GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #6

[jjenny]

Neighbors of the guy arrested as "getaway driver" (another misnomer, IMO) say they have only seen him in 2 sedans since 2013, neither one silver, neither one an Audi. Not charged with grand theft auto. So what gives?

Also, may I please have the link to full GJ transcript again? Thank you.

I suspect "what gives" is that neighbors don't pay attention to what he is doing and what cars he is driving.

 

[BellaVita]

Um, I never said he was being inefficient. I said what he did was smart.

Quote Originally Posted by BellaVita

BM couldn't shoot at the first scene because he couldn't manage his gun efficiently.

Sstarr33 quote:
Very smart of him considering that he was being fired at and the car was two blocks away.

I never knew that "smart" could somehow be equated with "inefficient.

 

[Hiandmighty]

There's no way to tell. It could have been inadvertently left behind months before the shooting.

An unfired cartridge found in a family members car that matches a family members gun caliber doesn't tell us much. JMO.

Try again, it was brought up in GJ testimony...

 

[SStarr33]

I wonder if the defense investigation can help LE because I believe LE's hinky meter went off about the Ms story.

The BMs also lawyered up. Victims tend not to do that. LE may be upping the "heat" on them enough that they responded.

I would not call that lawyering up. They are not criminal attorneys

 

[SStarr33]

I never knew that "smart" could somehow be equated with "inefficient.

Me either. Leaving that scene was very smart.

 

[BellaVita]

Me either. Leaving that scene was very smart.

I know what would have been even smarter. Don't get your son and his gun in order to hunt a random road rager when you are already in the safety of your home. The M's "smarts" was too little, too late.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I had been trying to understand why Erich was where he was when the Buick pulled up behind him. Now that we know about Derrick Andrews I think I see why now. Even though Derrick Andrews lives to the west of Nowsch, the fastest way to Ducharme by the park where EN was has him take Summerlin in a route that has him going east on Ducharme. The route takes about 9 minutes, which I figure that is how long it took him to get there in that he probably drove faster than Google time, but he had to get ready and leave his home. Based on how Mogg describes EN's confession and how BM describes things as well, EN had walked to the car after the Buick left and the car had been in the same spot the whole time until the Buick returned. Depending on where precisely on Ducharme Andrews parked and where the Buick drove around, the Meyers may or may not have seen it before EN got into it.

Something else from Mogg that I stood out to me and could have many implications if Mogg is relaying what EN said accurately is this:

At one point he said that he
was actually waiting in the park and didn't want to get
into one of his friends' vehicles until the green car
had left the area. Eventually the green car leaves the
area. He said he got into the vehicle with a friend of
his whom he described as a white male. He was sitting,
Nowsch was sitting in the front passenger seat, the
other male was the driver, and he describes the car as a
cream colored four door vehicle. He said they were
sitting on the side of the street when all of a sudden
the green car came around behind them again, and they
pulled away, he said the green car started chasing them,
described how they went down a street, and then he said
at one point he was waving his pistol out the passenger
window of the car that he was in up in the air and he
couldn't believe that the car that was behind him didn't
see that and stop and just go away.

If what Mogg is describing is accurate it sounds like what EN is saying is that the car drove by them at least once previously when they were parked on Ducharme. The driving lessons may well have gone on and in fact having to cancel the driving lessons could have been what motivated TM to go back out and confront that person:

Q. What happened that was unusual?
A. We were parked and we didn't move, we saw a
guy, he kept walking back and forth just like once, and
my mom looked at him but we didn't, we just rolled up
the windows and everything. We seen him about twice and
then that's when we stopped driving and she got in the
driver's seat.

Given what had recently happened with the alleged gang member with TM going and confronting them, TM might have planned to do the same sort of thing in confronting whoever it was that was that caused her to cancel the lessons whether she knew it was EN or not, just she knew there was someone who she didn't like what they were doing and wanted to confront them without KM around and others could come but she'd do it with our without them. This on one hand could make it true with BM saying they weren't going out intending to shoot someone (it sounds like TM would have done this alone and unarmed given her previously experience, but she'd just as well going that she had others and was in armed car), but on the other hand if TM drove around twice to confirm that was the car it would have been a very deliberate act to go after that specific car and chase it down...they would have been deliberately after EN whether they knew it was specifically him or just knew he was some suspected gang member in the park they saw that night. BM could have either accidentally or under orders flashed his gun, with BM being nervous (he sounds much less willing than his mom to go into these sort of confrontations she got in chasing people down, but at the same time approving her chasing down others) he could have just not been self-aware enough to realize he flashed his weapon when he was holding it.

