GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #7

[Snoods]

I seem to remember that the daughter stated there were two black men involved in this. I don't have a link, I am just going off of memory of things that came up in the beginning. I'm not sure if that was part of the supposed road rage incident or the shooting. I cannot find anything about it by Googling, so maybe I am all mixed up. If I did remember this correctly, what ever happened with that? Are police looking for these black men to get their story of what happened? They would surely be able to shed some light on this case.

You are correct about two black men being part of the initial story told by KM. Black guys were riding with spiky hair white guy with hazel eyes. KM initially claimed spiky hair was the one who cut them off, jumped out of their silver Audi and threatened to "Come back and get you and your mother!" That later morphed into "Come back and kill you and your mother!" She also said they caused an accident between the two cars. (LE says they do not believe an accident ever happened).

Why those violent road-ragers never seemed to be a concern to anyone after the fact is a mystery to me.

 

[SeeAlice]

Originally Posted by Midge Montana "But what is smart and makes sense and is the right thing to do isn't always what people do in a panic. The tall tales of the victim's family are proof of that." bbm

bbm

"fessed up"?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

If one 'vic' witness tells................Version BM.1, BM.2, BM.3, BM.4, & BM.5 and
second 'vic' witness tells ..............Version KM.1A, KM.2A, KM.3A, KM.4A, & KM.5A
(not saying this ^ is exactly what happened, just the gen idea)

and then both tell version 6, is that fessing up? Or just another version?

Why do VICTIMS need or get a chance to 'fess up or come clean EVER? If you are truly a victim, you should get at most one pass at LYING regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault & battery, kidnapping (see Huskins & Quinn), the bank hold up, the drive-by shooting, etc.

I have never sat in on the questioning of a victim/witness/survivor by a detective who knows or even suspects their earlier reports were fabricated. The 2nd interview, or even the beginning of interview 2, I can see the detective handling the subject with kid gloves:
We understand your concern this or that may make your (friend, mom, brother, wife) look bad, but we have to get to the truth of what happened that night."
Or, "We need you to clarify some of the statements you originally (or previously) provided to us. Our problem is that they don't reconcile with the physical evidence or with other eyewitnesses' recollections.

However, by the 3rd attempt to get the state's star witnesses (and the survivors of the victim) to provide accurate and complete statements to LE regarding the incident, my patience, empathy and would be in shorter & shorter supply.


JMO - JMO

 

[sonjay]

BBM That has always bothered me as well, Midge Montana. How they had the presence of mind to get their lies straight at such a time is disturbing. They decided pretty quickly that they were going to thwart police in their search for the people that shot their own mother.

Well, that's just it. They did come up with a story, but they didn't get all the details straight in a way that would stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

This case was first posted here on WS at 11:42am on 2/15 — the day after TM died at the hospital. By 11 that night, that first thread had its first post suggesting that something was hinky. Within 12 hours after the discussion started here at WS, people were starting to question the Meyers' story. And this was still a couple of days before it was learned that TM & KM arrived home safely and TM & BM went back out with a gun. It was five days before we learned that the Meyerses knew EN and knew he was the shooter. It was before the story had been told 30 different ways.

Their story never did hold together. It was hinky from the get-go.

Yes, they had the presence of mind to lie; but they didn't have sufficient presence of mind (or time) to actually get their lies straight.

 

[sonjay]

Here's the article that SpanishInquisition posted some time back about not including "lesser included charges":
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/g...-jury-deliberating-in-biker-gang-murder-trial

 

[BellaVita]

You are correct about two black men being part of the initial story told by KM. Black guys were riding with spiky hair white guy with hazel eyes. KM initially claimed spiky hair was the one who cut them off, jumped out of their silver Audi and threatened to "Come back and get you and your mother!" That later morphed into "Come back and kill you and your mother!" She also said they caused an accident between the two cars. (LE says they do not believe an accident ever happened).

Why those violent road-ragers never seemed to be a concern to anyone after the fact is a mystery to me.

