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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #1,041
bbm sbm

Nothwithstanding 'Breaking Bad' and 'Better Call Saul' perpetuating bbm ^ idea re attorneys accepting cases under these kinds of circumstances,
I hope attorneys are not doing this - just hoping.
Add the Good Wife to the list. IMO, lawyers are shady. I know quite a few of them very well. They operate right at the edge of the law and sometimes outside of it. But I don't think there is any law against an attorney accepting payment from someone to represent someone else.
 
  • #1,042
Do you know how to look at google maps street view? The truck is parked where I believe it was parked that night. It's parked on the street, against the curb in front of the grass part of the property to the left of the driveway and in front of the house.

Okay, following you here.

I imagined (no reason, just did) that Audi turned onto cul de sac, then in 'bubble' end, turned leftish (technically sorta-kinda on wrong side of road, if there had bn traffic)
so Audi passenger side was more or less parallel to front of house and
Audi passenger side was more or less at a 'T' to Buick, i.e., perpendicular to Buick parked in drive (Buick more or less the way CGI shows it).

Imagining, driver independently doing it - or perhaps EN asking driver to do it - that way, so passenger EN - either in front or back seat - could be at good shooting angle.

Just UnS-WAG.
 
  • #1,043
Okay, following you here.

I imagined (no reason, just did) that Audi turned onto cul de sac, then in 'bubble' end, turned leftish (technically sorta-kinda on wrong side of road, if there had bn traffic)
so Audi passenger side was more or less parallel to front of house and
Audi passenger side was more or less at a 'T' to Buick, i.e., perpendicular to Buick parked in drive (Buick more or less the way CGI shows it).

Imagining, driver independently doing it - or perhaps EN asking driver to do it - that way, so passenger EN - either in front or back seat - could be at good shooting angle.

Just UnS-WAG.
I initially imagined the Audi pulling straight into the cul-de-sac because someone said the Audi backed out after the shooting. I think it was EN who said that via Mogg testimony. Then there was a different reference that said it pulled in slightly sideways to the left.

I'm having a hard time imagining it pulling fully at a T because that short of limits its movement for a fast getaway and leaves the occupants exposed. Then again, it's not like EN and DA would have experience doing this.

Facing the house would be the Audi pointing at 10:30 in the cul-de-sac and 9:00 would be a perfect T with the left side of driveway. To be a perfect T with the house, the Audi would need to face at 7:00 which is almost turned completely around.
 
  • #1,044
.... lawyers are shady. .... They operate right at the edge of the law and sometimes outside of it. But I don't think there is any law against an attorney accepting payment from someone to represent someone else.
bbm sbm

Yes, agreed, AFAIK, no law or Bar rule against atty accepting payment from 3rd party for legal services, on that basis alone, but IIUC, there are conditions doing so.

IIUC, Bar/ethics rules do not prohibit atty from accepting $ from 3rd Person - X who wishes to pay for legal services of atty rep'ing Potential Client (Po-Cl), as long as -
1. atty discloses to PoCl that atty is to receive payment from 3d person (Person X) ,
2. PoCl ack's ^ in writing (but even w 1 & 2, atty may not be allowed to rep PoCl too) and
3. PoCl's legal interests are not adverse to Person X's legal interests.

Say, atty currently reps Big Cheese Dealer-Person X in crim drug charges or proceedings, seems poss, imo,
atty may be prohibited from rep'ing Street Level Dude-PoCl in crim FM or Murder proceedings, in which illegal drugs may dev. as collateral issue,
even if drugs or dealing is not basis of crim charges.

Trying to think of clear-cut example of conflict but not coming up w ATM. Hoping our legal wizards will jump in, either w an example or to correct me.

And imo, atty may be prohibited from rep'ing PoCl on FM or Murder, regardless of $ source, because of (potential for) conflict of interest in defending charges.
I could be wrong.



