Murder scenario

[gstickley]

Originally posted by 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. [/*]

UTR, did I missing something along the way? Like I don't remember reading anything about it being required that every question asked by JJ had to be answered (like dozens of times!!!) Frankly, I thought this was supposed to be a "message board", with posters allowed to post their thoughts, scenerios, theories, without being red-inked, ridiculed, questioned, labelled . . . The question about legible fingerprints in the Mini (or lack thereof) has been asked & answered time & time again. For what purpose??? To satisfy "someone's" attempt at more misdirection, smoke & mirrors, when all it is doing is showing "someone's" complete ignorance. Actually, I've had about enough of it---I really don't care what anyone on this board thinks about me, about my theories, about anything I post! If ya don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty tired of "The Professor" & his garbage posts over & over & over & over again! Kinda sounds like the "RG" forum turned into the "PPPP" forum & is now in the "Get UTR & GS" forum. For whose benefit; I'd hope most of the posters & the lurkers would see what is going on. And, heaven knows, I sure hope LE is tuned into the board!

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by gstickley


UTR, did I missing something along the way? Like I don't remember reading anything about it being required that every question asked by JJ had to be answered (like dozens of times!!!) Frankly, I thought this was supposed to be a "message board", with posters allowed to post their thoughts, scenerios, theories, without being red-inked, ridiculed, questioned, labelled . . . The question about legible fingerprints in the Mini (or lack thereof) has been asked & answered time & time again. For what purpose??? To satisfy "someone's" attempt at more misdirection, smoke & mirrors, when all it is doing is showing "someone's" complete ignorance. Actually, I've had about enough of it---I really don't care what anyone on this board thinks about me, about my theories, about anything I post! If ya don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty tired of "The Professor" & his garbage posts over & over & over & over again! Kinda sounds like the "RG" forum turned into the "PPPP" forum & is now in the "Get UTR & GS" forum. For whose benefit; I'd hope most of the posters & the lurkers would see what is going on. And, heaven knows, I sure hope LE is tuned into the board! [/*]

Well, this is HIS forum, after all. Can't forget that he proclaimed it, in capital letters, no less.

What's silly about all this is he started after I said that you and I had put up ample evidence demonstrating that someone could drive a car from Bellefonte to Lewisburg without leaving evidence of having done so (and we had) but that all he kept doing was saying "It can't be done, it can't be done, it can't be done."

I challenged him to provide evidence to show it couldn't be done. He's failed to do that, so instead he thinks that haranguing us to show, ONCE AGAIN, that it can be done, will somehow take him off the hook.

Sorry, Charlie.

Smoke and Mirrors.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


UTR, did I missing something along the way? Like I don't remember reading anything about it being required that every question asked by JJ had to be answered (like dozens of times!!!) Frankly, I thought this was supposed to be a "message board", with posters allowed to post their thoughts, scenerios, theories, without being red-inked, ridiculed, questioned, labelled . . . The question about legible fingerprints in the Mini (or lack thereof) has been asked & answered time & time again. For what purpose??? To satisfy "someone's" attempt at more misdirection, smoke & mirrors, when all it is doing is showing "someone's" complete ignorance. Actually, I've had about enough of it---I really don't care what anyone on this board thinks about me, about my theories, about anything I post! If ya don't like it, don't read it. I'm pretty tired of "The Professor" & his garbage posts over & over & over & over again! Kinda sounds like the "RG" forum turned into the "PPPP" forum & is now in the "Get UTR & GS" forum. For whose benefit; I'd hope most of the posters & the lurkers would see what is going on. And, heaven knows, I sure hope LE is tuned into the board! [/*]

Actually GS, I do hope LE is looking at this board, especially at posters like Lustor, and PE. (I've already indicated that they can check me out; I believe you said, not without a warrant.) I really do hope that they look at whereabouts of the DA's office staff on 4/14-4/16/05. That has been one of my criticisms of LE.

No smoke and mirrors. I've asked a relatively straight forward question, and still have not gotten an answer. Ironicaly, it's about a theory that UTR has held on to since June of 2006.

I'll ask the question again:

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

A few people are asking similar questions regarding it as well.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Well, this is HIS forum, after all. Can't forget that he proclaimed it, in capital letters, no less.
[/*]

Hey, maybe it wasn't JJ at all that did that. Who's forum is it?
Ray Gricar's. Maybe RG is on here. :shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Hey, maybe it wasn't JJ at all that did that. Who's forum is it?
Ray Gricar's. Maybe RG is on here. :shrug: [/*]

You might be right about RFG; I've got to admit I've though about it. In my case, I left out the "not."

You might want to a crack at the question, since neither UTR nor GS seem willing or able to answer it. I'll modify it a bit:

UTR and GS 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.

Other than towing it, I can't get an answer; feel free to take a shot at it.
:D

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Hey, maybe it wasn't JJ at all that did that. Who's forum is it?
Ray Gricar's. Maybe RG is on here. :shrug: [/*]

The person who posts with the account named "J.J. in Phila" posted that it was HIS forum.

If you're implying that "J.J. in Phila" is really Ray Gricar, and if that were to turn out to be true, I would be physically, violently ill as a result of learning that.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, if you would have read my post you would note that I left out the "not." That should clarify things.

Now, since that has been clarified, perhaps you could clrify (or directly answer) this:

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 is possible that RFG is reading this. I would add this, UTR, with residents like you in the area, I could see RFG would walk away.

[Cinderella]

UTR, GS, Please consider that David Copperfield could have put the car there. Was David in the area at the time.

Who knows maybe the Mini took a wild carpet ride with Pgal.

How about the animals around decided to pick it up and carry it through the woods so that no one would see it.

It is a smart car, it drove itself there.

Some thieves stole it and parked it there because they wanted to go to the SOS and look around.

Santa decided that he wanted to use it one year instead of his sleigh. You know Santa, he gets around the world.

The car was a car like "Christine", did you ever see that movie where the car does what it wants?

The car saw a beautiful car go by and followed it.

The car didn't like RG or PF and just decided to leave home.

The car thought it was being abused and just left and hid.

The car knew that RG was into antiques and knew that the SOS had something that RG would love so it went there to buy RG a present.

Someone wired the car with remote control that way no signs of evidence. Now where is the remote? Maybe in the river too.

If no one saw it get there, then how can you prove to me that it didn't happen one of these ways? I want some evidence of that.
UTR and GS, you have very closed minds. :no:

:flamemad:

I say "LETS STOP THE INSANITY"

The car is there because someone other than RG wanted to make it look like he jumped in the river. They took the hard drive out of the laptop because they figured that it would be too heavy for Ray to jump in the river with the lap top and hard drive together so they threw the hard drive in and later the lap top to make it look like Ray jumped in with the laptop. :santa:

[J. J. in Phila]

Actually, I read the book Christine, which did nothing to increase my rather low opinion of King. :)

There is just too much evidence that RFG drove the car there, and a reasonable number of witnesses that put RFG and the Mini there (possibly entering the parking lot) in the afternoon of 4/15.

That doesn't say he wasn't murdered, that doesn't say the laptop wasn't tossed in by someone else, that doesn't say no one else ever entered the car, only that RFG drove the car to Lewisburg.


As for the removal of the drive, IIRC, the laptop with the drive weighed less than 10 pounds; RFG could have jumped in with it or could have tossed it off the bridge.

[Chump#7]

Billy Joe Leathers on a whole wheat cracker... The drama.


