RG followed?

[thelmadawg]

Admittedly, I'm new to these conversations. But, let's make the assumption (not declaring it to be true) that RG is either the victim of a homicide or a WPP. My gut feeling is that he was NOT suicidal. Everything I've read about his history belies this theory.

So, 1st scenario: He was quite simply followed. A stake-out, if you will, of his home and activities, possibly including a ploy meeting with someone of criminal importance to him. Thus -- no DNA ( or so we've been told) other than his own in the car. He goes on the antiquing trip, is followed, ordered out of his car (from the window side) , abducted, killed, and could be most anywhere. Clean, difficult to trace, logical.

Ploy meeting: basically same scenario as above, except that the ploy was that he was to meet an important witness.

WPP: I still don't entirely disregard this. If FBI got notice of a hit, possibly in connection with the upcoming drug trial, this could be a planned disappearance. Hopefully this is the correct scenario. If so, will he re-appear?

It's disturbing that so much secrecy still surrounds this case. The whereabouts and input from Smith and Madiera (sp?); the phone, email, and cell records for the week of his disappearance, and the current inactivity of the case -- all could be most revealing.

Something seems to be "rotten in Denmark," and full disclosure is probably the only way (if at all) we'll ever get to the root of his disappearance.

I am hopeful. What do you think?

[day2day]

Welcome to the board Thelma! Great first post! And yep ...i agree something is way wrong in Denmark!! :seeya:

[Serendipitous1]

Welcome thelmadawg. Pay no particular attention to the rest of us. The "ruts" run very deep here. We have all pretty much "bottomed out" and could use a new perspective.

I have never thought "witness" protection was viable, simply because all of RG's family and his SO remained accessible. My opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by thelmadawg
Admittedly, I'm new to these conversations. But, let's make the assumption (not declaring it to be true) that RG is either the victim of a homicide or a WPP. My gut feeling is that he was NOT suicidal. Everything I've read about his history belies this theory.

So, 1st scenario: He was quite simply followed. A stake-out, if you will, of his home and activities, possibly including a ploy meeting with someone of criminal importance to him. Thus -- no DNA ( or so we've been told) other than his own in the car. He goes on the antiquing trip, is followed, ordered out of his car (from the window side) , abducted, killed, and could be most anywhere. Clean, difficult to trace, logical.




Welcome, Thelma.

Okay, now I pounce!

:biggrin:

Seriously, check out the tread titled, Murder Scenario.:read:

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by thelmadawg
Admittedly, I'm new to these conversations. But, let's make the assumption (not declaring it to be true) that RG is either the victim of a homicide or a WPP. My gut feeling is that he was NOT suicidal. Everything I've read about his history belies this theory.

So, 1st scenario: He was quite simply followed. A stake-out, if you will, of his home and activities, possibly including a ploy meeting with someone of criminal importance to him. Thus -- no DNA ( or so we've been told) other than his own in the car. He goes on the antiquing trip, is followed, ordered out of his car (from the window side) , abducted, killed, and could be most anywhere. Clean, difficult to trace, logical.

Ploy meeting: basically same scenario as above, except that the ploy was that he was to meet an important witness.

WPP: I still don't entirely disregard this. If FBI got notice of a hit, possibly in connection with the upcoming drug trial, this could be a planned disappearance. Hopefully this is the correct scenario. If so, will he re-appear?

It's disturbing that so much secrecy still surrounds this case. The whereabouts and input from Smith and Madiera (sp?); the phone, email, and cell records for the week of his disappearance, and the current inactivity of the case -- all could be most revealing.

Something seems to be "rotten in Denmark," and full disclosure is probably the only way (if at all) we'll ever get to the root of his disappearance.

I am hopeful. What do you think?

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread last night. Welcome!

Thank God another person is thinking like me. Just remember that all employees of the court house were not working on 4/15/05. RG looks in some photos like he has a major concern and I belive he would only look that way if he found out someone he truly trusted has been up to no good and he is wondering what to do about it. If threatened or his SO/family threatened, what would he have to do to protect them? How far would the person RG found out, go to destroy RG and his family and would they ever be safe? Is he there amoung them now?

[thelmadawg]

Well thanks for the warm welcome, blush. :rolleyes: I'll put on my armour just in case. I guess it comes down to the facts, and we seem to have so few of them. I am assuming that PF (for this purpose is truthful -- lie detector test). Historically he is smart, driven, methodical, scrupulously honest with no history of depression or bi-polar as affected his brother. So, all we really seem to know is:

1. RG WAS bothered about something, at least in the week prior to his disappearance. Some have said depressed, but his behavior could as well mean distracted, concerned, fatigued or a combination thereof. He suddenly disappears. A connection? Methinks. What do we know about the week (facts) before he disappeared? What does LE know that we don't know?

2. He is alive at 11:30 in the morning when he makes the call to PF while driving in the direction of Lewisburg. He is not heard from again.

3. His car is found the next day in pristine condition, neatly parked and locked, cell phone on seat (off), and according to LE only a few prints (5?) of RG's. Curiously a cigarette ash remains by the passenger side door in a non-smoking car. Odd, of course, that no other prints, dna were found, even if friendly. To me this suggests an impossibly clean car (or, alternatively LE incompetence or false information) and at least one other individual in verbal or close contact with RG and his car.

4. Sightings: It doesn't seem that we can take these as facts, since LE has never confirmed? But we hear of a dark haired woman and a construction worker in the vicinity of RG's car. We also hear of a drive to the Raystown/Huntingdon dam. Was any of this ever confirmed?

4. We shortly learn from PF and a search of his home that a laptop is missing, but not the case or accessories. Later they are accidentally found-- the laptop close to the bridge, the hard drive up from the bridge almost as though one person throws the laptop from the driver's side of a car, and another throws the HD from the passenger's side? Alternatively, one throws both items in two directions?

5. Curiously, a legal volume is found on a desk at the office which discusses the replacment of a DA. I find it a little hard to fathom, however, the story that the book, which had no sticky note or marker, magically opens to that particular section. Fact or fiction? Any prints?

6. LE discounts any connection to the recent suicide and the impending drug bust. How and why can they do so? Do we know?

So, what do we really know? Can others add to the FACTS? Has this already been done, and I haven't found it yet in a succint way? Perhaps most importantly why don't we have more factual information about the week or two preceeding his disappearance.

Thanks for bearing with me!

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by thelmadawg


Some have said depressed, but his behavior could as well mean distracted, concerned, fatigued or a combination thereof.


No, JKA wasn't good enough to flesh out how RFG was distraught (though flush it out might be a better description of her prose).

2. He is alive at 11:30 in the morning when he makes the call to PF while driving in the direction of Lewisburg. He is not heard from again.


To me this suggests an impossibly clean car (or, alternatively LE incompetence or false information) and at least one other individual in verbal or close contact with RG and his car.


He did keep it exceptionally clean and he was the principal driver. It is possible that was cleaned at some point after anyone else had used it. PEF had a car that she normally drove.


4. Sightings: It doesn't seem that we can take these as facts, since LE has never confirmed? But we hear of a dark haired woman and a construction worker in the vicinity of RG's car. We also hear of a drive to the Raystown/Huntingdon dam. Was any of this ever confirmed?


Not definitively, but how can you "confirm" what someone else saw, except with physical evidence.


