Murder scenario

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Sherrijean,

VW wasn't the only person who saw Ray as depressed. PF stated that Ray was depressed. Karen Arnold stated that it seemed like something was bothering Ray. JMO, MOO

So it seems to me that VW saw what most of the people close to Ray saw.

Also if a couple is in a park, one is likely to pick up on the mood.
Are they really enjoying themselves. Are they walking slowing and not looking at one another? Are they in an out and out fight.
Most people can pick up on others moods. JMO, MOO

I agree about picking up on moods but where/what is the depression she saw? Maybe he found something out on his jaunt to wherever that day and it upset him and when he told her it upset her to. They are still holding hands. You don't do that if it is over. JMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
UndertheRadar,

It was first reported that PF stated that Ray was going to take 1/2 day off at work. Then later it was the whole day.


Sherrijean,

Sorry where is the link about Madeira being off on the day Gricar disappeared?



Cinderella here is the link that was posted earlier. Luster sent it in a posting.


Quote by Luster earlier:

"In response to your question about the co-worker, if you are
referring to ADA Smith, from all that I have read he was gone and unavailable to be contacted on Saturday, 4/16/05 and returned sometime during the afternoon on Sunday, 4/17/05. At the time Gricar went missing, ADA Sloane was off on extended medical leave and IIRC current DA Madeira was off in connection with his campaign. Both subsequently returned to work but I don't know the dates. I've heard nothing about anyone else associated with the DA Office being other than present on 4/15/05."

[sherrijean981]

LW, Did they give the dogs RG's scent near the river? Did they find anthing there or in the park? I thought even if a car was cleaned you could find minute pieces of evidence in the cracks between car doors & carpets and carpets and car seats, car seats and consoles? And they have the ability to even find fingernails and check them out. RG must have been very meticulous with cleaning his car.

JMO

[UndertheRadar]

LOL, Cinderella. :lol: I read Sherrijean's post and was ready to post almost word for word what you did, that either Ray or somebody was meticulous about cleaning that vehicle.

Five fingerprints is hard to believe even if the car was detailed immediately before Ray got into it and drove it to Lewisburg. Assuming Ray got into it and drove it to Lewisburg, of course. JMO.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Or whoever was involved. It still seems strange that PF prints were not found in the car. Wonder why. And only like 5 prints of Ray. That has to show a red flag there. Evidently the car was really detailed. JMO, MOO

Cinderella,
If RG was off Thursday he could have spent the day doing just that, detailing his car. They said he loved it. If no one else had been in it after that but him that would be possible for only his to be there. My son details his cars and they are very clean. Although I think with 4 kids every other weekend he would have more than his fingerprints. lol

I also wonder why DZ would not have questioned the other men in RG's office that were off during the 2 days in question, the last one in particular. Does anyone else in the Court House have a gold/tan car in the design CF saw in the parking lot? Maybe it was just a citizen coming out of the lot and they looked similar to him. JMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks
I found this article which states where the hard drive was found.

BELLEFONTE, PA-October 26, 2005 - .

The hard drive was found about two weeks ago in the Susquehanna River in Lewisburg, about 100 YARDS from where Gricar's laptop was found in late July.

Zaccagni says a woman and her son skipping stones in the river saw the hard drive in a part of the river that was 10 to 15 feet from the water's edge, but the water around the drive had receded.

It seems it was in an area accessible from the parklet since the mother and son were there, therefore could have been accessed from Packwood instead of Street of Shops, since the dog said no to leaving that particular parking lot. It was found 100 yards north from where the laptop was found, 200 yards south from where the Mini was found in the parking lot, and 10-15 feet from the water's edge. Assuming the 10-15 feet means inland from the water edge at the time it was found but how much further inland was the water in April? How much of a toss or a drop was it?
JMO


How big did they say the harddrive was? 5" x 3" or something?

I was down to the Memorial Park, standing where I could take a pictures with both the railroad bridge and Rt 45 brigde in the picture. We walked towards the Street of Shoppes at the top of the embankment so we could look down. I can not imagine how the harddrive was found in all the area between the 2 bridges all the bigger it was. Even skipping rocks they had to have been out further from the bank. Wish I could see the site she was and the site the harddrive actually was, compared to the laptop. Someone should go down and put red flags up so we could take pictures and compare.

Also the Packwood does not have a parking lot, only the street parking in front. The parking lot is down the road further, there is a street of homes between the Packwood and their tour building next door. I would think if the person were in the park on a bench they were sitting on the one closest to the Street of Shoppes and nearer the street. I went to the one back in the park closest to the embankment.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


In a 4/29 news conference, PF says, ""We did our morning routine, and he said he planned to take the day off."

Whether Gricar first sits up and drinks orange juice or merely wakes long enough to say he's playing hooky, there's no way to construe that as "we did our morning routine." If Gricar stays in bed, he's not doing anything that's "routine."

Now, maybe PF meant "I did MY morning routine." But that is NOT what she said at the news conference.



Radar, did you ever think the "morning routine" might be the glass of juice, and maybe some other things (kissing, something sexual, going to the bathroom)?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


It does work, JJ.

If the dog was given RG's scent, it would have began at the source, the car,and followed it, to the exclusion of all other scents.



LW, it does not work. The human body gives of 50,000 rafts per minute. Some fall on the clothing, but not all. Some of the rafts might fall of the clothing, but not at the rate of 50,000 per minute. Small numbers of the rafts might get scattered, but not enough to duplicate a scent trail from a body.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Radar, did you ever think the "morning routine" might be the glass of juice, and maybe some other things (kissing, something sexual, going to the bathroom)? Exactly what I thought when I first read those words. I think there are not many here who can truly appreciate this relationship.

[UndertheRadar]

Logic,

I agree with your interpretations and assertions here.

During discussion of the Michelle Gardner-Quinn case, where dogs identified her scent in the Jeep belonging to suspect Brian Rooney, a dog handler on one of the talk shows said that a well-trained and effective dog would be able to pick Rooney's scent from Michelle's body if Rooney's body came in contact with hers.
An effective scent dog is able to "fine tune" what it is scenting.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Exactly what I thought when I first read those words. I think there are not many here who can truly appreciate this relationship.


I have to agree. Especially the hand holding, in public, in the park. Takes a special relationship to show their feelings that way in public, especially being such a private couple as they are. JMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Logic,

I agree with your interpretations and assertions here.

During discussion of the Michelle Gardner-Quinn case, where dogs identified her scent in the Jeep belonging to suspect Brian Rooney, a dog handler on one of the talk shows said that a well-trained and effective dog would be able to pick Rooney's scent from Michelle's body if Rooney's body came in contact with hers.
An effective scent dog is able to "fine tune" what it is scenting.

I have a couple questions on the investigation with the dogs. You said the dogs only found RG's scent for 20 yds? which lets everyone think he got in a car? Did they give the dog a shirt or something with RG's scent on it? If he was seen in the Street of Shoppes did they take the dogs in there for a scent? At the benches in the park or under the bridge? Or even along the street in a different direction, on the other side of the road (like he was dropped off directly in front of the park or Street of Shoppes)? If they had at least they would know the sitings were correct or not and not someone looking for their moment of glory in the news by giving false information.

RG stated to PF he was on RT 192 but not where or what direction. Could have been on his way back already or just going down. But there is a park on RT 192 mentioned before. Were the dogs taken there to check for his scent near the rest areas (bathrooms). If he was drinking a bottle of water he could have stopped to use the facilities there, since he supposedly (might have or not) had an orange juice earlier. When we take Rt45 down we always have to stop at the one in the mountains there.
JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


JJ, it does work.

.... scent article is an item that has been TOUCHED OR WORN by the subject. As we have seen before, each person has a unique odor. As we wear clothing our odor is being absorbed into that clothing. Our skin rafts are being caught in the fabric. This piece of clothing now smells like us. Similarly, as we touch or pick something up, the oils of our hand are transferred onto that article.


It transfers on to the clothing, but it does not transfer, readily, off the clothing to another surface.

Assume that RFG was sitting in a chair and got up. His rafts would settle in the chair. I sit in the chair. I would pick up a few of his rafts, but the dog trailing him would start following me, because the amount of RFG's rafts that would be attached to me, and then fall off, is minimal.

The problem is the transference from a surface that RFG was in contact with to a surface that he was not in contact with.

.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW, I am not referring to if RFG's clothes have his scent on them. I am referring to the problem of RFG's clothes leaving his scent trail for the dogs to follow. The rafts would first have to collect on his clothes, and them fall off, leaving a scent trail.

If someone else was wearing his clothing, the clothes would still have some rafts on them. Those clothes would not leave RFG's scent trail. That is what I have been referring to with "transference."

[tiredoftheguff]

The truth is that Joe Leathers I believe is responsible for the death of Ray Gricar and Billy Joe Leathers. Perhaps now that Joe has been arrested for insurance fraud and arson the police will have the gumption to do a polygraph on him as well as search every piece of ground he has access to! If the police will just do ALL the work required they can solve both of these cases. What can you say about a man that has done all of the terrible things that he has done? Don't you want them to throw away the key? He should never have access to children or the public at large again! What a very dangerous man!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks





**A bloodhound following scent will often follow a trail over a HUNDRED FEET FROM WHERE the suspect's tracks (odor and rafts) were found. (vehicle).

** MANY TIMES THE SCENT WILL TRAVEL SOME DISTANCE FROM WHERE THE SUBJECT ACTUALLY WALKED** (vehicle a definite)

A vehicle's ventilation system when the car is running throws odor out into the surrounding area. If the dog trailed to a vehicle 20 yards away, at that point, was the dog a vehicle trailing dog that then went no further and if not, was a vehicle trailing dog immediately brought in to take over from there?



LW, first , I note you didn't post the link. Here it is

http://www.dc.state.ks.us/hcf/standard/canine/k9.htm

After reading that site, I can understand why. I does not fit with what you are claiming.

Second, the site refers to tracking individuals, not vehicles.

Third, as has been pointed out, he are discussing the ability of the rafts to transfer from something RFG touched to the parking lot. Do you understand that? We are looking at the possibility that something that was in contact with RFG left the scent, not that RFG himself left the scent. If RFG himself left the scent directly, he was in the parking lot.

The site actually does discuss transferring from an object that the person wore to another item, in a different context:

"To preserve scent, the handler will place a small gauze over a scent article for 15 - 20 minutes to lift the scent."

To transfer the scent so that the dog can smell it, takes 15-20 minutes. Just having RFG's close present in the parking lot, without RFG being there, will not leave the scent trail.

There are also some points mentioned that are discussed.

"The first officer on the search scene needs to keep the area free of any other scents. This means you will have to protect the crime scene from all persons who wish to enter. "

Foot traffic can make a trail untraceable.

"Strong exhaust fumes will cause a dog not to trail or be unable to pick up the scent."

The car was in the parking lot; cars, moving in and out of the parking lot leave exhaust fumes.

A spilled or planted scent, even if possible, will not be as strong as a RFG's scent. The conditions were adverse (exhaust, foot traffic), making it very hard to track a weaker false trail.

LW, you had this information, and didn't post a link, or clarify some the questions that have been raised. Some of it, and it's an LE site for tracking, has contradicted what you've posted. I am very disappointed that you chose not to share this with us.
:no:

[sherrijean981]

Where is the article on Joe Leathers arrest? Must have missed it? hope too they give him a lie detector test. I didn't understand if his son made comments to his wife and in a bar about RG that he was the only one involved. Would seem to me a hardened person could pull it off but a younger person who hasn't had years of hate in him could live with what he did? I didn't understand at the time he set fire to the house how he could get away with that. JMO Do you think he burnt evidence of what happened to RG?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks
[B]

There is NOTHING contradictory between the article and any of my posts. I rarely post a link unless someone asks for it at which time I readily provide it. Only other time I post a link is when it is the total focus of the post, which it wasn't.

I wasn't 'hiding' anything, as you imply, but I think you probably already know that. I have been posting for a year and a half on this site, learning and studying, as I sleuth and passing it along as I understand it.
[/q]

LW, you have claimed repeatedly about someone else wearing RFG's clothes:

"Therefore, JJ, IF the dog was scented to RG's 'scent', every step in RG's sneakers would leave RG's scent behind."

The scent trail is deposited by the person, not the person's clothing worn by someone else.


I was discussing ventilation blowing scent out into the area and you bring up exhaust fumes.


I hate to tell you this, but cars driving under their own power, generally give off exhaust fumes. Further, the tracking of scent from the vehicle is much more problematic.

The Peterson case actually had problems in this regard:

http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/oct04/2745.html

That, however, was not my point. The other cars in the parking lot, when the engine's are running produce exhaust fumes. People walking in the lot leave scent trails. Both can obliterate a scent trail and make it untraceable, even if RFG didn't get into another car.

RFG's scent trail is evidence that he was in the parking lot, not how he left the lot.


I am satisfied with the results after much research on the subject.
Only questions I still have..........
Were the doors opened before the dog arrived? If so, why?


Yes, to look inside and forensics went in their for prints. The opening of the door would not create the "puddle" described on the web site.

[tiredoftheguff]

Lustor he is not a scapegoat! He is a very evil person and many people believe that he is involved in Rays dissapearance. I never said he did it alone. I have never thought that he did it alone. Clearly there were others involved including the mystery woman.

[Cloudbuster]

I gotta agree with Lustor on the scapegoat issue. If JL was involved Im sure all the fallices of this case don't rest upon one JL. If it would be just this one person then the case could have preceeded long ago on the information they had on JL? Ask yourself this WHY NOW? PSP meeting maybe? I would say its a precautionary act maybe? I am glad that the family of Leathers can finally get this brought to a head. Im also glad that its a oppurtunity to see if JL was involved. I asked myself this "is this a way to calm the citizens"? Then another question is what evidence is there that he was involved with the disappearance? Im putting personal feeling aside to look at a bigger picture. WHY now? I checked and see nothing yet in the CDT? I hope its a beginning that leads somewhere though. MOO CB

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


LW, first , I note you didn't post the link. Here it is

http://www.dc.state.ks.us/hcf/standard/canine/k9.htm

After reading that site, I can understand why. I does not fit with what you are claiming.
[snip]

"To preserve scent, the handler will place a small gauze over a scent article for 15 - 20 minutes to lift the scent."

To transfer the scent so that the dog can smell it, takes 15-20 minutes. Just having RFG's close present in the parking lot, without RFG being there, will not leave the scent trail.



JJ, Too bad you didn't include the rest of the passage:

"To preserve scent, the handler will place a small gauze over a scent article for 15 - 20 minutes to lift the scent. He will then place the gauze with the scent into a sealed baggy. This scent sample will be marked and used for re-scenting the bloodhound on the trail or for a positive identification when the suspect is captured."

The discussion in the passage is about preserving scent to be used later for re-scenting the bloodhound or for positive identification of a suspect, hence the reference to the sealed baggy and the opening words "To preserve scent." It is not a passage about mere transference of scent, nor is a minimum amount of time necessary to "lift" or transfer scent implied. The 15-20 minutes is for scent preservation.

Logic has been correct about this theory of scent transference all along, and I have known that. This afternoon, I did an experiment to test the theory, and it was easily proven.

I took two dogs, neither of which are tracking or trailing dogs, but both of which have competed at the utility level in AKC obedience, which includes scent article exercises. Using AKC scent articles and the basic format for the exercise the dogs were familiar with, here's what I did.

Dog #1 sat at handler's side facing with her back to a pile of six metal and leather articles (i.e., she could not see the pile of articles). An uncontaminated leather scent article was held with a pair of kitchen tongs. A T-shirt worn the previous day by handler #1 was held by another pair of kitchen tongs and passed over the uncontaminated leather scent article for 3-4 seconds. It was then removed, and still held by the pair of tongs, the now scented article was placed in among the other scent articles lying on the ground.

Handler #1 was directed to turn, face the pile, and send the dog. The dog trotted straight away to the pile, picked up the correct article (i.e., the scented one), and brought it back to the handler.

Dog #2 sat as did dog #1. Dog #2's uncontaminated article was scented to a dishcloth which the handler had placed next to the skin for about ten minutes prior to the exercise (i.e., it hadn't even been worn for a day). As with dog #1, the cloth was used to scent an uncontaminated leather article for about 3-4 seconds. Like dog #1, dog #2 identified the correct article and brought it back to the handler.

That, JJ, is transference of scent. It took 3-4 seconds of contact between cloth that had touched a person and an object to transfer the scent that belonged to the person.

Both dogs easily identified the correct article in each case. I want to point out that not only has neither of these dogs ever been trained in tracking or trailing, but neither of them has even practiced this particular obedience exercise in at least a year. Neither of them is a bloodhound.

And it was simple for them.

What does this mean? It means that RG did not have to be in Lewisburg for his scent to be there.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Lustor he is not a scapegoat! He is a very evil person and many people believe that he is involved in Rays dissapearance. I never said he did it alone. I have never thought that he did it alone. Clearly there were others involved including the mystery woman.

Where is the story of JL's arrest? I searched the CDT site but found nothing mentioning any JL in the recent news.

I don't know him either, the name just sounded familiar when I heard it the first time on this site.

Did anyone watch "Without A Trace" tonight? Sounded like this case only the guy was working for Children and Youth. He was found and had been helping a woman save her unborn baby from the system. Just found it interesting that so many of the things that were said was RG's scenerio. Also the one someone mentioned the other day. With RG upset over the Vargas case.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Sherrijean,

I have never heard that BJL said that he acted alone. Did you hear anything else?

No, only what you guys are talking about. Didn't know him. I just ask a question on it? Being nosey. JMO

[tiredoftheguff]

It just happened today so no wonder it was not in the paper today. I do not know if it will be in the paper. I do not live locally and so do not get the paper. I guess you can check tomorrow and see if it is in there.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Lustor,

If you want to hear more about JL, you will have to pharges it is enough. If I would be the police, I would be getting some permission and whatever it takes and digging the camp ground up.

Cind

I hope that they check into his first ex-wife's death also.

Where is all the info on this man and his family? I have seen mention of him before on this site, so many times, but can not find info in CDT. What county was he from? What newspaper to look for info?

Cinderella, you can PM me with any info since it might interfere somewhere in investigation.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
It just happened today so no wonder it was not in the paper today. I do not know if it will be in the paper. I do not live locally and so do not get the paper. I guess you can check tomorrow and see if it is in there.

Thank you for this info. How does anyone on here know of an arrest then? Where are they getting their info?

Sorry about the previous quote. The site posted the quote before I had a chance to respond and I ended up cutting part of the quote off. Still getting used to the site. didn't mean to offend anyone.

[sherrijean981]

I just thought people on this site might find this email interesting. I sent an email to CB to see if any of the pictures on the Attorney General site might be someone she had "seen" and if any of the reastate for sale in Lewisburg could have been what she had "seen". I didn't really expect a response but I received this back from her:




Hello, Jeannie -

I actually just got back from being on location with Haunting Evidence S2 in North Dakota. Next is Massachusetts.

The Ray Gricar case is puzzling because they don't seem to want to work any further with this in regards to either immediate family or law enforcement. So .. I am at an impasse to continue.

I cannot comment further on my impressions other than what I have already done. I am sorry, but this is standard protocol.

