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

[Jmoose]

I didn't want to beat this Charley Project thing to death, because there is a chance that, in fact, the glasses WERE left in the car, broken, but there isn't anything that officially says so, and it's important that rumors aren't perpetuated-hopefully she changes it so more people don't run off with this info as fact (until we find out for sure what really happened, if we ever do!)-not ultra crazy about BF/F's name out there on the site, either-at least for right now. I wish Sylvia could be found, so the police can start to investigate again-soon!

 

[rosemadderlake]

I didn't want to beat this Charley Project thing to death, because there is a chance that, in fact, the glasses WERE left in the car, broken, but there isn't anything that officially says so, and it's important that rumors aren't perpetuated-hopefully she changes it so more people don't run off with this info as fact (until we find out for sure what really happened, if we ever do!)-not ultra crazy about BF/F's name out there on the site, either-at least for right now. I wish Sylvia could be found, so the police can start to investigate again-soon!

bbm: that is the only official thing we know - PR 1975.

The Charlie Project is a little scary because they do publish whatever information without checking their sources. It is just kind of immoral. Specific details really matter. -And until they correct the error, or come up with a source, they should be publicly discredited.

That said, I think the Charlie Project is actually an interesting site and the owner is a good writer, well read, and makes some very interesting connections. But I read with a grain of salt.

 

[Jmoose]

bbm: that is the only official thing we know - PR 1975.

The Charlie Project is a little scary because they do publish whatever information without checking their sources. It is just kind of immoral. Specific details really matter. -And until they correct the error, or come up with a source, they should be publicly discredited.

That said, I think the Charlie Project is actually an interesting site and the owner is a good writer, well read, and makes some very interesting connections. But I read with a grain of salt.

I agree that the Charley Project site is an interesting place to visit, and I think that the owner of the site has her heart in the right place, with a purpose that is the same as ours; Websleuths is more careful, though, and for good reason. I think that Sylvia's glasses may well have been broken, but we don't know for sure-but that would be a particularly good reason for not returning them; they'd be of no use to her if they were broken, and why would BF/F keep them if they weren't? They're no good to him either way.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I hope if we keep posting that a penny will drop; that someone who remembers something will speak out and take it to LE, or someone will confess and take it to LE, someone will remember their connection to Sylvia and post their thoughts....

 

[rosemadderlake]

I agree that the Charley Project site is an interesting place to visit, and I think that the owner of the site has her heart in the right place, with a purpose that is the same as ours; Websleuths is more careful, though, and for good reason. I think that Sylvia's glasses may well have been broken, but we don't know for sure-but that would be a particularly good reason for not returning them; they'd be of no use to her if they were broken, and why would BF/F keep them if they weren't? They're no good to him either way.

Yes, WS is more careful and that is what separates this forum from everyone else... (except for that video by a WS member publishing names and stating the glasses were "smashed" and inviting the public to Websleuths) - He gets around it by publishing under a production Co. -But still, what is the point? -To name names? To accuse the BF/F? To raise awareness for Sylvia? I think all of the above....

Imo -I am not convinced the glasses are broken at all. And if they were, why would they even be mentioned in the first place? Unless the BF/F had nothing to do with her disappearance.

The eyeglasses are so pivotal because to find them, or find out what happened to them next, is probably the first key to finding Sylvia.

 

[Jmoose]

Imo -I am not convinced the glasses are broken at all. And if they were, why would they even be mentioned in the first place? Unless the BF/F had nothing to do with her disappearance.

The eyeglasses are so pivotal because to find them, or find out what happened to them next, is probably the key to finding Sylvia.

The reason that I said I believe they could be broken is because if they weren't, there would be no reason why BF/F would say she threw them-why not just say that she blew a gasket and hopped out of the car? He may have said it because he is an innocent party, or maybe he didn't realize what he was saying at the time with regard to relevance. I can understand why you say that saying she threw the glasses may indicate he had nothing to do with it. But I can imagine that the significance may have only occurred to him after speaking to the Lwowskis, which could be why he wouldn't speak to anybody about it after that. The real problem, as I see it, is that he wouldn't speak even to the Lwowskis-that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can certainly see not speaking to anybody else, police included, if he knew he had nothing to do with it, but to refuse in such a way to speak to her mother...that's more of a problem for me than the glasses.