Later they are accidentally found-- the laptop close to the bridge, the hard drive up from the bridge almost as though one person throws the laptop from the driver's side of a car, and another throws the HD from the passenger's side?


Totally incorrect. Both the laptop and drive were found on the north side of the bridge. The drive was found about 100-200 yards upstream from the bridge; the laptop just at the foot of the bridge. The laptop could have been tossed out of the passenger side window while driving across the bridge.

It looks like the drive was tossed from the bank, about 100-200 yards upstream from the bridge.


5. Curiously, a legal volume is found on a desk at the office which discusses the replacment of a DA. I find it a little hard to fathom, however, the story that the book, which had no sticky note or marker, magically opens to that particular section. Fact or fiction? Any prints?


Fact, but not conclusive. Somebody, prior to Smith showing up, could have looked. The book was not fingerprinted.


6. LE discounts any connection to the recent suicide and the impending drug bust. How and why can they do so? Do we know?


LE produced a time line. We don't know what it says.

[thelmadawg]

Sorry to have put out incorrect info: JJ corrects same above. He also makes a good point about witness accounts I mentioned. By confirmed, I really meant more than one witness to the same incident.

The laptop disk location seems to suggest that someone walked up the river bank, or out of the woods to deposit it? Very curious.

[day2day]

Originally posted by thelmadawg
Sorry to have put out incorrect info: JJ corrects same above. He also makes a good point about witness accounts I mentioned. By confirmed, I really meant more than one witness to the same incident.

The laptop disk location seems to suggest that someone walked up the river bank, or out of the woods to deposit it? Very curious.

Just a bit of advice: Your best bet is to "smile and nod"!!:D

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by thelmadawg
Sorry to have put out incorrect info: JJ corrects same above. He also makes a good point about witness accounts I mentioned. By confirmed, I really meant more than one witness to the same incident.

That isn't incorrect, but it is hard to say. Some witnesses saw RFG in the same area on 4/16/05, but they cannot absolutely say that it was RFG.

Two witnesses put him in Wilkes-Barre during the week of 4/18. Are the right? I don't know.

Fenton and Grine both put RFG in the parking lot in a metallic colored car, but Grine thinks it could have been Thursday.

[UndertheRadar]

Originally posted by day2day


Just a bit of advice: Your best bet is to "smile and nod"!!:D

Yep, Thelma, this is the best advice you'll get. Smile and nod. :D

[J. J. in Phila]

Of course, you can lissen to UTR and continue to make mistakes. :rolleyes:

[UndertheRadar]

Just a related note about eyewitness accounts. Of course, anyone is free not to "lissen" [sic] to this:

Re the case of missing 4-year-old Maddie McCann, a woman in Belgium had reported to LE that she was "100% certain" she had seen Maddie in Belgium, drinking through a straw at the time.

Results of a DNA test done on the straw were just reported on GVS. Sadly, they don't match Maddie.

Bennett, I believe, says he is "95% certain" that he saw Gricar waiting in the SOS. Too bad we don't have any DNA from Mr. Bennett's sighting to test.

[J. J. in Phila]

Initially, Bennett was not sure of the day. I think he puts it around noon on Saturday.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by UndertheRadar
Just a related note about eyewitness accounts. Of course, anyone is free not to "lissen" [sic] to this:

Re the case of missing 4-year-old Maddie McCann, a woman in Belgium had reported to LE that she was "100% certain" she had seen Maddie in Belgium, drinking through a straw at the time.

Results of a DNA test done on the straw were just reported on GVS. Sadly, they don't match Maddie.

Bennett, I believe, says he is "95% certain" that he saw Gricar waiting in the SOS. Too bad we don't have any DNA from Mr. Bennett's sighting to test. [/*]

There had been a report of someone looking like RG in a bar in Wilkes-Barre, wearing a suit. I wonder if the proprietor of the bar kept the glass this man drank out of and gave to LE would have proven he was or wasn't RG. It was never mentioned if LE showed up and ask for the item this person was drinking out of.

Also the man that was seen in a NJ casino, that a person thought could have been him. by his conversation, was ever checked out, or his DNA on any item at the time was checked out?

What of the man in TX that the woman sent an email about? If she had reported it to LE immediately they could have gotten his DNA at the time he was eating and known for a fact if it was him or not.

Then the siting further north of a man who looked like RG with an older woman. Again LE not called so a DNA could have been taken.

There were more than just the siting in Lewisburg of someone who looked like RG. Just no one at the time reported it immediately to get a definitive "Yes or No" on the person.

Could RG have gotten out of the country before he was noticed missing? Leaving an airport in PA or NY, NJ before his disappearance was noted? I believe he could have, with the help of a friend, his car, or a loaner car or even a private plane and picked up at a small airport then taken to a larger one or even out of the states.

JMO, but I feel RG is still out there somewhere. I could be wrong but I could be right too. Only RG knows or the person who helped him leave. :shrug:

[J. J. in Phila]

SJ, here is the URL to the post Gazette article:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950.stm

A few points.

1. The sighting was in the evening of 4/18.

2. The first witness met a man who the witness identified as RFG, and did so after looking photos and video. He said that the man claimed to have grown up in Cleveland.

3. The police went to the business and found a second witness. The witnesses seem to be independent of each other.

4. Highland Park Boulevard, which is relatively short, is the only cross street at the exit of I-81, relatively close to the NE Extension of the Turnpike (about 8 miles) and within 11 miles of Wilkes-Barre International Airport.

All those things are interesting, but they don't give definitive evidence of RFG being there.

[sherrijean981]

Originally posted by J. J. in Phila
SJ, here is the URL to the post Gazette article:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05120/496950.stm

A few points.

1. The sighting was in the evening of 4/18.

2. The first witness met a man who the witness identified as RFG, and did so after looking photos and video. He said that the man claimed to have grown up in Cleveland.

3. The police went to the business and found a second witness. The witnesses seem to be independent of each other.

4. Highland Park Boulevard, which is relatively short, is the only cross street at the exit of I-81, relatively close to the NE Extension of the Turnpike (about 8 miles) and within 11 miles of Wilkes-Barre International Airport.

All those things are interesting, but they don't give definitive evidence of RFG being there. [/*]

If you go to this story you will see Chief Dixon's take on the siting in Wilkes-Barre:
http://yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_2.htm

I enjoy reading this man's take on all of it. What he thinks about the drug deals that had gone on and the drug bust, with RG's photo all over the news and the fact that millions of dollars of drugs are coming from NY and abroad and into Centre County. He also says that RG missed a "drug" hearing on Monday following his disappearance.

[sherrijean981]

If you go to this site you will see RG's take on the drugs in Centre County:

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2002/03/03-15-02tdc/03-15-02dnews-08.asp

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by sherrijean981


If you go to this story you will see Chief Dixon's take on the siting in Wilkes-Barre:
http://yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_2.htm

I enjoy reading this man's take on all of it. What he thinks about the drug deals that had gone on and the drug bust, with RG's photo all over the news and the fact that millions of dollars of drugs are coming from NY and abroad and into Centre County. He also says that RG missed a "drug" hearing on Monday following his disappearance. [/*]

He says what the witnesses say; the witnesses were "sure," note the quotes, that it was RFG.

