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

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm sorry SI, that doesn't make sense to me. First off Mogg is telling the GJ where EN's house is located. He is trying to give the GJ a idea on where EN's house is and where Mt. Shasta is located, MOO. There is no shortcut to EN's house once he's on Cherry River because he lives on Cherry River. The short cut wouldn't make sense if he passed his house, he would have simply made a U-turn and went directly home but instead he took Carmel Peak and drove on Mt. Shasta, that isn't a short cut home to EN's house. I believe when EN said they pasted his house, I taking it that he thought the Buick passed his house. I could be wrong because it is confusing on what was said. The rest of Moggs statement makes sense to me.

Mogg says he turn around a came back, which would be turning around and coming back on Alta - he couldn't have been back on Cherry River because he wasn't there the first time as he was on Alta the first time - and upon them being back to where they were before is when EN said to take a shortcut to his own home. Unless what you are saying he drove by his house driving past Mt Shasta to get there and then after going by his house then went to Mt Shasta after having done a U-turn on Cherry River. You're not explaining how EN ended up on Cherry River then the Meyers without going by his home first or that there wasn't a misunderstanding between EN and the driver in trying to get to Cherry River when EN said taking left but turning on Mt Shasta instead. You can't just ignore "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get to my house" and then not say that either he had gone to his home prior to going to Mt Shasta or that Andrews misunderstood which left to take to get to EN's home by taking the left too soon on Mt Shasta instead of Cherry River.

 

[SeeAlice]

Neither one of those guys should have been out that night with handguns, IMO. And nobody should ever go hunt down a person who allegedly had road rage reaction to you, especially after the fact. That makes YOU the one with a road rage problem. It also makes you look like a bully, if not an outright vigilante.

Every one of them knew "the other" was likely armed. I don't know if she had a death wish, but even if she did, why would she drag her own child along - after spending 22 years keeping him healthy and safe? (Presuming she did. I don't know that she was even really in the car that night.)

I do not understand ANYONE in this drama.

JMO

 

[Steleheart]

This may seem to have come completely out of left field, but it really isn't.

In one of their first motions after Nowsch was jailed, his defense attorneys requested gun shot residue (GSR) testing be done on TM's body before it was released to the family for disposal. (Or access to any GSR tests conducted by LVMPD.)

We have frequently discussed the possibility that TM also had a weapon and may have fired some or all of the bullets at the silver car. Also, it was noted that GSR could indicate were TM was in relation to BrM as he fired his weapon, if he indeed did. Unfortunately these discussions are scattered throughout the six current threads.

I previously asked if LE would have needed a search warrant to do GSR tests of the children's hands the night of the shooting if they refused to give consent.

I also asked if GSR tests are routinely done on every patient brought into an ER with a GSW. (Seems like a good policy to me since most GSW cases are going to be investigated by LE anyway.

No answer to either of those questions to date, as far as I'm aware.

JMO

BBM
~ OK on the pretense that this accusation against the dead victim is supported by the facts of the case or, alternatively, upon a theory based in some sense on the evidence we know about, as opposed to arbitrary fiction, tell me;

~ What was the result of those tests? Is there a link for the results? Is there a link for the motion?

~ Why? was there some indication in either the media, or GJ testimonies that suggested this was so? Or even plausible?

~ IMO because you are asking all the other members to do your own sleuthing / research. ergo, No answer.

I do not know how you can expect that when you seem unwilling to at least provide links for the things you state as fact, never mind the wild speculations.


<modsnip>

Opinion is not fact. We always need to theorize, yes and speculate, absolutely, but IMO it carries no weight if there are no facts to support it.

There is no evidence that the dead victim was shooting anyone.

:cow:

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Neither one of those guys should have been out that night with handguns, IMO. And nobody should ever go hunt down a person who allegedly had road rage reaction to you, especially after the fact. That makes YOU the one with a road rage problem. It also makes you look like a bully, if not an outright vigilante.

Every one of them knew "the other" was likely armed. I don't know if she had a death wish, but even if she did, why would she drag her own child along - after spending 22 years keeping him healthy and safe? (Presuming she did. I don't know that she was even really in the car that night.)

I do not understand ANYONE in this drama.

