NY NY - Suzanne Lyall, 19, Collins Circle at SUNY, Albany, 2 March 1998

[rats]

https://www.namus.gov/MissingPersons/Case#/2/details New NamUs link.

 

[kevrock16]

I have been following Suzanne's case for a long time now. I too saw the Disappeared episode recently and until I watched it, never realised that her boyfriend was considered a possible suspect. I was a bit nosy and tried to find info on where he is now but couldn't find a thing.

Keep looking. I am convinced it is the Boyfriend. he has a web page for her and continuously calls her his fiance. His comments and his "letter" to whomever was involved seems to point the finger at himself. He also lists some of her poetry on the page and I think he made a boo boo with that as well. One in particular that she wrote was , in my opinion, directed at him. Go take a look and let me know what you think.

 

[Arixtotle]

Has anyone ever read which dorm she lived in? That would help trace the route she took after getting off the bus. It would also show if there was any possibility she could have used the tunnels.

 

[Arixtotle]

Also I just realized I had been making some assumptions about the layout of Ualbany bring the same in certain ways back then to now. For instance, a name badge was found just off the visitors parking lot a few months after she went missing. I assumed the visitors parking lots were the same back then. I was wrong. Her badge being found off of the visitors parking lot means she was going to either Indian or State quad depending on where exactly it was found.

If she was going to State Quad she wouldn't have taken the tunnels or gone very far. I see it as unlikely that she was abducted if going to State Quad unless she was grabbed and forced into a car or willingly entered a car. The former would have been seen by people on the bus since it would have had to happen within minutes of her getting off the bus.

Now if she was going to Indian quad then that's much farther away and it's likely she took the tunnels to stay out of the cold. Though I don't know when the tunnels were opened to students. The campus was built in the 60s and hasn't really been updated except with extra buildings on the outskirts.

Old map: University at Albany Commencement 2001 -- Uptown Campus Map

Current map: Campus Maps and Directions - University at Albany

 

[jgfitzge]

Hi All,

I read about this case once before without taking a deep dive. Yesterday I listened to the Trace Evidence podcast concerning the case. I am intrigued by the ATM transactions, specifically the third $20 withdrawal at the convenience store. This happened on Tuesday, March 3rd, at around 4:00 PM, correct. So, we have "Nike Man" identified as the person who made this withdrawal. The only two people who know the pin are Richard Condon (boyfriend) and Suzanne. A year later the police, find Nike Man, question him, then say he had nothing to do with Suzanne's disappearance, and rule him out. This is baffling. OK, in God's name how did he know the pin?? He could not have picked it off the ground and guessed the pin on the first try? If there was any connection to Richard I would think Nike Man would have given him up in a heartbeat. Further, if it was a third party, I would think Nike Man would give that person up as well. Yet...the amount...$20, just like the other two....

 

[tobefrank]

According to Mary Lyall, several weeks after Suzy's disappearance, Richard Condon, Sr. (Suzy's boyfriend's dad) called the state police and said that he thought he knew what had happened to Suzy. He said that he was out driving one day and saw a car that looked exactly like the one his son, Rich, drove -- same color, same stickers on it, everything. So, he said, he pulled up next to the car to wave hello to his son and what he saw was a man who looked just like his son, but was not his son. Therefore, he told police, he believed that on the night of Suzy's disappearance, the man driving this identical car, who looked just like Suzy's boyfriend, had lured her into his car on campus, then, presumably, done something nefarious to her.

That was his first story. Mary Lyall also said that he continuously reported sightings of Suzy after she had disappeared. At the time, Richard Condon, Sr. was a truck driver. He often drove his truck to a small town about 25-30 miles from Albany: Gloversville/Amsterdam and while he was there stopped at a coffee shop. He told police that whenever he stopped there, he'd see Suzy sitting on a bench outside of the coffee shop. He told the police he saw her at least 8 times there. So, the state police gave him a police telephone and told him that next time he saw her there he was to call them, and they'd be there in a few minutes. For the two weeks following them giving him this phone they also had undercover police watching him. One day, he used the police phone to call them and say she was outside sitting on the bench at that moment. What he didn't know was the the two undercover officers were also there, watching him, and that they could see, clear as day, that Suzy was not outside sitting on the bench.

