Sheila and Katherine Lyon-sisters missing since 1975 - #2

[Fukiyama]

In this case, I don't think you have to consider mdietz47 not being the person he claims to be. As far as I know, he was on here posting long before the news report about him that I've seen was written.

The most intriguing facet of his account is his knowledge that the FBI has a note from one of the sisters that was found beside the Rappahannock River in VA. (If you come back, mdietz47, please share more about this).

 

[steveP120]

In this case, I don't think you have to consider mdietz47 not being the person he claims to be. As far as I know, he was on here posting long before the news report about him that I've seen was written.

The most intriguing facet of his account is his knowledge that the FBI has a note from one of the sisters that was found beside the Rappahannock River in VA. (If you come back, mdietz47, please share more about this).

Since 1975, every other news story on the Lyon sisters mentioned the VA/station wagon sighting, which was well investigated by the police. At first, for decades, the name of the witness was not made public, I assume because a witness to a kidnapping/murder could face retaliation/death. It would be very easy for someone to pretend online to be the VA/Witness.

I don't think the VA/station wagon witness has any case the the police did not look into his sighting. The entire area was looking for the station wagon. On the other hand, the girl who made the sketch of the Long Hair Man (likely Lloyd) does have a case, as the Salon article added a feminist angle to, that her information was not sufficiently investigated.

The two people posting claimed "inside" information on Websluths have accused different people, so one (or both) has to be wrong.

 

[cgoodwin22]

What ever happened to the regular Richard? Is that now RichardLewis?

 

[steveP120]

My first guess would be that it was removed due to its content regarding posters here and others' missing what mdietz47 feels to be the truth, that Welch is not the guy. Also bringing Mr. and Mrs. Lyon into it probably wasn't good. But if that post was removed due to its opposition to Welch being the guy, that is unfortunate.

My first GUESS would be that mdietz47, had second thoughts about what he said and removed it on his own. I think Websleuth lets people delete their own posts within a certain time (one day?).

My second GUESS would be that Websleuth has an intermittently enforced policy of not letting people post under their alleged real identities. Every call-in radio talk-show will only allow people to say there first name online, to avoid people (trolls) from calling in with someone else's name and saying something slanderous.

For example I could call into a radio show and say, "My name is Steve, and Obama (or Bush) is an idiot." But I could not call into a radio show and say, "My name is Steve Paterson, and Obama (or Bush) is an idiot," since if I am not Steve Paterson, the real Steve Paterson could sue the radio station for slander. (President Obama or President Bush could not sue for slander since they are public figures, and they have better things to do than sue everyone who calls them idiots.)

 

[steveP120]

What ever happened to the regular Richard? Is that now RichardLewis?

They can speak for themselves, but I and others may be mainly waiting for the evidence that may come out it the upcoming trial or plea bargain.

 

[Fukiyama]

What ever happened to the regular Richard? Is that now RichardLewis?

They are separate accounts.

 

[cgoodwin22]

They are separate accounts.

Thanks. That was the answer i was looking for..

 

[siriunsun]

My first GUESS would be that mdietz47, had second thoughts about what he said and removed it on his own. I think Websleuth lets people delete their own posts within a certain time (one day?).

My second GUESS would be that Websleuth has an intermittently enforced policy of not letting people post under their alleged real identities. Every call-in radio talk-show will only allow people to say there first name online, to avoid people (trolls) from calling in with someone else's name and saying something slanderous.

For example I could call into a radio show and say, "My name is Steve, and Obama (or Bush) is an idiot." But I could not call into a radio show and say, "My name is Steve Paterson, and Obama (or Bush) is an idiot," since if I am not Steve Paterson, the real Steve Paterson could sue the radio station for slander. (President Obama or President Bush could not sue for slander since they are public figures, and they have better things to do than sue everyone who calls them idiots.)

MDietz47 certainly has a right to his/her own opinion, but I was dismayed to see anyone disparage the parents of missing children without cause. From my standpoint, that was not productive to any of these discussions here on Websleuths, and there has never been any evidence implicating the parents.

 

[steveP120]

Lloyd Welch waived his right to a speedy trial.

http://wset.com/news/local/lloyd-welch-jr-waives-right-to-speedy-trial

On one hand, he is stuck in prison for years for his Delaware crimes, so it's not like he would be in any rush to have a fast trial to get out.

On the other hand, by not insisting on a speedy trial (I hope you paid attention in American History or Government) Lloyd has more time to prepare his case or hope an elderly witness dies before trial.

If the government case was very weak, Lloyd's lawyers would likely have insisted on a speedy trial so that that government has to go to trial with the evidence it has, and not evidence the government may find in the future. In my opinion, the government is still fishing for evidence from other family members, otherwise they would not be in legal trouble.

