GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[sonjay]

http://www.jrn.com/ktnv/news/shooti...-of-Las-Vegas-mom-Tammy-Meyers-295385101.html

Slightly more info. Indicted by GJ. (But we could figure that out ourselves.)

Next District Court date set for 3/12.

Police are still looking for "the person who was reportedly with Nowsch at the time of the shooting." That's an odd way to say it if they believe Nowsch was a passenger and they're looking for the driver.

 

[sonjay]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

Meanwhile, the defense attorneys told Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen earlier in the morning that they’re looking for surveillance video from the school where 44-year-old Meyers’ family initially said she was teaching her 15-year-old daughter to parallel park the night of the shooting.

They lawyers also said Friday that they want Metro to turn over recordings from police radio from Feb. 12, the night Meyers was shot in the head, and the day that Nowsch was arrested.


If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible.

 

[sonjay]

That is true, though I personally learn towards something happening that day. One reason that it was something that happened that day was that RM way away. I can't imagine you'd escalate in such a major way without the family patriarch there...actually I'd expect that if this was pre-planned longer than that day that it would have been RM leading and with the gun.

Unless they did it that night exactly because RM was out of town. Maybe it had nothing to do with him, and they didn't want him to interfere with their plans.

It has been consistent from the very beginning that they went out after the Audi because the occupants of that car knew where they lived.

Only because of the driving lesson/road rage story. They told that story first, remember, so they were stuck with that story. Then when they knew it was going to come out that BM was in the car, they quick-quick came up with the story that BM & TM went out because the Audi people knew where they lived.

But if you don't buy the driving lesson/road rage story, then that would not be why BM & TM went out. If you believe there was some other, prior conflict, then that's why they went out.

It's a matter of which prism you're looking at this case through. You and I appear to be looking at it through different prisms, and that's okay.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS


03/06/2015
Indictment
Indictment


03/06/2015
Warrant
Indictment Warrant


03/06/2015
Grand Jury Indictment (11:45 AM) (Judicial Officer Barker, David)
Parties Present
Result: Matter Heard

03/12/2015
Initial Arraignment (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael)

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Only because of the driving lesson/road rage story. They told that story first, remember, so they were stuck with that story. Then when they knew it was going to come out that BM was in the car, they quick-quick came up with the story that BM & TM went out because the Audi people knew where they lived.
But if you don't buy the driving lesson/road rage story, then that would not be why BM & TM went out. If you believe there was some other, prior conflict, then that's why they went out.

That's true that first it was BM with a shotgun running out and the knowing where they lived came later.

 

[sonjay]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

Meanwhile, the defense attorneys told Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen earlier in the morning that they’re looking for surveillance video from the school where 44-year-old Meyers’ family initially said she was teaching her 15-year-old daughter to parallel park the night of the shooting.

If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible.
​

The defense attorneys apparently believe that surveillance video from the school won't show any driving lessons.

 

[jayme1133]

03/06/2015
Indictment
Indictment


03/06/2015
Warrant
Indictment Warrant


03/06/2015
Grand Jury Indictment (11:45 AM) (Judicial Officer Barker, David)
Parties Present
Result: Matter Heard

03/12/2015
Initial Arraignment (8:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Villani, Michael)

SO they went through with the Grand Jury? I don't like this!!

 

[spammie]

"If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible." They may see activity on the video, but I'm pretty sure it won't be a "driving lesson" :liar:

 

[jjenny]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

Meanwhile, the defense attorneys told Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen earlier in the morning that they’re looking for surveillance video from the school where 44-year-old Meyers’ family initially said she was teaching her 15-year-old daughter to parallel park the night of the shooting.

If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible.
​

The defense attorneys apparently believe that surveillance video from the school won't show any driving lessons.

No, defense attorney apparently wants to have his cake and eat it too. If video doesn't show a driving lesson, the witness isn't credible. If video does show driving lesson, his client apparently could have felt threatened by it.

"Should the video show what appears to be a driving lesson, Claus said, “that’s not necessarily inconsistent with my client feeling in danger or the Meyers being involved in activity that would make him feel in danger.”"

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

 

[jjenny]

SO they went through with the Grand Jury? I don't like this!!

