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

[SStarr33]

I agree and with what you describe this is how I see everyone acting. BM was not the only with a family he was concerned about as EN had a family as well that he was concerned about. Just like BM he was caught up in a situation not of his own making that he didn't really want to be in and was the registered gun owning passenger in a vehicle, just EN responded excessively.

I can't wait to hear what EN did to check to make sure his family was ok.

 

[LancelotLink]

And has this been discussed? In the GJ testimony, KM said BM was visiting (paraphrasing) but BM said he lives at the mt. Shasta residence. I believe BM for 2 reasons; his gun was in grandma's drawer and he said he was playing "my xbox."

 

[BellaVita]

Quote Originally Posted by BellaVita

It has been testified to that BM had a cell phone on him during the chase.

EN told the detective that as the guy with the beard was running toward the house, EN saw HEADS in the plural still in the car.

Reply by newone:
bbm: As I read your words, KM's words " it could have been me" echo hauntingly....((earliest MSM))

ITA. Those words have stuck with me for a long time. Makes me think she was in the car for the whole thing.

 

[sonjay]

And has this been discussed? In the GJ testimony, KM said BM was visiting (paraphrasing) but BM said he lives at the mt. Shasta residence. I believe BM for 2 reasons; his gun was in grandma's drawer and he said he was playing "my xbox."

Yeah, we've talked about that. That's another Meyers-ism that doesn't make any sense.

BM says he lives there.

KM is apparently unaware that he lives there.

Here is KM's GJ testimony on that point:

Q. Could you tell me the names of the individuals that live there?
A. Susan Meyers, Robert Meyers, Robert Meyers Jr. and me, Kristal Meyers.
Q. Now is Robert Meyers your dad?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there's your brother Robert Meyers Jr.?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the other person that you mentioned, is that your sister?
A. No, that's my grandmother.
Q. Okay. Are you familiar with a person by the name of Brandon Meyers?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is he to you?
A. My brother.
​

If BM really lived there, wouldn't KM at that point have said, "My brother, oh yes, he lives there too." But she just said "My brother."

And when he asked where BM was in the house when she went in to get him, she said "He was in Robert's room."

Did Stanton (the GJ prosecutor) really want the GJ to be confused about where BM actually lives? Why would he leave such a basic point so unclarified?

 

[sonjay]

ITA. Those words have stuck with me for a long time. Makes me think she was in the car for the whole thing.

I think she was in the car for the chase and the shootings.

I don't believe there were driving lessons or road rage, so I don't think anyone was in the car for those because I think they didn't happen.

 

[LancelotLink]

Stanton also asked her if she saw TM and BM return. Se said yes. Stanton then announced, no further questions. I found that odd.

 

[BellaVita]

Quotes from PaperDoll:

Here is what I do know, EN shot and killed a woman that lives one street over from him. EN said there were no shots fired at him and yet he fired off many rounds. The Buick fled the scene after the 1st shooting.

All true so far

EN chased the Buick to their house and opened fire once again.

He did fire again. That is true. I don't think I would use the word "chase". Again, read the GJ document:
He said they continued westbound and he
said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his
house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River
than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

The Audi was getting ready to turn around and go in the opposite direction. They didn't expect to see the Buick. They weren't chasing it.

EN fled the scene, went to a friends and switched cars. At the 1st shooting EN was firing shots and someone could have been hit by a bullet, someone who was casually walking the streets but THANK GOD no one else was hurt.

Agreed.

He could have kept driving if he felt he was being threatened but he didn't.

Not sure what you mean by this. He felt safer once he was in the Audi. EN and DA were parked by the side of the road when the encounter with the Buick first began. The Audi wasn't hunting or chasing anyone.

He didn't need to stay in the area where he felt threatened but he did. In fact the Audi was parked right near the school and park. If he were that afraid he could have left the area or called the police. If he's dealing drugs and doesn't want to have the police involved then he's doing illegal activity.

He felt more vulnerable out in the open. He wanted the cover of being in a vehicle. Even when the Audi first pulled up, EN waited to cross out of the park and get in the car because he felt he would have been more exposed at that point. He waited till the Buick was out of sight. So yeah, he did feel threatened. And yes, he deals drugs out of the same park TM was known to frequent. The LVDA says the purported dealings between EN and TM are not the heart of the case. The DA DOESN"T say that dealings have ZERO to do with it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Stanton also asked her if she saw TM and BM return. Se said yes. Stanton then announced, no further questions. I found that odd.

