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

[BellaVita]

If any or all of the confessions are deemed admissible during the trial it wouldn't matter whether BM fired/pointed his gun first as what matters was what EN thought was happening. Having these confessions cuts both ways in that it shows EN was the shooter and he did not believe he had been fired upon on one hand, but on the other hand it shows that he thought he had just been assaulted with a deadly weapon and that the ones who had gone after him were going to get even more weapons in their pursuit of him.

I've read KK's and the GJ documents regarding shots fired. EN's perception that no shots were fired is incorrect. I know what you're saying but I think there could be some artful defense lawyering on this point. I also recall that BM had stated his desire to purchase a silencer. Wonder if he actually had one?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Interesting articles. The Byford vs. State on findlaw.com contained this:

Deliberation is the process of determining upon a course of action to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the action and considering the consequences of the action.

A deliberate determination may be arrived at in a short period of time.   But in all cases the determination must not be formed in passion, or if formed in passion, it must be carried out after there has been time for the passion to subside and deliberation to occur.   A mere unconsidered and rash impulse is not deliberate, even though it includes the intent to kill​

This case is absolutely not first-degree murder, no matter how one tortures the facts in an attempt to make it so.

I think the most likely results is that a jury will see something less than M1, but that he won't get off. Also with EN not being shot at that actual bolsters his defense as far as M1 is concerned because that lends credibility to a gun being pointed/waved at him by the school because without that he wouldn't have known the car was armed in the first place as we know it was, so BN's thoughts on being assaulted would fall within the 'reasonable person' standard. Then you have the Meyers testimony where they themselves said they had gone home and got armed to then go out and chase, so EN thinking that the Meyers were getting more strapped may fall under 'reasonable person' standard as well since such an activity had occurred no more than 10 or 20 minutes prior, so it's not like EN's thought had no basis. I think the jury will find him responsible for being on Mt Shasta when he shouldn't have been, but will give him M2 or Voluntary Manslaughter given the circumstances and I see it as more likely that he would get off completely than that he would get M1...I guess I'm at 70/20/10 on the odds.

 

[RANCH]

I believe that the evidence we have shows that Erich is guilty of murder 1. I also understand that a jury could convict him of lesser charges or even aquit him. Posts suggesting that I don't understand the english languge are not welcome.

JMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I've read KK's and the GJ documents regarding shots fired. EN's perception that no shots were fired is incorrect. I know what you're saying but I think there could be some artful defense lawyering on this point. I also recall that BM had stated his desire to purchase a silencer. Wonder if he actually had one?

Yes, there can be artful lawyering and I've said it is possible that he gets off, just I'm saying that is not the most probable result if one or more of those confessions get entered into evidence during the trial. This has been about assuming the confession make it into trial and taking what was actually confessed to by EN at 100% face value with Mogg reporting what he confessed to accurately. If we are to accept EN's confession as accurate, then it is to also accept that his actions were not meeting all the requisite elements of M1 based on what EN said he thought during the events surrounding this case.

 

[BellaVita]

That's backwards from how EN described it. The Audi pulled into the cul de sac and EN saw a person running toward the house. He thought they were going to get more guns. That's when he thought to himself that he couldn't let them get away — because he thought they were going to come back out with more guns. That sounds pretty spontaneous and immediate to me. JMO, IMO, MOO and all that jazz.

This makes me think a couple things.
One: shouldn't EN have known this was the M's house. A place where he had eaten dinner and washed the family's cars.
Two: If he didn't even realize THAT, then I can see why he didn't even perceive gunfire directed at him. Tunnel vision of some sort.
Three: after the police FINALLY found out that the M's and EN knew each other, I wonder if he was questioned on that point: arriving at the house and whether he recognized who lived there
Four: RM, and again, his credibility is low, says TM knew who was in the car. He also says that EN would have recognized the Buick. EN thought the people in the Buick were after him. They were. I don't know what to think next. Any ideas?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

This makes me think a couple things.
One: shouldn't EN have known this was the M's house. A place where he had eaten dinner and washed the family's cars.
Two: If he didn't even realize THAT, then I can see why he didn't even perceive gunfire directed at him. Tunnel vision of some sort.
Three: after the police FINALLY found out that the M's and EN knew each other, I wonder if he was questioned on that point: arriving at the house and whether he recognized who lived there
Four: RM, and again, his credibility is low, says TM knew who was in the car. He also says that EN would have recognized the Buick. EN thought the people in the Buick were after him. They were. I don't know what to think next. Any ideas?

