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

[Schipperke]

<modsnip>

Another question in my mind is, "Why would anyone vacillate making self-incriminating statements and then recanting?" Such is the "cunning" of nature, like when mother birds feign injury and leads people or predators away from their nesting area. Is that a natural instinct or something that can be taught through nurturing trust and desire for acceptance and repetitive conditioning? In any process involving more than one person, each on has a part to play depending on where alliances are. LLW2, intelligent or not, knows how to draw attention to himself; and in my opinion, he is at the very least a player whose role has not been completely identified for whatever reason. I am open to hearing other views and reasoning.

 

[siriunsun]

<modnsip>

Another question in my mind is, "Why would anyone vacillate making self-incriminating statements and then recanting?" Such is the "cunning" of nature, like when mother birds feign injury and leads people or predators away from their nesting area. Is that a natural instinct or something that can be taught through nurturing trust and desire for acceptance and repetitive conditioning? In any process involving more than one person, each on has a part to play depending on where alliances are. LLW2, intelligent or not, knows how to draw attention to himself; and in my opinion, he is at the very least a player whose role has not been completely identified for whatever reason. I am open to hearing other views and reasoning.

Indeed. We should probably ask who lent him the car, and who gave him the large canvas bags. If everything actually happened according to current speculation.

Who lends a car to someone without a drivers license and allows that person to drive over two hundred miles in it?

 

[Schipperke]

Good points for which I have no answer.

Indeed. We should probably ask who lent him the car, and who gave him the large canvas bags. If everything actually happened according to current speculation.

Who lends a car to someone without a drivers license and allows that person to drive over two hundred miles in it?

 

[Schipperke]

Okay, since I've been called out by name, I'll reply to some of the questions and suppositions in the thread above:

1. Thomas Willoughby has owned the house at 5229 42nd Place for several decades, since before the Lyons sisters were abducted.

2. Richard and Patricia Welch rented the downstairs unit of the house during the mid-1970s and probably up to the time they purchased their home on 41st Place in 1985. The upstairs unit, during the mid-1970s, was rented by "Granny" Welch and her son Luther (Luke). Luke was killed in a motorcycle accident in 1984.

3. Lloyd Lee Welch Jr. claims he saw Richard raping the Lyons girls in the garage of this house at 5229 42nd Place.

4. The house has been vacant for at least 20 years, but probably had other tenants after the Welches left. City and county officials have been in the house many times over the past couple of decades, due to complaints about its dilapidated condition and the owner's refusal to make repairs.

5. Thomas Willoughby is still alive but does not live at the Eastern Avenue address listed on the tax records. That property was sold at a tax auction earlier this year. However, he still owns the property on 42nd Place, which he also does not live in.

6. Regarding the late Luke Welch, I have no knowledge that he has ever been a person of interest in this case. I have been told by one person who knew him that he never married and never was known to have a girlfriend. That, in spite of his extremely good looks (as shown in family photos).

Hope that information clarifies some of the speculation above.

**********
Crcurrie of ANYONE else, do you know if law enforcement (not property standard officers) have ever performed a forensic search of this property at 5229 42nd Place?

I noted in one of the newspaper articles that a neighboring resident at the time indicated that he was "not surprised" that something bad would happen there. Was there a history of problems other than the condition of the property (like noisy motorcycles gathering presumably for the pool room)? Everyone knows we have respectful and disrespectful groups of many kinds. I am not accusing, I am asking. I have two houses in the same block where I live who enjoy their motorcycle recreation, and the neighborhood has never had a problem with either of them so please don't view with question as prejudiced.

Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby are octogenarians at this point. Do you know if they still manage their own properties or have someone speaking for them on property issues? Have the owners ever indicated why (not that they have to) they preferred having this property delapidated and empty for all those years? From newspaper reports, it appeared to have been a major political issue with the Hyattsville municipality, have they been asked for permission to perform such a search? Looks like court cases on some properties were "no show" on the defense, and the property standards issues were called "refusal" not inability to. Legals also indicate corporations and joint ventures participation at times, instead of simple ownership. Do you know if the property was ever used for business purposes? His Mount Rainier property indicated a day care center was housed there. I am wondering why the City with all its resources allowed the property to remain in such a state as described in the newspaper for so long. This incident took place in 1975, but the claim of it being a crime scene was not known until 2014, if I understand the news reports correctly. How is it we can force a search of the present home of a person-of-interest in a crime but not the home where the person-of-interest actually lived at the time the crime was committed and an eye-witness has designated as the crime scene? I guess laws are just very complicated, or are we still discounting the memory of a man who was a child at the time he witnessed a crime which has other people offering after-the-fact corroboration knowledge without being an eye-witness of the event taking place. It is also important to note that forensics searches can be helpful to either side of the case unless someone already knows and fears what could be found.

Has anyone considered that Octogenarians, Mr. and Mrs. Willoughby may need some service by the Department of Aging on evaluation of personal condition and/or care being given to them? Is this a case of aged need for help being ignored--an aside issue which may or may not be related to the subject of this thread?

 

[Schipperke]

Anyone here have "nagging" concern about the things publicly presented on this case? I have been playing a "game" of "What do we believe (know) and how do we know it?" Sometimes called "Can we prove it?" Of course, I am playing with the limited knowledge put before the public eye. Then look at it from the perspective of both the prosecution and defense, again with the limited knowledge the public has of the case. Are there any eyewitnesses to the actual abductions? Whatever happened was either "out of sight" or done non-violently and did not draw any attention for whatever reason. Have witnesses who place either of the girls in RAW's station wagon been consistent and/or adamant in their recollections or reports? How reliable will their testimony be received? Is there any reason to believe that some might have reason to try to mislead the investigation? Have all tips or leads been investigated objectively? In my opinion, sometimes the "devil is in the details." Sometimes what seems "easy to believe" is in fact designed to misdirect attention from something else. Again, I have to question why anyone, even if simple in mind, would want to confess to murder unless they felt very sure the charge could not be proven in court, but they could "beat the system" and boost their personal ego, and become important while protecting someone or something else without making their current situation any more unbearable than it already is. What better way for someone who has been labeled "simple minded" all his life to garner praise at last from people he most wanted acceptance from! Then it occurred to me under standards of double jeopardy, someone who has been tried and found "not guilty" can reinstate their confession and offer protection through creating "reasonable doubt" to any others who are guilty and "earn the respect of people from whom they have always wanted approval and who suddenly NEED them." Just sharing my thoughts on what information has been released to the public and hoping that the investigation has lots more to bank on. Is this the work of someone who is being portrayed as "simple." or is it the cunning work of a mastermind? I don't have answers, only questions. Things just don't fit together quite right yet, at least in my mind, but I do believe we are "barking at a tree in the right forest." I am interested in hearing what others think and why?

 

[siriunsun]

Anyone here have "nagging" concern about the things publicly presented on this case? I have been playing a "game" of "What do we believe (know) and how do we know it?" Sometimes called "Can we prove it?" Of course, I am playing with the limited knowledge put before the public eye. Then look at it from the perspective of both the prosecution and defense, again with the limited knowledge the public has of the case. Are there any eyewitnesses to the actual abductions? Whatever happened was either "out of sight" or done non-violently and did not draw any attention for whatever reason. Have witnesses who place either of the girls in RAW's station wagon been consistent and/or adamant in their recollections or reports? How reliable will their testimony be received? Is there any reason to believe that some might have reason to try to mislead the investigation? Have all tips or leads been investigated objectively? In my opinion, sometimes the "devil is in the details." Sometimes what seems "easy to believe" is in fact designed to misdirect attention from something else. Again, I have to question why anyone, even if simple in mind, would want to confess to murder unless they felt very sure the charge could not be proven in court, but they could "beat the system" and boost their personal ego, and become important while protecting someone or something else without making their current situation any more unbearable than it already is. What better way for someone who has been labeled "simple minded" all his life to garner praise at last from people he most wanted acceptance from! Then it occurred to me under standards of double jeopardy, someone who has been tried and found "not guilty" can reinstate their confession and offer protection through creating "reasonable doubt" to any others who are guilty and "earn the respect of people from whom they have always wanted approval and who suddenly NEED them." Just sharing my thoughts on what information has been released to the public and hoping that the investigation has lots more to bank on. Is this the work of someone who is being portrayed as "simple." or is it the cunning work of a mastermind? I don't have answers, only questions. Things just don't fit together quite right yet, at least in my mind, but I do believe we are "barking at a tree in the right forest." I am interested in hearing what others think and why?

