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

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
skeet said:
Thanks for finding those Rose, don't know how I missed those articles, (unless I'm going blind from all the reading). I've been on google news archives, phrasing and re-phrasing in the search engine anything I can think of concerning the area.
Click to expand...

I agree with Rose! Definitely keep at it, Skeet. You've found some great stuff :)
 
GoingByMyGut said:
Hey, Skeet! I just discovered what tags are for! -- at least on the blog you linked to. If you go to the end of the article you posted, there are these dark gray lozenge-shaped links with single words in them. If you click on, say, "basement" or "skeleton," you get a list of articles tagged the same way, and that's one way you can find updates.

Also, I don't think the skeleton used in the article you posted wasn't the actual one found. It was just an illustration, I think, based on the timing of the article relative to the subsequent investigation. I don't think the one posted with this later article is the real one either, but it is so different that I think it confirms the first one was an illustration. Writers should always use captions when they use these kinds of images, IMO -- it's reasonably confusing.
Click to expand...


Bbm: Yes, it was too perfect, wasn't it, like an anatomy example. -With the perfect teeth I almost fell out of my chair! This makes sense and come to think of it - they wouldn't publish a photo of the real remains, would they?

ETA - correction - well yes they would! I just followed your link. The second one, omg... whose skeleton is it? It is very confusing...
 
rosemadderlake said:
Bbm: Yes, it was too perfect, wasn't it, like an anatomy example. -With the perfect teeth I almost fell out of my chair! This makes sense and come to think of it - they wouldn't publish a photo of the real remains, would they?

ETA - correction - well yes they would! I just followed your link. The second one, omg... whose skeleton is it? It is very confusing...
Click to expand...

BBM1: Medical illustration came to my mind too. The kind of skull you'd see in a bio textbook.

BBM2: I don't think they would unless the circumstances were extraordinary. It's not like the skull can help the public identify who it belonged to, so I think it might be considered sensational and disrespectful of the dead. JMO.

BBM3: I don't think the one in my second link was the one they found either -- though it does look the part a little better, and yes, was a more gruesome illustration! To add to the quandary further, one of the articles you posted used a third skull!

I really don't think it's responsible to use a random skeletal illustration in an article about finding skeletal remains. Again, JMO as a writer.

Anyone else finding the functions on this thread working really slowly this morning? I wonder if it's the site as a whole, or a sign we are reaching the capacity of the current SL thread ...
 
I got hooked reading the featured cold case (a Georgia UID from 1985) and found in one of the posts this article about a 1980-MP who was ID'd in 2010. Thought you'd all be interested. The circumstances of how she went missing and died made me think of some of the more random scenarios we discussed for SL.
 
Just popping in to say hi, it looks like you guys have found some great stuff!


I stumbled across this article which indicates a possible search of the landfill for Etan Patz's remains... although only vague responses are given by officials... surprise, surprise...

But Etan Patz is a 70's case, so if they do search for him, maybe... you just never know?

http://www.silive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/are_remains_of_etan_patz_in_st.html
 
I think it's kind of sad that there seemed to have been two motives for opening this thread.
Just an opinion of course. There are still many unanswered questions where Sylvia is concerned. As far as the other motive goes, it would seem that didn't pan out as planned.
 
If only we had more information...there are some other cases here with what seems to be some similarities that can't be officially confirmed in Sylvia's case. There are people who have disappeared after a disagreement and the family is told not to pursue their loved one's probable killer-There are cases where a woman decided to leave town to live another life, there are women who have left on their own and had some sort of fatal encounter, there are women who've had fights with their significant other, who've said they let her out of the car on the side of the road and it's true that they had nothing to do with what happened next, and there are cases where that was a lie. How can we know what really happened to Sylvia? I think I know, but there is no evidence.
 
skeet said:
I think it's kind of sad that there seemed to have been two motives for opening this thread.
Just an opinion of course. There are still many unanswered questions where Sylvia is concerned. As far as the other motive goes, it would seem that didn't pan out as planned.
Click to expand...

Bbms… I agree. When we move to thread #4, and post various timelines, and links to SIlive, the Wag, etc., will there be enough to cut through, separate fact from speculation, and find a way to know more about what really happened to Sylvia?

