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

[rosemadderlake]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that back then, the parents had quite a bit of influence on who their daughter married, so you'd think he'd be on his best behavior and very respectful to her parents...

I don't have the sense that either of them were ever crazy about him, and then doing an "about-face" after Sylvia's disappearance. I really think the reluctance to publicize was to protect Sylvia, and not him-how does anyone else feel about this?

Quotes trimmed by me

bbm: I think a lot of parents were horrified that kids were living together "shacked up" and not getting married in the 70's! - I don't get the impression that SL's family knew the BF/F that well. It was said the BF/F became rude and hostel with SL's family after that night and wouldn't answer any more questions. And he was described as "angry" by MMQC when he asked her to pick up SL at bus stop.

I don't really have a sense about SL and the BF/F's relationship, either. It has been said she was "over the moon" about engagement and "in love" with her BF/F. This is contrasted by "depressed" on PR and the events leading up to her disappearance, BF/F not at pool party (why not), and incident with her father, not speaking to father, feeling angry and humiliated.

bbm: I think with the "no publicity", EL was looking to protect Sylvia, too. -I think EL knew what the argument was about (or some motherly knowledge of the issues), and Sylvia was not talking to her father at the time, another consideration as well....

-All imo

 

[rosemadderlake]

I am stuck on the police report - Did she have a copy of this document? What did EL think the "will not handle" meant in 1975? Was the ADA aware of this?

 

[rosemadderlake]

I think my last post came out a little wrong...

I guess I meant that I thought (from the perspective of a parent of a soon to be bride) it would be in SL's best interest that BF/F not be in any sort of jeopardy associated with being a suspect in a crime. That is, assuming they believed what BF/F said happened.

I am sure SL's parents did not want to to falsely accuse the BF/F in the beginning for sure, but (bbm) this is something they may have had strong feelings about.

I have wondered if there was any communication between SL's and BF/F's parents after she disappeared. Imo: Yes, and this could have been a part of not pursuing the BF/F. And, the consideration of SL returning to find her parents going after her BF/F as a suspect would be a mess.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Rose's post, trimmed by me.

Does the “no publicity” mean that no pictures of SL were to be circulated locally in searching for her, or just not newspaper print, TV, radio?

Yes, if no publicity is wanted how can LE dispute or confirm his story?

I'm may be chiming in a day late and dime short (playing catchup, so haven't yet read later posts), but I think in the 70s the term "publicity" would be pretty strictly defined as "use of mainstream media" -- initially probably just the papers, since there weren't local TV stations in those pre-cable days -- but it's JMO. ETA: Etan Patz case was 1972 -- so even posters weren't in formal use at the time, right? Esp. for an adult?

This broader interpretation (ETA: as quoted above), to my ear, reads as much more than "no publicity" -- more like "no investigation." I don't believe LE would ever promise not to use her photo when asking people if they had seen her, or that they would promise not to question people, because that would limit their ability to uphold the law. They may have had other reasons to limit their investigation. I'm just saying I don't think "no publicity" would be the basis for that. Besides, if a person wanted "no investigation," why file the MP report to begin with?

 

[Jmoose]

Rose's post, trimmed by me.




I'm may be chiming in a day late and dime short (playing catchup, so haven't yet read later posts), but I think in the 70s the term "publicity" would be pretty strictly defined as "use of mainstream media" -- initially probably just the papers, since there weren't local TV stations in those pre-cable days -- but it's JMO.

This broader interpretation, to my ear, reads as much more than "no publicity" -- more like "no investigation." I don't believe LE would ever promise not to use her photo when asking people if they had seen her, or that they would promise not to question people, because that would limit their ability to uphold the law. They may have had other reasons to limit their investigation. I'm just saying I don't think "no publicity" would be the basis for that. Besides, if a person wanted "no investigation," why file the MP report to begin with?

