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

[GoingByMyGut]

You are correct (once again!)-In any event, because of the teeth, it looks like this UID will prove not to be Sylvia, although I guess the DNA will tell for sure.

BBM: Totally agree. I hope they find out who she is though. Someone, somewhere, must be looking for that woman, like SL's family and friends are looking for her. ETA: It's the opposite problem of ours!

 

[Jmoose]

BBM: Totally agree. I hope they find out who she is though. Someone, somewhere, must be looking for that woman, like SL's family and friends are looking for her. ETA: It's the opposite problem of ours!

It amazes me that there are so many unidentified souls out there-so disturbing to think of it.

 

[rosemadderlake]

Not sure what the protocol was in 1975 but this bill was passed in NY Senate to take effect Jan 2014. -See link below.

January 2013 - NY State Enacts "Lori Ann's law" to establish procedures for law enforcement to locate and return missing persons.

“This bill is meant to help standardize the procedures and to adopt protocol that will help identify high-risk missing persons.”

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law, in relation to improving the ability of law enforcement to locate and return missing persons, to improving the identification of human remains, and to improving timely information and notification to family members of missing persons

PURPOSE OF BILL: To establish statewide procedures for law enforcement in the event of a missing person case, identification of human remains and notification to family members.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The executive law is amended to add a new Article II-A establishing procedures for law enforcement officers, coroners/medical examiners and other governmental personnel relating to missing persons reports and identifying unidentified persons/human remains.

2. LAW ENFORCEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT. (A) UPON INITIAL RECEIPT OF A
MISSING PERSON REPORT, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL IMMEDIATELY
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON MISSING
IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON;

(B) IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED THAT A MISS-
ING PERSON IS NOT A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON, BUT OBTAINS NEW INFORMA-
TION, IT SHALL IMMEDIATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INDICATES THAT THE PERSON MISSING IS A HIGH-
RISK MISSING PERSON;

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2168-2013


I think Det. Lennon’s “Will Not Handle” was perhaps a determination that Sylvia was not a high risk missing person. And I wonder why they didn’t think she was high risk after being missing for over 30 days in addition to other criteria listed in the bill which would have allowed them to allocate resources to her case. …Then and now…

 

[MMQC]

I think the lines around the mouth have a very strong resemblance, IMO. That said, I just wanted to add some other thoughts. Since we do not know where the glasses are at this moment we do not know that they were broken. The BF/F said she threw them against the dashboard but I'm not sure he elaborated that they were broken. That assumption came from the Charlie Project and GBMG looked into that statement and found it was not an actual fact. Good work by the way GBMG. If the family does not have the glasses and the police do that would mean they did investigate the BF/F and took a statement, but we do not have this knowledge of where the glasses are at this time. This would be an important bit of info. If they were broken, how bad were they broken. If the glasses had blood on them that would indicate some sort of struggle with the BF/F. If maybe only the nose piece, someone could possible do that by throwing them against something hard. I think the glasses are one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle. The ring is important also but....let's just say she did run from the car and ran into a "bad guy" who caused her demise. He sells the ring etc etc. one piece of evidence that can never be found. But the glasses, they were in the BF/F's car so there are only three places these glasses could be afterwards, the BF/F kept them, he gave them to the family, or the police have them. We have already been told that the BF/F did not return them to the family that night, did he return them after that, I don't think so or hopefully our VI would tell us that they were returned at a later date. I'm not sure how we can find out if the police have them. Another thing that still bother me, on NAMUS it says that fingerprints can be obtained elsewhere. WHERE and HOW do they have her fingerprints. If they went to her house and obtained fingerprints from things she touched that would mean they investigated more than we think. If she had been arrested for something prior they would have fingerprints. Also I wonder if she ever attempted suicide before this happened.

Suicide attempt, that would be a BIG NO.

 

[Jmoose]

Just out of curiousity-after the authorities are finished with the DNA comparison of a possible match, at what point do we (Websleuths) know the status? Does it appear, for example, on the NY State Police site as either a match or not? I don't expect the woman we discussed yesterday to come back as a match, but someday, hopefully there will be some news of Sylvia (and what happened to her).

Nola said that a request had been made for a list of who had been ruled out as matches for the remains which had been found in Irondequoit-saddens me to contemplate a whole list of missing women who don't match, and at least one without a name yet.

 

[Jmoose]

Yesterday I said that Sylvia was not on New York State's list of missing people, and so, not surprisingly, she also isn't on the NYPD's list of people missing from Staten Island-I think it's time she was on those two lists-it's been 38 years, after all!

