Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have three possible theories. Two differ only slightly from one another.
~ snip ~
3. Perp is in mall for some activity. Being the easter bunny, walking around selling something, acting in some play/doing easter games/hunts, making easter baskets/easter crafts, holiday singers/piano player, a photographer etc.
the girls see this person, maybe interact with him. He then goes to car which is parked by the entrance from which they exit, and as they leave he approaches them with some info pertaining to his business in the mall. The girls have had some contact previously so they let down their guard, and then he gets them in his vehicle.
With all of these scenerios the girls are taken by a stranger. A stranger who is in town briefly, but is familiar with the area.
Was the person who was playing the Easter bunny ever questioned? I mean you never know who it is that is playing the part and not all people who work that job are nice. You just never know.....
M ~
I feel that the Lyon Sisters were abducted after leaving the Mall and on their way home by a single individual waiting for them in his vehicle just outside the Mall.
This place outside the Mall was very likely a small parking area between the rear entrance of Montgomery Wards and the perimeter road, just opposite the end of Faulkner Road. From this vantage point, the abductor could watch anyone approaching the Mall on foot from the Residential area of Kensington.
This area is/was very close to the McDonalds Restaurant, just across University Ave from one of four Mall parking lot entrances. Back then, McDonalds did not have inside seating. Food was purchased from a window. You got it in a bag and took it to your car to eat - or go elsewhere with it. So someone sitting in the Mall parking lot eating lunch would be quite normal.
The abductor was probably someone who was constantly on the hunt for potential victims. He might have had some sort of "time table" or cyclic pattern which drove him to abduct children or women at certain times, but he probably was not rigidly tied to a specific date. He watched for certain things which appealed to him in a potential victim and waited his chance. He probably had a plan thought out in advance and may even have had a back-up plan in mind - just in case something went wrong with his first one.
In the case of the Lyon Sisters, I think he watched them come up Faulkner toward him and noted that they were afoot and without adult supervision. He saw which entrance they used to the Mall and then either waited in his car for them to come out again, or he followed them into the Mall and observed them in a covert manner.
He would have dressed in a nice manner - that is, suit or dressy clothes, but nothing loud or memorable. He probably had a certain kind of "uniform" or set of clothes that he chose when hunting for victims. By "uniform" I do not mean like a police uniform or military uniform, but rather some outfit that he thought looked good on him and which he hoped would impress his victim or put them at ease.
It is my feeling that at some point, he approached the girls or placed himself in their path so that he could make some sort of friendly contact with them. The Tape Recorder Man persona would have fit this bill perfectly, but any other similar ruse could have been used. The point would be to make that initial contact so that a later approach would have the girls at ease. He may have used the contact as a first step in a scenario of "set-up and sting". That is, he may have asked them some innocent thing like, "Where is the pet store, I am thinking of buying a kitten for my neice." Later, he could say that he found the store and had the kitten in his car, would they like to see it?
Note, it is possible that he might have done this with more than one child or pair of children FOR PRACTICE on other occasions, but in this case he probably only approached Sheila and Kate. To have approached other children that same day would have meant that witnesses could identify him and his technique.
After making contact, and after deciding that these girls were "acceptable" to him as victims, he returned to his car to await their departure from the Mall.
At this point, his best chance of abduction would have been right in the parking lot, using a ruse to get the girls to approach him and his vehicle.
Should something go awry, however - such as the presence in the parking lot of a witness, a passing cop, or such - he could then fall back on his secondary plan. That would be to watch the girls go past him and then drive an intercept course to meet them on their way home.
Now the intercept could have been planned out days in advance, by driving around the residential streets and observing people, but more likely he had a map showing those roads and picked out a secondary possible ambush site inside the residential area where he could park the car with minimum visibility from houses and in an area that the girls were likely to travel. This would have been at the intersection of Drumm and McComas.
Should anything prevent him from making the abduction on that day, he could simply do a similar thing the next day or the day after. After all, the girls lived in that neighborhood and the opportunity to abduct them might come again - or there were plenty of other children as well. For him, much of the pleasure he derived was in the hunt itself, not necessarily in the actual abduction.
Richard,
Couple of things : why not,if he was just trolling,pick one single victim ? Sounds like a lot of kids went to the mall area alone ? Why take the risk of attempting to abduct two girls ?
The other thing that stayed with me is that the boy who claimed to have seen the girls that evening, going towards the mall, and away from their home, still sticks to his story after all these years ? Maybe he did ?
Very good questions. And they make up part of the conflicting mystery surrounding the girls' disappearance.
I think that this individual DID take single victims on most other occasions and that he saw something in one or both of the girls which caused him to risk a double abduction. Perhaps it was the challenge of the task that appealled to him.
A scenario involving a double abduction does involve more risk IF it were a forceful abduction. Obviously trying to grab two girls forcefully is much harder that grabbing only one, and the chance of an escaping witness is great. But if he had a good ruse/story, the girls may have felt safer together and fell for his deceit.
As to the story of the 12 year-old boy who was quoted in newspapers as having seen the girls going TOWARD the mall at "7:30", I have often wondered about that myself. He may have seen the girls about 11:30 AM as they walked to the mall.
Police openly doubted (in a press conference) the boy's story within days of the girls going missing - mainly because they felt that the 7:30 time did not mesh with other facts which they had come to believe.
