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

[rosemadderlake]

All reasonable lines of thought, Rose. I think we all have some version of these questions (BBM 1, 2, & 4), and others, running around our heads. I know I do. But IMO the bottom line is that we don't have info to answer them with. It troubles me that even the info we do have doesn't fit together very well. One approach may be to question what we think we "know," but without another source of info, that may not get us very far either.

BBM3: MMQC tells us the BF/F told her he left Sylvia at a bus stop. Based on that, I don't think he thought SL was at MMQC's house (BBM):

Thread 1, partial post, by MMQC: "... BF/F came to my house that night to ask that I go and pick her up from the Bus Stop[/B]. It was after 10 PM ..."

bbm - yes, I agree with that.

bbms -I guess I am "questioning what we think we know" based on recollections and our interpretations of same from almost 40 years ago. -Not sure what the BF/F thought, or if he was thinking on the fly, or in sequence of events, or for what reason (s).

 

[Jmoose]

All reasonable lines of thought, Rose. I think we all have some version of these questions (BBM 1, 2, & 4), and others, running around our heads. I know I do. But IMO the bottom line is that we don't have info to answer them with. It troubles me that even the info we do have doesn't fit together very well. One approach may be to question what we think we "know," but without another source of info, that may not get us very far either.

BBM3: MMQC tells us the BF/F told her he left Sylvia at a bus stop. Based on that, I don't think he thought SL was at MMQC's house (BBM):

Thread 1, partial post, by MMQC: "... BF/F came to my house that night to ask that I go and pick her up from the Bus Stop. It was after 10 PM ..."

BBM-he may not have thought she would be at MMQC's house, but what if he passed by there to see if she had called MMQC to come and get her and saw that MMQC was there without Sylvia-MMQC said she was outside when he came by. It might be at that time that he would think to ask her to go to the bus stop and pick her up.

Or, he knew for sure that she wasn't there, and knew she'd need a ride home and wouldn't take one from him.

Or, he knew for sure that Sylvia wasn't with MMQC, and was creating an alibi for himself, and perhaps went back to the Lwowskis house and told them that MMQC was picking Sylvia up, and that from that time on, the Lwowskis thought MMQC knew where she was.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Yes, at 10:30; what about earlier?

...Ok I'm confused! Your link above goes to ASW ans. to Skeet's Q #366. -

Originally Posted by skeet View Post
MMQC - do you recall what the roads were like that led to the mall, was it a major highway at that time or were there some residential homes near by, just wondering if it were possible that if they were at a red light, if she jumped out of the car was it then possible for her to run through back yards of a near by neighborhood?

The major road taken from SL home to the mall area where the theater was would be Richmond Ave. The route would have been Goodall Street to Hyland Blvd. or Nelson Ave to Richmond Ave to the theater. The Nelson Ave route would have taken them thru Snake Hill thru the golf course behind the Staten Island Mall.

BBM1: Very good question.

BBM2: Woops! Fixed it ... The quote was right, the number of the post was right, the URL was wrong.

BBM3: I'm glad you pulled that up. I was thinking about the golf course recently. The route may be the reason why ASWDeerHunter said that would be one place he would search for a body:
Thread 2, post 382, by ASWDeerHunter: "This would be one place I would look for a body." (He also provides a link to the golf course.)

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1: Very good question.

BBM2: Woops! Fixed it ... The quote was right, the number of the post was right, the URL was wrong.

BBM3: I'm glad you pulled that up. I was thinking about the golf course recently. The route may be the reason why ASWDeerHunter said that would be one place he would search for a body:
Thread 2, post 382, by ASWDeerHunter: "This would be one place I would look for a body." (He also provides a link to the golf course.)

I looked at a map and wondered if Snake Hill has any look out points, ravines that no one can access...

It is true what was said back up thread about "plenty of places to dispose of things"; Staten Island has major swamps, quicksand no doubt, every kind of waterway, highlands and lowlands, shipyard dump, in addition to, at that time, the largest dump site in the country.