You may read additional updates on my work and the show at the links below.

Take care, and Happy Thanksgiving !



~ Carla Baron

www.carlabaron.net
Visit www.carlabaron.net/forum (The Carla Baron Connection)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


The discussion in the passage is about preserving scent to be used later for re-scenting the bloodhound or for positive identification of a suspect, hence the reference to the sealed baggy and the opening words "To preserve scent." It is not a passage about mere transference of scent, nor is a minimum amount of time necessary to "lift" or transfer scent implied. The 15-20 minutes is for scent preservation.


The transference has to pick up enough rafts for the dog to be able to get the scent. It has assure that there are enough rafts to pick up.

A few questions about your test.

1. Did the person ever handle the articles in question?

2. Was the article outside for 24-48 hours, before the test was conducted?

3. Was the target person in the household when the test was conducted? Prior to the test being conducted?

4. Do you have any documentation (like a web site) of a similar test?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The transference has to pick up enough rafts for the dog to be able to get the scent. It has assure that there are enough rafts to pick up.

A few questions about your test.

1. Did the person ever handle the articles in question?

2. Was the article outside for 24-48 hours, before the test was conducted?

3. Was the target person in the household when the test was conducted? Prior to the test being conducted?

4. Do you have any documentation (like a web site) of a similar test?

JJ,

Obviously, 3-4 seconds of exposure was sufficient to insure transference. The test was conducted following all the specifications used in the AKC scent discrimination exercises by two people with more than 30 years combined experience in dog training.

1. The target article was not handled by the person whose scent was being used.

2. The articles had been thoroughly aired out and stored in AKC approved wooden cases constructed with air holes that allow free flow of air through the case. The articles had not even been used in over a year, so no one had even touched them in over a year.

3. The test was conducted outside, not inside a household where the target person's scent was.

4. You can go to akc.org and read about scent discrimination in the obedience regulations for the utility dog title. I described changes made to the actual scent discrimination exercise in my post above. Everything else was conducted as per the AKC scent discrimination utility excercise.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


No, only what you guys are talking about. Didn't know him. I just ask a question on it? Being nosey. JMO

I tried to the quote that BJL allegedly said. IIRC, one was that "I hid the body where it will never be found." It wasn't that he killed anyone, just hid the body.

I'm not sure BJL actually said anything in the bar and I'm not sure what the police did in investigating him, but obviously, he didn't hide the body after dying.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


My big question on this is was it said in the bar or after the bar, and to whom? Where did the rumor originate? Any family members or someone in contact with the family on board who knows anything OTHER THAN the 'milkman' story?
JMO

The only things that I've found were from an aunt on various boards.

I could not find the exact quote or the origins.

What I was thinking about was that he said he "hid" the body, in one version. It might be something that accomplice might say, as opposed to a killer.

Of course, he might have said, "They'll never find him,"or something like that, and it got garbled.

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by logicworks
It seems like a very strange statement for someone to have just conjured up. That's not to say BJL might not have heard the news about RG while at the bar and made a drunken statement such as 'they'll never find him' which was later misconstrued to be information about involvement.

Obviously IF BJL made the statement that he hid him 'well', he was referring to an action that occurred prior to the fatal gunshot wound. Hope they checked for a 'well' on the properties or places he was known to frequent. (I have this 'thing' about hidden truth in words.)

My big question on this is was it said in the bar or after the bar, and to whom? Where did the rumor originate? Any family members or someone in contact with the family on board who knows anything OTHER THAN the 'milkman' story?
JMO It's interesting to see, given enough time, how circular some things are.

In my conversations with various reporters, BPD, State Police, and email "tipsters", not one has ever been able to come up with a source. I was made aware that the PSP specifically looked into this, checking with people that were working at the bar that day or night (a Legion bar if memory serves), as well as customers. I would think if he actually made such boasts, it would be fairly easy to interview those who were in a bar that is member-based, and that includes a fairly finite window of time.

My assumption is that Mr. Leathers, given the timing of his death, was likely just an easy rumor target, a victim of "a game of telephone", if you will.

A side note is that Leathers was involved in one of the stranger cases that my Uncle dealt with, and ironically was the focus of our last job-related conversation. Charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault on Leathers due to an incident with his girlfriend. It was odd in that the case tried to show that he shot her in the head, but absent a bullet, the defense was looking for a dismissal of charges due to lack of evidence as to what caused the small wound. I think the case was found to have merit, but I don't remember the outcome. Reduced charges or dropped seems to ring a bell.

[sherrijean981]

Tony, Do you and the family get to ask questions tomorrow? What are your feelings, do you think they are at a dead end? If you don't mind my asking, how are PF, LG holding up though all of this? I am sure you are still having a tough time so you don't have to answer. But my prayers are with you all and I do hope you soon get some answers.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by tonyGricar
[snip]
A side note is that Leathers was involved in one of the stranger cases that my Uncle dealt with, and ironically was the focus of our last job-related conversation. Charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault on Leathers due to an incident with his girlfriend. It was odd in that the case tried to show that he shot her in the head, but absent a bullet, the defense was looking for a dismissal of charges due to lack of evidence as to what caused the small wound. I think the case was found to have merit, but I don't remember the outcome. Reduced charges or dropped seems to ring a bell.

A board member who is purportedly Billy Joe Leathers' aunt posted her details of this event on 2/21/06. According to the poster, Billy Joe's wife was at home, drunk, and called Billy Joe at a bar and told him to come home immediately. He delayed coming home. The wife was reputed to have a history of being a violent drunk, and she was waiting for him in the driveway when he did return and attacked him with a shovel. A scuffle ensued, and in the process, she fell and hit her head. She ran into the house to get a gun while BJL was leaving the scene.

The aunt says that when she was examined, doctors found the wound inconsistent with a gunshot wound and that BJL was in jail "17 days for attempted murder." It wasn't clear if that was actually his sentence or whether he was merely held 17 days until the charges were dropped.

BTW, the aunt has also posted here that she and her family members have gone directly to the person who was supposed to have heard BJL make the claims about Ray, and that person denies BJL ever said anything like that. He told the family that he only saw BJL in passing on the night in question.

[sherrijean981]

QUOTE:
"BTW, the aunt has also posted here that she and her family members have gone directly to the person who was supposed to have heard BJL make the claims about Ray, and that person denies BJL ever said anything like that. He told the family that he only saw BJL in passing on the night in question"



Now was the person really going to say any different when confronted with an aunt or any other member of BJL or JL family? He/she probably lied through their teeth to keep from being attacked by them. JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Just reporting what the aunt said, SJ, not making any editorial comment on the content.

[Cloudbuster]

Okay Im going to say this in hopes of clearing this up some and sheding some things unknown. First off what I have in front of me is not a poster saying BJL said anything in a bar. I have heard that but this is what I dug up in printouts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A poster stated (I don't want to use the screen name not necessary IMO.) No the person is not on this board.

poster wrote: date July 26, 2005
He had gone around and made comments like:
I buried him in a load of cement, they will never find him.
What Arrow should do is check the books to find out where the trucks had been that day and go from there. And what do we have? A missing DA........ There are far more people then the ones mentioned that have been in front of the DA to have grudges.

The cold hard facts are he is missing, his daughter can not talk with her father, his g/f lost her companion. And the county lost a good DA.

We all loose here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now when I read that post it does not mention a bar. It mentions he had gone around and made comments. Something else about this poster that may deem important. The person she is refering to about the grudges is the same person I spoke of? So in my thinking she knew BJL just as much as she knew JD? Think about that. How she knew them both? Her brother. (don't ask me to explain that on here I can't.) I do believe she felt the grudger was more important than BJL in this though. So in thinking it is possible BJL could of made a comment and that comment may have been due to the grudger being in town? IMO BJL also knew the grudger. BJLs comments if made may have been because he knew what the grudger is capible of? MOO.

LW you are right the article read found on Route 220 in his car? He don't have a car though that I know of.

This may put you at rest concerning BJL first of all his liscense including commercial liscense was sent to Dept of Trans. on 4/5/05
So he could not have been driving his truck. Would it not stand out to PSP rockview if he was? If he did any driving it was not in his truck. So maybe the car report LW might be correct. I don't see where he was given any Lienency at ALL. The only thing that may of been a help to him was to go to RG with information. Question is did he or did he not? Another question would be did someone think he went to RG with information? I do NOT believe BJL did anything to RG. If anything with what he had to offer RG with would of been in his best interest. It would have benefited BJL. The charges against BJL for a gun shot wound would not IMO hold up because there was no gun shot wound to his wifes head. The other charges may have held up but not the gun shot wound MOO.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
QUOTE:
"BTW, the aunt has also posted here that she and her family members have gone directly to the person who was supposed to have heard BJL make the claims about Ray, and that person denies BJL ever said anything like that. He told the family that he only saw BJL in passing on the night in question"



Now was the person really going to say any different when confronted with an aunt or any other member of BJL or JL family? He/she probably lied through their teeth to keep from being attacked by them. JMO

Maybe Sherrijean nobody wanted to admit anything period cause you had a grudger in town (speculation only). Also I think my poster knew about these comments and also seems to know both parties? Another thing is BJL made a guilty plea back in 2005 concerning the charges of the wife. If he would have been told not to (being gunshot wound non existant) he would have never made that plea. But he did. Does it sound like this man may have had too many things going on --on a personal level that precluded him from thinking properly? IMO yes. I don't think this man was thinking in terms of harming RG. Especially after he enters a guilty plea of something he did not do? I think his thought was more on his personal life and those closest to him that did unspeakable things to his life. Going to RG with information could only benefit him but my thoughts are was he at this point capable to think in those terms? After all he plead guilty when one of the main charges would be Attempted Murder of 1st degree. If he was thinking or was advised properly he would have NOT plead guilty because there was no attemt of murder? No gun shot wound existed. I was told she hit her head on the back of the truck and it sounded like the 2 wore engaged in a battle. By rights she could of been taken in too. Its not legal to go after another with a shovel. Where I live you both go to jail no matter who started it lol. At any rate the Penalty was satisfied 4/18/05. I don't know if that was because of BJL was deceased or so. If this case would have went to the final trail I think BJL would have not been convicted on much of it. He probably would have had to deal with a few charges though. Seriously the man usually takes the fall in these cases even if the wife is at fault too. I think both parties should have obtained a PFA order. Would'nt that ad a new twist to the system lol.
All speculatuin only.

[Cloudbuster]

Cind for the record appears BJLs DUI case was over toward end of 2/05. It was the wife case that was'nt over yet.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"Where I live you both go to jail no matter who started it lol. At any rate the Penalty was satisfied 4/18/05. I don't know if that was because of BJL was deceased or so. If this case would have went to the final trail I think BJL would have not been convicted on much of it. He probably would have had to deal with a few charges though. Seriously the man usually takes the fall in these cases even if the wife is at fault too. I think both parties should have obtained a PFA order. Would'nt that ad a new twist to the system lol.
All speculatuin only." Quote



It is the same where I live. In fact, a couple in my family got into an argument at a family gathering and a paper cup got thrown. They were both arrested and both fined. They don't play favorites here. And only one is charged if it is a physical abuse case unless they both have marks and they were both heavily involved with it. BJL AND his wife would have been arrested. JMO

[Cloudbuster]

Lustor I made this as simple as I can. If you have problems pm me. This is a great research tool and its Free.

Once you arrive at this page
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/WebDocketSheets/OtherCriteria.aspx
Enter at the bottom after it says OR
Type Last name in
Type first name in
Click on county- centre
under docket type --click on criminal - Tip (also try the others)
Under case status click-closed Tip (also try the others)
under date-you do not have to enter one
click on search

When the cases come up you can click on select (right hand corner) and wait for the case to loadit may take a few minutes. DO not copy or paste anything on here. Viewing purposes only.
If Im wrong in my uderstanding of law terminology I appolize. Lustor please take the time to look and see what I may be thinking wrong. It would be appreciated! This link is helpful when you can't find anything. Play around with it and if anyones a attorney they can get better results on this link. This research tool is something you should save.

[Cloudbuster]

Lustor after cases show up select is on the left hand cornor not the right lol. I just checked to make sure.

[sherrijean981]

Use the same site to check on JD. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
If Im wrong in my uderstanding of law terminology I appolize. Lustor please take the time to look and see what I may be thinking wrong. It would be appreciated! This link is helpful when you can't find anything. Play around with it and if anyones a attorney they can get better results on this link. This research tool is something you should save.


CB, there is a reference to a bail hearing on 5/20/05. It was before the district justice. I'm guessing that JD wasn't picked up until around that point. In general, bail hearing are held much closer to the arrest time. Also the date of the incident and the date that the charges are filed or the date of the arrest can be different.

Hypothetically, Mary may strike Joe on 1/1/05; Mary may file the charge on 1/31/05. Joe may not be picked up until 2/10/05 and may not have a bail hearing until 2/12/05.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks Lustor and JJ!!!! Did you ever get the feeling theirs more to something than meets the eye? LOL Well this has been one of those times. I can relate to RG feeling Roy did'nt drowned himself. Something that swims in the water is fishy! I wish I could redo my past because I would have went further with my criminology classes. I can understand medical terminology but dufus to say I have a hard time with legal terimology lol.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
I can relate to RG feeling Roy did'nt drowned himself. Something that swims in the water is fishy!

Do you has some support for this claim? My understanding is that the family thought Roy Gricar's death was a tragic suicide.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ as a matter of fact the way it appears would be a seems right.
Go back on that link before things change again.
Type the name in.
Go to 3 counties which will be time consuming.
Tip 1
Cambria
Centre
Clinton

95 seems like a good year thats tip 2.

Their is plenty but Im not a attorney. I am but a dumb citizen and even at that it looks fishy.

Could there be a copycat killer? IMO anythings possible.

Whats missing Tip 3 declared mentally ill as which now is not the case. Well RGs missing and........

I have a question what cortroom number did RG use 404 or what? That would help.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I forgot the tip 4 gold slam question?
If your declared mentally ill as a example only.
Can you have a firearm?

If not then why just make a charge because its unregistered? That was tip 5 if tip 4 applies.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


2. The articles had been thoroughly aired out and stored in AKC approved wooden cases constructed with air holes that allow free flow of air through the case. The articles had not even been used in over a year, so no one had even touched them in over a year.


I didn't ask that question; was the item exposed to the air for 24-48 prior to the test?


3. The test was conducted outside, not inside a household where the target person's scent was.


Was the targeted person in the area prior to the test?


4. You can go to akc.org and read about scent discrimination in the obedience regulations for the utility dog title. I described changes made to the actual scent discrimination exercise in my post above. Everything else was conducted as per the AKC scent discrimination utility excercise.

Do you have a link? Do you have a link to a similar test being conducted? You can PM me with it, if you don't want to post it.

Another question. Was item used to scent the dog the same item used to plant the scent?

[tonyGricar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Do you has some support for this claim? My understanding is that the family thought Roy Gricar's death was a tragic suicide. Correct. I'm not aware of Ray ever thinking that my Father's death was foulplay. Obviously we initially wondered whether it was a suicide, as is natural, human reaction, but given all of the circumstances, that question did not linger.

I know that Ray had a copy of my Father's autopsy report, as do I, but that was to further validate, and corroborate, the cicumstances in their entirety. Additionally, we had both spoken with my Father's doctor, and the county coronor, who added a bit more insight and corroboration to details related to the scene.

[Serendipitous1]

From: ujsportal.pacourts.us ( http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/WebDocketSheets/OtherCriteria.aspx ):

Arrest Date: 11/17/2006
ROR Bail: 11/17/2006
Arraignment: 12/28/2006 (cancelled, waived 12/21/2006)
Criminal Pre-Trial Conference: 03/15/2007 (scheduled)

Offense date: 8/23/2005
Charges: Possession Of Firearm Prohibited (3 counts); False/Fraud/Incomp Insurance Claim; Insurance Fraud

For the Commonwealth: Nathan Lee Boob, Esq.
For the Defendant: LeDon Young, Esq.

[Serendipitous1]

PSPCIA unit review ends 11/15-16 or 17; Madeira and Weaver said they were given suggestions by the unit; JL was arrested 11/17. Just a coincidence, I guess; a 15-month investigation culminates just as the CIA unit is making recommendations.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Serendipitous1,

Interesting...LeDon Young will have to do all the work herself as her old partner, Lee Nollau supposedly died of a heart attack.
Centre Daily Times has death date listed wrong. They have him dying in 2004, he supposedly died in 2005 after RG went missing.

It will be interesting to see if JL gets off like most of the people lately. JMO, MOO

What I want to know is what took so long?????? :confused:

Nothing against LeDon Young, she was a couple years behind me in school and a good person, but I believe he will do some time. The insurance companies are getting tired of being ripped off by people like this and I hope they make an example of him. I for one am tired of paying higher insurance rates for people like him. They play and we pay!!! JMO

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Cinderella
<Snip>What I want to know is what took so long?????? :confused: All good things take time, when you know what...but don't know how.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Patience is a virtue....A lot of times the wait is worth it. For everything there is a season. To every season...turn, turn, turn...There is a reason, turn, turn, turn...Pete Seeger, an American icon. My favorite: Hobo's Lullaby (I have this on vinyl somewhere):

I know the policemen cause you trouble.
They cause trouble everywhere.
But when you die and go to heaven,
there'll be no policemen there.

So go to sleep, you weary hobo.
Let the towns drift slowly by.
Can't you hear the steel rails hummin'?
That's the hobo's lullaby.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
To every season...turn, turn, turn...There is a reason, turn, turn, turn...Pete Seeger, an American icon. My favorite: Hobo's Lullaby (I have this on vinyl somewhere):

I know the policemen cause you trouble.
They cause trouble everywhere.
But when you die and go to heaven,
there'll be no policemen there.

So go to sleep, you weary hobo.
Let the towns drift slowly by.
Can't you hear the steel rails hummin'?
That's the hobo's lullaby.

That is so sad! Made me think of RG lying along a railroad somewhere, it just popped in my head. That was awful!

Vinyl? Are "we" showing our age? I still have them out in the shed.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
<Snip>
Vinyl? Are "we" showing our age? I still have them out in the shed. Yes, me too!

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
From: ujsportal.pacourts.us ( http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/WebDocketSheets/OtherCriteria.aspx ):

Arrest Date: 11/17/2006
ROR Bail: 11/17/2006
Arraignment: 12/28/2006 (cancelled, waived 12/21/2006)
Criminal Pre-Trial Conference: 03/15/2007 (scheduled)

Offense date: 8/23/2005
Charges: Possession Of Firearm Prohibited (3 counts); False/Fraud/Incomp Insurance Claim; Insurance Fraud

For the Commonwealth: Nathan Lee Boob, Esq.
For the Defendant: LeDon Young, Esq.

CIND Ledon Y is doing JLs case? OMG!!! 1110 numerology GEEZ what a coindence! Im putting a eye mask on! SERP1 Thanks for the link!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
I forgot to ad that this system is for not just voctims but DAs and LE ect.


Conklin added that the commissioners had received positive feedback from area law enforcement about their decision to implement VINE, particularly the Centre County Women's Resource Center and Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar.

