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

[Jmoose]

I really think that as far as the glasses go, it's even odds that LE might not have even been told about the glasses-who knows? Both of Sylvia's parents are gone, and there isn't anything in the report about Sylvia throwing the glasses, so who knows if it even came up? I sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that the stuff we know about, thanks to our two VIs is information that was given to the police and either processed or discarded, they may have never been told. Knowing about the glasses may not have mattered, though, if BF/F chose to say "what glasses" when asked about them? None of it matters if he declined to speak to LE (as it is his right to do, unless they have some way of encouraging him to do it)

 

[rosemadderlake]

Why would LE advise “Will Not Handle” the next day if they knew the glasses were thrown indicating a possible altercation? The police report was filed by EL so everything she relays from the BF/F is hearsay: fight, glasses, & last seen location. Why would LE document one thing and not the other?

Did EL withhold that piece so as not to seem accusatory to the BF/F with the police, initially? Did she not make the connection at that time to the possibility that her daughter’s fiancé might be responsible? It surprises me that MMQC never knew this piece which makes me think maybe EL, for whatever reason, didn’t view it as the most significant thing either.

Imo – we are so stuck on the glasses. Why? -Depending on the source, they are described as left in car, broken, smashed, and found in the car. So, which is it?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Why would LE advise “Will Not Handle” the next day if they knew the glasses were thrown indicating a possible altercation? The police report was filed by EL so everything she relays from the BF/F is hearsay: fight, glasses, & last seen location. Why would LE document one thing and not the other?

Did EL withhold that piece so as not to seem accusatory to the BF/F with the police, initially? Did she not make the connection at that time to the possibility that her daughter’s fiancé might be responsible? It surprises me that MMQC never knew this piece which makes me think maybe EL, for whatever reason, didn’t view it as the most significant thing either.

Imo – we are so stuck on the glasses. Why? -Depending on the source, they are described as left in car, broken, smashed, and found in the car. So, which is it?

BBM1: The point I'm making only goes to attaching a name to behaviors. Without the name, the report doesn't slander anyone. They still have to take a report, and (in an ideal world) they will investigate all hearsay in the report. I'm saying they might not attach a name until that's verified, becasue that info is potentially damaging. That may be why the BF is not named, and since the world was more local then, why they didn't attach the glasses story to him as the BF/F.

Another thought: EL may even have asked them to leave that out, since it's the part that characterizes SL as volatile.

BBM2: I'm not following this: What are the sources for "broken" and "smashed"?

ETA (my own text bbm): For example, years ago I was a beat reporter in a small town. Every week I'd go to the PD and read the log book, then look at reports and write an article on things that were public info. Even when no one was found guilty of anything! This was a popular newspaper filler! And on summonses, you even had names. It was like a public shaming. E.g., "So and so of such and such a street was arrested for drunk driving ..." What I mean by the world being more "local" then, even without the BF/F's name, publishing that info could have tainted him bc lots of people knew who SL's BF/F was. I think that's one possibility for what "no publicity" means -- keeping everyone's personal business private, away from prying eyes.

 

[Jmoose]

Why would LE advise “Will Not Handle” the next day if they knew the glasses were thrown indicating a possible altercation? The police report was filed by EL so everything she relays from the BF/F is hearsay: fight, glasses, & last seen location. Why would LE document one thing and not the other?

Did EL withhold that piece so as not to seem accusatory to the BF/F with the police, initially? Did she not make the connection at that time to the possibility that her daughter’s fiancé might be responsible? It surprises me that MMQC never knew this piece which makes me think maybe EL, for whatever reason, didn’t view it as the most significant thing either.

Imo – we are so stuck on the glasses. Why? -Depending on the source, they are described as left in car, broken, smashed, and found in the car. So, which is it?

This is what I have wondered since we all started looking at this thread. There isn't a good read on the relationship that the Lwowski family had with BF/F. My sense is that Sylvia didn't want her worlds colliding and kept them away from each other, because there isn't any evidence that they all knew much about each other (and BF/F clearly had no particular regard for them as evidenced by his lack of commitment to helping find Sylvia) but once again, speculating, because there isn't anything that describes the relationship aside from MMQC's relationship with him-she did not like him, and neither did her boyfriend.

