NY NY - Sylvia Lwowski, 22, Staten Island, 6 Sept 1975 - #3

[GoingByMyGut]

I think the public relations aspect of Sylvia's case could be very powerful if well targeted, factual, and implies the possibilities without distorting the facts...

I am hoping the new YouTube video and April 15 update to the Charlie Project with the focus on the unverified "broken" "smashed" glasses doesn't detract from finding Sylvia in what looks to me like an effort to turn her case into a public homicide investigation. We are told the glasses were not returned to Sylvia's family. If LE has the glasses and informed the family of their condition, it would be helpful to know that from a believability standpoint. And still, no source link was provided to the Charlie Project update.

There are channels to refresh the public's memory and ask for help and elevate awareness. I thought the reward was such a good move as it is open ended and simply asks for help, and would provide a channel through which someone could anonymously tip information to the police.

BTW, I sent a followup email this morning to the person who sent the documents to the CP administrator, asking if she found the support documents she said she would look for in her files, but I have not yet heard back. If I don't hear back from her by the end of the week, IMO that will be an answer of sorts and I will fwd the communication to the CP administrator.

 

[rosemadderlake]

BTW, I sent a followup email this morning to the person who sent the documents to the CP administrator, asking if she found the support documents she said she would look for in her files, but I have not yet heard back. If I don't hear back from her by the end of the week, IMO that will be an answer of sorts and I will fwd the communication to the CP administrator.

Thanks GBMG - It has been a couple of weeks and I figured no news was an answer of sorts.

And (IMO) ironically, the case is strong enough, has been unsolved for long enough where the existing circumstances appear very suspicious, even without the glasses. The burden of proof is a requirement, though.

I guess I am stuck on protocol, today!

 

[Jmoose]

I think the lines around the mouth have a very strong resemblance, IMO. That said, I just wanted to add some other thoughts. Since we do not know where the glasses are at this moment we do not know that they were broken. The BF/F said she threw them against the dashboard but I'm not sure he elaborated that they were broken. That assumption came from the Charlie Project and GBMG looked into that statement and found it was not an actual fact. Good work by the way GBMG. If the family does not have the glasses and the police do that would mean they did investigate the BF/F and took a statement, but we do not have this knowledge of where the glasses are at this time. This would be an important bit of info. If they were broken, how bad were they broken. If the glasses had blood on them that would indicate some sort of struggle with the BF/F. If maybe only the nose piece, someone could possible do that by throwing them against something hard. I think the glasses are one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle. The ring is important also but....let's just say she did run from the car and ran into a "bad guy" who caused her demise. He sells the ring etc etc. one piece of evidence that can never be found. But the glasses, they were in the BF/F's car so there are only three places these glasses could be afterwards, the BF/F kept them, he gave them to the family, or the police have them. We have already been told that the BF/F did not return them to the family that night, did he return them after that, I don't think so or hopefully our VI would tell us that they were returned at a later date. I'm not sure how we can find out if the police have them. Another thing that still bother me, on NAMUS it says that fingerprints can be obtained elsewhere. WHERE and HOW do they have her fingerprints. If they went to her house and obtained fingerprints from things she touched that would mean they investigated more than we think. If she had been arrested for something prior they would have fingerprints. Also I wonder if she ever attempted suicide before this happened.

BBM-Just checked the police report-if they have her fingerprints, it isn't because she got into any trouble, because on the police report it says that she hasn't been fingerprinted by LE before.

I am currently seeking email info for Det. Savage to request that Sylvia's name and photo be added to the NYPD's missing person page for Staten Island. I actually don't know if it makes much difference to do it, but you never know where someone will look to try to make a connection to unidentified human remains. I am a little depressed because apparently frequently in the past, vast amounts of human remains all over the country have been cremated and buried without ever having been identified due to a lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies and other entities that might have put the missing together with the UIDs-Lori Anne's Law can't come soon enough, it seems.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

BBM-Just checked the police report-if they have her fingerprints, it isn't because she got into any trouble, because on the police report it says that she hasn't been fingerprinted by LE before.

