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

[WaynezWorld]

While were on the subject of historical age at a point in time; if we do the math and go back a few years prior for some perspective, an interesting picture develops. Roughly around the time of September 1966, a 21 year old grown man impregnated a 16 year old young girl. Almost forty-nine years later they've defied the statistics as they are still together; at least for the time being.

(modsnip) Though evidence looks bad for LLW, RAW and some very possible obstruction by Patricia Welch, I will hope someone in the bunch who knows something has a sense of concsicous to come clean. Maybe Henry Parker and Connie Akers are those people. It is absolutely mind blowing to think anyone could live with knowledge of even the possibility of covering up a child murder. It is really creepy to see pictures of the Welchs with children some probably the same age as the Lyon girls and think of the possibility they could live while hiding a terrible secret.

It is possible that one of them could be relocated to receive free room and board at a government facility.

+1

 

[jimmymc]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...49b9e8-36d3-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

New developments! Very interesting read. So Thomas Welch Jr. is in the picture again. Lets see...first LLW says Thomas Jr. was involved at the mall. Then when LLW is announced as a person of interest Thomas JR. makes a surprise visit to RAW's house and they give conflicting statements about the purpose of the visit (as mentioned in a previous affidavit). And now Thomas Jr. says he saw the Lyon sisters in RAW's house with LLW. Something tells me there is still more to the story of Thomas JR.

 

[WaynezWorld]

Case is become stranger and sometimes harder to follow. I almost need a family tree here.

Thomas Welch is the cousin of Lloyd Welch Jr. He was named by LLWJr as one of the parties departed Wheaton Plaza in a car with Dick Welch and the Lyon sisters. TW was 10 years old at the time.

A cousin of the man accused of killing Sheila and Katherine Lyon in 1975 has told detectives that the girls may have been kept alive for at least five days after they were abducted from a Maryland shopping mall, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the case......

.......The cousin, Thomas Welch Jr., told detectives that on Easter 1975, when he was a young boy, he saw two blond girls at the Hyattsville, Md., home of the suspect’s uncle, Richard Welch, the officials said. The cousin told detectives he now thinks the girls were the Lyon sisters..............

........The sources also say that in June, a nephew of Richard Welch’s who lives in Calvert County told detectives that Richard Welch had confided in him recently that he and other family members had raped and killed the Lyon sisters and disposed of their bodies on Taylors Mountain......

.........Lloyd Welch later implicated other family members, telling detectives that on March 25, 1975, he left the mall in a car with the Lyon sisters, his uncle Richard Welch and cousin Thomas Welch.........

..............More recently, according to several officials, Lloyd Welch has implicated his own father, also named Lloyd Lee Welch, now deceased, who in 1975 lived in a house on Baltimore Avenue in Hyattsville, about 10 miles from the mall. According to the officials, Lloyd Welch recently said he saw his father and his uncle, Richard Welch, kill one of the Lyon sisters.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...49b9e8-36d3-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

 

[steveP120]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...49b9e8-36d3-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

New developments! Very interesting read. So Thomas Welch Jr. is in the picture again. Lets see...first LLW says Thomas Jr. was involved at the mall. Then when LLW is announced as a person of interest Thomas JR. makes a surprise visit to RAW's house and they give conflicting statements about the purpose of the visit (as mentioned in a previous affidavit). And now Thomas Jr. says he saw the Lyon sisters in RAW's house with LLW. Something tells me there is still more to the story of Thomas JR.

First the sources of the Washington Post story, unnamed officials, is a new low for the Lyon sisters case. Previously virtually all statements were by a named official or in legal documents.

"The officials spoke on the condition that they not be named because the case is ongoing."

Second, the statment from the unnamed officials about what Thomas said is not very certain:

"The cousin told detectives he now thinks the girls were the Lyon sisters."

The key words are NOW and THINK, indicating he changed his mind (from previous statements to the Washington Post if not the police) and he is not certain about it.

While I always thought Lloyd's being in the car with Thomas, his uncle and the two girls (and his uncle later having sex with one in plain sight) was a lie, I did not think that some 10-year-old kids' memory from forty years ago was enough to say the car ride did or did not happen. Likewise, I don't think his memory from forty years ago about which two girls were at his house is enough to say it did or did not happen.

 

[Historydetective63]

I believe that Thomas T. Welch Jr., was actually 11 yrs 8 ms old when the Lyon sisters' were abducted. Court records list his date of birth as 7/1963. He was much closer to 12 yrs old then he was to 10 yrs old as he previously said. He was basically the same age as the Lyon sisters'.

 

[steveP120]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...49b9e8-36d3-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

New developments! Very interesting read. So Thomas Welch Jr. is in the picture again. Lets see...first LLW says Thomas Jr. was involved at the mall. Then when LLW is announced as a person of interest Thomas JR. makes a surprise visit to RAW's house and they give conflicting statements about the purpose of the visit (as mentioned in a previous affidavit). And now Thomas Jr. says he saw the Lyon sisters in RAW's house with LLW. Something tells me there is still more to the story of Thomas JR.

