NY NY - Sylvia Lwowski, 22, Staten Island, 6 Sept 1975 - #4

[Jmoose]

We do have the stories from both of the VIs, who say they heard him (BF/F) say that she tossed/flung/threw them back into the car as she exited. I can't imagine why she'd do that; but I can imagine why they'd still be there. She could have just forgotten them, as she stormed away from the car, for example. Or she could have been unable to take them, but then-why would he mention the glasses at all, if he didn't have to?

 

[rosemadderlake]

"On September 6, 1975, Sylvia went out with her fiance to a movie. He returned stating that during an argument, she thew her glasses against the dashboard and ran from the car. Sylvia has not been seen since."

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/7574/157

The circumstances listed on Namus could well have come from the original 1975 PR (2nd page?), or is an update that was taken from her family when she was entered in Namus.

But was the "condition" of her glasses, or the characterization of her "angrily" running from car just published speculation on other websites? - which I know is "ok" if you state this is my opinion. But this piece got quite muddled for a while (imo).

I have wondered why would the BFF even mention the glasses if he harmed her? Or, say she ran off in a public place that could have been investigated? I can understand though how this piece became a runaway train in light of so very little other information surrounding her disappearance. And how one could think he fabricated the whole thing to shine the drama light on her instead of him. But the problem is how could someone know how all events would play out - "No Publicity".

To me, coupled with going to her GF's house and her parents that night spoke more to the nature of a stormy big argument, and a leaving, and knowledge of her state of mind that previous week perhaps... I also think the BFF went to LE, and either LE or BFF still has her glasses. (imo)

 

[Jmoose]

"On September 6, 1975, Sylvia went out with her fiance to a movie. He returned stating that during an argument, she thew her glasses against the dashboard and ran from the car. Sylvia has not been seen since."

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/7574/157

The circumstances listed on Namus could well have come from the original 1975 PR (2nd page?), or is an update that was taken from her family when she was entered in Namus.

But was the "condition" of her glasses, or the characterization of her "angrily" running from car just published speculation on other websites? - which I know is "ok" if you state this is my opinion. But this piece got quite muddled for a while (imo).

I have wondered why would the BFF even mention the glasses if he harmed her? Or, say she ran off in a public place that could have been investigated? I can understand though how this piece became a runaway train in light of so very little other information surrounding her disappearance. And how one could think he fabricated the whole thing to shine the drama light on her instead of him. But the problem is how could someone know how all events would play out - "No Publicity".

To me, coupled with going to her GF's house and her parents that night spoke more to the nature of a stormy big argument, and a leaving, and knowledge of her state of mind that previous week perhaps... I also think the BFF went to LE, and either LE or BFF still has her glasses. (imo)

If I understand you correctly, you're asking why he'd say she ran away from the car in a place where she could be seen, not knowing that the parents would request "no publicity", if she didn't actually do so-this really isn't a problem for him, because there wouldn't necessarily be a witness who would first see it, and then report it-in other words, the fact that no witness came forward, doesn't mean it didn't happen, but would a witness have made much of a girl hopping out of a car angrily at a light, publicity or not? I am not convinced that Sylvia did this on Richmond Ave, but then I have a problem with BF/F telling MMQC to go there and look for her.

 

[Odyssey]

"On September 6, 1975, Sylvia went out with her fiance to a movie. He returned stating that during an argument, she thew her glasses against the dashboard and ran from the car. Sylvia has not been seen since."

https://www.findthemissing.org/cases/7574/157

The circumstances listed on Namus could well have come from the original 1975 PR (2nd page?), or is an update that was taken from her family when she was entered in Namus.

But was the "condition" of her glasses, or the characterization of her "angrily" running from car just published speculation on other websites? - which I know is "ok" if you state this is my opinion. But this piece got quite muddled for a while (imo).