I am currently seeking email info for Det. Savage to request that Sylvia's name and photo be added to the NYPD's missing person page for Staten Island. I actually don't know if it makes much difference to do it, but you never know where someone will look to try to make a connection to unidentified human remains. I am a little depressed because apparently frequently in the past, vast amounts of human remains all over the country have been cremated and buried without ever having been identified due to a lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies and other entities that might have put the missing together with the UIDs-Lori Anne's Law can't come soon enough, it seems.

BBM1: I saw this somewhere on WS -- not this thread. You might find it with a site-wide search. Did you get a response from the state police?

BBM2: That is sad. Without DNA samples maintained also, I presume. That's what I meant yesterday when I said I had the feeling that the bill Rose posted was also attempting to address something like that (From my post: "Also, about a third of the bill addresses the handling of UID remains. To me that suggests that there are big holes in this area too. IOW, that information about many UID bodies never makes to somewhere it can be used to connect with MP info."). I know they can't keep the bodies, but unfortunately years ago no one saw the possibilities of DNA.

 

[MMQC]

That's my plan-just waiting for a few minutes to do so. Do you think it would be stepping on our VIs toes for me to go ahead and do it?

I don't think anyone would object.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Okay, all. This should put an end to the CP update controversy! I heard back from the person who precipitated the update, who confirmed that she could not find a source to verify the broken glasses info and that it may indeed have come from WS. Here is the email I sent to the CP administrator this morning. I think she will correct the description very quickly.

Good morning, _____ --

The issues around the 4/15 update of Sylvia Lwowski's MP page on CP are finally resolved. You should also hear from _____, but as promised, here's my correspondence with her. I have bolded/made red the relevant parts of our emails -- those that say _____ could find no source that verifies the glasses were broken. I am sure you want to correct the description on your page as quickly as possible, but let me just add some thoughts about that.

(1) I have pasted the description of the incident used on the Websleuths forum below, which I believe originates with the family: Many of the details in your description are accurate. The problems begin with the words "After her disappearance ..." If I were you, I would:

(a) Delete that sentence and the next sentence. (From "After her disappearance ..." to "...exiting his vehicle.")

(b) Add details from the sentence bolded by me below to your description -- perhaps into your existing sentence about the fight, as follows: "He said they got into an argument, that she threw her glasses against the dashboard, and that she ran from the car near the K-Mart Plaza." (FYI, I took out the word "angrily" because I am not sure her emotional state was that precisely elucidated. None of this exists in a police report. It is all vintage hearsay. The PR mentions the glasses were left in the car, but the details of the fight come from a verbal report to the family later that night in 1975.)

WS DESCRIPTION: On September 6, 1975, Sylvia went out with her fiance to a movie. He returned stating that during an argument, she thew her glasses against the dashboard and ran from the car. Sylvia has not been seen since.

I mean the above only as a suggestion. You of course are in the best position to judge what you should do.​

(2) Many people, each for their own reasons, suspect that Sylvia's BF/F was involved in her disappearance, but he is not an official "person of interest" or "suspect" in the case. I think it's possible that one of the motivations behind the update was to get his name listed and cause him some discomfort (note the last sentence of _____'s original email to you). While he may indeed be involved or even responsible, there really isn't enough information out there to discredit or accuse him. I do not know him -- I am telling you this in the hopes that you make your decision about whether to include his name consciously. I would hate to see you or CP incur any liability over what may have been a knee-jerk reaction.

Best wishes --

 

[alliemay]

Thanks for that info GBMG, good work!!

 

[Jmoose]

Okay, all. This should put an end to the CP update controversy! I heard back from the person who precipitated the update, who confirmed that she could not find a source to verify the broken glasses info and that it may indeed have come from WS. Here is the email I sent to the CP administrator this morning. I think she will correct the description very quickly.

Nicely done!

 

[alliemay]

So now the question is, IF she did run off, IF she did throw her glasses against the dash and they were left in car, where did they travel to afterwards? Did he give them to the police?

 

[Jmoose]

Last night, I started to re-read this thread from the beginning, and circled back to the same questions:

Who would throw their glasses, reading glasses or otherwise?

