Murder scenario

[J. J. in Phila]

Note: I offer this as one possible scenario for the disappearance of Ray F. Gricar. It explains the evidence, but is far from the only scenario explaining the disappearance. Something like this might have happened. It is a possibility, not an advocacy.

Murder Scenario

The killer is called K. He has some kind of grudge against Mr. Gricar; it is personal. I do not know what caused the grudge. The killer has a tangential connection to Centre County government, politics, or the State Attorney General’s office. He may be an employee or someone who works for a contractor to one of these groups (that is a large suspect pool). K has a position where he/she could plausibly get the financial records of the governmental/political/campaign body, even as a bookkeeper or a secretary. K may smokes cigarettes.

K’s plan is simple, lure Mr. Gricar (RFG) to a remote place and kill him. The bait is records of something improper, financial impropriety, something like bribery, kickbacks, or even something in the background of Michael Medera, the candidate that RFG is supporting as his replacement.

K might have gotten the idea for the bait from “Memmogate” in the summer of 2004. K’s plan had to be accelerated when RFG announced that he wouldn’t be seeking another term. The plan can only entice a sitting DA.

K forges some documents indicating some wrongdoing. One very good example is something involving kickbacks with the county treasurer’s office, currently being held by Patty Fornicola’s cousin, Richard. Or maybe it’s about a judge, or even someone in the DA’s office. The initial document, “D,” might be somewhat incriminating, but not a slam dunk.

K contacts RFG in mid March and tells him of this these improprieties. RFG suggests he come into the office.

K: I can’t come in. Some will see me in the office, and I’ll lose my job (or “these people play for keeps”).”

RFG: Well, how about my house?

K. Isn’t Patty Fornicola your girlfriend? She might tell someone or let it slip.

RFG: Okay, how about we meet someplace.

K. I have something on CD, do you have a laptop?

RFG: Yes.

K. Bring it.

They work out the arrangements and sometime around 4/1/06, RFG meets K. K gives FRG the forged information on the CD, which is copied to the laptops hard drive. It’s good, but, as K planned it not definitive. K says, I’ll try to get more.

(This is the bait)

For the next two weeks, this bothers RFG. He may be faced with prosecuting his girlfriend’s cousin, or members of his staff, or both. He becomes fatigued from this. (Evidence, the change in behavior.)

K now prepares the place where he will kill RFG. It’s isolated and there is a place to dispose of the body. Something like an old well.

Sometime around 4/14, K gets in touch with RFG and says, “I’ve got a lot more; it’s on disk, but I’ve got them stashed. Meet me someplace and I’ll take you to them. Ah, you’ll have to bring your laptop; make sure the battery is charged.”

K wants a place east of Bellefonte, and RFG suggests an area he knows well, Lewisburg, the Street of Shops. K will be there between 12:30 and 1:30 PM. K insists that RFG make up an excuse so that he won’t be missed.

4/15/05, RFG tells PF that he is going to “play hooky.” (Evidence: PF’s statements). When she leaves he dresses. He wears what he on the day before, not to stand out. At about 11:00 AM he leaves. While driving in Brush Valley, he calls her about the dog (Evidence: PF’s statements. Cell phone records.).

RFG either has brought the water from home or buys it in route (Evidence: DNA on water bottle).

RFG arrives before 12:30 PM and goes through the motions of shopping; he’s seen by the store keeper (Evidence: Store keeper’s testimony). About 12:30 he waits in the car (evidence: Scent in car)

In the early afternoon, K enters, making sure it isn’t a trap. He pretends to start getting into the passenger side, smoking. RFG asks him to put it out. He stays outside, but he gets ash in the car (Evidence: ash, smell of smoke in car). He doesn’t actually enter the car (no finger prints).

RFG offers to drive his Mini to the location, but the killer says, “I’m not going to drive to my place in a red Mini Cooper with a vanity plate reading ‘PFO.’ We’ll take my car; bring you laptop.” (Note: the “D” file was on the laptop.)

RFG leaves the car and walks about 60 feet to K’s vehicle (Evidence: Scent). They drive to the remote location (my guess might be a hunting cabin). RFG and K get out and go in; RFG puts down the laptop while K supposedly gets the CD’s. K kills RFG.

K then disposes of the body, but the laptop is still there, with the hard drive. If the body is found, the laptop might tell who the body is, and how the killer is, if the hard drive is accessed. K could smash it, leaving computer parts around, but that’s more evidence. He pulls the drive and goes back to Lewisburg (which might not be too far). He removes the drive and tosses it in the river; he tosses the laptop off the bridge (Evidence: Hard drive and laptop). He might wait to nightfall to do it.

[UndertheRadar]

One small tangential point for now, J.J. You assert that Michael Madiera was the candidate that Gricar supported as his replacement. I do not believe that we know that to be the truth, only that Gricar supported Madeira in the primary election. Apparently Gricar had not voiced a choice for the general election before his disappearance and publically offered praise for Karen Arnold as well.

Please see the following, which I remembered having read some time in the past and dug up when I saw your reference to Gricar's support of Madiera in this scenario:

http://blogs.centredaily.com/the_thin_man/2005/10/for_the_record.html

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by lustorumanimae
Could you give us a link to the public offering which gives PFO
as Gricar's vanity plate?

It seems to only come up on the catched CDT Forum.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:UhHdLRIBNYEJ:www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/qa_forum.html%3FforumId%3D1882%26mode%3Ddisplay%26 action%3D%26type%3Dlist%26pageNo%3D6+fornicola+%22 PFO%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[J. J. in Phila]

K is the name for the killer.

He might be a "he" or a "she." "He" includes unknown gender.

The keys and wallet might have gone in the water. That isn't the laptop drive did. It was to destroy the "D" file(s).

You can add someone with access to Arnold's records as well.

The killer does have an unwitting accomplice here, Ray F. Gricar. By agreeing to the secret meeting, RFG get's to Lewisburg, and doesn't tell PF the purpose of the trip. He doesn't even tell her until he's in route. He accompanies K to the site of the murder, willingly.

RFG met K before and K has provided possible information of major corruption (it's fake, but RFG doesn't know that). RFG is expecting to find more information and be turning on his computer in anticipation.

As for K being brilliant, except for the ash and possibly a cigarette butt, there are no clues to who he is. The one clue is the ash, his one mistake.

And guess what, while this fits the evidence reasonably well, it does not preclude the other options.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by lustorumanimae
Just these observations, JJ:

Gricar announced he was not going to run again in January, 2004, two years before the end of his term.

The end of term is still coming. On January 1, 2006, the plan won't work. The remote area will be so "remote" in hunting season; IIRC small game season begins in late summer or early fall.

You've also assumed that RFG was wearing the clothes the entire day. I know that, if I have a morning meeting, I will wear a suit and change into casual clothes after I get home. He might not have not put on the jeans until later in the day. The fleece was an outer jacket and people do wear the same outer clothes day in and out.


Cell records don't factor in this, because you have no more
idea what's in them than any other poster on the board.



All posters have access to the CDT Forum. I will take this report as accurate.


However, biggest problem IMO. You're basically suggesting that
Gricar would put his trenchcoat on and do his own sleuthing into what K. might have, or that he would be a party toward covering up misconduct. And that he would do it alone and without involving LE at any level, even though what you're describing
is basically that he was being blackmailed.


He's neither sleuthing nor being blackmailed. RFG is getting a tip. If it looks like enough to him, he turns it over to the local, PSP, or he applies to form a grand jury. Anything sent by K prior to this is not actionable. Further, if K was a legitimate source, he can't blackmail RFG precisely because of this. If K couldn't produce the evidence, RFG can't do anything.

As to the danger, the first meeting is someplace in public: that's where K hands over "D." After that K seems to be legitimate. He's not threatening RFG, but trying to get him information.



...that's when he would have brought someone in from the AG's so there could be no arguments about bias/vindictiveness/favoritism. Let's him keep his distance from the entire situation from beginning to end and preserve relative
harmony on the home front.

As far as I know, something involving your girlfriend's cousin isn't a conflict of interest, though it might be personally troubling to RFG. The problem with passing the buck is that:

A. K won't talk to anyone else.

B. While there is some possible problems shown in "D," what K has given to RFG, there isn't enough to begin an investigation. That would be why RFG goes out on 4/15.

Keep in mind, RFG is trying to get information to begin an investigation, so he can prosecute a case of corruption. He's not doing anything illegal or unethical; he's actually trying to do his job.

Not very adept observations. :(

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella

Can you discount her? She possibly could have planned it.

She could have planned it; so could any poster on the board.

This becomes a question of motive. It's not financial, and it not that she wants to leave RFG. She gets no income or inheritance (at least for seven years) if RFG vanishes. She can kick him out of the house anytime she wants to; it's her house.

I could see a person in a relationship getting angry at her partner, and in a fit of rage, killing him. This was something not done in a fit of rage; whatever happened, it was well planned. The killer had to think about all angles, if there was a killer.

I can't come up with a realistic motive for PF.

[UndertheRadar]

I can't come up with a realistic motive for PF.

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.

[UndertheRadar]

An interesting irony in your scenario with "K," J.J.

Your buddy "K" has a deep well sufficiently hidden to stash RG's body so effectively that nobody has found it for a year and a half. The well is apparently located on a property by a cabin deep in the woods somewhere near Lewisburg where "K" could have buried the laptop and hard drive after he smashed it. There are also mountain streams and springs running through those woods where he could have dumped the laptop and the hard drive.

Yet "K" returns to Lewisburg, to the bridge near where the Mini is parked, and THERE, he tosses the hard drive and the laptop into the water.

All of which is, in effect, using the laptop and the hard drive as staging.

Maybe "K" just never thought about that, lol. :)

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
An interesting irony in your scenario with "K," J.J.

The well is apparently located on a property by a cabin deep in the woods somewhere near Lewisburg where "K" could have buried the laptop and hard drive after he smashed it. There are also mountain streams and springs running through those woods where he could have dumped the laptop and the hard drive.



Not quite.

K does not want that hard drive to contain any data. He smashes it, in the cabin, fragments get scattered. It might actually lead people to the remains.

K wants the hard drive destroyed, so he throws it in a nearby stream. It just happens to be a trout filled stream where a lot of fisherman will be tomorrow, the first day of trout season.

Further, if it's found in the area, it draws LE's attention. K obviously doesn't want that. He removes the drive and tosses it, and the laptop in the river at different locations.

K doesn't want people finding it quickly or finding it associated with the body or with him.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar



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.



The walk occurs around 5:00 PM. PF would have to kill RFG after 9:10 PM, get an accomplice and plan all these details, including disposing of the body. If she didn't poison him, she has to clean up the house as well.

That is way too much to plan, even if some of the details were possible, in such a short space of time.

There are still real problems in that area; doing it without intense planning make makes those problems worse.

[UndertheRadar]

If, as in the hypothetical, RG had not been home already for several nights, the planning stage may have already begun before that Thursday night. Two sets of plans running parallel: here's what will happen if we can smooth things out; here's what I'll do if things don't go the way I want them to.

The Thursday walk in the park where, in the hypothetical the demise of the relationship is clear, then becomes the trigger point for a plan already created to go into action. This leaves from approximately 6 p.m. on Thursday until 11:30 p.m. on Friday for our hypothetical PF to carry out a plan, not to PLAN and carry out a plan, before she calls LE to report RG missing. If our hypothetical PF enlisted the aid of an accomplice, she has about 60 "person-hours" between her and an accomplice (minus her time at work and at the gym) to carry out whatever needs to be done.

Keep in mind, for the purposes of our hypothetical, that other than PF's account, we have no objective, verifiable evidence that RG is alive past approximately 9:10 p.m. on Thursday night. We have Carolyn Fenton's sighting on Friday afternoon, but that sighting, unfortunately, has been called into question, and we can't rely on that as a definitive piece of evidence of RG's health and well-being and existence in Bellefonte on Friday, 4/15 at the Courthouse in the afternoon. I certainly wish that we could.

That said, your dismissal that this is "way too much to plan" is once again a spaghetti cooker infomercial. Please stop trying to sell me your spaghetti cooker, J.J. I ain't buying.

I find it abundantly interesting that this is "way too much to plan," but your explanation for a previous poster's link on a private high school website in Cincinnati was to say that the poster must have put it up there. Now THERE was a case of "too difficult to pull off" if that poster were just a recreational poster interested in the Gricar case if I ever heard one, since it means you think he somehow was able to access a password protected private website and put up a webpage that no one has since removed. You were perfectly willing to offer that absurdity as an explanation, but you can't imagine anyone being able to plan a crime unless it fits your theory of the crime. Very interesting.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
If, as in the hypothetical, RG had not been home already for several nights, the planning stage may have already begun before that Thursday night. Two sets of plans running parallel: here's what will happen if we can smooth things out; here's what I'll do if things don't go the way I want them to.


As soon as you get to a crime of passion as a conspiratorial contingency plan, it falls apart. I'm not buying it. It's ridiculous.

It's hard to get an accomplice in a crime of passion, much a crime of passion that may or may not take place depending on a conversation's outcome three hours before.

It's even harder to then, at night, to dispose of the body, plant the amount of evidence needed and have the victim's family stay at the sight 48 hours later.

There are too many problems for it to work, including an accomplice that is close enough to PF to either kill or not kill the DA at PF's whim.


I find it abundantly interesting that this is "way too much to plan," but your explanation for a previous poster's link on a private high school website in Cincinnati was to say that the poster must have put it up there.

You are right. It is INCREDIBLY HARD Google the name "Gricar.":rolleyes:

(In case you didn't get it, that's sarcasm.)

[UndertheRadar]

Still not buying your spaghetti cooker, J.J. I can boil water.

It's not a crime of passion as in snap and rage if we're talking the slow burn motives I laid out, the ones you couldn't possibly muster up on your own. Remember them? And as far as "too hard to get an accomplice close enough," again, check out other true crimes where such accomplices have been easily come by. They happen, J.J.

Last, it wasn't the googling Gricar part (though even that has its issues), it was the suggestion that the poster put up the page that was so absurd. Let's see, a recreational poster breaks the code to enter a password protected website and manages to put up material on a private school's password protected webspace, all so he can have a link to put up on a crime board. Yeah, that makes sense.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Still not buying your spaghetti cooker, J.J. I can boil water.

It's not a crime of passion as in snap and rage if we're talking the slow burn motives I laid out, the ones you couldn't possibly muster up on your own. Remember them? And as far as "too hard to get an accomplice close enough," again, check out other true crimes where such accomplices have been easily come by. They happen, J.J.


I have never heard of a true crime where the prepretrator said, "Will get ready to plant all this evidence (some of which might be impossible to plant). Accomplice, stand by and wait until I have this conversation to we'll decide if we'll carry it out in about four hours."

You your spaghetti preparation is as strong as this theory, I'd suggest you put some water in the pot before you set the stove to boil and put in the spaghetti. Don't add the water after the spaghetti is burnt to a crisp.


Let's see, a recreational poster breaks the code to enter a password protected website and manages to put up material on a private school's password protected webspace, all so he can have a link to put up on a crime board. Yeah, that makes sense.

No, it doesn't especially since the site is not password protected. It comes up without a password.

Let me explain. If you have the time, you put the name "gricar" into Google. You look at the results. You come up with all sorts of things, an obituary of an unrelated Gricar (posted), the meaning of the name Gricar in Solvenian (posted) and the sight you refer to (also posted). You then find the link and explore the site.

Did Saunterer find it by Googling, or did he hear that RFG hear that there was a nephew of that name? He's been to the area, and has communicated with TG, who might have mentioned it offhand, without realising it.

Frankly, Saunterer could post inappropriate (and loony) things at times, but I'd like to see him back.

[UndertheRadar]

J.J.,

No one suggested the accomplice was on "standby" before the conversation on Thursday took place. That is your fictionalized version, designed as a strawman.

Now let me explain this. You asserted that a poster had potentially put up the webpage, not the link. OBVIOUSLY the poster had put up the link. Everyone who reads the forum knows that. In addition to your googling explanation (which has its weaknesses because of how deeply buried in the site the link is) you additionally asserted an explanation that the poster may have put the page up. That is what would have required a password, and that is the absurd explanation. Unless of course the poster were not a recreational poster but someone who had access to that webspace.

[tiredoftheguff]

Would everyone please just get off of the subject of Patty somehow being involved! I think she has no clue what happened to Ray. She passed a lie detector so give her a break. Can you imagine being in her shoes? The only thing that I think is unexpalinable is why did Ray say I won't be here? Also I would really like to know what happened to Saunterer. I was on vacation for a few weeks!

[UndertheRadar]

tiredoftheguff, I think everyone understands your concern about Patty from a human perspective and would agree from that perspective. From the perspective of discussing the disappearance, though, keep in mind that anything centering on PF has been entirely hypothetical and completely non-accusatory. It's important to examine the mystery of RG's disappearnce from ALL angles and not to shut down inquiry from any angle so long as we still have a missing man and no solid leads. I say that despite the polygraph for this reason: if polygraphs were solidly scientific, we could hook up all witnesses and suspects and use polygraphs in the courtrooms across the United States, using polygraph results as the basis for all legal findings and allowing us to do away with judges and juries. Obviously, there are enough problems with polygraphs that their results are not even admissible for use in a court of law. Therefore, they figure into my own particular thinking with no more weight than LE gives them, and that is as an investigatory tool. I can't honestly believe that if LE were to polygraph a person in a case, have that person "pass" a polygraph, and then later be presented with solid incriminating evidence against the person they wouldn't move to build a case against the person simply because they had a "passed" polygraph. It might be more difficult a case to build with the polygraph results, but I doubt they'd sit there and say, "Oh, well, X must be innocent because the polygraph said so despite a mountain of evidence that says otherwise." (And that example is purely hypothetical, of course.)

As to the fate of Saunterer, you can check his status by looking at his profile.

[J. J. in Phila]

First for the clothes, Lustor, you claimed 16 hours. Nobody has said that; that is your manufacturing.

I would suspect that those were not RFG would wear to the meeting. They are clean and they don't stand out.

I normally wear the same outer coat, day in and day out, if the weather dictates that type of coat.

Jeans, part of one day and the rest of the next, sure. I'd be surprised if he would wear jeans to any kind of a formal meeting.

As for the CDT, the reports are second hand, but so is the report of RFG's disappearance. It's possible that it is wrong (on both counts), but unlikely.

Originally posted by lustorumanimae





***The police have all sorts of tiplines. At one time as part of
the 'drug war', the DA's Office itself had a well-publicized one.
If you are so incredibly naive as to think that when tips come in,
the DA gets in his car and goes out to meet the shadowy source
of such to discuss more details, you've watched way too much
TV.

[/i]

This is perhaps the most troubling part of your post, Lustor. You have described RFG as both responsible and professional. I do not disagree.

Then you claim that when this professional responsible person gets what could be a credible tip that there is major impropriety in Centre County government, possibly his his own office or involving his potential successor, he says, "Call the tip line!"

If that were the case, RFG would be abandoning his duties as a DA. If K really had information, and later revealed it, K said, "I called DA Ray Gricar and he told me to call the tip line!"

[/i]
Nor did I state that it was 'conflict of interest'. But it
would certainly have the potential for being CLAIMED to be
conflict of interest because of Gricar's live-in relationship with
RF's cousin.
[/i]

You missed the point of the set up. K releases information that is suspicious, but not yet enough to be actionable. The information is that maybe something is wrong, but maybe there isn't anything wrong after all.

There is not enough to do anything, but there is enough for RFG to listen to K. That's all that K needs to do.




This is television, JJ. Nothing else. This is Serpico talking in the basement under the NY deli to his shadowy informant (and even he was LE). The answer to "I won't talk to anyone
else" may be one initial courtesy meeting between K and Gricar, in Gricar's office or the backroom of a police department after hours.


And real life. K says, at this point, "I'm worried about my job." Was it Arnold that was fired with the change of administrations at the DA's office?


[i]I believe
your hypothetical reflects a fantasy view of LE, where DAs
go out and turn up evidence, turn if over to LE, then change
hats and ride on to victory in the courtroom. [/B]

Except, of course, you've misread again Lustor. Even after the first meeting, there is not enough evidence to give. That is why it is referred to as "bait."

DA's in PA can request county grand juries. It is possible that RFG was hoping to do that, with adequate information to have a basis for applying to impanel one.

I know it doesn't involve your favorite suspect, Patty Fornicola, but it is hard, even hypothetically, to involve her. The reason is, of course, that she wasn't involved with its execution.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
J.J.,

No one suggested the accomplice was on "standby" before the conversation on Thursday took place. That is your fictionalized version, designed as a strawman.


Not a strawman, as soon as you bring up the Thursday "walk in the park."

Are you suggesting that PF could have planned all of this and recruited an accomplice to murder of the District Attorney, in about 3.5 hours? She's calling around to her girlfriends and say, "Hi, this is Patty. Are you free to come over tonight and help me kill Ray?!!!"


Now let me explain this. You asserted that a poster had potentially put up the webpage, not the link. OBVIOUSLY the poster had put up the link. Everyone who reads the forum knows that. In addition to your googling explanation (which has its weaknesses because of how deeply buried in the site the link is) you additionally asserted an explanation that the poster may have put the page up. That is what would have required a password, and that is the absurd explanation.

Let me explain this slowly.

You go to Google. You type in the name "Gricar." That is G-R-I-C-A-R. You press the search button. One of those many pages is the one for an art teacher. You click it and you find a photo a guy named Gricar. You take off the "class_of_2005.htm" in the web address and press "go" (or its equivalent on your ISP). That takes to page where there is a link that says "I'm sorry." You press that link. You get the I'm sorry page.

There is no password; there is no hacking. There is Googling.

It would not require a password to create a parody site. As this isn't the official school site, I thought that this might have been one.

If you seek, you will find.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Also what about the dark haired woman seen with Ray. Maybe he met someone else that he really cared for.



Who is to say that with woman RFG wasn't K? I don't make any claim that K was a man. The "he" is gender neutral.

As to the rest, with K around, why bother with poison, with LE members of the Gricar family could find.

Now, if there is a K, it's possible that K was "hired" by someone, but it is not necessary. I'm looking at how a murder could have occurred. It's possible, but there is no evidence that there was one.

[UndertheRadar]

Let me explain this slowly.

You go to Google. You type in the name "Gricar." That is G-R-I-C-A-R.

Let me explain this slowly, J.J. Don't patronize me. I can match you wit for wit in intelligence, and you're well aware of that. Furthermore, I have pointed out to you that I am not talking about your assertion that Saunterer discovered the link and put it up.

I am talking about your assertion that Saunterer created the page.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar



I am talking about your assertion that Saunterer created the page. [/B]

Are you telling me you have never heard of a "mirror site" or a "parody" site. It's possible to create a site and add something to it, creating a parody.

If you doubt it, go to Google main page at:

http://www.google.com/

Type in the words "French military victories" without the quotes, and press "I'm feeling lucky." Tell me what you find. Hint: That is not a Google page.

I was suggesting that this was what Saunterer might have done, since the official school site didn't yield anyone named Gricar.

Why do you find it so interesting that someone that excessively Googled the name Gricar (as seen from other posts) might have found the site?

[UndertheRadar]

Are you telling me you have never heard of a "mirror site" or a "parody" site.

J.J., no, I am not telling you that. I know exactly what mirror sites and parody sites are, and I also know that the link was 100% verified NOT to be a mirror or parody site.

Consider this my last post to you. I told you not to patronize me, yet your very next post to me continued to do that in its very first sentence.

That, in fact, is the reason you have raised red flags for me on this board from practically your first day here, J.J.

As someone who has a deep belief in the importance of online community, I think the only way a group can work together on solving a mystery and getting justice in a case is for all voices to be heard on all theories. From very early in your stay on this board, you began trying to shut down voices and shut down discussion of theories. That doesn't help solve mysteries or produce justice. And it only serves to destroy online communities.

Meanwhile, not responding to your posts will free up my Gricar-related case time to do more research and theory-related thinking instead of having to follow you around the board exposing your wide array of incorrect information and fallacy-based thinking.

[J. J. in Phila]

Radar, you are being treated exactly as you have treated me. If you can't take it don't post. Here is a good example:


Sometimes I think it's possible you've missed your true calling and should be writing scripts for infomercials.



And that is how you so often sound, J.J., anytime anyone raises a foul play scenario. While you won't come out and say directly that you're "selling" the board the suicide or walkaway scenarios, it's clear that you're writing an informercial designed to show us just how hard it is to cook spaghetti the old-fashioned way.

http://board2.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=276874&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

You do two things, first you attack the theory, then you attack the motives of the poster. Both you and Lustor have done that; it has been done by you to Saunterer, after he was banned, me, and TG, that I have seen; I suspect others if I'd do a search.

You'll note the accuracy of your attack on my motives can be seen on a thread which I started entitled "Murder scenario." Yes, I think it is a possibility.

You have pursued a theory "hypothetically," involving Patty Fornicola. Problem is, to pursue her, you've said, in effect, the evidence is all planted and the witnesses are all wrong. You can't really explain how this evidence was planted, but that doesn't stop you or Lustor.

In reading your, and Lustor's posts, this is a pattern, which another poster TiredoftheGuff, commented on. Some have commented on it privately.

Your correct on one point. I want to rule out theories or at least put them into the least likely category. I can't do that with any of the three.

I can put into highly improbable (and perhaps impossible) the theory that PF was involved in carrying out foul play against RFG. If you want to engage the evidence that has been made public, we can get some of pieces of the puzzle to fit.

If you want to cry and run home to Mommy, go right ahead.

I'll happily shoot down any theory, including my own (see some my posts on the Felton sighting), that doesn't fit.

[tiredoftheguff]

Cinderella....I stand behind my post and thank you so much for refreshing my memory. It was very kind of you! I have only said one thing on this board that I truly regret. A long time ago I said that Ray was having an affair. Someone told me that and I posted it. I have no proof and feel that I should not have posted it. I do have certain suspicions about what did possibly happen.
Tony has previously said that the family reads the message board. If my statements in the past have upset or hurt them in any way then I am terribly sorry. That has never been my intention. From the begining I have wanted to try in my own small way to help resolve this case. Not for any other reason than for his family. I don't want recognition, reward money, or even to be acknowledged in any way in the event that some day my info would prove to be true! One thing you should know is that when you disrespected Ray by calling him names and accused him of being alive and such....you REALLY crossed the line! You totally dissed him and his family to the point that Tony left the board! Where do you get off doing that? When you pm'd me several times awhile back I responded to you with compassion and empathy. All I am saying is give Patty the same. How would you feel if your boyfriend disappeared? You would be devastated! I personally know what it is like to have something so horrible happen to you that you don't even want to live and then some people come along and make matters worse! This is unacceptable behavior. Integrity is very important to me. I do not lie. I do not make things up The things that I have posted are things that I have been told and I believe to be true. PERIOD

[J. J. in Phila]

TiredoftheGuff (and Cind),

If there was a realistic scenario, or evidence, that PF was involved in foul play regarding RFG, I'd be the first to be screaming for intense investigation.

In the early days of this, PF's house was searched (though not with a full forensic team). The police looked for signs on a struggle or of a cleanup. They found none. Within 24 hours of the report, members of the Gricar family were in the house, possibly staying there. It is exceptionally likely that they would have seen something.

While not admissible, the polygraph is about 80% likely to detect a lie; not perfect, but not bad either. PF passed. The odds seem to be exceptionally low that she was involved in the execution of foul play.

Let's get back to the evidence:

1. The laptop. Why wasn't it in the house?

2. The drive. Why was it removed?

3. The cigarette ash (the most overlooked clue). Who was smoking?

[J. J. in Phila]

"Execution" here means actually physically carrying out the act of foul play. No, not "execution style."

