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

[SpanishInquisition]

So, while it's remotely possible that some other .45 fired the bullet that hit TM, it's so very close to 100% certain that it was EN's gun that fired the bullet that hit TM. So close to 100% that I think we can safely consider it "known fact" that EN's .45 was the one that shot TM.

Something else that hasn't been posted on here, but has been on my mind is that multiple brands of 45 casings were found. Whenever I've gone shooting I've always fired the same brand unless I'm just going out for a bunch of target shooting and had a pile of bullets, but EN had a pre-loaded clips which would be less of a reason to mix his brands. Also from what I've read about his pistol was that he bought it legally, so it's not like he bought an illegal weapon and got handed a grab bag of ammunition with it. I'm pretty sure it's his weapon that killed TM, but I'm not sure enough to call it "Fact," especially since definitive tests will prove this.

The police have described TM being in front of BM in vague detail, so it is possible that TM had the 9MM while BM had a 45 and killed his mom because she got caught in the crossfire, which KM herself might not even know this. BM would be highly motivated to remove the 45 evidence at his home but he couldn't go back to the first location and remove evidence there give how by then the police arrived, which also it is implied that only one brand of 45 casings are found at the home (which those would be from EN's pre-loaded clips) that could support removal of evidence by BM. Also since EN's witnesses are silent about EN being fired upon, it is possible that if BM had a 45 that he fired on the Audi at the first location as well that explains the mixed brands. I'm not saying this is what happened, just I'd avoid calling something a "Fact" until the test results are in.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that because the police got rid of the body without any GSR testing, we don't know if the body would show close range powder burns that would have happened if BM had accidentally shot his mom with a 45 from close range. This tossing of evidence could not only result in EN getting off, but it could also result in BM getting off if he's the real culprit as the close-range powder burns would show his guilt. Also EN wouldn't necessarily know that friendly fire dropped TM, just he'd know she dropped during the crossfire, so EN could think himself guilty of shooting her even if he didn't shoot her.

 

[Miss Muffet]

It may show simultaneously that he withheld information from the police as well as that he withheld information from the police. The police themselves said they didn't know the Meyers knew Nowsch until after he was arrested:
"The captain said authorities were unaware until Thursday that the Meyers family knew Nowsch."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/las-vegas-road-rage-killing/
That could mean the police told the Meyers who a suspect was and to keep quiet about it, but when that happened the Meyers didn't volunteer that they new Nowsch.

It could also mean that they only learned the Meyers knew the suspect when they told Meyers he was a suspect on the 17th. That doesn't exonerate they Meyers though if they didn't inform the police they heard through social media on the 15th that EN could possibly be a suspect. But maybe they did and they didn't share that they had a previous close relationship with him.

Regardless, I can't believe LE would tell them the suspect's identity and ask them to keep it a secret prior to having the suspect in custody. Police don't do that. It gets suspects killed by vigilantes.

Another thing. Listening to the actual LE news conference video (instead of reading a newspaper report of it), it's not clear whether LE means they didn't know the Meyerses had a relationship with EN. It still leaves the question unanswered as to if the Meyerses knew at the time of the shooting EN was involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQblxbgmefs

With the way the Meyers family goes on about the relationship they had with EN, I can imagine LE coming to tell them they arrested EN and the Meyerses breaking down heartbroken sharing "after everything we've done for him" stories. And LE only THAT MOMENT realizing they knew him to that deep of an extent.

The Meyerses going on about their prior relationship with EN is one point I can empathize with them. Most people act like it's strange the Meyerses helped him and had a close relationship with him, but I can imagine myself in that situation.

As I've previously shared, some of my children's ex-friends went down a wrong path. One of them lived with us for almost a year---during his senior year of high school and the summer afterwards. His parents had kicked him out before he was 18 and hadn't graduated. I took him in so he could graduate and get on his feet. During the time he lived with us, he broke his hand and I ensured he had the best orthopedic surgeon and physical therapy. That's just an example of how much we did for him.