An unrelated case from the mid 1970s is that NYC airport robbery court case, which ended in a not guilty verdict. While unrelated to Lloyd, this case, based on (alleged or recorded) admissions/braggings, which shows the difficulties of obtaining a conviction so long after the crime. Just as a Mafia member bragging something like "I helped rob that plane and never got my fair share" was not enough to convict, I can't see how Lloyd saying something like, "I killed two girls" would be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt without additional evidence

 

[G&AMom]

Lloyd Welch waived his right to a speedy trial.

http://wset.com/news/local/lloyd-welch-jr-waives-right-to-speedy-trial

On one hand, he is stuck in prison for years for his Delaware crimes, so it's not like he would be in any rush to have a fast trial to get out.

On the other hand, by not insisting on a speedy trial (I hope you paid attention in American History or Government) Lloyd has more time to prepare his case or hope an elderly witness dies before trial.

If the government case was very weak, Lloyd's lawyers would likely have insisted on a speedy trial so that that government has to go to trial with the evidence it has, and not evidence the government may find in the future. In my opinion, the government is still fishing for evidence from other family members, otherwise they would not be in legal trouble.

An unrelated case from the mid 1970s is that NYC airport robbery court case, which ended in a not guilty verdict. While unrelated to Lloyd, this case, based on (alleged or recorded) admissions/braggings, which shows the difficulties of obtaining a conviction so long after the crime. Just as a Mafia member bragging something like "I helped rob that plane and never got my fair share" was not enough to convict, I can't see how Lloyd saying something like, "I killed two girls" would be enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt without additional evidence

It's true that it's difficult to try a case after so many years. But there is the case of 7-year-old Maria Ridulph who was murdered in Illinois in 1957. John Tessier aka Jack McCullough was arrested in 2011 and convicted in 2012 for her murder. One of the things that got the case moving again was a deathbed confession by his mother that she'd helped him lie to the police about his whereabouts that day.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[steveP120]

It's true that it's difficult to try a case after so many years. But there is the case of 7-year-old Maria Ridulph who was murdered in Illinois in 1957. John Tessier aka Jack McCullough was arrested in 2011 and convicted in 2012 for her murder. One of the things that got the case moving again was a deathbed confession by his mother that she'd helped him lie to the police about his whereabouts that day.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

I saw a TV show on that case, which made good TV since it involved a murder, a murder who was a bad cop for a while, and a mother maybe implicating her son on her deathbed.
I don't know much about that case other than what I saw on a 1-hr TV show, but I do remember how, in addition to his mother maybe saying he did it (the question was what was "it" that the son did) was that he was identified (decades later) by the other girl he was playing with:


"At trial, a childhood friend of Maria's, Kathy Chapman, described how the two were playing on a street corner on that snowy evening in 1957 when a man walked up and introduced himself as Johnny. He gave Maria a piggyback ride before Chapman, who was 8, went to her house to retrieve her mittens. When Chapman returned, Johnny and Maria were gone, she said.

Chapman identified a 1957 photo of McCullough, who was then a 17-year-old Sycamore resident named John Tessier, as the man who approached them that night. "

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._maria-ridulph-janet-tessier-johnny-and-maria

McCullough/Tessier claimed that he was nowhere near the town, and had an alibi for decades that later fell apart. If Lloyd denied he was nowhere near Wheaton Plaza, but that good Long Hair Man sketch was done and a current identification, I would say he would be convicted, but Lloyd never denied not seeing the girls, and if anything told the police (in hopes of a reward) a week later.

The point is that a conviction is more likely if there is an eye-witness to the crime and not talk or bragging about a crime by pathological liars. DNA evidence could also lead to a conviction decades later.

 

[boulder74]

Richard Welch's relatives in court. Two plead out.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/lyn...isters-investigation-appear-in-court/36525432

 

[steveP120]

But the information is more a who is who in the family. It looks like nobody is talking about details of any case.

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/loc...cle_1fc37fec-8e2c-11e5-96af-9becb7b33a5f.html

It's telling that neither plead guilty and admitted their guilt, as most caught criminals do.
I don't think a person who won't own up to his or her guilt, if guilty, would make a good witness.

It's also a pretty good deal, not having to plead guilty, no or a couple of months at most of jail time, so I think these two were most guilty of stupidity.

 

[WaynezWorld]

That is a good sign for prosecution. Hopefully the two who took pleas have information or accounts that corroborate what was said by Connie Akers, Henry Parker and Wes Justice.

I anticipated an indictment of Richard Allen Welch several months ago based on the statements to detectives by Lloyd Lee Welch and Wes Justice.

Leslie Engleking and RAW's wife Patricia Welch are going to trial apparently. The granddaughter of RAW Amy Welch and Gladys Stangee are co-operating with investigators. Prosecutor Randy Krantz calls Stangee "the least culpable" but did not elaborate.

 

[G&AMom]

But the information is more a who is who in the family. It looks like nobody is talking about details of any case.

http://www.newsadvance.com/news/loc...cle_1fc37fec-8e2c-11e5-96af-9becb7b33a5f.html

It's telling that neither plead guilty and admitted their guilt, as most caught criminals do.
I don't think a person who won't own up to his or her guilt, if guilty, would make a good witness.

It's also a pretty good deal, not having to plead guilty, no or a couple of months at most of jail time, so I think these two were most guilty of stupidity.