As for the well, I once mentioned I lived in a small town when I was a child. A few of the older homes (circa 1880-1900) had wells on the property. Sometime in the early 1900's they installed a water system. All the houses had water via pipe, but the wells were still there. Sometimes the well would be filled in, but others had a cement plug in them. That sealed them so you didn't have a "Baby Jessica" situation.

Basically, the well in those cases isn't used for water; it's just abandoned and covered over, either with cement, a sheet of metal, or boards. I would be too surprised to see a few in Bellefonte itself. The town is old enough.

Was the cell phone turned off? I know PF just got the voice mail.

[J. J. in Phila]

[

If he was hiding, why wouldn't he call LE?

I've never said he was dead. The murder scenario here is just one explanation. I'm arguing it is consistent with the evidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, some wells do have water, some go dry. It depends on if the water table has lowered or not. Even actively used wells can go dry.

Second, even for small game, hunting season doesn't start until late summer or early fall. K would have plenty of time to cover it over. You don't look for places near a stream; fishing season started the next day, IIRC.

Originally posted by Cinderella


Another thing is if this scenerio just happened to be the scenerio, finding a cabin close to Lewisburg is like finding a needle in a haystack. There are way too many cabins. So one has to wonder the distance away of the cabin. If it is a cabin or farmhouse, barn, etc.



First, you have find the right haystack. :) We have three: Homicide, Suicide, and walk away.

If you can eliminate some of the haystacks, then you look for the tread that is threaded to the needle. You look at "cabins," remote areas, where someone that fits the suspect list has access. Then you look at ones where there was damage while the owner was out, especially those that have been burnt down.

You are no where near the search point yet.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella

The hunters should have probably noticed something anyway.

Cinderella, You're right. Spring gobbler season begins the last Saturday of April or the first Saturday of May depending on how the calendar falls, just two weeks after Ray's disappearance. So there likely would have been hunters in the woods.

[J. J. in Phila]

The "cabin" or remote building is going to have a lot of trace evidence after the murder. At some point, it becomes likely for K to burn it, in this scenario. He destroys the evidence.

Yes, wells can be "capped" by several feet of cement; I've seen these. Think of a cork in a bottle, with the well being in the bottle. The can also be covered by boards or a metal plate (I've also seen the latter).

Who's mad? I went to bed. :)

Actually, you have relatively few hunters (compared to other game). Even then, you have 1-2 weeks to clean up.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&q=161003

You'll note that most hunting occurs in the late summer to late fall/early winter. In Central PA, deer season is so popular that the schools are closed on the day of buck season. That's when you get a lot of people in the woods. I believe the Lewisburg chief commented on the possibility of finding the body in the winter hunting season.

The car in the water, a sealed oil drum, weighting the body, a shallow grave, burial in a cellar, a well, are all possibilities. I chose a well because it's fairly deep and K wouldn't have to take time to dig it.

[J. J. in Phila]

The Ohio River begins in Pittsburgh, about 120 miles from Bellefonte (and further from Lewisburg).

A car could be used, but it's larger so you'd need more water to hide it. Ironically, a small car, like a Mini Cooper, would be easier to sink.

[day2day]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.

I personally don't think that L.E. reads these boards. I asked a detective one time and he said that they don't waste their time. He said that there are a lot of rumors and nuts out there and they found that they were better just solving it on their own. I think that they think of the boards like they think of psychics.

But at any rate, maybe LE know that he is alive and they are not telling anyone, just waiting for the right timing.

About the wells, do the old wells still hold water?

Another thing is if this scenerio just happened to be the scenerio, finding a cabin close to Lewisburg is like finding a needle in a haystack. There are way too many cabins. So one has to wonder the distance away of the cabin. If it is a cabin or farmhouse, barn, etc.

The hunters should have probably noticed something anyway. So I don't think that this is the right scenerio. Also someone would have to be going to that camp or else they might be found being on someone elses property. JMO, MOO


I believe that LE reads these forums. Maybe NOT in this case..(cause are they really LOOKING for him?!) but it other cases I am pretty sure they do!

jmo of course:read:

[J. J. in Phila]

I'd really like to look at what we know (sorta) and the three scenarios and see what can be eliminated (or nearly eliminated).

This particular thread is one way that a murder could have been committed (and I'd argue consistent with the known evidence), but it's not the only one.

I'd like to see the arguments for and against the other theory.

It's like looking for one needle in one of three haystacks. First, we have to figure out which haystack in the needle most likely to be in.

The only thing that, in thinking about this, is that suicide is less likely.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.,

Ok now you are starting to tear apart my theories. I have a question.

1. If you don't know what happened to Ray, how do you know a larger car was used?

:read:

I should have said "if a larger car was used." It easier to hide something smaller in the water, like the Mini, than an something large, like an SUV. It's far easier to hide something like a weighted oil drum in a river than the Mini. :)

In Phila, a bit more than a year ago, two people, and the pickup truck they were driving, vanished.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella

I don't know about anyone else but I am tired of games.

Count me out. I think that I will just let the higher official handle this case and not worry about it anymore.

:mad: [/B]

Cind, if you are looking for me to stand up and "This is what happened to Ray Gricar," I'm sorry, I can't help you; I don't know and I don't have a favored theory. :(

About the only thing that anybody here will be able to do is rule things out or suggest things that might rule some possibility out. I've said that consistently. It's not a game, but it ultimately might help someone in figuring out what happened.

If I was brilliant, I'd be able to say, "This is what happened." I have not. I can say something couldn't, or is exceptionally unlikely to, have happened.

I seriously doubt this was suicide, for example, but I can't rule it out. That's the closest to a favored theory that I can get.

No games.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J.J.,

I can't understand why you posted some horrifying things and put a smilie face with it????

Cind, I'm pointing out that it is a lot easier to to hide something the size of an oil drum in a body of water, than it is to hide a car. It has to with the theory; it's possible, but unlikely.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


So it appears the postman must have taken the tape with him, and that later it was tracked down as being in the postman's or post office's possession. Then LE retrieved it, and by LISTENING to it determined it had nothing to do with the Gricar disappearance, because it had nothing other than aerobic instructions on it?



LW, good point.

The tape might not have been related to the disappearance, but it might have been dropped by K, in this scenario.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks




1. Possibly had it on the passenger seat and it slid out, when the passenger door was opened from that side. In the daylight one might have noticed it but after dark might not have realized it fell out. Doubtful, unless it was very dark in that location.


I've never had anything on the seat of my car slide out, unless it's fludh against the door. The parking lot does not have a particular slope (and I park on a slight slope.

This one doesn't fit the evidence.


2. Someone opened the passenger door from the driver's side to toss out the cigarette butt and didn't realize the bag had slid between the passenger seat and the door and it fell out. NOTE....a tall person might have seen it fall out. A short person might not have because it could have been below their line of vision.


Likewise, I've never had anyhing that small fall out of the door from between the seat and the door. It get's caught beteen the seat and the frame.

Size doesn't matter. :) I'm taller than RFG by 1-2 inches, and I couldn't see it at that angle.


3. Possibly sat a bag down to fish out a cigarette to 'blow some smoke' around and didn't realize the bag with the tape fell out.
Wonder how far under the passenger side it was and how the lighting was at night on that side of the car.


Someone standing beside the car, talking to RFG, fishes into a bag or purse, pulls out the pack of cigarettes and snags the bag too. Possible.

4. The person, K, has the tape in a shoulder bag, that is opened; K has it over his right shoulder. K opens the door and gets partway into the car, with the lit cigarette. RFG tells her to toss the cigarette out. K does so, and the tape falls out. Possible.

[J. J. in Phila]

VV1V 1SSSSS1S D
2V 2S 2S D
3V 3S 3S D
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

F= floor of the car
D= Car Door
S= Passenger seat
1S,2S= side of the passenger seat.

The graphic is not to scale. :)

Sorry for the crudeness of the diagram.

If 2S is even an inch down, and the tape is wedged there, it could be below the line of sight. Any idea of the distance between far edge of the passenger seat and the middle of the driver's seat?

Also, the person reaching might have to bend a bit to reach the door handle; that could mean that either the person have very long arms or he's several inches taller.

[J. J. in Phila]

I think the tape falling out of a shoulder bag or purse would work, especially if the person was flicking away the cigarettee with that arm.

If this was a killer, LE might have the DNA.

[J. J. in Phila]

It wouldn't have to be after dark. I have a satchel with a shoulder strap; I keep check books, business card holders, etc, in it. Stuff is always sliding out if I don't keep it zipped. K, under this scenario, could have thrown out the cigarette and it drops out and K doesn't see it.

LE checked the DNA and PA has started taking DNA samples, but I didn't read anything about an individual check. If they develop a suspect, they could check it.

[J. J. in Phila]

The tape may or may not be related. Mail delivery is probably in the AM or early afternoon.

[Cloudbuster]

I thought this complied list may help when looking at a murder scenario:

Motives : These are the motives a serial killer might display(some killers display various motives).

Visionaries - Acts in response to voices and is instructed by these voices to perform the act of murder. These killers are usually schizophrenic and psychotic.
Missionaries - They think it is their responsibility to rid society of unwanted elements.
Hedonists - Kill because murder causes them pleasure.
Lust Killers - Kill for sexual gratification with acts that are usually sadistic.
Thrill Killers - Kill because of a desire for a thrill or experience.
Gain Killers - Kill for personal gain. The killer premeditates the act to require financial gain or materialistic goods. While gain is not the main motive in a murder some serial killers have took the opportunity to steal from their victims for their own personal gain.
Power Seekers - Kill for the desire to have control over the life and death of others.
__________________________________________________ __
The Stable Killer (eg. Gacy, Dahmer) -

Lives and works in one location for an extended period.

Hunts and kills within the local area.

Disposes of bodies in the same or similar areas.

Disposal site selected for concealment.

May return to the crime scene or burial site.

Seldom travels, but when forced to travel it is usually for business, family visits, or personal recreation.
__________________________________________________ __
The Transient Killer (eg. Bundy, Lucas) -

Seldom stays in one spot more than a few weeks.

Kills are spread out over a large area.

Disposes of bodies in random locations.

Disposal site selected for convenience.

Seldom returns to the region of the crime.

Travels continuously either for pleasure, to confuse law enforcement, or for new hunting grounds.
__________________________________________________ __
Mobility : These are the classifications for the stable killer and the transient killer.

The Stable Killer (eg. Gacy, Dahmer) -

Lives and works in one location for an extended period.

Hunts and kills within the local area.

Disposes of bodies in the same or similar areas.

Disposal site selected for concealment.

May return to the crime scene or burial site.

Seldom travels, but when forced to travel it is usually for business, family visits, or personal recreation.
__________________________________________________ __
The Transient Killer (eg. Bundy, Lucas) -

Seldom stays in one spot more than a few weeks.

Kills are spread out over a large area.

Disposes of bodies in random locations.

Disposal site selected for convenience.

Seldom returns to the region of the crime.

Travels continuously either for pleasure, to confuse law enforcement, or for new hunting grounds.
__________________________________________________ __


Organization : There is the disorganized killer and the organized killer. Most serial killers(about 3/4) are organized and their victim counts seem to be higher, that is also because they are usually above average intelligence. The disorganized offender is lonely and his murders usually display his anger, most are of a low IQ and suffer from some mental disorder, the killing is not planned and is a usually spur of the moment thing. It should also be noted that some serial killers display both the characteristics of a disorganized and organized killer, these killers are typed as being 'mixed'. These are the basic typologies -

Organized Killer(eg. Gacy, Bundy) -

Plans out the murder(may become accustomed to using it quickly).

Will bring a 'rape kit'(rope, handcuffs, chloroform etc) if desired.

Personalizes himself with the victim(talks, leads, captures etc. the victim into/for planned murder situation).

Rape, torture etc. may take place before murder, for the killers own gratification.

Kills victim with awareness of evidence at crime scene(which may cleaned, destroyed etc).

Might move the body to hide, bury it etc. in an attempt to evade/delay discovery.

Killer will not be involved further with the victim's body, but may take articles, jewellery etc. for trophy or gain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disorganized Killer(eg. Berkowitz, Chase ) -

Murder usually happens spur of the moment(with no planning but the one simple objective to kill).

Does not bring any tools('rape kit') to the kill except maybe murder device.

No contact with the victim prior to spur of the moment murder.

No rape, torture etc. will take place before murder.

Kills victim but does not care for evidence usually left at the crime scene(high degree of violence takes place at murder).

Will not move body in an attempt to hide, bury it etc., unconcerned of its discovery.

Killer might be involved further with the dead victim(mutilation, necrophilia, cannibalism, etc) and may also take souvenir.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOO ORGANIZED if there was a killer.

[UndertheRadar]

Logic,

I just had a whole long post typed out and lost it, so I'll start again with a Reader's Digest version of it, lol. I completely agree with you that it's unlikely RG's disappearance and murder (assuming a murder) is the work of a serial killer. To the best of my knowledge, 59-year-old heterosexual men aren't the most typical targets of serial killers, and as a professional man living a relatively quiet and private life, RG did little to expose himself as a target for a serial killer. Also to the best of my knowledge, there have been no serial killers operating in Central Pennsylvania targeting middle-aged white men as their victims. If he were to have fallen victim to a serial killer, it would be a long shot, and my best guess is that if he has been murdered, the murderer is someone with much closer ties to RG. Like you, I also believe his distracted and rather distraught behavior in the days and weeks prior to his disappearance deserves our full attention, including his apparently deliberate avoidance of working during "work hours" in the two days prior to his disappearance.

While our attention is on Lewisburg, the tape, the area around the Mini, etc., I'd like to raise something that's been bothering me the last few days. Everyone seems to be discussing the dog(s) having tracked "20 yards" from the Mini as if this distance is biblical. But my earliest memories of TV, radio, and print reports were of the dog(s) acting "confused" and circling at the site. So I did some digging to see what articles were still available online to see if I could clarify. Not really sure I've found anything definitive, but there's an interesting progression that I see in what I've been able to dig up.

I found two references to the dogs from April 2005:

Dixon said Thursday that a police dog that sniffed around the parking lot where Gricar's car was found acted in a way that "possibly could have meant that Ray might have gotten into another vehicle."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ws/11454566.htm

"The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car," Dixon said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05112/492590.stm

And this from July 2005:

Bellefonte police officer Darrel Zaccagni said that details such as "the cigarette ash on the floor and the search dogs circling as if Gricar got into a vehicle, were pre-reported . . . "

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk46.html

It's not until May 2006 that I can find anything about the "20 yards," and that's in the "Dateline" package:

"They also used a bloodhound—but the dog lost Gricar’s scent 20 yards from the car.
The tracker suggested Gricar got into another vehicle, perhaps with his killer."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052/
May 15, 2006

It's interesting to me how much more "definitive" the dog's behavior becomes as you read these reports in order, not to mention how much more "definitive" the handler's statement becomes. I would really love to read the original report from the handler and see the exact wording of the report. If nothing else, I learned they used a bloodhound at the scene!

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a problem with the seriel killer (SK) scenario.

First, it is possible for a seriel killer to have targeted someone, at random, and made prior preparations to dispose of the body.

The problem is the laptop.

Assume that RFG just forgot that the laptop was in the car. How does SK know it's there? SK would likely approach RFG while he's away from the car. SK then has to go to the car and take it. Why?

It's likely that RFG would not have left the laptop where it were it was visible, for two reasons:

1. He was the meticulous person, and had seen it, he wouldn't leave it cluttering the car.

2. There were a string of car break-ins in Bellefonte. For that reason, it's unlikely, if RFG had the laptop where visible, he would have not kept it there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J.J.,

Do you have any ideas how this person got this laptop. Do you think that the killer broke into the house. Maybe the killer had a key and while PF and Ray were at work, they took it.

How else would the killer get it? Any idea's. :confused:

How would the SK know to look in a closet? Even if it was on the floor of the backseat, out of sight why would the serial killer go into the car and take it?

I doubt it was a serial killer and believe that RFG brought the laptop to the scene.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, if this was a murder, it is very unlikely to have committed at the Street of Shops. No, make that impossible. There would be evidence, if not witnesses.

The laptop could indicate walk away or suicide, though the latter is unlikely.

If RFG used Mapquest, or an internal map program, that would be found on the hard drive and the police could trace his route. The laptop had a serial number and could be traced to him. The hard drive would show it's his computer whenever he went on the Internet, even if it was put in another computer. Destroying it removes any chance of a trace.

In the case of suicide, it is possible that RFG typed a note and then decided that he couldn't leave it. He wanted no trace of it.

Another possibility in the case of suicide was that RFG was looking at something on the Internet that he though would be too embarrassing, such as impotency or a sudden lack of desire. Ironically, those could be symptoms of depression. He still didn't want it to get out, even after he died.

That said, I think both of the suicide reasons are possible, but unlikely. The laptop, with the drive removed and destroyed, is one of the reasons why I think suicide is unlikely (though I can't rule it out).

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.,

Could the laptop and harddrive possibly not been his.

The laptop has a serial number; it was RFG's. The hard drive is the type used in this laptop; it's unlikely that it's another computer's hard drive, though not impossible.

In either event, the hard drive was removed from RFG's laptop, prior to it being tossed.

[UndertheRadar]

Logic,

Is this the museum you're talking about? This is a Zaccagni quote from the Cleveland Free Times article:

“We can definitely put him there on Saturday, too. There’s a museum right here, across from the park. I think it’s called Cottingwood House. The employees there watched Ray bring his car and park it two or three different times across the street. He came and left, came and left, came back. He got out of his car, sat on a bench. He was reading a newspaper or something. But by noon Saturday, he just seems to have fallen off the earth.”

http://www.freetimes.com/story/3739

I don't know at this point how much credence LE is putting in any Saturday witnesses or Saturday sightings, but it would appear (at least from this quote) that the museum sightings are a Saturday phenomenon, unless there was a Friday museum sighting I'm not aware of.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.,

I don't buy the theory no backup. In the business world especially being a DA that is a must.



He didn't have backups for his office computer either, assuming that the reporting is correct.

He wouldn't need the hard drive. The doucuments to be loaded onto a CD or a flash drive.

The laptop was RFG's, beyond reasonable doubt.

[J. J. in Phila]

That could have been the "other" Mini. It might have been ruled out by that point.

Now, if it was RFG, where did he sleep, where did he eat, and where did he go to the bathroom? I'm not making fun; these are serious (and potentially traceable) questions.

[Cloudbuster]

Just a reminder to let you all know that guidline I posted was not anything but a guideline. It is not to implicate just a serial killer. If you notice the word Stable killer is also implicated. It was not meant to implicate a serial killer but a Killer in general. To give examples of why people kill--a generalization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JJ posted:

The laptop has a serial number; it was RFG's. The hard drive is the type used in this laptop; it's unlikely that it's another computer's hard drive, though not impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JJ think back there is a article that talked about when LE found out the Laptop was missing they asked the courthouse personel to look and see if the laptop was there. Could someone see if that article is still available?

There is also a article that states the hard drive may not be RGs. Can someone find that also?

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

1.) Now think about this scenario: What if RGs laptop was at his office and someone took it from the courthouse and brought it along with pretense of meeting Ray that day? Lets say they already removed the hard drive before ever going to meet up with Ray. Lets say there is something on it they want. Added thought here is maybe the PBM had something to do with this scenario. Possibly wanted records destroyed on a certain person.

2.) Lets also say there is a chance they may have taken the laptop home with them long before meeting up with Ray and it may have been the day before or so. (From the courthouse).

What makes me think of this is the book that showed up in Mark Smiths desk? That indicates someone knew that the DA would not be returning and the show must go on --so the book is placed on Smiths desk so everything would go on and run smoothly. Now who would have the need to over see that things preceeded properly?

Also I was thinking why would Ray seem to be advoiding the workplace during normal hours of operation? Who would he be advoiding? Who oversees him?

Also why would a man show up at a PBM when he is advoiding normal work hours? Feeling tired lately? Naps? Something the personel observed. Something was bothering him OR SOMEONE.
Was that someone at the meeting? Or did he go for some help from someone at the meeting and found they may have been against him? (that would be Ray trying to talk about a issue rationally IMO). Even if the discussion occurred off record AFTER the meeting.

RG Also makes a trip to Raystown lake Huntington area? Why ?was he looking up some kind of record there? Or was it his first meeting with someone? Was he checking out a person that was supposed to be detained there and was'nt? Was he seeing why a prisioner was'nt where he was supposed to be? And checking about why that person ended up in Centre County? Also I can't figure how Rg would like knowing that person was placed right accross where RG parked his car? See if We can find out if the tape they have of RG leaving the courthouse Thursday night just may happen to be using the FRONT DOOR? If he did use the front door Thursday night you just may have your answer.

Also maybe Rg was in a silverish car as seen by Ms Fenton. Why? Because maybe he bought a used car so he could start parking in the regular lot to advoid the back entrance? So he drives in the parking lot as seen by Ms Fenton and sees someones car there that he wants to advoid and exits. If this is so then he leaves and meets with foul play sometime after that. Lets not forget the judge is unsure if it was Thursday or if it was Friday? The judge does'nt deny seeing him (thats a important clue). That tells me the judge did witness at least one of the days Ray being in that car. Keep in mind the judge didnt see him in the back parking spot? Think about it. Thats a BIG CLUE>

Now the hard drive. There IS NO PROOF that the hard drive that was found is RGs--please find the article. The one that was found is most likely a plant OR not involved at all if its not Rays. Even if it was Rays it was damaged and the person Im sure had everything they wanted from it. Also they may have wanted NOTHING from it. Heck Ray may not of even known it was missing from the courthouse he really was'nt there much in those 2 days?

I know PF said it was in the closet but what if earlier that week RG needed it at work for upcoming files on cases ect or even for OLD FILES he was looking for? Old Files from something that was bothering him hmmm?

Another thing why take a laptop and throw it in? Seems to me the person wanted to rid theirself of anthing of RG. Shows a P..sed off attitude. Or can be used to throw investagators off.

All hypotechicals and speculations IMOO.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks


Not certain, UTR, that the Cottingwood House is the same as the Packwood Museum.

This is the article I was referring to.....


Logic, Thanks for the clarification. Now that you've posted this article, the details of this one come back to me. Guess we've got two museums where the Mini was supposedly "seen" that weekend.

[J. J. in Phila]

There is a problem with the laptop being planted; what the planter be trying to indicate?

The killer-planter, KP, throws in in the water. Let's assume that KP is bright and can manage to drop it without getting his fingerprints on it. KP throws it someplace where it won't be recovered quickly and where RFG's prints won't be found. It doesn't prove RFG was in Lewisburg. It doesn't prove that RFG threw it into the river. It doesn't make a particularly good argument that it was suicide, thus taking the pressure off KP.

There was ample evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg prior to the laptop being discovered. If there is nothing related to what happened on the hard drive, plant the computer someplace where it will be found in a few days, with the hard drive in it, and let LE spend the next few months checking a few hundred, or a few thousand, web addresses. Or, leave the laptop in the car and remove the drive, tossing it into the water a few feet from the bank.

[J. J. in Phila]

Cind,

That's the point. If KP wanted to plant it, why destroy it? The only reason to destroy it is to keep the data from being revealed. KP already has the laptop in the water.

[J. J. in Phila]

Cind,

There is no need for the KP to through the police off of the location, because there is absolutely no evidence where or if a murder took place.

If K is smoking when he entered the car, RFG could have told him not to smoke and K tosses it immediately, but still gets the ash (and the smell of smoke) in the car.

[Cloudbuster]

Cind maybe someone gave Rg files of some sort maybe even encrpted ones by way of internet. Maybe that happened 2 weeks prior to the disappearance. Maybe someone was unloading something they did'nt want in their possession. Or they brought that information directly to RG. The old saying Let Harry deal with it comes to mind lol. So Harry ends up being RG. Now whats RG to do with the information? Maybe he contacted the wrong person and that person blabed to another person and so the Storm begins to surface with currant running in someones lightning path. Under currants uprooting.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Under the bridge is a likely place for it to be found and a likely place for searchers to look. It wasn't found by searchers because it wasn't there yet, IMO. If someone wanted it found immediately, it would have been found.



The damage to the laptop showed long exposure to water, more than someone tossing it in a few days or weeks before it was found. Because of its lack of fingerprints, it's one of the weakest pieces of evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg. It isn't needed to prove that.


Some local areas have much more limestone in it than the river at Lewisburg.
Was this checked out on both the laptop and the hard drive?
JMO

True, but the all drain into the Susquehanna. The whole area has a limestone base. That's why you get sinkholes.

[J. J. in Phila]

First, from what little I've read about getting fingerprints from submerged objects, time in the water is a factor, as is material. I've only heard of getting prints from metal objects that have been submerged, not a plastic keyboard. It's possible I have not heard about this.

Keep in mind that the laptop was in such bad shape from being in the tater, that the plastic was separating from the screen.

I wouldn't be too hopeful about getting prints from that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Does anybody know if RFG smoked a specific brand of cigars when celebrating? Did he go to the drugstore and just get whatever they had or was it a specific brand? Are they commonly available in drug stores/gas stations/grocery stores?

Perhaps TG can help with that one?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks
I understand that rain washing down over a latent print could reduce the ability to get a print, but in a closed case where it is resting in water, not certain how much would be lost, In addition, sometimes there are air pockets that may not be enough to cause a heavy object to rise to the surface but could protect part of the board from being touched by water other than when being lifted out.



You've got to remember, it was in running water for a few months, running water.

The plastic was possibly partly eroded off. I doubt it just being in water would do that.

[J. J. in Phila]

Plastic will eventually erode, at the molecular level at least. It didn't "come apart; it was peeling, according to the CDT.

[J. J. in Phila]

With the type of damage done by the water, it's unlikely that there would be any prints. The water damage was enough to cause "peeling" of the plastic, not just separation. The oils left from contact with fingers would very likely be washed away.

If the evidence pointed to the laptop not being in the water for months, I'd be more optimistic.

[J. J. in Phila]

LW,

According to the press reports the evidence was analysed, by a joint FBI/Secret Service lab.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/special_packages/ray_gricar/13364699.htm

Someone could easily "doctor" the evidence to convince me that the laptop was damaged by water; the probably could convince the local police too, if they were good. An experienced forensics lab, no way.

Also rusting would depend on the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water; no 02, no rust.

While you can't say exactly when the laptop was placed, you can say it was not a "recent plant." We're talking a period of months, not weeks.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


I don't know if this is a question of 'doctoring' as much as it is a question of timing. Nor am I questioning whether the laptop was a 'recent plant', as much as I am referring to the possibility the laptop was placed there AFTER the searches were done. This would only be a difference of a couple of weeks.



On this I agree. The evidence shows the laptop was in the water for months though not necessarily on 4/15/05. It has been suggested that this was tied to developments in the investigation. That is impossible.

Assuming that the laptop was not put in around 4/15/04 (figure that weekend), the question becomes why someone put it there? It is only minor evidence that RFG was there. There is a lot more associated with the car that is harder (and potentially impossible) to fake. Assuming that it left in the car by RFG by accident, why did K remove it? Why did K look through the car in the first place?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.,

I will try this one.

First of all, maybe the laptop was not in the car with Ray. Maybe it had been stolen before because that person thought that Ray might have some information on it to implicate them. Or that they wanted to know if he had any information that would expose them. Maybe Ray kept a calendar on the laptop.


How does K know where the laptop is? How does he know the incriminating information isn't on the home computer or the office computer? How does he know there are no backups?


They threw it in the area by where the car was found so that the police would be stupid enough to think that it was missed in the first search. Or for it to be found there instead of being in their possession. Or Maybe the killer worked around that area.


Same problems.


Maybe the killer thought Ray also had some documents that weren't on the laptop. Maybe the killer was in the car with Ray and wanted to make sure that he or she didn't leave any evidence of being there. :read:

Then you are basically saying that the laptop is related to the murder and that K destroyed it to hide incriminating information. Wasn't that my premise?