J. J., Could you please tell me how someone simply putting on gloves (or not), opening the door, starting it, and driving it is not "a manner consistent with the evidence". The evidence that I'm aware of doesn't prove one way or the other whether someone other than RG drove the Mini to Lewisburg or anywhere else. You showed me how prints could be smudged if touched by gloves. Yeah. Duh. So what?

Are you asking to prove someone else drove the Mini to Lewisburg in a "manner consistent with the evidence"? That's something else entirely. I don't think anyone here would assert that notion. The evidence, that I know of, doesn't prove anything other than RG drove the car at one time. Again - So what? The evidence doesn't prove that someone else may have driven it either.

I don't see what's so complicated here.

[Cinderella]

J. J., Sorry that you took my post seriously, I was only joking. In a way does it really matter who drove the Mini. Ray is missing. What happened to Ray. Where is the proof that he was even in Lewisburg?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Billy Joe Leathers on a whole wheat cracker... The drama.


Don't see the relevance, but I don't disagree. :)


J. J., Could you please tell me how someone simply putting on gloves (or not), opening the door, starting it, and driving it is not "a manner consistent with the evidence". The evidence that I'm aware of doesn't prove one way or the other whether someone other than RG drove the Mini to Lewisburg or anywhere else. You showed me how prints could be smudged if touched by gloves. Yeah. Duh. So what?

Are you asking to prove someone else drove the Mini to Lewisburg in a "manner consistent with the evidence"? That's something else entirely. I don't think anyone here would assert that notion. The evidence, that I know of, doesn't prove anything other than RG drove the car at one time. Again - So what? The evidence doesn't prove that someone else may have driven it either.

I don't see what's so complicated here. [/*]

Chump, presumably, at some point, RFG left his fingerprints in the car, which is why they were found in the car.

Now, if somebody else, even RFG, gets in the car wearing gloves and drives it to Lewisburg, they will have to touch the same surfaces, probably multiple times. He'll have to steer the car, and they won't have any idea exactly where RFG's prints are; the "other driver" will even to turn shraply to get through the streets of Lewisburg and into the parking lot. If there was another driver, even using gloves when touching the wheel, or the door handle, LE shouldn't be finding RFG's prints on the wheel or the door handle.

So, basically, whatever scenario we com up with, it has to explain how the Mini got to Lewisburg, without someone else driving it (or at least without contact with the steering wheel). The most likely scenario is RFG drove the car to Lewisburg.

Cind, to answer your question, we need to know what happened on 4/15/05 to figure out what happened to Ray.

[Cinderella]

No J. J., you are wrong. We need to go back to the night of 4/14/05.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
No J. J., you are wrong. We need to go back to the night of 4/14/05. [/*]

No, Cind. To look at the whole thing, we need to look at April 2005, at least.

If we're looking at motivation, we may have look back to July 1985.

If we want to look at how the Mini got to Lewisburg, we need to look at 4/15/05.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Billy Joe Leathers on a whole wheat cracker... The drama.


J. J., Could you please tell me how someone simply putting on gloves (or not), opening the door, starting it, and driving it is not "a manner consistent with the evidence". The evidence that I'm aware of doesn't prove one way or the other whether someone other than RG drove the Mini to Lewisburg or anywhere else. You showed me how prints could be smudged if touched by gloves. Yeah. Duh. So what?

Are you asking to prove someone else drove the Mini to Lewisburg in a "manner consistent with the evidence"? That's something else entirely. I don't think anyone here would assert that notion. The evidence, that I know of, doesn't prove anything other than RG drove the car at one time. Again - So what? The evidence doesn't prove that someone else may have driven it either.

I don't see what's so complicated here. [/*]

You are absolutely correct. The evidence we have proves only that Gricar drove the car at one time; the evidence we have proves nothing about someone else driving the car at any other time, including after RG last drove it.

Let me add to the long list of things already posted to support this contention--the quotes from various police officers and FBI forensic specialists, the statistical data, etc.--an overview of a particularly interesting case.

The case was being appealed on various grounds (that the defendent had been incompetent to stand trial, that he had had incompetent counsel, etc.) and the appeal was denied. That much is immaterial, but the facts of the case, **stipulated in the appeal**, are not.

A brief overview:

Three men spent an evening of drinking, splitting their time between a restaurant, bar, and a private home. Eventually, they became noisy at the private home and moved outside to avoid waking the wife of one of the men, who was sleeping inside. Ultimately, the suggestion was made that they were still too noisy, and they should all walk to a nearby store to buy some cigarettes.

On the way to the store, Man X pulled a gun and shot Man Z dead.

Man X and Man Y then put the body of Man Z into the car belonging to **Man Z.** Man X wore gloves, but Man Y's hands were bare, though Man X ordered Man Y not to touch the door handle.

Man X and Man Y got into the car belonging to Man Y, with Man X driving, and drove the car to a parking lot, where they abandoned the car, the keys to the car, and the body in the car.

*****

Now here's the interesting part. Fingerprint testimony was stipulated as evidence.

NO fingerprints from Man X or Man Y were found in the vehicle. But identifiable fingerprints from Man Z, the dead man who owned the car, were found.

Obviously, this dead man did not drive himself to the parking lot.

****

And why is any of this important? Some would only argue loud and long that it's some kind of PF-vendetta gone wild.

But it's not. We have a car sitting in Lewisburg, where (despite claims to the contrary) we have no objective, hard evidence to show that Gricar necessarily ever made it, at least not in terms of hard evidence showing he made it to the SOS.

In that car, we have not only ash, but also the smell of smoke strong enough to make LE on the scene consider a wild weekend as the reason for Gricar's plans. And yet we have testimony that RG smoked only an occasional "celebratory" cigar and otherwise would not permit cigarette smoking in the car.

There are reasons to look at the possibility that someone other than Ray Gricar may have been driving that Mini-Cooper, and trying to shut down that line of discussion in some misguided attempt to protect someone other than Ray Gricar certainly subverts the purpose of this particular forum.

[J. J. in Phila]

UTR, I drove about a mile tonight. When I started the car, and pulled out, I gripped the steering wheel firmly, in one place (I gegenally drive with one hand on the wheel.

Each time I turned a corner, I gripped the wheel and turned it in the direction I wanted the car to go. I then turned the wheel hand of hand, touching the steering wheel each time.

When the car turned, the wheel started turning back, from the momentum of the car. I didn't let go of the wheel, but released the pressure of my grip. The wheel glided along, touching my fingers.

Okay, in terms of fingerprints, I grasp the wheel and pull out, I'm leaving one set of prints. When I turn it hand over hand, I leave multiple prints, possibly overlapping that first set. When the wheel spins back, all those nice prints on the wheel get smeared by my own hand. When I grasp the wheel again, my prints are left again.

Now, I don't have the ability to see my fingerprints and I cant tell in the dark (or possibly in the daylight) where exactly my hand was on the wheel. I also can't really focus on it, because I want to watch where the car is going.

I can't just hold the wheel in one place and make turns, and to get from Bellefonte to Lewisburg, I have to make several 90 degree turns.

Now lets say that I go out into my car again and wear gloves. Maybe I won't disturb the prints that I left tonight by starting out and going straight, but I will with every turn.

That is the problem with the theory, and from what I can see, it is insurmountable by anyone driving the car from Bellefonte to Lewisburg.

As for the cigarette ash and smell, nothing that I have said precludes someone else from getting into the car in Lewisburg, or leaning into the to get something, or potentially (though unlikely) riding in the car. It deals solely with driving the car from Bellefonte to Lewisburg.

