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

Discussion in 'Sheila and Katherine Lyon' started by JusticeWillBeServed, Jul 15, 2015.

  1. Owutatangledweb

    Owutatangledweb Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,001
    Likes Received:
    7,610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just for everyone's future reference, the White Car is referenced here:

    http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMC/793205/2

    There was alot of discussion about the cars somewhere on this thread. You will find articles linked there too.
     


  2. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does that mean that information on the same subject in another thread (stream) cannot be discussed in other streams? I really am trying hard to understand, Bessie. It seems that there is bits and pieces of pertinent information on several streams which overlap cases with their own streams or even multiple cases. I may be dense, but I honestly still do not understand--not being argumentative in any way. I thought it was about an issue of personal privacy not about knowing what is in all streams. Does this mean that any discussion of the car search which was related to the case is off-limits here?
     
  3. steveP120

    steveP120 New Member

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Driving home today, about 75% of the drivers were driving faster than I was, but I was driving about 7 mph over the speed limit. If ticked for speeding, I can't use the defense that others got away with it so I should be able to. I was speeding.

    I am not sure if anyone gets stopped for going 7 mph over the speed limit on a highway, but going 7 mph in a school zone is a different matter. You are much more likely to be caught if your violation names innocents instead of naming (slandering) convicted murderers.

    More information should come out in the trial, so being patient may be the best course of action.
     
  4. siriunsun

    siriunsun Former Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. bessie

    bessie Verified Insider

    Messages:
    31,766
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If a thread exists for a particular topic, then discussion of that topic should take place in the specified thread. For instance, if you want to discuss the station wagon or the "white car", you'd post here:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?262933-Station-Wagon-Late-1960-s-or-1970-s

    To explore "possible connections" to other cases, post here:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?35049-Possible-Connections

    That's not to say that there will be no overlap, but any in-depth discussion should take place in the appropriate thread. If no thread exists for a topic, go ahead and start one. Don't hesitate to send a pm to me or another admin or mod if you have questions, or need assistance.

    The phrase I've bolded addresses a totally separate issue. We can't post personal information, nor make random allegations, about innocent third parties. You can "sleuth" -- seek out and post information about -- victims and suspects, but not their family and friends.

    There are few restrictions on sleuthing convicted criminals, but theories should fit their known offenses. Theories should be reasonable, and based on established facts. For instance, it would be out of line to speculate that a convicted shoplifter committed a murder. Serial killers, on the other hand, are free game.

    That's a nice analogy, and it raises a good point. The Lyon Sisters discussion goes back over ten years. Over time, TOS and staff have changed. Because infractions were overlooked in the past doesn't mean that it's okay to repeat them today.
     
  6. bessie

    bessie Verified Insider

    Messages:
    31,766
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks! There's also a link in this Media Thread post to an article from a year ago when LE was seeking information on the white Chrysler New Yorker.

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...nks-**NO-DISCUSSION**&p=11525013#post11525013
     
  7. G&AMom

    G&AMom Verified Mikette

    Messages:
    2,731
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for the link, siriunsun.

    The article says that three motions were granted: to appoint experts in mental health and criminal investigation, and a mitigation specialist.

    The article ends on a kind of weird note. "There can be some extenuating circumstances, " the judge said. I wonder what that's about.

    Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
     
  8. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That also raised a question in my mind. As I understand the news reports, the motion was made by the defense. Was it granted for use of defense only or for the entire court?

    In other words, will the work product of these experts be available to both sides?

    If the information is to benefit truth and justice, it will be money well-spent IMO. On the other hand, if it is only going to be available for the defense, the taxpayers will be paying for information which can be utilized in, or withheld from the court, at the sole discretion of the defense. The defense sees its job as obtaining exoneration for their client; and the prosecution sees it as getting a conviction. Who in the judicial operation is charged with "truth and justice?" I hope that the final reports of information gathered will become property of the court rather than property of the defense only, and used in the interest of complete truth reaching the courtroom and jury for consideration.
     
  9. siriunsun

    siriunsun Former Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Any information that is actually used by one side or the other becomes the property of the court, inasmuch as its use as evidence in concerned.
     
  10. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am talking about the complete work product of the experts being hired with public money. They (defense and prosecution) can only use it (enter it into evidence) if they have access to it in the first place.

    What I am wondering is if both sides will get the full reports for "use;" or, will it be up to the defense, since it was a motion made by the defense, what is or is not allowed to be presented?

    Are the taxpayers now funding an investigation which could be used to "tilt" a decision at the expense of (i.e. not in the best interest of) truth and justice?

    Usually those on trial have to pay for their own investigations. Granted, this is an unusual case, but work products paid for with public funds should be shared in the interest of justice and not just in the interest of the defense.

    It may be that the full report would be available under "discovery" where both sides are required to disclose pertinent information to each other. I think "discovery" requires requires a challenge/request from the side not in possession of the final work product in question.

    I am not a lawyer, but IMO it would be better to have the product be a possession of the court with equal access to both sides for actual use. Does anyone in WS have the knowledge to explain what the court has ordered in this case?

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/2/2006/2006-Ohio-3044.pdf
    In this case it appears that the work product was the property of the defense even though it was paid for with public funds. I could not find any case where the court ordered such investigations as property of the court for both sides to use.
     
  11. steveP120

    steveP120 New Member

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The state already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating the case, and I think I heard a figure in the millions for prosecution costs. I doubt that giving Lloyd's side a few thousand dollars is going to tilt the case his way and the usual argument is that it rarely comes close to leveling the playing field.

