GUILTY NV - Tammy Meyers, 44, fatally shot at her Las Vegas home, 12 Feb 2015 - #4

[Snoods]

As an mental exercise, I put together a simple timeline of events in this case, omitting from the timeline the untruths told by the Meyers family -- in an attempt to see what the bare bones of the event look like without the confusion of the Meyers deceptions. I did include some of what EN told his friends, as their interviews with police seem credible. I also included some of the later revelations when we learned that the Meyerses had not been truthful or forthcoming about that night, but as to the events on the night of Feb. 12, I stuck to the barebones outline of what we know to be true or are reasonably certain is true.

Here 'tis:

========================================
Night of the shooting:
Feb. 12 - Around 11:20 to 11:30 pm

EN sees Meyers green car in school parking lot, thinks someone is after him, calls friend with silver car to come pick him up.

EN sees someone in green car with a gun.

Green car chases silver car.

Silver car stops during chase and EN fires at green car. EN in silver car fires several times at green car; green car does not fire at silver car.

Green car drives to Meyers cul de sac. Silver car follows it to cul de sac.

Gunfire is exchanged. EN fires from passenger seat of silver car, firing at someone at the car and at someone running toward the house. BM, standing in cul de sac, fires at silver car. TM is hit. Silver car leaves. 911 is called.

========================================
Subsequent Events:

Feb. 13 around 3-3:30am - EN visits his friends, tells them about the shooting, tells them he "got those kids, they were after me and I got them."

Feb. 14 - TM is taken off life support and dies. Police release sketch of suspect. It's not clear whether sketch is the shooter or the driver of the silver car, but is a "suspect." It's not stated by police which of the Meyerses provided the description for the sketch.

Feb. 15 - RM visits EN's house, wanting to talk to him

Feb. 17 - EN is picked up on unrelated juvie warrant, is questioned about Meyers shooting, denies any involvement, is released. It is revealed that BM was in green car while it was chasing silver car.

Feb. 18 - police talk to EN's friends, who tell police what EN told them the night of the shooting.

Feb. 19 - EN is arrested. He is a neighbor of Meyers family, and Meyers family knows him, knew it was him all along, and TM knew him well. Police say they didn't know until today that Meyers family knew EN. EN doesn't look like suspect sketch, police say they're still looking for another suspect but say they are not looking for the person in the sketch. Police refuse to say more about the sketch or why it doesn't resemble EN or who it's a sketch of.

========================================


Without the confusion of the deceptions by the Meyers, this has a different feel to it, I think. Does this barebones outline give anyone any new thoughts about what happened, or make you rethink any of what you thought previously?

Thank you Sonjay, I'm going to add your timeline post in the media thread if you don't mind. Easier to find if we need to reference it.

 

[sonjay]

Maybe the neighbor Selig is right:

"The son and mother left the Meyers residence looking for Erich on a drug deal gone bad. That's the word on the street. A prescription drug deal gone bad."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nned-19-year-old-said-buying-Xanax-years.html

So let's try this on for size. TM had a deal with EN go bad. BM and his mom set out (BM armed) looking for EN. EN correctly identified them as being "after him." EN called the Audi driver (who was part of the neighborhood drug territory and therefore part of the "drug deal gone bad."

Words were exchanged. The chase happened. Shooting scene #1 happened. BM had his gun with him, but wasn't expecting EN to shoot, so it was in his holster, safety on. By the time he got it out of the holster and ready to fire, TM was already fleeing back toward home. Shooting scene #2 happened. BM pushed his mother back into car and moved toward the house. EN shot at both of them, but hit only TM, while BM was returning fire.

BM got his sister from the house and they quickly made up a story for the police, because they definitely did not want to tell police what actually happened.

Does this comport with the facts as we know them?

I actually asked this question seriously earlier. Is there any reason the neighbor's claim can't be true? It was nothing but a drug deal gone bad, BM & TM were out together looking for EN.

This is nice and simple. Easy. No contortions trying to fit in Audi-driving drug kingpins or multiple trips out and back by the Meyerses or how did TM happen to be in front of the house to get shot.

Occam's razor and all that.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Look at the last paragraph of the warrant.

"The information is also consistent with there were two shooting scenes, which to your affiant's knowledge has never been released to the media."

This supports RM's claim that there were details of the case the Meyerses promised not to disclose because it would hinder the investigation.