[UndertheRadar]

Dead men can't drive.

That's the last word I have to say on the subject.

[J. J. in Phila]

But live men can, and that is exactly my point. RFG was alive and drove the car to Lewisburg.

The question now are when and, more importantly, WHY?.

[UndertheRadar]

WHOOSH!

That's the sound of relevant information going right past JJ again.

[J. J. in Phila]

I was looking at some of the early posts and I found this one:

starling
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location:
Posts: 1446


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AJandTam
<*>

What ya think Starling?? You think both of these guys jumped from a bridge?? Unreal but the coincidences are eery.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



on GVS tonight~
that woman attorney said the "bar was split" into 2 theories
1. ran off 2. suicide
SHE seemed very weird IMO, very cold,.. turned up her noise and said (in so many words) Ray didn't hang with a group.


Mark Furman seems to think Ray wanted the car & phone found. If the car does belong to his g/friend...this guy was responsible & detailed down to his "exit"...whatever it may be



Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-20-2005 11:36 PM

I have four possibilities, but on 4/20, not knowing about the laptop, my third was accident (which was mentioned on the thread as well). My fourth was walkaway (I do tend to discount witness reports).Why was the bar split between these two possibilities?

Why didn't "the bar" put murder in the top three?

[J. J. in Phila]

Slam, the sound of UTR's mind closing.

She doesn't understand that she assumed a fat not in evidence. Nor does she care to admit the impossibility of anyone other than RFG driving the car. Typical.

[UndertheRadar]

No, JJ.

It's still whoosing.

[J. J. in Phila]

No UTR, you've just demonstrated the same bias you've had from your first post.

You are now basically saying, **This is what I believe, so long as I ignore the evidence.**

[Chump#7]

the impossibility of anyone other than RFG driving the car.

... And I assume: To Lewisburg on 4/15/05. Right?

Impossibility? Dude, that's a pretty strong word. Kind of absolute. Where is this elusive 'fact' or evidence to show that this occurred for certain? I mean, it's surely possible; that's the story, but...

I thought there was discussion of whether there was video tape anywhere along the route between Bellefonte and Lewisburg that showed 'Ray' 'driving' the Mini. I thought that it was concluded that there wasn't (at least that the public is aware of). There was a talk of maybe a witness seeing 'The Mini' at an intersection in Rebersburg. So what? And then we have some possible sightings of Ray in Lewisburg on 4/15/05, but not 'driving' to 'Lewisburg'. And I also thought we've discussed whether the average Lewisburg resident would recognize Ray as being Ray. We concluded that being outside of the media market that Ray was frequently visually shown in, it wasn't as likely as a witness within the media market Ray was part of. Still entirely possibly; that's the story. But I don't recall a witness saying they saw him 'driving' to Lewisburg.

So please do tell of this evidence that has allowed you to use the term 'impossibilty'? Were you with him? Smoking? That would be awesome! I'd call myself closed minded to assert such a notion as 'impossible' without corroborated evidence.

[gstickley]

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. 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.

<snip?


Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-21-2006 02:51 PM [/*]

Thought I'd just throw this out there, because "the witnesses" is likely to appear shortly. This quote was made by someone fully involved in the investigation, someone who apparently had first-hand knowledge of the investigation, someone who actually was "in the know".

[Cinderella]

These are some of the first reports out

4/17/05

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-17-missing-da_x.htm
--------------------------
SNIP
Police said Gricar had taken Friday off and had told Fornicola he was going for a drive on a road that leads to Lewisburg.

Workers at the antiques mall didn't report seeing anything unusual either Friday or Saturday. "It was business as usual," said the market's manager, Susan Sawyer.

SNIP
--------------------------

4/18/05

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

----------------------------
SNIP

Gricar was last seen by Fornicola before she left for work Friday morning. He was scheduled to take a half-day off work.

Gricar called Fornicola at 11:30 a.m. from his cell phone on a road leading to Lewisburg, saying he was taking the whole day off. It was the last time anyone heard from him and the last time his cell phone was used, police said.

SNIP

-----------------------------

[Cinderella]

If people remember correctly, the first time Craig Bennett was asked if he had seen Gricar, he stated something like he didn't know. I hope that I can find the article. Then later he mentions that he thinks he did see him. Sounds fishy to me.


4/18/05

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-18-05tdc/04-18-05dnews-01.asp
--------------------
SNIP

Gricar's car was found Saturday at about 6:30 p.m. in a dirt parking lot in the outskirts of Lewisburg, across from the Street of Shops, 100 N. Water St., police said.

The antique shop is near a wooded area adjacent to the Susquehanna River.

"The car was parked out here [Saturday]," said Brad Alvey, who owns Remember When Café, located in the Street of Shops. "Nobody that I'm aware of saw him."

SNIP

--------------------

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-21-05tdc/04-21-05dnews-10.asp

-----------------------
SNIP

Yesterday, two employees of the antiques shop where Gricar's car was found Saturday said they are nearly
certain they saw him in the store that day.

Craig Bennett, owner of Street of Shops, Lewisburg, said he saw Gricar at noon Saturday waiting outside of the Remember When Café, which is currently being constructed inside the market.

"I'm relatively certain, 95 percent sure, he was here at noontime on Saturday," Bennett said.

SNIP
----------------------------

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Chump#7


I thought there was discussion of whether there was video tape anywhere along the route between Bellefonte and Lewisburg that showed 'Ray' 'driving' the Mini. I thought that it was concluded that there wasn't (at least that the public is aware of). There was a talk of maybe a witness seeing 'The Mini' at an intersection in Rebersburg. So what? And then we have some possible sightings of Ray in Lewisburg on 4/15/05, but not 'driving' to 'Lewisburg'. And I also thought we've discussed whether the average Lewisburg resident would recognize Ray as being Ray. We concluded that being outside of the media market that Ray was frequently visually shown in, it wasn't as likely as a witness within the media market Ray was part of. Still entirely possibly; that's the story. But I don't recall a witness saying they saw him 'driving' to Lewisburg.


All absolutely correct, Chumpy. Nothing concrete and irrefutable puts Gricar on the road to Lewisburg, and nothing concrete and irrefutable puts him on the scene **in** Lewisburg. Even then-Chief Dixon readily conceded this point. There is no video, no signed credit card receipt, no time-stamped parking receipt with his finger print, nothing of the sort to place him there irrefutably.

And yet we have this car, with ashes and smoke that don't belong in them. Failure to consider that RG may not have been the one to drive that car into the SOS parking lot would be the closed-minded approach.

There is not a single piece of publicly available information which proves Ray Gricar was the last person to drive the Mini-Cooper, and absolutely no way to reason logically that this was so.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
UTR, I drove about a mile tonight. When I started the car, and pulled out, I gripped the steering wheel firmly, in one place (I gegenally drive with one hand on the wheel.

<snip>
[/*]

Sooo, in the "mile", how many identifiable fingerprints did you leave???

[Cinderella]

Not that anyone needed to, but someone could have even used a cover to go over the steering wheel. I don't think that I ever drive with my fingers touching the steering wheel. Maybe a palm.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by gstickley


Sooo, in the "mile", how many identifiable fingerprints did you leave??? [/*]

I didn't dust the car, but I'd expect at least three sets. Last contact with the wheel, door, gearshift.

All of which were nicely smeared when I drove with gloves today.

[gstickley]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I didn't dust the car, but I'd expect at least three sets. Last contact with the wheel, door, gearshift.