[Cloudbuster]

J.J. wrote:
How does K know where the laptop is? How does he know the incriminating information isn't on the home computer or the office computer? How does he know there are no backups?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response would be he or she did'nt know where the laptop was. The person most likely ask RG to bring the laptop as a pretense to lure him into a meeting with the option of letting RG believe they had information to give him. They may have even said they would transfer the information from their portable hard drive to his?

[day2day]

Originally posted by logicworks



Sooooo.....if someone jumped from a bridge, possibly with the laptop, where would one go to search? Anywhere near the bridges? I would assume so. AND if the laptop was thought to be in the water, wouldn't an underwater metal detector have been used? Again, one would certainly think so. Frankly, I can't think that if it was there, that there was any reason why they wouldn't have found it early on when the river was being searched.
JMO

IMO the only reason the laptop wasn't found on day1 ..was because it was still in Mr. Gricar's home. If we are to believe PF, Mr. Gricar was taking a day "OFF"! Now why in the world would he bother to take a laptop (which he rarely used) on his day off?!

:read:

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by day2day


IMO the only reason the laptop wasn't found on day1 ..was because it was still in Mr. Gricar's home. If we are to believe PF, Mr. Gricar was taking a day "OFF"! Now why in the world would he bother to take a laptop (which he rarely used) on his day off?!

:read:

Are you then saying PF or a family member removed the laptop from RG's home after Day 1 and then put it in the river?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Maybe KP worked in the DA's office or had access to it. MOO

It also fits in with how did the book end up on Mark Smith's desk?
MOO

Is Mark Smith still in the DA's office? He isn't the new DA is he? Maybe he put it there himself and didn't want to admit to it because of RG's disappearance? Just didn't remember to put book back after reading it but couldn't admit it now because he would be a potential suspect?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by day2day


IMO the only reason the laptop wasn't found on day1 ..was because it was still in Mr. Gricar's home. If we are to believe PF, Mr. Gricar was taking a day "OFF"! Now why in the world would he bother to take a laptop (which he rarely used) on his day off?!

:read:

Or, he wasn't really taking the day off, which is what this "murder scenario" suggests. There is more than ample evidence that RFG drove the Mini to Lewisburg, even without the laptop.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Is Mark Smith still in the DA's office? He isn't the new DA is he? Maybe he put it there himself and didn't want to admit to it because of RG's disappearance? Just didn't remember to put book back after reading it but couldn't admit it now because he would be a potential suspect?

The DA elected in 2005 is Michael Madeira.

Smith was "First Deputy District Attorney" under RFG. He became "acting" DA for the remainder of RGF's term. I've read that he was actually out of town that weekend.

I've been through one or two vacancy appointments for county row officers, For most row officers, register of wills, treasurer, clerk of courts, the Governor appoints the successor, with the consent of the State Senate. It becomes highly political. For the DA and the county commissioners, the local court appoints the successor (I had to look it up myself).

It's not uncommon, where there is a death or the possibility of a death, for employees of the dead office holder, to speculate on a replacement. I could see a few speculating about how the vacancy would be filled and look it up (I've actually advised people on the process before the guy was even in the ground). Further, the Democratic Party candidate, Karen Arnold, worked in the office, so she might have been curious.

It's never really mentioned in public because it looks too morbid, but this kind of thought does occur, especially to the "political class."

When I was holding public office, I had a press release to be used in the case I died. It would either read:

1. The vacancy for the remainder of his term will be filled in the Municipal Election in November.

2. The [name of the body] will fill the vacancy for the remainder of his term.

The difference was the statutory requirement on when the vacancy will occur. I never had to use it. :biggrin:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



I don't see it being impossible, as you do.
How is one going to know ahead of time exactly what direction the investigation is going to take?

All KP had to do was wait two weeks to see that the investigation was going to be directed more toward suicide or runaway. Therefore if KP wanted to keep it going in that direction, why wouldn't tossing both in lend to the idea that RG must have tossed it in himself?



I'm talking about the developments contemporary to when the laptop and drive were found, i.e. the polygraph tests. K couldn't have known, on April 15, 2005, that that there would polygraph tests in July and September.

Also, what the laptop point to, or from? Maybe it points away from suicide, but it doesn't give more weight to either murder or walk away.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



Surely the possibility polygraph tests would be administered had to come up VERY early in the investigation, definitely within the first week or two. Just because it was dragged on for three and five months doesn't mean that it wasn't going to happen.



KP doesn't know in April or early May two things, when the laptop will be found and when and if the polygraph tests would be administered. It been suggested that KP planted the evidence to re-focus the investigation on Lewisburg due to developments in the investigation, i.e. the polygraph tests.

That cannot be the case because there was no way for KP to have known in April or May when this would occur. KP also doesn't know when the laptop will be found. It was found on 7/30/06; it might have been found until sometime in October, if at all.

It possible that the laptop and drive were placed in the water as late as May, but it wouldn't have been to re-focus attention to Lewisburg in July-September.

Also, you claim is factually incorrect that this is the same level. As noted by TG, the DA's office was not "in charge" of the investigation. At the time the laptop was found, there was no "new DA."

The reason the Justice Department (primarily the FBI) has not been brought in is because it is outside of their jurisdiction.

We are currently in a situation where the BPD is saying to PSP, "Please, go through the evidence and see if you can find anything." I'm not seeing jurisdictional disputes in this.

I am seeing a lack of evidence. In all honesty, is there a shred of evidence that foul play occurred in the disappearance of RFG? Is there a shred of evidence that someone other than RFG drove the Mini to Lewisburg?

[Cloudbuster]

JJ wrote:

How does K know where the laptop is? How does he know the incriminating information isn't on the home computer or the office computer? How does he know there are no backups?
__________________________________________________ __
The KP would have to know RG was bringing the laptop.
How does he know?
Because the person that wanted to give RG information furnished that information to the KP to make him sweat. He wanted to see the mans face when he told him he was going to RG with information on the KP. Its called the act of revenge.
Revenge for what?
A storm between father and son in full bloom.
Thats how the Kp knows the information is'nt on the home computer or the office computer because the KP was following the person that was meeting RG.
After person furnishes RG with the information he exits the location and the KP then enters. He abducts RG and takes the laptop.
At some point he returns another time to put the laptop in the water along with hard drive. Of course after he destroys the hard drive.
The KP may have even been waiting at the Quarry for the person to leave.

Maybe the orginal meeting took place at the Quarry as possibly requested by the person who was going to furnish RG with information on the KP?

After the meeting RG then goes to the shops and parks while the whole time KP is waiting to make his move.
When the KP looks in the car to see if anythings written down he finds nothing but the laptop. In this scenario I think he would have abducted RG first and took him somewhere to talk. After the talk he gets rid of RG and goes back to the mini cooper to get what he needs (laptop). He may at this point discarded Rgs keys in the water or he may have kept them and thrown them in with the laptop and hard drive at a different time. I don't think he would of put the keys back with RG.

The scenario is a cat chasing a mouse. The mouse had the cheese (information) the cat had a killer instinct (could'nt let the information see the light of day). All the implications of a SLOW BURN case. See the information dates way back. The information may have contained even some newer things like (arsons). Would Rg be interested in this information? Sure he would be.
Why would he be interested?
Because he vowed he would get this person someday. He could'nt get him back then legally but with the new information he could now.

What does the provider of the information have to gain?
He gains revenge on the KP for something personally done to him.

What does KP gain?
He gains not going to prision and doing time. he gains control over the legal system by getting away with the crimes. This person is a controlling person has the need to feel all powerful.

Who loses? RG and provider of the information.
To find Rg you would need to think like the KP and figure out where he would dispose at.

These are only possibilites of total speculation. Also if there was a foul play scenario. MOO

[tiredoftheguff]

Cloubuster you are exactly right, amd you hit the nail rigt on the head!! The answers to the mystery are here on the board. I have said it many times. I question whether or not the police really are trying to solve this case. They have been given the info. Yes even the killers names. They choose not to believe it. Hang in there though. Very soon I believe the ball will start to roll. They will have the opportunity to pull it all together. Let's hope that they do. If not then it may take the work of some very determined ladies!

[day2day]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


Are you then saying PF or a family member removed the laptop from RG's home after Day 1 and then put it in the river?

Hi Sherrijean! It just seems strange to me that a man takes a day off...which he needed so "badly" and takes his laptop (that he rarely uses) with him?!

It would have been more believable if he had taken the dog with him!

I would bet a weeks pay that Mr. Gricar was not the person that put the laptop in the river.

:shrug:

[day2day]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Maybe the person is a she.

Maybe!!:seeya:

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Luster,

You are right on that one. That baffled me. That made me want to try to get in touch with him and asked him what he meant. I guess that would have been a question for someone covering the story to ask him. Considering Centre County has a newspaper, but aren't they supposed to be asking these questions. Isn't that called news?

I was also surprised that he mentioned that he know knows why there is no Bible in the courthouse.

That is pretty bad when a criminal comes out and says that. MOO, OMO

It didn't sound like a "compliment" to me but that he was referring that the new DA was doing a cover up. Or is that what you are really saying?

And it is a little hard for the Centre Daily Times, the Centre County newspaper, to do any digging on stories like that when they are too busy doing stories on Penn State Nittany Lions - or - JoPa - the coach - or Penn State in particular. It is now more a college paper than a county paper IMO.

I had lived in Centre County from 1960-1993 and the paper changed over the years from County to College news. A shame really but then isn't Penn State the biggest employer in CC?

I don't understand about the FBI and their investigating? Not their jurisdiction? They have offices in State College, Centre County, and RFG Of Bellefonte, Centre County is gone - whether dead or alive - he is gone- a Missing Person. Sure makes you lose faith in our justice system at all levels!

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by day2day


Hi Sherrijean! It just seems strange to me that a man takes a day off...which he needed so "badly" and takes his laptop (that he rarely uses) with him?!

It would have been more believable if he had taken the dog with him!

I would bet a weeks pay that Mr. Gricar was not the person that put the laptop in the river.

:shrug:

I have questioned the laptop right from the beginning. Why he would even take it out of the case to be put in a car where it could be damaged? I also questioned whether someone was in the home with him after, Patty left, that made him take it? Just because he called her to have her let the dog out didn't mean he was alone in the car, unwillingly, and being followed by another car.

Also questioning you about the discussion on the Seven Mountains cabin near the Boy Scout Camp. Have you been to the area? We have friends in that section of the mountain and there are dozens and dozens of homes that people live in year round. There is the road that goes past the Boy Scout Camp to Poe Valley and down the valley. Also you can reach it round about by the homes on top of the mountain. When you turn off Rt 322 make a sharp left, would be part of the Old 322 before the highway was updated in the late 60's. Anyways at the top of the hill make a sharp almost u-turn on to a dirt road. It winds around a short distance at which point you come to a V in the road - left or right. Left has no outlet but a lot of homes (my father had put the first camp in there but no longer has) and right will evenually take you out to the lower road which the Boy Scout Camp is on. This road is lined both sides with homes and a business near the end.

I just don't know who you are talking about being there that wasn't quite right in the head? I thought if I heard a name I could place the cabin/man? Also the Dershem you speak of in the County offices, I have family member whose family has that name in it and he sounds familiar but can't say I can place him. And it seems like the families are all inter- connected. We were from the Potters Mills/Tusseyville area. My father was agent for the Pa SPCA for 36 years and being from there the families all married and stayed in the area before we had moved there. Wasn't a family around us that wasn't someone's relative.

Also as for the Centre County justice systems and all the different police departs, PSP, county agents, etc., my father had to deal with so many of them over the years and he had nothing but good to say of them. And for my Dad to say it that means something from my point of view. I just hope they do look at the things that have gone down and decide Ray Gricar deserves the best investigation our state can give him and make a bigger better search and investigation. I beilieve everyone in office in our state giving their time and energy to do for the people of PA deserve nothing but the best and I believe PSP are the best. I also believe they would want the same done for them. I just hope they don't prove me wrong.

At this point in my life I wish I had gone on to a higher education and been an investigator. I would love to be out there now doing my part.

Thank you for letting me get that off my mind.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



If KP's sole goal for tossing the laptop and hard drive was to hide incriminating evidence, why not take it and hide it?
How WOULD KP know the laptop was the only source for the information? ONLY two ways IMO.

1. The incriminating evidence was put on the laptop in KP's presence.


Got it on the first try!!! :)

That's the premise. K either met RFG prior to this and slipped him some forged evidence on disk or he handed him a disk and said, after RFG read it, "I have the hard copies back at my cabin."

It's bait to get RFG there and/or get him alone. What better way for K to get RFG separated from the car and to a secluded spot (not necessarily a cabin) than for RFG to go willingly, if unwittingly.

[J. J. in Phila]

Just for the record:

K is the hypothetical killer.

The "cabin" is just shorthand for some secluded spot where the murder, hypothetically, could have taken place.

This thread is just discussing one of three possibilities. I've tried to come up with a murder scenario that fit the evidence (see the first page).

I would add that the aerobic case might not be related at all. Hold it back as a possible clue.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by Cinderella
Luster,

You are right on that one. That baffled me. That made me want to try to get in touch with him and asked him what he meant. I guess that would have been a question for someone covering the story to ask him. Considering Centre County has a newspaper, but aren't they supposed to be asking these questions. Isn't that called news?

I was also surprised that he mentioned that he know knows why there is no Bible in the courthouse.

That is pretty bad when a criminal comes out and says that. MOO, OMO

Why is there no Bible in the courthouse?

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks



Of course KP would know there would be polygraph tests done. It's typical procedure to do so. Very untypical that it took 3 and 5 months.

The positioning of the laptop and hard drive look like just that to me.....'positioning'. These 'actions' do not fit the character of the 'disappeared'. Nor does smoking in his car. Nor does carrying around an exercising to aerobics tape. Nor does leaving his 'world' as he knew it behind. Nor does leaving Lara. Irresponsibilty simply was not an adjective one would use to describe Ray Gricar.

Isn't the lack of evidence, evidence in itself?
JMO

Maybe the only reason a polygraph was taken at all is because the people of the county were outraged and they let the police know how they felt. Obviously the local police didn't feel PF or LG were guilty of anything and only did it to appease the people?! Remember PF works in the courthouse as a clerk in the DA's office? They would all have a general opinion of the type person she is.

A few paragraphs back there is a mention on a father/son problem. Are you referring to BJL and father?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks



RG was a prosecutor, not a field investigator. A man as intelligent as he was wouldn't go to meet anyone for information unless it was of the utmost importance, and definitely wouldn't willingly agree to go to someone's 'cabin' in the woods, IMO.



Go back and read the first page. ;)

The "bait" is potential improprieties in county government, or with one of the candidates. The bait is also likely forged.

It has to be enough for RFG to want to see more, but not enough to prove anything. K has to stage it convince that he has enough evidence for RFG to want to see more, but not enough for RFG to form a grand jury.

That's about the only murder scenario that I can figure out that explains all the evidence.

[day2day]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


I have questioned the laptop right from the beginning. Why he would even take it out of the case to be put in a car where it could be damaged? I also questioned whether someone was in the home with him after, Patty left, that made him take it? Just because he called her to have her let the dog out didn't mean he was alone in the car, unwillingly, and being followed by another car.



Thank you for letting me get that off my mind.

Snipped to save bandwith!

I agree..on one hand we have Mr. Gricar the "neat freak" ..very few prints in the car..etc! On the other hand he leaves a water bottle (with his dna of course to prove HE was in that car)

Then we have him taking his laptop..without a powersource and case..

IMO he never carried the laptop from that house..and he didn't leave the water bottle in the car.


:seeya:

[J. J. in Phila]

He might have left the water bottle if he wasn't finished and was planning to come back, or if he wanted to make it look that way.

I cannot see any purpose in planting the laptop.

[day2day]

And i can't see him taking it with him. It is "out of character" for him. Why would he LEAVE his cell phone that he used frequently and take a laptop he rarely used. ***shakes my head*** I am never going to believe that..

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
J. J.,

Your scenerio presents a problem. You said that he had a little information on his laptop. If he had a little then he might have it loaded on something else.


Cind, as pointed out, K gave him the data, in this scenario, possibly in the car. If it is something politically sensitive, it wouldn't be transferred where PF or other staff members might read it. A record of the file accessed would be on the hard drive.

I never said anything about meeting that night, IIRC, though possibly in the afternoon of 4/14, if not before. I suggested that the cabin might have been burn after the murder, to hide the evidence.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella


Also by your scenerio Carolyn Fenton could not have seen Ray in the gold car. Ray would have been killed by then. The police also supposedly told her that it didn't fit the timeline. If this was so, why would she lie? JMO, MOO


Her story has changed over time. At first, she wasn't sure, then, as time passed, she became positive. She might have simply confused the days.


The person looking into Ray's car in Lewisburg was described as a construction worker. Don't you think that if Ray is in his car and the if the person that he was meeting was not a construction worker, but dressed as one that Ray would know something wasn't right?


No. How does a construction worker dress. that is a characterization. Maybe boots, like someone going outdoors would wear? Jeans an a fleece jacket? That's what RFG was wearing. Unless the guy had a tool belt and hard hat, "construction worker-type" could mean anything. I was out today wearing khaki shirt and pants, boots and an army field jacket. I could qualify as a "construction worker-type."

The quarry sighting has never been confirmed and there is no evidence that the Mini Cooper was there, e.g. not particles from it and no dust.

The "cabin," as I've indicated, can refer to any remote place.

[Cloudbuster]

Okay thought long and hard on this one . Lets see what he have that lines up with some evidence.

Thinking back to my scenario RG would not have just went to meet the (provider of information).
Why?
Because RG had a upcoming case (with provider of information).

RG IMO would be a little leary meeting with someone he was going to prosecute. It may in public if seen looked like a bribe or something. I just don't see him jumping to meet.

Instead:
Provider of information needs a (go between) person and that person would have to be someone RG would trust that is crediable.
Who does (provider of information) ask? None other than someone very close to him that works at the Willowbank office.
Why am I bringing that up?
Because this person would be someone RG would trust and is trustworthy IMO.

Why would RG show up at a PBM when he appeared tired, naps ect?
Because he was asked to by the (go between) person. Maybe he was called at some point within the 2 weeks prior. The call would have come from the Willowbank office to the switchboard then unto his office. Or he could have seen the (go between person) during work.

The (go between person) asks him most likely after the PBM to go somewhere to talk about something very important. Same day after PBM they agree to meet somewhere in Huntington area.
Why that area?

1.)Because (go between person) is Very afraid to be seen with RG because the KP is well known to the (go between person). 2.)Not only that people that know both the (go between person) and RG may think a bribe is going on for the upcoming case.

That explains why an area as Huntington may be needed.

The (go between p) explains to RG why the (provider of information) is in need of meeting RG. The (go between p) gives RG the details of what the meeting will be about and most likely stresses that she don't know everything. The things she don't know may include things about the (information p) wife. The (go between p) would know some of the stuff on the KP but not all. The (information person) would know ALOT more. So she convinces RG to meet the FOLLOWING day in Lewisburg at the shops at a certain time.

RG knows this is dangerous because he knows the KP well. He goes to the street of shops -parks his car and the (information p) gets out of his vehicle with a cig. and approaches RG window and bends in to talk (small ash) falls in. And smoke is in the car now. RG gets annoyed and (information p) sees this and asks that they get in his vechicle. RG LOCKS UP HIS CAR (thats why no prints inside). He brings his laptop and gets in (informationP) vechicle. Also (informationP) would appear like a construction worker (for he is one). Sidenote Quarry would be most likely tied into his work.

They drive somewhere the (information p) wants to go thats known to him. The (information P) gives the information and RG puts it on the laptop (maybe). Then the KP either shows up because he is following by route of another vechicle (not his). He either pulls a gun out and takes over from there OR he waits for the (information P) to leave.

If the (information p) left then KP takes control --disposes and takes laptop.
KP would then make sure the (information p) knows he has the laptop and the info won't see the light of day. He then tells (information P) that if he attempts to do anything that Everything will fall on the (information P). His disposal site would be a place that would POINT right at the (information p) and the KP might even have told (informationp) this. The KP needed the laptop for 2 reasons. 1.) To get rid of the information or and 2.) To hold over the (information P) head.

At this point (information P) is feeling angry, at a lose ect. He goes to wifes place and they begin to fight possibly about this whole thing. He then proceeds to end everything and in some ways that is a form of saying YOUR not pinning this on me. Or some would say his death is suspious.

SPECULATION 100 percent. Hypo theory on possiblities. MOO

[Cloudbuster]

I forgot the KP would have had to arrive at the place while the( information P ) was still present. (BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO RETURN RG) to his mini. AS was NOT the case IMO. So (information P) was made to observe. Which also leaves me to believe the KP was'nt acting alone.

[Cloudbuster]

Another side note:

(information p) is being held in a position of
1.) He is the last person to be with RG at which the laptop information would point to that.
2.) It would look like he set RG up because of his upcoming case. Would anyone really believe what was on the laptop. They could assume it was all made up as a lure to get RG away from Bellfonte in a set up style.

Thats what the laptop could of been for.

Also disposal site most likely a location that points to (information p)

specualtion only moo possiblities.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Now I assume it was close to dark when the car was found and probably dark when BPD arrived there, assuming they were called right down to Lewisburg. There was no body found in the car, near the car, or closeby we are told. If homicide/foul play usually a body would be close by, but it would have been too dark to do much of a search, I would think.
HOW did BJL know NO body would be found?

You're not spamming.

First, you're going to have another hour and a quarter of light, even at 6:30 PM. You'll get another 25 minutes of twilight after that (not great, but enough to spot a body). Second, I'd suspect the PSP did look around the area just after the Mini was found.

BJL might have been lying. I understand he was drunk. Possible.

It is possible that he helped hide the body or was K. Possible as well. He might play into the luring scenario.

[J. J. in Phila]

I doubt that BJL could have lured RFG to Lewisburg. That's someone that he wouldn't have trusted.

[Cloudbuster]

If BLs death is a straight up suicide I can find two reasons that he may have chose that route. I researched suicides.

1.)Revenge - To cause pain or guilt by blaming the suicide on others.
Possbile for him to feel revengeful to the 2 people closest to him.

2.)The person might want his relatives to be able to claim insurance money, which would be more difficult to claim if the death was a true suicide.
So lets assume its a straight up suicide--those who would collect (those he was angry with) would have a harder time collecting insurance money. Yes there was a insurance policy.

So I can see reasons he may have choosen that route.

Speculation based on suicide research. I went here first:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-people-who-have-disappeared
I went here second and looked up all the suicide information.
http://www.answers.com/topic/suicide-note

[sherrijean981]

What was BJL's reason for the suicide (if it was)?

If he did have anything to do with RG's disappearance and he commited suicide because of it that would mean he wasn't the hard man everyone said he was.

And if that was his reason, wouldn't he have done it sooner, after supposedly shooting his wife (someone he loved) in the head?

And if his father is even meaner and harder than him, then why is he not being checked out? But maybe he is!! Wouldn't him leveling BJL's living area and grounds be destroying evidence? And how did the police search that area?

Where was there a dug grave that was mentioned on this list? On BJL's home place?

JMOO!

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure the police did search anything, though the statement could be probable cause.

[J. J. in Phila]

Are we sure that LE didn't search these properties?

Look, when I posted this scenario, I extrapolated from the evidence. I had heard of BJL, but knew of no connection between him and any relatives that worked for the County.

I cannot believe that when a man claims he hid RFG's body, that this doesn't give LE probable cause to search the areas he had access to.

Are we sure that they didn't search the areas?

[kelloggirl]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Are we sure that LE didn't search these properties?

Look, when I posted this scenario, I extrapolated from the evidence. I had heard of BJL, but knew of no connection between him and any relatives that worked for the County.

I cannot believe that when a man claims he hid RFG's body, that this doesn't give LE probable cause to search the areas he had access to.

I agree that it seems hard to believe, but since I've been following this case, it seems to me that LE has been very quick to dismiss many promising areas of investigation, and the whole BJL thing is just one of them. Other examples of this include LE insisting that there is nothing in to investigate in RG's case files. And so on.

I haven't been posting here a lot lately because I have nothing really to add to the Jonathan Luna discussion and personally think it's somewhat irrelevant, but I am still here, and interested in finding out what happened to Ray. I'm pretty firmly in the foul play camp myself, and am anxiously awaiting the findings from the task force review of the case. I hope that they were not as quick to dismiss leads as local LE has seemed to be to me.

[J. J. in Phila]

When you are looking at flowers, not in the proximity of the car, you are reachiing more than a little bit.

RFG obviously didn't put them there. I'm wondering why anyone involved in a presumed murder is going to out them there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


I am not really questioning the flowers. I am questioning the 'orange juice' container and the container found by Thal and whether they are one and the same.
JMO

It seems to be; that is the implication.

[Cloudbuster]

LW you got me thinking! ORANGE JUICE container would most likely point to a DIABETIC. Stretching a bit the flowers would be a stage of really throwing people off with a possible affair. But the orange juice contanier the person used is easy implicates a DIABETIC. WHY? Just think about it. Oh I gotta agree with Lustor my eyes have seen as posted in his hymm. :)

[Cloudbuster]

BYE Golly Miss Molly repeat after me --you got :
One Diabetic and :
One Smoker atheletic:
With Flowers tossed in:
That smell to the Heavens:
Let the Water flow near:
Oh the bridge is so dear:
People will think thats rear:
When that all dies away:
Hey lets play
Laptop to the pier:
Now listen up here:
The Hard drive must appear:
Oh they think we are so smart:
They thought that from the start:
The only problem is we must keep them on a SPIN:
Our mission is accomplished :
Only if we win.

They will never win!!!! MOO NEVER! The above poem IMO reflects the mentality of 2 not so smart acorns.

[J. J. in Phila]

Except "Ode to Billie Joe" deals with suicide, not murder. The reasons that have been suggested for it were:

1. The abortion/stillbirth of a child between the singer and Billie Joe.

2. Billie Joe's long term suicidal tendencies.

3. In the movie, the homosexuality of Billie Joe.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/billyjoe.htm

NB, I'm not the "J. J." that wrote that. :)

I'm not seeing this as related.

[J. J. in Phila]

We have a lot more evidence to look at prior to dealing with this.

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks Lustor and LW for the kudos! I have something that is bugging at me once again lol.

Why is it that 2 other people that have a tie to RG in some way but differently end up with a SUICIDE tag hmmm? That bothers me. Both had a different type of relationship with Ray. One being his brother and the other being someone RG was going to prosecute. I know its been said over and over that Roy was a straight up suicide. As hard as I try to see that I CAN"T. I don't care if the man maybe left a letter If he did!

Pete said in the CDT answer column section that RG NEVER believed Roy committed suicide at which double amplifies my feeling on that. I will suppose that RG confided that in PF and NO he would'nt have confided that to the nephews. RG had his own gut instincts on that one think about it.

So when 1996 came and Roy was found in the Great Miami River what would make Ray think otherwise hmm? To answer that you gotta look at what LW refers to as copycats. First you got 2 brothers vechicles set up almost same way. With Roy we may have a suicide note (maybe) with RG we got flowers in juice container-a laptop that appears- ahard drive found later? Okay one ends up in the water and the other is still missing.

One profiler on TV said that we are creatures of habit and she was refering to this case. I don't believe RG was the creature of habit but that the killer was. A copycat killer maybe. For Ray to feel that his brother was not a suicide then to me something was going on at the time PRIOR to Roys death that RG was suspious about. Now really think that thru. Its called a missing common denominator. That missing denominator would stem back to before 1996 and would also be the denominator of what lead to RGs disappearance now. Example the problem started before Roy commits a suicide and the problem resurfaces once again prior to RGs disappearance. They need to look thru his cases and see what was this common denominator case?

Slow Burn would play a factor. Now it just can't be that hard to see who back then may be the link to now.

