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

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm also starting to think you were right all along about that.
I'm not totally convinced yet, but I'm getting there.

If you use Google Streetview you'll see that it's a distance from the driveway to the front door. Given that I'm surprised that they would have driven home as they'd sitting/running ducks for awhile both times. KM said she saw the Audi drive by Carmel Peak and told BM that they were being followed and threatened, which was why BM went along, so going to the house doesn't seem like the safest place to be after the first shooting incident given how much time the Audi had to find them and catch them exposed, which is what happened. If the front door was in a different location relative to the driveway it would be different. I'd rather be mobile and semi-protected in the car than risk caught out in the open even if it is safe once inside the house or at least not return home until I knew there was reinforcements waiting who would provide cover as I got out of the car and ran inside.

 

[sonjay]

I remember a friend said that a few days afterwards he was crying and said, "I think I shot somebody's mother."

I can't find a link and I need to focus on finding the TM near car link instead.

This article
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...e-shooting-las-vegas-mother-article-1.2121795
says she was in the driveway. It says:

"Meyers and her gun-toting 22-year-old son reportedly went out in search of the suspect, and they were standing in the family's driveway when he pulled up and opened fire. Meyers collapsed in the driveway as her son allegedly returned fire..."

The article doesn't give any attribution for that. I'm not offering it as any sort of proof that she was in the driveway. In fact, BM & TM both "standing in the driveway" doesn't comport with EN's description of someone at the car and someone running to the house, nor does it comport with BM's description of the shooting.

In short, I think this article is wrong. I'm just throwing it out here for general consumption as an example of the misinformation that's out there.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Wow. That would also be very compelling. That goes beyond the neighbor who said he was upset at hearing that TM was dead.

<searching Google>
Okay, I found the "shot somebody's mother" one:

Jonathan, friend of Eric Nowsch - "He pulled me off to the side because I was with all my friends and then he started crying. He says I think we killed somebody's mom."

http://www.kmvt.com/news/latest/Las-Vegas-Road-Rage-Suspect-Friends-Speak-293486531.html
​

Based on these statements from EN's neighbor and friend, I'm going with the idea that he didn't know he had shot TM. He really thought he was in a chase and a shootout with "those kids."

Which means that "got those kids; they were after me and I got them" only means that EN thought the people in the Buick were those kids. It doesn't mean that TM wasn't in the car, only that TM didn't know she was in the car.

OMG! You guys are so much better and faster at internet searching than me! I looked for this "shot somebody's mother" quote, couldn't find it and gave up. But at least this indicates my memory isn't terrible. Maybe there's hope I'm not misremembering the TM/car thing too. LOL

 

[Miss Muffet]

Check this out from the "killed somebody's mother" quote:

Jonathan, friend of Eric Nowsch - "He pulled me off to the side because I was with all my friends and then he started crying. He says I think we killed somebody's mom."

http://www.kmvt.com/news/latest/Las-...293486531.html

Notice how he says WE. That means Jonathan knows who was driving the silver car!

Have the police questioned Jonathan to find out who was driving it? I guess it doesn't matter because EVERYONE clearly knows who was driving the silver car. Even LE knows. We're just the only people who don't know who it is! LOL

 

[sonjay]

In my search for the news article, this line in Paperdoll's quote makes me wonder if I drew a conclusion when reading an article mentioning EN's statement. Don't worry, I'll keep looking for the article, but in the meantime, what if this is what I remembered reading? Isn't there value in EN's and BM's statements matching in this regard?

We all assumed TM was the one running towards the house. BM's statement says he was the one who went towards the house. EN says he shot at someone near the car and the house. If EN is shooting at someone near the car and someone running towards the house, and BM says he was moving towards the house, that means TM was the person near the car.

I'm sure BM gave this information about the shooting scene shortly after police arrived at the scene. EN told his friends less than 4 hours later. There would be no time for them to coordinate statements. BM couldn't have known that's what EN would say.

Yeah, I think there is value in that. Where BM's and EN's stories match, I perceive a lot more credibility than something where we have only BM's word. And they do match in that regard.