This is what Mogg says about that:

Q. Did he ever describe, Mr. Nowsch to you in
his interview that he knew the occupants of the green
car?
A. Not at that point. Later in the interview
he said that he learned that the person he shot was
Tammy Meyers and that he had actually been to their
residence on a previous occasion and had dinner, he knew
the victim's daughter, knew that she was 15 years old,
which was contrary to what the media reported that she
was 14, he also knew the victim's son, I believe Matthew
and Robert, he didn't know the older son though, said he
might have seen him on one previous occasion but didn't
know him.

 

[BellaVita]

Q. Did he ever describe, Mr. Nowsch to you in
his interview that he knew the occupants of the green
car?
A. Not at that point. Later in the interview
he said that he learned that the person he shot was
Tammy Meyers and that he had actually been to their
residence on a previous occasion and had dinner, he knew
the victim's daughter, knew that she was 15 years old,
which was contrary to what the media reported that she
was 14, he also knew the victim's son, I believe Matthew
and Robert, he didn't know the older son though, said he
might have seen him on one previous occasion but didn't
know him.

I read that. It seems deliberately vague like the learners permit question. I go back to EN telling one of his friends "I think I killed someone's mom" and the witness said he thought EN was about to cry. The "someone" that EN was referring to were the same people from the "those kids were after me and I got them" story. It IS hard to believe EN didn't know it was the M's house at the end of the cul de sac. When EN thought it was "those kids" who he'd gotten, KK described him as happy and excited. And he DID know that he'd shot someone. I guess this line of thinking just makes me wonder what my have been going on between the M kids and EN. Maybe he didn't recognize the Buick at first, but on Mt. Shasta, he should have recognized the house and put 2 and 2 together. IMO.

 

[sonjay]

I'm thinking tunnel vision. He wasn't driving and was probably focused more on watching for the green car than paying attention to where they were going. Those cul de sacs look pretty similar to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kimi_SFC]

:tyou: bessie!
:yourock:
:gomods:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I read that. It seems deliberately vague like the learners permit question. I go back to EN telling one of his friends "I think I killed someone's mom" and the witness said he thought EN was about to cry. The "someone" that EN was referring to were the same people from the "those kids were after me and I got them" story. It IS hard to believe EN didn't know it was the M's house at the end of the cul de sac. When EN thought it was "those kids" who he'd gotten, KK described him as happy and excited. And he DID know that he'd shot someone. I guess this line of thinking just makes me wonder what my have been going on between the M kids and EN. Maybe he didn't recognize the Buick at first, but on Mt. Shasta, he should have recognized the house and put 2 and 2 together. IMO.

Yes, that's how I took it that he was totally shocked about TM, but he wouldn't have been surprised about KM/MM/RM Jr (he didn't know BM, but he probably would have known of BM).

 

[PaperDoll]

I agree. I thought that was worded ambiguously the first time I read it, and I still do.

Also, the part where she's describing the alleged route home from the alleged driving lesson:

Q. And then you leave the parking lot and where do you then go on your way to?
A. We go straight on Villa Monterey.
Q. Is that the way you would go to go home?
A. Yeah.

Well, yeah, Villa Monterey is the way they would go to go home — for a very short distance. But KM said the road rage/accident/death threat took place over on Cimarron near Westcliff, which isn't anywhere close to the way they would go to go home.

A lot of things were left ambiguous or unclear, or left out altogether, in the GJ presentation. All of it will be examined in depth at the trial, when the defense gets to cross examine these people.

I think we'll learn a lot of interesting things during the trial. Many of those things will show that there have been even more lies than we're currently aware of. JMO.

I thought the same thing when I read this. TM and KM didn't go directly home when they left the school parking lot and yet in the transcript she made it sound like they did go home. This is why I believe that KM was still driving, I think she may have wanted to take the car out on the streets instead of just in the parking lot. At that time of evening I don't think there would be much traffic out. She could take Cimarron home but it wouldn't make sense to from the school. Westcliff isn't far from their home, in fact all the streets that are mentioned are in close proximity of their home.

