GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #7

[Deleted member 50844]

Sidebar: ok, I was just pondering the dog walking in the park aspect of this epic saga. Am I correct in the fact that TM knew this was a park where drug dealing took place on a regular base even if she only knew of EN doing it there? If that is true, then why in the holy heck would she choose to go there to walk her dog? We have some shady areas in town, and most cautious citizens avoid putting themselves in that environment. I walk my dog down the roads and sidewalks where I know it's safer rather than go to a risky area. Just wondering why a person would risk going into that environment on a regular basis.

 

[SeeAlice]

There is someone standing in EN's driveway. And the EN GJ transcript indicates more than one car arrived. The DA is saying there were two different cars---the accident/incident car and the shooting car. I'm trying to make what's in each testimony all fit together. It seems SpanishInquisition is trying to do the same.

We all know you don't believe KM and have disregarded her entire testimony. That's cool. Just please stop trying to force us to do the same.

We really must go to (or at least view) this trial. I can't wait to see what kind of picture the DA puts together with the available evidence.


Here's the thing though -

Courts all across the US are jam packed with similarly imperfect (screwed up) cases: lying victims, lying witnesses, lying suspects, gang bangers, etc. (Read the GJ & LE interview transcripts from the Ferguson case. Mind-boggling inconsistencies. Hardly an outlier, IMO.)

The circumstances of this case are not that unusual in our judicial system. Heck, they are probably more common than not. We just don't pay attention to the vast majority of them and most end with plea deals anyway.

JMO

 

[SeeAlice]

Another almost dead center tower to the north. DA house where the Hamburger Helper hand is to left. Park is SE.
View attachment 72303

St. Charles Tower on Spring Gate Ln.

Oh, looks like I can get an apartment for $690 a month.

LOL! That's about the only part I could probably understand! I'm so bad with maps that it won't do me any good to look but I do appreciate that you are finding the info and translating for people like me.

 

[PaperDoll]

But...if they hadn't gone out to chase down supposed road rager, there would've been no need to be protecting himself, am I right? A simple call to the police and staying tucked in the safety of their home, yes with a loaded weapon next to him if they though this road rager was coming after them at the house would've been sufficient and MUCH safer. All this crapola doesn't add up and I agree that the truth will come out eventually what the backstory is.

I agree, I think the TM/BM going out to find road rage guy was a big mistake and I have no idea why they did that :crazy:

I also wonder when EN was being threatened, meaning a few days before all this happened, a week, month, maybe that same day????

 

[SeeAlice]

It really is quite the conundrum. On one hand they need the road rage to explain why TM and BM went back out with a gun. Even then, they have to explain why they ended up back at the park, where EN was. And while they are at it, I hope they explain why TM and KM went back to the park after the road rage, even tho KM said they left the park area because they were skeered. Tho I am starting the think in terms of it all happening simultainiosly, which is hard to do with the road rage, routes, etc still in my head.
OTOH, they can't love this road rage story, because their witnesses are going to be impeached so badly, the entire prosecution team is going to look like they are trying to railroad EN.

In matters of politics and "justice," appearance is reality, or at least it is the only reality that matters.

JMO

 

[PaperDoll]

Sidebar: ok, I was just pondering the dog walking in the park aspect of this epic saga. Am I correct in the fact that TM knew this was a park where drug dealing took place on a regular base even if she only knew of EN doing it there? If that is true, then why in the holy heck would she choose to go there to walk her dog? We have some shady areas in town, and most cautious citizens avoid putting themselves in that environment. I walk my dog down the roads and sidewalks where I know it's safer rather than go to a risky area. Just wondering why a person would risk going into that environment on a regular basis.

Maybe she didn't feel all that threatened by the park. Drugs or no drugs, IMO most people are not going to bother you if you are not bothering them. I, too, walk my dogs around the parks ..

 

[LancelotLink]

Sidebar: ok, I was just pondering the dog walking in the park aspect of this epic saga. Am I correct in the fact that TM knew this was a park where drug dealing took place on a regular base even if she only knew of EN doing it there? If that is true, then why in the holy heck would she choose to go there to walk her dog? We have some shady areas in town, and most cautious citizens avoid putting themselves in that environment. I walk my dog down the roads and sidewalks where I know it's safer rather than go to a risky area. Just wondering why a person would risk going into that environment on a regular basis.

I hear ya. My impression, this statement was self-serving. Walking the dogs in the park sounds normal, something a normal family might do. Going to a park and consorting with a known drug dealer is not normal. I think RM was trying to paint a pretty picture, but once again just raised more questions. Same with the following the gang banger home. Self-serving, but told to explain the disastrous decision of chasing a road rager. Did they want us to think this was normal for them, perhaps...but that story flopped bigger than the side bumper.