He moved out a few years ago, and within this past year became a heroin addict. If someone in my family was murdered and I later found out it was him, I'd be going on and on about "after everything we've done for him" just like the Meyerses are doing.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Something else that hasn't been posted on here, but has been on my mind is that multiple brands of 45 casings were found. Whenever I've gone shooting I've always fired the same brand unless I'm just going out for a bunch of target shooting and had a pile of bullets, but EN had a pre-loaded clips which would be less of a reason to mix his brands. Also from what I've read about his pistol was that he bought it legally, so it's not like he bought an illegal weapon and got handed a grab bag of ammunition with it. I'm pretty sure it's his weapon that killed TM, but I'm not sure enough to call it "Fact," especially since definitive tests will prove this.

The police have described TM being in front of BM in vague detail, so it is possible that TM had the 9MM while BM had a 45 and killed his mom because she got caught in the crossfire, which KM herself might not even know this. BM would be highly motivated to remove the 45 evidence at his home but he couldn't go back to the first location and remove evidence there give how by then the police arrived, which also it is implied that only one brand of 45 casings are found at the home (which those would be from EN's pre-loaded clips) that could support removal of evidence by BM. Also since EN's witnesses are silent about EN being fired upon, it is possible that if BM had a 45 that he fired on the Audi at the first location as well that explains the mixed brands. I'm not saying this is what happened, just I'd avoid calling something a "Fact" until the test results are in.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that because the police got rid of the body without any GSR testing, we don't know if the body would show close range powder burns that would have happened if BM had accidentally shot his mom with a 45 from close range. This tossing of evidence could not only result in EN getting off, but it could also result in BM getting off if he's the real culprit as the close-range powder burns would show his guilt. Also EN wouldn't necessarily know that friendly fire dropped TM, just he'd know she dropped during the crossfire, so EN could think himself guilty of shooting her even if he didn't shoot her.

There's also the possibility that the Audi driver had a 45 too. I'm looking forward to ballistics. I'm hoping they compared the 45 bullets to verify they were all shot out of the same weapon.

 

[Miss Muffet]

While reading the warrant to do my spreadsheet, I noticed the following:

"Brandn said when he and his mother were approximately 50 feet south of Cherry River Drive on Villa Monterey the silver car stopped and was facing the a southwesterly direction on Villa Monterey and Alta Drive. Brandon said his mother stopped the car and the front passenger of the silver car began shooting at them. Brandon said he ducked down and when the shooting stopped his mother backed up and drove west on Cherry River at a high rate of speed."

Why would she remain stopped like a sitting duck? Did she pull right up to them before she stopped and had no way around them? That must be the case since she had to back up to get away afterwards.

That's not very street smart. When I'm going through a dangerous part of the city, I never pull up to the car in front of me at red lights and stop signs. You have to leave room to get away if there is a carjacking.

I realize their neighborhood isn't a bad part of town, but they were engaging in risky behavior by following a car that supposedly road raged them. It seems naïve to pull up right up to a car she has been stalking when it has stopped to confront her.

This seems to indicate that TM and BM didn't think the Audi was armed and they had the upper hand with BM's gun. I'll bet she pulled up with the intentions of taking their challenge---so BM could get out of the car and threaten them.

It seems Audi driver isn't really a BIG DEAL after all. If he was, they'd expect him to be armed. Not expecting any occupants of the Audi to be armed indicates at that point in time they didn't know EN was in the car since it's apparently common neighborhood knowledge he carries firearms.

 

[BellaVita]

On further consideration, I have to agree that it supports RM's claim that they withheld certain information at the request of the police.

I'm not sure I would agree that it proves his claim is true. His claim, in fact, was kind of clumsily worded, if I recall, and sounded at last somewhat as if he meant that they deliberately withheld information from the police in order to not impede the investigation. I'll have to look at that press conference again.

But yes, this supports the idea that the Meyerses did withhold that piece of information from the media at the request of police.

So, here is something to think about. Now some of the posters are saying that the M's did come clean about the first shooting scene but kept it quiet from the media in order to help the investigation. At what point did they come clean? Originally, it seemed that most here thought the M's changed their story from BM coming out of the house, gun blazing (that was original M story, yes?) to the other story which said that BM was actually in the car at the urging of TM. And the reason they had to change their story was because they knew/suspected that police became aware of the first shooting scene. At the beginning, the M's did not want anyone to know that BM was in the car at all. In the initial story, KM and TM were in a road rage incident where they were threatened by a person in an Audi and chased home. Was there any admission by KM that the people in the Audi were shooting at them in the original fabrication of events? If there was any statement to that effect, I don't remember it, but my head is spinning from all the different stories. If they did come clean about the first shooting scene, I don't believe it was timely. More likely it happened when faced with inconsistencies in the original story.

