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

[sonjay]

As an mental exercise, I put together a simple timeline of events in this case, omitting from the timeline the untruths told by the Meyers family -- in an attempt to see what the bare bones of the event look like without the confusion of the Meyers deceptions. I did include some of what EN told his friends, as their interviews with police seem credible. I also included some of the later revelations when we learned that the Meyerses had not been truthful or forthcoming about that night, but as to the events on the night of Feb. 12, I stuck to the barebones outline of what we know to be true or are reasonably certain is true.

Here 'tis:

========================================
Night of the shooting:
Feb. 12 - Around 11:20 to 11:30 pm

EN sees Meyers green car in school parking lot, thinks someone is after him, calls friend with silver car to come pick him up.

EN sees someone in green car with a gun.

Green car chases silver car.

Silver car stops during chase and EN fires at green car. EN in silver car fires several times at green car; green car does not fire at silver car.

Green car drives to Meyers cul de sac. Silver car follows it to cul de sac.

Gunfire is exchanged. EN fires from passenger seat of silver car, firing at someone at the car and at someone running toward the house. BM, standing in cul de sac, fires at silver car. TM is hit. Silver car leaves. 911 is called.

========================================
Subsequent Events:

Feb. 13 around 3-3:30am - EN visits his friends, tells them about the shooting, tells them he "got those kids, they were after me and I got them."

Feb. 14 - TM is taken off life support and dies. Police release sketch of suspect. It's not clear whether sketch is the shooter or the driver of the silver car, but is a "suspect." It's not stated by police which of the Meyerses provided the description for the sketch.

Feb. 15 - RM visits EN's house, wanting to talk to him

Feb. 17 - EN is picked up on unrelated juvie warrant, is questioned about Meyers shooting, denies any involvement, is released. It is revealed that BM was in green car while it was chasing silver car.

Feb. 18 - police talk to EN's friends, who tell police what EN told them the night of the shooting.

Feb. 19 - EN is arrested. He is a neighbor of Meyers family, and Meyers family knows him, knew it was him all along, and TM knew him well. Police say they didn't know until today that Meyers family knew EN. EN doesn't look like suspect sketch, police say they're still looking for another suspect but say they are not looking for the person in the sketch. Police refuse to say more about the sketch or why it doesn't resemble EN or who it's a sketch of.

========================================


Without the confusion of the deceptions by the Meyers, this has a different feel to it, I think. Does this barebones outline give anyone any new thoughts about what happened, or make you rethink any of what you thought previously?

 

[Miss Muffet]

I do understand all that but though skydiving for example is considered risk taking or thrill seeking, it is on a different continuum than engaging in unlawful behavior such as drug dealing, brandishing guns, civilians involved in car chases and selling drugs. Sky diving will not land you in jail. The skydiver is channeling his/her desire for excitement in a way that will not harm others nor break the law. I have also read that police officers and criminals are often flip sides of the same coin. These individuals have chosen what fork in the road they wanted to follow. When a rule-breaker crosses over into major criminal behavior, they are no longer just a thrill-seeker. They are criminals acting without impulse control and endangering the lives of others without regard. I do not find such individuals any where near the same type person as a skydiver, mountain climber, etc. who does not get in trouble with the law. Though there are overlapping traits, there are many traits that would not overlap. IMO.

The question raised was does a thrill seeking drag racing father impose a family environment that results in a law breaking, gun brandishing, high speed car chasing son to be ashamed of admitting fear to his father. Since the shared genetics resulted in risky behavior, it's unlikely. Genetically, they are who they are. It's not an act to appease the surrounding environment.

My son doesn't feel fear or cowardice when he son chooses not to jump off a 30' cliff in the backcountry; it's because the grade of the terrain, depth of snow, etc., below isn't conducive to land safely. He'll jump from cliffs of any height if all factors indicate it's possible. He has no reason to be ashamed of cowardice. A car chasing, gun brandishing lawbreaker retreating from gunfire is no different in that regard.