I must respectfully disagree a little-NYC did have local news in 1975-don't you remember Roger Grimsby (lol)? Having said that, I don't recall if it was commonplace to broadcast the disappearance of an adult in those days. A missing child, like Etan Patz (several years later) maybe, especially because of the way that he disappeared. And because Sylvia's story was so typically told in the disappearance of a woman-"she got angry and got out of the car-I don't know where she is", I wonder how often anyone really took it to heart initially. This website is loaded with that explanation for womens' disappearances. Now, we know better, but back then, I don't think it was such a suspicious notion. Remember, it was commonplace to think of women as crazily emotional and sometimes irrational.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Original post trimmed by me (OPTBM?).

BBM-Didn't the BF/F say she disappeared AFTER the movie?

This is how the fact BBM got inserted into the discussion:

MMQC, Thread 1, Post 903 (BBM): "I did not know exact time of DATE. What I do know is that BF/F did say after movie they had fight she got out of the car and would take the bus home. I truly don't remember BF/F EVER going to parents home that night. Last time seen? To me this means last time EL saw SL. Remember who is filing PR. Not BF/F."

MMQC, Thread 2, Post 255 (BBM): "Not too sure about the plans they had that evening. Knew only about the movie after BF/F came by my parents home to tell me after the movie they had a fight and she got out of the car to take the bus home."

However, she acknowledges it as hearsay:

MMQC, Thread 2, Post 400:"Of course if they never went to a movie???? That is still not confirmed."

 

[GoingByMyGut]

OPs TBM:

I expect the police could have seen it the same way
They never talked to MMQC at that time

And, did EL not relay this piece to LE in 1975, I wonder?

BBM: This is another million dollar question, IMO. As I asked in an earlier post, why would EL not have mentioned this? Since EL went searching Wagner and other places with MMQC early Sunday morning, by 6 PM Sunday EL should be aware that the BF/F stopped at MMQC's house and that they saw a movie. To me, that means she should have delivered a different "time last seen."

Put yourself in EL's shoes: In my case, I would be running off at the mouth, spilling anything I had seen or heard in the last 24 hours, hoping that some piece of it made sense to LE or motivated them to do something. But what did she tell LE? 6 PM. Why? I know many of you think it's bec it's the time SHE last saw her ... but I am asking you, why would she think that was more relevant that something else she'd heard? Perhaps you think LE only wanted to hear what she herself literally saw and heard? Why? That would put them several steps behind in any efforts they undertook. IMO, they would want to know the last place and time SL had been seen by anyone.

Also, since it seems LE questioned the BF/F in the early days (as per ASWDeerHunter, Thread 2, Post 85: "When E. L. asked the BF\f the hostile reply was the L E was on the case and was so rude she stopped calling."), if they had known this piece about the BF/F's visit to MMQC's house, it's difficult for me to see why they would not question MMQC as well. Whether or not the story is reflected on the PR as conflicting information about times last seen, if they had this information, I believe it would have raised questions.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

I sort of envisioned a 7 o'clock movie for them, with some time after the movie to stop someplace for something to eat maybe. I so seldom see a first-run movie, that I don't know how the times typically would run, or more to the point, would have run then in the days before huge multiplex theaters.

I remember them being strictly 7 and 9 PM, with 2 PM matinees on Saturday, in single screen theaters. Wonkier times came to be as a result of twinning and multiplexing. However, this particular theater twinned in June 1975 (acc. to the comments on the linked page, with the showing of Jaws), so they may have already begun staggered times (e.g., one at 6:45, another at 7) to reduce the impact on the box office.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Rose's post, trimmed by me.




I'm may be chiming in a day late and dime short (playing catchup, so haven't yet read later posts), but I think in the 70s the term "publicity" would be pretty strictly defined as "use of mainstream media" -- initially probably just the papers, since there weren't local TV stations in those pre-cable days -- but it's JMO. ETA: Etan Patz case was 1972 -- so even posters weren't in formal use at the time, right? Esp. for an adult?