What sort of man would let the woman he is planning to marry jump out of his car in traffic, and drives away without her?

Who would relinquish the responsibility of searching for the one they love, to others, never being concerned or even curious about where the fiancee ended up?

No facts or evidence seem to exist in regard to what happened to Sylvia that night, but these are legitimate questions that don't seem to have been addressed adequately.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Last night, I started to re-read this thread from the beginning, and circled back to the same questions:

Who would throw their glasses, reading glasses or otherwise?

What sort of man would let the woman he is planning to marry jump out of his car in traffic, and drives away without her?

Who would relinquish the responsibility of searching for the one they love, to others, never being concerned or even curious about where the fiancee ended up?

No facts or evidence seem to exist in regard to what happened to Sylvia that night, but these are legitimate questions that don't seem to have been addressed adequately.

BBM: LOL. I just did the same thing today

 

[GoingByMyGut]

MMQC, did you and SL get together at any point between *the pool party* and *the shopping trip you took the day she disappeared*?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

MMQC, after your coworker told you that SL's BF/F still had/has the engagement ring he bought for SL, did you relay the story to EL? And if so, at what point?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

MMQC,I remember you telling us that you majored in education in college. In those days, women often combined an education minor with other majors, like bio. By any chance did SL do this? Did she student teach? Substitute?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

MMQC, I am also wondering: How was the summer of 1975 different from previous summers for you and SL? I mean, you were both college graduates now. Were you looking for your first "serious" jobs? Or was this your last "summer of fun"? Did you and SL spend a lot of time together between graduation and the day she disappeared?

 

[rosemadderlake]

So now the question is, IF she did run off, IF she did throw her glasses against the dash and they were left in car, where did they travel to afterwards? Did he give them to the police?

I am thinking LE may not have known about the “throwing the glasses against the dash” piece in 1975. –It is not in the description of the circumstances on the PR. What is LE to think if they didn’t know there was a physical aspect to the "fight with fiance" in 1975? -Also, Sylvia's best friend didn't know this piece either (see quoted post).

1. On the PR it says “Glasses left in car”: 09.07.1975
2. NamUs information was entered on 06.30.2010 (I am assuming this was provided by SL’s family)
3. NamUs Engagement Doc: 07.01.2010
4. NamUs Police Report: 10.11.2011
5. MMQC learns about the glasses: 03/2013

Thread #2 - MMQC post 525
“As for the GLASSES. I only learned about this on WS. As for questions? BF/F drove up in front of my house then asked me to go pick her up at bus on Rich. Ave. Then drove off. I don't recall him even going to the parents house that night. No time even to ask about fight he just drove off. “

 

[Jmoose]

]I am thinking LE may not have known about the “throwing the glasses against the dash” piece in 1975[/B]. –It is not in the description of the circumstances on the PR. What is LE to think if they didn’t know there was a physical aspect to the "fight with fiance" in 1975? -Also, Sylvia's best friend didn't know this piece either (see quoted post).

1. On the PR it says “Glasses left in car”: 09.07.1975
2. NamUs information was entered on 06.30.2010 (I am assuming this was provided by SL’s family)
3. NamUs Engagement Doc: 07.01.2010
4. NamUs Police Report: 10.11.2011
5. MMQC learns about the glasses: 03/2013

Thread #2 - MMQC post 525
“As for the GLASSES. I only learned about this on WS. As for questions? BF/F hdrove up in front of my house then asked me to go pick her up at bus on Rich. Ave. Then drove off. I don't recall him even going to the parents house that night. No time even to ask about fight he just drove off. “

BBM-But BF/F told that to Sylvia's family before they reported her missing-I wonder if they told that to the police, and it just didn't make it onto the police report because of the other circumstances surrounding her disapppearance-maybe everyone was stuck on thinking that she was simply in a snit, ran off, and that she would be found, safe and sound, with MMQC; after all, hadn't he just stopped and asked her to go out and pick Sylvia up? It's crazy how all of these things fit together to create a situation where nobody thought she might be gone for good and that there should be evidence to try and collect. How unfortunate for Sylvia and her family!