For one thing, by 7PM, the police and Mr. Lyon were actively looking for the girls at Wheaton Plaza shopping center and in their Kensington neighborhood. Also, (at that time) no other Kensington residents reported seeing the girls anywhere in the neighborhood that afternoon.
Two teen-aged boys did come forward (AFTER the news media reported that police discounted the 12 year-old's sighting) to say that they had seen the girls some time earlier that afternoon near Drumm and Devin walking AWAY from the Mall. Thirty years later, an old man claimed to have also seen them in the same vicinity headed home that afternoon.
I have mentioned in previous posts that I feel the 12 year-old boy could have either mispoken or was misquoted regarding the time of his sighting. I would like to know what he actually said to police at the time and what he would say today regarding when and where he saw the girls. It could be an important piece of the puzzle.
He was probably the first eye witness to come forward with information regarding seeing the girls, and he actually knew both girls from having seen them on several previous occassions.
There is a scenario in which all of the witnesses could be telling the truth : the 2 boys and the old man saw them going in the direction of their home in the afternoon. Could hold true if the girls headed home when their mother had suggested, and either the house was locked up, and they had no way to get in, or,they had a doorkey, and let themselves in.IIRC,the family was not home between 3-4ish that afternoon. Either way,the girls may have left the house,and gone elsewhere in the neighborhood. Later, in the early evening, they decided to head back to the mall. The other boy then saw them going towards the mall ... MOO
I read in an earlier thread that the boy still maintains that he saw them when he said he did. He hasn't wavered in his statement at all...
Allowing for some flexibility in the reported times, it is possible that they are all telling the truth... That boy was 12 at the time,old enough to speak up if he was misquoted,or misunderstood. But,he has never said he was mistaken about the time of day... MOO
Newspapers reported the boy's story and even used his real name within a day or two of the earliest reports, stating that he claimed to have seen the girls going toward the mall and that the time was around "7:30".
Police very likely interviewed the boy, but possibly AFTER the news reporter spoke with him. I say this because the police never released ANY names of minors in any of their press conferences/releases. Police did say in a press conference on the 27th or 28th of March 1975, that they did not think the sighting was accurate because of the "7:30" time not fitting with other bits of information.
A later interview of the boy by a Washington Star reporter provided more information about the boy and what he had been doing that morning (playing basketball with a friend) and that he was jogging or running to the mall when he passed the girls and looked back at them. He also indicated that he knew the girls personally from previous sightings or contact.
That Star interview, however did not quote him as to what time he saw the girls on 25 March.
One problem is that on 25 March 1975, it would have been dark for about an hour by 7:30PM - an odd time for any kid to have been out playing basketball or jogging to the mall.
It is possible that a 12 year-old does not know how to tell (or estimate) time very well. It is also possible that the boy could have said "'leven thirty" and was understood to have said "seven thirty".
The boy (or someone claiming to be him) posted his memories of the girls and his sighting on another website. He did NOT, however, state what time his sighting took place.
That said, you are right that it is also possible that the boy was telling the truth about seeing the girls and about the time. If so, that would mean that they had disappeared for about four hours, reappeared and then disappeared again.
I personally feel that the boy did see them, but that the time was mistated or misquoted.
....
... If TRM was trying to blend in with his choice of clothing and such....why the tape recorder and briefcase? Why the suit? That's all very "reporterish" as "Jimmy" and friend have stated. He didn't blend in. He probably only approached the girls that day because approaching other kids would have meant witnesses could identify him?..... I don't believe the TRM/Jimmy story but you know that.
He could try again the next day and the day after if the abduction attempt failed because...after all.....the girls lived in that neighborhood? I agree with you here...but for a different reason. How would a random perp... who was sitting in his car at the mall watching for kids to enter....know which house exactly the girls came from? How would he know that they "lived" near the mall? Because they were on foot? They could have come from anywhere and been dropped off near the mall by a parent. They could have been visiting a family member or friend who lived near by....I don't think a tricky plan or ruse was needed here at all. I think they were taken by someone who knew them. It was spring break...lots of kids going to the mall and someone that knew them and the fact that they went to the mall often....without their parents....could safely assume they'd head up there like all the other kids did that day. He simply shows up at the...runs into them or not....but once he knows they are there...he simply waits for them to walk home....offers them a ride...no elaborate plan needed....no struggle takes place. They would have gone quickly and quietly with someone they knew and trusted.
It was the first day of spring break, and so normal routines would maybe not have been followed. He probably was out shooting hoops that evening...moo
I find his story especially compelling because he actually knew the sisters from school... I also think he would have said in later years that he was mistaken about seeing them in the evening...but he never has..moo
Maybe the timeline is wrong somehow ? jmo
Actually, March 25th was a Tuesday, so Spring Break had started when school let out the previous Friday. Monday was a rainy day, but Tuesday was clear, sunny and warm.
Probably a nice day for basketball, jogging, mall shopping, etc.
I do not know what the 12 year old boy's full schedule was on that day. You might be correct about him shooting hoops in the evening, but by 7:30PM, it would have been dark for an hour. Why would he have been jogging to the mall in the dark? And why had he not been home for supper? My first question would be whether or not he had a watch and knew how to tell time.
i have never come across a 12 year old who could not tell time ? ......