JMO

Yes, that's why I've disapproved of what everyone did viewing them both having some degree of criminal conduct. People chasing each other in armed cars is a great way to get lots of dead people where neither the Meyers actions nor EN's actions should be emulated unless you want to end up either dead or incarcerated.

 

[SeeAlice]

I do not believe, again MOO, that the driver misunderstood EN. I believe, like Mogg also believes, that they saw the Buick turning onto Mt. Shasta and followed it in. EN knows the housing track and if they wanted to go home to EN's house, they would have continued towards Cimarron and Cherry Peak. It's not all that much further than the short cut, I'm guessing maybe 20 seconds to 30 seconds so why turn around in the middle of the street to take the short cut when they could have simply gone the longer way.

I've told you before how bad I am with maps & directions, so please indulge me.

The video of the silver car - was that EN or RR (road rage guy)?

I recall Bob saying, "if you look at the video, you can see they kept going straight, past our street, after TM turned" (or something similar.) Do you understand what he was trying to point out? I thought he was trying to say that the people in the silver car looked at which street TM turned down, but that doesn't really make sense, does it?

 

[SeeAlice]

Yes, that's why I've disapproved of what everyone did viewing them both having some degree of criminal conduct. People chasing each other in armed cars is a great way to get lots of dead people where neither the Meyers actions nor EN's actions should be emulated unless you want to end up either dead or incarcerated.

Seems more like Compton, Liberty City or Washington Park, than the suburbs of Las Vegas. smh

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Something has just occurred to me in reading Mogg's testimony is that Mogg is actually giving a lot of his own speculation based upon what he thought EN said and it's meaning. Mogg doesn't actually say that EN told him he saw the Buick on Carmel Peak, but it is actually Mogg's speculation that 'coming down the street' meant Carmel Peak and that EN saw them on Carmel Peak turning on Mt Shasta. It is Mogg saying he independently concluded EN saw the Buick turning on Mt Shasta rather than EN saying he saw that. EN may not have actually seen the Buick on Carmel Peak but instead was telling Mogg about his concern that the Buick was on his own street heading in the direction of his own home based on thinking they were going parallel on Alta/Cherry River, which they were going in a parallel direction for a time. This of course could be totally wrong as to what EN told Mogg, but since the transcript of EN's confession in his own words wasn't entered into the GJ record, we only have witnesses who are recounting what they think EN said and what they think he meant by what he said.

 

[Steleheart]

Neither one of those guys should have been out that night with handguns, IMO. And nobody should ever go hunt down a person who allegedly had road rage reaction to you, especially after the fact. That makes YOU the one with a road rage problem. It also makes you look like a bully, if not an outright vigilante.

Every one of them knew "the other" was likely armed. I don't know if she had a death wish, but even if she did, why would she drag her own child along - after spending 22 years keeping him healthy and safe? (Presuming she did. I don't know that she was even really in the car that night.)

I do not understand ANYONE in this drama.

JMO

I just have to agree with all of this. Although BM's firearm was legally purchased according to a website I am not allowed to link, My feeling has always been, especially after just my first training class, That unless you have "defensive carry" training you should not carry defensively. The reason for that is this entire case.

In my training, I would have agreed to go look for the car and get a description / Reg. ONLY for 911. Yes I would be armed and that in no way automatically equates to PM Or M1 if in fact I am forced to draw my weapon. In my training I was taught how to avoid having ever to make that decision.
It appears to me, that Brandon did the right thing at least twice in the beginning -

1.) he tried to avoid the confrontation;

"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police,"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-so...olice-but-she-insisted-they-go-after-suspect/

2.) When gunfire erupted he left the scene;

"After a car chase around the neighborhood that resulted in gunfire, Brandon Meyers testified that his mother drove home. Once she parked in the cul-de-sac, he tried to pull his mother from the car after she parked it."

Deadly poor choices IMO and, please I am not blaming the dead victim. It actually happened and according to all the facts that we know, she was shot dead and was not a threat to the shooter at the time she was shot.

I am pro 2nd amendment, but just as I see it necessary to qualify for a license to drive a 2000 pound potentially deadly machine, I also see the necessity for licensing and training on how to protect your self with a firearm.

Not blaming anyone, just using this as an example to trust 911.