What has been impacted by the above revelation?

LE purposely withheld the first shooting scene from the media. Does that mean the first story told by the Meyerses can no longer be considered the most accurate version?

Does that mean the theory of one long event without the buick returning home isn't the most accurate since the two separate car trips with the Buick returning home is also included in the new version that has two shooting scenes?

Does the warrant supporting RM's claim the Meyerses had to withhold evidence to not hinder the investigation give the Meyerses better credibility since most people are calling them liars due to the stories changing?

Thoughts?

 

[Miss Muffet]

I actually asked this question seriously earlier. Is there any reason the neighbor's claim can't be true? It was nothing but a drug deal gone bad, BM & TM were out together looking for EN.

You asked if it comported with the facts. That's probably why nobody responded. None of the facts support it.

As I understand it, it's to be considered a rumor that we're permitted to use for theories since it was reported in the media.

 

[sonjay]

What has been impacted by the above revelation?

LE purposely withheld the first shooting scene from the media. Does that mean the first story told by the Meyerses can no longer be considered the most accurate version?

Does that mean the theory of one long event without the buick returning home isn't the most accurate since the two separate car trips with the Buick returning home is also included in the new version that has two shooting scenes?

Does the warrant supporting RM's claim the Meyerses had to withhold evidence to not hinder the investigation give the Meyerses better credibility since most people are calling them liars due to the stories changing?

Thoughts?

My thoughts? That paragraph in the warrant doesn't necessarily support the Meyers' claim that they withheld evidence at the request of the police.

EN's two friends told police that EN had told them there were two shooting scenes. Police found spent shell casings at both shooting scenes. This supports the credibility of EN's two friends, because the only way they could have known about the two shooting scenes was if EN had told them. That last paragraph of the arrest warrant was all about why the police think that the story as told by EN's friends was credible. The fact that they told police something that wasn't public knowledge goes to their credibility.

IMO, that paragraphs reveals nothing one way or the other about whether RM's claim about withholding evidence is true.

 

[sonjay]

You asked if it comported with the facts. That's probably why nobody responded. None of the facts support it.

As I understand it, it's to be considered a rumor that we're permitted to use for theories since it was reported in the media.

Help me out here.... what facts don't support it?

 

[Miss Muffet]

My thoughts? That paragraph in the warrant doesn't necessarily support the Meyers' claim that they withheld evidence at the request of the police.

EN's two friends told police that EN had told them there were two shooting scenes. Police found spent shell casings at both shooting scenes. This supports the credibility of EN's two friends, because the only way they could have known about the two shooting scenes was if EN had told them. That last paragraph of the arrest warrant was all about why the police think that the story as told by EN's friends was credible. The fact that they told police something that wasn't public knowledge goes to their credibility.

IMO, that paragraphs reveals nothing one way or the other about whether RM's claim about withholding evidence is true.

Of course it supports the credibility of the witnesses who are EN's friends. That's a given.

I disagree that it doesn't repair a degree of credibility for the Meyerses statements within the warrant.

The sentence in the warrant specifically states that the information was not released to the media. I believe LE knew about the second shooting scene all along and this sentence in the warrant indicates this was a key information LE withheld from the media. The key words being "released to the media." LE releases information to the media. Things reported by the media that the media learns on its own is "released by the media."

Furthermore, when RM stated that the Meyerses had promised to not disclose certain information, he said this in his press conference that was days before the warrant was public. That means RM couldn't have had knowledge the warrant included wording about some details of their story not being released to the media.

The Meyerses took serious heat for the sudden revelation of a second shooting scene. We were asking right in these threads why the Meyerses wouldn't have told the police. The warrant indicates LE chose to release a limited story to help them identify credible witnesses later in the investigation.

 

[sonjay]

Of course it supports the credibility of the witnesses who are EN's friends. That's a given.

I disagree that it doesn't repair a degree of credibility for the Meyerses statements within the warrant.

The sentence in the warrant specifically states that the information was not released to the media. I believe LE knew about the second shooting scene all along and this sentence in the warrant indicates this was a key information LE withheld from the media. The key words being "released to the media." LE releases information to the media. Things reported by the media that the media learns on its own is "released by the media."