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1: The point I'm making only goes to attaching a name to behaviors. Without the name, the report doesn't slander anyone. They still have to take a report, and (in an ideal world) they will investigate all hearsay in the report. I'm saying they might not attach a name until that's verified, becasue that info is potentially damaging. That may be why the BF is not named, and since the world was more local then, why they didn't attach the glasses story to him as the BF/F.

Another thought: EL may even have asked them to leave that out, since it's the part that characterizes her as volatile.

BBM2: I'm not following this (IBM): What is the source for broken" and "smashed"?

ETA: For example, years ago I was a beat reporter in a small town. Every week I'd go to the PD and read the log book, then look at reports and write an article on things that were public info. Even when no one was found guilty of anything! This was a popular newspaper filler! And on summonses, you even had names. It was like a public shaming. E.g., "So and so of such and such a street was arrested for drunk driving ..." What I mean by the world being more "local" then, even without the BF/F's name, publishing that info could have tainted him bc lots of people knew who SL's BF/F was.

--I am asking the rhetorical "Why" on the glasses because of the inconsistencies. The BF/F is not named on the cover of the PR but the basics of the circumstances are and I am looking at it at face value, today. And, thinking maybe "left in car" is exactly what LE was told.

bbm: -This is very possible, because we have a mother, probably trying to multi-task every angle of potential ramification while searching for Sylvia.

The glasses are significant now because they have generated a representation and characterization attached to the BF/F's name in 2013. Those sources are the "broken" Charlie Project, and the video from a WS member describing them as "smashed" while inviting the public to Websleuths. And even though you got to the bottom of the CP update, the damage was done, i.e. the credibility of entities willing to publish unverified facts and attach a name to it.


So, all this controversy over the glasses in 2013 made me wonder if it was true in 1975 as well.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

--I am asking the rhetorical "Why" on the glasses because of the inconsistencies. The BF/F is not named on the cover of the PR but the basics of the circumstances are and I am looking at it at face value, today. And, thinking maybe "left in car" is exactly what LE was told.

bbm: -This is very possible, because we have a mother, probably trying to multi-task every angle of potential ramification while searching for Sylvia.

The glasses are significant now because they have generated a representation and characterization attached to the BF/F's name in 2013. Those sources are the "broken" Charlie Project, and the video from a WS member describing them as "smashed" while inviting the public to Websleuths. And even though you got to the bottom of the CP update, the damage was done, i.e. the credibility of entities willing to publish unverified facts and attach a name to it.

So, all this controversy over the glasses in 2013 made me wonder if it was true in 1975 as well.

I totally follow your line of thinking. It's just frustrating that there's no way to know, either way. So many variables could impact the truth. I have a hard time investing/believing in any one line of thinking bc there are so few supporting details.

:fence:

 

[Jmoose]

I will contact Det. Savage again, and ask him specifically if LE was ever told that Sylvia "threw her glasses", as well as any other questions we want aswered

 

[alliemay]

It's nice to know there are angels among us....working for Sylvia, you guys are great!!

 

[Jmoose]

It's nice to know there are angels among us....working for Sylvia, you guys are great!!

I do wish we could accomplish something for Sylvia and the people who loved her-it feels like trying to walk in quick sand! Where could she be?

 

[rosemadderlake]

I will contact Det. Savage again, and ask him specifically if LE was ever told that Sylvia "threw her glasses", as well as any other questions we want aswered

That’s awesome jmoose -
Bbm: If EL filed the original PR report alone, and LE was not told this piece in 1975, it may help explain the “will not handle” (the other mysterious piece), and how LE may have arrived at that assessment of the situation. In the aftermath of her disappearance, possibly the family was unaware that this detail was not reported in 1975, too. One thing is for sure, there is a definite ‘want to know why’ it appears Sylvia’s case was not investigated in 1975.

 

[Jmoose]

That’s awesome jmoose -
Bbm: If EL filed the original PR report alone, and LE was not told this piece in 1975, it may help explain the “will not handle” (the other mysterious piece), and how LE may have arrived at that assessment of the situation. In the aftermath of her disappearance, possibly the family was unaware that this detail was not reported in 1975, too. One thing is for sure, there is a definite ‘want to know why’ it appears Sylvia’s case was not investigated in 1975.