:cow:

 

[jjenny]

My hiatus allowed me to reformulate my opinion on this case without all of the background noise. My conclusion is the same, EN acted in self defense, but I've gone a completely different direction on how I get there.

My thoughts, theory, speculation and just wild imagination follows (with links at the end of post):

I can't shake the revelations in the GJ testimony that EN called multiple friends and more than one friend showed up to pick him up. Add to that my my discovery that someone is standing in EN's driveway in the surveillance video, and it seems EN had a crew in the neighborhood that night.

I always believed there were two incidents (road rage and shooting) but with one car---that car stopped and threatened the M's on the way to picking up the M's. Now I do believe there were two cars, and both cars were friends of EN's. After all, EN tells LE himself that more than one friend showed up to pick him up. That's proof there was more than one car in the area IMO. Sure, the first friend could have left, but that's unlikely since there is someone standing in EN's driveway immediately prior to the second shooting.

This very well could explain why the M's stories don't make sense. (I'm ignoring the first story entirely because it's not part of the arrest warrant or the grand jury testimony.) From the M's perspective, there were to different unrelated incidents with two different vehicles.

I believe EN was paranoid as hell. I've been around a paranoid person. Everything in the grand jury testimony indicates extreme paranoia. Add drugs to his paranoia, and an innocent driving lesson could have caused him to freak out and call friends, BUT it's irrelevant to me if TM and KM were having driving lessons or if TM (modsnip) The determining factor to me is who brandished their gun first and had an offensive intent.

EN's intent was defensive. He called his friends to get him away. He waited until he felt it was safe to leave the park before getting into the second car. If he had a friend standing in front of his house, that also indicates he feared for his family. (The friend who stopped and threatened the M's isn't EN's responsibility. He wasn't there. That friend took it upon himself to be on the offensive.) EN tried to flee the buick at high speeds. He did everything he could to make the buick go away. That's why he brandished his gun out the window.

But TM went home to get BM and his gun over a verbal threat that most people would consider all talk and no action. BM subsequently sharing that TM has done this before, chasing a gang member home for his rudeness, indicates it's TM's personality to go after people she feels wronged her. I can't understand why some here don't realize that story doesn't help the M's. (modsnip) Add BM brandishing his gun first per the arrest warrant, and all of this points to offensive actions on the M's part.

Without calling anyone liars or creating a fantasy story based on nothing in the warrant or grand jury testimony, it's still understandable to me that EN acted in self defense. The M's terrible errors of judgment and offensive actions caused TM's death.

I refuse to focus my attention only to what happened on Mt. Shasta because the entire string of events prior to Mt. Shasta are all part of one event that formulated everyone's intents and actions.

I'll add links:

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

Nowsch Grand Jury Transcript: http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

TM previously followed gang member home because he was rude: http://www.reviewjournal.com/column...n-tammy-meyers-was-mom-people-would-want-have

Surveillance video and pictures. Magnified, I can see someone standing in EN's driveway: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rder-mother-just-teaching-daughter-drive.html

The standard for self-defense is what a reasonable person would do. Not some paranoid person high on whatever drugs of choice. Furthermore, EN already admitted what his motivation was, he didn't want the person running away to get away. No wonder his lawyer wants EN's statements thrown out on the grounds that EN was high.

 

[jjenny]

EN said "this can't be happening, this can't be happening" and he was describing seeing the Buick and that is when the turned around (short cut) and headed towards Mt. Shasta, NOT HOME, but Mt. Shasta. He saw the Buick turning on Mt. Shasta and we all know what happened next. I do not believe DA made a wrong turn on Mt. Shasta, I just don't.

I don't either. Seems pretty obvious to me that the motivation was to finish the job so the people (TM and BM, not sure if EN knew who he was shooting at) didn't get away.

 

[Miss Muffet]

The standard for self-defense is what a reasonable person would do. Not some paranoid person high on whatever drugs of choice. Furthermore, EN already admitted what his motivation was, he didn't want the person running away to get away. No wonder his lawyer wants EN's statements thrown out on the grounds that EN was high.

The paranoia caused him to call his friends to get him out of there when seeing the buick behaving strangely. That's not a reasonable action, but it's not an offensive action either. His subsequent response to seeing a handgun being brandished in a car that was pursuing them at high speeds was reasonable. That was a very real threat, not a threat induced by paranoia. Any reasonable person would be afraid for his/her life seeing a gun being brandished from a car that is chasing at high speeds.