Gricar said he did not understand why other areas in Pennsylvania have not implemented this technology, but is pleased the commissioners decided to do so in Centre County.

"I see nothing but positives for crime victims," he said.

Dawn McKee, Women's Resource Center education and outreach director, said the center often sees women who are concerned about the status of their offenders, particularly in cases of sexual or domestic assaults.


CB, I found this site where you mentioned Dawn McKee and yesterday the name came up as RG's Victim's Advocate, having worked with her for many years. She was to have transferred to an office where she was teaching others how to be a Victim's Advocate. Here you mention she was the education and outreach director, and they were implimenting the VINE program for the victim's to keep track of their offenders.

So RG had worked with her many years in his office and someone took her away to teach other's and now she is at the Women's Resource Center where he devotes a lot of time and money. You mention this program was started not long before RG disappeared.

My question would be "Is she the woman he was meeting with in different areas, not as a secret lover but as working on a case they knew where someone was getting out? He wouldn't have to make calls to her to set up arrangements if he was at the Resource Center often on business, talking to a victim. He could have made arrangements at that time to meet on a subject, that they did not want to discuss in the offices, or something she had found out at her job but couldn't discuss.

Your missing link??? She might be older than what witnesses said 30-40 but if she started in the office 20 years ago as a young woman, and carries her age well, this could be her.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
As I was searching the net for the Water St., this site came up:
"Pennsylvania Attorney General." OCT. 21, 2005
There is a site there that gave me a name on Water St. The article is: "Attorney General Corbett announces arrest of 40 suspected drug dealers in second phase of multi-million dollar Central PA crack cocaine trafficking investigation".!!

Connected to a major drug trafficking ring that operated in Union, Northumberland, Snyder and Montour Counties. A 2 year investigation, known as "Operation SUN-Burst," into the alleged trafficking and sale of large quantities of crack cocaine. Allegedly processed , distributed and sold in LEWISBURG, Sunbury, Selinsgrove, MILTON, and other communities across central PA. A $2 million worth of crack cocaine per years, pipeline from Philadelphia. Combined with the 22 alleged drug dealers arrested in Oct. 2004 during 1st phase.

It goes on to give the kingpin of the operation and top lieutenants in the organization. There are 5 pages of info and names.

"These drug parties were held in DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS, suburbs, RURAL FARM HOUSES and at motels, bars and OTHER BUSINESSES throughout the region." I capped some because that could be the Street of Shoppes, Shillekamy Park, the "freight building with rool up doors" and the barn CB mentions.

What I found interesting was the address of the one and a couple others. 57 S. WATER ST., LEWISBURG. 330 NORTH 4TH ST., LEWISBURG. 712 NORTH FRONT ST, MILTON. 100 N. FRONT ST, MILTON. A lot more areas but these are near the Street of Shoppes!! And in Milton where CB sent the police on a search. Was one there a farm/barn??

"BNI agents made a series of controlled purchases of marijuana and Ecstacy from one person between March and May of 2005."!!

Also another article: July 15, 2005
AG Corbvett announces arrest of as many as 51 alleged drug dealers operating in Blair County. That arrest was the result of a five-month investigation into alleged street-level drug dealing in Blair County, specifically in the Altoona and Tyrone areas.

Another article: March 28, 2005
AG Corvett, DA's Jarbola & Lupas announce break-up of multi-million dollar cocaine and marijauna ring operating in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. BNI agents in Fegruary of 2005 developed enough probable cause to request a court authorize wiretap.

Another article: March 28, 2005
AG Corbett and Lehigh County DA Martin announce seizure of 376 lbs. of marijuana and 222 marijuana plants worth more than $1.6 million in massice Schnecksville indoor pot growing operation.

Another article: March 31, 2005
AG CORBETT AND CENTRE COUNTY DA GRICAR announce breakup of $1.5 million heroin and cocaine organization.
"This is the largest heroin operation that we have ever seen in Centre County, feeding a drug trade that stretched throughout the region and allededly resulted in at least one deadly overdose." Began probing activities in 2003!! Agents getting reports of heroin, crack cocaine and powder cocaine beign distributed in Centre County by an individual know as "Verbal," who was reportedly transporting large quantities of heroin and cocaine from New Jersey to Centre County. (Couldn't get on the site to get the year 2003 or 2004 info).

Another article: February 10, 2005
AG Corbett announces arrests in Blair County the result of a 15 month grand jury investigation. AG said information developed during this investigation has been shared with authorites in Columbus, OH. Gives the man's name. (Wondered if this man could have known RG or his brother?)

Another article: March 4, 2005
AG Corbett and Schuylkill County DA Cori announce arrests of up to 29 suspected cocaine and heroin dealers operating in Schuylkill County. Their investigation began in the fall of 2003. Undercover agents bought heroin and cocaine from up to 34 suspects. Through out the investigation they identified two alleged drug dealers from Philadelphia.

Ok, I'm done. This is so overwelming! And they say RG's disappearance had anything to do with the drug bust. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time in Lewisburg. Maybe he watched something going down and that was why he was sitting in the park. Maybe the woman was the one who lives on Water St., and maybe he was taken by one of the ones that live in Milton??!! Maybe it is bigger than we all think! There are so many possibilities to this. I don't believe he walked away. I don't believe he commited suicide. But I don't know if it was someone from home in the drug bust or someone down there. JMO.
Now where do we go and what do we do?


Gstickley,
I am bringing this post I made previously to the forum again so not just you but everyone else can see the types of criminals that were swirling and swarming all around the Centre County area. The types of criminals that will do or say anything to protect themselves from prison or being caught, or losing a lot of money they are getting illegally. RG took a day off and went to a park that was part of an undercover investigation, yet none of his cases had anything to do with it. That was said a very short time after he disappeared? He was in the middle of the hornet's nest and they are saying he didn't get stung?? The one in Centre and Clinton County, within a couple miles of Bellefonte, one of the guys is going to NY with the top dog and he was cutting and bagging the stuff at his home in Milesburg, making big money doing it, yet it has nothing to do with RG disappearance? How did the LE figure that out so soon with all the things going on in 2005?

GS, CB, Cindi, anyone???? I want a second opinion!!!!

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981




My question would be "Is she the woman he was meeting with in different areas, not as a secret lover but as working on a case they knew where someone was getting out? [snip]

Your missing link??? She might be older than what witnesses said 30-40 but if she started in the office 20 years ago as a young woman, and carries her age well, this could be her.

It seems Dawn McKee has short dark blonde/light brown hair and appears to be in her late forties. Other than appearing to be tall and nice looking, I don't know that she necessarily fits the description of the MW given at either the Lewisburg or Tyrone site. That's where a sketch would help. JMO.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
It seems Dawn McKee has short dark blonde/light brown hair and appears to be in her late forties. Other than appearing to be tall and nice looking, I don't know that she necessarily fits the description of the MW given at either the Lewisburg or Tyrone site. That's where a sketch would help. JMO. DM (with photo) and the CCWRC in Oct. 2004:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-14-04tdc/10-14-04dnews-09.asp

My opinion: a quick check of The Daily Collegian Online Archives shows that RG established the CC victim support program after taking office in 1986; and that he and DM (now 51, I believe) had a long professional association, dating back to the late 1980's / early 1990's when she was the CC Victim/Witness Advocate.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
DM (now 51, I believe)

I had originally typed that I thought she appeared to be late forties or early fifties, then nixed the "early fifties," fearing I'd insult her if she were younger.
Luckily, I erred on the side of caution. :)

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
DM (with photo) and the CCWRC in Oct. 2004:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-14-04tdc/10-14-04dnews-09.asp

My opinion: a quick check of The Daily Collegian Online Archives shows that RG established the CC victim support program after taking office in 1986; and that he and DM (now 51, I believe) had a long professional association, dating back to the late 1980's / early 1990's when she was the CC Victim/Witness Advocate.

A very good article on how the county offices work together for the welfare of the abused.

If that photo was taken in 2004 I would not have put her in her late forties. She is attractive, you can also see her hair is not her natural color, it is highlighted, so if, as she aged a little more, did her trend of highlighting stop or change in color? As is the newer trend to make us look younger, away from the harsher blonds to soft browns, golds, reds? Just a thought.

I am not inferring that RG and DM were having a romantic relationship only that there was a MW in at least 2 areas and maybe the Huntingdon area as well. We are looking for a woman he "COULD HAVE" had a meeting with, not a romantic, but a secretive, for some reason, business meeting, on any number of clients they were helping or abuser they were discussing, away from the abused.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981

you can also see her hair is not her natural color, it is highlighted, so if, as she aged a little more, did her trend of highlighting stop or change in color? As is the newer trend to make us look younger, away from the harsher blonds to soft browns, golds, reds? Just a thought.



MW's hair in 2005 was described variously as dark brown and dark. Though I'm sure there are exceptions, the majority of women who color their hair as they get older go lighter, since going darker tends to make them look older. JMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
RG took a day off and went to a park that was part of an undercover investigation, yet none of his cases had anything to do with it. That was said a very short time after he disappeared? He was in the middle of the hornet's nest and they are saying he didn't get stung??

Who would be running this undercover operation? I can't imagine it would be one that the Centre County DA's office would be.

If it is for someone else, why use RFG? He's not experienced in doing these; he's not a well known face, but he could be recognised.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Who would be running this undercover operation? I can't imagine it would be one that the Centre County DA's office would be.

If it is for someone else, why use RFG? He's not experienced in doing these; he's not a well known face, but he could be recognised.

Did you see anywhere on my post that I said RG was doing the investigating? No! I said RG took the day off and was in a park where there were undercover investigations and it was said his none of his cases were part of it. I guestioned the time of when they said that, shortly after he disappeared?

I then said he was in the center of a hornet's nest and he didn't get stung? Meaning he didn't get in the middle of some kind of deal he might have seen?

Don't even question me on the investigation because I have put it on numerous times from the Attorney General site, in black and white!! I didn't say he was part of it only that he was in the area during the period of the drug bust.

If anything happened to him about drugs they could have followed him to Lewisburg or he could have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was a drug bust going on in Lewisburg, in the parks, homes, businesses, farmhouses and who knows where else. They use parking lots up here so anywhere in that area it could have been going on.

Why do you tear everyone's posting up as gstickley said? I am sorry I am not as involved in the LE, or government as you, or had the schooling you and everyone else on this board have had, but I can search and I can read and comprehend what I read and I am definitely not stupid. Stop trying to get away from the drugs, JJ, because they are there, you can't get away from it, not in Centre County, Union County, Northumberland County and certainly not NJ and their numerous counties, as I have provided a link to that also.

I want scenerios from you. Stop ripping us apart and come up with some scenerios of your own. That is all they are, scenerios. And facts from agencies in other counties and states.

Now it is time to start treating us with the respect our postings deserve!!!:no:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Did you see anywhere on my post that I said RG was doing the investigating? No! I said RG took the day off and was in a park where there were undercover investigations and it was said his none of his cases were part of it. I guestioned the time of when they said that, shortly after he disappeared?

I then said he was in the center of a hornet's nest and he didn't get stung? Meaning he didn't get in the middle of some kind of deal he might have seen?


The people running the undercover operations are LE. If he saw something, he'd be seeing something involving LE. There is no way that LE is going to cover up the murder of a district attorney.



If anything happened to him about drugs they could have followed him to Lewisburg or he could have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was a drug bust going on in Lewisburg, in the parks, homes, businesses, farmhouses and who knows where else. They use parking lots up here so anywhere in that area it could have been going on.


1. It doesn't explain the laptop, period.

2. From what I've seen in Phila, there usually are people that see drug deals going down. Occasionally, people are stupid enough to do it in from a camera. The witnesses are not murdered.

3. Hiding the body so well that is not found two years later doesn't look like a spur of the moment thing. If he stumbled onto something, why don't the killers just dump the body in the river or along the road?



Why do you tear everyone's posting up as gstickley said? I am sorry I am not as involved in the LE, or government as you, or had the schooling you and everyone else on this board have had, but I can search and I can read and comprehend what I read and I am definitely not stupid. Stop trying to get away from the drugs, JJ, because they are there, you can't get away from it, not in Centre County, Union County, Northumberland County and certainly not NJ and their numerous counties, as I have provided a link to that also.


SJ, there are drugs all over PA. Most of the people that sell or use them do not kill people.

And, if you've forgotten, I've complemented you on a number of good questions.


I want scenerios from you. Stop ripping us apart and come up with some scenerios of your own. That is all they are, scenerios. And facts from agencies in other counties and states.


Go to the very first post on this thread; you'll see a scenario. Note who the poster is. That is a lot more detailed and more consistent with the evidence than what you've just posted.

If this was murder, I think the evidence points to something well though out by someone who planned this well in advance.

Did something like that scenario happen? I give it a 40% chance, at this point.


Now it is time to start treating us with the respect our postings deserve!!!:no:

I give you, in particular, respect, but I'm going to point out when what you post isn't consistent with the evidence. :no:

We've both asked questions that have gone into a dead end. There is nothing wrong with that, because we can eliminate things.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The people running the undercover operations are LE. If he saw something, he'd be seeing something involving LE. There is no way that LE is going to cover up the murder of a district attorney.

****** Come off it JJ. I mentioned in the drug bust from NJ there was a state police officer involved. There are corrupt LE officers all over the place. Even in Bellefonte in the mid 80's there were drugs being sold by LE at the Grange Fair, from a food trailer. It was in the news and I know some who were arrested. Don't tell me a corrupt LE officer wouldn't do something like that if he stood to be sent to prison by dealing in drugs and roughing people up. If something was seen and they did not know who RG was, they would go further. All law enforcement officers are not corrupt but there are some. They are in prisons, in the news, on Court TV programs, true stories, not just a story. *******


1. It doesn't explain the laptop, period.

******** I don't know anything about how the computer got there but I have thoughts on that. I just won't voice them.*******


2. From what I've seen in Phila, there usually are people that see drug deals going down. Occasionally, people are stupid enough to do it in from a camera. The witnesses are not murdered.

******* No but they are beaten bad enough they wish they were dead. They also call the person and threaten the families, wives and mothers, with horrible torture. Check the motorcycle drug bust in the southeastern part of the state. Part of those drugs came from Philadelphia and NJ. They also talked about what happened to a dead "pig" that was being buried.*******

3. Hiding the body so well that is not found two years later doesn't look like a spur of the moment thing. If he stumbled onto something, why don't the killers just dump the body in the river or along the road?

*******If they did it in the Lewisburg area and RG's body was found down there, they then have to worry about all the LE that will be going door to door and the search for the killer will be bigger. There business will be in big jeopardy and might not be able to continue for a long while. Just a thought. I am not good at all the details of everything. I haven't been a criminal so I couldn't give you step by step details.*******




SJ, there are drugs all over PA. Most of the people that sell or use them do not kill people.

And, if you've forgotten, I've complemented you on a number of good questions.

*******Yes you have JJ and I thank you for them, but you don't have to do that. I am not different than anyone else on here. You do treat me with respect but you sure go at some of the others. Actually I have never been able to handle the fighting and bickering, even as a child, so I would prefer if you play nice. Please!*****



Go to the very first post on this thread; you'll see a scenario. Note who the poster is. That is a lot more detailed and more consistent with the evidence than what you've just posted.

If this was murder, I think the evidence points to something well though out by someone who planned this well in advance.

Did something like that scenario happen? I give it a 40% chance, at this point.

I give you, in particular, respect, but I'm going to point out when what you post isn't consistent with the evidence. :no:

********Just because I don't post something that isn't consistant you can't take back your respect. One has nothing to do with the other. As for it being well planned out I think we are talking closer to home or a slow burner. Get digging JJ, it is your turn to come up with some names and incidents that could have been slow cooking somewhere. How do we find out who got out of prison recently that had a problem with RG or thought RG was to fault for something?******

We've both asked questions that have gone into a dead end. There is nothing wrong with that, because we can eliminate things.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981 ****** Come off it JJ. I mentioned in the drug bust from NJ there was a state police officer involved. There are corrupt LE officers all over the place. Even in Bellefonte in the mid 80's there were drugs being sold by LE at the Grange Fair, from a food trailer. It was in the news and I know some who were arrested. Don't tell me a corrupt LE officer wouldn't do something like that if he stood to be sent to prison by dealing in drugs and roughing people up. If something was seen and they did not know who RG was, they would go further. All law enforcement officers are not corrupt but there are some. They are in prisons, in the news, on Court TV programs, true stories, not just a story. *******


If RFG just happened to walk into something on 4/15/05, it does not explain his unusual behavior for at least the two week prior to his disappearence. If he was fine, no changes, it would be plausible. (It's the same reason a serial killer is hugely unlikely.)

Now it doesn't rule out a meeting with someone regarding some corruption.



******* No but they are beaten bad enough they wish they were dead. They also call the person and threaten the families, wives and mothers, with horrible torture. Check the motorcycle drug bust in the southeastern part of the state. Part of those drugs came from Philadelphia and NJ. They also talked about what happened to a dead "pig" that was being buried.*******
[/quotes]

Mostly, no; they just scatter.

[quote]
*******If they did it in the Lewisburg area and RG's body was found down there, they then have to worry about all the LE that will be going door to door and the search for the killer will be bigger. There business will be in big jeopardy and might not be able to continue for a long while. Just a thought. I am not good at all the details of everything. I haven't been a criminal so I couldn't give you step by step details.*******


It is not easy to dispose of a body so that it won't be found, especially on the spur of the moment. It almost takes planning. It's easier to dump it someplace.

Now, if this well planned, had a pre-dug grave or something, it becomes a lot easier.


********Just because I don't post something that isn't consistant you can't take back your respect. One has nothing to do with the other. As for it being well planned out I think we are talking closer to home or a slow burner. Get digging JJ, it is your turn to come up with some names and incidents that could have been slow cooking somewhere. How do we find out who got out of prison recently that had a problem with RG or thought RG was to fault for something?******


When someone posts something factually incorrect (a recent example was Grine's connection to Ohio), and there is evidence to the contrary. I will post it. If someone wants to argue about it, I'll post more information. We've seen a lot of factually wrong information get posted.

My suggestion, instead of arguing with me, is Google it before posting. I did with Mr. Potts (and didn't find anything) , then I asked.

[sherrijean981]

Or we could just go on to the next subject and not argue.

Next subject:

I found a site with directions to different area's of Rt 15 from I-80 and going south. Connects to different roads that go to Lewisburg. Thought maybe someone might want to check out the routes if they haven't been in the area, and what is in different areas of that route.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:yM3QcJJKSbEJ:www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Pennsylvania/United_States_15_2/United_States_Pennsylvania_road_map_travel_guides. html+Old+Rt+15,+Milton,+PA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


how quickly we forget

No, how quickly some people open up their minds.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


No, it's because she & Sherrijean met PF. And her opinion changed.

Some of us have not met PF, and some of us don't base our opinions on someone else's word alone but choose to form our own.



No, it started to change well before that.

Try again.

[UndertheRadar]

Cind, if you want to base your judgments on facts as far as this discussion board goes, you'd do well to look toward posters who are actually posting documented facts.

[day2day]

IMO if some of the easy questions were answered..some of us would feel better and move on. Until the simple questions are answered and Mr. Gricar is still "missing"...the questions will remain.

