GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #3

[bessie]

What's left out of that telephone string is 2-3 day period when a mother and wife lay dying. A thing like that can sometimes get in the way of progress.

 

[katydid23]

Don't ask me which video it's in right now. I think it was the ABC report I linked earlier. But didn't Bob Meyer say that he gave EN's name to LE?

ETA:
In this video the reporter reads a statement from Robert Meyers which says, "I gave Metro his name." He then goes on to say the media couldn't wait and got the story screwed up, in so many words.

“There were things that couldn't be said and things that had to be said certain ways to get what we had done today,” Robert Meyers said

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11532591

True, that is what Bob said. HOWEVER, on the same day, LE did a presser and said they just heard the name of EN from the family that very day of the arrest. [ I am not sure where the link is, anyone know which day that was?]

 

[kimi_SFC]

Don't ask me which video it's in right now. I think it was the ABC report I linked earlier. But didn't Bob Meyer say that he gave EN's name to LE?

ETA:
In this video the reporter reads a statement from Robert Meyers which says, "I gave Metro his name." He then goes on to say the media couldn't wait and got the story screwed up, in so many words.

“There were things that couldn't be said and things that had to be said certain ways to get what we had done today,” Robert Meyers said

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11532591

I ran a search for "presser" in thread #2. Could this be the video you're looking for?


OP via Gypsy Road:

This is all I could find.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/las-vegas-road-rage-killing/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...as-vegas-road-rage-death-tammy-meyers-n309111

It sounds to me as if he did know who the suspect was. He clearly says he couldn't tell us that before - and neighbors say he had been knocking on Eric's door for days. Then later, police say they did not know the families knew each other.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11517380
-----
:dunno: if this is in any way helpful, but I hope it will be.

:



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

I ran a search for "presser" in thread #2. Could this be the video you're looking for?


OP via Gypsy Road:

This is all I could find.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/las-vegas-road-rage-killing/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...as-vegas-road-rage-death-tammy-meyers-n309111

It sounds to me as if he did know who the suspect was. He clearly says he couldn't tell us that before - and neighbors say he had been knocking on Eric's door for days. Then later, police say they did not know the families knew each other.

In any normal case, there would not be this kind of confusion about whether the victim and the victim's family members who were present during the crime knew who the shooter was.

In any normal case, the family of the victim would not have been so secretive about what they knew and when they knew it.

In any normal case, the victim's husband would not offer the victim's cherished restored car as a reward, only to reveal later that he knew all along not only who the shooter was but exactly where he lived.

There's a reason this case is so confusing, and that reason can be laid at the feet of the Meyers family, primarily Bob, but also BM and KM. They have had a lot of difficulty in attempting to tell the story correctly.

In trying to figure out what actually happened, our biggest challenge is trying to decide which of the many conflicting details and versions of the story one can believe, or whether one can believe any of the versions put out by the Meyers family.

 

[EllenWickenburg]

Yes it is. And there have been 3 threads of posts that have claimed it's BM wearing that tee-shirt, when, in fact, it was his brother. All this time, I believed it was BM, until this evening when I watched the video and found out otherwise.

I'm happy we're weeding out the dross from the facts of the case. It makes it easier to discuss the case.

If you go to BM's FB there is a "selfie" of him wearing the shirt.

 

[sonjay]

Excellent post, not only did they throw her under the bus, they were driving the bus. My point is to see TM shot right in front of her home and not tell LE the name of the person has to be one of the biggest disrespectful displays I've seen.

I can't imagine when the paramedics arrived and asked what happen not shouting EN shot her or when at the hospital seeing her on life support and not shouting EN shot her. Very disturbing. No TM did not deserve to die. imo as the mother in that house what TM deserved was for her family to tell the truth.
Jmo

ciao

This is a very respectful perspective expressed here.

It's very very hard for me to understand how the Meyerses could have known who the shooter was, and yet refrained from giving that information to police until the day the shooter was arrested on the 19th, a full week after the shooting happened.