Alternately, TM's response to get BM and his gun to pursue a road rager at high speeds was not a reasonable response to someone verbally saying, "I'm going to kill you and your daughter."

EN had received prior threats and he didn't go out with his gun immediately after receiving those threats and pursue the people threatening him. He was leery and telling all of his friends about the threats for days or maybe weeks, but he didn't take a defensive action until he saw a handgun while being chased at high speeds.

I view EN's actions as much more reasonable than TM's.

 

[Steleheart]

This may seem to have come completely out of left field, but it really isn't.

In one of their first motions after Nowsch was jailed, his defense attorneys requested gun shot residue (GSR) testing be done on TM's body before it was released to the family for disposal. (Or access to any GSR tests conducted by LVMPD.)

We have frequently discussed the possibility that TM also had a weapon and may have fired some or all of the bullets at the silver car. Also, it was noted that GSR could indicate were TM was in relation to BrM as he fired his weapon, if he indeed did. Unfortunately these discussions are scattered throughout the six current threads.

I previously asked if LE would have needed a search warrant to do GSR tests of the children's hands the night of the shooting if they refused to give consent.

I also asked if GSR tests are routinely done on every patient brought into an ER with a GSW. (Seems like a good policy to me since most GSW cases are going to be investigated by LE anyway.

No answer to either of those questions to date, as far as I'm aware.

JMO

BBM
~ OK on the pretense that this accusation against the dead victim is supported by the facts of the case or, alternatively, upon a theory based in some sense on the evidence we know about, as opposed to arbitrary fiction, tell me;

~ What was the result of those tests? Is there a link for the results?

~ Why? was there some indication in either the media, or GJ testimonies that suggested this was so? Or even plausible?

~ IMO because you are asking all the other members to do your own sleuthing / research. ergo, No answer.

I do not know how you can expect that when you seem unwilling to at least provide links for the things you state as fact, never mind the wild speculations.


So back to my first bold - it's always out of left field if it is based on nothing but creative writing. That's just My Opinion.

Opinion is not fact. We always need to theorize, yes and speculate, absolutely, but IMO it carries no weight if there are no facts to support it.

There is no evidence that the dead victim was shooting anyone.

:cow:

 

[Miss Muffet]

I just have to agree with all of this. Although BM's firearm was legally purchased according to a website I am not allowed to link, My feeling has always been, especially after just my first training class, That unless you have "defensive carry" training you should not carry defensively. The reason for that is this entire case.

In my training, I would have agreed to go look for the car and get a description / Reg. ONLY for 911. Yes I would be armed and that in no way automatically equates to PM Or M1 if in fact I am forced to draw my weapon. In my training I was taught how to avoid having ever to make that decision.
It appears to me, that Brandon did the right thing at least twice in the beginning -

1.) he tried to avoid the confrontation;

"Brandon said he told his mother to come in the house and call the police,"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cops-so...olice-but-she-insisted-they-go-after-suspect/

2.) When gunfire erupted he left the scene;

"After a car chase around the neighborhood that resulted in gunfire, Brandon Meyers testified that his mother drove home. Once she parked in the cul-de-sac, he tried to pull his mother from the car after she parked it."

Deadly poor choices IMO and, please I am not blaming the dead victim. It actually happened and according to all the facts that we know, she was shot dead and was not a threat to the shooter at the time she was shot.

I am pro 2nd amendment, but just as I see it necessary to qualify for a license to drive a 2000 pound potentially deadly machine, I also see the necessity for licensing and training on how to protect your self with a firearm.

Not blaming anyone, just using this as an example to trust 911.

I agree it's acceptable to take a firearm with him. It wasn't acceptable for him to brandish it. The warrant states EN saw BM's handgun. If BM was being responsible gun owner behaving defensively, EN would not have seen BM's handgun prior to events unfolding as they did.

 

[jjenny]

The paranoia caused him to call his friends to get him out of there when seeing the buick behaving strangely. That's not a reasonable action, but it's not an offensive action either. His subsequent response to seeing a handgun being brandished in a car that was pursuing them at high speeds was reasonable. That was a very real threat, not a threat induced by paranoia. Any reasonable person would be afraid for his/her life seeing a gun being brandished from a car that is chasing at high speeds.

