GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #6

[kimi_SFC]

You're arguing shaky semantics there.

My belief that BM waved his gun first is not based on a specific statement from EN. It is based on my gut reaction from several different things - including statements from BMs FB about how he claims he would have handled a road rage situation. TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, I do not believe anyone in this story has *told the whole truth* (better?), but I do believe that the Ms were the original aggressors and I believe the aggression was not limited to simply following a vehicle. I think BM made it clear he was armed first.

This is something the attorneys will stress - should this case ever make it to trial:

Direct vs. circumstantial evidence - both of which are supposed to hold weight to the Tryer of Fact (the Jury).

I found this:

(Snip)

Direct evidence differs from circumstantial evidence because it expressly shows that something is a fact. Some examples of direct evidence are: testimony from a reliable witness, audio and videotapes, and physical evidence of the crime. With direct evidence, the jury does not have to infer whether the defendant is guilty or not and, in some criminal cases, the evidence is sufficient in proving guilt or innocence.

Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.

Most criminals are careful not to generate any direct evidence while they are committing a crime. Because of this, courts often depend on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of the case.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of the defendant around the time that the alleged crime took place. If the defendant was charged with embezzling or stealing a large amount of money, and then went out and bought a brand-new car, the purchase of the car could be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt.

Criminal prosecutors depend on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based expressly on circumstantial evidence, when trying to establish or deny liability.

It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

There are some legal experts who would even argue that circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence.

http://www.probablecause.org/circumstantialevidence.html
-----

I recall a professor giving an example in a class once (paraphrasing):


A witness, walks into a courtroom and testifies that it is raining outside. That would be direct evidence that it is raining.

But if the same witness testifies only that he saw people walk into the courthouse wearing raincoats and wet hair, that would be circumstantial evidence that it is raining.

Granted, the example I linked doesn't exactly apply, so I hope I'm making sense. :blushing:

My point is that the jury will have to consider all of the evidence - and all of the convoluted, conflicting statements certainly aren't going to make for a clear cut picture of anything.

They have a lot to decipher. :moo:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonjay]

There are some legal experts who would even argue that circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence.

<snipped for focus>

Direct evidence of the "minor collision": KM testifies to the GJ that the silver car hit the passenger side of the Buick.

Circumstantial evidence: Mogg testifies that the Buick does not appear to have been in an accident.

 

[Deleted member 50844]

The most official thing we've got is also the most recent: The GJ transcript. In it, KM says the alleged road rager allegedly hit the alleged passenger side of the alleged Buick. Mogg says it does not appear that the Buick has been hit by another car.

Right, which is why I asked. I've started to read the GJ transcript and am at the part where the daughter said there was a collision. I *thought* I'd read that there really was no collision and that made me wonder. Thanks.

 

[sonjay]

Right, which is why I asked. I've started to read the GJ transcript and am at the part where the daughter said there was a collision. I *thought* I'd read that there really was no collision and that made me wonder. Thanks.

Bottom half of pg. 110 is where Mogg addresses this.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I've not been following this case closely, and don't have time to search all these threads, so please indulge me a question that may have been addressed repeatedly already. Brandon said he shoved Tammy in the car and shut the door, then hid behind the truck. Has any explanation been offered as to why she was out of the vehicle when she was shot? And did the shot enter her head from the front or the back?

Thanks in advance.

 

[newone]

I've not been following this case closely, and don't have time to search all these threads, so please indulge me a question that may have been addressed repeatedly already. Brandon said he shoved Tammy in the car and shut the door, then hid behind the truck. Has any explanation been offered as to why she was out of the vehicle when she was shot? And did the shot enter her head from the front or the back?
Thanks in advance.

bbm: short answer no......will be interesting to hear the forensics on it.....

 

[SeeAlice]

I don't think anyone that is swayed by emotion should ever be on the jury. During the five times I was picked as a juror I was picked two times by the defense attorney on the case.

