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

I hope I am not breaking any of the rules with this. We have commented on other cases such as Eileen Kelly whose body was found in DC shortly before the Lyon girls went missing, and we have brought in other cases from around the same time, so I believe it is acceptable to offer it for discussion.

I recently found an old murder case where the convicted, Melvin David Rees, at various times, lived in the Hyattsville area with his parents, even though his actual arrest took place in Arkansas. The convicted in this case could not possibly have been involved with the Lyons because he was serving a life sentence at the time for 6 horrific murders--1 in Annapolis, and a family of 4 in Apple Grove, Virginia. Melvin David Rees died in prison and his parents are no longer living. One interesting thing is that in both the Lyon Case in in the 70's and the murders of the Carroll Jackson Family in Spotsylvania County VA, in 1960, a Virginia Psychiatrist/Neurologist--medical shock treatment professional--(also now deceased) convinced two different LE agencies to work with a psychic named Peter Hurkos (also now deceased) from the Netherlands, with some interesting results. In my mind the next question is, could there be another connection-- other than the actual person committing the murder in these two cases (or maybe more than that)-- despite the 15 year time span between them? The other interesting thing is that the Lead detective in the Lyon case is still alive and might be able to provide some answers if the questions are asked. However, the frustration is that even if they are asked, the gag order seals the information from the public at this point. Always more questions than answers! Do a search on the convicted's name, and the rest of the information will be in the information provided to you by the search engine.

For your consideration, the sister in law of the indicted, along with another relative, publicly asked for (psychic) John Edwards to take time to help solve it two years ago. I believe Psychometry is outdated occult science.

For actual Dr. Riesenman testimony see Record 6260- Supreme Court of VA Eugene W. Rollins vs Commonwealth of VA. He lived in Arlington, VA and was a student of parapsychology and ESP, formerly an amateur magician.

Please see http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/09/psychist-failed-in-virginia-case.html?_r=0

"Before the arrest of the real murderer Mr. Hurkos's suspect, a trash collector whom Mr. Hurkos had identified through vibration spent eight days. in a mental hospital. The police, but not Mr. Hurkos. were later sued for $25,000"

Here's hoping for real time progress in the Lyon Sisters Case.

Thank you for your response. It is interesting to know that some people are already aware of a possible connection.

I did find reference to your information as well as reference to information that the actual murderer had at one time lived at the property address of the person who was detained in the mental hospital was living and also that the Psychiatrist/Neurologist who brought Hurkos into the Lyon case actually served as an expert medical witness in the commonwealth's case against the trash collector. Which begs the questions, why would the same Psychiatrist/Neurologist bring the same psychic into the Lyon case 15 years later? And, why would MOCO LE be receptive to such an action when another LE group had been successfully sued for $25,000?

Schipperke said:

The other interesting thing is that the Lead detective in the Lyon case is still alive and might be able to provide some answers if the questions are asked. However, the frustration is that even if they are asked, the gag order seals the information from the public at this point.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link that the lead detective in 1975 is still alive, although I don't think it matters?

If the lead detective in 1975 was not able to solve the case in 1975, I doubt he could add anything now. Some people on WS have suggested that the police intentionally failed to find some child-kidnapping gang, but this is slanderous in my opinion, and I think these posts were moderated/cut.

The obvious question is that with 20-20 hindsight, "Why did you stop investigating Lloyd Welch/Long Hair Man as a suspect after an interview and polygraph test?" The obvious answer is that nobody operates with 20-20 hindsight. But if some detective in 1975 remembers why he made the judgement call that Lloyd was not good suspect, for the purpose of improving police investigations, it would be useful for forensic science to know why the mistake was made so that in the future similar oversights are not made in similar cases.

People on WS have speculated that the oversight was either on tunnel vision on Tape Recorder Man or thinking Lloyd, without a record at the time, was too young to commit the crime.

foureyes said:

For your consideration, the sister in law of the indicted, along with another relative, publicly asked for (psychic) John Edwards to take time to help solve it two years ago. I believe Psychometry is outdated occult science.