Could they have seen someone else that resembled RFG and just happened to be from Cleveland. My answer is yes, it's possible. I can't rule out or rule in this account.

It is interesting, but hardly definitive.

[sherrijean981]

I've wondered if LE have checked his bank records or credit card accounts to see if there had been purchases for clothing, suitcase, new phone, car payments, bus tickets, train tickets, airline tickets, in the last few weeks BEFORE he disappeared?

Someone still has the wallet and his keys (or they are in the river also). I hope PF had all the house locks changed afterwards, in case someone other than RG has the keys and did do something to him. But if RG still has the wallet, how much money did he have in it? Had he been keeping lump sums, or leftovers from previous pays, on his person, or hidden somewhere?

Just some random thoughts and JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

Originally posted by logicworks


I recall reading early on in the case that there were hundreds of tips that came in from all over the country. I would like to know most of all WHO and then WHY this particular sighting was chosen out of the hundreds of tips and called it 'newsworthy' considering at the time there certainly would have been many more tips coming in.


"Tips" are different than witness reports.

As far as I know, this was the sole case where two people claimed to see RFG at the same place at the same time after 4/16. This is also the sole case where one of the witnesses (possibly both) had more than a "visual" on RFG. The first witness was engaged in conversation with him for about 5 minutes.

The second thing is the time frame. It's possible that RFG could have acquired a suit and gotten to the location by the evening of 4/18/05.

Third is the location. It's not some out of the way place. It is literally within two miles of an interstate exit, near connections with other transportation hubs.


One would think most people calling in tips, of course, believed they may have seen RG. What made the WB tip 'stand out' and in whose eyes?
LE, thinking he ran away and was hiding out in a bar?
The family, who thought he might be 'confused' thus possibly close by somewhere he could have arrived at even if wandering and 'confused'?
Judging from the early pleas, it sounded to me like they were either begging a 'confused' or an angry man to please return.


"Angry" was never raised though BG raised the possibility of RFG having a "mini stroke" and being confused.



Because the man, middle aged guy in the business suit, drinking a beer RG didn't drink, smoking a cigarette, mentioned the Cleveland Indians, that made him a likely candidate for a man who disappeared with no car, no clothes other than the blue fleece and jeans, no money, no credit card usage?


What you have is two witness, one who had a conversation, that are "sure" that was RFG. You also have at least one witness that had prolonged contact, and reported Cleveland.

That doesn't mean it was RFG, and even two witnesses can make a mistake, but it fairly strong for a witness report. It's stronger than Michigan, stronger that the main who saw RFG at a bank, possibly stronger that Fenton/Grine.


IMO, just another example of 'misdirection', pointing outside of the area that should have been thoroughly investigated and wasn't but what I would like to know is who thought it made a good 'spin' out, pointing away from Centre County.
JMO [/*]

Now, to have "misdirection," we have to have these two witnesses involved or possibly LE in Wilkes-Barre. This rapidly becomes a conspiracy involving now three or four different police departments, and dozens of witnesses spead across Central Pennsylvania.

I think the witnesses saw someone, but the jury is out on if that was RFG.

[Cinderella]

I am still wondering if anyone in the Drug Task Force was involved in Ray's disappearance.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-06122007-1361933.html

It would seem to me that they would want to destroy most of the records. They may have possibly wanted Ray to bring his laptop in case he had any records on it.

Ray wasn't stupid, I wonder if he knew what was going on. He might possibly been about to tell someone. :read:

Did they call him out to a secret meeting? I wonder if they grilled the task force about Ray? I am wondering where their meetings took place. If going to a secret meeting, you would want to wear casual clothes so that no one would notice. Trying to come up with anything.

[tonyGricar]

I'll skip straight to a reply and not read everything after a few posts. My bad...

Thelma, even though I'm tied into this, I will say 100% (which I don't typically do) that WPP is not even close to a possibility. It's an easy way out, but in no way likely for a prosecutor. It's been regurgitated many times why it's not possible, let alone likely. Search "Gricar" AND "WPP" (or Witness Protection, or whatever...), and you'll see why. I've gone into this on my own to a very deep extent, and while I'll keep the 3 main scenarios open, the WPP is one I threw out rather quickly. It's just not put in place for anything similar. And nothing has surfaced that would point to such a scenario.

Regards,
Tony

[Politigal]

Could they have seen someone else that resembled RFG and just happened to be from Cleveland. My answer is yes, it's possible.

snipped to prove a point


:thumbup:

And the same applies to Lewisburg.

[J. J. in Phila]

:thumbup:

And the same applies to Lewisburg.

And driving a red Mini? And leaving RFG's scent?

[2-B]

And driving a red Mini?

I've asked this before:

What evidence can you provide that any witnesses in Lewisburg saw THE Mini Cooper belonging to PF/RG in combination with the person they believed to be RG?

You've never provided an answer. Can you?

Without objective, corroborating evidence that these witnesses saw the actual Mini Cooper belonging to PF/RG, we don't know whether


they saw one of the other red Mini Coopers
they saw another small red car
they saw another small car of a different color
they saw a car at all


(See Elizabeth Loftus' 200+ studies on 20,000+ individuals for reference.)

And leaving RFG's scent?

And this point has been explained to you in great detail many times. Gricar's scent was found in one place and one place only--in the immediate vicinity of where the Mini Cooper was found and where its doors had been opened by LE.

You want the scent evidence and the Bloodhound to support your ideas when they're in your favor.

Then you want to turn around and argue all manner of convoluted reasons the PSP brought the most miserable failure of a Bloodhound to ever walk the face of the earth when the scent evidence fails to support your ideas.

You're so quick to accuse others of trying to "explain away" the evidence when they're merely trying to analyze it--but you don't see when you are truly trying to explain away evidence.

The scent evidence--at least the publicly known scent evidence--is what it is. RG's scent only associated with the area immediate to the Mini Cooper--nowhere associated with all the alleged witness sightings.

Empirically validated Bloodhound accuracy: 96%.
Empirically validated criminal witness accuracy: No higher than 44%.
Estimated accuracy of MP witness accuracy: Rare.

Experienced Bloodhound handlers know that Bloodhounds are a useful investigatory tool in determining whether a sighting was real or not.

I'll put my money on understanding the scent evidence rather than on trying to explain it away.

[2-B]

Then you want to turn around and argue all manner of convoluted reasons the PSP brought the most miserable failure of a Bloodhound to ever walk the face of the earth when the scent evidence fails to support your ideas.


One of your erroneous complaints, for instance, is that the scent would "expire" at the 48 hour mark, something you've erroneously picked up partly by relying on anecdotal rather than empirical evidence and partly by not understanding the difference between trailers and trackers.

If you go to this link

http://bloodhoundscents.blogspot.com/

and scroll down, you'll see a GPS accuracy training map for a Bloodhound. The trail was a 51-hour old training trail, run in 40 mile-an-hour winds and heavy rains (much more difficult environmental conditions than existed at the SOS site).

The blue line indicates the trail laid by the "suspect." The red line indicates the path taken by the dog 51 hours after the trail was laid.

Only on the far upper right corner of the map does the dog, Kali, temporarily veer off course--in 40 mph winds and heavy rain after 51 hours.