After they got caught by surprise - it sounds like if this was a deliberate plan, they were expecting an easy victory rather than resistance - then things backfired as this turned out to be nothing like having followed the gang member home and confronted them. They then would have made up the road rage story so that they wouldn't have to say they deliberately targeted the car from the beginning to the point of driving around it twice to confirm that it was the correct car while having to explain they intentionally went armed but weren't planning murder would not want to be something they'd want to attempt to explain to LE. They also would have had a ready description to give if they heard this story from a neighbor about a young blond crew cut guy showing up at the park who had alleged been in an armed confrontation before with one of the neighbors and TM could have thought it was that guy and been really out to get the crew cut guy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...f-suspect-road-rage-shooting-mother-four.html

If EN was deliberated targeted (either because they knew it was him or because he was the creepy guy in the park that night) - but not to get hurt but instead to get stalked and lectured - that would make sense given TM's past action and explain all the crazy stuff we've heard, but that wouldn't excuse EN's actions as I think if this was the story to come out that it would favor a plea or jury finding Voluntary Manslaughter with him being targeted but responding too strongly to what had happened to him.

EDIT: This would also explain why TM chased, but only chased slowly. She was not chasing someone down to gun them down, but instead would follow them just enough to just enough so that she could see where lived if they arrived and their home and went inside. Simply transposing the previous gang member events onto this can explain most any Meyers action this time around - she would have chased EN all the way to Andrews' home but not to shoot him, but instead to demand an explanation for why he was acting so creepy in the park that night. She was following at stalk-speed not murder-speed. Also with BM knowing about that past event, he could have seen the risk in following strangers home and knocking on their doors that it was dangerous, so he would have insisted on going with her armed if she was going to stalk people to their homes rather than call 911.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

From GJ document: Mogg testifying:
He told me that at the time that the shots were fired
toward his vehicle from the suspect's vehicle down at
Alta and Villa Monterey that he at that point attempted
to load his firearm by racking the slide and he said
that he was ducking down, he was very scared, and he may
have racked it more than once which would mean a live
cartridge would be ejected from the gun.

Also, a couple days ago there was a lot of discussion here about why the prosecutor was purposely leading BM'stestimony. The detective said BM used the term "ducked down". BM in his testimony also used that term. LVDA corrected BM, putting words in his mouth. All on his own, the DA told the GJ that TM and BM had LEANED BACK in their seats. We all wondered why that was necessary for the DA as it seemed such a small point but was important to HIM. I think it may have something to do with finding the shell casing in the front seat and explaining that in the best light possible. IMO.

Thanks for letting us know a possible explanation for the unfired cartridge. An unfired cartridge being found in the car supports a story were no shots were fired from inside of it. A spent casing would support the opposite. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Try again, it was brought up in GJ testimony...

I missed that part. Thinking more on the unfired cartridge it does tell us something. It wasn't a fired case so it's not evidence that shots were fired from the car. JMO.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Possible explanations:

1) he dropped a bullet

2) he racked the slide and there was already one in the chamber and it ejected that one (this is alluded to as a possibility in the GJ testimony)

3) If there is a hammer indentation on the primer, the bullet was a dud and a misfire. This would mean he attempted to fire the gun.

 

[charminglane]

Spanish-
I understand your last post.
Makes sense to me right now.
That can change!
Thank you for writing out your thoughts clearly.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Possible explanations:

1) he dropped a bullet

2) he racked the slide and there was already one in the chamber and it ejected that one (this is alluded to as a possibility in the GJ testimony)

3) If there is a hammer indentation on the primer, the bullet was a dud and a misfire. This would mean he attempted to fire the gun.

One and two are the most likely but number three is a rare occurrence with center-fire ammunition. I've never had it happen to me after firing thousands of rounds. I've had it happen a few times with .22LR rimfire ammo but that's a different type of ignition.

We know the gun was functional because it fired later on that evening with presumably the same lot of ammunition. JMO.

 

[BellaVita]

Thanks for letting us know a possible explanation for the unfired cartridge. An unfired cartridge being found in the car supports a story were no shots were fired from inside of it. A spent casing would support the opposite. JMO.