Furthermore, when RM stated that the Meyerses had promised to not disclose certain information, he said this in his press conference that was days before the warrant was public. That means RM couldn't have had knowledge the warrant included wording about some details of their story not being released to the media.

The Meyerses took serious heat for the sudden revelation of a second shooting scene. We were asking right in these threads why the Meyerses wouldn't have told the police. The warrant indicates LE chose to release a limited story to help them identify credible witnesses later in the investigation.

On further consideration, I have to agree that it supports RM's claim that they withheld certain information at the request of the police.

I'm not sure I would agree that it proves his claim is true. His claim, in fact, was kind of clumsily worded, if I recall, and sounded at last somewhat as if he meant that they deliberately withheld information from the police in order to not impede the investigation. I'll have to look at that press conference again.

But yes, this supports the idea that the Meyerses did withhold that piece of information from the media at the request of police.

 

[Miss Muffet]

Help me out here.... what facts don't support it?

Upon reflection, I guess some facts support it.

There was a high speed car chase and a shootout. That's a fact. If we believe it was similar to drug related drive by shootings or drug related shootouts, this fact supports the rumor.

EN is a drug dealer. Even though we all agree that's a fact, I can't remember if it was stated anywhere that we're supposed to consider credible. Is there mention of this in the warrant? Can we consider it fact when there's so much hearsay about it? If it is a fact, it definitely supports the rumor.

EN is picked up and taken places by many people. That's a fact. This is similar to how drug dealers without licenses get around. I can just verify this based on personal knowledge of how drug dealers in my area get around without licenses. People are always willing to give them rides because they get free drugs for doing so. If people believe me, it can be considered a fact supporting the rumor.

BM is associated with a head shop. That's a fact. Are we allowed to mention that since he was an active shooter? A family member who was an active shooter whose employment is associated with a head shop doesn't directly support the rumor to exactly, but it's certainly relevant and noteworthy. How do we classify this? A fact that doesn't support the rumor? Or does it since he was a shooter in the shootout?

The main problem is there are no facts to support TM's involvement in the rumor. Unless TM being a driver in a shootout supports this rumor. Then we'd have to agree she was driving, not innocently at home. We all disregarded TM as a driver and considered it a non-fact. Can a rumor validate it as a fact? How does that work when we're looking for facts to validate a rumor? LOL

That's all I have off the top of my head between loads of laundry.

 

[sonjay]

Upon reflection, I guess some facts support it.

There was a high speed car chase and a shootout. That's a fact. If we believe it was similar to drug related drive by shootings or drug related shootouts, this fact supports the rumor.

EN is a drug dealer. Even though we all agree that's a fact, I can't remember if it was stated anywhere that we're supposed to consider credible. Is there mention of this in the warrant? Can we consider it fact when there's so much hearsay about it? If it is a fact, it definitely supports the rumor.

EN is picked up and taken places by many people. That's a fact. This is similar to how drug dealers without licenses get around. I can just verify this based on personal knowledge of how drug dealers in my area get around without licenses. People are always willing to give them rides because they get free drugs for doing so. If people believe me, it can be considered a fact supporting the rumor.

BM is associated with a head shop. That's a fact. Are we allowed to mention that since he was an active shooter? A family member who was an active shooter whose employment is associated with a head shop doesn't directly support the rumor to exactly, but it's certainly relevant and noteworthy. How do we classify this? A fact that doesn't support the rumor? Or does it since he was a shooter in the shootout?

The main problem is there are no facts to support TM's involvement. Unless TM being a driver in a shootout supports this rumor. Then we'd have to agree she was driving, not innocently at home.

That's all I have off the top of my head between loads of laundry.

BBM. That's true. And I've been very reluctant to get into the TM/drug use rumors. My earlier theory didn't involve or require any connection between TM & EN, so I pretty much just ignored those rumors.

Going back to my "facts" vs. "theory" delineation -- there are no facts to support TM being a drug user. With that said, there are no facts that she wasn't, either. So TM being a drug user who bought her pills from EN can only be in the "theories & suppositions" column, not the "known facts" column.

I'm trying to think of any known facts that would disprove this claim by the neighbor. I'm having trouble thinking of any. That doesn't prove this theory is true, but at this point I have to consider it a possible scenario.

FTR, I also consider your theory a possible scenario, as well. Along with my earlier theory. AFAIK, none of them is proven to be true by our short list of known facts, but none of them is disproved either.

