It Got Better
(“Treading Not So Lightly,” Forensic Files)
Last week’s post discussed the circumstances surrounding the 1980 hit-and-run accident in Big Spring, Texas, that left Vicky Lyons, at age 4, with severe head and eye injuries.
Vicky was around 25 by the time she appeared in “Treading Not So Lightly,” the 2001 Forensic Files episode about the case, and she spoke of the way her neurological impairments made her feel self-conscious in public.
The closing credits noted she died in 2011 at the age of 34.
That got me curious about what happened to Vicky in the intervening years.
Mat mates. An internet search turned up a video of two semi-costumed women — one of whom was introduced as Vicky Lyons — participating in a wrestling match.
There weren’t any closeups, so it was impossible to tell whether the wrestler was the same Vicky Lyons, until I found an online obituary that made it clear the wrestler was in fact almost certainly the Vicky Lyons of Forensic Files fame.
It referred to her as a “professional woman’s wrestling Diva for the past six years working for the Highspots Wrestling School of Charlotte, N.C.”
Michael Bochicchio, owner of the school, confirmed in an email to ForensicFilesNow.com that it was indeed the same Vicky Lyons, and that she was fondly remembered by many people there.
With her identity assured, I went back and watched the entire wrestling video.
I must say, Vicky kicked ass.
Hard-grapple life. She bounced back after opponent Daffney Unger picked her up and threw her to the mat and put her in a Boston crab hold (you can bet I had to Google that term).
Vicky won the match.
I don’t know too much about wrestling, but it looked more like the Hulk Hogan variety than the kind that leads to varsity letters and the Olympics.
“We have found nearly every student initially comes in here with a character already in mind,” states the website of the school, now known as Rings Pro Wrestling Training School. “However once they make it past training and begin their careers they almost always find their way into a new character that works better for them.”
Whatever the case, Vicky was obviously having a good time and looking strong.
Dedicated to the art. She clearly had come a long way in her physical rehabilitation since 2001. The match took place around 2005 when Vicky would have been about 28 years old.
“She was a sweet person,” wrestler Caleb Konley told ForensicFilesNow.com in a phone interview on Aug. 17. “I learned pretty early on what happened [with the car accident]. It was an incredible story.”
Vicky was already a student at the school when Konley moved to Charlotte to train there.
At the time of her match with Daffney Unger, Vicky had a few years of training under her belt, Konley noted.
“She showed up for every practice,” Konley said. “She lived for it.”
Social media gal. Vicky’s obituary mentioned she was also studying mass media at the Arts Institute of Charlotte.
I came across Vicky’s Facebook page, with pictures of her and her friends and posts about current events and fun things like her favorite lip gloss.
Her last update was posted on April 17, 2011. She died on June 9 of that year.
Accounts vary as to cause of death (possibly an aneurysm) and where it took place (either in her apartment or a hotel room). There was no foul play.
Both Vicky’s parents survived her, according to the obituary. Her father, William Lyons, died three years later, however, at the age of 61.
“Everyone got along with Vicky,” Konley recalled. “She was tough as nails. If you got out of line with her, she’d let you know.”
Vicky Lyons may have started her childhood as a victim of circumstance but, as an adult, she learned how to write her own script.—RR
Watch the Forensic Files episode on YouTube
Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Books-a-Million
Target
Walmart
Indie Bound
It’s a good idea to highlight positive outcomes where possible. Nice follow up!
Nice sleuthing. Glad to hear she found an avocation she loved.
I googled Vicky Lyons and a news article said a woman named Victoria Lyons died in a car accident. It was strange cause another article said she passed awsy from microcardiac. The woman in the car crash passed in the same year that Miss Lyons, 2011. Do you know if this could be the same Vicky Lyons that was featured in the forensic episode?
Thanks for writing in, Mary!
I’m pretty sure it’s a different Vicky Lyons who died in a car crash or had a heart problem. The Vicky Lyons of “Forensic Files” fame was found dead in her hotel room by her best friend.
She died in her sleep from a brain aneurysm.
Thanks so much for writing in, Adam. Such a sad death, but it’s good to know it came about via natural causes.
Just checking on something. I don’t like to dwell.
1. Vicky passed as a result of the accident. She would not want me to go into details. There were brain issues.
2. She left this world in her apt in Charlotte where we both lived.
She would NEVER want pity. She was is and will always be an inspiration to me she was…a best friend.
Thanks for writing in! I had heard hotel room — you’re the first to say it happened at her apartment. I will revise accordingly. Glad you had time to spend with Vicky. Wish I had met her.
She sounds like a truly amazing young woman. I wish I could have met her. May she rest in peace. ❤️❤️
Me too — she probably had some great insights into life.
Her mother let her box? Too many blows n I’m sure knockouts or was it cardiac??
Not box Andrea, she wasn’t a boxer. She chose to be a professional wrestler as a career, and what exactly do you mean by “…her mother LETS her box?” Why on earth would her mother have anything to say about what she DOES? She has no mental health, not any biological condition, which would legally or morally require her mothers permission.
Thank you for the update.
You’re so welcome — glad you stopped by!
Watched the TV show on 5/21/22 So sad what happened to her, glad that she was able to live and devastated to learn of her death.
No not the same, sadly died of a brain clot in her sleep, due to severe injuries received as a child when run over by a car.
She did so much in her short life. Who knows what she could have accomplished with more time.
No, Vicky dies in her sleep of a brain aneurysm.
She died from complications of her head injuries.
Thanks for the information. I’ve probably seen this same episode 10 times and I watch “Forensic Files” reruns quite often. I’ve searched for info about Vicky’s death and didn’t have a clear picture until now. Nice sleuthing!