I think emotions should be set aside for the victim and the defendant. The jury should weigh the facts in evidence that comes from the witness stand only to come to their determination.

I haven't seen anyone's emotions here cloud their vision when it comes to discussing this case. I have seen some who seem to get pretty uptight about trivial things sometimes when really none of us knows the full weight of the evidence they have against EN nor DA.

IMO

Really? Every time I've been called for jury duty, the defense attorneys (and prosecution, for that matter) didn't get to choose jurors, only to challenge or strike them. Maybe it's different from state to state?

Ours works like this, pretty much, I think. The first 8 (or however many the type of trial requires) potential jurors who are not dismissed are the jurors & alternates for the trial.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...ation_network/how_courts_work/juryselect.html

 

[SeeAlice]

The original original story was, the silver car passed TM and brake-checked her. No minor accident, no verbal confrontation, no death threat, no horn honking. BM was at home sleeping, and coming out the house to return fire at the silver car after it shot TM.

Feb. 14 (2 days after the shooting), the sketch of the spiky-haired dude was released. Now it was a near-collision or minor accident. The verbal confrontation ws mentioned, but no death threat or horn honking. We're told three men were in the vehicle.

Feb. 17 (5 days after the shooting), we learned that TM brought KM home and picked up an armed BM. We're told that TM & BM went out looking for the car, followed it for a while, then went home. There was no explanation of why they went out to find and follow the silver car. After they went home, then the silver car showed up and shot TM. Also, today is the first mention of KM honking the horn. There was lot of public criticism of their decision to go out looking for the other car.

Feb. 18. We learn that they went home after they "lost track of" the other car. Then it showed up in the cul de sac and shot TM. More public criticism. Today the Meyerses announced they were going to return the donations.

Feb. 19. EN is arrested. RM admits that the family knew who he was all along. He also claims that police asked him to keep that knowledge secret, but police say they only just learned these facts that day themselves. RM tells us that TM consoled and counseled EN and gave him food and money. People notice that EN looks nothing like the sketch of the spiky-haired dude, but it's not clarified whether EN was the driver of the car.

Feb. 20. Today we learn several things: We learn there was a first shooting scene prior to the shooting in the cul de sac. We learn that the shooter was a passenger, not the driver, of the silver car. We learn that the driver made a death threat to KM & TM: "I'm gonna come back for you and your daughter." We learn that EN essentially confessed to his two friends the night of the shooting. BM claims he told his mom to stay home and call 911, but she said she was going with or without him. The friends have revealed the existence of the first shooting scene, and the Meyerses incorporate that first shooting scene into their story just as if it's been there all along. We learn for the first time that KM "took a few loops around the block" during her driving lessons, and we first hear about the weirdly indirect route that KM & TM took on their way home after the driving lessons. We first hear about the road rage pursuit and the passing in the bike lane and the skidding out to block their path. This is when RM first says that TM was "trying to draw him away from the house." There's yet more public criticism of the family.

More Feb. 20. The arrest affidavit is released. KM's account mentions the "loops" around the school and the residential-area driving. KM describes a very specific route during which the road rage happened — west to Durango, north to Westcliff, south on Cimarron. Honking happens on Durango, spin-out and threat happen on Cimarron. No mention of the silver car hitting the green car. Threat from driver: "I'm gonna come back for you and your daughter." She saw the silver car again near their house after returning to the cul de sac. BM also describes a very specific route for his trip: west to Cimarron, north to Westcliff, south on Buffalo to Ducharme, then south on Villa Monterey. He says that his mother said "it" (the road rage) happened on Cimarron near Westcliff. BM describes the encounter with the silver car as a chase, although he doesn't use that word.

Feb. 21. We hear for the first time that KM "thought she saw" the silver car driving near their house when she and her mom got back to the house and her mom told her to go get her brother. Today we also hear that KM was driving on the residential streets near the school during her driving lesson.

Feb. 23. RM says the killing was intentional and not simple road rage out of control, that the person in the silver car specifically meant to kill TM: "My wife was followed home and murdered.... this was intentional — to kill the person in the green car."