 

[Jmoose]

I don't know if anyone else has done this, but I checked the Social Security Death Index, and Sylvia's name is not on there-I assume that means that she has never been declared legally dead? Yet if ASWDH mentioned the golf course as a good place to look for a body, I guess that means his family, or at least he, thought Sylvia was killed when she disappeared. Why, then, is she not on that list? I think that nowadays, when you deal with a funeral home, one of the things they do is report the death to the social security administration-if you have no dealings with a funeral home, do you then have to report it yourself? I guess it matters less to them when someone of Sylvia's age dies, because they're not paying social security benefits, but they must need to have the info updated. Just wondering-

 

[GoingByMyGut]

BBM-he may not have thought she would be at MMQC's house, but what if he passed by there to see if she had called MMQC to come and get her and saw that MMQC was there without Sylvia-MMQC said she was outside when he came by. It might be at that time that he would think to ask her to go to the bus stop and pick her up.

Or, he knew for sure that she wasn't there, and knew she'd need a ride home and wouldn't take one from him.

Or, he knew for sure that Sylvia wasn't with MMQC, and was creating an alibi for himself, and perhaps went back to the Lwowskis house and told them that MMQC was picking Sylvia up, and that from that time on, the Lwowskis thought MMQC knew where she was.

BBM1: Alibi or no, assuming we can take the BF/F at his word (which we don't know), this seems like a reasonable thing for him to do and think, IMO, since he didn't wait around for MMQC and her father to return from their search (around 11 PM, acc. to MMQC). When the BF/F left the L's house that night, they must all have been in a sort of limbo ... EL must have waited up all night to see if she came home. (Heart-wrenching --)

BB2: This part of your sentence doesn't fit with the first part for me, but something LIKE this must have happened, and is probably also the reason that EL kept the BF/F's visit a secret from MMQC as well. The reason it doesn't fit for me the way you describe is due to this post by MMQC about her response to EL's call in the very early morning hours of Sunday:

Thread 1, post 901, partial post by MMQC: "It was then I told her about BF/F coming to my home telling me about the fight etc."

I assume from the "etc" that MMQC told EL the next morning that she did indeed search for SL at the bus stop, but that she and her father didn't find SL. (I think this is a reasonable assumption. Do you agree? MMQC does say she tells EL about the BBF/F coming to her house ... I cannot think of a post off the top of my head where she actually says she told EL about searching with her father. Can you? For now I'll leave it as my assumption.)

Why would EL think MMQC knew something more after MMQC told her how unfruitful the search was? Maybe bec MMQC didn't call EL right away? But no one knew Sat. night that SL was missing yet ... Why would EL expect MMQC to have set off the alarm at that hour if she herself didn't yet know SL wasn't coming home?

I'm still thinking this through ... but to me it seems like it would take more than that.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I don't know if anyone else has done this, but I checked the Social Security Death Index, and Sylvia's name is not on there-I assume that means that she has never been declared legally dead? Yet if ASWDH mentioned the golf course as a good place to look for a body, I guess that means his family, or at least he, thought Sylvia was killed when she disappeared. Why, then, is she not on that list? I think that nowadays, when you deal with a funeral home, one of the things they do is report the death to the social security administration-if you have no dealings with a funeral home, do you then have to report it yourself? I guess it matters less to them when someone of Sylvia's age dies, because they're not paying social security benefits, but they must need to have the info updated. Just wondering-

Psychologically, I don't know if I could declare my missing daughter or sister dead without a body. -Very difficult.

I wonder...

Would declaring her dead have put Sylvia at a disadvantage, or finding her, on the chance she was alive?

Is there an advantage (investigation-wise) to not declaring someone dead, i.e. missing persons open investigation vs cold case MP or homicide? Or, access to information?

I read to prosecute a homicide without a body, they are declared dead. If compelling evidence emerged it is an investigative and prosecutorial channel. I can see swinging into action if that happened.

