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

[jayme1133]

And if EN wasn't one of the dregs of society Tammy would be alive!!!

Tammy paid for her mistake with her life. Now it's time to lock up the who murdered her.

If this thread is any idea of what jury will do....100% will be a hung jury or acquittal.

 

[jjenny]

If this thread is any idea of what jury will do....100% will be a hung jury or acquittal.

It's pretty naïve to think you know what jury will do based on what has been posted here.

 

[SStarr33]

If this thread is any idea of what jury will do....100% will be a hung jury or acquittal.

Go look at the GZ trial threads. There were varying opinions and he was acquitted.

 

[jjenny]

I'm wondering why a victim had been out hunting for a neighbor kid with her armed son. What was her plan to do to EN when she found him?

Edited to remove the horribly tasteless wording from my reply. I can't bear to see it attributed to me.

Well, it sure doesn't sound like it was to kill him, because he isn't dead. He wasn't even shot at during the car chase part. And it sure doesn't look like anybody was "hunting" for him in the park, except in your imagination. He was alone in the park, if they wanted to harm him then, they could have. There was no attempts made, and the car left.

 

[jjenny]

Go look at the GZ trial threads. There were varying opinions and he was acquitted.

And weren't most people posting that he was guilty?

 

[jayme1133]

I have watched many trials and will stand behind my opinion! There is not enough evidence to prove M1 to 12 people from what I can see. It's exactly why DA went to GJ in the first place.
its pretty simple to me and I hop Claus doesn't accept a plea.

 

[jayme1133]

And weren't most people posting that he was guilty?

I never thought GZ would be convicted! And, I didn't watch that trial but did follow it.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

 

[jayme1133]

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.

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!!!

 

[SpanishInquisition]

He was alone in the park, if they wanted to harm him then, they could have.

So is it TM or KM that you think could outrun EN? Was it TM or KM that you think was armed? I'm not seeing how they could have harmed him until they went back and got BM and his gun unless you think the description given as to the occupants of the vehicle was wrong or if think there was a weapon that was left out of the police report.

 

[jjenny]

Im reading through this once in a while. I keep hoping to come here and see a post that makes this whole case make sense.
I don't see that yet.

I am not sure how any of us can post something that makes this whole case make sense. We were not there, so we could only speculate.
If you follow the story, it appears to be a whole lot of mistaken identity going on. Reminds me of Shakespearean play.

 

[SStarr33]

I have watched many trials and will stand behind my opinion! There is not enough evidence to prove M1 to 12 people from what I can see. It's exactly why DA went to GJ in the first place.
its pretty simple to me and I hop Claus doesn't accept a plea.

There is no way he will be acquitted. None.

 

[jjenny]

So is it TM or KM that you think could outrun EN? Was it TM or KM that you think was armed? I'm not seeing how they could have harmed him until they went back and got BM and his gun unless you think the description given as to the occupants of the vehicle was wrong or if think there was a weapon that was left out of the police report.

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.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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.

The strange is that KM affirmatively denied that the person who caused them to prematurely end the driving lessons EN and said basically the same thing about this not-EN person as EN said about the Buick:

Q. Now that evening when you were at Walter
Johnson High School, did you ever see Mr. Nowsch there?
A. No.
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.

 

[ontheclock]

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?

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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!!!

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.

 

[SStarr33]

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.

No, I checked that the other day and the warrant only gives the Shasta address

 

[sonjay]

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.

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.

 

[jayme1133]

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.

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:

 

[SpanishInquisition]

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 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.