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Not sure what the protocol was in 1975 but this bill was passed in NY Senate to take effect Jan 2014. -See link below.

January 2013 - NY State Enacts "Lori Ann's law" to establish procedures for law enforcement to locate and return missing persons.

“This bill is meant to help standardize the procedures and to adopt protocol that will help identify high-risk missing persons.”

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the executive law, in relation to improving the ability of law enforcement to locate and return missing persons, to improving the identification of human remains, and to improving timely information and notification to family members of missing persons

PURPOSE OF BILL: To establish statewide procedures for law enforcement in the event of a missing person case, identification of human remains and notification to family members.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: The executive law is amended to add a new Article II-A establishing procedures for law enforcement officers, coroners/medical examiners and other governmental personnel relating to missing persons reports and identifying unidentified persons/human remains.

2. LAW ENFORCEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT. (A) UPON INITIAL RECEIPT OF A
MISSING PERSON REPORT, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL IMMEDIATELY
DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON MISSING
IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON;

(B) IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED THAT A MISS-
ING PERSON IS NOT A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON, BUT OBTAINS NEW INFORMA-
TION, IT SHALL IMMEDIATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INDICATES THAT THE PERSON MISSING IS A HIGH-
RISK MISSING PERSON;

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2168-2013


I think Det. Lennon’s “Will Not Handle” was perhaps a determination that Sylvia was not a high risk missing person. And I wonder why they didn’t think she was high risk after being missing for over 30 days in addition to other criteria listed in the bill which would have allowed them to allocate resources to her case. …Then and now…

Thanks for that, Rose! I found it very interesting. I def have gotten the feeling that this is not just SL's problem, and for this to happen, many more families must be struggling with it. I just read the text of the bill -- they now have to take an MP report. This would have guaranteed my grandmother got a police report at the time my grandfather went missing 84 years ago (instead of when she followed up, two years after the disappearance). It's interesting, bc so many other MP services (even WS) require an MP report; without it, you have fewer resources to help you find the person on your own.

The list of reasons they collected for why LE might otherwise want to refuse a report is long -- and enlightening!

BBM: I wouldn't have thought that time, by itself, would be a criterion for "high risk." I would have thought they could just as easily see that as evidence a person doesn't want to be found! But looking at the list in the bill, there it is! -- "(E) THE PERSON IS MISSING MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS;"

It also seems like the high-risk criterion, "(C) THE PERSON IS MISSING UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES" would cover just about everyone!

This one is broad too: "(G) (II) THE PERSON MISSING DOES NOT HAVE A PATTERN OF RUNNING AWAY OR DISAPPEARING;"

I doubt LE would have used any of the above in 1975 to elevate SL's case. I also suspect LE depts. throughout the state are griping about this bill ...

So would this bill have helped SL?

Re the criteria about "mental impairment" and even "dangerous circumstances," I am not sure (even under this bill) that it would be enough for EL to say either of these were the case. Note this part of the bill: "LAW ENFORCEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT. ... LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL IMMEDIATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON MISSING IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON;" to me, a "basis" (BBM) means "evidence."

Also, about a third of the bill addresses the handling of UID remains. To me that suggests that there are big holes in this area too. IOW, that information about many UID bodies never makes to somewhere it can be used to connect with MP info. Is that how you read this too?

 

[Jmoose]

:truce:

Thanks for that, Rose! I found it very interesting. I def have gotten the feeling that this is not just SL's problem, and for this to happen, many more families must be struggling with it. I just read the text of the bill -- they now have to take an MP report. This would have guaranteed my grandmother got a police report at the time my grandfather went missing 84 years ago (instead of when she followed up, two years after the disappearance). It's interesting, bc so many other MP services (even WS) require an MP report; without it, you have fewer resources to help you find the person on your own.

The list of reasons they collected for why LE might otherwise want to refuse a report is long -- and enlightening!

BBM: I wouldn't have thought that time, by itself, would be a criterion for "high risk." I would have thought they could just as easily see that as evidence a person doesn't want to be found! But looking at the list in the bill, there it is! -- "(E) THE PERSON IS MISSING MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS;"

It also seems like the high-risk criterion, "(C) THE PERSON IS MISSING UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES" would cover just about everyone!

This one is broad too: "(G) (II) THE PERSON MISSING DOES NOT HAVE A PATTERN OF RUNNING AWAY OR DISAPPEARING;"

I doubt LE would have used any of the above in 1975 to elevate SL's case. I also suspect LE depts. throughout the state are griping about this bill ...