 

[Jmoose]

BBM1: Alibi or no, assuming we can take the BF/F at his word (which we don't know), this seems like a reasonable thing for him to do and think, IMO, since he didn't wait around for MMQC and her father to return from their search (around 11 PM, acc. to MMQC). When the BF/F left the L's house that night, they must all have been in a sort of limbo ... EL must have waited up all night to see if she came home. (Heart-wrenching --)

BB2: This part of your sentence doesn't fit with the first part for me, but something LIKE this must have happened, and is probably also the reason that EL kept the BF/F's visit a secret from MMQC as well. The reason it doesn't fit for me the way you describe is due to this post by MMQC about her response to EL's call in the very early morning hours of Sunday:

Thread 1, post 901, partial post by MMQC: "It was then I told her about BF/F coming to my home telling me about the fight etc."

I assume from the "etc" that MMQC told EL the next morning that she did indeed search for SL at the bus stop, but that she and her father didn't find SL. (I think this is a reasonable assumption. Do you agree? MMQC does say she tells EL about the BBF/F coming to her house ... I cannot think of a post off the top of my head where she actually says she told EL about searching with her father. Can you? For now I'll leave it as my assumption.)

Why would EL think MMQC knew something more after MMQC told her how unfruitful the search was? Maybe bec MMQC didn't call EL right away? But no one knew Sat. night that SL was missing yet ... Why would EL expect MMQC to have set off the alarm at that hour if she herself didn't yet know SL wasn't coming home?

I'm still thinking this through ... but to me it seems like it would take more than that.

BBM-I think your assumption is a good one, and it is my assumption too, but I don't know if it's because I think MMQC said that she told EL or not. I can't think of a single reason why she wouldn't tell her, anyway.

I am rolling this business over and over in my head and can't figure out why EL thought MMQC knew all along where Sylvia was. It doesn't make any logical sense with the information we have.

I can't decide if, with some of the details, we are making much ado about nothing, or what? Usually I try to reduce events to the simplest possibilities-the simplest possibility points to one person, and yet, there are logically other possibilities, which have to be considered based on the questions we have. Did anyone ever actually search for Sylvia's remains on Staten Island?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Cropped by me to reply to this part:

bbm: The "Will not Handle" is marked with date and time 9/7/75, 6:45. -I am not sure they would have had enough time in that window, (EL filed report 9/7/75, 6pm) to find the BF/F and take a statement. It looks like a time stamped memo on the initial intake report. It could be a call, an interdepartmental memorandum, or “no publicity”, or not classified endangered missing, or of adult age and free will, or will not investigate. For the reasons you are wondering above I would not be surprised if there was someone else who knows something else....

BBM: Looking at the PR, I find this really odd. I am reading it differently. As you already know, based on your time translations, it looks like they use military time (I think that's what it's called -- e.g., 6:00 = 18-hundred hours). But to me to the timestamp looks like 1645, not 6:45, which would be in keeping with the practice of recording time that way. In fact, the 1 in 1645 looks like someone purposefully darkened it.

But that would mean the decision was made at 4:45 PM -- IOW before EL reported it. Could they have started this report the previous night based on EL's phone call? Could there already have been talk around the department based on that conversation? And a decision rendered?

Okay, now I'm just feeling crazy. Somebody tell me there's a reasonable explanation for this! I guess it's possible that the "1" in 1645 is actually the tail of the 9 above it, but it looks to me like someone curled the tail on the 9 so it would not be mistaken that way. And why would an officer accustomed to using military time suddenly change conventions?

Does it look to you like they originally had another number besides a 7 for the day in the "Date and Time Reported" space? Could it have been a 6, the day EL phoned them? Unclear. Both dates -- that one and "Date and Time Last Seen" are both written over.

Alternatively re the "will not handle" timestamp, could someone reading the report later on have just gotten 9/7/75 in their head from reading the file and mindlessly recorded the wrong date?

Also, what does T/P/O mean? "Time and Place Of"? Something else?

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1: Alibi or no, assuming we can take the BF/F at his word (which we don't know), this seems like a reasonable thing for him to do and think, IMO, since he didn't wait around for MMQC and her father to return from their search (around 11 PM, acc. to MMQC). When the BF/F left the L's house that night, they must all have been in a sort of limbo ... EL must have waited up all night to see if she came home. (Heart-wrenching --)

BB2: This part of your sentence doesn't fit with the first part for me, but something LIKE this must have happened, and is probably also the reason that EL kept the BF/F's visit a secret from MMQC as well. The reason it doesn't fit for me the way you describe is due to this post by MMQC about her response to EL's call in the very early morning hours of Sunday:

Thread 1, post 901, partial post by MMQC: "It was then I told her about BF/F coming to my home telling me about the fight etc."

