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

[oceanblueeyes]

So dang many lies, omissions and story changes it is impossible for me to sort it all out. My head is spinning. Going back to read the early accounts just makes it worse.
The State is going to have their hands full with this one.
Question: We know what offenses the accused are currently charged with. Can the State change that before the trial begins? If they can't or decide not to, can the jurors change what they vote them guilty on, if anything?

As the trial unfolds usually at the end of the trial either side (defense or state) can ask the Judge to include lessor charges than what the suspects were indicted on. I have seen the state go all in and want just the top charge only and nothing less and a time or two I have seen the defense want that too although it is risky to do so.

In the end it is up to the Presiding Judge whether to include lessor charges or not and what they will be. He/she will do that after he hears all the testimony from the state and the defense. There will be a hearing with the Judge and the adversarial parties where this will be discussed and the Judge will rule one way or the other. For example: If he thinks the testimony and evidence doesn't fit the definition of voluntary manslaughter he will not put that charge in. The lessor charges have to be supported by the evidence presented even if not in great detail.

I don't see the state changing the charges on EN and if they have more evidence than we are aware of on DA they will not change the charges on him either.

Didn't they say this week the state will be letting the court know in the coming week or two whether this case will be a DP case?

If they are even considering the death penalty the DA is sure of his case and believes he can prove it BARD. Imo. State attorneys are in it to win it just like defense attorneys.

I have read some articles lately where more Judges are allowing lessor charges in..... in order to prevent an appeal. I cant remember at the moment if Judge Stephens allowed lessor charges in during the Arias case which of course was a death penalty case. Maybe another poster will know that answer. Not all Judges do put lesser charges in a capital case though but I don't know how they do it in Nevada.

If we only knew all of the evidence the police and the state have in their possession we could make more informed guesses. But unfortunately we don't know nearly what they do. And the cases will continue to be investigated right up to trial time. All cases are ongoing until the trial is held.

IMO

 

[LancelotLink]

I don't know if 3 minutes will make a difference, but the LVMPD says 11:22:

At approximately 11:22 p.m. on February 12, 2015 LVMPD patrol officers were dispatched to a residence located in the 7900 block of Mount Shasta Circle to investigate a report that a woman had been shot.

http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf

Darn media!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't know if 3 minutes will make a difference, but the LVMPD says 11:22:

At approximately 11:22 p.m. on February 12, 2015 LVMPD patrol officers were dispatched to a residence located in the 7900 block of Mount Shasta Circle to investigate a report that a woman had been shot.

http://www.lvmpd.com/Portals/0/news/2015/021315ReleasePO036.pdf

It will come down to when the call actually came in. That will be recorded with a time/date stamp.

 

[PaperDoll]

I agree, I'm curious what led to him too. I wonder if he was working on a silver Audi and the owner contacted the police saying, "Hey! I think the car involved in that shooting might have been mine!" I know if I were a customer of his and had a car matching that description I sure would. That's presuming he even did what he's accused of. I'm leaning toward phone records leading the police to him.
I sure wish they'd release the warrant/criminal complaint against him like they did for Erich. Is there any way to obtain that?

Maybe LE got a hold of the text messages between EN and DA???? You can delete the messages off your phone but I think the cell provider would still have the original..

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Maybe LE got a hold of the text messages between EN and DA???? You can delete the messages off your phone but I think the cell provider would still have the original..

I have seen cases when text messages had been deleted where they were still able to be retrieved by the FBI forensic analysts.

IMO

 

[PaperDoll]

I have seen cases when text messages had been deleted where they were still able to be retrieved by the FBI forensic analysts.

IMO

Nothing is private anymore :crazy:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Nothing is private anymore :crazy:

:lol: True, true. Big brother sees and hears all.

They are right in our homes with us now.

IMO

 

[Deleted member 50844]

Yep. I linked to an article saying that last night. It's amazing what they can get off of electronics, even if the user thinks it's long gone. Many details of many crimes have been fleshed out by grabbing data from the devices of involved parties.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not sure. His body language didn't seem like he was lying to me, though reading body language isn't an exact science. He did a lot of looking to his left, which isn't a sign of lying, BBM:

http://www.viewzone.com/liar.html (also watch the TEDtalks video on verbal and non-verbal signs)
http://www.businessballs.com/body-language.htm
One thing I also notice that he didn't do was excessive eye contact, which can be a sign of an experienced liar who is trying to portray false honesty to try and persuade. Now that we can see his body language in response to questions, I'd encourage people to watch and re-watch the video and draw their own conclusions on his body language and that you can get your own links as well as far as what eye direction may say about the truthfulness of what is being said. It would also help if we knew if he was right or left handed as then the signs could be reversed.

