Thrasher said:
I just recently discovered this discussion, and I want to thank all who have taken an interest in the case. In particular, Richard - you have done a lot of research and analyzed the information thoughtfully.
(One minor correction to posted information - in 1975, the Albritton group owned the Washington Star, not the Post; however, all media outlets gave the story major attention).
I grew up in Kensington, and was there during all these events. I now live in Kensington again (just a couple blocks from the Lyons) and find myself thinking of it often. I can identify to some degree with people who have talked about their experiences growing up here, although I don't remember pre-1975 Kensington as quite so innocent as many seem to. But clearly this situation was new and frighteneing ground. I have known John Lyon for over fifteen years, and, I wish everyone could know what an extraordinary person he is. Although he is a very public and active person, he does not comment publicly about the case. Let me share a few thoughts based on my own experience, for those who are interested.
1. I don't think the Lyons are particularly interested in this as a criminal case anymore. They would still like closure, but they are not, to my belief, concerned with prosecution. In all likelihood, the guilty parties are now dead or incarcerated anyway. They greatly value their privacy on this, and for this reason have not talked to the media about it in any detail since 1980. They were burned by some of the coverage previously, and don't want to endure any more. You can imagine thirty years of idle speculation, cranks, psychics, hoaxes, ransom attempts, and people just driving by the house and stopping.
2. As far as the clues - I believe the "DMT 6" license plate thing was quickly deemed to be not credible. Why any abductor would be driving in morning rush hour (this vehicle was supposedly stopped at a light) with bound and gagged people is unfathomable. Also, how no one else would see this defies reason also. Don't build your theory around that report.
3. Coffey is as good a suspect as any, but there is really nothing to tie him to the crime other than his history and his presence in the area at the time. I believe, based on my discussions with those knowledgeable about it, if there was any way to tie him to the crime, it would have happened by now (remember that Jay Lyon has worked for the county police for about 20 years). If Coffey had to leave the area after the Beatty murder, why did he have to stay after this abduction?
4. The police came to discount the siting at Devon and Faulkner. Only one child said this, and under the circumstances could easily have been mistaken. To have let the girls leave the plaza freely, and then later abduct them by vehicle would have been extremely difficult and required excellent timing, given the roundabout route necessary to get to that point from the plaza.
5. The police were confronted with a case they had little experience with. The investigation was exhaustive, but primitive by today's standards. A major element of bad luck was the high wind and rain for two days after the disappearance - making the dog search relatively useless. But County Police have never worked harder to solve a case.
All that being said, I encourage all of you to keep interest alive - we need to have this solved. It may take a break like the woman who (allegedly) had contact photo prints of the plaza that day. Sites like this may bring forward the critical information.
Thank you for your insight and comments. You make some excellent points. I agree with you regarding your assessment of Montgomery County Police efforts on this case. I have personally spoken with several of the case officers over the years, and this is a case they take very seriously and one which they have worked very hard on since 1975.
I have never met John Lyon personally, although I have seen his picture and have seen his interviews in the past, and I have heard him many times when he worked as an anouncer for WMAL (AM) radio. I know that he has taken an active part in assisting others who have lost loved ones by working closely with MCP and their Victim's Assistance program. He has given a few interviews in the recent past (I believe that one was in 2002) during which time he discussed the case of his missing daughters.
You make a few points that I would like to discuss briefly.
First, the reported sighting of the girls near Devon Road (actually near the corner of Devon and Drumm). You are correct that only one boy reported this. The reason that the police did not place as much importance on it was the the boy waited almost two weeks before reporting it. His reason stated for this was that, although he recalled seeing the girls there that day (25 March), he did not report it because other reports in the news said that a witness had seen them at around 7PM near the mall. There were a lot of kids at the mall that day, and probably a lot of them did use the same route in and out of the housing area. Because the boy came forward two weeks later, the police tended to discount the clue, because they felt he might have seen different girls, OR that he might have seen the Lyon Sisters on the day before their disappearance, OR that he may have gotten the time wrong. All good reasons to doubt such a report.
But I think that the best reason for doubting the report is this: If the boy had seen Sheila and Kate at that place and time, it would have taken the girls less than a minute to reach a point further along their route where a vehicle could no longer follow them. Drumm Ave was and still is blocked off by large metal posts, allowing only pedestrian traffic for about a block. The other end of Drumm Ave. was open, but the girls normally cut through some woods to their home on Jennings.
The abductor had his best opportunity to offer them a ride in the parking lot or just into the subdivision near Drumm, Faulkner, and Devon streets. The boy stated that he saw the girls there, and that they were headed home - but he never reported seeing any suspicious vehicles, people, or any abduction taking place. Also, if this boy was there, the abductor would have seen him and not made his move. To abduct the girls further along their route would have required that the abductor know the many twisting roads and where they came out. The next best place along the girl's route for intercepting the girls with his car was very close to their home - and this would also presume that the abductor knew where they lived.
Your comments on the beige station wagon with the bent plate are also well stated. Police did check that lead out very carefully and questioned the witness many times. The man stated only that he was reporting what he saw, and got very tired of all the constant re-questioning. His statements remained consistant, and he never sought any kind of fame or recognition through the press. I have never seen his name printed or released. The Beige Ford Station Wagon certainly fits into the story because it happened and it tied up police for a long time checking into it. However, it may have had nothing to do with the actual disappearance of the girls. It could have been a hoax, or maybe a case of someone traveling with other children sleeping in the back, or it might have been the Lyon girls. It just could never be either substantiated or completely dismissed.
Fred Howard Coffey, Jr. is a convicted Child Molester and Child Murderer. He confessed to having molested over a hundred children, and that confession is public record. What you see of Mr. Coffey, however, is very likely only the tip of the iceberg. He is believed to have murdered several other children besides little 10 year-old Amanda Ray.
What you say regarding lack of evidence linking him to the Lyon case is absolutely correct - at this point anyway. Mr. Coffey and his lawyer would be quick to point out that you "can't prove it". It is not known for certain where Mr. Coffey was on 25 March 1975 or in the days immediately following.
It is known that he owned at least three vehicles in 1975 and that he must have had one of them in the Maryland area at the time, due to the locations of his residence and work areas.
You also cannot prove that he murdered 14 year-old Kathy Beatty. But if you study his modus operandi, you would find that he had a fondness for picking up young girls. Coffey had been convicted in 1974 of picking up a 13 year-old daughter of a fellow Navy man, using a lie that her parents were in a bad accident and that he had been sent to take her to see them in the hospital. Instead, he drove her to a beach where he raped her. Later, in October 1975, Coffey was convicted of "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" with a 15 year-old girl in Virginia Beach, VA.
Kathy Beatty was found very close to one of the places where Coffey worked at the time. Although Coffey has not been forensically linked to Kathy's murder, the fact that he blew town immediately afterward without notice to his employer makes a person wonder. He later sent a letter to his employer, VITRO Laboratories, asking for his final pay check, and giving a false reason for leaving. The reason? He said that his wife and daughter had been in a bad car accident. He used the very same false excuse later when leaving the scene of another murder.
To answer your hypothetical question, as to why he would have had to leave so quickly following the Beatty murder (assuming he killed her): Because papers reported the next day that she was still alive. As such she might have identified him. Kathy actually lived for 12 days after the attack but she was in a coma, and never regained conciousness.
Regarding your comment about the person who reported taking pictures at Wheaton Plaza on 25 March 1975 - I sincerely hope that they can be found and turned over to police as possible evidence in this very old case. Maybe it can still be solved.
