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

[sonjay]

What made me think that is that it is geographically impossible to get on Carmel Peak without first getting on Cherry River: "Brandon said as he was trying to get his mother out of the car he saw headlights coming north on Carmel Peak...," however, I might have read this wrong as it might mean it was coming from the south going north instead of that the lights came from the north. That being said, if BM is saying the car was coming from the south, that raises questions, particularly in light of the CCTV camera. Also EN allegedly said that the driver followed - not searched for - the Buick, which would mean it took the same route along Cherry that the Buick did.

Huh. I took that part to mean that the silver car, already near Alta when it stopped on Villa Monterey to shoot, simply proceeded to turn from Villa Monterey onto Alta, then to Carmel Peak to Mt. Shasta.

But even if the silver car took Cherry River to Carmel Peak, they wouldn't have been driving east on Cherry River. They would have traveled west on Cherry River, and they would have turned onto Carmel Peak before passing by the house with the camera.

EN did say that they "followed" the green car to the cul de sac, but based on Brandon's description of the car coming north on Carmel Peak, they didn't literally follow it. They simply proceeded to the same destination, which some people might use the word "follow" for that.

If they did take a different route to the cul de sac, then that's strongly suggestive that EN knew who had been chasing him and who he was now chasing. And that is suggestive that BM knew who he had been chasing. Which is compatible with RM saying that they knew who it was all along. And that makes the road rage story even less rational. I mean, who gets in a road rage incident with their neighbor that they've previously been on good terms with?

 

[sonjay]

It's on page 4 where Krisztian says that EN asked to go over to there since he couldn't go home.

Thanks. I was thinking he had asked to stay with them, which would suggest a longer-term home problem. But he asked to go over there because he couldn't go home, which he did, and then he left, and he did go home at some point fairly soon, because I think he was at home the next day.

Okay, it makes sense that in the immediate aftermath of a shooting a block from his home, he can't go home. Cops are all over the place. Of course he "can't" go home just then.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Sure. People engage in premeditated armed plots to kill & rob all the time. Especially if it sprang from a drug deal gone bad ...... It's criminal, and most of us wouldn't do it, but from the POV of the criminal, it's perfectly rational. After all, when you're an illegal drug dealer, you can't exactly go to LE or the legal system to settle your bad debts.

But a 44-year-old mother determined to go, by herself if necessary, to hunt down a car full of enraged young men?

That same mother thinking that she can find that car of enraged young men, several minutes after she escaped from them?

A mother and daughter innocently having a driving lesson, set upon by a road rager, who don't call the police?

A mother worried that road ragers know where she lives, so to keep her children safe she leaves her teenage daughter at home alone?

Those things are not rational.

You are using differing standards of what to consider rational. On one hand you use internal rationality for the conspiracy, but are using external rationality for the road rager. I absolutely agree it is irrational for a 44 year old mother to hunt down a car full of enraged young men, but someone who is irrational to do that would also be irrational about leaving her daughter home alone and not call the police (if any type of mother would do those two things, it would be a mother who was playing Mad Max), which that is internally consistent of a pattern of bad judgment. I do think something is up and there is some type of conspiracy between at least two people involved, but I'm not going to say one type of scenario is more rational than the other.

 

[sonjay]

You are using differing standards of what to consider rational. On one hand you use internal rationality for the conspiracy, but are using external rationality for the road rager. I absolutely agree it is irrational for a 44 year old mother to hunt down a car full of enraged young men, but someone who is irrational to do that would also be irrational about leaving her daughter home alone and not call the police (if any type of mother would do those two things, it would be a mother who was playing Mad Max), which that is internally consistent of a pattern of bad judgment. I do think something is up and there is some type of conspiracy between at least two people involved, but I'm not going to say one type of scenario is more rational than the other.

I respectfully disagree.

For a person who can't petition the legal system for redress of a wrong (because the "wrong" is part of illegal activity), it's perfectly rational from an external rationality POV to take justice into their own hands. IOW, this person does not have to be an irrational person to make this decision; this person only needs to be a criminal.

It's never rational for a 44-year-old mother to go out to hunt down a car full enraged young men, while leaving her daughter at home alone even though she thinks those very same enraged young men know where she lives. This person has to be irrational to make this decision.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Huh. I took that part to mean that the silver car, already near Alta when it stopped on Villa Monterey to shoot, simply proceeded to turn from Villa Monterey onto Alta, then to Carmel Peak to Mt. Shasta.
But even if the silver car took Cherry River to Carmel Peak, they wouldn't have been driving east on Cherry River. They would have traveled west on Cherry River, and they would have turned onto Carmel Peak before passing by the house with the camera.