Like Julie above, I have watched the Vicki Lyons “Forensic Files” episode at least 10 times! Tonight is the first time I’ve ever looked into the circumstances of her passing. All the research that people have done is so remarkable.
What I am wondering is how Adam above knows about the specific cause of death. Given the tragic childhood accident she endured followed by her eventual involvement with wrestling, a cerebral aneurysm seems very possible. (I work in health care & have some familiarity with this kind of stuff.)
Not that I’m doubting Adam at all. Was just curious what the source of his information was.
Look for “Tragic fate of Vicky Lyons” on youtube.
This is troubling with the actions the court system takes across the USA.
First off, the guy that ran the child over should have been facing a “hit and run” charge.
Second, the local law enforcement should be ashamed of themselves for not doing a proper investigation of a horrible incident.
Third, the boss who told the child to go play in a busy parking lot should also have been charged with child endangerment.
It’s a shame a parent had to do what others are paid to do.
I call it judicial corruption.
If people take on the job as law enforcement and judges, they either do their job right the first time or be removed immediately.
People’s lives depend on their job.
WELL SAID!!
1. There’s not the slightest proof this was hit and run; nor did police consider it so.
2. The boss wasn’t running a creche; it’s ultimately the mother’s job to ensure her child’s safety – not a stranger’s!
The boss had no right to tell Vicky to go play outside in pkg lot. He’s not her caretaker & the mom did go outside to get her & that’s when she saw her on ground. The stupid boss is most definitely to blame. He should’ve kept his mouth shut & stayed in his office. Vicky was not interfering with her mom’s work. Hope his conscience reminds him daily of what his role in this tragedy caused.
Well said. No one should tell a child to play in a parking lot. Really tragic.
Heartless.
You are an ignorant fool.
It’s up to the mother to ensure her child is safe, not a stranger. She should not have left her daughter with someone who had not agreed in advance to look after her (boss) and who in any case is not equipped to do so in that workplace. What was the child supposed to do safely while people around her are busy working, and where there’s traffic moving in the nearby lot? This was an accident waiting to happen.
Nor is it a question of the boss’s “right” to tell the child to play in the lot. He can’t be expected to foresee or care as much about the child’s wellbeing as her mom, who has a duty to. The mother was negligent, period, and what cannot be argued is that she HAD THE MOST responsibility for her child, morally and legally, even if it’s argued that the boss had SOME responsibility (which I disagree with).
This is a story of blaming others when there’s no-one (else) to blame, with some confused through sympathy and emotion into blaming anyone but the mom. Taking personal responsibility or blaming others for misfortune? I know what I’d want in my mom.
Well stated.
On the day of the accident, her mother called her boss to inform him she wouldn’t be in because she didn’t have a sitter for Vicky. He told her she wouldn’t have a job if she didn’t come in. She was put between a rock and a hard place because she needed the work. So as she had done on several occasions she took Vicky with her. Her co workers adored the child, and often helped keeping an eye on her. However, on that particular day the boss may have had a bug up his keister, and seems he felt Vicky was causing her mom to lag behind on her work, so he told the child to play in the parking lot, rather than do the right thing and just let her mom take Vicky home. Her mom decided she wasn’t comfortable with her daughter being out of her sight and decided she was going to take her daughter home, and her boss was just going to have to fire her if he didn’t like it. It was then that she found Vicky lying injured on the parking lot ground. It was her boss’s demand that she come to work “or else” be fired that forced her to make a bad decision in bringing Vicky to work, and moreover, his fault the accident happened for demanding that Vicky play in the parking lot. What responsible person sends a four year old to play in an unsafe area? In retrospect, considering Vicky suffered lifelong damage from her ordeal, the settlement was a meager one. And but for her mom’s own detective work, the suit would’ve went nowhere.
We know all this – and it’s irrelevant. The fact is it was the mother’s duty, not the boss’s or anyone else’s at the workplace (who had no formal responsibility for the child even if they agreed to keep an eye on her as a favour), to ensure her child was safe from harm AND CERTAINLY COULD NOT ACCESS A PARKING LOT WITH LARGE MOVING VEHICLES. She did not do this – period. It’s irrelevant that she had a horrible choice – child care or work. She did have that choice… and chose wrong, as it turned out. The child never should have been out of her sight in a potentially (and actually) dangerous workplace. What the boss did or didn’t do is incidental as he did not, and could not be expected to have, responsibility for the child’s safety. Thus he could only be irresponsible enough to suggest the child play in the lot because her mother was not overseeing to prevent it!
What about the above do you not understand? As for the boss ‘forcing’ her to make a bad decision (!) you really need to re-think your phraseology. How could he ‘demand’ the child play in the lot if her mother had not left her to him to do that? And, although irrelevant even if so, who says he demanded rather than suggested?
Parents are solely, and in all cases principally, responsible for the safety of their children unless their is contractual, legal responsibility delegated to others, such as teachers, doctors, social workers, etc. No such situation applied here. The other possible arrangement is a purely moral one, where a family member, say, is trusted to care. But even a family member would be unlikely to expose a child to the potential danger at this workplace unless she knew she was with the child *at all times*. The boss was not a trusted family member either and would in any case not have agreed to total oversight (for the obvious reason that he did not do it, having ‘allowed’ the child to imperil herself in the lot). But it was, in fact, the mother that allowed this ultimately, thus her responsibilty.
The injury could be regarded as an accident if being generous to the mother, even if it could and should have been prevented. But to blame the mother’s workplace or boss is absurd and symptomatic of the ‘if you can blame you can claim’ culture rampant in the States.
Agreed.
Are you kidding me?! He told a 4 year old to go play out in the parking lot!?! And you blame the mother!?! There is something seriously wrong with you. The boss was not watching her nor was she in anyone’s office, the child was playing quietly in the lobby and he did so (sending a 4 year old out to a busy parking lot!) without the mother’s knowledge. He had no right, to me that man was responsible for what happened to that little girl.
