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

[Miss Muffet]

What I'm trying to square is when EN called the Audi to pick him up and how much time transpired between the call and the Audi arriving. Per the Meyers they were doing driving lessons for about 40 minutes with an them being in the school parking lot at the beginning and end of that time range. So EN noticed the car during the tail end of this when they returned so the car arrived promptly pointing to it being a neighbor who owned the Audi or EN called the first time he saw them in the parking lot and there was a delay of like 20-30 minutes.

The part she says about driving in the neighborhood north of the school could explain the 40 minutes. That part of the driving isn't detailed with streets. They could have spent significant time in that neighborhood to he north. EN could have called Audi friend when he saw them in the parking lot the first time. He sounds paranoid enough that he would have. That would have given Audi friend time to arrive. The other thing we don't know is how close Audi was when EN called. He could live nearby or had been visiting someone nearby.

 

[sonjay]

The part she says about driving in the neighborhood north of the school could explain the 40 minutes. That part of the driving isn't detailed with streets. They could have spent significant time in that neighborhood to he north. EN could have called Audi friend when he saw them in the parking lot the first time. He sounds paranoid enough that he would have. That would have given Audi friend time to arrive. The other thing we don't know is how close Audi was when EN called. He could live nearby or had been visiting someone nearby.

I have to ask this: Was he being paranoid if they really were out to get him?

 

[Miss Muffet]

I am still not convinced that TM was in the car at the school/park. The story of the drop off/pick up of BM is very inconsistent and does not jive with the original stories, of one long incident. And he spoke of 'the kids' being after him.

KM driving by herself without a license could explain him thinking "kids" are were after him. He sees KM at the park. Later when he sees BM in the car with TM, he assumes it's still KM and BM, not TM and BM. It was a high speed chase after all at that point.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I just realized I was typing MM for KM last night. :shame:

 

[Miss Muffet]

I have to ask this: Was he being paranoid if they really were out to get him?

Good point. I included that in my KM-Driving-Alone theory that there was an ongoing prior conflict between EN and the Meyerses to cause fear in EN.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes yes yes. I mean everyone else speaking to the dam daily mail- and no friends, neighbors, relatives? even anonymously? Was she isolated?

It's possible she was isolated. Being a SAHM with most of her children adult age can be very isolating for some. Her children are no longer in the age group that forces parents to socialize with each other at activities and sporting events. Add to it the rumor she was buying prescription medication that is commonly used for anxiety from EN, and she may have been more comfortable staying to herself and her close knit immediate family.

As for relatives, she has a brother (modsnip) who is obviously devastated by TM's murder. Perhaps he's not the type of person to speak to reporters. I'm not. I view reporters as vultures and ambulance chasers. I've had reporters show up at my door when a neighbor's house burned down, and I refused to talk to the reporters.

 

[PaperDoll]

Another thing: At the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] shooting site (Villa Monterey/Alta)BM was chasing the Audi. The Audi then stops and fires at the Buick.Buick “backed up” on Villa Monterey then turns on Cherry River then Carmel Peak and into their cul-de-sac where they are now home. Now according to BM he spotted headlights coming NORTH on Carmel Peak, this means that the Audi didn’t follow the same direction as BM did at the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] shooting, the Audi would have taken Alta to Carmel Peak then turn on the cul-de-sac. So how did the Audi know where the Buick would end up?I would think the Audi would have followed the same way the Buick did if they were going to follow them home. Make sense?

 

[PaperDoll]

What I'm trying to square is when EN called the Audi to pick him up and how much time transpired between the call and the Audi arriving. Per the Meyers they were doing driving lessons for about 40 minutes with an them being in the school parking lot at the beginning and end of that time range. So EN noticed the car during the tail end of this when they returned so the car arrived promptly pointing to it being a neighbor who owned the Audi or EN called the first time he saw them in the parking lot and there was a delay of like 20-30 minutes. Also the time lag could point to whether this was a continuous event or multiple events. If there was the delay it could more easily mean the Meyers encountered the Audi driver before EN was in the car with EN having no role or acknowledge of that event leading to the multi-event scenario while if it was a neighbor who just popped over quickly it could lend itself more to one long event.