Alternately, TM's response to get BM and his gun to pursue a road rager at high speeds was not a reasonable response to someone verbally saying, "I'm going to kill you and your daughter."

EN had received prior threats and he didn't go out with his gun immediately after receiving those threats and pursue the people threatening him. He was leery and telling all of his friends about the threats for days or maybe weeks, but he didn't take a defensive action until he saw a handgun while being chased at high speeds.

I view EN's actions as much more reasonable than TM's.

It's not reasonable to shoot at someone as they are trying to run away.

 

[SeeAlice]

My hiatus allowed me to reformulate my opinion on this case without all of the background noise. My conclusion is the same, EN acted in self defense, but I've gone a completely different direction on how I get there.

My thoughts, theory, speculation and just wild imagination follows (with links at the end of post):

I can't shake the revelations in the GJ testimony that EN called multiple friends and more than one friend showed up to pick him up. Add to that my my discovery that someone is standing in EN's driveway in the surveillance video, and it seems EN had a crew in the neighborhood that night.

I always believed there were two incidents (road rage and shooting) but with one car---that car stopped and threatened the M's on the way to picking up the M's. Now I do believe there were two cars, and both cars were friends of EN's. After all, EN tells LE himself that more than one friend showed up to pick him up. That's proof there was more than one car in the area IMO. Sure, the first friend could have left, but that's unlikely since there is someone standing in EN's driveway immediately prior to the second shooting.

This very well could explain why the M's stories don't make sense. (I'm ignoring the first story entirely because it's not part of the arrest warrant or the grand jury testimony.) From the M's perspective, there were to different unrelated incidents with two different vehicles.

I believe EN was paranoid as hell. I've been around a paranoid person. Everything in the grand jury testimony indicates extreme paranoia. Add drugs to his paranoia, and an innocent driving lesson could have caused him to freak out and call friends, BUT it's irrelevant to me if TM and KM were having driving lessons or if TM The determining factor to me is who brandished their gun first and had an offensive intent.

EN's intent was defensive. He called his friends to get him away. He waited until he felt it was safe to leave the park before getting into the second car. If he had a friend standing in front of his house, that also indicates he feared for his family. (The friend who stopped and threatened the M's isn't EN's responsibility. He wasn't there. That friend took it upon himself to be on the offensive.) EN tried to flee the buick at high speeds. He did everything he could to make the buick go away. That's why he brandished his gun out the window.

But TM went home to get BM and his gun over a verbal threat that most people would consider all talk and no action. BM subsequently sharing that TM has done this before, chasing a gang member home for his rudeness, indicates it's TM's personality to go after people she feels wronged her. I can't understand why some here don't realize that story doesn't help the M's. (modsnip) Add BM brandishing his gun first per the arrest warrant, and all of this points to offensive actions on the M's part.

Without calling anyone liars or creating a fantasy story based on nothing in the warrant or grand jury testimony, it's still understandable to me that EN acted in self defense. The M's terrible errors of judgment and offensive actions caused TM's death.

I refuse to focus my attention only to what happened on Mt. Shasta because the entire string of events prior to Mt. Shasta are all part of one event that formulated everyone's intents and actions.

I'll add links:

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

Nowsch Grand Jury Transcript: http://www.mynews3.com/media/lib/166/1/8/3/183997e6-0122-44f7-99b5-c23203a0e717/030515Nowsch.pdf

TM previously followed gang member home because he was rude: http://www.reviewjournal.com/column...n-tammy-meyers-was-mom-people-would-want-have

Surveillance video and pictures. Magnified, I can see someone standing in EN's driveway: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rder-mother-just-teaching-daughter-drive.html

Wow, that's an awesome post.

I thought more about my earlier opinion of TM being a timid quiet SAHM and realized I was dead wrong.

I reimagined it this way:

Austin! Get in the car NOW and bring a box cutter with you! We're going back to the grocery store. While I was on the canned goods aisle, this stock boy gave me the dirtiest look when I wouldn't move my cart out of his way to finish putting the kidney beans on the bottom shelf.
That boy has got a bad attitude. I'm going to ask him what his dang problem is and then demand he apologize to me. That jerk. Who does he think he is?!
If you won't go with me, then give me that box cutter and I'll handle him by myself.
I can't wait to tell your father how you REFUSED to defend me.