For actual Dr. Riesenman testimony see Record 6260- Supreme Court of VA Eugene W. Rollins vs Commonwealth of VA. He lived in Arlington, VA and was a student of parapsychology and ESP, formerly an amateur magician.

Please see http://www.nytimes.com/1964/02/09/psychist-failed-in-virginia-case.html?_r=0

"Before the arrest of the real murderer Mr. Hurkos's suspect, a trash collector whom Mr. Hurkos had identified through vibration spent eight days. in a mental hospital. The police, but not Mr. Hurkos. were later sued for $25,000"

Here's hoping for real time progress in the Lyon Sisters Case.

Click to expand...

That NY Times article is 50 years old, but the NY Times is more reliable than Wikipedia which has an interesting article on Peter Hurkos, ESP or psychic, or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hurkos
which takes a negative view of his ESP abilities.

The lawsuit, $25,000 in 1960 dollars, shows the importance of not slandering people out of the blue.

Schipperke said:

Do a search on the convicted's name, and the rest of the information will be in the information provided to you by the search engine.

Click to expand...

rsbm

It's up to you to provide links to support your assertions.

Schipperke said:

Thank you for your response. It is interesting to know that some people are already aware of a possible connection.

I did find reference to your information as well as reference to information that the actual murderer had at one time lived at the property address of the person who was detained in the mental hospital was living and also that the Psychiatrist/Neurologist who brought Hurkos into the Lyon case actually served as an expert medical witness in the commonwealth's case against the trash collector. Which begs the questions, why would the same Psychiatrist/Neurologist bring the same psychic into the Lyon case 15 years later? And, why would MOCO LE be receptive to such an action when another LE group had been successfully sued for $25,000?

Click to expand...

"Hurkos, who reportedly had several documented success in criminal cases, sent police a cassette tape indicating where he thought the girls could be found. About 135 national guardsmen and police searched a two-mile area east of Gaithersburg on the north branch of Rock Creek but found nothing. " from Jaleh Hagigh, Journal Staff Writer - Police Seek to Tie Carolina Molester to Lyons, March 1987

Last year in Rockville MD, a woman was defrauded out of $77,000 by a fraudster who was arrested at Sunnyside Psychic Parlor in Queens. I am not one of the people aware of a possible connection. An example of a connection to the Lyon Sisters Case would be . . . Eileen Kelly's Cold Case- see Eileen Kelly thread. The trial may be rescheduled past October 2016.
MtDNA as well as DNA, I believe, will be more revealing than any psychic testimony submitted.

Link for Eileen Kelly's thread?

I'm not doing this just for kicks, or to give you folks a hard time. This is how the forum works. YOU reference a source, YOU provide a link. It's not a game of "go fish". And if for some reason you can't add the source [I.e , unacceptable source, rumor], then you can't reference the subject matter.

That's it. Couldn't be simpler. No ulterior motives, and no conspiracies.

"The other interesting thing is that the Lead detective in the Lyon case is still alive and might be able to provide some answers if the questions are asked."

For the sake of not having to give up my source reference on to ALL WS readers on whether or not the detective is still alive, I will change that to:

"The other interesting thing is that IF the Lead detective in the Lyon case is still alive, HE/SHE might be able to provide some answers if the questions are asked."


However:

I find it interesting that the questions about my post question me to prove whether the detective is alive or dead and nothing about the Psychiatrist/Neurologist (who I did not specifically identify by name) but Foureyes both names and references accurately. Foureyes then brings in some totally unrelated psychic case from last year in Rockville:

'Last year in Rockville MD, a woman was defrauded out of $77,000 by a fraudster who was arrested at Sunnyside Psychic Parlor in Queens."