Heck we don't even know how many calls were made into his cell phone that day, how many prints were in the car..

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that some of us aren't out to get PF we just want to start from square one and move forward. Until we can get the basic questions answered we will STILL be at square one!!

And some things just don't make sense to me....

LE called Jacobs Field before they checked the local antiques shops?

Did someone tell them that Mr. Gricar could have went to a game? And if so..who told them that?

jmo and all that

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Pgal, because I asked some quesitons, but didn't overwhelm the board with constant questions about Patty. This whole board has become about PF's guilt. This is supposed to be the Ray Gricar Missing Board, about Ray not all the time about Patty. This really has become the Patty Bashing Board.

That is my opinion. I suspect it is a lot of other peoples opinions also.

Cind, with all due respect, there is one person who keeps PF as the focus on this board no matter what anybody else is trying to post about, and that is the person who came to this board saying all discussion of PF should be "off the table."

I have lost count of the times I've been posting about things that had NOTHING to do with PF, and that poster has dragged PF into the discussion. Many times I even had to stop and ask, "Why are you dragging PF into this discussion?"

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by day2day
IMO if some of the easy questions were answered..some of us would feel better and move on. Until the simple questions are answered and Mr. Gricar is still "missing"...the questions will remain.

Heck we don't even know how many calls were made into his cell phone that day, how many prints were in the car..

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that some of us aren't out to get PF we just want to start from square one and move forward. Until we can get the basic questions answered we will STILL be at square one!!

And some things just don't make sense to me....

LE called Jacobs Field before they checked the local antiques shops?

Did someone tell them that Mr. Gricar could have went to a game? And if so..who told them that?

jmo and all that

Exactly!

[day2day]

Originally posted by Cinderella


This is the Ray Gricar Missing Board, not the Patty Bashing Board.
Lately I haven't seen too much of facts about this case. It is more accusing someone of being guilty.

I would say, form a new board for that. No one has any proof that she is guilty of anything. It is like the Ramsey case, so many people blamed Patsy. Does anyone have any proof that she killed JonBenet?

Let's talk about Ray instead of Patty all the time.

If you are familiar with the JBR boards..then you have seen bashing! I am sure you can "see" and "read" the difference in the posts here and the posts on the JBR boards.

PF has not been bashed. Questions asked yes...And it is BECAUSE of Mr. Gricar that the questions are asked..so they are relevant here Cinderella.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Cinderella


I will state this again. This is not the Patty Board, it is the Ray Gricar Missing Board. Start up a Patty board if that is all certain posters want to talk about. And yes it is bashing.

Noone is trying to upset you Cinderella! They are honest questions and we have the right to ask them here on this forum. If they bother you so badly maybe you should just not read them!
And NO it is not bashing..

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella


This is the Ray Gricar Missing Board, not the Patty Bashing Board.
Lately I haven't seen too much of facts about this case. It is more accusing someone of being guilty.

I would say, form a new board for that. No one has any proof that she is guilty of anything. It is like the Ramsey case, so many people blamed Patsy. Does anyone have any proof that she killed JonBenet?

Let's talk about Ray instead of Patty all the time.

Not many facts?

I spent the morning researching how often LE actually finds hair evidence, fiber evidence, DNA evidence, and fingerprints in cases and put all that up on the board with percentages, quotes, and several links.

I put up a link to the Spring Dawn case, in which a young woman who was murdered was in a truck and left only a single hair behind.

I didn't mention PF at all, and my goal wasn't anything to do with PF, only to show that the claim that no one could have been in the Mini without leaving a trace was completely false.

In the past, I've spent countless hours researching and putting up documented facts about other forensic issues for the same reason: to make sure that FACTS about how we interpret things in this case don't get skewed.

Others here have done the same thing, by spending many hours researching and putting up facts.

A lot of what we've done has been to demonstrate the complete falsehood of statements made by someone who told you he relies on facts.

But just today, that person tried to claim that John Evander Couey didn't enter the Lunsford home but instead lured Jessica outside the home without entering it. Even put up a link, but the link contained NOTHING in it stating that Couey didn't enter the home.

That's just one in dozens and dozens of examples of things this poster has tried to pass off as "fact" that haven't been anywhere close to true.

[J. J. in Phila]

In the Couey case, he seems to have entered the house and then lured, but he doesn't seem to have been in the house for a long period. In the RFG case, someone other than RFG would have had to driven the car for more than an hour.

The analogy isn't valid.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Keep up the good work.

If you're sincere about that, Cind, thank you. I intend to keep working at this.

But it is difficult when your goal is simply THE TRUTH and you keep getting bashed by being called a "Patty Basher."

My suggestion: people who don't want to read the posts about PF should just use the scroll button. I scroll past theories I don't think are valid. I'm sure others do the same thing.

[UndertheRadar]

"Doesn't seem" doesn't cut it. Couey could have been in the house five minutes or he could have been in the house an hour.

(Interesting, too, that now "busted," the tune changes from "wasn't in the house" to "was in the house but for a short time.")

The most relevant facts are the ones that keep getting ignored:

Fiber and hair evidence: NOT FOUND in 90% of all cases, per the FBI.

DNA and fingerprints: NOT FOUND in 99% of all cases, per the Discovery Channel.

[J. J. in Phila]

The minimum time Couey could have been in the house, five minutes.

the minimum someone other than RFG needed to drive the Mini to Lewisburg, slightly over an hour.

[UndertheRadar]

Pgal is right.

Hopeless.

[J. J. in Phila]

On my first post, I said:

First, there is a big difference between "entering a site," and driving a car for at least an hour. In one "confession," Couey stated that he lured Jessica out, so there may have been none to leave.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/lunsford/030607_ctv.html

Note the source.

IIt's pretty clear I'm talking about entering a site.

[J. J. in Phila]

It is pretty hopeless to claim that RFG didn't drive the Mini. That's true.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal
JJ - in your Murder Scenario -

do you believe the killer acted when he did *because* of Gricar's impending retirement?

I was thinking of the killer acting not so much with regard to Gricar's position - but to the changes in his finances that might have occurred.

Who would those changes affect? If RG was planning his retirement and he was including PF in the plans, then they were both aware of the financial changes at that time. PF took the lower paying position so it was already starting. They had paid off her home (she for whatever years she had the home and he with the last payoff?), his car was paid off. It was never said if PF had a car payment or how old her car was.

As young as PF was, even after RG retiring and they traveled, she could at any time go back to work. She is well educated in a couple different positions in the court house. RG could even find any type of employment, maybe something he always wanted to do but had no time? From the one article I was reading and I don't know the link now or if it is still there, he had definite plans on his retirement. When it was to be, what he wanted to do, where he wanted to go. And by what SS said they celebrated the date, by counting down the days, at the Gamble Mill.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


I wasn't thinking about PF in my post - but maybe someone else who it might have affected. It was reported that some were surprised that Gricar didn't have more $$$. I was curious if someone was holding that for him in a special account or something like that.

I didn't think you were but who else would it affect? Someone in the family? Was he helping anyone with expenses on anything? Anything! School, homes, cars, vacations?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
JJ - in your Murder Scenario -

do you believe the killer acted when he did *because* of Gricar's impending retirement?

I was thinking of the killer acting not so much with regard to Gricar's position - but to the changes in his finances that might have occurred.

Let's assume then that RFG is "helping out" the hypothetical "Cousin Zed." Why does Zed kill him? He won't get anyone money from a dead RFG; unless he's in the will, he'll never get any money from RFG. Even if RFG but Cousin Zed in the will, Zed will not be able to collect until RFG is declared dead.

Now, you can strike out Zed and insert PEF, LG, TC, any of the other members of the Gricar family, or anyone with an expectation of being in the will and the answer is still the same.

No one gets financial gain from RFG disappearing.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Let's assume then that RFG is "helping out" the hypothetical "Cousin Zed." Why does Zed kill him? He won't get anyone money from a dead RFG; unless he's in the will, he'll never get any money from RFG. Even if RFG but Cousin Zed in the will, Zed will not be able to collect until RFG is declared dead.

Now, you can strike out Zed and insert PEF, LG, TC, any of the other members of the Gricar family, or anyone with an expectation of being in the will and the answer is still the same.

No one gets financial gain from RFG disappearing. Then he left his entire estate to....charities? $100 each, I suppose. No motive there! My opinion.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Let's assume then that RFG is "helping out" the hypothetical "Cousin Zed." Why does Zed kill him? He won't get anyone money from a dead RFG; unless he's in the will, he'll never get any money from RFG. Even if RFG but Cousin Zed in the will, Zed will not be able to collect until RFG is declared dead.

Now, you can strike out Zed and insert PEF, LG, TC, any of the other members of the Gricar family, or anyone with an expectation of being in the will and the answer is still the same.

No one gets financial gain from RFG disappearing.

Unless he happened to leave them "sitting pretty" UNTIL they declare him dead-of course that is just my opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


Unless he happened to leave them "sitting pretty" UNTIL they declare him dead-of course that is just my opinion.

From any reports, he didn't.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

From any reports, he didn't. ???

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
???

I have not seen a single account, anyplace, of anyone being able to get money because RFG disappeared.

No body suddenly gained access to money.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I have not seen a single account, anyplace, of anyone being able to get money because RFG disappeared.

No body suddenly gained access to money.


That isn't what I meant, JJ. I meant if someone really didn't need the money "now" and could wait patiently for the seven years to pass...

[day2day]

Originally posted by Politigal


Yes, knowing if he had 1 or several insurance policies would be interesting.

I would love to know! And I know its not "my" business ..but it is just one of those questions I just have to ask..:punch: <-slaps myself ..

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day



That isn't what I meant, JJ. I meant if someone really didn't need the money "now" and could wait patiently for the seven years to pass...

You forget several things, Day.

First, there may be no life insurance policies, or these may be term policies, decreasing in value year after year.

Second, there is no guarantee that RFG will be declared dead in seven years. I could see the retirement system challenging the claim and and life insurance companies doing likewise. If we believe the witnesses, RFG is alive and well.

Third, because of the possibility for different heirs and challenges, it is more of a crap shoot.

Fourth, Centre County/Bellefonte could raise a civil claim to recoup the cost of the search.

It's not a sure thing. Had RFG "fallen" down the stairs, "walked" in front of a bus, or had been shot during a "robbery" in the parking lot in Lewisburg, we wouldn't have these questions.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal
Re: a murder scenario

IMO - this case has never truly been investigated as a possible homicide.

Yes, two people were given polygraphs ...whoopedy doo.

His home wasn't searched for evidence. His partner's vehicle and computer weren't searched.



The house was searched for foul play; the home computer was searched. I don't know if they checked PEF vehicle or not.


His co-workers weren't questioned. His friends/neighbors weren't questioned.

It's possible some of these things were done and not reported.


According to JKA, all, possibly excepting SM?) were questioned.


But from what *has* been reported -- very darn little was done in looking at the case as a murder case.

But it isn't a murder case. There is no evidence of murder or a major crime. LE had done, on several levels, more that it normally does on a missing persons case.

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a problem with embezzlement of hidden funds. If RFG reports it, the funds are no longer hidden.

I can give you an example (of the Phila variety). Suppose I sneak up on a drug dealer and steal his drugs and money he has from selling drugs. The drug dealer can't go to the police and say, "This guy stole my drugs."

Unless this money is being hidden under another SNN, or offshore, there will be a record.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
There is a problem with embezzlement of hidden funds. If RFG reports it, the funds are no longer hidden.

I can give you an example (of the Phila variety). Suppose I sneak up on a drug dealer and steal his drugs and money he has from selling drugs. The drug dealer can't go to the police and say, "This guy stole my drugs."

Unless this money is being hidden under another SNN, or offshore, there will be a record.

Offshore could be the key..JMO

[Serendipitous1]

Deja vu all over again - gstickley's "Weird Theory" (his/her label) about money and a VCF/R:

http://board2.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=9100051#post9100051

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by OOBrett

Just for your information and amusement, J. J., fark.com has an article linked every couple of days it seems where some dope will have his drugs stolen or lost and report it to the police.

Same for Leno and his "Stupid Criminals" pieces.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Deja vu all over again - gstickley's "Weird Theory" (his/her label) about money and a VCF/R:

http://board2.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=9100051#post9100051

There are some problems however; the laptop didn't have a printer. It makes sense to print copies of the info, but not take the laptop.

Second problem, there was no massive transfer of funds out of his accounts (FBI checked, IIRC). He didn't give someone $50-$100 K as a loan or an investment.

A little money over time (figure, conservatively $650-$700 per month over the last five years) is very possible, but not a big chunk used for an investment/loan to a VCF/R.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Deja vu all over again - gstickley's "Weird Theory" (his/her label) about money and a VCF/R:

http://board2.courttv.com/showthread.php?postid=9100051#post9100051

His very closest friend is SS who has been out of the office for a couple months, medical leave. Per KA's article www.gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com.

Quote:
"as his medical leave had been in place from sometime during the winter of 2005 until May or June of that year." Quote

Quote:
"Ray and he had a particularly close and long-standing personal as well as professional relationship, which extended beyond the DA Office, and I believe this would have been common knowledge in the office, in the court system, and in the police community."
Quote


If RG was talking to him on the phone after hours at work, his call would show up as a business call, "routine", as would the cell phone calls on 4/15/05.

His very closest friend was also interviewed by the profiler "for hours".

Quote
"it was my understanding that he had been one of the individuals providing input about Ray to the state police profiler who the public has been told ultimately concluded that Ray had most likely committed suicide. In a CDT article dated May 13, 2006, "Missed leads, ignored sightings" (Bosak), Officer Zaccagni is quoted as saying that Sloane was interviewed 'for hours' by a state police profiler." Quote

Quote
"If that in fact occurred, BPD would certainly, at least upon request, have had access to any state police report in the matter. In the same article, BPD's lead investigator is quoted as saying that the written report of the profiler was never actually received, but that BPD had spoken with that individual about the interviews." Quote

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by OOBrett
Presumably the secret account would be held under a non-Ray Gricar name and SSN, or it wouldn't be secret.



Just for your information and amusement, J. J., fark.com has an article linked every couple of days it seems where some dope will have his drugs stolen or lost and report it to the police.

Let's be clear here. Assuming that RFG even has a secret account, that he was hiding, he would not be so stupid to report it to LE, and at least expect it to stay hidden.

Another problem is, why hide the body and get all this notice. Kill him, take his wallet and watch, toss them in the river, but leave the body there. The possibility of a walk away raises the issue of assets.

The estate is probated, everyone is looking for a thug that robbed RFG in Lewisburg. No one is looking for "missing money."

[day2day]

Originally posted by OOBrett


Holy Mother McGinty.

The reference to fark.com was a civil aside (for your information and amusement). Of course any secret account, the existence (and cleaning out) of which is reported to police, by definition renders it no longer secret and hidden.

Sometimes you have to type s l o w l y...and that doesn't always work ;)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by OOBrett


The reference to fark.com was a civil aside (for your information and amusement). Of course any secret account, the existence (and cleaning out) of which is reported to police, by definition renders it no longer secret and hidden.

But that kinda rules out RFG going to LE about some embezzlement from a "secret account." If RFG is going to keep it secret, he' not going to LE about it.

That, and no unexplained large transaction kind of argues against the theory.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


It's possible Mr wanted to separate from Ms and Ms threatened that she wouldn't release that $ if he left.

It would have to be in Ms's name first. A large transwer would have been detected.

Also, that's a great motive for Mr killing Ms, but not the other way around.

[day2day]

I don't really know where to post this because so many of the threads are closed..but here is bw's post about how low the river was on 4/15/2005

will continue to respectfully disagree on the water levels of the river. they had previously been very high, but during the initial weeks of his disappearance, they were actually quite low. this was displayed to my own eyes by the cracked mud 50+ feet beyond the water's edge, massive debris along the banks, and flattened foliage and also from commments by "the locals". much of the water under the rail tressle was ankle deep and i'll reiterate that, from the main bridge's center, i could make out every fish and rock on the bottom. the same went for the aerial searches. they could see the bottom along much of the river and pointed out specific debris that could be seen on the bottom, such as a table, bikes, etc.

as for the horses.... you do occassionaly make me pause. that answer is yes. check your pm's.

jmo...

billy

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day
I don't really know where to post this because so many of the threads are closed..but here is bw's post about how low the river was on 4/15/2005



Day, we have both Saunterer's and LG's comments that the water was higher at the time. There were both there. Yet another reason not to trust Billywahoo.

[day2day]

I am going to find out the real level of that river on 4/15/2005 if it is the last thing I do...!!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day
I am going to find out the real level of that river on 4/15/2005 if it is the last thing I do...!!

I believe S1 posted some data.

TC's site on the river is here:

http://www.raygricar.com/siteimages/sitephotos.htm

The photos were taken later, but the captions pretty much tell you where the level was.

There is also a thread on page two of this site that give a great discussion. Some of Saunterer's comments are kept in quotes.

That's probably the definitive description from two eye witnesses, though S1 has posted data.

I really don't put a lot stock in BW's posts, though he did know Bellefonte.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


Obviously there are certain areas of the river where the water levels would be deeper. From older reports, divers searched from Lewisburg toward Milton in parts of the river.

I'm not sure about Milton; that's upriver.

Here is the thread.

http://board2.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=270173

It is easy enough to have hidden the laptop or the drive into the river, as per the scenario (or to have committed suicide by drowning).

[UndertheRadar]

To muddy the waters a bit further, so to speak:

The same poster who touched the Mini-Cooper and saw the plastic bag near the rear passenger tire made two references to the river in posts just days after the disappearance.

In the first, she she simply mentioned that the water was high in the river because of recent flooding.

The second reference was a bit more specific, because someone had asked a question about the river. She mentioned "serious flooding" that had occurred "a few weekends ago," and said she believed the river was about 22 feet at the time of the disappearance.

[J. J. in Phila]

I think S1 posted links to the actual date on the river.

From the descriptions it was up.

From everything I've heard, it was deep enough to hide a body or to commit suicide in (which would require very little water). It could hide, without any real problem, the drive and the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Then he left his entire estate to....charities? $100 each, I suppose. No motive there! My opinion.

He has left his entire estate to no one at this point because, at least legally, RFG is not dead.

Somebody may have financial gain eventually, but 7 years, minimum, is a long time.

[day2day]

Originally posted by logicworks


Intuition, pass on by if not interested.

I don't know about the water level, d2d, but thanks for the memory of the moment horses finally made some sense to me.
At the time, I was afraid to ask BW, since it meant explaining 'umm.....I'm getting alot of horse's photos in the mail'......LOL, at which time BW could have said 'ding-a-ling', (and may have anyway, for all I know.....LOL). I decided what was coming to me was more important.

There has been so much fighting on board, yesterday morning in my typical conversation with God, I asked if it was time for me to just go on with other things and wait for the case to unfold. When I got home last night, for the first time in quite awhile, my mail box had the magazine.... full of horses, and tucked into the middle was a young blonde girl, excitement on her face as she was jumping on her horse to ride.