Feb. 24. RM explains why the story has changed: "The reason I didn’t know this story is, for one, it wasn’t explained to me. It was explained to me one way. And that’s how I told it. Until we started getting all the information and all the facts came out, that’s how I have knowledge of all this. My son was very hurt, thinking I was going to blame him for his mom going down, and he didn’t come forward with all the things."

March 16. GJ transcript is released. KM's testimony doesn't mention driving any "loops" around the school or driving in any residential areas. Her route is described vaguely and presented as if it was their normal way home from the school. KM mentions the honking. She says the road rage car hit her side of the Buick. There was one person in the road-rage car; he was not EN. KM did not know the driver; her mom gave no indication that she knew the driver. The threat was: "I'm going to kill you and your daughter." This is the first time we hear that KM & TM saw anyone at the park during the driving lessons. She does not mention seeing the silver car near the house after she and her mom get home.

March 17. BM says that TM didn't go looking for trouble and that her goal that day was to "keep it away from the family."

So there we have the evolution of the driving lesson and road rage story. There might be a couple of permutations that I've missed.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I needed to be reminded & reassured by someone other than myself of the ever changing details and elaborations we witnessed in the many media interviews.

 

[SeeAlice]

I'm sure there was, but nothing's been released. The 19th was when the arrest affidavit was generated; it was released publicly the next day, on the 20th.

The 1st official statement from police that I recall seeing in media was that they were getting conflicting details from (KM & BrM) and it would take time to sort through them. Not sure of the exact date of that except that it was before the press conference announcing that BrM later got in the car with his mother.

Perhaps they decided to exercise their constitutionally protected right not to speak to police until after they had the opportunity to consult with an attorney, or perhaps with their father. I imagine they gave some sort of statement or explanation to the 911 operator when they called to have paramedics come for TM.

 

[newone]

We are not privy at this point to the 911 call - whether that was placed by BM or a neighbor - will be interesting to see if that is ever released or even discussed, in MSM or the trial.

MOO

 

[BellaVita]

How do you know the Audi was in the process of turning around to leave? Where does EN say he was leaving? What I read is he "his vehicle kind of turns sideways..he sees the victims vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac" after that he is leaning out the window/door firing away. In order to get a good shot, he most likely would have to turn the car sideways because he is the passenger and the Meyers house isn't on the passengers side, it's on the drivers side. Again, JMO!

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf
So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

Mt. Shasta was just a means to getting somewhere else. That's what I believe. It was a cul de sac so no outlet. DA was in the process of turning around and getting out of there when they happened to spot the Buick. I find EN to be credible to a large degree and I see nothing in this testimony to indicate they were hunting the Buick. I think if EN had told lies, he could have helped himself a lot more.

 

[BellaVita]

The initial story with BM leaving the house was because KM thought she saw the silver car drive by when they arrived on Mt Shasta per the complaint and then afterwards they said they knew it was EN, but I don't remember - which doesn't mean it didn't happen - them saying they went out because they knew the driver. There also had been different version as to why they went out, like one of the versions was that it wasn't to look for the car but rather to park the car away from their home.

And also to show BM the "sean" of the minor accident. Too funny.

 

[BellaVita]

If the Meyers wanted to shoot and kill, they would have also shot at the driver and not just the passenger no matter what angle the car was in. They would, IMO, fired shots when they saw the Audi coming into the cul-de-sac but I believe they didn't have time to. EN said no one fired shots at him which tells me he is the first person to shoot at both locations. Was there really a threat to the Audi on Mt. Shasta if no shots were fired at the 1st location. I would think if the Buick really wanted to take shots, they would have not fled the 1st location but would have went after the Audi but they didn't; they went home.

I really don't care that BM fired shots or even if he fired first. After the M's started the chain of events of that night, BM had almost no choice but to fire his gun. I would have. The problem is how it got to that point. Hoisted by their own petard.