 

[jjenny]

All of these details about spiky haired guy are irrelevant. EN already confessed to what he did. DA can claim all he wants that he wasn't there, but cell phone records and a silver audi say otherwise.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Ok. I went back and read RM's diatribe about DA not making correct statements. But, what statement did he want them to give? I'm confused, but more than willing to listen..

He wanted LVDA to make a statement clarifying it was two separate cars, two separate unrelated incidences. To my amazement LVDA did just that a couple of days later.

"After 3weeks after crime we now have learned this murder had nothing to do with the prior road rage incident......please note District Attorney has knowledge of all true evidence in this case and has of now not made a comment to correct statements given by Metro police and media.. Since I have heard no statement I hired a lawyer. " There's also a prior rant post where he initially stated his demands for clarification, and I believe it referenced Anderson Cooper, but I can't find it anywhere right now.

I understand that his lawsuit would have had no merit, but LVDA could have felt he would benefit from RM shutting his mouth. By having a lawyer, who may have had working or personal relationship with LVDA contact him, he might have felt confident that making the statement wasn't any skin off of his back if he had the added benefit of getting RM to agree to shut up.

I also don't think he's trying to distance himself from the incident. I think he stupidly believes it was two separate incidences. That's going to come back and bite him in court. He can't eliminate it entirely from being discussed in court since it's the very reason TM returned home for BM and his gun. Think about it. His saying they are two different incidences actually make the case more confusing and less understandable. It doesn't distance anything. It draws it into the spotlight IMO. Either he really believes they were two different incidents or he's a terrible trial strategist.

 

[sonjay]

Sidebar: ok, I was just pondering the dog walking in the park aspect of this epic saga. Am I correct in the fact that TM knew this was a park where drug dealing took place on a regular base even if she only knew of EN doing it there? If that is true, then why in the holy heck would she choose to go there to walk her dog? We have some shady areas in town, and most cautious citizens avoid putting themselves in that environment. I walk my dog down the roads and sidewalks where I know it's safer rather than go to a risky area. Just wondering why a person would risk going into that environment on a regular basis.

What I recollect from various media interviews with various neighbors, it was common knowledge that drug dealers hang out at the park. It's plausible that TM probably knew that, but we don't know for certain.

If the rumors are true that she did illicit business with EN, it's almost 100% certain that she knew about the park.

If the rumors are true, she would have -- or at least, should have -- known that it was EN she allegedly saw at the park who was allegedly making her nervous during the alleged driving lesson.

If the rumors are true, one has to wonder why she would hang out at the park so much, walking the dogs there, etc.

If the rumors are true, it makes it all the more mystifying that she would take her daughter to the school right next to the park at that time of night for driving lessons.

 

[sonjay]

It really is quite the conundrum. On one hand they need the road rage to explain why TM and BM went back out with a gun. Even then, they have to explain why they ended up back at the park, where EN was. And while they are at it, I hope they explain why TM and KM went back to the park after the road rage, even tho KM said they left the park area because they were skeered. Tho I am starting the think in terms of it all happening simultainiosly, which is hard to do with the road rage, routes, etc still in my head.
OTOH, they can't love this road rage story, because their witnesses are going to be impeached so badly, the entire prosecution team is going to look like they are trying to railroad EN.

If I had to make a WAG, I'd guess that they've decided it's better to have TM & BM going out with a gun because of an alleged road rager, than to have them going out with a gun with no reason offered. Without the road rage story, of course, there's no reason TM & BM would have gone out with a gun — unless they were hunting for EN specifically.

The road rage story, bad as it is, is better than the alternative. IMO, JMO, MOO and all that jazz.

 

[sonjay]

I agree, I think the TM/BM going out to find road rage guy was a big mistake and I have no idea why they did that :crazy:

I also wonder when EN was being threatened, meaning a few days before all this happened, a week, month, maybe that same day????

Mogg specifically said that the threats were to him, his cat, his baby sister and his mom. His baby sister is (or was, in February) just a month old. So we can conclude the threats were quite recent (i.e., not 6 months or a year ago), but I don't think there's any more info than that.

 

[sonjay]

Maybe she didn't feel all that threatened by the park. Drugs or no drugs, IMO most people are not going to bother you if you are not bothering them. I, too, walk my dogs around the parks ..