Another thing that is being discussed here: some posters now feel that the M's knew the Audi driver but did not have any clue that EN was in the car. Maybe it is possible that they did not KNOW EN was in the car but they sure had to know it was possible. EN and the M's knew one another well. EN knew the Audi driver. If you feel that the M's know the Audi driver, then it follows that the M's would know that EN knew him too. Especially if Audi guy is a big fish supplier. I would like to know a better description of the car. Has it ever been said if the Audi was an older model or was it a new, fancy flash car? That would tell me a lot about whether the Audi driver was in fact a big fish. I think the M's would have knowledge that EN and Audi guy had dealings. I think we know that the police only became aware on the morning of EN's arrest that the M's knew him at all. When questioned by police at the beginning of the case, I'm sure the M's were asked for possible suspects. Even if the M's only SUSPECTED that EN was in the car, they would have told police if they were being upfront. And I believe they had every reason to connect the two of them, especially if rumors of a deal gone bad are true-which I know is not a fact-only a theory at this time. In my neighborhood, I know who runs with who. If I know the driver of a car, I could give police a list of associates to investigate. The M's never brought up EN's name. Even if not sure he was there, you sure mention his name during the course of the investigation. IMO.

 

[sonjay]

Wow, lots of good thoughts flying around here overnight.

I can't see the police ever giving a family member the name of a suspect and telling them to keep quiet about it. Especially since they knew EN lived in the neighborhood and the Meyers owned guns. Why would they do that? JMO

I agree 100% with this. Especially with that particular family. No way the police would tell them something like that but ask them to keep quiet about it.

Except.... once EN's name had "come up" in the investigation, police would really have to ask the Meyerses about him. "Your neighbor EN's name has been mentioned in connection with the shooting. Do you know him? Know what he looks like? Could he have been the shooter or the driver of the silver car?" IOW, they would have to give up EN's name to the Meyerses in order to ask the Meyerses about EN. And I'm sure they would have asked the Meyerses to refrain from mentioning EN's name to the media.

I personally think the Meyerses did know all along that it was EN -- I think RM's statements in his press conference confirm that. He said the family knew EN and knew how bad he was and he knew where they live, and that's why TM went out after him that night.

But I also think they didn't tell police they knew EN until the day of the arrest. The police told us that outright.

So I think that after EN's name came up, the police probably asked the family about EN, they claimed they didn't know him and couldn't identify him as the shooter, and the police as a matter of routine asked the Meyerses not to mention his name to the media. For all we know, there have been other names brought up, too, that they asked the Meyerses not to mention.

 

[SStarr33]

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

 

[SpanishInquisition]

At what point did they come clean? Originally, it seemed that most here thought the M's changed their story from BM coming out of the house, gun blazing (that was original M story, yes?) to the other story which said that BM was actually in the car at the urging of TM. And the reason they had to change their story was because they knew/suspected that police became aware of the first shooting scene. At the beginning, the M's did not want anyone to know that BM was in the car at all. In the initial story, KM and TM were in a road rage incident where they were threatened by a person in an Audi and chased home. Was there any admission by KM that the people in the Audi were shooting at them in the original fabrication of events? If there was any statement to that effect, I don't remember it, but my head is spinning from all the different stories. If they did come clean about the first shooting scene, I don't believe it was timely. More likely it happened when faced with inconsistencies in the original story.

On 2/17 is when LE announced that BM was in the car and the story changed. 2/18 is when LE interviewed the known EN witnesses, but they could have interviewed others or just spoke to people in the area about gunshots. The neighbors at the place of the first shooting may have called police about gunfire the night it happened then it could have taken days for the police to connect the two incidents.

Another thing that is being discussed here: some posters now feel that the M's knew the Audi driver but did not have any clue that EN was in the car. Maybe it is possible that they did not KNOW EN was in the car but they sure had to know it was possible. EN and the M's knew one another well. EN knew the Audi driver. If you feel that the M's know the Audi driver, then it follows that the M's would know that EN knew him too. Especially if Audi guy is a big fish supplier.