You’re just an ugly heartless bitch to even post this on this thread. Get A LIFE!!!! pos
I agree. This bitchy woman is a busy body. Probably sticks her nose into everyone’s business where it doesn’t belong. She probably likes starting shit.
Talking about yourself?
He didn’t even ask the mother, he just on his own told the little girl to go play in the parking lot. As soon as the mother was told by her boss he had done that, she went to get her daughter and found her run over. So yes her boss had no business telling the little girl to go out and play in the parking lot. So yes he was definitely at fault too.
No! The child should not have been overseen by the boss and SHE SHOULD NOT NEED TO BE TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT HER CHILD’S PREDICAMENT – SHE SHOULD KNOW! However misguided the boss was, she was more so. You do not leave your child with who amounts to a stranger in a potentially dangerous place – period. She was lucky in my view not being charged with neglect. This was entirely, or almost entirely, her fault, and there is no evidence that any driver knew he had hit her – period.
It would not be necessary to state this if people were not blaming the workplace for the mother’s failure. A culture is deranged if it encourages parents to make others responsible for the parent’s child who never had or accepted that serious responsibility – particularly in potentially dangerous situations (machinery, traffic (this), water (drowning), chemicals etc).
Geezus, Catherine… you’re insufferable!
She’s right though.
Shut the F Up Catherine!!!
Catherine,
I pray you never have children and if you do, I pray you never suffer the way this mother did. Accident my rear ended!!!!
Cath’s right. Parents need to take responsibility for their children’s safety and not blame others or expect strangers to. Nobody cares for your child as well as a parent should. Leaving a young child in a workplace with machines and a lot with trucks coming and going is an unacceptable risk. There was no childcare facility and nobody who could take responsibility for Vicky.
You’re a horrendous human being. Please never have children.
Did the mother not know putting a child alone in a parking lot to play was dangerous? She is obviously as much or more to blame than anybody. Finding someone else to lay the fault upon was an exercise in relieving her own guilt.
I agree and have argued much here accordingly. What some seem unable to appreciate is that *she* bore a far greater moral (and legal) duty of care to her child as parent than her employer did. Regardless of how ‘negligent’ her employer was in instructing or allowing Vicky to access an obvious dangerous location, she was not his responsibility and there’s no evidence that he formally accepted that responsibility by agreeing to look after her (it would be somewhat different if he had agreed to this – but even then his suitability to take on that responsibility is at her risk: she wasn’t employing him and he wasn’t a certified child-minder). ‘I’ll keep an eye on her’ — if that was even agreed — is not remotely enough to satisfy a responsible parent, who needs *assurance*.
We all appreciate that the mother had a dilemma… but her child’s safety must have been paramount and wasn’t. Leaving her to play in a printing works with potentially hazardous machines and access to a car park with vans/trucks coming and going was an entirely foreseeable risk that I don’t think most parents of a toddler would think of taking. The only circumstance in which you could remain in this workplace is if you had sight of your child *at all times* or someone trusted in a safe, secure room had agreed to do this and you were both clear that the child cannot leave that room unaccompanied. Patently this did not happen — then the unthinkable happened.
Vicky’s mother, perhaps driven by displaced guilt, then sought to transfer responsibility to the driver – without a shred of evidence that s/he knew s/he had run Vicky over (and I think it’s extremely unlikely that someone would run a child over knowingly and leave them to die).
This was an ‘accident’ and therefore a misconceived FF case. There was no perp, just a negligent mother and possibly stupid boss.
As parents we are first in culpability line when accidents happen to our children — not third-parties. What could and should we reasonably have foreseen and thus prevented within our power?
I agree, Lynn. Wow Karen. I mean Catharine. Must be quite a view from the mountaintop of perfect insight. Who is she (Catharine) to shake her finger in a strangers face and judge so harshly? Maybe she’ll end up on the receiving end of her own special blend of apathetic judgment some day. The nerve of some ppl…
Yes indeed! But — the supervisor actually could be held liable, I mean what kind of genius recommendations a child play in a parking lot??? Or, play unattended without a parent near?
Kris: Not liable legally because he had no formal responsibility for V, unlike her mother. And I don’t know that we really know the circumstances in which the boss allegedly said ‘go play in the lot’ (though it’s moot). Even if we grant he was stupid/foolish/careless about someone else’s child, that’s far removed from liability for the child’s wellbeing, which is the parent’s. So I have to disagree somewhat. Specifically, he cannot be negligent, except is some broad, non-legal sense, when he had no responsibility. Actually, he’d have been better instructing the mother to take V home on the ground that this was an unsafe place for a child (and possibly that workplace insurance didn’t cover minors). I bet he wished he had… But this is to focus on his shortcomings when they lie fundamentally with the parent.
In my opinion, the mother should have been at fault. A little girl that young should not have been playing in a field alone in the first place!!! She was so tiny, it could be true he did not see her!!!
More than that – there was no evidence of hit-and-run and police said this wasn’t a criminal matter (which is obvious unless there’s evidence the driver saw V and ignored her injury). It was the mom’s responsibility to keep Vicky safe (who more than her?) and she failed and tried to shift blame. She should have been prosecuted for child endangerment, leaving her young child unsupervised with access to a a used lot. It’s highly likely the boss never agreed to supervise Vicky (which means constant oversight at that age), and even if he did she’s still not his responsibility, so why should he or the company be held responsible by the mom?
I can’t understand why some here defend a parent who failed to supervise a child in a place of obvious potential danger. This isn’t about feeling sorry for Vicky or the mom but the rights and wrongs of the case. And the mom was wrong. Parents, take responsibility for your kids! If you don’t why should anyone else?