This broader interpretation, to my ear, reads as much more than "no publicity" -- more like "no investigation." I don't believe LE would ever promise not to use her photo when asking people if they had seen her, or that they would promise not to question people, because that would limit their ability to uphold the law. They may have had other reasons to limit their investigation. I'm just saying I don't think "no publicity" would be the basis for that. Besides, if a person wanted "no investigation," why file the MP report to begin with?

bbm: I am not sure "no publicity" equals "no investigation"; I interpret it as defining the transparency of an investigation.

-Thinking along the lines of LE proactively circulating Sylvia's picture locally at the K-mart Plaza and inquiring if anyone had spotted Sylvia in an effort to locate her, and check out the BF/F story, and thus making public her disappearance.

You bring up a good point about interpretation of "no publicity" though. What is LE's definition? No proactive search? Question the BF/F, and wait?

 

[rosemadderlake]

Original post trimmed by me (OPTBM?).



This is how the fact BBM got inserted into the discussion:

MMQC, Thread 1, Post 903 (BBM): "I did not know exact time of DATE. What I do know is that BF/F did say after movie they had fight she got out of the car and would take the bus home. I truly don't remember BF/F EVER going to parents home that night. Last time seen? To me this means last time EL saw SL. Remember who is filing PR. Not BF/F."

MMQC, Thread 2, Post 255 (BBM): "Not too sure about the plans they had that evening. Knew only about the movie after BF/F came by my parents home to tell me after the movie they had a fight and she got out of the car to take the bus home."

However, she acknowledges it as hearsay:

MMQC, Thread 2, Post 400:"Of course if they never went to a movie???? That is still not confirmed."

GBMG -Thanks for finding these posts!

Ok, so MMQC establishes last time BF/F sees SL. And EL is relaying last time she saw SL to LE. Unless the BF/F told EL something different?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

OP TBM:

I can't remember if this was covered or not...

Did we ever get a feel for how SL's family felt about BF/F prior to this incident? Did he generally come across as rude or was it a surprise to see him behave this way on that night?

Is it possible that EL said 'no publicity' because she considered BF/F part of the family and knew that publicity would make him look bad at his job, etc?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that back then, the parents had quite a bit of influence on who their daughter married, so you'd think he'd be on his best behavior and very respectful to her parents...

It seems as though his rudeness that night (if he was generally 'gracious') would hint that he knew he didn't have to worry about their approval for a marriage anymore. Whether what means a break-up or worse, I think it was more than a spat. And the account of the ring in his possession also points to more than a spat...

BBM: LOL. I think I and my peers have just been classed with the dinosaurs.

I think that there have and will probably always be families and cultures for whom this is very important, but I think this sounds more like the 50s than the 70s. With the 60s, and the rupture of family relations, esp. betw. parents and children, this was far less often the case. Rose addresses this nicely in her post. But I think as the rest of your questions imply, too little is known about the relationships between these particular families to be sure. FWIW, I think your point about the family's feelings for the BF/F is an important one, bc it also positions how they may have taken his "story" the night SL disappeared. If EL knew, on any level, that something was brewing with the relationship between SL and her BF/F, she may have understood (or forgiven) his anger. But I think the frustration for all of us is we don't know enough to say one way or the other.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

I must respectfully disagree a little-NYC did have local news in 1975-don't you remember Roger Grimsby (lol)? Having said that, I don't recall if it was commonplace to broadcast the disappearance of an adult in those days. A missing child, like Etan Patz (several years later) maybe, especially because of the way that he disappeared. And because Sylvia's story was so typically told in the disappearance of a woman-"she got angry and got out of the car-I don't know where she is", I wonder how often anyone really took it to heart initially. This website is loaded with that explanation for womens' disappearances. Now, we know better, but back then, I don't think it was such a suspicious notion. Remember, it was commonplace to think of women as crazily emotional and sometimes irrational.

BBM1: To me, "NYC" doesn't equal "local," in the terms I'm describing. I'm presuming that today, thanks to cable, there's probably an SI TV station. I think radio filled more of the local need in the day.