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

 

[sonjay]

Something else that hasn't been posted on here, but has been on my mind is that multiple brands of 45 casings were found. Whenever I've gone shooting I've always fired the same brand unless I'm just going out for a bunch of target shooting and had a pile of bullets, but EN had a pre-loaded clips which would be less of a reason to mix his brands. Also from what I've read about his pistol was that he bought it legally, so it's not like he bought an illegal weapon and got handed a grab bag of ammunition with it. I'm pretty sure it's his weapon that killed TM, but I'm not sure enough to call it "Fact," especially since definitive tests will prove this.

I had noticed the grab bag mix of ammo described by police, and just wrote it off as the kind of thing criminals do. You could be right that it's an indication that someone else was shooting a .45 out there that night.

This is one of those things that the police have info that would help us figure it out if we had that info. I'm sure that by now the police have seized and inventoried all of EN's ammo from his home, his backpack, his spare magazines, etc. The police know if he was using a mix of brands, but we don't.

The police have described TM being in front of BM in vague detail, so it is possible that TM had the 9MM while BM had a 45 and killed his mom because she got caught in the crossfire, which KM herself might not even know this.

Sounds possible, yes. We have no evidence to support that, but no evidence to disprove it either.

I'm guessing -- WAG here -- that the cars were at least 20 feet apart in the cul de sac, probably more. So any casings ejected from a gun fired by BM or TM would be found pretty far from any casings from the shots fired by EN. BM could have hidden a .45 before police got there, but in the dark, in a hurry, I don't think he could have found the shell casings. Heck, I've had trouble spotting shell casings that landed 5 feet from me in broad daylight. So I'm pretty sure that if BM or TM were firing a .45 that night, the casings were still on the ground when police arrived, and police would have found them.

But again, we don't have a crime scene diagram showing any of the locations of anything, so it's all just conjecture at this point. No real evidence either way.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that because the police got rid of the body without any GSR testing, we don't know if the body would show close range powder burns

I ran across one article that made me question whether we do know for a fact that there was no GSR test done on her body.

Here in this article (an AP wire story that appeared on a bunch of media sites):
http://usa.news.net/article/2943369/defense-in-las-vegas-mom-killing-wants-gunshot-residue-test
it says this:

"The judge said he'll hear arguments Friday on the request for a court order to do an independent test on Tammy Meyers' body to determine if she or someone next to her fired a gun before she died."
and this:
"asked a judge on Thursday to let them check the dead woman's body for gunshot residue"

Those two lines caught my eye. Maybe there was a GSR test, and the defense was requesting a court order to let the defense do its own independent test. Most of the articles I've seen were less precise and simply reported that the defense asked for a court order for a GSR test.

Do we know for a fact that no GSR test was done on TM? Do we know for sure exactly what the defense was requesting in that hearing?
As I understood that hearing, the defense was also asking for immediate access to police, dispatch and coroner records. There may be GSR test results in those records -- and the defense would want those, of course. This article makes it sounds like the defense also wants to do its own separate GSR test.

Or it could just be sloppy reporting. Is there a hearing transcript or a copy of the motion available anywhere?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

So I think that after EN's name came up, the police probably asked the family about EN, they claimed they didn't know him and couldn't identify him as the shooter, and the police as a matter of routine asked the Meyerses not to mention his name to the media. For all we know, there have been other names brought up, too, that they asked the Meyerses not to mention.

The motive for this could be that BM was the accidental shooter of his mom in a planned attempt by the Meyers to engage in a violent felony against EN where BM would face the highest charges possible. The Meyers wouldn't want EN found and so that's why they'd be sending police on wild goose chases and withholding information from the police about a potential witness again BM. The Meyers could have gone over to EN's place on 2/15 to try and convey that they weren't after him any longer and for EN to say he wasn't there.

Another thing that bothers me about the Complaint with the discharge of the weapon is that it says it took place on the Meyers' property, so EN would have had to have been on the Meyers' driveway when he was shooting. The narrative itself says EN was only halfway down Mt Shasta when the Audi stopped, so that could mean the police found 45 casings on the Meyers' property.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm guessing -- WAG here -- that the cars were at least 20 feet apart in the cul de sac, probably more. So any casings ejected from a gun fired by BM or TM would be found pretty far from any casings from the shots fired by EN. BM could have hidden a .45 before police got there, but in the dark, in a hurry, I don't think he could have found the shell casings. Heck, I've had trouble spotting shell casings that landed 5 feet from me in broad daylight. So I'm pretty sure that if BM or TM were firing a .45 that night, the casings were still on the ground when police arrived, and police would have found them.