I think LLW2 just got tired of others involved not having to be accountable for their crimes while he sits in jail for his crimes. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[Schipperke]

I think LLW2 just got tired of others involved not having to be accountable for their crimes while he sits in jail for his crimes. That's just my opinion, though.

Your opinion is just as good a mine at this point. The real point is that it will take "hard" evidence to get a conviction.

 

[STANDREID]

Hard to imagine there were two creepasites at the same mall simultaneously but I suppose anything is possible. That must have been some kind of place.

 

[Schipperke]

Hard to imagine there were two creepasites at the same mall simultaneously but I suppose anything is possible. That must have been some kind of place.

Unless you believe that LLW carried this out all by himself, there HAD TO HAVE BEEN AT LEAST TWO "creepasites." The question when it gets to court and the jury is not "who did what" but "can we prove who did what in relation to the charges being tried." Using statements and recollections as proof will only be as credible as the person(s) offering them in front of the jury. In this case, it appears that most, if not all, the witnesses are also family members or people who were children at the time and are now relying on memories 40 years old.

I am praying that LE has some good solid evidence to back up any case taken to court.

 

[siriunsun]

Your opinion is just as good a mine at this point. The real point is that it will take "hard" evidence to get a conviction.

No worries. Plenty of evidence in this matter has not been shared with the public.


Without forensic evidence linking at least one suspect to the crime, there would have been no charges filed in this case.

 

[Schipperke]

No worries. Plenty of evidence in this matter has not been shared with the public.


Without forensic evidence linking at least one suspect to the crime, there would have been no charges filed in this case.

I don't know if you have inside information, but I certainly hope you are right. My worst fear is that the outcome of the first case will create more questions without answers. We have seen that scene play out in several high-profile cases over the years.

 

[steveP120]

<modsnip>

Another question in my mind is, "Why would anyone vacillate making self-incriminating statements and then recanting?" Such is the "cunning" of nature, like when mother birds feign injury and leads people or predators away from their nesting area. Is that a natural instinct or something that can be taught through nurturing trust and desire for acceptance and repetitive conditioning? In any process involving more than one person, each on has a part to play depending on where alliances are. LLW2, intelligent or not, knows how to draw attention to himself; and in my opinion, he is at the very least a player whose role has not been completely identified for whatever reason. I am open to hearing other views and reasoning.

The police are very good at getting people to confess, often by hook or by crook.
Sometimes, fairly often, even innocent people confess. This is knows as "false confessions," which one can google.
The Central Park Jogger case is the most famous case of the police obtaining (without torture) false confessions.

But most of the people who recant confessions are guilty who realize they made a mistake confessing. Obviously if one can recant a confession, by claiming one was drunk or tired (after being awake after one's wife/husband was murdered), many criminals will recant their confessions.

I don't think Lloyd wants any attention, and his only contact with the press has been one letter to the Washington Post denying his involvement.

In Lloyds case, there are two detectives on video saying that Lloyds "bodies burned" was in response to a hypothetical question, "What do you think happen?" which is a far cry from "What do you know happened?"

 

[steveP120]

Hard to imagine there were two creepasites at the same mall simultaneously but I suppose anything is possible. That must have been some kind of place.

I am not sure what you mean by "creepasite," but even if Lloyd is totally innocent of any crime that day, there were a minimum of two creepy people at Wheaton Plaza that day: Lloyd and Tape Recorder Man.