I also wonder why there has been no call for witnesses. Are the streets so deserted at that time of night that NOBODY else would have been around? From the extent of the road rage as reported by KM, I'd think that someone in another car would have called 911 on the spot. And I find it almost impossible that neither KM nor TM had their own cell phone with them. I also think it strange that if nobody was out driving that night, then it seems the alleged road rager would just have passed them if driving too slowly. IF there was road rage, I wonder if TM may have brake-checked the guy or something like that and/or tried to prevent him from passing. That's if you believe there was road rage. Oh, I forgot. In the first story where BM never got in the car, it was reported that KM called ahead before they reached the house. So in that story, the Buick DID have a cell phone.

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

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,

BBM: the words and the grammar certainly makes it seem as though there were two cars that came to pick up EN. And the cars would have been there the same time as the Buick. Most likely seen by the Buick. IMO.

 

[sonjay]

Why do VICTIMS need or get a chance to 'fess up or come clean EVER? If you are truly a victim, you should get at most one pass at LYING regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault & battery, kidnapping (see Huskins & Quinn), the bank hold up, the drive-by shooting, etc.

I have never sat in on the questioning of a victim/witness/survivor by a detective who knows or even suspects their earlier reports were fabricated. The 2nd interview, or even the beginning of interview 2, I can see the detective handling the subject with kid gloves:
We understand your concern this or that may make your (friend, mom, brother, wife) look bad, but we have to get to the truth of what happened that night."
Or, "We need you to clarify some of the statements you originally (or previously) provided to us. Our problem is that they don't reconcile with the physical evidence or with other eyewitnesses' recollections.

However, by the 3rd attempt to get the state's star witnesses (and the survivors of the victim) to provide accurate and complete statements to LE regarding the incident, my patience, empathy and would be in shorter & shorter supply.

Yep. One pass at lying, initially, is all they should get.

I do understand why victims, or families of victims, or people present during the crime, might lie initially. Someone's stepping out on his wife, and he and his lady friend are robbed at gunpoint on their way into a No-Tell Motel. The ladyfriend gets shot and killed. Yeah, his first inclination is to lie cause he doesn't want his wife to find out he was cheating. It doesn't mean he was the killer or an accomplice of the killer or anything like that; he's just a cheating heel. But he has to be made aware that the seriousness of what happened, and the trouble he could get in if he doesn't tell the truth, totally override the trouble he'll face with his wife.

When it turns out that a victim lied initially to cover up something unrelated like that, I understand and don't hold it against them as long as they 'fess up very quickly.

But the Meyerses still haven't told the complete truth about what happened that night. I continue to wonder what's soooo bad that it justifies (to them) the level of cover-up they've been engaging in.

 

[Miss Muffet]

It's not breaking news that the Meyerses lied. We're sounding like broken records here.

Where is RM when we need him to inspire discussion? He has been very quiet lately. Not a peep out of him after DA's arrest. Did the LVDA finally convince him to stay quiet or his attorneys who specialize in civil lawsuits?

I'm hoping more documents are released soon. How much longer should the toxicology report take? How can we find out more about the drug problem in the neighborhood? Where do you think LV drugs come from? I was thinking CA, but it occurred to me that marijuana might come from CO since it's fully legalized there. I'll bet that's where head shops would likely go for blown glass.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Why do VICTIMS need or get a chance to 'fess up or come clean EVER? If you are truly a victim, you should get at most one pass at LYING regarding the circumstances surrounding the assault & battery, kidnapping (see Huskins & Quinn), the bank hold up, the drive-by shooting, etc.

As far as LE is concerned, they can't automatically assume who the victim is, like we've seen a few national cases with mothers who blame someone else for doing something to their children only to have it be the mothers are the perps who killed their kids. There are certain services that you provide to presumed victims, but that shouldn't affect the criminal investigation.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yes, they had the presence of mind to lie; but they didn't have sufficient presence of mind (or time) to actually get their lies straight.