That is how the narrative describes things, but the charges at the very beginning of the complaint say the shooting by EN actually took place when he was on their property, which sounds like LE has 45 rounds recovered from the Meyers' property.

Do we know for a fact that no GSR test was done on TM? Do we know for sure exactly what the defense was requesting in that hearing?
As I understood that hearing, the defense was also asking for immediate access to police, dispatch and coroner records. There may be GSR test results in those records -- and the defense would want those, of course. This article makes it sounds like the defense also wants to do its own separate GSR test.

That's true. I can't say definitely that the police have said no GSR was done. I think it was extremely improper them getting rid of key crime scene material without the defense ever having a chance to independently test or analyze it, but that's separate from what LE had already obtained before getting rid of it.

 

[sonjay]

That is how the narrative describes things, but the charges at the very beginning of the complaint say the shooting by EN actually took place when he was on their property, which sounds like LE has 45 rounds recovered from the Meyers' property.

Hmmmm...... what I see in the complaint is "did wilfully, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, while in, on or under a vehicle located at 7925 Mount Shasta Circle, Las Vegas, discharge a firearm within or from the vehicle, while being within an area designated by a City or County Ordinance as a populated area...."

Can we draw a firm conclusion from that wording that the vehicle was actually on the Meyers' property?

The way these things are usually worded, I would expect to see "... a vehicle located on, at, near, in front of, or in the proximity of, 7925 Mount Shasta Circle."

So without that wording, does it in fact mean that the silver car was actually on the Meyers property?

And could the defense get that complaint thrown out if they can show the vehicle was never actually on the Meyers property?

 

[Gin]

It could also mean that they only learned the Meyers knew the suspect when they told Meyers he was a suspect on the 17th. That doesn't exonerate they Meyers though if they didn't inform the police they heard through social media on the 15th that EN could possibly be a suspect. But maybe they did and they didn't share that they had a previous close relationship with him.

Regardless, I can't believe LE would tell them the suspect's identity and ask them to keep it a secret prior to having the suspect in custody. Police don't do that. It gets suspects killed by vigilantes.

Another thing. Listening to the actual LE news conference video (instead of reading a newspaper report of it), it's not clear whether LE means they didn't know the Meyerses had a relationship with EN. It still leaves the question unanswered as to if the Meyerses knew at the time of the shooting EN was involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQblxbgmefs

With the way the Meyers family goes on about the relationship they had with EN, I can imagine LE coming to tell them they arrested EN and the Meyerses breaking down heartbroken sharing "after everything we've done for him" stories. And LE only THAT MOMENT realizing they knew him to that deep of an extent.

The Meyerses going on about their prior relationship with EN is one point I can empathize with them. Most people act like it's strange the Meyerses helped him and had a close relationship with him, but I can imagine myself in that situation.

As I've previously shared, some of my children's ex-friends went down a wrong path. One of them lived with us for almost a year---during his senior year of high school and the summer afterwards. His parents had kicked him out before he was 18 and hadn't graduated. I took him in so he could graduate and get on his feet. During the time he lived with us, he broke his hand and I ensured he had the best orthopedic surgeon and physical therapy. That's just an example of how much we did for him.

He moved out a few years ago, and within this past year became a heroin addict. If someone in my family was murdered and I later found out it was him, I'd be going on and on about "after everything we've done for him" just like the Meyerses are doing.

Lots to ponder, as usual.
Miss M, I would like to talk a bit about helping other people's teens/young adults. I think it's one thing when it's a son's friend (and the friend is a male about the same age.) And I do think you were very kind to that young person.