The third sighting location that Richard Condon, Sr. reported was at Union College in Schenectady. He claimed that in May or June he saw Suzy there, in the same outfit it was reported that she disappeared in: the black trenchcoat and boots, walking around campus.

These false sightings have hardly been reported on. I only discovered them via an interview with Mary Lyall on the UnFound podcast. She says that the state police told her about them. In my opinion, making reports of false sightings is either a) insane or b) guilty. Thoughts, sleuths?

 

[jgfitzge]

Ha ha, oh yes I get many people who tell me that there is a guy around my town who looks just like me, drives the same car as me, with the same college stickers as my daughter's colleges on the car. Seriously, how could an LE not roll his eyes when he listened to this story? You ask insane or guilty? Well, I say a bit of both. Growing up in Boston taught me to spot BS from the get go. It helps when I review cases on this forum.

 

[tobefrank]

Ha ha, oh yes I get many people who tell me that there is a guy around my town who looks just like me, drives the same car as me, with the same college stickers as my daughter's colleges on the car. Seriously, how could an LE not roll his eyes when he listened to this story? You ask insane or guilty? Well, I say a bit of both. Growing up in Boston taught me to spot BS from the get go. It helps when I review cases on this forum.

Apparently he was a member of the "auxiliary" police force, too!

 

[tobefrank]

Hi All,

I read about this case once before without taking a deep dive. Yesterday I listened to the Trace Evidence podcast concerning the case. I am intrigued by the ATM transactions, specifically the third $20 withdrawal at the convenience store. This happened on Tuesday, March 3rd, at around 4:00 PM, correct. So, we have "Nike Man" identified as the person who made this withdrawal. The only two people who know the pin are Richard Condon (boyfriend) and Suzanne. A year later the police, find Nike Man, question him, then say he had nothing to do with Suzanne's disappearance, and rule him out. This is baffling. OK, in God's name how did he know the pin?? He could not have picked it off the ground and guessed the pin on the first try? If there was any connection to Richard I would think Nike Man would have given him up in a heartbeat. Further, if it was a third party, I would think Nike Man would give that person up as well. Yet...the amount...$20, just like the other two....

What puzzles me about the ATM withdrawal at Stewart's on 3/3/1998 is the way the location of the cameras and use of the ATM has been described. The ATM was located next to the entrance to the store. The only camera in the shop was positioned above the cash register area. So, the camera only caught customers who went to the counter and made a purchase. It did not capture the activity at the ATM and would therefore not have a record of anyone who came into Stewart's only to use the ATM and not to make a purchase at the cash register. "Nike Man" made a purchase around the time Suzy's ATM card was used, yes, and was questioned about his time in the store.

If the security camera was not recording persons who only used the ATM without making an in-store purchase, however, "Nike Man" brings us absolutely no closer to knowing who withdrew $20 there.

 

[tobefrank]

Another interesting point Mary Lyall made in the extensive interview she gave to the UnFound podcast I mentioned above is that the Lyalls did pay for those billboards looking for "Nike Man". Guess who did? The family of Suzy's boyfriend, Rich Condon. While paying for those billboards doesn't necessarily mean that the family wasn't just earnestly trying to locate a witness who could help lead them to Suzy, if they were trying to throw police and the public off the scent of a potentially suspicious boyfriend, that would be a way to do it.

 

[turtlesalltheway]

Another interesting point Mary Lyall made in the extensive interview she gave to the UnFound podcast I mentioned above is that the Lyalls did pay for those billboards looking for "Nike Man". Guess who did? The family of Suzy's boyfriend, Rich Condon. While paying for those billboards doesn't necessarily mean that the family wasn't just earnestly trying to locate a witness who could help lead them to Suzy, if they were trying to throw police and the public off the scent of a potentially suspicious boyfriend, that would be a way to do it.

