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

[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.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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 don't think they were out trolling, but I don't think they knew they'd see EN there or else BM would have been along from the beginning (which he could have been as a possible reading of KM's testimony implies there's at least three people in the car at the time TM looks at the unusual person), but TM would have no reason to leave unless it was to get BM. There's a reason to leave sans BM with seeing EN as a target of opportunity, but there's no reason to leave if you've already got BM and are there expressly after EN from the get-go. I did get the feeling that KM wanted plausible deniability to seeing EN and it was seeing EN that triggered the trip home given how her testimony went all vague and contradictory at that point.

 

[PaperDoll]

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?

That makes sense.. The Buick LEFT and if the Meyers were out looking for EN because they had a "beef" or whatever, they had good opportunity to get him when he was alone, good call on that one, jjenny. EN also said he saw someone in the Buick show their gun, well apparently there were no shots fired from the Buick, but there were shots fired from the Audi.

 

[jayme1133]

The state is full of crap. He's giving into the RM lawyer thread. 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.

I call BS too...Hope they can prove this!!

 

[SStarr33]

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

LOL, that is nothing like this case. You are going to have to find the Audi driver and get him to confess to being the shooter or find some evidence that he was before we can talk about anything like this happening

 

[jayme1133]

The state is full of crap. He's giving into the RM lawyer thread. 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.

I call BS too...Doesn't matter though what we think, what can they prove! Hope they have new drivers that are 6'2 and 180 pounds ready to testify!

WOW that was odd...my reply just jumped on another persons post.

 

[Miss Muffet]

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?

I noticed the same thing when she said, "my mom looked but we didn't." That seemed to indicate more than TM and KM were in the car. But very shortly after that the DA asked her if anyone else was in the car with her and TM. She said no.

I think it's odd he'd decide to have her clarify and reiterate the car occupants so far into the driving lesson story. I almost feel the DA knows it was TM, KM and BM in the car the entire time (Yes, I'll speculate that one, Sonya), but he's gotta take this case to court with what these idiots provided him because he can't change stories.

However, now that he has publicly changed his story to the first car incident being entirely unrelated, he seems to have no problem changing his story. Why doesn't he just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch and come up with something that remotely makes sense. Or better yet, why not try this case with the truth?

 

[sonjay]

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?

There are still parts to this incident that haven't been revealed; things that are still not being talked about. I wish I knew what they're all covering up.

I think that EN knew some of the Meyers kids. If TM did buy drugs from him, then of course he knew her. We still don't know, though, who if anyone regularly drove that Buick, and we don't know how much time EN did or didn't spend at the Meyers home. Maybe he didn't know the car. Maybe he thought MM & RM were after him. Maybe he thought it was other "kids" who were after him -- kids whose names haven't even come up. Based on what we've heard about his reactions after he learned that he had shot TM, I'm pretty sure he didn't know it was her in the car.

Regardless of what EN knew or when he knew it, and regardless of whether or not you believe there were driving lessons and road rage, what TM and her son did that night doesn't make any sense. We're stuck with at least one behavioral choice that makes no sense -- the choice by TM & BM to take BM's gun and go out hunting for whoever they thought they were hunting for.

I'm starting to think that no one in that entire neighborhood is capable of rational thought or action.

 

[ontheclock]

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 tend to lean this way as well.

 

[Miss Muffet]

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.

Now the DA has lost his own credibility too.

 

[PaperDoll]

There are still parts to this incident that haven't been revealed; things that are still not being talked about. I wish I knew what they're all covering up.

I think that EN knew some of the Meyers kids. If TM did buy drugs from him, then of course he knew her. We still don't know, though, who if anyone regularly drove that Buick, and we don't know how much time EN did or didn't spend at the Meyers home. Maybe he didn't know the car. Maybe he thought MM & RM were after him. Maybe he thought it was other "kids" who were after him -- kids whose names haven't even come up. Based on what we've heard about his reactions after he learned that he had shot TM, I'm pretty sure he didn't know it was her in the car.

Regardless of what EN knew or when he knew it, and regardless of whether or not you believe there were driving lessons and road rage, what TM and her son did that night doesn't make any sense. We're stuck with at least one behavioral choice that makes no sense -- the choice by TM & BM to take BM's gun and go out hunting for whoever they thought they were hunting for.

I'm starting to think that no one in that entire neighborhood is capable of rational thought or action.