Yes, this is why I think something is up. Nothing has sprung to my mind to be able to explain the silver car going east on Cherry at either 10:22 or 11:22 except to think there's some vague conspiracy going on. I don't necessarily think driving lessons were going on, but the car chase could have been one long escalating event that started from the school, had some sort of incident on Cimarron, the bullets fly on Villa Monterey and it ends in a fatality on Mt Shasta. In the complaint EN is alleged to have said "they started chasing each other," which could mean a Durango/Cimarron event...of course it could mean other things as well, but I'm giving a great deal of leeway into interpreting what EN may have meant since everything we are hearing alleging from EN is second-hand hearsay where what he said could have been misunderstood/forgotten/etc. Because we are dealing with so much second-hand hearsay (both from those who knew EN and from RM) this also why I keep myself open to various theories until we have more solid evidence and can discard the low-grade hearsay evidence.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Sure. People engage in premeditated armed plots to kill & rob all the time. Especially if it sprang from a drug deal gone bad ...... It's criminal, and most of us wouldn't do it, but from the POV of the criminal, it's perfectly rational. After all, when you're an illegal drug dealer, you can't exactly go to LE or the legal system to settle your bad debts.

But a 44-year-old mother determined to go, by herself if necessary, to hunt down a car full of enraged young men?

That same mother thinking that she can find that car of enraged young men, several minutes after she escaped from them?

A mother and daughter innocently having a driving lesson, set upon by a road rager, who don't call the police?

A mother worried that road ragers know where she lives, so to keep her children safe she leaves her teenage daughter at home alone?

Those things are not rational.

There's no evidence there was a drug deal gone bad. Not the type of evidence you require of others to provide. I'm not saying there wasn't a drug deal gone bad. That has been one of my pet theories for almost a week. Right now I'm trying to keep an open mind.

I can thank you for my interest in starting over. You've been telling me my theories and speculation didn't meet your standards because I was embracing the drug-deal-gone-bad theory along with the buick returning home.

So, I'm tossing out the drug-deal-gone-bad theory for now and I'm working from the warrant to see what comes out of it. Who knows what we'll unearth in the coming days.

Also EN allegedly said that the driver followed - not searched for - the Buick, which would mean it took the same route along Cherry that the Buick did.

I don't think we can always take what people say literally. I sometimes say I followed people places even when I take a different route. You can follow someone and lose them and find them again and still call it following them.

Yes, I saw that bright light too.

Watching the video, it looks like someone keeps popping out of the passenger window. It's especially noticeable right before the car is turning. It's hard to tell if something is going on at the passenger window or if it's just a trick of the camera via lighting and shadows. I've played it again and again. I've played it by pausing every screen to see it. There really seems to be something going on in the passenger window.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

For a person who can't petition the legal system for redress of a wrong (because the "wrong" is part of illegal activity), it's perfectly rational from an external rationality POV to take justice into their own hands. IOW, this person does not have to be an irrational person to make this decision; this person only needs to be a criminal.

I understand that and I'm saying the response is still irrational. Unless this was some major wholesale drug deal between dealers or the Meyers were loansharking EN for thousands of dollars there are more rational ways of addressing this then engaging in an armed conspiracy to rob/kill/maim a nearby neighbor. Such an action would be a dealer/loan shark type response under certain circumstances where their business needs can justify the potential risk of engaging in such a serious felony, not a drug user response who is unhappy over some pills as such a response is way out of proportion and would be a reason for neither EN nor any other dealer to supply that user. Addicts are very reluctant to bite Dr Feelgood and would instead look for another Dr Feelgood or try verbal sweet-talking persuasion to get the drugs they want, not get a posse together to go on an armed assault of their dealer.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Watching the video, it looks like someone keeps popping out of the passenger window. It's especially noticeable right before the car is turning. It's hard to tell if something is going on at the passenger window or if it's just a trick of the camera via lighting and shadows. I've played it again and again. I've played it by pausing every screen to see it. There really seems to be something going on in the passenger window.

Yes, I thought that too but I didn't say anything as I thought I might have been mistaken given the low-quality image. If BM's story is at least somewhat true, what the silver car may have done after the first shooting on Villa Monterey is go west on Alta past Carmel Peak, go north on Cimarron, east on Cherry River and then south on Carmel Peak to Mt Shasta (which would be a circuitous route), which would have given time for BM to get out of the passenger seat and go around the car to TM.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, this is why I think something is up. Nothing has sprung to my mind to be able to explain the silver car going east on Cherry at either 10:22 or 11:22 except to think there's some vague conspiracy going on.