[2-B]

If you go to this story you will see Chief Dixon's take on the siting in Wilkes-Barre:
http://yardbird.com/midnight_ride_another_missing_PA_prosecutor_2.htm


Whatever else anyone wants to say about Keisling, this is a truly great passage:

And so it is with the CDT's incessant rattling about sightings of Gricar a day after he vanished. They're reality assassins, reporting unlikely sightings as if set in stone. In the Gricar case, the CDT's role in this is all the more amazing, when viewed in context of Jonathan Luna's ride into oblivion. The CDT is owned by Knight-Ridder, which also bankrolls the state's flagship corporate rag, the long-since emasculated Philadelphia Inquirer. In Luna's case, it was the Inquirer which dredged up a surely spurious account of Luna buying a soda at a turnpike rest stop at a time when Luna, almost certainly, was bleeding to death, under knife point. The Inky's account achieved what its baby sibling paper's account does in the Gricar story -- its wastes valuable time, at a time when the first few hours of a vanishing or murder are incalculably valuable. It's also worthwhile to remember that these newspaper pack rats will muck up a story to sell a few editions, destroy reputations and lives, and then they'll be nowhere around to put things right when the facts come in, as they've already moved on to the next story they're mucking up and getting wrong. Luna was falsely and unfairly accused of everything in the press from theft to prostitution. These guys love to blame the victim.

While waiting for the press conference to begin, I discerned that, like me, not many of the reporters in the room took much stock in the sightings of Gricar the day after his disappearance. "People mean well and want to help," I told the radio guy next to me, "but there's an awful lot of middle-age white guys with receding hairlines in Lewisburg. There's three of us sitting in this row here."

"And an awful lot of blue fleece jackets," in this, the home of Blue and White, my conversant agreed with a smile, pulling at the nap of his own blue jacket.

[bolding mine]

Shades of Mark Fuhrman's new book, for certain.

And shades of blue fleece on middle-aged men.

[2-B]

That doesn't mean it was RFG, and even two witnesses can make a mistake, but it fairly strong for a witness report. It's stronger than Michigan, stronger that the main who saw RFG at a bank, possibly stronger that Fenton/Grine.


And yet by all reports, LE seemed to feel the Michigan sighting was a stronger case than the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

In addition to the retired Detroit police sketch artist and his daughter, employees at the restaurant apparently said they thought they recognized RG's photos as well but could not be certain.

RG's family had a number of reasons to question the Wilkes-Barre sighting (the type of beer, the smoking), whereas the presence of an older woman was the only questionable issue in the Michigan sighting that I can recall.

More important, perhaps, LE knew their protocols had been stronger in handling the Michigan witnesses.

This is not to say I personally believe either sighting necessarily to have been RG. Simply pointing out that media reports say LE felt the Michigan sighting was a somewhat stronger case than the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

[2-B]

Not definitively, but how can you "confirm" what someone else saw, except with physical evidence.


But that's just it, JJ. Confirmation requires confirmatory evidence. Sightings are confirmed with videotape, still photos from CCTV, fingerprints, DNA, signatures on receipts, timestamped items, etc. Scent can potentially be confirmatory, but not when there's a questionable issue of transfer from a giant scent pad sitting in a parking lot as an alternative explanation. Hair and fiber would have the same potential transfer issues to consider as scent.

Sometimes sightings can be put into the questionable category, such as in the present case of Morgan Harrington, who disappeared recently from a Metallica concert. Police are reporting a significant number of "Morgan" sightings from all over the place already, but say some of those sightings conflict time-wise with each other, meaning they are mutually exclusive. In Morgan's case, LE is merely saying they need to prioritize those mutually exclusive sightings. In the RG case, the prioritizing led to an immediate dismissal of the Fenton/Grine sightings based on the assumption that RG was in Lewisburg. (Yet the Bloodhound findings should have put the Lewisburg witness sightings in the questionable category IMO, meaning the Fenton/Grine sightings shouldn't have been immediately dismissed for reasons of mutual exclusivity.)

Bottom line: there's no sighting anywhere in the RG case with confirmatory evidence, at least not any in the public domain, and RG's MP flyer continues to state that the sightings are unconfirmed.

[J. J. in Phila]

We don't have any "mutually exclusive sightings," however. The time line fits, which surprised me.

[Politigal]

We don't have any "mutually exclusive sightings," however. The time line fits, which surprised me.

The time line fits ??

Whose version of events?

[2-B]

We don't have any "mutually exclusive sightings," however. The time line fits, which surprised me.

Not according to the BPD. Perhaps they are using times for the Lewisburg witness sightings from their internal PD information while you are using times for the Lewisburg witness sightings gleaned from publicly available information--and perhaps those two sets of times do not jibe.

The bottom line is still no confirmed sightings.

Interestingly, I ran across this from the original Gricar Q&A earlier today while looking for something else:

Q: Officer Zaccagni was quoted as saying "With hunting season coming up, we're hoping someone stumbles on something" in an article on October 29th. By giving this type of statement, does it mean that the police force is under the assumption that Ray has passed on? I must say that this statement is disheartening.
liz 11/08/05

A: Bellefonte police Officer Darrel Zaccagni's opinion that Ray Gricar is no longer alive is nothing new. He has often been quoted in the CDT as saying he believes Ray Gricar may have been the victim of homicide, in part because of the lack of activity at his bank accounts and the few reliable sightings. Gricar family spokesman Tony Gricar, Ray's nephew, has also been quoted in CDT news accounts that the family fears Ray Gricar is dead. But both Zaccagni and Tony Gricar say that anything is possible, and that Ray Gricar could still be alive somewhere.

Erin Nissley 11/08/05

[bolding mine]

I find the date of this rather fascinating. It's almost coincidental with the publication of Renner's piece in which DZ almost breathless with his recounting of the many magically morphing witnesses.

[SaraSidle]

And yet by all reports, LE seemed to feel the Michigan sighting was a stronger case than the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

In addition to the retired Detroit police sketch artist and his daughter, employees at the restaurant apparently said they thought they recognized RG's photos as well but could not be certain.

RG's family had a number of reasons to question the Wilkes-Barre sighting (the type of beer, the smoking), whereas the presence of an older woman was the only questionable issue in the Michigan sighting that I can recall.

More important, perhaps, LE knew their protocols had been stronger in handling the Michigan witnesses.

This is not to say I personally believe either sighting necessarily to have been RG. Simply pointing out that media reports say LE felt the Michigan sighting was a somewhat stronger case than the Wilkes-Barre sighting.

just curious. Do you know where in Michigan?

[gstickley]

just curious. Do you know where in Michigan?

Hi, Sara:

Missing prosecutor now in Michigan?
By: Associated Press Writer
06/11/2005

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) - Police searching for a missing district attorney said Wednesday that they have received their best lead in nearly two months after he was reportedly sighted in Michigan.

A man and his daughter reported seeing Centre County prosecutor Ray F. Gricar with an older woman at a restaurant on May 27 in Southfield, Mich., a Detroit suburb, Bellefonte Police Officer Darrel Zaccagni said Wednesday.

(snip)

[J. J. in Phila]

just curious. Do you know where in Michigan?


The blog mentioning it is here, and there are several links to stories about it: http://tiny.cc/MIwitness

The witness was a retired police officer.

[sherrijean981]

Hi, Sara:

Missing prosecutor now in Michigan?
By: Associated Press Writer
06/11/2005

BELLEFONTE, Pa. (AP) - Police searching for a missing district attorney said Wednesday that they have received their best lead in nearly two months after he was reportedly sighted in Michigan.