BBM: I agree, that doesn't make sense to me. We can all bash our heads on this one. Ok, I can see BM maybe doing something like that since he is a young man and may feel this need to take action, but for TM to go out looking with or without her son??? Yup, I don't understand that..

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I noticed the same thing when she said, "my mom looked but we didn't." That seemed to indicate more than TM and KM were in the car. But very shortly after that the DA asked her if anyone else was in the car with her and TM. She said no.

I think it's odd he'd decide to have her clarify and reiterate the car occupants so far into the driving lesson story. I almost feel the DA knows it was TM, KM and BM in the car the entire time (Yes, I'll speculate that one, Sonya), but he's gotta take this case to court with what these idiots provided him because he can't change stories.

However, now that he has publicly changed his story to the first car incident being entirely unrelated, he seems to have no problem changing his story. Why doesn't he just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch and come up with something that remotely makes sense. Or better yet, why not try this case with the truth?

I think the truth will be a very precious commodity in this trial. The DA is stuck as whatever GJ testimony or other sworn statements will be stuck on the DA. I guess what he could do is just have K and A testify as they seem the most credible of anyone and prosecute based on the EN-perspective rather than trying to tell it from the Meyers-perspective. EN's defense can undermine K and A by saying their hearsay is an imperfect second-hand story, but I don't think they could be successfully gone after as engaging in any willful lies. It would be risky, but then the prosecution would only be left with using the Meyers for victim impact statements during the sentencing phase if there is one.

 

[ontheclock]

Don't you love how both KM and BM have amnesia regarding what streets they were on. In the warrant statement, they were both very specific about the routes the buick went. Suddenly, KM eliminates going to the neighborhood north of the school and BM suddenly can't remember the name of streets they were on or where they went. Their rapid rogression of dementia is so incredible, I'll be amazed if either of them remember their names by the time this makes it to trial.

KM also doesn't know how far away from home the "road-rage" incident took place, nor how much time elapsed from the time BM and TM left to search out the "road-rager" until the shootout at her home.

I'm pretty sure if my mom and bro took off with a gun, I'd remember how soon they came home, considering mom ended up dead. I'd be on pins and needles the whole time. Probably calling them and looking out the window as well. I'd love to see all the cell phone logs.

 

[SStarr33]

I noticed the same thing when she said, "my mom looked but we didn't." That seemed to indicate more than TM and KM were in the car. But very shortly after that the DA asked her if anyone else was in the car with her and TM. She said no.

I think it's odd he'd decide to have her clarify and reiterate the car occupants so far into the driving lesson story. I almost feel the DA knows it was TM, KM and BM in the car the entire time (Yes, I'll speculate that one, Sonya), but he's gotta take this case to court with what these idiots provided him because he can't change stories.

However, now that he has publicly changed his story to the first car incident being entirely unrelated, he seems to have no problem changing his story. Why doesn't he just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch and come up with something that remotely makes sense. Or better yet, why not try this case with the truth?

Um, we means more than one not to mention that clearly she keeps interrupting herself. She was probably nervous.

 

[SStarr33]

KM also doesn't know how far away from home the "road-rage" incident took place, nor how much time elapsed from the time BM and TM left to search out the "road-rager" until the shootout at her home.

I'm pretty sure if my mom and bro took off with a gun, I'd remember how soon they came home, considering mom ended up dead. I'd be on pins and needles the whole time. Probably calling them and looking out the window as well. I'd love to see all the cell phone logs.

I like to see any of you guys at the age of 15 perform at the level you expect her to perform right after your mom had her brains blown out in your front yard.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

This may have just been the DA misspeaking, but according to the DA RM was subpoenaed to testify the GJ:

Q. Kristal, as you testify here today, how old
are you?
A. Fifteen.
Q. I apologize for the delay.
You came down here because you and your
father were subpoenaed by my office to testify in front
of the Grand Jury today. You're a minor; correct?
A. Yes.

 

[jjenny]

This may have just been the DA misspeaking, but according to the DA RM was subpoenaed to testify the GJ:

That clearly is a mistake. Obviously DA meant her and her brother. You can see from the transcript RM didn't testify.

 

[SStarr33]

This may have just been the DA misspeaking, but according to the DA RM was subpoenaed to testify the GJ:

Yes, I noticed that and I wondered if a parent gets the subpoena for a minor child

 

[jjenny]

Yes, I noticed that and I wondered if a parent gets the subpoena for a minor child

DA clearly meant "brother" not "father."

 

[SStarr33]

DA clearly meant "brother" not "father."

Good point--makes sense.