 

[rosemadderlake]

The reason that I said I believe they could be broken is because if they weren't, there would be no reason why BF/F would say she threw them-why not just say that she blew a gasket and hopped out of the car? He may have said it because he is an innocent party, or maybe he didn't realize what he was saying at the time with regard to relevance. I can understand why you say that saying she threw the glasses may indicate he had nothing to do with it. But I can imagine that the significance may have only occurred to him after speaking to the Lwowskis, which could be why he wouldn't speak to anybody about it after that. The real problem, as I see it, is that he wouldn't speak even to the Lwowskis-that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I can certainly see not speaking to anybody else, police included, if he knew he had nothing to do with it, but to refuse in such a way to speak to her mother...that's more of a problem for me than the glasses.

Bbm - That is very insightful Jmoose. Yes, things become significant after the fact in the context of SL's disappearance. As to the BF/F not speaking to the family, there are several possibilities from not knowing what happened to Sylvia, or a cover up, or a break up, or legal advice. -Whatever it is the BF/F certainly comes off as cold hearted in the wake of his fiance's disappearance... But, if he really didn't know what happened Sylvia what could he have said? -And, did anybody believe him?

After hearing ASWDH recalling the Detective advising him about legal harassment on the radio program, I thought maybe some investigative inquiries were made in 1975 but they could not pursue the BF/F without evidence. So, the glasses are important and their condition would have indicated something... one way or the other...

I know it seems like we are (I am) retreading what little we know, but I actually think the possibilities have become more crystallized. And the silence in Sylvia's disappearance speaks volumes, too....

 

[Jmoose]

Yes, for me, it's the silence that is a problem. And it's really bad luck for BF/F that it looks that way. I have been following the Lauren Spierer thread, because her home is sort of near mine, and there, too, the people who were with her last are at the very least POIs because they were with her last, and she was in bad shape from alcohol or drugs or both, and none of them will speak to police, but have publically said that they had nothing to do with her disappearance...so it is sort of similar to Sylvia's disappearance-maybe they had something to do with it, and maybe they didn't, but nobody's talking. The parents have filed some sort of civil suit against a couple of young men who were know to have been the last to see her-let's see what ends up happening there. The parallel to Sylvia ends with just one guy, who hasn't said anything publically about Sylvia (she wasn't intoxicated or drugged as far as we know either). I just think that after all of this time, with no chance of finding any evidence of what happened to Sylvia, you'd think there would be no harm in BF/F explaining to ASWDH what happened that night? Can he be so insensitive that he thinks it doesn't matter? Could there really still be hard feelings on his part after 38 years?

 

[rosemadderlake]

Yes, for me, it's the silence that is a problem. And it's really bad luck for BF/F that it looks that way. I have been following the Lauren Spierer thread, because her home is sort of near mine, and there, too, the people who were with her last are at the very least POIs because they were with her last, and she was in bad shape from alcohol or drugs or both, and none of them will speak to police, but have publically said that they had nothing to do with her disappearance...so it is sort of similar to Sylvia's disappearance-maybe they had something to do with it, and maybe they didn't, but nobody's talking. The parents have filed some sort of civil suit against a couple of young men who were know to have been the last to see her-let's see what ends up happening there. The parallel to Sylvia ends with just one guy, who hasn't said anything publically about Sylvia (she wasn't intoxicated or drugged as far as we know either). I just think that after all of this time, with no chance of finding any evidence of what happened to Sylvia, you'd think there would be no harm in BF/F explaining to ASWDH what happened that night? Can he be so insensitive that he thinks it doesn't matter? Could there really still be hard feelings on his part after 38 years?