Perhaps what has been harbored and unexpressed for 38 years, needed to be said? Will it provide clarity in the dense fog of uncertainty to see something overlooked? In a circumstance like hers, I think significant others are always suspects. Without any knowledge to the contrary this is still true 38 years later. Do the rumors and alibi theories back it up, advance it further, or express feelings of disbelief. Will there be enough to cut through and confirm it, or allow some other piece to surface one way or another, if that is the truth.

One thing is for sure, there are many more looking out for Sylvia as of this year and that is very significant. -Harbors and lakes will be dredged in 2014, landfills may have been searched in 2012, and the potential matches of the unidentified are being searched and submitted. Maybe as we move from 2013 to 2014 there will be enough in hindsight to sort through all of these things. -Time will tell…
 
Rose-as you said, the very best part of all of this is that there are more people looking for Sylvia now, and a little more publicity. Maybe not what was hoped for back in the Spring when we all came here, but not terrible-my hope for 2014 is that we get another piece of this puzzle to work with, and maybe someday soon, we'll know what happened to her. My plan is to be optimistic, and just try to turn over each rock that we might find. A little more supporting info from our VIs, if they have any, may help.
 
Somebody educate me a little re: DNA. When you can't get DNA from the bones, don't the scientists/anthropologist successfully obtain DNA from the interior of teeth, sometimes? I wonder how long DNA is viable or obtainable from a body-i have read recently of several cases where a body's been found, and the DNA can't be obtained, so dentals are the next and only other option. It seems amazing that they can find out all kinds of things from the "iceman" (Ötzi) that they found in the Swiss Alps something like 1,000 years after his death, but we can't find out anything about a body buried a few decades ago. I realize that the circumstances are different, but if there's no way to get DNA from these bodies, and some people don't have dental records, then there isn't any way to match them up. It sounds like when the authorities found Irondequoit Jane Doe, there was no hair found with the skeleton, or at least they didn't collect any because in those days it wouldn't have seemed important. I wish we knew if Sylvia's brother had access to her dental records
 
I wonder if Sylvia's brother would want to speak to Judy Samson? It sounds like she might have some help or practical advice for him, considering her own 38 year search for her brother Sandy
 
I hope Sylvia's brother checks to see if he can find her dental records. That is something we cannot do on our own because we are not related to her. If he were to check on that would he even keep any of us updated? Also, I'm not sure about this, but how hard would it be to get her VA medical records. Medical records might show up something, hopefully. like Rose had mentioned, maybe she had some sort of surgery that would have produced a scar. You never know what will connect the dots.
 
I don't know that he would necessarily keep us up to speed, if he did have them. I think he doesn't read this site much (imo), and i wouldn't blame him for avoiding all of the speculation here-it must be very difficult. He really needs somebody in LE to help him out because I think over the last 38 years, her case has been backburnered in favor of cases that could really be solved. I think that is common, especially in high crime areas like the 5 boroughs of NY. However this disappearance happened, someone was either really smart or really lucky (this includes Sylvia, if she ran away, and her killer if she didn't).
 
Jmoose said:
Somebody educate me a little re: DNA. When you can't get DNA from the bones, don't the scientists/anthropologist successfully obtain DNA from the interior of teeth, sometimes? I wonder how long DNA is viable or obtainable from a body-i have read recently of several cases where a body's been found, and the DNA can't be obtained, so dentals are the next and only other option. It seems amazing that they can find out all kinds of things from the "iceman" (Ötzi) that they found in the Swiss Alps something like 1,000 years after his death, but we can't find out anything about a body buried a few decades ago. I realize that the circumstances are different, but if there's no way to get DNA from these bodies, and some people don't have dental records, then there isn't any way to match them up. It sounds like when the authorities found Irondequoit Jane Doe, there was no hair found with the skeleton, or at least they didn't collect any because in those days it wouldn't have seemed important. I wish we knew if Sylvia's brother had access to her dental records
Click to expand...

Really interesting post and questions, JMoose. I am not sure, but I wonder if in the case of the boy Skeet posted the article about, they may have taken good notes -- or even photos or x-rays -- of the UID's teeth before burying him or cremating him, so that the match was to information rather than actual teeth? I think you are right -- that if they had the teeth they could get DNA from them. The dental database they set up may have a series of Qs about each tooth to answer to achieve a match? Just guessing.
 