I was a journalism student in the 70s and remember the skepticism for missing adult cases even where TV was concerned. IIRC, it was a "give it some time and see how it plays out before jumping on the bandwagon" POV, the suggestion being there could be something unseemly/scandalous behind it (which in those days was actually avoided, not coveted! LOL).

BBM2: Between my post and your reply, I ETA'd my post to include a comment about Patz. That was 1972 and I think that's when poster campaigns began.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

bbm: I am not sure "no publicity" equals "no investigation"; I interpret it as defining the transparency of an investigation.

-Thinking along the lines of LE proactively circulating Sylvia's picture locally at the K-mart Plaza and inquiring if anyone had spotted Sylvia in an effort to locate her, and check out the BF/F story, and thus making public her disappearance.

You bring up a good point about interpretation of "no publicity" though. What is LE's definition? No proactive search? Question the BF/F, and wait?

BBM1: I may not have communicated that clearly. I don't think "no publicity" equals "no investigation" -- my point was that the questions on the table made it sound like some of us were reading "no publicity" as "no investigation." I see "no publicity" as "no use of media." Mb you get that. I may still not be making myself clear.

 

[rosemadderlake]

OPs TBM:




BBM: This is another million dollar question, IMO. As I asked in an earlier post, why would EL not have mentioned this? Since EL went searching Wagner and other places with MMQC early Sunday morning, by 6 PM Sunday EL should be aware that the BF/F stopped at MMQC's house and that they saw a movie. To me, that means she should have delivered a different "time last seen."

Put yourself in EL's shoes: In my case, I would be running off at the mouth, spilling anything I had seen or heard in the last 24 hours, hoping that some piece of it made sense to LE or motivated them to do something. But what did she tell LE? 6 PM. Why? I know many of you think it's bec it's the time SHE last saw her ... but I am asking you, why would she think that was more relevant that something else she'd heard? Perhaps you think LE only wanted to hear what she herself literally saw and heard? Why? That would put them several steps behind in any efforts they undertook. IMO, they would want to know the last place and time SL had been seen by anyone.

Also, since it seems LE questioned the BF/F in the early days (as per ASWDeerHunter, Thread 2, Post 85: "When E. L. asked the BF\f the hostile reply was the L E was on the case and was so rude she stopped calling."), if they had known this piece about the BF/F's visit to MMQC's house, it's difficult for me to see why they would not question MMQC as well. Whether or not the story is reflected on the PR as conflicting information about times last seen, if they had this information, I believe it would have raised questions.

bbm: Maybe, along with bringing in pictures, LE asked EL to bring in a written statement because the "time the BF/F said he last saw SL" is hearsay? -From LE's perspective the last known person to see SL & the BF/F together was EL (her family). -And that is still true today.

Maybe the BF/F told LE he stopped over at Sylvia's GF's house "after the movie" and corroborated EL's account? . -Let's say he was conciliatory and presented himself as the 'concerned BF/F' to LE: 'we argued and my fiance ran off in traffic, I notified her parents and asked her GF for help.' Maybe the BF/F was advised to portray himself that way to LE? -I can see that.

I am just thinking thoughts here because along with the "no publicity" and "depressed" on the MP report, and if the BF/F presents himself as upstanding concerned fiance; it kind of sets up Sylvia as the hysterical woman.

--His story could all be true, but maybe it is not... I think it is difficult to predict the future in a perfect crime, though.

 

[Jmoose]

bbm: Maybe, along with bringing in pictures, LE asked EL to bring in a written statement because the "time the BF/F said he last saw SL" is hearsay? -From LE's perspective the last known person to see SL & the BF/F together was EL (her family). -And that is still true today.

Maybe the BF/F told LE he stopped over at Sylvia's GF's house "after the movie" and corroborated EL's account? . -Let's say he was conciliatory and presented himself as the 'concerned BF/F' to LE: 'we argued and my fiance ran off in traffic, I notified her parents and asked her GF for help.' Maybe the BF/F was advised to portray himself that way to LE? -I can see that.