BBM - It seems really complex; almost like there were hard feelings back then, and hard feelings in the silence, now. If the BF/F doesn't know what happened to Sylvia I would think he has a vested interest in finding out what happened to her being the last known person to see her. It is a heavy load to carry around for the majority of a lifetime. If the BF/F were to speak out now, would he be believed? --And, after Websleuths actively speculating every angle, the Charlie Project publishing unverified anything and everything, and the video dude on Youtube what is there to say if he had nothing to do with her disappearance?

Then on the other hand, of course, if he is responsible for her demise he has another kind of vested interest.

If the BF/F has not reached out to family in all these years, the only person I would want to talk to is the detective (but that's me). There is no closure in Sylvia's case. How is LE handling this tragedy with the family now, I wonder? And, I am curious as to whether the BF/F was cooperative with LE, or not....

 

[Jmoose]

BBM - It seems really complex; almost like there were hard feelings back then, and hard feelings in the silence, now. If the BF/F doesn't know what happened to Sylvia I would think he has a vested interest in finding out what happened to her being the last known person to see her. It is a heavy load to carry around for the majority of a lifetime. If the BF/F were to speak out now, would he be believed? --And, after Websleuths actively speculating every angle, the Charlie Project publishing unverified anything and everything, and the video dude on Youtube what is there to say if he had nothing to do with her disappearance?

Then on the other hand, of course, if he is responsible for her demise he has another kind of vested interest.

If the BF/F has not reached out to family in all these years, the only person I would want to talk to is the detective (but that's me). There is no closure in Sylvia's case. How is LE handling this tragedy with the family now, I wonder? And, I am curious as to whether the BF/F was cooperative with LE, or not....

BBM-Would he be believed? I guess it would depend on what he said, and who was listening? Suppose his story was that Sylvia told him she wanted to be with somebody else, and said that was her plan? We know she'd had a relationship with someone else, so it could be true, and what if he had some other information that we don't have, but that the 2 VIs could subsequently verify-maybe he would be in that case. It might be difficult with the discussion that we've had here, as well as the Charley Project, with the unverified info there, and that youtube (WOW!), but sharing what he knows could turn this discussion in another direction. I don't believe that he knows nothing-after all, he knows what they fought about, and that drove her disappearance, or at least helped drive it. I don't think we will ever know if he was cooperative with the police, or if he even spoke to them at all. I would think that based on the interview that was broadcast here where her brother said he was told by LE not to contact him or he might face a harassment suit, that it would indicate that BF/F had legal representation; that this "threat" of a harassment suit would have been made by a lawyer. Certainly, it seems like there were hard feelings in 1975 on both sides, but I don't understand the hard feelings on the part of BF/F now, if he has lived a good life for 38 years, with a wife and children. I have, in my history, some broken relationships which were intense at the time, with some hurt feelings at the end, but I am not still seething decades later (maybe that's just me!)-I wonder why he still has hard feelings now? Or could he just be selfish and unwilling to have his say, so that her brother can look in some other direction, just to save himself the aggravation or embarrassment? Actually, if he talked to the police or the brother now, who in his present universe would even know? It seems that nobody besides the people here, and on the Charley Project, are even looking at stuff concerning Sylvia, so I think his reputation might be safe. We don't even use his name here...