This is another question for the Detective (I can't believe I forgot to ask!)

 

[Jmoose]

MMQC-when BF/F came to your house that night, he never got out of the car, right? I was fiddling around, looking at a site featuring the Staten Island Greenbelt, with all of its attendant overgrowth and moistness, and it made me wonder if he was sweaty or otherwise disheveled?

ASWDH-same question for you-was he rumpled or out of sorts appearance-wise?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

MMQC-when BF/F came to your house that night, he never got out of the car, right? I was fiddling around, looking at a site featuring the Staten Island Greenbelt, with all of its attendant overgrowth and moistness, and it made me wonder if he was sweaty or otherwise disheveled?

ASWDH-same question for you-was he rumpled or out of sorts appearance-wise?

A thought along the same lines ... I guess it's expecting too much to ask whether anyone noticed if he was wearing the same clothes he picked SL up in. Perhaps EL would have noticed if he was not?

 

[Jmoose]

A thought along the same lines ... I guess it's expecting too much to ask whether anyone noticed if he was wearing the same clothes he picked SL up in. Perhaps EL would have noticed if he was not?

I had that same thought this morning about the clothing-I know it's 38 years later, but I wonder if either of our two VIs might have made a mental note along the lines of "what happened to his hair while they were at the movies?" Or, "why is he wearing a black shirt now-didn't he have on a white one a few hours ago?"

 

[Dushi]

Excellent job JMoose!!

 

[rosemadderlake]

A thought along the same lines ... I guess it's expecting too much to ask whether anyone noticed if he was wearing the same clothes he picked SL up in. Perhaps EL would have noticed if he was not?

bbm: That would have been a definite red flag or three along with the throwing the glasses against the dash in 1975.

--But this makes me wonder if LE was receptive to new information or concerns as they arose, after it became clear that Sylvia was not just a 70's run-away? And, while I don't think it would be answered on this thread, did the family (EL) even feel she could take her observations (BF/F appearance) to LE in the first place. Or, was something holding her back? --Like the public perception of being accusatory to her daughter's fiance. Or fear for her daughter because she didn't know the BF/F that well. I can see how this could be because if she is wrong how would she and her family be perceived? I can see how difficult this was in 1975. -A catch 22. And there is the benefit of hindsight now, but the community of Staten Island was so much smaller back then.

So, when I look at the PR now, and try to imagine EL in this position I sense how careful she was. And depending on what she told LE at the time (what is, or is not behind the PR cover page) is the reason for Will Not Handle.

A while back I wondered if EL kept notes, even wrote out what she filed to LE in 1975, her observations about the disappearance. If she did keep notes, then with hindsight and in opening up Sylvia's case on WS, revisiting those notes may illuminate something brand new...

 

[nola]

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?

This information really took me by surprise.
IMO, If the BF/F had SL's heart shaped engagement ring after her disappearance, then his story has one too many holes for me to believe that he was not involved in SL's fate.
The ring is listed on the police report as an item that SL had with her when she disappeared (along with her white sweater, green shirt, brown shoes, brown purse, watch & GLASSES, for that matter). These are the items that LE entered into her NamUs profile because that's what was reported to them -- if the glasses were found later in the car -- and then and only then (conveniently) explained by the BF/F: "Oh, yeah...she threw them as she got out of the car". How did he explain the ring being in his possession -- and LE should absolutely know this fact. Having her belongings in your possession surely would be cause enough to get a judge to issue a search warrant to specifically look for the ring.

 

[Jmoose]

This information really took me by surprise.
IMO, If the BF/F had SL's heart shaped engagement ring after her disappearance, then his story has one too many holes for me to believe that he was not involved in SL's fate.
The ring is listed on the police report as an item that SL had with her when she disappeared (along with her white sweater, green shirt, brown shoes, brown purse, watch & GLASSES, for that matter). These are the items that LE entered into her NamUs profile because that's what was reported to them -- if the glasses were found later in the car -- and then and only then (conveniently) explained by the BF/F: "Oh, yeah...she threw them as she got out of the car". How did he explain the ring being in his possession -- and LE should absolutely know this fact. Having her belongings in your possession surely would be cause enough to get a judge to issue a search warrant to specifically look for the ring.