I just watched Vicky Lyons episode again on the Forensic Files. Cudos to Simon Templar for pointing out what should have been obvious after the accident. I will say we’ve come a long way in these cases since 1980, thanks to people like Vicky’s mom, who don’t give up.
I just want to say that Vicky’s mom, was not only a fantastic advocate for Vicky, but she also was/is also a hero! I applaud her for not giving up, for believing in Vicky and raising her daughter to realize she could do the impossible… Dr’s. said to put Vicky in a wheelchair and forget it after the accident. Not only did mom not do that, she raised Vicky to not only walk…but fight! Way to go mom!!!
The most sensible opinion that’s been expressed thus far. Thanks Nancy!
Thanks, Adam — found it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzxrK1j0_8U
18 wheeler? Smh….
In regard to above mentioned video.
I’m so moved I’m speechless.
Did her mom become a forensic scientist?
This has touched me so much.
Thanks for writing in, Dawn! I’ve never been able to find out anything about what happened to Crystal Lyons, although someone mentioned that Vicky ended up being closer to her father.
She did become a forensic scientist
Glad to hear — she really deserves some happiness.
I don’t think that she become a forensic scientist, look here https://mobile.twitter.com/crystallyons47
I think this is her Mum.
Greetings from Germany;)
Interesting scoop — many thanks (and very nice to hear from a reader in Germany)!
I don’t think that is her.
I don’t think that is her mother, she has blue eyes and crystals are brown…
Exactly if you pause the video (link provided in the main text) on minute 4:53 you can see her brown eyes.
What’s your point? One of my daughters has hazel eyes like her dad and mine are brown.
It’s not her mom.
It isn’t her. Vicky’s mom has BROWN eyes, not blue!
I love this! They should add your epilogue to the end of the Forensic Files episode. I was stunned by the short tagline about her youthful death, hated thinking her quality of life was taken with her innocence in that horrific hit-and-run. It wasn’t! Vicky wasn’t just a victim, she was a fighter —- in every way!
God rung that telephone and said come on my child.
Everyone should check out her twitter page. Her last post was the day she died. It read….
Vicky Lyons @hellfirehottie
·
Jun 9, 2011
I’m so excited…cuz after I take my final in school I’m off to Alaska see my baby’s baby girl.
Very sad she never it was coming.
I can’t say how much that moved me. I googled the events to hopefully at least have the chance to say hi to a beautiful wonderful girl, utmost condolences and respect.
Regards, Miles
Hi! I salute you from Argentina. Somebody knows what happend with Crystal Lyons? THIS Woman is a hero. Thank you so much
So nice to hear from a reader from Argentina! There are a few theories about what happened to Crystal Lyons — but none confirmed, and there aren’t any media reports about her.
While it is very sad that Vicky passed away, I am glad to have some of my questions answered about her, from this article and comments. I love Forensic Files and this episode touched me. I have a young daughter and would do anything I could to solve any crime she might experience. It’s just so sad that Vicky died so young.
Thanks, Lisa. Vicky Lyons was one of the reasons I started this blog — her story needed an epilogue.
I was really disturbed when I saw this episode on Forensic Files about Vicky, so sad the story. It was very touching. I don’t like the way they drop the case. She was a beautiful girl before and after the accident. I am glad to hear she found some happiness.
LeBob, Not sure your twitter link for Crystal Lyons is the same person. Vicky’s mom had dark brown eyes.
I just watched this episode just now and saw at the very end that she had passed away. I couldn’t believe it. So I googled which lead me to your post. Thank you for looking into what happened. It bothered me she died after her fight back to better health after she got run over. I’m not surprised she had an aneurysm. I’m just wondering if wrestling was also a cause for the blood clot. Regardless, she’s in peace, lived more than most, and glad she lived doing things she loved.
Its nice to see that Vicky had such an extraordinary wonderful life after such a rough patch after being hit by the truck. I am just curious if her Mom finished her schooling ?
Unfortunately, Crystal’s whereabouts are still unconfirmed. A few hints, but nothing solid.
Just finished the forensic files episode and saw that Vicky died in 2011 at the age of 34. I was taken aback, after watching her interview at the end, I just did not expect her early death. A quick Google search led me to your article. Although the news of her early death is extremely sad, I’m really happy knowing that she overcame her disabilities and her self-consciousness to the point of becoming a wrestler, that’s just so awesome.
Glad you were able to find the epilogue! Vicky Lyons’ story was one of the reasons I started the blog.
Thank you for your well written blog on this young woman and what happened to her. It’s nice to know I’m not the only one out there that was curious about what happened to her. Imagine how touched she’d be if she knew all the people who were interested in her life (well, and I guess her death). I’m glad to hear she found a passion. It’s also nice to read about someone else who’s somewhat fanatical about Forensic Files and the background stories! I enjoy your posts – keep it up!
Thanks much for the kind words, Michelle! It’s so good to know other people are interested in Vicky Lyons, too — I just couldn’t let go of her story!
First I want to thank you for following up on the Vicky Lyons story, I just finished watching it and as soon as I seen she had passed away at 34 I wanted to find out more.
It directed me straight to ur blog. Thank you SO much for the follow up and all the responses that came from it. Thank to everyone! I was afraid to watch any of the videos for fear I would lose this page! So now I’m going back to check them out.
RIPVicky Lyons You have touched many hearts with your story.
Sincerely
J Carter
Winchester Va
Joyce, a belated thank you for your kind words and for reading my blog!