Even if you believe she behaved like a vigilante, TM deserved better than that. She did not deserve to die, and she did not deserve her family concealing the identity of her killer. She didn't deserve to be thrown under the bus, either, by her family.

 

[sonjay]

Okay, thanks for clarification of the friends interview being the 19th.

One of them could have talked to police prior to the 19th, which motivated the police to bring him in for questioning, and they didn't bring the friends in for their full interviews until after they verified they had something solid.

Do they do full interviews and write up formal statements for everyone who calls or talks to them? I'm guessing they only do that with the witnesses they determine are important enough to use as witnesses.

I don't know. It could even have been one of EN's friend calling in an anonymous tip that the police should look at EN. Then the police go pick up EN on the juvie warrant, go back to the Meyerses with questions about EN. At that point, the Meyerses realize it's going to come out that BM was in the car, so they "reveal" the huge revelation that TM had gone home in the middle of the incident to drop off KM & pick up BM with his gun.

So yeah, I think your theory works despite the date of the police interview of the friends. I think both of our theories about that work just fine. Yours might even work better, because it explains how the police just "happened" to interview EN while he just "happened" to be in custody on the juvie warrant, and why that just "happened" to occur on the same day of the huge revelation about TM's vigilante tendencies. I tend not to believe in coincidences, and I don't think any of that was a coincidence.

 

[Snoods]

A point of interest regarding the phrase "grand juries will indict a ham sandwich" I've seen brought up here as defense attorney spin. It was actually coined by former Republican New York Supreme Court judge and chief judge for the New York Court of Appeals Sol Wachtler (the highest court in the state of New York).

Judge Wachtler wanted to abolish grand juries because of the influence district attorneys have over the grand juries. He also wanted to make prosecutors more accountable for their actions.

Wachtler, who became the state’s top judge earlier this month, said district attorneys now have so much influence on grand juries that “by and large” they could get them to “indict a ham sandwich.”

“And what really bothers me is that it’s used, more often than not, as a shield for the district attorney. Most of the time when you want to get a prosecution and you want to indict, you use the grand jury and you can get the damndest kind of indictments.”

And Wachtler said prosecutors can ward off complaints by saying: “Hey, you know that’s the grand jury; it’s not me!

So, while it may be oft repeated by defense attorneys, it was originally coined by this judge, not defense attorneys trying to spin their case.

https://www.nycourts.gov/history/legal-history-new-york/luminaries-court-appeals/wachtler-sol.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chief-judge-wanted-abolish-grand-juries-article-1.2025208

 

[sonjay]

Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting about the reward.

Why would they offer that car as a reward, when they knew who the shooter was all along?????

That's just ..... weird. Irrational. Nonsensical. It doesn't make sense in any known universe.

JMO, BBM, Yup.
I think they thought the "gesture" would make them appear genuine, generous, and sincere in wanting to find that stranger evil road rager.

It would also give support to the public's perception that they did not know who the road rager was. It seems to me that they desperately wanted to keep that a secret, and they did in fact keep it secret until that was no longer possible.

But why?

 

[oh_gal]

What exactly was the kid ashamed of, I wonder? If it was the mom who told the kid to get his gun and go with her, and the kid wanted to call 911 but she insisted she was going with or without him, what did he have to ashamed of?

If the kid was out with his sister hunting for EN, and brought death home to their cul de sac, where innocent mom got caught in the crossfire, the kid would have something to be ashamed of. But if the mom played vigilante on her own initiative, the kid had nothing to be ashamed of.

So..... no, sorry, that explanation doesn't work for me. YMMV.

I haven't been able to follow this thread as closely as I would like to, so correct me if I am wrong, but Dad was gone at the time, right? Maybe the son felt like his dad would have expected him to be the "man of the house" while he was away, and protect his mom, and then his mom ends up shot, and later dies. That could make you feel guilty. But, as I said above, I haven't been following along very closely, and maybe the rest of you have found, through facts, that my theory can't be right.

JMO, and all that jazz.