I took that line of questioning as trying to establish how long the car had been away...that it returned some minutes later rather than seconds later.

 

[BellaVita]

Even if a person takes a firearm with them it does not define they are going to be the aggressor or was the aggressor.

I see nothing that shows me BM was the aggressor at anytime. Not in the first shooting location done solely by EN nor at the murder scene when EN fired repeatedly at both TM&BM trying to kill them both and Brandon only got off three self defense shots that hit no one.

When you leave your home in pursuit of an anonymous (or maybe NOT anonymous) person in order to do or say who knows what, YOU ARE AN AGGRESSOR. Just because he only got off three shots does not mean he was not an aggressor. Getting off only three shots is a function of BM being in over his head, panicking and having difficulty operating his gun.

 

[LancelotLink]

And this:
“I would imagine that’s a stressful situation for anybody, let alone a 15-year-old girl,” Stanton said. “So her ability to remember certain things, I think, would be challenging. I have not found any inconsistencies in the statements of Kristal Meyers that has any effect or relevence (sic)to what happens after that incident.”
To me this sounds like he knows the Claus team are going to chew her up. Already trying to rehabilitate his witness can't be a good feeling, considering everything she said was proven incorrect.

 

[sonjay]

Stanton also asked her if she saw TM and BM return. Se said yes. Stanton then announced, no further questions. I found that odd.

You're right, I hadn't noticed that before. That is a very odd way to end her testimony.

If KM saw BM & TM return, then anything she saw or heard when they returned could shed some light on exactly what happened there in the cul de sac.

Since the whole point of a GJ hearing is to give the grand jurors enough evidence to indict, you'd think that what she saw or heard when they returned would be important information. But he didn't question her at all about that.

I have no doubt these things will be investigated during cross-examination at the trial. The prosecution will not be able to get away with skipping over crucial points and leaving out important information during the trial.

 

[sonjay]

And this:
“I would imagine that’s a stressful situation for anybody, let alone a 15-year-old girl,” Stanton said. “So her ability to remember certain things, I think, would be challenging. I have not found any inconsistencies in the statements of Kristal Meyers that has any effect or relevence (sic)to what happens after that incident.”
To me this sounds like he knows the Claus team are going to chew her up. Already trying to rehabilitate his witness can't be a good feeling, considering everything she said was proven incorrect.

If KM were telling the truth about what happened, she wouldn't have so much trouble with "inconsistencies." Sure, there would likely be some minor details that she remembered wrongly, but there wouldn't be such huge glaring omissions and big changes from one story to the next.

But as it is, she's given the prosecution a big truckload of lies that they have to work around and deal with. So far, they're just ignoring the problems that her lies create, but they won't be able to do that at trial.

 

[BellaVita]

Quotes from oceanblueeyes:
Good evening SI! I enjoy reading your posts very much.

Imo, if the jury follows the letter of the law this will never be M2 and certainly not Manslaughter.

There are way too many premeditated acts done by the driver and the murderer.

1. Suspect opens fire at a first location. No one fired back per EN. The very first location shows he had an intent to harm even though he knew they were not returning fire.

How many times does it have to be repeated? There was a gun waved out the window of the Buick. The Buick was doing the hunting. Not the Audi. How many times must it be repeated that by BM's own testimony, he was in a panic and could not efficiently operate his gun. He WANTED to use it but had trouble doing so.

2. Continued to pursue the vehicle even though it backed up turned around and tried to make it back to the safety of the victim's home.

No. This has been referenced and verbatim quoted from GJ transcript many times. EN did not CONTINUE to pursue. He was pursued first. After the first shooting, the cars broke off from each other. The Audi was trying to get away using a shortcut and happened to end up on Mt. Shasta. I would copy and paste the relevant testimony but I've already done that many times.

3. DA and EN came right to the property and home of the victim.... opening fire for the second time killing Tammy Myers and had intentions of killing Brandon. The guy with the beard per EN.