All of which were nicely smeared when I drove with gloves today. [/*]

There ya go! If ya get at least 3 sets in 1 mile, how many identifiable sets could ya get in 50-60 miles??

(And still don't know for sure whether it was 5 identifiable prints in Mini or 5 sets of identifiable prints.)

In the olden days, when I thought I was familiar with fingerprints, a "complete set" was comprised of 5 prints (4 fingers & thumb).

3 sets of prints would mean you left at least 15 prints in your car.
5 sets of prints would mean RG left 30 prints in his car.

Sooooo, that means what? 3 fingerprints for JJ in 1 mile; 5 fingerprints for RG in 50-60 miles. Or 15 for JJ; 30 for RG.

Of course, the smearing/smudging of any of the prints probably
eliminated the majority of them. The question remains: WHO did the smearing/smudging?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


... And I assume: To Lewisburg on 4/15/05. Right?

Impossibility? Dude, that's a pretty strong word. Kind of absolute. Where is this elusive 'fact' or evidence to show that this occurred for certain? I mean, it's surely possible; that's the story, but...

So please do tell of this evidence that has allowed you to use the term 'impossibilty'? Were you with him? Smoking? That would be awesome! I'd call myself closed minded to assert such a notion as 'impossible' without corroborated evidence.


Note: I moved the last paraph of your post.

"Impossibility" is used correctly in this case. In order to drive the Mini, and drive has to come in contact, repeatedly, with the wheel, at least indirectly. The problem is, even indirect contact will cause the prints to be smudged. That applies to gloves, wheel covers, sheets of plastic (which could create a different problem as well).

Now the only way to prevent that is to drive the Mini without coming into any contact with the wheel. There are a few devices (which are not commonly available), but they would leave a trace of being attached.

The only way it would be possible to get the car to Lewisburg, is not to drive it there. It clearly got into the parking lot somehow.


I thought there was discussion of whether there was video tape anywhere along the route between Bellefonte and Lewisburg that showed 'Ray' 'driving' the Mini. I thought that it was concluded that there wasn't (at least that the public is aware of). There was a talk of maybe a witness seeing 'The Mini' at an intersection in Rebersburg. So what? And then we have some possible sightings of Ray in Lewisburg on 4/15/05, but not 'driving' to 'Lewisburg'.


The were some reports of the car pulling in between 5-6 PM. The original is lost. They may have included the driver, or not.

[J. J. in Phila]

Chump, (and I really hate that name) if you can come with a method for someone other than RFG to drive the Mini for 50 miles, at night, and not come into direct or indirect contact with the wheel and door, I'll withdraw the word "impossibility."

[Chump#7]

Who ever said the readable prints were lifted specifically from the steering wheel in the first place?

Who are you trying to convince anyway? An imaginary jury? Didn't realize there was a trial. Do you come here to put your mad defense attorney skillz to the test? For sport?

Feh.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[Cinderella]

I've heard people being called Chump before. To me it seems like a friendly name. :)

[UndertheRadar]

So we still have JJ on here trying, without success, to argue that someone cannot drive a car with gloves on without destroying previous fingerprints through smudging.

That is how he reaches the conclusion RG was the last person to drive the Mini-Cooper.

We can therefore only conclude that JJ is also arguing that a dead man can drive a car.

WHOOSH!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7
Who ever said the readable prints were lifted specifically from the steering wheel in the first place?

Who are you trying to convince anyway? An imaginary jury? Didn't realize there was a trial. Do you come here to put your mad defense attorney skillz to the test? For sport?

Feh.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." [/*]

Here:

"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.
Pete Bosak 7/20/07"

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 isn't being accurate with the public, LE isn't being accurate with PB, or they all are being accurate.

I do [u]not[/i] believe that LE is giving out all the information they have, but I believe what they are giving out is correct. And no, I do not believe in massive PSP, BPD, CTD conspiracy to protect Patty Fornicola, because, frankly, she just isn't that important.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Dead men can't drive. That's the last word I have to say on the subject. [/*]One could only have hoped. But since that was not your last word on the subject, perhaps you would expand upon the first sentence...since I am unaware of any information which proves RG did not (while quite alive) park the Mini in the SoS lot.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
One could only have hoped. But since that was not your last word on the subject, perhaps you would expand upon the first sentence...since I am unaware of any information which proves RG did not (while quite alive) park the Mini in the SoS lot. [/*]

I am not referring to RG or to the Gricar case.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar

I am not referring to RG or to the Gricar case. [/*]Oh...sorry. I got confused. My bad. And failure to consider that RG may have been the one to drive that car into the SOS parking lot would also be the closed-minded approach...which I know you do not ascribe to (said approach). I will go back to listening to my Kenny G CD now.

[Chump#7]

Now, either PB isn't being accurate with the public, LE isn't being accurate with PB, or they all are being accurate.

Check out the latest on PB's Q&A forum. Politigal asked him specifically. He doesn't know. Said to ask again next week.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


Check out the latest on PB's Q&A forum. Politigal asked him specifically. He doesn't know. Said to ask again next week. [/*]

PB is trying to get where they all where. He listed in the previous answer where some were.

[Cinderella]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Oh...sorry. I got confused. My bad. And failure to consider that RG may have been the one to drive that car into the SOS parking lot would also be the closed-minded approach...which I know you do not ascribe to (said approach). I will go back to listening to my Kenny G CD now. [/*]


Would you turn it up so that I can hear it. Just don't sing along with it.

Thanks, now I can hear it. :biggrin:

[Politigal]

If Gricar was murdered, I think it's safe to assume the following:


That it was someone who knew Gricar well
That it was someone who knew he wasn't going to work that day
That it was someone who was familiar with the circumstances of his brother's suicide
That it was someone who knew he had a laptop
And, that it was someone familiar with Lewisburg, and the Street of Shops


And, IMO, you would have to apply all of the above *collaboratively* to the killer - not just 1, 2 or 3 of them.

If the shoe fits.....

[Cloudbuster]

Pgal good post!!! If someone was going to meet him that day they knew he wasn't going to be at work. The only one that Im unsure of his brothers death. That could be a coindence. Even if someone knew RG a little they might have known about that from someone closer to RG.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
Pgal good post!!! If someone was going to meet him that day they knew he wasn't going to be at work. The only one that Im unsure of his brothers death. That could be a coindence. Even if someone knew RG a little they might have known about that from someone closer to RG. [/*]

If it was a meeting, as you note, the person RFG was meeting would know, obviously.

The choice of Lewisburg is however very important. Assuming this was staged to look like suicide, why not Lock Haven? It's closer to Bellefonte, and a lot easier to get to if the killer is local. Someone who knows about Roy's suicide could find an almost identiucal site, closer.

Now, Lewisburg has one advantage; RFG would be less likely to be recognized. If this was a murder, maybe RFG didn't want to be seen with the murderer. The question would be why?

[Cloudbuster]

JJ I don't why someone might have or not picked Lock Haven??? Why not Howard or Julian or Milesburg? I have no idea about why any area. For all we know they might have thought of LHaven first- there was a predug grave there remember? Perhaps they knew T Mcnight was a friend of RG's?

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


If it was a meeting, as you note, the person RFG was meeting would know, obviously.

The choice of Lewisburg is however very important. Assuming this was staged to look like suicide, why not Lock Haven? It's closer to Bellefonte, and a lot easier to get to if the killer is local. Someone who knows about Roy's suicide could find an almost identiucal site, closer.