Likely there were a few other people "interested" in young girls under 14 at the mall that day just because of the number of people at the mall and the number of people "interested" in young girls. Of course most of the people interested in young girls don't go as far as murdering in them, and many manage to keep their interest to looking, making no criminal contact.

 

[zensiert]

Schipperke: Another question in my mind is, "Why would anyone vacillate making self-incriminating statements and then recanting?"

The police are very good at getting people to confess, often by hook or by crook.
Sometimes, fairly often, even innocent people confess. This is knows as "false confessions," which one can google.
But most of the people who recant confessions are guilty who realize they made a mistake confessing. Obviously if one can recant a confession, by claiming one was drunk or tired (after being awake after one's wife/husband was murdered), many criminals will recant their confessions...
In Lloyds case, there are two detectives on video saying that Lloyds "bodies burned" was in response to a hypothetical question, "What do you think happen?" which is a far cry from "What do you know happened?"

Uncles, "learning disabled" nephews, confessions and burned bodies...
Have you seen the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer"? Some sad similarities showing what the human animal is capable of. In 2005, Steven Avery raped and murdered Teresa Halbach in Wisconsin. He was convicted along with his nephew. Bone fragments were discovered in a fire pit behind Steven Avery's home.

Brendan Dassey, Avery's then-16-year-old nephew, confessed to the police that he helped Avery kidnap and murder Halbach. In his first confession, he gave a detailed account, including the statement that the two of them chained Halbach to the bed and raped her.
btw, Dassey was described as learning disabled. Ultimately, Dassey recanted his first confession, only to confess again. Later, Dassey recanted his second confession, but he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

 

[siriunsun]

The police are very good at getting people to confess, often by hook or by crook.
Sometimes, fairly often, even innocent people confess. This is knows as "false confessions," which one can google.
The Central Park Jogger case is the most famous case of the police obtaining (without torture) false confessions.

But most of the people who recant confessions are guilty who realize they made a mistake confessing. Obviously if one can recant a confession, by claiming one was drunk or tired (after being awake after one's wife/husband was murdered), many criminals will recant their confessions.

I don't think Lloyd wants any attention, and his only contact with the press has been one letter to the Washington Post denying his involvement.

In Lloyds case, there are two detectives on video saying that Lloyds "bodies burned" was in response to a hypothetical question, "What do you think happen?" which is a far cry from "What do you know happened?"

It would be a safe guess that verification of any statements or "confessions" might be the reason that the FBI and police spent so much time digging on the mountain.

 

[foureyes]

"The latter group would also have turned on 42nd Pl. and walked right past the front door and the garage of the small house shared by the two Welch households. It would seem an inauspicious place to hold two captives for any amount of time. It's doubtful that if they were kept there, it was without the knowledge of RAW's wife, mother and brother."

source: post #806 , p. 54 in Lloyd Welch is a Person of Interest thread.

This thread seems to be rehashing the same Willoughby house questions. CrCurrie important posts included the proximity of Eileen Kelly's residence to 5229 42nd Pl.

Finally, the two sources stating the Lyon sisters were seen in a "residence", and not a "garage" are:

1. Public Safety article, Washington Post -Lyon sisters suspect told police girls likely were abducted, raped, burned by Dan Morse July 21 2015

2. Affidavit- http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wset/SKMBT_60115071517110.pdf
Affidavits trump newspaper articles, although newspaper photos have a time and a date.

Quote: Michael Palin "AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT"

Jimmymc, Please post! Why do you think there is something more to the story
of Thomas Welch Jr seeing the Lyon Sisters in this house?

 

[Schipperke]

Thee are so many questions whichever way you turn. LLW2's polygraphs have apparently indicated deception consistently, but I don't think the degree or intent of deception can be measured. Will a polygraph indicate deception if the subject is being truthful but intending it to be recorded as a lie? If a subject can manipulate everything into "being deceptive," you could actually get truth and lies mixed. If my understanding of a lie detector is correct, it does not evaluate words, it evaluates body responses. If a person truly believes what is being stated is true, even if it is not real, what would be machine register? If the subject deliberately focuses on one false aspect of an otherwise true statement, does it register truth or deception? My high school science teacher once asked the class, "Is science any stranger than fiction in the real world?" When you think about it, how much science fiction of yesterday is real technology of today?