    The US legal system is an adversarial system. If Lloyd's lawyers/investigators find something that could clear him, it's in the interest of justice. If Lloyd's lawyer's/investigators find something that could incriminate him, such as a witness who recalls Lloyd in a drunken state confessing to the crime, then obviously Lloyd's lawyers are not going to share the information and they don't have to. It's the prosecution's job to find anyone who may have heard Lloyd's (theoretical) confession, not to mention the person should come forward on his own - even if it's embarrassing to have had a friend like Lloyd and not believing him years ago.

    I don't know how the jailhouse snitch mentioned in the search warrant recanted his testimony - maybe he came forward on his own or maybe the police doubted his testimony and reinterviewed him. But if he did not recant his testimony, certainly it would be in the interest of justice to have Lloyd's side investigate the snitch if Lloyd (a liar also) claimed he never made such statements.

    Lloyd's side deserves to investigate other witnesses to check the accuracy of their statements. I doubt many of the statements are outright lies such as what the jailhouse snitch said, but many statements are vague or uncertain - such as not being sure what year in the 1970s Lloyd visited or said something.
     
  12. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "
    "I don't know how the jailhouse snitch mentioned in the search warrant recanted his testimony - maybe he came forward on his own or maybe the police doubted his testimony and reinterviewed him. But if he did not recant his testimony, certainly it would be in the interest of justice to have Lloyd's side investigate the snitch if Lloyd (a liar also) claimed he never made such statements.

    Lloyd's side deserves to investigate other witnesses to check the accuracy of their statements. I doubt many of the statements are outright lies such as what the jailhouse snitch said, but many statements are vague or uncertain - such as not being sure what year in the 1970s Lloyd visited or said something."


    I understand what you are saying, but I still think such a work product should belong to the court (equal justice) and not just to the defense. Our legal system should not be adversarial to Justice or hiding the truth. If the snitch has not been investigated, he should be--in the interest of truth and justice for both sides. But that is just my opinion, and like everyone else, I know that things are not as they should be by a long shot. In no way do I believe Lloyd is the "lone guilty person" in this.
     
  13. bessie

    bessie Verified Insider

    Messages:
    31,766
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Link, please.
     
  14. steveP120

    steveP120 New Member

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/wel...plea-to-perjury-in-lyon-sisters-case/38019312

    "Commonwealth's Attorney Randy Krantz said Engleking testified on two occasions and admitted to giving false testimony in an effort to protect his sister, Patricia Welch. She is married to Richard Welch, a "person of interest" in the Lyon Sisters' case."

    Keep in mind that it's a "no contest" plea and NOT a guilty plea. I would GUESS he got as good of a deal as his other relatives received for perjury - no time in jail, although one relative, not born in 1975, got a few months for telling other relatives not to cooperate with the police (obstruction of justice. You can take the Fifth Admendment for yourself, but not for other people.)
     
  15. bessie

    bessie Verified Insider

    Messages:
    31,766
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With all due respect, I disagree. The U. S. Constitution guarantees due process, and a fundamental right to a fair trial, in which every defendant stands equal before the law. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)


    Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)
    The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury, so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.

    The People v. Watson
    36 Ill. 2d 228 (1966) 221 N.E.2d 645
    The Illinois constitution provides, in section 9 of article II, that in criminal prosecutions the accused is entitled to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. In almost identical language the sixth amendment to the United States constitution provides that the accused in criminal cases is entitled to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. Thus it is at once apparent that the right to summon witnesses is fundamental to our legal system. It is defendant's contention that a right so fundamental should not be made to depend upon the financial circumstances of the defendant. We share this view.

    The court recognizes that there is a distinction between the right to call witnesses and the right to have these witnesses paid for by the government, but in certain instances involving indigents, the lack of funds with which to pay for the witness will often preclude him from calling that witness and occasionally prevent him from offering a defense. Thus, although the defendant is afforded the shadow of the right to call witnesses, he is deprived of the substance.
     
  16. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said, I understand the premise of the defense having the opportunity to defend, but not having the ability to "hide" other facts in the process when the "unbiased" fact gathering is done at the behest of the court at public expense.

    Life does not always make sense, and neither does law apparently. Our differing of opinion is not going to change things in the handling of this case.
     
  17. siriunsun

    siriunsun Former Member

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Lloyd Lee Welch has been charged with a crime and summoned to appear in court. Because of that, he has a right to put on a defense. Defense attorneys are not just figureheads, who attempt representation with no discovery; they are required to do the best work possible in order to represent and defend clients. If Welch cannot afford his own defense, the law has a fail-safe written into it, granting him publicly funded defense. All Welch's defense has requested is merely discovery, and Welch certainly has a right to it. If "the people" are going to charge Welch with a crime and he cannot afford his own defense, then, yes; "the people" are going to pay the expenses for his defense.

    The law here makes perfect sense, and has been in effect for many years.
     
  18. steveP120

    steveP120 New Member

    Messages:
    398
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Constitution give everyone the right to "hide" things; the right against self incrimination and search warrants.

    The idea of a two-tier legal system where the poor have fewer rights just because the state pays for defense may be a matter of opinion, but I think it's a non-starter.
     
  19. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Our differing of opinion is not going to change things in the handling of this case.

    Mine is still that FACTS ARE FACTS. Justice should not be about who can manipulate or hide them better than the other.

     
  20. Schipperke

    Schipperke New Member

    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder if this will be the next beginning of the end. My reading of the article is that he still faces up to 10 years in prison at sentencing in June. I think what he is escaping is telling exactly what he lied about or hid. A trial would have opened up specifics for discussion and argument.

    That seems to me to indicate that there are worse things to be found out--something worse than the possibility of up to 10 years in prison.


     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice