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

[SStarr33]

How do you know he was being honest in what he told his friends?

How do you know his friends were being honest in what they told police?

Refer to my previous posts.

 

[sonjay]

Seems pretty clear to me YMMV.

That may be your opinion, but it's far from proven.

 

[sonjay]

It makes sense. Just using more logic.

No, there's no logic in assuming that RM is telling the truth about any aspect of this case. Even if you personally believe he is, it's far from proven.

 

[sonjay]

We aren't allowed to talk about what is on Bob's FB, but go read through his posts if you haven't yet. It REALLY helps to explain his personality a lot. It's possible TM shared the same, um, let's call them, extreme opinions. Or it's possible Bob just made that up when describing what TM might say to a kid she was mentoring. Once you understand his way of thinking, that comment makes a lot more sense.

I hope that's all ok to say. I tried not to be specific!

Yes, there's a lot to be learned about RM from his FB.

Or, watch the press conference he held a few days ago. (I linked it upthread somewhere.) Wow, does that press conference reveal a lot about RM. He spends a lot of his time admonishing the media for what they've said about his son, and a lot of time admonishing the media for not knowing things that he himself and his family kept secret. It was a really bizarro press conference. I've never seen anything like it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, whatever her involvement was probably because KM/BM told her some meanies road raged them. I'm inclined to believe that KM was the driver for most of this and BM was the passenger. Whatever KM said got TM to go to the car while BM was outside holding the pistol.

Can we believe a 15 year old with limited driving experience can engage in a lengthy high speed car chase without getting into an accident? I can't. I can believe she was practicing driving by herself, but I can't believe she was behind the wheel during a high speed car chase.

Perhaps BM and KM were out practicing driving while BM was also running "errands." **** happened and BM had KM drive home to get his handgun to avenge an ongoing family dispute that previously resulted from the rumored drug issue.

I truly believe that TM was in the house when the car returned to the house the second time. TM came running outside when she heard Brandon firing the first shots at he Audi, turned and ran back towards the house when the Audi started firing back. And that's how TM magically ended up on the ground behind BM when he claimed he had pushed her into the car.

I believe a MATURE adult would take cover inside the car instead of leaping out and making a run in the open towards the house.

The big question is if KM went along for the second trip after BM got the gun. It doesn't make sense she would be taken along after her brother got his gun. The only way it makes sense she went along for the second trip is BM needed her as a witness to point out the car because BM wasn't along for the ride the first time due to KM driving by herself.

So, I'm back to my original theory. KM was driving by herself. **** happened. She went home. BM got his gun. TM said call the police. BM took KM out with him to identify the car.

BM and TM lied about KM not being present during the shootings because BM was worried his father would be upset he put KM's life at risk, when his actions had gotten his mother killed. That's why he said TM was with him as a willing participant.

 

[sonjay]

<snipped for focus>

Can we believe a 15 year old with limited driving experience can engage in a lengthy high speed car chase without getting into an accident?

In the dark, no less. After a party. Frightened, with adrenaline pumping, gunshots being fired at her car.

Yeah, you're right. Doesn't sound very likely.

 

[sonjay]

Sstar (and/or/aka jjenny) - I think the point Sonjay is trying to make, and that I think you are missing, is that your one-liner questions aren't contributing productively to the conversation. A little constructive criticism: your tone and manner read as very confrontational. None of us know what happened in this case, including you. We are all just spitballing to try to get to the truth. Can you please stop trying to detract from that? We would love for you to be part of the conversation if you would stop attacking us all and making us explain the same points 45 times.

Everyone else: just a general reminder pertaining to no poster in particular: don't feed the trolls.

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Because that is what he told his friends.

EN told his friends he was chased by a car with an armed passenger pointing a gun at the car he was in, which he felt like the like people in that car were after him as that was why he called for the Audi in the first place. Then the Audi driver (not EN) chased the Buick only to see BM standing outside with the gun. Most all of this is universally agreed upon by both EN and the Meyers, which the only things not mutually stated was that the Buick passengers were menacing EN at the park and that the Buick passenger pointed a gun at the Audi rather than just carrying it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

More thoughts to my previous post.

BM being behind the wheel for the second half of the trip could explain why he merely brandished the handgun instead of shooting back at the first shooting scene too.

TM wasn't in the car ever. KM was behind the wheel for the first part of the trip (alone or with BM. BM was in the drivers seat for the second part of the trip (possibly in the passenger seat for the first part of the trip).