_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FWIW
"In the legal profession, the duty of loyalty owed to a client prohibits an attorney (or a law firm)
from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client
.
The few exceptions to this rule require informed written consent from all affected clients, i.e., an "ethical wall".
In some circumstances, a conflict of interest can never be waived by a client.
In perhaps the most common example encountered by the general public, the same firm should not represent both parties in a divorce or child custody matter."
.
"Found conflict can lead to denial or disgorgement of legal fees, or in some cases (such as the failure to make mandatory disclosure), criminal proceedings.
In the United States, a law firm usually cannot represent a client if its interests conflict with those of another client,
even if they have separate lawyers within the firm, unless (in some jurisdictions) the lawyer is segregated from the rest of the firm for the duration of the conflict. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest bbm
 
  • #1,045
I initially imagined the Audi pulling straight into the cul-de-sac because someone said the Audi backed out after the shooting. I think it was EN who said that via Mogg testimony. Then there was a different reference that said it pulled in slightly sideways to the left....
I'm having a hard time imagining it pulling fully at a T because that short of limits its movement for a fast getaway and leaves the occupants exposed. Then again, it's not like EN and DA would have experience doing this.
Facing the house would be the Audi pointing at 10:30 in the cul-de-sac and 9:00 would be a perfect T with the left side of driveway. To be a perfect T with the house, the Audi would need to face at 7:00 which is almost turned completely around.
sbm bbm


Sorry, did not intend to say Audi was so close the Buick that they touched or were only a few or several feet apart. Not trying to describe distance, just angle.
Meant to convey that Audi was at~ 90 degree angle to Buick. Dang, this is a lot of work - trying to explain in words, what a 10 sec hand-drawing could show.

Hats off to all who have clearly conveyed their positions about these events. And how and why they have draw their conclusions. Big brains at work on this thread.
TY, TY, TY.
 
  • #1,046
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

<Respectfully snipped for focus>

Miss Muffet, is this where you see a person? Forgive my poor excuse for a circle. Photo is from your Daily Mail link.

e6q3rs.png
 
  • #1,047
A SURVEY
Some of the factors events below are shown diff'ly from the way I imagined. What do you think?

--------------------------------------------------- start cut and paste-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In above vid clip at ~ 48 -55 sec, is CGI (from MSM, not from LE or DistAtty, right?) -
- silver car pulls into cul de sac straight on w street i.e., not turning car to angle... T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- guy next to open driver door (not pass side and not a back door) shoots............ T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- shoots toward green car in driveway of M fam home ........................................ T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- green Buick is parked w nose toward house, trunk toward street........................ T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- green Buick is parked at almost same angle as silver car is pulling in .................. T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- TM & BrM are both on passenger side of Buick .................................................T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:
- shooter's bullets are flying toward TM & BrM.................................................... T or F? If F,I think it happened this way:

AGREE w ktnv CGI graphic? ______

I picture it more like this:

CulDeSac.jpg

Here's why:

BM in his GJ testimony said that his mom pulled the Buick straight in to the end of the cul de sac, no angle, not in driveway, just straight in to the end. I don't find BM to be credible at all, but I have trouble imagining why he would lie about that particular thing. At any rate, his testimony on the location and angle of the green car is all we have, that I'm aware of, and we have no testimony or evidence about how the green car was situated that conflict with that, so that's what I'm going with.

EN told Mogg that the driver pulled the silver car into the cul de sac and turned it at an angle. I do find EN's statements to be largely credible. Plus, since EN on the passenger side wouldn't have had any good way to shoot toward TM or toward BM running to the house if the silver car were pulled straight in, the angle makes sense logistically. Since we have no testimony or evidence that conflict with that, I'm also going with the silver car at an angle. It might have been angled more, to where it was actually a "T" with the green car, or it may have been angled less. I think the angle in my image would be the easiest angle for someone in the passenger seat to shoot toward the green car and toward the house. It would actually be somewhat difficult to shoot out the passenger window at a 90° angle, but it would be relatively easy to shoot out the passenger window at a 5° to 45° angle.