Now, Lewisburg has one advantage; RFG would be less likely to be recognized. If this was a murder, maybe RFG didn't want to be seen with the murderer. The question would be why? [/*]

IMOO to answer your question I will stick to what I feel and it has not changed RG was involved in some kind of investagation that centered around drugs and corruption. If someones involved in something like that I don't believe something like that would arise in a area where he would be known including the person he was meeting with. Lewisburg is a lot on the Amish side and who is going to notice faces that far away?

[Chump#7]

The choice of Lewisburg is however very important. Assuming this was staged to look like suicide, why not Lock Haven? It's closer to Bellefonte, and a lot easier to get to if the killer is local. Someone who knows about Roy's suicide could find an almost identiucal site, closer.

If the killer is local and staging the site (assuming a Bellefonte crime scene), he would be an idiot to try and move that car to Lock Haven without being seen and probably identified.

Maps do no justice to the reality of the routes. Bellefonte to Lock Haven? You're going to get into traffic and areas that would put you in a high risk of being noticed/identified. Backdoor out of Bellefonte (144) to a 192 backdoor entrance into Lewisburg? What is there? An intersection at Pleasant Gap and a turn onto 192 before you've barely entered Centre Hall. That's it: least risky route of staging somewhere else without being seen.

I know some of you have driven 64 to Lock Haven. C'mon.

Lock Haven? Retarded - if you're a local and know what's what.

ETA: Oh yeah, 'My Opinion' - without pity

[Cinderella]

I totally agree with you Chumps. I think that the driver of the Mini accomplished just that. Except for the guy that told me that he saw Ray at the intersection, which I don't know if it's true or not, no one else seemed to see who was driving the car. Other than some people in Lewisburg, that thought a person was Ray.

What does without pity mean?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Chump#7


If the killer is local and staging the site (assuming a Bellefonte crime scene), he would be an idiot to try and move that car to Lock Haven without being seen and probably identified.

Maps do no justice to the reality of the routes. Bellefonte to Lock Haven? You're going to get into traffic and areas that would put you in a high risk of being noticed/identified. Backdoor out of Bellefonte (144) to a 192 backdoor entrance into Lewisburg? What is there? An intersection at Pleasant Gap and a turn onto 192 before you've barely entered Centre Hall. That's it: least risky route of staging somewhere else without being seen.

I know some of you have driven 64 to Lock Haven. C'mon.

Lock Haven? Retarded - if you're a local and know what's what.

ETA: Oh yeah, 'My Opinion' - without pity [/*]

Remember the claims a number of posters have made. According to them, the car was driven at night.

If you are going into a high traffic area, Lewisburg and Bellefonte are the two highest. Obviously, the car was in Lewisburg.

The quickest way to get to Lock Haven is up 144, to 150, to I-80. Until that point, it is the quickest route to Lewisburg, in terms of time. Then turn off on 64 to 220 and off to Lock Haven. Unlike 192, 220 bypasses small towns, like Mill Hall. The difference is, it is one hour shorter round trip, and most of the smaller towns are bypassed. You don't have to drive through the center of Bellefonte either way. Both ways, by 144/150, you have to go through Milesburg.

Another alternative is to take 220 right into Lock Haven. It adds about 2 minutes.

Either way, it is a lot shorter, so that someone "planting" can save an hour.

[Cinderella]

Oh, Finally some people are here. I thought that almost everyone left.

Chumps, do you think that RG is alive?

J. J. nice to see you.

[Chump#7]

Oh, Finally some people are here. I thought that almost everyone left.

It's that time of the year, Cinderella. Busy, busy, busy...

RG alive? I have no idea. I could only guess, and that guess would be - NO.

[Cinderella]

Thanks Chump for answering my question. Maybe I just keep thinking that because I want to believe that he is alive.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Thanks Chump for answering my question. Maybe I just keep thinking that because I want to believe that he is alive. [/*]

I give the chance that RFG was dead by 4/17/05 as being 57.5%. When I started posting, I gave those odds at 66.667%.

Improvement or just less certainty. I don't know.

[Politigal]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


I give the chance that RFG was dead by 4/17/05 as being 57.5%.

snipped[/*]

but Why? or how did you arrive at that number?

briefly, please

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

I give the chance that RFG was dead by 4/17/05 as being 57.5%. When I started posting, I gave those odds at 66.667%. Improvement or just less certainty. I don't know. [/*]Given the 3 prevalent theories (2 of which involve death), are not your initial "odds" the same "slate" we all started with...at least those of us who did not know RG...even chances of foul play, suicide and walk away? Or are you throwing in some chance of death after 4/17/05? Because what I see in your post is that your 1 in 3 chance of walk away has grown by more than 24 points. And I am curious to know why.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Given the 3 prevalent theories (2 of which involve death), are not your initial "odds" the same "slate" we all started with...at least those of us who did not know RG...even chances of foul play, suicide and walk away? Or are you throwing in some chance of death after 4/17/05? Because what I see in your post is that your 1 in 3 chance of walk away has grown by more than 24 points. And I am curious to know why. [/*]

First, I am including the possibility that RFG walked away and died after that. I won't give odds.

I basically started out with the three possibilities and gave them even weight. Murder and walkaway started out 33.33 % and both have grown to 42.5%, a bit over a 9 point increase. That is because on several examples of bodies being recovered in the Susquehanna and of more activities along the river (some fishing, a lot of recreation, and hunting in the areas). That has driven down the chances of suicide.

Another real problem is the laptop. Suppose RFG had a "buddy" to destroy the computer; why doesn't the buddy grab the case and carry it out?

Suppose RFG takes it with him and look at old photos before he kills himself. He leaves it on the bank where someone, S, finds it and takes it home. Why doesn't S call the police and just admit to finding it?

Suppose a suicidal RFG wants to destroy the data. Why doesn't he just remove the drive and take it with him?

Further, it looks like the computer was tossed from the westbound side of the bridge, meaning that RFG would have had to have tossed it after crossing the river and on his way back to the "Bellefonte side." I can see RFG driving to Lewisburg and killing himself. I cannot see him driving back and forth across the river first. I have never heard of a suicide doing that. Have you?

[Serendipitous1]

Sorry...my math skills sucked last night. So you have the probabilities as foul play - 42.5%, suicide - 15% (total of 57.5%), and walk away - 42.5% (up 9 points). Interesting, in contrast to the probabilities TG left us with. MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Serendipitous1
Sorry...my math skills sucked last night. So you have the probabilities as foul play - 42.5%, suicide - 15% (total of 57.5%), and walk away - 42.5% (up 9 points). Interesting, in contrast to the probabilities TG left us with. MOO [/*]

Two things really kill (no pun intended) the possibility of suicide.

1. No body. You've posted links of other bodies being found, usually after several months. We've both look at the locations of dams on the river.

2. That darn laptop. Even if it was tossed a month after RFG went missing, it still wouldn't make the disappearance look like suicide.

The purpose seems to be to destroy the data on the hard drive, possible after use on 4/15/05. That to me could point to murder or walkaway.

Also, it seems very likely that the laptop was taken from the case to check to see if the battery was working. Of all things suggested, including those by me, that seems to be the likely reason.

[sherrijean981]

I found this article on the laptop:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fs earch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dgricar%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3Dm ss%26ei%3DUTF-8%26ni%3D21%26fr%3Dyfp-t-501%26*%3D106&w=329&h=248&imgurl=www.yardbird.com%2Fimages%2Fmicron_Trek2.gi f&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yardbird.com%2Fmidnight_ride _gricars_laptop_found.htm&size=19.1kB&name=micron_Trek2.gif&p=gricar&type=gif&no=121&tt=135&oid=c9a0325bda6832d6&ei=UTF-8


Quote:
DA Ray Gricar's laptop is found
in area previously extensively searched

Laptop is missing its hard drive and telltale data

Sure looks fishy! CARPe diem...