So would this bill have helped SL?

Re the criteria about "mental impairment" and even "dangerous circumstances," I am not sure (even under this bill) that it would be enough for EL to say either of these were the case. Note this part of the bill: "LAW ENFORCEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT. ... LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL IMMEDIATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON MISSING IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON;" to me, a "basis" (BBM) means "evidence."

Also, about a third of the bill addresses the handling of UID remains. To me that suggests that there are big holes in this area too. IOW, that information about many UID bodies never makes to somewhere it can be used to connect with MP info. Is that how you read this too?

BBM1-No doubt, law enforcement agencies everywhere are griping, for sure! I want to run this past my friend and see what he says-it didn't come up at dinner the other night when we were talking about Sylvia, Robert Mayer and the teacher from Poughkeepsie

BBM2-hard to tell if this law might have helped Sylvia, because we don't know the reason for 122 precinct's lack of interest in her. If they thought she was just taking a break, it may have helped, because after 30 days, they'd have to do something. If they never intended to look for her because of some connections to or favor for somebody, then maybe not. But at least the family would have something to go back to them with, because LE had an obligation after a certain time, and under certain circumstances, to function with a set protocol.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

It just occurred to me to look at the NY State Police list of missing people, and Sylvia is not on it-does anyone have any idea why that would be?

:truce:

BBM1-No doubt, law enforcement agencies everywhere are griping, for sure! I want to run this past my friend and see what he says-it didn't come up at dinner the other night when we were talking about Sylvia, Robert Mayer and the teacher from Poughkeepsie

BBM2-hard to tell if this law might have helped Sylvia, because we don't know the reason for 122 precinct's lack of interest in her. If they thought she was just taking a break, it may have helped, because after 30 days, they'd have to do something. If they never intended to look for her because of some connections to or favor for somebody, then maybe not. But at least the family would have something to go back to them with, because LE had an obligation after a certain time, and under certain circumstances, to function with a set protocol.

BBM: I agree, esp. re protocol, and to your earlier point about the state list, the bill makes that the first step of the protocol:

"3. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REPORTS. (A) WHEN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DETERMINES THAT THE MISSING PERSON IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON IT SHALL NOTIFY THE STATE POLICE. IT SHALL IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE TO THE STATE POLICE THE INFORMATION MOST LIKELY TO AID IN THE LOCATION AND SAFE RETURN OF THE HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON. IT SHALL PROVIDE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE ALL OTHER INFORMATION OBTAINED RELATING TO THE MISSING PERSON CASE;"

 

[Jmoose]

BBM: I agree, esp. re protocol, and to your earlier point about the state list, the bill makes that the first step of the protocol:

"3. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REPORTS. (A) WHEN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY DETERMINES THAT THE MISSING PERSON IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON IT SHALL NOTIFY THE STATE POLICE. IT SHALL IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE TO THE STATE POLICE THE INFORMATION MOST LIKELY TO AID IN THE LOCATION AND SAFE RETURN OF THE HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON. IT SHALL PROVIDE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE ALL OTHER INFORMATION OBTAINED RELATING TO THE MISSING PERSON CASE;"

Would it be retroactive for missing people, or would someone (ASWDeerHunter) have to request that Sylvia be added to the list?

 

[rosemadderlake]

Thanks for that, Rose! I found it very interesting. I def have gotten the feeling that this is not just SL's problem, and for this to happen, many more families must be struggling with it. I just read the text of the bill -- they now have to take an MP report. This would have guaranteed my grandmother got a police report at the time my grandfather went missing 84 years ago (instead of when she followed up, two years after the disappearance). It's interesting, bc so many other MP services (even WS) require an MP report; without it, you have fewer resources to help you find the person on your own.

The list of reasons they collected for why LE might otherwise want to refuse a report is long -- and enlightening!

BBM: I wouldn't have thought that time, by itself, would be a criterion for "high risk." I would have thought they could just as easily see that as evidence a person doesn't want to be found! But looking at the list in the bill, there it is! -- "(E) THE PERSON IS MISSING MORE THAN THIRTY DAYS;"

It also seems like the high-risk criterion, "(C) THE PERSON IS MISSING UNDER UNKNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES" would cover just about everyone!

This one is broad too: "(G) (II) THE PERSON MISSING DOES NOT HAVE A PATTERN OF RUNNING AWAY OR DISAPPEARING;"

I doubt LE would have used any of the above in 1975 to elevate SL's case. I also suspect LE depts. throughout the state are griping about this bill ...

