GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #5

[sonjay]

I'm confused about KM's testimony at this point (GJ transcript as source):

Q. When you were driving for the 50 minutes,
did anything unusual occur while you were practicing
driving with your mom in the parking lot?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened that was unusual?
A. We were parked and we didn't move, we saw a
guy, he kept walking back and forth just like once, and
my mom looked at him but we didn't, we just rolled up
the windows and everything. We seen him about twice and
then that's when we stopped driving and she got in the
driver's seat.
Q. So you and your mom switched, she's now
driving?

Lot of contradictions IMO. Parked and didn't move vs stopped driving and switched seats, Guy kept walking back and forth, just once vs saw him twice. She (TM) looked at him, but they didn't? Who's they?

Yeah, KM's story has been problematic from the beginning.

When something doesn't make any sense, and keeps changing, and keeps contradicting itself -- it probably didn't happen. JMO, IMO, MOO and all that jazz.

 

[PaperDoll]

They weren't looking for him in the park. If they went looking for him, why didn't they take a gun to begin with? Sounds to me KM was learning to drive and driving erratically, because she doesn't know how to drive. Which EN then confused for "someone being after him." Neither party recognized the other party. Green car then left and on the way home apparently had a run in with another car?
Then went looking for that car, running into EN's driver's car instead.

BBM: Here is something I noticed in the GJ Transcript.. KM never mentioned that after the driving lesson at the school, that her and her mom headed straight home, it implied it but in the original police report it was mentioned they took other streets which were further from their house and that was when the apparent "road rage" happened. So where were they heading after the driving lesson? It wasn't mentioned in either reports.

 

[sonjay]

I think that is the only thing the DA could do to try and preserve the credibility of their witnesses, so they have to acknowledge something happened or else their case would be toast as their witnesses would have severely damaged credibility. However, by saying an innocent car is chased that by the DA's own case would make the Meyers the aggressors as far as the occupants of the Audi were concerned, though I'm not sure if EN is actually charged with any crimes for the first shooting. While on the other hand it could concentrate the case to what happened on Mt Shasta, though they can only focus on that so much as they still have to explain why TM/BM were out driving with a gun at night and chasing a car. I'm guessing EN's defense will want to go off on the side-shows as much as possible - particularly when it comes to falsely IDing EN's car - while the prosecution will try and keep as much as possible to things that went on at Mt Shasta at the end.

LOL! Sorry, it's too late to preserve the credibility of their witnesses. They've got major rehabilitating to do just to get the credibility of their witnesses to the point where there's something worth preserving.

:moo:

 

[PaperDoll]

That's just what I said earlier! (That is, IF you believe that KM's story is at all true, which I don't.)

Mistaken identity. So TM & BM took BM's gun and went hunting for some random spiky-haired dude. They found and identified the wrong car. Then they threatened and pointed their gun at and chased an innocent person who was just there in the park minding his own business. They should have not done that.

Either that, or they went hunting specifically for EN that night, which is still what I think.

JMO, IMO, MOO, and all that jazz.

But EN also accused the Buick of thinking they were after him when maybe they weren't at that time. At that time the Buick was doing the "driving lesson" thing and EN was in the park and could see the Buick from there. He then called his friend to come help him and wouldn't get in the car until the Buick left. So the Buick leaves, EN gets in the Audi and then parks on a street. So, if EN felt threatened by the people in the Buick, why didn't he tell the Audi driver to take him someplace safe? Instead they hung around the very area they felt threatened in. :thinking:

 

[SeeAlice]

Seems weird to me too, but is it poss original convo went like this:
EN: refers to event w 'Audi ###' (or series)
KK: 'Is that a big Audi or little one?' (I might h/asked, thinking - My neighbor's Audi is ###, was it like that or not?)
EN: 'a large four door.'

But then again some ppl, esp young dudes talking about cars, sometimes tend to be waaaaay specific about them. Or not. IDK.

I can't imagine anyone saying "I was in that X colored Y model (or # of doors) car made by manufacturer Z with a couple of dudes" vs "I was in my friend Julius' car with Caesar," or maybe more like "We was ridin' my brah LilJule in his cuz Salad's car"? (Sorry, I stink at making up faux gangsta names.)

More baffling to me is how Brandon failed to notice the make and model of "silver car" or at least didn't tell the police. He saw it several times from several different angles and for several minutes at a time. Brandon drove cars. He was raised by a father who is very into cars, even restoring them. EN didn't and probably couldn't care less. A ride is a ride is a ride.