Oh, my! This is another reason I don't believe BM was in the car for the first part of the trip. When Audi guy got out of his car and supposedly yelled at them, BM would have gotten out of the Buick and gotten into a physical altercation with him.

That didn't happen because KM was driving alone for the first part of the trip. She went home. Said what happened. BM went out to protect his baby sister. Even though TM said to call the police.

As for KM saying, "It could have been me." "My mother was trying to protect me." Maybe BM pushed KM into the car. He started shooting. KM got scared and got out of the car. TM came running out of the house to try to get KM back into the house away from gunfire.

 

[katydid23]

Can we believe a 15 year old with limited driving experience can engage in a lengthy high speed car chase without getting into an accident? I can't. I can believe she was practicing driving by herself, but I can't believe she was behind the wheel during a high speed car chase.

Perhaps BM and KM were out practicing driving while BM was also running "errands." **** happened and BM had KM drive home to get his handgun to avenge an ongoing family dispute that previously resulted from the rumored drug issue.

I truly believe that TM was in the house when the car returned to the house the second time. TM came running outside when she heard Brandon firing the first shots at he Audi, turned and ran back towards the house when the Audi started firing back. And that's how TM magically ended up on the ground behind BM when he claimed he had pushed her into the car.

I believe a MATURE adult would take cover inside the car instead of leaping out and making a run in the open towards the house.

The big question is if KM went along for the second trip after BM got the gun. It doesn't make sense she would be taken along after her brother got his gun. The only way it makes sense she went along for the second trip is BM needed her as a witness to point out the car because BM wasn't along for the ride the first time due to KM driving by herself.

So, I'm back to my original theory. KM was driving by herself. **** happened. She went home. BM got his gun. TM said call the police. BM took KM out with him to identify the car.

BM and TM lied about KM not being present during the shootings because BM was worried his father would be upset he put KM's life at risk, when his actions had gotten his mother killed. That's why he said TM was with him as a willing participant.

I don't think there was ever a driving lesson. I think BM and KM went looking for EN at the park. EN recognized the Buick and called for back up. JMO

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Can we believe a 15 year old with limited driving experience can engage in a lengthy high speed car chase without getting into an accident? I can't. I can believe she was practicing driving by herself, but I can't believe she was behind the wheel during a high speed car chase.

There was what appears to be verified damage to the molding on the passenger side. The verbal confrontation appears to be mutually verified where something happened and leading up to that could have caused that damage that was attributed to that. Without knowing what the damage looked like it could have been pre-existing damage or caused by a stray bullet.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I don't think there was ever a driving lesson. I think BM and KM went looking for EN at the park. EN recognized the Buick and called for back up. JMO

That doesn't explain why the warrant says the car returned home. If we think BM was in the car all along, there needs to be a different reason the car returned home (since the warrant says it returned home to deposit KM and pick up BM).

Unless BM and KM went to the park looking for EN without his gun the first time and then returned home to get his gun because something happened. Then left KM home and went out by himself. EN could have believed there was still more than one "kid" in the car since he saw more than one earlier.

I believe the car returned home. It's too weird they said it did if it didn't. If we don't believe the car returned home, we need a good explanation to explain why they said it did. We can't just say we don't believe it without figuring out why.

One good explanation could be that BM didn't want to admit he had the handgun on him the entire time. Maybe he felt that showed intent to instigate what happened. That doesn't make sense since he knows gun laws and his rights to open carry and stand his ground.

Could it be as simple as BM being ashamed he didn't fire back during the first encounter? He didn't want to admit he had a firearm on him all along and was too afraid to use it and ran home?

 

[sonjay]

More thoughts to my previous post.

BM being behind the wheel for the second half of the trip could explain why he merely brandished the handgun instead of shooting back at the first shooting scene too.

TM wasn't in the car ever. KM was behind the wheel for the first part of the trip (alone or with BM. BM was in the drivers seat for the second part of the trip (possibly in the passenger seat for the first part of the trip).

Oh, my! This is another reason I don't believe BM was in the car for the first part of the trip. When Audi guy got out of his car and supposedly yelled at them, BM would have gotten out of the Buick and gotten into a physical altercation with him.

That didn't happen because KM was driving alone for the first part of the trip. She went home. Said what happened. BM went out to protect his baby sister. Even though TM said to call the police.

As for KM saying, "It could have been me." "My mother was trying to protect me." Maybe BM pushed KM into the car. He started shooting. KM got scared and got out of the car. TM came running out of the house to try to get KM back into the house away from gunfire.

