have pulled into the park where EN was and taunted/threatened him by driving the car in an antagonistic way like repeatedly pointing the car at him and speeding up as he sat on a park bench.
Initially, it was only reported that mom was giving daughter driving lessons at the school, and there was no mention of the daughter practicing her driving in any residential areas away from the school. If the driving lessons story was made up, then perhaps when police pressed KM for details about exactly how long they were at the school, and the exact sequence of events in the vicinity of the school, the daughter realized that it might be difficult to account for a full 40 minutes spent driving in circles in the school parking lot, and so she came up with the residential driving.
Or maybe something less savory was happening during that time.
2. (2nd Paragraph) Why was TM driving on Durango in the first place? If it was not for a driving lesson as that had already ended and the Audi had not been spotted where was TM going and for what? Check it for yourselves on Google Maps and you'll see that TM drove past her house by continuing on Alta to Durango.
This question has flummoxed us from the beginning. There's no known reason for the Meyers car to have been all the way over on Durango driving north to Westcliff, and no real explanation of that from any of the Meyers clan, that I'm aware of.
3. (2nd Paragraph) The description of events given is not physically possible and in fact it sounds like TM was already chasing after the Audi before Brandon allegedly got involved. Per the daughter she honked when the Audi was beside them (was TM speeding up to prevent the Audi from passing?) on Durango. The Audi then passed TM on Westcliff by allegedly cutting them off, so that means the Audi was in front of TM at this time. The next sentence then suddenly says the Audi came from behind on Cimarron, which is not physically possible. Of course there are ways TM could have gotten ahead of the Audi, which wouldn't look good in a police report and it's also possible that the car did the U-turn because TM and the daughter had been confrontational with them and chased them from Durango to Westcliff and finally to Cimarron. Also there's no reason for TM to have driven that route (Alta -> Durango -> Westcliff -> Cimarron), which makes me think they were chasing the Audi from Durango if not Alta, possibly having seen EN get picked up and this was part of their taunting. Seeing EN getting picked up and following the Audi from Alta would explain why they were on Durango from Alta instead of having turned in on Carmel Peak to their home, but this doesn't necessarily have to be what happened as I detailed below an alternative time EN gets picked up.
All I can think about this is that when you're making up a story as you go along, you might tell it in a way that doesn't make sense or that isn't physically possible. When someone is describing a sequence of events in a way that doesn't make sense, or that isn't possible, that's very often a clue that they're lying.
4. (3rd Paragraph) This could be a lie of omission here as they could have discussed plans for vigilantism and in fact that seems likely
That would be my take on this -- if, in fact, there was an intermission in the car chases and a trip home to drop off KM and pick up BM. I don't think there was any such intermission, but if there was, I'm sure that TM and BM discussed what their intentions were when they set out with BM's gun to find EN.
5. (4th Paragraph) TM is going out of her way to not only find but chase the Audi. The Audi going at a high rate of speed when chased by TM sounds like they are trying to get away from TM, not hunt TM. This sounds like TM et al either intended to shoot those in the Audi or to scare the Audi passengers by threatening them. What was the purpose of the high speed chase??? Once the high speed chase was initiated by TM it sounds like a shooting was inevitable as I don't see what other end game there would be.
Exactly. You deliberately take a gun and go find another person and then chase them. You really can't claim to have had innocent intentions, and you really can't claim that you think the chase was going to end peacefully and lawfully.
6. (5th Paragraph) EN and others in the Audi could have seen BM/TM with a weapon and opened fire in self-defense. Whether or not BM/TM fired at EN, I think you'd have a defense that you shot because you had a gun pointed at you. This defense would be bolstered by the admitted chasing of the Audi most recently at high speed.
At the first shooting scene, if EN did see a gun pointed at him from the Meyers car, IMO that would be self defense. The silver car had already tried to get away, so obviously fleeing isn't going to work. With additional clarity on the details, I can sort of vaguely see self defense at the cul de sac, as well. The Meyers had chased EN, had pointed a gun at him. They knew where he lived. The silver car had already tried to flee and let the evening end peacefully, but the Meyerses made it clear that wasn't going to happen.
7. (6th Paragraph) However unsavory or ill-advised it may have been, EN had a legal right to be on Mt Shasta and EN wasn't driving anyway, so he can't necessarily be blamed for being there. If BM fired first or otherwise drew his weapon first this could be a case of Stand Your Ground as the Audi was doing nothing illegal by driving on Mt Shasta and EN stood his ground after being shot at...at least that is how it could play out in court.
That's potentially a possibility for a defense. And with the additional clarity on some of the details, I'm starting to think that it may not be merely a clever defense strategy, but something closer to the actual truth.
8. (9th Paragraph) Meyers went over to EN's the date of the autopsy. This presumably was done without the knowledge of the police and was done the day of the autopsy. To me this looks extremely bad with vigilantism where the family was going to confront a suspected armed and dangerous suspect who was wanted for murder. If they're willing to confront an armed and dangerous murder suspect on their own this only further makes it look like they were engaging in vigilantism from the beginning and were aggressively stalking/pursuing EN and/or the Audi...maybe they were trying to chase a drug dealer out of their neighborhood.
Yeah, this. We don't know why RM went over to EN's house. We may not ever know. But it sure doesn't make RM look good.
9. (10th Paragraph) With the police having already arrested him on 2/17 for an unrelated warrant, why did they subsequently let him go? Maybe they had no choice, but it's not discussed that the arrest on the 2/19 was the second time EN had been in custody and questioned as the police had already questioned him about TM on 2/17.
It's clear that the police did not know, on the 17th, that EN was the shooter. They knew there was a possibility he was involved (the warrant says his name had come up). But the Meyerses had not yet told police that EN was the shooter, and EN looked nothing like the police sketch -- which was prepared by a police artist based on the description given by KM and BM. They had nothing solid to hold him on.
10. (19th Paragraph) It might be irrelevant, but why is one of the last things the complaint says was that only EN knew the shooting took place close to EN's house? Presumably his friend that he called that owned the Audi knew he lived around there.
I think the point of including this in the warrant affidavit was to point out that the fact that the shooter lived near the victim had not been made public in the media. Therefore, the only way that EN's friends could have known this was by EN telling them. This lends credibility to their story that EN told them he was the shooter. That last paragraph is all about why the police think that the 2 friends were being truthful in what they told police.
I'm looking forward to your fresh perspective!