Jmoose said:
Somebody educate me a little re: DNA. When you can't get DNA from the bones, don't the scientists/anthropologist successfully obtain DNA from the interior of teeth, sometimes? I wonder how long DNA is viable or obtainable from a body-i have read recently of several cases where a body's been found, and the DNA can't be obtained, so dentals are the next and only other option. It seems amazing that they can find out all kinds of things from the "iceman" (Ötzi) that they found in the Swiss Alps something like 1,000 years after his death, but we can't find out anything about a body buried a few decades ago. I realize that the circumstances are different, but if there's no way to get DNA from these bodies, and some people don't have dental records, then there isn't any way to match them up. It sounds like when the authorities found Irondequoit Jane Doe, there was no hair found with the skeleton, or at least they didn't collect any because in those days it wouldn't have seemed important. I wish we knew if Sylvia's brother had access to her dental records
Click to expand...

I remember when iceman was found; he was very well preserved for 4,000 or 5,000 years old. I imagine the protocol for archeologists collection and sampling of DNA is of the very highest standard.

Bbm: For Irondequoit Jane Doe who was found in 1988 (IIRC) was DNA testing even widely available then? In her case, her dentals were charted, but you raise an interesting issue, jmoose, what happens to the bodies of the unidentified? Would a tooth be kept, and would saving a strand of hair be important? If only a bone is found, what happens to it? I wonder who decides if they are buried or cremated?

Forensics is such a vast and technical subject but here are a couple of summaries of identification types and complications of same. Interesting, with the dentals that could pertain to Sylvia's circumstances--there are identification issues ranging from lack of records, to additional and emergency work between ante & post mortem records.


"Disadvantages of comparative dental identification" See table 1.
"Currently there are four types of personal identification circumstances that use teeth, jaw and orofacial characteristics, which include comparative dental identification, reconstructive postmortem, dental profiling and DNA profiling."

Copyright © J Forensic Dent Sci. 2010 Jul-Dec;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3125955/


DNA degradation
"Degradation refers to the breakdown or destruction of cellular structures after death. Because DNA is contained in the cell, exposure of tissues to the environment, fire, water or chemicals will eventually lead to the physical break-down of the DNA strands and the alteration of its chemical structure. These changes can lead to incorrect assignments of base pairs and the incorrect identification of a species or individual. If a sample is very degraded, DNA analysts must be careful to ensure they are testing the right material. Importantly, samples must be collected and extracted without contaminating them. Because everyone has DNA, if a sample is mishandled, DNA which does not belong to the target sample (for example from a police officer) may be detected instead. This could result in a false profile. In addition, every analysis must be repeated more than once to control for random chemical changes. Overall, DNA testing facilities must be extremely clean and follow strict protocols to ensure that the results obtained are accurate".

Copyright © SFU Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 2010
http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/adn-dna/
 
It looks like DNA testing for forensics started to become widely accepted in the mid-80s, but that doesn't mean that it was something that all jurisdictions generally did in order to solve crimes, I think. I wonder if Irondequoit Jane Doe's DNA testing was attempted at the time she was found, or later.
 
Jmoose said:
It looks like DNA testing for forensics started to become widely accepted in the mid-80s, but that doesn't mean that it was something that all jurisdictions generally did in order to solve crimes, I think. I wonder if Irondequoit Jane Doe's DNA testing was attempted at the time she was found, or later.
Click to expand...

I am seeing that they found her in 1988, but that they think she could have been buried 10-30 years earlier -- I wonder if that suggests a greater degree of degradation? On NamUs, it says, "Body conditions: Not recognizable - Near complete or complete skeleton." There were not enough remains to estimate her weight. And still, they got the dentals from the skull. I am guessing the skull was also used to develop the drawing on the Porchlight International site? Even though DNA testing had begun by 1988, I think it was years afterward that they grew sophisticated enough to get it from remains in this kind of condition. Few people at that time envisioned that development either. Maybe they expected to keep blood or hair, but didn't yet understand the potential of bones/teeth?

Regarding decisions to bury/cremate, I think this has always been done, from early "Potters' Fields" to more respectful, catalogued burials later on. Logistically, I suspect they just can't keep the bodies/remains. That's probably obvious -- but when I think about the issues we've read about regarding just document storage, the problems the storage of remains presents seem so much greater!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 87 more.
Total: 1,960 (members: 88, guests: 1,872)

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
1,872
Total visitors
1,960
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,260
Messages
18,184,842
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top