Nothing indicates that BM's children are afraid to admit fear to him, IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

.......Nothing indicates that BM's children are afraid to admit fear to him, IMO.

In total agreement.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Without the confusion of the deceptions by the Meyers, this has a different feel to it, I think. Does this barebones outline give anyone any new thoughts about what happened, or make you rethink any of what you thought previously?

Even though I believe EN's version is the most accurate, both sides need to be taken into consideration to be impartial. I can understand how one side viewed events one way and the other side viewed events a different way.

I can't ignore that the person EN called to pick him up and the person who the Meyerses had en encounter with after leaving the school had a silver car. To say the Meyerses lied about an encounter with a man in a silver car, completely ignores that the timing perfectly coincides with the person going to pick up EN. The Meyerses couldn't have known that EN called someone to pick him up.

I'll go as far to say that it's POSSIBLE they didn't know for certain EN was in the car when shots were being fired if we believe they were innocently having driving lessons at the school. If they were at the school to threaten EN, they certainly could put two and two together when someone was later shooting at them from a silver car. However, If they didn't have interactions with EN at the school (and EN says he just saw them, not that he had an encounter with them), it's possible they didn't know EN was picked up and also in the silver car later.

It all hinges on when and how the Meyerses knew it was EN who was shooting. If they knew at the time of the shooting, they went to the school with ill intent. If they learned about it through the grapevine after EN told his friends the next day, it's possible they truly believed their encounter with the silver car was the cause of everything that happened during the first encounter with the silver car.

We can't ignore that none of this excuses going home to get a gun after an encounter with the silver car. Who gets a gun and chases after someone who gets out of their car and yells threateningly? Sure, it's not uncommon for people to pull guns in road rage incidents and shoot them on the spot or even chase after them and shoot at them further down the road. What's not common is taking an intermission to go get a gun and then head back out to hunt for the car.

That only happens if you know the identity of the silver car driver all along and have an existing conflict with that person.

As a result, just like the Meyerses hid the identity of EN, I'm betting they are hiding the identity of the silver car driver.

So, there. That's what your timeline helped me figure out even though you don't have the Meyerses' version included. The very things you want to exclude as not ever happening at all is what has lead me to that conclusion. The fact they went home for a gun pretty much proves to me they know the identity of the silver car driver. This all validates to me that there is an underlying conflict that's probably illegal because there's no other reason to keep these people's identities a secret.

 

[sonjay]

Even though I believe EN's version is the most accurate, both sides need to be taken into consideration to be impartial. I can understand how one side viewed events one way and the other side viewed events a different way.

I can't ignore that the person EN called to pick him up and the person who the Meyerses had en encounter with after leaving the school had a silver car. To say the Meyerses lied about an encounter with a man in a silver car, completely ignores that the timing perfectly coincides with the person going to pick up EN. The Meyerses couldn't have known that EN called someone to pick him up.

Um.... where did I say the Meyerses lied about an encounter with a man in a silver car? My barebones sketch leaves out virtually everything the Meyerses said about that night, since we do not have any idea which parts, if any, of what they said are true. The point of this exercise was to leave out all the parts that we don't know with some degree of certainty, and that necessarily means leaving out just about all of what they said. I'm sure that parts of what they said are true, but we have no idea which parts are and which parts aren't, so I'm ignoring all of what they said, except for the few parts that are verified by physical evidence or EN's friends.

I'm not saying that they lied about any specific thing; I'm simply saying that they've lied about so much that we can't give any of their statements any credibility, except where those statements are supported by other evidence.

I'll go as far to say that it's POSSIBLE they didn't know for certain EN was in the car when shots were being fired if we believe they were innocently having driving lessons at the school. If they were at the school to threaten EN, they certainly could put two and two together when someone was later shooting at them from a silver car.

Okay, here I am going by what RM said at his press conference after EN was arrested. I did include some Meyers statements in the subsequent events section, where they admitted to prior deception. In RM's press conference, he said they knew EN, and the reason his wife left the home was because she knew that EN knew where they lived. So either they were lying when they claimed ignorance of who the person was they were chasing, or RM was lying in his press conference.

