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

[Schipperke]

The Constitutional right of the 5th Amendment must be declared when asked a question. It does not give a person the right to commit perjury instead.

 

[steveP120]

The Constitutional right of the 5th Amendment must be declared when asked a question. It does not give a person the right to commit perjury instead.

Most likely, everyone testifying at the grand jury had no right to take the 5th at first, because they could not incriminate themselves in the original crime because 1) they were not involved in the original crime, 2) the statute of limitations expired say on unlawful disposal of a corpse or, less likely, 3) they were granted immunity because they were the small fish in the crime.

Once committing perjury - say failing to mention that his brother-in-law beat his sister in the 70s - then one would have a right to take the Fifth to avoid incriminating one's self on the crime of perjury. But the second time Engleking testified before the grand jury, he admitted he lied (not sure of his exact words) the first time he testified to protect his sisters (not sure if to protect their reputations or to protect them from worse).
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_724eb288-d4d9-11e5-a831-5359654c8227.html

 

[scriptgirl]

Who is Engleking and how are Glady Stangee and Amy Johnson implicated?

 

[steveP120]

Who is Engleking and how are Glady Stangee and Amy Johnson implicated?

Stagnee and Johnson pled no contest and received no jail time and 90 days respectively for perjury and obstruction of justice respectively , for crimes committed in 2015. It's publicly unknown what involvement any of them, if any, had in the 1975 crime or exactly what the perjury was in 2015. Amy Welch Johnson - the granddaughter - I believe was not born in 1975 and could not have been involved in any 1975 crime - although in 2015 she was in communication with people of interest (her grandfather and others) plead no contest to obstructing justice, likely telling them what or what not to say to the police in my opinion.

From: http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_724eb288-d4d9-11e5-a831-5359654c8227.html
"Engleking was asked questions about his knowledge of Richard Welch and conversations with Richard Welch’s wife Patricia — Engleking’s sister — who also was asked about Lloyd Welch.
During the second set of testimony, Engleking was confronted about testifying falsely to the grand jury, and Engleking acknowledged he did so in an effort to protect his sisters, Krantz said.
Stangee also is Richard Welch’s sister. Johnson is Richard Welch’s granddaughter."

 

[Schipperke]

Seems someone had a great deal of knowledge about Grand Jury testimony which was sealed from public view. Now just why should your perception be take as the whole true fact of the situation? Perjury is perjury. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, which results in legal charges being filed, trial proceedings being held, pleadings or judgments being submitted. Yes, there are two sides to every story which is exactly what the Grand Jury was convened to get to the truth in the first place. Your side is, again, only one side whether the side of truth, manipulated truth, or outright deception. You don't justify one with the other.

 

[steveP120]

Seems someone had a great deal of knowledge about Grand Jury testimony which was sealed from public view. Now just why should your perception be take as the whole true fact of the situation? Perjury is perjury. Lying to a grand jury is a crime, which results in legal charges being filed, trial proceedings being held, pleadings or judgments being submitted. Yes, there are two sides to every story which is exactly what the Grand Jury was convened to get to the truth in the first place. Your side is, again, only one side whether the side of truth, manipulated truth, or outright deception. You don't justify one with the other.

The grand jury testimony is sealed, but the laws grand juries have to follow, such as the Constitution, are well known; it's not two sides to every story. I would suggest googling "grand jury purpose," since even though there are not two sides to your argument (sorry, the Constitution does not apply is not one side of an argument) it's NOT the purpose of a grand jury to hear two sides much less decide between two sides.

 

[steveP120]

FYI - The Freddie Gray (the drug dealer who died after being arrested in Baltimore) case against the six police officers has a similar constitutional problem of trying to force one of the defendants (police officer) to testify against other defendants (other police officers)
The Maryland Supreme Court just halted all trials until the issue of if enough immunity has been given to the police officer the state is trying to make testify.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-appeals-taken-up-20160218-story.html
One can't just drag one or all of the defendants (as a few people think is being done in the Lyon case) in front of a jury, grand jury or otherwise, and make them give up their constitutional rights to remain silent. At a MINIMUM, the immunity has to 1) not use any of forced testimony against him and 2) not use any information or evidence obtained from the testimony (tainted evidence) against him.

In theory, one could retry the police officer with only the existing evidence the day BEFORE he was forced to testify, and it MIGHT not violate his right against self incrimination. The defense is arguing for even more immunity than the minimum.

 

[Schipperke]

Seems like either way, the 5th covers it if your testimony is such that you would be implicated in any crime--either by participation or withholding information. If you believe that you could be charged with a crime for what you are hiding, then you must be withholding some pretty important information. Seems like the 5th covers it either way, but in using it, you identify the fact that you believe you do have some incriminating information on yourself. To allow persons to simply "refuse to testify" defeats the purpose of a subpoena to force testimony of persons simply wishing to not testify. If you could be incriminated, take the 5th; if you can't be incriminated, tell the truth or suffer the consequences.