It does seem somewhat unlikely that someone who pleads no contest or makes an Alford plea would testify about something they'd seen or done. I wonder if LE is using this as a bargaining chip with another family member: we'll go easy on these two if you tell us about XYZ.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[steveP120]

That is a good sign for prosecution. Hopefully the two who took pleas have information or accounts that corroborate what was said by Connie Akers, Henry Parker and Wes Justice.

I anticipated an indictment of Richard Allen Welch several months ago based on the statements to detectives by Lloyd Lee Welch and Wes Justice.

Leslie Engleking and RAW's wife Patricia Welch are going to trial apparently. The granddaughter of RAW Amy Welch and Gladys Stangee are co-operating with investigators. Prosecutor Randy Krantz calls Stangee "the least culpable" but did not elaborate.

Lloyd Welch was the outcast of the Welch family, and his younger cousins were warned away from Lloyd. The Welch family, even by 1960s and 70s standards, was involved in way too much drinking, fighting and sex with women/girls maybe just barely above the age of consent.

For Lloyd to be the "black sheep" of this family and others warned not to be around him, Lloyd must of been up to even worse. We don't know Lloyd's, (sealed) juvenile record, if any, but it's fairly clear he did not have a normal high school experience that we know of.

Obviously, it was the older generation, the father, uncles and aunts warning the younger cousins to stay away from Lloyd, and not get sucked into any of Lloyd's sketchy (drinking) or illegal (drugs, underage sex) plans.

A nonspecific warning about Lloyd, "Stay away from Lloyd, he is a violent, dangerous person, who hurts people," would be grounds for the police or grand jury to ask the older uncle why he thought Lloyd was dangerous, but not much more.

 

[steveP120]

It does seem somewhat unlikely that someone who pleads no contest or makes an Alford plea would testify about something they'd seen or done. I wonder if LE is using this as a bargaining chip with another family member: we'll go easy on these two if you tell us about XYZ.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

It's a gray legal and ethical area, but telling/threatening one person to cooperate or plead guilty in return for not prosecuting another (less guilty relative) happens all the time.

This happens often in cases where a shooter (a dumb kid living with his mom) has his brother, sister or mom help him get rid of evidence or provide a false alibi.

 

[WaynezWorld]

The prosecutors legal pressure on the relatives is completely legal and justified if it is based on evidence against the family members. This evidence does not necessary mean complicity in the alleged abductions, murder and body disposal- this evidence only regards the crimes of obstruction and perjury.

There are many scenarios where the relatives could have lied to investigators or grand jury or played dumb. Some of these scenarios are as simple as loyal family believing in the relatives innocence and playing dumb or obfuscating, other scenarios could involve the more nefarious and actually trying to cover the crime with full knowledge the relative they are protecting is guilty.

Again, I think the prosecution has some weapons in this case.

The testimony of Parker and Akers against LLW sounds troubling.

Ted Welch has placed the sisters in the company of RAW and LLW around the time of the initial disappearance.

Wes Justice could testify that RAW confided in him about the murder and body disposal. We still don't know if RAW implicated himself in this, or if he had offered knowledge of only LLW's involvement.

One possible angle is the use by LLW of RAW as an alternate culprit (and not one who acted together) as part of his defense. RAW could certainly be subpoenaed to testify, whether he would is the $64K question. RAW could very well be self-incriminated by his own testimony.

Still, it is a very old case and I hope that some physical evidence will be produced. I am glad I am not a gambler, as I would have bet over the summer that Richard Allen Welch would have been indicted by now and I would have lost that money.

 

[WaynezWorld]

The family was and is still very large. If there were a certain set within the family who recognized LLW was bad news and shunned him, there was likely still some who still associated with him at different degrees of trust, friendship and interaction.

I am looking to see some finger pointing and deflection from LLW at his trial, possibly using the uncle RAW as the scapegoat if the case against LLW is strong.

The relatives who are to be witnesses and the relatives who are fighting the obstruction and perjury charges maybe all over a zero to 10 scale of involvement in the actual crime and knowledge of the cover up of the crime.

I do not buy the scenario of a multi-generational clan of killers and pedophiles. I imagine this will come down to a very sick individual or two who were unwittingly protected from investigation by a family that was just loyal or a family who had other secrets held over their heads by the guilty.

 

[steveP120]

The prosecutors legal pressure on the relatives is completely legal and justified if it is based on evidence against the family members. This evidence does not necessary mean complicity in the alleged abductions, murder and body disposal- this evidence only regards the crimes of obstruction and perjury.

I commit the offense of jaywalking every day, and it would be legal for a cop to ticket me for jaywalking. But if the police engaged in selective prosecution of me to get me to testify against a nephew, the selective prosecution of me for jaywalking would be unlawful.

Also if my nephew plead guilty so that I could escape (selective) prosecution for jaywalking, it would be grounds for trying to change his plea later; not good grounds but grounds. "I only plead guilty to save my nice uncle Steve from going to jail for a year for jaywalking."

And Lloyd Welch is such a liar and maybe lost his grip on reality, that I would not believe him if he confessed, unless he or other evidence could prove his guilt.