I agree that is a sensible explanation of the billboards. But his parents could also have been aware of how suspicious he looks without it being the case that he actually did it. They may have been overprotective.

 

[turtlesalltheway]

Hi All,

I read about this case once before without taking a deep dive. Yesterday I listened to the Trace Evidence podcast concerning the case. I am intrigued by the ATM transactions, specifically the third $20 withdrawal at the convenience store. This happened on Tuesday, March 3rd, at around 4:00 PM, correct. So, we have "Nike Man" identified as the person who made this withdrawal. The only two people who know the pin are Richard Condon (boyfriend) and Suzanne. A year later the police, find Nike Man, question him, then say he had nothing to do with Suzanne's disappearance, and rule him out. This is baffling. OK, in God's name how did he know the pin?? He could not have picked it off the ground and guessed the pin on the first try? If there was any connection to Richard I would think Nike Man would have given him up in a heartbeat. Further, if it was a third party, I would think Nike Man would give that person up as well. Yet...the amount...$20, just like the other two....

I am convinced Nike man has nothing to do with this. The person who harmed Suzanne could have demanded her pin and acted like it was going to be a robbery before they killed her.

 

[jkloc420]

I am convinced Nike man has nothing to do with this. The person who harmed Suzanne could have demanded her pin and acted like it was going to be a robbery before they killed her.

or the boyfriend set it up to loòk like a robbery. Cased the store to know where the camera can and could not film you. What if the boyfriend threw it on the ground with the pin number on it.

 

[turtlesalltheway]

or the boyfriend set it up to loòk like a robbery. Cased the store to know where the camera can and could not film you. What if the boyfriend threw it on the ground with the pin number on it.

So you are suggesting 2 other possibilities: Condon used the card himself and evaded security cameras in order to throw off the investigation or he discarded the card with a note including the pin. Then a desperate person or criminal just happened to find it and use it, withdrawing only 20$. The second possibility seems unlikely to me.

 

[turtlesalltheway]

According to Mary Lyall, several weeks after Suzy's disappearance, Richard Condon, Sr. (Suzy's boyfriend's dad) called the state police and said that he thought he knew what had happened to Suzy. He said that he was out driving one day and saw a car that looked exactly like the one his son, Rich, drove -- same color, same stickers on it, everything. So, he said, he pulled up next to the car to wave hello to his son and what he saw was a man who looked just like his son, but was not his son. Therefore, he told police, he believed that on the night of Suzy's disappearance, the man driving this identical car, who looked just like Suzy's boyfriend, had lured her into his car on campus, then, presumably, done something nefarious to her.

That was his first story. Mary Lyall also said that he continuously reported sightings of Suzy after she had disappeared. At the time, Richard Condon, Sr. was a truck driver. He often drove his truck to a small town about 25-30 miles from Albany: Gloversville/Amsterdam and while he was there stopped at a coffee shop. He told police that whenever he stopped there, he'd see Suzy sitting on a bench outside of the coffee shop. He told the police he saw her at least 8 times there. So, the state police gave him a police telephone and told him that next time he saw her there he was to call them, and they'd be there in a few minutes. For the two weeks following them giving him this phone they also had undercover police watching him. One day, he used the police phone to call them and say she was outside sitting on the bench at that moment. What he didn't know was the the two undercover officers were also there, watching him, and that they could see, clear as day, that Suzy was not outside sitting on the bench.

The third sighting location that Richard Condon, Sr. reported was at Union College in Schenectady. He claimed that in May or June he saw Suzy there, in the same outfit it was reported that she disappeared in: the black trenchcoat and boots, walking around campus.

These false sightings have hardly been reported on. I only discovered them via an interview with Mary Lyall on the UnFound podcast. She says that the state police told her about them. In my opinion, making reports of false sightings is either a) insane or b) guilty. Thoughts, sleuths?

I think it is very suspicious. But I do not agree the only options are insane or guilty knowledge. Why couldn't he just be wanting to cast suspicion away from his son, whether he thinks there is any chance his son did it or not?