A man and his daughter reported seeing Centre County prosecutor Ray F. Gricar with an older woman at a restaurant on May 27 in Southfield, Mich., a Detroit suburb, Bellefonte Police Officer Darrel Zaccagni said Wednesday.

(snip)


Hello Sara. I hope your interest is because you are from that area and just "might" have seen him also?

[sherrijean981]

I was reading a lot of post that I just skimmed over and had seen the one concerning cars parked in PF's driveway. No matter how many times I went back to the home on Bing map did I ever see a car. Then I realised I could look at the home from all sides, and only then did I see the cars. How does that happen?

I was looking at the cars and noticed one is a larger model, not the size of what I thought her car was. I then went to the Court House parking lot and noticed in the back lot there is a larger car like the one in the photo. So is it also her's or just another employee of the court house?

What I finally noticed as I was looking at the court house with the Bing map, and the fun of looking at it from all angles, I noticed there are now 2 area's for parking across Hill St from the exit/entrance to the employee parking lot. When I lived in Bellefonte there were homes on each corner, no parking. There would be a perfect spot for someone to watch the comings and goings of the DA and not be noticed. And if RG's car was parked in the area closest to the exit, a perfect view of him.

Now I wonder if there is any way to get a video of the parking lot on April 15, 2005 to see what car and who CF saw coming out of the parking lot when she was leaving. Also who might have been in the parking lot after hours and before it got dark?

And is the car parked at PF's the same car CF might have seen leaving the parking lot?

[J. J. in Phila]

I think that is an interesting point, SJ. I'm also wondering who else was on the video around the time of the CF sighting.

[sherrijean981]

I think that is an interesting point, SJ. I'm also wondering who else was on the video around the time of the CF sighting.

Exactly. Also the after hours video would be for the 14th, Thursday night. I don't know what time it gets dark in April but there still could have been a meeting of some kind at the office or parking lot.

[2-B]

The witness was a retired police officer.

He was actually a lot more than a retired police officer. He was a retired police sketch artist (a fact which was released at the time of the sighting and not withheld from the public for any Super Secret Squirrel reasons).

[2-B]

I've asked this before:

What evidence can you provide that any witnesses in Lewisburg saw THE Mini Cooper belonging to PF/RG in combination with the person they believed to be RG?

You've never provided an answer. Can you?



Asking JJ for the nine trillionth time to answer this question since he has asserted nine trillion times on the board that witnesses seeing RG with THE Mini Cooper is key to validating the sightings.

[J. J. in Phila]

Asking JJ for the nine trillionth time to answer this question since he has asserted nine trillion times on the board that witnesses seeing RG with THE Mini Cooper is key to validating the sightings.


Because, 2-B, I, like most folks, believe that if a number of people saw RFG in the same place at the same time, don't contradict each other, spot him in the same car that he was driving, and there is physical evidence he was there, he was there. Like I said, if you had to convict RFG of being in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 in a court of law, he'd be found guilty.

Now, produce actual evidence that refutes that. A witness putting him someplace else. Physical evidence. Something other than opinion.

[J. J. in Phila]

Exactly. Also the after hours video would be for the 14th, Thursday night. I don't know what time it gets dark in April but there still could have been a meeting of some kind at the office or parking lot.

Twilight would end between 8:00 PM and 8:20 PM. Office was also possible.

Believe me, I'd like to know the comings and goings of the staff on 4/14-4/15/05.

[2-B]

Because, 2-B, I, like most folks, believe that if a number of people saw RFG in the same place at the same time, don't contradict each other, spot him in the same car that he was driving, and there is physical evidence he was there, he was there. Like I said, if you had to convict RFG of being in Lewisburg on 4/15/05 in a court of law, he'd be found guilty.


This is thoroughly unresponsive to my request that you back up an assertion YOU have made, JJ.

Again and again and again, you have asserted a variation of this claim:

There are a minimum of six witnesses that saw him in his car and two more that saw him in the Street of Shops. Seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher.



http://www.centredaily.com/personas/?insiteUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPostId=Blog%3a42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058Post%3a5890482f-f59d-4f42-a892-1037b11463b8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest#ixzz0NqPWDgPr

What I have asked you to do is provide support for YOUR OWN assertion, to provide evidence that the car in question was actually THE Mini Cooper owned by PF/RG, and not some other red and white Mini Cooper, some other small red car, etc.

You have avoided the question entirely until now, when you dance around the question without supporting the assertion you made.

It's fair to ask a poster to provide support for a claim he or she makes, especially when the poster makes the claim as if it is fact.

The answer you've provided not only is non-responsive; it's long since been shown to be poppycock.

It relies on the same ol', same ol' erroneous premise you've used again and again in your thinking:

JJ: A Witness can make a mistake, but how many are made by multiple witnesses, that all make the same mistake.

I seriously doubt that all are completely wrong.

JJ: If more than one person sees the same thing increase the chances on it being accurate.

JJ: I don't give a lot of credibility to any one of the Lewisburg witnesses, but do give it to the Lewisburg witnesses, collectively.

JJ: The more people seeing the same thing, increases the likelihood that that thing took place.

Trouble is, Gary Wells, et al and Elizabeth Loftus, et al have long since proven the flawed premises you're relying on--proven with hard, empirical data gleaned from studies based on peer reviewed science, not JJ guesses.

You can't understand the joint value of multiple pieces of evidence without knowing their individual worth, JJ. In the case of the Lewisburg witnesses, not a single identification is confirmed. Thus, the value of each identification is ultimately "zero." This has been pointed out to you many times before: a response that has no diagnostic value by itself cannot gain diagnostic value by having more of them.

Now, back to the car. You claim that "seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher."

[B]What evidence do you have that any witness saw RG with the actual car owned by RG/PF?

The answer is either

A. "I can't provide any evidence witnesses saw RG with the actual car owned by RG/PF"

or

B. "I have evidence the car was the one owned by RG/PF and here it is . . . "

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, I have been completely responsive, totally. You just have never liked the answer. More tunnel-vision.

[Politigal]

This is thoroughly unresponsive to my request that you back up an assertion YOU have made, JJ.

Again and again and again, you have asserted a variation of this claim:

There are a minimum of six witnesses that saw him in his car and two more that saw him in the Street of Shops. Seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher.



http://www.centredaily.com/personas/?insiteUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058&plckPostId=Blog%3a42b7493266ca459ce19862373a353ed1-2058Post%3a5890482f-f59d-4f42-a892-1037b11463b8&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest#ixzz0NqPWDgPr

What I have asked you to do is provide support for YOUR OWN assertion, to provide evidence that the car in question was actually THE Mini Cooper owned by PF/RG, and not some other red and white Mini Cooper, some other small red car, etc.

You have avoided the question entirely until now, when you dance around the question without supporting the assertion you made.

It's fair to ask a poster to provide support for a claim he or she makes, especially when the poster makes the claim as if it is fact.

The answer you've provided not only is non-responsive; it's long since been shown to be poppycock.

It relies on the same ol', same ol' erroneous premise you've used again and again in your thinking:

JJ: A Witness can make a mistake, but how many are made by multiple witnesses, that all make the same mistake.