I’ve been watching FF shows constantly for the past 2 weeks on YouTube. I’m 38 and have never been into this sort of programing before but something about this show caught my attention and it’s become a minor addiction. I’ve watched probably 150-200 episodes and just saw the one about Vicky Lyons and something about it gripped me. I’ve been crying like a baby and just keep thinking about how beautiful this women was. Her story and life and what she became has truly touched me. I know this women is with her maker now and experiencing life the way it was meant to be. I’ve never seen anyone more beautiful than Vicky Lyons. My heart pours with overwhelming love for her. Thank you for the update.
So glad you enjoyed the update, and thanks much for writing in. Vicky Lyons’ story had enough drama to last a lifetime, to be sure.
I think she committed suicide. I don’t believe she died in her sleep.
Two things. Vicky was run over by a car, not an 18 wheeler. Second, an aneurism is not a blood clot but a weakening of a blood vessel causing a blistering of the wall. If it ruptures, then death is not to far away.
She was run over by a pickup truck, an older-model full-size Ford used as a newspaper delivery truck.
It isn’t her. Vicky’s mom has BROWN eyes, not blue!
It was neither an 18 wheeler, nor a car. It was a pickup truck, a Ford 1500 if not I’m not mistaken.
Just viewed this ep again in UK. RR states, “Still, the case in a way seems like a search for a villain where none exists.” I agree; the tone is as though there’s a villain who (almost) did it deliberately and sought to evade capture. This is quite wrong and surely seems unjustified to viewers? I don’t believe, and nor is there evidence, that the driver knew s/he’d hit a child and didn’t immediately stop and seek help. But it’s suggested quite possibly otherwise in the ep. Why? It offers no evidence. Second, as some have stated, in the interest of justice and fairness, why wasn’t the mother in the spotlight for irresponsibility?
I find it distasteful that she/the ep show the alacrity with which the ‘perp’ was sought as though a villain. I’m bound to say that either this was some kind of displacement activity on the mother’s part to distract her from her own unconscious guilt or she was consciously trying to avert blame. It doesn’t wash…
For these reasons this is one of the less satisfactory eps, ‘cos most others seem strictly impartial and objective. Granted, the victim is a child – but that’s no excuse to suggest that there’s a child-injurer out there who left Vicky perhaps for dead and sought to hide. Someone was wrongfully arrested. Nor do I understand the basis of the settlement. While the company might accept SOME liability, maybe for the suggestion that the child play in the lot (though that’s tenuous…), or that the lot was poorly maintained, the major contribution to the accident is surely that the child was there unsupervised. And who’s fault’s that?
Vicky states in the ep, as a young girl, that she ‘forgives’ the driver. Is she reflecting her mother’s suggestion that it was all the driver’s fault. It seems so. I wonder if, when older, she viewed the matter more objectively and maybe held her mother to come account? I’m glad she got money to help her injuries – but I really don’t think the mother deserved it. Indeed, some might suggest that she should have been punished for neglect…
Very true. The mother and daughter were such sympathetic characters that they had to come up with a bad guy somehow.
Read the story. The mother’s boss told the child to go out to play in the parking lot. As soon as her mother realized this & headed to tell the boss she was going home, she saw Vicky lying out in the parking lot. Vicky later identified the driver as looking at her & driving off???
100% agree with you.
Finally, someone who said what was on my mind.
Reagan: It hasn’t been established this was a “hit-and-run.” No evidence is presented that it was, and, as I say above, it appears to have been an unjustified assumption (by the mother and FF), though the police eventually determined it wasn’t a crime but a civil matter (which should have been a clue to FF producers that there was no story here…)
FF, in this weaker ep, tried to make a forensic drama out of a mere human-interest story, and it doesn’t work. The reader comments attest to the interest in Vicky per se rather than the forensic and crime aspects – ‘cos there weren’t any!
RR: I know what you mean, but per my comments I didn’t view the mother sympathetically, only Vicky, as mum was at least myopic in construing what was almost certainly a simple accident as a crime. But I go further than myopia, suggesting she was at least partly to blame for endangering Vicky, then, worse still, displacing that culpability by blaming someone else (her employer; the driver). FF quite wrongly colluded with this – but the viewer shouldn’t. Vicky was the victim of an accident that her mother was somewhat instrumental in through carelessness, and who sought to make others responsible for. To me her (in)action in ensuring her child’s safety is the very definition of parental negligence, followed by apparent abject failure to accept responsibility…
I’ve run across a comment on the subject by someone claiming to be a relative of the family. This person claims that the mother has/had addiction issues and mistreated her daughters. Don’t know if there is any validity to this claim, however.
Interesting. I’ve read the same thing about Crystal Lyons in various reader comments, but was never able to confirm it
I found her on twitter, and the last post on there was from the day she passed away.
content://media/external/file/11938
Re Justin’s comment: gross speculation, but if Crystal were on drugs when the accident happened, that might explain why she left her child to play in a parking lot — something most people I think would consider breathtakingly stupid! I wouldn’t let my dog do that…
Re Marcus post:
This was 1980 when kids like myself played in parking lots, on railroad tracks and down by river beds. We are the last of the free range generation.
Thomas: I’m sure that’s so, but it doesn’t make it wise, and I’m not sure many mums then would knowingly place their toddlers in a parking lot, aged 4, with trucks moving, even if they couldn’t stop them from going off to ‘dangerous’ places with friends (and even then, aged above 4!)
I challenge anyone to suggest that a toddler (who would not be on railroad tracks or river bed at 4) could reasonably, responsibly be left in such a place. Exactly the kind of awful accident that a reasonable, responsible parent would worry about happening happened!
That parents may have been routinely less careful of their offspring’s welfare in the 80s isn’t really the point; lack of common sense/parental responsibility (which now might be actionable in law) is…
https://youtu.be/RzxrK1j0_8U
Here, a friend from the wrestling school (?) says she passed away from a brain aneurysm in her sleep.