 

[sonjay]

Now we know why he asked for the GSR test! He's setting the stage to use the absence of a GSR test to cast doubt.

And they would be remiss if they failed to do this, IMO.

The story, as currently being told by the Meyerses, is that TM behaved much like a vigilante that night. She escaped safely from the road rager, made it home safely, dropped off her daughter, and told her son to get his gun and go with her to go hunt down EN. That's vigilante behavior any way you slice it. (Note that I don't believe this happened; this is the story the Meyerses are telling.)

If TM was such a vigilante, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to learn that she had her own gun with her that night, or that she was the one who fired BM's gun.

The Meyerses themselves have created a situation in which this kind of speculation can be plausibly offered.

 

[sonjay]

I haven't been able to follow this thread as closely as I would like to, so correct me if I am wrong, but Dad was gone at the time, right? Maybe the son felt like his dad would have expected him to be the "man of the house" while he was away, and protect his mom, and then his mom ends up shot, and later dies. That could make you feel guilty. But, as I said above, I haven't been following along very closely, and maybe the rest of you have found, through facts, that my theory can't be right.

JMO, and all that jazz.

I don't know about most people, but if I felt guilty for not doing enough to protect my mother, I would most certainly make every effort afterward to tell the police absolutely everything I knew, including the identity of the shooter and the fact that there was another, prior shooting scene a few blocks away. My sense of guilt would compel me to do everything in my power to make sure my mother's killer was brought to justice. My sense of guilt would not allow me nor compel me to keep secret the identity of the shooter and other important details of the shooting. JMO.

 

[SStarr33]

I haven't been able to follow this thread as closely as I would like to, so correct me if I am wrong, but Dad was gone at the time, right? Maybe the son felt like his dad would have expected him to be the "man of the house" while he was away, and protect his mom, and then his mom ends up shot, and later dies. That could make you feel guilty. But, as I said above, I haven't been following along very closely, and maybe the rest of you have found, through facts, that my theory can't be right.

JMO, and all that jazz.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Gin]

I haven't been able to follow this thread as closely as I would like to, so correct me if I am wrong, but Dad was gone at the time, right? Maybe the son felt like his dad would have expected him to be the "man of the house" while he was away, and protect his mom, and then his mom ends up shot, and later dies. That could make you feel guilty. But, as I said above, I haven't been following along very closely, and maybe the rest of you have found, through facts, that my theory can't be right.

JMO, and all that jazz.

Well, I'm sure in retrospect there is plenty of regret. I see a lot of indicators that the M family isn't particularly proactive, or risk averse. When you mix anger? entitlement? cars, guns, and people the result can be regretful. There was ample opportunity to just drive, not chase, go home, and call 911. It's very sad that a mom is deceased.

 

[Snoods]

Grand juries hand down hundreds if not thousands of indictments throughout our country each and every day.

And the defense attorneys always complain when it happens just like this one has done and gives these same silly reasons such as 'they don't have the evidence.'

The real truth why defense attorneys hate GJs is because they aren't privy to any of the evidence the state has against their client at the time. It keeps them in the dark just like ENs attorney. It makes the attorney continue to guess as he has done because he is out of the loop and will only be handed over the discovery once the Judge tells the DA to start turning over all of the discovery. We are not there yet so he will continue to be in the dark and will have to go on rumors instead of facts in discovery.

So the DA knows ENs attorney will keep guessing about the evidence or lack off that he really knows nothing about from a factual standpoint. Many DAs decide to go with this strategy. That way the defense cant cry and complain that the evidence presented in an open PH has now tainted the clients rights to get a fair trial and has tainted the potential jury pool.

Joseph Duncan, the serial murderer, and pedophile was also indicted by a GJ instead of a Judge in a PH. His indictment was handed down by a GJ like so many others and just like so many others who have been indicted by a GJ it was packed with evidence as we saw when it came to trial.

