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

[jjenny]

That applies to all of us---including you.

Which is I why I said "I presume" instead of "I know"

 

[jennapuppy]

Presumably she didn't realize he had a gun.

But hadn't he (or someone) gotten out of the silver car and threatened to hurt or kill her and her daughter? Isn't that the whole reason that TM told BM to get his gun and go looking for them in the first place? If someone has just threatened to kill you, wouldn't it be prudent to assume that they're armed with a weapon?

 

[Gin]

How was he allowed to? He wasn't in custody. LE couldn't really prevent him from getting high unless they went in and shot him. Which was my point.

I know LE SPECIFICALLY said they ALLOWED him to get high. Make of it what you will. And I think you really don't understand negotiation teams. Gunfire is not considered a win. They always work to defuse, calm, find common ground to resolve.

 

[chlban]

How did LE allow him to get high? He wanted to get high and made it a condition of his surrendering.
What exactly was LE supposed to do? Maybe they should have send the SWAT team right in to prevent him from being high. And if they shot him in the process, it would be worth it to prevent him from getting high, clearly.
This guy gets high because he wants to, and then his lawyer blames LE for allowing him to get high.
Why doesn't his lawyer tells us how LE was supposed to prevent it.

Actually the lawyer did not blame LE for allowing him to get high. In fact. he complemented them for doing what they had to and avoiding any violence. The only objection he had was in saying that they shouldn't have questioned him until he sobered up

 

[Hiandmighty]

I'm betting EN was also really really high when LE interrogated him. Like not one inhale high. It will be interesting to see what the judge does.

 

[Miss Muffet]

How did LE allow him to get high? He wanted to get high and made it a condition of his surrendering.
What exactly was LE supposed to do? Maybe they should have send the SWAT team right in to prevent him from being high. And if they shot him in the process, it would be worth it to prevent him from getting high, clearly.
This guy gets high because he wants to, and then his lawyer blames LE for allowing him to get high.
Why doesn't his lawyer tells us how LE was supposed to prevent it.

EN's lawyer isn't saying police should have prevented EM from getting high. He's saying LE should have allowed enough time for him to get "un-high" (his exact word IIRC) once he was in custody before interrogating him. They can't say they didn't know he was under the influence. They knowingly interrogated him knowing he was. There was no urgent reason to interrogate him when they did.

 

[sonjay]

That makes perfect sense especially if Bob didn't know she was buying pills, or even if he knew she bought pills but it was a constant conflict between them due to the financial strain it put on the family budget. I'm betting he knew. You can't live with an addict and not know, especially if they're using your money. I can see that being a big issue in the marriage and TM looking for excuses to leave the house. If she wasn't an addict, I'll bet she wouldn't have walked the dogs as often as she did. Like practicing driving, the dogs were a reason to leave the house, not a reason to be seen at the school.

But OTOH, Bob was supposedly out of town that night. With Bob not there, why use that excuse? She could have just gone to buy pills if she wanted pills.

Have we seen any verified confirmation that Bob was in fact out of town that night? Or do we only have his word for it?

 

[jjenny]

EN's lawyer isn't saying police should have prevented EM from getting high. He's saying LE should have allowed enough time for him to get "un-high" (his exact word IIRC) once he was in custody before interrogating him. They can't say they didn't know he was under the influence. They knowingly interrogated him knowing he was. There was no urgent reason to interrogate him when they did.

I wonder what he told them in this high state that his lawyer wants thrown out?

 

[sonjay]

Which is I why I said "I presume" instead of "I know"

And yet you want to require everyone else to prove every possible alternative.

The job of the defense team will be to raise reasonable doubt. We're discussing the various ways they could do that. You're presuming; we're not even presuming, we're simply discussing other possible scenarios, and to what extent the known evidence, and logic and reason, support those possible scenarios.

I'd still like to hear which Meyers story you believe, and why.

 

[sonjay]

But hadn't he (or someone) gotten out of the silver car and threatened to hurt or kill her and her daughter? Isn't that the whole reason that TM told BM to get his gun and go looking for them in the first place? If someone has just threatened to kill you, wouldn't it be prudent to assume that they're armed with a weapon?

According to the daughter, someone got out of the silver car and threatened them.

I don't believe the daughter any more than I believe the brother or the father. I'm not at all convinced that anyone got out of either of the cars at any point until they pulled into the cul de sac.

 

[jjenny]

And yet you want to require everyone else to prove every possible alternative.

The job of the defense team will be to raise reasonable doubt. We're discussing the various ways they could do that. You're presuming; we're not even presuming, we're simply discussing other possible scenarios, and to what extent the known evidence, and logic and reason, support those possible scenarios.

I'd still like to hear which Meyers story you believe, and why.

Before I decide which Meyers story I believe or don't, I would like to see what the Meyers children told police from the start and if that had changed.
As far as I can tell, the discrepancies in the stories come from the father who was not there at all.

 

[Gin]

I wonder what he told them in this high state that his lawyer wants thrown out?

Most legal observers (and defense attorneys) wouldn't particularly care about the specifics. They are concerned about the legal rights of suspects. That's what this portion of the case is about.

Sometimes (speaking generally only) folks are arrested and aren't guilty. It's big picture, not one specific case. End of story on this subject for me.

 

[sonjay]

I wonder what he told them in this high state that his lawyer wants thrown out?

Oh, that's easy. We can even agree completely. The lawyer wants all the incriminating parts thrown out.

Actually, he probably wants the entire statement or interview thrown out. I think that's usually all-or-nothing. You don't get to pick and choose which parts are admissible. But he wants it thrown out because of the incriminating parts.

 

[Miss Muffet]

But OTOH, Bob was supposedly out of town that night. With Bob not there, why use that excuse? She could have just gone to buy pills if she wanted pills.

Have we seen any verified confirmation that Bob was in fact out of town that night? Or do we only have his word for it?

Cebee's post was about how the common excuse of "practice driving at school" would have made it easy for the children to quickly come up with that explanation before the police arrived.

 

[SStarr33]

Re: the weirdo defense attorney complaining about LE allowing EN to get high.

Do we even know what EN said to the police after he was arrested?

 

[Gin]

Re: the weirdo defense attorney complaining about LE allowing EN to get high.

Do we even know what EN said to the police after he was arrested?

JMO-See post #137 this thread. And no, we don't know. In addition, the defense attorney didn't "complain about LE allowing EN to get high." He pointed out his client was mirandized and questioned by LE while high.

 

[Hiandmighty]

I wonder what he told them in this high state that his lawyer wants thrown out?

As a matter of rights and principle, I'm sure the whole thing.

Im sure defense attys don't allow just a little bit of rights trampling to happen while allowing others to stand....

 

[trackhit]

But this poor little one couldn't function, apparently, after voluntarily getting high. I am guessing getting high is his regular state, he should have been functioning just fine.

it doesnt sound like he ever functions fine!

 

[Hiandmighty]

It sounds like the defense atty has an opening to ask a judge to throw out the whole interrogation. The prosecutor, I'm sure, will say EN was coherent. As we researched a thread or two ago, the judge looks at it from a case by case basis to decide if the defendant was incoherent and not lucid or not. The judge gets the final decision.

If it isn't thrown out, EN's atty will no doubt try and get the jury to reduce the weight it gives the interrogation based on EN's known high.

So there. That's how its going to happen.

 

[Hiandmighty]

it doesnt sound like he ever functions fine!

I think addicts, by definition, are people who never function fine.