Sidenote--anyone can make anyone write a note of suicide just like anyone could get you to go with them if they hold the gun. Also if Roy was pushed from a bridge or something he would'nt have no signs of a struggle on his body. Then of course with no other evidence they would have to rule it a suicide especially if there was a note. TG told us Roy was going to pick up AG at a school function. NOw seriously would that have been the best time to end it all??? IMO NO.

Another problem I have with that is Roy could'nt swim so why face your worst fear as a choice to die? NOWAY NOWAY!! Sorry I can't buy it. Im with RGs gut instincts on that one always felt that from the beginning. ALSO its not a conspiracy theory its more like someone planned and conspired in a conspiracy to carry out their plan. So what was RG heated about back in 1994 0r 1995 leading into 1996? Then figure out the demoninator person who comes back to RG in 2005 right before he disappears.

I say look at the cases really look.

Speculation of course! MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

First, CB, do you see a thread I've started that is title "Suicide Scenaro?" Have you ever heard me say, on here or in a PM, "I think this was suicide?"

At best, I've said "I can't rule suicide out," but I've also gone out of my way to call it unlikely.


Originally posted by logicworks



In profiling a possible K, I don't see how the possibility of 'madness' can be eliminated.
The 'scene' of the happening is much too personal. The clothes RG was wearing is much too personal. The 'day off' was personal. The 'relaxing ride' was personal. The separation of the laptop from the hard drive with no apparent reason for leaving them so close together indicates someone 'not thinking clearly'.


Any close RFG was wearing would be personal. The "day off" may or may not have been a day off, same with the ride. The computer could easily point to someone acting hurriedly.

I don't write anything off, but lets settle with the things that we know are associated with RFG first.

[Cloudbuster]

JJ posted:
First, CB, do you see a thread I've started that is title "Suicide Scenaro?" Have you ever heard me say, on here or in a PM, "I think this was suicide?"

At best, I've said "I can't rule suicide out," but I've also gone out of my way to call it unlikely.
__________________________________________________ __

JJ what is wrong? I did'nt say the above. But I feel we can rule out suicide cause no body. RG can't hide himself. Sticking to 3 theories is like playing on a safe side. Problem is one prevails over the other 2 so why keep the spin? Would it not be easier to examine the most likely? We went over run away too and it DON"T fit. I think its been the problem of this case all along. Trying to focus 3 ways now is ridiculious its 18 months later. Oh geez what would it mean if they rule out the other 2 scenarios? Would'nt that give the BPD more options to examine this case? Seems like we can't have that. So why is that? I say go over the cases. The answers lies there. MOO

[Serendipitous1]

Logicworks,

My guess is that the Street of Shops' video cameras are all for show, owner Bennett's attempt at a cheap deterrent against shoplifters. There was no camera outside the building and no camera on the parking lots.

The parking lots are also owned by Bennett. They are not posted as being restricted to Street of Shops patrons, and I doubt that a car parked there for any length of time would get any special notice.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
Except "Ode to Billie Joe" deals with suicide, not murder. The reasons that have been suggested for it were:

1. The abortion/stillbirth of a child between the singer and Billie Joe.

2. Billie Joe's long term suicidal tendencies.

3. In the movie, the homosexuality of Billie Joe.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/billyjoe.htm

NB, I'm not the "J. J." that wrote that.

I'm not seeing this as related.


J.J,
I have been reading all the sites and have become familiar with most of the initials but the "NB" has me stumped. Is that someone not on the site anymore? Or someone still on the site?Who is NB?????

[UndertheRadar]

Hi Sherrijean,

Far be it from me to speak for JJ, but "NB" is usually the shorthand for "nota bene," meaning "note well." Hope that helps.

[sherrijean981]

HI, Thank you but is that legal term for something? Don't mean to sound stupid but the legal terms are beyond me. lol It doesn't me I am not willing to learn, just don't test me on it. lol

[J. J. in Phila]

No, Latin, but it's a common abbreviation, like, et c. for "etcetera."

As I mentioned to someone else who asked, I first saw it used in The Dungeon Master's Guide. :)

I was trying to make sure that, since we had the same initials, nobody thought that I was the "J. J." who wrote it.

[sherrijean981]

Hi J.J.,
Thank you for answering that. I am just getting the hang of all the names and their initials and that one stumped me. I get it now. Do you play Dungeons and Dragons? It sounds too complicated. Give me a good book!

Any more tips or ideas on RG?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
HI, Thank you but is that legal term for something? Don't mean to sound stupid but the legal terms are beyond me. lol It doesn't me I am not willing to learn, just don't test me on it. lol

No tests, Sherri, lol! NB is a Latin term, and it's used in lots of academic settings, including but not limited to the legal arena.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks




The clothes he was claimed to have been wearing were casual, not typical work clothes as shown in work related photos.




I was looking at the term "personal." Unless he was in a uniform, his close will be "personal."

There can be three reasons for not wearing "court attire." 1. He's relaxing. 2. He doesn't want to his suit dirty in something "job related" that he's doing. 3. A jacket and tie might make him stand out.

While not an undercover agent, there is the possibility of a clandestine meeting, which could explain the laptop.


And we are to 'settle' those things HOW?


First eliminate all the other possibilities. The bag might be related, since it was by the car, but the flowers are pretty far away from that.

Something in the antiques store could be related as well, but the connection is pretty tenuous.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cloudbuster
JJ posted:

__________________________________________________ __

JJ what is wrong? I did'nt say the above. But I feel we can rule out suicide cause no body. RG can't hide himself. Sticking to 3 theories is like playing on a safe side. Problem is one prevails over the other 2 so why keep the spin? Would it not be easier to examine the most likely? We went over run away too and it DON"T fit. I think its been the problem of this case all along. Trying to focus 3 ways now is ridiculious its 18 months later. Oh geez what would it mean if they rule out the other 2 scenarios? Would'nt that give the BPD more options to examine this case? Seems like we can't have that. So why is that? I say go over the cases. The answers lies there. MOO

CB, I have not seen any poster say, "I think Ray Gricar killed himself." I and possibly TG have said, there is a possibility RFG killed himself; for my park, I think it is the least likely scenario.

You said in your post that people are saying that it is "straight up suicide." The profiler perhaps thought so, but neither LE nor the bulk of the posters here, including me, are saying that.

I have some problems with suicide.

1. As you pointed out, no body. It's possible RFG weighted himself down or that the body managed to get past the dams, but it is unlikely.

2. The laptop. If RFG had very poor handwriting, it might have been taken for the purposes of writing a suicide note. I don't know what his penmanship was like (mine is so poor that I typed love notes to an old girlfriend).

If he wanted to destroy data, why not remove the drive at home?

Still there may be some psychological reason.

3. The ash. RFG didn't smoke cigarettes. It's possible that he though the nicotine would calm his nerves.

All of these things are possible, but unlikely. Still, they deal with his psychology for the most part, except the body.

3.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
". The ash. RFG didn't smoke cigarettes. It's possible that he though the nicotine would calm his nerves.

I can't see Ray smoking in his car that he loved so much"


If Ray had smoked in the car LE would have known that. Not just from the ash. His car was locked up. Just from sitting there during the day it would have been warm, if not hot from the sun, if the sun hit it. ( But then he would have put his car away from the sun because he did treasure his car.) Anyways, being a none smoker, I can get in my car after my husband used it and smell the smoke from hours earlier. It permeats the fabrics in the car. Can't believe he would have done that to his car, even if he lit a cigar once in a while - that would have been even worse.

JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"2. The laptop. If RFG had very poor handwriting, it might have been taken for the purposes of writing a suicide note. I don't know what his penmanship was like (mine is so poor that I typed love notes to an old girlfriend).

If he wanted to destroy data, why not remove the drive at home"


Everybody is still assuming HE took the laptop from home. I still have bad feelings about his home and the laptop. No one comes forward to say he left his home on his own. They never did forecsics on the home before they used it for a base. (not even hair or odd fibers on the floors or furniture - how about the sweeper?) Anyone could have been in his home AFTER PF left for work.

No one knows when the laptop disappeared. If he is such a neat person I don't understand why he would not have taken the case to protect his computer. I don't have the money to buy a laptop but even my computer at home that I got for Mother's Day is valuable to me. I protect it from the gkids. A laptop that wasn't used much at home and was in a case (for protection in the home) would have been much easier just to pick the complete case/laptop (for protection in the car) up and go to where he was going.

And a person doesn't have to go to Lewisburg to dispose of their old laptops, etc. There are thousands of trash collectors at convenience stores for the public to use. I don't believe anyone goes through those because it is mostly used cups, tissues, cans or papers from foods they just purchased. He could have taken it to the local trash hauling facility and paid to throw a bag of stuff away. Takes a few minutes on the way to Rt 192 - if he ever was on Rt 192. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Quote:



Everybody is still assuming HE took the laptop from home. I still have bad feelings about his home and the laptop.

Sherrijean, if this was a suicide, I cannot come up with any reason why anybody else would remove the laptop. That to me is one of the arguments against suicide.

I'm half tempted to start a thread titled, "Suicide Evidence: Pro and Con." The Con outweighs the Pro.

[sherrijean981]

I hope my note didn't come across that I thought he commited suicide because that was not what I meant.

I DON'T BELIEVE HE COMMITED SUICIDE OR WALKED AWAY! I THINK SOMEONE ELSE DID SOMETHING TO HIM.

I am not hollering that. Only forcefully stating my opinion. Like hollering from the mountain top so everyone knows how I feel. LOL LOL

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"Did the dog indicate the driver circled the car and entered the passenger side to sit while smoking, meaning was the car door opened on the passenger side so the dog could indicate the driver did enter the passenger seat?"


Another reason for the driver to go around the car to the passenger side would be to open the door for a female passenger. My husband opens my doors for me.

[UndertheRadar]

3. While doing so, did the aerobics tape falls out of a side pocket or purse unnoticed by the smoker?

Since the bag with the tape in it was found by the back tire on the passenger side of the car, it seems less likely to have been knocked out of the Mini itself by someone in the process of getting out of that vehicle. Of course, it could have landed nearer the door and been kicked back toward the tire by someone walking through the lot, but if it stayed where it first landed, it must have fallen from someone who was walking by/around the car.

If it's indeed related to the case (and not an artifact that was in the lot from earlier in the day), falling out of a pocket or purse unnoticed makes sense.

[sherrijean981]

Has anyone considered the thought that RG might have made arrangements to take a female to Lewisburg? Maybe one from the abuse center? Someone he might have been working with, and making it a working day off? After arriving at the parking lot he walks around the car to let her out. He went in to the Shoppes and she went a different direction maybe to a business meeting, other shop, etc. Later she was to meet him there. She didn't show up and he was driving around the area looking for her. She finally shows up and they are at the car. She might have bought the exercise tape in the shops or at another store.

In the meantime he could have been followed by her SO to Lewisburg and he shows up in the parking lot. He sees her go one way and RG go in the Shoppes. He sits in wait for the both of them. When he see the two of them finally reach RG's car he confronts them. Gets RG in the car after forcefully taking her, and at that point she drops the bag with the tape in it.

It is another theory.
JMO

[UndertheRadar]

"The tape cassette came into a mall cashier's memory Wednesday. Bennett said the cashier told police she remembers seeing a postman who was delivering mail to the mall on Saturday stop on his way in to pick up a plastic bag ** that had been lying in the unpaved parking lot NEXT TO THE PASSENGER DOOR of Gricar's car.**

I guess we have a small discrepancy between the cashier's memory and that of the woman who was in the lot with her daughter. She described the bag as being by the back passenger side tire. I'm not sure it matters tremendously, given the short length of the Mini-Cooper and the possibility that the bag may have been moved after its initial drop.

I would love to know, however, if any forensics were done on the bag and the tape, or whether both were simply dismissed as unrelated without looking for fingerprints or possible DNA. Do we have any articles with details regarding that?

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"Someone he might have been working with, and making it a working day off?


RG was getting ready to prosecute a lot of drug dealers in one of the largest drug busts in the area. I was referring to some type of drug related work relationship that he might have had a lead on that no one knew about. Someone who might have called him and made arrangements to give him info and they were to check something out in Lewisburg. Isn't I-80 near Lewisburg ,a half way point between NJ and OH and isn't this road a much used drug trafficing route? There are many women that learn things from their SO, friends, business acquaintances that could be passed on to the DA - but if she needed to show him - why not drive her down with him. Maybe she knew RG and wanted to bypass the BPD.

I wasn't suggesting any kind of "personal" relationship between RG and another woman. I was talking a friend who was in need of someone to talk to, or a day out. I went through a rough time with my spouse a couple years ago and there were many people who helped me through by taking me to places with them, just like the antique shop in Lewisburg, and other places just so I could get out away from the stress at home. A day out with someone who was going that way anyways.

RG obviously felt sympathy for battered women, he helped them out at the shelter. But you are right - it wouldn't look good. But do we always only do what looks good? If someone has a need for help? If you knew he did take someone with him to get her out - would you say "RG is so thoughtful to help her out?" or would you say "They are having an affair." I don't know him but I would say the first since he is a BIG supporter of the Women's Abuse Shelter. That was his life! JMO MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

There are two problems with the "friend" scenario. One is the cigarette ash; RFG wouldn't let a friend smoke in the car. Second is the laptop. Why does he bring it to meet a friend?

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"There are two problems with the "friend" scenario. One is the cigarette ash; RFG wouldn't let a friend smoke in the car. Second is the laptop. Why does he bring it to meet a friend?"

First I remember everyone saying a man leaned in the car and dropped the cigarette ash. I question why this man went to the passenger door to try to get RG from his car. Wouldn't it make sense to go to the driver's door? It would be easier to open the driver's door and rip him out. Unless there was a woman sitting in the passenger side and it would be easier to get RG out of the car by threatening the passenger. Could be the person following him and the man at the door were the passenger's SO. I just don't believe anyone IN the car was smoking. It would have permeated the car!! One ash would come from a cigarette that has been sitting too long and drops from the cigarette either on its own or when the arm is in movement. As in the man at the window. If the woman were pulled from the car and she was the owner of the bag/tape it could have fallen from her hands/purse as she got pulled around the car. I think a woman would own the aerobics tape before a man would. JMO

You are assuming RG took the computer from the home the morning he left. We still don't know if he had it at the meeting or his office the night before and put it in the car then, maybe forgetting it was there. Or he had made arrangements to have it the next day and left it in the car then. Or someone else was at the home with him and ask him to take it along.

CB says RG stumbled on to something. He has been followed for weeks. She didn't say he stumbled onto it that day. Maybe he has made a couple trips down there. Is he taking pictures? His hobbie is photography. Maybe he took pictures and was going to download them onto the computer but then realized he didn't have the connectors or whatever they are called. Maybe there is also a camera missing along with RG, the glasses, wallet, etc. I would think if he stumbled onto something he would not just investigate without some way to get proof of what was going on.
JMO

I know my scenerio's are not the same as yours but think out of the box. There isn't only one way to look at it. I am just giving you another way, with everyone (all the players) included in my scene.
JMO MOO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Quote:



First I remember everyone saying a man leaned in the car and dropped the cigarette ash.


I do not recall any witness saying that. , though it's been speculated here. This would still create a problem with the man standing outside cause enough smoke to get into the car to cause the smell to remain.


I question why this man went to the passenger door to try to get RG from his car. Wouldn't it make sense to go to the driver's door?


We don't know if the man seen there was the smoking man. He could have approached to ask a question.


We still don't know if he had it at the meeting or his office the night before and put it in the car then, maybe forgetting it was there. Or he had made arrangements to have it the next day and left it in the car then. Or someone else was at the home with him and ask him to take it along.



The video tape showed that he didn't remove it from the courthouse that night; he wasn't carrying it. IIRC, the other people at the PBM said RFG didn't have the laptop then.

A digital camera would record this on a memory card, but he could have downloaded them to the laptop; the photo should still be on the memory card. I have not heard of a camera missing.

[tiredoftheguff]

Cinderella you can buy it at Walmart I believe. It may be in the hunting section I think. I think you need to go shopping! You are posting alot. I think it is good to get away from this for awhile and just have fun! Do lunch and shop till you drop! It will give you a fresh perspective. You can not eat, sleep and breathe this case or you will go bonkers!

[UndertheRadar]

Is Z saying RG was seen getting into a car? Or am I reading it wrong?

At the least, this piece is saying that someone reported seeing RG getting into a car and that the type of vehicle was either named or described, but that this report was not released to the public.

Interesting. The supposed "Oprah" sighting was released to the public. The guy who turned out to be the Wal-Mart greeter, the guy in the restaurant with the older woman, the guy in the bar in Wilkes-Barre, the guy in the Street of Shoppes, the guy in the restaurant in Texas, these were released to the public, but not the guy getting into the car (or originally, the guy in the antiques shop in Tyrone).

What's the difference among the various "sightings"? Who makes that call and why as to which should be released? If the supposed sighting of RG getting into a car was deemed totally non-credible, then why is it getting any kind of press at all in conjunction with Carla Baron? Wouldn't that just go to prove her being "off" in her visions? If it was deemed a credible witness, wouldn't it have helped the investigation for the public to know about it?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
tiredoftheguff thanks for telling me where to purchase it. I already think that I went bonkers. LOL

You can also buy it online and in must places, it's legal to carry.

My next question was, did RFG carry a weapon of some type? One brand is Sabre.

It is far from unusual for a local politician to have a gun permit. You occasionally get get "crazies" coming around and you might need to defend yourself. They are issued through the Sheriff's office.

I knew a local district justice that carried a 9 mm.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks
I continue to search for anything connected to the route 80 sighting and found this in my sleuthing around this morning. Is Z saying RG was seen getting into a car? Or am I reading it wrong?


Use of Psychics rare among police, but many are open to idea
Associated Press

"Some of her descriptions have matched some unpublished witness accounts from police reports, Zaccagni said. Among them: reports that Gricar was seen getting in another car in Lewisburg, and the type of vehicle; and the fact that a trace amount of cigarette ash was found on the floor of Gricar's Mini Cooper when it was found. Gricar was not a smoker."

That definitely isn't the I-80 sighting, but if accurate, makes suicide even more unlikely. If he was the only person in the car, we'd be talking about walk away. If there was someone else, murder or walk away. That assumes the report is correct.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"Some of her descriptions have matched some unpublished witness accounts from police reports, Zaccagni said. Among them: reports that Gricar was seen getting in another car in Lewisburg, and the type of vehicle; and the fact that a trace amount of cigarette ash was found on the floor of Gricar's Mini Cooper when it was found. Gricar was not a smoker."


You are reading it right. Seen gettin into another car and the TYPE of vehicle. Not the color - the type!! Maybe this piece of news and whatelse she saw that Z didn't say are true leads that no one was to know, because they are following it. JMO

I really do not have good feelings about Z. He is really botching up things. No interviews with court house employees, his friends, no other lie detector test on anyone. Who was the man from his office who was out of town the days RG first stayed off work and disappeared? Supposedly out of town that week or part of it. "Out of town" being where?

I've seen some items on the internet where the comissioners have meetings in Lewisburg with other busniesses. Were any of them in Lewisburg that day? I think I read either right before or right after RG disappeared one was down there.

I also found the sight with the party who had the grave dug on their 50 acre property. She couldn't get the LE even to go check it out. Very odd!!

[Cloudbuster]

WOW good work! So Ray did get in a car. Thats how Im reading it. So they must know the type too right? Maybe then they know something we don't? Sherrijean the party on the dug grave has no way of knowing if it was really checked out than other by a statement by phone saying yea it was checked out. No one was there to witness that and no answer was given as to a opinion on what they thought. The CDT had something about it in the question answer section and LE told Pete it was not a grave but Pete has Photos he said and he wanted to know exactly what was it then? So its really only something I suppose Det Z could answer but i never saw anything said after all that. Maybe they ruled it out because it was'nt in Lewisburg but in a area that Rays friend Mcnight was from. For those of you who put up with my 11:10 and 11:11 thing lol. Today and tomorrow is those dates. They hold a meaning but I think many meanings so maybe you lottery players should play both numbers today and tommorrow lol. It would of been nice if today or tomorrow would hold a meaning to this case. But those numbers seem to be a sign to me and I found out some of the meaning and I suppose my list might grow lol. Cheers if you win lol! :biggrin: CB

[tiredoftheguff]

Just remember that Z is not a detective.
Also I believe that tomorrow 11/11/06 will be a very significant day for this case. Perhaps a sign from the angels? I will keep my fingers and toes crossed!

[tiredoftheguff]

I think the police enjoy fleecing us!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Quote:

"Some of her descriptions have matched some unpublished witness accounts from police reports, Zaccagni said. Among them: reports that Gricar was seen getting in another car in Lewisburg, and the type of vehicle; and the fact that a trace amount of cigarette ash was found on the floor of Gricar's Mini Cooper when it was found. Gricar was not a smoker."


The cigarette ash was published originally however (and no, sherrijean isn't the one saying that).



I've seen some items on the internet where the comissioners have meetings in Lewisburg with other busniesses. Were any of them in Lewisburg that day? I think I read either right before or right after RG disappeared one was down there.



Are you sure it's the Centre County Commissioners? The Union County commissioners meet there.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Just remember that Z is not a detective.
Also I believe that tomorrow 11/11/06 will be a very significant day for this case. Perhaps a sign from the angels? I will keep my fingers and toes crossed!

I hope tomorrow means something good, for me anyways. My husband and I are going to Selinsgrove and I ask him to make a side trip to Lewisburg. I want to see the area of the Street of Shoppes for myself. And just to check out some of the other places there.

By the way! The link with all the properties for sale, did they just go on the market or have they been there awhile? The one red one I found interesting. Looks like a road beside it, would have the doors like CB "saw" because it was a trucking business, and it looks like it could have railroad tracks in the back?? Maybe someone should email that site to CB and find out if any of them are what she "saw". JMO And if she has the sight why can't she get one of those artists the police use to make a drawing. Or she could make a map of what she "sees". JMO

[sherrijean981]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've seen some items on the internet where the comissioners have meetings in Lewisburg with other busniesses. Were any of them in Lewisburg that day? I think I read either right before or right after RG disappeared one was down there.


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



"Are you sure it's the Centre County Commissioners? The Union County commissioners meet there."

I was searching for info on the brother-in-law of one of the commisioners and put C.E's initials in the search. One of the sites has him in Lewisburg with people from Lewisburg about issues that affect their area and Centre Counties. I was surprised when I saw it. Also if you check under the government and commisioners they have sites with their agenda's. I think that was where I saw the site to go to. April 12, 2005 is sticking in my head as a meeting down there. I said either a couple days before or after RG disappeared because I am not 100% sure. I was on their site for a long time so I can't remember where all I was. Also did searches under each name. Could have been one there too. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks

If meeting someone, there would have been a definite meeting place, not jumping around from lot to lot playing 'guess which lot I'm in'. If tailed, tracked down by someone, why all the bouncing around with no one following when others are watching, and why not call 911 if in danger? If running away, why bounce around at all? Just get on with the 'running'.



A couple of reasons.

First, RFG is meeting someone, and wants to make sure he isn't being followed (or conversely wishes to see if he is being followed) He pulls the car out to see if someone else pulls out too.

Second, RFG getting another car, to walk away. He pulls in to the Street of Shops, possibly to dispose of the hard drive. He then drives to the place where he buys a car. He drives the newly purchased car back to the Street of Shops, but he can't drive that car and the Mini back at the same time. He does not want the Mini found near where he bought the car, so he walks back and drives the Mini back to the lot, possibly throwing the laptop into the river along the way. He parks the Mini, walks 20 yards to the other car and drives away.

Three, he parks the car away from everyone, so his paint doesn't get chipped, shops and sees that the lot is filling and moves the car. He parks the car in the sun/shade and decides to move it so it will be cooler/warmer (I've done this).

[Cloudbuster]

Originally posted by tiredoftheguff
Just remember that Z is not a detective.
Also I believe that tomorrow 11/11/06 will be a very significant day for this case. Perhaps a sign from the angels? I will keep my fingers and toes crossed!

Tiredoftheguff Amen! I would give anything for signicance to this case! One angel is all we need, more if we could have them :) I can't believe this so I gotta share it with you all. After I asked everyone to play those numbers and IM NOT A LoTTERY PLAYER. I ran to the store to play them myself 1110 and 1111 and 444 the 444 is for a email I gotton today lol. I did this because I had a ladybug plinging off my kitchen light yes another sign of luck happened before I left to play. Ladybugs signify luck right ? Well I dashed off to the store to play. When I gave my numbers for tomorrow 11-11-06 my 1111 CANNOT BE PLAYED its been cut off? I asked the lady what does that mean? She said toooo many bet on 1111 for tomorrow and the lottery is not excepting anymore 1111 for tomorrow --I was ticked beyond words lol! She even printed it out for me as proof! Don't believe me lol if you play in PA try to play 1111 right now and its no way go see lol. I did win on a instant ticket though! Anyways I will take significance on the case over money any day of the week!!!! :rose:

[Cloudbuster]

Sherrijean you are thinking the same as me. I too picked the Red Building that looks like the place described. Im not sure when they went up for lease or sale. The picture just has that look of being the possible place. I wonder what kind of company that was?
Im jealous you get to go to Lewisburg lol! I hope you find it interesting! It sounds like a great idea to get a better picture of things.
CB

[sherrijean981]

"SEDA-COG Board of Directors
SEDA-COG (Susquehanna Economic Development Association-Council of Governments) is a regional; multi-county development agency which, under the guidance of a public policy board, provides leadership, expertise and services to communities, businesses, institutions and residents. SEDA-COG seeks to enhance growth opportunity in an environmentally sensitive manner while retaining the region's predominantly rural character. The organization is both a direct service provider and a link to other resources that can be applied to a wide range of community and economic needs. SEDA-COG is also an advocate for the interests of its communities at the state and federal levels."


Hi Everyone,
This if the site where C.E is on the board. They go to Lewisburg, the 4th Wed. of the month for meetings. I could not find the exact site I had been on today, in fact, a couple of them are no longer available. ????? The meeting was April 27, 1995. I was so sure there was a mention of April 12th but if there was I haven't found it yet. I went through my history file but a lot of the sites I went deep into.

Cloudbuster, did you pull the map up on the site with the red building? It looks in the picture like 2 roads next to it so I pulled the map up to see if there is a railroad nearby. There is a couple streets away and it crosses the river and heads up and would be across the river from the building, back a bit. I can't tell if it is fields there but there is a river and there is an island. It also looks like a lot of the other buildings could be near too. I didn't realize there was so much back there.

CB said, a freight building with roll up doors, there are a lot of doors to that building, a road running parallel to it, and a railroad near. Also on the other side of the picture if you pull up the map, it is all farmland, looks like a quilt with all the designs in the fields. Where did they say a quarry was? I was trying to find one but can't tell what it would look like. Would it come up on a search??

I am looking forward to going to the shops. I am a looker in the antique shops but I collect angels and have a set of Homer Laughlin dishes that I always try to see if I can find more pieces to. Just love seeing things that remind me of my deceased g parents homes.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"Im jealous you get to go to Lewisburg lol! I hope you find it interesting! It sounds like a great idea to get a better picture of things."
CB

You can always go with me sometime. You are more than welcome!!

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks Sherrijean! I'd love go sometime! Im not real good with maps so I could'nt pull it up. Im working on it though.
I got a problem with this photo of Ray. I compared it to all the others on those links and it just CAN"T be him. The nose is bigger and the mouth is different? Cheeks are similiar but the face seems a tad bigger. Hair is the same. Take a look.

http://abclocal.go.com/images/wpvi04182005raygricar.jpg

[sherrijean981]

That was freaky!! It was almost like he was moving and the face was changing as you watch it. Did you notice that? I think it looks like one I saw elsewhere. One of his casual ones. Did you take it off the page of Rays? The 40 images?