So would this bill have helped SL?

Re the criteria about "mental impairment" and even "dangerous circumstances," I am not sure (even under this bill) that it would be enough for EL to say either of these were the case. Note this part of the bill: "LAW ENFORCEMENT RISK ASSESSMENT. ... LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SHALL IMMEDIATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A BASIS TO DETERMINE THAT THE PERSON MISSING IS A HIGH-RISK MISSING PERSON;" to me, a "basis" (BBM) means "evidence."

Also, about a third of the bill addresses the handling of UID remains. To me that suggests that there are big holes in this area too. IOW, that information about many UID bodies never makes to somewhere it can be used to connect with MP info. Is that how you read this too?

Yes, I think this bill would have helped Sylvia. She met high risk missing criteria on more than several points, but especially after 30 days missing and by all accounts she was no wild child rebelling and running away habitually. However, what was not in place in '75 was the internet, vast databases able to communicate information immediately, channels across state lines, etc. I suspect the handling of the paperwork alone back then was completely overwhelming, too. -A nightmare. The lost dental records (only copy) of the two teens at Watkins Glenn comes to mind.

I think the bill offers guidelines for families as well - something that may not have been available back then.

There was mention somewhere that it was not designed to overburden already overburdened local agencies but to help coordinate various state agencies in the guideline process. When I look at the number of agencies involved and linking up with the found but unidentified, I can see the necessity of legislation to streamline and define.

--Good point about definition of "Basis" of high risk. There is the law and there is the interpretation of the law. How any individual investigator, local police agency interprets the information they receive is I imagine a variable in determining "basis".

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Would it be retroactive for missing people, or would someone (ASWDeerHunter) have to request that Sylvia be added to the list?

IIRC, Rose said the effective date is 1/1/14 ... I doubt it would be retroactive. I really don't have a clue what the process for adding her to the state police would be. Why don't you email the Q to the state police? MB they could tell you the process. I think it's a very reasonable question.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

Yes, I think this bill would have helped Sylvia. She met high risk missing criteria on more than several points, but especially after 30 days missing and by all accounts she was no wild child rebelling and running away habitually. However, what was not in place in '75 was the internet, vast databases able to communicate information immediately, channels across state lines, etc. I suspect the handling of the paperwork alone back then was completely overwhelming, too. -A nightmare. The lost dental records (only copy) of the two teens at Watkins Glenn comes to mind.

I think the bill offers guidelines for families as well - something that may not have been available back then.

There was mention somewhere that it was not designed to overburden already overburdened local agencies but to help coordinate various state agencies in the guideline process. When I look at the number of agencies involved and linking up with the found but unidentified, I can see the necessity of legislation to streamline and define.

--Good point about definition of "Basis" of high risk. There is the law and there is the interpretation of the law. How any individual investigator, local police agency interprets the information they receive is I imagine a variable in determining "basis".

BBM: Yes, that keeps coming back to me too. The investigative requirements are minimal, but important. Whether LE takes it beyond that ... probably depends on the strength of the case and other things clamoring for their attention.

Re SL, it's possible they fulfilled some of these requirements in 1975 but either (1) saw something that made them think they knew what happened, or (2) didn't see enough to justify pursuing it further at that time. (I sense from an earlier post of MMQC's that they did contact the BF/F, for example.)

This bill will need funding to be effective. I hope the legislature uses it as a justification for a budget line item. Unfunded mandates make everyone feel good, but that doesn't mean they actually do a lot of good.

 

[Jmoose]

IIRC, Rose said the effective date is 1/1/14 ... I doubt it would be retroactive. I really don't have a clue what the process for adding her to the state police would be. Why don't you email the Q to the state police? MB they could tell you the process. I think it's a very reasonable question.

That's my plan-just waiting for a few minutes to do so. Do you think it would be stepping on our VIs toes for me to go ahead and do it?

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM: Yes, that keeps coming back to me too. The investigative requirements are minimal, but important. Whether LE takes it beyond that ... probably depends on the strength of the case and other things clamoring for their attention.

Re SL, it's possible they fulfilled some of these requirements in 1975 but either (1) saw something that made them think they knew what happened, or (2) didn't see enough to justify pursuing it further at that time. (I sense from an earlier post of MMQC's that they did contact the BF/F, for example.)

This bill will need funding to be effective. I hope the legislature uses it as a justification for a budget line item. Unfunded mandates make everyone feel good, but that doesn't mean they actually do a lot of good.

bbm: --Looking at the numbers and stats (number of MPs has quadrupled since the 70's) - it could cost the state more not to fund it.