It would be nice to know what time the Audi arrived to pick up EN. From the report EN was dropped off at the park (per C. Kabew) at 9:30PM. TM and KM said they were taking driving lessons at the school around 10:10PM, this means that EN was in the park for roughly 40 minutes before spotting the Buick. The park is a decent size park so it's hard to say where EN was located in the park. The school is directly across the street from the park on Villa Monterey. Per police report TM and KM were driving on the west side parking lot which, if I have my directions correct, you can see the park from that lot and vice versa. Then the report says that TM and KM drove in the residential area north of the school which I think would place them in the housing track on Ducharme. Then they made another loop around the parking lot. There is a bigger parking lot on the other side of the school which is close to Buffalo. Then of course TM took over the driving and instead of going directly home the short way, they took the LONG way. Maybe they spotted the Audi looking suspicious and decided to not drive the short way home????? Just another thought

 

[Hiandmighty]

That is expressly denied in the Criminal Complaint. EN is not alleged to have been the driver by any of the accounts. Also per Stand Your Ground (which I'm no fan of), by the Complaint's own account EN was driven to a location he had a legal right to be in and by the Meyers own account KM was standing outside with a pistol in hand when the Audi arrived. In Nevada Stand Your Ground there is no duty to retreat. I think Stand Your Ground laws are very bad laws as it could potentially really get entangled here as both the Meyers and the occupants of the Audi could make claims to Stand Your Ground and both could conceivably be right.

Nevada's Stand Your Ground law has three requirements:
"That you have a right to be there.
That you're not doing anything illegal yourself.
And that you're not the original aggressor."
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Nevadas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law-What-Are-The-Rules-261183861.html
All parties involved qualify under #1 as no trespassing was accused of anyone in the Complaint and both parties could potentially claim #2 and #3.

Meyers party legal defense for all actions based purely on what is in the Complaint would be that they were verbally threatened (which it looks like it was the Audi driver not the EN that made the verbal threat and EN might not have even been in the car at the time the Audi driver made the threat and may never have known about it) and had a legal right to arm themselves and to then arm themselves and drive on the streets where they have a legal right to be and all subsequent actions of theirs are covered including the Meyers admission that they chased the Audi while armed. Conversely EN/Audi party can say they have Stand Your Ground protection because they saw the armed Meyers car chasing after them, which EN in particular could have the strongest defense here by saying he knew nothing about the verbal threat that happened before he got in the car where he only knew he called the Audi driver because he was frightened by the Meyers party in the parking lot and he only got out his gun and armed it upon seeing the Meyers armed and chasing him and he did not chase the Meyers to their house, but he had a legal right to be on Mt Shasta and defend himself either from his pre-existing SYG rights or by new SYG rights upon arriving with BM standing outside armed.

Now that I've detailed the importance of not engaging in illegality when claiming self defense, I think this rumor is highly relevant and it comes from a local source in a published article, which sounds like it meets the TOS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nned-19-year-old-said-buying-Xanax-years.html
If that is true, it has a great deal of bearing on EN's legal defense because if EN was engaged in a felony where a prescription drug deal went bust, EN would have a much harder time using self-defense as SYG could no longer protect subsequent actions by EN. It is actually easier for EN to be found guilty of murder/manslaughter if any of the Meyers were engaged in a drug deal that went bust. Any Meyers involved in illegal drug deals with EN around this event is not a defense of EN, but actually the contrary. Even though prescription drug dealing/possession is a felony in Nevada, it doesn't make it a Felony Murder case as only certain felonies count, so the Meyers couldn't be charged nor could any other Audi passengers with Felony Murder.

In short non-drugs EN has a potentially unique SYG defense compared to all other participants in the events if he wasn't there for the verbal threat but with drugs EN is in a particularly indefensible position in not being able to use SYG in defense against any criminal charges.

Thank you. Very interesting.