Then SteveP follows with both OPINION and, SUGGESTED DIRECTION to lead the moderator to believe that it is proper to cut out the newly established facts, and brings then in :

"If the lead detective in 1975 was not able to solve the case in 1975, I doubt he could add anything now. Some people on WS have suggested that the police intentionally failed to find some child-kidnapping gang, but this is slanderous in my opinion, and I think these posts were moderated/cut. "

Also in response to Foureyes Post #562

"Before the arrest of the real murderer Mr. Hurkos's suspect, a trash collector whom Mr. Hurkos had identified through vibration spent eight days. in a mental hospital. The police, but not Mr. Hurkos. were later sued for $25,000"

https://forensicsciences.columbian....umbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/spring2010.pdf says the suit was unsuccessful.

In addition, the statement the sister-in-law and another relative, (unidentified) of the indicted (Indicted related to this case are – LLW Jr, Patricia J. Welch, or L. Engelking) who tried to bring in another psychic, John Edwards, goes totally unquestioned although it is posted first by Foureyes and then reposted by SteveP.

Originally Posted by foureyes
For your consideration, the sister in law of the indicted, along with another relative, publicly asked for (psychic) John Edwards to take time to help solve it two years ago. I believe Psychometry is outdated occult science.

Here are some of my sources which involve lengthy reading as well as establish facts from George Washington University education sites. I have copied some pertinent exercpts following the source list:

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/40970678
www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1990/06/02/constantine-g-gus-yeonas-va-developer-dies-at- 73/c87d7daa-3273-43d2-b3ee-7386956a3eab/ https://forensicsciences.columbian....umbian.gwu.edu/files/downloads/spring2010.pdf

MOCO used Psychic, Peter Hurkos, in the Lyon Sisters investigation at the request of Dr. F. Regis Riesenman, Psychiatrist/Neurologist, Arlington, Va.
The Trashman's Progress John Tarmon by the American Civil Liberties Union sought a writ of habeas corpus for his release from the Virginia mental institution to which he had been committed. . . In the end Tarmon was held for nearly three weeks against his will. Judge Grove ruefully admitted that Dr. Riesenman should not have served on the lunacy commission that committed Tarmon. Judge Grove probably did not know that Dr. Riesenman was not quite the disinterested party that he appeared to be. His retaining of Hurkos to solve the murders should have suggested a lack of objectivity on his part. Reisenman also apparently had a more serious conflict of interest: According to Hurkos' biographer Norma Lee Browning, two of Dr. Riesenman's own patients had been questioned by police about the murders. . . Tarmon sought unsuccessfully to sue the Virginia State Police and local investigators who had collaborated with Hurkos for his detention and commitment. . . Tarmon apparently did not attempt to pursue the principal authors of his woes: F. Regis Riesenman and Peter Hurkos.

" in 1960, a Virginia Psychiatrist/Neurologist--medical shock treatment professional--. . . . In my mind the next question is, could there be another connection-- other than the actual person committing the murder in these two cases (or maybe more than that)-- despite the 15 year time span between them? The other interesting thing is that the Lead detective in the Lyon case is still alive and might be able to provide some answers if the questions are asked. "

Thank you for the time and research and posting related links.

In my opinion, the intense research and dedicated interest in naming the medical shock treatment professional as well as who is the Lyon case (75) Lead Detective - is analogous to deleted posts of a former member. In my opinion, this case discussion board is not the venue for subject matter of your Dec. 13th email, cover up, etc, which can be returned if requested for review. Investigators are also under a gag order, which bears repeating.
http://www.newsadvance.com/trial-in...cle_f23c0cfc-57aa-5ab2-80ee-43b2496b0e8c.html
-To ensure a fair trial for the indicted, in my opinion.

Please don't make assumptions. Link :http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rine-Lyon-sisters-missing-since-1975-2/page28 Post - 419- Please see moderators comment. If you have a question about a deleted post, pm a mod.

Safe to say Patricia J. Welch trial is scheduled for 4/26/2016.
http://ewsocis1.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/circuit.jsp

Foureyes,

I would be the first to say, "you are entitled to your opinion" and the last to say, "I agree with you."

And again, I would ask, "what makes you think I haven't already PM'ed a mod or someone else for that matter?"