BM said he was moving southeast -- away from the car, and in the general direction of the house. So he would be the person "running to the house" as described by EN.

The other person was "at the car," according to EN. BM says his mother was .... well, he said he pushed her back into the car. She could have gotten out when he moved away, or gotten hit and fallen out onto the ground. But she would be the person "at the car."

It hangs together. I can't find any fatal flaws in our reasoning that TM was, indeed, in the car. Probably the driver, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Kudos to PaperDoll for having it right all along!

 

[Miss Muffet]

In short, I think this article is wrong. I'm just throwing it out here for general consumption as an example of the misinformation that's out there.

So I don't waste my time looking for an article that we'll all consider possible misinformation, please consider my post about how EN's statement and BM's statement considered together place TM next to the car.

I'm convinced she's going to end up next to the car when the evidence is presented at trial. There will be pictures that can't dispute it. IMO.

I also bet LE already has the Audi driver and the DA's office struck a deal for him to be a witness. This is all being kept hush hush for the grand jury.

 

[sonjay]

Check this out from the "killed somebody's mother" quote:

Jonathan, friend of Eric Nowsch - "He pulled me off to the side because I was with all my friends and then he started crying. He says I think we killed somebody's mom."

http://www.kmvt.com/news/latest/Las-...293486531.html

Notice how he says WE. That means Jonathan knows who was driving the silver car!

Have the police questioned Jonathan to find out who was driving it? I guess it doesn't matter because EVERYONE clearly knows who was driving the silver car. Even LE knows. We're just the only people who don't know who it is! LOL

What I found interesting about his use of "we" is that when he thought he "got those kids," he used "I." He willingly owned it.

When it turned out he shot TM, he suddenly doesn't want to own it anymore. He wants to share the blame with the Audi driver. "We" means (in EN's mind, anyway) that he doesn't bear 100% of the responsibility for killing TM.

I believe that he really did feel bad that he killed TM. That means there wasn't bad blood between them. So why was she out chasing him with her armed son? Is it possible she really didn't know it was him?

 

[Miss Muffet]

If you use Google Streetview you'll see that it's a distance from the driveway to the front door. Given that I'm surprised that they would have driven home as they'd sitting/running ducks for awhile both times. KM said she saw the Audi drive by Carmel Peak and told BM that they were being followed and threatened, which was why BM went along, so going to the house doesn't seem like the safest place to be after the first shooting incident given how much time the Audi had to find them and catch them exposed, which is what happened. If the front door was in a different location relative to the driveway it would be different. I'd rather be mobile and semi-protected in the car than risk caught out in the open even if it is safe once inside the house or at least not return home until I knew there was reinforcements waiting who would provide cover as I got out of the car and ran inside.

They really did put themselves in a position of fish being shot in a barrel. There's nowhere to run with that damn huge wall at the end of the street. It seems there's an obstruction halfway down the side of the house preventing them from running along the wall between the house.

Does this indicate they didn't think the Audi occupants knew where they lived? Are we giving the M's too much credit for intelligence to assume their decisions indicate anything whatsoever? I'm leaning towards they're not very bright. I think they knew who was in the car and stupidly went home.

 

[sonjay]

So I don't waste my time looking for an article that we'll all consider possible misinformation, please consider my post about how EN's statement and BM's statement considered together place TM next to the car.

I'm convinced she's going to end up next to the car when the evidence is presented at trial. There will be pictures that can't dispute it. IMO.

I also bet LE already has the Audi driver and the DA's office struck a deal for him to be a witness. This is all being kept hush hush for the grand jury.

Done and done. Don't bother spending any more time searching for that.

I still want to see an official LE-generated crime scene diagram, and I'd still like verification beyond the words of EN and BM, but I'm pretty well convinced at this point that TM was in, at, or next to the car when she was shot, and that she was there because she had been in the car during the chase.

 

[sonjay]

They really did put themselves in a position of fish being shot in a barrel. There's nowhere to run with that damn huge wall at the end of the street. It seems there's an obstruction halfway down the side of the house preventing them from running along the wall between the house.

Does this indicate they didn't think the Audi occupants knew where they lived? Are we giving the M's too much credit for intelligence to assume their decisions indicate anything whatsoever? I'm leaning towards they're not very bright. I think they knew who was in the car and stupidly went home.