I went back to KA's words about RG, which I had found to be very moving the first time I read them.......

quote:
This is the man that I knew professionally for 19 years. The Ray Gricar who would choose not to appear for a hearing where he was an essential witness, walk away from a daughter he worshipped, expose his family to a replication of his brother’s suicide, lay to waste a reputation built over 20 years, allowing himself to be remembered as a ‘head case’ who simply decided one day to ‘blow off’ his family, his responsibilities, the citizens who had elected him, his staff and his future as an attorney, is someone I do not recognize. And I am absolutely confident that I am not alone.
end of quote.

......AND I knew, that despite anything and everything that is going on and not going on, there is work to be done, and IMO, that's what KA is also saying. Whether it be pressuring LE or the DA or continually putting the pieces of the puzzle together until something finally fits, or pressuring to get this case before a 'fresh eyes' investigation team that might produce results or a 'grand jury'.......whatever it is, we need to do what's necessary.

We may be small in number but what matters is that we find that which is necessary for truth and justice to be served in the event foul play has occurred. We are not LE. We are not investigators. We have people who are responsible who are not taking their responsibility seriously. If they were, we would not be sitting here with hundreds of questions unanswered.

If RG steps forward and says 'everyone go home', I will be overjoyed. In the meantime, in the event that never occurs, I will continue to look at ALL of the pieces to the puzzle of what possibly happened to our DA, without exception and I will do everything in my power to see that the RG case is not forgotten here in Centre County.
JMO

Thanks so much for this post LW. I for one am happy that you got your horses back! I believe that is a "good sign" a sign for us NOT to give up. And even though we might be small in numbers and all of our opinions aren't the same. We are still here fighting for the truth.

Believe me I have tried to "move on" and I have tried to forget about this case..but I can't. I have never met anyone involved in this case and never been to PA....but my heart is right there with you LW!

I hope that one day soon the Gricar family has the answers they need.

Until then I believe we need to keep researching ..and praying for the truth!...

:rose:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by OOBrett

That US 45 bridge is the bridge we're talking about a potential jump from, right?


Not on this thread, directly. :) I think it's basically could the laptop be dropped in the river and go undetected. I think the implication is that a body be as well.



There doesn't seem to be historic gage height information. Although if someone called USGS, maybe they'd be able to get that information.

There is historic discharge information. Without something to correlate that to, I think it's hard to estimate what the gage height would be at particular discharge rates.

I think you could compare it to the July and October dates.

The description has been that it was high.

[day2day]

Originally posted by OOBrett
Here's a link to the USGS gage on the West Branch Susquehanna at Lewisburg:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?01553500

According to the webpage, flood stage is 19 feet.

That US 45 bridge is the bridge we're talking about a potential jump from, right?

There doesn't seem to be historic gage height information. Although if someone called USGS, maybe they'd be able to get that information.

There is historic discharge information. Without something to correlate that to, I think it's hard to estimate what the gage height would be at particular discharge rates.


Thank you for the link Brett! I think I will get my Daddy to call the number for me..that way if someone gets a "friendly visitor" it can be him...:lol:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by OOBrett
What July and October dates?

Those were when the laptop and hard drive were found, respectively.

[Politigal]

I'm dredging up this older thread, because I think a murder scenario is the only viable scenario in this case.

I also don't believe that Gricar had some clandestine meeting in Lewisburg with anyone. IMO, there's really no evidence he was ever there period.

There's no evidence he was anywhere that day.

Tony has told us there were no other calls out on RGs cellphone that day. I assume RG also did not send anyone any emails that day.

PF has stated that he rarely ever used the laptop, and that she couldn't recall him ever taking it anywhere.

And, if they were using the new desktop instead, with the laptop staying in the closet, it would not have been charged for use.

There are so many unusual things about the day he disappeared IMO. He didn't go to work - he didn't speak to anyone else - he didn't email anyone - he didn't use his credit card for gas - he didn't use an ATM to withdraw any cash - nothing. He didn't take any clothing and was presumably in the same clothes from the night before, when it's reported by JKA that he was fastidious about his clothes & his appearance. And, still soooo puzzling to me is why that dog needed out at noon if he left shortly before that on his "journey."

And even odder still IMO - is the way that people who described him as being depressed or upset about something have been put down or verbally attacked - Wedler, Arnold, etc. I really wish we knew what PF's working relationship with Arnold was like.

There's only one possibility that does make sense & has legs IMO.

And that possibility, for some reason, is always vehemently decried here on the board by some.

Why?

I also can't get the thought of PF's basement and her brother's hunting camp out of my mind.

[Cloudbuster]

Here is a book I found during a search that has about Ray but (misspelled) lol Roy and has Luna in it. Does anyone have a copy of this?

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Lim8vwShdCcJ:www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A32Q9MQYTFQ4O4%3Fie%3DUTF8%26display%3Dpublic%26so rt_by%3DMostRecentReview%26page%3D2+Gricar+calls+f or+flood+control&hl=en&gl=us&ie=UTF-8&strip=1

The Birthday Party: A Memoir of Survival
by Stanley N. Alpert



A Prosecutor Turned Kidnap Victim Discusses His Inner Game And The Chilling Face of Teenage Crime , August 11, 2007
As one who has pushed privately and publicly for greater investigative resources for probes into the likely murders and disappearance of Baltimore federal prosecutor Jonathan Luna in 2003 and Centre County, Pennsylvania District Attorney Roy Gricar in 2005, I hoped this book might shed some light on their cases. The only conclusion available at first blush, however, is that survival under bizarre circumstances is to some degree a matter of luck ---- --- -----..........

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I have not seen a single account, anyplace, of anyone being able to get money because RFG disappeared.

No body suddenly gained access to money. [/*]

We aren't really privy to his finances.

Tony has posted that he had more than one account.

IMO, it's possible that he held a joint account with Patty, in addition to the joint account he held with Lara.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


We aren't really privy to his finances.

Tony has posted that he had more than one account.

IMO, it's possible that he held a joint account with Patty, in addition to the joint account he held with Lara. [/*]

Iff it was a joint account, PEF already had access to it.

[Chump#7]

Politigal:
There are so many unusual things about the day he disappeared IMO. He didn't go to work - he didn't speak to anyone else - he didn't email anyone - he didn't use his credit card for gas - he didn't use an ATM to withdraw any cash - nothing. He didn't take any clothing and was presumably in the same clothes from the night before, when it's reported by JKA that he was fastidious about his clothes & his appearance. And, still soooo puzzling to me is why that dog needed out at noon if he left shortly before that on his "journey."

Yeah, that whole 'same clothing from the day before' bugs to no end. Like he's not going to shower and change clothing before going out and about, let alone meet with anyone. If this is true, there's really nothing reliable enough to say he didn't disappear the previous evening - Other than PF's word, of course. In most matters of troubleshooting mystery problems, I'm a big fan of the 'keep it simple, stupid' policy. Amazing how often the answers are very simple when the problem appears complex.

But is it even certain he was wearing the same clothing? A fleece pullover isn't exactly something that couldn't be worn daily like a jacket, you know. Nothing odd about that really. And if besides that it's just a T shirt & jeans - who doesn't have multiples of those? Kind of hard to determine what he was wearing by deduction if that's the case.

* Disclaimer: Ain't no 'Patty Bashing' going on here. That would require emotional investment that I just don't have. ;)

[Politigal]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Politigal:


Yeah, that whole 'same clothing from the day before' bugs to no end. Like he's not going to shower and change clothing before going out and about, let alone meet with anyone. If this is true, there's really nothing reliable enough to say he didn't disappear the previous evening - Other than PF's word, of course. In most matters of troubleshooting mystery problems, I'm a big fan of the 'keep it simple, stupid' policy. Amazing how often the answers are very simple when the problem appears complex.

But is it even certain he was wearing the same clothing? A fleece pullover isn't exactly something that couldn't be worn daily like a jacket, you know. Nothing odd about that really. And if besides that it's just a T shirt & jeans - who doesn't have multiples of those? Kind of hard to determine what he was wearing by deduction if that's the case.

* Disclaimer: Ain't no 'Patty Bashing' going on here. That would require emotional investment that I just don't have. ;) [/*]

Tony Gricar previously posted this in regard to the clothing

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 431


- With nobody apparently who knows him seeing Ray on that day, at least after he got out of bed, the clothing description is based on a best guess knowing what was missing. This was, if you put stock into it, backed up by the possible eyewitness accounts in the Street of Shoppes. A man wearing jeans and a navy fleece, which i think is shown on the RayGricar.com site. I should add that I'm not entirely sold on the fact that the gentleman seen there was actually Ray. There seem to have been some changing accounts, as if often the case. His car being there seems to indicate he would have gone in there, but there's still been nothing above circumstantial. I've actually been there many, many times, and usually not recognized at all (and usually in a blue shirt. ), even when one of only a few customers. Only when I'm with a tv crew does it seem to draw notice, so I'm always naturally skeptical of any possible sightings.

- Those that need to know do know what his specific finances were. Due to privacy, I'll say that they were in order and leave it at that. If he were a runaway, I'd say that the money left behind would stand out as odd that he wouldn't take it.

- The hard drive is a tough one, as you are aware. It's been so for us as well. We were elated when the laptop was found, crushed when the drive was not with it, elated when that needle in the haystack was found, and again crushed when it was deemed useless. The reality is that the hard drive was likely his, but anything beyond 99% sure is not apparently possible. Having a deep technology background, as I do, I am not surprised that data was not recoverable, and knowing that this was in the hands of the FBI gives me comfort that all was done appropriately. Personally, I've always been interested in how the drive became "dislodged", as it's not something I think would likely happen due to a water impact.

- The worst pattern of all is that of the dead-ends. Each time something seems to come up, it smacks a wall and we (family, investigators, and media) are forced to circle back. This is why I've said that we've tried to be as objective as possible as the information presents itself.

Well, I should be off to buy a green shirt. This place has a way of drawing you in.



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-21-2006 02:51 PM

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Politigal


Tony Gricar previously posted this in regard to the clothing

tonyGricar
Member

Registered: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 431


- With nobody apparently who knows him seeing Ray on that day, at least after he got out of bed, the clothing description is based on a best guess knowing what was missing. [color=green]This was, if you put stock into it, backed up by the possible eyewitness accounts in the Street of Shoppes. A man wearing jeans and a navy fleece, which i think is shown on the RayGricar.com site.

[snip]



My memory with regard to one of the witnesses who reported seeing "RG" in Lewisburg is a vacillation between a blue fleece jacket and a blue fleece vest, further muddying the waters on that score, IMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


But is it even certain he was wearing the same clothing? A fleece pullover isn't exactly something that couldn't be worn daily like a jacket, you know. Nothing odd about that really. And if besides that it's just a T shirt & jeans - who doesn't have multiples of those? Kind of hard to determine what he was wearing by deduction if that's the case.



Nothing else was missing, but it's possible that a shirt (tee shirt, sweatshirt) could be unaccounted for. For example, I have numerous black, dark blue, and gray tee shirts and sweatshirts. I do the laundry, but I couldn't tell you exactly how many of each I have.

It's not uncommon for someone to wear jeans two days in a row. The photos of RFG show him wearing the fleece as outerwear. Also, as he had the PBM on the morning of 4/14, he might have been wearing different clothing during the day, and changed into the jeans late in the afternoon of 4/14.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Nothing else was missing, but it's possible that a shirt (tee shirt, sweatshirt) could be unaccounted for. For example, I have numerous black, dark blue, and gray tee shirts and sweatshirts. I do the laundry, but I couldn't tell you exactly how many of each I have.

It's not uncommon for someone to wear jeans two days in a row. The photos of RFG show him wearing the fleece as outerwear. Also, as he had the PBM on the morning of 4/14, he might have been wearing different clothing during the day, and changed into the jeans late in the afternoon of 4/14. [/*]

We still don't know what Gricar did on Thursday, after he attended the prison board meeting that morning.

Tony posted that there was no solid confirmation of him being at Huntingdon that day.

One would think that Patty knew his whereabouts that day.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Politigal


We still don't know what Gricar did on Thursday, after he attended the prison board meeting that morning.

Tony posted that there was no solid confirmation of him being at Huntingdon that day.

One would think that Patty knew his whereabouts that day. [/*]

She wasn't his parole officer, so no. Some SO's don't trail their partners 24/7.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


She wasn't his parole officer, so no. Some SO's don't trail their partners 24/7. [/*]

Someone had to let the aged/ill dog out on Thursday too.

[day2day]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


She wasn't his parole officer, so no. Some SO's don't trail their partners 24/7. [/*]

Most parole officers don't trail their prisoners 24/7 either J.J. Surely you must know that it is important to find out what Mr. Gricar really did in the days/weeks leading up to his "vanishing" off the face of the earth"?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


Most parole officers don't trail their prisoners 24/7 either J.J. Surely you must know that it is important to find out what Mr. Gricar really did in the days/weeks leading up to his "vanishing" off the face of the earth"? [/*]

Day, I think it is very important to know where RFG was on 4/14/05. I don't fault PEF or the office staff for not knowing where he was every minute. He appears to have been out of the office for several hours; nobody was following him or needed a detailed account of his activities at that time.

[Politigal]

MURDER Scenario

RG leaves the Courthouse 9:15 pm Thursday night 4/14/05 and heads home

X kills him for unknown reasons either by....

Pushing him down the stairs & his neck breaks

Poisoning him

Drugging him and then smothering him

Shooting him at close range

Striking him over the head with an instrument

-----

X phones Y for help

Y assists in loading up the body and getting rid of the car, and in using RG's phone to make a call to setup the direction of the car

X has several hours and cleans up any evidence at the scene

------

Then, Police don't truly investigate X

Police don't do a forensic investigation at the home of X

Police don't use luminol to look for blood evidence

Police don't do a forensic investigation of X's automobile

Police don't polygraph X or Y

Numerous people come in & out of the house

X offers to go upstairs for Police to retrieve the laptop

Police don't fingerprint the laptop case after learning the laptop is gone

-----

Three months later because people are whispering, X decides to take a polygraph and Police oblige

After answering questions that were probably posed to X already umpteen times, X passes the poly with flying colors

Y still hasn't been polygraphed

-----

X continues to work at the DA's office and is the best little secretary for the new DA

The new DA won't ask for help on the case because he really likes X a lot

-----

Ray Gricar fades into the ether .......

:(

[Cinderella]

Pgal, you forget the X doesn't bother calling relatives until the next day and X doesn't go out and search for him and X doesn't call friends.

I would at least think that X would call family even if she didn't want to alarm them and ask them during the conversation if they spoke to Ray.

If my dad went missing, I would want to know right away. Even if it happened to be a false alarm.

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh P'gal, you forgot a few details:

X uses magic wand to teleport the Mini Cooper.

X uses magic spell to get RFG's scent in the parking lot in Lewisburg.

X sends a shape shifting familiar to transform into RFG's appearance and go to Lewisburg.

Tiny gnomes clean up the house to hide any evidence of a fight or murder (with most of your methods, it's necessary).

And they all live happily ever after because everyone knows magic doesn't exist.

:rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Pgal, you forget the X doesn't bother calling relatives until the next day and X doesn't go out and search for him and X doesn't call friends.



Cind, the question of going out has been answered. As for the calls to family, they are all well out of town.


If my dad went missing, I would want to know right away. Even if it happened to be a false alarm.

I can think of one case where someone tried to contact my father, before he became sick, and was worried about his wellbeing. They couldn't get through by phone; one extension was off the hook slightly.

I did not get a call, in spite of the person being my emergency contact person, that the school would contact, despite the fact that I much closer to home that any family member in RFG's case, and that the person calling had my school number, which was listed. I found about it when I my father mentioned it several days after the fact.

In looking at two missing persons cases that happen in the Phila suburbs in the last week (both of which resulted in deaths, tragically), I am stunned that everything happed so fast on 4/15-4/16.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Oh P'gal, you forgot a few details:

X uses magic wand to teleport the Mini Cooper. No, Y helped

X uses magic spell to get RFG's scent in the parking lot in Lewisburg.no silly, RG's scent was on the car seat because he had *previously* driven it several times

X sends a shape shifting familiar to transform into RFG's appearance and go to Lewisburg.Witnesses are wrong usually about 90% of the time

Tiny gnomes clean up the house to hide any evidence of a fight or murder (with most of your methods, it's necessary). X does resemble an elf (IMO)

And they all live happily ever after because everyone knows magic doesn't exist.X is certainly probably happy, Y is probably happy, but what about RG?

:rolleyes: [/*]

*And* I thought you had me on ignore.....you teaser you :tongue:

[UndertheRadar]

But of course Pgal knows someone else could have driven the Mini without leaving any evidence of having done so. This would be especially easy for someone whose fingerprints, hair, fibers, and DNA would be expected to be in the Mini-Cooper, and no, the time frame for getting the Mini-Cooper to Lewisburg is not so limited that it could not have happened that way. Of course, someone else could have driven the Mini there as well and left no evidence.

And of course Pgal knows there's no magic to getting RG's scent into the parking lot. The vehicle itself was a large scent article, imbued with RG's scent. The Mini-Cooper being in Lewisburg meant RG's scent was there, whether RG was there or not. And we don't even know if the dogs were following RG's scent, if they were scented to the driver's seat, as is typically done.

And of course Pgal knows no shape shifters were necessary to get witnesses to report seeing RG in Lewisburg. She followed the Laci Peterson case and other missing persons' cases where erroneous reports of the missing person were given to LE. It's a given in missing persons' cases.

And of course Pgal knows no tiny gnomes were necessary to clean up some messy fight scene. Even shooting at close range can be done with little to clean up. If dismemberment can be done in a bathtub and be hidden from LE doing a walkthrough of a house, any of Pgal's methods could as well.

*****

Now, if any magic was necessary, it would have been some magical teleportation required to get Gricar from the **immediate vicinity** of where the Mini-Cooper was parked and where the dogs failed to go beyond----------->to the Street of Shops, where he was supposedly seen and where apparently no scent was found, even though Bennett claims to have seen him there on Saturday around noon.

[J. J. in Phila]

Of course, UTR, LE didn't find of anyone else driving the Mini.

And of course, UTR, we know that the scent, according toi the dogs, at least, lead 20 yards from the car, but still stayed in the parking lot. I just checked the winds for 4/15-4/16. It should have blown any the scent into the street.

And even those people that followed the Laci case knows that a grand total of one witness reported it, as opposed to a minimum of five. And anyone following the Peterson case would also know that LE matched that citing with another woman that was pregnant and walking a dog.

This seems to UTR's mantra of, all the evidence wrong, the dogs are wrong, all of the witnesses are completely wrong. We're back to magic wands, spells, and familiars, all of which is quite appropriate for a fairy tale, or a witch hunt.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Of course, UTR, LE didn't find of anyone else driving the Mini.

And of course, UTR, we know that the scent, according toi the dogs, at least, lead 20 yards from the car, but still stayed in the parking lot. I just checked the winds for 4/15-4/16. It should have blown any the scent into the street.

And even those people that followed the Laci case knows that a grand total of one witness reported it, as opposed to a minimum of five. And anyone following the Peterson case would also know that LE matched that citing with another woman that was pregnant and walking a dog.

This seems to UTR's mantra of, all the evidence wrong, the dogs are wrong, all of the witnesses are completely wrong. We're back to magic wands, spells, and familiars, all of which is quite appropriate for a fairy tale, or a witch hunt. [/*]

You mustn't forget the elves...