 

[sonjay]

It would be nice to know what time the Audi arrived to pick up EN. From the report EN was dropped off at the park (per C. Kabew) at 9:30PM. TM and KM said they were taking driving lessons at the school around 10:10PM, this means that EN was in the park for roughly 40 minutes before spotting the Buick. The park is a decent size park so it's hard to say where EN was located in the park. The school is directly across the street from the park on Villa Monterey. Per police report TM and KM were driving on the west side parking lot which, if I have my directions correct, you can see the park from that lot and vice versa. Then the report says that TM and KM drove in the residential area north of the school which I think would place them in the housing track on Ducharme. Then they made another loop around the parking lot. There is a bigger parking lot on the other side of the school which is close to Buffalo. Then of course TM took over the driving and instead of going directly home the short way, they took the LONG way. Maybe they spotted the Audi looking suspicious and decided to not drive the short way home????? Just another thought

A couple of things to keep in mind:

The 9:30 time EN was dropped off at the park may or may not be accurate. Unless Kabew checked the time just as he was dropping EN at the park, that's probably a best-guesstimate on his part.

The time TM & KM started their their driving lesson is either A. probably also an estimate, or B. a made-up time.

If there was actually a driving lesson that night, the time KM reported that it started is probably, like Kabew's drop-off time, a best-guesstimate. It's not like they had an appointment to be there at a specific time, and KM quite possibly wasn't sure exactly what time they started the lesson.

If, OTOH, there was no driving lesson, then the 10:10 start time of the driving lesson is a figment of KM's imagination.

There might be other evidence (that we're not yet aware of) to verify or revise these times. Phone calls, texts, video surveillance of cars coming or going, or other evidence might show these times to be accurate or not.

In the absence of other evidence to prove or disprove these times, I'm taking them as best guess-timates.

IME, when people are guess-timating a time, it's not unusual to be off by 15 minutes or so. EN could have arrived at the park anywhere from around 9:15 to about 9:45. KM & TM could have arrived at the school for the driving lesson anywhere from around 9:55 to about 10:25. Give or take.

We all have to remember that just because something is written down in a police report, it doesn't mean it's true or, if true, that it's necessarily accurate.

 

[Hiandmighty]

In reading various comments on the fox5vegas FB page, its clear the prosecution is going to have a problem. The comments (about EN claiming self defense) overwhelmingly say that no one believes the family because the family is known to have lied, so they will give the benefit of the doubt to EN who isn't known to have lied. EN is looking like the truth-teller here because of the family.

I think the end result will be:

EN serves only 3-5 years for manslaughter, that is if he doesn't get off completely by an acquital.

 

[sonjay]

Another thing: At the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] shooting site (Villa Monterey/Alta)BM was chasing the Audi. The Audi then stops and fires at the Buick.Buick “backed up” on Villa Monterey then turns on Cherry River then Carmel Peak and into their cul-de-sac where they are now home. Now according to BM he spotted headlights coming NORTH on Carmel Peak, this means that the Audi didn’t follow the same direction as BM did at the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] shooting, the Audi would have taken Alta to Carmel Peak then turn on the cul-de-sac. So how did the Audi know where the Buick would end up?I would think the Audi would have followed the same way the Buick did if they were going to follow them home. Make sense?

Your question about the scenario makes sense. The scenario still doesn't quite make sense.

Assuming that the Meyers car was the first one into the cul de sac and the silver car followed, this is what still has me puzzled.

We know that the Meyers car was chasing the silver car. The Meyerses (whichever of them were in the car) were out looking for the Audi. They found it, and they chased the Audi. Based on the arrest affidavit, at this point Brandon pointed his gun at the Audi, and the Audi opened fire -- quite possibly in actual self defense, since the Meyerses were the aggressors up to this point.

Now we go from the Meyerses chasing the Audi, to the Meyerses fleeing and the Audi chasing them or pursuing them or maybe taking a different route to follow them back to their house.

Did the Meyerses suddenly realize the Audi was armed, and that's what caused them to change from pursuit to flight?

EN in the Audi said he saw someone in the Meyers car pointing a gun, so he knew the Meyers car was armed. Did the Audi decide that since the Meyerses didn't shoot back at the first shooting scene (despite being armed) that they wouldn't shoot back if the Audi turned and chased them?