I assume from the "etc" that MMQC told EL the next morning that she did indeed search for SL at the bus stop, but that she and her father didn't find SL. (I think this is a reasonable assumption. Do you agree? MMQC does say she tells EL about the BBF/F coming to her house ... I cannot think of a post off the top of my head where she actually says she told EL about searching with her father. Can you? For now I'll leave it as my assumption.)

Why would EL think MMQC knew something more after MMQC told her how unfruitful the search was? Maybe bec MMQC didn't call EL right away? But no one knew Sat. night that SL was missing yet ... Why would EL expect MMQC to have set off the alarm at that hour if she herself didn't yet know SL wasn't coming home?

I'm still thinking this through ... but to me it seems like it would take more than that.

bbm: a really good question. BF/F to MMQC - go pick up Sylvia. MMQC to EL have Sylvia call me. MMQC confirms BF/F came to her house next day. Maybe EL takes MMQC to Wagner to gather info but is not sure she believes anyone?

Yes, no one knows she is really missing yet, but parents are aware of their kids wily, secretive ways. And yes, MMQC didn't tell her upfront and why wouldn't MMQC set off the alarm if she wasn't at the bus stop especially after EL says she is out with the BF/F, and the BF/F was just at her house? ETA: MMQC (anyone) might think, ok maybe BF/F picked up SL after all? -Until EL calls back at 3 hours later...

If my best GF went missing and her mother took me somewhere to search for her, I would be terrified and treading carefully, especially if I didn't know she was really missing, because at this point I don't think she is presumed dead.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

BBM-I think your assumption is a good one, and it is my assumption too, but I don't know if it's because I think MMQC said that she told EL or not. I can't think of a single reason why she wouldn't tell her, anyway.

I am rolling this business over and over in my head and can't figure out why EL thought MMQC knew all along where Sylvia was. It doesn't make any logical sense with the information we have.

I can't decide if, with some of the details, we are making much ado about nothing, or what? Usually I try to reduce events to the simplest possibilities-the simplest possibility points to one person, and yet, there are logically other possibilities, which have to be considered based on the questions we have. Did anyone ever actually search for Sylvia's remains on Staten Island?

BBM1: LOL! I just had that very thought when posting about "1645" on the PR!

BBM2: I would like to know this too.

ETA: Of course, we know there were other searches for other MPs, so by default, some places have been searched.

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM-I think your assumption is a good one, and it is my assumption too, but I don't know if it's because I think MMQC said that she told EL or not. I can't think of a single reason why she wouldn't tell her, anyway.

I am rolling this business over and over in my head and can't figure out why EL thought MMQC knew all along where Sylvia was. It doesn't make any logical sense with the information we have.

I can't decide if, with some of the details, we are making much ado about nothing, or what? Usually I try to reduce events to the simplest possibilities-the simplest possibility points to one person, and yet, there are logically other possibilities, which have to be considered based on the questions we have. Did anyone ever actually search for Sylvia's remains on Staten Island?

bbm: maybe, but I have feeling something could have been lost in the details of 1975. And, somewhere there is a clue. Maybe a penny will drop.

 

[Jmoose]

Psychologically, I don't know if I could declare my missing daughter or sister dead without a body. -Very difficult.

I wonder...

Would declaring her dead have put Sylvia at a disadvantage, or finding her, on the chance she was alive?

Is there an advantage (investigation-wise) to not declaring someone dead, i.e. missing persons open investigation vs cold case MP or homicide? Or, access to information?

I read to prosecute a homicide without a body, they are declared dead. If compelling evidence emerged it is an investigative and prosecutorial channel. I can see swinging into action if that happened.

Not sure how all of this works-I was told that there is no homicide file for Sylvia, just the missing person one. I am going to try to find out more information about this.