According to BM, the Audi was facing southwest on Villa Monterey and Alta Drive. The Buick backed up and turned west on Cherry River. Since it was facing southwest, it probably went west on Alta, north on Cimeron, east on Cherry River. It doesn't seem to be going fast in the video. It's not going high speed, not at all. Maybe EN didn't know who it was and they were looking for the buick.

Let's try this to answer the question. According to your time calculations, what time was it when they had the shootout at the first location? Figure out the time distance for West on Alta, North on Cimerron, East on Cherry River, South on Carmel Peak, West on Mt. Shasta. Is there enough time for it to work with them driving slowly and looking between houses?

For the sake of interest, what time difference is there with them going that route at a slow speed and the M's going their short route a high speed? That would give us an idea how long the M's were in their driveway before the Audi arrived.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes, I thought that too but I didn't say anything as I thought I might have been mistaken given the low-quality image.

It would make sense EN would be alert at the window, especially when about to turn the corner. He wants to be ready--either to continue shooting or to not get caught off guard with the buick shooting back.

Yes If BM's story is at least somewhat true, what the silver car may have done after the first shooting on Villa Monterey is go west on Alta past Carmel Peak, go north on Cimarron, east on Cherry River and then south on Carmel Peak to Mt Shasta (which would be a circuitous route), which would have given time for BM to get out of the passenger seat and go around the car to TM.

That's the exact route I just posted. I based it on the Audi facing southwest at the time first shooting scene. The Audi was already facing that direction so it continued that direction. That results in enough extra time for a few different scenarios to happen at the M's house before the Audi arrived. How much time? Based on the Audi going slow searching and the Buick speeding home? I'm going to need to plot my own calculations tomorrow.

 

[Miss Muffet]

You and I are thinking alike. I don't even need to ask half my questions or explain why I'm asking them. You're already asking yourself the exact same questions. LOL

 

[Miss Muffet]

I understand that and I'm saying the response is still irrational. Unless this was some major wholesale drug deal between dealers or the Meyers were loansharking EN for thousands of dollars there are more rational ways of addressing this then engaging in an armed conspiracy to rob/kill/maim a nearby neighbor. Such an action would be a dealer/loan shark type response under certain circumstances where their business needs can justify the potential risk of engaging in such a serious felony, not a drug user response who is unhappy over some pills as such a response is way out of proportion and would be a reason for neither EN nor any other dealer to supply that user. Addicts are very reluctant to bite Dr Feelgood and would instead look for another Dr Feelgood or try verbal sweet-talking persuasion to get the drugs they want, not get a posse together to go on an armed assault of their dealer.

Right. TM and RM being in the car together means TM chose to leave with RM and his gun for a purpose. That is irrational for a mother of a 15 year regardless of it avenging a road rage, rectifying a drug deal, etc. If not irrational, it's reckless.

We spent two weeks without TM in the car because everyone was basing their theories on how a mother of a 15 year would behave. That turned out to be an inaccurate basis for eliminating TM from the car because it turns out she was in the car.

TM being in the car and something happening she wasn't expecting and turning into an irrational person as a result is understandable. (None of us know how we'll respond when suddenly faced with an intense situation.) Her purposely setting out in the car to do something reckless isn't understandable.

 

[sonjay]

It would make sense EN would be alert at the window, especially when about to turn the corner. He wants to be ready--either to continue shooting or to not get caught off guard with the buick shooting back.


That's the exact route I just posted. I based it on the Audi facing southwest at the time first shooting scene. The Audi was already facing that direction so it continued that direction. That results in enough extra time for a few different scenarios to happen at the M's house before the Audi arrived. How much time? Based on the Audi going slow searching and the Buick speeding home? I'm going to need to plot my own calculations tomorrow.

BM said in the affidavit that his mom drove "at a high rate of speed" from where she she backed up on Villa Monterey to Cherry Vista and the took Cherry River to go home. Given that BM reportedly didn't even have enough time to get his mother out of the car -- he pushed her back into car because the Audi entered Mt. Shasta just as he was helping her get out -- there probably wasn't enough time for the Audi to drive from the corner of Villa Monterey and Alto west on Alta to Cimarron, north on Cimarron, east on Cherry River, south on Carmel Peak, and then turn into Mt. Shasta.

If the Audi drove slowly looking for them, taking the route Alta to Cimarron to Cherry River to Carmel Peak to Mt. Shasta, it seems like BM and his mom should have had plenty of time to get into the house -- especially if the Audi was driving slowly looking for them. If the Audi was driving like a BOOH, it might have been able to cover that route and arrive just as BM was getting his mom out of the car.

