GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #5

[sonjay]

However both according EN as well as BM and nominally the CCTV footage the Audi came southbound from Cherry River rather than going northbound from Alta. EN was telling the Audi driver how to get to his own home where the fastest way to get to his home after having passed it in parallel on Alta is to go up Cimarron and then take Cherry River. There is a not inconsiderable time lapse if after passing Carmel Peak you go up Cimarron, turn on Cherry River then turn on Carmel Peak and then finally turn on Mt Shasta and longer EN is past his home and continuing on Alta before he has the driver turn around to go to his place, the longer it would have been. If EN had the driver do a U-turn just past Cimarron according to Google Maps it would take about 2 minutes to get to Mt Shasta after the Audi made the U-turn if it went to Cherry River first. It would be a lot simpler if the Audi had just gone northbound from Alta onto Carmel Peak and then right to Mt Shasta, but instead I'm seeing at least a minute (if the Audi was driving really fast) where I don't see why in that time the Meyers weren't already out of the car and inside their home with the door locked and on the phone with the police by the time the Audi would have arrived there.

Unless .... maybe the Meyerses did go cruise past EN's house before heading home. That would account for that "extra" minute. And maybe EN did, in fact, see the Buick actually go past his house.

We haven't seen the full surveillance footage -- just that 2 or 3 second snippet. I wonder what it shows during the minute or so prior to the silver car passing by?

 

[jjenny]

That is an excellent point about following someone. EN had every right to be on Mt. Shasta. And to be following anybody on that street. BIG QUESTION: WHO FIRED FIRST ON MT. SHASTA? If BM fired first, then it is self-defense for EN. In most standard jury instructions, where there is an event/statement that can plausibly lean toward defense or prosecution, the jury is required to give benefit of the doubt to the defendant. If it cannot be proven who fired first, EN may have reasonable doubt. Could very well come down to just that.

No. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Defendant must prove he acted in self-defense. Considering defendant told two of his friends he didn't think anybody shot at him, good luck with that.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Mogg:
At that point he said
the car that was following him had stopped and actually
backed up and he and the other male drove westbound on
Alta towards Cimarron. He said as he was driving
westbound with the other male, he says "No, this can't
be happening, this can't be happening." And he
describes how the car was coming, the green car the
victim was in, was coming down the street. And based on
my knowledge of the scene, the location of the victim's
residence, the location of his residence where he would
have been at approximately the time that the victim was
driving westbound on Cherry River, basically paralleling
him to try to get home, he would have seen that car
coming down from Cherry River onto Carmel Peak probably
prior to or just as it turned into the Mount Shasta
cul-de-sac. 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

This is my interpretation of what Mogg is saying:

When the buick backed up and went West on Cherry River, the Audi went West on Alta. Cimmaron was just given as a landmark to indicate the direction the car was heading West, not to indicate the car was planning to turn onto Cimmaron. The cars driving parallel on those streets. When EN's car reached Carmel Peak, Mogg is assuming he saw the buick on Carmel Peak, but I'll bet EN saw it on Cherry River at the top of Carmel Peak. The Audi continued straight on Alta, and EN told the driver to turn around because he knows a shortcut to his house. Since they would be heading East on Alta after they turn around, the shortcut would be a left onto Carmel Peak.

Mogg is assuming they went to Mt. Shasta after that. But the camera video shows the Audi shining a spotlight on Cherry River just before the shooting. I'll bet they went up Mt. Carmel and checked EN's street with the spotlight to make sure the buick wasn't there harming or intending to harm EN's family before they ended up turning back onto Carmel Peak and ended up on Mt. Shasta.

 

[PaperDoll]

I want to thank PaperDoll and Oceanblueeyes for providing well thought out, detailed, rational and reasonable posts for the EN-is-guilty side of this discussion. Although I believe EN acted in self defense, it's always a breath of fresh air to read both of your posts.

Back at ya, MM :blowkiss: I also believe EN truly thought someone was out to get him.

 

[jjenny]

Back at ya, MM :blowkiss: I also believe EN truly thought someone was out to get him.

One of side effects of drug could be paranoia.