The red building has a 40' x 235" building with 40 doors!!!!! I would think they would have it rented all the time at $8000 a month. Couldn't sit still too long!

When you double click on the picture it brings the red building up and on the right there is a section for map - demographicsc etc. Clip the map. It has a large blue arrow. I double clicked the arrow and it brought it in closer. Just check the area out. There are 2 cemetaries, a lot of roads with other buildings on it. But if someone did RG in wouldn't you think they would have moved their butts out of there pretty darn quick? Maybe this one went on the market shortly after RG went missing. Wish I knew what the whole area looked like in a real plane. It would give me a better idea what I am looking at. I take after my Dad - I could always read maps and had a very good sense of direction.

My hubby was from Snow Shoe. Went to Bald Eagle.

[sherrijean981]

I just checked out the other photos - it was enlarged from the one of him with his car. Maybe it is just distorted from that.
That is a cute car isn't it? There are quite a few of them over here, which surprises me for the economy in the area. JMO

[Cloudbuster]

Sherrijean these may be what your looking for.

[PDF] A G E N D A CENTRE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
The Criminal Justice Advisory Board will meet at the Centre County ... Wednesday, September 28, 2005. SEDA-COG Board Meeting @ Lewisburg - 12:00 PM ...
county.centreconnect.org/commissioners/agendas/2005-09-27.pdf - Similar pages


[PDF] A G E N D A CENTRE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, APRIL 25 ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
behalf of the County of Centre for the purpose of complying with the ... Wednesday, April 26, 2006. SEDA-COG Board Meeting @ Lewisburg ...
county.centreconnect.org/commissioners/agendas/2006-04-25.pdf - Similar pages

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


From there, to the parking lots in Lewisburg to moving the car up through the various lots, we need a time on when the car was actually parked there and the driver was seen getting into another vehicle.



The problem is, some witnesses saw this on Saturday morning as well.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nM3ckCyJUe4J:www.freetimes.com/modules.php%3Fop%3Dmodload%26name%3DNews%26file%3D article%26sid%3D2775%26mode%3Dthread%26order%3D0%2 6thold%3D0+%22ray+gricar%22+%22back+and+forth%22+% 22parking+lot%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11

The also saw him reading a paper.

If the witness reports are correct (and they may not be) where did RFG spend the night, where did he eat, where did he go to the bathroom?

I'm not thrilled with these witness reports overall.

[UndertheRadar]

I wondered as well about the other Minis in the area and whether any of those were being thrown into the mix with these sightings. However, in checking the date on the Cleveland Free Times article, I see it was published in April of 2006. While it doesn't say when the interview with Zaccagni that forms its basis took place, one would assume it would be a reasonably contemporaneous interview and that by that point, any confusion over the non-Gricar Mini-Coopers wouldn't enter into Zaccagni's reported sightings in this story. JMO.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Why bother to stay if you're running away? Certainly doesn't fit the runaway scenario.
Suicide with no body also doesn't seem likely.


JMO

First that is the correct link.

Second, there was no newspaper mentioned, and I doubt if it shown anything about RFG being missing.

Third, the witness account, if accurate, does point to walk away. Two possibilities.

1. RFG goes to buy a car, but it's not quite ready. The seller requires the cashier's check to clear first. The notary isn't available. RFG has to wait overnight, someplace.

2. Someone is going to pick RFG up; we'll call him/her H, for "helper." H gets delayed. H can't call RFG on the cell phone, because there will be a record. RFG can't call out on his cell phone, for the same reason.

If the witness report is accurate, then it makes walk away more likely. I question if the reports are accurate.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by logicworks
That's why I am questioning which museum by the park Z was referring to. The Packwood sightings took place on Friday.
Find me a Cottingwood House museum and I will be satisfied that Z was not mistaken about both the name of the museum and the day of the sightings.


Logic, I've been trying to find a Cottingwood House museum also, to no avail as well.

I wonder if Zaccagni could have mistaken the Slifer House museum for the Cottingwood House museum? Here's part of something I found about the Slifer House Museum:

"Later the original site of the Evangelical Hospital at Lewisburg, the house [referring to the Slifer House] is currently part of the senior citizen facility Riverwoods."

It's a longshot, but could Z have confused Cottingwood and Riverwoods? The Slifer House Museum at Riverwoods is only .8 mile and four minutes from the Packwood Museum.

Just a thought. There are only two museums in Lewisburg I can find listed, so if Z is thinking "museums," the Slifer House at Riverwoods is the only other one other than Packwood House.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

First that is the correct link.


The link does not work for me either. Is it the free times article?

[J. J. in Phila]

Cind, there are several problems with the "taken at the house" scenario.

First, the car had to get to Lewisburg. If someone was forcing RFG to drive it at gunpoint, it is fairly likely that they would have left some trace. Likewise, if they were driving, there could be a trace.

Second, no forced entry at the house.

Third, the phone call. If RFG convinced the kidnapper to let him make a call to PF. Why doesn't RFG give a clue that he is in trouble, like calling the dog "Fido" instead of "Honey," or saying, "Tell you uncle Gino I won't be able to go to his place this afternoon?"

Fourth, now does the kidnapper know RFG has a laptop and why do they want him to bring it?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


The next day he's not seen by neighbors, or other residents in Bellefonte. He leaves shortly before he calls to say leave the dog out because why? (He might have been seen by the neighbors that morning if HE walked the dog?) He's not seen by motorists on route 192, nor anywhere else in between Bellefonte and Lewisburg. That is strange in itself, IMO. We are told he took the day off and disappeared after reaching Lewisburg, when in fact, he was 'disappeared' all the way from Bellefonte to Lewisburg that we know of, other than the phone call.


We do have evidence that he was in Lewisburg; his scent was there. I'm not overjoyed with witness testimony, but there is a lot of it that he was in Lewisburg.

It's not particularly strange that no one remembers seeing a Mini on 192.

As for the neighbors, we don't know what they saw if anything. If RFG's next door neighbor said, "I saw the Mini Cooper parked in the driveway at 8:30 AM on the morning of the 15th," that isn't really news. It doesn't establish where RFG was after 11:30 AM. The story that someone saw him in Bellefonte prior to 11:00 AM really doesn't establish something that isn't already known.

As for the dog, it was old (and is now dead). It might have needed walking at a specific time.


I read somewhere that RG did occasionally go into the office in the evening to work, therefore his going in that evening wasn't an isolated incident or out of the ordinary, so why on a rare day off does he disappear? Seems as if someone would have had to know the personal fact that he had the day off, coupled with the personal fact of the antique shop location.



You should remember in this light that:

1. On 4/14/05, RFG took part of the day off and didn't tell his staff (and possibly PF). The difference is, he came back Thursday night.

2. Nobody had any idea where RFG was heading or what happened to him. The "working theory," for lack of a better term, on the morning of 4/16 was that RFG had had a car accident; the PSP is sending up a plane to check along the road, for example.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


His scent was there because his car was there. The spillage from the car could be why the dog remained only in the immediate vicinity of the car, as Dixon stated. We have no proof the driver's seat wasn't used as the scenting item. That would not prove the driver was RG. It may prove the driver circled the car and then traveled 20 yards away.



I have never heard any suggestion of "spillage," and I question it this is even possible. Further, the PSP do have experience in using tracking dogs and I question if this type of error would occur, especially if they were looking for a body.



1. Did he normally give an hour-by-hour detailed daily schedule of where he would be to the staff or to PF?

On Thursday, he did not. We don't know where he was, nor apparently did his office or PF. He didn't mention it to LG.


"On Friday, April 15, Gricar told his new girlfriend, Patty Fornicola, he wasn’t going to work. He said he thought he might play hooky and head into Lewisburg, an hour’s drive to the east, to do some antiquing."


Would you post the link. Note that this is not a quote. Does this include a reference to the phone call?

Some of the reporting is inaccurate and later corrected. For example, there is a story by Dennis Roddy in the Post-Gazette, that RFG took a suit with him. That wasn't accurate.

http://www.pittsburghpg.com/pg/05120/496817.stm



Since the dog was old, it definitely makes sense that RG would have walked her/him before he left, even if again at noon. The rigid schedule says the dog only goes out at noon? I disagree.
The call explains why no one saw him that morning......
Has it been established with ALL the neighbors how often and at what times of the day RG routinely walked the dog?



This hasn't been reported, since it really isn't news. Saying that RFG walked his dog prior to 11:00 AM isn't news, because he called at 11:30 and was seen in the afternoon in Lewisburg.

Now, I'd love to see a time line, with a log of the cell calls, of RFG's activities from noon 4/13 to 4/16/05. No one is producing it.

[UndertheRadar]

Some of the reporting is inaccurate and later corrected. For example, there is a story by Dennis Roddy in the Post-Gazette, that RFG took a suit with him. That wasn't accurate.

http://www.pittsburghpg.com/pg/05120/496817.stm

Not true, JJ. I remember that story well, and I just looked it up again to confirm my memory of it. You need to read it carefully.

"The chief of police assigned to find Gricar held out hope about a reported sighting in Wilkes-Barre which, if true, would mean that a 59-year-old man, eight months from retirement, abandoned his 2004 Cooper Mini but continued on his journey east with nothing but a laptop computer and a spare suit."

The reference is clearly to the Wilkes-Barre sighting, where two people saw a man they believed to be Ray Gricar. The man in question was wearing a suit. The passage above says that IF the sighting was true, it would mean Ray left with a spare suit.

It doesn't report that he DID leave with a suit, and it was therefore never "corrected" later.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Not true, JJ. I remember that story well, and I just looked it up again to confirm my memory of it. You need to read it carefully.

"The chief of police assigned to find Gricar held out hope about a reported sighting in Wilkes-Barre which, if true, would mean that a 59-year-old man, eight months from retirement, abandoned his 2004 Cooper Mini but continued on his journey east with nothing but a laptop computer and a spare suit."


It doesn't report that he DID leave with a suit, and it was therefore never "corrected" later. [/B]

That "laptop computer and a spare suit" is Roddy, being Roddy, i.e. sarcastic. Obviously, it was known that RFG didn't take a suit with him (though he could have bought it after he left). RFG obviously didn't take the laptop with him. Roddy, heard that the laptop was missing and that the witnesses said RFG was wearing "a suit" and jumped to the conclusion that he took the suit with him, if the sighting was accurate.

We have some of that with early reports. New information changes the story.

[UndertheRadar]

JJ, here is what you said originally:

"For example, there is a story by Dennis Roddy in the Post-Gazette, that RFG took a suit with him. That wasn't accurate."

Roddy did NOT say that. These endless games you play twisting things have got to stop. You know as well as I do--or you SHOULD know--that it is merely a rhetorical flourish as Roddy has stated it and not a "report," "claim," or anything close to that in terms of Gricar taking a suit with him. A rhetorical flouish.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
JJ, here is what you said originally:

"For example, there is a story by Dennis Roddy in the Post-Gazette, that RFG took a suit with him. That wasn't accurate."

Roddy did NOT say that. These endless games you play twisting things have got to stop. You know as well as I do--or you SHOULD know--that it is merely a rhetorical flourish as Roddy has stated it and not a "report," "claim," or anything close to that in terms of Gricar taking a suit with him. A rhetorical flouish.

Here the line Radar.

Roddy, one of people I actually met (his ex-wife was high school English teacher), said this:

"The chief of police assigned to find Gricar held out hope about a reported sighting in Wilkes-Barre which, if true, would mean that a 59-year-old man, eight months from retirement, abandoned his 2004 Cooper Mini but continued on his journey east with nothing but a laptop computer and a spare suit."

Roddy jumped to the conclusions, if the witnesses were correct, that he "continued on his journey" with "a laptop computer and a spare suit." It's clear that RFG didn't continue on with a spare suit, as it was reported at this time. Roddy missed it.

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar

Logic, I've been trying to find a Cottingwood House museum also, to no avail as well.

I wonder if Zaccagni could have mistaken the Slifer House museum for the Cottingwood House museum? Here's part of something I found about the Slifer House Museum:

"Later the original site of the Evangelical Hospital at Lewisburg, the house [referring to the Slifer House] is currently part of the senior citizen facility Riverwoods."

It's a longshot, but could Z have confused Cottingwood and Riverwoods? The Slifer House Museum at Riverwoods is only .8 mile and four minutes from the Packwood Museum.

Just a thought. There are only two museums in Lewisburg I can find listed, so if Z is thinking "museums," the Slifer House at Riverwoods is the only other one other than Packwood House. I do not know of anything "Cottingwood" in Lewisburg. The Slifer House Museum is well north (out of sight) of the Street of Shops. I think that there are so many errors in that Cleveland newspaper article that it makes the CDT look like the Washington Post.

Packwood House Museum is across Water Street from the park. The thing is, you cannot see the Street of Shops parking lots from the museum. That is to say, the gentleman observed from that museum must have parked his Mini along Water Street, not in the lot up the street.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


How many times were the car's doors opened prior to the dog's arrival? RG's scent would have been all over the car, the car doors from entering and exiting, from washing it, to gassing it, to sitting in it, to stepping on the mats, to his feet touching the rocker panel entering and exiting, to sitting on the seats. Every time the car door was opened, airborne particles are pulled outside of the car.


The entire area around the car would have been subject to the spillage of skin rafts, if the car doors were opened prior to the dog's arrival, plus the car was full of RG's skin rafts regardless of who may have been the last driver. This 'spillage' coupled with the car full of RG's scent may very well have been the reason why the dog basically stayed within the vicinity of the car, which is what Dixon stated.



The amount of rafts coming off a human body is 50,000 a minute.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/underdogs/bloodhounds2.html

The idea that someone, just by walking through the path of the rafts will be able to pick up enough to pick enough to leave a trail is not credible. This is why dogs can follow a trail even though others have crossed over it.

To have this happen you will have to the rafts transferred to another surface; it will have to be a lot. Then you will have to have the rafts drop off that surface to the parking lot at an amount approximating the 50,000 per minute rate.

I don't like using the word impossible, but it is at least close to impossible to, accidentally or deliberately, get a false scent trail laid down.

Let's face it, there is evidence that RFG drove to Lewisburg (the cell phone call), there is evidence that he was in the car (his prints), and that he got out of the car, his scent and witness reports.

Assume that we had a defendant that claimed, in a trial, he didn't go to Lewisburg that day. We found the car he drove in Lewisburg, we had a call on his cell phone placed on the route to Lewisburg, we had his prints in the car parked in Lewisburg, we had witnesses that placed him in Lewisburg, and we had his scent in Lewisburg. Would there be any more realistic doubt that he was in Lewisburg that day?

[Cloudbuster]

LW speaking of cell phone calls I was looking at this article.











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

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/11457629.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Posted on Fri, Apr. 22, 2005



Third witness says she saw Gricar

By Erin L. Nissley
enissley@centredaily.com











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

BELLEFONTE -- The collection of clues is growing, but Bellefonte police still have no answer as to the whereabouts of District Attorney Ray Gricar, who has been missing for the past week.

In a room packed with reporters, including Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon said another Lewisburg business owner said she thinks she saw a man fitting Gricar's description between 1 and 2 p.m. Saturday. She is the third person to report possibly seeing Gricar on Saturday.

----->Based on that, Dixon said, police will continue to focus their search efforts in the Lewisburg area. All week, investigators have been interviewing people and searching the Susquehanna River by boat and the surrounding area -- all the way to Harrisburg -- by helicopter.

So far, though, those searches have come up empty. Police have found no information on Gricar's whereabouts between the time he called co-worker<------???? and girlfriend Patty Fornicola, about 11:30 a.m. Friday and when the business owners reported spotting him in Lewisburg a little more than 24 hours later.


Probably wise to read the whole article. WHHHATT COWORKER??
M Smith is his assistant and he was supposed to be on vacation. So if he was who was acting in replacement for the both of them?? WHO else did he call as a Coworker?? Its those small thinks that irritate me. I THOUGHT he only called PF . So he called 2 people at 11:30???



:shrug:

[Cloudbuster]

Thanks LW!
I was thinking about this new system called VINE back in 2004 to be implemented.

[ Monday, Oct. 18, 2004 ]

Victim notification service enacted in Centre County


By Kathleen Haughney
Collegian Staff Writer
Within the next week, crime victims in Centre County will be able to track the status of their offenders with the assistance of a new program called the Victim Information and Notification Everyday system (VINE).



http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2004/10/10-18-04tdc/10-18-04dnews-04.asp

I wonder if Ray knew someone had gotton out of prision by way of the VINE system? That may have bothered him two weeks before? Looking over his shoulder makes me wonder?

[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.

[sherrijean981]

Hi Everyone!!

I was in Lewisburg yesterday. I have so much info floating in my head I don't know where to start. Afraid I will forget part of it.

We went down Rt 192, 1st I have not been down that way in years. Yes, I was wrong, there are a lot of cars on it. From Rebersburg to Centre Hall but not a lot after that until we got out of the forrest. Do you know from the forrest, shortly after Rebersburg, to Lewisburg it was 23 miles. At least 10 miles of that was forrests.

If helicopters flew over in April looking for RG, they had to be looking for a live person/body with one of those heat sensors? The mountain is covered in areas by thick pine trees and mountain laurel. So thick we had a hard time seeing through it yesterday. There is a very large drop off in one section of it, a body could have been thrown over. We couldn't pull over.

I did not remember RB Winter Park being so large. There were pull off areas and roads all over the place. After I got home I checked on the computer and found info on it:

R B Winter State Park - Challenging cross country ski trail across ridgetops in/out of 500 ft deep hemlock valleys. CONNECTS WITH AN ABONDONED NARROW GAUGE RAILROAD BED, runs 2 miles over extremely rocky terrain.

Terrain: utilize a rocky footpath, cross country skiing trails, a power line service road, improved roads, and a nature trail while encountering A PRISTINE MOUNTAIN LAKE, a mixed hardwood forrest, rock outcrop, pine and hemlock stands.

I bolded the two items because CB says he was near a barn, water, railroad, and parrell to a road. She didn't say there was a train or tracks being used, maybe a railroad bed?

We got to the Street of Shops, parked in the lot directly across from the shop, in the 3rd row. I drive a Chrysler New Yorker, a fairly large car. There was another parking lot across the street from the one we were in, off Water St. The one we were in had a house beside it, not antique shop or anything. I think the other parking lot was the same. I believe most of the buildings from Rt 45 to the street of shops were homes, I didn't notice signs, except for Packwood House Museum at 15 N. Water St. Remember When Cafe and Street of Shops were both at 100 N. Water St. There was a Water St. Cafe listed on the internet at 154 N. Water St. We didn't go further down the street but last night I checked the internet under Lewisburg businesses for Water St and the only thing i came up with was Roller Mills East on North Water ST.. Smith Law Offices and a rental duplex at 115 N. Water St. Others might be homes or businesses in homes.

We went in to the shop, a small hallway going back, enter a door, turn left, a cashier there and very busy every time we saw her. There was a set of steps up right beside her. We went down the hall past about half a dozen shops, not antiques but new items for decorating. Found a large room with door to another room on the right with antique/old items. Past there, I think a door away was the restaurant on the left. there were a couple benches in the hallway, more shops like the first 6, and upstairs it was more of the same. We went downstairs, where the one large room was everything a $1.00 which was what it was worth, if that. The one end had a lot of older furniture and items. We left shortly after, we wanted to go to the park.

I couldn't understand why that shop would be so popular for RG. I don't buy a lot of old stuff but when I think of antiqueing I think of the LARGE antique mills or shops. A lot of people in there but no one looking at you, saw a waitress coming out from kitchen and she only looked at me because I was going to the Ladies Room.

The park consists of 2 acres of "Water Street Park" - Community Park with benches and open space. And "Soldier's Memorial Park" - with 1 acre - Community Park with flowerplants and benches. It runs from Rt 45 to the railroad bed. On the other side of the railroad bed is the driveway to the back parking lot of the Street of Shoppes. I didn't go back there but it looked like it had a fence separating the parking lot and the river. A lot of weeds on the other side of the fence.

We walked to the back of the park where the last bench was going back and if you walked in from Rt 45. You could see the road and the railroadbridge and when I took a picture I was able to get the two in one shot. The water was very low and you could see the stream and the river. It has been cleared of weeds but they were starting to grow again. I don't understand how a woman was walking and found the SMALL hard drive buried in the mud.

I think the woman who found it might have been the one to put it there!!! JMO Seriously if you saw the large area and the places where it was to have been found I can't believe it ever was found unless by whoever put it there or someone who saw it being placed.

We left there to go to the parking lot and I stood and looked at it for a while. If RG's car was placed in the back of the parking lot I can not believe someone saw him in it and moving it around. I drive a bigger car and it was on the 3rd row and I couldn't see it!!! The parking lot had SUV's, trucks, Mini-Vans and cars of all sizes and I could not see the back of the lot. Also the only way someone could see from the museum would be if they parked in the front of the place, none on the other side of the road. And if she was seeing him all those times she wasn't doing her work, had to spend a lot of time at the windows. And I think there was a fence along the back of the other parking lot . There was a wedding party in the park, half way over towards Rt 45 and I could not make out features, or give descriptions of them. RG would have had to be on one of the front benches in front of the museum in the park. You could see a small area under the railroad bridge but to see anyone under there you would have to go down the bottom of the hill. And if he was on the other side behind the Street of Shoppes the only way you would see him is if you were somewhere down there spying on him!! JMO

We left there and went over the bridge on Rt 45 and took the road on the left to Milton. 4 mile from the light. I was going to look for a building that had to do with freight/roll up doors/ parallel road and railroad tracks behind. We found as soon as we reached the outskirts that we could put that off. We saw one that matched on the left hand side, then another one and another one, etc, etc, etc. We went under the railroad underpass and we found more of the same. We made a right turn and there was another factory, freight trucks sitting everywhere and roll up doors all around. Every business down there - and there are a lot - had freight trucks sitting around - large buildings and roll up doors. I told my husband just take the road that gets us back on RT 15. I will tell you this. I hope CB gave the police a lot more info than that. As for barns and bodies of water - there are those too. And the railroad runs up Rt 15 and through the town of Milton. Come on C.B. give us some more leads.

I came home disappointed, some because my hubby isn't in to it, and I didn't get as many pictures as I wanted. But i got on the internet and found some more things you might ALL be happy to hear.

About Centre County Commissioners going to Lewisburg to meet with Seda Cog every month, it is on 201 Furnace Rd. Lewisburg, just off Rt 15 outside of Lewisburg going towards Selingsgrove. Ray seen at Shikellamy State Park, is up the road on the left. Not sure about the distance. The man in RG's office that was on family vacation the week RG went missing, Could he have been camping at the Shikellamy State Park, for fishing season? Isn't that early in the year to go on a family vacation if you have kids? Still in school?

I am going to start another page - this one is almost done.

[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?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


Who is talking about a false trail scent? No one needs to step on anything and track it anywhere. Why would 50,000 particles per minute need to fall off for a dog to pick up on a scent that is all over the vehicle? The dog works off the scent it is given. I want to know whether an official went to the house or office and picked up an uncontaminated item. If not, I want to know whose scent the dog picked up on.



You were talking about a false trail. The trail lead 20 yards from the car. It wasn't just at the car.

A person generates the rafts, the car doesn't. Any that were on the car settled on it. If RFG wasn't in Lewisburg, they would have been there from prior to the car being driving there. Some, if not most of the rafts would either stay attached when the car stops or blow off while the car is driving. You'd get some in the car, but not too many around the car; they wouldn't suddenly all fall off.

The dogs were called by the PSP; they have some idea of how to track an idividual. That they don't give the press all the details is something not unusual in the least.


You believe whatever you want to, JJ. This isn't about 'facing it'. This is about proof. Give your guy in court a lie detector test. If he passes, he MUST be telling the truth.
JMO

First, I'm going to point out that if was a defendant, neither a polygraph nor his testimony would be available; polygraphs are inadmissible and the defendant can take the 5th. But since you've used the polygraph standard, that has been met.

PF was given a polygraph and her story, including the cell phone call, was confirmed. Using the standard you , Logic, have just set, there is now "proof" that RFG "played hooky" on the 15th, called PF at about 11:30 AM, and told her that he was on Route 192.

There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that sometime a 11:30 AM on 4/15/05 and 5:30 PM on 4/15/05, RFG got to Lewisburg. That evidence is both the physical traces, scent and prints, and witness accounts, from Lewisburg. We should be concentrating on what happened after he got to Lewisburg. That is about facing the reality of the evidence.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila

Roddy jumped to the conclusions, if the witnesses were correct, that he "continued on his journey" with "a laptop computer and a spare suit." It's clear that RFG didn't continue on with a spare suit, as it was reported at this time. Roddy missed it.

Only in JJ's world can a writer be said to be "jumping to conclusions" and deemed to be "reporting" when he's clearly engaging in "if-->then" speculation.

[J. J. in Phila]

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




According to Centre County website, anybody can use it. VINE has a website.

[sherrijean981]

If you go to the Attorney General's site and see all the names on the articles I mentioned, would there be any way to find out if one of the people on the Lewisurg Drug Bust list had a car that would match the description given?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Only in JJ's world can a writer be said to be "jumping to conclusions" and deemed to be "reporting" when he's clearly engaging in "if-->then" speculation.

The "if" part is speculation, the "then" part is a conclusion, an inaccurate one though.

Ironically, if the premise is correct (and it might be), his conclusion is still wrong.

[J. J. in Phila]

Sherrijean, in your opinion, what could be seen from the Packwood House? I mean, what parking areas and what parts of the park?

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila


The "if" part is speculation, the "then" part is a conclusion, an inaccurate one though.

Ironically, if the premise is correct (and it might be), his conclusion is still wrong.

And that "conclusion" is the rhetorical flourish I referenced, not the "report" you claimed in your original post on this subject. It has the same rhetorical flourish as the final line of the piece, something a reader sensitive to tone and voice would pick up. Obviously, Roddy is not "reporting" that Gricar left with nothing other than a laptop and a spare suit--and saying the wallet, the sunglasses, the jeans, the blue fleece, the sneakers, the socks, and the underwear stayed in Lewisburg some place.

That is the reason I am dogging you on this, JJ. You have a habit of making claims that simply aren't true and trying to pass them off as fact on the board. Then you try to back pedal when someone calls you on them (as you've done here by at least admitting the "if" clause) while holding firm to your original contention, no matter how incorrect.

And it's bad for the board to have it littered with inaccuracies, like the one you've just tried to foist on Logic about "proof" that RG was in Lewisburg. We have proof that the Mini was in Lewisburg, but only the suggestion that RG was actually there. Your example of the defendant in court using the evidence you've offered to put RG definitively in Lewisburg is easily debunked when one considers defendants who are wrongfully convicted on circumstantial evidence. The Innocence Project and DNA evidence not previously used in trials have certainly gone a long way to show that sometimes circumstantial evidence has convinced juries to wrongly convict defendants, wouldn't you agree?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


I have set NO standard. I was simply being facetious.

LD tests are not admissable in court because they are not accurate. The purpose of the LD test is to either quiet those who are calling for one to be done on a particular individual, OR in the hopes the pressure of the test will bring about a confession. If that doesn't happen, well.......bring out the tea leaves or chicken innards.



Logic, you raised the polygraph. A defendant could not be compelled to take one or to testify. If we were looking at this in terms of a criminal case, and part of the case is that RFG went to Lewisburg, this is the evidence.

As for the scent, it is not around the car, it is a trail 20 yards away from the car.


Nothing has been 'proven beyond a reasonable doubt', and I won't give up until it is and the person(s) responsible for either his disappearance or his running away are held accountable.

This doesn't have anything to do with "giving up." It only has to do with proving one aspect of the case, which is "Did RFG go to Lewisburg on 4/15/05?" The answer is that there is both physical and eyewitness testimony that he did.