I think it might be a different situation when the helper family has a 14yo (now 15yo) old daughter, and the person they are saying they helping is male, a few years older, known for drugs, possible gangs, etc. Most people are more protective of young teen daughters. Maybe "help" for a few months, until they got a better sense, but for years? Uh-uh.
It's for this reason I don't particularly buy that the M's were really "helping" EN. I tend to think there is a another component to that relationship.
The other reason I think that is because the M's were basically shouting from the rooftops about knowing EN, after acting like they were clueless just a short time before. Once the truth was out, that they did know him, it sounded to me like they were in a rush to get out in front of the story first. I appeared they knew the relationship was going to be an eyebrow raiser. There's more to this story. It didn't add up then, and it doesn't add up now.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Hmmmm...... what I see in the complaint is "did wilfully, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, while in, on or under a vehicle located at 7925 Mount Shasta Circle, Las Vegas, discharge a firearm within or from the vehicle, while being within an area designated by a City or County Ordinance as a populated area...."
Can we draw a firm conclusion from that wording that the vehicle was actually on the Meyers' property?
The way these things are usually worded, I would expect to see "... a vehicle located on, at, near, in front of, or in the proximity of, 7925 Mount Shasta Circle."
So without that wording, does it in fact mean that the silver car was actually on the Meyers property?
And could the defense get that complaint thrown out if they can show the vehicle was never actually on the Meyers property?

Criminal cases require precision. If you are accused of doing something at one location as part of the charge against you, but you were not at the location that's a technicality that can get you off when otherwise you'd be found guilty. The charge requires the Audi to have been on the Meyers property when EN fired at least one round from inside it. Accuracy is required both to meet the requirements of the charge as well as in fairness to the defense. The defense can't be put in a position of preparing to defend against one claim only to have it sprung that an alternate claim is being by the prosecution that the defense didn't prepare for.

EDIT: I brought up the charge not because I thought the Audi was on Meyers' property, but that I think police found 45 casings on Meyers property, which could support an accidental shooting by BM of TM and explain all the changes in stories by the Meyers and their withholding knowledge of EN, which it is extremely strange to withhold information from LE about TM's alleged killer. I don't think the Audi was ever on the Meyers property during this incident.

 

[sonjay]

While reading the warrant to do my spreadsheet, I noticed the following:

"Brandn said when he and his mother were approximately 50 feet south of Cherry River Drive on Villa Monterey the silver car stopped and was facing the a southwesterly direction on Villa Monterey and Alta Drive. Brandon said his mother stopped the car and the front passenger of the silver car began shooting at them. Brandon said he ducked down and when the shooting stopped his mother backed up and drove west on Cherry River at a high rate of speed."

Why would she remain stopped like a sitting duck? Did she pull right up to them before she stopped and had no way around them? That must be the case since she had to back up to get away afterwards.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sonjay]

Criminal cases require precision. If you are accused of doing something at one location as part of the charge against you, but you were not at the location that's a technicality that can get you off when otherwise you'd be found guilty.

Yeah, I know. That's why charges always say things like "on or about the 12th day of February, 2015" and "while in, on or under a vehicle." They cover all the bases so that the defendant can't say "but the clocked ticked over to 12:01 so it wasn't the 12th of February -- it was the 13th."

I find it odd that they didn't use that same sort of CYA phraseology with respect to the location of the vehicle -- at, near, in front of, in proximity to, etc., etc.

I don't think the Audi was ever on the Meyers property during this incident.

I don't either. And that's why I find that very specific cite for the location of the vehicle so odd.

That's in count 3, discharge of firearm from a vehicle. Counts 1 & 2, the murder & attempted murder charges, aren't at all specific as to location.

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

I dunno, I'm guessing here. But that makes more sense to me than claiming and having to prove that the vehicle was actually on the Meyers property.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Miss M, I would like to talk a bit about helping other people's teens/young adults. I think it's one thing when it's a son's friend (and the friend is a male about the same age.) And I do think you were very kind to that young person.

I think it might be a different situation when the helper family has a 14yo (now 15yo) old daughter, and the person they are saying they helping is male, a few years older, known for drugs, possible gangs, etc. Most people are more protective of young teen daughters. Maybe "help" for a few months, until they got a better sense, but for years? Uh-uh.

It's for this reason I don't particularly buy that the M's were really "helping" EN. I tend to think there is a another component to that relationship.

My personal experience may be causing me to view the "helping" phase in the past tense when he was younger after his father died and their children were friends. I just woke up. I'll need to look at BM statements again. They seemed to be past tense. I didn't get the impression she still fed him meals at their house.

However, Selig shared a similar story---helping in the past but his kids are no longer friends since he went down a bad road. BUT Selig also said that TM was buying drugs from EN in the present. Let's assume she did for a moment.

Could the helping phase have been in the past, but TM maintained a buyer/seller relationship with EN long after children's friendship ended? MM is his age. MM would be the one who used to be his friend IMO. MM just doesn't look like someone who would be EN's friend in the current days. He has the freshest, cleanest look of all the M's to me.