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM-Would he be believed? I guess it would depend on what he said, and who was listening? Suppose his story was that Sylvia told him she wanted to be with somebody else, and said that was her plan? We know she'd had a relationship with someone else, so it could be true, and what if he had some other information that we don't have, but that the 2 VIs could subsequently verify-maybe he would be in that case. It might be difficult with the discussion that we've had here, as well as the Charley Project, with the unverified info there, and that youtube (WOW!), but sharing what he knows could turn this discussion in another direction. I don't believe that he knows nothing-after all, he knows what they fought about, and that drove her disappearance, or at least helped drive it. I don't think we will ever know if he was cooperative with the police, or if he even spoke to them at all. I would think that based on the interview that was broadcast here where her brother said he was told by LE not to contact him or he might face a harassment suit, that it would indicate that BF/F had legal representation; that this "threat" of a harassment suit would have been made by a lawyer. Certainly, it seems like there were hard feelings in 1975 on both sides, but I don't understand the hard feelings on the part of BF/F now, if he has lived a good life for 38 years, with a wife and children. I have, in my history, some broken relationships which were intense at the time, with some hurt feelings at the end, but I am not still seething decades later (maybe that's just me!)-I wonder why he still has hard feelings now? Or could he just be selfish and unwilling to have his say, so that her brother can look in some other direction, just to save himself the aggravation or embarrassment? Actually, if he talked to the police or the brother now, who in his present universe would even know? It seems that nobody besides the people here, and on the Charley Project, are even looking at stuff concerning Sylvia, so I think his reputation might be safe. We don't even use his name here...

All good thoughts and questions Jmoose.

bbm: Regarding broken relationships, I have a couple of intense break ups where I would never have thought of them had you not made that statement. The BF/F was a fiance though and that is another layer. And what does it say about someone who would withhold information that could shed light for a devastated family? -Like a break up, or a reason for her to run? Or another direction to consider if one is known. It's true, life is not static and there is 38 years to reflect.

bbm: I don't know about this one- I think the YouTube video is aggressive considering the BF/F is not an official POI. When you search his name on the internet, the video comes up in the search results a which invites the viewer to check out the discussion at Websleuths. So, it connects his name to the event listed along side professional associations, etc. It would be more powerful if the information in question in the video was verified to be true. It feels underhanded even if there is a reason it may be richly deserved.

 

[Jmoose]

All good thoughts and questions Jmoose.

bbm: Regarding broken relationships, I have a couple of intense break ups where I would never have thought of them had you not made that statement. The BF/F was a fiance though and that is another layer. And what does it say about someone who would withhold information that could shed light for a devastated family? -Like a break up, or a reason for her to run? Or another direction to consider if one is known. It's true, life is not static and there is 38 years to reflect.

bbm: I don't know about this one- I think the YouTube video is aggressive considering the BF/F is not an official POI. When you search his name on the internet, the video comes up in the search results a which invites the viewer to check out the discussion at Websleuths. So, it connects his name to the event listed along side professional associations, etc. It would be more powerful if the information in question in the video was verified to be true. It feels underhanded even if there is a reason it may be richly deserved.

I know what you mean-this really is a problem! This is why, from the very beginning, I (and we) didn't want his name attached to this discussion, even though we all knew who he was. And I don't believe that the changes that some of us requested were ever made on that youtube video. I have wondered if BF/F knows that there has been some discussion lately here; at this point now, I think he possibly (or even probably) does, and that is not helpful, in my opinion. The motive for the creation of that video appears to be designed to provoke only 1 person, but it may not have the desired end. The level of frustration that drives this discussion is understandable-after all, a woman disappeared seemingly into thin air with no sign of life 38 years ago, and we know she wasn't abducted by aliens, so it's better than even odds that something tragic happened to her. The last person known to have seen her has apparently been uncooperative in the search for her-I don't understand why he would be, even if they broke their engagement that night. In my opinion, it would have been much, much better for the investigation if that youtube had never been created, and if the Charley Project page for Sylvia had not contained BF/F's name.

I just googled BF/F's name-nothing sinister comes up on the first search page for me, but the first item on the second page is that youtube video. When I googled Sylvia's name, everything was there on the first page. I am not trying to protect BF/F;after all, he's got at least a little explaining to do-rather, trying to protect what could be an investigation of her disappearance. I take my lead, though, from the only 2 people here who know BF/F, and we all know which way they lean, true or not.

 

[Jmoose]

Rose-I hope you won't become irritated with my perspective here-you have such a smart, logical thought process and mine tends to be more emotional and it's starting to show (lol). What I am afraid of is that impulsive actions will serve to ruin any hope of some kind of resolution for Sylvia's loved ones. There won't be any resolution until LE finds her, I think. It just occurred to me to wonder whether or not she has been officially declared deceased, for legal purposes-does anyone know if that is typically done after so long?