I have wondered why would the BFF even mention the glasses if he harmed her? Or, say she ran off in a public place that could have been investigated? I can understand though how this piece became a runaway train in light of so very little other information surrounding her disappearance. And how one could think he fabricated the whole thing to shine the drama light on her instead of him. But the problem is how could someone know how all events would play out - "No Publicity".

To me, coupled with going to her GF's house and her parents that night spoke more to the nature of a stormy big argument, and a leaving, and knowledge of her state of mind that previous week perhaps... I also think the BFF went to LE, and either LE or BFF still has her glasses. (imo)

I think this exact question had come up about "Why mention the glasses" and yes, it was speculation that maybe it was because the glasses broke and he knew that broken glass would be found in the car.

One other thing that hadn't really occurred to me - if this did happen as he said, on Richmond Avenue, it might make sense that she ran from the car even if she wasn't afraid, simply because Richmond Avenue is a busy street and it might be necessary to run to avoid being hit by a car.

 

[alliemay]

I wonder if it was where Richmond goes into two lanes, more near Rockland Street? If only we knew the exact location, wish we could get a map going on here.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

We do have the stories from both of the VIs, who say they heard him (BF/F) say that she tossed/flung/threw them back into the car as she exited. I can't imagine why she'd do that; but I can imagine why they'd still be there. She could have just forgotten them, as she stormed away from the car, for example. Or she could have been unable to take them, but then-why would he mention the glasses at all, if he didn't have to?

BBM: My understanding is that we only have that story from one VI, ASWDH. I believe MMQC said she knew nothing about the glasses until she joined WS and "heard" us talking about it on the thread. Right? I'm not home right now so can't search for and cite the post.

 

[Jmoose]

BBM: My understanding is that we only have that story from one VI, ASWDH. I believe MMQC said she knew nothing about the glasses until she joined WS and "heard" us talking about it on the thread. Right? I'm not home right now so can't search for and cite the post.

You are right-she did say that. I have to amend my comment

 

[rosemadderlake]

If I understand you correctly, you're asking why he'd say she ran away from the car in a place where she could be seen, not knowing that the parents would request "no publicity", if she didn't actually do so-this really isn't a problem for him, because there wouldn't necessarily be a witness who would first see it, and then report it-in other words, the fact that no witness came forward, doesn't mean it didn't happen, but would a witness have made much of a girl hopping out of a car angrily at a light, publicity or not? I am not convinced that Sylvia did this on Richmond Ave, but then I have a problem with BF/F telling MMQC to go there and look for her.

- If she was harmed by her BFF, wouldn’t an investigation be in the forefront of his thinking? -Her picture, alibi at the movie theater, witnesses at traffic light, the eyeglasses, friends, neighbors, even publicity asking for public’s help? After harming her, to have the wherewithal and ability to deceive her nearest and dearest, ask her GF to pick her up at bus stop to create a SOS diversion and write a different narrative, and mislead LE, is something that seems to necessitate aforethought, and perhaps even knowledge of how the laws of investigation might work and/or play out… And if that’s the case, then I really wonder what the alleged argument was about; the story that was told to SL’s parents, his parents, friends, neighbors. -Because that piece, being a part of that narrative would also be a part of the cover. -Imo.

I wonder about motives, like jealousy. -Or the ability, like known to resolve problems physically. Or personality traits, like rage, or malice with calmness. Is this a part of the story, too?

And how would this deception affect a person immediately afterwards and years later? -What toll has it taken? Is the silence surrounding her disappearance because of public consensus of his guilt?

I think the rumored ring in his possession factors heavily into the doubt about what happened that night. And I can see why as this piece of knowledge comes years after her disappearance to her nearest and dearest.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I think this exact question had come up about "Why mention the glasses" and yes, it was speculation that maybe it was because the glasses broke and he knew that broken glass would be found in the car.

One other thing that hadn't really occurred to me - if this did happen as he said, on Richmond Avenue, it might make sense that she ran from the car even if she wasn't afraid, simply because Richmond Avenue is a busy street and it might be necessary to run to avoid being hit by a car.

