Nancy Dillard Lyon murder by arsenic poisoning by husband Richard Lyon

My own father was an architect for most his career. He'd not attended Harvard – being "well-connected" has its privileges – but he made an honest, consistent living. Nancy met Richard at Harvard, but what Richard might've been studying there was not described. Given their age difference, I imagine Nancy was pursuing a graduate degree while Richard was striving toward his bachelor's. I like to believe those afforded the opportunity to attend prestigious schools wouldn't stoop to cheating, but I guess anyone's capable. Who's worse: Richard for turning in work that was not his own or Nancy for supplying it?

Why someone would drink a bottle of wine left on their doorstep by a stranger seems odd to many. But compared to 1990, I think a few parameters factor into the difference in attitudes. Without the internet and social media, there was much less focus on the dangers hidden within seemingly generous acts of kindness. The facts show that 30+ years ago, the odds of such a crime were greater. But we're now hyper-vigilant with an increased awareness of the rare incidents that occur nowadays. Also, the Lyons lived in an affluent neighborhood – it was very likely the wine may have been a gift. For the most part, neighbors seemed to develop closer bonds than they do now. But the lack of a note or card with the gift should have still been a warning sign. Why would such a welcome gift be anonymous?

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Part of Richard Lyon's defense involved the idea that there were other suspects to consider in the murder of Nancy Dillard Lyon. The ominous note advising Nancy to "Stay out of the Bagwell case" pointed to a potential culprit. Nancy was scheduled to testify in a case where Trammell Crow charged her former supervisor with embezzlement. If she believed the threat, it would be understood that the notion of having to divulge details about her former boss at trial would be uncomfortable for Nancy.

Richard Lyon's defense

Despite the alternate theories regarding who poisoned Nancy Dillard Lyon with arsenic, it seems the facts in the case against Richard were overwhelming. I'd like to understand exactly how some of the events and circumstances were explained by the defense attorney Dan Guthrie. His "Perry Mason" quote from the press event (and episode) occurred before Richard had been charged with Nancy's murder. But I doubt the case truly evolved into a true "whodunit" as Guthrie stated. This was validated by the jury's mere three hours of deliberation.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

When the handwriting expert Hartford Kittel demonstrated the distinct differences in Richard's and Nancy's writing, how did the defense respond? So, all the sudden when the diary's content became scandalous, Nancy began making her letters like capital I's and lowercase f's differently? And simply stopped using ampersands? There's no rationality to this explanation, meanwhile these characteristics in Richard's handwriting are the reasonable conclusion – remember Occam's razor.

Kittel was unable to conclude that the signature on the receipt for arsenic provided by Richard was in fact Nancy Lyon's or not. But recall that when the receipt was brought back to the company (Chemical Engineering Co.), they explained not only was that NOT one of their genuine receipts, but they didn't even sell those specific chemicals. Given Richard's multi-month process of poisoning his wife (and his Harvard education), you'd think he'd have been able to produce a more believable forgery.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Yet another indefensible event was Richard's possession of the post office box. Homicide investigator Michael Brock put it best (and used one of my favorite words) when he indicated, "It's nefarious reasons of having it delivered to a post office box." With a legitimate reason for its purchase, one would simply not need to ship arsenic anywhere but their home or office. It was actually counter to Richard's claim that Nancy had purchased the arsenic to kill a colony of fire ants – she'd certainly not ship to a post office box he'd opened without her knowledge.

Educated doesn't always mean smart

Aside from the defense's challenges, Richard demonstrated a number of other questionable choices. At the movie theater while they were still separated, Richard spiked a drink for Nancy with a foreign substance. She immediately noticed its awful taste, and she claimed a white powder was visible in the cup. Apparently, Richard didn't consider or test his choice of poisons. Unfortunately, this didn't raise the appropriate red flags for Nancy to avoid future encounters with Richard.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Lastly, the "vitamin pills" were an odd choice on both partners' part. For Richard, he didn't keep an account of which or how many of Nancy's vitamins he'd replaced with capsules laced with barium carbonate. This became more physical evidence indicating Richard's plot to poison his wife. On Nancy's part, the idea of taking capsules that your husband is giving you without question is odd. Hopefully she'd been curious enough to see that they'd at least been coming from a real bottle and was only fooled into believing them to be actual vitamins. But the episode implied she'd been taking pills Richard provided without question.

I respect a wife who wants to "keep the family together", especially when young children are involved. This was the case for the Lyons. Richard had been caught cheating, and this led to the couple's separation. Nancy indicated that she was going to stay patient and get some counseling. The episode didn't share that their marital problems began a year prior which may have led to Richard acquiring a girlfriend. He moved out as early as February 1990. But ultimately Richard was the adulterer – it was plain that Nancy was more committed to sustaining their relationship. But I couldn't go as far as retired homicide detective Cathy Harding's idea that Nancy may've possibly ingested the arsenic herself to get Richard's attention.

Justice for Nancy Dillard Lyon

I was grateful that Richard Lyon's girlfriend (seemingly named Tami Ayn Gaisford) divulged Richard's lie about Nancy having a "fatal blood disease" in court. It was another clear indication that Richard Lyon was willing to lie to anyone about anything to achieve his selfish ends. He betrayed the people who trusted him the most – Tami, his children, and worst of all his wife Nancy. He robbed his children of their opportunity to grow up with a loving mother, just like Gene Keidel when he murdered his wife DiAnne in Haunting Vision (s04e11), Richard Crafts' murder of wife Helle in The Disappearance of Helle Crafts (s01e01), and Jack Boyle murdering his wife Noreen in Foundation of Lies (s05e12).

I'll close with a short commentary about a seldom-seen feature of Forensic Files. It's obvious during the frequent "talking head" scenes that the speaker's dialogue is a response to a question. These elements of each episode are the result of countless interviews done by the Forensic Files production staff. But these scenes are never shared as two-sided – the interviewee is always supplying information in context of the story and its narrative. This was one of the few episodes where it was felt retaining a "follow-up" question in the audio was warranted. Pay attention to the end of a long segment featuring the work of forensic document examine Hartford Kittel. He states he is certain that Richard had written the damning information about his brother-in-law Bill in Nancy's diary. You will briefly hear the interviewer follow up asking, "100% certain?"

Where is Richard Lyon now in 2024?

In 1991, Richard Lyon was sentenced to life in prison without parole at the W.F. Ramsey Unit prison farm. Rebecca at Forensic Files Now says Richard became eligible for parole 15 years later in 2006. That effort was rejected, but the Texas Department of Justice website does not supply an explanation.

On his most recent review date, February 3, 2016, a parole board denied him again and specified the reasons as "elements of brutality, violence" and "conscious selection of victim's vulnerability." His most recent bid came in 2021, when Richard was 64. A look at www.insideprison.com showed he was still incarcerated.