 

[Jmoose]

bbm: maybe, but I have feeling something could have been lost in the details of 1975. And, somewhere there is a clue. Maybe a penny will drop.

"From your lips, to God's ear"-I hope so

 

[Jmoose]

I just read a Daily News article from 2002, with quotes from Andre Rand-he compared himself to Ted Bundy, saying that Bundy's 'thing' was women, while his 'thing' was kids, and that made me think that maybe he isn't responsible for Sylvia's disappearance (and maybe not Ethel Atwell?). I realize that he's a killer and so almost certainly a liar, too, but do these guys often kill opportunistically, outside of their preferred choice of victim? There is a group called "Friends of Jennifer Schweiger" that searches or has searched for other victims of Andre Rand-all considered to be children, although it is thought to be very possible that Ethel Atwell was a victim, too. I wonder if it makes sense to contact them to ask about their thoughts on Sylvia and Ethel? I will try to contact them and see if they are still doing this.

 

[epiphany]

T/P/O: Time and Place of Occurrence

 

[Odyssey]

Psychologically, I don't know if I could declare my missing daughter or sister dead without a body. -Very difficult.

I wonder...

Would declaring her dead have put Sylvia at a disadvantage, or finding her, on the chance she was alive?

Is there an advantage (investigation-wise) to not declaring someone dead, i.e. missing persons open investigation vs cold case MP or homicide? Or, access to information?

I have read some things about this. A person can't just have another person declared deceased, they have to convince a judge that there is a slim enough chance that the person could be alive. Without evidence of foul play, that would be difficult.

The reason for this, is the whole host of problems that can arise if someone is declared deceased and then they turn up alive. They can't get their identity back, etc... I guess it's not easy to undo something like that.

It happened fairly recently although I don't recall the person's name. She had been missing for years, was eventually declared dead, and then she turned herself in somewhere in Florida - she had been homeless for many years. Her ex-husband had collected on a life insurance policy, it was a big mess.

eta: found it, here is an article about it

http://lancasteronline.com/article/...husband-likely-will-keep-insurance-money.html

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Psychologically, I don't know if I could declare my missing daughter or sister dead without a body. -Very difficult.

I wonder...

Would declaring her dead have put Sylvia at a disadvantage, or finding her, on the chance she was alive?

Is there an advantage (investigation-wise) to not declaring someone dead, i.e. missing persons open investigation vs cold case MP or homicide? Or, access to information?

I read to prosecute a homicide without a body, they are declared dead. If compelling evidence emerged it is an investigative and prosecutorial channel. I can see swinging into action if that happened.

I have read some things about this. A person can't just have another person declared deceased, they have to convince a judge that there is a slim enough chance that the person could be alive. Without evidence of foul play, that would be difficult.

The reason for this, is the whole host of problems that can arise if someone is declared deceased and then they turn up alive. They can't get their identity back, etc... I guess it's not easy to undo something like that.

It happened fairly recently although I don't recall the person's name. She had been missing for years, was eventually declared dead, and then she turned herself in somewhere in Florida - she had been homeless for many years. Her ex-husband had collected on a life insurance policy, it was a big mess.

eta: found it, here is an article about it

http://lancasteronline.com/article/...husband-likely-will-keep-insurance-money.html

Somewhat OT, but Odyssey just reminded me of the process my grandmother went through to do this. Because my grandmother was left to raise 4 kids alone after my grandfather disappeared, and then her mother (who was helping her) died a few years later, she was always strapped for funds. She waited the requisite number of years (I am thinking 7) and applied to the army for a "death benefit" she would have been due bc he was a WWI veteran. Later, she also applied for a "bonus" the gov't granted the vets many years after the war.

The army conducted an investigation into his disappearance. They said repeatedly that to grant death benefit, his disappearance had to be "unexplained." In this case, I believe they perceived any sign of possible explanation (even if unfounded) as a chance he could be alive.