Absurd? Yes. So was what happened.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

The standard for self-defense is what a reasonable person would do.

Actually there's two kinds of self-defense one is where you 'perfect' it for a full acquittal while the other is 'imperfect self-defense' where the jury believes you were honestly trying to defend yourself but didn't act reasonably, a jury finding an imperfect self-defense would then find for M2/Manslaughter:
http://www.manidabiri.com/2014/06/power-jury-instructions/

Not some paranoid person high on whatever drugs of choice.

Unless there's some toxicology reports that have been released that I'm not aware of, we're not aware of who if anyone involved was a paranoid person high on whatever drugs of their choice.

 

[sonjay]

We know there was no misunderstanding/wrong turn. EN told his friends he followed them onto Mt Shasta

We know no such thing.

We're working from a vague and imprecise statement by a detective who was summarizing and paraphrasing what EN said (while high) about the left turn and the shortcut. We're discussing the various possible meanings of Mogg's testimony. That testimony is vague and imprecise enough that it's not possible to state with 100% certainty what it means.

We have also discussed previously the various meanings of "follow" and how its use in this context doesn't necessarily mean that the silver car literally followed the Buick into the cul de sac. In fact, we have reason to believe, from BM's statement, that the Buick arrived in the cul de sac and BM had enough time to get out, run around to the driver's side and start trying to get his mom out of the car before he saw the silver car turn onto Mt. Shasta.

 

[bessie]

But we're supposed to believe the third hand accounts of EN's friends?

 

[sonjay]

In the GJ report, the DA goes through some of KKs recorded interview where they got the info from the warrant and refers to where she said followed him.

Wrong. Pg. 77, KK said this:

And then the car, again I'm not sure who's following who, but they came around a corner, ended up in the cul-de-sac and at that point fired again several times.

I believe you're referring to this part, where Stanton uses the word follow, and then corrects himself to "came in behind the green car," and the question isn't about following but about whether EN shot someone. KK's answer is that EN didn't know who he hit. Her answer doesn't even come close to confirming that EN said he "followed" the green car.

Q. And then you describe, as Mr. Nowsch is relating it to you 4 o'clock in the morning, that they, the car that they, he followed back to the cul-de-sac, they came in behind the green car and that someone had run out of the car into the house and he's either firing at the house or the person, they don't know if they got the person but they also shot in the car, and then he says, "and I know I hit someone in the car." Is that accurate?
A. Well, he didn't know who he hit.

This is a good example of why it's important to cite your sources. You can't simply claim that KK said EN "followed" someone and expect us to believe that claim without the very important context provided by the actual question and answer.

 

[sonjay]

BBM
~ OK on the pretense that this accusation against the dead victim is supported by the facts of the case or, alternatively, upon a theory based in some sense on the evidence we know about, as opposed to arbitrary fiction, tell me;

~ What was the result of those tests? Is there a link for the results?

~ Why? was there some indication in either the media, or GJ testimonies that suggested this was so? Or even plausible?

~ IMO because you are asking all the other members to do your own sleuthing / research. ergo, No answer.

I do not know how you can expect that when you seem unwilling to at least provide links for the things you state as fact, never mind the wild speculations.


So back to my first bold - it's always out of left field if it is based on nothing but creative writing. That's just My Opinion.

Opinion is not fact. We always need to theorize, yes and speculate, absolutely, but IMO it carries no weight if there are no facts to support it.

There is no evidence that the dead victim was shooting anyone.

:cow:

No one has presented as fact that TM had a gun or that she shot a gun that night.

It is a fact that the defense attorneys asked the court to allow them to do their own GSR test on TM's body. They were refused.

It is a fact that the defense attorneys asked for expedited access to TM's tox reports, GSR test, etc., conducted by the ME. They were refused and were told they would get what they're entitled to get when they're entitled to get it.

That's a fair enough response from the court, but it's still a FACT that the defense attorneys did request GSR tests on TM. We here at WS haven't made up this possibility out of whole cloth.

We are theorizing and speculating on that point; we freely admit it.