I'm really hoping for more factual evidence soon. We have so little work with that it's possible to come up with all sorts of scenarios that comport with the known facts. IMO, JMO, MOO, and all that jazz.

 

[Miss Muffet]

I had edited that last paragraph about TM before switching loads of laundry. Check it out and tell me what you think.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

I actually asked this question seriously earlier. Is there any reason the neighbor's claim can't be true? It was nothing but a drug deal gone bad, BM & TM were out together looking for EN.
This is nice and simple. Easy. No contortions trying to fit in Audi-driving drug kingpins or multiple trips out and back by the Meyerses or how did TM happen to be in front of the house to get shot.
Occam's razor and all that.

I wouldn't say Occam clears anyone one scenario bandied about on these threads including this one and in fact it does take contortions, which isn't to say the scenario is incorrect, just that it isn't that clear-cut. For this to be a continuous event with TM and BM together over a drug deal, it would have had to have been a deal that had gone bad previously or else BM would have already been there at the park armed when the deal went bust with the chase happening on foot from EN's park bench office. Also a major issue is given by EN's own account (and BM's too) is that the passengers of the Buick noticed the Audi and went after it, which how would they know EN got in that car. Also if the primary buyer was a 44 year old mother where all the events that happened transpired around her, I don't think EN would have characterized those after him as 'kids' when the main 'kid' was old enough to be his mother. Also per EN the gun BM was carrying was already out, which seeing the gun is what caused the Audi driver to speed off and for EN to load his pistol and shoot at the Buick.

If this was the case - which I'm not saying it couldn't be - BM could actually face Felony Murder as he would have engaged in a premeditated attempt at armed robbery/kidnapping/murder of EN where the end result of that qualifying felony attempt is the death of TM, that's Aggravated Felony Murder. EN even if he was engaged in felony prescription drug dealing wouldn't face Felony Murder since drug dealing isn't a qualifying felony for Felony Murder, so still the max I see him reasonably getting is manslaughter. That would be a reason for EN to try and take a plea deal and sing unless the Meyers themselves are part of some organized gang that would take revenge.

 

[sonjay]

I had edited that last paragraph about TM before switching loads of laundry. Check it out and tell me what you think.

The main problem is there are no facts to support TM's involvement in the rumor. Unless TM being a driver in a shootout supports this rumor. Then we'd have to agree she was driving, not innocently at home. We all disregarded TM as a driver and considered it a non-fact. Can a rumor validate it as a fact? How does that work when we're looking for facts to validate a rumor? LOL

Those are all not known facts. TM being a driver .... there is no objective evidence that TM was a driver or even in the car, only what the Meyerses have said, and as you know, I don't accept anything they say as fact unless there's other credible supporting evidence.

TM being a drug user and getting her stash from EN..... totally rumor, no known facts there.

AFAIK, there's nothing to prove or disprove anything about TM's involvement that night, except for the fact that she ended up dead. So we know for a fact she was there in the cul de sac for the final shootout, but that's about all we know.

Given that the arrest affidavit said they recovered a spent .45 bullet that tested positive for human blood, I'm going to call it "known fact" that it was definitely not BM's 9mm that shot her. We've heard nothing about any gun there that night other than BM's 9mm and EN's .45, so I'm also going to call it "known fact" that EN's .45 is the gun that fired the shot that killed her.

Other than that, TM is a cipher. Where she was that night, what she was doing.

I'm positive that she wasn't giving KM driving lessons. There are no "known facts" to prove or disprove any driving lessons, of course, but I don't think I'll be able to embrace any theory that incorporates driving lessons unless we get incontrovertible evidence of driving lessons.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

On further consideration, I have to agree that it supports RM's claim that they withheld certain information at the request of the police.

I'm not sure I would agree that it proves his claim is true. His claim, in fact, was kind of clumsily worded, if I recall, and sounded at last somewhat as if he meant that they deliberately withheld information from the police in order to not impede the investigation. I'll have to look at that press conference again.

But yes, this supports the idea that the Meyerses did withhold that piece of information from the media at the request of police.

It may show simultaneously that he withheld information from the police as well as that he withheld information from the police. The police themselves said they didn't know the Meyers knew Nowsch until after he was arrested:
"The captain said authorities were unaware until Thursday that the Meyers family knew Nowsch."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/las-vegas-road-rage-killing/
That could mean the police told the Meyers who a suspect was and to keep quiet about it, but when that happened the Meyers didn't volunteer that they new Nowsch.