Also keep in mind that his standard gaze appears to be looking toward his right, but that's because Castelano is sitting at an angle rather than right in front of him due to camera being there to film the interview. In the video you an see how far over to Andrews right that Castelano is sitting.

Supposedly that looking-left/looking-right concept has been debunked:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...oesnt-indicate-if-youre-lying-1922058/?no-ist

I was actually paying more attention to his words. He gave no clearcut, straightforward denial: "I was not driving the car when EN shot that woman" or "I was not there when the shootings happened."

We got "I wasn't involved." Well, that's a "distancing" word. He could have gone to pick up EN, he could have been the driver, but he didn't have any designs on killing TM and he didn't shoot the gun. Therefore, he "wasn't involved."

We got a sudden vagueness about the texts — he was very straightforward about getting a phone from EN, but then he made this very vague reference to "some texts ... before and after" the call.

We got the extraneous information that he's a kind person, a sympathetic person, and he felt bad that EN didn't have a ride. But then we just got a lot of vagueness about where he picked up EN and where he dropped him off, and absolutely no specifics about the times of the pickup and dropoff.

We got the emphasis on "Did he call? Yes. Did he text me? Yes" -- those statements were very straightforward, but those statements were not followed by the straightforward denial that I would expect if he really didn't do anything that night other than give EN a ride somewhere late at night after the shooting.

I think there was some more that raised flags for me -- I'll have to watch it again. I really hope Castelan airs the raw footage.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Yep. I linked to an article saying that last night. It's amazing what they can get off of electronics, even if the user thinks it's long gone. Many details of many crimes have been fleshed out by grabbing data from the devices of involved parties.

It's very hard to destroy data off computers, which today's cell phones are types of computers. All sorts of things have been done to hard drives where they've still had at least partial data recovery. A long with this people will think their hard drive is broken, but sometimes it can be fixed in a straightforward way depending on what is wrong with it - like with external HDDs people will break the USB connector rendering the HDD unreadable (a common problem) by plugging or unplugging into the drive with too much force at the wrong angle and think the drive has failed and their data is lost, but is actually easily fixable without losing any data.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Del Taco 280 Jones Blvd.

There's Jones!

 

[LancelotLink]

There's Jones!

Yes! You were absolutely right!
And I was absolutely not.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I was actually paying more attention to his words. He gave no clearcut, straightforward denial: "I was not driving the car when EN shot that woman" or "I was not there when the shootings happened."

But what we saw was not the entire interview, so we can't say what wasn't said during the entire interview when we didn't see it. They cut out chunks of the interview where they even within the short broadcast would say what he said, but not show him saying it as commentary between selected clips. I didn't get into other things like duper's delight and other non-eye cues, but that's why I recommended the TED video. This for instance from the 5 PM news about it has Castelan saying even more of what Andrews said that we don't see in either of the clips where Castelan goes into details about the gun and everything:
http://www.mynews3.com/content/video/default.aspx?videoId=5682355&navCatId=25504

We got a sudden vagueness about the texts — he was very straightforward about getting a phone from EN, but then he made this very vague reference to "some texts ... before and after" the call.

With him admitting the texts exists, I don't know what you expect him to say. He would be lying if he said the texts didn't exist and we don't know the phraseology and questions of the interviewer was asking as he could be using the same phraseology as the interviewer. 'Did you get some groceries?' 'Yes, I got some groceries' That's answering what was asked rather than evading answering what was purchased, so we don't know what he was asked to know whether or not he's evading the question.

We got "I wasn't involved." Well, that's a "distancing" word. He could have gone to pick up EN, he could have been the driver, but he didn't have any designs on killing TM and he didn't shoot the gun. Therefore, he "wasn't involved."
We got a sudden vagueness about the texts — he was very straightforward about getting a phone from EN, but then he made this very vague reference to "some texts ... before and after" the call.