 

[Miss Muffet]

Nevada's Stand Your Ground law has three requirements:
"That you have a right to be there.
That you're not doing anything illegal yourself.
And that you're not the original aggressor."
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Nevadas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law-What-Are-The-Rules-261183861.html
All parties involved qualify under #1 as no trespassing was accused of anyone in the Complaint and both parties could potentially claim #2 and #3.

Meyers party legal defense for all actions based purely on what is in the Complaint would be that they were verbally threatened (which it looks like it was the Audi driver not the EN that made the verbal threat and EN might not have even been in the car at the time the Audi driver made the threat and may never have known about it) and had a legal right to arm themselves and to then arm themselves and drive on the streets where they have a legal right to be and all subsequent actions of theirs are covered including the Meyers admission that they chased the Audi while armed. Conversely EN/Audi party can say they have Stand Your Ground protection because they saw the armed Meyers car chasing after them, which EN in particular could have the strongest defense here by saying he knew nothing about the verbal threat that happened before he got in the car where he only knew he called the Audi driver because he was frightened by the Meyers party in the parking lot and he only got out his gun and armed it upon seeing the Meyers armed and chasing him and he did not chase the Meyers to their house, but he had a legal right to be on Mt Shasta and defend himself either from his pre-existing SYG rights or by new SYG rights upon arriving with BM standing outside armed.

Now that I've detailed the importance of not engaging in illegality when claiming self defense, I think this rumor is highly relevant and it comes from a local source in a published article, which sounds like it meets the TOS:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nned-19-year-old-said-buying-Xanax-years.html
If that is true, it has a great deal of bearing on EN's legal defense because if EN was engaged in a felony where a prescription drug deal went bust, EN would have a much harder time using self-defense as SYG could no longer protect subsequent actions by EN. It is actually easier for EN to be found guilty of murder/manslaughter if any of the Meyers were engaged in a drug deal that went bust. Any Meyers involved in illegal drug deals with EN around this event is not a defense of EN, but actually the contrary. Even though prescription drug dealing/possession is a felony in Nevada, it doesn't make it a Felony Murder case as only certain felonies count, so the Meyers couldn't be charged nor could any other Audi passengers with Felony Murder.

In short non-drugs EN has a potentially unique SYG defense compared to all other participants in the events if he wasn't there for the verbal threat but with drugs EN is in a particularly indefensible position in not being able to use SYG in defense against any criminal charges.

EN didn't have to be engaged in illegal activity to have a conflict over the rumored drugs.

For example, they could have been rivals over a past conflict involving drugs, which would explain EN's fear in the present time.

 

[PaperDoll]

In reading various comments on the fox5vegas FB page, its clear the prosecution is going to have a problem. The comments (about EN claiming self defense) overwhelmingly say that no one believes the family because the family is known to have lied, so they will give the benefit of the doubt to EN who isn't known to have lied. EN is looking like the truth-teller here because of the family.

I think the end result will be:

EN serves only 3-5 years for manslaughter, that is if he doesn't get off completely by an acquital.

EN did lie, he told police he went to the recording studio that night and knew nothing about the shooting..

 

[PaperDoll]

A couple of things to keep in mind:

The 9:30 time EN was dropped off at the park may or may not be accurate. Unless Kabew checked the time just as he was dropping EN at the park, that's probably a best-guesstimate on his part.

The time TM & KM started their their driving lesson is either A. probably also an estimate, or B. a made-up time.

If there was actually a driving lesson that night, the time KM reported that it started is probably, like Kabew's drop-off time, a best-guesstimate. It's not like they had an appointment to be there at a specific time, and KM quite possibly wasn't sure exactly what time they started the lesson.

If, OTOH, there was no driving lesson, then the 10:10 start time of the driving lesson is a figment of KM's imagination.

There might be other evidence (that we're not yet aware of) to verify or revise these times. Phone calls, texts, video surveillance of cars coming or going, or other evidence might show these times to be accurate or not.

In the absence of other evidence to prove or disprove these times, I'm taking them as best guess-timates.

