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

[Miss Muffet]

Since both BM and KM will be available in court, there is no need for someone to come in with some sort of hearsay from them.

There is no need for the prosecutor to have hearsay witnesses for the Meyerses, but there's definitely a usefulness for the defense to have them. It seems you keep forgetting that this is a two way street. It's not just the prosecution's ballgame when they end up at trial.

 

[SStarr33]

haha! Press conference?? I'm convinced he is explosive and is just being predictable and consistent. No part of him understands all the versions of the stories are red flags. We all believe everything he says....

If what RM is saying is true, BM had to have the gun on him the entire time. So EN has a great self defense case.

Where is the part about the El Camino and medical bills? If this goes to trial i sure hope they stream it live.

OH!! Another thing, why does he need council? that didn't make sense to me!

Victims often get attorneys. Let me know if you want examples.

 

[SStarr33]

When did he sell the El Camino for medical bills?

No response--interesting. More victim bashing without evidence?

FYI, the El Camino that was sold was a 69 and the one they were offering as a reward was a 65.

 

[SStarr33]

That's hilarious!

Victim bashing is hilarious?

 

[sonjay]

No response--interesting. More victim bashing without evidence?

FYI, the El Camino that was sold was a 69 and the one they were offering as a reward was a 65.

I answered the question about that in response to an earlier poster's question, upthread somewhere. Didn't see a need to answer it again half an hour after answering another person. Sorry you missed it. It's already in the thread.

 

[sonjay]

That is precisely when you do as that is the very purpose of impeachment witnesses. Impeachment evidence will be begging to be introduced precisely because of what is testified to and that is where you introduce all RM's statements showing that whatever BM/KM are impeached by prior inconsistent statements. Also BM/KM would themselves be hearsay witnesses to what TM said, like her alleged refusal to have 911 called and for BM to get a gun and go in the car instead, which that in particular would be begging for impeachment and has been an ongoing issue of inconsistent statements where now it was an ambush unrelated to a car accident, which contracts the declaration.

For the record, I hope the defense is successful in getting RM to testify about what BM & KM told him about that night. If I were a Claus, I would argue exactly what you're arguing here.

Unfortunately, we don't have a say in that. The decision on that will be up to the judge. I don't think it'll be allowed, but I hope it is.

Defense will definitely be able to use BM's & KM's testimony to the grand jury, and most likely their statements that were cited in the arrest affidavit. There will be plenty to impeach them on regardless of whether RM testifies about what they told him.

 

[SeeAlice]

Hello guys! I'm a lurker on this case. You have a great group of brains here, so I can't add anything brainy. I have to take Advil for my jaw locking in the OMG position while catching up here. Mr. M. MUST be dabbling with substances, no? Who just spews crap like that, with no filter and jeopardizes the case against his own wife's killer. Or maybe he's mentally and emotionally stunted. I never followed a thread where most of my feelings run towards the shooter, as opposed to the victim and family. Why? Because "sumthin ain't right here".

Oh, heavens, if I waited until I had something brainy to add to a conversation, I would still be on my first post.

I don't do emoticons well (yet?) but

welcome to the insane asylum for people baffled and befuddled by this case.

 

[SeeAlice]

Whoa, 2 bullets hit TM in the head? She already lost an eye & her best prospect is to be a vegetable the rest of her life?

And 3 suspects in a silver compact car: 2 black males & 1 white.

You gotta watch this. Seriously. Loads of info from version 1.0. (At least I think it was Bob's 1st on-air video interview.)

http://youtu.be/wj16j-prsws

WTH? Video has been deleted?!

 

[Hiandmighty]

"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware"
~ Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth" by Stephen Stills

That's what came to my mind when I read your post, but I didn't want to do that song's meaning an injustice by posting its entirety via YouTube here.

So, let's settle for Dazed and Confused instead!

[video=youtube;5EieHafkHbU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EieHafkHbU[/video]

GOOOOOOOOOD song!!

 

[PaperDoll]

So when they announced the trial date will be in May, is this the real trial or something else? That is awfully quick for a trial. I have a feeling it's going to be at a much later date.

 

[PaperDoll]

Another link:

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/28402966/teen-accused-in-shooting-death-faces-arraignment

 

[Miss Muffet]

So when they announced the trial date will be in May, is this the real trial or something else? That is awfully quick for a trial. I have a feeling it's going to be at a much later date.

I'll bet it gets rescheduled. That date could change if either side asks the judge for a postponement and its granted. I think that's how murder trials end up being pushed significantly later---one side says they need more time to prepare, etc.

I wonder if it's to the defense's advantage that Audi dude is missing? Is so, maybe an earlier trial would be best. Both sides say this is a difficult and challenging case, or something like that, so either side could ask for a continuance in the coming days or weeks, IMO.