GJs hand down indictments every day and most all of them end in the defendant being convicted. So saying a GJ can indict a ham sandwich (as if to imply there is no evidence supporting it) is not only humorous but false and nothing but defense lawyer spin. If that was even remotely true then the cases presented to a GJ would not standup at trial and prove the defendant guilty BARD.

Most GJ indictments end in convictions so the 'ham' was the defendant the GJ indicted that was proven to be guilty.

While that is certainly true many of them don't try to sway the publics opinion by constantly being in the news. Many defense attorneys truly believe in trying the case in a court of law rather in the public. On some cases we never hear from the DT publically before a trial is held and only hear them speak when they are in a hearing or the trial. So I don't judge all defense attorneys by this guy who seems to be a showboater to me.

He doesn't fool me for one minute. He knows right this minute the DA has probable cause already but he wants the public (his potential jury pool) to mistakenly believe that a GJ would indict a ham sandwich even if there isn't probable cause. BS Which is a pure tee falsehood and not backed up by GJ indictments that have led to countless convictions or the defendant pleading guilty sometime after the indictment was handed down.

I don't like this lawyer who twists the facts and the court procedures.

He already knows right this minute he has no right to any of the evidence (discovery) at this juncture yet he spins it like a top because he truly thinks all of the public listening to him is too stupid to know how the justice system actually works.

I like defense lawyers who are straight shooters and stick to the facts. He knows the DA cant comment in public about what evidence he has so this guy runs with it putting out unsubstantiated theories and un-vetted speculation that have not been proven. He is also asking for things he knows he isn't even entitled to have at this juncture of the process.

<modsnip>

IMO

BBM Has EN's attorney actually made the "ham sandwich" argument? Your posts were actually the reason of my post above regarding the ham sandwich quote, but now I can't find that this attorney actually said that quote. Did he say it in a video and that's why I can't find it in any of his written statements?

 

[Gin]

I don't know about most people, but if I felt guilty for not doing enough to protect my mother, I would most certainly make every effort afterward to tell the police absolutely everything I knew, including the identity of the shooter and the fact that there was another, prior shooting scene a few blocks away. My sense of guilt would compel me to do everything in my power to make sure my mother's killer was brought to justice. My sense of guilt would not allow me nor compel me to keep secret the identity of the shooter and other important details of the shooting. JMO.

JMO I totally agree. And frankly if there were personal issues with the deceased, that could have been addressed in a sympathetic way. People are human. Why didn't they feel compelled to say to LE: This is the situation, we are telling you everything. Nothing will bring our mom back, but we loved her. We want to do the right thing, now.
Instead they consciously opt for a bizarre strategy of multiple stories...here's how it went down version 1, here's how it went down version 2 and so on down the line. It almost seems that they don't get that they aren't in charge. They don't get to invent and reinvent their truth.
Whatever the back story is, it must be huge.

 

[Snoods]

Ha! Ha! I wonder if the reporter works for the news agency I called last night with this tip?

Finally someone with access to the proper records can investigate and verify this info.

Are y'all talking about the home invasion or the aka? Or maybe neither, or maybe both? :scared:

And great job on calling in the tip that they are looking into if that's the case, Miss Muffet!

 

[sonjay]

Both are expensive vehicles if they are later models. Who in ENs circle would be able to afford a luxury car?

If we believe the rumors that EN is a drug dealer -- not proven, but plausible, IMO -- then others in his circle are also likely to be drug dealers. Drug dealers can usually afford expensive vehicles.

 

[Gin]

If we believe the rumors that EN is a drug dealer -- not proven, but plausible, IMO -- then others in his circle are also likely to be drug dealers. Drug dealers can usually afford expensive vehicles.

Especially if they live at home and don't have to pay rent, living expenses.

 

[Hiandmighty]

BBM Has EN's attorney actually made the "ham sandwich" argument? Your posts were actually the reason of my post above regarding the ham sandwich quote, but now I can't find that this attorney actually said that quote. Did he say it in a video and that's why I can't find it in any of his written statements?

I believe, correct me if I am wrong, that jjenny is actually the one who said ham sandwich.