I seriously doubt that all are completely wrong.

JJ: If more than one person sees the same thing increase the chances on it being accurate.

JJ: I don't give a lot of credibility to any one of the Lewisburg witnesses, but do give it to the Lewisburg witnesses, collectively.

JJ: The more people seeing the same thing, increases the likelihood that that thing took place.

Trouble is, Gary Wells, et al and Elizabeth Loftus, et al have long since proven the flawed premises you're relying on--proven with hard, empirical data gleaned from studies based on peer reviewed science, not JJ guesses.

You can't understand the joint value of multiple pieces of evidence without knowing their individual worth, JJ. In the case of the Lewisburg witnesses, not a single identification is confirmed. Thus, the value of each identification is ultimately "zero." This has been pointed out to you many times before: a response that has no diagnostic value by itself cannot gain diagnostic value by having more of them.

Now, back to the car. You claim that "seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher."

[B]What evidence do you have that any witness saw RG with the actual car owned by RG/PF?

The answer is either

A. "I can't provide any evidence witnesses saw RG with the actual car owned by RG/PF"

or

B. "I have evidence the car was the one owned by RG/PF and here it is . . . "

Obviously - JJ's response is A but it goes against his grain to answer simple questions with simple answers.

[2-B]

Obviously - JJ's response is A but it goes against his grain to answer simple questions with simple answers.

Seriously, Pgal.

JJ has never provided a shred of evidence to demonstrate that any of the witnesses saw the actual Mini owned by PF/RG.

Have we ever seen

Witness #2 reported seeing the vanity plate reading "PFO" on the car

or

Witness #7 reported seeing a broken left headlight on the car consistent with the one LE knew to be broken on RG's Mini Cooper on 4/15

or

Witness #3 reported seeing a scratch on the passenger side door of the car consistent with a scratch LE knew to exist on the passenger side door of RG's Mini Cooper?

or whatever?

Obviously, I made up the broken headlight and scratch for demonstration purposes only.

But clearly you're correct, Pgal. JJ's answer is A. He simply can't bring himself to say it.

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini.

I follow the evidence,. You comment is a perfect example of trying to explain away the evidence.

[Politigal]

2-B what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini.

I follow the evidence,. You comment is a perfect example of trying to explain away the evidence.

lol.....jephus....

here's your Evidence

http://bellefonte.net/departments/police/criminal-investigations/current-investigations/

[J. J. in Phila]

lol.....jephus....

here's your Evidence

http://bellefonte.net/departments/police/criminal-investigations/current-investigations/

No, that is a press release. Don't confuse the two.

[2-B]

2-B what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini.

I follow the evidence,. You comment is a perfect example of trying to explain away the evidence.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike was walking around Lewisburg.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike was dressed like Gricar.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike left Gricar's scent.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike drove a red Mini.

Absolutely none of those things is necessary for the witnesses to have been mistaken, something you'd know if you bothered to abandon your "JJ guesses" and accept empirical data and real science.


See, JJ, that's the difference. You have claimed that the witnesses "seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher."
That's an actual claim you made, in your words.

I'm not asking you to back up something I twisted and convoluted and made up about your position.

I'm asking you to back up something you actually said.

[J. J. in Phila]

lol.....jephus....

here's your Evidence

http://bellefonte.net/departments/police/criminal-investigations/current-investigations/

BTW, sijnce I asked 2-B, I'll ask you.

P'gal, what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini.

[Politigal]

BTW, sijnce I asked 2-B, I'll ask you.

P'gal, what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini.

look in the little box in your post that says "quote"

[J. J. in Phila]

look in the little box in your post that says "quote"


Not even close; the guy is wearing a yellow coat.

I'll ask again:

P'gal, what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini?

[Politigal]

Not even close; the guy is wearing a yellow coat.

I'll ask again:

P'gal, what evidence do you have that the was an RFG lookalike walking around Lewisburg, dressed like RFG, leaving RFG's scent, and also driving a red Mini?

so you really can't see or read the official flyer...

You'll just have to take my word for it. It's there about the witness sightings:

UNCONFIRMED

[2-B]

Guy in a yellow coat?

Proof that JJ doesn't read or absorb what others post.

Obviously, you were sending him to the Gricar flyer, Pgal.

And the "guy" is a woman, and the written description is a white coat, and the bank crime obviously has nothing to do with RAY GRICAR!

No wonder he isn't grasping all the stuff I've posted from Gary Wells and Elizabeth Loftus and applying it to the witnesses in Lewisburg. The synapses just aren't connecting.

[Politigal]

Guy in a yellow coat?

Proof that JJ doesn't read or absorb what others post.

Obviously, you were sending him to the Gricar flyer, Pgal.

And the "guy" is a woman, and the written description is a white coat, and the bank crime obviously has nothing to do with RAY GRICAR!

No wonder he isn't grasping all the stuff I've posted from Gary Wells and Elizabeth Loftus and applying it to the witnesses in Lewisburg. The synapses just aren't connecting.

maybe he's using a Commodore 64 ....lol

[J. J. in Phila]

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike was walking around Lewisburg.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike was dressed like Gricar.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike left Gricar's scent.

I never claimed a Gricar look-alike drove a red Mini.

Absolutely none of those things is necessary for the witnesses to have been mistaken, something you'd know if you bothered to abandon your "JJ guesses" and accept empirical data and real science.


See, JJ, that's the difference. You have claimed that the witnesses "seeing Mr. Gricar with his very distinctive car is the real clincher."
That's an actual claim you made, in your words.

I'm not asking you to back up something I twisted and convoluted and made up about your position.

I'm asking you to back up something you actually said.

Okay then, you explain it.

We have witnesses that saw someone who looked liked RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person dressed like RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person driving a red Mini.

We have the red Mini being found in proximity to the sighting.

We have RFG's sent being found in proximity.

Explanation #1: It was RFG.

I don't have another one, but I will listen to you explanation.

[SaraSidle]

Hello Sara. I hope your interest is because you are from that area and just "might" have seen him also?


I am sorry. I tried to soften it with just curious. I have followed this case for a while now which is my interest. I also spent many years in the southfield area. Grew up less than a mile away. Interesting choice. sara

[2-B]

I don't have another one, but I will listen to you explanation.

BUT YOU DON'T LISTEN, JJ.

These threads have been literally filled with tons of material from the leading scholars on witness memory and witness identification science, people with decades of peer reviewed science on these issues. These threads have been filled with material from the DOJ on police protocols for handling witnesses. These threads have been filled with tons of material on scent theory from leading Bloodhound handlers, the FBI Scent Unit, and CIA scent studies. These threads have been filled with analysis of the all this theory in relation to the specifics we know publicly with regard to the Gricar case.

All of this material has ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU everything you need to know. And yet you continue to rely on JJ guesses instead of factual reality.

[J. J. in Phila]

BUT YOU DON'T LISTEN, JJ.

These threads have been literally filled with tons of material from the leading scholars on witness memory and witness identification science, people with decades of peer reviewed science on these issues. These threads have been filled with material from the DOJ on police protocols for handling witnesses. These threads have been filled with tons of material on scent theory from leading Bloodhound handlers, the FBI Scent Unit, and CIA scent studies. These threads have been filled with analysis of the all this theory in relation to the specifics we know publicly with regard to the Gricar case.