RM's press conference: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152802324678802

It all hinges on when and how the Meyerses knew it was EN who was shooting. If they knew at the time of the shooting, they went to the school with ill intent. If they learned about it through the grapevine after EN told his friends the next day, it's possible they truly believed their encounter with the silver car was the cause of everything that happened.

RM said, in his press conference, that they knew it at the time of the shooting. If he was being truthful at that press conference, then, per your logic, they went to the school with ill intent -- which is what I've been saying for a while now.

Just like the Meyerses hid the identity of EN, I'm betting they are hiding the identity of the silver car driver.

It would not surprise me at all if you are correct.

The fact they went home for a gun

Bzzzzzz! We do not know for a fact that they went home for a gun. Remember, we're talking about things that we know for a fact, or at least know with near certainty. Not things the Meyers have said that may or may not be true.

Take away the Meyers' assertion that they went home for a gun. Is there any objective evidence that they went home for a gun?

 

[Miss Muffet]

Before I continue, the silver car driver must be a very important person for the Meyerses and EN to hide his identity.

Here's my new theory:

The Meyerses had a prior ongoing conflict with the silver car driver over something illegal.

Answering EN's involvement in this conflict can shed light.

Here is a quick brainstorm of possibilities:

1) EN got caught up in the middle of the conflict simply because he called for a ride.

2) EN was aware of ongoing conflict between silver car driver and the Meyerses, and he called to say he knew where the car was. If the silver car guy had a conflict with the Meyerses, he would have already known there they Meyerses lived. He didn't need EN calling to report where they Meyerses were located. If he is willing to go on a high speed shootout, he could have easily done a surprise drive-by shooting at the Meyeres house at any time in the past and future.

3) The Meyerses had previously threatened EN because of his association with the silver car driver. EN sees the Meyerses at the school and calls silver car driver to report he's being harassed by the Meyerses and is afraid. Silver car driver sees the Meyerses on his way to picking up EN and gives them a piece of his mind. Meyereses go home for gun because they fear silver car guy due to prior/existing illegal conflict. Silver car picks up EN. Buick ends up behind silver car. Silver car tries to escape because of BM brandishing gun. Not necessarily because silver car doesn't want to engage in gunfire, but because the timing isn't right while the silver car is in the prey position. Silver car manages to out maneuver buick and waits to ambush with gunfire. Buick takes off for cover, ends up at Meyers' house. Silver car chases.

Obviously, option 3 is the most logical and matches what has been reported the best.

 

[sonjay]

Before I continue, the silver car driver must be a very important person for the Meyerses and EN to hide his identity.

Here's my new theory:

The Meyerses had a prior ongoing conflict with the silver car driver over something illegal.

Answering EN's involvement in this conflict can shed light.

Here is a quick brainstorm of possibilities:

1) EN got caught up in the middle of the conflict simply because he called for a ride.

2) EN was aware of ongoing conflict between silver car driver and the Meyerses, and he called to say he knew where the car was. If the silver car guy had a conflict with the Meyerses, he would have already known there they Meyerses lived. He didn't need EN calling to report where they Meyerses were located. If he is willing to go on a high speed shootout, he could have easily done a surprise drive-by shooting at the Meyeres house at any time in the past and future.

3) The Meyerses had previously threatened EN because of his association with the silver car driver. EN sees the Meyerses at the school and calls silver car driver to report he's being harassed by the Meyerses and is afraid. Silver car driver sees the Meyerses on his way to picking up EN and gives them a piece of his mind. Meyereses go home for gun because they fear silver car guy due to prior/existing illegal conflict. Silver car picks up EN. Buick ends up behind silver car. Silver car tries to escape because of BM brandishing gun. Not necessarily because silver car doesn't want to engage in gunfire, but because the timing isn't right while the silver car is in the prey position. Silver car manages to out maneuver buick and waits to ambush with gunfire. Buick takes off for cover, ends up at Meyers' house. Silver car chases.

Obviously, option 3 is the most logical and matches what has been reported the best.