Unless for some reason BM and his mom didn't go into the house. Maybe BM is lying about that part. Maybe they got back to the cul de sac and were standing there waiting for the Audi to find them.

 

[sonjay]

I can thank you for my interest in starting over. You've been telling me my theories and speculation didn't meet your standards because I was embracing the drug-deal-gone-bad theory along with the buick returning home.

Well, that's just not true, and I'm sorry that you think it is.

 

[sonjay]

Right. TM and RM being in the car together means TM chose to leave with RM and his gun for a purpose. That is irrational for a mother of a 15 year regardless of it avenging a road rage, rectifying a drug deal, etc. If not irrational, it's reckless.

It's reckless, certainly, but if they were engaged in illegal activities with EN, and they couldn't turn to the legal system for justice, it's rational.

When people engaged in legal business activities believe they have been wronged, they can turn to the courts for redress. When people engaged in illegal business activities believe they have been wronged, they take it into their own hands. That's quite rational, and it happens every day across the country.

 

[BellaVita]

Isn't this similar wording to what BM said when he and TM arrived back at the house for the gunfire? KM and BM are describing almost explaining the same event for two different time periods.




OMG! This Sonja and Bella discussion gave me a lightening bolt of an idea!

SNIP BY ME

My new hypothetical scenario (below) means KM is the biggest liar of them all!

TM and KM are out doing driving lessons. There's a road rage altercation with the Audi. Only TM and KM were in the car for EVERYTHING that happened in the warrant up to the shooting at the cul-de-sac.

They sped home. Maybe they called BM. Maybe he heard them yelling. BM comes running outside and starts shooting. Simultaneously, TM is trying to get KM out of the driver's seat to safety because KM is sitting there wailing over the traumatic event. TM sees the Audi coming, and pushes KM back into the car. That's why TM is found shot on the ground near the driver's side of the car.

LE shows up. KM tells her story leaving out the first shooting scene because she brandished a firearm after the road rage incident. Maybe TM did the brandishing. Maybe it was more than brandished and a shot was fired. Somehow either TM or KM had a gun at the first shooting scene. And it was true road rage, but they were equally enraged. KM leaving that out is why her statement just says driving lesson, road rage, home, mom dead.

BM tells his story as he knew it. He came outside and started shooting. He has no idea what happened while TM and KM were out in the car because he wasn't there. He doesn't even suspect there's anything to hide.

Long after LE is gone and the family is together, KM tells what really happened. BM learns about the details of the first driving route from her sharing her story over and over again with the family. (That's why his route is similar in his revised story.) The M's realize LE will find out about the first shooting scene. They decide to protect KM if that happens.

LE finds out about the first shooting scene via EN's friend witnesses. LE finds evidence at the scene. LE shows up at the M's house asking why this wasn't mentioned. The M's are prepared. KM says they came home and got BM and he left with TM. BM tells his new story with the details KM told him, which were the details she told LE, but he includes what she left out about the first shooting scene.

I know that's a freaky scenario but it fits all of the evidence, doesn't it?

You have to believe there was a road rage incident. I am not buying that at all. KM told a very convoluted, detailed story about how that supposedly all went down: 6ft tall guy, hazel eyes, all the maneuvering by both cars and the almost laughable quote straight out of a B movie: I'm coming back for you and your daughter". And why would he say that? EN already had a gun. They didn't have to come back. They could take care of it right then and there. Oops! They did try to take care of it. EN shot 6 or 7 times before they reached the cul de sac. But the M's did not want to report that part for some reason. Of everything I've just written, I think the only true part is where EN shot at the Buick. Again, EN is consistent to friends when he says the confrontation started at the school. He thought people were out to get him and he recognized the Buick, IMO. Any chasing or maneuvering by the vehicles was done as a result of a personal issue, deal gone bad, etc. Not as a result of the Buick driving slowly. IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

When I think about it, and I actually did drive the route where the Audi stopped and started shooting the 1st time, and when the Buick backed up and went home, the timing between the two routes are just about equal so there really wasn't much time for anyone in the Buick to get in the house. So if KM was the one in the car, like some people think, she would have had to really run for the door to the house, and TM wouldn't have had much time to get out of the house to find out what is going on. I'm having a hard time believing that KM ran in the house, told her mom someone shot at them, then have her run out to greet BM???? Why would she do that? Why go out when you hear gun shots??? Something doesn't sound right to me about that scenario

Yes, I think the Audi was very close behind. But remember, now the story is that BM was in the car. KM did not have to go get him. But I tend to think all three were in the car and it was one extended incident.