All of this material has ALREADY EXPLAINED TO YOU everything you need to know. And yet you continue to rely on JJ guesses instead of factual reality.

That isn't a theory, 2-B. State what you think explains these points:

We have witnesses that saw someone who looked liked RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person dressed like RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person driving a red Mini.

We have the red Mini being found in proximity to the sighting.

We have RFG's sent being found in proximity.

You can say, "All the witnesses are wrong, the dogs are wrong, the Mini was planted," if you wish.

[2-B]

That isn't a theory, 2-B. State what you think explains these points:

We have witnesses that saw someone who looked liked RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person dressed like RFG.

We have witnesses that saw the same person driving a red Mini.

We have the red Mini being found in proximity to the sighting.

We have RFG's sent being found in proximity.

You can say, "All the witnesses are wrong, the dogs are wrong, the Mini was planted," if you wish.

Let's look first at where your assumptions are wrong, JJ.

1. We've already examined your "I don't give a lot of credibility to any one of the Lewisburg witnesses, but do give it to the Lewisburg witnesses, collectively" sentiment, but the flaws in your premise clearly haven't sunk in.

Not one of these witnesses has been confirmed as a valid identification of Ray Gricar. All of the peer-reviewed science on multiple witnesses disagrees with your assumption that multiple witnesses in such a situation lends credence to the witnesses. In fact, the science concludes just the opposite, demonstrating that we gain no truth by having multiple witnesses in a situation where none can be validated.

2. We have tried to examine your repeated claim that whoever the witnesses saw was either driving "a" red Mini Cooper or, variously, was "with [RG's] very distinctive car."

You've been unable to provide any evidence that witnesses identified to actual Mini Cooper belonging to PF/RG. Minus that specific identifying evidence, we need only look to the research done by Loftus on witness memory to understand the conditions which make witnesses susceptible to memory modification. We need look no further than the Sund/Pelosso case for a perfect example of multiple witnesses "remembering" not only a specific make/model/color of car they likely never saw but also specific details about a group of women they likely never experienced.

3. We've looked at your assumption that someone had to be a Gricar look-alike, dressed like Gricar to be mistaken for Gricar. You have made that claim in general many times, and specifically, here:

10-16-2008, 12:27 AM
For the witnesses, in general, there would have to be someone who resembled RFG. It isn't PEF or her brother (who had a very thick mustache on 4/18/05). Sloan, not even close. JKA, same problem as PEF. Any of the Gricars? No, from the pictures on-line they couldn't pass for RFG.

Then multiple witnesses put him in the Mini, at least 3. The likelihood that someone who resemble RFG, be dressed as RFG, and be driving a Red Mini is exceptionally low.

Again, the peer-reviewed science by the leading scholars in witness memory and witness identification demonstrates that your premises are faulty.

All of this has been discussed in great detail in the past, but despite the scientific evidence showing the flaws in your thinking, you cling to the belief that these conditions would be necessary for the witnesses to be mistaken.

Now, despite the fact that I've outlined my own position many times on this board, and despite the fact that you've continued to twist and misrepresent that position, at some point later I will AGAIN outline exactly where I stand on the witnesses and the scent evidence (no time now).

I tend to see it as a futile exercise, however, since I have done this many times in the past, correcting you when you've twisted and misrepresented my views, and making my views very clear. So I'm not anticipating that this time you'll "get" my views any more accurately than you've done in the past. Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

[sherrijean981]

I am sorry. I tried to soften it with just curious. I have followed this case for a while now which is my interest. I also spent many years in the southfield area. Grew up less than a mile away. Interesting choice. sara

Welcome anyways. We are all curious about this strange disappearance and ANY input is greatly appreciated. Maybe you are seeing things with the fresh eyes the rest of us don't have right now.

[J. J. in Phila]

Let's look first at where your assumptions are wrong, JJ.

1. We've already examined your "I don't give a lot of credibility to any one of the Lewisburg witnesses, but do give it to the Lewisburg witnesses, collectively" sentiment, but the flaws in your premise clearly haven't sunk in.

Not one of these witnesses has been confirmed as a valid identification of Ray Gricar. All of the peer-reviewed science on multiple witnesses disagrees with your assumption that multiple witnesses in such a situation lends credence to the witnesses. In fact, the science concludes just the opposite, demonstrating that we gain no truth by having multiple witnesses in a situation where none can be validated.

2. We have tried to examine your repeated claim that whoever the witnesses saw was either driving "a" red Mini Cooper or, variously, was "with [RG's] very distinctive car."

You've been unable to provide any evidence that witnesses identified to actual Mini Cooper belonging to PF/RG. Minus that specific identifying evidence, we need only look to the research done by Loftus on witness memory to understand the conditions which make witnesses susceptible to memory modification. We need look no further than the Sund/Pelosso case for a perfect example of multiple witnesses "remembering" not only a specific make/model/color of car they likely never saw but also specific details about a group of women they likely never experienced.

3. We've looked at your assumption that someone had to be a Gricar look-alike, dressed like Gricar to be mistaken for Gricar. You have made that claim in general many times, and specifically, here:

10-16-2008, 12:27 AM
For the witnesses, in general, there would have to be someone who resembled RFG. It isn't PEF or her brother (who had a very thick mustache on 4/18/05). Sloan, not even close. JKA, same problem as PEF. Any of the Gricars? No, from the pictures on-line they couldn't pass for RFG.

Then multiple witnesses put him in the Mini, at least 3. The likelihood that someone who resemble RFG, be dressed as RFG, and be driving a Red Mini is exceptionally low.

Again, the peer-reviewed science by the leading scholars in witness memory and witness identification demonstrates that your premises are faulty.

All of this has been discussed in great detail in the past, but despite the scientific evidence showing the flaws in your thinking, you cling to the belief that these conditions would be necessary for the witnesses to be mistaken.

Now, despite the fact that I've outlined my own position many times on this board, and despite the fact that you've continued to twist and misrepresent that position, at some point later I will AGAIN outline exactly where I stand on the witnesses and the scent evidence (no time now).

I tend to see it as a futile exercise, however, since I have done this many times in the past, correcting you when you've twisted and misrepresented my views, and making my views very clear. So I'm not anticipating that this time you'll "get" my views any more accurately than you've done in the past. Just my opinion, to which I am entitled.

So basically your answers are in italics:

We have witnesses that saw someone who looked liked RFG.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have witnesses that saw the same person dressed like RFG.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have witnesses that saw the same person driving a red Mini.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have the red Mini being found in proximity to the sighting.

No answer

We have RFG's scent being found in proximity.

No answer

[2-B]

So basically your answers are in italics:

We have witnesses that saw someone who looked liked RFG.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have witnesses that saw the same person dressed like RFG.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have witnesses that saw the same person driving a red Mini.

All the witnesses are wrong

We have the red Mini being found in proximity to the sighting.

No answer

We have RFG's scent being found in proximity.

No answer

No, JJ.

You continue to have a serious reading comprehension problem, which makes me seriously reconsider whether I should bother investing the time and energy in doing what I said I would in my second to last paragraph.

I was just about to tackle that now, when this post from you made me realize you would never bother to actually read it anyway.