I guess the DA forgot to ask how you feel about it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Here's a maneuver I expect Claus to do with the Nowsch trial in forcing the prosecution to have to stick with a Murder charge (1st or 2nd) and not offer the jury that they can find Nowsch guilty of Manslaughter instead as the defense is basically requiring a specific narrative that the prosecution has to stick to, which if that's what happens in this trial could prove to be problematic:
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/g...-jury-deliberating-in-biker-gang-murder-trial

 

[Miss Muffet]

sbm bbm

re bbm Source, link, pls?
Who? Same two friends that he talked w & visited in person the next morning, arriving 3:00 -3:30am?
i.e., friends quoted in warrant?
Or other friends?

When?
When did EN tell them --- next morning, or days, weeks, months before then?
When did friends make stmt to LE (that EN told them) --- date of friends-LE convo in warrant ?

Trying to figure out if EN told friends about threat to his Mother & baby - only after the shooting,
or before then. After shooting & before date of friends-LE convo in warrant, did EN have opp to tell friends
for the first time about the threat to mom & baby?

IOW, did EN make up/could he have made up threat after the shooting? Anyone?

ETA: Was threat to kill made specifically in retaliation for something EN had done?
If so, what - a specific drug deal gone bad? Gang gripe about turf/territory? Simply dealing drugs in neighborhood?
Or just a 'threat'? Anyone?

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/00...t_Redacted.pdf

It's in the warrant on page four in the very first paragraph of EN's female witness statement. Reading the sentence in the context of the paragraph indicates KK is saying EN talked about prior to the night of the shooting because that paragraph is establishing details on how KK knows EN.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

No, defense attorney apparently wants to have his cake and eat it too. If video doesn't show a driving lesson, the witness isn't credible. If video does show driving lesson, his client apparently could have felt threatened by it.

"Should the video show what appears to be a driving lesson, Claus said, “that’s not necessarily inconsistent with my client feeling in danger or the Meyers being involved in activity that would make him feel in danger.”"

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

Seeing how LE used Nowsch saying he felt threatened is in the criminal complaint against Nowsch, I think it is a given as even the prosecution will argue that during trial, just it is quite relevant in a trial - potentially a capital trial - whether those providing evidence against them are credible. If you were accused of a crime and your accuser was shown to be lying as part of their criminal accusation against you, you'd want that as part of your defense. In any sort of trial the credibility of witnesses for both prosecution and the defense matters, which I'd hope you'd want prosecution to challenge the credibility of any defense witness if that witness was lying in defense of Nowsch.

 

[PaperDoll]

Wow, still haven't caught the driver uh.. I would have thought they would by now.. Then again the driver had time to flee the State..

 

[Miss Muffet]

Yes. I've said before that whatever road rage type events took place, it wasn't because the Buick was driving too slowly. It was because of something else. Something personal or something related to "business". IMO.

Absolutely! Something happened! I've just referred to it as "road rage" encounter so people know which encounter I'm talking about. I always believed that Audi dude did stopped and threatened them. I never believed he did that because of a random road range encounter. I believed he did it on the way to picking up EN and he did it because he knew EN felt threatened by the buick. This is an example of something I didn't want to remove from the warrant simply because it didn't make sense, and I wanted evidence to prove it didn't happen before I felt it shouldn't be considered in the warrant.

Now that we have a past history and a motive, almost everything in the warrant makes sense. It could even be that TM and KM set out to do driving lessons. Believing that doesn't equate to believing the Audi threatened them for driving slowly or believing they didn't know the Audi driver. They could have been out there for innocent reasons and got caught in the crosshairs of the ongoing conflict between BM & Co. and Audi & Co that escalated when EN thought the buick was related to recent threats he had received to kill his mother and her baby.

That doesn't mean that BM threatened to kill EN's mother and her baby. One of BM's associates could have done that. And EN seeing the buick out circling around in a way he's never seen the buick behave when it typically goes through the neighborhood caused EN to make the assumption BM was out to get him.

And the threat the Audi dude made on the street to TM and KM caused BM to feel the need to go out with his gun with the intent to be a vigilante that night when he left the house. As RM stated, BM had opportunities in the past to be a vigilante over the threats going back and forth, but this night someone threatened his mother and sister and he wasn't going to allow anyone to get away with making verbal threats like that.