Bbm: Why draw attention to missing eyeglasses broken or otherwise, or his car, if he was the only person who knew where they were? Seems to me saying she threw them against the dash board is like posting a neon sign-with a big arrow that points here or there. That is not something one would advertise to incriminate themselves, in the wake of a murder. Imo.

 

[Jmoose]

Bbm: Why draw attention to missing eyeglasses broken or otherwise, or his car, if he was the only person who knew where they were? Seems to me saying she threw them against the dash board is like posting a neon sign-with a big arrow that points here or there. That is not something one would advertise to incriminate themselves, in the wake of a murder. Imo.

I am having a problem with this, too. I don't know why this business would have come up at all, since all he had to do was ditch the glasses and never mention them.

 

[Odyssey]

I am having a problem with this, too. I don't know why this business would have come up at all, since all he had to do was ditch the glasses and never mention them.

I think it's logical if the glasses broke/shattered in the car. He would have expected an investigation and his car to be checked (even though that may not have happened).

I'm still not sure if 1975 glasses would shatter or just get those windshield type cracks. It kind of seems like they would have been shatterproof since they were so close to the eyes. I'm not sure though.

 

[epiphany]

Wow, quite an intense presentation for high school students. Check out this quote by one of the cops who worked the Rand case and gave the presentation (BBM, and MTHS = "Monroe Township High School"):

“[Living at Willowbrook]…it gave [Rand] such a knowledge of this place. I mean, I’ve been there, those buildings are a complex, maybe three times the size of [MTHS]. All of the buildings were connected by underground tunnels… It’s our opinion that he had the little girl [Schweiger] down there, but there was no way the average cop even knew there were tunnels down there,” says Sergeant Scrivanni. “We couldn’t find anyone that worked at the place, no one we could interview! We had to discover this stuff on our own.”

BBM: I'm a little surprised at this, since it was a state facility. Presumably all of the building plans would have had to be approved at a high level. Wouldn't there be an architectural map of the tunnels somewhere? And when they made the park, what happened to the tunnels? Were they excavated? Doubtful. Filled in? Were they ever fully searched? If LE never got a handle the tunnel system (and wouldn't these guys know that?), I'm guessing NOT. That blows my mind, frankly.

These tunnel systems were commonplace at big hospitals and other care institutions. I believe the thinking was that in an emergency, or bad weather, doctors could still get to their patients. My daughter went to an old medical school in Baltimore, and one of her first worries was that she wouldn't get snow days because they use the tunnels in bad weather! (Great priorities, honey ) Of course, these are some pretty nice tunnels. I went through one of them with her once. It connected the hospital to her first-year apartment building. It felt a bit like a subway to me.

These old places fascinate me, but at the moment I'm floored to think that Rand's primary stomping grounds may not have been completely searched for the remains of victims.

Eventually the tunnels must have been searched.

In 1978 when Ethel Atwell disappeared, the tunnels had been searched. Link below>Document>Download>p 6 and p 7 reference searching the tunnels for Ms. Atwell:

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/14598/0

 

[epiphany]

Re one of the possible adult victims of Rand:

With many serial killers (as some consider Rand to be), there are often unsolved homicides that police believe could be connected. One such case we encountered while filming concerned a nurse at Willowbrook named Shin Lee, who disappeared in 1978. Lee was found buried on the institution’s grounds in the same wooded area where Rand had lived. There were also other coincidences: Shin Lee was petite, almost childlike; she was found nude and buried in a shallow grave (similar circumstances to another case connected to Rand). I spoke to a retired detective who had suspected Rand at the time, but was never able to push the case. During our initial research we tried to find Shin Lee’s family, but because the Korean community was so isolated, it was impossible.

http://tribecafilm.com/stories/512c01d51c7d76d9a900018e-tribeca-takes-joshua-zema

 

[epiphany]

Another neighborhood/area/block associated with Andre Rand:

Henry Gafforio last seen June 9th 1984. Hank was 22-years old when he disappeared from his Port Richmond neighborhood late one summer evening. Although he was older, Hank had low IQ and attended special education classes since the age of five. It is believed he had the emotional and mental maturity of 15-yr-old. Hank lived at XX Heberton Ave with his parents and three brothers. For a time, Andre Rand lived just a few doors down on the same block.