Well, yeah. But, it doesn't preclude a DESIRE to fire shots. If you attempt to load your gun in a dangerous situation, you are in fact preparing to fire your gun. The unfired round just says you were unsuccessful in fulfilling your goal of efficiently returning fire.

 

[sonjay]

snipped for focus:

If what Mogg is describing is accurate it sounds like what EN is saying is that the car drove by them at least once previously when they were parked on Ducharme. The driving lessons may well have gone on and in fact having to cancel the driving lessons could have been what motivated TM to go back out and confront that person:

Q. What happened that was unusual?
A. We were parked and we didn't move, we saw a
guy, he kept walking back and forth just like once, and
my mom looked at him but we didn't, we just rolled up
the windows and everything. We seen him about twice and
then that's when we stopped driving and she got in the
driver's seat.

Now see, here we have yet more changes in KM's story. Her GJ testimony is the very first that we've heard anything from her about the walking-back-and-forth dude.

Previously, it was just driving lessons, then they left to go home and then there was road rage. No walking-back-and-forth dude, no cutting the lesson short because TM was freaked out over someone at the park .... nada.

In the arrest affidavit, there was no mention of walking-back-and-forth dude either; KM's story then was that they drove around the parking lot for a while, then left the school to drive around up in the residential area north of the school, then came back to the west side of the school and "did a couple more loops," then TM took over and they went home. They weren't sitting there parked; they weren't watching some creepy dude walking back and forth; TM didn't freak out and decide to cut the lesson short.

The walking-back-and-forth dude had to be EN; he described that scene so similarly to KM's description that I have to believe it happened and that it was him they saw. Interesting that KM says she knows EN and identified his photograph, but specifically said that she did not see EN at the park. So I guess we're supposed to believe that they saw the walking dude but that he wasn't EN, or that KM didn't recognize him as EN.

However, I don't believe it happened during any driving lesson. IMO, they (the Meyerses) went to the school and sat there and watched EN in the park, mirroring his movements whenever he tried to exit the park. This was shortly followed by the gun-waving, the chase and the shootouts.

For her GJ testimony, KM knew that with EN arrested and the Audi driver being sought, it was going to become public knowledge that the green car sat there at the school and watched EN in the park. So she 'fessed up to it but made it part of the non-existent driving lesson in an attempt to make it seem innocent. She doesn't want us to know that the Meyerses were stalking EN at the park prior to the chase; no, she wants us to believe that EN was being creepy at the park and freaking them out.

 

[jjenny]

Well, yeah. But, it doesn't preclude a DESIRE to fire shots. If you attempt to load your gun in a dangerous situation, you are in fact preparing to fire your gun. The unfired round just says you were unsuccessful in fulfilling your goal of efficiently returning fire.

And? BM said he didn't fire the gun at the first scene, and that certainly looks to be true (whatever the reason). In fact BM's story aligns closely with EN's. EN didn't think anyone was firing at him. EN admits he fired his weapon at both scenes.
He could have been used self-defense during the car chase part, but not after going to BM and TM's cul-de-sac and shooting TM. BM was trying to run away (both from what BM said to police and from what EN said to police).
EN didn't want him to get away, by his own admission. That's not self-defense, if you are shooting at someone who is running away because you don't want them to get away.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

And? BM said he didn't fire the gun at the first scene, and that certainly looks to be true (whatever the reason). In fact BM's story aligns closely with EN's. EN didn't think anyone was firing at him. EN admits he fired his weapon at both scenes.
He could have been used self-defense during the car chase part, but not after going to BM and TM's cul-de-sac and shooting TM. BM was trying to run away (both from what BM said to police and from what EN said to police).
EN didn't want him to get away, by his own admission. That's not self-defense, if you are shooting at someone who is running away because you don't want them to get away.

BBM

That's the gist of this case and why Nowich and Andrews have been charged with murder.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well, yeah. But, it doesn't preclude a DESIRE to fire shots. If you attempt to load your gun in a dangerous situation, you are in fact preparing to fire your gun. The unfired round just says you were unsuccessful in fulfilling your goal of efficiently returning fire.

I can understand being rattled when being shot at.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

And? BM said he didn't fire the gun at the first scene, and that certainly looks to be true (whatever the reason). In fact BM's story aligns closely with EN's. EN didn't think anyone was firing at him. EN admits he fired his weapon at both scenes.
He could have been used self-defense during the car chase part, but not after going to BM and TM's cul-de-sac and shooting TM. BM was trying to run away (both from what BM said to police and from what EN said to police).
EN didn't want him to get away, by his own admission. That's not self-defense, if you are shooting at someone who is running away because you don't want them to get away.