 

[PaperDoll]

This is one trial I would love to be a juror on :blushing: Then again if I were selected I would have to say that I know too much about this case, or do I? lol

 

[Miss Muffet]

I don't believe it's even possible for RM to successfully sue the DA or LE on behalf of TM's estate for damage to her reputation. Slander and libel don't apply to dead people, right? I'm dumbfounded.

 

[Miss Muffet]

This is one trial I would love to be a juror on :blushing: Then again if I were selected I would have to say that I know too much about this case, or do I? lol

I think either side would be fine with you being on the jury. You've been the least easily swayed poster in this thread from the start. You don't let the craziness on one side prevent you from seeing the facts. I think you'd be a fair juror.

You don't have to say you know too much. They'll ask potential jurors if they know about the case. Those who say yes will be asked if they have an opinion. The prosecution and defense will make their decision to have you or not based on the answer you give. Even if you say you believe EN shot TM, or something else that definitive, you could get on if either side ran out of times they're allowed to refuse a juror.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Even if you have an opinion, they ask if you can set it aside and hear it all objectively and be open to having a new opinion.

I have seen attys push that issue far far when potential jurors try and say they have an opinion.

They want people who can be fair and objective.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Has LE recovered the murder weapon?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I don't believe it's even possible for RM to successfully sue the DA or LE on behalf of TM's estate for damage to her reputation. Slander and libel don't apply to dead people, right? I'm dumbfounded.

It is true generally, but not in Nevada specifically. Nevada actually makes it a crime to blacken the memory of the dead:
http://antidefamationlegacylawadvoc...statues-regarding-defamation-of-the-deceased/
However, even though that law is on the books, it's considered unconstitutional and for that reason isn't enforced.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I've gone back and read that FB post of his 3 times. Just scratching my head.
Driving lessons. Check.
Minor accident?
TM goes home and gets BM to go with her to "go back to the Sean of the minor car accident." No mention of BM getting his gun. No reason offered for why they would go back to the Sean (sic) of a minor car accident.
Then, on their way home from visiting the Sean, they weren't in a car chase. They didn't "find" the silver car. No, they were "ambushed" -- by two suspects who shot at them 17 times.
They got away & went home. The ambushers followed them and shot TM as she was trying to get into the house.
After BM saw his mother shot in the head, he returned fire.

This seems like a combination of some of the very earliest stories combined with some new elements. It sounds like they're now saying it was an ambush rather than them chasing for the obvious problems that come with going on a hunt. Not that I believe it, but it would be good getting actual statements from BM/KM/K as to what they actually testified to as whether it is coming from RM or DA/LE, it's all second-hand.

This is completely at odds with everything BM said in the arrest affidavit.
Also at odds with what KM said in the arrest affidavit -- other than the driving lessons.

We don't actually know what all BM and KM said as what was filed in court for the declaration was selected bits and pieces of what they actually said. Almost since the beginning the Meyers insisted that something happened around Buffalo/Alta, but it's been LE/DA who has rejected that rather than necessarily the Meyers. I wouldn't past LE/DA to put words in people's mouths (especially those like the Meyers who aren't well-spoken) as I believe it's technically been hearsay from the LE/DA as to what the Meyers told them rather than direct quotes from the Meyers. I don't think we have direct quotes from BM about what happened when TM returned, but instead we have LE/DA has spun what he said to them. It's not impossible that LE/DA are twisting what the Meyers told them into the preferred narrative that they want.

 

[Miss Muffet]

We don't actually know what all BM and KM said as what was filed in court for the declaration was selected bits and pieces of what they actually said. Almost since the beginning the Meyers insisted that something happened around Buffalo/Alta, but it's been LE/DA who has rejected that rather than necessarily the Meyers. I wouldn't past LE/DA to put words in people's mouths (especially those like the Meyers who aren't well-spoken) as I believe it's technically been hearsay from the LE/DA as to what the Meyers told them rather than direct quotes from the Meyers. I don't think we have direct quotes from BM about what happened when TM returned, but instead we have LE/DA has spun what he said to them. It's not impossible that LE/DA are twisting what the Meyers told them into the preferred narrative that they want.

It would be downright unlikely and stupid for a DA to take this to trial based on a warrant filled with a different version of events than the DA's very own witnesses believe. There's also no benefit for LE to spin the tale to put the Meyerses in a bad light since LE's goal was to arrest EN and eventually convict him.

The DA needs his witnesses to be on the same page, telling the same story, not in conflict with LE and the DA over the details of what happened. That's the exact position the DA's will be in now that it seems RM is demanding they set the record straight, but I don't think that was LE's or the DA's goal. I think the Meyerses are the ones who put words in their mouths. It seems they don't think before they speak, IMO.

The only other possibility in my mind is the DA doesn't want to publicly set the record straight because that gives the defense a clue as to how they'll approach the case. But you'd think that the DA would explain that to RM and RM wouldn't be demanding the DA to set the record straight, as it appears he's doing. Could it be he's more interested in a lawsuit than the prosecution having the strongest case possible to convict TM's killer? Or is he just in so much grief he can't think clearly? My mind is just boggled!