I am just thinking thoughts here because along with the "no publicity" and "depressed" on the MP report, and if the BF/F presents himself as upstanding concerned fiance; it kind of sets up Sylvia as the hysterical woman.

--His story could all be true, but maybe it is not... I think it is difficult to predict the future in a perfect crime, though.

BBM1-advised by whom, do you suppose?

BBM2-true

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1: I may not have communicated that clearly. I don't think "no publicity" equals "no investigation" -- my point was that the questions on the table made it sound like some of us were reading "no publicity" as "no investigation." I see "no publicity" as "no use of media." Mb you get that. I may still not be making myself clear.

-- I think I misinterpreted the "broader interpretation" part of your post. I was wondering about the proactive circulation of Sylvia's image by LE locally, and whether that falls under the definition of publicity. Nothing brings attention to a "have you seen this woman?" question like LE walking though the door with a picture. Then, she would be the talk of the town, instantly. Could that be interpreted as publicity?

Maybe the questions of publicity tie in to how some are questioning the PR, but I think the "Will not Handle" is clearly at the center of the 'do not investigate' interpretation.

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1-advised by whom, do you suppose?

BBM2-true

Advised by his family. His story and their reputation is on the line if he presents himself as rude and hostile to LE. I think he was cooperative with LE and that is part of what silenced the whole thing. -LE then tells SL's family if you continue to call the BF/F - you may get sued for harassment... And then it seems things went very quiet, for decades.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

bbm: Maybe, along with bringing in pictures, LE asked EL to bring in a written statement because the "time the BF/F said he last saw SL" is hearsay? -From LE's perspective the last known person to see SL & the BF/F together was EL (her family). -And that is still true today.

Maybe the BF/F told LE he stopped over at Sylvia's GF's house "after the movie" and corroborated EL's account? . -Let's say he was conciliatory and presented himself as the 'concerned BF/F' to LE: 'we argued and my fiance ran off in traffic, I notified her parents and asked her GF for help.' Maybe the BF/F was advised to portray himself that way to LE? -I can see that.

I am just thinking thoughts here because along with the "no publicity" and "depressed" on the MP report, and if the BF/F presents himself as upstanding concerned fiance; it kind of sets up Sylvia as the hysterical woman.

--His story could all be true, but maybe it is not... I think it is difficult to predict the future in a perfect crime, though.

BBM1: That depends on what the BF/F told LE when he was questioned, right? (ETA: And as you point out in an earlier post today -- the one in response to my post with MMQC's "after the movie" posts -- MMQC also attests to SL and the BF/F being together, though it is technically hearsay, right? It's by way of what the BF/F told her.)

BBM2: Maybe. But why wouldn't the corroboration include MMQC?

BBM3: To me, someone who says he's been "made a sucker of" doesn't sound like someone who's "managing his story." To me, it sounds like whatever he thinks the story is "managed" him. JMO. Who knows how he behaved with LE, or what he told them.

BBM4: I know. Me too. Do you get the feeling we could go on winding our way around this May pole forever?

BBM5: Yes -- totally. But I suppose many benefit from what you might call "happy accidents" -- never being found out through no genius on their part.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

GBMG -Thanks for finding these posts!

Ok, so MMQC establishes last time BF/F sees SL. And EL is relaying last time she saw SL to LE. Unless the BF/F told EL something different?

BBM: It is not clear to me exactly where the misinformation lies, but i think misinformation is at work here. I cannot fathom how the conflicting accounts we have can be meshed with a reasonable story. JMO

 

[Dushi]

If EL filed the missing persons report and later, LE questioned BF/F. wouldn't there be a statement in the police file from BF/F?
It seems we are only seeing the missing persons report given by her mother
Maybe BF/F's statement answered questions for LE , answers we don't have