Hypothetically, "John" is a defendant in a criminal case, and part of prosecution is that John went to Lewisburg. A witness says, "I saw John in Lewisburg," and the police find, the car John was driving in Lewisburg, with John's fingerprints in it and no unknown prints in it, John's scent in Lewisburg, had a record of call placed from John's cell phone on the way to Lewisburg, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that John went to Lewisburg. It does not prove what John did after he got to Lewisburg, but it is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he did go to Lewisburg.

It doesn't make a difference what John claims or John's polygraph results say. The proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, is there.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


And that "conclusion" is the rhetorical flourish I referenced, not the "report" you claimed in your original post on this subject. It has the same rhetorical flourish as the final line of the piece, something a reader sensitive to tone and voice would pick up. Obviously, Roddy is not "reporting" that Gricar left with nothing other than a laptop and a spare suit--and saying the wallet, the sunglasses, the jeans, the blue fleece, the sneakers, the socks, and the underwear stayed in Lewisburg some place.



Radar, Roddy jumped to the conclusion that if the report was true, he brought a suit with him. It clear to me that Roddy does not think the report is true, yet the "spare suit" pops up. He also said it in conjunction with something that really was missing at the time, the laptop.

As to the other point, I should point that a witness saying, "I saw RFG," is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence. In many ways, circumstantial evidence is more compelling because it is objective.

We have, in this case, circumstantial evidence, prints and DNA in the car, RFG's scent in and 20 yards away from the car, the record of the cell call, with the relay tower location; these are all also objective. We have witness testimony that RFG was in Lewisburg, and that RFG made a call; that is direct, but subjective evidence. All this evidence indicates that RFG went to Lewisburg that day.

Is there any evidence that he did not go to Lewisburg that day? I'm not asking you to disprove it, just to provide counter evidence.

NB: The Fenton sighting, even if accurate, would not preclude RFG going to Lewisburg and then returning.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
[b]

Radar, Roddy jumped to the conclusion that if the report was true, he brought a suit with him. [snip]


You're still missing the point, JJ. You claimed there was a report that Gricar left with a suit, and that the report was later corrected, and you used this article to support your assertion. There was NO report that Gricar left with a suit, not by Roddy and not anywhere else.

As to the other point, I should point that a witness saying, "I saw RFG," is direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence. In many ways, circumstantial evidence is more compelling because it is objective.


While I'm fully cognizant of the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence, I think you're incorrect in some respects in deeming any Lewisburg witness that said, "I saw Ray Gricar" as "direct evidence." What we have in Lewisburg are NOT people who said they saw Ray Gricar. What we have are people who said they saw, variously, a man wearing either a blue fleece jacket or a blue fleece vest who answered to the general description of Ray Gricar, etc., etc. That is, we do NOT have in Lewisburg anyone who was personally acquainted with Ray Gricar say "I know Ray Gricar personally and I saw the man I know as Ray Gricar in Lewisburg." We have only witnesses who say they saw a man who fit the description of the missing D.A. in Lewisburg on Friday and Saturday April 15 and April 16. Using your logic, the Wilkes-Barre sighting, the Michigan sighting, etc. must all ALSO have been Ray Gricar because we have "witnesses" who said, "I saw Ray Gricar" in such and such a place at such and such a time.

As for the fabled "20 yards" the search dogs supposedly tracked, I have begun to wonder whether that is accurate. Earlier reports from April and July of 2005 talk about the search dogs sniffing around, circling, acting confused. The "20 yards" information seems not to appear anywhere that I can find until the Dateline and MSNBC piece of May 15, 2006.

And no, JJ, I can't prove that Ray Gricar didn't go to Lewisburg that day in April. But neither does the evidence you offer show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard used intitially by individual jurors who then work together to form a group consensus, if a group consensus is possible. What you apparently want to do is play jury foreperson and attempt to bully the rest of the "jury" here into adopting your position.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
Sherrijean, in your opinion, what could be seen from the Packwood House? I mean, what parking areas and what parts of the park?

J.J.
In my opinion the only thing you can see from Packwood House Museum is the Solier's Memorial Park, the first section of the park and the Water St Park, but not all of it unless you were on the sidewalk. The Packwood Museum takes up the corner of Market and Water Sts. They also have a building behind it, forget what it is called. They have no views of any parking lots. There is some street parking on Water St. The whole block beside them are homes. The Street of Shoppes has two parking lots, one on each side of the off street of Water St. Has probably 50 parking lots. Street of Shoppes is also known as Roller Mills Antique 2 with Roller Mills Antique 1 being on St Mary St.

I also called the Packwood Museum today and ask where exactly they are on the street. The director said they are directly across from the Museum and their other building. But there are a block of homes between their businesses and the parking lot for Street of Shoppes. I did not tell him why I was asking, just that I would be coming back down and wanted specifics on the parking area to their business, the Street of Shoppes and Roller Mills Antiques. He said there are no other shops on Water St.

Please read my postings!!! I have shown you what was happening. I gave you addresses and can give you names.

I went back on the internet and searched maps again.
On Rt 405 there are 2 people on Front St (Rt . 405) connected with the drug bust. There were undercover agents buying from people at businesses, homes, farmhouses, parks, ect. during 3-05 to 05-05. During the disappearance of RG. Two of the women lived 2 - 3 blocks from The Street of Shoppes. How do you know he didn't find out what was happening from the drug bust he just did, he went down and was checking it out for himself and got caught in the web!!?? JMO And from all the stuff I posted, if you read it, you have to see SOMETHING there to spark your interest. Instead of sitting here arguing over what a dog smells!! JMO Check my postings out!

[sherrijean981]

My opinion on the suit is if RG was going to meet a woman of interest, he would NOT have worn the same clothes he wore the day before. He is a fastidious man. I can't believe one of the men on this site wouldn't have mentioned that. If you are going to meet a woman you would be showered, lathered and cleaned up with fresh clothes to meet a woman out in public somewhere. If you are going undercover, it would not matter.
JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"Using your logic, the Wilkes-Barre sighting, the Michigan sighting, etc. must all ALSO have been Ray Gricar because we have "witnesses" who said, "I saw Ray Gricar" in such and such a place at such and such a time."

Please check my posting. There was a drug bust in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. Is he undercover there too, in a bar?
JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Quote:
Please check my posting. There was a drug bust in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area. Is he undercover there too, in a bar?
JMO

Family members apparently ruled out the Wilkes-Barre sighting, Sherrijean. The witnesses were apparently fairly credible. From what I have read elsewhere, they viewed both photos and video footage of Ray and both said they were 100% certain the man they saw in the bar was Ray Gricar. But family members discounted the sighting based on the type of beer the man was drinking and the fact that the man was smoking a cigarette, IIRC.

[UndertheRadar]

The jury takes 15 minutes to conclude that there is reasonable doubt about every aspect of the case.

Yes, Lustor. This is precisely the kind of thing I was trying to point out about JJ's use of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Thanks for laying out a well-detailed scenario to demonstrate.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by lustorumanimae
A witness, who unlike the Lewisburg witness, knew John very well, saw him on a daily basis and had no stake in the case, no friendship or relationship with John, testifies that she indeed saw him in a tanish car in Bellefonte at around 3 PM on the day of the crime.

[quote] [/b]

Here is the first problem with the scenario. The "robbery" occured well before 3:00 PM so the sighting is not relevant. The second problem is that the "friend" does not come forward.

[quote]
The police point out that John's prints and scent are in the girlfriend's car. The jury quickly discounts this as insignificant
as John was frequently in the car and had driven it as recently as Thursday night, having only curiousity as to why the police and the dog do not also find prints and scents of the girlfriend which
they conclude would have to also be present because of the
couple's mutual use of the vehicle.



The problem here is that the scent is not in the car, it trails out 20 yards from the car.

The artiles indicating that the scent was tracked in the parking lot are here:

"The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car," Dixon said. But, he continued, "We have no evidence he was planning to meet anyone in Lewisburg."

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:M2zYbE_gKiwJ:post-gazette.com/pg/05112/492590.stm+%22Ray+Gricar%22+scent&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=25


"Police dogs traced Gricar's scent around the car but not beyond the parking lot or anywhere along the nearby river or riverbanks, leading to speculation he may have gotten into another vehicle, an investigator said."

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:AxJ7ImvnjbcJ:www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/11638549.htm+%22Ray+Gricar%22+scent+parking+lot&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=13

http://fromwhisperstor.6.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=40528&sid=41880ce1d1c51dd2714c847e95ace355


That third one is catched, so you'll have to use a search engine and hit the catched tap.

We have the scent as being in the parking lot. The dog handlers are looking at initially and saying, it looks like he walked to another car.




John denies making the call, explaining that he and girlfriend had been having some problems, and that they had met Thursday evening in a park to discuss the arrangements to break up housekeeping.

Here we have a bit of fiction. RFG supposedly was close to his daughter, yet this was never mentioned. PF and RFG work together, and no coworker saw problems between the two. We also don't have any evidence that RFG was leaving, like renting an appartment.

With this evidence, John will have place sleep that night, Rockview.

I'll ask again. Does anybody have any counter evidence that RFG didn't go to Lewisburg that day? Depiste Lustor's bluster, is there any evidence to the contrary?

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"I also called the Packwood Museum today and ask where exactly they are on the street. The director said they are directly across from the Museum and their other building. "


That was supposed to be "they are directly across from the Soldiers Memorial Park and there other business gives tours."

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Family members apparently ruled out the Wilkes-Barre sighting, Sherrijean. The witnesses were apparently fairly credible. From what I have read elsewhere, they viewed both photos and video footage of Ray and both said they were 100% certain the man they saw in the bar was Ray Gricar. But family members discounted the sighting based on the type of beer the man was drinking and the fact that the man was smoking a cigarette, IIRC.

If he was undercover he wouldn't do the same things he would do at home. JMO I can't believe there is no connection between these drug busts. A lot of them happened near the time of his big drug bust. Just the fact there are names and people living in the vicinity of where he was last that were dealing at the time, doesn't make sense to me he wouldn't have "stumbled" on to something. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Family members apparently ruled out the Wilkes-Barre sighting, Sherrijean. The witnesses were apparently fairly credible. From what I have read elsewhere, they viewed both photos and video footage of Ray and both said they were 100% certain the man they saw in the bar was Ray Gricar. But family members discounted the sighting based on the type of beer the man was drinking and the fact that the man was smoking a cigarette, IIRC.

This one is the most interesting. The suit also played a rule, though I'm not sure it's been fully discounted.

I've often though that RFG could have been trying to create a new persona. There is the cigarette ash in the car. The conversation about the Indians might have been a slip into his old habits.

That is not nearly good enough to say that this is a walk away, but it is possible.

[sherrijean981]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


John denies making the call, explaining that he and girlfriend had been having some problems, and that they had met Thursday evening in a park to discuss the arrangements to break up housekeeping.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here we have a bit of fiction. RFG supposedly was close to his daughter, yet this was never mentioned. PF and RFG work together, and no coworker saw problems between the two. We also don't have any evidence that RFG was leaving, like renting an appartment. " QUOTE


But there was a witness in the park who said they were holding hands and made a lovely couple and told them so. they smiled at her and walke on. I've been through the break up and no! You don't hold hands while discussing moving out!! JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"But family members discounted the sighting based on the type of beer the man was drinking and the fact that the man was smoking a cigarette, IIRC" Quote


I don't think the family or police want to believe it is him, that would mean he walked away. I would feel the same.

But CB told police some things about the Lewisburg area. She had them searching in the Milton area. There was a list of names in the 10/05 drug bust down there that links 2 people on Front St, Milton to it. 2 women within 2 blocks of the Street of Shoppes were also involved. Did the police check for the car at their home? Did they question them on RG? Did he stumble on something that had to do with that drug bust and was he following someone around in that 4 mile area, watching them and then confronting them? How can they rule out hundred's of people doing illegal activity without doing a massive investigation?? I know they looked for him but are they talking to these people? Maybe the Shikellamy Park was one of the drug dropoffs? JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"How good of an actor would a killer need to be in order to fool RG? They would have to be VERY good, IMO.
Would RG ever go to meet someone he thought held that potential? IMO, never.
Therefore, if K could trick RG into thinking he/she was 'A-OK' how easy would it be for K to trick anyone else into thinking he/she is A-OK? I would guess relatively easy, compared to RG.
I think the answer 'lies' in Centre County, not in Union County.
JMO" Quote

If the answer lies in Centre County then why involve Union County? Why take the car there? There is water in Hungingdon and in Howard. No need to go that far.

I have heard no mention of the other "F" working in the courthouse, in the Treasurer's Office. Is he PF's brother, cousin, uncle??? Has anyone considered a problem in that department that he stumbled onto by mistake?

[UndertheRadar]

Here we have a bit of fiction. RFG supposedly was close to his daughter, yet this was never mentioned.

Interesting that this argument comes from JJ, who spent literally pages of bandwidth arguing that RG and his daughter were not close enough and didn't share enough in their three-times weekly phone calls that Lara would know if RG was distracted or down or depressed.

But now, when it's convenient to his argument, suddenly RG could not possibly have broken up with PF because RG never mentioned it his daughter (says JJ) and RG and LG were supposedly close.

Of course, according to the history we have, the last time Lara spoke with her father prior to his disappearance was apparently prior to that Thursday evening. If a breakup occurred on Thursday evening, Ray would not have had a chance to tell Lara before disappearing on Friday. Even if he had been contemplating an end to the relationship in the days or weeks prior to Thursday evening, he might not have wanted to say anything to Lara until after the fact, when he was certain of the finality of the act and when he could reassure her with details that everything was going to be okay for both parties. So ultimately, it "never being mentioned" means absolutely nothing in this case.

[UndertheRadar]

But there was a witness in the park who said they were holding hands and made a lovely couple and told them so. they smiled at her and walke on. I've been through the break up and no! You don't hold hands while discussing moving out!! JMO

Sherrijean, not to diminish your experiences in anyway, but not all breakups are the same and not all men are the same in their approach to a breakup. Some relationships end on a wistful note rather than an angry, nasty, or violent one, and some men (if they are the "ender" of the relationship) might approach it tenderly to avoid inflicting more pain than necessary.

I think it would all depend on the circumstances and the people involved. JMO.

It's also important to remember this about the incident in the park: first, RG could barely manage any response at all to the comment made by the woman (and no verbal response at all); second, this incident was not reported to LE in the original timeline of events but only came to light because the woman who made the comment took it to the media. Just some other details to consider.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"not all breakups are the same and not all men are the same in their approach to a breakup. Some relationships end on a wistful note rather than an angry, nasty, or violent one, and some men (if they are the "ender" of the relationship) might approach it tenderly to avoid inflicting more pain than necessary. " Quote


Then RG was a very special man because of all the breakups I know of, not including mine, they were nasty about it. Probably more are than not. in this area! JMO But he also saw the affect that anger, nastiness and violence had on a woman since he worked with the Women's Shelter.

Patty had a lie detector test and she passed it! I am sure they questioned her on Thursday night events. I know they always look at spouses/SO first but now they need to move on and find someone else. Just because a witness in Lewisburg said he was waiting on someone and seen with a woman, doesn't mean it was personal to him. Maybe personal to her.

I have mentioned the drug bust in Lewisburg area. there are pictures on the Attorney Generals site of the people involved in the Oct. 05 bust. They worked the Lewisburg area and 2 women lived within 2/3 blocks of the park and Street of Shoppes. Someone should show the witnesses pictures of these women and see if they were the one he was with. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Interesting that this argument comes from JJ, who spent literally pages of bandwidth arguing that RG and his daughter were not close enough and didn't share enough in their three-times weekly phone calls that Lara would know if RG was distracted or down or depressed.
[/b]

Notice I used the word "supposedly." A number of people have claimed that this relationship is so close that LG could semi-mystically tell if RFG was depressed over the telephone. If that is true (which is doubtful), LG should have caught it.

There is a practical reason that RFG would tell LG. RFG is living in PF's house. If they break up, he'll have to move. He'd have to tell LG where he'll be going.

Further, it's kind of unlikely for RFG to decide, on the spur of moment that the relationship was at an end, without knowing where he'd be spending the night. Now, if he had a motel reservation, or had rented an apartment, it might be likely.

Further, if we're back to the ludicrous "evil Patty" scenario, we run into the same problem. How does PF plan something so elaborate to get all this planned out so intricately in such little time.

I have this mental image of PF calling up her girlfriends at about 6:30 PM on 4/14/06 and saying, "Hi, I'm going to kill Ray tonight, wanna help?" :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


It's also important to remember this about the incident in the park: first, RG could barely manage any response at all to the comment made by the woman (and no verbal response at all); second, this incident was not reported to LE in the original timeline of events but only came to light because the woman who made the comment took it to the media. Just some other details to consider.

You have to remember that the person making the comment, Vicki Wedler, was a political opponent of RFG while she a County Commissioner, as Saunterer pointed out (I'd really like see him back). She had opposed his efforts to make the DA's office full time. PF thought it was a personal remark and RFG could have taken it as being somewhat sarcastic remark, as it was coming from a longstanding political opponent.

Second, according to her, RFG smiled slightly. That's not exactly an indication of a breakup. They obviously were not seen intensely speaking to each other, much less having an argument. Ms. Wedler thought they looked "cute" together. I've never heard of a couple in the midst of a breakup being described as "cute."

As to LE, it is very unlikely that they would be able to know was in the park. Since RFG was known to be alive and not missing after that, it wasn't too relevant.

[sherrijean981]

There was a segment on WTAJ-TV last night that the PSP are meeting with BPD tomorrow. I was emailing someone in BPD and he said "the meeting tomorrow has to do with the review by the State Police to get a different perspective of the case. Investigation is not being dropped".

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by logicworks


'Why' the distance? Because 'a bear never craps in its own back yard'.
Water alone is not enough to 'stage'. There aren't antique shops nearby, and K obviously knew RG's habits well concerning time spent on days off.

As far as the other 'F', I believe he is cousin, County Treasurer. Father formerly Mayor and Treasurer. Prior to, owner of the Bush House.
JMO

IF "K obviously knew RG's habits", wouldn't that be a friend, family, SO? They cleared PF and LG with lie detector test. PF's family might know what he did on days off since PF would have been close and might have talked about what he and she did. And wouldn't a close friend know more about his weekend and days off habits better than his family that lived hundreds of miles away? (other than LG, who was cleared) Or co-workers he did not get "close" to?

Although the rumor mills in any place of employment can eventually come up with a few pieces of truth and stories run rampant, if RG and PF don't carry their relationship to work or they don't confide in people at work about what they do then no one at work would know any more than the family hundreds of miles away. JMO

So who does that leave?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


And so you think the personal comment in Talleyrand park was politically motivated?



No, but RFG could have regarded it as being sarcastic. Wedler was not a friend of RFG and had been a major opponent of RFG efforts to make the DA's office full time. She walks up to the the two and makes what is a personal remark.



Physical appearance doesn't necessarily show what is 'brewing' on the inside.


No, but it still leaves us with no evidence that there was a problem. They, being described as being "a cute couple," were not arguing. They were not seen as having an intense quiet conversation. They were seen walking together. That isn't exactly evidence of a problem.

Now, had there been a argument, or even and intense, but low volume, conversation, it might be suspicious. That isn't what Wedler saw, by her own admission.

I frankly have never heard of two people breaking up, and then going for a walk in a park.


There is only one bottom line to this incident.
Omission.


There is only one bottom line to this incident. Irrelevance. We don't know if the police asked about RFG's whereabouts before he went to the office. In any event, there is objective evidence that RFG was fine about three hours later.

In any event, a personal comment made by a third party has no bearing what happened to RFG.

[UndertheRadar]

Notice I used the word "supposedly." A number of people have claimed that this relationship is so close that LG could semi-mystically tell if RFG was depressed over the telephone. If that is true (which is doubtful), LG should have caught it.

Good attempt at "spin," JJ, but not quite good enough. Again, you're missing the point. How close RG and LG were is moot here, since they did not speak with each other between the time the walk in the park occurred and the time RG disappeared.

As to the rest of that post, who says RG wasn't going to stay with a friend he hadn't yet contacted or in a motel he hadn't yet registered at, and maybe something happened to him before that? And no, JJ, I don't believe we have "hard" evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in Lewisburg on Friday.

And no one brought up any "evil Patty" scenario except you, JJ.

As to LE, it is very unlikely that they would be able to know was in the park. Since RFG was known to be alive and not missing after that, it wasn't too relevant.

Trying to translate whatever's garbled in this sentence, JJ, but I guess your bottom line is that it wasn't relevant for PF to report the walk in the park as part of the timeline for Thursday. I disagree. It was part of the timeline of events. Its omission is incredibly relevant.

I frankly have never heard of two people breaking up, and then going for a walk in a park.

More JJ twisting, making this a sequential event: let's break up and THEN go for a walk in the park. No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events. Furthermore, your constant use of "I have never heard of" and "I have never seen" really adds little to an argument. You have never seen a Mini Cooper while it was moving and therefore argue that no one can see a Mini Cooper while it is moving. Just for the record, JJ, only a few days ago on a short drive on a two-lane road, lo and behold, I saw a Mini Cooper not only coming toward me on the road, but then pulling off on to a side road. And the Mini was moving while I saw it! And it was a gray, rainy day, and the Mini Cooper was a dark gray Mini, not even a bright red one. You see my point. Just because "you" have never heard of something or seen something doesn't mean that it can't happen.

[UndertheRadar]

In any event, a personal comment made by a third party has no bearing what happened to RFG.

One other thing I missed in my previous post. This is backwards. It's not the comment by the third party that is of interest. It is the reaction, or non-reaction, of RG that is of interest, as well as the omission of the incident from the timeline.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar




As to the rest of that post, who says RG wasn't going to stay with a friend he hadn't yet contacted or in a motel he hadn't yet registered at, and maybe something happened to him before that? And no, JJ, I don't believe we have "hard" evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in Lewisburg on Friday.

And no one brought up any "evil Patty" scenario except you, JJ.

[quote]

I'm so glad you posted this, showing that you have raised the "evil Patty" scenario. We have a record of a call from the highway that RFG called his office. We have the person who received that call, PF, stated that this was RFG. Yet you say that this isn't, in your own words, "hard evidence." The only way this could not be "hard evidence" is if PF isn't telling the truth. Hence, the "evil Patty scenario."

I should add that both you and Lustor have raised PF's involvement repeatedly.

[quote]
It was part of the timeline of events. Its omission is incredibly relevant.



Except there is no timeline of events, prior to the disapearence (and yes, I feel this was a mistake on LE). I asked the question about a year ago of the CDT, and LE didn't have one at the time. Was the question asked?

Further, there is objective evidence that RFG was okay, three house later.


More JJ twisting, making this a sequential event: let's break up and THEN go for a walk in the park. No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events. Furthermore, your constant use of "I have never heard of" and "I have never seen" really adds little to an argument. [/B]

Last point first, Sherrijean hasn't heard of this either. I know people that will specifically break up in public places, to avoid drama.

I'll attempt to explain why, if you attempt to put the breakup later, it makes the scenario even more impossible. PF would have to do several things, kill RFG, dispose of the body, clean up, and finally, get the Mini to Lewisburg. On the latter detail, she'd almost have to be the one to drive it there, so someone else's DNA wouldn't get there; someone would have to drive her back. She'd need, possible in the very early morning hours, to call someone that would be willing to help her commit murder.

The less time she has to do this, the less likely that it is that did do these things.

Killing RFG in the house by gunshot stabbing, or bludgeoning him is going to leave a lot of evidence; these are bloody methods. She would have to clean those; LE did look for evidence of cleaning and found none. Strangulation and suffocation are unlikely, because of the size difference; RFG would likely struggle and win, if these methods were used. There would also be evidence of a struggle; LE found one.

Okay, poison. No trace; no struggle. Where is PF going to get poison if she decides to kill RFG because he breaks up with her when he shows up around 9:15 PM. So far as I know, there are no all night poison stores in Bellefonte. I'm sure you'll be able to point to one of your own creation.

Then there is the problem of disposing of the body; the only example I can find is the Fahey murder, and that took several days to clean up and dispose of the body. PF would have a dead body to dispose of, so that it hasn't been found to this day. How does she hide it? As soon as she calls the police at 11:30 PM on Friday, she has no idea what efforts they'll be using.

Now, Radar, if you want to claim that, on the spur of the moment PF killed RFG, get an accomplice, and managed to clean everything up and hide the body, and do it all so expertly that no one caught it, and did all of it in very short period of time, be my guest.

:rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Now, Radar, if you want to claim that, on the spur of the moment PF killed RFG, get an accomplice, and managed to clean everything up and hide the body, and do it all so expertly that no one caught it, and did all of it in very short period of time, be my guest.

JJ, my contentions focused only on the walk in the park and the potential for that walk to have been a breakup scenario. You're the one making your typical illogical leaps and raising the specter of "evil Patty" in this particular discussion at this particular moment.

Last point first, Sherrijean hasn't heard of this either.

First, as usual, you've missed my point, which was about the way you twisted the sequence. As usual, you built a strawman, then attempted to knock it down. No one argued that a break up occurred FIRST, followed by the invitation to a walk in the park, which is what your post said. The discussion centered on whether the walk in the park could potentially have been used as the opportunity for a discussion DURING WHICH a breakup was discussed. Of course it's going to sound ridiculous when you pose it as a breakup FOLLOWED BY a walk in the park, which is exactly what you intended by twisting it into that strawman.

Second, if Sherrijean hasn't heard of something either, it only means that both you and she have had limited experience and/or observations, not that something can't or doesn't happen. Your rabid assertion that Mini Coopers can't be seen while moving is such a good example of this. Did you know, JJ, that there's a security company in Atlanta, GA which purchased Mini Coopers for their security force because they wanted to increase visibility of their forces in the area? Did you know that drivers of Mini-Coopers say they always wave and flash lights to each other when they see each other driving on the road? Or that Mini-Cooper owners have said the cars "really stand out in traffic"?

Remember when Sherrijean first said that she'd been on Route 192 once some time ago, and it was not well travelled? You tried to use her original claim as proof then that not many opportunities were available for anyone to see RG out and about en route to Lewisburg that day. Yet in a recent post about her weekend trip to Lewisburg, she noted that she was again on 192 and it was much more heavily travelled than she remembered it being. So a new experience changed her perception of something. I knew all along that 192 was not devoid of traffic because of multiple experiences on that road, so a broader range of experience had given me a broader view to start with.

What I find disheartening as far as discussion on the board goes are your attempts to take limited personal experiences and turn them into generalized truths that you expect the rest of us to swallow as absolutes. We should be able to use the varied backgrounds and varied life experiences of posters here to expand discussion and ideas for discussion, not be limited by individual posters' experiences telling us something can't happen because one or two individuals never heard of it or never witnessed it.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by lustorumanimae


*****I think the other thing that was noted when this was discussed earlier was the fact that the meeting in the park occurred between 5 and 6, just after PF had gotten off work,
at dinnertime, and with G. having been off work at least most
of the day. Specifically, why they wouldn't just meet at home
or if he had been 'out and about' and hadn't fixed dinner, why
they wouldn't meet at The Gamble Mill a block away, a favorite
dinner spot for both. And especially as he was returning to work
for a few hours right after the meeting.

I have often wondered about this myself, Lustor. Not having dinner together when he's been gone for the day and she's just gotten off work, knowing that he intends to spend the night working in the office . . . something seems "off" in that scenario. This would mean PF just went home alone to eat after the walk in the park, and that has never quite made sense to me.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


JJ, my contentions focused only on the walk in the park and the potential for that walk to have been a breakup scenario. You're the one making your typical illogical leaps and raising the specter of "evil Patty" in this particular discussion at this particular moment.

[/b]

So long as PF's report of the call is accurate, there can be no question that RFG was alive and driving down 192 at about 11:30 AM. The can be no question that such a call was place. The only question is if PF spoke with RFG.