PS As a postscript to my last comment above, having just re-viewed this ep, FF seems to suggest that a staff member directed Vicky to play in the parking lot. This being so, and given that mum may not have known this, certainly reduces her culpability. While a toddler should not be out of sight of her mother unless knowingly secure, safe and overseen by a responsibe person, IF mum had no knowledge Vicky was playing in the lot, I largely rescind what I stated above, making this a tragic accident all-around, which, while it could have been prevented by greater foresight, it would seem improper to blame any one party in particular for (though we know the company accepted some liability for).
So sad. Sounds like Crystal was under a LOT of stress. Threatened with losing her job if she didn’t come in. Maybe the boss told the child to play outside and Crystal wasn’t aware. Men do dumb things, especially with other people’s children. I have been a victim more than once as a mother. A mother has to be hyper vigilant 100% of the time. Too much pain all the way around. At least the child lived to the age of 34 and, it appears, died in her sleep. If Crystal fell into drug use, I would not be surprised. How can a mother NOT blame themself or the rest of their lives? I think that the boss and the company should have been held completely responsible.
Regina:
“I think that the boss and the company should have been held completely responsible.” That’s unjustified. If a staff member told the child to play in the lot, there’s some responsibility – but we don’t know that happened. The workplace is not responsible for one’s child’s welfare unless it specifically accepts that. The responsibility is absolutely with the parent, and unless Crystal KNEW her child was safe from the lot (ie, she had placed her somewhere from which she could not wander out by herself), and it was a third-party who intervened to render the child unsafe, she is largely responsible. Telling a child who was ‘loose’ to play outside – if it happened – suggests she was not secure. No responsible parent would leave a toddler to be able to walk into a parking lot with large vehicles moving – period. The child’s needs, when it comes to safety, must ALWAYS come first – and that is parents’ responsiblity, no-one else’s…
RR thank you for the update of Vickie’s story. I was in tears watching her in forensic files. RIP to miss Vicky. And also please proud to her mother.
So glad you liked the update — that episode always makes me emotional, too.
Sandi: Your reply doesn’t wash. The point is that the child should not have been in a position such that a third-party, such as the boss, could give her a potentially foolish, dangerous instruction. The workplace isn’t a creche. And with trucks in the vicinity, even if the child were left for a short time sans mother, the child and supervisor should have been asked by the mother to *ensure* she was under constant sight and nowhere near the parking lot/trucks.
I think any parent exercising reasonable care would’ve foreseen a potentially hazardous situation and done ALL s/he reasonably could to ensure the child was kept under supervision and safe while out of their own site. It’s seems fairly clear she didn’t, and to that extent she’s responsible – period.
The driver of the truck was not an independent third-party. He was carrying out his duties at the newspaper. The legal term “respondeat superior” comes into play here. This term holds the paper liable for the actions of their employees. This has been a legal doctrine that goes back to English common law.
Virwing this episode as though there’s a villain who did it deliberately and sought to evade capture, may or may not be correct. But, neither did he come forward. At some point Crystal no doubt realized the futility of finding a “villian.” At that point, she had to find the person responsible.
In Crystals mind, I believe it was necessary to have a villian to motivate her to follow this case so long. I don’t blame her for taking this view. It never really mentioned what her ultimate objective was. At some point it went from criminal to civil. The civil suit was necessary to get treatment for Vicky.
The police indicating that this was a civil matter means nothing. That’s their way of saying we have no further criminal evidence so it must be civil. Also, after arresting the preacher they wanted to wash their hands of it.
By the way, the things Crystal did were things that the police should have done at the time of the accident.
Remember that Vicky indicated that the driver looked into his side mirror as he was leaving. She also freaked out when he approached the car. If she was accurate, these observations had to take place at the time of the accident. There is a good chance it was a hit-and-run, but the evidence was very weak.
Crystal and Vicky were not at that location voluntarily. She had no babysitter and called her boss and is threatened with termination if she didn’t come to work. Golly, that’s a tough one. I had to feed my daughter, therefore I had to keep my job.
Crystal by no means is the bad guy, but the hero.
Penhead
RP: I’m not arguing from a legal perspective. That is, literally, a law unto itself. Rather, I’m arguing from a moral and common-sense perspective viz care of one’s child. Furthermore, Crystal was also an employee whose boss was responsible for any carelessness just as much as the driver. Your invocation of the legal doctrine doesn’t advance the moral argument.
“Viewing this episode as though there’s a villain who did it deliberately and sought to evade capture, may or may not be correct. But, neither did he come forward.” It is not correct – as the police found. There’s no evidence that the ‘perp’ knew he was involved in an accident to come forward about. Had he seen her before the accident and failed to exercise care, that would be a different matter; or saw he’d hit her and ‘ran’. None of this can be assumed. Who EXPECTS a toddler might be playing on the ground of a car park?
“At that point, she had to find the person responsible.” You mean she chose to, not had to, and as to the “person responsible,” in my book she is one of them.
“The police indicating that this was a civil matter means nothing.” No, it means precisely what is states. There was no evidence of criminality because there was no criminality.
“Remember that Vicky indicated that the driver looked into his side mirror as he was leaving. She also freaked out when he approached the car. If she was accurate, these observations had to take place at the time of the accident. There is a good chance it was a hit-and-run, but the evidence was very weak.” I think it highly unlikely indeed that a driver would see he’d run a child over and drive away regardless, potentially leaving her to die. It’s reasonable to assume that this is more likely the case.
“Crystal and Vicky were not at that location voluntarily.” Crystal most certainly was. You mean that she felt under duress. It does not change her responsibility to her child – her first priority.
The driver and business are certainly no MORE morally responsible than Crystal.
The fact is we don’t have all of the facts. It’s really inappropriate to place blame on the mother via speculation. This thread is exhausting.