 

[rosemadderlake]

I know what you mean-this really is a problem! This is why, from the very beginning, I (and we) didn't want his name attached to this discussion, even though we all knew who he was. And I don't believe that the changes that some of us requested were ever made on that youtube video. I have wondered if BF/F knows that there has been some discussion lately here; at this point now, I think he possibly (or even probably) does, and that is not helpful, in my opinion. The motive for the creation of that video appears to be designed to provoke only 1 person, but it may not have the desired end. The level of frustration that drives this discussion is understandable-after all, a woman disappeared seemingly into thin air with no sign of life 38 years ago, and we know she wasn't abducted by aliens, so it's better than even odds that something tragic happened to her. The last person known to have seen her has apparently been uncooperative in the search for her-I don't understand why he would be, even if they broke their engagement that night. In my opinion, it would have been much, much better for the investigation if that youtube had never been created, and if the Charley Project page for Sylvia had not contained BF/F's name.

I just googled BF/F's name-nothing sinister comes up on the first search page for me, but the first item on the second page is that youtube video. When I googled Sylvia's name, everything was there on the first page. I am not trying to protect BF/F;after all, he's got at least a little explaining to do-rather, trying to protect what could be an investigation of her disappearance. I take my lead, though, from the only 2 people here who know BF/F, and we all know which way they lean, true or not.

bbm: I totally agree with this - the problem is when facts are not supported it potentially discredits everything. I mean who is the WS video person? Did he even read our thread? Did he notice a fair and balanced contemplation of Sylvia's case? The second video actually amps up the speculation as fact and attaches Websleuths' name to it. imo: He didn't really run anything past anyone.

-The fact that the Charlie Project does not fact check before updating is good to know but more importantly someone amped up the speculation and presented it as fact. Who would do that?

-We have a really good dedicated core group here on this thread, we have been careful to separate fact from speculation which is as it should be, we have two VIs who have filled in so many details, and now things are at a relative standstill... Why? The publishing of misinformation would make me say 'not going to touch this, like a hot potato'. So, if I am a sorority friend looking at all this I am perhaps thinking, ok who are these crazy people?

-So, our friends over at YouTube and the CP have closed it down. I was really hoping that perhaps someone from Sylvia's "silent window of time at Wagner" would read our contemplation and feel compelled to share. Maybe they can weave through the misinformation and either verify it, debunk it, or add a desperately needed missing piece.

-When someone is not an official POI, it matters what goes out into the public domain and the current generation of techno-savvy young adults and children could be the first to know... I am so "not ok" with that.

-But maybe there is a silver lining - sometimes when the distraction gets all the attention, it creates a window for movement of something else, and an opportunity for investigators to see it...

I was reading through the beginning of the thread and it was good to read that the current investigators have been supportive to SL's family. --Can't undo what never happened in 1975, but to know that her case is not necessarily in the deep freeze, but could be active and ongoing, and not forgotten gives me a ray of hope.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Rose-I hope you won't become irritated with my perspective here-you have such a smart, logical thought process and mine tends to be more emotional and it's starting to show (lol). What I am afraid of is that impulsive actions will serve to ruin any hope of some kind of resolution for Sylvia's loved ones. There won't be any resolution until LE finds her, I think. It just occurred to me to wonder whether or not she has been officially declared deceased, for legal purposes-does anyone know if that is typically done after so long?

Jmoose, you bring a nuanced voice to the emotional side in a reasonable way. It expresses an important gravity of how loved ones may feel given the circumstances, too.

bbm: yes that is a major concern but I think we have all reigned ourselves in when thinking impulsively. That is why our group is good.

I have read that in order to prosecute a homicide without a body the person is declared dead.