 

[sonjay]

I wouldn't say Occam clears anyone one scenario bandied about on these threads including this one and in fact it does take contortions, which isn't to say the scenario is incorrect, just that it isn't that clear-cut. For this to be a continuous event with TM and BM together over a drug deal, it would have had to have been a deal that had gone bad previously or else BM would have already been there at the park armed when the deal went bust with the chase happening on foot from EN's park bench office. Also a major issue is given by EN's own account (and BM's too) is that the passengers of the Buick noticed the Audi and went after it, which how would they know EN got in that car. Also if the primary buyer was a 44 year old mother where all the events that happened transpired around her, I don't think EN would have characterized those after him as 'kids' when the main 'kid' was old enough to be his mother. Also per EN the gun BM was carrying was already out, which seeing the gun is what caused the Audi driver to speed off and for EN to load his pistol and shoot at the Buick.

If this was the case - which I'm not saying it couldn't be - BM could actually face Felony Murder as he would have engaged in a premeditated attempt at armed robbery/kidnapping/murder of EN where the end result of that qualifying felony attempt is the death of TM, that's Aggravated Felony Murder. EN even if he was engaged in felony prescription drug dealing wouldn't face Felony Murder since drug dealing isn't a qualifying felony for Felony Murder, so still the max I see him reasonably getting is manslaughter. That would be a reason for EN to try and take a plea deal and sing unless the Meyers themselves are part of some organized gang that would take revenge.

Yes, it does take some contortions. But not as many contortions as a lot of the theories.

I was envisioning it as a prior drug deal gone bad, which would be why TM & BM set out with the gun to look for EN. You're right that if it were a drug deal that very night that went bad, this theory wouldn't work without a lot more contortions.

As for the Buick noticing the Audi and how would they know EN was in it -- All along, under every theory, I've been picturing EN sitting on his park bench office, the Buick drives up, Eric sees the Buick, knows it means trouble, and calls the Audi driver. The Buick people (whichever Meyerses are in it) haven't seen EN yet -- remember, it's dark, and he probably moves his office to different park benches each night. When the Audi drives up, they see the Audi and see EN getting into it. This is what I've pictured under pretty much every theory, and no different for this latest theory. A person sitting motionless on a park bench is difficult to spot at night; but a car driving up to that park bench and then the person standing up and moving toward the car is easy to spot. So I don't think this is much of a contortion.

The "got those kids" comment by EN -- yeah, that's problematic. I've been favoring theories that have TM at home, and the conflict is between EN and the kids. But put TM into the picture, and "the kids" reference doesn't fit. Especially if the "drug deal gone bad" that sparked this conflict was between EN and TM, it makes no sense that he would assume it's kids in the Buick. It requires a lot of contorting to figure out a way to make that work. I can think of various ways to shoehorn in explanations and details to make it work, but it's more contortions than I think the truth should require.

Possible felony murder charges would be a very strong motivation for them to lie to police. A much stronger motivation than a 15-year-old driving without a license.

"Got those kids" might be enough to discard this theory. It doesn't fit at all if the beef was between TM and EN.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

We've heard nothing about any gun there that night other than BM's 9mm and EN's .45, so I'm also going to call it "known fact" that EN's .45 is the gun that fired the shot that killed her.

Other than the shotgun used by BM? It's mostly likely EN's gun, but I wouldn't put it in the "fact" category until there's ballistics. I haven't heard anything yet that precludes EN's defense from claiming both TM and BM were shooting at him before he fired the fatal round. EN's alleged statements by his friends is conspicuously absent in mentioning any details on him being fired upon on Mt Shasta, but what we do know for a "fact" was that EN was fired upon by at least one person with one weapon. Also keep in mind there never will be any GSM evidence off of TM, which especially if this was some premeditated armed confrontation instigated by the Meyers, they could have both gone out armed.