 

[PaperDoll]

I'm thinking tunnel vision. He wasn't driving and was probably focused more on watching for the green car than paying attention to where they were going. Those cul de sacs look pretty similar to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't agree with this because EN told the driver he knew a short cut to his house so he knew what street he was taking, and he knew Mt. Shasta as well IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

I'm thinking tunnel vision. He wasn't driving and was probably focused more on watching for the green car than paying attention to where they were going. Those cul de sacs look pretty similar to each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get where you're coming from. I've even wondered how the M's were able to provide such a detailed account of the route they took. Maybe it was helped by info provided by surveillance. The GJ testimony is again vague as to what info EN provided regarding the chase and street names. I'd like to know if he named Mt. Shasta by name during the confession. Also, in the GJ testimony, EN DOES say he told the driver that he knew a shortcut to his house. This tells me he was aware and engaged with where the driver was going. It would seem from the transcript that Mt. Shasta was part of the shortcut. Another poster who lives in Vegas did a sort of test of the chase route and by her calculations, she thought the M's should have had 20 seconds to get into their house before the Audi showed up. I wonder if EN even knew that the Buick was on Mt. Shasta. I'm now beginning to think that EN may truly have been trying to get home, that he did not follow the Buick there purposely and that the final encounter was not premediated chasing of the Buick. It seems the Audi went there to turn the car around and lo and behold, there was the Buick, AGAIN.

From the transcript:
He said they continued westbound and he
said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his
house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River
than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac
with the driver door open and he sees someone running

It seems to me that number one priority was getting home and only after turning sideways to start heading in that direction, do they notice the Buick. I don't think the Audi was hunting at that point. IMO.

 

[BellaVita]

I thought the same thing when I read this. TM and KM didn't go directly home when they left the school parking lot and yet in the transcript she made it sound like they did go home. This is why I believe that KM was still driving, I think she may have wanted to take the car out on the streets instead of just in the parking lot. At that time of evening I don't think there would be much traffic out. She could take Cimarron home but it wouldn't make sense to from the school. Westcliff isn't far from their home, in fact all the streets that are mentioned are in close proximity of their home.

Something else. I think our Las Vegas poster said there would be little traffic at that time. Was this a 2 lane or 4 lane highway where the road rage incident is alleged to have taken place? It seem like even if the Buick was driving too slow for the alleged spikey haired guy that he could easily pass them without all the drama about coming back for you and you daughter, etc. If he could actually stop his car in the middle of the road, get out and verbally threaten the M's, get back in his car and no interference from other motorists, it seems he could have just passed them if the road was THAT deserted. Unless there is surveillance or eyewitnesses, I don't think I can believe this road rage story. It makes no sense. IMO.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

With the Buick RM had actually said that EN may not have recognized it since the windows had been tinted months previously. I just noticed something in an article where it looks like EN was expressly banned at some point as RM where his kids weren't allowed to hang around EN or his friends while at the same time TM may have seen EN as recently as a few days prior to the shooting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/erich-milton-nowsch-jr_n_6742774.html
RM makes it sound like TM in particular was around RM:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...as-vegas-road-rage-death-tammy-meyers-n309111

 

[SpanishInquisition]

Something else. I think our Las Vegas poster said there would be little traffic at that time. Was this a 2 lane or 4 lane highway where the road rage incident is alleged to have taken place? It seem like even if the Buick was driving too slow for the alleged spikey haired guy that he could easily pass them without all the drama about coming back for you and you daughter, etc. If he could actually stop his car in the middle of the road, get out and verbally threaten the M's, get back in his car and no interference from other motorists, it seems he could have just passed them if the road was THAT deserted. Unless there is surveillance or eyewitnesses, I don't think I can believe this road rage story. It makes no sense. IMO.

It allegedly happened on Cimarron, which is a single lane in each direction. I do see how this could have happened if they wanted to get further revenge on the car they honked at and had passed them. For the road rage to have occurred, they had to pass that car again and what they may have done is themselves slowing down/stopping once they had that car behind them on a single lane road. If the Meyers had slammed on their brakes with themselves being the road ragers, the other car could have gone into the bike lane and then spun out while trying to avoid an accident where they would have rear-ended the Buick - the other driver could have needed to make two evasive maneuvers rapidly to first avoid the Buick and to then avoid any parked cars. The person could have been yelling not that he was going to kill TM and her daughter, but instead saying that TM almost killed the driver and his daughter...not a death threat at all, but instead upset saying the Meyers themselves were threatening the lives of others by their actions. If TM will go chase gang members to their homes, I could easily see TM intentionally slamming on her brakes to be aggressive toward a driver she didn't like.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't know why you're saying you agree, because I think it's possible a gang was involved in what happened that night.
.