1. It could be said that we don’t have all the facts in any of the cases discussed – so we go by what we have.
2. Do juries have all the facts or just those that the prosecution and defence air? Ans: the latter. Jury-members weren’t at the scene…
3. Why is it unfair to blame the mother but not unfair of her to blame the boss/driver, ‘via’ speculation? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…
Your reply, RP, was much more logical and compassionate than certain other people’s comments. Unless someone understands the fear of being hungry and even homeless because they lack of money, they are going to blame the mother. The boss’s reactions…threatening the loss of a job, heartlessly sending the child outside to play and even the rush of the driver leaving, shows the unfriendly work environment. I believe too that the mother was innocent.
Dixie: If the law was concerned with compassion, not fact, that observation would be relevant. And there’s the matter of compassion for the driver, who was – so far as the law was concerned – not guilty of the criminal act of seriously harming a child due to recklessness nor leaving the scene of an accident, that Crystal was most unreasonably seeking to establish. Compassion isn’t a one-way street…
That there’s a ‘victim’ that it’s entirely right to view with compassion doesn’t mean there’s a perpetrator and that – in words that might accompany “ambulance-chasers'” ads, “Where there’s blame there’s a claim.” That blame could (ie, improperly) be attributed doesn’t mean it should.
In the final analysis it’s a matter of opinion if, and to what degree, Crystal was responsible for her daughter’s being in the wrong place. In my argument’s favour is the police’s decision that this was not a criminal matter – rather, being a matter of potential negligence; in those who argue for Chrystal, that the paper coughed-up for medical costs, thus accepting at least some responsibility – albeit that it may have been moral more than legal.
Her boss forced her into a position where she had 3 choices: leave a 4 year old alone at home while she went to work; stay home with her kid and lose her means of support; or bring her kid with her to work.
She made the best choice she could under those conditions, (let’s face it, people like you would be blaming her no matter WHAT choice she’d made), which wasn’t great- but tell me, WHAT OTHER CHOICE DID SHE HAVE?
And since her boss forced her into a position where she had to bring her kid to work (or LOSE HER JOB), YES, the boss -and by extension, the company he works for, in whose name he is giving those orders- ARE responsible for making sure the child had a safe place to be.
And how ANYONE thinks that the adult who both ordered an employee to come in when she had no babysitter AND ordered that same small child to play in a busy parking lot, without gaining the mother’s consent is NOT the most morally & ethically culpable here is beyond my understanding. That boss should have gone to jail for recklessly endangering a child.
I’ve watched this episode about 3 times. And quite honestly, me as a mother myself felt Crystal was a lot at fault. The 1st time I saw it I shook my head & said to myself, what Mom would let her child be out in a parking lot not supervised? Especially a 4 yr. old. My Mom went through tough times bringing up 3 of us kids after leaving my Dad, who was an alcoholic. She went out & worked & came home & made dinner etc. etc. And let me say this, if her boss told her she would lose her job because of us kids, my mom would have been out of there. It’s not the employer’s responsibility to have to take care of or babysit their employee’s kids…Or everyone would be doing it!!!! That’s just a way of life…
Forgive me Vicky for saying that, but I kinda think you realized it too later in life. Vicky you’re a Special lady, very forgiving of what happened to you & will forever be in many people’s hearts as such… R.I.P
Annie: I’m sure we both agree that being put in the position Crystal was was unfortunate.
However, we seem to agree completely that our children are ultimately OUR responsibility, not a third-party’s, and that means that we are responsible for their safety (not a seemingly careless boss who told a child to play in the lot). Crystal’s first call was to ensure her child’s safety in a potentially (and, as proved, actually) hazardous environment. As there seems to have been no safe place, she should have left – period. A difficult situation, sure – but one that has to be made. It baffles me that some posters here can’t see that…
I’ve previously argued that it was because of guilt at placing her child in harm’s way that she sought, via ‘displacement’, a villain where none existed. And police found none. There’s simply no evidence that the driver knew he’d run over Vicky (despite her saying as a small, very injured, child that she thought she saw him see her) – and I simply don’t believe that a driver would knowingly leave a run-over child perhaps to die or be run over again.
This case is ridiculous if conceived as about seeking a villain, and as I’ve said before, I can only think FF used the story for its human interest angle, so it stands out as ‘off message’. Where compassion’s appropriate it’s for an injured toddler more than for the mother who failed to ensure her child’s safety, then sought to shift blame to her employer and its driver. The ‘uncaring employer’ narrative’s common – but critics of our view should spare a thought for the man wrongly ‘hunted’/accused of hit-and-run (of a child).
Vicky had an accident – period; one that wasn’t the boss’s or driver’s fault. I wouldn’t have sought to blame any party – but once Crystal started blaming her employer I’d have to come back on her and her own responsibility… For some people misfortune’s always somebody else’s fault… I can understand, however, that she might assume the employer has insurance and that the only way care bills could be met was via a payout, and the only way to get that was to try to establish employer responsibility. But that’s different from the employer’s moral responsibility (and her own irresponsibility).
I don’t think we can say what Vicky thought about ‘fault’ – except that she did say she’d ‘forgiven’ the driver, which assumes he knew what he’d done. That may have been Crystal’s view more than than Vicky’s – and, cynically, Vicky may have been told to say it to improve the chance of insurance receipt.
Congratulations Thomas! You gave me a nice chuckle. I was visualizing a pile of kids out playing with their heads bobbing in a pecking manner!
Yes, we had to be home when the street lights came on. Lots of fun in the school yards throwing ball, a quick pick up baseball game, or a pile of neighbourhood kids all playing Hide and Seek. Those were the days!