 

[jkloc420]

So you are suggesting 2 other possibilities: Condon used the card himself and evaded security cameras in order to throw off the investigation or he discarded the card with a note including the pin. Then a desperate person or criminal just happened to find it and use it, withdrawing only 20$. The second possibility seems unlikely to me.

The second is what I was suggesting. Condon would of had to of put it there. You put the card in a criminal area similar to putting a car with the keys in it in a high criminal area. As for only taking 20, it is a test run.

 

[jkloc420]

So you are suggesting 2 other possibilities: Condon used the card himself and evaded security cameras in order to throw off the investigation or he discarded the card with a note including the pin. Then a desperate person or criminal just happened to find it and use it, withdrawing only 20$. The second possibility seems unlikely to me.

Also taking 20 out is less likely to draw attention or warrent criminal proceedings

 

[jkloc420]

So you are suggesting 2 other possibilities: Condon used the card himself and evaded security cameras in order to throw off the investigation or he discarded the card with a note including the pin. Then a desperate person or criminal just happened to find it and use it, withdrawing only 20$. The second possibility seems unlikely to me.

either way the boyfriend as always seemed suspicious to me

 

[kemo]

A stolen debit card and knowing the should have resulted in zeroing out the account. The first try would be expected to include a check of the balance. Withdrawing only $20 indicates a motive other than theft; in this case it suggests that the Perpetrator was trying to create the impression that Suzanne was still alive at that time.

The boyfriend could have done it but he already alerted the parents that Suzanne was missing first thing that morning.
That would defeat the purpose. In addition, if he did make the withdrawal, it would have been extremely risky since any sightings of him anywhere near that store at time would be very bad for him.

I think the parents are convince the boyfriend is involved and they seem to be controlling the narrative of the coverage of this case.

 

[tobefrank]

A stolen debit card and knowing the should have resulted in zeroing out the account. The first try would be expected to include a check of the balance. Withdrawing only $20 indicates a motive other than theft; in this case it suggests that the Perpetrator was trying to create the impression that Suzanne was still alive at that time.

The boyfriend could have done it but he already alerted the parents that Suzanne was missing first thing that morning.
That would defeat the purpose. In addition, if he did make the withdrawal, it would have been extremely risky since any sightings of him anywhere near that store at time would be very bad for him.

I think the parents are convince the boyfriend is involved and they seem to be controlling the narrative of the coverage of this case.

I think the motive for using the debit card could be that whoever used it wanted to create the impression that Suzanne was still alive the day after her disappearance, yes. However, another motive for using the card could be to direct law enforcement's attention toward the Stewart's shop where it was used as opposed to it being directed toward any other person (whether it be Condon or any other potential suspect).

You are right that Rich Condon did contact the Lyalls the morning after Suzanne was last seen. He called them fairly early - I believe around 9 or 10 - and spoke, initially with Mary Lyall, Suzanne's mom. Mary Lyall has said that she remembers him saying something like, "Did you know that Suzy didn't come back to her dorm last night?" He then told her that he had made several calls to her dorm phone that went unanswered, and had not heard from her via email either. I find his asking of this question, rather than just reporting that he had not heard from her (and was concerned) notable. Without having spoken to Suzanne's roommates, or being present in the dorm himself, Rich wouldn't necessarily know that Suzanne hadn't returned. He only knew that she hadn't returned his calls, answered the phone, or emailed. Obviously, him asking that question does not prove that he knew she hadn't made it back to her dorm after work. He could have, of course, just been worried and felt that she didn't get home because she didn't communicate with him (or her parents) when she got there, as she usually did. However, notable.

To respond to your point about the parents controlling the narrative in this case: Doug Lyall is dead. Before he died, I do not think he said that he felt Rich Condon was responsible. Mary Lyall, however, when asked what she believes happened to Suzy, has said that she believes Rich Condon, or his family were involved in some way. We can assume that she is basing this opinion on how Rich and his parents behaved after Suzy disappeared and the nature of the relationship that existed between Suzy and Rich before she disappeared. Unfortunately, she may be also basing her suspicions on the fact that no other leads or credible theories exist.

Do you have any other credible theories?