Almost everyone here has excluded the possibility of TM being in the car. If we believe TM was still maintaining a relationship with him, or that any of the M's boys were still friends with him and she allowed him in their house regularly in the present, doesn't that indicate TM's personality would be more likely to be in the car?

The other reason I think that is because the M's were basically shouting from the rooftops about knowing EN, after acting like they were clueless just a short time before. Once the truth was out, that they did know him, it sounded to me like they were in a rush to get out in front of the story first. I appeared they knew the relationship was going to be an eyebrow raiser. There's more to this story. It didn't add up then, and it doesn't add up now.

I think that's another reason some people think the M's didn't know he was in the Audi at the time of the shooting.

Thanks for your thoughts, Gin! I'm beginning to think TM was in the car. The crime scene indicates that too.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I want to point out that if what EN is alleged to have said is true about BM waving/pointing his gun at the Audi, that would mean that BM committed Assault with a Deadly Weapon, which is a felony:
http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/assault-deadly-weapon.html
Per EN it was in response to this ongoing assault that he shot the first time, but that wouldn't excuse him for shooting the second time.

 

[sonjay]

Thanks for your thoughts, Gin! I'm beginning to think TM was in the car. The crime scene indicates that too.

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

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

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

 

[Miss Muffet]

So, here is something to think about. Now some of the posters are saying that the M's did come clean about the first shooting scene but kept it quiet from the media in order to help the investigation. At what point did they come clean? Originally, it seemed that most here thought the M's changed their story from BM coming out of the house, gun blazing (that was original M story, yes?) to the other story which said that BM was actually in the car at the urging of TM. And the reason they had to change their story was because they knew/suspected that police became aware of the first shooting scene. At the beginning, the M's did not want anyone to know that BM was in the car at all. In the initial story, KM and TM were in a road rage incident where they were threatened by a person in an Audi and chased home. Was there any admission by KM that the people in the Audi were shooting at them in the original fabrication of events? If there was any statement to that effect, I don't remember it, but my head is spinning from all the different stories. If they did come clean about the first shooting scene, I don't believe it was timely. More likely it happened when faced with inconsistencies in the original story.

It seems they couldn't come clean until the arrest, and that's when the stories started flying. But you're right, why lie about all of those other details in addition to not mentioning the first shooting scene like the police asked. I'm starting to believe the warrant may be the closest thing we have to an accurate story.

Another thing that is being discussed here: some posters now feel that the M's knew the Audi driver but did not have any clue that EN was in the car. Maybe it is possible that they did not KNOW EN was in the car but they sure had to know it was possible. EN and the M's knew one another well. EN knew the Audi driver. If you feel that the M's know the Audi driver, then it follows that the M's would know that EN knew him too. Especially if Audi guy is a big fish supplier. I would like to know a better description of the car. Has it ever been said if the Audi was an older model or was it a new, fancy flash car? That would tell me a lot about whether the Audi driver was in fact a big fish. I think the M's would have knowledge that EN and Audi guy had dealings. I think we know that the police only became aware on the morning of EN's arrest that the M's knew him at all. When questioned by police at the beginning of the case, I'm sure the M's were asked for possible suspects. Even if the M's only SUSPECTED that EN was in the car, they would have told police if they were being upfront. And I believe they had every reason to connect the two of them, especially if rumors of a deal gone bad are true-which I know is not a fact-only a theory at this time. In my neighborhood, I know who runs with who. If I know the driver of a car, I could give police a list of associates to investigate. The M's never brought up EN's name. Even if not sure he was there, you sure mention his name during the course of the investigation. IMO.

Those are really great points. You're right. If we believe the M's knew the Audi driver, the M's would know EN was associated with him. That would have made EN a possible suspect the M's should have connected.

After last night, I'm starting to wonder if the Audi wasn't a big fish. It doesn't seem like the M's thought the Audi would have firearms. They seemed to think they had the upper hand and surprised by the gunfire. Maybe we're looking at this wrong. Maybe the M's are the big fish. Well, medium fish. Truly big fish live in the suburbs leading normal suburban lives and don't get involved in the street stuff. Most likely, it was just two sets of small fish having a dispute.

btw, thank you for "M's." It's much easier than Meyerses.