Not so fast, NOLA...this will be another question for Det.Savage (if he will be kind enough to indulge)-let's suppose that LE got wind of this, and asked BF/F about it. If he said to the police "I don't have the ring, and have no idea what that guy was talking about-Sylvia took the ring with her when she left", I don't think that a judge could or would issue a search warrant. And actually, my guess is that LE may have tried to speak to him and he's declined. In any event, he is a smart guy, who surely no longer has the ring in his possession.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

This information really took me by surprise.
IMO, If the BF/F had SL's heart shaped engagement ring after her disappearance, then his story has one too many holes for me to believe that he was not involved in SL's fate.
The ring is listed on the police report as an item that SL had with her when she disappeared (along with her white sweater, green shirt, brown shoes, brown purse, watch & GLASSES, for that matter). These are the items that LE entered into her NamUs profile because that's what was reported to them -- if the glasses were found later in the car -- and then and only then (conveniently) explained by the BF/F: "Oh, yeah...she threw them as she got out of the car". How did he explain the ring being in his possession -- and LE should absolutely know this fact. Having her belongings in your possession surely would be cause enough to get a judge to issue a search warrant to specifically look for the ring.

Hi, Nola.

BBM1: Well, it's just speculation ... I think if it's something anyone noticed they'd have said so, don't you? Wouldn't that have been part of Eva's story to her son? I hear how you feel about the BF/F. I am undecided -- and verification of the ring story is definitely one piece hanging in the balance. Presumably EL is saying SL was wearing the ring when she left home at 5-6 PM, right? But IF the BF/F has the ring, he could have come back into possession of it any number of ways, depending on what transpired on the date -- from foul play to an honest interaction. No one we have heard from knows.

BBM2: The glasses are actually listed on the PR (attached) as "left in car" (look in column one), not as being "an item that SL had with her when she disappeared." I think it's important to be exact about this, because the glasses have become such a touchstone in this case.

BBM3: The verification for the glasses story is the verbal account of the family, who say the BF/F told them about SL throwing the glasses the same night as the date. And according to them, the glasses were NEVER returned to the family after Sylvia disappeared. The Charley Project mistakenly says they were found later in his car (the person who provided that information did so without a source). Being "found later in the car" makes it sounds like there was a search of some kind, but we don't know that there was. Do you have some other information about that that we don't know about? We have not been able to determine what happened to the glasses after that night. So re "then and only then" as the timing for a "(convenient) explanation" -- the BF/F's explanation was not after-the-fact.

You are right -- NamUs lists the glasses as among her clothing and accessories! I never noticed that before. That does not even align with the PR, which is the document provided as the source for the info. That is frustrating, to say the least.

 

[rosemadderlake]

This information really took me by surprise.
IMO, If the BF/F had SL's heart shaped engagement ring after her disappearance, then his story has one too many holes for me to believe that he was not involved in SL's fate.
The ring is listed on the police report as an item that SL had with her when she disappeared (along with her white sweater, green shirt, brown shoes, brown purse, watch & GLASSES, for that matter). These are the items that LE entered into her NamUs profile because that's what was reported to them -- if the glasses were found later in the car -- and then and only then (conveniently) explained by the BF/F: "Oh, yeah...she threw them as she got out of the car". How did he explain the ring being in his possession -- and LE should absolutely know this fact. Having her belongings in your possession surely would be cause enough to get a judge to issue a search warrant to specifically look for the ring.

Hi Nola -

You definitely highlighted the hot button points of the circumstances between SL & BF/F.

bbm: If someone actually saw the BF/F with the ring and knew the circumstances of SL's disappearance, (imo and I agree) that would be information one could tip to the police. Why weren't they made aware of this piece? So, you have a really good point here in that if someone had concrete information like the ring's whereabouts, why oh why didn't the police know about it?

The ring being in the BF'F's possession is a powerful piece of hearsay told to SL's best friend by a friend of a friend in the late 70's early 80's (if I have that right). And we are told that the cold case squad was made aware of it.

We are hoping for clarification on the glasses and their condition. It looks like the description of the circumstances in Namus was entered in 2010 by the Cold Case Squad (that is the contact). --Not sure if this description was provided in the 1975 MP report which states "left in Car", or updated later.

<modsnip>