I have provided links for my comments relating the "good" doctor (who was very real) to the Lyon Case and not once mentioned a connection to anything or anyone other than a valid link. Why do you and SteveP keep bringing up "deleted posts" and "former member?" What you call an "Opinion," was actually a comment on a very appropriate avenue of investigation given the new information on the existence and possible connections with the "good" doctor.

I could certainly discuss my opinions about "cover up" and/or any number of other things, but then I would have to post source links for you, wouldn't I? Does your "opinon" of a "fair trial" also include keeping certain pertinent evidence "out of view?" The devil is always in the details!

Thanks for the reminder on the court date!

Schipperke said:

I could certainly discuss my opinions about "cover up" and/or any number of other things, but then I would have to post source links for you, wouldn't I? Does your "opinon" of a "fair trial" also include keeping certain pertinent evidence "out of view?"

Click to expand...

A cover-up of any crime is a crime itself, and you would likely need to post a link to avoid slandering anyone, especially of a cover-up of a murder/rape.

If you were an investigative reporter working for a publisher, and you wanted to write, "Mr. Smith covered up a murder," the publisher, if willing to take the legal risk would spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to see if there was enough evidence to safely say "Mr. Smith covered up a murder."

WebSleuth or the moderators don't have the time or the money to investigate like a publisher would, so WS and most forums will only post if other mainstream publishers have decided it's OK to publish statements such as "Mr. Smith covered up a murder."

You are not going to change slander/libel laws, and WS has to follow the laws, so I would suggest you just live with it, and only voice your opinion when it's not accusing people not accused in the mainstream press.

And even though you or I have no chance of changing slander/libel laws, I don't think you would want a "free speech," "share" any thought legal system or forum where any troll could say you murdered the Lyon sisters, unless he could link to it.

SteveP,

I will keep your "offered" suggestion in mind WHEN OR IF I ever publicly ACCUSE anyone of anything. An accusatory statement never ends in a "?" question mark; and, as we have discovered, sometimes the "?" is never acknowledged or answered. Also, opinions are like noses, everyone is entitled to, and has, one of their very own. Not everyone like everyone else's, and sometimes they aren't even satisfied with their own even when they know it is the "real thing." But once they start changing it, everyone wonders about what and how many changes have been made to hide or change what was at one time "the real thing" that they were unhappy with.

Personally, I don't see any need to change the slander/libel laws as as they pertain to Journalism or free speech. I just hope that in the LE and Judicial system, people with investigatory powers take note of pertinent information and links offered and react with prejudice toward truth and justice with what information THEY find and incorporate with whatever they already have that I/we may not know about. LE will make the final decisions based on information THEY have. I just want to be sure that obscure information that I may find which might be pertinent is not overlooked. I believe that such a possible connection occurring 15 years before the 1975 date of the Lyon Sisters abduction, might have been obscure enough to have been overlooked for consideration. That should not be the case now, and I do not know what the problem is in making this information available. I am not subject to and violating any "gag" order that I know of. I don't have any "insider" knowledge, just a brain, interest, and a computer, and I shared what I found with others on WS.

Melvin D. Rees was a convicted murderer who had connections to Hyattsville, MD, who was in prison at the time of the Lyon girls' disappearance; but in reading his information, I discovered two names associated with both his 1960 case, Carroll Jackson Family murders, and the Lyon case in 1975, and suggested that it might be worth checking into. I provided the name of Psychic Peter Hurkos and the fact that he was brought into the Lyon case at the request of a now deceased Psychiatrist/Neurologist. Another WS member identified that Psychiatrist/Neurologist as Dr. (F. Regis) Riesenman, of Arlington, VA. We now know that historical files say that Dr. Riesenman actually paid for at least some of Mr. Hurkos' expenses. I found that interesting, and I thought others might as well. All of this information is already sourced earlier in this thread.

Is my "offer" of suggestions any different than your "offer" of suggestions? I assume that both have been offered in the interest of positive final results with respect to laws. So I suggest that if you don't like my "nose for sleuthing", just live with it, but I don't intend to make any changes to suit you.