 

[steveP120]

Seems like either way, the 5th covers it if your testimony is such that you would be implicated in any crime--either by participation or withholding information. If you believe that you could be charged with a crime for what you are hiding, then you must be withholding some pretty important information. Seems like the 5th covers it either way, but in using it, you identify the fact that you believe you do have some incriminating information on yourself. To allow persons to simply "refuse to testify" defeats the purpose of a subpoena to force testimony of persons simply wishing to not testify. If you could be incriminated, take the 5th; if you can't be incriminated, tell the truth or suffer the consequences.

This is a common, but mistaken view of the 5th Amendment. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you could use a course on law if you are in college or have other opportunities to take a legal course.

First, any lawyer will tell ANYONE regardless of guilt or innocence, to take the 5th at first and only talk to the police or testify on your own behalf after careful consideration.

I have no idea if that Baltimore police officer in the Freddie Gray case thinks he is totally innocent or not, but assuming he is totally innocent, he can and will take the 5th to avoid helping the police, just as he will if he believes he is guilty.

The police, prosecution, jury and judge are NOT supposed to infer any guilt or innocence from taking the 5th. The public sometimes thinks things like - O.J. Simpson did not take the stand to defend himself - so I think O.J. is guilty, as I think you are thinking, but there is no legal support for this view, and questionable practical support for this view, as both the innocent and guilty will lawyer up to some extent.

 

[Schipperke]

Statement usually goes to the effect, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that my answer MAY tend to incriminate me."

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Simple questions: Prosecutor: Has Y ever made a statement to you indicating that he participated in (explain crime being investigated or charged). . . .? Do you have any knowledge of Y participating in (identify crime being investigated or charged) . . .?

Witness: "Yes," "No," or "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me in the/a crime.

If the answer is "no," on to the next question and the same set of choices.

It the witness pleads the 5th, that question is dropped, and the statement is subject to interpretation or direction by presiding judge and/or further legal review.

If the answer is yes, but the witness says, "No." Perjury.

If the answer is yes, the next question can delve further into what the statement was, but at this point, the witness can again answer taking the 5th. When the witness determines that the questions MAY be self incriminating, the 5th Amendment may be invoked at any point. Under penalty of perjury, anything you offer can be used against you.


Simple questions, answers, and statements at which points,questioning stops and immunity deals may be offered, but no one can be forced to testify and self-incriminate unless they are granted immunity.

If everyone had the right to refuse to testify without just cause, there would be no need to have subpoenas. Subpoenas require testifying or justifying any refusal to the court. What these people are now looking for is sanction of another excuse to allow refusal to testify--like a spouse not having to testify against a spouse.

We are at the point where the witness has perjured himself and entered a plea of "no contest" to the charge of perjury and faces the legal consequences of that crime. If the prosecution can make the case without this persons testimony and uncovers incriminating evidence against the perjuror, he could also be charged for that crime as well.

If the case can't be made, everyone gets off, except for the witness who committed perjury and may be tried in a separate case for the offense of perjury.

If the court wants to play games with interpretation and changing of laws, it is a delay tactic which may or may not work.

Does "due process" include re-interpreting and/or changing the law? Stay tuned and see.

Before posting condescending attitude, why not enlighten everyone on your professional credentials to make such statements. Everyone is well aware of many the legal maneuvers, some of which work and some which don't, that keeps our judicial "constipated."

Any citizen (and probably any non-citizen in today's US) can challenge the wording and/or interpretation of the law through the proper legal channels if the money is there to foot the bill. The question is whether or not it is a frivolous use of public funds which will be allowed without first answering the simple, "Yes" or "No."

 

[steveP120]

I'll try explaining it again, using the Baltimore Freddie Gray death in police custody as an example.

You can say you THINK the six officers are guilty.
You can say the opposite, that you THINK the six officers are innocent.

But you can't legally or seriously say that you THINK the six officers are guilty BECAUSE they (eventually) invoked the 5th.
You can't seriously say that you THINK GUILTY officers were dragged before the grand jury and made to testify against each other.

You can name the six Baltimore police officers who have been arrested, since they have been charged, but you can't sleuth and name more Baltimore police officers by name who you also think are guilty, without civil legal risk, not to mention the risk of getting breaking WS rules.

And if the police officers are guilty, they can't use as a defense that plenty of other police officers made the mistake they made (of not providing minimum legal treatment).

If one is really interested in the legal system, as opposed to just talking online, there are plenty of college textbooks, one edition old, in used bookstores for a few dollars, which provide a good overview of the US legal system.

 

[Schipperke]

SteveP - Good idea, for you.

 

[Schipperke]

(modsnip)

those of us with only a "little" computer knowledge--unfortunately "little COMPUTER knowledge" includes MOST of us who have enjoyed reading and sharing on this case through the years.

If you follow some of the peripheral information offered through the years, there are other avenues to be explored broadening the areas of consideration and introducing some new names and connections. For example: We still don't know what happened to the other children (or even the names) involved in the accident which took the life of Margaret Dull Welch. We don't know what if any relevance there is to the property occupants and/or owners where RAW lived in 1975 or why it has been vacant and in disrepair for so many years. Are there other as yet unidentified connections, associates, living quarters? True, we don't know if there is any relevancy to any questions, but we will never know if we don't "sleuth" them. I hope we are still trying, but, I will ask, "Is this the end of sharing on this case in this forum" which has brought forward so much information through the years?

(modsnip)

Here's hoping sleuthing is continuing along with sharing appropriate information with LE who carries the responsibility for getting to the truth!

 

[Schipperke]

With reference to Post 551, it looks like the state is holding to the two options--plead the 5th or testify. Appeal round 2 or on to trial and testify or take the 5th? Looks like neither refusing to testify nor lying is an option to the 5th amendment at this time.

 

[siriunsun]

With reference to Post 551, it looks like the state is holding to the two options--plead the 5th or testify. Appeal round 2 or on to trial and testify or take the 5th? Looks like neither refusing to testify nor lying is an option to the 5th amendment at this time.

Maybe, but you have to remember that the case in post 551 is a Maryland case, and the case that has evolved from the subject of this thread is being tried in Virginia. Virginia has an obligation that is stronger than that borne by most states to either produce a body or evidence of a body prior to going forward with any type of homicide case, and this crime did not happen in the public eye or before cell phone cameras. Because of those two things, and because the nature of the motive for the murders of the Lyon sisters was quite different from the motive for Grey's murder, that is almost like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[bessie]

With reference to Post 551, it looks like the state is holding to the two options--plead the 5th or testify. Appeal round 2 or on to trial and testify or take the 5th? Looks like neither refusing to testify nor lying is an option to the 5th amendment at this time.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point.

Porter's Fifth Amendment privilege is upheld. Under the court's ruling, he is compelled to testify against the others, but not himself.


The high court's decision was a victory for prosecutors, who argued that Porter's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would not be violated by requiring him to testify under a grant of limited immunity. Under the immunity, his testimony at the officers' trials cannot be used at his own retrial.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...court-ruling-freddie-gray-20160308-story.html

 

[Schipperke]

The purpose for taking the issue to court in the Freddie Gray case was to determine if the could legally refuse to testify against each other. Each of them can still take the 5th at any point in which they believe it may "tend" to incriminate them, but they must take the stand and testify or invoke the amendment. They cannot simply refuse to answer or perjure themselves INSTEAD of invoking the 5th amendment. The subpoena compels cooperation with only certain exceptions--not wanting to testify or tell the truth in testifying is not a legal exception. If you testify and lie because you don't want to tell something, it is still perjury. But in this day and age, it seems like anything goes if you can get the right person back you. The Freddie Gray decision was made by Maryland Courts, it remains to be seen what other states may do with the same question--the issue of state's rights. Amazing how 200 years after the affirming the Constitution, we are trying "redefining" the English language to thwart what has been considered self-evident in the legal system. The purpose, in layman terms, of a subpoena is to legally compel a witness, under penalty of perjury, to tell the truth when they don't want to tell the truth. Lying is still not protected under any reason.

 

[steveP120]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your point.

Porter's Fifth Amendment privilege is upheld. Under the court's ruling, he is compelled to testify against the others, but not himself.


The high court's decision was a victory for prosecutors, who argued that Porter's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination would not be violated by requiring him to testify under a grant of limited immunity. Under the immunity, his testimony at the officers' trials cannot be used at his own retrial.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...court-ruling-freddie-gray-20160308-story.html

I agree, but in ADDITION to any of Porter's testimony not being used against him at his own trial, case law and the constitution prevents any additional evidence derived from his testimony (the defense will argue all evidence AFTER his testimony) can also not be used against him.

In effect, this likely limits Porter's retrial to a rereading of the evidence at the first trial against him. As noted in the article, it's a first for Maryland, and likely in my opinion only happened because of the publicity of the case.

For example, If I am compelled to testify that I murdered Nicole Simpson with Richard, and the police later find the (my) knife with Richard, neither my testimony or the knife can be used against me. If the police find my knife after I testify, it's most likely inadmissible since my testimony "helped" the investigation. Only in rare circumstances, such as a construction worker finding my knife on his own, with Nicole Simpson's DNA, would evidence found after my testimoney be admissible.

 

[Historydetective63]

It has been several weeks since I looked, but while I don't think a cause of death was in his obituary, other news stories described his substance abuse problems and hard life.

One WS member did know him, went to some service for him, and did not mention anything out of the ordinary, but she can speak for herself if she wishes to.

In general, far more people dies from natural causes than murder, so I doubt he he was murdered (and the police missed his murder or have not released the information to the public). But one can safely speculate on it or any theory as long as you don't slander/libel anyone by naming a specific possible murderer such as "Mr. X. murdered Henry."

I never speculated that Henry Parker may have been murdered. I only said that someone in their 50's doesn't usually die from 'natural causes'. If however, he had a long term, chronic, medical condition, which is what I believe is the case, then that is most likely the cause of death at a relatively young age. I think that was the case, as I heard he suffered from copd, which is a form of emphysema.

 

[Schipperke]

You are not compelled to testify that you committed a crime, you have the choice of answering the question TRUTHFULLY or taking the 5th amendment, but if you refuse to do either, you can be held in contempt of court and/or charged with perjury. They still have the same options they started with; they just didn't get the special exemption status they were seeking.