There was a pickup truck there that night — BM supposedly hid behind the "left rear area" of the pickup, which I don't think makes sense because that would leave him totally exposed. But I believe there was a pickup there, probably in the driveway. It would have been there when police arrived; police surely would have noticed the presence or absence of a pickup. So again, while I don't find BM credible in general, and I don't think he took cover at the left rear of the pickup, I don't find any reason to disbelieve that there was a pickup there.

We know from the GJ testimony that 9mm casings were found at the left rear area of the pickup. I don't think whoever fired the 9mm gun was standing at the left rear area of the pickup when they fired, because I don't think the shell casings would have landed there. I think whoever fired the 9mm was closer to the green car when they fired. Presumably, it was BM who fired the 9mm; apparently we have to believe BM about that.

Nobody says EN was the driver. Nobody says that either EN or the driver got out of the car. Nobody says the driver shot at anyone at any point. So I think the CGI has a lot of things wrong.
 
  • #1,048
  • #1,049
Didn't RM say they had the Buick windows tinted summer 2014? That EN may not have recognized the car since they had had this done, making it sound fairly recent? Well, according to g maps, going to image May 2013, that car has dark tinted widows. Hmmm...
 
  • #1,050
Obviously Claus isn't thinking that's a risk. Perhaps it doesn't apply if the drug deal wasn't occurring at that very moment, and the shootings were over a past conflict over a drug deal.

Or maybe Claus is thinking the story of EN fighting a drug supplier would get him acquitted because the jury would view it was truly defending himself.

Or perhaps Claus is merely investigating it so he's prepared for whatever the DA throws at him since his client isn't talking.

Or maybe Clause is trying to scare the DA into thinking he's going to make this all about drugs so the DA drops the case.

Or perhaps it's simply Claus trying to keep a negative image of TM in the press.

Or maybe one of Claus's other clients is higher up the food chain and hired Claus to represent EN under the guise of "pro bono" and EN is terrified of Claus because he's the big bosses lawyer, and Claus is trying to send a clear public message that EN isn't talking. I have to be honest, I'm damned surprised that Claus is admitting his client isn't talking to him.

I gotta say my last option seems the very plausible.

btw, I'm impressed with EN's ability to keep his mouth shut concerning other people involved and whatever backstory if there is one.

I think that last option seems the very least plausible. Without something — at least even a rumor — that Claus has some professional loyalty to some "big boss" and that his representation of EN is being done as a favor to said "big boss," I just can't even contemplate that option.

Personally, I think the Claus Bros. are willing to try any and every possibility that will get their client out from under a murder rap. A drug dealing charge would be preferable to a murder rap; but currently, there's not even a drug dealing charge to worry about.

As far as EN keeping his mouth shut..... dumb kid needs to assist in his own defense. I've never understood criminal defendants who lie to their lawyer, or who won't talk to their lawyer.

If there really were threats against him, his mom and his baby sister, he might be worried that if he talks, something will happen to them.
 
  • #1,051
Didn't RM say they had the Buick windows tinted summer 2014? That EN may not have recognized the car since they had had this done, making it sound fairly recent? Well, according to g maps, going to image May 2013, that car has dark tinted widows. Hmmm...

Hey, how do you get google maps from a different time period? I didn't know it was possible to do that!

ETA: Never mind; I found it.
 
  • #1,052
Didn't RM say they had the Buick windows tinted summer 2014? That EN may not have recognized the car since they had had this done, making it sound fairly recent? Well, according to g maps, going to image May 2013, that car has dark tinted widows. Hmmm...

That green car certainly does appear to have tinted windows as far back as 2013.

RM talks a lot. But you can't really believe anything he says.
 
  • #1,053
ITA. But, to me, I have to wonder why he offered up that little nugget, trying to explain away that although they knew EN was the shooter, EN may not have known who his aggressors were. I feel there is a backstory that someone is trying desperately (and failing miserably) to squelch. There is a reason they call it TMI. I considered that he may not be comfortable speaking into microphone, but then we have that ride along, and that just bolstered my earlier opinion.
 
