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

[Miss Muffet]

It seems he's claiming the Audi they "weren't" chasing that "ambushed" them is a different car than the one involved in the minor accident. The goal appears to be to dispel the belief TM and BM left the house with intent to use the gun on the Audi and its occupants. It seems clear in the warrant to me that they were chasing the Audi, and they thought it was the car from the accident. If it ended up being a different car like he seems to be claiming, that means they chased and brandished a handgun at the wrong car. That still makes them the instigators IMO. More so since the Audi never encountered them until they were chasing and brandishing.

And come on! BM stated in his press conference that TM's goal when she left the house was to draw people away from her house to protect the family. Her taking BM and a gun with her means there was intent. He can't be claiming NOW that they feared the driver of the car with the minor accident and it wasn't the Audi occupants she feared because in the same statement he says they knew where we lived, Erich knew where we lived, etc. And I can't ignore the fact they fled directly home after being shots being fired at the first shooting scene. If her mindset when leaving the house was to draw people away from the house so they'd go somewhere else, why would her first instinct be to go directly back to the house after being shot at?

I can't think of any way to put all of RM's statements together in a manner that makes any sense.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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!

It's stupid yes, but it's happening now as the LE/DA have already gone on record to the media that they disagree with the Meyers. The alleged accident was one of the first things that was challenged by LE. The accident was said weeks ago and RM is just bringing that up again as for awhile they were quiet about it but I don't know that they ever actually acquiesced to LE saying it never happened. Stuff like this is why I thought the DA was getting ready to punt on the case by switching to a GJ as it's already been publicly announced that the Meyers version of events isn't believed by investigators, so now that they've been under-bused (in my opinion correctly), you can't uncook that credibility egg that started at least on 2/17 when LE held a press conference saying they're disputing the Meyers version of events:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...ns-family-s-version-deadly-road-rage-shooting
Which the car damage has been cited from the very beginning:
http://nypost.com/2015/02/13/mom-shot-while-teaching-daughter-to-drive-may-not-live-husband/
I don't know what the Meyers are thinking, but I don't know what the DA is thinking either.

 

[SeeAlice]

It's a totally NEW STORY that's more twisted than all the rest and doesn't even match the evidence! IMO!

Aw, man. Is he trying to drive us all insane or what?

 

[jayme1133]

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!

LOL you're trying to make sense of nonsense! No way DA has a clear theory and can proceed with a conviction. If so, I will eat my words! This has to be a nightmare for state, just like us!
Lawsuit is a joke...but this seems to be RM MO when things don't go his way. I am sure it will be dismissed just like his other lawsuits.

I agree this will not go to trial!! Will Claus plea?? I don't think so....I wouldn't!

 

[SStarr33]

It seems he's claiming the Audi they "weren't" chasing that "ambushed" them is a different car than the one involved in the minor accident. The goal appears to be to dispel the belief TM and BM left the house with intent to use the gun on the Audi and its occupants. It seems clear in the warrant to me that they were chasing the Audi, and they thought it was the car from the accident. If it ended up being a different car like he seems to be claiming, that means they chased and brandished a handgun at the wrong car. That still makes them the instigators IMO. More so since the Audi never encountered them until they were chasing and brandishing.

And come on! BM stated in his press conference that TM's goal when she left the house was to draw people away from her house to protect the family. Her taking BM and a gun with her means there was intent. He can't be claiming NOW that they feared the driver of the car with the minor accident and it wasn't the Audi occupants she feared because in the same statement he says they knew where we lived, Erich knew where we lived, etc. And I can't ignore the fact they fled directly home after being shots being fired at the first shooting scene. If her mindset when leaving the house was to draw people away from the house so they'd go somewhere else, why would her first instinct be to go directly back to the house after being shot at?

I can't think of any way to put all of RM's statements together in a manner that makes any sense.

I have empathy for Bob.

Have you ever had a spouse whose brains were splattered in your front yard? If that happened to a family member of mine, I would not be making any sense either. Not to mention we have no knowledge of his mental state or the way he behaved prior to this incident.

 

[SStarr33]

LOL you're trying to make sense of nonsense! No way DA has a clear theory and can proceed with a conviction. If so, I will eat my words! This has to be a nightmare for state, just like us!
Lawsuit is a joke...but this seems to be RM MO when things don't go his way. I am sure it will be dismissed just like his other lawsuits.

I agree this will not go to trial!! Will Claus plea?? I don't think so....I wouldn't!

Bob is filing a lawsuit? Link please.