When we were growing up there’d be anywhere from 4 to 14 kids in a family. Believe me, the mom wasn’t walking the kids to school and playing Taxi!
I was wondering about the helicopters, THEN, they arrived. Of course it had to be the Mom’s fault!
Incomprehensible…
What?
Thanks for the info. I saw that she died at the end of the forensic files episode and I’m glad you followed up on it. I am a huge forensic files fan and have even started watching the new season 2 episodes on HLN.
Greatly appreciated and I’m glad she was able to find some happiness through wrestling although it is unfortunate that she passed away so young. I am touched because I also have a passion for the fitness world which also involves wrestling and MMA so I felt a connection to Vicky Lyons. She is is truly an inspiring motivation than you can continue to fight after being a victim in a terrible accident or life change whether it be emotional or especially physical. I lost my closest most dearest best friend who was basically a sister to me and was part of my family since I was 7 years old; I am now 27. I lost her a couple years ago on my sister’s birthday to an aneurysm which was also caused by earlier medical problems. It is extremely sad and I miss her dearly but they have both left behind legacies. We will never forget the good things that people do before they pass on. We must keep people stories and memories alive.
Thanks again.
So sorry to hear about your friend dying young but glad she was in your life! A short time can mean a lot.
Vicky wouldn’t want us feeling sorry for her. She was very strong willed and lived her life how she wanted, regardless of judgment from others. She was loving, giving and kind. She understood that people would be curious when they saw her and welcomed people who asked questions. As far as Crystal, she was hooked on pain pills and did a lot of things she shouldn’t have. But that’s another story!
Hope she gets some help — the addiction crisis hasn’t got much attention lately because of the pandemic.
Marcus, don’t you think it distasteful to make further disparaging remarks about Crystal on a post dedicated to Vicky’s life? I think you made your point clear on the main post. You certainly love to eviscerate women with your words.
Per Vicky, I cannot fathom living with all the issues that accident caused her. She was very strong, and determined to make her life about living beyond her disabilities rather than living with them. I’m saddened she had such a short life, but Im glad she survived and lived what looks like a fulfilling life given her lot.
Allie:
Whether distasteful or not, this site’s about FF cases as evidence and law apply to te players, more than their ‘stories’, which are largely incidental. It’s perfectly reasonable both to praise and criticise. I explain clearly – and I think reasonably – why I think C could be criticised. Sentiment is irrelevant.
Ergo, even if I agreed that my expression is distasteful – I don’t – it’s irrelevant to the nature of this site, which isn’t concerned with a simple narrative of good (victims) and bad (perps).
It’s YOUR interpretation that the case discussion – and it IS a discussion (hint: posters may disagree!) ‘is dedicated to V’s life’. It’s not mine, and I’d disagree with that as a red herring. Rather, the post is about V’s CASE. Although her accident was of course sad, I’m not interested in someone who had an accident per se (nor is FF) but in the forensic and legal aspects of the cases. And I’m not being gratuitously unkind – you’d have a point then – but concluding as good argument, evidence, etc leads.
If I’ve repeated myself, so be it: ‘I think you made your point…’ The logic of your criticism here is my repetition, else why does it matter that I’ve made the point before? You’ll find posters repeat points because new posters are sometime lazy and fail to read or comprehend what was posted earlier.
Let the argument stand on its merits (‘You certainly love to eviscerate women with your words.’) IF I’ve ‘eviscerated’ proportionately more women than men, it’s because in the cases concerned I’ve argued so. What you mean is ‘I perceive that…’
Reading between your lines you suggest I’m hard for suggesting C’s agency in the accident (if not you have no basis for argument). But, then, why is it more acceptable for C to blame a (ultimately unidentified) driver for fleeing the scene than for me to blame her? Did those initially under investigation that she prompted deserve accusation (one was) of knowingly hurting a child and fleeing, any more than she DOESN’T deserve to be considered negligent? She was in my view seeking an ‘criminal’ who likely never existed (the police’s conclusion too). This could have been displacement of her own guilt for negligence. And I suspect the average mother/father WOULD think s/he’d failed reasonably to protect the child such that ‘guilt’ is apt.
It’s plain silly to suggest that it’s somehow inapt to raise this not such an elephant in the room…
It’s up to the mother to ensure her child is safe, not a stranger. She should not have left her daughter with someone who had not agreed in advance to look after her (boss) and who in any case is not equipped to do so in that workplace. What was the child supposed to do safely while people around her are busy working, and where there’s traffic moving in the nearby lot? This was an accident waiting to happen.
Nor is it a question of the boss’s “right” to tell the child to play in the lot. He can’t be expected to foresee or care as much about the child’s wellbeing as her mom, who has a duty to. The mother was negligent, period, and what cannot be argued is that she HAD THE MOST responsibility for her child, morally and legally, even if it’s argued that the boss had SOME responsibility (which I disagree with).
This is a story of blaming others when there’s no-one (else) to blame, with some confused through sympathy and emotion into blaming anyone but the mom. Taking Personal responsibility or blaming others for misfortune? I know what I’d want in my mom.
Dear Rebecca,
I always read but I am always lazy to post. This is the time. Thanks for this update. I am from Mexico and we had this show under the name of Medical Detectives via Discovery Channel. I came to US in 2016 and I learnt about the whole show in HLN but I do not have cable so I watch from YouTube. HOWEVER neither on YouTube or Netflix, they have the “Updates” at the end. Therefore when I travel here or there and I stay at a hotel, I learn about these updates and today (I am at a hotel) I learned about Vicky’s death. I googled and here I am again in your website which is the Wiki of FF. Many thanks for your hard work. God bless you!
Thank you much — so happy that you’re enjoying the blog! Vicky Lyons is one reason I started this site. Her story needed an epilogue more than anyone else’s.