August 1 , 2005 -- Missing Centre County, PA, District Attorney Ray Gricar's laptop computer has been found in the Susquehanna River, under a bridge where divers had previously extensively searched.




Pop-out hard drive? Centre County Administrator Tim Boyde says he believes Gricar had a Micron laptop such as this; its hard drive conveniently 'slides right out,' he says.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The laptop is missing its hard drive, says Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon.

Fishermen pulled the laptop out of the Susquehanna River on Saturday, July 30, under the Rt. 45 bridge. The fishermen noticed the Centre County Commissioners' sticker on the laptop, and called the state police. A state police forensics expert discovered the hard drive was missing.

Centre County Director of Administrative Services Timothy T. Boyde says he believes Gricar had been issued a Micron laptop. "That's what the MIS department told me this afternoon," Boyde told yardbird.com. "It's a recent computer from the last year or so."

Boyde said he asked the MIS department whether the hard drive on the laptop was easily removable.

"That's what I asked," Boyde said. "I was told you just push a couple buttons and the hard drive just slides right out."

But that seems to be only an auxiliary hard drive. "I purchased the optional 4 Gb hard disk, which swaps with the removable CD-ROM," one owner of a Micon laptop writes on the web. (A review in PC World magazine furthermore states that Microns can "accomodate ... a second hard drive ... if you remove the (cd) drive."

It's not immediately clear if the internal, built-in hard drive in Gricar's laptop is so easily removable, or what happened to it.

Micron laptops are some of the most expensive in the Windows world. "It's not a standard issue," Boyde added. "But elected officials and department heads could request it. I think that's what Ray had."
Quote

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


If the laptop had been in the closet and not used, as PF indicated, since the new computer arrived, somewhere around the end of the year, IIRC, then there is NO doubt......none, nada, zilch, it needed recharged in order to be used. Was the charger found out and plugged in? It was my understanding all the peripherals were found in the closet, therefore no reason to believe charging it was the sole purpose for removing it. You seem to be offering that in explanation for why it was out of the case, and as explanation for why a meticulous man wouldn't have taken the case also, which of course he would have.



PEF didn't know that it had been used since the new computer; that did not mean that it hadn't been used and recharged.

Also, depending on the battery, it's power loss can be 5% per month. I believe that point was raised by TG.


What exactly makes it VERY likely that the battery was checked? Since you repeatedly bring up the likelihood of RG walking away, why would he need to check the battery if he had NO intention of taking the laptop anywhere but to toss it in the river?


This actually is neutral in regard to any of the three theories. I have to ask why anyone would remove just the laptop from the case. The most likely reason is, to check the battery.


You have mentioned numerous times that the purpose of tossing the laptop would have been to destroy information so where does a charged battery fit in?


It could mean that someone wanted to see the data before it was destroyed. That could tie into murder, walkaway, or even suicide.


Surely RG didn't need to charge the battery to know what was on his laptop. Just as surely as RG was not the only one who had access to the closet or the laptop.


Very few people had access to the closet, RFG, PEF, and anyone either of them told and gave access to the house.

RFG would have needed to know if the laptop was working if he wanted to use it.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


How can I maximize the performance of my MICRON laptop battery?


Exercise the Battery - Do not leave the battery dormant for long periods of time. We recommend using the battery at least once every two to three weeks. If a laptop battery has not been used for a long period of time, perform the new battery break in procedure described above.


First, that is the recommendation, but not necessarily will mean that the battery will fail after 2-3 weeks.

Here the performance of the Li-Ion battery:

At a typical 100% charge level at 25, Li-ion batteries irreversibly lose approximately 20% capacity per year from the time they are manufactured, even when unused. (6% at 0, 20% at 25, 35% at 40). When stored at 40% charge level, these figures are reduced to 2%, 4%, 15% at 0, 25 and 40 respectively. Every deep discharge cycle decreases their capacity also.

http://www.electronics-lab.com/articles/Li_Ion_reconstruct/

Second, we know that PRF didn't see the laptop being used, but that does not mean that that the laptop was unused, or was not fully charged befor 4/15, possibly on 4/14, or even several days before. PEF wasn't handcuffed to the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

Bumped (for Cindi).

[Cinderella]

Thank you J. J.

[Cinderella]

The murder scenerio is about the only scenerio that is left to consider. I don't believe that Ray committed suicide. I don't believe that Ray walked away. I don't know why Centre County had a grief session if they were not sure that Ray was dead. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to me.

[Cinderella]

I am wondering who all didn't attend the grief session.

Was it just PF and JKA that didn't attend? JKA talks about the grief session, but from what I read, how did she come up with the grief session being like a seance? What made her get that feeling if it was being held at the courthouse? Or was that just an excuse for not attending?

[Cloudbuster]

police said they still do not suspect any foul play and have received no threats on Gricar's life, Centre County Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Madeira said the district attorney is a position that does occasionally receive threats.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-20-05tdc/04-20-05dnews-05.asp


So why won't MM treat this as a possible foul play case?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
I am wondering who all didn't attend the grief session.

Was it just PF and JKA that didn't attend? JKA talks about the grief session, but from what I read, how did she come up with the grief session being like a seance? What made her get that feeling if it was being held at the courthouse? Or was that just an excuse for not attending? [/*]

Here is what she said.


I was one of two active staff members who did not participate in the session and cannot say what occurred there. Ms. Fornicola and ADA Sloane were off work when the meeting occurred and I do not know if either came in to attend it. After the session was held, pamphlets by the provider on its services were left in the office.


She wasn't told what it would be like until after it was over.

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's separate fact from fiction.

Originally posted by logicworks

It would be strange if the threat directed at the DA's office was at someone other than RG, considering the web sites were full of accusations that RG was targeting an 'innocent'.


Saying a defendant is "innocent," even on the Internet, is not a threat. If it were, about 3/4 of the US "threatened" Mike Nifong. :rolleyes:



The threat was enough to alert both the DA's office and to call police in.


So far as we know, no actual "threat" was ever made. JKA, who raised the incident, never claimed that there was a threat.


It was enough to cause Manchester to ask the judge to be taken off the case.


This is false; Manchester withdrew (or was fired), because his client refused to listen to him, according to the papers. That is a legitimate reason, though I frankly feel that they were much better off without Manchester.



Secondly, here we see exactly how soon after disappearance MM became involved in the case.....This article not only firmly places him there from the 'git-go', but also places him there as an authority on threats to a 'district attorney'.


Again, false. We have been complaining that the AG's office has done little. In this case, MM was interviewed by the press and commented that prosecutors do occasionally get threats; it a reference to prosecutors in general, not to this case. That isn't "involvement."

I also am not sure that MM was ever a "drug prosecutor" and not a general prosecutor handling numerous types of crimes.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
police said they still do not suspect any foul play and have received no threats on Gricar's life, Centre County Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Madeira said the district attorney is a position that does occasionally receive threats.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-20-05tdc/04-20-05dnews-05.asp


So why won't MM treat this as a possible foul play case? [/*]

I found this paragraph a little odd. MS makes it sound like he is dead and gone, and speaking about him in past tense. And it is only April 20, 2005

Quote:
"Centre County was really blessed to have him here for all the years he (((((was))))) here," Smith said. "He took everything seriously." Quote

Quote:
"Smith said that aside from a few Christmas and office parties, he did not spend much time with Gricar. He added that he was very familiar with how Gricar handled prosecution cases."