EN didn't want the person he was shooting at to get even more guns to come after him with:
KK

He believes
at that point that this person is going to get, in his
terms, more straps or guns and so he said that he also
saw heads in the vehicle so he started shooting at the
car and then he saw the person running toward the house
and I believe his quote was, "I can't let this
mother****er get away from me."

Mogg

Q. And when he described to you that the
person that he saw running, you used the word strapped.
Had you heard that term before in your professional
occupation?
A. I have.
Q. Is that a slang term for something?
A. Handguns.
Q. Handguns?
A. Or weapons.
Q. And in fact Mr. Nowsch says to you that he
thought the person running to the home was going to get
more strapped?
A. That's correct.
Q. That is he was going to get more guns?
A. Yes.

It's not to say what EN did was right or that EN was right in his perceptions, but he didn't think they were trying to end it. He was shooting with the intent of preventing them from getting even more guns than they already had. He did not think they were retreating, but rather he thought they were trying to escalate it.

 

[PaperDoll]

snipped for focus:





Now see, here we have yet more changes in KM's story. Her GJ testimony is the very first that we've heard anything from her about the walking-back-and-forth dude.

Previously, it was just driving lessons, then they left to go home and then there was road rage. No walking-back-and-forth dude, no cutting the lesson short because TM was freaked out over someone at the park .... nada.

In the arrest affidavit, there was no mention of walking-back-and-forth dude either; KM's story then was that they drove around the parking lot for a while, then left the school to drive around up in the residential area north of the school, then came back to the west side of the school and "did a couple more loops," then TM took over and they went home. They weren't sitting there parked; they weren't watching some creepy dude walking back and forth; TM didn't freak out and decide to cut the lesson short.

The walking-back-and-forth dude had to be EN; he described that scene so similarly to KM's description that I have to believe it happened and that it was him they saw. Interesting that KM says she knows EN and identified his photograph, but specifically said that she did not see EN at the park. So I guess we're supposed to believe that they saw the walking dude but that he wasn't EN, or that KM didn't recognize him as EN.

However, I don't believe it happened during any driving lesson. IMO, they (the Meyerses) went to the school and sat there and watched EN in the park, mirroring his movements whenever he tried to exit the park. This was shortly followed by the gun-waving, the chase and the shootouts.

For her GJ testimony, KM knew that with EN arrested and the Audi driver being sought, it was going to become public knowledge that the green car sat there at the school and watched EN in the park. So she 'fessed up to it but made it part of the non-existent driving lesson in an attempt to make it seem innocent. She doesn't want us to know that the Meyerses were stalking EN at the park prior to the chase; no, she wants us to believe that EN was being creepy at the park and freaking them out.

The reason that KM may not have realized that that was EN in the park because it was dark out and depending on where EN was located, I think it would be hard to identify who it was. I don't understand why the Meyers would be "stalking" EN and why they would go to the school parking lot to do so. Seems like if they wanted to talk to him they would go directly to his house, or get out of the car once they saw him in the park and confront him right then and there. Why play the "chasing" game?

 

[sonjay]

The reason that KM may not have realized that that was EN in the park because it was dark out and depending on where EN was located, I think it would be hard to identify who it was. I don't understand why the Meyers would be "stalking" EN and why they would go to the school parking lot to do so. Seems like if they wanted to talk to him they would go directly to his house, or get out of the car once they saw him in the park and confront him right then and there. Why play the "chasing" game?

Since the Meyerses won't tell the truth about that night, we can only guess at what their actual intentions were. We know they took a gun and went hunting for EN. We know they chased him. Those are facts not in question; the only question is "why" — and that we don't know. I'm sure they didn't just want to talk to him — they would have had no reason to take BM's gun if all they wanted to do was talk.

Some prior conflict is all I can think. "Prior" could mean earlier that day, earlier that month, or earlier that year. Drug deal gone bad? Maybe. There are plenty of rumors to that effect. Maybe TM thought EN had been bullying KM; we know that she liked to stalk and chase anyone she perceived as a bully. I don't know. I'm not a hothead and I don't live a hothead life, so I really can't imagine what was going on with them that they decided to arm up and go stalk EN at the park.