IME, when people are guess-timating a time, it's not unusual to be off by 15 minutes or so. EN could have arrived at the park anywhere from around 9:15 to about 9:45. KM & TM could have arrived at the school for the driving lesson anywhere from around 9:55 to about 10:25. Give or take.

We all have to remember that just because something is written down in a police report, it doesn't mean it's true or, if true, that it's necessarily accurate.

I agree, the timing is all a guess but I am simply going off the report since that is all we have at this time :blowkiss: Even if the timing is off, the Buick was at the school driving around and EN saw it and felt like they were after him. I'd like to know where EN was in the park, again the park isn't all that small. I wonder where the Audi picked him up?

 

[PaperDoll]

Your question about the scenario makes sense. The scenario still doesn't quite make sense.

Assuming that the Meyers car was the first one into the cul de sac and the silver car followed, this is what still has me puzzled.

We know that the Meyers car was chasing the silver car. The Meyerses (whichever of them were in the car) were out looking for the Audi. They found it, and they chased the Audi. Based on the arrest affidavit, at this point Brandon pointed his gun at the Audi, and the Audi opened fire -- quite possibly in actual self defense, since the Meyerses were the aggressors up to this point.

Now we go from the Meyerses chasing the Audi, to the Meyerses fleeing and the Audi chasing them or pursuing them or maybe taking a different route to follow them back to their house.

Did the Meyerses suddenly realize the Audi was armed, and that's what caused them to change from pursuit to flight?

EN in the Audi said he saw someone in the Meyers car pointing a gun, so he knew the Meyers car was armed. Did the Audi decide that since the Meyerses didn't shoot back at the first shooting scene (despite being armed) that they wouldn't shoot back if the Audi turned and chased them?

Your post makes sense I'm still wondering if the Meyers knew who was actually in the Audi since EN doesn't own a car. EN seems to get rides from different people, plus it was dark out and I would think it would be hard to make out who's in the car especially if windows are tinted. Lots of tinted windows here in Vegas due to the heat in summer.

 

[sonjay]

I agree, the timing is all a guess but I am simply going off the report since that is all we have at this time :blowkiss: Even if the timing is off, the Buick was at the school driving around and EN saw it and felt like they were after him. I'd like to know where EN was in the park, again the park isn't all that small. I wonder where the Audi picked him up?

BBM. Or possibly EN was right: the Buick was at the school driving around looking for him because they were after him.

 

[Hiandmighty]

EN did lie, he told police he went to the recording studio that night and knew nothing about the shooting..

That's right-- when he was in the juvie for a different thing. Somehow people aren't remembering this part.... Interesting.

 

[bessie]

It's possible she was isolated. Being a SAHM with most of her children adult age can be very isolating for some. Her children are no longer in the age group that forces parents to socialize with each other at activities and sporting events. Add to it the rumor she was buying prescription medication that is commonly used for anxiety from EN, and she may have been more comfortable staying to herself and her close knit immediate family.

As for relatives, she has a brother (modsnip) who is obviously devastated by TM's murder. Perhaps he's not the type of person to speak to reporters. I'm not. I view reporters as vultures and ambulance chasers. I've had reporters show up at my door when a neighbor's house burned down, and I refused to talk to the reporters.

You might be right. That's more reason not to believe the ugly rumor tossed around by some neighbor

 

[sonjay]

EN did lie, he told police he went to the recording studio that night and knew nothing about the shooting..

Yep, EN lied. Of course EN lied.

The key difference is that we expect the shooter to lie. Isn't that a given? Aren't the prisons full of innocent people who swear they didn't do it? Of course the guy who did the crime lies. And we know exactly why he lies: because he wants to cover up the fact that he did it.

But we don't normally expect the victim or the victim's family to lie. When the victim or the victim's family lies, it gives us pause and makes us wonder what they want to cover up.

When the victim's family lies, sometimes it's because they actually did it.

But that's not the case here. Given EN's virtual confession to his friends, I don't think there's any doubt that EN was the shooter. EN was holding the gun and pulled the trigger, firing the bullet that hit TM in the head and killed her. I would be greatly surprised if that's not the case.

So why did TM's family lie? What are they covering up? We know why EN lied, but why did the Meyerses lie?