It's telling that not a single other news outlet picked up this story, as of 7 PM on Friday.

I really think the Washington Post went out on an ethical and legal limb accusing people of being child rapists and killers on the the basis of unnamed officials. I don't think other news outlets passed on the story because of lack of interest. I think other news outlets passed on the story because of the legal risk.

In my book and in the legal system, as I think the Washington Post will find out at a cost of several million dollars, if you want to accuse someone of being a child killer, you better have someone make the accusation on the record.

 

[Falcon500]

It's telling that not a single other news outlet picked up this story, as of 7 PM on Friday.

I really think the Washington Post went out on an ethical and legal limb accusing people of being child rapists and killers on the the basis of unnamed officials. I don't think other news outlets passed on the story because of lack of interest. I think other news outlets passed on the story because of the legal risk.

In my book and in the legal system, as I think the Washington Post will find out at a cost of several million dollars, if you want to accuse someone of being a child killer, you better have someone make the accusation on the record.

You couldn't be more incorrect. Other news outlets are not going with these new developments because they do not have the sources in the police department who confided in Dan Morse. It would not be ethical for say, WJLA (channel 7 in Washington) to quote Dan Morse's story without giving him credit and usually competitors don't want to do that. The Post is not accusing anyone of anything. They are quoting people close to the investigation (meaning the investigators themselves who can't be named in print). If other outlets want to get out in front of the story then they need to develop contacts close to the story.

 

[cvillemegan]

I have been wondering how Lloyd lured the sisters into his car. So from that perspective, Thomas being there makes sense. I can't imagine what he said to the sisters, but they would be a lot more likely to trust and eventually follow a kid their age than some creepy looking young adult male.

 

[WaynezWorld]

It's telling that not a single other news outlet picked up this story, as of 7 PM on Friday.

I really think the Washington Post went out on an ethical and legal limb accusing people of being child rapists and killers on the the basis of unnamed officials. I don't think other news outlets passed on the story because of lack of interest. I think other news outlets passed on the story because of the legal risk.

In my book and in the legal system, as I think the Washington Post will find out at a cost of several million dollars, if you want to accuse someone of being a child killer, you better have someone make the accusation on the record.

The Washington Post did NOT accuse anybody of anything, they relayed information from LE insiders who chose to remain anonymous. If pressed legally, the Post may give up their sources, but what they did is perfectly legal and not uncommon practice
The Post got the scoop and has an insider. If any other news outlets choose to run with the information, they would be ethically required to attribute that it came second hand from another news source, which looks awkward and stupid.

Personally I don't trust much of the Washington Posts political reporting, but I think they have dome a great job with this old and confusing case.

 

[steveP120]

The Washington Post did NOT accuse anybody of anything, they relayed information from LE insiders who chose to remain anonymous. If pressed legally, the Post may give up their sources, but what they did is perfectly legal and not uncommon practice
.

It's only "legal" if you do it against a public figure such as President Obama or George Bush.

If you do it against someone who is not a public figure, such as Richard Jewell, the falsely accused Olympic Park bomber, or the Richard in this case, prepared to be sued (hint to some people on Websleuths) if you have any money.

The ethics and legality of whistle blowing is too long to go into here, but the police who leaked to the Washington Post likely also broke some confidentiality laws and the Washington was party to this. Most whistle blowing is justified to point out government misconduct (North Vietnam might not have attacked US ships in the Golf of Tonkin) but this does not appear to be the point of the leak hear.

 

[steveP120]

The Washington Post did NOT accuse anybody of anything, they relayed information from LE insiders who chose to remain anonymous. .

The mere fact that the law enforcement sources chose to remain anonymous should be a big clue that something is not right and likely unlawful.

 

[WaynezWorld]

It's only "legal" if you do it against a public figure such as President Obama or George Bush.

If you do it against someone who is not a public figure, such as Richard Jewell, the falsely accused Olympic Park bomber, or the Richard in this case, prepared to be sued (hint to some people on Websleuths) if you have any money.

The ethics and legality of whistle blowing is too long to go into here, but the police who leaked to the Washington Post likely also broke some confidentiality laws and the Washington was party to this. Most whistle blowing is justified to point out government misconduct (North Vietnam might not have attacked US ships in the Golf of Tonkin) but this does not appear to be the point of the leak hear.

You are correct to a point but still wrong.

The Washington Post did not hold a press conference a year ago naming Lloyd and Richard Welch to be persons of interest in the case- Montgomery County Police did.

Lloyd Welch is indicted and can arguably be called a "public figure" now.

Richard Allen Welch is still considered a person of interest and police detectives have conveyed publicly the statements of LLW that implicate his uncle as a possible accomplice or perpetrator. The Washington Post did not pluck Richard Allen Welch from obscurity to bad mouth his "good name", his nephew LLW did.