 

[SStarr33]

It will be interesting to see the evidence Judge allows and/or disallows. Obviously the GJ statements are allowed. In the Aaron Hernandez trial defense continues to bring up GJ testimony vs what witnesses say on the stand. It allows for reasonable doubt if they are caught in any lie.
They should've released EN until they had substantial evidence to warrant a trial. Maybe because it's vegas circus circus is considered "normal" - I still call BS and think they are inching towards full acquittal.
Thanks for all your posts...they make perfect sense!:drumroll:

LOL, how could he be acquitted? He admitted it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

That's just what I said earlier! (That is, IF you believe that KM's story is at all true, which I don't.)

Mistaken identity. So TM & BM took BM's gun and went hunting for some random spiky-haired dude. They found and identified the wrong car. Then they threatened and pointed their gun at and chased an innocent person who was just there in the park minding his own business. They should have not done that.

Either that, or they went hunting specifically for EN that night, which is still what I think.

JMO, IMO, MOO, and all that jazz.

I'm not sure if they were hunting for him or he became a target of opportunity. KM's testimony went all wonky when saying that she didn't see EN but saw someone else out there that she didn't look at. It was seeing that person and then not being clear on what they themselves were doing where TM subsequently got in the drivers seat and went home. The police have previously denied there was a road rage - in contradiction to what the DA is now saying unless the police have backtracked on that now - so taking the road rage out, you just have TM seeing someone and then going home to get BM with a gun and then driving around the same location that this suspicious person only TM looked at was last seen. That then has the weakness of why TM went after that car since it wasn't EN's car as that then becomes a hole.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Now the AP is reporting that the initial 'road rage' incident was unrelated to the later shootings where they say it was a case of mistaken identity by TM with the gray car and they have a quote from the DA: "The state believes the first incident is totally unrelated to Erich Nowsch and the two shootings subsequent to the road rage incident":
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/testimony-mistaken-id-vehicle-preceded-vegas-shooting-29674401
So the DA is basically saying there was some incident with a grey car without tinted windows but then TM chased the wrong car that had nothing to do with that.

The state is full of crap. He's giving into the RM lawyer threat. If he truly believed that, he could have said that a week or two ago. LOL

I'll only believe it's a separate incident if they can bring forth the driver of the "small accident" AND the Audi driver and show us these cars.

It doesn't matter if the prosecution claims it was a separate incident, the defense can still use it to cast doubt.

 

[SStarr33]

I can't imagine anyone saying "I was in that X colored Y model (or # of doors) car made by manufacturer Z with a couple of dudes" vs "I was in my friend Julius' car with Caesar," or maybe more like "We was ridin' my brah LilJule in his cuz Salad's car"? (Sorry, I stink at making up faux gangsta names.)

More baffling to me is how Brandon failed to notice the make and model of "silver car" or at least didn't tell the police. He saw it several times from several different angles and for several minutes at a time. Brandon drove cars. He was raised by a father who is very into cars, even restoring them. EN didn't and probably couldn't care less. A ride is a ride is a ride.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47LCLoidJh4

 

[SpanishInquisition]

LOL! Sorry, it's too late to preserve the credibility of their witnesses. They've got major rehabilitating to do just to get the credibility of their witnesses to the point where there's something worth preserving.

:moo:

I think that's what they're trying to do. I don't think they really have a choice.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

So the Buick leaves, EN gets in the Audi and then parks on a street. So, if EN felt threatened by the people in the Buick, why didn't he tell the Audi driver to take him someplace safe? Instead they hung around the very area they felt threatened in. :thinking:

Confessions or not, I don't think we're getting the straight story from anyone. That part really bothered me as he went to the exact spot where he saw the threat. I think he got in the car on Cherry Creek and then looped around the school to Ducharme and I think he even says they drove in the school parking lot. Just as I don't know what TM intended to happen, I don't know what EN intended to happen as neither party had to return to the scene of what they mutually described as unusual activity that made them leave in the first place - like I wonder what would have happened in an alternative scenario where EN winds up behind the Buick instead of the other way around.

 

[sonjay]

I'm not sure if they were hunting for him or he became a target of opportunity. KM's testimony went all wonky when saying that she didn't see EN but saw someone else out there that she didn't look at. It was seeing that person and then not being clear on what they themselves were doing where TM subsequently got in the drivers seat and went home. The police have previously denied there was a road rage - in contradiction to what the DA is now saying unless the police have backtracked on that now - so taking the road rage out, you just have TM seeing someone and then going home to get BM with a gun and then driving around the same location that this suspicious person only TM looked at was last seen. That then has the weakness of why TM went after that car since it wasn't EN's car as that then becomes a hole.