Can you explain why you're so certain the Meyerses (any of them, whoever was in the car that night) went home for a gun?

I'm trying to focus our discussion for the moment on the things that we know with certainty or near certainty are true. Notice that I left out of my barebones sketch virtually everything the Meyerses said about that night -- nothing about who was driving the green car, nothing about why they were at the school, nothing about where BM was prior to shooting at the silver car while standing in the cul de sac.

I included things that the Meyerses said only when it's also backed up by other evidence. For example, the green car chasing the silver car -- both BM and EN's friends described that chase, so I included the chase. BM said he shot at the silver car in the cul de sac, and the police found spent 9mm shell casings, so I included that. But I left out everything said by any of the Meyerses that's not supported by other evidence. (Even the parts that I believe are true.)

So let's talk about why you're so certain they went home to get a gun. Because I'm sorry, but I can't find any evidence to support that assertion.

 

[Gin]

Before I continue, the silver car driver must be a very important person for the Meyerses and EN to hide his identity.

Here's my new theory:

The Meyerses had a prior ongoing conflict with the silver car driver over something illegal.

Answering EN's involvement in this conflict can shed light.

Here is a quick brainstorm of possibilities:

1) EN got caught up in the middle of the conflict simply because he called for a ride.

2) EN was aware of ongoing conflict between silver car driver and the Meyerses, and he called to say he knew where the car was. If the silver car guy had a conflict with the Meyerses, he would have already known there they Meyerses lived. He didn't need EN calling to report where they Meyerses were located. If he is willing to go on a high speed shootout, he could have easily done a surprise drive-by shooting at the Meyeres house at any time in the past and future.

3) The Meyerses had previously threatened EN because of his association with the silver car driver. EN sees the Meyerses at the school and calls silver car driver to report he's being harassed by the Meyerses and is afraid. Silver car driver sees the Meyerses on his way to picking up EN and gives them a piece of his mind. Meyereses go home for gun because they fear silver car guy due to prior/existing illegal conflict. Silver car picks up EN. Buick ends up behind silver car. Silver car tries to escape because of BM brandishing gun. Not necessarily because silver car doesn't want to engage in gunfire, but because the timing isn't right while the silver car is in the prey position. Silver car manages to out maneuver buick and waits to ambush with gunfire. Buick takes off for cover, ends up at Meyers' house. Silver car chases.

Obviously, option 3 is the most logical and matches what has been reported the best.

JMO-Lot to ponder, as always in this case. I might add another possibility. Could it be that all three parties are involved in some sort of under the table business arrangement? (Silver car, M, EN) Maybe someone in the "company" didn't do what they were told to do, (or items went missing?) resulting in a furious response.

 

[sonjay]

Before I continue, the silver car driver must be a very important person for the Meyerses and EN to hide his identity.

JMO-Lot to ponder, as always in this case. I might add another possibility. Could it be that all three parties are involved in some sort of under the table business arrangement? (Silver car, M, EN) Maybe someone in the "company" didn't do what they were told to do, (or items went missing?) resulting in a furious response.

In looking at the bare facts of the events of that night, the driver of the Audi does seem to take on more importance. Why was that guy (assuming it was a guy) so willing to A) go pick up EN that late on the spur of the moment, B) engage in a chase with another car, C) stop the car diagonally across the road to allow EN to shoot at the green car, and finally D) follow the green car to the cul de sac for the final shootout?

 

[PaperDoll]

Sonjay, thank you for the barebones timeline :blowkiss: My view on this whole mess is still fuzzy because we really don't have a lot to go on. I do believe EN and friends were being truthful and the Meyers stories were confusing. However, even reading all that we have, EN and driver of Audi is still the ones who pulled the trigger, jumped the gun if you will. Yes, EN may have saw a gun waving out the window, but was the gun pointing directly at him like it was getting ready to fire a shot, or was it simply a "look I have a gun so don't mess with me" type thing? Once the 1st shooting occurred and when Buick fled, the Audi took after them and opened fire instead of calling the police to report that they too were being chased. Hey, that 911 call works both ways..