That's a good point. If -- I repeat, if -- there was ever a point at which the Audi guy got out of the car, then you're right, Brandon couldn't have been in the car at that time, because that would have resulted in a fight right then and there.

But if the driver getting out of the car was just a made-up part of KM's made-up story about the road rage, then it's still possible that Brandon was in the car the whole time.

I still lean toward Brandon being in the car the whole time. I agree with what katydid just posted -- BM and KM went looking for EN. EN was right -- "those kids" were after him. He called the Audi guy for backup and transportation out of there. BM & KM pursued, and it went from there. I still think there was no intermission between chases, and no trip home during intermission.

I lean that way largely because EN described to his friends one single car chase that ended at the cul de sac, and the Meyerses originally described one single car chase that ended at the cul de sac.

That's not definitive, of course, and your theory could be the correct one, or closer to what actually happened.

 

[sonjay]

That doesn't explain why the warrant says the car returned home. If we think BM was in the car all along, there needs to be a different reason the car returned home (since the warrant says it returned home to deposit KM and pick up BM).

Unless BM and KM went to the park looking for EN without his gun the first time and then returned home to get his gun because something happened. Then left KM home and went out by himself. EN could have believed there was still more than one "kid" in the car since he saw more than one earlier.

I believe the car returned home. It's too weird they said it did if it didn't. If we don't believe the car returned home, we need a good explanation to explain why they said it did. We can't just say we don't believe it without figuring out why.

One good explanation could be that BM didn't want to admit he had the handgun on him the entire time. Maybe he felt that showed intent to instigate what happened. That doesn't make sense since he knows gun laws and his right to open carry.

Could it be as simple as BM being ashamed he didn't fire back during the first encounter? He didn't want to admit he had a firearm on him all along and was too afraid to use it and ran home?

BBM. Remember, originally they didn't say the car returned home and then left again. The original story had the road rager following the car home and opening fire.

So why did they say the car returned home? My theory, as I've stated upthread somewhere, is that the kids desperately did not want it to be known that Brandon was ever in the car with the gun. Because they knew that he had set out in the car with the gun with ill intent. So they really really didn't want it ever known that he was in the car with the gun. That's why they came up with the driving lesson story.

This story held for a week, and they thought they were in the clear.

Then, a full week later -- when EN was picked up on the juvie warrant -- they realized that EN might talk. EN might tell the police that Brandon was in the car pointing the gun at him. Uh oh.... The kids see that their driving lesson story isn't going to withstand scrutiny. The kids realize their story has to accommodate Brandon being in the car with his gun. That's when and why they added the new revelation that the car came home to swap out passengers.

That lie was told only because they realized their original lie was probably about to be exposed.

Edited to add: For that first week, when they thought they were in the clear: No one knew the shooter was EN. They had been deliberately vague about the other car (a silver or grey sedan, no license #). And there was a police sketch of a non-existent person. Even the police bought their story! Then suddenly EN was in juvie detention. The police were nosing around asking questions about whether the shooter could have been their neighbor EN. Suddenly they're not in the clear anymore, and they have to come up with something to explain how Brandon was in the car pointing his gun at EN.

 

[Miss Muffet]

There was what appears to be verified damage to the molding on the passenger side. The verbal confrontation appears to be mutually verified where something happened and leading up to that could have caused that damage that was attributed to taht. Without knowing what the damage looked like it could have been pre-existing damage or caused by a stray bullet.

There's a picture of the damage. A passenger side molding strip is missing. Since police later stated there was no accident, I don't believe the missing molding strip was the result of the "something" that happened that night.

But the Audi being able to gain 75' in the high speed chase could indicate KM was behind the wheel. That old Buick has horsepower and it could have caught up with an experienced driver. It's a 6 cylinder 1993 Park Avenue Buick. (I'm a lead foot and I have left sports cars in the dust with late model 6 cylinders.) It might have been a ultra 205-hp instead of the basic 170-hp, but even a 170 would have the gumption. I'd need to look at the picture. There was a link to a picture in one of the earlier threads. I'll try to find it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

If EN had been the driver, I would say that once the Meyers car left and headed home, that incident was over, and EN became the aggressor when he followed the Meyers car into their cul de sac. But since EN was a passenger in the Audi, I have to question whether he could legally be faulted for the Audi's pursuit/following of the Meyers back to their cul de sac. EN could have been begging the Audi driver to knock it off and take him home.

Yes, I've been trying to make legal distinctions as there's a difference between what may be speculated and what can be proved to a jury. The DA/police right now are in a knot in saying EN was the 6' 180 person described in the sketch as the narrative of the complaint is explicit and for the most part mutual that EN was in the passenger seat. Regardless of the truth of the matter as far as the jury is concerned the DA would have to prove that EN was even in the car when the driver got out and made the verbal threat, which the current position that EN was the driver then and was described as 6' 180 pounds seems quite problematic from a legal perspective. Also the mutually agreed upon position that BM had a gun is also problematic as whether BM was just holding the gun by the window or pointing it at the car could be considered a difference without a distinction as long as the jury has to consider that it would have been visible to EN. Then regardless of whether or not the gun was intentionally displayed to EN, it is mutually agreed upon that the Meyers intentionally chased the Audi while armed, which this event alone could be all that is need for EN's defense make a Stand Your Ground defense. The most troublesome part for EN is the mutual agreement that the Audi followed the Buick to Mt Shasta, but again by mutual agreement EN was not the driver and he had a legal right to be there. I do for instance think EN could very well have been out for blood at that point and wanted the Buick to be chased, but I see that as difficult to prove and even if it is proved by the DA that doesn't necessarily tie into a conviction given EN's legal right to be on Mt Shasta only to arrive to BM standing outside armed. I think EN was bad news, but whatever my opinion of EN liking or disliking EN doesn't translate into seeing him convicted for murder (possibly manslaughter). I do think the DA/police were blindsided by the strength of EN's legal defense when they were probably expected he'd just end up with weak representation.

 

[Miss Muffet]

BBM. Remember, originally they didn't say the car returned home and then left again. The original story had the road rager following the car home and opening fire.

We already know the first story was a lie because there was a second shooting scene with bullets. The first story was told quickly to protect them. They subsequently had to adjust their story to match facts/evidence. Since they knew the police found out about the first shooting scene and had surveillance video of the cars, they had to explain the first shooting scene and explain the car returning home.

I don't believe the voluntarily changed their story simply because they knew EN was in custody. Each time the police found evidence that didn't match their story, I'll bet the police went back to question them about what they found and that's when BM and KM adjusted their stories.

Since BM and KM weren't expecting to be questioned about the second scene or the surveillance video AND they were likely questioned separately, I'll bet their first adjustments to the story were close to the truth.

After police returned to re-question them the first time and they answered fairly honestly, they realized they were going to be re-questioned again and again as more evidence came up so they sat in that house and made sure they both had a story straight that made sense. Their sitting in the house working on their story, after they were re-questioned, and answered fairly truthfully since they were caught off guard and didn't have time to coordinate stories between then, would explain RM telling different stories to the media as the days progressed.

So why did they say the car returned home? My theory, as I've stated upthread somewhere, is that the kids desperately did not want it to be known that Brandon was ever in the car with the gun. Because they knew that he had set out in the car with the gun with ill intent. So they really really didn't want it ever known that he was in the car with the gun. That's why they came up with the driving lesson story.

I don't believe that would motivate them to say the car went home. First, BM knows gun laws and his right to open carry and stand his ground. Second, they didn't have time to coordinate their stories to suddenly say the car went home. They were covering up the car went home initially because going home to get the gun shows more ill intent than having the gun all along.

This story held for a week, and they thought they were in the clear.

This validates that they felt comfortable and didn't have time to coordinate a new story before LE showed up saying their first statement didn't match evidence.

Then, a full week later -- when EN was picked up on the juvie warrant -- they realized that EN might talk. EN might tell the police that Brandon was in the car pointing the gun at him. Uh oh.... The kids see that their driving lesson story isn't going to withstand scrutiny. The kids realize their story has to accommodate Brandon being in the car with his gun. That's when and why they added the new revelation that the car came home to swap out passengers.

That lie was told only because they realized their original lie was probably about to be exposed.

I don't think EN being picked up for other charges had anything to do with them changing their stories, aside from the police showing up at their door unexpectedly asking questions about what didn't add up.

I think LE talked to EN's witnesses before picking EN up. That's how they learned about EN and how they learned about discrepancies. Then they unexpectedly showed up at the Meyers' house to re-question them about discrepancies.

 

[Indy Anna]

That's a good point. If -- I repeat, if -- there was ever a point at which the Audi guy got out of the car, then you're right, Brandon couldn't have been in the car at that time, because that would have resulted in a fight right then and there.