RAW, if exonerated, could argue that his name was sullied by this particular Washington Post story.. But, he is already known to the public from the police news conferences and active plea for tips and information from the public.

Chase that lawsuit, buddy. Ya got nuthin.

 

[steveP120]

I am a bit surprised the news of DNA evidence identifying or failing to identify the bones has not been leaked.

DNA evidence is usually the first thing to be leaked, and while still unlawful or against the rules, to leak DNA evidence, a DNA result is not an accusation such as,"John Doe is a murder," that causes million-dollar legal liability.

Reporters have asked several times publicity in interview about DNA or other forensics evidence, and have never got an answer. I am sure reporters have tried to get information about DNA off the record as they have in other Virginia cases (UVA murder case) recently.

IF the police are selectively leaking information to pressure people, the police (governments are difficult to sue) and the Washington Post (easier to sue) have problems.

 

[steveP120]

Chase that lawsuit, buddy. Ya got nuthin.

Richard Jewell, the wrongly accused walked Olympic Park bomber, won some, lost some and died before some of the cases were finished, but I would not call the money ($500,000 from NBC alone) Richard Jewell got "nuthin."

The Washington Post might have a legal card hidden up its sleeve, such as a tape recording proving everything they printed, but as previously noted, not a single other news source even summarized the Washington Post story, as they do with most major stories.

 

[steveP120]

You couldn't be more incorrect. Other news outlets are not going with these new developments because they do not have the sources in the police department who confided in Dan Morse. It would not be ethical for say, WJLA (channel 7 in Washington) to quote Dan Morse's story without giving him credit and usually competitors don't want to do that. The Post is not accusing anyone of anything. They are quoting people close to the investigation (meaning the investigators themselves who can't be named in print). If other outlets want to get out in front of the story then they need to develop contacts close to the story.

News outlets today are more than happy to copy the work or other news organizations, usually giving credit. It's easy, cheap and a way to copy a competitors scoop.

Just doing a Google news search in quotes "the Washington Post reported" (in quotes)
there are 27,000 current "news" (defined as news by Google news) that reported on what the Washington Post reported.
Likely there were tens of thousands more using slightly different wording that "the Washington Post reported"

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...TF-8#tbm=nws&q="the+Washington+Post+reported"

About twice as many, over 50,000 stories were were based on New York Times reporting containing the phrase "The New York Times reported"

It's actually a major problem not because the Washington Post or New York times is not getting credit for the work they do, but because other news organizations are free-riding copying stories as much as legally possible and not paying for it. It's an arcane law subject, but the news or facts can't be copyrighted, only the way it's written. Once the fact is out there, say John Doe killed Jane Doe, anyone can use the fact. Only the wording, "On a dark and rainy night, John Doe killed Jane Doe," can be copyrighted. All a competitor has to do is rewrite slightly such as, "It was raining and dark when Jane Doe was murdered by John Doe.

 

[WaynezWorld]

I am a bit surprised the news of DNA evidence identifying or failing to identify the bones has not been leaked.

DNA evidence is usually the first thing to be leaked, and while still unlawful or against the rules, to leak DNA evidence, a DNA result is not an accusation such as,"John Doe is a murder," that causes million-dollar legal liability.

Reporters have asked several times publicity in interview about DNA or other forensics evidence, and have never got an answer. I am sure reporters have tried to get information about DNA off the record as they have in other Virginia cases (UVA murder case) recently.

IF the police are selectively leaking information to pressure people, the police (governments are difficult to sue) and the Washington Post (easier to sue) have problems.

Still don't get it, do we?

 

[scriptgirl]

(modsnip) And also, why didn't that Welch man go to jail for impregnating a 16 year old? Are we sure it wasn't really case of rape?

 

[steveP120]

(modsnip)
And also, why didn't that Welch man go to jail for impregnating a 16 year old? Are we sure it wasn't really case of rape?

I am not an expert in rape laws, but I think the age of consent is still 16 in Maryland today, and was in the 1960s. I have not done the math, but someone giving birth at age 16, could have been 15 when impregnated.

In the 1960s, I don't have statistics, but I think the age-of-consent laws were enforced less than they are today. Times were different.

 

[RichardLewis]

(modsnip) And also, why didn't that Welch man go to jail for impregnating a 16 year old? Are we sure it wasn't really case of rape?

He did not go to jail because he married the girl, and the likely age of consent at the time would have been 16. So although a 21 year old man having sexual intercourse with a 16 year old girl is questionable behavior, technically it would likely have been legal. I suppose that back in the old days this was more common. For perspective, this same man had a sister who also became pregnant by a 21 year old man, got married, and delivered a child all at the ripe age of 15. It is unsettling when you consider that Sheila Lyon was abducted just a few days shy of her 13th birthday.

 

[scriptgirl]

A 21 year old man having sex with a 16 year girl is a pedophile. You are not an adult, you are under 18. the age of consent may be 16, but still.