 

[Miss Muffet]

Um.... where did I say the Meyerses lied about an encounter with a man in a silver car?

In previous posts, you've repeatedly said you don't believe there was ever a road rage encounter with the silver car. You've stated previously you don't believe any Audi encounter happened whatsoever prior to when the Meyerses claim to have gone home to get a gun.

The point of this exercise was to leave out all the parts that we don't know with some degree of certainty, and that necessarily means leaving out just about all of what they said.

And the exercise helped me realize the silver car driver is a huge factor in what happened. The silver car driver is the motive. The silver car driver is probably a high level person in an illegal activity.

The Okay, here I am going by what RM said at his press conference after EN was arrested. I did include some Meyers statements in the subsequent events section, where they admitted to prior deception. In RM's press conference, he said they knew EN, and the reason his wife left the home was because she knew that EN knew where they lived. So either they were lying when they claimed ignorance of who the person was they were chasing, or RM was lying in his press conference.

RM's press conference: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152802324678802

Good. That solves everything. "They reason they left the house last night is because they knew where we lived." This also indicates that the Meyerses have subsequently given the identity of the Audi driver to the police. That's why LE isn't asking the public to help find the person in the sketch. There's probably an all points bulletin out on him. He may be on a most wanted list. We should go look.

Think about this: They had an encounter with the audi and went home to get the gun and go back out because the audi driver knew where he lived. At that point when they went home to get the gun, EN wasn't in the car. The Audi driver was on his way to pick up EN at the park. The conflict is with the Audi driver. The Audi driver is who they feared. Not over a little road rage incident. Over an illegal conflict.

RM said, in his press conference, that they knew it at the time of the shooting. If he was being truthful at that press conference, then, per your logic, they went to the school with ill intent -- which is what I've been saying for a while now.

I've been saying all along that the Meyerses had ill intent from the start too. We simply disagree on the sequence of events because I'm trying to make as much of the evidence and statements fit while you're choosing to excluding huge pieces without providing logical reasons why the pieces should be excluded aside from the Meyerses are liars.

Bzzzzzz! We do not know for a fact that they went home for a gun. Remember, we're talking about things that we know for a fact, or at least know with near certainty. Not things the Meyers have said that may or may not be true.

Take away the Meyers' assertion that they went home for a gun. Is there any objective evidence that they went home for a gun?

Is there any objective evidence they did not go home for a gun?

You can't accept some statements form the warrant and disregard others. You have no facts they didn't go home for the gun. I don't know why you're stuck on them having the gun starting out. Their hiding the identity of the Audi driver indicates there would be significant fear that caused them to go home for their gun.

I think the illegal conflict was with EN and Audi driver. I think Audi driver is upper level person in illegal activity. I think the Meyerses headed out to the park to challenge EN without a gun because they didn't think he had gotten so bad that he'd have guns. As they were driving around, probably looping back to harass EN again, they saw Audi driver as he was on his way to EN. They had a holy **** moment and went home for the gun.

My humble entirely personal opinion bottom line is the Meyerses were involved in something illegal that resulted in a conflict between EN and the Audi driver and they set out that night to try to resolve the conflict. I'm sure after everything they felt their family did for EN, being a prior close friend of the family, they were extremely upset with EN being on Audi driver's side of the conflict. They might have set out to try to talk sense into him or beat some sense into him even.

Another possibility. I'm trying to think of the kids my children knew who went down the wrong path and the various conflicts that happened between them. And I can see the Meyers' kids in the family heading out to beat the crap out of EN. Not with a gun. Perhaps they did beat him up. We didn't see EN until a long time later when bruises could have vanished. More likely, EN pulled a gun and they were surprises so they left. They drove around talking about what to do and ended up having a run-in with Audi driver. Then there was no choice in their minds but to go home and get BM's gun.