Schipperke said:

I will keep your "offered" suggestion in mind WHEN OR IF I ever publicly ACCUSE anyone of anything. An accusatory statement never ends in a "?" question mark

Click to expand...

Adding a question mark after a slanderous statement does NOT make the statement legal.
A troll asking, "Did S. cover up the murder?" is just as slanderous as saying "S. covered up the murder."

Likewise for saying, "Maybe S. covered up the murder, " or just suggesting it.

I did not suggest that you or anyone make any changes to suit me, I suggested that you make changes to avoid slandering people and having your future posts moderated and deleted or worse.

Again, I would be the first to say that you are entitled to your opinion, and the last to agree with it. A statement makes a declaration of fact; a question asks a direct question or offers consideration of an alternative. A statement can never be a question unless the English language has been changed. Question: Where is your source reference? Statement: I did not see your source reference posted.

https://k-3teacherresources.com/discussion/topic/questions-and-statements/

Schipperke said:

Again, I would be the first to say that you are entitled to your opinion, and the last to agree with it. A statement makes a declaration of fact; a question asks a direct question or offers consideration of an alternative. A statement can never be a question unless the English language has been changed. Question: Where is your source reference? Statement: I did not see your source reference posted.

https://k-3teacherresources.com/discussion/topic/questions-and-statements/

Click to expand...

You don't have to post a link to everything.
I could safely say that "Obama is President" without posting a link since it's common knowledge, but if I wanted to say, "Obama beats his wife," 1) WS would want a link to avoid being sued for slander (although it's harder for a public figure to sue) and 2) other people would be interested in knowing your source for "Obama beats his wife," and it was not made up.

I thought it was common knowledge that adding an opinion or a question mark to a statement, "Does Obama beat his wife?" or "It's my opinion that Obama beats his wife" (followed by "I am entitled to my opinion") would be wrong but here is one link from LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/libel-laws-and-the-truth-what-if-the-statement-is-true
"You are also on dangerous ground when you make false statements that you present as your opinion. Satirical or exaggerated language probably will be protected. On the other hand, if the general public might mistake the statement as an objective fact, it may not be protected as opinion."

Schipperke said:

"It's my opinion that Obama beats his wife," followed by, "I am entitled to my opinion." is two statements and should be punctuated accordingly and addressed separately.

Click to expand...

I am sorry if I was not clear, but I was taking about the following statement being legally wrong, slander or libel, and not about it's proper grammar "It's my opinion that Obama beats his wife."

Being entitled to an opinion does not allow me to say, "In my opinion, you are a murderer," (technically true if it's my opinion) or "You could be a murderer." (again technically true since any adult could be a murderer).

If you really think I or anyone is entitled to say, "In my opinion, you are a murder," without lots of evidence to back it up, a link being the basic minimum - sorry but we don't have a difference of opinion, but you are flat wrong. The police don't even publicly accuse people of murder until they have evidence.

steveP120 said:

I am sorry if I was not clear, but I was taking about the following statement being legally wrong, slander or libel, and not about it's proper grammar "It's my opinion that Obama beats his wife."

Being entitled to an opinion does not allow me to say, "In my opinion, you are a murderer," (technically true if it's my opinion) or "You could be a murderer." (again technically true since any adult could be a murderer).

If you really think I or anyone is entitled to say, "In my opinion, you are a murder," without lots of evidence to back it up, a link being the basic minimum - sorry but we don't have a difference of opinion, but you are flat wrong. The police don't even publicly accuse people of murder until they have evidence.

Click to expand...

I feel like I'm watching a tennis match; back and forth...
I don't think that anybody has gone out on a limb and slandered / accused some completely innocent person of murder. If they do, then the post will be deleted, or get the infamous <modsnip>, or they may get a timeout if it breaks the rules. If they have gone too far (which I really have not seen) they (not you, Steve) could be liable to a civil suit. However, damages for slander would be limited to actual damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove.

Bessie is vigilant about imposing the rules, so I think we can all take a deep breath and let her continue. We don't need to feel compelled to police or respond to every post. I prefer to read substantive contributions that add value to our collective conversation.

Peace.