LOL! As my husband is fond of saying, the average IQ is 100, and half the people are dumber than that.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yeah, I think there is value in that. Where BM's and EN's stories match, I perceive a lot more credibility than something where we have only BM's word. And they do match in that regard.

BM said he was moving southeast -- away from the car, and in the general direction of the house. So he would be the person "running to the house" as described by EN.

The other person was "at the car," according to EN. BM says his mother was .... well, he said he pushed her back into the car. She could have gotten out when he moved away, or gotten hit and fallen out onto the ground. But she would be the person "at the car."

It hangs together. I can't find any fatal flaws in our reasoning that TM was, indeed, in the car. Probably the driver, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

Kudos to PaperDoll for having it right all along!

We don't need to know she was driving the car for her being in the car to change our scenarios, right?

I plan to scrap all theories and start over from scratch with a fresh eye. It's almost 3pm and I woke up at 10:30am. I've got to get off here at least within an hour. I can't lead the exotic life of a stay at home wife if I accomplish nothing. Darn shame I'm not wealthy with a full household staff. Admit it, you all have a maids, cooks, nannies, gardeners, personal assistants and dog walkers!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

What I found interesting about his use of "we" is that when he thought he "got those kids," he used "I." He willingly owned it.

The quote does seem odd (not that it isn't true) as it sounds more like he's talking about a stranger than someone he had known for years as the Meyers weren't anonymous somebodys to him. She was described as a family friend of his, perhaps a better family friend than anyone else in the house to EN.

 

[sonjay]

We don't need to know she was driving the car for her being in the car to change our scenarios, right?

I agree. I think there might be nuances of differences in why they set out, how the chase started, etc., depending on who was driving, but if TM was IN THE CAR it definitely changes everything about how we were previously thinking about this case.

I plan to scrap all theories and start over from scratch with a fresh eye. It's almost 3pm and I woke up at 10:30am. I've got to get off here at least within an hour. I can't lead the exotic life of a stay at home wife if I accomplish nothing. Darn shame I'm not wealthy with a full household staff. Admit it, you all have a maids, cooks, nannies, gardeners, personal assistants and dog walkers!

I wish! I'm self employed. I happen to have something of a break at the moment in the amount of incoming work from my clients. I am my own maid, cook, gardener, personal assistant and dog walker. (no minor children, so no nanny) My house is filled with dog fur because I haven't vacuumed because I'm trying to figure out this darn case.

 

[sonjay]

The quote does seem odd (not that it isn't true) as it sounds more like he's talking about a stranger than someone he had known for years as the Meyers weren't anonymous somebodys to him. She was described as a family friend of his, perhaps a better family friend than anyone else in the house to EN.

EN and the Meyerses both pretended they didn't know each other, up until that pretense was no longer possible.

Which makes the car chase and shootout even more perplexing.

They (both sides) had to be pretending because they were covering up something nefarious. IMO, JMO, MOO and all that jazz.

 

[Miss Muffet]

The quote does seem odd (not that it isn't true) as it sounds more like he's talking about a stranger than someone he had known for years as the Meyers weren't anonymous somebodys to him. She was described as a family friend of his, perhaps a better family friend than anyone else in the house to EN.

Maybe he was talking like she was a stranger because Jonathan didn't know the M's.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Does this indicate they didn't think the Audi occupants knew where they lived?

I'm not sure what to make of it, just it can help paint a picture. It seems like the Meyers didn't know EN was involved and it sounds like at a minimum EN didn't think TM was involved.

 

[Miss Muffet]

If we believe the entire warrant, it's a damn shame if the Audi driver has already been located and struck a deal with the DA's office to testify as a witness because it seems he instigated the tragic event from the moment of the first encounter all the way to driving down Mt. Shasta.

I wonder if the Audi driver had motive. LE isn't going to look for an Audi driver motive because they think they have their case wrapped in a bow. We can't research any of that until we know who he is, and it seems that won't be revealed until the trial since there won't be a preliminary hearing.