See above. The GJ transcript is helpful.
http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

4. EN admitted that he came there to kill. Even boasted that he had killed those kids.

This is extremely inaccurate. He didn't go to Mt. Shasta to kill. He drove onto Mt. Shasta in an effort to take a shortcut home. The Buick was there and EN felt there was a threat to his life. He didn't boast he "killed those kids". He did say he got those kids that were after him. He knew he'd shot someone. He didn't know at that time that he's killed anyone.

Once the driver and EN continued to pursue the fleeing vehicle.... going to their property with the full intentions of murdering them it became as premeditated as it gets. EN became the hunter and the victim became his prey.

Once again see all above.

EN had a legal right to call 911.
EN had a legal right to go home or to another home or even to the police station.

So did the M's. And they started the trouble.

He did not have any legal right to pursue someone who was trying their best to get away from him. That is simply hunting someone down in order to kill them which is M1 and that is what he tried to do by his own admission and succeeded with TM.

He didn't pursue them home.

He didn't even have a legal right to shoot at the first location. Even he said the occupants never returned fire.

The Buick flashed a gun, but BM had trouble using it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The Audi was getting ready to turn around and go in the opposite direction. They didn't expect to see the Buick. They weren't chasing it.

I wouldn't say the GJ testimony says that as we don't know what Andrews was thinking, but it shows a lack of coordination and pre-planning as EN only saw the Buick after Andrews started veering rather than EN telling Andrews to veer because he saw the Buick. The Buick probably was harder to recognize as BM testified that the car was parked straight rather than in profile. Also having grown up in a cul-de-sac cars have to turn or else they'd drive straight into someone's house. Countless number of cars turn in cul-de-sacs and it doesn't mean all those cars were engaged in premeditated murder attempts by trying to position the car for firing, but instead that's just how you drive in a cul-de-sac.

 

[BellaVita]

I wouldn't say the GJ testimony says that as we don't know what Andrews was thinking, but it shows a lack of coordination and pre-planning as EN only saw the Buick after Andrews started veering rather than EN telling Andrews to veer because he saw the Buick. The Buick probably was harder to recognize as BM testified that the car was parked straight rather than in profile. Also having grown up in a cul-de-sac cars have to turn or else they'd drive straight into someone's house. Countless number of cars turn in cul-de-sacs and it doesn't mean all those cars were engaged in premeditated murder attempts by trying to position the car for firing, but instead that's just how you drive in a cul-de-sac.

Agree. Just from my reading of the testimony, it does seem that the primary purpose of driving onto Mt. Shasta was to turn around. Incidentally, the Buick just happened to be there because it was the M's home.

 

[sonjay]

I wouldn't say the GJ testimony says that as we don't know what Andrews was thinking, but it shows a lack of coordination and pre-planning as EN only saw the Buick after Andrews started veering rather than EN telling Andrews to veer because he saw the Buick. The Buick probably was harder to recognize as BM testified that the car was parked straight rather than in profile. Also having grown up in a cul-de-sac cars have to turn or else they'd drive straight into someone's house. Countless number of cars turn in cul-de-sacs and it doesn't mean all those cars were engaged in premeditated murder attempts by trying to position the car for firing, but instead that's just how you drive in a cul-de-sac.

I wish Mogg's testimony in that section wasn't so meandering and convoluted. It's hard to follow, but as best I can determine, this is the order of events leading up to the shooting from EN's point of view:

1. EN told DA something about a way to get to his (EN's) home.

2. DA turned into the cul de sac and turned the vehicle sideways.

3. EN saw the Buick and recognized it as the car that had been stalking and chasing him that night.

4. EN saw "heads in the vehicle" and someone running toward the house and thought that the running person was going to get more guns.

5. EN started shooting.

Based on that, it's simply not possible to draw a conclusion that they went into the cul de sac because they knew the Buick was there, or that the killing was premeditated, or even that DA turned the vehicle sideways so that EN could shoot.

Some conclusions that we can draw:

1. EN was trying to give DA directions to take EN to his home.

2. EN was still afraid of the people in the Buick — they had already stalked him at the park, pointed a gun at him, and chased him that night. He thought the running person was going to get more guns.

3. EN didn't know which of the people, or how many of them, had a gun. He knew that at least one person did, but he couldn't have known which of them had a gun, or if any of the "heads in the car" had guns.