When he disappeared, those who knew him (family, friends, business partner) speculated three explanations: (1) suicide, (2) murder by union thugs (he was in construction in the Bronx), (3) flight with a another woman. There was no evidence of the first two, and but for the third, he was said to be having an affair with a woman who rented an apartment in a building he owned, who disappeared just before he did. However, by the time of the army investigation, the woman resurfaced with the actual man she ran away with -- i.e., not my g'father. Nonetheless, the army considered this as a "possible explanation" and NEVER granted her the monies (and she reapplied for decades).

Somewhere in there she had him declared dead through a civil judge, and the army still wouldn't release his benefit. In their eyes, they were defending the rights of the veteran, which is similar to what Odyssey is saying about the civil process (they just carried the logic way too far IMO). More with the bonus than the death benefit, they didn't want to give it away in case he tried to claim it himself some day. (I have NO idea who they think had the right to the death benefit.)

Short story long ... the process for being declared or "seen" as dead may vary with the purpose for which you are doing it.

 

[Jmoose]

Somewhat OT, but Odyssey just reminded me of the process my grandmother went through to do this. Because my grandmother was left to raise 4 kids alone after my grandfather disappeared, and then her mother (who was helping her) died a few years later, she was always strapped for funds. She waited the requisite number of years (I am thinking 7) and applied to the army for a "death benefit" she would have been due bc he was a WWI veteran. Later, she also applied for a "bonus" the gov't granted the vets many years after the war.

The army conducted an investigation into his disappearance. They said repeatedly that to grant death benefit, his disappearance had to be "unexplained." In this case, I believe they perceived any sign of possible explanation (even if unfounded) as a chance he could be alive.

When he disappeared, those who knew him (family, friends, business partner) speculated three explanations: (1) suicide, (2) murder by union thugs (he was in construction in the Bronx), (3) flight with a another woman. There was no evidence of the first two, and but for the third, he was said to be having an affair with a woman who rented an apartment in a building he owned, who disappeared just before he did. However, by the time of the army investigation, the woman resurfaced with the actual man she ran away with -- i.e., not my g'father. Nonetheless, the army considered this as a "possible explanation" and NEVER granted her the monies (and she reapplied for decades).

Somewhere in there she had him declared dead through a civil judge, and the army still wouldn't release his benefit. In their eyes, they were defending the rights of the veteran, which is similar to what Odyssey is saying about the civil process (they just carried the logic way too far IMO). More with the bonus than the death benefit, they didn't want to give it away in case he tried to claim it himself some day. (I have NO idea who they think had the right to the death benefit.)

Short story long ... the process for being declared or "seen" as dead may vary with the purpose for which you are doing it.

OT-but your story of your gradparents is so interesting! What does your family think happened to him?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

OT-but your story of your gradparents is so interesting! What does your family think happened to him?

As w SL's case, there is surprisingly little to go on. My father had three older siblings (two are dead now) with varying levels of memory about their father. He was a drinker, which is not in his favor. And my grandmother was completely ignorant of his business affairs, so her thinking about it hit a wall. (I wonder if this is partly why EL intrigues me so much. Like her, my grandmother kept up her own meager investigation until very late in life. I'm told she passed out at my parents' wedding [25 years after her husband disappeared] when a red-headed man walked in, then later said to her kids, "I thought it was your father.")

Her older children leaned toward the murder theory. In the army records, there are letters from one of my g'father's friends who goes on about persistent union shakedowns. Very possible, but it doesn't help that he sounds a little crazy.

My father ... he distanced himself from it for a long time, due to personal wounds I think. Also, he and I are a lot alike: He continues to look at the merits of all options.

However, I lean toward suicide, mainly because his favorite possession -- a Packard -- was found a few blocks from the Hudson River. (And somewhere in there is a story of one of his shoes being found nearby, but I'm not sure of the details on this.) There is also some indication that he said a veiled "goodbye" to my grandmother, one she didn't pick up on in the moment. My efforts have gone mostly to genealogy ... but even with addresses, we can find no birth certificates or records for his parents and it appears a brother was killed in the war.

I'm sorry ... I thought I'd arrive at a clearer answer here. Maybe it's just that there isn't one. Sorry for the wayward response. And thx for your interest.