What caused their story to fall apart IMO was the first shooting. Probably people who lived along that street called 911 after half a dozen rounds went off near them, so the police new two separate instances happened almost instantly from one another within very close proximity. If there hadn't actually been a shooting but instead chasing/brandishing with no physical evidence, it would have lasted a lot longer.

 

[SStarr33]

You are correct about two black men being part of the initial story told by KM. Black guys were riding with spiky hair white guy with hazel eyes. KM initially claimed spiky hair was the one who cut them off, jumped out of their silver Audi and threatened to "Come back and get you and your mother!" That later morphed into "Come back and kill you and your mother!" She also said they caused an accident between the two cars. (LE says they do not believe an accident ever happened).

Why those violent road-ragers never seemed to be a concern to anyone after the fact is a mystery to me.

How do you know they are not looking for them?

 

[SStarr33]

Not sure if you guys figured this out yet, but there is an arrow button on the top right that makes the page go back to full size.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

BBM: the words and the grammar certainly makes it seem as though there were two cars that came to pick up EN. And the cars would have been there the same time as the Buick. Most likely seen by the Buick. IMO.

One of the things I consider was that Andrews was there, just he was Car #2. That he may consider it more believable to say he wasn't there entirely around the time of the events than to say he was there around the time of the evens but wasn't EN's driver.

 

[jjenny]

Not sure if you guys figured this out yet, but there is an arrow button on the top right that makes the page go back to full size.

Where is it?

 

[jjenny]

One of the things I consider was that Andrews was there, just he was Car #2. That he may consider it more believable to say he wasn't there entirely around the time of the events than to say he was there around the time of the evens but wasn't EN's driver.

Considering he might face the death penalty, one would think he should go with what the truth actually is (if he was not a driver).

 

[SStarr33]

Where is it?

Mine is to the right of the thread page numbers.

 

[sonjay]

What caused their story to fall apart IMO was the first shooting. Probably people who lived along that street called 911 after half a dozen rounds went off near them, so the police new two separate instances happened almost instantly from one another within very close proximity. If there hadn't actually been a shooting but instead chasing/brandishing with no physical evidence, it would have lasted a lot longer.

I think, yes and no. With the police, that would have created problems with their original story right out of the gate. Police had to know almost immediately that they were lying.

But the general public (including we here at WS) began questioning their story long before we ever knew there was a first shooting scene. Long before we heard the story that TM had taken KM home and picked up an armed BM. Long before we knew the Meyerses knew EN. Their story didn't ring true from the beginning.

It's interesting to go back and read the initial posts on the very first thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...in-Las-Vegas-*Arrest*&p=11491424#post11491424

By post #7, the evening of Feb. 15th, people were starting to question the story.

Out in media-land, in comments on all the news articles, people were questioning the story from day 1. It just never sounded true.

 

[SStarr33]

Wait, if the sidebar is still there, it is to the right of the true crime radio graphic/link

 

[SpanishInquisition]

How do you know they are not looking for them?

I think he's technically officially still wanted, but LE is making no real effort like broadcasting they're still after this alleged active threat and saying that there's still a third suspect wanted in the Meyers as they have ample opportunities with this case to get that message out and published widely in the media if they so desired it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Not sure if you guys figured this out yet, but there is an arrow button on the top right that makes the page go back to full size.

What we experienced was a real glitch due to changes being made to the website setup. Dave the WS IT guy fixed it for us last night. I no longer have any sidebar without having to do anything special.

 

[sonjay]

How do you know they are not looking for them?

Well, for one thing, police have said they believe there was only one person in the road rage car. So they're not looking for the two black dudes.

And they've said they're not looking for the spiky-haired dude in the sketch, who they said is believed to be the driver. The only explanation they would give was that "it will all become clear when they release their comprehensive report." Which, to my knowledge, has never been released.

This was all in the press conference with Tomaino a few weeks ago.

So..... They're not looking for the driver, and they don't believe there were any passengers. Ergo, they're not looking for them.

If you believe there was road rage, you have to wonder why the police wouldn't be looking for the road rager.