One other possibility that is entirely my own speculation. I recall someone saying EN got guns because he was being robbed due to his small stature. Perhaps BM was the person continually beating EN up to steal from him. He shows up that night and EN has a gun. He leaves because he doesn't have his gun with him, he never needed it previously. He drives around for a while. Why? He's on a burn run. Just driving around smoking a joint. Kids do that. OH, OH, OH! He could be making deliveries!!!!!!!!!! He encounters Audi dude who is coming to EN's rescue and goes home for his gun.

If someone is repeatedly strong arming EN to steal from him, higher level person would come to end that.

 

[BellaVita]

.......................... Yes, EN may have saw a gun waving out the window, but was the gun pointing directly at him like it was getting ready to fire a shot, or was it simply a "look I have a gun so don't mess with me" type thing? Once the 1st shooting occurred and when Buick fled, the Audi took after them and opened fire instead of calling the police to report that they too were being chased. Hey, that 911 call works both ways..

If I was the local drug dealer in the park and I was involved in a car chase where threatening words/gestures had been exchanged, possibly been involved in illegal activity with these same people, ie: deal gone bad (just speculating), I would not ponder very long whether the person in the green car meant business with the gun or was just warning me that he had it. Being as I was involved in illegal activity, I would open fire and not call 911. Also, don't forget, who knows what type of product could have been in either car. Big disincentive to calling police. NOBODY wanted to call police. IMO.

 

[Miss Muffet]

So let's talk about why you're so certain they went home to get a gun. Because I'm sorry, but I can't find any evidence to support that assertion.

Perhaps there was no reason for them to take a gun initially. They didn't know EN had a gun. EN only recently acquired guns because he was getting robbed. Perhaps their initial ill intent involved physically beating the **** out of him.

 

[Miss Muffet]

In looking at the bare facts of the events of that night, the driver of the Audi does seem to take on more importance. Why was that guy (assuming it was a guy) so willing to A) go pick up EN that late on the spur of the moment, B) engage in a chase with another car, C) stop the car diagonally across the road to allow EN to shoot at the green car, and finally D) follow the green car to the cul de sac for the final shootout?

His being EN's employer seems to answer all those questions.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

With the recent timeline by Sonjay and the scenarios by MM, that got me to reconsider the meaning of what was said in the Complaint. This got me thinking:
* The Buick drove home expressly because the passengers saw EN at the park and they went home to get armed just for that reason, which it sounds like the Buick did leave EN's sight though that can also be explained as one continuous event if they sat in ambush at another part of the school.
* If you look at Google Maps it seems clear that EN was picked up from the park and was going east in order to pass the school, which according to EN the Buick was already there apparently waiting. Once the Buick saw the Audi the Buick then chased the Audi. If this was one continuous event with EN being in the car for subsequent the verbal confrontation that would mean the Meyers were expressly out to get EN and/or the Audi driver where they knew to look for that car from the beginning.
* I don't think the Meyers were out to shoot anyone, but were out to intimidate where their intimidation attempt completely backfired on them. I'm not sure that EN was their intended target since according to neighbors EN was known for openly carrying his pistol around the neighborhood, so it might have only been coincidental that EN was in the Audi. EN might have just been paranoid about the car where the Meyers didn't even know he was at the park, but they were definitely looking for the Audi when he and his pistol just happened to be there. Giving EN's known pistol-packing and the apparent Meyers surprise at being fired upon by the Audi makes me think EN wasn't the target, but the Meyers figured it out only after the shooting began that EN was involved.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Here's the deal IMHO.

The audi driver is the key. The Meyerses hid the identities of EN and the Audi driver because of the illegal activity and fear due to the high level of the Audi driver. When LE end up identifying EN and confront the Meyerses about why they hid EN's identity, the Meyerses admit everything.

Since LE know the Audi driver as a really bad dude, LE completely understands why the Meyerses didn't reveal EN or Audi driver's identity. LE says the sketch is no longer relevant because they now know the identity of the driver. LE is no longer talking about the Audi driver or asking the public to help find him by name because LE respects the Meyerses' fear of him.

 

[Gin]

Here's the deal IMHO.

