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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
:fence:


can't hear to wait for the forensic evidence of the fatal bullet -- just how can we be sure which bullet was the fatal one!

MOO

She was shot once in the head. A .45 caliber bullet with human blood was found on the scene. Nobody else was shot.
What is that we are supposed to be figuring out here?
 
She was shot once in the head. A .45 caliber bullet with human blood was found on the scene. Nobody else was shot.
What is that we are supposed to be figuring out here?

in the GJ pdf it was said the wound had entrance and exit ..... there was also talk (MSM) that she may have been shot more than once.....it will be interesting to hear the forensics....MOO
 
I think your agreeing with my post, right? LOL.

It only takes one juror who doesn't understand the law as explained to him/her to cause a hung jury.

The defense will try and get at least one to be confused. That's their job. The state will try to counter that. We'll have to wait and see what happens in this case.

JMO.

It takes only one juror who believes that EN acted in self defense to cause a hung jury.
 
Maybe EN was just doing the exact same thing TM liked to do -- follow someone home who had been threatening him, to talk to the attacker and ask him to apologize. TM probably taught him that technique in their mentoring sessions at the park.

When TM did it before, the guy apologized.

Unfortunately, when EN tried to emulate his mentor and follow his attacker home as TM had taught him, the guy opened fire as soon as the Audi turned into the cul de sac. EN had no choice but to fire back.
 
EN was on his way home after he scared away his attackers at the first shooting scene. He was more than willing to let the matter drop.

But as the car he was riding in turned onto Cherry River, he saw the green car cruise to within a couple houses of his own house, and then turn down Carmel Peak when they saw the Audi. He feared they were coming after his family. He wanted to keep it away from his family — away from his mom and baby sister. So the Audi went on past EN's house; they were looking for the green car to try to keep it away from EN's house.

They saw the green car turn into Mt. Shasta, and they followed it, still attempting to keep the gunfire away from EN's house. BM opened fire, and EN returned fire.
 
EN didn't go looking for trouble. He keeps it away from his family. That was his goal that day, to keep it away from his family. He's going to protect his mother and his baby sister. He did it to protect his family.

Thanks to Brandon for that nugget of wisdom.
 
EN's mother is a law abiding citizen. What reasons would she have to not call police if somebody is threatening to skin her and her 1 months old daughter?

I doubt she knew about the threats. EN was already on thin ice with mom. I don't believe he would have told her about the threats. He wouldn't want her to know how deep he was over his head. EN and the M's both wanted to handle their business without the help of law enforcement. WHY???
 
Why would the Meyers lie about all 3 of them being in the car that night? To me that wouldn't make sense..

I don't claim to know that but why did they tell all the other lies? In the first story told, they did not want to place BM in the car at ANY cost.
 
LOL, yes I agree that EN is being truthful AFTER he lied about where he was that night and had nothing to do with the killing.. But he finally broke down and told the truth. I also believe the Meyers are telling the truth, too even though they are getting some of the so called details mixed up a bit. They just witnesses their mother being shot and killed so I'm sure that whole night was a shock to them. IMO!

Sorry, but BM coming out of the house and firing his gun in the yard is a far different story than BM getting into the car at the urging of TM and chasing another car. That is far more than details being mixed up a bit. IMO.
 
I have been thinking that the entire time, it didn't sound like anything someone waving a gun in a rage would say. They'd yell, "I'll get you b*tches!" or something... angry. I dunno. I know nobody anticipated anyone would DIE that night but these stories all sound like a cover-up for something and NONE of it makes sense! I was convinced she'd come out as a customer of EN's but I don't think she knew the second car WAS EN so there was nothing really for the family to cover up! So why all the stories???

Hehehe. Yes, the "I'll come back for you and your daughter" sounds like a bad B movie script. I've always laughed over that.
 
Sorry, but BM coming out of the house and firing his gun in the yard is a far different story than BM getting into the car at the urging of TM and chasing another car. That is far more than details being mixed up a bit. IMO.
Do we really know that is an accurate original story or the media jumping to conclusions or poor reporting?
 
(modsnip)

I'm surprised that lawyers for a key witness would allow their client to go to the media and I'd be really surprised if the DA knew about BM going to the media. BM seems to be contradicting his own sworn GJ testimony where he was asked about the very things he's now talking about:
Q. I'm going to ask you a couple questions and
this is just from the perspective of your observations
of your mom that night and obviously what you knew about
your mom as a person.
What did you think that your mom was going
to do when she asked you to come along to find the
people that had threatened you and your sister earlier?
A. At that point I was not quite sure.

Q. Okay. What type of person was your mom if
something like that happened to your sister?
A. Very defensive.
Q. And she's not a shrinking violet, she's
somebody that if a confrontation took place she would
meet it head-on as opposed to not doing anything or
obviously not following your advice to call the police?
A. Most of the time when an occasion like this
happens, well, not like this but something more stubborn
or subtle, she would call the police or she would have
my father.