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
all of which is quite appropriate for a fairy tale, or a witch hunt. [/*]

I think it is the second that is going on!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


You mustn't forget the elves... [/*]

I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when it is all said and done! :no:

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I wouldn't want to be in your shoes when it is all said and done! :no: [/*]

Would you care to elaborate on your finger shaking?

I always feel like I'm being preached at by you.

Oh well, it *is* Sunday.

[Cinderella]

The dogs could have smelled PF's scent instead of Ray's.
I don't know what they used of Ray's, but It might have smelled like PF. That would also tell you why, if Ray was spotted in the SOS that the dogs didn't go there. It was because PF might have driven the car there. So she parks the car and gets out and around to get into another vehicle and mistakenly drops her exercise tape.

Rt. 192 is the most unpopulated road to take to Lewisburg. Someone wanted to take 192 so they wouldn't be seen.

If Ray is murdered, I don't know who did it, but I hope if he was murdered that he haunts the hell out of the person.

Like the case of Natalie Holloway. One of the brothers supposedly seen ghosts in jail.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


Would you care to elaborate on your finger shaking?

I always feel like I'm being preached at by you.

Oh well, it *is* Sunday. [/*]

I made a statement to the link you posted.
Preaching at you is not what I was doing.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I made a statement to the link you posted.
Preaching at you is not what I was doing. [/*]

I guess I just snapped.


or maybe it's cuz I have a sense of humor?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
The dogs could have smelled PF's scent instead of Ray's.
I don't know what they used of Ray's, but It might have smelled like PF. That would also tell you why, if Ray was spotted in the SOS that the dogs didn't go there. It was because PF might have driven the car there. So she parks the car and gets out and around to get into another vehicle and mistakenly drops her exercise tape.


First, why is PEF carrying an exercise tape to a murder?

Second, PEF was there, IIRC, on 4/17, so why didn't the dogs go running up to her?


Rt. 192 is the most unpopulated road to take to Lewisburg. Someone wanted to take 192 so they wouldn't be seen.


I've questioned that route, but I've been told it was the normal route, by posters.

Forget motive, look at opportunity and means. Whatever happened, that's where the answer will be found.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ:

1) LE did not find **anyone** driving the Mini-Cooper. What's your point?

2) Only one source said the dogs went 20 yards, a source which gave no attribution whatsoever for that number. All other sources talked about the dogs not leaving the immediate vicinity of where the car had been. Either which way, scent pockets can travel significant distances. You once asserted that 20 yards was "a bit much" for a scent pocket to travel, when the fact is scent can travel many, many times that far. And it doesn't need wind to move--scent will move upward through 10 or 15 feet of snow to the surface.

3) I previously cited **more than five** people who reported seeing LP on the morning of the 24th. Were they wrong? Yep. That's the point.

4) Where the hexx are you getting the idea I ever said the dogs were wrong? YOU are the one who said they failed, not I. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Politigal


I guess I just snapped.


or maybe it's cuz I have a sense of humor? [/*]

And actually it is Monday. Don't do surmons on Mondays.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


And actually it is Monday. Don't do surmons on Mondays. [/*]

Yeah, but it was still Sunday where Pgal lives when she posted, lol!

[Politigal]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


And actually it is Monday. Don't do surmons on Mondays. [/*]

Darn.....it *is* Monday already.

On that note, guess I better hit the hay.

work....ugh

[UndertheRadar]

I thought PF was at the police barracks on Sunday, being questioned and getting her car returned to her.

But even if she had been at the SOS lot, the missing member method would have been used.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. The evidence of the last drive. That was of RFG.

2. The attribution of the 20 Yard number was Dateline, but is consistent with the other press reports that note the scent was limited and went beyond the car. As for "pooling," yes, from the original source, and with the wind. It also doesn't tend to leave a trail; if the Peterson case is any example, the dogs tend to find an area, not something specific for 20 yeards

3. As I've said, I do not belive all the witnesses are 100% wrong; they would have to be for RFG not have been there on 4/15 or 4/16. For your theory to be even close to being correct all the witnesses would have to be completely wrong

4. Gee, UTR, I think the the dogs detected RFG's scent and detected it as ending in the parking lot. I'm glad you do too.

Now, we might disagree on if the trail can be destroyed at that point.

I guess you're now back to incantations, magic wands, and spells, or are you planning to abandon you mantra of all the evidence wrong, the dogs are wrong, all of the witnesses are completely wrong.

[UndertheRadar]

1) There is NO evidence that Gricar was the last person to drive the Mini-Cooper.

There are five fingerprints belonging to Gricar. These cannot be dated. They could have been left at any time. No, they would not have been logically smudged by someone else driving the car after RG did, without fail.

They might just as easily have been PF's fingerprints, in which case I would make exactly the same argument: we cannot date them, and we cannot extrapolate that she therefore was the last person to drive the car.

That is because I am looking at the situation objectively.

But I would bet my bottom dollar that if two prints from PF had been found on the steering wheel along with two prints from RG, you would be arguing long and hard that there is no way to tell when the prints from PF got on the steering wheel!

2) I have not seen 20 yards confirmed by any other source, nor did Dateline attribute this number to any investigative source. I would like to see that confirmation before I accept 20 yards as a given. Either which way, 20 yards does not equal an actual trail (since scent pooling can easily account for this), and Dixon is correct that the dogs did not pick up a trail if all the sources that describe the dogs as not leaving the immediate vicinity of the car are correct.

3) All the witnesses (more than five) were wrong in the Laci Peterson case.

4) I believe one of three things is scientifically possible with regard to what the dogs did in the parking lot of the SOS. None of those things conforms to your misguided interpretation, however.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. Once more, it approaches impossibility that anyone could drive the Mini for at least an hour, not leave evidence and still leave evidence of the prior driver, RFG. It also makes it less possible when done at night, in darkness.

If there had been evidence of PEF behind the wheel, along with the evidence of RFG, I would conclude that either could have been the last driver. If the only evidence was of PEF, I would conclude she was was the last driver.

2. The story in question included interviews with LE, and it is consistent with the other news stories.

3. There was precisely one who testified, and, as pointed out, the prosecution produced a woman who was pregnant at the time and walking the dog at the same location as the witness. A witness who died prior to the trial also identified this other woman, IIRC, and recanted.

4. My "interpretation" is what the dog handler said. Certainly, he'd be familiar with the concept of pooling and, much like the owner of Merlin, would recognize the difference.

:rolleyes:

In short, I trust the dog handler's version more that I trust yours.

Here we see UTR's mantra, all the evidence is wrong, all the witnesses are completelywrong, either the dog were wrong or the handler didn't know what he was doing. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

1) JJ has been asked again and again to provide anything beyond his own assertion that someone could not have driven the Mini-Cooper to Lewisburg. He does nothing in response but continue to repeat his own assertion. JJ's assertion does not trump the evidence which has been posted here that contradicts him.

2) Dateline's version is not consistent with Dixon's version. Dixon was on the scene.

3) Witnesses that testified at the LP TRIAL are not the issue, since there has been no TRIAL in the Gricar case. Apples to apples is how many reported sightings there have been in each case. More than five witnesses were WRONG in the LP case. They were wrong because they were mistaken about what they thought they saw. That is the point. Witnesses in missing persons' cases are notorious for erroneous reports.

4) Your interpretation of the scent evidence, argued over many pages of bandwidth now missing from these boards, is that exhaust fumes "masked and obliterated" (your exact words) the trail Gricar left and that all three dogs at the scene were unable to follow Gricar's trail. You can't be simultaneously saying you believe the dog handler's possible theory and ALSO be saying you believe the witness reports--UNLESS you believe in magical teleportation.

5) I have NEVER said the evidence is wrong. I have NEVER said the dogs were wrong. I have NEVER said the dog handlers were wrong. That is all JJ twisting, misreading, and purposeful miscomprehension.

[J. J. in Phila]

1. The basic principle of forensic evidence is that when someone enters an area, they both leave evidence and take evidence from the area. In this case, someone other than RFG, according to you, would have to be in that relatively small area, at night. We also know that to drive a car on any route between Lewisburg and Bellefonte, it takes certain activities, like steering the car. We now know that the only signs of anyone doing that are RFG's.

Please cite the evidence you have that RFG did not drive the Mini to Lewisburg.

2. Please explain how there is an inconsistency? There is additional detail in the Dateline piece, but it seems to consistent with all previous media reports.

3. We have one witness in the LP case, that didn't recant. We don't have any in Lewisburg (or in parking lot in Bellefonte, for that matter).

You are the one that referred to the LP case.

4. I do believe that it is possible that some of the scent trails could have been undetectable to the dogs, for a number of reasons, included that they had faded by the time the dogs got there. There was enough of a time lapse. But, that said, yes, I do trust the dog handler opinion of knowing how his own dogs behave.

5. I remember the "It was all planted" the "Dogs circled the car," and "Maybe the prints were not on the driving surfaces" comments from you and the usual crew of Patty Bashers.

We had GS come up a few days ago with sprinkling powder to find where RFG's prints were, forgetting that the traces of the powder would be easily apparent.

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

The reason I've eliminated PEF is because I cannot come up with the how.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
1
We had GS come up a few days ago with sprinkling powder to find where RFG's prints were, forgetting that the traces of the powder would be easily apparent.
[/*]

Please quote the post wherein you saw this . . .

[Chump#7]

It isn't known (to us) where RG's prints were found in the mini, is it? 'The usual places' or some such vague/misleading reply is all I've seen. Are we to assume the steering wheel? Gear shift? My steering wheel, gear shift and the position of my hand aren't exactly conducive to leaving prints (porous texture). I think it's a false assumption to think that the prints found were somewhere that another driver would have to smudge existing prints or leave their own. Are the 'usual places' other areas like the radio button or seat belt button? Things that wouldn't necessarily have to be touched by another driver?

[gstickley]

Originally posted by Chump#7
It isn't known (to us) where RG's prints were found in the mini, is it? 'The usual places' or some such vague/misleading reply is all I've seen. Are we to assume the steering wheel? Gear shift? My steering wheel, gear shift and the position of my hand aren't exactly conducive to leaving prints (porous texture). I think it's a false assumption to think that the prints found were somewhere that another driver would have to smudge existing prints or leave their own. Are the 'usual places' other areas like the radio button or seat belt button? Things that wouldn't necessarily have to be touched by another driver? [/*]

I'm in total agreement with you, Chumpy. And so is a friend of mine, one who has had considerable experience with lifting prints & who has undergone considerable training with the SP & the FBI.

By the way, Chumpy, FYI (& for everyone's information), I've never once mentioned "sprinkling powder" to find fingerprints, even though it's been attributed to me.


:)

[Chump#7]

'sprinkling powder'? I think that's what pixies, goblins, smurfs, and fairies use.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by Chump#7
'sprinkling powder'? I think that's what pixies, goblins, smurfs, and fairies use. [/*]

Yeah, you're probably right. It's gettin' kinda hard to keep up with all the labels I've been given. Please help me keep up with all my monikers.

"Fairies", now that's a good word!!! :lol: And, after all, I have been accused of posting "fairy tales".

Signed: Just another uneducated, non-Penn State graduate, lynch-mob member, whose only purpose on this board and in life is to "bash" PF. (Yeah, I think I am aligned, but only after being maligned so much.) :D

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
It isn't known (to us) where RG's prints were found in the mini, is it? 'The usual places' or some such vague/misleading reply is all I've seen. Are we to assume the steering wheel? Gear shift? My steering wheel, gear shift and the position of my hand aren't exactly conducive to leaving prints (porous texture). I think it's a false assumption to think that the prints found were somewhere that another driver would have to smudge existing prints or leave their own. Are the 'usual places' other areas like the radio button or seat belt button? Things that wouldn't necessarily have to be touched by another driver? [/*]

Precisely, Chump.

And while JJ doesn't realize it, in a previous post today, he has actually admitted that a print on the steering wheel of the Mini-Cooper does not equate to RG being the last driver of the vehicle. Yet that premise is what he is using to form the conclusion that RG was the last one to drive the Mini-Cooper.

[UndertheRadar]

1. You seem to understand only part of Locard's Exchange Principle, ignoring the critical admonition that "[o]nly human failure to find [evidence], study and understand it, can diminish its value." If we rely only on the first part of the principle, there would be no unsolved murders, no unsolved disappearances, no unsolved crimes of any type, and we all know that is not the truth. Reason demands that we deal with the qualifying clause of the principle, and that we deal in practicalities of finding, studying, and understanding evidence. Much has previously been posted on this board which speaks to this issue. There is no need to repeat it. Nothing has come from JJ to support his contention that no one other than RG could have driven the Mini-Cooper; much has been posted to show that another driver is quite possible.

2. The inconsistency between the Dateline piece and the other media reports has likewise been previously examined in detail on these boards.

3. No witnesses in the Gricar case have undergone cross-examination by defense attorneys. There is no way to compare how the witnesses in the Gricar case would **ultimately** stand up in terms of credibility in a courtroom, whether they would recant in the face of pressure from defense attorneys at their door, etc., when we don't have any such circumstances in the Gricar investigation. We have only witnesses reporting sightings to LE at this time, nothing more, nothing less. You cannot therefore argue that the Gricar witnesses are more credible than those in the Peterson case, because they have not undergone the kind of pressure and the kind of scrutiny that those in the Peterson case did. Put them through those kinds of things, and then let's see how whether you can argue that they are still more credible. I doubt that they will be. That is my opinion. But until they undergo that kind of scrutiny, it's like saying someone's snapshot of a UFO is credible--before anyone knowledegable and/or skeptical has analyzed the photograph.

4. First, you're underestimating what Bloodhounds are capable of in terms of time lapse, using the a time length specified for other breeds as your guide. The FBI itself says working police Bloodhounds, to be certified for police case work, need to demonstrate they can work trails SEVEN DAYS old. Second, the dog handler offered one **possible** theory, a theory I have always said is indeed a possibility. But that possibility, coupled with the rest of the observation by the handlers, is inconsistent with your faith in the witness testimony.

5. Your infamous nearly photographic memory fails you again. When there are discussions about what is **scientifically possible,** you immediately translate that into believing that someone is arguing that **this is what was done.** It is scientifically possible to plant scent evidence. I personally don't believe anyone even had to go to those lengths, but it is scientifically possible to do that. And you know as well as anyone, JJ, that all the early articles said that the dogs circled the car. What you DON'T get is that as far as the dogs' scenting behavior, it's immaterial whether the car was still there. SO WHAT if everyone assumed the CDT and all other early sources were correct when they reported that the car was there when the dogs were brought to the parking lot?

As far as the prints not all being on the driving surfaces, according to that vague answer by your buddy Pete, THEY WEREN'T. The door is hardly a driving surface. We don't even know what part of the door the print was found on. We don't even know, from that vague answer, exactly where the prints were found, period.

Last, get this through your head.

I have no interest in bashing PF or in convicting her or in weaving her in to any scenario. I am interested in looking objectively at evidence.

And EVERY time I try to do that, YOU freak out, worried that something I have said might SOMEHOW be interpreted as looking bad for PF. I have had my questions about her. But I've had a million other questions about other potential scenarios, as well. It's just that I have to spend 99% of my time on this board dealing with PF questions, because YOU turn everything, no matter how unrelated to PF initially, INTO a discussion of PF.

You are PF's worst enemy on this board, hands down.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Please quote the post wherein you saw this . . . [/*]

Sorry, it wasn't you, it was LW:

logicworks
Senior Member

Registered: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 1843


quote:Originally posted by logicworks



Judging from what we are told as to the location of the prints, usual places; wheel, door, etc., it would be relatively simple to 'erase' and smear certain areas leaving others intact.

Look at the inside of the mini......the wheel and the door. Plenty of places for earlier prints to remain intact, while wearing thin plastic gloves for the steering wheel itself, door handle, gear shift. Saying the wheel doesn't tell us the prints were on the outer portion of the steering wheel itself. Could have been on the cruise control tabs, and still be said to be 'on the wheel'. Same with the door. Plenty of area for earlier prints on the door without being the door handle itself.

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/...AB40MNC011A0301
JMO [/*]




Wanted to add this to previous post.....for a mere $25, you can purchase that which could help identify exactly where one might want to remove or keep existing prints.

http://www.crimescene.com/store/ind...&products_id=70
JMO

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
Old Post 11-25-2007 07:19 PM

[gstickley]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Last, get this through your head.

I have no interest in bashing PF or in convicting her or in weaving her in to any scenario. I am interested in looking objectively at evidence.

And EVERY time I try to do that, YOU freak out, worried that something I have said might SOMEHOW be interpreted as looking bad for PF. I have had my questions about her. But I've had a million other questions about other potential scenarios, as well. It's just that I have to spend 99% of my time on this board dealing with PF questions, because YOU turn everything, no matter how unrelated to PF initially, INTO a discussion of PF.

You are PF's worst enemy on this board, hands down. [/*]

You are so right in this, UTR.

IMO, this has been turned into a "Protect Poor Pittiful Patty" board instead of a "Ray Gricar" board. I'd like to seriously discuss Ray Gricar & his disappearance without all the smoke & mirrors, distortions, misinformation, name-calling, red-inking, etc. However, the only thing in which some poster(s) are interested is the "PPPP" scenerio. Actually, I, for one, had hardly even considered PF until all the "PPPP" garbage made me wonder exactly why it was needed!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7
It isn't known (to us) where RG's prints were found in the mini, is it? 'The usual places' or some such vague/misleading reply is all I've seen. Are we to assume the steering wheel? Gear shift? My steering wheel, gear shift and the position of my hand aren't exactly conducive to leaving prints (porous texture). I think it's a false assumption to think that the prints found were somewhere that another driver would have to smudge existing prints or leave their own. Are the 'usual places' other areas like the radio button or seat belt button? Things that wouldn't necessarily have to be touched by another driver? [/*]

Actually, this is what was said:

As to your question, I was told his prints were found in the usual places, the door, wheel, etc. But I don't know about the glove compartment. I'll find out more specific details and get back to you. I do know the only prints found in the Mini, according to the lead investigator, were Ray's. Not to be repetitive, but police found no evidence the car had been wiped clean of other prints.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html?forumId=1882&mode=display&action=&type=list&pageNo=2

Now, either PB got it wrong, LE lied to him, or it's accurate.

Now, this then comes down to the question of how?

A few posts back, I posted this question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

I cannot explain how, which is why I've eliminated PEF, or anyone other than RFG, driving the Mini.

[Cinderella]

I really find it hard to believe that there would not be any of PF's prints in the car. Just that makes me suspicious.

Also as was earlier pointed out, gloves and having a little vacuum with you that plugs into the lighter. Unless the car didn't come with a cigarette lighter.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
I really find it hard to believe that there would not be any of PF's prints in the car. Just that makes me suspicious.

Also as was earlier pointed out, gloves and having a little vacuum with you that plugs into the lighter. Unless the car didn't come with a cigarette lighter. [/*]

Even with gloves, the prints would likely be smeared. I've even thought about sheets of plastic, but you'd get the same situation.

At night, I doubt that the vacuum would get everything; it's also hard to do it in the parking lot, without someone seeing it.