 

[SStarr33]

Reminder-- they have a hot date with the court on the 26th for their arraignment.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

With EN/DA as well as what had happened with GZ in Florida, the prosecution has to disprove it wasn't self-defense rather than the defense having to prove it was self-defense. Like with GZ in Florida, GZ did not have to prove Martin started the fight, but instead the prosecutors had to prove it was GZ who started the fight. This talks about things broadly with burden of proof with self-defense in criminal cases as this burden happens nationally in various states to differing degrees:

Requiring prosecutors to disprove self-defense is also a particularly bad idea in states that allow people to carry guns in public places. The more people carry guns, the more reasonable the fear that the guy you’re fighting with might be reaching for his. Or, if you are carrying a gun and rolling around on the ground with another person, like Martin and Zimmerman, you could fear that your opponent might be about to grab your gun—as Zimmerman claimed in his statements to police. Since your fear needs only be reasonable, not correct, a mistaken but reasonable fear that the other person is reaching for a gun legally justifies killing an unarmed person. The other person could have been reaching for a cellphone, but in a state that lets people carry concealed weapons, it would be harder for the prosecutor to prove that your fear of a gun was not reasonable. The more guns, the more grounds for self-defense—and the more licenses for violence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_why_it_was_too_easy_for_him_to_get_off.html

At this point I don't think EN is going to be exonerated, but it is up to the prosecution to prove all the elements of M1 and that it was not done in self-defense, rather than it being up to the defense to prove it was self-defense. If the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways, it is up to the prosecution to prove the evidence must be interpreted only in a way that proves M1 rather than it being up to the defense to prove that the evidence only must be interpreted as self-defense.

 

[PaperDoll]

Quotes from PaperDoll:


All true so far



He did fire again. That is true. I don't think I would use the word "chase". Again, read the GJ document:
He said they continued westbound and he
said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his
house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River
than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

The Audi was getting ready to turn around and go in the opposite direction. They didn't expect to see the Buick. They weren't chasing it.


Agreed.



Not sure what you mean by this. He felt safer once he was in the Audi. EN and DA were parked by the side of the road when the encounter with the Buick first began. The Audi wasn't hunting or chasing anyone.



He felt more vulnerable out in the open. He wanted the cover of being in a vehicle. Even when the Audi first pulled up, EN waited to cross out of the park and get in the car because he felt he would have been more exposed at that point. He waited till the Buick was out of sight. So yeah, he did feel threatened. And yes, he deals drugs out of the same park TM was known to frequent. The LVDA says the purported dealings between EN and TM are not the heart of the case. The DA DOESN"T say that dealings have ZERO to do with it.

Hi BellaV ok, the part about EN seeing the Buick pass his house, that is hard for me to believe, the reason: After the Buick was shot at I'm sure TM/BM were very scared and wanted to get home as fast as they can and into their own house. I do not for one minute think they passed, or took another way home. The route I'm sure they took was: backing up on Villa Monterey/Cherry River/Carmel Peak then Mt. Shasta, if, and once again I do believe this was the way they took, then they didn't pass EN's house, had they continued on Cherry River towards Cimarron, then yes, they would have passed his house. I think EN saw the Buick making the turn on Mt. Shasta and assumed they pasted his house.

I have a feeling EN exaggerates a bit, maybe in the excitement of it all he didn't remember a lot of details. He told KK he fired off 22 rounds at the cul-de-sac but the police didn't find that many and she thought he was exaggerating.

As far as him feeling safe, I'm sure he felt safer in the car holding a gun along with another person who also may have had a gun???? HOWEVER, he could have left the area once he was in the car instead of being parked on a street that is next to the park and school. They could have taken Buffalo which is right behind the school and San Jonas. They could have gone to the Casino like EN was at prior to the shooting and wait till things cooled off. He could have called the police and said he thinks someone is out to kill is mom and baby sister so please come check it out, he didn't do that either. In fact he could have went back to his own home, the Audi could have dropped him off there. EN could have ran through the park and headed home instead of waiting then going back out too see if the Buick was still there. The Buick had opportunity to get EN at that time, instead the Buick took off.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Good Morning everyone.

I was rereading the GJ testimony looking for where EN said he saw a gun being flashed at him.

Unless I missed what he told the detective.... I don't see it mentioned when he talked to LE.

In fact he told the detective he was the one that brandished the gun up in the air when he saw the green car following them.

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.