Hopefully the Cold Case Squad was able to give SL's family an update on her case. -And answer questions about the initial investigation in 1975. (IMO) The guidelines are there no matter how old the case is. -The over 30 days missing is not new. --And SL is still missing.

 

[GoingByMyGut]

That's my plan-just waiting for a few minutes to do so. Do you think it would be stepping on our VIs toes for me to go ahead and do it?

You mean get her listed? I think it depends on process. If it requires family or local LE, you can pass the info along to ASWDH in a PM. If anyone can initiate it, then why not? But I doubt that will be the case. If, however, your Q got a state police detective wondering why SL isn't in the system, and he/she can gather whatever is needed from local LE to include her, I think everyone benefits. See what happens. MOO

 

[rosemadderlake]

You mean get her listed? I think it depends on process. If it requires family or local LE, you can pass the info along to ASWDH in a PM. If anyone can initiate it, then why not? But I doubt that will be the case. If, however, your Q got a state police detective wondering why SL isn't in the system, and he/she can gather whatever is needed from local LE to include her, I think everyone benefits. See what happens. MOO

bbm: What about corresponding with Det Savage?

 

[GoingByMyGut]

bbm: --Looking at the numbers and stats (number of MPs has quadrupled since the 70's) - it could cost the state more not to fund it.

Hopefully the Cold Case Squad was able to give SL's family an update on her case. -And answer questions about the initial investigation in 1975. The guidelines are there no matter how old the case is. -The over 30 days missing is not new. --And SL is still missing.

BBM1: How do you mean? Not in dollars but in public discontent?

BBM2: Do you read something in the legislation that says the new guidelines apply to MP cases reported prior to 1/1/14? Was I hasty in my guess that it would not be retroactive? Or are you just reading this as, the family could march into LE on 1/1/14 and demand new action based on it? Just curious. New laws usu. include some kind of grandfather clause. I don't see one here, but I am unsure how to interpret this. I mean, applying it to all open MPs for the last 100 years ... that's a boatload of conflict with "not designed to overburden already overburdened local agencies," IMO. Wonder how this might work.

 

[rosemadderlake]

BBM1: How do you mean? Not in dollars but in public discontent?

BBM2: Do you read something in the legislation that says the new guidelines apply to MP cases reported prior to 1/1/14? Was I hasty in my guess that it would not be retroactive? Or are you just reading this as, the family could march into LE on 1/1/14 and demand new action based on it? Just curious. New laws usu. include some kind of grandfather clause. I don't see one here, but I am unsure how to interpret this. I mean, applying it to all open MPs for the last 100 years ... that's a boatload of conflict with "not designed to overburden already overburdened local agencies," IMO. Wonder how this might work.

-I mean costly in dollars as in taxpayer dollars. I think the bill is designed to open up channels among various agencies from local through state levels that are very costly to navigate and administrate with many sub-protocols that don't communicate, or have so much red tape (not our jurisdiction, etc) that cases are bottle-necked, and get shelved unnecessarily.

re: your BBM2: This is a good question GBMG - (IMO) -If there is anything new to the family in the legislation, I would identify the points that apply to Sylvia and take it to the CC Detective for clarification.

New Jersey has a protocol - this is easier to read and is well laid out, (see link below). I am sure NY had a protocol, too, but may not have been structured well, or was way overdue for restructuring for better efficiency. I think managing NYC cases on all levels is most challenging for a variety of issues ranging from every immigrant passes through, NYC is a magnet for run-aways, corruption and the infamous crime families, to gangs on the street.

http://www.njsp.org/divorg/invest/pdf/mpi-best-practices-protocol-103008.pdf

 

[rosemadderlake]

I think the public relations aspect of Sylvia's case could be very powerful if well targeted, factual, and implies the possibilities without distorting the facts...

I am hoping the new YouTube video and April 15 update to the Charlie Project with the focus on the unverified "broken" "smashed" glasses doesn't detract from finding Sylvia in what looks to me like an effort to turn her case into a public homicide investigation. We are told the glasses were not returned to Sylvia's family. If LE has the glasses and informed the family of their condition, it would be helpful to know that from a believability standpoint. And still, no source link was provided to the Charlie Project update.

There are channels to refresh the public's memory and ask for help and elevate awareness. I thought the reward was such a good move as it is open ended and simply asks for help, and would provide a channel through which someone could anonymously tip information to the police.