What I could see is that on 4/14 or 4/15, RFG cleaned the interior of the car, then drove it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


You are so right in this, UTR.

IMO, this has been turned into a "Protect Poor Pittiful Patty" board instead of a "Ray Gricar" board. I'd like to seriously discuss Ray Gricar & his disappearance without all the smoke & mirrors, distortions, misinformation, name-calling, red-inking, etc. However, the only thing in which some poster(s) are interested is the "PPPP" scenerio. Actually, I, for one, had hardly even considered PF until all the "PPPP" garbage made me wonder exactly why it was needed! [/*]

GS, I'll ask you the same question I asked UTR:

[u]You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

I can't (though I've tried).

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


GS, I'll ask you the same question I asked UTR:

[u]You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

I can't (though I've tried). [/*]

Try getting into your car & driving 50-60 miles. Watch what you touch in just normal driving. See how many IDENTIFIABLE latent prints you leave & where you might leave them. Check out the surfaces of the vehicle itself to see where exactly an IDENTIFIABLE print might be left. And . . . don't cheat!

BTW . . . I already excluded the witnesses a long time ago.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

We had GS come up a few days ago with sprinkling powder to find where RFG's prints were, forgetting that the traces of the powder would be easily apparent.

[/*]

Nope, JJ, your smoke & mirrors won't work this time.

This is what you said.

Please point out in LW's post where she mentioned "sprinkling powder".

[Cinderella]

My son after learning to drive and driving about 6 months drove me on I-80 using his knees and legs. Driving at least 55 mph. Needless to say, I think that was the last time that I rode with him. :rolleyes:

BTW, that drive almost made me SNAP. :punch:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Nope, JJ, your smoke & mirrors won't work this time.

This is what you said.

Please point out in LW's post where she mentioned "sprinkling powder". [/*]

Try clicking the link and looking at the Latent Fingerprint Kit.

Now interestingly, I've asked two posters the question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

Well? I can't.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Try clicking the link and looking at the Latent Fingerprint Kit.

Now interestingly, I've asked two posters the question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

Well? I can't. [/*]

It might help for us to actually know *what* the evidence shows --

like where the prints were - in fact -

and not Pete Bosak's version.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Try getting into your car & driving 50-60 miles. Watch what you touch in just normal driving. See how many IDENTIFIABLE latent prints you leave & where you might leave them. Check out the surfaces of the vehicle itself to see where exactly an IDENTIFIABLE print might be left. And . . . don't cheat!

BTW . . . I already excluded the witnesses a long time ago. [/*]

GS, you're going to have to stop using common sense and stop using the knowledge you gained working for a police department for so many years.

Obviously JJ knows better. He knows that Gricar wiped the car clean on the night of the 14th or the morning of the 15th, then left only five perfect, latent, identifiable prints in the car, no smudged ones anywhere else.

Because of course, any time anyone touches a surface, they leave a latent, identifiable print.

He knows no one wearing gloves could have driven the Mini-Cooper without touching the SAME EXACT FIVE spots where Gricar left those five latent prints.

And all of that is how JJ knows RG was the last one to drive the Mini-Cooper. :rolleyes:

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Try clicking the link and looking at the Latent Fingerprint Kit.

Now interestingly, I've asked two posters the question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

Well? I can't. [/*]

JJ I think Hazmat and cleaning restoration Companies afflilated with them and even LE could answer your question on how to drive the car and leave no prints. EVEN the CIA and FBI would be able to give a know how to not leave any evidence of extra prints.

:biggrin:

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


GS, you're going to have to stop using common sense and stop using the knowledge you gained working for a police department for so many years.

Obviously JJ knows better. He knows that Gricar wiped the car clean on the night of the 14th or the morning of the 15th, then left only five perfect, latent, identifiable prints in the car, no smudged ones anywhere else.

Because of course, any time anyone touches a surface, they leave a latent, identifiable print.

He knows no one wearing gloves could have driven the Mini-Cooper without touching the SAME EXACT FIVE spots where Gricar left those five latent prints.

And all of that is how JJ knows RG was the last one to drive the Mini-Cooper. :rolleyes: [/*]

Maybe PF was not in the Mini after RG cleaned it the last time. That could have been the previous weekend or the previous day. She didn't drive it to work on Thursday or Friday. He was driving it. LE said it wasn't wiped down so his last cleaning was when? Had to be recent if only minor cigarette ash was on the floor.

Where did RG clean his car? A local guy? Himself at home or at a car wash with one of those vacuum cleaners nearby? Did he do it on a weekly basis?

[gstickley]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


GS, you're going to have to stop using common sense and stop using the knowledge you gained working for a police department for so many years.

Obviously JJ knows better. He knows that Gricar wiped the car clean on the night of the 14th or the morning of the 15th, then left only five perfect, latent, identifiable prints in the car, no smudged ones anywhere else.

Because of course, any time anyone touches a surface, they leave a latent, identifiable print.

He knows no one wearing gloves could have driven the Mini-Cooper without touching the SAME EXACT FIVE spots where Gricar left those five latent prints.

And all of that is how JJ knows RG was the last one to drive the Mini-Cooper. :rolleyes: [/*]

It's the old "PPPP Syndrome", I guess, because common sense & years of experience mean nothing. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Maybe PF was not in the Mini after RG cleaned it the last time. That could have been the previous weekend or the previous day. She didn't drive it to work on Thursday or Friday. He was driving it. LE said it wasn't wiped down so his last cleaning was when? Had to be recent if only minor cigarette ash was on the floor.



We have no idea how many **unidentifiable** prints were in the Mini-Cooper. We know that both Dixon and Zaccagni said the only **identifiable** prints were Ray's. That does not exclude unidentifiable prints which may have belonged to PF. These would mean nothing, even if identifiable, of course, since one would not be surprised to find her prints in the car.

We also have no idea what hair or fiber evidence might have been found in the car consistent with hair and clothing matched to RG and PF. Again, no one would be surprised to find hair or fiber evidence consistent with RG and PF, since both of them would have been in the car.

We have not heard that any DNA testing was done on the car beyond the DNA from the water bottle, but the same principle would apply with any DNA in the car belonging to either RG or PF--both would be expected to be there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


JJ I think Hazmat and cleaning restoration Companies afflilated with them and even LE could answer your question on how to drive the car and leave no prints. EVEN the CIA and FBI would be able to give a know how to not leave any evidence of extra prints.

:biggrin: [/*]

Those are not exactly going to be on call to drive a car fifty miles, on short notice, without a LOT of question. :biggrin:

Seriously, I've though about someone wearing a chemical weapons suit; even that would cause smearing of prints.

Towing would work, but getting a tow truck would be difficult and even driving into a residential area might attract attention, due to the noise.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


It's the old "PPPP Syndrome", I guess, because common sense & years of experience mean nothing. :rolleyes: [/*]

Nor does evidence from an FBI forensic expert, or from other LE officers, or from data collected from more than 100,000 cases.

[Cinderella]

I highly doubt that Ray would park his BELOVED MINI in a dirt parking lot when there are spaces on the pavement to park the car. So I don't believe that Ray drove the Mini to where it ended up.

PF might be able to answer that question as she has been antiquing with him in the Mini. Did he ever park the Mini in the dirt or gravel parking lot?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


It's the old "PPPP Syndrome", I guess, because common sense & years of experience mean nothing. :rolleyes: [/*]

I noticed that neither you nor UTR have answered my question, which was:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

My answer is, I can't.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by gstickley


You are so right in this, UTR.

IMO, this has been turned into a "Protect Poor Pittiful Patty" board instead of a "Ray Gricar" board. I'd like to seriously discuss Ray Gricar & his disappearance without all the smoke & mirrors, distortions, misinformation, name-calling, red-inking, etc. However, the only thing in which some poster(s) are interested is the "PPPP" scenerio. Actually, I, for one, had hardly even considered PF until all the "PPPP" garbage made me wonder exactly why it was needed! [/*]

GS, this is funny.

If no one is going after PF why has there been a thread put up "Do You Feel That PF Has Been Fully Investigated?" EVERYONE has at one time or another questioned her part in his disappearance, even I did at the beginning. Some have said she was the last one to see him and part of the investigation. There are questions put up about it and on all the threads. It was also said she was a murderer and TF was her accomplice.

No proof but the statement made. No evidence RG was murdered, commited suicide, or walked away.

I don't think anyone is pitying Patty. I don't think she needs pitying. But she doesn't need hung without evidence of something having happened to RG.

If anything is drawing attention to PF it isn't the few who are saying there is no proof, it is the lot who are trying to connect her without the proof.

You have told me many times of your job and your friends in LE, and can't believe they would do that to someone in an investigation and that you would have done it on your job. All the attention to her IS being taken from RG or anyone else who could be involved.

I for one am digging around again. Time to get out the shovels and dozers and get rid of the dirt, clear the roads and start again. JMO

Hugs, GS

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Those are not exactly going to be on call to drive a car fifty miles, on short notice, without a LOT of question. :biggrin:

Seriously, I've though about someone wearing a chemical weapons suit; even that would cause smearing of prints.

Towing would work, but getting a tow truck would be difficult and even driving into a residential area might attract attention, due to the noise. [/*]

Know what JJ? They might have not exactly been 50 miles away. ??? The little girl whom touched the car remember that one? Her prints must have disappeared into Disneyland? Or do we have a unproper processed car? That link I had up before says they always start on the outside of the exterior for fingerprinting. According to the article it also said that they vacumm first before processing the inside for prints.:biggrin:
http://www.free-ed.net/sweethaven/CrimeJustice/CSI/default.asp

[Cinderella]

PF had ridden in that car before. Why would it take a miracle for her to drive the car to the SOS? As tidy as she is, she probably owns a little car vacuum cleaner. They said no fingerprints they didn't say anything else about PF's scent being in the car. Why do you think that it was filled with cigarette smoke. To take the odor away. Ray would not have allowed that much smoke in his car. Then she just happened to drop the exercise video when she was getting into another car.

She may have been at the gym awhile and used the tape to exercise then drove the car someplace and forgot the tape until she parked the car at the SOS then she got it out so that no one would think that she had been in the Mini.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
I highly doubt that Ray would park his BELOVED MINI in a dirt parking lot when there are spaces on the pavement to park the car. So I don't believe that Ray drove the Mini to where it ended up.




Are those spaces metered? If we believe the Thursday witnesses, he was driving it in the county on not particularly clean roads.

To me, all things being equal, I'd rather park a nice car in a parking lot than on the street. The lot was gavel and wasn't muddy.

[Cinderella]

I wouldn't you get dust and dings all over it from small stones flying up and hitting it. The parallel parking on the roadway would be better because no one is going to park next to you and scratch or put a dent in your car unless they hit your car which is unlikely.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by gstickley


Try getting into your car & driving 50-60 miles. Watch what you touch in just normal driving. See how many IDENTIFIABLE latent prints you leave & where you might leave them. Check out the surfaces of the vehicle itself to see where exactly an IDENTIFIABLE print might be left. And . . . don't cheat!

BTW . . . I already excluded the witnesses a long time ago. [/*]

Here ya go, JJ.

BTW, did you ever watch a member of LE take fingerprints of a suspect/accused for a fingerprint card? Did you ever note the care they took to get every portion of the fingerprint?

[Cinderella]

Speaking of the Mini here is an old article.

Can you believe this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-18-penn-da_x.htm

SNIP

The red-and-white mini-Cooper, spotted Saturday in a lot across the street from a Lewisburg antiques market, was brought to state police barracks in Milton. But after traveling to Milton, Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon said there were no sign that someone may have broken into the car, and no sign of blood.

"The car looks to be in fine shape," Dixon said. He added that interviews with workers at the Street of Shops antiques market also yielded no clues, and the Susquehanna River near the shop was searched but nothing found, Dixon said.

SNIP

Notice the words But after traveling to Milton

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster


Know what JJ? They might have not exactly been 50 miles away. ??? The little girl whom touched the car remember that one? Her prints must have disappeared into Disneyland? Or do we have a unproper processed car? That link I had up before says they always start on the outside of the exterior for fingerprinting. According to the article it also said that they vacumm first before processing the inside for prints.:biggrin:
http://www.free-ed.net/sweethaven/CrimeJustice/CSI/default.asp [/*]

RFG still would have had to drive it there. I'll be the first to admit that there is less of a chance to leave evidence in vehicle occupied for five minutes than an hour.

The site actually notes this:

After the initial search, check the exterior of the vehicle for fingerprints. Using the procedure described above, carefully check the top of the vehicle, the deck lid, the areas around the door handles, and the window glass. Photograph, lift, and process each fingerprint as it is developed.



http://www.free-ed.net/sweethaven/CrimeJustice/CSI/default.asp?iNum=12#s7

The little girl may have touched a different area or may have smeared the prints.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Speaking of the Mini here is an old article.

Can you believe this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-18-penn-da_x.htm

SNIP

The red-and-white mini-Cooper, spotted Saturday in a lot across the street from a Lewisburg antiques market, was brought to state police barracks in Milton. But after traveling to Milton, Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon said there were no sign that someone may have broken into the car, and no sign of blood.

"The car looks to be in fine shape," Dixon said. He added that interviews with workers at the Street of Shops antiques market also yielded no clues, and the Susquehanna River near the shop was searched but nothing found, Dixon said.

SNIP

Notice the words But after traveling to Milton [/*]

I think it was towed.

[Cinderella]

I at least hope that they did that much. LOL

The way the case has gone, I could see someone getting into it and driving it. :punch:

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I believe RG drove the car but Im not convinced he was alone.
If RG left early like 7:30 am which is possible then I would say he made that call to PF heading back on 192 when that call bounced.

My point being he was not alone either way when he made that call. That call only IMO served one purpose and that was to make sense to PF about why he was taking a whole day off after telling her in the morning he was taking a half day off.
That call was intended to correct the morning of not making any sense in what he told her that morning. He didn't want to rise suspion with her IMO.
IMO RG was working that morning just not exactly what he would do normally. Even PF said he had been working hard latly. RG IMO had more than one thing going on. That extra work would be stressful and that's what the courthouse workers was noticing you know that extra hard work that PF talked about.
I just don't think the coworkers knew what that extra working hard included.
The ones that did know IMO are the ones that actually believe he walkaway or ranaway. IMO not true.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Here ya go, JJ.

BTW, did you ever watch a member of LE take fingerprints of a suspect/accused for a fingerprint card? Did you ever note the care they took to get every portion of the fingerprint? [/*]

Face it, GS. The question JJ keeps turning back on **us** has been answered already many, many times. We could force feed it to him. We could pump it through an I.V. to him. And he would still claim he has never seen an answer to it from us.

The only reason he keeps asking is that I have now asked him probably 8 or 9 times to do more than offer his **assertion** to counter the hard evidence we have put up on the board showing that someone could drive a car to Lewisburg without leaving any evidence. He can't do that, so he keeps sidestepping that by "pretending" we've never posted any evidence to show it can be done.

[gstickley]

Gosh, people, I guess I better concentrate on baking cookies or something other than the disappearance of Ray Gricar, cause I never once thought about a "chemical weapons suit" being used to get the Mini to Lewisburg without leaving evidence. :santa:

[Cloudbuster]

Gstickley do you have any EASY cookie recipes? If you do I"ll take them it seems the cloud busts the harder recipes into burnt thunderstorms roflmao! It's thunderous to look at what the cookie transforms into lol.:santa:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ I believe RG drove the car but Im not convinced he was alone.
If RG left early like 7:30 am which is possible then I would say he made that call to PF heading back on 192 when that call bounced.



Notice I've said drive the car. I have not referred to anyone in the passenger seat.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
Gosh, people, I guess I better concentrate on baking cookies or something other than the disappearance of Ray Gricar, cause I never once thought about a "chemical weapons suit" being used to get the Mini to Lewisburg without leaving evidence. :santa: [/*]

It's just JJ's typical strawman fallacy in action--push it to its furthest limits of ridicule so you can knock it down! I'll never get this image out of my brain!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley
Gosh, people, I guess I better concentrate on baking cookies or something other than the disappearance of Ray Gricar, cause I never once thought about a "chemical weapons suit" being used to get the Mini to Lewisburg without leaving evidence. :santa: [/*]

I think it would be wise for you to return to your cookies.:santa:

Some sort of a covering like a chemical weapons suit would, at least, prevent the driver from leaving DNA. The problem, other than getting one on short notice, is it's likely to smear finger prints.

Basically, UTR doesn't understand the principles involved in forensic evidence, and the utter irrationality of suggesting that someone could drive for more than hour, not leave any evidence, and still leave the evidence of the previous driver.

As I've asked before, I'll ask again:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

I've been willing to consider other possibilities; neither you nor UTR seem to be able to come up with an answer.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


It's just JJ's typical strawman fallacy in action--push it to its furthest limits of ridicule so you can knock it down! I'll never get this image out of my brain! [/*]

Yep. Firmly engrained in my mind too. Smack ole RG, grab the ole chemical weapons suit out of the closet, & set off in the Mini to Lewisburg. Now, that's pre-planning!!!!! :biggrin:

[J. J. in Phila]

GeeUTR, why don't you answer the question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

No straw man, as you've raised the possibility. If asked "how?" You silence is deafening.

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Notice I've said drive the car. I have not referred to anyone in the passenger seat. [/*]

I know you didn't JJ it's just me thinking outloud. I agree with you he drove the car but I believe he wasn't alone --at least he wasn't alone when he made the call to PF IMO. Very probable that after he got to where he was going someone eventually ended up with him to talk. :beer:

[UndertheRadar]

Don't play dumb, JJ. The question has been answered for you in long, explicit posts with information from FBI forensic experts, with quotes from numerous other LE officers, with data from several different studies, etc., etc. Nobody's going to post all that stuff for you all over again. You're just going to ignore it, like you always do.

This is just your little strategy, pretending that you haven't seen all this posted on the boards, because I have asked you now 9 or 10 times (if we include this post) to do more than assert that someone couldn't drive a vehicle to Lewisburg without the PSP having found evidence of that. I've asked you this so many times because your assertion with no evidence has stood in stark contrast to all the evidence that's been offered on the other side. Don't keep asking for what's already been given to you. You look rather foolish doing it.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I've been asking a question that has been bothering me from the start. No, neither you nor GS have answered it. You attempted to evade it. That question is:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

Some of that evidence is that the evidence is that RFG left prints in the car, and those were still there.

You've never addressed it in any way consistent with the evidence (even excluding the witnesses).

[Chump#7]

You put on some gloves.

You open the car door.

Sit down.

Put the key in the ignition and start the car.

Drive it.

Just try to resist the urge to take off your gloves and go all pokey pokey on flat surfaces. It's hard. But with a positive attitude it can be accomplished.

If there is evidence that this can't be done without removing or smudging (Is there even evidence that there was NO smudging?) existing prints, please do tell. Or if there is evidence I may not be privy to, do tell.

- I took note today as I drove to work. My fingers (tips) never touched the wheel.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Chump#7
You put on some gloves.

You open the car door.

Sit down.

Put the key in the ignition and start the car.

Drive it.

Just try to resist the urge to take off your gloves and go all pokey pokey on flat surfaces. It's hard. But with a positive attitude it can be accomplished.