 

[BellaVita]

As OceanBlueEyes pointed out, what is wrong with following a car? Is there a law against it? The Buick was in the school parking lot for whatever reason, EN was at the park across the street for whatever reason. EN assumed they were out to get him, when IMO if they were really out to get him, they would have gotten him while he was in the park. In fact the Buick really didn't need to be at the school if they were out to get EN, they could have pulled up along the park street, why be across the street? Yes, we know BM and TM went out looking for the road rager guy, and apparently found them parked along the street and pulled up behind them and the chase began. but BM never shot at them and EN did. The Audi could have continued driving instead of stopping and taking shots. They could have driven away from their neighborhood, maybe the Buick would have stopped following them, who knows? Again, EN was the one who fired the 1st shots and continued to the 2nd shooting and fired off more rounds. Who did BM shoot? Did anyone die from BM's gun?

BBM: Yes, BM never got off a shot at the 1st scene because he is ineffectual in the use of firearms. You say there is no law against following someone then in the same breath say the Audi should have driven away. I AGREE WITH YOU. IMO BM tried to shoot but couldn't figure it out. He choked. I believe BM did brandish his gun but couldn't figure out right then exactly how it worked. At the M's home, where the Audi followed the Buick, and as you say had every right to follow any car and be on any street, shots were fired. Who knows who fired first. That is reasonable doubt to me.

 

[PaperDoll]

HE DOES NOT GET A PASS FOR LYING! We know why EN lied. He didn't want a murder rap. We all get that. Stop deflecting and explain the huge lies the M's have told. That's all I ask for.

EN lied because he doesn't want a murder rap, yes everyone gets that. When I look at the Meyers stories or whatever, there were more than one person involved in the incident and not everyone who was involved is going to get their stories straight. I personally don't think much of what comes out of RM mouth because he wasn't there. What I'm basing my theory on is what I read in the transcripts, not what the news or talking heads are saying or what's on You Tube. From the transcripts/police reports, I don't see much lying going on. MOO!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

So, again, to me westbound is still driving on Alta towards Cimarron, Alta and Cherry River runs the same direction so if he was driving westbound on Cherry River, that means he came off of Villa Monterey, eastbound would be coming off Cimarron going towards the park/school. So, again, I hope I'm making sense.. lol

He was going westbound on Alta keeping getting further past his home until after going even further they then 'turned around' (U-turn), so they'd then be going eastbound on Alta. From there the fastest way to his house is going to Cimarron and then going eastbound on Cherry. This is BM saying the lights were coming down - not up - Carmel Peak: "I saw headlights coming down Carmel Peak." Coming down Carmel Peak means you were on Cherry River rather than Alta.

 

[SeeAlice]

On these original stories, who was telling them? Was in RM or KM/BM? I do recall, in so many words, RM did say he didn't want to say too much because "they knew where he lived" But in the police report, which I'm going by they seem to be telling the truth. If everyone is going by what RM is saying, does he really know what went on since he wasn't there to witness it? Is he hearing different versions and then relaying it to the media?

And who would be telling Bob these varying versions from? KM & BrM, IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

No. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. Defendant must prove he acted in self-defense. Considering defendant told two of his friends he didn't think anybody shot at him, good luck with that.

Obviously, he was mistaken. And I think he may have specifically been referring to the first scene. But he had already seen a gun brandished and obviously it's been established that BM did in fact have a gun. I feel the defense can probably weave a good tale. And if there is ANY DOUBT who fired first at Mt. Shasta, there is a good self-defense case.

 

[sonjay]

HE DOES NOT GET A PASS FOR LYING! We know why EN lied. He didn't want a murder rap. We all get that. Stop deflecting and explain the huge lies the M's have told. That's all I ask for.

Yes, that's a disingenuous deflection at best. The guy accused of murder is going to lie and say he didn't do it. Of course he's going to say that. It's expected.

But the family of a victim of road rage usually don't lie. They're not expected to lie. There shouldn't be any reason for them to lie.

Many of us want to know why they've lied so much. Many of us want to know the full story behind what happened that night before deciding that EN is guilty of first-degree murder.

There are others who just want to convict and lock up EN. That's fine; they don't have to care why the Meyerses are lying. I don't get why they get so angry at those of us who want to figure out why the Meyerses are lying.