 

[Jmoose]

bbm: I totally agree with this - the problem is when facts are not supported it potentially discredits everything. I mean who is the WS video person? Did he even read our thread? Did he notice a fair and balanced contemplation of Sylvia's case? The second video actually amps up the speculation as fact and attaches Websleuths' name to it. imo: He didn't really run anything past anyone.

-The fact that the Charlie Project does not fact check before updating is good to know but more importantly someone amped up the speculation and presented it as fact. Who would do that?

-We have a really good dedicated core group here on this thread, we have been careful to separate fact from speculation which is as it should be, we have two VIs who have filled in so many details, and now things are at a relative standstill... Why? The publishing of misinformation would make me say 'not going to touch this, like a hot potato'. So, if I am a sorority friend looking at all this I am perhaps thinking, ok who are these crazy people?

-So, our friends over at YouTube and the CP have closed it down. I was really hoping that perhaps someone from Sylvia's "silent window of time at Wagner" would read our contemplation and feel compelled to share. Maybe they can weave through the misinformation and either verify it, debunk it, or add a desperately needed missing piece.

-When someone is not an official POI, it matters what goes out into the public domain and the current generation of techno-savvy young adults and children could be the first to know... I am so "not ok" with that.

-But maybe there is a silver lining - sometimes when the distraction gets all the attention, it creates a window for movement of something else, and an opportunity for investigators to see it...

I was reading through the beginning of the thread and it was good to read that the current investigators have been supportive to SL's family. --Can't undo what never happened in 1975, but to know that her case is not necessarily in the deep freeze, but could be active and ongoing, and not forgotten gives me a ray of hope.

I agree with all of this, especially the part about people's tech-savvy kids reading something, which, to them, would be considered outrageous! I think this is exactly what we all wanted to avoid, and yet, here we are! No wonder nobody wants to weigh in from 1975; it can only mean trouble, and really, to what end, since LE hasn't found anything that we know of that relates in any way to Sylvia's disappearance-I deeply regret my part in this

 

[Jmoose]

Jmoose, you bring a nuanced voice to the emotional side in a reasonable way. It expresses an important gravity of how loved ones may feel given the circumstances, too.

bbm: yes that is a major concern but I think we have all reigned ourselves in when thinking impulsively. That is why our group is good.

I have read that in order to prosecute a homicide without a body the person is declared dead.

I was thinking actually of other people who are not accustomed to the way we have been doing things here, especially the ones who flit in for a moment, just long enough to create the problem that we are seeing, and then flit back out again, without a care.

Not sure if Sylvia's brother has been able to escalate this to a homicide investigation yet. We'll have to stay tuned!

 

[rosemadderlake]

I agree with all of this, especially the part about people's tech-savvy kids reading something, which, to them, would be considered outrageous! I think this is exactly what we all wanted to avoid, and yet, here we are! No wonder nobody wants to weigh in from 1975; it can only mean trouble, and really, to what end, since LE hasn't found anything that we know of that relates in any way to Sylvia's disappearance-I deeply regret my part in this

bbm: There are really tech-savvy marketing companies that can finagle the Google search engine, that can fan out and make whatever pop up first on Google, Bing, etc..

There are individuals who know how to work the search engines as well. It is very purposeful, and mission accomplished for them on Sylvia. What "dumb -*&%$ s" though, because it is not a well thought out action in a situation that calls for it. No brains behind the brawn.

So yes, it can backfire and stop everything dead in its tracks.

 

[alliemay]

What if we attach her full name to everything we post about her, on here. Then when someone searches her name, maybe the most recent information (what we say one here) will stay at the top of the google search and eventually the rest of the misinformation stuff will filter to later pages. Not sure if I'm asking this question in the right way, just random thoughts I guess. I'm still here with work haven't had time to research stuff but still hoping we receive more information on her SOON.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Skeet!!!!!!!!!!

bbm: What a good idea - I say, let's try it for Sylvia Alice Lwowski.

And I, rosemadderlake, do not endorse the use of unverified information to manipulate the media, and attach names and organizations to it without express permission of each entity.