How do you know what the questions were that we heard the answer to and for that matter how do you know the answers given to parts of the video we didn't see? For all we know that's how Castelan phrased the question to him. That may have been Castelan the word Castelan chose to use for someone charged with murder but who isn't charged with using the murder weapon as Castelano himself may have been vague in the question so that his question couldn't be easily dodged by denying too specific an act. You can know you killed someone but not yourself view it as murder so you can honestly deny you murdered them if asked, but you can't honestly deny that you were involved in their death if you were the one who knifed them. Also Andrews might not remember them as well as the phonecall, like I better recall phonecalls than texts where I can more remember a specific phone conversation than a specific text from someone sent around the same time.

We got the extraneous information that he's a kind person, a sympathetic person, and he felt bad that EN didn't have a ride. But then we just got a lot of vagueness about where he picked up EN and where he dropped him off, and absolutely no specifics about the times of the pickup and dropoff.

How do you know that without seeing the entire interview? It is the news channel themselves who say what he said parts about about that, but they don't actually show the footage of that part.

I think there was some more that raised flags for me -- I'll have to watch it again. I really hope Castelan airs the raw footage.

One specific red flag was him saying he didn't feel well that night. I've taken some of what he's done as possibly lying to himself and coming to grips with it, like telling himself that he wasn't responsible for what he did because he was ill. He may have been trying to rationalize his actions to himself, though that could have been him explaining why he didn't go. Also this from a Castelano tweet is distancing: Andrews, "If I was the driver and I was down there...then why was I not arrested way before."

 

[LancelotLink]

I am curious to see what led to him. He's been working with an attorney for weeks, which I've got to wonder if his mom is paying for that as I don't know that his attorney is working pro bono and if she went to LE.

I'm curious as well. I was hoping for a doc dump since it is Friday. I was hoping also that he would say he doesn't own an Audi. I understand the DA has a case to get together and I know he has to be sweating. I do not care for his arrogance in the face of legitimate questions about changing stories and witnesses leaving out huge flipping wadges of evidence.

 

[sonjay]

But what we saw was not the entire interview, so we can't say what wasn't said during the entire interview when we didn't see it. They cut out chunks of the interview where they even within the short broadcast would say what he said, but not show him saying it as commentary between selected clips. I didn't get into other things like duper's delight and other non-eye cues, but that's why I recommended the TED video. This for instance from the 5 PM news about it has Castelan saying even more of what Andrews said that we don't see in either of the clips where Castelan goes into details about the gun and everything:
http://www.mynews3.com/content/video/default.aspx?videoId=5682355&navCatId=25504

With him admitting the texts exists, I don't know what you expect him to say. He would be lying if he said the texts didn't exist and we don't know the phraseology and questions of the interviewer was asking as he could be using the same phraseology as the interviewer. 'Did you get some groceries?' 'Yes, I got some groceries' That's answering what was asked rather than evading answering what was purchased, so we don't know what he was asked to know whether or not he's evading the question.

How do you know what the questions were that we heard the answer to and for that matter how do you know the answers given to parts of the video we didn't see? For all we know that's how Castelan phrased the question to him. That may have been Castelan the word Castelan chose to use for someone charged with murder but who isn't charged with using the murder weapon as Castelano himself may have been vague in the question so that his question couldn't be easily dodged by denying too specific an act. You can know you killed someone but not yourself view it as murder so you can honestly deny you murdered them if asked, but you can't honestly deny that you were involved in their death if you were the one who knifed them. Also Andrews might not remember them as well as the phonecall, like I better recall phonecalls than texts where I can more remember a specific phone conversation than a specific text from someone sent around the same time.

How do you know that without seeing the entire interview? It is the news channel themselves who say what he said parts about about that, but they don't actually show the footage of that part.

One specific red flag was him saying he didn't feel well that night. I've taken some of what he's done as possibly lying to himself and coming to grips with it, like telling himself that he wasn't responsible for what he did because he was ill. He may have been trying to rationalize his actions to himself, though that could have been him explaining why he didn't go. Also this from a Castelano tweet is distancing: Andrews, "If I was the driver and I was down there...then why was I not arrested way before."

I would think it's obvious that I was basing my opinion on the parts of the video that I could see. I can't possibly have any opinion at all about footage that I haven't seen.

And I closed my post by saying that I hope Castelan releases the entire raw footage. Yes, I do realize the importance of seeing all of it, in context, but I can only go with what I can see.