Obviously by the last paragraph he was NOT one of RG's friends, even after working with him all those years. Probably only stand in DA because he was there the longest.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
police said they still do not suspect any foul play and have received no threats on Gricar's life, Centre County Senior Deputy Attorney General Michael Madeira said the district attorney is a position that does occasionally receive threats.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-20-05tdc/04-20-05dnews-05.asp


So why won't MM treat this as a possible foul play case? [/*]

Madeira wasn't the new DA at this point. It was 4/20/2005 at this time. He worked as a Senior Deputy AG, not DA. He was into the drug busts. Not anywhere involved with what cases RG had in the past or present. I wonder how he knows there were never any threats made on RG's life or any other kind of threats?

Hadn't LG said that RG would never have told about any threats made on him?

[sherrijean981]

Sorry LW, I hadn't read your post yet. I guess we are on the same track here about MM.

[J. J. in Phila]

Madeira wasn't the new DA at this point. It was 4/20/2005 at this time. He worked as a Senior Deputy AG, not DA. He was into the drug busts. Not anywhere involved with what cases RG had in the past or present. I wonder how he knows there were never any threats made on RG's life or any other kind of threats?

Hadn't LG said that RG would never have told about any threats made on him?

I think there is mindset that this was not a murder, on the part of RFG's friends and coworkers that this was not a crime. I'd need to see a lot more evidence before I would reach that conclusion.

I do think PB is right in saying that suicide is very unlikely.

[Cloudbuster]

If any family members are reading I think this report rather long is interesting to note. I know we are not South Africa but the information in this report is incrediable. Nothing surprises me now a days nothing.

Disappearances are inextricably bound up with other human rights violations.
Often a disappearance is an unacknowledged form of imprisonment for political reasons. In many instances, a disappearance took place during the first days ofcustody and, more often than not, resulted in a political killing.16. In some instances, the body was found. In the vast majority of cases that cameto the Commission, however, this was not the case. This has condemned manyfamilies to a permanent state of limbo: never knowing, never being able to put itto restIn most disappearance cases, the perpetrators remain unknown. The
disappearance is carried out secretly and usually illegally. The perpetrators doall they can to avoid being found out, identified or held responsible. The rationalefor their conduct is that, as long as the disappeared or the body is not found,-------------------------------------------------
http://www.doj.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/vol6_s4ch1%20amnesty.pdf.

Report of the Human Rights Violations Committee ABDUCTIONS
---the consequences of drawing attention to the missing person or to the family. ...... of the actions taken to ascertain the fate of persons unaccounted for. ...

[J. J. in Phila]

Apartheid era South Africa is very different that Central PA in 2005.

[Cloudbuster]

Apartheid era South Africa is very different that Central PA in 2005.

Not that different JJ when you consider the unspoken language in the Patriot act.:)

[J. J. in Phila]

Not that different JJ when you consider the unspoken language in the Patriot act.:)

Quite different. I'm no fan of CIA, Illuminati conspiracies.

[Cloudbuster]

I'm no fan of CIA, Illuminati conspiracies either. The language of the Patriot act one week after 9-11-2001, not what they have now, is a unspoken language. Im not going to go there. I should try to track down my CIA half brother and let him explain it.

[Cloudbuster]

I found this article and it's so funny that even Penn State students didn't want the CIA trying to recruit them and why is that? They even wrote a letter to RG.

In a letter to Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, members of the CIA Off Campus Committee said evidence exists of CIA involvement in "numerous crimes from murder to sabotage," and asked that a citizen's arrest be made.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1988/11/11-16-88tdc/11-16-88dnews-09.asp

----------------------------------------------------------------

Luna-A 8 page article

http://www.mensvogue.com/business/articles/2007/04/jonathan_luna?currentPage=1

[J. J. in Phila]

I found this article and it's so funny that even Penn State students didn't want the CIA trying to recruit them and why is that? They even wrote a letter to RG.


They recruit, but it's open. Someone made me an oblique offer, but I don't speak Arabia and am not in gooed enough health to dropped into the Bekka Valley. Oh, my misspent youth.

No, the CIA didn't grab him, in all probability.

[Cloudbuster]

Im not in the mood to get in any standoff regarding the CIA. I have seen some things online and even a different writing by a antique owner female who has publically wrote about The CIA and Ray. I wish she would spill her guts about it. Im trying not to go there though. I do know that sometimes people like RG are brought into covert operations though.

My half brother is not going to spill his guts because he can't. :patriot:

[J. J. in Phila]

A 'mindset that this was not murder' is direct evidence of close-mindedness, conclusion based solely on assumption, proving nothing.



I didn't say it wasn't, and that is where part of the problem is. Everyone in this case has some connection to LE; this is a small town and everyone knows everyone else. If those closest to RFG think, even incorrectly, that he walked away, even if they supply a motive (and there are a few), that seeps into the consciousness of LE.

You couple that with witnesses and a total lack of evidence of a crime, and that mindset is easily reinforced.

Now, my question is, if we have a brilliant killer out there, could he have known that, but setting up in this way, it would have led to this mind set. My answer is yes. I'm assuming that TOL's acquaintance is right in this respect, RFG talked about walking away all the time. He was interested in the subject and shared his interest. A killer, even if he didn't work in the Courthouse, could have, just as easily as TOL did, found out about that aspect of RFG.

There are some things a brilliant can't fake. A gap in someone else's time line. A car purchase where the car gets out of Lewisburg (they could buy one and abandon it, but they'd still have to get home). Even a brilliant killer will have difficulty. So that is where to check first.

Another thing are witness reports, but some witnesses are inaccurate.

[J. J. in Phila]

Do you have evidence that I have been unable to find that validates TOL's friend's story? I have found no one who can back up the story. If you have, would you mind sharing that information?



TOL's friend specifically, no. It is however consistent with others I've heard. An interest in walkaway cases, and not only Wiley. Apparently long term.


Unlike you, I do not see the possibility of foul play necessarily pointing to a brilliant murderer. One person in the right position with the right background is all that would have been necessary. Someone who didn't want evidence left at the parking lot had to plan ahead to lure him somewhere else, and it had to be a private meeting no one else knew about, it would seem.


A killer would also have to make some very astute judgments of how various people would react. Suicide raised it's head when TG and CG heard "Water Street." A killer would have had to have had some idea about Roy's death. A killer would have had to know about RFG interest in walkaway cases. A killer would have had to found an excuse to get RFG to Lewisburg, which is hard for someone that worked closely with RFG. If it was someone in the office, RFG might have said, "Sure, come into my office and I'll close the door."


There is no way of knowing who that could involve if there was no need for an alibi, or proof they actually did have an alibi, other than saying 'no, I didn't see him'. The biggest problem appears to be those doing the checking seem to have a problem with checking on their own, believing they could take the insider's word as gospel truth.


While not the first thing I would put on my investigative "to do" list, one think I would develop a list of that inner circle and attempt to establish a time line on all of them. The only one that has been done, publicly, at least, was PEF (the prime reason she's off my suspect list). BTW: This is one of the reasons I am a big fan of a grand jury.

As for work, yes, for part of the day. After work is another question.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ it's obvious that if RG was killed that yes the person knew enough about him. I would stick to the inner circle and anyone close enough to him. The water street and erry familiarity of the river could be a coindence but then again is it?