If PF is lying about the call, why is she lying?



First, as usual, you've missed my point, which was about the way you twisted the sequence. As usual, you built a strawman, then attempted to knock it down. No one argued that a break up occurred FIRST, followed by the invitation to a walk in the park, which is what your post said. [/B]

My last post said that the breakup occured after the walk. That gives PF less time to orchestrate everything.

But I'll tell you what, post your scenario of what happened with a time line and I'll look at it, and we'll all judge if it's credible.

[UndertheRadar]

I frankly have never heard of two people breaking up, and then going for a walk in a park.

Source: JJ
Sequence: Breaking up first, going for a walk second.

My last post said that the breakup occured after the walk.

Source: JJ
Sequence: Walk first, break up second.

White is black, and black is white.

:shrug:

[sherrijean981]

Patty took a lie detector test. The LE said she passed the test. I am quite sure she was asked a lot of questions. Spouses and SO are the first to be looked at. Why do you want to keep dragging her into being the K?

Another suggestion (happened to my sister). He gets some clothes out of the house and some personal things and just walks away. Not to be heard from for months and then shows up wanting $80,000 for his attendance in the home for 14 years.

You are right, I have had limited experience in life. But the people I am close to and ones in my family that have had relationships dissolve have not been kind and gentle like you are portraying PF and RG's. Look in the papers and the news and there are a lot of the ones I have seen. And I am not trying to get you to see things my way. I just don't see how you can keep saying they were breaking up and she got rid of him for doing so. That was probably on the list of questions in some form or other.

As for poisoning, maybe someone else was putting something in his drinks at work, the gym, home or out somewhere. PF said he hasn't been feeling well for a while and she wanted him to see the doctor. If she were poisoning him she would not have suggested it. JMO

Question again? The man in his office who was on vacation in APRIL? Where did he go and how long was he gone?

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"Maybe we have figured out why Ray looked terrible on the drug bust picture. Maybe they had been fighting and Ray decided that he did want to end the relationship." Quote


Ray didn't look well in a couple of the pictures he was shown in. He is very handsome and happy in most of them and has a beautiful smile. PF was very lucky to have him love her so much it shows in his pictures. JMO

[Serendipitous1]

Originally posted by logicworks
I have questioned the lack of plans many times.
?Maybe? they planned on having dinner when he was finished with work and PF prepared it before he came home.

Did VW's comment in the park trigger a key issue that was already on-going, that of commitment/permanent status? The strange looks she got from both may have been because unknowingly she 'hit' on the crux of a problem, leaving them both more or less 'speechless'.

After RG's not so distant second divorce it appears he was content with a live-in situation. Frankly, I don't know one woman in her early 40's who would give up her job without a commitment. I wouldn't think of doing so and in the meantime, commitment or no, I would NEVER reduce my job status as she did moving down to clerk in his office. I would need the extra income later if the commitment wasn't forthcoming.

Love is grand and all that good stuff, but I don't see some of the moves that were planned and made as being realistic. It appears RG's way of making it realistic was by paying off the mortgage, and buying the car for her.

It appears RG's last marriage ended with a big settlement which seems to have left him in a position of being non-commital. Possibly hers ended with abandonment and a commitment was necessary, in spite of saying it wasn't.
JMO I understand the questions about the walk in the park. But what mortgage logicworks? Why do you hate PEF so?

[J. J. in Phila]

There was something that Cind said that is worth noting:

Originally posted by Cinderella

They could have been fighting and an accident happened while fighting. That would give enough time to figure out what to do. It is really funny that there weren't any prints of PF in the car.

[/B]

Radar's current attempt to concoct the "evil Patty scenario" is that RFG to PF that he was leaving after the walk in Talleyrand Park.

Okay, for the sake of argument, RFG gets home at 9:30 PM and tell PF it's over. Does RFG expect then to go to bed in PF's house? Why doesn't he first get a motel room (or have gone out and rented an apartment)?

Let's suspend disbelief again and assume that RFG did expect to spend the night. He and PF argue and have a physical fight. In the fight PF kills him. Why isn't there any evidence of this fight (broken furniture).

Continuing down the path of incredibility, let's assume there was no fight; PF hears that it's over and kills him. How? Maybe she shoots him, but Bellefonte is fairly well build up; it's fairly likely someone will hear the shot. Maybe they don't think anything about it. The bullet wound would produce a lot of blood, so would bludgeoning or stabbing. It could be cleaned up, but there would be evidence of the cleaning. The police looked for that and didn't find it.

Now, PF has a dead body on the floor. I'm picturing PF trying to get a bleeding body into her car. She's what, 5'1." It won't be easy.

Now, it's about 10:00 PM at the earliest. She has to call for help to get the body out. Is she going to call someone and say, "I just kill my boyfriend (who happens be the DA), come over and help me hide the body." She'd have to call someone that would be willing to be out late and would be willing to help cover up a crime.


They then have to transport the body out of the house to its resting place. It wasn't transported in the Mini. Then, somehow, these two (or more) people have to get the Mini to Bellefonte and make sure it's not noticed until afternoon.

All of this has to take place before PF has to got to work the next morning. :rolleyes:

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"They then have to transport the body out of the house to its resting place. It wasn't transported in the Mini. Then, somehow, these two (or more) people have to get the Mini to Bellefonte and make sure it's not noticed until afternoon.

All of this has to take place before PF has to got to work the next morning" Quote


Ok, I don't agree he is trying to put the blame on PF, but wasn't there a mention on one of these sites that "a" PF had donated a truck to a prison in Union County? You don't donate something without giving it a good cleaning. Right?

[sherrijean981]

Who was it that PF called before calling the BPD, to tell them she was worried that RG wasn't home yet?

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981
Who was it that PF called before calling the BPD, to tell them she was worried that RG wasn't home yet?

Her brother, early Friday evening. There is a record of where she was, because she called RFG's cell phone repeatedly.

That another potential problem with the "evil Patty scenario." There may be a record of any outgoing calls (there would be if she used her cell phone).

[UndertheRadar]

Radar's current attempt to concoct the "evil Patty scenario" is that RFG to PF that he was leaving after the walk in Talleyrand Park.

JJ, I neither said this nor implied this, neither the sequence you outline nor anything about Patty

Since this is the umpteenth time this kind of thing has happened with you, I must conclude that either
A) You have difficulty reading and comprehending what you read or
B) You deliberately twist what you do understand as a way to get yourself out of holes you've dug yourself into.

There was an on-going discussion about the possibility that the walk in the park was used as an opportunity to discuss a breakup.

A simultaneous happening.

The rest of your post is moot because you've built it once again by twisting reality.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


JJ, I neither said this nor implied this, neither the sequence you outline nor anything about Patty

Since this is the umpteenth time this kind of thing has happened with you, I must conclude that either
A) You have difficulty reading and comprehending what you read or
B) You deliberately twist what you do understand as a way to get yourself out of holes you've dug yourself into.

There was an on-going discussion about the possibility that the walk in the park was used as an opportunity to discuss a breakup.

A simultaneous happening.

The rest of your post is moot because you've built it once again by twisting reality. [/B]

Radar, you have posted on this thread that RFG and PF were discussing a breakup before and/or during the walk in the park. You have also suggested that they didn't discuss this until after the walk in the park. Yet no one that was there suggested that there were any problems. RFG, who you, and others, have claimed to have very close relationship with his daughter, never intimated anything about it to LG. RFG never told LG that he'd likely be moving out shortly, which would be expected even if they were not that close. RFG, who didn't own a car of his own, and didn't have a residence, made no effort to get one.

This comes down to if the one "personally known" witness, PF, is accurate. Did PF see him that morning as she claims; did he call her around 11:30 AM on 4/15/05. You are, when you, or any poster, questions if RFG was driving down 192, questioning the credibility of that witness, PF. To do that, you have to create a motive for her to lie.

You've tried to create a motive that they were breaking up. When the witness reported that the were "a cute couple," you tried to move the breakup to several hours later. Now just breaking up isn't a good reason to lie, so there is an implicit motive that PF is involved in his disappearance, presumably a murder. The reason for her lie about the call would be that she was involved in the murder, and that she have a motive because she didn't want to break up with him.

Unfortunately for Radar, but very fortunately for PF, there is no evidence of a murder at the house, no evidence that she is lying about anything, and no evidence of even a break up. The evidence points to her telling the truth and gives no motive for lying.

Perhaps, Radar, this is the best question. Do you believe that PF received a call from RFG around 11:30 AM on 4/15/05? If the answer is yes, the questions about Talleyrand Park are irrelevant.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
" was frankly amazed by SJ's post yesterday indicating that BPD had communicated information to her/him via email about the nature/purpose of today's scheduled meeting with the cia unit and that the investigation is 'not being dropped'. Most of us I suspect would be hard-pressed to even come up with a police department's internal email addresses, or to acquire
them by asking, so I can only be impressed as to how this
was accomplished. " Quote

Luster,
If you were so amazed by my post yesterday indicating that BPD had communicated to me, then why didn't you ask me about it instead of getting on the site and posting a comment of disbelief? So be impressed and amazed! (doesn't happen too much to you if you are both IMHO), but the information is available to the entire internet on the Centre County Government site.

I strolled down the list and found Centre County Sheriff and I sent an email asking them not to stop the investigation on RG. I gave him the same information I gave this site and other sites on my searches through the Attorney General sites (articles from 2005 to 2006, counties listed with drug busts, names and addresses of suspected dealers, where and how they were dealing). I voiced my concerns to him the same as I did on here.

I am not just reading CourtTV postings on RG disappearance. I have been searching web sites for facts/info on anything to do with drug busts in Centre County, Union County (Lewisburg), and any county where there was a mention of RG being. I have been into places on the internet that I don't even know how I got there.

I have to say I am very impressed with our Attorney General and the drug task teams, PSP and others who are listed on that site. There have been hundred's of drug dealers put in prisons and taken out of our towns and off the streets by their hard work.

But all counties have had drug dealings going on at the time of RG's disappearance. You are giving theories and scenerios, I am giving FACTS from the Attorney General Sites only trying to see how they related in any way to RG's disappearance.

By the way, the info he sent me was not giving anything out that the CDT and WTAJ-TV didn't already say. It was on the news the other night that they were meeting. Which is why I made a plea not to stop searching for RG.

I guess on this site I am the investigator and you are either the prosecuting lawyer or the defense lawyer - trying to shatter whatever info is found. JMHO


Here is the email in question:

Quote:
"We lived in Centre County and I lived in Bellefonte at one time I take a great interest in the happenings there. I have been very obsessed with finding any info on Ray Gricar with internet searches, visits to Lewisburg, and getting on CourtTV.com and talking with others.

I saw yesterday the PSP are going to be meeing about Ray Gricar on Wednesday. Please don't let them stop the investigation!

I have been searching the Attorney Generals web site and viewed the lists of drug busts that went down during 2005. If Ray went to Lewisburg, his car WAS found there, in April 2005, there was an investigation on drugs going on at that time. Undercover police were "buying" during March to May 2005.

There were lists of drug dealers on all the drug busts. 4 names on the list from Lewisburg area I found interesting. 2 women lived just blocks away (one on Water St) the same street The Street of Shoppes is on. One on Front St (the street one block over from The Street of Shoppes) 2 people lived 4 miles away on Front St in MILTON. Where Carla Baron "sees" something going down and had police doing searches. There was also a man from my area (Reedsville) involved.

Articles said parties were held in DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS, suburbs, RURAL FARM HOUSES, motels, bars and other businesses throughout the region.

They also did a drug bust in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties the same year. Isn't Wilkes-Barre in one of those counties? Ray was seen there in a bar. I can't help but think he stumbled on to something like Carla Baron said. Isn't there any way to find out if one of the people on the drug list (Lewisburg, Milton) who had a car of the color/design it was reported by Carla Baron.

During my trip down there we went to Milton, it is loaded with "freight/rolling doors, railroads and parallel roads with bodies of water" everywhere.

You probably don't care what I feel but I have been down there and there has to be something. Also if the girl in the Museum was watching and saw Ray so many times he had to be in the Soldiers Memorial Park or parked right in front of the museum. The museum has no windows that overlook the parking lots where his car was. If he had his car in the back of the lot you wouldn't see it unless the lot was empty. I drive a Chrysler New Yorker, a fairly big car, and I couldn't see it when I came out of the Street of Shoppes or the Memorial Park. Just my opinion.

Please don't let them stop their investigations. Please talk with them tomorrow. He was a very important man to your community. Don't give up."

This was the Sheriff's comment:

"thanks for you interest and information. The investigation has not stopped and the meeting is from a review by the State Police to get a different perspective on the case. I will also forward this information the proper persons.



Happy Trails ...Sheriff Nau "


By the way if you want to know who I am I will gladly tell you. I am not ashamed to put my name on anything I send out but I don't want it on the site because of who might be reading. Don't want to disappear like RG because I might have "stumbled on to something". JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"Has anyone at any point read through the full "Sophie" story on the CDT's website, which was begun by ADA Sloane in January of 2005? If so, I would be interested in any thoughts on that."

Luster would you please post a link or the story? I can't find anything on it.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"I was responding to your post of 11-14 at 4:37 PM (board time)
which states: "I was emailing SOMEONE IN BPD and he said 'the meeting tomorrow has to do with the review by the State Police
to get a different perspective of the case. The investigation is not
being dropped'." [emphasis added]

After doing my post this morning, I found your second post on the "Still Waiting" thread from 11-15 at 5:11 AM (board time) which indicates that your contact was instead with the Centre County Sheriff, whose email is indeed found on the County site. But we're talking two entirely different entities in your two posts. Checking the County site, there is a general address for Bellefonte Borough using the bellefonte.net servcer, but I did not find any listed addresses for officers in the police department. "
Quote



Luster, I apologize. I thought the Sherriff's department was part of BPD and I thought I was on the County Site or Centre County Gov. On there if you go to individual sites some of them list a place to click on to send emails. That was what I did with the Sheriff's site. There was picture of him on the site and it was on the site that I sent the email to. Like I said, I get into places I have no idea of how I got there.

As for sending emails to people. I get upset over things in all areas of concern and if I am upset enough I will send emails to anyone in gov. I have already sent emails to all Pa Representatives and Senators to find a way to get a law to license cats. Cats running wild being a BIG problem in our area and I am very allergic to them. They pose a problem for me and my family who also have allergies.

I guess I just in some way want to make a difference in finding RG or giving up. I am not a quiter and I don't want LE to be either. JMO

[sherrijean981]

WTAJ-TV 10 just gave a segment on the PSP and other agencies meeting and will be letting us know later. They are supposed to be telling what they have found on their investigations and where they are headed with it. Update from them later.

[J. J. in Phila]

Lustor,

In your hypothetical, you ignored one piece of evidence and created another piece of evidence.

Your creation was the "breakup," and it dealt with a motive for for PF lying about receiving a call from RFG. We have no evidence for that, specifically:

1. We don't have RFG tell LG, "Patty and I are having problems; I might be moving out. Don't mail me anything at her address." If LG is close and has this semi-mystical connection, as some posters suggest, it failed to register any distress.

2. He didn't call up a friend and say, "Patty and I are having problems, can I spend the night on the couch."

3. He didn't rent a car or a room.

4. The last sighting of RFG and PF, less than 24 hours before he left, described the two of the as being "a cute couple." They were not arguing, or talking quietly but intently.

The ignored evidence is the scent. It's in the parking lot, most initial reports stating that it looked like RFG got into another car; we find out that this trail goes for 20 yards.

So we have a witness, PF, that RFG was at home that morning and that he called her around 11:30 AM on 4/15/05. We have a record of that call, placed from a point between Bellefonte and Lewisburg. We have RFG's scent in Lewisburg, away from the car. We have no motive for PF to lie about who called her. We also have some witnesses that saw RFG in Lewisburg (I'm not overjoyed with this testimony, but some seems to have help up). The conclusion, based on both witness testimony and physical evidence, is that RFG drove the car to Lewisburg on 4/15/05.

To reach a different conclusion, you will have to show that the witness, PF, is lying, and that the physical evidence is wrong.

[sherrijean981]

In one article on the CDT site they are in a conference and discussing missed leads and other goofs made by red-head lead investigator - Officer DZ. I also see something wrong in the fact he did not interview EW and ADA SS, who were friends of RG's plus one worked with him. Also CF another ADA, and CS who works in the courthouse. A man is missing, the DA of Centre County, after a major drug bust, and the investigator finds no reason to interview any of these people. Says that they let people know their office was available for anyone wanting to talk. Some people intensively interviewed by "a profiler" but Officer DZ does not remember the profilers name? Didn't get a report from him? Where were HIS notes and reports that he would have made during his investigation? What exactly was he looking for? He didn't want PF accused of it, didn't want any info from anyone in the court system, what exactly does DZ know about the disappearance of RG? And what doesn't he want all of us to know???

Was he upset that after meeting with RG on cases, RG didn't talk personally with him, just got up, went to the door and had him leave? Everyone said that was how RG was. He would not stop to talk in a hallway, didn't bring his relationship with PF into the courthouse, was a very dedicated and focused man on his job. What is so wrong with that? Wouldn't any employer want an employee that dedicated to their job.

When you go over and over an article in any newspaper you can start seeing where some things just don't add up. Am I the only one that has that thought?? JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Radar, you have posted on this thread that RFG and PF were discussing a breakup before and/or during the walk in the park. You have also suggested that they didn't discuss this until after the walk in the park.

JJ, I really don't understand why you do this kind of thing. My unedited posts are on the board for all posters to read, and anyone with any reading comprehension ability can easily see I never posted anything about a discussion of a breakup taking place before or after the walk in the park, other than once long ago referring to another poster's reference to having heard a rumor that PF and RG had broken up some days before RG disappeared. And in that long ago instance, I was digging up a reference at yet another poster's request, posted the reference as rumor, and made it clear I had no idea what weight to give the notion, neighborhood rumors being what they are.

I am, however, interested in the psychology of why you persist in posting these kinds of inaccuracies. I don't know whether you simply can't understand what you read or whether you gain something from trying to represent what is clear by pretending things are something other than what they are. You did this when you claimed there had been a report that Gricar took a suit with him, when the Roddy article made no such claim. You did this when you twisted a Zaccagni quote about witnesses observing RG driving back and forth into your own claim that it meant RG only drove back and forth in the parking lot (one of the most ludicrous mental images yet, especially given the clear context of the article and the quote). You've done it on so many occasions that I'm really forced to wonder what your agenda is.

In this particular case, you are the only one who has raised PF as "evil doer," as I have not in this particular conversation done more than discuss a potential breakup in the context of Lustor's hypothetical and in the context of the Wedler comment in the park. You, JJ, are the one who has rushed ahead to bludgeoning and posioning scenarios and PF as "evil doer," not I. As usual, it is because of tunnel vision on your part. There are explanations other than those that you offer for many of the issues you raise.
Example: you assume PF would have to be lying about the phone call if there had been a breakup in the park scenario.
Why? I have known situations where couples have broken up, and the one doing the breakup has called to check on the other the next day. I know, I know, you and Sherrijean "have never heard of such a thing." Well, I have. Maybe the circle of people I know is different in temperament than the ones you are acquainted with, but I know of at least two cases where people have had such post-breakup calls from the one who did the breaking up, just to make sure the other was okay. There are also issues of "loose ends" to deal with. So PF did not have to be lying about receiving a call from RG at 11:30 on Friday.

To take this hypothetical further, it is entirely possible in this hypothetical that in this "are you okay?" call to PF, RG also discloses he's out on a drive, he's going to just go clear his mind a bit, whatever. Maybe there's been a hint in the phone call that RG will contact her later in the day to talk more or to try to patch things up, something that PF can cling to. Then, when he doesn't call or show up, she starts into the "dozens of messages" mode, worried alternatively that he's been in an accident and that he's just not going to follow through with contacting her. It's hypothetically possible for a woman in that situation to have LE "help" her track down an errant boyfriend (and in fact has been done by more than one woman, I suspect). Meanwhile, some sort of foul play scenario could have occurred, leaving, in this hypothetical, PF entirely guilt-free.

That said, I thoroughly concur with Logic that all scenarios should be open to full hypothetical discussion here. The hyper-reactivity that occurs when certain hypotheticals are discussed is counter-productive to the goal of finding out what really happened to Ray Gricar.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


JJ, I really don't understand why you do this kind of thing. My unedited posts are on the board for all posters to read, and anyone with any reading comprehension ability can easily see I never posted anything about a discussion of a breakup taking place before or after the walk in the park, other than once long ago referring to another poster's reference to having heard a rumor that PF and RG had broken up some days before RG disappeared. And in that long ago instance, I was digging up a reference at yet another poster's request, posted the reference as rumor, and made it clear I had no idea what weight to give the notion, neighborhood rumors being what they are.
[/b]

Radar. here is one of your posts

Originally posted by UndertheRadar

More JJ twisting, making this a sequential event: let's break up and THEN go for a walk in the park. No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events. [/B]

IF there was a breakup, it occured either before the walk in the park, when the "cute couple" comment was made or after the walk in the park, when the "cute couple" comment was made. You really don't have any other options, except that no breakup occured.

I said, okay, we'll say that it occured first; you didn't like that. Then I said, okay, we'll say it was aver; you didn't like that. We are kind of out of options.

As to some of the other questions, you've claimed that Chief Z stated that that CB evidence was supported by theat someone say the Mini driving down I-80, yet there is never any report of that. LW found that CB was referring to something in the parking lot and there has been to CB confirming something about the I-80 sighting. Never. Yet you still claim that this is what CB is referring to.:rolleyes: Likewise, we have Roddy assuming that if a witness is correct, then then RFG took a suit with him, even though it was known at that point, RFG had not taken a suit with him.


In this particular case, you are the only one who has raised PF as "evil doer," as I have not in this particular conversation done more than discuss a potential breakup in the context of Lustor's hypothetical and in the context of the Wedler comment in the park. You, JJ, are the one who has rushed ahead to bludgeoning and posioning scenarios and PF as "evil doer," not I. As usual, it is because of tunnel vision on your part. There are explanations other than those that you offer for many of the issues you raise.
Example: you assume PF would have to be lying about the phone call if there had been a breakup in the park scenario.
Why? I have known situations where couples have broken up, and the one doing the breakup has called to check on the other the next day. [/B]

It is is clear that you didn't understand the question; I'll try to make it easier for you.

PF saw RFG that morning and received a phone call from him, it establishes where RFG was at those times. She is a witness. Is there any motivation for her to lie about this? In other words, did she only pretend to see RFG in bed and only pretend to get a phone call from him?

A breakup is not a reason, but if she was involved in the reasons for FRG being missing, it might be. Perhaps the only reason is that she "disappeared" RFG, that she was partly or totally responsible for his disappearance. One reason why she may have suddenly wanted RFG to disappear was that he broke up with her. There however is no evidence that this occurred, and there should be.

Now, I'll ask it again. Do you believe PF when she says RFG was in bed on the morning of 4/15/05, when she left for work? Do you believe that PF was telling the truth when she said that RFG called her at about 11:30 AM.

[sherrijean981]

Okay, the 5:00, 5:30 and 6:00 news have gone by and NO reference to Ray Gricar. There was nothing on WTAJ-TV 10 web site about it either. Nothing on the CDT site. What is going on with the meeting with the PSP, FBI, CIA, etc. etc. etc.????

[UndertheRadar]

Radar. here is one of your posts


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndertheRadar

More JJ twisting, making this a sequential event: let's break up and THEN go for a walk in the park. No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events.

JJ, what do the words "more JJ twisting" and "No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events" mean to you in the above quote from me? Obviously the exact opposite of what they actually mean. The "twisting" reference is to the first time you created out of thin air a sequence to the events in the park.

Your sequence, as YOU FIRST stated them, was 1. break up, 2. walk.

My reference in the quote above is that you twisted facts, since the discussion was about a hypothetical discussion of a breakup DURING the walk. I accused you then of building a strawman to make it easier to ridicule the idea of a breakup, since the way you stated it, it sounded so silly, saying "Okay, we've broken up, now let's go for a walk."

After I pointed out that you TWISTED the original reality (simultaneous events became your false sequence), I then said NO ONE was arguing (that would include me) that this was the sequence of events.

Need I remind you that in a later post, you then tried to claim you originally said your sequence was 1. Walk, 2. Break up.

Your two contradictory posts side by side should have made you see how foolish you look when you try to twist things like this, just like the rest of the post I'm responding to now is full of twisting.

It's pointless to do this, JJ. You twist things so that black is white and white is black, or as you've just done here, you totally ignore things I've just posted, as in an explanation for how it could be that PF would not have to be lying about the phone call. You don't read, you don't comprehend, or you pretend that you don't.
To what end, to what goal, I haven't figured out, but I do know that it's pointless.

[J. J. in Phila]

Gee, Radar, I've asked you if, in your scenario, the breakup occurs before the walk in the park. You said I twisting your words. Then I asked if the breakup during or after the walk. You said I twisted your words. We're kinda out of options on what your words mean.
:punch:

It actually is important because it gives a time frame when PF could potentially act.

Now, back my question. Do you believe PF when she says RFG was in bed on the morning of 4/15/05, when she left for work? Do you believe that PF was telling the truth when she said that RFG called her at about 11:30 AM?

[UndertheRadar]

JJ says:

I frankly have never heard of two people breaking up, and then going for a walk in a park.

11-14-2006 12:22 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UTR says:
quote of JJ:

I frankly have never heard of two people breaking up, and then going for a walk in a park.



More JJ twisting, making this a sequential event: let's break up and THEN go for a walk in the park. No one is arguing that this is the sequence of events.
11-14-2006 12:50 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UTR says:

First, as usual, you've missed my point, which was about the way you twisted the sequence. As usual, you built a strawman, then attempted to knock it down. No one argued that a break up occurred FIRST, followed by the invitation to a walk in the park, which is what your post said. The discussion centered on whether the walk in the park could potentially have been used as the opportunity for a discussion DURING WHICH a breakup was discussed. Of course it's going to sound ridiculous when you pose it as a breakup FOLLOWED BY a walk in the park, which is exactly what you intended by twisting it into that strawman.
11-14-2006 04:18 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JJ says:

My last post said that the breakup occured after the walk.
11-14-2006 05:01 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JJ says:
Radar's current attempt to concoct the "evil Patty scenario" is that RFG to PF that he was leaving after the walk in Talleyrand Park.
11-15-2006 01:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UTR says:
JJ, I neither said this nor implied this, neither the sequence you outline nor anything about Patty

There was an on-going discussion about the possibility that the walk in the park was used as an opportunity to discuss a breakup.

A simultaneous happening.
11-15-2006 02:44 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JJ says:
Radar, you have posted on this thread that RFG and PF were discussing a breakup before and/or during the walk in the park. You have also suggested that they didn't discuss this until after the walk in the park.
11-15-2006 03:32 AM
(emphasis mine)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UTR says:
My unedited posts are on the board for all posters to read, and anyone with any reading comprehension ability can easily see I never posted anything about a discussion of a breakup taking place before or after the walk in the park
11-15-2006 03:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JJ says:
Gee, Radar, I've asked you if, in your scenario, the breakup occurs before the walk in the park. You said I twisting your words. Then I asked if the breakup during or after the walk. You said I twisted your words.
11-15-2006 09:45 PM
(emphasis mine)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion: pointless to try to have a rational, logical discussion with JJ. Logic does not compute with JJ. The facts do not compute with JJ.
Finis.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by Cinderella
UndertheRadar,

Does anyone else get the feeling that we can discuss anybody else and J.J. doesn't really get down on people, but the minute that we say that PF might have been involved then J.J. is all over someone. I wonder why J. J. sticks up for PF much more than anyone else. After all this is a discussion, opinion board. JMO, MOO

That seems to be part of what's going on, Cin. One of JJ's early posts stated that discussion of PF "should be off the table." I think he'd been on the board less than a week at the time. Pretty pushy for a new poster to tell a board what should be "off the table." JMO, of course. But like you, I see this as a discussion board. We should be able to discuss.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


That seems to be part of what's going on, Cin. One of JJ's early posts stated that discussion of PF "should be off the table." I think he'd been on the board less than a week at the time. Pretty pushy for a new poster to tell a board what should be "off the table." JMO, of course. But like you, I see this as a discussion board. We should be able to discuss.