Sorry I haven't been back online since I replied to your post yesterday.

I owe you a big apology Miss Muffett. Please let me clarify my previous post reply to you.

I wasn't agreeing with any statement you made. You had put up excerpts (quotes) of the article from the DM, which did not show up in your quoted post when I replied to it.

It was this statement from the DM article.... I was agreeing with that was quoted in your post.

It has been speculated there could have been a gang motive behind the death of Tammy Meyers, but Sandy's son, Colorado, 19, is friendly with her sons: Brandon, 22, Matthew, 20, and Robert, 23, and also knows Nowsch, and finds the idea absurd.

Sorry for any confusion.

 

[PaperDoll]

I get where you're coming from. I've even wondered how the M's were able to provide such a detailed account of the route they took. Maybe it was helped by info provided by surveillance. The GJ testimony is again vague as to what info EN provided regarding the chase and street names. I'd like to know if he named Mt. Shasta by name during the confession. Also, in the GJ testimony, EN DOES say he told the driver that he knew a shortcut to his house. This tells me he was aware and engaged with where the driver was going. It would seem from the transcript that Mt. Shasta was part of the shortcut. Another poster who lives in Vegas did a sort of test of the chase route and by her calculations, she thought the M's should have had 20 seconds to get into their house before the Audi showed up. I wonder if EN even knew that the Buick was on Mt. Shasta. I'm now beginning to think that EN may truly have been trying to get home, that he did not follow the Buick there purposely and that the final encounter was not premediated chasing of the Buick. It seems the Audi went there to turn the car around and lo and behold, there was the Buick, AGAIN.

From the transcript:
He said they continued westbound and he
said that he couldn't believe they were driving past his
house. His house is further to the west on Cherry River
than Carmel Peak. So they turned around and they came
back and he said "I know a left turn, a shortcut to get
to my house," something to that effect. They come back
into the cul-de-sac on Mount Shasta where the victim was
shot. He says as they pull into the cul-de-sac, again
he's sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, their
vehicle kind of turns sideways is how he draws it, he
sees the victim's vehicle at the end of the cul-de-sac
with the driver door open and he sees someone running

It seems to me that number one priority was getting home and only after turning sideways to start heading in that direction, do they notice the Buick. I don't think the Audi was hunting at that point. IMO.

It's hard for me to believe that the Meyers pasted EN's house on their way home from the 1st shooting. It doesn't make sense.. Once the Meyers where on Cherry River, Carmel Peak is on the left hand side (if they were heading in the direction as Cimarron), they would not be passing EN's house to turn on Carmel Peak, then Mt. Shasta is almost a immediate right. HOWEVER, and this will not make any sense at all, if the Meyers were coming off Cimarron heading home, then they would pass EN's house to get to Carmel Peak and that would be a right turn instead of left.

So, I personally think that the Audi and Buick were travelling the same direction but on different streets (Audi on Alta, Buick on Cherry River) and when the Buick hit Carmel Peak, that is when I think the Audi saw the Buick but maybe didn't know which direction it came from thinking maybe it passed EN's house. BUT, in that scenario it wouldn't make sense because the Buick would have had to taken Cimarron to pass EN's house. So, maybe EN saw the Buick when is was actually turning onto Mt. Shasta and assumed it past his house because he really didn't see what direction it came from. I personally think the Buick went straight home and the quickest and fastest way possible, and that would be from Villa Monterey/Cherry River/ Carmel Peak/Mt. Shasta and Boom, home!

 

[PaperDoll]

Something else. I think our Las Vegas poster said there would be little traffic at that time. Was this a 2 lane or 4 lane highway where the road rage incident is alleged to have taken place? It seem like even if the Buick was driving too slow for the alleged spikey haired guy that he could easily pass them without all the drama about coming back for you and you daughter, etc. If he could actually stop his car in the middle of the road, get out and verbally threaten the M's, get back in his car and no interference from other motorists, it seems he could have just passed them if the road was THAT deserted. Unless there is surveillance or eyewitnesses, I don't think I can believe this road rage story. It makes no sense. IMO.

2 lanes going the same direction, 4 total including the all lanes on the road there maybe bike lanes as well, not sure though

 

[PaperDoll]

2 lanes going the same direction, 4 total including the all lanes on the road there maybe bike lanes as well, not sure though

Quoting myself, I take that back Cimarron has one lane in each direction, I was thinking of Alta.