Heberton Ave also happens to be just around the corner from Holly Ann’s house...

http://cropseylegend.com/missing-kids

 

[Jmoose]

I think it's logical if the glasses broke/shattered in the car. He would have expected an investigation and his car to be checked (even though that may not have happened).

I'm still not sure if 1975 glasses would shatter or just get those windshield type cracks. It kind of seems like they would have been shatterproof since they were so close to the eyes. I'm not sure though.

We discussed this a while ago and the consensus by all of the people who wore glasses in those days was that they didn't shatter. I wonder why he mentioned them? I would really like to know what condition those glasses were in?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Eventually the tunnels must have been searched.

In 1978 when Ethel Atwell disappeared, the tunnels had been searched. Link below>Document>Download>p 6 and p 7 reference searching the tunnels for Ms. Atwell:

https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/14598/0

Really interesting, Epiph. Thx for pointing that out. P. 6 specifies "Buildings 46, 47-B, and the tunnels beneath them" were searched, while p. 7 logs the search of "the tunnels beneath the area that house food storage and steam system." My understanding is that tunnels connected all the buildings, though. It's still not clear to me from this that all them were searched, or that anyone knew where all of them were, but I hope you are right and they were eventually searched.

Also, not knowing how the tunnels were constructed leaves me with all sorts of fuzzy questions. Were they all "finished?" Say, with a slab floor, walls, and ceiling? Did any have earthen floors, like some partially finished basements do? IOW, could someone have been buried in a tunnel?

Good god, it creeps me out that these documents are from 1978, just three years after SL disappeared. They really do paint a picture of how terrifying that time must have been. As you suggested in an earlier post, not a good time to live on SI ...

 

[rosemadderlake]

We discussed this a while ago and the consensus by all of the people who wore glasses in those days was that they didn't shatter. I wonder why he mentioned them? I would really like to know what condition those glasses were in?

Bbm: Yes, the eyeglasses is a mystery piece all the way around. -Everything from why mention it, to why not return them if she left them in the car, to where are they now?...

Looks like FDA regulation was enacted in 1972 for shatter resistant eyeglasses. Chances are by 1975 she was wearing shatter resistant eyeglasses.

"For decades, ground and polished glass had been the preferred lens in the eyeglass industry. That changed in 1972 when the Food and Drug Administration issued a regulation that all sunglasses and prescription lenses must be shatter-resistant."

http://www.spacefoundation.org/prog...nducted-technologies/scratch-resistant-lenses

 

[epiphany]

Bit O/T...Was poking around NAMUS and bumped into this unidentified and near complete but unrecognizable skeleton found in Heckscher State Park in Suffolk, LI in April 1978. Est death within 3 years.

The point...look when it was entered into NAMUS: mid Nov 2013 though discovered in 1978.

Glass half full...something may turn up one day when we least expect it.

https://identifyus.org/en/cases/11774

 

[epiphany]

IMO, Rand doesn't appear to have had any boundaries. Sure, he may have had a preference or perhaps simply easier to satisfy his desires (ie. children, a petite female, fragile child or fragile young adult.).

Given the opportunity, I think he would have snatched up a young adult female if he could get away with it.

 

[epiphany]

No place on Staten Island is too far from the water; I am thinking that, physically, drowning yourself would be really difficult to do, unless you injured yourself by jumping from some high place. If she met up with someone she knew that night, they've never said so, and won't do so now. I, too, wish we knew if Sylvia was actually clinically depressed-I don't know how common it was to be diagnosed that way in those days. Now, they understand it better, but then you might have been instructed to "snap out of it".

BBM

Even though mid 1970s, believe many still referred to vast majority of mental health problems, including depression, as the individual had or was having the generic "nervous breakdown."