As always, I'm open to changing my opinion as more info becomes available.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I'm curious as well. I was hoping for a doc dump since it is Friday. I was hoping also that he would say he doesn't own an Audi. I understand the DA has a case to get together and I know he has to be sweating. I do not care for his arrogance in the face of legitimate questions about changing stories and witnesses leaving out huge flipping wadges of evidence.

Yes, I don't get why at least the Complaint hasn't been released as I think LE/DA control that. I'm expecting it to go on little longer with the GJ transcript since that has to go through a process before it is official and the courts control that to some degree before LE/DA could release it or make it available at the courthouse. It took about 10 days with EN's GJ indictment.

 

[sonjay]

I'm curious as well. I was hoping for a doc dump since it is Friday. I was hoping also that he would say he doesn't own an Audi. I understand the DA has a case to get together and I know he has to be sweating. I do not care for his arrogance in the face of legitimate questions about changing stories and witnesses leaving out huge flipping wadges of evidence.

Yes, this.

I can understand the DA not releasing all the evidence; he doesn't have to give us his evidence, he only has to present it in court. And he can be accused of prejudicing potential jurors against the defendants if he puts it all out there before the trial.

But...... he hasn't addressed the lying, the changing stories, the obstructive and deceptive behavior by the family of the victim. He hasn't offered any sort of coherent story of what happened. He just threw out there the idea that there were two unrelated incidents with two unrelated silver cars that night.

At the police press conferences, they also didn't address any of that. After it came out that the alleged road rager didn't follow TM & KM home and shoot TM -- but rather that TM & BM went out hunting with BM's gun -- they didn't address at all the fact that the Meyerses had obviously lied about what happened that night.

Why on earth is such a major part of this case being so ignored by officials?

 

[jjenny]

Supposedly that looking-left/looking-right concept has been debunked:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...oesnt-indicate-if-youre-lying-1922058/?no-ist

I was actually paying more attention to his words. He gave no clearcut, straightforward denial: "I was not driving the car when EN shot that woman" or "I was not there when the shootings happened."

We got "I wasn't involved." Well, that's a "distancing" word. He could have gone to pick up EN, he could have been the driver, but he didn't have any designs on killing TM and he didn't shoot the gun. Therefore, he "wasn't involved."

We got a sudden vagueness about the texts — he was very straightforward about getting a phone from EN, but then he made this very vague reference to "some texts ... before and after" the call.

We got the extraneous information that he's a kind person, a sympathetic person, and he felt bad that EN didn't have a ride. But then we just got a lot of vagueness about where he picked up EN and where he dropped him off, and absolutely no specifics about the times of the pickup and dropoff.

We got the emphasis on "Did he call? Yes. Did he text me? Yes" -- those statements were very straightforward, but those statements were not followed by the straightforward denial that I would expect if he really didn't do anything that night other than give EN a ride somewhere late at night after the shooting.

I think there was some more that raised flags for me -- I'll have to watch it again. I really hope Castelan airs the raw footage.

I see all the same red flags. He is very vague on when exactly he changed his mind and went to pick EN up. If it were not at the school, EN would have to provide him with new directions. If it were at the school, then it's not plausible, because I find it highly unlikely that a driver that picked up EN there and drove him around during the murder would then drive him back to the original location. If it was the next morning, then why not say so? If you are trying to convince everybody you are innocent, and you didn't go pick EN up before the murder, then say when you actually went to pick him up. I think he knows evidence puts him in the area and is trying to come up with ways to explain it.

 

[Miss Muffet]

But...... he hasn't addressed the lying, the changing stories, the obstructive and deceptive behavior by the family of the victim. He hasn't offered any sort of coherent story of what happened. He just threw out there the idea that there were two unrelated incidents with two unrelated silver cars that night.

At the police press conferences, they also didn't address any of that. After it came out that the alleged road rager didn't follow TM & KM home and shoot TM -- but rather that TM & BM went out hunting with BM's gun -- they didn't address at all the fact that the Meyerses had obviously lied about what happened that night.

Why on earth is such a major part of this case being so ignored by officials?

Their silence isn't necessarily an indication they're ignoring anything. Unfortunately, they're not obligated to provide us with any explanations.

On another note, holy advertisements on the right side of the screen. It's making it difficult to read threads all scrunched up on the left side. Apparently they don't realize what this does to users who magnify their text. I only have mine at 150% and this change is literally cutting my screen in half. :tantrum:

 

[SStarr33]

I don't have any advertisements. Try ad block plus.