As a result of BM intending to leave the house a vigilante, and EN believing BM is associated with people who threatened his mother and her baby, EN would have been terrified for his life when he saw the buick brandishing a handgun and pursuing the Audi at high speeds in a chase.

That's why I think EN's attorney does have a good self defense strategy.

Everything in this post is my theory, opinion, etc..

 

[Miss Muffet]

Also want to add-KK says also that EN was excited and happy over "getting those kids". "They were after me and I got them." If, as I believe, 100% that the M's knew EN was in the Audi, then I also believe 100% that EN knew the Buick belonged to the M's. Adding 2 and 2 together, according to EN, he did feel the M's were after him. IMO.

I agree EN knew M's were in the buick. I'm not as sure M's knew EN was in the Audi at that very point that night, but it's highly possible they did know due to EN's association with Audi & Co. When RM says they didn't know EN had gotten that bad, it's possible he meant they didn't know until recently, not they didn't know until that night, or they didn't know until days later.

I think when the M's knew EN was in the car can be irrelevant to BM' vigilantism toward the Audi and irrelevant of EN being fearful of M's and the buick.

 

[Gin]

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/teen-indicted-slaying-tammy-meyers

Meanwhile, the defense attorneys told Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Conrad Hafen earlier in the morning that they’re looking for surveillance video from the school where 44-year-old Meyers’ family initially said she was teaching her 15-year-old daughter to parallel park the night of the shooting.

They lawyers also said Friday that they want Metro to turn over recordings from police radio from Feb. 12, the night Meyers was shot in the head, and the day that Nowsch was arrested.


If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible.

JMO, BBM--He phrases this so well. A brand new 15yo "driver", without any legal permit, is taken about 11pm-ish to learn the finer skills of parallel parking. Gosh, something about the whole scenario sounds...fake.

 

[sonjay]

Here's a maneuver I expect Claus to do with the Nowsch trial in forcing the prosecution to have to stick with a Murder charge (1st or 2nd) and not offer the jury that they can find Nowsch guilty of Manslaughter instead as the defense is basically requiring a specific narrative that the prosecution has to stick to, which if that's what happens in this trial could prove to be problematic:
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/g...-jury-deliberating-in-biker-gang-murder-trial

Wow, I thought lesser included charges were always ... uh... included. I didn't know the defense could succeed in having them removed as an option.

And the case cited was in Nevada, so it's applicable in that state.

If the defense requires the prosecution to prove a specific narrative, the prosecution is going to be soooooooo SOL. Especially if they try to prove the driving lessons and road rage, since those never happened.

This trial could get very interesting.

 

[Miss Muffet]

That is true, though I personally learn towards something happening that day.

That something that happened could be EN seeing the buick and fearing his life based on past threats made by people associated with BM.

One reason that it was something that happened that day was that RM way away. I can't imagine you'd escalate in such a major way without the family patriarch there...actually I'd expect that if this was pre-planned longer than that day that it would have been RM leading and with the gun.

Sorry. I think it's downright silly to think the "family patriarch" had any influence one way or another in this. If you believe the Audi only learned where the M's lived that night, you can't believe Audi & Co knew who was in town and who wasn't. I personally believe Audi & Co always knew where the M's lived. They weren't intending to shoot the M's until they thought the M's escalated things by what they perceived as intimidation against EN that night.

It's like the whole thing is a misunderstanding between people who have guns and don't know how to talk about their feelings. [insert sarcastic tone there] The question is who felt their lives were more in danger before the shooting started. So many things in the warrant indicate that EN is the one who feared for his life from the very start.

 

[Miss Muffet]

"If the video from Johnson Junior High School shows no driving lesson, Nowsch’s lawyer Conrad Claus said “it tends to make what they’re saying a little less credible." They may see activity on the video, but I'm pretty sure it won't be a "driving lesson" :liar:

It could have started out as a driving lesson and BM still be at fault. The two things can be exclusive of each other. It's not necessary to disbelieve one to believe the other. TM didn't have to start out the evening with ill intent for BM to leave the house with ill intent later in the evening.