 

[BellaVita]

Incorrect. As I have repeatedly stated, Erich started his murderous rampage when he was halfway down the street. Additionally, he told his friends they followed the Meyers down the street and loaded another clip so they could finish them off.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/0...5F02612X-declaration-&-complaint_Redacted.pdf

This is murder 1 period

That's what Brandon said. He has huge credibility problems. I find it odd that in the GJ testimony, Mogg testified as to the location of the spent bullets at the first shooting scene but not at the second scene.

 

[sonjay]

The 1st official statement from police that I recall seeing in media was that they were getting conflicting details from (KM & BrM) and it would take time to sort through them. Not sure of the exact date of that except that it was before the press conference announcing that BrM later got in the car with his mother.

Perhaps they decided to exercise their constitutionally protected right not to speak to police until after they had the opportunity to consult with an attorney, or perhaps with their father. I imagine they gave some sort of statement or explanation to the 911 operator when they called to have paramedics come for TM.

Here are the press releases that were issued by LV police on the 13th & 14th:
http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf
http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021415ReleasePO036a.pdf

I haven't heard anything about BM & KM refusing to speak with police right away. I think I read somewhere that the police got their initial information from either MM or RMJr because BM & KM were .... I disremember, emotionally in shock, or at the hospital with the mom, or something like that. But clearly by the 14th they were talking to police, because police released the composite sketch on the 14th, and KM is the only person the description for that could have come from.

Well, sort of. My belief is that the driving lessons and road rage were made up, and therefore the spiky-haired dude is also made up, so the description could have come from anyone, including my dog — but in order to maintain the fiction that KM saw a spiky-haired dude driving the silver car, and that BM was not in the car at that time, KM had to be the one to provide the description for the sketch.

BM & KM most definitely had the right not to speak with police, or to speak with police only after consulting an attorney. But I don't see that happening. Their story at that point (and for several more days thereafter) was that KM & TM were innocently having driving lessons and got road-raged on their way home by an angry spiky-haired dude, who followed them home and shot TM. They were really trying at that point to maintain the position of "innocent victim of random road rager"; refusing to speak with police would have absolutely guaranteed that LE would be digging deeply into every last detail of their story.

As it turns out, I hope the police are digging deeply into every last detail of their story. But they apparently thought they could get away with the story of the driving lessons and road rager who followed them home, without mentioning BM's role in the car chase and shooting.

 

[sonjay]

And also to show BM the "sean" of the minor accident. Too funny.

Oh, yeah, returning to the Sean of the accident. That's one permutation I missed in my summary above.

 

[LancelotLink]

I hope one of the news stations live stream tomorrow's arraignment and May 26 trial I also hope someone youtubes it. :judge:

 

[SStarr33]

http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf
So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac

Mt. Shasta was just a means to getting somewhere else. That's what I believe. It was a cul de sac so no outlet. DA was in the process of turning around and getting out of there when they happened to spot the Buick. I find EN to be credible to a large degree and I see nothing in this testimony to indicate they were hunting the Buick. I think if EN had told lies, he could have helped himself a lot more.

Incorrect. Erich confessed to his friends that he chased the Meyers down the cul de sac.

 

[SStarr33]

We are not privy at this point to the 911 call - whether that was placed by BM or a neighbor - will be interesting to see if that is ever released or even discussed, in MSM or the trial.

MOO

Per the warrant, Brandon called 911.

 

[SStarr33]

The 1st official statement from police that I recall seeing in media was that they were getting conflicting details from (KM & BrM) and it would take time to sort through them. Not sure of the exact date of that except that it was before the press conference announcing that BrM later got in the car with his mother.

Perhaps they decided to exercise their constitutionally protected right not to speak to police until after they had the opportunity to consult with an attorney, or perhaps with their father. I imagine they gave some sort of statement or explanation to the 911 operator when they called to have paramedics come for TM.

LOL, there is no doubt in my mind they spoke to the police whenever needed without consulting an attorney.