EDITED TO ADD THE PARAGRAPH YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT BOTHER TO READ EARLIER:

Now, despite the fact that I've outlined my own position many times on this board, and despite the fact that you've continued to twist and misrepresent that position, at some point later I will AGAIN outline exactly where I stand on the witnesses and the scent evidence (no time now).

I was in a hurry earlier, JJ. I made you a promise to come back later and give you a full answer, which is more than you ever do.

[SaraSidle]

Welcome anyways. We are all curious about this strange disappearance and ANY input is greatly appreciated. Maybe you are seeing things with the fresh eyes the rest of us don't have right now.

I try sherri but it almost seems like I have to live in the area and know the politics too. I do find it an interesting case.
Jimmy Hoffa disappeared from Southfield MI
Southfield is 30 min from the major airport of MI
Southfield is also 20 min from Detroit,MI

Imo sara

[gstickley]

I try sherri but it almost seems like I have to live in the area and know the politics too. I do find it an interesting case.
Jimmy Hoffa disappeared from Southfield MI
Southfield is 30 min from the major airport of MI
Southfield is also 20 min from Detroit,MI

Imo sara

I don't live in the area either, Sara. And I'm not that interested in Centre Co. politics; I would be if I thought it might be relevant to Ray Gricar. But I am interested in finding out what happened to Ray Gricar. Stick around and try to wade through the BS like the rest of us try to do.

[2-B]

it almost seems like I have to live in the area and know the politics too.


Hi Sara, I'm glad you've come over from CL to participate here. A few folks, well one in particular, put a lot of emphasis on a possible political angle to the case.

My humble opinion: while it's impossible to ignore the fact that Ray was a district attorney, we don't know that the disappearance was related to his work, and we can't say the solution to the case is limited to a political solution.

There's plenty of a non-political nature worth looking at in this case--in fact, a lot of things that may be getting ignored in the political din at the moment. Anything you wish to contribute is more than welcome here. Don't be afraid to dive in.

[SaraSidle]

Hi Sara, I'm glad you've come over from CL to participate here. A few folks, well one in particular, put a lot of emphasis on a possible political angle to the case.

My humble opinion: while it's impossible to ignore the fact that Ray was a district attorney, we don't know that the disappearance was related to his work, and we can't say the solution to the case is limited to a political solution.

There's plenty of a non-political nature worth looking at in this case--in fact, a lot of things that may be getting ignored in the political din at the moment. Anything you wish to contribute is more than welcome here. Don't be afraid to dive in.

thank you gstickley and 2-B. I have been reading the RG case for a while as a lurker. I will be happy to dive in. It is a very strange story.
thanks for your welcome..........good to see you 2-B. sara

[J. J. in Phila]

Hi Sara, I'm glad you've come over from CL to participate here. A few folks, well one in particular, put a lot of emphasis on a possible political angle to the case.

My humble opinion: while it's impossible to ignore the fact that Ray was a district attorney, we don't know that the disappearance was related to his work, and we can't say the solution to the case is limited to a political solution.

There's plenty of a non-political nature worth looking at in this case--in fact, a lot of things that may be getting ignored in the political din at the moment. Anything you wish to contribute is more than welcome here. Don't be afraid to dive in.


For me, it is less political and more of RFG being a public figure. He had been on television in the Central Pennsylvania Media Market (CPMA) for nearly 20 years. If he'd gone to Lake Raystown, Lock Haven, Altoona, Clearfield, or even Johnstown, someone could very easily recognize him by seeing him on TV.

Lewisburg is not in CPMM. RFG would rarely be on TV there, only for a big story like the Penn State Sniper. Basically, if he'd travel west, south or north for 50 miles, he's still in the CPMM. He travels 50 miles east, he's out of it.

That wouldn't apply to just politicians, and wouldn't apply to most county level politicians. It would apply to people who get a lot of media, like a DA or a commissioner (possibly). It would apply to people that are on TV, like TV news reporters.

[J. J. in Phila]

No, JJ.

You continue to have a serious reading comprehension problem, which makes me seriously reconsider whether I should bother investing the time and energy in doing what I said I would in my second to last paragraph.

I was just about to tackle that now, when this post from you made me realize you would never bother to actually read it anyway.

EDITED TO ADD THE PARAGRAPH YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT BOTHER TO READ EARLIER:

Now, despite the fact that I've outlined my own position many times on this board, and despite the fact that you've continued to twist and misrepresent that position, at some point later I will AGAIN outline exactly where I stand on the witnesses and the scent evidence (no time now).

I was in a hurry earlier, JJ. I made you a promise to come back later and give you a full answer, which is more than you ever do.

Okay, you are free to expand on that. I'm not asking you for "peered review material" which you generally have never provided. I'm asking for your explanation.

For the next two points, there is nothing about witnesses. That is two pieces of physical evidence, that supports some of the witnesses.

[2-B]

Okay, you are free to expand on that.

I'm free to expand on that?

You're giving me permission?

You've got to be kidding. Try reading and comprehending what you ignored in my post above, JJ, the one you just quoted:

You continue to have a serious reading comprehension problem, which makes me seriously reconsider whether I should bother investing the time and energy in doing what I said I would in my second to last paragraph.

I was just about to tackle that now, when this post from you made me realize you would never bother to actually read it anyway.

[bolding added]

So you're now giving me permission to expand on something you aren't going to read and comprehend? Something I've already discussed at great length previously and been very clear about previously? Something you've twisted and misrepresented a gazillion times and that I've constantly corrected you on in the past? And I should bother because . . . ?


I'm not asking you for "peered review material" which you generally have never provided.

More proof that you don't read and comprehend.

You can't possibly say "peer review [sic] material which you generally never have provided" with a straight face--or without your nose growing about ten inches.

I've contributed a literal mountain of material to this board from the most respected researchers in their fields, researchers engaged for decades in peer-reviewed science in areas relevant to this case. With regard to the witnesses, that research has formed the basis of the DOJ guidelines for handling witnesses and the basis for police task forces across the country. With regard to the scent evidence, that research has formed the basis for how Bloodhounds are used in criminal investigations and how the evidence gathered is treated in the courts.

And you? At best, you quote some misconstrued, out-of-context lines from sites you don't understand. You confuse dogs following hunting scents with mantrailers and mantrackers. You confuse trackers with trailers. You quote undergraduate math students out-of-context for "evidence" about reasonable doubt. You think Bloodhounds' ability to detect scent in the low parts per million range is a "bad" thing. You believe skin rafts need to reach a "critical mass" (your words) before dogs can detect them. You think multiple witnesses aren't unlikely to make errors. You think somebody had to look like RG and be dressed like RG for witnesses to make errors in identification. You probably still don't have a clue how important the work of Elizabeth Loftus and Gary Wells is to current police work or to the court system, despite the many times I've discussed the issues that have come out of their work. And that's just for starters. In short, you consistently ask us to rely entirely on "JJ guesses" or on weak, indefensible, or irrelevant research as support.

I have never asked board members here to do that.

There are a number of posters here whose views you do not like, JJ. And you have gone out of your way, consistently, to try to discredit them at every turn, bullying them, harassing them, calling them names, doing whatever you can possibly do to try to undercut their position on the Gricar case. I know I have put up with all manner of garbage from you, as have others. But I'll be dam*ed if I'll let you claim that I "generally never have provided" peer-reviewed scientific material for consideration to this board.