But if the driver getting out of the car was just a made-up part of KM's made-up story about the road rage, then it's still possible that Brandon was in the car the whole time.

I still lean toward Brandon being in the car the whole time. I agree with what katydid just posted -- BM and KM went looking for EN. EN was right -- "those kids" were after him. He called the Audi guy for backup and transportation out of there. BM & KM pursued, and it went from there. I still think there was no intermission between chases, and no trip home during intermission.

I lean that way largely because EN described to his friends one single car chase that ended at the cul de sac, and the Meyerses originally described one single car chase that ended at the cul de sac.

That's not definitive, of course, and your theory could be the correct one, or closer to what actually happened.

I have been reading here off and on, trying to catch up the last few days. I agree with much of what you and katydid are posting. I also doubt that TM was in the car at all that night, but got caught in the crossfire. Since whoever was in the car (BM, imo) was being chased by someone with a gun, it's likely he drove up to the house screeching and so TM went outside to find out who was making all of the noise and why.

I also agree that there was just a single car chase. The same route was cited for 2 different stories because, IMO, the story was rehearsed. As it is rehashed and embellished, the different versions become confused. I think BM was likely out with his gun looking for EN. Not defending EN, but maybe he didn't want to go home because he felt threatened, since BM knew where he lived. That would explain why he called the friend to pick him up.

However, I don't believe KM was in the car that night, either. The M's tried to make the incident look as innocent as possible in the beginning -- Mom out giving little sis driving lessons, minding their own business, driving the speed limit, doing everything right, indignant at someone else's wrongdoing, etc. After EN was arrested, they had to somehow get BM in the car and KM out of the car. But, EN claimed "those kids" (pleural) were after him so there must have been at least one other person in the car, which I don't believe was TM. Possibly someone else the family is determined to protect and was supposedly asleep?

I think TM was implicated in the street incident from the beginning for convenience -- 1.) Even if TM survived, with a head wound she likely would not remember what happened nor ever be fully cognizant, 2.) In her condition, she likely wouldn't be investigated as an aggressor, 3.) As a victim, she would garner much sympathy, and 4.) It was more important to protect someone else from criminal charges.

JMO

 

[Indy Anna]

We already know the first story was a lie because there was a second shooting scene with bullets. The first story was told quickly to protect them. They subsequently had to adjust their story to match facts/evidence. Since they knew the police found out about the first shooting scene and had surveillance video of the cars, they had to explain the first shooting scene and explain the car returning home.

I don't believe the voluntarily changed their story simply because they knew EN was in custody. Each time the police found evidence that didn't match their story, I'll bet the police went back to question them about what they found and that's when BM and KM adjusted their stories.

Since BM and KM weren't expecting to be questioned about the second scene or the surveillance video AND they were likely questioned separately, I'll bet their first adjustments to the story were close to the truth.

After police returned to re-question them the first time and they answered fairly honestly, they realized they were going to be re-questioned again and again as more evidence came up so they sat in that house and made sure they both had a story straight that made sense. Their sitting in the house working on their story, after they were re-questioned, and answered fairly truthfully since they were caught off guard and didn't have time to coordinate stories between then, would explain RM telling different stories to the media as the days progressed.

I don't believe that would motivate them to say the car went home. First, BM knows gun laws and his right to open carry and stand his ground. Second, they didn't have time to coordinate their stories to suddenly say the car went home. They were covering up the car went home initially because going home to get the gun shows more ill intent than having the gun all along.

This validates that they felt comfortable and didn't have time to coordinate a new story before LE showed up saying their first statement didn't match evidence.


I don't think EN being picked up for other charges had anything to do with them changing their stories, aside from the police showing up at their door unexpectedly asking questions about what didn't add up.

I think LE talked to EN's witnesses before picking EN up. That's how they learned about EN and how they learned about discrepancies. Then they unexpectedly showed up at the Meyers' house to re-question them about discrepancies.

BBM
It depends on the reason BM was out driving around with his gun. If he was engaged in illegal activity, that might motivate the M's to fabricate an innocent-sounding story involving a mother and her young daughter.

I agree with everything else you said. Yes, as they were further questioned and the story began unravelling, they had to change the story. Since BM was likely in the car initially, they had to alter their story to include him in the car.

MOO

 

[Miss Muffet]

Here's February 13th pictures and video of RM showing molding strip missing from the car.

Breaking News: Woman Shot In Apparent Road Rage Incident

This video dated February 18th says police updating there was "no accident."

New Account Emerges in Las Vegas 'Road Rage' Shooting