 

[jayme1133]

It's stupid yes, but it's happening now as the LE/DA have already gone on record to the media that they disagree with the Meyers. The alleged accident was one of the first things that was challenged by LE. The accident was said weeks ago and RM is just bringing that up again as for awhile they were quiet about it but I don't know that they ever actually acquiesced to LE saying it never happened. Stuff like this is why I thought the DA was getting ready to punt on the case by switching to a GJ as it's already been publicly announced that the Meyers version of events isn't believed by investigators, so now that they've been under-bused (in my opinion correctly), you can't uncook that credibility egg that started at least on 2/17 when LE held a press conference saying they're disputing the Meyers version of events:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/la...-rage-shooting
Which the car damage has been cited from the very beginning:
http://nypost.com/2015/02/13/mom-sho...-live-husband/
I don't know what the Meyers are thinking, but I don't know what the DA is thinking either.

question for you....The rush to GJ was obvious but he still has to prove the case! Where will he even begin?? Do you think its at all possible they can get a M1 conviction?

 

[Miss Muffet]

SpanishInquisition - Darn! I just typed a super long awesome post in response, but my laptop went into airplane mode when I tried to post it and it's gone. :facepalm: Maybe I'll have the motivation to type that all out again after I'm done running errands.

 

[SeeAlice]

what does it say? Please tell me what you are talking about?

Read the comments under this article. It's in there.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/l...uilty-slaying-tammy-meyers#comment-1904377116

 

[Miss Muffet]

Bob is filing a lawsuit? Link please.

Not filing. Not yet, anyway. Maybe not ever. Simply says he got a lawyer because DA hasn't corrected statements made by LE. Draw your own conclusion. I don't think any lawyer would file that type of lawsuit.

 

[SeeAlice]

I am so interested to see what the defense can do here. This is going to be an active defense case. It will be interesting to follow a case from the "other side"....

Maybe this trial will have a real "Perry Mason moment?"

 

[Miss Muffet]

question for you....The rush to GJ was obvious but he still has to prove the case! Where will he even begin?? Do you think its at all possible they can get a M1 conviction?

It's possible that BM and KM completely understand what the DA needs them to do for a successful prosecution, and they're fully willing to cooperate. RM could be background noise and no indication whatsoever what his children will say in court.

 

[newone]

It's possible that BM and KM completely understand what the DA needs them to do for a successful prosecution, and they're fully willing to cooperate. RM could be background noise and no indication whatsoever what his children will say in court.

Aside from his distracting ''personna'', could his actions be 'construed' as witness tampering? (MOO)....he wasn't there but as a father he could be exerting pressure on his kids that they don't need at this point.....they have just lost their mom and are a bit off their game so to speak. Each of them needs a ''handler'' or a victim's advocate at this point ((MOO))

 

[SStarr33]

question for you....The rush to GJ was obvious but he still has to prove the case! Where will he even begin?? Do you think its at all possible they can get a M1 conviction?

How come this post doesn't have the link to the OP you are responding to? It is hard to follow without it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I am so interested to see what the defense can do here. This is going to be an active defense case. It will be interesting to follow a case from the "other side"....

Maybe this trial will have a real "Perry Mason moment?"

This case has serious popcorn eating potential.

 

[SStarr33]

Not filing. Not yet, anyway. Maybe not ever. Simply says he got a lawyer because DA hasn't corrected statements made by LE. Draw your own conclusion. I don't think any lawyer would file that type of lawsuit.

I didn't get that he was filing a lawsuit at all out of his post.

 

[SeeAlice]

KK said she was specifically asked/told not to speak to the press by LE but she did.

 

[PaperDoll]

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.

THANK YOU :blowkiss: However, you guys sure have great theories as to what happened. I really wish we knew more, I only have the police report to go on, all the rest is, well, not sure what to believe.. lol

 

[Miss Muffet]

How come this post doesn't have the link to the OP you are responding to? It is hard to follow without it.

What are you talking about? She's commenting on the grand jury and if the DA has a chance in hell of a conviction based on SpanshInquisitions ponderings about the LE disagreeing with the M's about an accident, and SpanishInqisition provides to links showing the disagreement on this point. One link shows M's claiming early on there was an accident. The other link shows LE stating there was no accident. She's wondering, many of us are wondering, how does the DA have a case when they can't agree on that point?

 

[SeeAlice]

"Admission of guilt" is one of the hearsay exceptions -- at least in the federal code; Nevada's rules might be different.

A&K's testimony could be considered admissible under that exception.

RM's testimony probably wouldn't be -- unless BM and/or KM actually confessed to RM that they killed their mother, which is unlikely.

However, in most criminal cases, aren't the victims or their survivors usually called to testify by the prosecution?

JMO, on top of that, Bob will almost certainly insist on being allowed to speak to the jury.