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ it's obvious that if RG was killed that yes the person knew enough about him. I would stick to the inner circle and anyone close enough to him. The water street and erry familiarity of the river could be a coindence but then again is it?

Suppose it was some close someone in the inner circle, who would go home and hear about it from their SO? Suppose it was someone who got close to someone in the inner circle and say **Gee, what's Ray really like?**

[J. J. in Phila]

Okay, if the last witness report is correct, this entire 17 page thread is a load of crap. Trial and error.

[Politigal]

Just a hypothetical, J.J. So note the disclaimer.

But assume for the hypothetical that sometime prior to Friday 4/15, either RG has made it clear to PF that he is having reservations about continuing the relationship with her. Or RG has been more overt and told PF that he wants to end the relationship with her. Perhaps, for the sake of the hypothetical, this what has made him seem to PF to be "fatigued" in prior weeks, when in reality he has been using "napping" as a method of withdrawal from the relationship. This is not an uncommon occurrence in a troubled relationship, one partner withdrawing by sleeping more.

And for the sake of the hypothetical, let's imagine that perhaps RG may have even not come home for a night or two prior to his disappearance. Perhaps, in our hypothetical, the walk in the park on Thursday evening is a "meeting" between PF and RG, maybe a meeting requested by PF to try to smooth things over or maybe one set up by RG to try to end things for good. Yes, the explanation from PF was that they are/were "private people," but one must admit the details we know of the walk in the park and the greeting by VW and the subsequent revelation/non-revelation of this story are not inconsistent with this hypothetical. VW tells them what a nice couple they make, or words to that effect, and gets barely any response at all from the couple. PF leaves this walk in the park out of her accounting to the authorities from what we have come to understand; apparently the walk in the park would not be in LE's timeline nor in the public timeline were it not for VW taking the story to the media.

But regardless, the "talk" does not produce what PF is hoping for.
The man she regards as her "soul mate" is lost to her in our hypothetical.

Now J.J., you can apparently only imagine "a person getting angry" and killing "in a fit of rage." But there are other scenarios by which intimates murder intimates, and they involve a "slow burn" approach, not a "getting angry" and killing in a "fit of rage" approach.

One such "slow burn" occurs when a wronged spouse or significant other sits and contemplates the lover off in the arms of someone else. As that image continues to play again and again across the brain, the resolution becomes stronger and stronger: "If I can't have him/her, then NO ONE WILL."

Another "slow burn" occurs when a wounded spouse or significant other has had previous disappointment in love, and the newly ended relationship becomes a symbol of yet another failure. In this case, the resolution becomes, "NOT AGAIN. I will not let him/her DO THIS TO ME AGAIN."

Read enough true crimes, and you'll see these motifs played out again and again.

Hypothetically speaking, one of these slow burn situations might hypothetically have been at work.

I must have missed reading this a long time ago.. but I think it's an excellent hypothetical...

[J. J. in Phila]

I must have missed reading this a long time ago.. but I think it's an excellent hypothetical...

Except, P'gal, we have this from a witness you consider the most credible:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3777.html


Wedler said she was seated on a bench about 5:30 p.m. waiting for her son, Wes Bumbarger, when Gricar and Fornicola walked by, exchanging hellos with her.

As she watched them strolling hand in hand around the park, Wedler said, she decided that she wanted to tell them something she'd been thinking for some time -- that they made a "perfect couple."

When they headed her way, she said, she intercepted them and told them her thought but was surprised that neither Gricar nor Fornicola uttered a word in reply. She was left to turn and walk away.

It doesn't exactly sound like anger.

Second problem. RFG was in Lewisburg and PEF was in Bellefonte and never had the time to get to Lewisburg, back again to Bellefonte in order to make the calls.

[Serendipitous1]

Except, P'gal, we have this from a witness you consider the most credible:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3777.html


Wedler said she was seated on a bench about 5:30 p.m. waiting for her son, Wes Bumbarger, when Gricar and Fornicola walked by, exchanging hellos with her.

As she watched them strolling hand in hand around the park, Wedler said, she decided that she wanted to tell them something she'd been thinking for some time -- that they made a "perfect couple."

When they headed her way, she said, she intercepted them and told them her thought but was surprised that neither Gricar nor Fornicola uttered a word in reply. She was left to turn and walk away.

It doesn't exactly sound like anger.

Second problem. RFG was in Lewisburg and PEF was in Bellefonte and never had the time to get to Lewisburg, back again to Bellefonte in order to make the calls.I have yet to hear that LE is certain RG was in Lewisburg that day, and I do not recall anyone ever posting here that they thought PF was either.

[J. J. in Phila]

I have yet to hear that LE is certain RG was in Lewisburg that day, and I do not recall anyone ever posting here that they thought PF was either.

PEF was an early abandoned theory of mine. We've had some variations here where she supposedly drove the Mini there, see P'gal various posts.

I have heard at least DZ say so. He's actually more certain of it than I am. Buehner wanted LE to check motels for the MW, so he seems to have been following the premise.

[gstickley]

Except, P'gal, we have this from a witness you consider the most credible:

http://www.centredaily.com/news/ray_gricar/story/3777.html


Wedler said she was seated on a bench about 5:30 p.m. waiting for her son, Wes Bumbarger, when Gricar and Fornicola walked by, exchanging hellos with her.

As she watched them strolling hand in hand around the park, Wedler said, she decided that she wanted to tell them something she'd been thinking for some time -- that they made a "perfect couple."

When they headed her way, she said, she intercepted them and told them her thought but was surprised that neither Gricar nor Fornicola uttered a word in reply. She was left to turn and walk away.

It doesn't exactly sound like anger.

Second problem. RFG was in Lewisburg and PEF was in Bellefonte and never had the time to get to Lewisburg, back again to Bellefonte in order to make the calls.

For some odd reason, you seemed to have missed the 1st paragraph ref. the "sighting" of Ms. Wedler; I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part. It doesn't sound to me like Ms. Wedler thought everything was sunshine & roses.

"Former Centre County Commissioner Vicki Wedler, a Kissinger Bigatel & Brower Realtor, added a new piece to the Gricar puzzle, describing to police her encounter with Fornicola and a "depressed" Gricar in Bellefonte's Talleyrand Park on the evening before he disappeared.

Wedler said she was seated on a bench about 5:30 p.m. waiting for her son, Wes Bumbarger, when Gricar and Fornicola walked by, exchanging hellos with her.

As she watched them strolling hand in hand around the park, Wedler said, she decided that she wanted to tell them something she'd been thinking for some time -- that they made a "perfect couple."

When they headed her way, she said, she intercepted them and told them her thought but was surprised that neither Gricar nor Fornicola uttered a word in reply. She was left to turn and walk away.

"I didn't get any reaction from Patty and maybe from Ray a weak smile," she said. "I didn't get the kind of reaction to my compliment that I would have expected."

Fornicola, asked about that April 14 encounter with Wedler, said her conversation with Gricar that evening was nothing out of the ordinary. She said neither she nor Gricar replied to Wedler because they were somewhat embarrassed to be the objects of such a personal remark.

[J. J. in Phila]

GS, I doubt that RFG looking "depressed" is a motive for PEF killing him. :rolleyes:

It might argue that RFG was suicidal, if Wedler was a qualified doctor, which she isn't, and examined him, which she didn't.

It also could, stretching to the degree that you generally use, that RFG was "depressed" because he was with PEF, so the next day he left.

Had Wedler seen PEF agruing, looking angry, or even looking "depressed" it might indicate something about her motivation for something. Wedler doesn't say anything about that.