Me, I want to know why the Meyerses are lying. I want to know what they wanted to cover up — why they felt it needed covering up so strongly that they've impeded the police investigation of their mother's shooting and made conviction of her killer so much more difficult.

I want to know who was threatening EN and why.

I want to know if there really were driving lessons and road rage that night.

I want to know who the spiky-haired dude was — or if he even exists.

I want to know who the Audi driver was.

And goshdarnit, I want to know which route the Audi took on its way from Alta to Mt. Shasta!

 

[SStarr33]

Obviously, he was mistaken. And I think he may have specifically been referring to the first scene. But he had already seen a gun brandished and obviously it's been established that BM did in fact have a gun. I feel the defense can probably weave a good tale. And if there is ANY DOUBT who fired first at Mt. Shasta, there is a good self-defense case.

Do you even know what the law is with regards to self defense?

 

[SStarr33]

And who would be telling Bob these varying versions from? KM & BrM, IMO.

The first information he got came from MM. The other two were at the hospital and he said he was unable to speak to them.

 

[jjenny]

No, I don't expect the guy accused of murder to lie that he wasn't even there if he is claiming self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense.

 

[PaperDoll]

Unless .... maybe the Meyerses did go cruise past EN's house before heading home. That would account for that "extra" minute. And maybe EN did, in fact, see the Buick actually go past his house.

We haven't seen the full surveillance footage -- just that 2 or 3 second snippet. I wonder what it shows during the minute or so prior to the silver car passing by?

But why would the Meyers drive past EN's house after they were shot at? They would have to pass their street in order to drive past EN's house, then turn around and head back home.

 

[Miss Muffet]

One of side effects of drug could be paranoia.

Paranoia doesn't discount his fearing someone was out to get him. I'm sure the danger felt very real to him. So, your constantly claiming he was paranoid is validating he has a self defense claim.

 

[SStarr33]

The killing of another person in self-defense is justified and not unlawful when the person who does the killing actually and reasonably believes that there is imminent danger that the assailant will either kill him or cause him great bodily injury and; that it is absolutely necessary under the circumstances for him to use in self-defense force or means that might cause the death of the other person for the purpose of avoiding death or great bodily injury to himself.

This wasn't ^^^

 

[PaperDoll]

This is my interpretation of what Mogg is saying:

When the buick backed up and went West on Cherry River, the Audi went West on Alta. Cimmaron was just given as a landmark to indicate the direction the car was heading West, not to indicate the car was planning to turn onto Cimmaron. The cars driving parallel on those streets. When EN's car reached Carmel Peak, Mogg is assuming he saw the buick on Carmel Peak, but I'll bet EN saw it on Cherry River at the top of Carmel Peak. The Audi continued straight on Alta, and EN told the driver to turn around because he knows a shortcut to his house. Since they would be heading East on Alta after they turn around, the shortcut would be a left onto Carmel Peak.

Mogg is assuming they went to Mt. Shasta after that. But the camera video shows the Audi shining a spotlight on Cherry River just before the shooting. I'll bet they went up Mt. Carmel and checked EN's street with the spotlight to make sure the buick wasn't there harming or intending to harm EN's family before they ended up turning back onto Carmel Peak and ended up on Mt. Shasta.

BMM: Yes, I agree with this. I've been saying this and then I get quoted and it starts to confuse me.. UGH! But you are right, if that video is correct, and you took a lot of time to view it, then I don't understand why EN drove down his street to get to the cul-de-sac. Also I think BM said he saw the headlights coming from the north???

 

[BellaVita]

Do you even know what the law is with regards to self defense?

Obviously, you are trying to tell me in a roundabout way that you are a legal scholar. I don't need a law degree to know that if someone fires a gun at me first that I am probably allowed to fire back. IMO.

 

[SStarr33]

Obviously, you are trying to tell me in a roundabout way that you are a legal scholar. I don't need a law degree to know that if someone fires a gun at me first that I am probably allowed to fire back. IMO.

It doesn't take a legal scholar to know that if I don't know that someone shot at me, then I don't know that I'm in imminent danger, therefore, I can't shoot at them.