The reason is that it doesn't fit the evidence.

Let's start at what's known and work backwards. PF claimed that she saw RFG in bed that morning and had a phone call froim him at about 11:30 AM. Now, she is either lying or telling the truth. That is a simple binary choice.

Assume for this example that she's lying. Why? The only answer that makes sense is that she is responsible, at least in part, for RFG disappearing. The only realistic answer in that case is that she was involved with killing him.

Okay, we have a pretty good idea where PF was between 8:30 AM and 11:30 PM on Friday. There are no huge gaps that would stick out like a sore thumb. Even if she was on the road when she made calls to RFG cell phone, that would be easily detected. Relay towers.

Assume that RFG comes home at 9:15 PM on 4/14/05 and promptly breaks up with PF. An argument ensues. In the course of the argument, PF kills RFG. How?

First, PF is significantly smaller than RFG; he is reasonably good shape, a hiker. It's unlikely that she could strangle, suffocate, or garrote RFG. Further, it would be likely that RFG would struggle. Furniture would be damaged, PF would likely have some injuries, scratches, bruises, maybe a black eye. There is none of that. Rule that out.

Second, PF uses a weapon. She stabs, shoots, or bludgeons, RFG. These are bloody methods. She has to clean both herself and the house up. LE checked the house for newly cleaned areas, carpet taken up, new paint. There was none. Further, RFG's family will be staying in the house 48 hours later; they are likely to have spotted something and reported it. Rule that out.

How about poison? A couple of problems. First, PF's last name isn't Borgia, and Bellefonte isn't early 16th Century Italy. It is unlikely that she would have poison that she could slip RFG. She can't, at 9:30 PM in Bellefonte, run out to the all night poison store. Second, can you really imagine RFG saying, "Patty, I'm breaking up with you, fix me a drink." Rule that out.

We can rule out a break up after the walk in the park.

Now, Radar has posted that, "I accused you then of building a strawman to make it easier to ridicule the idea of a breakup, since the way you stated it, it sounded so silly, saying 'Okay, we've broken up, now let's go for a walk.'" That's what were left with, something that Radar says is easier to ridicule (he's wrong, but what else is new).

Could RFG have informed PF of a breakup earlier? This gives PF time to do things, like buy poison. Well, some things other than the walk in park argue against it. RFG was driving a car owned by PF. He had to know, in a breakup, it's her car. RFG was living in PF's house. He had to realize that PF wouldn't let someone that was dumping her driver her car and live in her house. He wouldn't expect her to continue to feed him or get him a drinks.

RFG would make arrangements to leave, to rent a car, and get a room. He would tell his daughter not to mail him anything at PF's address, or call that house. The weekend was coming up and she couldn't reach at the closed office. He doesn't.

We also have physical evidence that RFG was in Lewisburg, and witness testimony (I'm not thrilled about it, but I doubt that all the witnesses are wrong). We also have a record of the call, which corresponds to what PF claims. While a polygraph is neither infallible nor admissible, it has about an 80% change determining that the truth is the truth. Not bad odds, though if the evidence showed something different, I'd ignore it.

In short, all the evidence points to PF telling the truth.

Why to complain (and I am not alone), about this drive to involve PF. Because it takes away from the actual evidence we have. Now, as I stated, I considered PF as a suspect initially, but everything in her story checks out. The evidence do not support the claim and theories involving PF are subject to ridicule, because, when examined, they are ridiculous.

As for being pushy, I intend to push for looking at the evidence and to at least come with theories consistent with that evidence. If you have any doubt, note that I have started two threads, one that says murder is a possibility one that says walk away is possible.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by Cinderella
What if they are arguing close to the stairway and PF is angry and pushes Ray. What if he falls down the stairs and hits his head.


First, you'll probably have some blood. Second, why not just call 911 and say RFG fell down a flight of stairs.



She might have met him at the courthouse. A fight might have ensure there. There doesn't have to be alot of blood.


Video of him leaving; the office wasn't disturbed.


Suppose she throws something that is his at him and hits him in the face.


The couch? ;)

Seriously, you'd get blood, especially from a face wound.

There doesn't have to be a lot of blood, just a big clean spot where most of it is removed; it would be bigger than the blood stain. Problem is, LE looked for that, and didn't find it.


Did anyone call his cell phone on Thursday evening? Anyone could have driven Ray's car to Lewisburg. Anyone could have had Ray's cell phone and called PF on the way to Lewisburg.


And anyone would have left a lot of fibers, hair, DNA, skin rafts. None was found.


My question is why did the PF stories about Ray putting the dog out and the note, change over time. Also Ray was in the last clothes that he saw her in the night before.



I know of no change from the early stories. The "close" are a bit misleading. RFG was wearing the same outer jacket. It's common for people to wear the same jacket on consecutive days, if the weather hasn't changed. Jeans are not unlikely either. I will wear the same trousers two days in a row, especially if I'm not dressing for church or a meeting or something.

Keep in mind, we don't know his shirt nor is it clear that he put those jeans on the first thing Thursday morning. He might have changed after the PBM and had been wearing them for 4-6 hours only. I actually had a professor who wore the same suit for each class and one of two ties. RFG isn't to that extreme, by a longshot.

[sherrijean981]

If RG "was" (and I don't agree) leaving PF he would not leave without clothes. They at least, and his collection of camera's and toys, were his, and maybe other antique pieces. If he was leaving her for another woman he also would not wear the same clothes he wore the day before. PF wouldn't be there, he would get up, shower, lather and spritz on the cologne and clean clothes to impress the woman. "If" he was meeting one.

My understanding of the day was he was in bed asleep, woke up and told her he was taking the day off, and when she came back in the room he was asleep again. She had brought him orange juice but he was sleeping. Before she went to work, she left him a note to tell him to let her know if he was going anywhere because of the dog. He called at 11:30 and said he was driving on Rt 192 and he wouldn't be home in time to let the dog out and would she go home at lunch time and do it He tells her he loves her and she tell him she loves him too. (That wouldn't be said by him if he broke up with her the night before).

Maybe their Friday nights at the Gamble Mill were EVERY Friday night. The waitress at the Mill said she was used to seeing them on Friday nights playing Trivial Pursuit and having a drink while they waited on a table. He was't home when she got home and there was no note from him so she left him one and went to the gym. Is that her every Friday night schedule? And then they go out to dinner?

Also who had the car Thursday night? Did he take it to work? or did he give it to her to drive home and he walked home?

My thoughts on the house were that her family lived in it a long time if she was raised in it. Back when her parents bought it homes didn't go for the outrageous price they do today, so they probably had the home paid off - NO mortgage. If her home was left to her it might have been free and clear. NO mortgage. If she bought it from the estate then she would have a bill of some kind unless she had saved money or received money or settlement from her divorce and she used that to buy the home. Again NO mortgage. . Depending on what she had to pay for it. Did anyone check the courthouse records on that?

So if they both lived there they might have pooled their money and shared all expenses. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

It was hers, but there were mortgage payments, at least for a while. RFG paid them, but it was inherited from her parents. Yes, those payments would be low.

You can rule out a financial reason for PF killing RFG as well. Financially, she's worse of without RFG and didn't gain anything from the disappearance.

I frankly cannot believe he'd leave without having a place to sleep or a car, much less his collections. Because of their arrangement, she could kick RFG out without any notice.

[sherrijean981]

I thought I would give you the update of the question I put to Carolyn Donaldson from WTAJ-TV tonight on the segment of Ray Gricar not appearing. I found their site and they each have their own email site. Just click on their pictures - get bio and email.

Quote:

"We are sorry that we were not able to update any information regarding the meeting. It continues for three days and we will attempt to have new information for our viewers following those meetings held out of town.

Thanks for watching 10 NEWS.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Donaldson
WTAJ-TV 10 News Anchor/Reporter

"You can achieve anything you want in life
if you have the courage to dream it, the intelligence to make a realistic plan, and the will to see that plan through to the end."

Sidney A. Friedman
Speaker and Author





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

Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 6:24 PM
To: donaldson@wtajtv.com
Subject: Ray Gricar


What happened to the Ray Gricar segment to be on at 5pm?
Was the meeting cancelled again? or still going on?
J at
Milroy, PA

[UndertheRadar]

My understanding of the day was he was in bed asleep, woke up and told her he was taking the day off, and when she came back in the room he was asleep again. She had brought him orange juice but he was sleeping. Before she went to work, she left him a note to tell him to let her know if he was going anywhere because of the dog.

Sherri, what you've done here is put together two of the three versions of the morning that we've heard. One version, he was in bed as you describe, asleep, woke up, said he was "playing hooky," rolled over, and went back to sleep. Another version, she brought him orange juice. Another version, they "went through [their] morning routine together." These are discrepancies a number of posters have questions about.

Similarly, a number of posters have had some questions about the note RG was supposed to leave about going anywhere. PF has stated it was their habit to eat lunch at home, so wouldn't she have been going home anyway, note or no note? And wouldn't RG have made sure the dog went out a second time before he left to go anywhere (in addition to the first morning trip out)?

[sherrijean981]

Original quote by SherriJean:

"Sherri, what you've done here is put together two of the three versions of the morning that we've heard. One version, he was in bed as you describe, asleep, woke up, said he was "playing hooky," rolled over, and went back to sleep. Another version, she brought him orange juice. Another version, they "went through [their] morning routine together." These are discrepancies a number of posters have questions about"

LOL, it sounds like the perfect scene for 2 people in love and looking out for each other. I say we keep this one and let PF alone in her time of stress and pain and find someone else to look at.

How about where the co-worker was on vacation? when he left and when he came home? And check out the names and addresses on the Attorney Generals site and see if there was a connection to the drugs busts in the 2 counties and RG stumbled onto something or someone told him something about it. Someone should take a picture to the 4 people I mentioned from Lewisburg and Milton who were being investigated and drug buys were happening during the time frame of RG being in Lewisburg.

Why do there have to be lies, lies and more lies going on in all the scenerios? Couldn't RG have told PF in the park about his day off and what he found on Thursday and when he took off Friday she was concerned because of what he told her the night before in the park. Remember he was holding her hand in the park and told her he loved her on the phone the following morning. JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote from Logicworks:
"There was no need for a note from him, with phone call.
Why a note to him? It would definitely serve for back-up to 'He was there and capable of leaving me a note in return'.
In foul play scenario, of course, there would be no return note.
JMO" Quote


But not foul play from PF!! LW, I have questioned from the beginning about someone else being in the home BEFORE RG leaves the house but AFTER PF left. I also questioned why no type of forensics were done on his house other than "looking for fresh cleaned carpets or lifted carpets" . Again where was DZ on his investigation? He acted like just because "he" didn't think anyone or anything was important to the case that made it so.

If someone else was there it would also help with why the computer left without the case. This someone could have been there to go over things that RG had stored on computer. They left to investigate or confront someone else involved and he never saw the note from PF. If he left at 11:00 and was on his way DOWN to Lewisburg he wouldn't make it back. If he had left shortly after PF left his call could have meant he was on his way back but not make it time to take a sick dog out.

PF took a lie detector test and passed. Even a simple question like were you involved, even involved in a small way, would make your heart rate change. Even if she knew someone else did it those thoughts could make a difference in the lie detector tests. I believe she passed the LDT because she was innocent of ANY type knowledge of his disappearance. JMO

[sherrijean981]

Quote:
"That's not
to say that there could not exist some potential that Gricar had
learned of something troubling in one and/or the other situation
that could potentially have taken him to Lewisburg. Just that right now if there is any connection, it is murky and largely
speculative."


When you say "murky and largely speculative" that is every scenerio on the board. Also I pictured CB and her psychic ablilities when you say that. What I brought up also goes with her scenerio, and I put some of the players of the drug deal in the area of his car. Their homes being in the vicinity of the Street of Shoppes, and in Milton (where CB's info had the LE searching) and the bridge the computer was supposedly thrown from is the same bridge used to get from Lewisburg to Rt 405 that takes you to Milton. A bridge and roads that would have factored in all the drug dealings and maybe RG's disappearance after the scent of him in the parking lot.

You have more deception and lies in your scenerios and no Mini. I have drug dealings going down in businesses, homes, farm houses, etc. etc. etc. and a parking lot with the Mini near a business and park that RG was seen in. Which puts him in Lewisburg at some time and WHAT did he "stumble on"??

Speaking for myself and maybe even others on the site, I am now 58 and my memory is not good. If I am upset and have to tell a story or my adventures for the day, I do not always have the same time line every time I tell it. PF is missing her loving SO, her housemate, her boss, and you are expecting her to repeat every time she is asked, the same thing in the same way without her story changing. I say no way! JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

First, I post these two accounts:

"It was a Friday morning. Gricar sat up in bed and Fornicola brought him a glass of orange juice. He said he wasn't going to work that day. Fornicola kissed him and left."


http://www.carlabaron.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239


"VAN SUSTEREN: Were you expecting this call or were you expecting him in the office, anything unusual about it?

FORNICOLA: No. When I left for work that morning he had indicated that he was going to take the day off and he had fallen back to sleep. I left him a note asking that if he decided to go anywhere to let me know, so that I could go home and take care of the dog."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156683,00.html

Note what PF says, RFG was awake and told her that he was going take the day off.

Not what the first article, which wasn't a quote, says. RFG was awake and told PF that he was going to take the day off.

The only difference in the two accounts is, that when was awake, she also brought him orange juice (which could be the "routine" mentioned by some). She didn't include the detail that she brought him OJ. And? Well, nothing. She speaking generally to GvS, not giving a detailed account of her activities. She obviously dressed, but she didn't mention it.

Why the note? He went back to sleep. Do you have a link that states that PF had a habit of going home for lunch. It seems unusual since RFG was sleeping over lunch. It was Friday and she might have normally had gone to the bank over lunch (money for the weekend). She has no way of knowing if he'll call 3 hours later.

LW suggested someone else was wearing RFG's close. The presents some problems. First, RFG is not a large man; you'll need someone smaller or the same size.

Second, the scent won't transfer just because the person is wearing the same clothes. A person generates scent. There is the problem of the skin rafts first moving off RFG's body and staying on the clothes and then transferring to another surface. He would have to drive for an hour in the close. By the time he gets out, the scent will be of the other guy, not RFG.

Third, there would still prints, DNA or hair feft over from the other person.

It doesn't work.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"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."


You have at least 3 people who worked with him, some friends as well as co-workers, who were out at the time of RG's disappearance. Why have you not questioned where they were Thursday and Friday when all this was going down. Who knows what things they and RG were talking about, investigating, etc. 3 people who could have been doing "anything" during the days of RG's last 2 days. Have you accounted for their time and whereabouts? Just a suggestion. But put all players in the game and don't make PF the only player. JMO

[UndertheRadar]

But put all players in the game and don't make PF the only player.

Sherri, have you read through all the threads on this site? Most posters here have been juggling multiple possible theories for this disappearance over these many months, and I'm not talking about just the "Big Three" of suicide, walkaway, or foul play. Most of us who take this case seriously and who have been following it and studying it since day 1 theorize and speculate about many, many possible scenarios as to how this may have played out. I have not seen a single poster on this board relegate PF to the "sole possible evil doer role."

Most, if not all, of us have seriously considered the possibility of a "foul play/drug connection" scenario as you are doing at the moment. You might be surprised at some of the scenarios that have been considered "off board" as well and rejected or momentarily shelved for whatever reasons. Everything needs to be considered in a case that is as stalled as this one.

You want to reject any possible PF involvement based, as far as I can see in your recent posts, on two things, seeing no discrepancies but only "love" in PF's reporting of the morning activities and her passing the polygraph. That is your position, and so YOU must work from there. But neither you nor JJ has the right to tell other posters that they can't have their doubts about things.

For myself and for others, there remains a discrepancy between the earliest reports of "going through a morning routine" and the links which are still available which indicate Gricar still in bed, rolling over and going back to sleep. In my mind, and I believe in the minds of other other posters, it's difficult to reconcile "going through a morning routine together" with Gricar still being in bed and rolling over and going back to sleep. As Lustor described, "morning routine" indicates some kind of habitual morning events, which for most of us include getting out of bed, having some kind of beverage and breakfast, morning hygeine, and getting dressed.

As for the poly, for some of us, it's bothersome that the poly was delayed three months post the event, and some have wondered what that delay in time means for the results of the poly. There's also the overall question of poly reliability. Many good links on the web available discussing that. Let me pose this question to you Sherri: if polygraphs are the "last word" on whether someone is telling the truth or not, why won't courts allow polygraph results as admissible evidence in the court room?

Still, it's your right, and JJ's, to believe what you want and to look at the investigation of this disappearance however you want to. It's also every other poster's right to pursue analyzing this disappearance as he or she sees fit.

Ideally, this board SHOULD BE a group of posters working together toward a single goal: figuring out what happened to Ray Gricar. IMHO, since so far this investigation has stalled out with no leads and no significant progress, we can best achieve that helping in that goal by remaining OPEN to ALL possibilities, not by shutting down discussion of a particular avenue.

[tiredoftheguff]

close= "close the door"

clothes="clothing worn"

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar



You want to reject any possible PF involvement based, as far as I can see in your recent posts, on two things, seeing no discrepancies but only "love" in PF's reporting of the morning activities and her passing the polygraph. That is your position, and so YOU must work from there. But neither you nor JJ has the right to tell other posters that they can't have their doubts about things.

[/B]

We do have the "right" to point out the problems with the theory and to show how something didn't happen. You have a perfect right to post that 2 + 2 equals 37, and we have the right to call you on it.

There is a problem, because all the references to PF causes us to ignore the actual evidence. If this was foul play, the questions around PF really help the killer.

If there was some evidence or witness testimony that pointed to her involvement, or if there was a clear motive, I'd say go ahead. But you can't even come with that.

[sherrijean981]

I did not shut down anyone's opinion on what has happened to RG. I just see it all the time going back to PF. I have not seen any mention or theories of the 3 men in the office who were "out" of the office at the time and what they could have figured into his Thursday night and Friday "day". I see the park scenerio and the morning scenerio and PF being dwelled on. I want other scenerio's, not just mine, but of other's he might have been friends with. As was said by someone earlier, if he was close to someone, other than PF, and they went to him with a problem, of any type, that was so serious, RG has disappeared then that someone should be looked at too.

Yes, I have read all these sites. But I have to admit I skipped over a lot on this site because, personally for me, I got tired of the bickering between, some of the posters, over what a person meant by one word or how they worded something. It was a smile and a laugh at first, BUT, after a while it was a couple of you cutting each other to pieces for the others opinions. Just as you have tried to make me feel bad for the thoughts and feelings I have on the subject of PF and I get the feeling I have been relegated to your pesty fly bugging you scenerio. LOL

I am not saying I know what her thoughts and feelings were, how she and RG were with each other because I never had the honored privilege of personally knowing either of them. IN MY OPINION - I have never "seen" a couple break up in a park - hold hands in the park and then break up - or even break up and then kill them off for doing so. But it does happen. The woman in the park thought they made a nice couple or however she worded it - I don't want to get in an argument over that either - so they must not have looked like they were fighting or breaking up. PF wasn't crying and he wasn't crying. They looked happy or she would have said they didn't. they just didn't feel they should have to respond to her comment. I wouldn't have either! They both sound like they are private people. And maybe the walk in the park was a relaxation after working all day for PF and they wanted to spend time together before he went back to work. As for eating on Thursday night - there are many times if one of us has something to do we have not eaten a "sit down family meal". She could have gone home and had a salad or bowl of cereal. Which we do!

I'm also not saying it could not have happened the way you are suggesting but I feel the need to look elsewhere.

Also if no one thinks CB is realistic then why would the LE look into places from her descrition? I personally believe in them, so I hope they get a good lead but maybe check another woman out. There is one in Monroe County that does it and she has helped police in over 550 cases.

[sherrijean981]

Quote:

"What are the RISKS? SJ, can you give me an answer to that particular question? What conceivable RISK and to whom would
there be in turning the investigation over to an independent
investigatory authority entirely?

So I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just think its not the board posters, but officialdom whom you need to convince.
MOO"

Lustor, Do you think I don't want to try to have it turned over to another agency? I definetly want some other agency to take over.

The risk to whom might be DZ and his way of investigating or should I say not investigating. What are the risk's for him? Losing his job and being made to look like a fool more so than many people already think he is. Why especially he doesn't want to interview the people in the court house, in his office in particular. Maybe the treasurer's office as another. They are the ones to write out the checks for the county and the county commissioners. The risk being theft of funds/embezzlement. Or the commissioners offices. Risk on finding out what happened at the Prison Board meeting and who would benefit by investigation not being turned over. There were questions on that. Risks to drug dealers in the area and someone being found out that hasn't been charged in dealing drugs. Risk to JL's family because someone has already said they weren't involved and new investigators might find a new lead, new path to follow there.

They are only some going through my head. And I am sure PF, TG, LG or any of a half dozen more could have a risk if it was turned over to someone else. IF they were involved. If not involved then none of them.

My question to you is what people are not letting it be turned over and what risk to them and why?
JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by sherrijean981

The woman in the park thought they made a nice couple or however she worded it - I don't want to get in an argument over that either - so they must not have looked like they were fighting or breaking up. PF wasn't crying and he wasn't crying. They looked happy or she would have said they didn't. they just didn't feel they should have to respond to her comment.

Sherri,
I think it's interesting to look at the original wording of Wedler's report in the CDT:
~~
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."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/11638549.htm
~~
To me, it doesn't sound as if Gricar looked "happy." It also doesn't sound as if Wedler decided to make her comment based on what she saw that night in the park but based on something she'd been "thinking for some time."

It's true that PF said the conversation was nothing out of the ordinary, but we have no corroboration for that.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar


Sherri,
I think it's interesting to look at the original wording of Wedler's report in the CDT:
~~
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."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/11638549.htm
~~
To me, it doesn't sound as if Gricar looked "happy." It also doesn't sound as if Wedler decided to make her comment based on what she saw that night in the park but based on something she'd been "thinking for some time."

It's true that PF said the conversation was nothing out of the ordinary, but we have no corroboration for that.


Sorry for my mistake of saying the "happy". But as to VW, what does "Depressed" look like to her? Tired, unhappy, sad, withdrawn, teary eyed, moody, pale, circles under eyes, straight faced, out of it, withdrawn, bubbly to the point of off the wall, overly energetic to the point of "out of themselves" and any more of a dozen or so descriptions that could be "depressed" but could also be what they are. I KNOW depressed and what it is. I also KNOW what people look like when they are so. But I also know even one of the things I have mentioned are just what they are, but not depressed. So "depressed" is her word but what was the symptom that she saw???
JMO

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by lustorumanimae
SJ, I have to agree with UTR and the prior discussion that the inconsistencies in the PF account as to Friday morning are
potentially significant. Its been a while since that discussion, but IIRC the account about the orange juice was that Gricar drank it, not that she took it in only to find him back asleep. So he either turned to PF in bed, mumbled that he wasn't going in to work and went back to sleep, or he drank orange juice and then went back to sleep, or they both got up and did their 'usual routine', which to me suggests at the least coffee, conversation, maybe tooth-brushing, perhaps breakfast or even dressing (in which case what Gricar had on would not be something requiring guesswork). As I recall, there were also varying statements about whether or not there was conversation that morning about the dog's care if Gricar would decide to leave the house, and whether a note was or was not left by PF on that subject - which if the matter had already been discussed in conversation would clearly have made little sense.

These were early accounts, not something asked after the lapse of months. Whether or not it is the ACCURATE conclusion to be drawn, it is nonetheless a plausible consideration that Gricar may not have actually been present at the house on Friday morning, thus the inconsistent versions of what was said and done.

HOWEVER, even if that conclusion were to prove to be accurate, , it may suggest nothing more than reluctance to acknowledge the reality of a split, pure and simple, nothing beyond - embarassment, pride, what have you. It says nothing about involvement or non-involvement in Gricar's disappearance. I'm therefore troubled for the same reasons other posters have expressed that we are constantly hearing, particularly from
points east of here, that we must necessarily conclude either that every word PF has uttered has been 'truthful' or that nothing she has said has been 'truthful'.

People are complex. There are as many motivations as there are individuals and situations they encounter. People do care about appearances. We need look no further than the smiling Reese/Ryan performance at this year's Oscars to understand the perceived need to keep up a good front. To borrow from JJ's
courtroom analogy, in every court case, there are going to be
conflicting accounts. All of them will be made under an oath to
tell the truth. Since there is no agreement on what the facts are, the judge or jury has to determine what they believe happened and whose account to credit when they cannot logically credit both.

Does that mean if they accept Person A's account, they must be deciding that Person B is deliberately lying to them and attempting to mislead them? I don't think so. IMO its more that they consider human nature, their own experiences, experiences of friends and family, and simply decide that they believe one account is more credible than the other based on the whole picture they are presented with. Does that mean that they might actually end up in some cases crediting an objectively untruthful account and discounting an objectively truthful one? I suspect sometimes it does. But they to rely on the resources available to them from their own experiences in assessing other people. IMO, there is no 'evil PF' scenario. There is only that same kind of evluative process going on in the board - not just with respect to PF but to all aspects of the case and statements that have been made.

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.

Finally, I don't think anyone is necessarily discounting the potential for some drug-related connection, as most posters
are reluctant to discount any potential scenario with the
currently-available information. The problem IMO is that
all of the drug 'busts' you refer to were, at least as far as I
am aware, carried out by the AG's Office. Gricar would not have been personally involved in prosecuting any of the arrestees
snagged in the group that included Taji Lee, and including him
in the AG news conference when they were arrested appears
to have been a matter of courtesy, as the events had happened
in his jurisdiction. I think if you check the media in the Lewisburg area, you'll find that their DA was similarly included in the news
conference on the later drug busts that you refer to. That's not
to say that there could not exist some potential that Gricar had
learned of something troubling in one and/or the other situation
that could potentially have taken him to Lewisburg. Just that right now if there is any connection, it is murky and largely
speculative. But I'm sure I speak for many on the board in expressing our sincere appreciation to you for what has clearly
been a lot of personal time you've spent in pursuing this.



Cinderella,
Here is the link I got that says Madeira was off.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
First, I post these two accounts:

"It was a Friday morning. Gricar sat up in bed and Fornicola brought him a glass of orange juice. He said he wasn't going to work that day. Fornicola kissed him and left."


http://www.carlabaron.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239


"VAN SUSTEREN: Were you expecting this call or were you expecting him in the office, anything unusual about it?

FORNICOLA: No. When I left for work that morning he had indicated that he was going to take the day off and he had fallen back to sleep. I left him a note asking that if he decided to go anywhere to let me know, so that I could go home and take care of the dog."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156683,00.html

Note what PF says, RFG was awake and told her that he was going take the day off.

Not what the first article, which wasn't a quote, says. RFG was awake and told PF that he was going to take the day off.

The only difference in the two accounts is, that when was awake, she also brought him orange juice (which could be the "routine" mentioned by some).

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.

Further, the 11:30 call purportedly contained the news that he intended to take the day off, not just the morning. Did he tell her he planned to take the "day" off or the "morning" off when he was in bed?

Hence the discrepancy in the stories.

[UndertheRadar]

Do you have a link that states that PF had a habit of going home for lunch.

Billywahoo, 4/25/06, lunch at home was standard operating procedure.