 

[BellaVita]

If you use Google Streetview you'll see that it's a distance from the driveway to the front door. Given that I'm surprised that they would have driven home as they'd sitting/running ducks for awhile both times. KM said she saw the Audi drive by Carmel Peak and told BM that they were being followed and threatened, which was why BM went along, so going to the house doesn't seem like the safest place to be after the first shooting incident given how much time the Audi had to find them and catch them exposed, which is what happened. If the front door was in a different location relative to the driveway it would be different. I'd rather be mobile and semi-protected in the car than risk caught out in the open even if it is safe once inside the house or at least not return home until I knew there was reinforcements waiting who would provide cover as I got out of the car and ran inside.

The thing is, if you read the warrant there are two different versions: the EN story and the M story. The EN story seems to be one extended incident. The chase seems to be continuous without the pit stop at home to get the son and the gun. KM claims she thought she saw the Audi on a road east of the cul de sac. There would have been plenty of time to run inside, IMO, because KM, according to her, did just that. She had time to get BM out of bed, dressed, get the gun from granny's drawer and then BM goes out to the Buick and wastes more time arguing with TM about calling 911, her saying I'll go without you, a whole discussion is taking place. This all according to the M's. This would be taking precious time to get indoors, load your gun and call the police. Where was EN at this time? He knows where they live. I'm pretty sure he recognized the Buick. Also, the warrant never specifically addresses whether or not KM got back into the car with TM and BM. Additionally, the EN version does not mention road rage of any type. In both narratives to friends, he describes the encounter with the Buick as beginning at the school parking lot. In one account, EN mentions an "exchange" with the Buick at the school and in another account, EN specifically says that is where the Buick brandished the gun. If there had been road rage involved, I don't think there would be any reason for EN to leave that out. He consistently says trouble started at the school. I also still think that all 3 M's may have been in the car. TM near the car and KM running toward the house. I think maybe that is why she is quoted as saying "it could have been me". BM perhaps standing his ground and firing the gun. Perhaps things happened so fast that EN didn't realize there were 3 people in the car. Not saying that was definitely the case, but I think it's possible.

 

[sonjay]

Fresh look:

TM and BM are in the Meyers car, BM is armed, they encounter the Audi EN in it. BM brandishes his firearm, the Meyers start chasing the Audi, the Audi stops and shoots at the Meyers car, the Meyers car flees home, then the Audi pulls into Mt. Shasta for the final shootout.

Okay, what happened before that?

Do we believe KM that there was a driving lesson at the school?
Do we believe KM about the road rage, honking the horn, the bike lane, the spin-out, the 6' tall man getting out and threatening her and her mom?
Do we believe KM that TM & KM then went home, KM went inside, BM got his gun and went out, and that's when BM & TM set out on their fateful trip?

Personally, I don't believe a word of KM's story. There may or may not have been a "first trip" by the Buick, and there may or may not have been an encounter with the Audi during that trip, but I don't believe there was a driving lesson or a road rage. I don't believe KM reached over and honked the horn at a car she thought was going too fast. I don't believe a silver car followed them on the route that KM described, passed them in the bike lane, and spun out in front of them. I don't believe a 6' tall man got out and threatened them and told them "I'm gonna come back for you and your daughter." I don't believe they went home to get Brandon with his gun to set off in search of the silver car.

As far as I know, there's not a shred of evidence in support of any of that.

Personally, I think that entire trip was dreamed up to hide the fact that BM was in the car with his gun during the chase.

What say you all? Who believes there was a driving lesson and a road rage?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

A preliminary hearing for Nowsch was scheduled March 10. Prosecutors requested a later preliminary hearing date because Metro is still investigating the incident; they are still searching for a second suspect whom they say drove Nowsch during the night of Meyer's death.

http://raycomgroup.worldnow.com/sto...-first-court-appearance-in-vegas-moms-slaying

I know this was superseded by this with the grand jury notification:
http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/shooti...case-will-go-before-grand-jury-294131541.html
However, there's a preliminary hearing anyway. The defense can still bring challenges and get presented with the evidence since after a grand jury indictment this hearing is still the defense's first opportunity to examine the evidence and challenge it.