 

[Gin]

Right. TM and RM being in the car together means TM chose to leave with RM and his gun for a purpose. That is irrational for a mother of a 15 year regardless of it avenging a road rage, rectifying a drug deal, etc. If not irrational, it's reckless.

We spent two weeks without TM in the car because everyone was basing their theories on how a mother of a 15 year would behave. That turned out to be an inaccurate basis for eliminating TM from the car because it turns out she was in the car.

TM being in the car and something happening she wasn't expecting and turning into an irrational person as a result is understandable. (None of us know how we'll respond when suddenly faced with an intense situation.) Her purposely setting out in the car to do something reckless isn't understandable.

JMO, BBM. Well, looking at this case so far, I continue to think the big influence into the the mindblowingly reckless decisions that night was probably "substance" use, maybe helped along with liberal alcohol at the birthday party. That mix, to me, explains things pretty easily. And I tend to believe more than just 1 person was under the influence that night.

There are innumerable stories of really good, productive folks who lost jobs, families, relationships because they fell into the pit of "substance" abuse. It can take away someone's ability to think rationally. Sad, but it happens.

 

[sonjay]

You have to believe there was a road rage incident. I am not buying that at all. KM told a very convoluted, detailed story about how that supposedly all went down: 6ft tall guy, hazel eyes, all the maneuvering by both cars and the almost laughable quote straight out of a B movie: I'm coming back for you and your daughter". And why would he say that? EN already had a gun. They didn't have to come back. They could take care of it right then and there. Oops! They did try to take care of it. EN shot 6 or 7 times before they reached the cul de sac. But the M's did not want to report that part for some reason. Of everything I've just written, I think the only true part is where EN shot at the Buick. Again, EN is consistent to friends when he says the confrontation started at the school. He thought people were out to get him and he recognized the Buick, IMO. Any chasing or maneuvering by the vehicles was done as a result of a personal issue, deal gone bad, etc. Not as a result of the Buick driving slowly. IMO.

I totally agree.

KM's convoluted story just doesn't add up. As Judge Judy would say, "If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true."

BM's description of the chase is consistent with the physical evidence, and is also consistent with EN's description of the chase. EN's description of the chase is consistent with the physical evidence, and is also consistent with BM's description of the chase.

It's clear that the chase as described by BM & EN happened pretty much the way they both described it.

KM's story of the driving lesson, road rage and chase isn't supported by any physical evidence and isn't consistent with anything EN told his friends about that night. It's convoluted. It has changed and changed and changed -- first it was an accident, then there wasn't an accident but TM was going too slow and KM honked the horn. Was there a sideswipe that damaged the Buick's side body molding, or not? The Magic 8 Ball says "Reply hazy try again."

Her described route had them going from the school down to Alta then all the way over to Durango and up Durango almost to Westcliff before even noticing that the silver car was following them. Supposedly the driving lesson was over at that point -- mum was driving and they were on their way home, but Durango to Westcliff is not on their way home from the school.

She gave police a description that resulted in a sketch that seems to be of a non-existent person. The police are still looking for the Audi driver, but they have said that there's no need to look for the person depicted in the sketch, so logically, that sketch is not the Audi driver. That sketch is also not EN. The sketch is...... who?

The road rage encounter itself supposedly had the 6' spiky-hair dude so enraged that TM was driving the speed limit that he cut them off, spun his car sideways, and threatened to "come back and get you and your daughter," and then chased them or followed them until they escaped.

We are also expected to believe that during this entire encounter, KM and TM never thought to call 911.

And we are expected to believe that after they escaped and made it home safely, instead of calling 911 then, they got Brandon to arm up and go out with his mom to hunt for the enraged 6' spiky-hair dude and his buddies in the silver car. And that TM was going to go do exactly that even if BM didn't go with her!

There are holes in KM's story big enough to drive a Buick through. It's not any one single bit of nonsense that tells us it didn't happen; it's the whole package.

 

[PaperDoll]

What made me think that is that it is geographically impossible to get on Carmel Peak without first getting on Cherry River: "Brandon said as he was trying to get his mother out of the car he saw headlights coming north on Carmel Peak...," however, I might have read this wrong as it might mean it was coming from the south going north instead of that the lights came from the north. That being said, if BM is saying the car was coming from the south, that raises questions, particularly in light of the CCTV camera. Also EN allegedly said that the driver followed - not searched for - the Buick, which would mean it took the same route along Cherry that the Buick did.

You can get to Carmel Peak from Alta; so the Audi would have turned right on Alta, then right on Carmel Peak then made a left on Mt. Shasta. The Audi would have been going north on Carmel Peak.