Target of opportunity doesn't work for me. I have trouble seeing TM & BM going out to troll for random people to threaten and chase. I don't have trouble believing that they were specifically angry at EN and set out to get him.

Based on BM & EN both saying they didn't really know each other, I have to go with TM was mad at EN over something, and she took BM with her as her "enforcer."

 

[Miss Muffet]

I don't know what to think about this. TY for posting!!!

Okay after reading several times, I call BS on another version. Not sure what DA is trying to do here but this is bogus. Not what our constitution is based on. They cannot just change theories on a whim due to lack of evidence.
The entire so called incident when someone said "Im going to kill mother and daughter"!! WHAT??? That couldn't have happened since this was a stranger who didn't know they were mother/daughter!!
Give me a break!!!

Exactly. It is bogus. The descriptions of the cars are too similar. RM, BM, KM, LE and the DA can't prove there were two different cars and drivers. Why? Because they don't have any drivers or any cars.

It's downright silly for the DA to now play the neverending story game. He and RM must be drinking buddies. That's the only explanation I can imagine. Or there's something in the water in Vegas and PaperDoll has managed to not be infected because she drinks martinis.

How can the DA think in a million years that any jurist will be believe that TM and KM's lives where threatened by someone driving a car and within mere minutes they were killed by someone in a different car with a different driver?

It's insanity. Utter insanity. People have a hard enough time believing the first incident happened. Now they not only expect people to believe it happened, they expect people to believe that people in two different cars were out to kill the Meyerses that night.

Are DA's elected in NV? The residents of that neighborhood should do everything in their power to ensure this man never gets reelected. He just trashed their property values with this foolishness.

Claus is going to have soooooooooo much fun with this!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

LOL, how could he be acquitted? He admitted it.

Yet it happens:
http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...-acquitted-in-dui-crash-killing-5-injuring-2/

 

[jjenny]

But EN also accused the Buick of thinking they were after him when maybe they weren't at that time. At that time the Buick was doing the "driving lesson" thing and EN was in the park and could see the Buick from there. He then called his friend to come help him and wouldn't get in the car until the Buick left. So the Buick leaves, EN gets in the Audi and then parks on a street. So, if EN felt threatened by the people in the Buick, why didn't he tell the Audi driver to take him someplace safe? Instead they hung around the very area they felt threatened in. :thinking:

Don't you know, he gets a pass on everything around here. He looked across the park, saw the car driving, and thought they were "after him." Where is the proof anybody was after him in the park? The car left without doing anything to him.

 

[PaperDoll]

Target of opportunity doesn't work for me. I have trouble seeing TM & BM going out to troll for random people to threaten and chase. I don't have trouble believing that they were specifically angry at EN and set out to get him.

Based on BM & EN both saying they didn't really know each other, I have to go with TM was mad at EN over something, and she took BM with her as her "enforcer."

But if TM was mad at EN over something, wouldn't EN recognize the Buick? He knew who TM was because he even said he ate at their house and knew the daughter, wouldn't you think he also knew they drove a dark green Buick?

 

[jjenny]

Target of opportunity doesn't work for me. I have trouble seeing TM & BM going out to troll for random people to threaten and chase. I don't have trouble believing that they were specifically angry at EN and set out to get him.

Based on BM & EN both saying they didn't really know each other, I have to go with TM was mad at EN over something, and she took BM with her as her "enforcer."

I thought TM wasn't even there? Now she was? If they went after EN in the park, why didn't they do anything while he was alone?

 

[jayme1133]

I did find that suspicious, like she didn't really want to talk about what they were doing, however, I'm not sure if it wasn't transcribed wrong, like that KM might have broken off mid-sentence where she was about to say they didn't do something but instead went mid-sentence to saying they rolled up the windows to describe what they did do. That does seem to be a way of saying she didn't see EN by denying actually taking a look at the person doing the unusual activities as she had already testified she didn't see EN, but this gives an out for seeing EN while putting it on TM as the one who would have recognized EN.

Not only contradictions BUT how about LEADING the witnesses....hmmmm!

 

[Miss Muffet]

There is no way he will be acquitted. None.

After he's acquitted, I'm going to put this quote in my signature:

"There is no way [Erich Nowsch] will be acquitted. None." ~SStarr33

Immediately below it, I'll have a link to an article titled, "Erich Nowsch Acquitted!"

 

[jjenny]

After he's acquitted, I'm going to put this quote in my signature:

"There is no way [Erich Nowsch] will be acquitted. None." ~SStarr33

Immediately below it, I'll have a link to an article titled, "Erich Nowsch Acquitted!"

I will do the opposite after plea deal or a conviction.