But she apparently did feel threatened by the park. If you believe KM's driving lesson story in the GJ transcript, she simply saw a guy doing nothing but walking back and forth, and it made her nervous enough that she ended the driving lesson and left.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Maybe she didn't feel all that threatened by the park. Drugs or no drugs, IMO most people are not going to bother you if you are not bothering them. I, too, walk my dogs around the parks ..

You've been to the neighborhood and have seen the park and the school first hand. You said there were many people in the park at a ballgame. I recall you didn't feel it was dangerous, and that you would only not walk inside the actual park after dark, but you would feel comfortable walking the sidewalks in the neighborhood after dark. Am I remembering how you felt about the area correctly?

 

[sonjay]

I hear ya. My impression, this statement was self-serving. Walking the dogs in the park sounds normal, something a normal family might do. Going to a park and consorting with a known drug dealer is not normal. I think RM was trying to paint a pretty picture, but once again just raised more questions. Same with the following the gang banger home. Self-serving, but told to explain the disastrous decision of chasing a road rager. Did they want us to think this was normal for them, perhaps...but that story flopped bigger than the side bumper.

Yes, this.

TM hated bullies. She followed road ragers home and confronted them. She hung out with EN, consoling him and feeding him and telling him to pull up his pants. She protected her family by leaving her 15-year-old daughter at home while she went out with her armed son to hunt for someone who scared her earlier. She was a fearless mama bear.

But she also cut driving lessons short due to nothing more than seeing a skinny little guy walking around the in the park during a driving lesson.

I sincerely hope that TM wasn't the caricature that RM and the kids have made her out to be. I don't think they have any idea what public image they've created for their wife & mother.

 

[sonjay]

All of these details about spiky haired guy are irrelevant. EN already confessed to what he did. DA can claim all he wants that he wasn't there, but cell phone records and a silver audi say otherwise.

The case is over. All we need is the sentence.

 

[Miss Muffet]

But she apparently did feel threatened by the park. If you believe KM's driving lesson story in the GJ transcript, she simply saw a guy doing nothing but walking back and forth, and it made her nervous enough that she ended the driving lesson and left.

Feeling threatened by someone's behavior isn't proof of how they feel about the location where the person is exhibiting that behavior. A person lingering around, walking back and forth, watching me would make me feel uneasy anywhere---my own house, grocery store, museum or wherever. That doesn't mean I'd feel uneasy about being at my house, grocery store or museum overall.

 

[SeeAlice]

But the missing side strip was debunked many weeks prior to the LVDA making the statement. He made the statement within just a couple of days after RM's said he hired a lawyer. I have no doubt his lawyers did contact LVDA. That's what lawyers do. Even if RM doesn't have any clout, his lawyer could have clout via being buddies with LVDA. Since my lawyer golfs with all of the judges, I was whisked through traffic court like a celebrity. Other people sat there all day. I not only got out of there within minutes, but I didn't have any penalties. My lawyer and the judge didn't even talk about my case. I stood at the bench next to my lawyer while they talked about golf and the kids and wives.

Pretty sure his lawyers primarily handle bankruptcies, don't they? Not sure how much clout they may hold with the DA.

(JMO, don't ever send BK attys to handle or advise your son's media interviews. That's like bringing a rolling pin to a gunfight. Major, major PR fail.)

 

[sonjay]

He wanted LVDA to make a statement clarifying it was two separate cars, two separate unrelated incidences. To my amazement LVDA did just that a couple of days later.

"After 3weeks after crime we now have learned this murder had nothing to do with the prior road rage incident......please note District Attorney has knowledge of all true evidence in this case and has of now not made a comment to correct statements given by Metro police and media.. Since I have heard no statement I hired a lawyer. "

<snipped for brevity>

BBM. Oddly, it appears that RM wanted the DA to clarify that his wife and son went out with a gun and threatened and chased the wrong guy. That's the "clarification" he apparently wanted.

What an odd thing to want.

 

[SeeAlice]

But she apparently did feel threatened by the park. If you believe KM's driving lesson story in the GJ transcript, she simply saw a guy doing nothing but walking back and forth, and it made her nervous enough that she ended the driving lesson and left.

Ahh, but there's the hitch. I don't believe very much that comes from KM. I don't know that I think she would intentionally misrepresent what she recalled, but perhaps her recollection is not all that reliable.

On that note, there is also the issue of imprinting memories on witnesses. RM's statements to media from the get-go almost certainly could not have been helpful to his 15 year old daughter's recall of the events of that night.

"Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses."
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

The age or maturity of the witness is also an important factor in their ability to recall accurately.
http://www.intechopen.com/books/cur...t-of-cognitive-development-in-forensic-contex

ETA: To paraphrase Jose Baez, who is she going to believe, Daddy or her own lying eyes?