Knowing if the pool table was in the basement with a locked room (did the house even have a basement?), could possibly be verified by some of the on-site inspections mentioned by crcurrie or first-hand knowledge of some of the 1975 neighbors about who or what happened at the location making it "infamous" (word used in WS a number of times) in the minds of some people.

I know that there is possibility that the murder of the other girl, Eileen, is suspected by some as being related to this house and the Lyon sisters, but it will take more than just a walking proximity and a walking route past the house to make a connection. I am sure she walked in front of a lot of houses in that area if she lived there long.

There has also been speculation in some threads that LLW was in the area of Ft. Worth when the three girls went missing there in Dec 1974 and then returned to MD sometime before March 1975. Did he travel alone or did other people/person come back with him?

Questions still abound in my mind--probably from reading for so long without participating in the discussion.

Was he travelling with the carnival? Who owned the carnival? When/how did he make the connection to the carnival? What was the touring schedule of the carnival?

Did he have any known associates and/or family in the areas LE has identified as previous places he had been?

Where did LLW2 live in the years after his mother was killed in the accident when his father lost custody?

Who and where are the brothers Ronnie and Michael identified in the report of the accident that killed his mother?

There was also another child in the accident with the same last name as the mother, Dull? A former WS member posted the thought that the person might be living in FL.

Newspaper report says one person from the car was thought dead and sent to the Maryland morgue before being discovered as still alive when someone was identifying the body.

Why would LLW assume the name "Michael" if he had a brother named Michael?

There was another young girl in Takoma Park who went missing near the same time (her body was found years later somewhere in Northern VA) who was known to be seeing an unidentified "Michael" at the time of her disappearance.

All of these are real cases and/or incidents touched upon at one point or another in WS threads that are still posted. A professional fiction writer could not put together a story any stranger than this one. Answers to any one of these questions could be important or totally irrelevant in the attempt to find the truth.

Foureyes, if you have more direct links, post them--something more than another murder victim walked the sidewalk/street in front of a house questionably related to the Lyon case. I get the impression that there is something you want readers to see.

Zensiert, (means censored in German) Do you feel you are being censored in some way? If so, by whom?

 

[Schipperke]

(modsnip)

Another question that occurs to me is, where are all the old posters who had so much peripheral information to share about all the missing children (as well as this case in particular)--which could or could not be related to this case? They posted for so many years, and recently are now gone or just not posting? Seems strange to me.

(modsnip) I have to believe that many people, like me, who only know the case through news accounts through the years would like to see it through to truthful resolution after all the years of suspicion and speculation. This case has always haunted me as a mother--when you stop to think about defining "stranger" to a child. Ice cream man/stranger? Uniform and badge/stranger? How long do you have to know someone before they are no longer a stranger? But for the grace of God. . .

 

[steveP120]

<modsnip>

It's good to provide any detail to the police, but I am not sure it's good to provide details of conversations with the police to the public, such as possible suspects or "persons of interest" that the police have not publicly identified.

If the police want to identify persons of interest, the police can do so on their own on their own schedule. If the alleged suspects are involved, he/she/they now know it; they are tipped off. If the alleged suspects are not involved, their reputations are damaged. There is also a good chance that what the police said was, "we are looking at everyone," (as they always do) or "we will look into him" (as they should look into any Lloyd knew) and not that the police told a witness their suspect list.

Posting names of suspects not mentioned publicly by the police is also a good way to become a former Websleuth member.

 

[Schipperke]

Beginning to look like my questions go too deep for comfort. But without questions and answers, the questions begin to dead end. How do you sleuth dead ends without sharing questions and answers. But, all my questions came from items posted previously on WS threads. I am not sure if I should apologize to those who get snipped or just go away.