Q. Get involved?
A. Yes.
Q. But for some reason this evening she said
to you "come with me or I'm going alone"?
A. Yes
.

Why didn't BM testify to this after the DA asked him all those questions about his mom? When the DA was asking all those questions in court why didn't BM say his mom had just been in a similar road rage incident just a little while ago and went it alone to the house of gang member?:
“I guess there was another incident a little while before this that some guy was cussing at her and calling her bad names because she was driving too slow. She was following the law. … He was going off. He was a gang member. She followed him home. She just wanted to know why, what did I do to deserve all this? Why were you calling me all those names? Why did you say all that stuff, and why were you trying to swerve into me? And the outcome was, this guy was a lot bigger than her."
This gives the impression he makes things up to get the desired results he wants and/or that BM was not truthful in the GJ trial against his mom's alleged murderer. This is a totally unforced error as he didn't have to go to the media for an interview and it is just begging for the Claus brothers to tear into BM's credibility up in the jury trial by showing what he testified to previously compared to what he said after he testified under oath. You either have to go for PR or for a criminal conviction - not both, if you want the best results.
 
Do we really know that is an accurate original story or the media jumping to conclusions or poor reporting?

Well, we know for a fact that it's not accurate. It was a great big lie by BM and KM. It wasn't getting details mixed up; it was a deliberate, out-and-out, bald-faced lie.

But we also know that it wasn't just poor reporting by the media. It's what was released by the LV police:

http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf
 
(modsnip)

I'm surprised that lawyers for a key witness would allow their client to go to the media and I'd be really surprised if the DA knew about BM going to the media. BM seems to be contradicting his own sworn GJ testimony where he was asked about the very things he's now talking about:


Why didn't BM testify to this after the DA asked him all those questions about his mom? When the DA was asking all those questions in court why didn't BM say his mom had just been in a similar road rage incident just a little while ago and went it alone to the house of gang member?:

This gives the impression he makes things up to get the desired results he wants and/or that BM was not truthful in the GJ trial against his mom's alleged murderer. This is a totally unforced error as he didn't have to go to the media for an interview and it is just begging for the Claus brothers to tear into BM's credibility up in the jury trial by showing what he testified to previously compared to what he said after he testified under oath. You either have to go for PR or for a criminal conviction - not both, if you want the best results.

No it doesn't. You are grasping.
 
:fence:


can't hear to wait for the forensic evidence of the fatal bullet -- just how can we be sure which bullet was the fatal one!

MOO

The State would not have entered the information in the GJ proceeding if it was incorrect.
 
Why didn't BM testify to this after the DA asked him all those questions about his mom? When the DA was asking all those questions in court why didn't BM say his mom had just been in a similar road rage incident just a little while ago and went it alone to the house of gang member?

This gives the impression he makes things up to get the desired results he wants and/or that BM was not truthful in the GJ trial against his mom's alleged murderer. This is a totally unforced error as he didn't have to go to the media for an interview and it is just begging for the Claus brothers to tear into BM's credibility up in the jury trial by showing what he testified to previously compared to what he said after he testified under oath. You either have to go for PR or for a criminal conviction - not both, if you want the best results.
It's a stretch to say he lied or withheld information. He was asked how she would normally handle a situation. He said "most of the time."
 
(modsnip)
I'm surprised that lawyers for a key witness would allow their client to go to the media and I'd be really surprised if the DA knew about BM going to the media. BM seems to be contradicting his own sworn GJ testimony where he was asked about the very things he's now talking about:

Why didn't BM testify to this after the DA asked him all those questions about his mom? When the DA was asking all those questions in court why didn't BM say his mom had just been in a similar road rage incident just a little while ago and went it alone to the house of gang member?:

This gives the impression he makes things up to get the desired results he wants and/or that BM was not truthful in the GJ trial against his mom's alleged murderer. This is a totally unforced error as he didn't have to go to the media for an interview and it is just begging for the Claus brothers to tear into BM's credibility up in the jury trial by showing what he testified to previously compared to what he said after he testified under oath. You either have to go for PR or for a criminal conviction - not both, if you want the best results.

And we already have plenty of evidence that BM makes things up to get the results he wants.

He neglected to mention to police the night of the shooting that he had gotten his gun and got into the car with his mother and went hunting for EN. His story to police that night was that he had been at home and went outside to return fire at the silver car as it sped away.

After he had to admit that he had participated in the vigilantism, he then neglected to mention that there was a prior shooting scene over on Villa Monterey. His story was that they found the silver car and then went home.

We know that BM lies. We don't know how much of what he has said is untrue. But we do know for sure that he has lied about some very big, important, crucial parts of this incident.

I might believe his story about the earlier road rage incident if that other guy and his wife come forward and confirm it.
 
The State would not have entered the information in the GJ proceeding if it was incorrect.

Wow, you think that everything that witnesses say in a GJ proceeding are true?

I have two words: Mike Brown
 
“I guess there was another incident a little while before this that some guy was cussing at her and calling her bad names because she was driving too slow. She was following the law. … He was going off. He was a gang member. She followed him home. She just wanted to know why, what did I do to deserve all this? Why were you calling me all those names? Why did you say all that stuff, and why were you trying to swerve into me? And the outcome was, this guy was a lot bigger than her."

Brandon---if you want to give people a good impression of your mother, you are doing a terrible job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
3,700
Total visitors
3,838

Forum statistics

Threads
604,577
Messages
18,173,703
Members
232,682
Latest member
musicmusette
Back
Top