If there is evidence that this can't be done without removing or smudging (Is there even evidence that there was NO smudging?) existing prints, please do tell. Or if there is evidence I may not be privy to, do tell.

- I took note today as I drove to work. My fingers (tips) never touched the wheel. [/*]

I noticed on my seat belt there would be good finger prints on the metal part that goes across me to the part between the seats and the part it attaches into would have a full thumb print to release the seat belt. The door handle on the outside would have a couple finger prints underneath and the inside should have partials.

[Chump#7]

They sure could, SJ. Probably the some of the best places to leave prints, actually. But not if you're wearing gloves, and not bothering to wear a seatbelt.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
You put on some gloves.

You open the car door.

Sit down.

Put the key in the ignition and start the car.

Drive it.

Just try to resist the urge to take off your gloves and go all pokey pokey on flat surfaces. It's hard. But with a positive attitude it can be accomplished.

If there is evidence that this can't be done without removing or smudging (Is there even evidence that there was NO smudging?) existing prints, please do tell. Or if there is evidence I may not be privy to, do tell.

- I took note today as I drove to work. My fingers (tips) never touched the wheel. [/*]

Nice job, Chump. Add that to GS's similar description and to all the forensic discussion previously offered showing how this would be possible.

[gstickley]

Ah, Chumpy, thanks so much for your efforts. It does my aging heart good to know that someone at least made an attempt, insteading of sitting around crying, "Can't be done, can't be done, can't be done."


(Why do I constantly have a mental image of Forrest Gump sitting on the bench at the bus stop saying, "Stupid is as stupid does"?)

:D

[Chump#7]

You know, I acquired stress marks on my cranium coming up with that one. <snerk>

[gstickley]

Posted on Fri, Apr. 14, 2006
By Pete Bosak
pbosak@centredaily.com

BELLEFONTE -- Today marks one year of sorrow and anxiety for the family and friends of former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar.

For police investigators, it has been one year of frustration.

On April 15, 2005, Gricar took the day off from the district attorney's office, called his girlfriend to tell her he was taking a drive on state Route 192 and seemingly stepped off the face of the planet.

It was the last time police are sure that anyone heard from or saw him.

<snip>

Thanks, SJ, for the link. Knew I'd seen it, but you put it right out there. Thanks.

Guess the last paragraph above kinda says it all about what LE thinks about the so-called "witnesses".

;)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7

If there is evidence that this can't be done without removing or smudging (Is there even evidence that there was NO smudging?) existing prints, please do tell. Or if there is evidence I may not be privy to, do tell.

- I took note today as I drove to work. My fingers (tips) never touched the wheel. [/*]

I think this is enough:

A patten application describing a product to prevent it

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6048570-description.html

Although law enforcement individuals and technicians wear gloves when performing these operations, gloves typically leave marks, and may smudge existing fingerprints. Such handling can cause problems, since, before dusting, it cannot be ascertained where critical fingerprints may exist.


Two texts:

http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/LatentPrintsHumanBones.html

It should be noted that latex gloves can smudge or fully erase existing latent prints, so all handling by forensic personnel should be minimized prior to print processing

http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~ss424/cse555/Super%20Glue%20Fuming%20Process.pdf

Use latex gloves but be sure not to touch the print area since latex gloves (or any gloves) can disturb the prints by smudging.



From he Westerfield Case:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020619-9999-pm2.html

5 NOW, SIR, MR. DUSEK HAD ASKED YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT

16 GLOVES. IF A PERSON WAS WEARING GLOVES AND THEY HAD, WE'LL SAY

17 OVERLAID OR PUSHED -- MOVED THEIR HAND OVER AN EXISTING PRINT

18 MIGHT YOU SEE SOME EVIDENCE OF SMUDGING?

19 A. YES.


This last one I stumbled over is where two experts claining in could that they could tell approximately when the print was left.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Z1t6v24*_fkJ:www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612854.pdf+latent+fingerprints+smudging+investi gation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

Now except for the last one, they are telling people collecting evidence not to handle surfaced with possible fingerprints, even with gloves, because of smearing. Under the UTR GS current scenario, this is someone trying to drive a car at night.

I think it is time to move on beyond the claim that anyone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg.

[Cinderella]

J. J.,

I bet that if I had the keys to your car and you were at a meeting for 2 hours and I drove your car and parked it like you parked it, you wouldn't know that someone else had taken it unless you looked at the mileage meter before.

Even if you knew I took it, I bet you would not find any evidence of me having been in it.

You would not especially if you had a live-in that drove it.

[Cinderella]

J. J., how as many cars that get stolen and abandoned, do they ever find out all the car thiefs?

Also I am suspecting that you think that all LE are like the ones on court tv. These are planned shows and have everything in order. I doubt all LE are so thorough.

[Cinderella]

J. J., I just read your last post. If you are so sure that Ray drove that car to Lewisburg, then you must have witnessed it.

These are some of the first reports out and in the beginning no one in Lewisburg saw Ray.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-17-missing-da_x.htm


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-18-penn-da_x.htm

[UndertheRadar]

Gee Mr. Gump, I think most of us here kinda already done figured out that latex gloves could smear up existing fingerprints. But thanks for the references.

The critical missing link in the argument is this:

1) We know from statements that Dixon and Zaccagni made that unreadable prints were in the Mini-Cooper along with the five latent, readable prints from Ray.

2) So you can prove that a later driver would **by necessity** have smeared ALL of Ray's existing prints because . . . ?

3) So you can prove that a later driver didn't smear ten of Ray's existing prints and leave five latent, readable prints because . . . ?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J., how as many cars that get stolen and abandoned, do they ever find out all the car thiefs?
[/*]

No, they don't find them, Cind. And a long time ago, I already provided JJ with a quote from a longtime police officer who said he is **shocked** if he finds fingerprints in a stolen vehicle, because it is so rare to find them.

[Chump#7]

Now except for the last one, they are telling people collecting evidence not to handle surfaced with possible fingerprints, even with gloves, because of smearing. Under the UTR GS current scenario, this is someone trying to drive a car at night.

Thanks for the links, JJ. Truly.

But this has to do with 'smudging'. I'll try to ask more clearly... Is it known/reported one way or the other whether there was evidence of smudging at all? Yes or No. I didn't know. That's why I asked. I also saw a lot of 'may' smudge and 'can' smudge. I didn't see 'will' smudge without fail, or 'don't come within 15 feet of a finger print with those gloves on, boy, It'll smudge for sure.' So, was it reported, "found prints & smudging" or "found prints & NO evidence of smudging" or "found some prints... & (no mention of 'smudging')"?

Somebody tell what driving at night has to do with anything. I missed that crucial piece.

I think it is time to move on beyond the claim that anyone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg.

I don't. Not yet. There's that pesky cigarette thing too.


ETA: I see UtR answered my question. Thanks, UtR!!

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by Chump#7
[In re J.J.: I think it is time to move on beyond the claim that anyone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg.]

I don't. Not yet. There's that pesky cigarette thing too. [/*]Though I prefer the simplest explanation for the car arriving in Lewisburg, I still have questions too. Regarding the fingerprints, billywahoo posted (5/13/05), "of those recovered, they were either ray's, i think patty's, and the others.....drumroll for the conspiracy theorists....were not usable or were partials." Nothing incriminating...just seemed to be a bit off of the "official line". MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

Cind, I don't dust my car for fingerprints every time I get in it. I'm sure that you could drive my car for an hour without leaving any visible traces; I'm also sure that you could not do so it would look like I was the last driver.

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J., how as many cars that get stolen and abandoned, do they ever find out all the car thiefs?

Also I am suspecting that you think that all LE are like the ones on court tv. These are planned shows and have everything in order. I doubt all LE are so thorough. [/*]

How many times does LE check for prints.

In most crimes, like burglary or auto theft, LE does not check for prints.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


Thanks for the links, JJ. Truly.

But this has to do with 'smudging'. I'll try to ask more clearly... Is it known/reported one way or the other whether there was evidence of smudging at all? Yes or No. I didn't know. That's why I asked. I also saw a lot of 'may' smudge and 'can' smudge. I didn't see 'will' smudge without fail, or 'don't come within 15 feet of a finger print with those gloves on, boy, It'll smudge for sure.' So, was it reported, "found prints & smudging" or "found prints & NO evidence of smudging" or "found some prints... & (no mention of 'smudging')"?

Somebody tell what driving at night has to do with anything. I missed that crucial piece.


Chump (and I hate calling you that), the smudging here refers to trained professionals, carefully gathering evidence from a stationary surface, in a reasonably well lit environment.

In UTR/GS's current 4/14/05 scenario, this is some that is not a professional, in a moving vehicle, at night.

Even with the dome light on (which present a visibility problem for driving) it is very difficult to see all the interior of a car.



I don't. Not yet. There's that pesky cigarette thing too.



Note again what I said:

"I think it is time to move on beyond the claim that anyone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg."

Emphasis is on the underlined word.

The cigarette ashes were on the passenger side, IIRC, and not on the driver's side or scattered around the car from wind.

I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that someone else entered the passenger side, at least briefly.

[UndertheRadar]

Interesting thing about fingerprints. Even about fingerprints and driving.

In the Westerfield case, a total of only six latent, identifiable prints were found in the motor home we know had been driven into the desert where Danielle's body was eventually found.

Of those, two belonged to Danielle, and the others were matched to two other girls.

None belonged to David Westerfield.

I can only conclude that David Westerfield wiped down the entire motor home before leaving Danielle and the other girls there alone, whereupon one of the other girls must have killed Danielle and left her body in the desert. What a terrible miscarriage of justice!

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


How many times does LE check for prints.

In most crimes, like burglary or auto theft, LE does not check for prints.

[/*]


Wow! That is just about the most ludicrous statement ever made! :lol:

[gstickley]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J., how as many cars that get stolen and abandoned, do they ever find out all the car thiefs?

Also I am suspecting that you think that all LE are like the ones on court tv. These are planned shows and have everything in order. I doubt all LE are so thorough. [/*]

Cinderella, rest assured that LE does attempt to obtain latent fingerprints at Burglaries, *&E's, Grand Larcenies, & Grand Larceny Auto crime scenes out in the real world. Maybe I should say, MOST LE does attempt to do so; I am sure there are those who just do "walk-throughs". Obtaining IDENTIFIABLE latent prints is difficult, due to SMEARING, surface textures, culprits wearing gloves, etc. But many times an IDENTIFIABLE latent print can lead to the conviction of a criminal.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley



Wow! That is just about the most ludicrous statement ever made! :lol: [/*]

It's definitely in the Top Ten.

Two others that come immediately to mind:

1) The time he went to an FBI piece whose entire premise was the scent is easily transferable and reported back to the board that the only thing it said was that "it's difficult to transfer scent" and

2) That PF could have been mistaken for a 5'8-5'10" woman if she was wearing heels.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Cinderella, rest assured that LE does attempt to obtain latent fingerprints at Burglaries, *&E's, Grand Larcenies, & Grand Larceny Auto crime scenes out in the real world. Maybe I should say, MOST LE does attempt to do so; I am sure there are those who just do "walk-throughs". Obtaining IDENTIFIABLE latent prints is difficult, due to SMEARING, surface textures, culprits wearing gloves, etc. But many times an IDENTIFIABLE latent print can lead to the conviction of a criminal. [/*]

Actually, GS, they don't, in the real world, unless your version of the real world involves gnomes, magic wands and witchcraft .

http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#q2jq

The man who wrote it is Ed German of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory.

http://www.gwu.edu/gelman/guides/sciences/forensics/forsa-c.html

You should read the FAQ section, where he also talks about how fragile latent prints are.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley



Wow! That is just about the most ludicrous statement ever made! :lol: [/*]

:lol:

I belive if you just click the link below, we'll see just how ludicris that answer is. Not to mention the two poster's theory.

http://www.onin.com/fp/lpfaq.html#q2jq

It's for "dummies" so they might actually comprehend it.

:biggrin:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


Cinderella, rest assured that LE does attempt to obtain latent fingerprints at Burglaries, *&E's, Grand Larcenies, & Grand Larceny Auto crime scenes out in the real world. Maybe I should say, MOST LE does attempt to do so; I am sure there are those who just do "walk-throughs". Obtaining IDENTIFIABLE latent prints is difficult, due to SMEARING, surface textures, culprits wearing gloves, etc. But many times an IDENTIFIABLE latent print can lead to the conviction of a criminal. [/*]

Interestingly, GS, there is NO INCONSISTENCY between what you've said here and what's in the link Mr. Gump posted.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Interestingly, GS, there is NO INCONSISTENCY between what you've said here and what's in the link Mr. Gump posted. [/*]

I know, fellow Twisted Mind sister. (Have you noticed how many times "gnomes, elves, fairies" have come up lately???)

I guess my state is behind in the "world according to Gump", because "we" still attempt to lift latent fingerprints; also know FBI attempts it also. :beer:

[J. J. in Phila]

Oh, UTR, I'll give the "Elementary School Answer:

They probably didn't have enough time to do everything possible. The police must divide their time between many different crimes each day.

The "John Q. Public Answer includes:

For example, using all possible methods in your car would make it worthless. Using all possible methods in your home would probably mean the destruction of carpeting and furniture, plus the sealing (with lacquer, etc.) and repainting of many wall surfaces to repair dye stain and chemical damage. It is not unusual for a crime laboratory or evidence response team to do tens of thousands of dollars in damage to a home they completely process (typically for a who-done-it murder).

The "Police Officer Answer" includes:

you should know that latent fingerprints are very fragile and you are destroying them if you:
[i] Pick up a gun, glass, bottle, knife, credit card, etc., with gloves or a handkerchief touching any place the perpetrator's prints might be....

and

Put that same gun, glass, bottle, knife, credit card, etc., in a plastic bag, paper bag or envelope... you are destroying latent prints that may exist where the packaging material comes into contact with it.... it's about the same as wiping it clean in many instances.

Of course, in this case, we do have readable fingerprints, all belonging to RFG, at least according to what LE has told the press.

It's time to move on to another subject; RFG was the last driver.

[gstickley]

Gump has spoken.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


I know, fellow Twisted Mind sister. (Have you noticed how many times "gnomes, elves, fairies" have come up lately???)

I guess my state is behind in the "world according to Gump", because "we" still attempt to lift latent fingerprints; also know FBI attempts it also. :beer: [/*]

I'm just disappointed that thirty years in a career taught you so little, GS. Between that and that backwater state you live in, you should be ashamed to post on this board . . . . :santa:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley
Gump has spoken. [/*]

Fingerprints are like a box of chocolates, GS.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


I know, fellow Twisted Mind sister. (Have you noticed how many times "gnomes, elves, fairies" have come up lately???)

I guess my state is behind in the "world according to Gump", because "we" still attempt to lift latent fingerprints; also know FBI attempts it also. :beer: [/*]

You know, yesterday, I asked you this question:


You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

Judging your comments so far, we must lack of an answer for a lack of an explanation.

Are going to cut the silliness and attempt to answer?

[J. J. in Phila]

It seem we have two posters who don't really care what happened to RFG, and just wish to puresue their own agenda. That is a shame.:(

[gstickley]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


I'm just disappointed that thirty years in a career taught you so little, GS. Between that and that backwater state you live in, you should be ashamed to post on this board . . . . :santa: [/*]

I'm sorry, Twisted Sister, so sorry to disappoint you. I must have been working crossword puzzles or something for the 30 yrs., cause it appears I really don't know what I thought I knew, or what I thought I experienced, or what I thought I saw with my own eyes, or thought I did the paperwork on, or the supplies I ordered . . . maybe it actually was just a "fairy tale". First thing in the mornin', I'm gonna check with my friends, unless I imagined them too, to see if they are part of the "fairy tale" too. :shrug:

So, back to the cookie baking.

[J. J. in Phila]

I see still no attempt to answer, just more silliness from someone who doesn't really care about what happened to RFG.

I'll ask the question again:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

If they really cared about RFG, and were not attenmpting to push an agenda, they'd either attempt to answer it or abandon the "Patty did it on Thursday" theory. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


I'm sorry, Twisted Sister, so sorry to disappoint you. I must have been working crossword puzzles or something for the 30 yrs., cause it appears I really don't know what I thought I knew, or what I thought I experienced, or what I thought I saw with my own eyes, or thought I did the paperwork on, or the supplies I ordered . . . maybe it actually was just a "fairy tale". First thing in the mornin', I'm gonna check with my friends, unless I imagined them too, to see if they are part of the "fairy tale" too. :shrug:

So, back to the cookie baking. [/*]

Might as well bake those cookies, Sister.

Because all the time and effort we've put into documenting stuff for Mr. Gump that already answered the question he keeps asking over and over . . . has obviously gone "over" his head.

It's kind of like having a whiny toddler around, asking "When are we gonna eat?"

And you keep saying, "At 6 o'clock, after your daddy gets home."

Then five minutes later, you hear the same question again, like you'd never answered it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Unfortunate, the child would have starved to death waiting for the reply, if you were her mother, UTR.

I'll ask the question again:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

It seems like a straight forward question. So far, there has only been evasion.

The evidence, so far, is RFG's prints in the the those "fragile" latent prints, that were still there.

I'd hate to see you as a defense attorney:

"My clients fingarprints are on the gun, but someone else could have fired it for an hour and disturbed those prints."

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, stop asking a question which has been answered fully for you many times over. You look more and more foolish every time you ask it. More Gump-like.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, the question has never been answered by you or GS. Even Chump asked me a follow up, which I believe has been fully answered. Now you don't want me to ask the question. Well, I'll ask it again:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

It has to be consistent with the evidence. Some that evidence is that latent prints are "fragile" and that only RFG's prints were found. Why don't you attempt to answer it?

[UndertheRadar]

The answers you seek have all appeared in great detail on these threads, JJ.

If you didn't read them or didn't comprehend them, I can't be responsible for that.

[J. J. in Phila]

If so, then the answer to this question:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

is:












[This space intentionally left blank, but I guess I could show a bunch of dancing Santa's]





Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
UTR, the question has never been answered by you or GS. Even Chump asked me a follow up, which I believe has been fully answered. Now you don't want me to ask the question. Well, I'll ask it again:

You claim that someone else could have driven the Mini to Lewisburg on 4/14/05. Explain how, in a manner consistent with the evidence? Exclude the witnesses and focus on the evidence.

It has to be consistent with the evidence. Some that evidence is that latent prints are "fragile" and that only RFG's prints were found. Why don't you attempt to answer it? [/*]

I don't remember the Thursday, 4/14/05, trip to Lewisburg being discussed with RG's car going there. I thought we were discussing the Friday, 4/15/05 trip in which RG disappeared after the phone call he made?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I don't remember the Thursday, 4/14/05, trip to Lewisburg being discussed with RG's car going there. I thought we were discussing the Friday, 4/15/05 trip in which RG disappeared after the phone call he made? [/*]

Unfortunately, the current theory of UTR/GS is that someone else drove the Mini to Lewisburg. The phone call according to that theory is either faked or very long distance (from beyond).

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


Unfortunately, the current theory of UTR/GS is that someone else drove the Mini to Lewisburg. The phone call according to that theory is either faked or very long distance (from beyond). [/*]

Oh, okay.