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Quoted posts trimmed by me.

I am thinking LE may not have known about the “throwing the glasses against the dash” piece in 1975. –It is not in the description of the circumstances on the PR.

I wonder if they told that to the police, and it just didn't make it onto the police report because of the other circumstances surrounding her disapppearance-

Since this is all speculation, and we aren't in touch with anyone who was there at the time, obviously both things are possible. But since we are speculating, I lean toward thinking that they knew/were told and it just didn't make it onto the report.

The PR is a public document. Because it carries the "official weight" of LE, anything they put on there is going to be taken very seriously by the public. So I bet there's an internal process/policy for vetting what goes onto the PR and what doesn't.

IOW, if Eva told the full story to LE, at that point it is unverified hearsay, right? Would they attach something that makes the BF/F's behavior seem suspect, or that is potentially damaging to him, to his name on a public document without first investigating the facts? I'm thinking they might not, but that those details may have made it onto an internal report. JMO

 

[Jmoose]

Quoted posts trimmed by me.





Since this is all speculation, and we aren't in touch with anyone who was there at the time, obviously both things are possible. But since we are speculating, I lean toward thinking that it didn't make it onto the report.

The PR is a public document. Because it carries the "official weight" of LE, anything they put on there is going to be taken very seriously by the public. So I bet there's an internal process/policy for vetting what goes onto the PR and what doesn't.

IOW, if Eva told the full story to LE, at that point it is unverified hearsay, right? Would they attach something that makes the BF/F's behavior seem suspect, or that is potentially damaging to him, to his name on a public document without first investigating the facts? I'm thinking they might not, but that those details may have made it onto an internal report. JMO

I think this makes sense-assuming that the police edit as they go along. I am not familiar with the drill when somebody comes in as the Lwowskis did-are they typing up the report as the family answers the questions that constitute the report, or what? Either the Lwowskis never mentioned the throwing of the glasses, or as you said, they had a specific reason to edit that out-if the Lwowskis said BF/F said she threw them, could they have thought this was insignificant? I guess it's possible-we are sort of stuck on the glasses, but LE seemed not to be.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

I think this makes sense-assuming that the police edit as they go along. I am not familiar with the drill when somebody comes in as the Lwowskis did-are they typing up the report as the family answers the questions that constitute the report, or what? Either the Lwowskis never mentioned the throwing of the glasses, or as you said, they had a specific reason to edit that out-if the Lwowskis said BF/F said she threw them, could they have thought this was insignificant? I guess it's possible-we are sort of stuck on the glasses, but LE seemed not to be.

BBM1: That's a good question -- maybe they take everything down on the internal report and then make the official (shorter) PR from that? like a cover or title page? a summary? the bones for public consumption? Like you, I am not aware of the actual drill, but I think as long as the case remains open, we won't get to see what's in the internal file.

I tend to think that if LE were to put down everything they were told on a PR, that they would be "used" by people who want to harass/discredit others for personal reasons.

BBM2: So, possible reasons they are not stuck on them:
(1) They never knew about them.
(2) They resolved the issues surrounding them for themselves early on (e.g., maybe they weren't broken).
(3) They had no other evidence to use as justification for making anything of them.
(4) They withheld the detail in the hopes of tripping a suspect up with them.
(5) They lost them or they "disappeared" before they could make anything of them.

Rose, I do think you have a point -- one reason could be that they never knew of them. That does accord with the "no publicity" comment and MMQC's statement in thread 1 (IBM): "Her mother said she did not want to label SL as unstable or attract undue attention to a possible return. Might hinder her higher education or job prospects if a full blown media attack was forthcoming." 3/28/2013

I guess that means she didn't want to make SL seem emotionally volatile? Another imagined "embarrassment" might have been that it might look like she chose this way to end an engagement (kind of a runaway bride stigma.)

It's also possible that if EL was in shock she might not have relayed all the details when she gave her statement.

However, I personally think that if she told them that the glasses were in the car, she must have told them how that came to be -- how she knew that. I mean, I'm not a cop, but if someone told me she left her glasses behind, I'd ask "Why?" Wouldn't you?