 

[Miss Muffet]

For this to be a continuous event with TM and BM together over a drug deal, it would have had to have been a deal that had gone bad previously or else BM would have already been there at the park armed when the deal went bust with the chase happening on foot from EN's park bench office. Also a major issue is given by EN's own account (and BM's too) is that the passengers of the Buick noticed the Audi and went after it, which how would they know EN got in that car. Also if the primary buyer was a 44 year old mother where all the events that happened transpired around her, I don't think EN would have characterized those after him as 'kids' when the main 'kid' was old enough to be his mother. Also per EN the gun BM was carrying was already out, which seeing the gun is what caused the Audi driver to speed off and for EN to load his pistol and shoot at the Buick.

You just saved me a bunch of trouble entertaining this specific scenario.

 

[sonjay]

Other than the shotgun used by BM? It's mostly likely EN's gun, but I wouldn't put it in the "fact" category until there's ballistics. I haven't heard anything yet that precludes EN's defense from claiming both TM and BM were shooting at him before he fired the fatal round. EN's alleged statements by his friends is conspicuously absent in mentioning any details on him being fired upon on Mt Shasta, but what we do know for a "fact" was that EN was fired upon by at least one person with one weapon. Also keep in mind there never will be any GSM evidence off of TM, which especially if this was some premeditated armed confrontation instigated by the Meyers, they could have both gone out armed.

BBM. Lol, yeah, the shotgun. I think only the very earliest reports had the shotgun, and they were quickly corrected. I guess we can't totally dismiss the possibility that there was a shotgun out there that night.

I agree, we can't call it a "known fact" that BM's 9mm and EN's .45 were the only guns out there that night. But what I was calling fact is that it was EN's gun that shot TM. I do think it's very close to 100% certain that it was EN's gun that fired the shot that hit TM.

The arrest affidavit says they recovered a .45 bullet that tested positive for human blood. BM didn't get hit at all; so that had to be the bullet that hit TM.

If TM had a gun, and if she fired it, she would have been firing at the silver car, not shooting herself in the head (I hope).

If the Audi driver had a gun, it's almost certain that EN would have mentioned that to his friends. As in "We were shooting at them." He mentioned no such thing. And BM's statement in the affidavit only refers to the passenger shooting out of the Audi.

So, while it's remotely possible that some other .45 fired the bullet that hit TM, it's so very close to 100% certain that it was EN's gun that fired the bullet that hit TM. So close to 100% that I think we can safely consider it "known fact" that EN's .45 was the one that shot TM.

 

[SpanishInquisition]

But not as many contortions as a lot of the theories.

No argument from me there as I freely confess to engaging in flagrant contortions with theories and I'm aware of that, just I wanted you to be aware that your theory required contortions as well. So everyone knows with me I believe the best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas, so I'll throw out lots of trial balloons.

I've been picturing EN sitting on his park bench office, the Buick drives up, Eric sees the Buick, knows it means trouble, and calls the Audi driver. The Buick people (whichever Meyerses are in it) haven't seen EN yet -- remember, it's dark, and he probably moves his office to different park benches each night.

Per Selig EN was always at one specific bench when he's dealing:
'All this stuff with Mrs Meyers, is all pharmaceutical pills and drugs. That's what Erich sold at that park. And that's why Mrs Meyers went there, picking up pharmaceutical pills from Erich, like Xanax. The kid sold it right there at that concrete table, day in day out.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ld-said-buying-Xanax-years.html#ixzz3TONzDWTM

All that being said it sounds like the DA themselves give credence to drugs somehow being part of this, but the DA for some reason tries to downplay the drug angle:
"Outside the hearing district attorney Steven B Wolfson told Daily Mail Online: 'There's been some speculation about drugs and drug use - but that's not the heart of the case.The center focus of this case is the interaction between adults which occurred one night - that's the focus. Somebody lost their life and it was stupid.'"
I wouldn't fully discard your busted drug deal theory, just perhaps modify it.

 

[Rocco]

It may show simultaneously that he withheld information from the police as well as that he withheld information from the police. The police themselves said they didn't know the Meyers knew Nowsch until after he was arrested:
"The captain said authorities were unaware until Thursday that the Meyers family knew Nowsch."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/us/las-vegas-road-rage-killing/
That could mean the police told the Meyers who a suspect was and to keep quiet about it, but when that happened the Meyers didn't volunteer that they new Nowsch.

I can't see the police ever giving a family member the name of a suspect and telling them to keep quiet about it. Especially since they knew EN lived in the neighborhood and the Meyers owned guns. Why would they do that? JMO