The audi driver is the key. The Meyerses hid the identities of EN and the Audi driver because of the illegal activity and fear due to the high level of the Audi driver. When LE end up identifying EN and confront the Meyerses about why they hid EN's identity, the Meyerses admit everything.

Since LE know the Audi driver as a really bad dude, LE completely understands why the Meyerses didn't reveal EN or Audi driver's identity. LE says the sketch is no longer relevant because they now know the identity of the driver. LE is no longer talking about the Audi driver or asking the public to help find him by name because LE respects the Meyerses' fear of him.

Just because the Audi driver is a really bad dude doesn't give the Meyerses a free pass. But perhaps it does. Don't know. We may never know. We're here to get to the bottom of the real truth, not just our favorite truths. The reality is people in trouble with high level illegal activity, don't call LE because LE can't protect them. It has to be a very high up person to justify witness protection, and I'm sure Audi guy isn't at the top of the food chain.

JMO-Your post makes sense to me. And this is the reason I think it's good that EN has attorneys that are capable. I'm victim friendly. But I also feel strongly that the goal should be justice. If it turns out that others were up to their noses in bad acts, then they should be held accountable, too.

 

[Miss Muffet]

* I don't think the Meyers were out to shoot anyone, but were out to intimidate where their intimidation attempt completely backfired on them. I'm not sure that EN was their intended target since according to neighbors EN was known for openly carrying his pistol around the neighborhood, so it might have only been coincidental that EN was in the Audi. EN might have just been paranoid about the car where the Meyers didn't even know he was at the park, but they were definitely looking for the Audi when he and his pistol just happened to be there. Giving EN's known pistol-packing and the apparent Meyers surprise at being fired upon by the Audi makes me think EN wasn't the target, but the Meyers figured it out only after the shooting began that EN was involved.

This is a very good point.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yes, EN may have saw a gun waving out the window, but was the gun pointing directly at him like it was getting ready to fire a shot, or was it simply a "look I have a gun so don't mess with me" type thing?

However the shooting by EN didn't begin when the Buick pointed/waved the gun, but only started after the Audi fled and was chased. I think a reasonable person could see it that they're about to be gunned down once someone let's you know they're armed and they're going to chase you down and not let you flee. Even if the Buick wasn't intentionally pointing/waving the gun at the car and EN just happened to see the gun by chance but did intentionally chase the Audi, I still can't see the first shooting as a criminal act by EN because EN's interpretation of an armed threat even if it wasn't intended isn't unreasonable.

Once the 1st shooting occurred and when Buick fled, the Audi took after them and opened fire instead of calling the police to report that they too were being chased. Hey, that 911 call works both ways..

That's the big problem for EN, but the Meyers have done much to bolster EN's defense. The Meyers have created a grey area for their timeline so EN can say he didn't choose to be driven to Mt Shasta and he only fired after he was fired upon. EN also has the advantage in that the defense can explain away prior statements because they're second-hand hearsay that didn't get the facts right. I think EN committed manslaughter as I believe the Meyers were in a panicked retreat after their intimidation plan backfired in a huge way, but I don't think it will be easy getting EN convicted for it.

 

[Gin]

Here's the deal IMHO.

The audi driver is the key. The Meyerses hid the identities of EN and the Audi driver because of the illegal activity and fear due to the high level of the Audi driver. When LE end up identifying EN and confront the Meyerses about why they hid EN's identity, the Meyerses admit everything.

Since LE know the Audi driver as a really bad dude, LE completely understands why the Meyerses didn't reveal EN or Audi driver's identity. LE says the sketch is no longer relevant because they now know the identity of the driver. LE is no longer talking about the Audi driver or asking the public to help find him by name because LE respects the Meyerses' fear of him.

ITA the audi driver is the key.

JMO, Lots of speculation on my part here-If LE does know all the players (and I think they do) they have pretty good reason to sit tight for now. Maybe they don't particularly care that the M's fear (or resent or are angry) at audi car driver. I would think LE and the Prosecution are having to work hard to figure out the bottom line truth, and present a case in spite of it. When both sides of the investigation appear to be sort of merged and murky, that might be difficult. (And frustrating.)