  • #1,054
ITA. But, to me, I have to wonder why he offered up that little nugget, trying to explain away that although they knew EN was the shooter, EN may not have known who his aggressors were. I feel there is a backstory that someone is trying desperately (and failing miserably) to squelch. There is a reason they call it TMI. I considered that he may not be comfortable speaking into microphone, but then we have that ride along, and that just bolstered my earlier opinion.

Hmmmm.... RM said that about the Buick's windows being tinted at the same time that he said it wasn't simple road rage, that "My wife was followed home and murdered" and "this was intentional &#8212; to kill the person in the green car." That was Feb. 23 &#8212; obviously after EN had been arrested and it had become public knowledge that EN and the Meyerses knew each other.

So his position at that time was that the silver car intentionally followed the green car home to murder the person in the green car, but that EN didn't know the green car was the Meyers' car. So... he was saying that EN intentionally wanted to kill someone in some green car, but that EN's intention wasn't to kill TM in the Meyers' green car.

Wow, maybe another case of unrelated but similar-looking cars? Maybe EN was on the lookout for a different green car, while the Meyerses were on the lookout for a different silver car?

Yeah, okay. Right. Nope, that dog don't hunt.
 
  • #1,055
And I lean towards both parties knew who the other party was. The reason is again RM placing TM at the park on Feb 7-8.
 
  • #1,056
And I lean towards both parties knew who the other party was. The reason is again RM placing TM at the park on Feb 7-8.

I've missed something. What's this about RM placing TM at the park on Feb. 7-8?
 
  • #1,057
ITA. But, to me, I have to wonder why he offered up that little nugget, trying to explain away that although they knew EN was the shooter, EN may not have known who his aggressors were. I feel there is a backstory that someone is trying desperately (and failing miserably) to squelch.

Yes, if that's not true about the car, it seems an awful strange thing to say.
 
  • #1,058
I've missed something. What's this about RM placing TM at the park on Feb. 7-8?

The teen and the neighborhood mom may have seen each other in passing the weekend of February 7-8, when Tammy Meyers walked the family dogs in the park where Nowsch often sat at a picnic bench with other teens, Robert Meyers said.

'Bunch of troublemakers,' Robert Meyers said. 'I wouldn't allow my kids to hang out with them.' But he denied there was any bad blood.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-team-doubt-Vegas-mom-slaying-road-rage.html
 
  • #1,059
And I lean towards both parties knew who the other party was. The reason is again RM placing TM at the park on Feb 7-8.

I'm quite sure the Meyerses knew that EN was in the silver car.

I'm pretty sure that EN knew the Meyerses were in the green car. I'm also pretty sure that EN either didn't know that TM was in the car, or didn't know that she was the person he had hit. The report from his friend a day or two later, where he said "I think I shot somebody's mom" and seemed genuinely upset about that seems real to me.

And the "somebody's mom" means that he thinks of TM as somebody's mom. He didn't say "I think I shot a woman I know" or "I think I shot a customer" — the fact that he referred to her as "somebody's mom" means (IMO) that he thinks of her primarily as the mother of the Meyers kids.

So I believe that he thought two or more of the Meyers kids were in the green car and didn't know that TM was.

JMO, IMO, MOO and all that jazz.
 
  • #1,060
The teen and the neighborhood mom may have seen each other in passing the weekend of Feb. 7-8, when Tammy Meyers walked the family dogs in the park where Nowsch often sat at a picnic bench with other teens, Robert Meyers said.

"Bunch of troublemakers," Robert Meyers said. "I wouldn't allow my kids to hang out with them." But he denied there was any bad blood.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...se-team-doubt-vegas-mom-slaying-was-road-rage

Several articles contain this from RM. This one popped up when I googled keywords T M park Feb 7-8
During the "Dad doubts road rage" time period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
3,575
Total visitors
3,691

Forum statistics

Threads
632,667
Messages
18,629,979
Members
243,241
Latest member
Kieiru
Back
Top